Dear Tor

Guest post by Jonathan LaForce

As anybody who knows me will tell you, I like reading.  It’s been a life-long pleasure of mine. Someday I hope to have my own private library where I can sit and relax and write to my heart’s content. Something with a fireplace and a real leather chair, and an R2D2 mini fridge full of Dr. Pepper.

There will be books on art, history, various cultures, poetry, novels, literature, the romance novels I’ve written.  Want to know what won’t be found there?

Anything by TOR.  Period. Dot.  End of story.  Why?  Simple really.

You see folks, in the last four years, Tor has shown increasingly that it doesn’t care for anything besides narrative.  It doesn’t care for anything besides lying.  Labeling fellow authors and close friends of mine “misogynistic homophobic neo-Nazis” simply because we prefer telling a good story to pushing political beliefs is wrong.  Allowing your editorial staff to intentionally lie about such people, repeatedly misrepresent us, and trying to silence us, all the while calling us bullies?   You must be stupid!

Where does this come from? A woman named Irene Gallo, whom advertises herself as the Creative Editor at Tor.  She posted on facebook, quite publicly that all Puppies are “Extreme right-wing to Neo-Nazi groups, called the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies… they are unrepentantly racist, misogynist and homophobic.  A noisy few but they’ve been able to gather some Gamergate folks around them and elect a slate of bad-to-reprehensible works on this year’s Hugo Ballot.”

The last time I got called any of those things, I was a senior in high school, circa 2005.  It’s been a long minute since then.  Frankly I find this more than a little amusing.  You might want to ask my wife who gave up college to work 40 plus hours a week so she can finish earning her college degree this summer.  You might want to ask my little boy Johnny how he feels about being the mix breed son of a half Cherokee half white woman and a quarter-Hawaiian quarter Tex-Mex, half central European?  As for gays, I’ve never had a problem with any personally, and I generally haven’t given one iota of a damn what they do so long as they leave me alone.

Perhaps the most amusing part of all this is that when I asked Irene Gallo about her stance, I was greeted not with the intelligent, well thought out dialogue one expects from a supposedly capable editor.  Instead I received the same trite impoliteness which I have come to expect from all of Tor’s editors.  Not once did Gallo ever suggest or intimate that she not speaking for all of Tor when she made these statements.  Which leaves me to wonder, is Tom Doherty still running Tor or did Tor undergo a process not that dissimilar to the government mentioned in Equilibrium?  Has Doherty become a flesh puppet?  One can only wonder if he will do as Eminem suggest so vocally, and please stand up.

Tor, let’s face facts: that you repeatedly allow straw man makers like John Scalzi to have a place in your stable, even as he vainly justifies his arrogant idiocy is absurd.  To allow bigots like NK Jemisin bully pulpits without regard for fact or truth is wrong.  To encourage people to put one-star reviews on Amazon, simply because you don’t like an author’s politics, rather than because you didn’t like the story is not only disgusting, it is a willful manipulation of the Amazon rating system.

Whereas I believe in the principles of the free market, I don’t want to see somebody create new laws over this.  We already have government invading our bedrooms, our computers and our bank accounts daily.  No, ladies and gentlemen, instead I ask you this:

Don’t buy anything made by TOR. Not pamphlets. Not novels, not audiobooks.  Not even if it’s free.  Let Tor know that they do not decide what we want as fans of science fiction and fantasy.  Instead, I ask that those of you whom trust my opinion cease to buy their products ever again.  Show them that in the end, the consumer drives the market. Why? Because nobody can make you buy anything.  Not health care, not books, not movies. NOT A SINGLE DAMN THING.

In older times, a bard who couldn’t sing or orate well, much less properly play an instrument (in short, when the bard could not perform well, the crowd kicked him out. And he went hungry until he got better or he died from starvation. Or he found a new profession that he was actually good at.

Things are no different now.  We can hate One Direction and Iggy Azalea all we want, but so long as the product they turn out is quality to a paying audience, people will buy it.  Love ’em hate ’em, until people no longer buy their products, they’re here to stay.  Elvis Presley has been dead since 16 August 1977.  His music still sells.  Publishers are the exact same way.

So now we turn our attention back to Tor.

When their sales drop like rocks in a planetary gravity well, when their authors do more abysmally than Hillary Clinton’s latest biographical snooze (that might have finally recouped the cost of the advance, maybe), when they understand that we are not peons to be preached at, but fans whom wish to hear quality stories and be entertained, we will have achieved something great.


  1. The sad thing is, I can’t boycott Tor because I’ve already stopped buying their books. This gets into another issue that has been around for years: book pricing. For print it’s driven by the cost of transportation, labor, wood pulp, ink, and maintaining inventory. That’s done a huge number on the publishing industry since the 1970s. But with the rise of e-books, many traditional publishers have made the mistake of pricing those at or not much under print prices, perhaps on the mistaken view that those who buy e-books tend to be well-heeled.

    What this means is that I’d long ago became very choosy in my book-buying, with most of my titles coming from dollar stores (found a nice book of Egyptian mythology there once – you never know). That’s where I bought my last Tor book – heavily discounted. Otherwise, unless I really want to read a specific book, I don’t buy the more pricey ones.

    Now, the bad thing is that Tor hasn’t put out a specific book that I’ve really wanted to read. Maybe it’s from SJW insipidness, or maybe because they’ve priced themselves so high that I don’t meet authors I might like under the Tor imprint. Either way, I just don’t read Tor.

    Now, how many more like me are out there, readers who enjoy science fiction but aren’t willing to take a chance on new authors because of the price of their books? And what does this mean for Indie authors, who might not have a traditional publisher, but who’s books are low priced enough to take a chance on them?

    1. Several non fiction authors have been priced so high (in one case I found that the kindle price was higher than the print price) that I won’t buy them even though I would otherwise. I’m not going to buy anything from Tor again. Are Weber’s Safehold books published by Tor?

      1. Yes, David Weber’s Safehold books are published by TOR. To the best of my knowledge, those are the only TOR books I purchase.

            1. Actually, sometimes they set them so you can “loan” them to someone. Not sure of TOR does that or not, but if not, I’ll borrow hardcopy just to make sure TOR gets precisely two things from me: “Jack” and “Squat”.

            2. “It’s a little harder to “borrow” ebooks. [Wink]”
              Actually, no Paul it’s really not. [Wink back at yah]

              1. Well, the last time I checked my local library’s “ebooks for borrowing”, it didn’t contain David Weber’s ebooks.

                And I’m not willing to ask somebody who did purchase the Safehold ebooks to send me a copy.

            3. Not if you buy them from Baen. Then you can download them as Rich Text Format and loan/give them to a friend

                1. My current plan is to wait a couple of weeks after release and buy it at McKay’s used. Then send David a check for 8 bucks. I am done with Tor. And I had planned to preorder and have it sitting in my mailbox on release day, just like I have for the past 3.

    2. Tor’s not the only one going insane with high pricing. Rothfuss’s latest, a novella, was priced $9.99 for e-book and $18.95 for hardcover. For a novella.

      Though to be fair, there’s actually a history that gives reason for all this. If you want your blood to boil, Google the Apple e-book price-fixing scandal. It’s not pretty, but it’s one reason e-book (and book) prices skyrocketed.

        1. The Name of the Wind? Amazing. Sequel’s pretty good too. Definitely worth checking out.

          But $19 for a novella? That’s the equivalent price jump for the duration of jumping movie tickets to $60. Nope, nope, nope.

          1. Just don’t expect a speedy appearance for the final volume. It’s been finished for ten years, but apparently he’s a slow editor.

      1. Don’t remind me. The ONLY reason I have a copy of Stephenson’s “Seveneves”, is that I won it in a contest. $18.95 for an E-BOOK????

        1. ah slow people you mean like Mr Gerrold? or for that matter Melanie Rawn? Melanie though has a valid excuse.. HEALTH.. I check her website from time to time for updates. So while in her case I’m a little grumbly about it…I’m a lot more understanding

    3. Yeah… price has been discouraging me for a while now. But I remember the last time I was in a usedbook store… of the prospects I nibbled at, I noticed that I’d put all the Tor books back. Just didn’t hook my interest, at least not at the price, not even the used price. And that seemed odd, because in the past I’ve bought a ton of Tor books, but these (all fairly recent titles) just weren’t catching me. And it wasn’t politics; it was… nothing-newness.

      As to the current hoorah — Tom Doherty is 80 years old. To what degree is he still in charge and keeping up with his minions’ doings?

  2. I’m not a writer I’m a reader the kind that goes through 5-8 books a week. Pre KU it was 2-3. That is a lot of books in a year none of them have been Tor for a while and none of them will be. I read books by authors that believe things that I don’t but will not give money to people that hate me.

  3. Jonathan: Solid comment!
    I pick my reading for story, not for politics, not for Political Correctness, therefore, Tor has not gotten much of my Book money aforetime.
    I shall continue that policy, just add being careful to buy only a favorite author from Tor, no new ones, no lesser lights, either. Tor can also forget getting any of my money for fact books, or any other of their products.
    Thank you, again, for an excellent look at some Tors employee’s writs.

  4. If there’s a TOR book you want to read, why not buy it used? That way TOR doesn’t get the money. And if you really want to rub salt into the wound… buy it used from Amazon.

    1. That’s how I do it, on the increasingly few occasions when I want to read or watch something written/produced/featuring some political bigot with a big mouth.

      And Ms Gallo seems to be an incredibly ignorant and hastily-judgmental person. Frankly, I’m getting very tired of being slimed as a raaaaacist, homophobic imbecile on minimal evidence. In this respect, I had just one nerve left, and she has trodden very heavily upon it.

      1. Scalzi has just entered my personal list of “only buy used”, along with Mieville, Stross, and a few others. But I will support KJ Anderson, Brandon Sanderson, and John C Wright by actually buying their books, even if TOR publishes them. I want TOR to get the message that I prefer those writers over their darlings.

