You call THAT a ‘war’?

I spent part of yesterday helping a friend who has problems with the hydraulic clutch on their ute. My conclusion is that I’ll have to go online and buy a new slave cylinder for him. The seal is shot.

Why am I telling you this fascinating piece of trivia that you did not need to know? Well, because I thought it a great way of showing you how selective quoting – Mike 50 Hugo Noms Glyer’s favorite modus operandi — works. You see Mike says we hate him because he always quotes exactly what we say. So I thought I’d save him time, because I’m kind like that. Mike’s choice quote about any puppy or MGC post would be: “I’ll have to go online and buy a new slave” or perhaps with the ‘funny’ caption ‘Puppies kill baby seals’ “The seal is shot”

Puppy-kickers, on the other hand, would get: “I spent part of yesterday helping a friend who has problems”.

It’s a particularly obnoxious and dishonest way of misrepresenting people, because very few people go and read the actual piece, but the poster can protest his innocence loudly. So, please, if you happen to read anything on that site, do follow the link and read the entire thing. Oh, and be aware of his other little tool – selective omission. Bad points and posts from one side get chosen, good ones… mysteriously never, and of course, vice versa. I know there is this curious belief that all puppies supposed to be stupid mouth-breathing rednecks, easy to put one over. The evidence doesn’t actually support this, but then puppy kicking is a faith-based religion, so evidence is something they ignore. And we’re taking bets on the likelihood of Mike Glyer actually posting this verbatim so he can wring his hands as a poor little victim.

I suppose it would be distinctly odd if I didn’t mention the Hugo Awards

Firstly, thank you to people who voted for me. I’m flattered and that was very generous of you. There were many more of than I remotely expected. Thanks good folk. I’m sorry my nominated receiver never got to give my speech, even if I knew it was most implausible. So here it is anyway, because I think it should be said, and I think it will chafe the Puppy-Kickers undercarriage – which, after their behavior I think is also deserved.

My provided ‘speech’ was Bilbo Baggins Birthday speech (‘Thank you very much’). But on the basis of seeing the News I sent him a message as he was sitting listening to the puppy-kicking before the Hugos, asking him to deliver this message for me on the off chance he got up on stage.

“As a foreigner, I’d like use this moment to express thanks and respect to the US for producing men of the caliber of Spencer Stone, Alek Skarlatos and Anthony Sadler. Us foreign folk owe a debt of gratitude and our freedom to that, and it is too seldom said.”

And I mean that. It matters a lot more than Hugo Awards ever have or ever will. We forget. That shouldn’t happen.

Secondly, we’re being told that the war is now over and the Puppies defeated.

I have to wonder how many of Puppy-kickers know what ‘war’ actually means in terms of what happens and what you see in war. I’d guess not many. That’s our side.

And what it takes to make it ‘over’.

What you saw, Sad Puppy one, was a solitary scouting mission from huge and largely disinterested group, with a distant connection with the Hugo-land. Sort of like a third generation American (of Irish extraction) country singer, going into an Irish themed pub in Liverpool. It was once grand pub, popular with Irish dock-workers, and the singing and the beer were remarkably good. He’d heard his grandmother talk of it, five hundred people, laughing and drinking and singing, so full the walls themselves were bulging.

Only now the bar had a hundred people, mostly come from London, drinking Chardonnay and there was a bloody string quartet playing to a faint patter of applause. They play in a pub in Liverpool because they can’t get into an auditorium in London. But they desperately want to be taken as ‘serious musicians’, so they imitate people who think them beneath contempt, who regard them as untouchables… in a place that calls for and was popular for something else, entirely.

So our Puppy singer stood up in a break and started singing ‘Danny Boy’. He has fine voice and is popular at home, singing to thousands, his concerts sold out, but the local musos and their friends were peeved with his common music, his accent and the fact he was a foreigner, and set on him in a mob of a hundred to one and tossed him out.

Had they listened to his song, clapped politely, he’d come back to say it was great over there, there’d have been a few more Americans in the pub in Liverpool, buying beer and staying in the hotels and B&B’s. Maybe even learning to like string quartets. Instead – Sad Puppies two — he came back angry… and took four of his friends along for the next trip. They tried singing again, and this time the locals did their best to beat them up. A few punches were exchanged, but at twenty to one, there was not a lot they could do. The Londoners tried, but they were a pretty weedy bunch. They celebrated getting rid of him. Forever.

Sad Puppies three – joined by Rabid Puppies, was more like an expeditionary force. There were twenty five of them. And a feller who played the squeeze-box which counted for three, if not five. They actually got to sing. And some of the pub goers started singing along. Well, the London musos couldn’t have that! It was _WAR_. So the String Quartet and friends went back to London and got very man, woman, grandmother and poodle they could find to support them, every last one possible… and they managed to break their own stage and the sound gear, and turf those ‘foreign’ musos out, with many a rude word and sneaky blow when the Americans backs were turned.

And there was no music, but the pub – which charges an entry fee, made lots more money than it had for a long while.

And London Musos cheered “It was war, and we won. It’s over. Those stupid yanks. We tossed them out!”

Now America is far away, and not that many people cared about the Liverpool pub granny talked about. It was hard to get them to bother with a long, expensive trip where, besides one good rendition of Danny Boy, all you could expect for entertainment was a third rate string quartet. But they really, really, didn’t like the insults and attacks on their friends.

