Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Where's the Beef?

Now we get to the crux of the matter.

So... what is behind Puppygate? What is it the Sad Puppies want? They have been doing this for three years now, three separate campaigns, with a fourth threatened... and presumably a fifth, a sixth, and a seventh if this goes on. That's a lot of effort, a lot of hours, a lot of commitment. To what end? What's their grievance?

I've read Brad Torgensen's statements on this point, and I've read Correia's MONSTER HUNTER NATION, and I've read hundreds of comments from their supporters. As with any large group, there is a wide range of opinion. Some of the Puppies are relatively moderate and reasonable. Others, I fear, are beyond the pale, raging and ranting about SJWs and cliques and secret conspiracies.

Digesting all of this, and trying to filter out the rabid extremists who seem mostly just to want to hurt liberals and feminists and gays, the essence of the Puppy complaint seems to be that the Hugo Awards have been taken over by the left, by their "Social Justice Warriors," and these "CHORFs" (another offensive made-up term, like SJWs) have rigged the awards somehow so that only members of their own leftish "clique" or those writer who are willing to "kiss their ass" win, while other books and stories are ignored or excluded, and other writers are "blacklisted."

Breaking down the complaints further, this purported exclusion seems to take several different forms, which vary according to which Puppy is speaking:
(1) some say the exclusion is political in nature, that conservative and libertarian writers are being unfairly shut out,
(2) others charge religious discrimination, insisting the Christian writers and "writers of Faith" are the ones being excluded,
(3) there's a racial component in some comments (not from the Puppy leaders, but from their followers), wherein we are told that "straight white men" are the victims here,
(4) and finally, there's the literary argument, wherein we are told that the ballots are full of bad boring crappy stories that no one really likes, placed there in some nefarious manner by the secret SJW cliques, whereas good old-fashioned SF and fantasy, the stuff the readers really love, is shut out and ignored.

Do I have the essence of it, Puppies and Puppylovers? I am leaving out any of the charges? Is this the source of all the anger, of this "revolt," of this determination to "take back SF?"

Because if it is... well, someone has sold you a bill of goods.

Let's look at the facts, shall we? I accept and acknowledge that some of the Puppies may feel excluded, disrespected, shunned... but feelings and facts are two different things.

Number (3) is the easiest to disprove. Straight white men are being excluded. Really? Really? C'mon, guys. Go look at the last five, ten years of Hugo ballots. Count how many men were nominated. Count how many women. Now count the black writers and the Asian writers and the foreign-language writers. Yes, yes, things are changing. We have a lot more women and minorities being nominated than we did in 1957, say, or even 1987... but the ballots are still way more white and way more male than not. Look, I am hardly going to be in favor of excluding straight white men, being one myself (and no, I am not a fan of Tempest Bradford's challenge). I am in favor of diversity, of inclusion, of bringing writers from many different backgrounds and cultures into the field. I don't want straight white writers excluded from the ballot... I just don't think they need to have ALL of it. I mean, we're SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY FANS, we love to read about aliens and vampires and elves, are we really going to freak out about Asians and Native Americans?

Let's put that one aside, and look at the other three allegations. Are the Hugos biased against conservative writers, religious writers, or writers of the "good old stuff," military SF, planetary adventures, space opera, sword & sorcery, hard science, and the like?

The Puppies say yes. I say no. The facts agree with me.

This chart is couple of years old, and therefore outdated a bit, but it still provides a very valuable overview of the history of the awards, who has won them, who has been nominated. So here are the records, albeit a few years out of date:


(Before we get into the listings, let me repeat once again my contention that IT IS AN HONOR TO BE NOMINATED. Sure, it's a bigger honor to win. But being on the shortlist is nothing to sneeze at, and I say that as the co-founder of the Hugo Losers Club).