        1. Haven’t bought Scalzi since ‘Fuzzy Nation’, and that was used. And not a KJA fan. I will still buy Wright, Weber, Sanderson, Steven Erikson and Gene Wolfe, but probably used ( especially in the case of the ones who never get mass market releases, anymore).

      2. My simple metric is whether I want to line the author’s pockets with silver. If yes, I buy it; if no, I go to the library.

  5. Apparently Gallo’s commends are the final straw for several people. Peter Grant has info, and some others as well. As James Young says in Peter’s comment section, this kind of description could get people fired from their jobs – and not Ms. Gallo. (I suspect my employer for one would take it very, very seriously if a parent came in waving that quote and pointing to one of my books.)

    It should just be an award. Not something that makes people think twice about accepting a nomination for fear of being canned because of a Tor employee’s slander. *growls low in the back of the throat, fur on neck standing up, ears flat*

    I think the thing to do is, if you really like an author who writes for Tor, politely let the author know that you are not able to buy his books because of the apparent company policy. You still enjoy his writing and regret not being able to buy his current and upcoming work with Tor, but so it is.

    1. Ditto. You can’t even be associated with hate groups and work for the government these days. At least not in the departments that actually follow the laws. That’s not the kind of thing you toss out there just will nilly.

      Again–I hate that things have gotten to this. Getting ready to go to a meeting in a few where I’m sure the Hugos will come up. It does give me hope that, at least in person, everyone I know on both sides has been able to discuss this in a reasoned manner.

    2. Like I said elsewhere leave Master Weber alone. He’s had health problems as of late and I don’t want him shuffling off the mortal coil before he writes more Bahzell and collaberates with John for more Prince Roger

  6. is there any way Baen can get out of the contract they have to supply Tor’s ebooks? Or is it one where it is more advantageous of Baen to hold on and make Tor give them money?

    1. What contract? The only recent TOR ebooks that I’ve seen in the Baen eStore have been by David Drake eARCs and that’s between Baen and David Drake.

          1. Nod. The section remains in the Baen eStore for the people who purchased the ebooks.

  7. Well done! I truly think that everyone in that business has thought of the Hugos as such a small thing with a small following that the repercussions from anything associated would also be small. But between the Puppies, several best selling authors, and the internet I think they are about to discover the fallacy in that thinking.

  8. Irene Gallo’s statements are troubling, and they do merit a response from Tor. (Although not necessarily a public one.) Tor’s credibility is at risk when–through the actions of its employees–it appears to be taking sides in a political fight and even disparaging its own customers. This is bad for business, and Tor ought to be concerned.

    But this article goes much, much too far. When your response is an overreaction, then you end up undermining your own case. That is what has happened here.

    First of all: leave authors out of it. Isn’t it ostensibly the point of Sad Puppies that we should basically disregard an author’s politics if they can tell a good story? Well, John Scalzi can tell a good story. (I’ve never read Jemisin.) And even if you don’t care for his stuff, calling for authors to be policed based on their politics–coming from an ally of Sad Puppies–risks accusations of hypocrisy.

    Second of all: don’t call for things that are unattainable. Scalzi just signed a decade-long, multi-million dollar book deal, and you think he is the weak link in Tor you should be attacking? That is tactically foolhardy, and so is bravado about “[Tor] sales drop[ping] like rocks in a planetary gravity well.”

    Most people don’t care.

    This is probably the hardest rule for people embroiled in a nasty Internet dispute to maintain a grasp on, but it’s one of the most important. So I’ll say it again: most people. do not. care.

    If Tor experiences a drop in sales that is strong enough to stand out against routine random fluctuation at all, that would be quite something. And, frankly, why would we be cheering for that anyway? Tor publishes lots of great fiction (John C. Wright is still publishing there, right?) and as a genre we want more fiction, not less, right? We want more variety, not less? So the prospect (however unrealistic) of Tor sales running right off a cliff ought not to be met with glee, but with concern.

      1. I am the customer. If someone insults me, I sure as hell have a right to boycott the business.

    1. Here’s the problem–you can’t leave authors out of it. Again, understand why some folks are taking this with full fangs and claws–many folks on the Sad Puppy slate work on 2nd jobs for a living. When someone can just toss the outright lie that they are somehow belonging to hate groups, they can indeed lose their jobs…or at least have people deciding that when it comes time for contract renewal said individual doesn’t make the cut. This isn’t paranoia–for instance, Brad Torgerson is an Army warrant officer, and I can tell you from first hand experience that organization frowns greatly on members even loosely being associated with hate groups.

      Second, while I agree that the loss of another publisher would be, um, _bad_, the degree of “variety” fades greatly when you have major editors making it clear that certain thoughts, personas, or viewpoints will _not_ receive a level playing field as long as they sit in their positions. Sorry, but when you call an entire group neo-Nazis and homophobes, much less publicly, that’s pretty much putting a marker down. Is it a full McCarthy marker? No. But it’s definitely saying to new authors or people just getting in the industry you want to be nowhere near those “Puppies” folks.

      Finally, you’re right–most people _don’t_ give a d*mn. However, a lot of people like myself (disposable income to spend on books, avid reader, etc.) who were semi-neutral (in a Sweden during World War II kind of way) in this little kerfluffle are starting to become motivated and agitated. Will that motivation and agitation affect sales in a “rock in a gravity-well” way? Not quite yet. But as Tor, with the razor thin margins currently going in the market being what they are, do they really want people to start getting to that stage? Do they want someone like Instapundit doing an Instalanche on this post or, hey, maybe mentioning it in USA Today? I would certainly hope not. That, more than anything else, is why I’d definitely start figuring out a way to get Ms. Gallo to shut her pie hole most ricky tick.

      So, no, saying that folks have finally had enough with the aspersions, and doing so in a “no further!”-way is not an overreaction–it’s a course correction that’s long overdue. There are waaaaaayyy too many young, competent English majors serving coffee at Starbucks to allow someone to alienate your customer base in such a manner, and whether it was done so publicly or not this would likely be a “Pack your sh*t…”-offense in any other business.

      1. Unfortunately, publishers get the lion share of the profits, so if their editors irk you, you can’t leave the authors out of it. And these days we are. The big publishing houses are no longer the only way to sell books. If someone wants to boycott Tor, they boycott Tor. If we like an author, we can suggest they go elsewhere or go Indie. If we don’t like the author, we can see how long it takes for them to figure it out.

        Like I said, though, I can’t boycott Tor because Tor doesn’t seem to sell what I like, so . . .

        1. *shrug* or buy used, and send cash direct to the author and leave the publisher out of it. But then…I’m a bastard that way

    2. Thing is, Nathaniel. We’ve been trying to keep the authors out of it. On his blog, Larry Correia posted long ago, not to take this out on Tor the Company and not to take it out on the Authors. And pretty much everyone’s been on board with that. Despite constant slander by Tor employees. Despite people with official standing in that company telling lies and taking sides.

      This is merely the absolutely last straw for some people. I’ve got a “to buy” book on my list that I *will* buy from an author who was totally screwed over by Tor… I’m going to buy his book. He doesn’t deserve to be hurt and the book sounds like a great deal of fun.

      But at what point will there be any accountability?

    3. Forgive for disputing you rpremise . That people do not care.
      I will recount an example that is not in the publishing world but where a company dissed their customer base and paid dearly.

      This is the story of Smith and Wesson. During the Clinton government S & W acceded to the anti gun persuasion on some of their line.

      On March 17, 2000, Smith & Wesson made an agreement with US President Bill Clinton under which it would implement changes in the design and distribution of its firearms in return for “preferred buying program” to offset the loss of revenue as a result of anticipated boycott.[7] The agreement stated that all authorized dealers and distributors of Smith & Wesson’s products had to abide by a “code of conduct” to eliminate the sale of firearms to prohibited persons, dealers had to agree to not allow children under 18 access, without an adult, to gun shops or sections of stores that contained firearms.[7]

      As expected, thousands of retailers and tens of thousands of firearms consumers boycotted Smith & Wesson.[8]

      On 11 May 2001, Saf-T-Hammer Corporation acquired Smith & Wesson Corp. from Tomkins plc for US$15 million, a fraction of the US$112 million originally paid by Tomkins.[9] Saf-T-Hammer assumed US$30 million in debt, bringing the total purchase price to US$45 millio

      Since then S & W has made sure they do not go against their customers to curry favor with anti gun forces. All other manufacturers have absorbed the lesson.

      So people do care and do make a difference.

  9. As part of a long overdue Spring Cleaning (I believe this will be for Spring ’02), I am going thru shelves of books that haven’t been read in years. Anything I don’t find myself stopping to reread is going to Goodwill.

    Unless it is published by Tor. Those will be packed up and shipped to Tor with a printout of Ms Gallo’s comments. I’m sure they’ll get the message.

    1. Oh I’m not going that far milady. I still like those books. Just not giving them any of my money. which I haven’t in years anyway

    2. I think that’s an excellent idea. I’ll have to go through my old packed-away hardcopies and see if there’s any Tor stuff there. (I do my reading on Kindle these days because I was running out of physical room for books)

    3. Actually, I’m saving the few TOR books I own. One, is an autographed John C. Wright. That stays in my personal library. But the rest ? I’m running the DC-area Sad Puppies and Friends meet in Arlington, VA in July.

      I’m bringing those along. . . .and my shredder. The results will go into our cat’s litter-boxes. . .

      1. Not my cup of tea Keither. However if you intend to….just the pages Keith, just the pages. if you try and stick the cover and binding in there your shredder will die on you from sheer spite. Depending on how many novels you own from Tor…it might anyway.

  10. “Irene Gallo’s statements are troubling, and they do merit a response from Tor. (Although not necessarily a public one.) ”

    Yes, a public one. Gallo’s statements were public and they merit a public response.

    “Tor’s credibility is at risk”

    Tor has no credibility left to risk. The statements of the Nielsen Haydens, Moshe Feder, and now Irene Gallo make it clear that this isn’t a case of a single loose cannon.

