567 thoughts on “We Are Sad Puppies If You Please; We Are Sad Puppies If You Don’t Please 5/23”

1. @Eric – “Probably about as much as it occurred to those readers parsing everything Correia, Torgerson, and other SP supporters have been saying since the beginning.”

   Nice attempt at deflection and clouding the issue, but did you have an answer to the actual question?

2. Could be a lucrative deal for Mr. Scalzi, assuming there’s nothing underhanded like basket accounting going on

   It’d take a little more than basket accounting to turn $340,000 per year into a non-lucrative deal.

3. @Jim Henley – “Remember, Scalzi writes jumped-up fanfiction whose awards prove that the Hugos have become too literary.

   Shut up!”

   The best part about that is that Scalzi says that he writes commercial fiction to put food on the table, and he does not consider himself to be writing ‘litrachoor’.

4. NelC,

   Impressive backpedalling there,

   So what do you want?

   I misspoke. I don’t seriously attribute any motivation to Walton. I apologize for saying Walton was being tactful. I trying to be a little sarcastic and failed miserably. I wanted to point out how painful might be to write honest reviews of the last five year. I’m interested in talking about the Hugos and if they went downhill or not.

   Does any want to talk about the Hugos?

5. Also:

   “Kubla Pup”

   In Xastalia did Kubla Pup
   A slate of puppy-tomes decree;
   Where Alf, the smiling Neumann, ran
   Through ballots measureless to man

6. Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

   “I’m just not happy to see false witness borne against one of my most cherished online communities.”

   So you now think that a semantic disagreement is “bearing false witness”? That strikes me as an approach that Brian Z would have been proud to come up with.

   Since you delight in a degree of verbal precision, I will also point out that neither I nor JJ described BZ as being “permabanned”. I’d hate to think you were, in your terms, “bearing false witness” against us.

   More to the point, neither I nor JJ have said anything against Making Light or implied that its policies were wrong or anything other than its own business. I personally think that their commenters spend an awful lot of time spinning their wheels rather than cutting to the chase, but that’s their prerogative.

7. Morris Keesan: “Where Alf, the smiling Neumann, ran”

   I’m liking this one!

8. Brian Z.: from what I know of Jo, I guess she’d say that this century’s crop of nominees was (by and large) on about the same level as those of the last. And if you think she’d have the slightest sympathy for the Puppies’ tactics…well, I’d bet good money against it.

9. Hi JJ,

   As far as I remember the only comment I made on this subject is the one you have quoted, and to the best of my knowledge it was/is accurate based on my observations at ML (with the possible exception of Brian’s reason for no longer making an appearance there). If this is not the case, I will be happy to apologize for saying something that is untrue.

   LIke I said, that second paragraph that characterized the moderator response to Brian Z at ML as indicating some sort of extremity of vile behavior on Brian Z’s part (I no longer have the paragraph in front of me; it was the one about “what it takes” to elicit that response, and “what it says about you) rubbed me really, really wrong, for reasons that can be summarized thus:

   1. He was at worst disingenous and discourteous in a space that has seen truly vile posts from commenters who, accordingly, were treated a lot more harshly by the moderators.

   2. He wasn’t the first to be asked to bow out of a particular discussion and only return when he could maintain certain standards of courtesy. Certain valued community members have received almost the exact same treatment. So if you think Brian Z’s treatment at the hands of a moderator says something awful about him, you must think that same awful something holds true for the above mentioned valued community members. And if you do, WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT MY FRIENDS?! COME OVER HERE AND SAY THAT!!! But I don’t think you really do.

   Beyond that, and what I said in my previous post(s) about the “run out of town” meme, we’re cool.

10. Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little, the moderator’s treatment of me at ML was fine. I was going off topic and it was reined in, which was fine. They can be crisp there but that’s their style; good on them.

11. Brian Z – Robert Reynolds et al, I’ve agreed that Jo Walton has clearly explained her reasons for stopping where she did. Her reasons make perfect sense to me.

    I won’t repeat that again.