What do we see on that list? Well, for a start, it is much easier to rack up lots and lots of nominations in the categories where one votes for a person rather than a work (Best Artist, Best Editor, Best Fan Writer). British humorist Dave Langford leads everyone with 55 nominations and 29 wins. Mike Glyer of FILE 770 is close behind with 52 nominations but only 9 wins. Then comes the late Charles N. Brown, editor and publisher of LOCUS, and Tor/ Signet/ Timescape/ Berkley editor David G. Hartwell, and Mike Resnick, and then Stan Schmidt, editor of ANALOG.

Some of these perennial nominees are liberal politically, I suspect, but none of those could be said to push a political agenda, or wear their politics on their sleeves. No SJWs here. On the other hand, Stan Schmidt edited ANALOG for longer than John W. Campbell did, and during all those decades it was the most conservative magazine in the field, the hard science mag, the choice of engineers everywhere, where the flag of Campbellian SF flew high. Now it is true, Stan never won, not until the year he retired. But he was nominated thirty-five times. Is that your definition of exclusion? Resnick... a very prolific writer, and by this list, the guy with the most nominations ever for fiction, rather than fanac or editing. Resnick, as I am sure the Puppies know, was at the center of the SFWA BULLETIN flap and lost the column that he and Barry Malzberg had written for decades... which hardly makes him a poster boy for the left. David Hartwell... well, Dave works for Tor, which some of the more extreme Puppies may count against him, but he's also worked for many other publishers, and he's edited many many writers from both right and left. I seem to recall it was Hartwell who first discovered John Wright, this year's six-time Puppy favorite nominee.

So far I see moderates, conservatives, Campbellians, and the apolitical. I see no SJWs.

How about total number of WINS? Well, once again you've got Langford, the fannish humorist and wit, publisher of ANSIBLE, at 29, tied with Charlie Brown of LOCUS. Charlie was champion of a more ambitious, literary style of SF, but he loved the classic old stuff too. A Vance fan, a Heinlein fan. Gardner Dozois and Michael Whelan each had 15 when this list came out. Gargy's an editor, a very important and influential editor, and yes, he's a liberal... but once again, he also loves a good story. He's edited space opera anthologies (THE GOOD OLD STUFF and THE GOOD NEW STUFF) and with me, OLD MARS and OLD VENUS, retro-SF that PLANET STORIES would have loved. Whelan's an artist. A brilliant one. And next down... CONNIE WILLIS. It says here she's won 11 times, but I think she's won a few more since. Connie's a woman, yes, and she's liberal politically (though far from radical). She's also religious. She has been singing in her Church choir for decades, she attends church regularly. Of course, she's Episcopalian, so I am not sure that "counts" for some of the Puppies, who only seem to grant that a writer is religious if he or she shares their own religion.

Going further down the all-time list... there's Richard E. Geis (politically hard right, sexually and socially left) with 34 nominations, Robert Silverberg (conservative) with 28. Further down, past some fans and artists, there's liberal old me with 19 nominations (15 losses and 4 wins when this list was drawn up), tied with conservative Larry Niven.

One huge name not on the list: Robert A. Heinlein. Heinlein did not rack up a lot of noms, since most of his short work was done before the Hugos were created. But he won Best Novel (the Big One) FOUR TIMES, a record that stands to this day (Lois McMaster Bujold tied him, but no one has yet exceeded him). RAH is not easy to characterize politically... he started out as a New Deal Democrat, even ran for office on the EPIC ticket, later became Republican and conservative on many issues... but socially was extremely progressive in his youth, and retained many liberal and libertarian opinions on sexuality and religious matter right up to his death in 1988.

If you're looking for SJWs on this list, well... there's Harlan Ellison and Ursula K. Le Guin. Harlan was certainly a firebrand, and Ursula was the field's most eloquent and respected feminist for decades. They are also two of the greatest talents that SF has ever produced. Both SFWA Grandmasters, both firmly ensconsced in the Science Fiction Hall of Fame, beloved of generations of readers. It would be hard to argue that either was created by a "clique."