    1. Add to that the way TOR is currently dicking over Phil Foglio, and you have a company well on the way to closing doors.

      1. Actually, I think the issue with the Foglios has been resolved: TOR took their own sweet time, but eventually addressed the problems they had caused.

  11. Nathaniel I don’t think it’s an over reaction at all. It’s simply the last straw for many people. Gallo isn’t the first one from Tor to espouse these sentiments. Can you imagine having three or four high ranking people from another company (McDonalds, Walmart, Ford, ExxonMobile, etc.) disparaging their employees and coworkers like this while promoting the company product and not have them taken to task? If any of us fans did something like that we’d be out of a job by the end of the day. That Tor hasn’t addressed this tells me either the leadership there is either ineffective or supports such sentiments. In either case I see no reason to give my money to people who don’t want me around. I’ve got other places I can spend my limited budget. My little library of ~2K eBooks/physical books may not mean much to Tor, but it means something to me. And I refuse to sully it with products from people who hate me.

    It sucks for the authors still under contract with them, but that’s something they’re going to have to fight themselves. Maybe they can get out of their contracts, maybe they can effect change from within the company. But until those people saying vile, reprehensible things are gone or the authors can take back control of their works I won’t be purchasing them.

    1. kamas716-

      I’m sympathetic to SP. I’ve said it before, and will say it again. My criticism is intended to be constructive. And I’m just saying that, to everyone who isn’t already outraged, this kind of response does more harm than good.

      First, look at the timing. Gallo made her comment on May 11th. That is almost a month ago. The first reply to her characterization came less than 17 hours ago. This means that for a month, basically no one had any clue who she was or what she had said. It’s not like she issued a press release on Tor letterhead. She wrote a statement on her Facebook profile. The fact that the privacy settings were public don’t mean that her audience is big enough to warrant any serious attention.

      Now, in just the last 17 hours (less than a day!) we’ve got multiple posts calling for a boycott of Tor. That is way premature, guys. If the Sad Puppies didn’t know about her comment for the last 30 days, what makes you think anyone at Tor had any clue? So far, all of this drama has taken place on a Saturday and Sunday. What are the chances that anyone high up at Tor is even working?

      It doesn’t make sense to get enraged at Tor for their lack of reply to this one thing that someone said on Facebook. Even if it’s one of their employees. Unless you think Tor should permanently monitor the Facebook accounts of all their employees?

      That’s not realistic, and so the reasonable thing to do is call for Tor to react and then give them some time to do so.

      Second, a total boycott in response to comments by an employee seems like overkill. Employees do fight with each other and with their customers all the time. (Hello, Comcast?) It’s not exactly 5-star professional behavior, but it’s hardly unprecedented. This is especially true when some of the folks who attack SP also say (honestly or not) that they don’t have a problem with conservatives or have a political litmus test and are willing to publish conservative authors. Think about how it looks to an outsider when you call for Tor to be boycotted for ideological reasons… and they’re still publishing John C. Wright. It might be dishonest cover, but it’s effective, and it should be taken into account.

      Lastly and most importantly: non-credible threats are never a good idea, and the boycott threat is not credible. Some of the commenters here some on board but–even in a strong hold of pro-SP sentiment–we’ve got folks who’s willingness to boycott amounts to “I’m not going to buy Tor books from authors I already wouldn’t have bought from.” That’s not really a threat. I’m sorry, but threatening to boycott Tor except for Brandon Sanderson is like threatening to boycott Chic Fil A except for chicken sandwiches.

      1. Being called Neo-nazis and other despicable names by Tor editors isn’t a ideological reason for a boycott the reason is not giving money to people who insult us.

        1. Thomas-

          You’re right. And if the article had stayed with that, it would be on firmer footing. But look at this paragraph:

          Tor, let’s face facts: that you repeatedly allow straw man makers like John Scalzi to have a place in your stable, even as he vainly justifies his arrogant idiocy is absurd. To allow bigots like NK Jemisin bully pulpits without regard for fact or truth is wrong. To encourage people to put one-star reviews on Amazon, simply because you don’t like an author’s politics, rather than because you didn’t like the story is not only disgusting, it is a willful manipulation of the Amazon rating system.

          When the conversation shifts to apparently calling for Tor to stop publishing authors who have bad politics, the conversation has become (1) ideological and (2) suspect of hypocrisy. (And there’s still the issues of credibility and timing.)

          1. The case has already been made that Scalzi and Jemisin have been quite careless themselves about making offensive statements. Jemisin in particular has made statements that could only be true if minorities fell under the jurisdiction of game laws. What you quote is clearly more about Jemisin’s virulent racism than about her probable close ties with the racist Party of Jim Crow.

          2. That paragraph is an observation that TOR has not ever given Scalzi a directive to stop his crap or else he will be dropped. Not that they should drop him automatically for making such statements.

            You’re missing the point that this is an endpoint of a long history of both TOR employees and some of their favored authors making destructive and hateful statements publicly, and without ever being reined in by the company they work for.

            I’m not an author myself, but I’ve seen the authors I follow here and elsewhere talking about this sort of thing for the entirety of the three years that I have been following them. And reports of it going on for longer. This is just a “last straw” scenario, not an overreaction to a one-time occurrence.

          3. What Jonathan was doing there is showing part of a pattern that has been coming out of Tor. Certain people with the “right” attitudes get a pass. Others do not. We get insulted. They get rewarded.

            I’m reminded of an exchange between Higgens and Eliza in My Fair Lady. Eliza is complaining that Higgens treats everyone badly. Higgens’ respons: “It doesn’t matter whether you have good manners or bad, so long as you have the same manners for everyone.”

            Treat us badly while rewarding people who call us all manner of vile names (and Scalzi is in that camp)? Good way to say they don’t want my money.

            1. Exactly. Little MS Shoot-from-the-lip Gallo appears to represent a corporate culture inclined to be hostile towards a certain sub-set of writers. How on earth a conservatively-inclined writer could put any professional trust in working with representatives like that is beyond me.

      2. The fact that it was made a month ago but just came to the attention of the people she was disparaging doesn’t really mean much except she wasn’t being followed closely by them. I believe the term is ‘going viral’. The fact that it was made a month ago and not addressed by her employer lends me to believe her employer is either incompetent or supportive of what she said. I refuse to force money into the hands of people who hate me. It’s not like she is the first in the company to say stuff like this. If I had made a similar post about my coworkers you can bet my employer would be speaking to me the next day because someone would have brought it to their attention.

        No, she didn’t issue a press release, but she did use her post to promote her company and her work within it. How are you to separate the private from the professional in that? It takes more parsing than most any fan is willing to work through.

        As for the boycott, I made my decision to no longer make any purchases before I heard about anyone talking about it. When I first saw the post my initial reaction was “that’s it, F* them. I’m done with Tor”.

        The ONLY leverage I have over Tor is with my money. The authors can try to affect change from within, not me. I’ll still buy John C Wright, David Weber and the others, just not the stuff they have through Tor.

        1. kamas716-

          The fact that it was made a month ago and not addressed by her employer lends me to believe her employer is either incompetent or supportive of what she said… If I had made a similar post about my coworkers you can bet my employer would be speaking to me the next day because someone would have brought it to their attention.

          There is just no practical and non-invasive way for an employer to keep such close tabs on all the social media activity of all of their employees. Your assumption that the suits at Tor knew about this comment is, for that reason, unwarranted.

          Your anger, on the other hand, is totally understandable. There’s no way this looks good for Tor, and now way it doesn’t alienate fans. For purely professional and financial reasons, I think they need to reign in their crazies.

          1. I’m not aware of any organization (consisting of more than a couple of people anyway) that doesn’t have it’s tattle-tales and suck-ups. I find it hard to believe that no one else in the company didn’t see that and think ‘inappropriate’ and mention it to someone else. I’ve never been anywhere that doesn’t have gossip.

            1. Meh. I’ve worked in a variety of jobs–small business and corporate–while blogging/arguing vociferously about controversial political issues. In that entire time, the content of my posts has come up exactly once. (It was in a job interview. I didn’t get the job.)

              Maybe we’ve just had different personal experiences, but at a minimum I think you’ve got to give Tor execs the benefit of the doubt on this one. Would you want to spend so much time keeping tabs on your employees? :shudders: Managers have better things to do.

              1. You did that blogging while promoting your work/company? I’ve known lots of people to hold controversial views on hot button topics, but not while tying them into their work persona.

              2. Back during the noise made about reverting the rights of Girl Genius, an assertion was made about the management structure of Tor.

                Essentially, it was claimed, the senor editors are all equally in charge, and their only supervisors are in another company. PNH is a senior editor. Hence he may have the right to make statements on behalf of Tor, and to choose to retain people making statements.

                Unless the situation is clarified, it is entirely fair to presume that these statements are on behalf of Tor. This cock crying just adds to the cacophony.

          2. Tor, as a company, is completely clueless as to what The Nielsen-Haydens are saying on a regular basis, on what Moshe Feder is saying, and on what Gallo is saying? This is not new. This is an ongoing issue that was brought to a head with the first Sad Puppies campaign two years ago.

            Tell it to the marines, because the Air Force ain’t buying.

      3. As for non-credible threats, I can’t speak for anyone else or how effective any boycott might be. All I can say is _I’m_ not purchasing anymore of their product. I don’t buy anything through Barnes and Noble anymore either. And if Adobe keeps up with their shoddy service I’ll drop their products as well. I’m stubborn like my grandfather, who told representatives of a certain world renowned volunteer organization to ‘F* off’ due to said organization’s treatment of he and his fellow soldiers 40 years before in WWII.

        1. That would be the Red Cross. My grandfather had nothing good to say about them, and for me the final straw was the misappropriation of 9/11 donations.

          1. This would be the same Red Cross that came to a multi-home fire in the dead of winter, and wouldn’t give kids standing around freezing a cup of hot coffee, because it was ‘for the firefighters’….