    I’ve also clarified that what I meant was to observe, good thing she stopped when she did, she is such an honest reviewer that it might have become a train wreck.

    Actually you said that she couldn’t find a way to tactfully explain such. You haven’t clarified what you meant by that at all.

    If anyone wants to talk about whether and when the quality of Hugo nominees went down, raise your hand, but I’d rather not get pulled back into discussion about how badly I expressed an off the cuff remark about it. Thanks.

    I did, even though that’s a deflection. You expressed an off the cuff remark, double downed it by inferring her reasons why, and still haven’t explained why and instead of admitting you were incorrect said it was expressed badly. If you just expressed what you meant to say poorly, please clarify.

    And to go down the deflection path, what works in the last 5 years do you feel are unworthy and have been not up to par? Was it Jo Walton’s Among Others? Looking at the last couple of years I see some strong works in just the Novel category like 2312 which you’ve mentioned you enjoyed. As someone who just read The Wind Up Girl I loved the hell out of it.

    But please, if you feel that it has declined, explain instead of insinuating someone who won a Hugo award in the last five years would agree with their decline. Because claiming what someone has said when it’s easily disproved otherwise is what led us here.

12. The phrase “basket accounting” was tossed off upthread. Here’s a sober discussion by a working author of what it actually entails. Upshot: it’s not particularly “underhanded.”

13. @Maximillian: “cats and dogs living together!”

    Aww, dammit. Now I want a Twinkie.

14. Upon reflection, that last line above should obviously be “Through ballots measureless to fan”.

15. Brian Z: speaking concerning my personal fan favorites, I have to say that I agree with both the Bujold nominees not winning. Although I think if the drabbles from the end of Cryoburn could have been nominated as a separate work, they would have deserved to win in their categories (If anyone replies to this, please do not bring up spoilers, I know most people in here will have read it already, but I think everyone deserves a chance to read all of the Vorkosigan saga without spoilers)

    Morris: can I suggest “through ballots merit-less to fan”?

16. Eric – Probably about as much as it occurred to those readers parsing everything Correia, Torgerson, and other SP supporters have been saying since the beginning.

    That’s an adorable false equivalency you got there, you’ll have to tell me where you got it.

    There’s a difference in saying “I’m going to look into this from these years for these reasons.” and then have someone state the contrary and someone saying “A secret cabal has taken over the Hugos because affirmative action and we’re going to take it back.” The latter is an accusation, and they’ve been asked many times to show their work. They refuse to or can’t and their words often conflict with previous statements or their actions. Since they wont state their reasons plainly, like Walton clearly did, it leaves those accused as wondering WTF their problem is.

    Hope that helps!

17. When I read the views of hard right religious folk on what constitutes appropriate sexual expression, I am moved once again to give thanks to the G-d, who, in her infinite wisdom, made me queer. I am in no danger of commiting suicide due to my lifestyle, but if I had been living a JCW-approved lifestyle all these years, I would surely have died of boredom long ago.

18. Rev Bob- how was Timegate? I was tempted to go but time and money were both too scarce.

19. @cmm: Yeah, Wright won’t grasp that homophobia did neither his stepmother nor her former husband any favors. In fact, appears to insist the opposite. Which, no.

20. SocialInjusticeWorrier:

    Well, I suppose I can accept that you don’t intend phrases like “run out of town” or “booted” to convey the connotation of “permanently banned.” Accepting that, I withdraw any accusation of intentional dishonesty.

    I apologize for accusing you of intentional dishonesty. I accept that your misrepresentation was inadvertent. I maintain that the phrases you chose resulted in a misrepresentation.

    It sounds like you’re dismissing the distinction as petty semantics; I obviously disagree. I think using a phrase like “run out of town” as a shorthand for “told to desist with the current discussion but made welcome to return elsethread dependent on meeting certain standards of civility” is about as valid as using a phrase like “too tactful” to mean… whatever Brian Z next decides to say Jo Walton really meant when she clearly put forth her reasoning for ending the Hugo recaps where she did. Pfeh.