Oh, oh, okay, I can hear the Sad Puppies barking out their objections. "We never said the Hugo Awards were ALWAYS dominated by a leftist clique," they are barking. "We only said that the SJWs took them over recently, and ruined them. That's when all the good books and all the writers we like got excluded."

Okay, fine. Fair enough. Let's narrow our focus, then, and look only at the recent past, at the ballots that somehow triggered Puppygate. No rhetoric, just facts.

We know about this year's ballot, the Sasquan ballot. Puppies puppies everywhere, thanks to Sad Puppies 3 and the Rabid Puppies. Last year, the Loncon ballot... well, that was the year of Sad Puppies 2, and that campaign, if not quite the sweep, did put Vox Day and Larry Correia and several other Puppy faves on the shortlist, so we'll pass over that one too. To see how powerful the liberal SJW cliques truly were, we need to go back to a time before Correia and Day and their followers rose up to smite them.

Let's look at 2012. LoneStarCon 3, San Antonio, in that notoriously liberal state of Texas. 1343 nominating ballots were received. 1848 final ballots chose the winners.

The Big One, Best Novel, went to John Scalzi for REDSHIRTS. He won out over 2312 by Kim Stanly Robinson, THRONE OF THE CRESCENT MOON by Saladin Ahmed, BLACKOUT by Mira Grant, and CAPTAIN'S VORPATIL'S ALLIANCE by Lois McMaster Bujold. Three men, three women. Two white men, one Arab-American. Do the Puppies object to these nominees? Is this the clique slate? Hard to see why. One Tor book, one from DAW, one from Baen, two from Orbit; no publisher had a stranglehold here, certainly. Scalzi -- look, I know Scalzi is liberal, and I know that the Puppies seem to hate him, though I can't for the life of me understand why -- but whatever you think of the writer's politics, REDSHIRTS is a light, fun, amusing SF adventure, an affectionate riff off of STAR TREK, Ghu help us. And the other nominees... only the Robinson could even remotely be considered "literary SF" of the sort the Puppies seems to hate. Saladin's book was sword & sorcery, a rollicking swashbuckler in the tradition of Robert E. Howard, Harold Lamb, and the Thousand and One Nights. Bujold, well, you could call her Miles Vorkosigan series space opera, or maybe military SF, but her novels are never less than entertaining, good reads all. The Mira Grant is a zombie novel. Zombies, guys.

Now, do I think these were the best five novels of 2012? Actually, no. As best I recall, I only nominated one of them... along with a couple of books that did not make the ballot. (You can find out which ones if you look back on my Not A Blog for that year's recs). But it's a pretty typical ballot, worse than some, better than others, with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of any kind of "social justice" agenda or conspiracy.

Let's look further down the LoneStarCon ballot. Novella: won by "The Emperor's Soul," by Brandon Sanderson, a pretty traditional story by an epic fantasist who also happens to be Mormon. (Where is that religious bigotry? Did the SJWs miss him?) One of the other nominees was by Aliette de Bodard, who many Puppies seem to count as one of the despised SJWs, but if the secret cabal was working for her, they fucked it up, because she lost. The other nominees were Nancy Kress, Jay Lake, and (again) Mira Grant. So far maybe we have some evidence of a Mira Grant clique, but none of a Social Justice clique.

Go to Novelette. Won by "The Girl-Thing Who Went Out for Sushi," by Pat Cadigan. A brilliant story from a long time fan who had never won a Hugo before, and hadn't even been nominated for decades. The most popular win of the evening; the crowd in the hall went wild cheering. Pat won over two stories by Seanan McGuire (also known as Mira Grant), one by Catherynne Valente, and one by Thomsas Olde Heuvelt. Was it this shortlist that provoked the Puppies? Four women and only one man there, is that the issue? A surfeit of McGuire/ Grant, maybe? Or were there some brilliant conservative novelettes that year that were overlooked? I honestly do not know.