            (happened to my dad, not me)

      4. Last time the cry to boycott Tor got shouted down, you all managed to talk me into setting down my torch and pitchfork. Not this time. Sanderson and Wright will be bought secondhand, with the list price going straight to their tip jars. I don’t mind making sure the author gets paid, but Tor won’t get any of my money. And Macmillian’s on the chopping block as well. (Make sure Macmillian sees any letter you write to Tor.)

        1. Doing it that way would actually bring the authors much more than they would receive in royalties on a new hardcover sale. I like.

        2. That is an excellent idea. Buy your authors second hand and send the list price to their tip jars. Kills Tor’s profits and helps the authors stuck with those douchebags

        3. OK, I had to look up something that I vaguely remembered.

          Macmillan isn’t actually associated directly with Tor any longer. After Macmillan was bought out by the German mega-company, they split Tor off as a wholly owned subsidiary.

          And it really isn’t going to bother the Germans one bit, dag nab it. Tor is a teeny tiny little cog in their huge machine. Pretty much, if you have read the book on the Krupps – that particular mindset applies to *any* of those “GmbH” companies. Aristocrats on the top, some well-paid (but ultimately disposable) retainers that foolishly think they are not and give themselves airs as though they are also of the “better class,” and the rest of us are peasants.

          1. LOL. I had that experience with one of those Gmbh’s as well. I was buying a part from one of them, and having quality and delivery issues they could not or would not fix. I resourced them to a US company and cut them off. Someone in our German division called and said “you can’t do that, they are important people in Germany!”. My reply, verbatim “Well, it is a small country after all, what does it matter to me?”

      5. Nathan…here’s the thing. As others have pointed out and as Jonathan highlighted by names 3 OTHER high level jackasses at Tor…This is not a “one off” thing. This is not an isolated incident.This is a endemic, systemic pattern of behavior. It’s time, PAST time for Tor to either clean up it’s house. Or suffer the financial consequences of people getting pissed off enough to stop buying a single thing with their logo on it
        As I’ve said elsewhere it won’t phase me. I stopped buying Tor years ago. Mainly because they publish a shit ton of Fantasy and fantasy by and large…just ain’t my bag right now. That’s not to say it isn’t and never shall be again. I’ve got a ton of fantasy on my shelves. But my…current prediliction os for milspec scifi, and the occasional apocalypse type minded story. Ringo’s Black Tide universe for one.

        If and when I do swing back to fantasy in a major way,and I took a minor 8bk detour lately; then NOT gonna be on my spend list. Hell I’ve got an enitre mystery subhouse/imprint…whatever you wanna call it; of Penguin that’s been on my shit list for years that I refuse to spend money on because they pissed me off so bad in the way they treated an author friend of whom I’m very fond. I can and will cheerfully replace that segment of my reading with newer independent small houses before I give that imprint a goddamn dime.
        If TOR cleans house? Maybe. If not…I’ll just pray to be able to watch them self destruct and burn from afar and LAUGH as they die in frothing madness and agony,

  12. I am going to purchase The Dark Between The Stars, but that will likely be my last Tor purchase apart from Brandon Sanderson for a long time. And I make an exception for Sanderson because he’s a talented and entertaining author who doesn’t deserve to suffer for the idiocy of his publisher.

    1. I will be continuing to purchase David Weber’s Safehold eBooks.

        1. This is the problem with trying to boycott and not being a complete jerk face at the same time.

      1. Folks, I’m going to point something out here. You’re doing a lot of “I’ll boycott…except for my favorite XXX”.

        You want to get the point across? it has to include your favorite, too. Even the authors you love. Give them a reason why they should be making other choices than Tor for where they imprint. In short, put some teeth in your moral suasion.

        And, in the interim, there’s a good alternate strategy further up. Remember – your goal here is to make it _hurt_. You don’t do that by allowing exceptions.

    2. I purchased “Dark” the day the nominations were announced, at a con, from his booth… 🙂

  13. I suggest that we institute a “class action libel” suit against Gallo and TOR. Every SP author and artist can “show harm” as it _will_ influence potential buyers (her whole point). A lawsuit is something TOR *can’t* ignore.

  14. “What are the chances that anyone high up at Tor is even working?”

    She is Creative Director. PNH is Senior Editor. Just how “high up” do you want? This hasn’t been going on for “17 hours”. It’s been going on for decades.

    “Think about how it looks to an outsider when you call for Tor to be boycotted for ideological reasons”

    Think about how it looks to an outsider when the Torlings call us Nazis.

    “That’s not really a threat. I’m sorry, but threatening to boycott Tor except for Brandon Sanderson…”

    I don’t buy anything from Tor, and haven’t for quite some time. I stopped buying anything that the Nielsen Haydens had a direct hand in years ago. More recently I stopped buying Tor altogether.

    Wright has another publisher. Weber has another publisher. I’m not sure if Sanderson has another publisher (haven’t read his stuff) but I doubt if he’d have any trouble finding another one if he so chose. He moves a lot of books.

    1. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you want to boycott Tor without harming Wright, Weber, or (possibly) Sanderson, you can avoid buying their Tor-published works and buy something they’ve published elsewhere instead.

      1. Not true. David needed to publish another series(FAMILY GROWTH) and he needed a big signing bonus something that was and may still be in Baen’s contract with S&S they couldn’t do. In fact at first it was going to Del Rey and then Jim Baen came in to help and Tor came up with the winning bid.

      2. Baen turned it down? Sorry but that’s not the story I heard. I heard basically that David Weber was shopping it around because there wasn’t “room” for it in Baen’s schedule. Jim Baen knew about it and assisted David Weber in getting a deal with Tor Books.

  15. I pretty much agree with what is written here, but yet we all still continue to watch and listen to things while actors, directors, and singers spew forth things about those with differing political or cultural views that make Ms. Gallo’s (or is it Mrs.?) comments seem utterly tame. Far, far too many of the people that make the entertainment we love utterly despise us and have no fear of declaring such loudly and long. It’s like accepting pretty gifts from someone who says “I effing hate you. You are garbage, and I hope you die.” Over and over and over …

    It is hard for me to feel any real anger for Ms. Gallo, at least her specifically. She is just another speck of sand on a very long beach. And we all keep rushing back and forth over that beach to play in the surf while trying to ignore the cursing coming from the sand. Just remember, every book you buy from them, every movie or show or song, every bit of merchandise, every time you reach into your wallet and hand them money, they’re taking you money with one hand, then slapping you in the face with the other. Perhaps worse, by making the transaction, by meakly aceptting the insult, you ad to their feeling of justification and superiority. Why shouldn’t they? The pimp feels superior to the prostitute. He slaps her around, insults her, turns her out, and she quietly hands him the money she’s earned. She doesn’t like the abuse, yet she does as she’s told.

    “But there’s the newest episode of that show/book/movie/song that’s just come out, and I REALLLLY want to see/read/hear it.”
    Gimme my money and get your ass back out on the street!

    Nothing will change until we stop giving these people, all of these people, our money, time, and compliance. Until then, we’re just their bitch.

  16. And Jonathan LaForce’s Facebook has been removed.

    Nothing suspicious here . . .

  17. Reblogged this on Aquila et Infans and commented:
    I had no idea that TOR was so Leftist in its publishing. Shows how little I read Fantasy books these days. I need to change that, but I’m not buying from TOR anymore!

  18. Ms. Gallo’s post, filled with invective, scurrilous remarks, and outright fabrications qualifies in my estimation as hate speech. Such speech, at least in the US, is protected by our First Amendment, and rightly so. After all, what reason could there possibly be to protect speech that everyone agrees with? But what Ms. Gallo and her employer need to understand is that hate speech cuts both ways. For example, if this is typical of how Ms. Gallo denigrates those she doesn’t agree with, I find it hard not to hate her for it. And if her employer has condoned or at the least turned a blind eye to her behavior and apparently to similar acts by several of its employees, well then I find myself developing a good bit of hate for that organization as well. Why on earth would I choose to deal with anyone that I actively dislike, of whose behavior I most emphatically disapprove? Except naturally for the DMV and local government to which I am not given a choice in the matter. Which come to think of it is how these folks would like it to be, just shut up and give them our money, and thank them for it.

    1. I believe in the First Amendment rather strongly. In fact the only amendment I’ll spend more energy defending is the Second.

      However, I have a problem with what Tor is saying. And I intend to let my money give my response. I’m finally at the point of having my seven finished novels published on Amazon. I’m probably not going to get much writing done for the next fourteen weeks {because of the effort getting the others published, one every two weeks}. However, I probably will do some reading, I very badly need to catch up on some. Mad Genius works, here I come. I think there’s a couple of Baen pieces I need to get too {I’ve fallen behind on Larry’s work}.

      I’ve been a fan of David Weber in the past, and have read the first two Safehold books. Now I intend to wait until they’re available elsewhere, or not finish series.

      1. All the 1st Amendment states is that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It does not say speech has no consequences. A shopkeeper can exercise his freedom of speech by being rude to his customers, but that doesn’t mean his customers cannot do business elsewhere, only that congress cannot forbid him to be a jerk.

    2. If nothing else I’d never ever *sell* a book to Tor. Not even if they begged me. Not without lots of clauses about benchmarks and schedules and fines if they don’t meet them. But maybe not even then. Can you imagine Ms. Gallo being professional about my book? Ever? Or the Haydens? Or that other guy? And that’s not counting what I’ve heard of *before* this all started.

      1. It wouldn’t come up for me, since I write historicals … but being what I am, and seeing what high-level Tor managers spew, without thinking that anyone could ever possibly take offense of it … no, I wouldn’t be tempted, either.
        And besides – I already publish my books through a Teeny Publishing Company of my own. Why would I put up with the grief that Ms Gallo and the Haydens seem prepared to dish out?