And that in a way is the story of WorldCon, and the Hugo Awards. Sad Puppies three was expeditionary force. A hard probe. It was still possible to have turned it into something that benefited all parties in the long term. But the ‘in crowd’ – who no more own the genre than the London string quartet own the Liverpool pub – got their biggest, loudest, most influential people – George Martin, John Scazli, Jim Hines, Charles Stross (representing the very racially diverse women’s voices of modern Science Fiction) and all their friends frantically defending the Hugo Awards from these interlopers. Because it MATTERS to them. They care. It’s the only place they get to play, to be on stage. It had to be defended at all costs. They bought entry for their supporters. They got the Pups badmouthed in their pet media. They brought everything they could to bear on it. They became extremely shrill and unpleasant…

And they mustered a whole 3000-3500 troops. That was it. A trivial number. Less than many noobs sell of their first ever book. Less than Jim Butcher gets into an auditorium to hear him speak at DragonCon.

And that is the whole of their strength.
That is ALL they are.
3500
That’s not sf ‘fandom’. It’s not even a pimple on fandom’s ass.

But they’re being really loud and predictably unpleasant about it. And the behavior at the event itself with the puerile ‘Asterisk’ (which in case you don’t know the history, is sports code for ‘not a real score’ ) The clapping when they ‘broke the stage’ – gave a “No Award” to five categories – and the MC David Gerrold’s encouragement of this – while banning booing of the same, well, ‘Do unto others’. We will remember these things. Most of the damage you did there, you and the slate voting zombies (yes, they voted to order, without reading the work – something that the numbers show the Sad Puppies did not do. But the numbers show very clearly you did) was collateral damage. Authors and editors who had nothing to do with the Puppies you ‘punished’ and cheered with gleeful and vindictive delight as you did so. Some of them were sitting there. Yes, you would enjoy that if it happened to you. Remember it well.

Shrug. I am not offended if you don’t like my work. I really don’t care. In the sea of sf fandom (by which I mean readers), 3500 is virtually irrelevant. Yes, your 3500 will do their level best to make sure I never get published by Tor – which I wouldn’t touch with Bob Mugabe’s willy, nailed to the end of a hundred foot pole, from behind a radiation shield, in a hazmat suit. You’ll, like brave James Nicholl, not be giving me reviews. How bwave! I’m sure I shall miss those zero readers terribly. You will probably, like IIRC Jane Carnell, put up fake bad reviews. Not that that worked too well last time. You’ll –as you threatened, make me suitably unwelcome at Cons I have no interest in attending. You’ll deny me a place on the ToC of publications with… 3500 readers at absolute best. Oh, be still, my beating heart. I don’t really care about your establishment or its piddly 3500 supporters. Badmouthing by you lot is probably a sales advantage, because – as the evidence shows, you don’t have many friends. I don’t even really care that much about granny’s pub, er, the Hugos. Neither do most of us.

But I do care about some of that collateral damage. Toni Weisskopf’s been more than decent to me. To many of us. You’re gonna need more than those 3500.

Your people care. All 3500 of them.

This petty, vindictive loud and stupid behavior is, slowly, making our people care. People who couldn’t be bothered to spend the money before. Yeah, that’s one hell of a ‘victory’.

You’ve not won a war… not when you’ve burned your own villages to stop an enemy taking possession – an enemy that would happily have shared the space. That’s all you’ve done. Burned your own villages. You haven’t even won the battle. You’ve back-slapped yourselves, and yelled abuse and threats (yes, we have screenshots. We collect them.) behaved as you normally do – as an embarrassment to toddlers with diapers that need changing.

Victory in a war means your enemy is dead, or offering surrender.

In your dreams.

And if you think the sad puppies just want to come back and sing on that stage… get the good guys to win, well, I think the rabid pups are more interested in pushing that Cello right up your asterisk, and tossing your stage in the canal so it can’t be fixed.

You know, it sounds more appealing by the minute.

In the meanwhile, we’re going to write our butts off. Write hard. Write adventure, write stories people want. I’m pretty sure most of us can sell those to multiples more than 3500.

109 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

109 responses to “You call THAT a ‘war’?

  1. Indeed. They have shot their wad, so to speak, and it was a popgun, complete with cork.

    We’ll be back with Special Forces, an Armored Division, and Air Support.

  2. bkc1066

    Well said for an internet slaver who makes fun of the Irish.. and now you are a proponent of making war on these folks who only wish to preserve all that is good and true from the barbarian hordes ( or country and western singers, same thing)…. very good, carry on.

  3. Jeffrey Smith

    I wonder if they realize just how bad they also offended those of us who were just trying to enjoy SF&F not take sides. That was almost a bigger f*ck you to us then it was to you. I’m already getting ready to save the money to be able to be at Kansas City next year. And I won’t be voting for their side because let’s face it they by their own actions proved Larry Correia correct and that angers me since SF&F is for everyone.

    • “SF&F is for everyone” – couldn’t agree with you more, mate. It’s the other side that wants only their type of sf, their chosen clique. And don’t believe all the Bull about ‘inclusive’ – It doesn’t survive the sniff test. They only want people who think and act just like themselves.

    • Christopher M. Chupik

      It’s the reason Blackfive, the military blogger, is joining Sad Puppies 4.

      • Draven

        oh, frack,

      • Excellent! My advice to the 3500 – ‘soek dekking,boeta’

      • cargosquid

        REEEEeeaaally?

        How interesting!

      • giggle. Chortle. Guffaw. Oh dear lowrd. Tell me Uncle Jimbo is going to do one of his patented all-triggers all the time Press Releases, because that would be *awesome*.

        • That will be awesome entertainment! I figure we’re going to need a trainload of popcorn, poured into Mount Doom to do it justice.

          • *beep, beep, beep* Hey, can someone move that rock? Backing this semi up the slope is hard enough without all these [censored] boulders in the way.

      • julieapascal

        Blackfive has featured mil-sf authors on the front page for YEARS. Some really good interviews are probably in the archives and everyone should check them out.