Short Story only had three nominees. Ken Liu won over Aliette de Bodard and Kij Johnson. The SJWs are really letting down the side, that's twice they left de Bodard lose. (I hope I remembered to give her a Hugo Loser ribbon, she certainly earned it). No other short story had 5% of the nominating ballots, which is why the list was too small. When there are no slates, that happens: everyone has their own favorites, votes scatter.

Further down the ballot, Brandon Sanderson won again for Best Related Work, together with a bunch of friends. SAGA won Graphic Story, damn good comic, damn good choice. That radical leftist film THE AVENGERS won Long Form Drama, and something called GAME OF THRONES won Short Form. And for editor -- hey, Stanley Schmidt finally won for ANALOG... but oh, dear, Patrick Nielsen Hayden won for Long Form Editor. Now we see the power of the SJWs: they won, oh, wow, ONE whole Hugo at LoneStarCon.

That's just one year, though. Let's turn the clock back further, to Chicon 7 in Chicago, and the nominees for the best work of 2011.

The Big One went to Jo Walton and AMONG OTHERS. My own nominee, A DANCE WITH DRAGONS, finished last. In between you had EMBASSYTOWN by China Mieville (who is a vocal and passionate leftist, yes, but also a helluva powerful writer), LEVIATHAN WAKES by James S.A. Corey (a rousing space opera that any fan of the Good Old Stuff should love, soon to be a major TV series from the SyFy Channel), and DEADLINE by Mira Grant. Another zombie story, I seem to recall, same world as her other Best Novel nominees. Kij Johnson, Charlie Jane Anders, and Ken Liu won the Short Fiction Awards. Is there something about them or their stories that the Puppies object to? What could it be? Their literary style? Or...

Actually, looking at the other nominees, maybe THIS is the ballot that provoked the Proto-Puppies to sadness. Mira Grant has another nominee in novella. Mary Robinette Kowal was also up there, and MRK seems widely hated by the right for her work as SFWA Vice President ( a thankless job that I did onece). Ken Liu won for Short Story but lost for novella. Catherynne Valente had a losing novella. And Short Story, seven hells, look at that ballot: beside Liu there is E. Lily Yu, the despised John Scalzi, Nancy Fulda , and... oh, look, Mike Resnick, however did the liberal cabal ever let HIM sneak in?

Novelette is pretty interesting too. Charlie Jane Anders won out over Paul Cornell, the affable Brit, Geoff Ryman, the affable Canadian, Rachel Swirsky (author, a few years later, of that dinosaur story that has all the Puppy Panties in a twist), and... "Ray of Light," by Brad R. Torgersen, from ANALOG.

Condolences, Brad. You are a Hugo Loser. But hey, congratulations. You are a Hugo Loser. It's an exclusive club. We get together annually, clank our beers together, and chant, "It's an honor just to be nominated" in unison. Were you at the con? Did I give you a ribbon? If not, I'll be sure you get one, should we ever met. Wear it proudly. The rest of us do. If that list I linked to is right, I've lost fifteen. When you lose, the fannish tradition is to congratulate the winner and shake their hand, then go to our Hugo Loser Party to get drunk and bitter. When I lose, my friends all tell me I've been robbed. Makes me feel better. Even when I know it isn't true.

Looking further down the Chicon ballot, we come to the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer. Not a Hugo. E. Lily Yu was the winner. She finished ahead of Karen Lord, Stina Leicht, Mur Lafferty, and... ah... Brad R. Torgersen again. Sorry, Brad. Two losses in one night, that's hard to take. But it's an honor too. Very few writers have ever been nominated for a Campbell and a Hugo in the same year. Actually, you may be the first. Being a Campbell Award loser does not officially qualify one for the Hugo Losers Club, but we usually let them in anyway. FWIW, I lost the very first Campbell Award, in 1973 at Torcon II. I was a nominee, but never really a contender, to tell the truth. Jerry Pournelle won that first Campbell, defeating George Alec Effinger so narrowly that the con gave him a special runner-up plaque, the first and last time that was ever done. I was way back behind both, so no plaques for me. But I did lose two Hugos in a single night once, in 1976 in Kansas City, Big Mac. Lost one to Larry Niven, and one to Roger Zelazny. The next night, Gardner Dozois and I founded the Hugo Losers Club, and held the first Hugo Losers Party in my room.