        1. I went over and read Tom Knighton’s blog on the subject and he quoted what Wright said about Gallo when he was saying not to blame Tor… praising her for the excellent covers on his books… a month later she said this?

          Crazy people. All of them.

  19. I’ve sent my angry letter to Tor’s email now too. When I looked at my Amazon account, I was surprised to see how my books I’ve bought from those idiots.

  20. Heck with it. I was going to finish reading the Wheel of Time series, but it is boggy in places anyhow, so I’ll just wait for the paper and ink books to show up at the used book store. Instead, just in the hopes that it will infuriate Irene Gallo if she ever learns about it, I’ll download and reread all of Norman’s “Gor” novels. Tal Sadar Gor!!!

  21. I’m going to deliver some cruel and frequently unwanted news. You all are in fact just like Gamergate. Just not in the way those throwing bile would want you to believe. You are faced with what is at its heart an economic issue. Their is currently a gatekeeper sitting astride the path between the consumers and the producers. And this gatekeeper rather than engaging in fair unfettered commerce is enforcing an ideological purity test on the producers, the product and the paying consumers. In the case of the Gamers this was the Gaming press acting as the marketing gatekeeper. In the case of SciFi fiction it is certain large traditional publishers, Tor being the key example.

    In both cases these gatekeepers are complete and utter anachronisms. They no longer serve a legitimate purpose in today’s world of open and direct 1 to 1 communication between producer and consumer and direct digital delivery of product. They are dinosaurs. The reality of this just has not quite caught up to them yet.

    And these institutions revel in their gatekeeper status. As a result they so over inflate their role and necessity that they feel comfortable in openly loathing and attacking the consumers. Typically to the ire of the consumer and the detriment of the producers.

    Ultimately the only recourse for the consumer is to walk away from the gatekeepers. Stop giving them money. Just ignore the cries of “but that will hurt the poor authors”, giving money to Tor does not help the authors you like. The best thing we as consumers can do it to empower the authors directly. Hasten the migration to direct to consumer digital sales. Stop paying bad publishers. The authors we like will quickly find a new path to their audience that does not rely on people like the Nielsen Hayden’s and company. New upcoming authors will find broader available options with which to find an audience that don’t rely on extortionist gatekeepers. But it all begins with one required step. We must stop giving our hard earned money to bad actors that openly loathe us.

    It may seem harsh or cruel, but voting with your wallet is the one true power you have. Stop letting other people talk you out of exercising it for unsound reasons. Stop thinking about the poor starving authors. Start thinking about where your money goes. The authors will at the end of the day follow the money. The entrenched gatekeepers cannot.

    1. You know that Sad Puppies pre-dates Gamer Gate, right? I have a suspicion that you’re trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. 😉

      1. Uh, I don’t think he meant anything negative by that comparison.

        1. I didn’t either. Just pointing out that we’re all pretty darn “read in” on the issues involved. I was hoping that my “winky-face” was enough. I guess not. Llasadog… that wasn’t meant to be mean or negative. Sorry!

  22. Count me in for buying the books used. I’ll hit the tip jars of the Tor authors I do like.

    1. Much more of this, and I’ll just go to the trouble of finding them on the pirate sites. Then put the *full* cover price in the author’s tip jar, and tell them why.

    1. I think that most people would be happy with an equally public statement of “I was speaking out of my ass and making stuff up. It was unprofessional of me and going forward I will endeavor not to wholesale libel the excellent authors published by Tor.”

      Comparing Wright’s statement about HER to her statement about HIM (granted, not by name) is sort of… instructive. Don’t you think?

  23. i do have a question for this collection of mad men(women, people, genii, whatever). I snark a lot but this is a serious question. has anyone contacted Tom Doherty, who I believe is in charge of Tor, about this subject. does he know that his top people are pissing of his customers, that they are costing him money. has anyone read any of his writings (blogs, if any, articles, etc.). does he agree with his gatekeepers? I am not saying to boycott/not boycott, yet. I am leaning towards boycotting, but I would like a little more info before I decide. I guess I am asking can this be fixed, before harm is committed. but this is like the last chance for Tor (and I understand it is beyond the last chance for many of us puppies) what does Mr. Doherty have to say, and what/will he fix this problem

  24. oh yeah, one more thing, I thought we were the evil league of evil, trying to cure the sadness of puppies? how did we become the sad puppies we are trying to cure?

    1. Apparently our opposition lacks the verbal comprehension to differentiate between the ELoE and the sad puppies we strive to gladden. Attempts to correct this perception they have developed, much I suspect in the same manner that they insist on conflating sad and rabid puppies, have been met with total confusion on their part followed by a rousing chorus of “curse you, Sad Puppies!” It’s gotten so we don’t even bother any more.

  25. I wonder if this article will be updated to reflect the fact that no sad puppies were in fact referred to as Neo-Nazis. The full construction of the sentence makes this quite clear, although the writer of this article excluded that section of the quote and inexplicably failed to provide a link. Then the discussion can at least be based on accurate info on who said what.

    1. Gee, Mark, you want a link? Go to FB and look it up. May 11th, iirc. Or you could go to Tom Knighton’s post about it or many other posts. But, just for you, here you go:

      As for the direct quote, complete since you asked, “There are two extreme right-wing to neo-nazi groups, called the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies respectively, that are calling for the end of social justice in science fiction and fantasy. They are unrepentantly racist, misogynist, and homophobic. A noisy few but they’ve been able to gather some Gamergate folks around them and elect a slate of bad-to-reprehensible works on this year’s Hugo ballot.”

      So, depending on how you read it, she is calling members of Sad Puppies anything from extreme right-wing to neo-nazis. Yes, I’ve seen the argument that the “respectively” means she was labeling Puppies one thing and Rabid Puppies something else. Maybe or maybe not. But she goes on to claim they are all “unrepentantly racist, misogynist and homophobic.” This claim is ludicrous when you look at the facts. Or does she really think Brad Torgersen married his wife, who is most definitely white, simply to hide his racism? Or does she think Kevin J. Anderson or Jim Butcher are racist, misogynist and homophobic? Better yet, does she really think they are extreme right-wingers?

      Or how about her assertion that everything on the “slate” is bad-to-reprehensible? Does that include the titles published by her employer Tor? Hmm, how does Tor feel about its creative editor publicly dissing its work?

      Now, unless you are willing to produce the proof that all the Sad Puppies are “extreme right-wing . . .unrepentantly racist, misogynist and homophobic”, go away.

      1. Amanda, thank you for the link. I was already in possession of it, hence how I knew what had actually been said, which the readers of this article will not be until you correct it.
        As you are a writer, I won’t presume to lecture you on the meaning of the word respectively, but the full quote makes the meaning quite clear.
        I’m afraid I can’t make a further useful response to the article as you request while it concentrates on the incorrect claim that the sad puppies were described as Neo-Nazis.

        1. I am not sure the knowledge that I have not been called a Neo Nazi matters as much as the fact that I HAVE been called unrepentantly racist, misogynist and homophobic there being nothing like your respectively associated with those insults. Therefore I find your attempt at distraction with the term Neo Nazi disingenuous

      2. The word “respectively” distributes over “and”; does it distribute over “to”?

        “There are two red and purple stones, labeled ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively.”
        Could mean two red-and-black speckled stones, but probably means that stone ‘A’ is red and stone ‘B’ purple.

        “There are two red to purple stones, labeled ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively.”
        There are two stones, both in shades of red to purple, one labeled ‘A’ the other labeled ‘B’.

        1. I can parse the sentence no problem. It’s really not ambiguous at all, despite the attempts of damage-control trolls to insert ambiguity into the construction.

          What are the two groups? Two extreme right-wing to neo-Nazi groups groups that are unrepentantly racist, misogynist, and homophobic,and that are calling for the end of social justice in science fiction and fantasy.

          What are they named? These two groups are respectively named SP and RP.

          1. That’s how I read it; also that the “extreme right-wing” folks were not so far from being neo-nazis themselves.

            But it’s always tempting to read something unpleasant aimed at us and take an uncharitable reading, so it’s important to get an external check: How does someone without our emotional investment read this?

            Well, Eric Flint—no Sad Puppies supporter he—read it the same way as us, and equally dismissed quibbles over grammar to excuse the statement.

            (I know, I know! Baen uses different rules of grammar than Tor does: that’s why Eric read it the way we did. 😈)

            1. The use of “to” makes no difference to the construction. Joel’s second construction (and Tully’s adoption of it) is incorrect, quite simply because the use of “respectively” would be redundant in that case, i.e. the sentence reads identically to “There are two red to purple stones, labeled ‘A’ and ‘B’”
              Respectively was used, it must have some meaning, let’s use the one from the rules of English grammar, shall we?

              1. Mark your response is nothing but very fresh horse apples. I am an American Mongrel of very mixed ethnic heritage. Part of that heritage is Jew. Point of fact if you imply in any way I am any kind of NAZI then you had damn well better have a loaded gun in your hand when you do it. You can try to weasel word Ms. Gallo’s post any way you wish. It does not change the fact she crossed a line and called me a NAZI. Deal with it and the fall out. Is that plain enough language for you!

              2. Parse the grammar any way you like. The clear intent was that there was not much difference between the “extreme right-wing” and “neo-nazi” groups: both were “unrepentantly racist, misogynist and homophobic”, etc. Nor does John C. Wright, whose works were mostly on the Rabid Puppies list, deserve the label “neo-nazi” which even a close reading of the original post applies to him.

                Your attempt to deflect from the essential slander in Ms Gallo’s comment by focusing on its grammatical minutiæ is appreciated for its predictability, though. Thank you for playing.

  26. This is also presumably the reason that Michael Flynn’s Firestar, a.k.a. the best example of Human Wave I have ever, ever read, was taken out of print some time over the last year. But it is available in print-on-demand, and while page 22 is probably still duplicated and blotting out page 17 for no good reason because B&N’s POD house is, as this blog has mentioned, a bit skeevy – making it worse than Tor, all in all – you’ve really got to buy it anyway.