    Since we’re probably not to going to see eye-to-eye here, and I’ve said all I had to say (and repeated it more times than is useful, which is to say, at all), I will let this be my last post on the subject. I’m sure we’ll meet again as the topic drifts.

21. Cmm: And remind me why people on the religious right are supposed to happily accept your gratuitous sexual insults?

22. @MickeyFinn “Although I think if the drabbles from the end of Cryoburn could have been nominated as a separate work, they would have deserved to win in their categories”

    The his may be betraying my status as an extreme Bujold fanboy, but I would argue that the last *sentence* of Cryoburn deserves a Hugo, regardless of the rest.

    One of the most obvious examples of Hugo Failure and Conspiracy that I’m aware of is from the year that Curse of Chalion did not win. I have doubted the Hugo voters ever since then.

23. Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little: “So if you think Brian Z’s treatment at the hands of a moderator says something awful about him, you must think that same awful something holds true for the above mentioned valued community members.”

    What I said was: “You do not seem to quite understand just how incredibly bad someone’s behavior at Making Light has to be before they will take that sort of step — or what it says about you that they did.”

    By “what it says about you that they did” I meant “it says that you were deliberately, repeatedly, violating their previous instructions not to do what you kept doing anyway”. I apologize that I did not communicate this clearly. I was certainly not meaning that the mods at ML were saying that he was a terrible person. From what I’ve seen, they are very scrupulous about not passing those sorts of judgments.

    I personally think that the owners/moderators at Making Light are eminently fair and even-handed, and that abi’s post here to Brian Z. saying that he was welcome at ML as long as he followed the guidelines and the moderators’ instructions was merely one more in a long line of demonstrations of that.

    I am pleased to hear you say that we’re cool. Posts by you, along with several others, are a benchmark in courtesy and rationality that I attempt to emulate.

24. Morris Keesan on May 24, 2015 at 7:55 pm composed “The Rime of the Ancient Puppy”

    [slow clap, appreciative whistles, roses thrown onto the stage]

25. I will stand by an defenses of Making Light. I don’t go there often but on memorable occasion when I vented there, not only was I not condemned, but one of the regulars got the point I was trying to make, and made it himself both more coherently and diplomatically.

26. Maximillian: but paladin of souls did win its year, and its the best book from that series.

    And The Curse of Chalion was up against American Gods. Actually, that was a hell of a year.

27. In a Kennel on the Metro

    The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
    CHORFs! I mean SJWs! No — CHORF-JWs! That’s it! CHORF-JWs!

28. Latest direct responses to me by JJ and Brian Z. on the matter of ML : noted, appreciated. Hat tip. A certain amount of blushing in one case. A persistent nudge about “Canine Days” in the other (o the potential).

    (I’m being brief because I do want to let the (sub)discussion close. But it seemed rude to ignore. So! [shaking of hands all around])

29. Frog pond
    A leaf drops in…
    Collusion!

30. Brian Z — “So what do you want?”

    I think I’d like you to put as much care into writing prose as you do filk. Your first thoughts, that is, rather than the convoluted excuses you come up with when called out on something iffy; you’re clearly taking great care with those, a little late and a collar, sorry, dollar short.

31. After reading the Hugo Fan Writer packet, I feel like I need a bath. 3 obnoxious message screeds (one of which had a specific preface with Even MOAR Message!), 1 less obnoxious one but still incredibly message driven piece, and 1 where, while well written, just makes my skin crawl as I went through most of last year blissfully unaware of this BS/ RH character.

    Much as I’d love to NA the whole category, the Mixon is well done, if flawed, piece of work.

    Also, what’s a GHH? One of the screeds used it repeatedly, but much like Alinskyite and 3rd wave feminism, it just seems to be a culture war phrase meaning “thing I don’t like”.

32. So, has anyone suggested The Puppy Who Cried ‘Scalzi’ for a title or subtitle yet? Given the other news from today, it seems appropriate.