Onward and backward, though. Let's go back to Renovation. Reno, Nevada, 2011. Best work of 2010. Connie Willis wins the Big One for BLACKOUT/ ALL CLEAR. The other nominees were Mira Grant (for FEED, the first of her zombie cycle, I believe), Lois McMaster Bujold, N.K. Jemison with THE HUNDRED THOUSAND KINGDOMS, and THE DERVISH HOUSE by the amazing Ian McDonald.

I know what Vox Day thinks of Jemison, since I read his poisonous screed. (He is a Rabid Puppy, I know, not a Sad one, and I would hope most SPs would disavow his bile, regardless of their literary preferences or political affiliations). Vox attacked the GOH speech she gave at an Australian convention... but since the Sad Puppies here have stated often that they only care about the work, not the race or the views of the writer, surely there could not have been any objections to THE HUNDRED THOUSAND KINGDOMS... or the Bujold, or the McDonald.

The novella award went to Ted Chiang... a writer of literary SF, we may agree, but one of the most powerful to enter our field in many years. There's a reason Chiang wins every time he is nominated for a award. He's bloody good. Novelette, though... that went to Alan Steele for "The Emperor of Mars," a classic retro-SF story that he actually wrote for OLD MARS, the anthology Gardner and I were putting together. When we were unable to place the project, however, Alan sold the story to ASIMOV'S, and it brought him home a rocket. Classic old style SF in the tradition of Edgar Rice Burroughs.

I will skip over the rest of Reno... except for the John W. Campbell Award. The fans chose Lev Grossman as the Best New Writer, over Lauren Beukes, Saladin Ahmed, Dan Wells... and Larry Correia. This, it seems to me, was BEFORE he started his first Puppies campaign. Dan Wells was also a Sad Puppy at one time... though this year he asked not to be part of the slate.

I have read Correia's blog, and I know he says that he was treated very badly at the Reno worldcon, attacked for his views, denounced as a racist and homophobe. I was at Reno myself, but I don't recall meeting him, so I don't know the details of any of that. It shocks me to hear it, because the fandom I know has always been warm and welcoming to people of all political views. We are there to party and flirt and celebrate SF, after all. I regret any personal attacks or abuse that Correia may have suffered.

I will say, though, that there is no dishonor in losing to a writer as gifted as Lev Grossman, and many many terrific writers have lost the Campbell Award over the decades, starting with me. And it is an INCREDIBLE honor just to be nominated. Think about it. We have hundreds of new writers entering our field every year, all of them dreaming of careers, all of them fighting for recognition, trying to build their brand... and a few, maybe, lusting for rockets. Out of all those people, the fans nominated FIVE (sometimes six) for the Campbell.

There were no Sad Puppies when Larry Correia was nominated for the Campbell, when Brad Torgersen was nominated for the Campbell, when Torgersen was nominated for his first Hugo. (Subsequent noms, yes, may have resulted from Puppy campaigns). That was the traditional Hugo electorate putting you on the ballot... you, and a lot of other conservative writers, religious writers, white male writers, and purveyors of space opera, military SF, and Good Old Stuff.

There was never any need for Sad Puppies to "take back" the Hugos. The feminists, minorities, literary cliques, and Social Justice Warriors never took them in the first place. That's a myth, as the actual facts I have cited here prove conclusively.