  27. For what it may be worth, I know very little about all this, but I’m proud to be published by my old friend Tom Doherty. He has supported my stuff since the early eighties and still does.

    1. To the best of my knowledge, few have said anything bad about Tom Doherty.

      The concern has been “if Tom Doherty really in control of Tor Books”.

      Note, Tom Doherty supported Jim Baen when Jim created Baen Books and IIRC still has part ownership of Baen Books.

      So few lovers of Baen Books think he’s an active part of the problem with Tor.

    2. I agree with Paul’s comment. I have the greatest respect for Mr. Doherty. My issue are with others in positions of at least perceived power at Tor.

  28. In a reply to her post, at ‹›, Irene Gallo wrote:

    About my Sad/Rabid Puppies comments: They were solely mine. This is my personal page; I do not speak on behalf of Tor Books or I realize I painted too broad a brush and hurt some individuals, some of whom are published by Tor Books and some of whom are Hugo Award winners. I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments.

    1. I love how she buries her so-called apology in the original thread and not in a new thread where everyone could see it. Pitiful.

      1. Amanda, I have no doubt that if she’d done that you’d be criticising her for “burying” it elsewhere on her feed where you wouldn’t see it.

          1. Fair enough Amanda, as you deny my speculation I will withdraw it. Perhaps you’d like to explain why you think posting the apology to the thread that the world and his puppy had been watching and posting on was “burying” it?

            1. Maybe because you have to scroll all the way down to her May 11th entries and maybe because she had been — or someone had been — deleting comments.

              1. Amanda, FB has these things called “notifications” for those who have posted on something. They, along with the way the entire puppysphere knew about this apology within minutes, are what make your stance untenable.

                1. Actually, they don’t. Facebook does not notify of all new comments on a post. There have been many long-running threads that ‘dropped’ me from receiving notifications without any action of mine. It is clear that she was deleting comments, as you can see from the screenshots I have been posting on my blog as I reported this. In fact, that is also why the ‘puppysphere’ as you term it, knew about her ‘apology’ quickly, because some of us have been acting as responsible journalists to keep everyone up-to-date. Looking at the hits on my blog, I can assure you that some of the people reading it would be offended to hear you include them in that puppysphere.

                  I am forced to conclude that you are not familiar with facebook. Also, you are not contributing to the conversation here. We don’t ban folks at the MGC, but frankly unless you are more than a waste of my time, I won’t bother again.

                2. OMFG, Mark, read my comment. Not everyone has “liked” or commented on the thread so finding it when it is referenced is anything but easy. Gawd, I said I wasn’t commenting again and I won’t after this. My son is much more important than trying to discuss anything with someone who isn’t willing to actually listen (or read) with an open mind.

                  1. Cedar/Amanda. A lot of people were posting on the thread. They will not all have had notifications on, and not all will be deemed worth of a notification by FBs mysterious algorithms, but a substantial number of them will have. The news got out at speed (due in no small part to those notifications), plus an official statement was made on Gallo will have been aware, and confident, that her apology would reach everyone concerned. No burying involved.

                    Amanda, I’m sorry you felt it necessary to take time away from your family to respond straight away; I certainly didn’t expect you to. I have been quite content to have a discussion with Dave Freer with 48hr gaps between replies, and wouldn’t be impatient with you either. I have email notifications on; if you wish to reply in the coming days, I will spot it.

                    Cedar, given the unfortunate habit people in this argument have of coining unpleasant terms for each other (CHORFS, Puppy-kickers), I think that “puppysphere” was a hastily selected term on my part, despite it being intended as neutral (cf blogosphere).

                    1. If I get my timezones right, the link was posted here only 2-3 hours after it was posted on FB.

                    2. They will not all have had notifications on, and not all will be deemed worth of a notification by FBs mysterious algorithms</blockquote.

                      Then you cannot rely on notifications to bring the half-ass-non-apology to light, now can you?

                      Cedar, given the unfortunate habit people in this argument have of coining unpleasant terms for each other

                      How about using existing terms like “neo-Nazi”, “racist”, “misogynist”, “homophobic” and the like, which the other side not just uses but revels in?

                    3. So, have you gone over to that thread and explained to her that that weasel-worded “apology” is insufficient, and that she should issue a full retraction, not just “I painted with too broad a brush, and got some people I didn’t intend to”?

                      She called people a LIST of hateful, destructive, and untrue names, and needs to FULLY retract the entire statement, not just say she’s sorry that some of her own got hurt feelings.

                3. Interesting. I posted a couple times on that thread and have yet to receive a single notification. I was only able to keep up on the thread by going through links back to it or scrolling through a month’s worth of Gallo’s advertising for her employer.

                4. FB has these things called “notifications” for those who have posted on something.

                  Not true. Well, they claim to have “notifications” but I have certainly “noticed”, particularly in longer threads, that a lot of comments will be made with nary a notification in my inbox.

                5. When i was a kid, if i gave an apology like that, I’d get sent back to the corner for my fake apology, at the very least.

    2. Since the comments were in line with others from the same company showing disdain and often outright abuse towards customers, trending over a time of years, her apology will not talk me out of my personal boycott.

  29. So, fundamentally, you demand an apology and get one but you’re still not satisfied. Got it.

    1. I assume you mean this “apology”:

      About my Sad/Rabid Puppies comments: They were solely mine. This is my personal page; I do not speak on behalf of Tor Books or I realize I painted too broad a brush and hurt some individuals, some of whom are published by Tor Books and some of whom are Hugo Award winners. I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments.

      I don’t see any apology for what she said, only one if she hurt feelings. Nor do I see a retraction of her comments about the quality — or lack thereof — of the nominees, including Tor authors. As for it being her personal opinion and not associated with Tor, well, when it is in a thread about something coming from her employer, it does reflect back on Tor. Many employers would have already terminated her for such comments. She is lucky Tor has not done so.

      1. Amanda, you don’t see the penultimate sentence as apologetic? She is clearly withdrawing the inaccurate parts of what she said, and then apologising for them.

        Incidentally, I note that you have yet to withdraw the inaccurate parts of what this article said about her statement.

        1. Mark, to begin with, I only posted the article. I did not write it — something you would notice if you actually paid attention to what was written. And no, I don’t see her “penultimate sentence” as apologetic for anything except maybe hurting feelings. She has not apologized for the blatantly false comments nor has she apologized for condemning all works supported by SP3, including those published by her employer, are little more than trash.

          1. I wonder if this “Mark” was one of the individuals spreading hatred in “defense” of Gallo over on

            Apparently, it’s all the fault of the evil Vox Day that Tom Doherty “threw Gallo under the Bus”.

            Oh apparently I’m a troll (for my comment in defense of Sad Puppies). [Trollish Grin]

            1. Paul, I don’t know. I have refused to go there this morning other than to get the link for my MGC post. Shrug.

          2. Amanda, at what point did I give you the impression I thought you wrote the article? I’ve had quite a few opportunities in my posts to call it your article or to refer to you as the author, but I haven’t. Instead I’ve carefully said “the article” “this article” “the author” while speaking directly to you. I’m afraid that the swift but inaccurate attack on reading comprehension is far too prevalent a tactic here on MGC.
            Apropos of that, I referred to the penultimate sentence, the one that reads “I realize I painted too broad a brush and hurt some individuals, some of whom are published by Tor Books and some of whom are Hugo Award winners.” You then based your reply on the final sentence, which contains an apology for hurt feelings.
            Gallo has withdrawn the broad brush comment that labeled the whole of SP as right-wing, and as racist, misogynist, and homophobic, and apologised for doing so. She quite rightly hasn’t withdrawn the whole of the comment. Why should she apologise to Vox Day for calling him racist? He is. Why should she apologise to John C Wright for calling him a homophobe? He is.

            1. Mark, I have better things to do than to keep verbally sparring with you. When you expect me to “correct” an article, sorry, but that infers you think I wrote it. I didn’t and I will not edit someone else’s words unless and until they hire me as an editor. For the rest of it, I stand by my belief that it was a non-apology. Don’t like it, too bad.

              1. Your inference is incorrect. I simply think you posted a guest article, on a site that you have joint-control over, and therefore have some responsibility for the accuracy or otherwise of the statements in it. I have no doubt you have an “edit” button available to you right now, and could click it.

                Perhaps more importantly, I notice that you use exactly the same quote on your own blog, elided in exactly the same misleading way. Do you take responsibility for editing your own words, at least?

                For the rest of it, I stand by my belief that it was a non-apology. Don’t like it, too bad.

                You got an apology. Don’t like it, too bad.

                1. Oh, look. I have the ability to edit Mark’s comments. What shall I make him say? NO? Mark, you don’t want your words edited without permission, you say? Then don’t ask us to do that to our guest posters.

                  Good Heavens, what has become of ethics and morals in this world today?

                  1. Cedar, you have the power to edit comments, and if you do so in line with a stated moderation policy I would consider it perfectly ethical to do so. Sites that I’ve seen operate such a policy make it clear when they do that moderation has occurred, and don’t simply misrepresent their commentators.
                    Equally, you have the power to edit articles, and it would be ethical to do so in line with an editorial stance provided you make it clear where such editing has taken place.
                    An ethical editorial stance would also have concerns for an article which uses a misleadingly edited quote as its main evidence, and would consider a correction with editorial note as appropriate. You’ve had well over 24hrs to give the guest poster a right of reply on any proposed changes.
                    Where is veracity among the ethics and morals of this world today?

                    1. Cedar, then what do you not find repugnant about misrepresenting someones quote? The edit elided the crucial use of the word “respectively”, and then used the misleading quote to claim SP had been called Neo-Nazis. You hadn’t been, yet you whipped up a whole storm of outrage centering on the claim that you had been.
                      This is an issue that’s been discussed on F770 as well: when dealing with someone saying things you disagree with, why not focus on the things they’ve actually said, rather than stretching for non-existent yet more outrage-producing meanings?