33. @snowcrash: I’m pretty sure “GHH” is “Glittery Hoo-Hah”. So, among other things a fancy way of calling someone a c*nt.

34. @snowcrash

    Glittery Hoo Ha.

35. Maximillian,

    It lost to AMERICAN GODS. Even I, an ultimate Bujold Fan, would have a hard time deciding between those two (and Passage and Perdito Street Station are no slouches either)

    I’ll see your last line of Cryoburn, and raise you “Ivan, you idiot, what are you doing here?” from Memory.

    *There’s* a line years and tomes in the making!

36. Morris: “…through ballots meritless to fen
    down to an ink-dark sea…”

37. >> Kurt, if you think my saying that Vox Day is guilty of the same dishonesty that he accuses SJWs of irrelevant, then I’m really done here.>>

    Then be done.

    Because yeah, it’s absolutely irrelevant to you lying about stuff, it’s irrelevant to you trying to get people to go have dialogues with the Puppies, or to get them to define what they think the Puppies mean by silly acronyms. You seem to be under the impression that as long as you can point to something that says “I criticized those guys here and there” it means the other stuff didn’t happen, or somehow doesn’t count, because sealioning is commutative or something.

    But I never said you didn’t say that stuff, and it wasn’t relevant to what I was responding to. So bringing it up as if it’s a Get Out of Jail Free card is nonsensical.

    >> Here, let me help: I scuttled off and asked my puppy overlords what special pleading I should do today and they told me to come back and say that SJWs are liars like Kurt Busiek who lie while pretending that the other person’s lying. There. Are we done? >>

    Beats me. You haven’t stopped yet, and whining about how people are mean to you when they criticize you for the crap you try has never indicated that you’ll stop trying it. So I dunno. Will you stop lying about people to try to promote the Puppy worldview? Will you stop trying to talk people — anybody but yourself — into building bridges between the non-Puppies and Puppies by just learning to understand what’s behind their lies and accusations and attacks?

    I know how I’d guess, but as with Kate Paulk, I’m willing to wait and see.

    And I’m not an SJW. I don’t own any cats at all.

38. @MickeyFinn – “Maximillian: but paladin of souls did win its year, and its the best book from that series.

    And The Curse of Chalion was up against American Gods. Actually, that was a hell of a year.”

    AG was a very good book, I was impressed with it.

    But PoS being better and whether there are was any question of CoC being the best of the year? You, sir, (or Madame) will meet me for this! Give me the name of your second! *searches for a gauntlet to throw*

    Also, after calming down, I just noticed that A Civil Campaign didn’t win either. Deepness was okay, but it was no Fire Upon the Deep, let alone being better than Bujold. The Hugos are broken! The puppies are right!

39. snowcrash: GHH = Glittery Hoo-Hah. The term goes back almost a decade, and seems to mean something a bit different when folks like The Mad Genius Club use it — see Kate Paulk employ it as an antifeminist term in her post Storm in a B-cup.

40. For those of you still criticizing my Walton comment, if I could do it over again, I’d shine my snark elsewhere and say “Do you think hordes of outraged fans would descend on her comment thread when she starts critiquing Scalzi, Mira Grant and Larry Correia?” But its too late. So I’m sorry that I screwed up.

41. @Ultragotha- “I’ll see your last line of Cryoburn, and raise you “Ivan, you idiot, what are you doing here?” from Memory.

    *There’s* a line years and tomes in the making!”

    🙂 I don’t remember that specifically, but is the answer to that question something along the lines of ‘saving your ass’? Good old Ivan.

42. Maximillian: Even if some of her best works didn’t pick up their rightful hugos (for my money, Memory, A Civil Campaign and arguably Curse of Chalion), I’m not sure Bujold Needs More Hugos is a banner that anyone needs to die under.

43. The origin of the “Glittery Hoo-ha” was as a designation for a woman who for whatever reason (being gorgeous, being great in bed, being able to hypnotize a man and control him) is able to lie, cheat, do stupid things, engage in any sort of vile behavior, and still hang on to the devotion of her man (i.e., the female equivalent of the “attraction to bad boys”).

    But of late, it has been co-opted by MRAs, PUAs, GamerGaters, and Puppies to mean “something something horrible feminist something”. It’s a derogatory word for women (as someone said above, akin to “c*nt”).

    Needless to say, its use reflects far more badly on the person using it than it does on the person at whom it’s directed.

44. @BrianZ “Do you think hordes of outraged fans would descend on her comment thread when she starts critiquing Scalzi, Mira Grant and Larry Correia?”

    Well… Personally, I like the books from Scalzi and LC about equally and I can’t remember off the top of my head what Grant has written. So, I wouldn’t have been outraged.

45. I have a special fondness for “Money, power, sex … and elephants”, when it comes for quotes.

46. Brian Z – Do you think hordes of outraged fans would descend on her comment thread when she starts critiquing Scalzi, Mira Grant and Larry Correia?”

    Some probably would, I’ve seen video game fans tear a review apart for even suggesting it wasn’t perfect to there’s some folks who identify a little too closely with what they’re fans of and take it personal. For the most part though all of those authors have been reviewed and critiqued many times before, I’m sure the majority of fans would be able to handle that.

    Talking about past Hugo winners, why do you think there has been a decline in the last five years? If so what do you think has caused the decline, was it just bad years for the genre or something else? You changed the subject from Walton to that so I’d imagine it’s something you’d like to talk about.

47. Brian Z on May 24, 2015 at 2:54 pm said:
    Jon @12:05

    https://naomikritzer.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/vox-days-involvement-in-the-sad-puppies-slate/ – has never been convincingly refuted.

    All those comments demonstrate is that Larry Correia thinks Vox Day lives rent free in your head. Which he is obviously correct about. Or is your gotcha that John Wright refuses to denounce his own editor? Use some common sense, man.

    So, to sum up, you skipped over the part where Correia is quoted saying the SP3 slate was formulated by the members of the ELOE, of which VD is a long acknowledged member, presumably because that part contradicts your position and is therefore invisible to your eyes, to seize on the living rent free in our heads part. We can always count on you to boldly explore new frontiers in reading incomprehension, can’t we?

    Perhaps the Jo Walton kerfuffle will have convinced you that is isn’t the rest of us here who are lacking in common sense but I have my doubts.

48. David Goldfarb:

    this century’s crop of nominees was (by and large) on about the same level as those of the last.

    MickyFinn:

    have to say that I agree with both the Bujold nominees not winning.

    In my personal opinion, in 2011, the only book I really felt deserved to be there was the phenomenal The Dervish House, which was so beautifully written and engaging that I practically read it in one sitting. However I have to admit that I think I looked at The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms briefly but wasn’t really pulled into it and didn’t get around to finish it, so others might have to tell me whether it deserved to be there.

    In 2012, Among Others was of course a gem, but I feel it should have competed against a richer field. I found Embassytown a hard slog and I like that kind of stuff. I’m curious what others think.

    In 2013, Saladin Ahmed had a nice novel but it was rough in places and I didn’t feel it belonged on the shortlist along with 2312, which I think was the only thing that deserved to be there.

    In 2014, Neptunes Brood is certainly worth reading, not the sort of thing I’d give a Hugo to, but I suppose I shouldn’t object too strenuously to it getting on the ballot. Nothing else deserved to be there at all. I put down Ancillary Justice after reading the Hugo packet excerpt and didn’t pick it up until recently – when I did, I discovered it got better, but it is still an uneven first novel and I’d rather reward fully realized novels by people at the peaks of their craft.

    In 2015, Three Body Problem is the only thing that I think deserves to be on there at all.

    Has the passage of time given me a rosy view of earlier years? Is it bad luck? Is the system broken?

49. on GHH=Glittery Hoo-Hah:

    WtF? I remember that from the MightBigTV/ TwoP days. That makes *no sense* in the context of those screeds. Ugh.

50. ninja’d by JJ’s explanation. Thanks.

Comments are closed.