        • Blackfive is one of the original early milblogs – although it is actually more of a group blog. Matt B. was the guy who started it. We were both on a panel at a milblog convention a couple of years ago – Matt B., Greyhawk of the Mudville Gazette, Baldilocks, and a handful of others. We had all started in about 2002 … and curiously enough, eight of the ten of us had all gone on to doing long-form writing.

  4. brian

    Apt enough summary. Campaign 4 about to start with the Amazon legion. Can’t wait to see what happens when certain parties try and pull the rascist- mysognist trope again.

    • Oh they will. Especially Scalzi, Hines etc. They’re feminists – they just happen to be better at it than women. I mean, look at how these women are doing what Vox Day wants.;-/

      • Angus Trim

        The way to win this in the long run is to get some younger folks interested. They watch the movies, they play the games, and they watch the better TV. Many of them know Firefly. In other words they like the action side of the genres.

        Get them reading and interested in the fandom stuff like they are the movie stuff, and its game over.

      • Reziac

        Scalzi is a weathercock. He does whatever gets him the most strokes from his fangurls. Funny sort of feminism. 😉

    • “Those extreme-right-wing white-supremacist misogynistic homophobic fascist libertarians are running another campaign? Terrible people.
      “What’s that? ‘Sexist’? We never—” ‹edits old blog post› “—never said the Sad Puppies were sexist. Or if someone did they don’t speak for all puppy-kickers. Besides, these women are full of internalized misogyny.”

    • They’ll play it anyway, adding accusations that they’re not “real” women because they don’t toe the Party Line(tm) of modern misandry feminism. Their “target” being female never stopped them in the past; just ask Sarah Palin, Margaret Thatcher (well, ok, asking her might be a bit difficult…), Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter (of whom I’m not fond, mind you, but she is an example).

      I mean, one of the comments on an ATH article accused Mrs. Hoyt of being a “token” female in SP3, ignoring that more of a percentage of the SP3 noms were female than were the usual CHORF go-tos.

  5. I humbly suggest that from now on, we mount a No Award campaign, until such time that No Award is no longer an option, or the Hugo is no more. Either one works. And if anything thinks this is petty and vindictive, thank you for taking it in the spirit in which it’s intended.

    It is one thing to lose because another nominee got more votes; quite another do undertake a smear campaign and otherwise behave like a bunch of racists when blacks show up at the polls. Had they shrugged and went about their business, I wouldn’t have cared. But they didn’t. I am not pissed because some authors and an editor I like didn’t win awards; I’m pissed by how it all went down.

    That’s why I suggest No Award. They want No Award as a vindictive option? Very well. No Award it is.

    Why No Award? Because I’d never heard of Scalzi until this mess kicked up, and David Gerrold’s best known for flat cats in tribble costumes. Let’s face it: until Sad Puppies, not many fans actually read the Hugo winners, so how can you boycott what you’re not buying in the first place?

    And remember: Tor is rot spelled backwards.

    • Ell Black

      Well, some of us went about our business — did all the reading and voted without using Noah as an option. I think the THEY were mostly offended when a category was blocked. That is not sharing or giving everyone room. Sharing is fine, especially when everyone does the reading and votes their likes. There have been many years when nothing appealed to me, but every year, it’s “do the reading and choose your likes.” It’s only fair.

    • Someone ought to raise a motion at the business meeting to eliminate No Award:
      • You object to an award category? Campaign to eliminate it.
      • You didn’t like a work? Leave it off your ballot.
      • You want to make a statement condemning a work, or its fans who put it on the ballot? Hand out some more wooden sphincters.

    • cargosquid

      We don’t have to vote No Award.

      We merely continue to nominated good writing.

      Let THEM vote No Award….again and again.

      Its a lot more fun to watch people burn their own house down.

    • As ye sow, so shall ye reap. It’s their field. They sowed the wind.

  6. Karl Weiss

    I can see four things happening.

    1. Puppies nominate Tor editors as a slate.
    2. Puppies nominate George Martin, John Scazli, Jim Hines, Charles Stross, etc.
    3. Puppies nominate some romance writers and get their fans involved.
    4. Gamer Gate gets fully involved.

    Will the non-puppies vote the puppie slate? Will the romance fans and gamers overwhelm the non-puppies?

    Next year will be interesting for the Hugos. I’m stocking up on popcorn.

    • Yaknow, nominating a 100% SJW slate just so you can Noah Ward every category would be worth its weight in popcorn. Someone with more statistical chops than me should do some number crunching on it.

    • Christopher M. Chupik

      If I wanted to be a sadist, I’d nominate Jemisin, Hurley, Scalzi, Nielsen Hayden, the whole lot of them, and then watch themselves fall over themselves to decline or face No-Awarding at the hands of their peers.

      But I’m not a sadist. I’d sooner build than tear down.

    • Martin, Scalzi, Hines, Stross etc… and their supporters you expect them to act ETHICALLY, Karl? To leave the ‘gift’ in the field because it would be a slate and the honorable thing to do, because slates (at least the public ones, not the private little log-rolls) are bad? No no. That wouldn’t be the same. Rules are for other people. Ethics and decent behavior are for the untermensch.

    • I’d love to get the Romance writers and fans involved. There are quite a few Romance authors who write sci-fi or paranormal Romance because it pays better than straight science fiction or urban fantasy.

  7. Reziac

    And they don’t see the irony or hypocrisy at all — they complain of 200 people voting a slate, then 2500 of them vote in complete lockstep.

    BTW some change in WordPress has made the comment form no longer work in some browsers.

  8. Some of us do care about the Hugos and what happens to them. What happened this weekend is quite disappointing, disenfranchising even. What I fear the most right now (though on one hand I’d actually enjoy seeing it happen simply because of the a$$fu*ckery that appeared on stage this year) is that next year, and the following years the whole thing gets torched.