Page 3 of 6
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] >>
Apr. 10th, 2015 12:55 am (UTC)
This sounds a lot to me like the Religious (Christian) Right in the US these days, drumming up bizarre "religious freedom/protection" laws to codify their right to discriminate against - oh, mostly LGBTQ at the moment, but really anybody they don't like in general. This when Christianity is the biggest religion in the US, it has pretty much ruled the political, legal and social realms of the country since the 1600s and, oh yeah, it's *still* hugely ahead of anybody else in terms of real power. These Sad Puppies seem to believe that any sf by people other than white male authors isn't *real* sf (I had typed sf/f but realized they don't care about that second f).

Maybe they don't know that the definition of sf is changing; these days, I like the term "speculative fiction" for its accuracy in describing both the science-based and fantasy forms of the field. Our best hope is that these guys will die off eventually, given that younger demographics are far more diverse than their ilk.
Apr. 10th, 2015 02:17 am (UTC)
This is absurd, the nomination for this year is the most diverse ever. You would have to be a very hateful individual to claim that they are protecting some sort of white male privilege.
Apr. 10th, 2015 12:55 am (UTC)
I will point out that not everyone one the sad puppies recommendation list is a straight white male. I was included on that list because Torgersen is a friend and a long-time fan of my work, and I'm a queer liberal woman who writes very diverse fiction. I had no idea about VD and the Rapid Puppies thing and have been pretty blindsided by the whole mess. It's been really stressful for those of us nominated who were not really on board with any destroy the Hugo plan or anything like that. Sigh.

Edited at 2015-04-10 01:21 am (UTC)
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:23 am (UTC)
Re: :(
Sorry about that.

I expect to make another post that will give my own opinions on some of these issues.
Re: :( - yagathai - Apr. 10th, 2015 05:49 am (UTC) - Expand
Apr. 10th, 2015 12:57 am (UTC)
Barry Longyear won the Campbell, Nebula, and Hugo in a single year, 1980, on the strength of the novella version of "Enemy Mine."
Apr. 10th, 2015 12:57 am (UTC)
Great post
Lottsa history. Cogent. I do not get the impression that the puppies care. They have grown past caring, yet they hunger on.
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:08 am (UTC)
Current Behavior
Verifying the problem with the current behavior is pretty simple:

Taking a look at the vitriol being thrown at Larry these days despite refusing the nomination, it's simple to make the point from here that if death-threats is now entirely okay in order to silence Larry and co. then we have to assume that there have been a slew of "othering" and that is what Larry testify in his posts so while you may not be familiar with that critique of certain individuals, it does seem like it's true.

It's irrelevant whether or not Larry is right or wrong, he has every right to fight his battle against this "othering" as he deem fit with the puppy slates.
Apr. 10th, 2015 05:19 am (UTC)
Re: Current Behavior
John, suppose you're at a party with a few hundred people. One of them - someone you don't know - stands up, smashes a few dishes, and takes a piss in the punch bowl. What kind of opinion are you likely to have of that person?

I, for one, would be inclined to throw a little vitriol his way.

EDIT: To be absolutely clear, vitriol and threats are two entirely different things. What I'm saying is that, with the sheer amount of insults Larry throws around, it is inevitable that at least some of his targets will respond in kind. If he can't take it, he shouldn't be dishing it out.

Edited at 2015-04-10 07:28 am (UTC)
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:09 am (UTC)
He says that people treated him badly when he was a Campbell nominee. But you know, he is always saying people say he's not a real writer. I tried to Google once, to find out who said that silly thing, and I couldn't. It was utterly buried under pages and pages and *pages* of hits of Larry Correia saying that about himself, bitterly, or sarcastically. The person who has said that often in this world is Larry Correia.

There's something sad about that.

I noticed once in one interview, Lois McMaster Bujold saying someone had said that about her--that she wasn't a real writer. The difference between Larry and Lois is that Larry clutched it to his soft underbelly until it ate its way through and lodged permanently in his heart, where it has been with him ever since, and Lois said "hmm. Some people do feel very strongly about the science fiction genre," set it down and walked away.