                    2. Since I can’t reply to the last comment: Excuse me? You’re going to bring File 770 into this? He cherrypicks quotes to make his point and this is just what you accused us of. Go back and try again. The word respectively there is clearly referring to ‘two groups, known as Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies.’ Also, enough with the weasel-wording. She said something silly, in public, in a place where she primarily promotes her employer. She needed to apologize for that. She doesn’t need people running around trying to use her grammatical construction to try and excuse her. It is my hope that she has learned a sharp lesson about business and professionalism.

                    3. Cedar, I think I’ll round up the issues in this last reply and leave it at that for now.
                      I brought F770 into it in an entirely different context, dragging it into a defence of this site’s misleading quotes is a red herring. If you dislike the quoting on F770, feel free to comment, I’m sure Mike Glyer will give you a fair hearing.
                      Your construction of the sentence is incorrect, quite simply because the use of “respectively” would be redundant in that case. The word was used, it must have some meaning, as an author perhaps you should agree to use the one from the rules of English grammar?
                      You are weasel-wording and red-herring-ing around the fact that the your site hosted a dishonestly-edited quote that you then used to whip up outrage about being called something that you weren’t. The thing is, I don’t see why – there’s plenty in what Gallo said for you to chew on, why feel the need to go for the Neo-Nazi thing on top? Leave that to Beale.
                      She needed to apologize for that? She has.
                      You needed to attack her on honest grounds. You haven’t.

                2. Mark,
                  You’re an idiot and an asshole.
                  Don’t like it? Too bad.

                  It was not an apology. It was a weasel. IF/THEN. She basically said too bad if my comments hurt your feelings. She did not retract them.
                  And that is obvious both in word choice as well as sentence structure.
                  If you can’t see it, it’s because you are an idiot; if you won’t see it, it’s because you are an asshole

                    1. Sorry Amanda. Mark, If what I said hurt your feelings, I’m sorry I outed you.
                      There – same sort of apology!

                  1. Well, it’s nice to see the standards of discourse aren’t plummeting to the floor or anything.

                3. An apology would be “What I said was out of line and I regret that I said it.”

                  What we got was: “I’m sorry your feelings were hurt.”

                  The “too broad a brush”? Well, she couldn’t exactly stick to the claim that two authors published by Tor were “bad to reprehensible” now could she?

                  It wasn’t an apology. It was a mealy mouthed bit of passive aggressiveness worded to sort of kind of look like an apology if you tilted your head and squinted.

                  1. Anyone who has watched the 6o’clock news has seen this form of an “apology” from any gaffe prone politician. I think we can infer from her non-apology that she accidentally said what she actually believes. She probably thought it was safe to say it because it was on her personal Facebook page. Most of us would never have seen it had not another Sad Puppy (not Vox Day, it was circulating a couple hours before he chimed in) pointed it out.

                4. “I’m sorry for hurting your feelings” =/= “I should not have said what I said”

                  This is probably all we’ll get from her but it is not an apology. Saying it is is a bit incredulous and leads me to believe the defender either lacks reading comprehension or is trying to defend something indefensible.

                  1. James reading comprehension works best when applied to what was actually written, rather than your misquote above.

        2. Gallo’s “apology” is apologetic in the sense of me punching you in the face and then saying I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy being punched in the face.

          1. Old comedy routine:

            Comic to zaftig woman: “You’re fat.”
            Somebody “white knighting”: “That’s a horrible thing to say. Apologize at once.”
            Comic, again to zaftig woman: “Lady, I’m sorry that you’re fat.”

        3. Since we’re playing the game of close reading here…

          I realize I painted too broad a brush and hurt some individuals, some of whom are published by Tor Books and some of whom are Hugo Award winners.

          By focusing on grammar rather then intent, it seems she only acknowledged hurt to two groups of people: those who are published by Tor Books, and those who are Hugo Award winners. I assume that all those who assure us she didn’t call all of us Nazis (merely “unrepentantly racist, misogynist and homophobic”) will be calling on her to apologize to those she left out of her first attempt.

        4. I’ll quote part of my reply to another part of the thread above:

          She called people a LIST of hateful, destructive, and untrue names, and needs to FULLY retract the entire statement, not just say she’s sorry that some of her own got hurt feelings.

    1. Perhaps, that’s Mr. Doherty’s “opening shot” at the idiots of Tor Books.

  30. Which leaves me to wonder, is Tom Doherty still running Tor or did Tor undergo a process not that dissimilar to the government mentioned in Equilibrium?

    Thanks. I now have the “not without incident” scene running through my head.

  31. Mark, when you can prove I incorrectly used a quote, show me how. Irene’s sentence was intententionally parsed so as to provide the maximum smeer possible. If she wants to play such games, fine, we can play.

    I used ellipses in that sentence because I felt that “respectively” onward, was an aside; further the use of “and” to link the two (very opposite) political platforms to both at once. In light of the fact that I’m a mix breed hapaa Haole, there’s no way in hell any skinhead neo-nazi goose-stepping, Heil-Hitler saluting collection of crackpots would want anything to do with me- aside from kill me that is.

    I can understand disliking us, for purely political reasons- I don’t agree with Eric Flint’s politics. I also don’t agree with many libertarians. Whoop dee do. I don’t call them the second coming of Mao or the Great Satan. This is America, you can have whatever opinion you want. My brothers and I ensure daily that you get that privilege unabated.

    What I will not tolerate isn’t just the hater spewing from this woman, but her lack of professionalism. I know boot marine privates and PFCs who understand this concept better. Since the day I got picked up by Baen for a nonfiction essay entitled “Blooded by Starlight”, and then further picked up by JK Publishing, I have striven to be as professionally polite as possible in my social media, so that I don’t destroy my good reputation with them. I’m working (when I have the free time) on a Sci Fi novel for submission to Baen. If I cuss out Mike Williamson every time he and I disagree about LEO policing procedures in America, if I act uncouth and in a manner which suggest I would not be a welcome addition to the company I’m not going to get published by them. And I really want to get published by Baen by next year, or at least have my name on the schedule.

    Shoddy, unprofessional behavior is not acceptable at the level where Irene is working. She deserves to be held accountable, as a consequence of her actions, both by fans and writers and her employer. I intend to do help bring that about.

    1. “Shoddy, unprofessional behavior is not acceptable at the level where Irene is working.”

      Exactly. I also have the usual writer blog and facebook page, plus a company page for the Tiny Publishing Bidness. I keep my political beliefs away from them.

    2. Jon, I have demonstrated my point beyond the realms of everyone’s patience already. You do not accept that you deliberately misrepresented her words in order to add the final gloss of outrage to your post? Very well, I shall argue no more.

      Incidentally, I don’t dislike you “for purely political reasons”. I disagree with those people who walked up to the Hugos, subverted the democratic process they depend on, and looked around all innocently saying “they started it!”

      If you wish to demand, and urge others to do the same, the job of a woman who made a comment on facebook and then apologised for it, and to make those demands under the colour of a quote that Vox Day released at the time he thought it would be funniest, then my disagreement with you is the least of your concerns. If there’s one man in this whole affair that deserves to be called a Neo-Nazi it is Vox, and you are doing his dirty work while he chuckles at the chaos he’s caused.

      1. ” If there’s one man in this whole affair that deserves to be called a Neo-Nazi it is Vox, and you are doing his dirty work while he chuckles at the chaos he’s caused.”



      2. You call that deliberate misrepresentation?

        Whomever taught you the English language has failed you. Your parents have failed you. Your teachers have failed you. It’s not your fault you can’t comprehend written English to save your life. Nope. It’s your parents. Somebody hand them a blade, that they may expiate the shame of their actions by releasing such an illiterate and mentally incompetent child upon the world, with no thought to what he might say or do!

        The hit piece EW wrote? That’s deliberate misrepresentation. What Rolling Stone did to UVA, and to a particular fraternity? That’s deliberate misrepresentation. That evil, lying wench of a woman who carried a mattress around and destroyed a man’s reputation with her false rape allegations? That’s deliberate misrepresentation.

        This was me condensing a quote, in a proper manner and style, for the sake of brevity. Even if we insert it into the article, it doesn’t change one iota of the truth- you can’t prove a single allegation. Not one.

      3. Jon, I have demonstrated my point beyond the realms of everyone’s patience already.

        You have asserted it. Assertion is not demonstration. And given that pretty much everyone, including her “supporters” went with Jonathan’s understanding until Ms. Gallo got called on it by Tom Doherty and that many of her supporters are still using that meaning to continue to assert that what she said was true your assertion is, well, rather lacking in basis in reality.

      4. Mark, you might find the rest of us more open to what you said if we hadn’t been the targets of such “selective” quoting before. Check out what Moshe Feder, Patrick Nelson-Hayden and Theresa Nelson-Hayden have done when they have cherry-picked and used out of context quotes by the likes of Larry Correia, Brad Torgersen, etc. Put yourself in our place when you have people, authors and editors included, who call you misogynist, homophobic, racist and more.

        Nothing that has been said here about Ms. Gallo, at least not by myself or Cedar or Jonathan, has been false. At least not that I am aware of. You don’t like the use of elipses, sorry. It is commonly done in journalism, literary criticism, and much more. You don’t like how we parse the sentence? Again, too bad. Since there are numerous folks who have already commented about how the sentence appeared to them, I won’t go into it any further except to tell you that if you were to line each of them up, you would find it to be a very diverse group.

        As for your comment about Vox, well golly, you just basically said we are too foolish, too stupid or too gullible to know what we like and what we stand for. Sorry, but you have just fallen down the well of group-think. There is very little out there that Vox and i agree on. I have not taken a stand where Ms. Gallo is concerned because of anything Vox has or might have said. I did it because it was not only a vile attack but because it was also a lie. Worse, she made the comment on a thread where she was promoting work done by her employer, thereby bringing Tor into it.

        You want us to treat Ms. Gallo “fairly”, fine. But are you making the same demands of those over on File770 who attack without proof? Or how about any of the other sites, including Facebook?

        I get so tired of folks coming in and demanding “fair” treatment but refusing to give it in return. Yes, that is a broad stroke statement and I recognize it. But in the time since the Hugo nominations were announced, I have been attacked simply because my work was nominated by SP3 supporters. I didn’t even know Rabid Puppies had nominated me as well. But, because they did, I became evil. I have seen friends and people I respect attacked. I have even seen folks suggesting that Brad arranged to be deployed simply so he wouldn’t have to go to WorldCon. Give me a freaking break.

        All of this is a long way of saying, you don’t have to like our opinions but, if you want us to show you (again, the general you here) respect, you have to respect us in turn. That is something I have seen little evidence of from those attacking SP3.

        1. Amanda, do you recall what the first thing you said to me when I commented on this article was? It was “go away”. I came over the MGC because Dave Freer said it was the only place he’d talk. I saw this article, I entered the comments, I got told to go away.

          I’m a professional, not a writer or author, but I work in an industry where I deal with people not just once but several times each year, and so have to maintain a reasonable standard of discourse. Also, people have to maintain reasonable standards of discourse towards me. If they’re unnecessarily rude, or aggressive, or demeaning, I can and will tell them that I don’t tolerate abuse and cease dealing with them. I don’t do that because I’m actually insulted, or upset, or angry; I do it because there are standards.

          I’m not going to pretend I used my usual professional standards of discourse here; I was not at work, and I did not. I saw something in the article I felt sure was unfair and unwarranted, and I called for a correction. None of you liked me for it, and said so; that’s fine, I had some fine exchanges of opinion with people, in which I expressed my opinion openly and robustly, and so did they. However, there are lines not to be crossed even in the more casual discussions to be had on these blogs. No need for profanity; no sweeping insults; attack the argument, not the person; don’t make threats or wish someone ill.

          It’s your parents. Somebody hand them a blade, that they may expiate the shame of their actions

          From your Guest Author, Jon.

          I’m not heading off to bed in the belief that Jon actually intends harm to come to me or mine, but it is very clear that his standard of discourse allows for wishing harm upon people. Mine does not. I do not suggest people should be killed, or kill themselves, or wonder if they will meet an unfortunate accident. Were I to encounter that comment, face to face, in a professional situation, the speaker would never be allowed to converse with myself or any colleague of mine ever again.

          I’m under no illusions that Jon’s comment is anything special by the standards of the internet; there are a great many sites and services in which that is mild stuff indeed. But I don’t go to those sites, I go to sites where a standard of discourse is maintained. I go to places to talk about SF, and books, and rpgs, and PC games, and TV, where people don’t say that sort of thing.

          I’m not afraid of that comment, I’m disgusted by it. I’m not worried by that comment, I’m horrified by the mentality it displays. I’m not hiding from that comment, I’m dismayed that a person can, however idly, put that thought into words. I’m not insulted by that comment, I’m sad that it was made, and tolerated, in a place I was talking.

          I’m out.

          1. Mark, you are the one who kept insisting that Gallo’s comment had been misconstrued, wrongly elided, etc. You wanted the owners of this blog to go in and edit someone else’s post — something we do not do. We do, on occasion, post a clarification. However, none of us have, to my knowledge, felt the need to do so here.

            And, yet again, I have asked you a question and you have moved the goal posts and changed the topic. I asked for proof earlier upthread, iirc. Lastly, I asked if you would impose the same sort of standards on those who attack the SP3 supporters as you want to impose on us. I asked if you demanded changes to posts where our comments have been taken out of context or altered. Yet, I do not see a response. We have tried to discuss this with you but all you wanted was for Jonny to change his post, or for one of us to. Sorry, but no.

            I stand by what I said earlier that the apology was not one not really, and it fell far short of the retraction it should have been. We can agree to disagree but I will not ask someone who has not done anything wrong to change a post just to suit another person’s demands.

          2. Amanda, do you recall what the first thing you said to me when I commented on this article was? It was “go away”.

            Actually, what she said was:
            Now, unless you are willing to produce the proof that all the Sad Puppies are “extreme right-wing . . .unrepentantly racist, misogynist and homophobic”, go away.

            See that “unless” in there? It was giving you a choice.

            Seriously? You have the gall to complain about other people’s parsing of what Ms. Gallo said, particularly since Jonathan’s interpretation is exactly the one that her partisans have defended, that others on “her side” including the Neilsen Hayden’s have endorsed, and then you pull this.

            I’m calling it: Concern Troll is Concerned.

              1. I think he stated with:

                ☑︎ 1. Skim until offended

                The insistent criticism of a claimed point of grammar is a constant level of attack so:
                ☑︎ 3. Attack. Attack. Attack

                And when we point out that even Gallo’s partisans use the same “interpretation” given in the OP so we’ve got.

                ☑︎ 4. Disregard inconvenient facts.

                So that gives us:

                ☑︎ 1. Skim until offended
                ☑︎ 2. Disqualify that Opinion
                ☑︎ 3. Attack. Attack. Attack
                ☑︎ 4. Disregard inconvenient facts.
                ☑︎ 5. Make S——t Up
                ☑ 7. Concern Trolling

                All we’re missing is “resort to moral equivalency” and “When all else fails, Racism!” And since he’s running interference for someone accusing us of Racism I think we can make a case for

                ☑︎ 8. “When all else fails, Racism!”

                Can anybody make a case for “☑︎ 6. Resort to moral equivalence” to make it a perfect score?

      5. … to make those demands under the colour of a quote that Vox Day released …

        Why does the identity of the fellow who brought the post to light matter more than the very fact of the slander? This is the Genetic Fallacy, also known as…

        Achievement Unlocked:
        ☑ 2. Disqualify that Opinion

      6. I always crack up when I see Vox Day’s name thrown around in regards to Sad Puppies.

        “Vox Day said something on the internet! Voxxxx Dayyyyyyyyyyyyy….” /wolf howl fades into the distance/

        Uh… so? Why do I care? I don’t know the man, don’t read the man. Don’t care who he reads. Vox’s opinions are completely irrelevant to a discussion about books. Ok, if we’re talking about a book ABOUT Vox Day’s opinions, then it would be relevant. Otherwise, it’s just the waving about of small, rosy hued fishies.

        “Incidentally, I don’t dislike you “for purely political reasons”. I disagree with those people who walked up to the Hugos, subverted the democratic process they depend on, and looked around all innocently saying “they started it!””

        This argument also cracks me up.

        You know what Sad Puppies supporters did to “subvert the democratic process”?

        They voted for their favorite books.

        That’s it.

        I know! Super evil, right!? THE HUGOS ARE RUINED FOREVER OMG.

        The funny thing is, that anti-SP folks never want to believe us when it gets boiled down to this. We’re given all sorts of reason why it can’t be true.

        * “But you had a SLATE! A group of recommendations! And people VOTED for the same people YOU RECOMMENDED!”

        * “You aren’t a REAL fan. Hugos are only for people who love WorldCon as much as WE do!”

        * “You can’t like this! It’s terrible! Author XXXXX has no talent!”

        Do you see the problems with these arguments? Do they need to be spelled out?

      7. “If there’s one man in this whole affair that deserves to be called a Neo-Nazi it is Vox, and you are doing his dirty work while he chuckles at the chaos he’s caused.”

        Ahhh Vox Day. The boogey man of those egotistical “some pigs are more equal than others” egotistical, holier than thou pinheads like the Neilsen-Haydens, Gallo and Feder. Ya’ll are the ONLY ones invoking his name. The ONLY way to concur his wrath is to call him out, or for him to go actively looking for you. Sadly…he don’t gotta look far. I’m sooooo sorry he spends all his time living in your heads. He doesn’t live in ours.
        Frankly the fact he does..I find as amusing as I find it pitiful. I’m sitting here laughing at you…all the while thinking ‘go piss up a rope, you pissant.

        Oh and “civil discourse”? THAT old boy is bad comedy. The vitriol, lies, innuendos and bullshit come from your side old boy. Me? I just respond like…a mirror. I give you back your bullshit with a little extra for good measure. BTW that lack of civil discourse on this whole shitstorm has been there on your side of the argument since the beginning. BTW…are you by chance a paid shill for the 4horsemen of the Hugo Apocalypse? Just curious. Because you’re repeating exactly the same lies and bullshit that they are.
        Why am I calling them the 4 Horsemen of the Hugo Apocalypse. Because over on the Nielsen Haydens Making light they’re planning to call for a rules change in the Hugo committee that would ensure even more control, and less transparency of the voting process. To ensure their roles as gatekeepers of the kingdom, to keep all the riff raff out. That would be the SP’s RP’s and those who’ve been and in some cases still are neutral in this. If they enact that rules change, and it stands the following year…then the Hugos will likely burn.
        Ya’lls personal boogeyman will certainly try and see to that. Considering what I’ve seen of that mans will and his relish for tweaking ya’ll noses with your own hypocrisies…he’ll probably succeed too. Speaking for myself.. I’ll bring some hot wings, pretzels and couple cases of beer in a cooler; sit on the sidelines and watch the festivities cackling with glee. Because if and when that happens…you fools will have brought it on yourselves.

        As for Gallo’s “apologies” That apology was akin to Clinton’s famous ” I did not have sexual relations with that woman”, along with other famous lies…the check is in the mail, the LZ is clear, We don’t need condoms I’ll pull out before, and I promise I won’t cum in your mouth. [did anyone read that entire thing right there in clinton’s voice?]

        1. PS. My apologies to those who just spewed all over their keyboards and monitors. I probably should have included a “SPEW WARNING” at the beginning of that. My bad….just know I’m laughing my ass off about it though. *grin*

  32. “the mix breed son of a half Cherokee half white woman and a quarter-Hawaiian quarter Tex-Mex, half central European”

    You mean, of course, an American.

Comments are closed.