    • Uncle Lar

      I think that result is now inevitable. Don’t forget, three players in this kerfuffle. Us puppies, those literary ponces, and that whack job Vox.
      What the CHORF seem to have failed to realize is that the Sad Puppies were doing their level best to mitigate the extremism displayed by the Vox Day Rabid Puppy contingent. Not now, no way, no how. After that demonstration of infantile petulance from that gaggle of middle aged “True Fen” on Saturday where their willingness to destroy their toys rather than share them was painfully obvious, all we really need do is sit back and watch while Vox tears them a new one next year.
      The 2016 Worldcon is in Kansas City. I think an appropriate theme might just be “smoking crater in the heartland.”
      Helsinki Finland won for 2017. We’ll see if there even is a Hugo by then.

      • aacid14

        I remember Larry’s quip (paraphrased) that his communication with Vox was typically him asking Vox to put the flamethrowers away.

        After this weekend, I think he is loading up for Dresden

      • Honestly, the stupidity of the CHORFs is the part that keeps tripping me up. I literally cannot get my head around being quite that dumb, and being quite that short-term in thinking. (Yes, I have just been reading Matamas saying he didn’t believe that the revenue in sf had gone down because sales were now in trade paper… Maths is plainly not his strong point, and neither is logic. Even if the decline – well documented as scary frikken huge – had only been to the point where they were still making more money – instead of laying off staff… that means LESS readers. We’re talking less books being sold. How can that be anything but disaster for the genre? Yet one jackass says it, and loads of idiots ‘like it’ – do they need instructions to breathe?)

        • BobtheRegisterredFool

          Was checking my facts while working on a slightly different matter. ’bout a month ago, seems the publisher’s had that proxy author group petition the DoJ on grounds that Amazon is a monopoly. I’m wondering if the big publishers have decided they can write off a few imprints for a time if they can use that to wreck Amazon.

          Perhaps they have decided that Sci Fi is a niche market with a lot of useful fruitcakes. Why worry about getting anything out of sci fi if the parent company has more profitable genres, and fears that Amazon will be the end of them?

          Dunno

  9. julieapascal

    About the quotes for if glyer or minions show up. Even full quotes can deliberately mislead. If the only quotes given are crabby ones on one side but reasonable sounding ones on the other when both sorts exist on both sides (I’ll cop to being crabby often enough) that’s deliberately misrepresenting the truth.

  10. //julieapascal
    August 24, 2015 at 3:02 pm

    About the quotes for if glyer or minions show up. Even full quotes can deliberately mislead.//

    That is true but linking to the actual posts so people can read what was read in full is important. Much better than what you just saw Bard Torgersen do with people’s words on his own blog.

    • Cames, I hope you haven’t been drinking Chardonnay again. That’s why I stopped bothering to dissect your attempt at deconstruction last time. Firstly, you’re wrong – putting the link is a clever deception, which usually succeeds in implying that yes, you are being sweetness, honesty and light. Few bother to check, a fact I can confirm on the basis of click-throughs. Secondly as such behavior is common in puppy-kicker circles, before you start digging in TorgersOn’s eye — let’s see the evidence for where you’ve dug in the eyes of your friends. Come now. Show us.

      • I can’t say I have ever directly encountered somebody directly replacing somebody’s comment with something utterly different other than on Brad’s blog. I am certain you wouldn’t do it or GRRM or Scalzi or Sarah Hoyt and I know John C Wright wouldn’t do it. The only case I’ve encountered is Brad Torgersen doing it. If it has happened elsewhere on a pro- or anti-puppy blog then I am happy to say that it is wrong but I can’t condemn what I haven’t seen. I’m disappointed Brad took the low road – I can see why he is upset but putting his words in my mouth is unethical on multiple levels.

        • Holly

          You are wrong. Mr. Scalzi has done so in the past: that’s the main reason I stopped reading his blog some years back. Not to people being rude, as I understand Mr. Torgersen has done, but to people who plainly and firmly disagreed with him.

          • In which case John Scalzi was wrong to do so. Delete or ban. If Brad doesn’t want my comment on his blog that is his perogative. Putting his words in my mouth is not what someone with honor would do.

            • He was infamous for it – But no use you telling _us_ he was wrong. Tell him. Good luck! But it was a common little game, Cames. Making Light, Hines etc. all thought it hilarious. Same with the ‘disemvoweling’. I had never heard of anyone on our side doing so. I have gone in and deleted part of a message – some fairly disgusting abuse directed at one of the ladies posting here, with a moderator warning in place that the poster would be banned if he ever stepped a micron over the line. I have also deleted content, left the post in place, with a moderator message that the poster had ignored the previous behavior warning about abuse and was now banned – Kevin Standlee IIRC. I left that there as a message to his fellow travelers that I try to be patient and tolerant but there are limits. That’s me, to date. I’m not Brad and I suggest you ask him why.

              • //I had never heard of anyone on our side doing so. //

                Well now you have and you can see how Brad has behaved on his own website.

              • //But no use you telling _us_ he was wrong. Tell him.//

                If you like. Give me a specific incident and if it was Scalzi doing what Brad Torgersen has done (effectively) then I’ll happily tell John Scalzi he was wrong.
                How about you?

                • Camestros, that was before we started taking screenshots and archiving them, which is now common practice because of the precise form of sealioning you’re engaging in. You’re not -unlike many of your fellow puppy-kickers — dim-witted – you know precisely what you’re doing, and so do I, and I have no need to put up with it. Do not imply I lie (or Holly lies) and require me to ‘prove’ to you, ever again. If you want to accuse anyone here of lying the burden of providing proof, specific instances lies on you. If I came to your website I would accept the same (and tried to do so). That will, however not be happening again. So: Don’t mention it in any shape, form or allusion, without first providing a screenshot of your telling John Scalzi that he should not engage in it. Don’t slither or try any Gallo squirms either. This is your one and final warning. Don’t do it again. Got me? Take up the issue with Brad on his website in person if you wish to. I will not have ‘you and him fight’. I’m not repeating that either. Final warning.