I bet Lois has been happier.
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:19 am (UTC)
I do think you're missing the point. Kinda.
It's less about who won the past awards as much as it is about who was not nominated for those awards. It's a straw man to think the sad puppies are defensive about "straight white men" being discriminated against. Most of the puppies opponents are straight white men, or at least upper middle class white people with liberal arts degrees.

I don't think it's in good taste for anyone to comb through past winners and attempt to tear down their work, as you and others have been asking the puppies to do. The past is in the past, Hugos were won and individual authors and works should not be put on the defensive by being overly scrutinized. Look towards the future.

Larry and Brad, and some of the more historically inclined puppies probably could discuss with you at length the works that were passed over for nomination, and what the reasons possibly could have been.

Also think you're a bit defensive about the term SJW. It's like when you call the tea party Tea Baggers. There's no term for wildly aggressive progressive radicals, so a term needed to be created. It does the job. I don't think Scalzi is a SJW, but when he sends out a tweet making fun of someone - it's the SJWs that pick up the call and do the leg work of harassing the person.
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:29 am (UTC)
Re: I do think you're missing the point. Kinda.
The past is the past... but the Sad Puppies are making sweeping claims about leftist cliques taking over the Hugo Awards. You cannot just say stuff like that without facts to make you up.

We know they hate the dinosaur story. They keep bringing up that one. Over and over and over. So is this all about one story?

You talk about works being passed over for nominations. I want to know what works you mean. Good stuff gets overlooked all the time. But then, so does a lot of crap.
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:30 am (UTC)
asking people to disavow others
> I know what Vox Day thinks of Jemison, since I read his poisonous screed. (He is a Rabid Puppy, I know, not a Sad one, and I would hope most SPs would disavow his bile, regardless of their literary preferences or political affiliations)

The SP folks repeatedly point out that Vox and Rabid Puppies is not related to Sad Puppies. But that doesn't seem to be good enough to satisfy people. The requirement seems to be that they must agree that Vox is an evil person who doesn't deserve to live and that they will promise never to like anyone who likes him.

This sounds like a children's game of "girls have cooties, if you talk to one you can't join our game"
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:51 am (UTC)
Re: asking people to disavow others
See, you are playing rhetorical tricks here. You couple "must agree that Vox is an evil person" with "who doesn't deserve to live," as if they were linked... but of course they are two very different things.

How about "who doesn't deserve to be on the Hugo ballot" instead?

Then you have a statement with some modicum of accuracy.
Re: asking people to disavow others - davidlang - Apr. 10th, 2015 02:03 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: asking people to disavow others - grrm - Apr. 10th, 2015 05:22 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: asking people to disavow others - finopalomino - Apr. 10th, 2015 04:42 am (UTC) - Expand
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:32 am (UTC)
on merit
I see puppies continually throwing the word "merit" around, as if it is some magical fix. "If only the Hugos were based on merit," they say, "and not a SJW popularity contest, then all would be fixed." But whose merit? Merit is, at least to some extent, subjective. Not everybody is going to agree on a book's quality. In the eyes of Puppies, merit seems to equate to books by people they like, whereas books by those darn SJWs (Scalzi) are without merit and not fit to win.