                  As you are capable of rational thought I’d like to ask you a question that is actually pertinent. Just what do you see happening with the 2016 nominations and votes, as a direct result of 2015 and with the figures we now have?

                  • Moderator – removed. We are not your advertizing department

                    • Shrug. Do whatever you please. If you want MGC/puppies/my input you will have to do it here.

                    • Your input is welcome Dave but not required. The invitation is open, naturally you can ignore it if you wish. Given your ‘warning’ in your last post, I am sure you understand that I’m not keen to write a long message that maybe misconstrued. I’m writing a longish breakdown of the voting which you and the Mad Genius readers might find interesting – or not. You know where to find it.

                  • Removed. Moderator : We are not your advertising department

                  • Camestros, if you still think that ‘it is not required’, then you haven’t worked it out. Basically, your ‘side’ needs more desperately than ever to reach an accommodation with the more moderate elements of ‘everybody else’. Your survival depends on it, let alone your relevance. On the other hand: We really don’t need you. And every year, every incident, that just gets harder to achieve. Three years ago it would have been very easy, very minor and had almost no effect on anything. Now… well I am not sure that it can be done. It’s going to be hard and ‘expensive’ for your side, and require intellect, foresight, and long term thinking and a lot sacrifices. I have come across two puppy-kickers so far who have at least begun to work this out – but most of them seem unable. Many would rather die – at this stage.

                    Think of it as a bunch of gay activists who were having trouble with Christians not being willing to conduct church marriages. So the gay activists got a whole lot of fundamentalist Muslims to move in the country, because the fundies would vote against the Christians. And so they did, and in the short term, got their way. Work out what comes next ;-/

              • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                I saw what Brad did.

                A bunch of posters made stupid comments that amounted to “Look What You Made Me Do” (IIRC camestrosfelapton was among them).

                IE they were blaming their bad actions on something that they imagined Brad has done.

                So Brad replaced their stupid comments with “Look What You Made Me Do”.

                Right or Wrong, I completely understand why Brad did it.

                • Moderator: Removed You were told to drop this subject.

                  • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                    No, he was saying that you (and your fellow SJWs) are morons.

                    But you’re not smart enough to realize that.

                  • Oh, sorry about that then Dave. I thought you were asking me not to imply that you were lying – a request Icwas happy to comply with. Naturally I replied to this comment about what I had written. If you don’t want me to discuss Brad’s behavior here then I’m happy to compile. I think I made my point at the start already. 🙂

                    • Hah! Nailed it.

                      (I’m working my way backward, playing catchup, and I was half afraid that I’d failed my spot the disingenuous wanker roll. But, no!

                      Seriously folks, if you’re going to be playing with these wanna-be apparatchiks you need to be reading – or in my case re-reading – your Elgin. E-mail me if you want more info. This yahoo is gaming you.)

                    • Thanks for the hits overgrownhobbit! The Aslan essay had a neat little spike. I assume it was thanks to you – so thanks!

  11. “in the sea of sf fandom (by which I mean readers), 3500 is virtually irrelevant”

    3500 voters is a lot of voters by Hugo standards, but compared to all the readers out there, its not much, no.

    However, the ~1000 Puppies who voted is smaller still. I am reading a “We’re the real majority” argument here, Mr. Freer. (Correct me if I am wrong). However, I don’t buy it.

    I am not certain that either side can claim that the larger sphere of fandom is Puppy or Anti-Puppy. It just is. The 16 year old anime fan? The 40 year old fan who just liked B-5? The 50 year old fan who read SF when he was a teen? They don’t care about Beale, Wright, Nielsen Hayden or any of us.

    My objection, this entire time boils down to this: The use of overt slate voting tactics to dominate a nomination ballot. I read the nominees, and judged them on quality. I also bore in mind how a nominee got there. I voted accordingly.

    And no, I am not backslapping or cheering. The fact that the Hugos, a world SF award, got pulled into a US cultural war is crap. I lament that this year’s results turned out as they did. However, would awarding things like “Wisdom from my Internets” reflect the best of SF?

    Did good people with good work like Toni Weisskopf get caught up in this? Absolutely.

    Slating hurts everyone. It hurts the people left off–and it hurts the people who are on.

    • Paul Weimer I am very glad you bothered to read and vote accordingly. Unfortunately, it appears you missed reading my feeble efforts, or failed to understand them. Your ‘side’ is very narrowly defined – by it’s actions and nominations. At best it makes up 15% of the US Demographic, and probably nearer to 7%. It is intolerant, narrow little church, where doctrinal purity is essential -and, as was amply displayed by the consistent ‘No Award’ largely made of camp-followers who voted to order. It nominates and votes for the same every-narrowing clique. It is deeply, passionately invested in the Hugos. I can without effort find 50 references this year from your clique to the puppies ruining something they value enormously. I challenge you – in the years when everyone but this narrow clique was excluded – find 10 of anybody among the excluded for many years making impassioned comments about how the clique had ruined the enjoyment of something they enjoyed enormously, that they waited eagerly all year for. The best you’ll find is a little sadness, but mostly those outside your little clique DON’T CARE. That is my point – with reason to care, huge effort… and you managed 3500 supporters. On opposite extreme – the ‘slate’ you accuse the puppies of voting to is shown in the actual nomination numbers that it was precisely what it claimed to be 1)Not a dictate, any more than the Locus ‘slate’ is a dictate. Have you punished the authors and editors Locus put on their list? Or is that different because it is one set of rules for your clique (it’s OK if we do it) – and different rules for the untermensch? Our ‘slate’ has vastly more diversity of thought and socio-political variety than any clique slate (which, as PNH helped to establish was very much a thing in the private backrooms of the clique). Your side represents a small, narrow doctrinaire tight group. The other ‘side’ – the puppy ‘side’ isn’t truly a side at all. It’s anyone outside your clique – from moderate left (and some of them are pretty far ‘moderate’) to right. We have a spectrum of religious and ethnic origins who actually disagree. Your lot have no diversity that is more than skin deep – very visible in their voting. So yes, you are wrong. Your clique is outnumbered by everyone you have excluded. At the most conservative that is 85% of the US demographic. Most of them don’t care a damn about the Hugos and sadly don’t care much about sf either. We’ve been trying to turn that around. You’ve been fighting that all the way. But prove me wrong, by all means. But don’t tell me: show me. Get your little clique to stop nominating the same people, to nominate new people of different political viewpoints. Ones not ‘tainted’ by our ‘slate’. Ones popular with the audiences who are not part of your clique. Propose them to your friends. Show us that you aren’t a narrow little clique putting a white man up for his 52nd nomination, because he’s part of your clique. I would be delighted to see the proof, and would certainly consider their work.

      Now as to the backslapping and cheering. You say you’re not part of it. Well, as we’ve been told (in fact, you do so yourself in comment about how the nominee got there) guilt by association is still guilt even if the party concerned is purely there by accident, and has not supported the pups or even mentioned Vox Day ever. They didn’t condemn us, and recuse themselves abjectly apologizing? They’re guilty. So -sauce for the goose – you have OFTEN and vocally supported many of those cheering and backslapping, never mind simply being on the same side. Let’s hear it. Denounce them or we’ll have to hold you as guilty as them. Come on, Paul. Start by a nice rousing condemnation of the vileness of Patrick Neilsen-Hayden. We have a list, a long list, for you to go on with from there. We’d be delighted to see you holding to the rules your clique think we untermensch should follow. Show us.

      “Did good people with good work like Toni Weisskopf get caught up in this? Absolutely.

      Slating hurts everyone. It hurts the people left off–and it hurts the people who are on.”

      Ah. The well-known ‘You made me hit you’ defense. Who uses that normally? Nice people, of course. Now tell me about these ‘left off’ – how did PNH know they’d been left off before the results were public. We didn’t (in fact couldn’t) tell him. But he knew. Now how did he do that without knowing who he expected to be on? Yes, slates hurt everyone. Secret ones, ones log-rolled in private for the benefit of a small clique who have done this for years in the nebs and plainly see no problem in this behavior (so long as the untermensch don’t) are far the worst for the whole genre. At least, in the open one can see and raise possible alternatives. That should open the field up, draw more people in, the way that the same people the same narrow clique cannot.

      Paul, I have read your tweets and they’re pretty obnoxious. On the the other hand I have read some of your posts and they’re less so. 140 characters is not great for expression. I expect (and I’ve written about this for years) the rise of a new National-Socialist era, as a direct result of economics (something that seems closer every day). This does not appeal to me, but I see it coming like an express-train. When/if the future take this direction freedom and tolerance in writing will get the usual pounding. Those in your clique will want, desperately, support from the center. Take my advice, please, and start showing that you tolerate difference in others as you hope they will one tolerate you. I will, as I always have, stand for your right to be heard. But it does make my work easier if some of your side haven’t been the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.

      Show us.

      • 1)Not a dictate, any more than the Locus ‘slate’ is a dictate. Have you punished the authors and editors Locus put on their list?

        I look at the Locus Recommended Reading List every year.

        It’s NOT a slate. Why? It’s a LIST, not a Slate. Its far more than 5 novels or novellas or stories. If its a slate, Dave, which of the 30 novels are supposed to be the ones I’m slating?

        There is a fundamental difference between putting 20 novels on a list and saying “These are great” and 5 novels, which tempts someone to just plug a nomination ballot with them.

        I’ve said before–if Kate were to publish something like that next year, from suggestions from the people here, I’d *welcome* that–I’d find new stuff to read. There’s nothing wrong with longlists. You can’t use a longlist to slate anything, and even more, you find stuff to read.

        A slate only pushes a nominating platform.

        As far as my tweets–if you find them obnoxious–well, I apologize. That is not my intent.

        • Jeff Duntemann

          Ok, Paul. I would like this from you: A crisp, unambiguous technical description of the difference between a “list” and a “slate” that you will stand behind, under your real name, without hesitation. That appears to be the linchpin of your objection here. Given your definition and the expressed vehemence of your objection, I will expect you to commend anyone who promotes or has promoted a list, and condemn anyone who promotes or has promoted a slate.

          Yes, I’m pinning you down. That’s what technical editors do.

      • “At least, in the open one can see and raise possible alternatives.”

        I believe the current example of this would be Three Body Problem, which Vox supposedly said he would have had on his slate if he had read it sooner.

    • Christopher M. Chupik

      Yes, Paul Weimer, slating does hurt. Especially when it’s used as a bludgeon to punish nominees for having been nominated by the “wrong” fans.

    • Paul, you are really a f**ing asshole. The Sad Puppies have said OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN that what Brad put up was a recommendation list. Yet somehow you don’t seem to be able to understand simple English. I quote from your blog: “Forget the Slating. Go ahead and have your community put up a 10-15 item list of books you like. Books that people should read, and if they like, nominate.” THAT IS WHAT WE DID. I’d ask you to show how what the Sad Puppies did is any different from your smug supercilious “recommendation”, but I’m sure it won’t ever sink in. You used the big lie and repeated it so many times that you confused people –and yourself– into believing it was true.

      Go back and read the Sad Puppy posts where the RECOMMENDATION LIST was proposed, and you will NEVER see anybody say to vote the whole list. The Sad Puppies are not the Rabid Puppies.

      “Did good people with good work like Toni Weisskopf get caught up in this? Absolutely.” Wow. How big of you. YOU and YOUR SIDE do the damage, and yet somehow you want to make it the fault of the Sad Puppy side. What incredible, immense hypocrisy. Your actions were evil. Own them.

      • sarc/ Yes, we MADE the puppy-kickers attack innocent people. It’s the wicked puppies, we FORCED them to do it. /sarc off

        I can’t tell you often we’ve heard that, and we going to hear that. I honestly don’t think they can hear themselves say it.

        • Dave.
          Slating tactics by the Puppies was responsible for the majority of the final 2015 Hugo ballot. True?

          • False, and on your part I believe it to be deliberately and maliciously false. It was a recommendation list and if you would bother to do the tiniest modicum of research you would find that it was not followed even remotely universally. If you had the least amount of analytical capacity you would be able to look at the numbers and see that. If you have the smallest fraction of rational wit about you, you would have listened to what was actually said rather than inverting it to your own pleasure. It is false. You know it, and you are deliberately perpetrating malicious and vile lies and aiding and abetting others in the perpetration of even more vile lies and you are now crowing that it is all OUR fault that you and yours have deliberately and maliciously slandered, defamed, hounded, and hectored authors. You have no courage. You have no honor. A Corageous man would not hide what he was doing. An Honorable man would not punish others for slights perceived from other parties. A Just man would judge on the merit of the work or recuse himself.

            Your claim that you only objected to slate voting is patently false as well or you would have had Patrick Neilsen-Hayden’s guts for garters years ago. You sir, have your honor in pawn, sacrificing it to maintain face and thus you have lost any right to either. You have shamed yourself and you are now trying to shame, denigrate, and destroy the genre. It is a genre you claim to love, but your actions have only been destructive. You do not destroy that which you love. You and all the no award crowd do not love Science Fiction. You do not love the Hugos. You do not love books. You loath them. You want the power they bring to you. You want the influence and the accolades and now you have so stated before the world that this is so in the clearest way possible. Do not sacrifice the last tattered scrap of what now passes for your honor by denying it. The Emperor is without clothes. Do not make of yourself a greater fool by denying it.

      • There is no need to be rude.

        As far as damage–the Puppies used slate tactics to make a nominating list almost entirely of their own creation. The electorate at large rejected that.

        • Anyone with a modicum of wit and analytical capability would see something else entirely from the numbers which are freely available at all, as well as the evidence of several people buying memberships for others. You sir, claim both wit and capability, which leaves only one conclusion as to why you do not see it.

        • No they didn’t. They made a recommendation list and people used the recommendation list as a jumping off point for making recommendations. Just like everybody on the other side takes recommendations from the people they know and read on the internet. There’s *no* difference, except you don’t like the same things that the Sad Puppies do, and you don’t treat them like “real people” like you do people on your side.

          The “electorate at large” bought the propaganda and lies that you and your distributed. Typical low information voters, and also people defending their in-group against the puppy out-group.

          There was by far more slate-voting on your side than on the Sad Puppy side. There were roughly four groups in this: Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies, Puppy Kickers, and neutrals. The slate voters? Puppy kickers and some Rabid Puppies.

          You used slate voting to protest imagined slate voting on the other side. Thereby letting everybody know that it’s not really slate voting per se that you object too, but *who* is doing the voting.

  12. Pingback: The Real Problem In SFF | The Arts Mechanical

  13. A lawyer and martial artist friend of mine says that emotion is the solace of the loser and the luxury of the winner. In battle there is no room for it. Some are lamenting the fact that emotions are so high and that the fen are so polarized. This is not the time for anger. It is the time for clear vision about the enemy, his weapons, and tactics. It is the time to get inside his OODA loop and bring about his demise or surrender. Looking at the picture of chortling CHORFs from Saturday night, I see a bunch of fat white geezers who think they won after having advanced Vox Day’s strategic goals.

    Mr. Correia and several others on our side know how to fight, and have fought well. Nobody’s going to log-roll awards for his buddies at Tor in the foreseeable future. This will give Tor trolls no “yes, buts” to hide behind when their corporate masters ask why their divisions profits are down.

    • Emotion is a tool. Anger can lend extra strength and force if properly channeled. Fear can lend to greater speed and perception. The difference is these tools must be controlled and used rather than controlling and using.

  14. Hells. I spent the weekend fixing cars and tidying up my workshop (a bigger job than it sounds, believe you me). I missed all the brassy pomp and hooraw of the Hugos.

    Well, I’d not say I “miss” it, really. I’ve a clean workshop and money in my pocket to show for it.

    On the whole mess, from what I can tell, there’s a lot of childishness going on that grown men and women ought to be ashamed of themselves over. Snooty cliquishness and clapping over “No Award” nonsense. One would think teenagers’d have more sense.

    And one last thing.

    None of this makes me enjoy any less the stuff I read this year, or will detract one iota from my enjoyment of a good story hereafter. I’ll keep awarding authors the best way I know how, for another year: with spendable awards. 2016 Hugos are a world away. There’s bound to be good stuff to read between now and then. *grin*

  15. Reality Observer

    Dave, I understood (and appreciated) every word except “ute.” I was pretty sure you weren’t doing something unspeakable to a member of a First Americans tribe that happens to live in my region.

    Expect a File 770 insinuation that you are advocating the enslavement of the poor Utes any day now.

    • 🙂 Tch. I wish I’d thought of that. I’d have found a way to help poor Mr Glyer out with making up shit even more than always does. Sorry, it’s such common usage here I forget. Ute =’utility vehicle’ = US truck.

      • Jeffrey Smith

        What’s bad is I’m American and still got the reference due to all my Aussie friends in McCaffrey fandom. I’ve been looking for TimTams here for a couple of years and finally found them at Wal*Mart of all places. Don’t know how close to the ones down under they are but they have a country of origin mark of Australia.

        Getting back on topic I plan on mentioning this on a couple of urban fantasy sites I post on. Should be interesting.

  16. airboy

    I’m a first time Hugo voter that was unaware before Sad Puppies 3 that this was a popularity contest. I did not nominate anyone. I did read all of the nominees and voted (and no awarded) what I liked and what I did not like. I did not vote in several of the fan fiction and other categories that I care nothing about. Just no votes.

    I “no awarded” the Three Body Problem because after reading 10% of the book I did not want to relive the horrors of communism for “fun.” I’ve read plenty of hard history books about communism and don’t want to hit my other reading with this sort of horror. Liked Goblin Emperor (voted it #2 behind Jim Butcher who deserves it for his body of work – but probably not for his current title).

    I did not “no award” all of the entries in any category.

    Books, books, books. Boy do I buy them. I have the money to do so, the space to store them (now easier with ebooks) and reread a lot of stuff. My problem with the Hugos is they were at one time a real measure of a quality novel. But I’ve hated all of the novel winners for the last decade or so (including this year).

    I’ve read Larry’s account and predictions of what would happen. It was pretty accurate.

    I strongly suggest that you recommend a list of whatever number of things you feel worthy and let people know about it. That was the original Sad Puppies premise and is a worthy one.

    I’m now going to take a couple of minutes and put on my Ph.D. in marketing, tons of consulting, and my Master of Science level training in statistics and econometrics on the Hugo Voting situation.

    There was a hard core 2,500 lock step votes for “no award” on anything considered to be nominated by the wrong people. It is 2,500 and not 3000. I get the 2,500 by looking at the no awards for Jim Butcher (totally uninvolved in the whole controversy), and the votes that “no awarded” Teri and Mike Resnick. That is a hard core 2,500 lock step votes.

    The “open minded” votes are roughly the people who voted in the editor categories who did not vote “no award” for all entries. These two categories are probably the best to assess the open minded voters because most of the nominees were very reasonable choices and some (especially in long form editor) were choices which were very hard for people who did not vote in lockstep to even attempt to discredit.

    You might say the 3,000 “no award” for Kary English was the hard core lock step voters – but I think the editor categories are a better choice because Teri and Mike are also longtime Con and WorldCon attendees. You have the “I know them personally from WorldCons- but will still vote in lockstep” factor with them that you don’t have for Ms. English who is a relative unknown.

    “Winning” a Hugo is probably next to meaningless in terms of sales.

    If I wanted to “win” the Hugos here is a simple means of doing so. To vote you have to pony up a minimum of $40. Use the base vote for the 2015 Hugos as a market size estimate. Have an individual or individuals pony up $120,000 (enough for 3,000 additional associate memberships) and have them all join in the last 48 hours so the hand was not tipped on the size of the voter pool. Have the 3,000 vote in lockstep for whomever you wanted to win and no award the rest. Sounds like a lot of money, but it is not. All you would need is one wealthy fan who is angry about 2015 who liked Starship Troopers and it can be done. Much less than the cost of a new Porsche or a 30 second ad on network TV.

    The total voter numbers for the Hugos are so pathetic the time and energy to game the system is minor. The voter pool is not the membership of DragonCon.

    I would not have used my math, marketing, and game theory powers to show how easily this can be gamed – but I thought that the Hugo Awards Ceremony for 2015 was just nasty beyond belief. Cheering and catcalling for public humiliation when the individuals are in attendance? Wow! That 3 Body Problem book did not make much of an impact on the SJWs did it? The only thing lacking was having Mike Resnik, Terri and others come on stage to be yelled at until they publically recanted.

    • Bibliotheca Servare

      You…are awesome. somebody please do this. I would if I had the money. Not because I give a flying you-know-what about the Hugos, but because after their display on awards night, they deserve to have their precious award become the plaything of their hated “one percent”. I would find it absolutely delicious if Donald Trump decided he was bored running for president, and instead he wanted to make the Hugos his plaything. I can see the look on Kevin Standlee and GRRM’s faces now, and it is glorious. Someone light a match already, it’s past time to burn this b**ch to the ground. They should’ve stopped when the failed to give a Hugo to Doc Smith (E.E Smith) and van Vogt. Sure, it’s nice that Heinlein won one. But why does that matter? It’s a worthless award that has almost unerringly failed to accurately represent the “greatest” sf/f since its inception. They’ve missed more greats than they’ve presented to! It [the Hugo] is corrupt, outdated, rotten, and riddled with grey-headed a**holes who refuse to grow up or acknowledge that their taste is not, actually, the most “prestigious” taste in the sf/f world. You don’t clean a plague ship. You scuttle it. Possibly with fire. I started out as a “Sad Puppy” and wanted to “save” the awards. Now? I’m not “Rabid” mostly because I decline to actively label myself as participating in a group started and named by Vox Day (which, by the by, means “Voice of Theo[dore]” NOT (as some have suggested) voice of God. Basic research about one’s enemy seems to be beyond these imbeciles) but also because I like my name better. I consider myself to have gone from “Sad Puppy” to pissed off “Hellhound”. *evil grin* It lends a whole new meaning to the term “psycho b**ch from hell” if we use it for “SP4” in my opinion. Sure, it’s an insult…but it’s *scary* too. *and* it fits the motif. ;-p
      lol.