This is absurd. The Hugos nominees aren't decided on some 1 to 5 rating system where voters read a book and tally a checklist to see if it is "worthy" of a Hugo are not. Sci-fi lovers read as many titles as they can and vote for the ones they think are the best. It is in no way objective, at all. It's all up to personal opinion.
Apr. 10th, 2015 02:50 am (UTC)
Re: on merit
Even if merit is largely (but not entirely) subjective, people themselves know if they are supporting a work because of its perceived literary quality or if it's for "other." True, we can't "prove" why people vote the way they do, but their statements can provide insight. When progressive writers and fans are openly saying they want more minority recipients and progressive ideology in sci fi, it's reasonable to assume they're sacrificing merit to achieve that.
Re: on merit - unsunghero007 - Apr. 10th, 2015 03:51 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: on merit - finopalomino - Apr. 10th, 2015 04:18 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: on merit - copperqueen - Apr. 10th, 2015 07:03 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: on merit - jj_j - Apr. 10th, 2015 10:31 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: on merit - zubeneschamali - Apr. 10th, 2015 12:48 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: on merit - universal_gm - Apr. 10th, 2015 03:31 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: on merit - raidingparty - Apr. 10th, 2015 04:37 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: on merit - elusis - Apr. 10th, 2015 07:36 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: on merit - dnexon - Apr. 10th, 2015 07:44 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: on merit - Marcy Ratcliff - Apr. 10th, 2015 08:27 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: on merit - gregmachlin - Apr. 10th, 2015 11:09 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: on merit - imnotandrei - Apr. 11th, 2015 03:56 am (UTC) - Expand
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:34 am (UTC)
I was hearing so many things about Vox Day I had to look him up. I assumed much was hyperbole.

Creationist. Opposes women having the legal right to vote. Anti-Vaxxer. Supports 'honor killings' to reduce female promiscuity. Side blog as a 'pick up artist', alpha males, beta males, whatnot. And that's just the tip of iceberg.

I refuse to believe that is one person.
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:43 am (UTC)
Scalzi Hate
George, I believe the puppies hate Scalzi becaus he was the president of SFWA when it tossed Vox Day out. They've convinced themselves it's because Scalzi "cheats," but it has to be the Vox Day incident, nothing else makes sense. I didn't realize there were Hugo loser ribbons, I'll have to get one from you one of these days.
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:43 am (UTC)
Reading through Correias response I can't help but wonder why he doesn't once ponder why GRRM hasn't clean swept the Hugos for the last decade. I mean George is an outspoken liberal author writing a series a book that provides social commentary on how politics and the hunt for power affects the human mind while using a mild fantasy setting as a backdrop. And due to his long participation one would think people consider him an insider at Worldcon and thus part of the clique. Not to mention his books are hugely popular. So if things where as bad as Correias seems to think George should have won the Hugo every year one of his books where nominated.
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:52 am (UTC)
It's the hats. I am a victim of a secret conspiracy of hat haters.
(no subject) - walkerscrown - Apr. 10th, 2015 02:09 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - kevin_standlee - Apr. 10th, 2015 05:48 am (UTC) - Expand
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:52 am (UTC)
Thank you, again, for a very detailed analysis of just who has been nominated for and winning Hugos. I see a good mix of all sorts of people and works.
Apr. 10th, 2015 02:27 am (UTC)
Correia was treated poorly at the Reno worldcon?
Doesn't sound like it from his report: http://monsterhunternation.com/2011/08/23/worldcon-report/
Apr. 10th, 2015 02:53 am (UTC)
Thank you for taking time to create a space for people to talk
Thank you for taking time to put together this information and creating a place for dialog. It would be great if we can see a list of all the stories that did not make the short list for previous years to see specific examples of what works were shunned. I am willing to look at what has been nominated this year but make no promises as to voting one way or another or to even finish what looses my interest. I am also interested in seeing what was pushed off the short list.

BTW - I read tried reading Correia's response closely but the impression I had is that he is angry he did not win and believes he was mistreated. I have gone to Worldcons before and often interacted with people who are strangers. I have not been treated poorly. On the other hand, I am not one to bring up politics or religion nor do I expect to be treated special as I am your basic fan.

Edited at 2015-04-10 03:43 am (UTC)
Apr. 10th, 2015 04:37 am (UTC)
Re: Thank you for taking time to create a space for people to talk
You can find the nominations going back 10 years here, with a list of the top 15 nominees (plus any extra that got at least 5% of the nominations). Just pick a year and scroll down to "Full nomination details" for a .pdf with the numbers for each category.
Page 3 of 6
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] >>


George R.R. Martin
George R. R. Martin

Latest Month

April 2018


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner