Rabid Puppies: don’t forget to vote

If you are, for any reason at all, interested in perusing my 2015 Hugo ballot, which I have already cast, you are certainly welcome to review it. If you are registered with Sasquan, you can vote at the link here.

As I told the lady from the publication covering the developing story to whom I spoke last night, whatever happens, we have already won. No Award was the original objective for Rabid Puppies, and with the exception of Best Novel, that is now the worst case scenario for us. The best case scenario is that we publicly break the perceived power of the science fiction SJWs and demonstrate their impotence by denying them the ability to do what we originally sought while seeing the awards go to various meritorious works and individuals.

Which, of course, was the Sad Puppies goal. It’s more than a bit ironic that the SJWs rushed to do the Rabid Puppies’ bidding in order to teach the Sad Puppies a lesson, but then, no one ever said they were smart.

The Sad Puppies’ victory condition may be unlikely, but it is still in play. We simply don’t know how all the 5,599 supporting members are going to vote and neither does anyone else. There are nearly as many new supporting members as there were total votes last year. Loncon had 10,826 members, of whom 2,882 were supporting, and 3,587 cast Hugo votes. Consider, for example, the reaction of one neutral reader to the various nominees:

I read the Best Novel nominees (and Ancillary Justice), the Best Novella nominees, the Best Novelette nominees, the Best Short Story nominees, the Best Graphic Story nominees (and Saga vols. 1 and 2), and every story by a Campbell nominee I could get a hold of (the only works I had read before the nominations were announced were Ancillary Justice, The Lives of Tao, and Rat Queens vol. 1). The oft-maligned Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies nominees held up well against the non-Puppy nominees, with the large caveat that four of the six categories were dominated by Puppy nominees and one was dominated by non-Puppy nominees.

After reading all that, what do I think? First, I was somewhat surprised to learn that, for those six categories, the average rankings I gave the books were almost identical. My average ranking for the works not on a Puppy slate was 2.8, my average ranking for the Sad Puppy works was 3.0, and my average ranking for the Rabid Puppy works was 3.2. I wasn’t blown away by the Puppy nominees, but I wasn’t blown away by the non-Puppy nominees either. I would have more sympathy for anti-puppies if better works were being nominated.

But regardless of what happens, the fact remains that the Puppies howled and the world of science fiction will never be the same again. The cultural war in science fiction isn’t over, in fact, it has barely begun in earnest. They thought they’d won, but we hadn’t even begun to take the field.

And it’s necessary. I read The Year’s Best Science Fiction #18, edited by David Hartwell and published by Tor Books. (Never fear, I respected the boycott, and believe me, with a few exceptions, this was research, not pleasure.) I’ll post my analysis here in a few days, but I can assure you, many of the “best” stories were outright Pink SF message fiction. We have accomplished far more than anyone expected already, but a long march through the SF institutions remains ahead of us.

My hope is that Tor Books will one day follow Gawker’s lead in publicly announcing that they have learned the error of their ways, and force its SJWs to abandon their objective of thought-policing science fiction and fantasy while enforcing diversity of identity and uniformity of ideology.


It’s not a new problem

Politics took the prize a long time ago and the Puppies are a response to the politicization of science fiction. Compare and contrast the latest Hugo mewling by The Guardian with Mike Glyer’s count of conservative Hugo-winners:

The Hugo awards will be the losers if politics takes the prize

The controversy stirred up by science fiction’s ‘Sad Puppies’ means there will be no winners at this year’s Hugo awards

The latest furore to consume SF fandom will reach a conclusion on Friday, when voting for the Hugo awards – arguably one of the genre’s most prestigious accolades – closes. Spats around the awards are nothing new. The nominations are chosen by fans, and every year authors are accused of campaigning to get their names on the list. This year a gang of rightwing authors known as the “Sad Puppies” have taken campaigning to a whole new level. Calling on their fans to stack the nomination slate with candidates who share their political agenda, their main beef is that they believe too many genre awards go to lefty, ideological fiction, and not enough to more “swashbuckling” books. Authors and fans on both sides of the divide have written endless blogs about the controversy, big names including George RR Martin have weighed in against the Puppies, and the story has been picked up by the mainstream press.

It raises the question: who should nominate works for awards anyway? A select jury (a la the Man Booker or Clarke) or the fans who actually buy the books? Clearly there should be enough room – and integrity – for both. Yet this year’s Clarke award shortlist was almost universally praised, while, in contrast, the Hugo nominations were met with derision and incredulity (for example, so-called “rabid puppy” Vox Day, who has called women’s rights “a disease to be eradicated”, is up for two awards). You might say that this is democracy at work – the fans have spoken! – and that would be all well and good, but, tellingly, two authors recommended by the Sad Puppies have already pulled their work from the nominations, saying that they want their writing to be judged on merit and not on their assumed political affiliations. It goes without saying that all books, whatever their authors’ political stance, should be judged on whether they’re any good or not; but with some factions suggesting fans vote “No Award” on categories that they believe have been hijacked, and the Puppies urging their stormtroopers to stick to their guns, the whole thing has slipped into farce. And this is a great pity. The Hugos have always been a popularity contest, a showcase of SF fandoms’ favourite fiction, and skewing the lists for political point-scoring makes a mockery of them. Whether the Sad Puppies win the day or not, it’s the awards’ legacy that will suffer, along with the future work that would have benefited from their now damaged prestige. That’s what is truly sad.

19 of the 266 Hugo Awards that have been given out since 1996 have gone to political conservatives. And the legacy of the awards has already suffered, because they have been regularly given out to inferior work for at least the last 15 years. When Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Charles Stross, and John Scalzi have more Hugo nominations in far fewer years of professionally writing and editing than Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, and Arthur C. Clarke, it is patently obvious that something is seriously wrong.

Meanwhile, women have won 65.7 Hugos in the same time. And keep in mind that conservatives outnumber liberals by a factor of 1.6 in the USA, which means that conservatives are underrepresented by a factor of 11.3, versus women being underrepresented by a factor of 2.

Now, if the SJWs in SF are to be believed, this is evidence that sexism is a serious problem but
there is absolutely no evidence of left wing ideological bias. They keep
repeating this despite the fact that the anti-right wing bias in
science fiction is observably 5.6 times worse than the purported sexism
about which they so often complain.

Of course, SJWs always lie.


Hugo Recommendations 2015

This is how I am voting for the 2015 Hugo Awards. Of course, I offer this information regarding my individual ballot for no particular
reason at all, and the fact that I have done so should not be confused
in any way, shape, or form with a slate or a bloc vote, much less a
direct order by the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil to his
390 Vile Faceless Minions or anyone else.

Voting closes on July 31, so don’t procrastinate.

Best Novel

  1. The Three-Body Problem
  2. Skin Game
  3. The Goblin Emperor
  4. The Dark Between the Stars

 Best Novella

  1. “One Bright Star to Guide Them”
  2. “Big Boys Don’t Cry”
  3. “The Plural of Helen of Troy”
  4. “Pale Realms of Shade”
  5. “Flow”

Best Novelette

  1. “The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale”
  2. “Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium”
  3. “The Journeyman: In the Stone House”
  4. “Championship B’Tok”
  5. “The Day the World Turned Upside Down”

Best Short Story

  1. “Turncoat”, Steve Rzasa (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)
  2. “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds”, John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
  3. “On A Spiritual Plain”, Lou Antonelli (Sci Phi Journal #2, 11-2014)
  4. “A Single Samurai”, Steven Diamond (The Baen Big Book of Monsters, Baen Books)

Best Related Work

  1. “The Hot Equations: Thermodynamics and Military SF”
  2. Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth
  3. “Why Science is Never Settled”
  4. Letters from Gardner
  5. Wisdom from My Internet

Best Graphic Story

  1. No Award


 Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form)

  1. Guardians of the Galaxy
  2.  Captain America: The Winter Soldier
  3. Edge of Tomorrow
  4. Interstellar
  5. The Lego Movie

 Best Dramatic Presentation (Short Form)

  1. Game of Thrones: “The Mountain and the Viper”
  2. The Flash: “Pilot”
  3. Grimm: “Once We Were Gods”
  4. Orphan Black: “By Means Which Have Never Yet Been Tried”

 Best Editor, Short Form

  1. Vox Day
  2. Jennifer Broznek
  3. Bryan Thomas Schmidt
  4. Mike Resnick

Best Editor, Long Form

  1. Toni Weisskopf
  2. Anne Sowards
  3. Jim Minz
  4. Vox Day
  5. Sheila Gilbert    

Best Professional Artist

  1. Kirk DouPonce
  2. Alan Polack
  3. Julie Dillon
  4. Nick Greenwood
  5. Carter Reid

Best Semiprozine

  1. Abyss & Apex
  2. Beneath Ceaseless Skies
  3. Strange Horizons
  4. Lightspeed Magazine
  5. Andromeda Spaceways In-Flight Magazine

Best Fanzine

  1. Black Gate
  2. Tangent Online 
  3. Elitist Book Reviews
  4. Journey Planet
  5. The Revenge of Hump Day

Best Fancast

  1. The Sci Phi Show
  2. Adventures in SciFi Publishing
  3. Galactic Suburbia Podcast
  4. Dungeon Crawlers Radio
  5. Tea and Jeopardy

Best Fan Writer

  1. Jeffro Johnson
  2. Dave Freer
  3. Amanda S. Green
  4. Cedar Sanderson
  5. Laura J. Mixon

Best Fan Artist

  1. Elizabeth Leggett
  2. Spring Schoenhuth
  3. Ninni Aalto
  4. Steve Stiles

The John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer

  1. Eric S. Raymond
  2. Wesley Chu
  3. Jason Cordova
  4. Rolf Nelson

    Hugo Recommendations: Best Professional Artist

    This is how I am voting in the Best Professional Artist category. Of course, I merely
    offer this information regarding my individual ballot for no particular
    reason at all, and the fact that I have done so should not be confused
    in any way, shape, or form with a slate or a bloc vote, much less a
    direct order by the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil to his
    390 Vile Faceless Minions or anyone else.

    1. Kirk DouPonce
    2. Alan Polack
    3. Julie Dillon
    4. Nick Greenwood
    5. Carter Reid

    Best Novel
    Best Novella
    Best Short Story
    Best Fan Writer
    Best Related Work 
    Best Editor

    I’ll put up my complete ballot tomorrow. But in the meantime, perhaps this will help explain why I believe Kirk DouPonce to be one of the best cover artists in the business.


    M-Zed votes no

    2015 Hugo Nominee Mike Z. Williamson explains why he is voting NO AWARD across the board:

    I have just voted NO AWARD across the board for the Hugo awards, including the category in which I am a finalist.

    At one time, the Hugo WAS arguably the most significant award in SF, with the Nebula being the pro award with a different cachet.

    The Nebula lost any credibility when it was awarded to If You Were An Alpha Male My Love, which was not only eyerollingly bad Mary Sue, but wasn’t SF nor even an actual story. If that’s what the pros consider to be worthy of note, it indicates a dysfunction at their level.

    As for the Hugos, in the last twenty years or so, they’ve been less and less awarded for either literature or entertaining storytelling, and more and more awarded for trite fanfic.  When not, it’s been the same incestuous group awarding it within a circle of in-people, to the point where there are winners with literally 50 nominations and 30 wins.

    This is just ridiculous…. The sheer, frothing, irrational vitriol aimed at us makes it clear that content will not be considered.  We are Unclean, and many have stated they will not even look at our works.

    Sadly, there are quite a few nominees this year who genuinely deserve awards for their work and creativity, including other members of my own category.

    And perhaps someday, an award will come along that reaches the standards of credibility and accolade their works deserve.

    But at present, no such award exists.

    I am, of course, sympathetic to his position. Indeed, voting No Award across the board was my original intention, until I discovered that the SJWs in science fiction were more than willing to do the job of burning the awards to the ground for us. As I mentioned previously, why waste time burning Munich when you can trust the Germans to do it for you as you push for Berlin.

    Also, and more importantly, not voting No Award permits us to correctly gauge the full extent of the SJW influence in science fiction and see how it compares to the current strength of the Sad and Rabid Puppies. That’s my chief interest in this year’s vote, because it will inform the strategy that we pursue in the future.

    Remember, we haven’t even begun to finance “scholarships” in the way the other side has. Our 2015 numbers do not reflect the full extent of the force we can bring to bear.

    And that is why I encourage all the Sad and Rabid Puppies to refrain from following M-Zed’s noble example, but rather vote for the various works based on their perceived merits. As the end of the voting period is rapidly approaching, I will soon post a complete list of my Hugo ballot, which of course should not be confused in any way, shape, or form with a slate or a bloc
    vote, much less a direct order by the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil
    Legion of Evil to his 389 Vile Faceless Minions or anyone else.


    Hugo Recommendations: Best Editor

    This is how I am voting in the Best Editor categories. Of course, I merely
    offer this information regarding my individual ballot for no particular
    reason at all, and the fact that I have done so should not be confused
    in any way, shape, or form with a slate or a bloc vote, much less a
    direct order by the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil to his
    388 Vile Faceless Minions or anyone else.

    Best Editor, Short Form

    1. Vox Day
    2. Jennifer Broznek
    3. Bryan Thomas Schmidt
    4. Mike Resnick

    Best Editor, Long Form

    1. Toni Weisskopf
    2. Anne Sowards
    3. Jim Minz
    4. Vox Day
    5. Sheila Gilbert             

    Best Novel
    Best Novella
    Best Short Story
    Best Fan Writer
    Best Related Work 

    Meanwhile, we are informed that No Award is an act of kindness.

    Laura “Tegan” Gjovaag on July 4, 2015 at 7:13 am said:

    “No Award” is a kindness.

    This is an important point.

    While the Puppies have been pushing the narrative that “No Award” is unjust somehow, a betrayal of all that is Hugo, unwise and self-destructive, in reality it is a useful tool, a friendly warning to potential readers, and hopefully a wake-up call to unprepared authors.

    “No Award” is an act of kindness to both readers and authors.

    This is good to know. I am kind.


    Irony

    Ginger on June 29, 2015 at 8:54 am said:

    With respect to controversy, need I
    mention that people are still arguing over the Original Controversy? The
    novella that is still published as “Genesis”, in which the main
    characters are created from “earth” — clearly science fiction, come on —
    and so on; the schisms created by the warring camps has only grown
    greater with the centuries since its publication. In contrast, Gilgamesh
    was completely overlooked, probably because it was mis-labeled a saga
    and not best novel; there may also have been some anti-Ur sentiment
    floating around. And what has ever been nominated out of the Aztec, or
    Pueblo/Hopi/Zuni, or indeed, any of the native North American
    traditions? They’ve clearly been completely blocked off by a shadowy
    cabal.

    That made me laugh out loud. What has ever been nominated out of the Aztec, or
    Pueblo/Hopi/Zuni, or indeed, any of the native North American
    traditions?

    The eminent Hugo Awards historian Mike Glyer knows: “I have it on the highest authority that the answer is Vox Day.”

    And speaking of shadowy cabals, I owe my record-setting two Editor nominations to the whining machinations of one Patrick Nielsen Hayden. After he was publicly crying about how he “acquired” not one, but THREE of 2006’s best novel nominees and still didn’t win Best Professional Editor, the Worldcon voters magically created a new award he could win.

    In a post to his own weblog, Scalzi expresses regret that I personally didn’t make the “Best Professional Editor” ballot, despite the fact that I acquired three out of the five Best Novel nominees and personally shepherded two of them to publication. This is generous of John, and I wouldn’t have declined the nomination, but in fact as every book editor in our field knows, while the Best Professional Hugo is regularly awarded to high-profile magazine editors and anthologists, it only goes to book editors if we die. It’s for this reason that there’s a pending proposal to split the editorial award into “long form” and “short form” categories; whether this will be ratified by this year’s Worldcon Business Meeting is anyone’s guess. Personally, I note that David Hartwell has been a finalist for Best Professional Editor 15 times, leaving aside his 17 further nominations for the New York Review of Science Fiction, and that he’s never won a Hugo of any kind. Pretty shabby treatment for an individual who is by any measure one of the best and most influential editors in the eighty-year history of our field. Whether or not the World SF Convention decides to reform the editor award, it’s years past time one went to Hartwell. 

    And the “reform” came to pass, the Best Tor Editor award was duly created, and the awards went to: Patrick Nielsen Hayden, David Hartwell, David Hartwell, and Patrick Nielsen Hayden for the first four years before the two of them took themselves out of the running long enough to let four-time second-place finisher Lou Anders win. But two wins in four years wasn’t enough for PNH, as he threw his hat back in the ring to collect a third one in 2013.

    Clearly it’s just CRAZY to observe the existence of a Tor cabal. It’s entirely obvious that they won the Locus Award for Best Publisher for the last 27 straight years through nothing but hard work and consistently publishing bad-to-reprehensible books.


    Hugo Recommendations: Best Short Story

    This is how I am voting in the Best Short Story category. Of course, I offer this information regarding my individual ballot for no particular reason at all, and the fact that I have done so should not be confused in any way, shape, or form with a slate or a bloc vote, much less a direct order by the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil to his 386 Vile Faceless Minions or anyone else.

    1. “Turncoat”, Steve Rzasa (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)
    2. “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds”, John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
    3. “On A Spiritual Plain”, Lou Antonelli (Sci Phi Journal #2, 11-2014)
    4. “A Single Samurai”, Steven Diamond (The Baen Big Book of Monsters, Baen Books)

    Best Novel
    Best Novella
    Best Fan Writer
    Best Related Work


    I don’t care what you do

    Hugo nominee Kary English doesn’t want to give me satisfaction. But she does want a pony:

    I also wish people like Brad, Larry and other SP notables would come out and say “Hey, this* isn’t what we intended or what we hoped would happen. We’re sorry the whole thing has become such a mess.” (*where “this” means locking up the ballot and shutting out other works.

    Or, you know, maybe they’re not sorry. I’m certainly not. I doubt anyone in the Evil Legion of Evil is. One benefit of being ELoE is never having to say you’re sorry.

    I don’t consider myself a spokesperson for the SP, or even an SP notable, but I’ll say it. I never got involved in this with any idea that I’d even make the ballot, much less that VD would run his own campaign or that there would be a ballot sweep. If I’d known that, I wouldn’t have participated. To the extent that I’ve been part of that, even unknowingly, I apologize.

    Translation: “Please don’t try to kill my career, it’s not MY fault!” Of course, the truth is that all four Puppy campaigns were a convoluted plot concocted by Kary English to get herself a Hugo while leaving Brad, Larry, and I to take the blame for everything. We were naught but puppets in her insidious scheme. I have also heard that she is responsible for Benghazi and the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, as well as the upcoming Greek referendum.

    It seems I can’t say anything remotely in that vein without someone saying that if I truly thought that, I would withdraw. I’ve already given my reasons for not withdrawing, but I’ll mention again that a large part of it is not giving Vox Day the satisfaction.

    I think it’s interesting that she thinks I have given her any thought whatsoever. Kary, my dear, I don’t give a quantum of a damn what you do. Withdraw, don’t withdraw, retire to a nunnery, it makes absolutely no difference to me.

    All that stuff about nominating liberals just to watch them self-flagellate and see how fast they withdraw? I’m not his marionette, and I won’t dance to his tune. He set us up to be targets, just like he set up Irene Gallo. I’m not giving in to Vox Day.

    And yet, here she is frantically dancing without me even bothering to so much as whistle. As for Irene Gallo, I’m afraid Ms English grants me infernal powers that are, as yet, sadly not at my disposal. Ms Gallo set herself up for dismissal without my help; no one asked her to attack Tor’s customers, Tor’s authors, or Tor’s products. No one asked her to violate the Macmillan Code of Conduct.

    As several of the VFM have pointed out, the SJWs have it all backwards. They have to think that I am somehow duping thousands of idiots and fools into openly opposing them because the alternative is to accept how massively unpopular they are and how dismally their decades-long campaign to tell people what science fiction they may and may not read has failed.

    What should frighten them is not the idea that Brad and Larry are the moderates in this regard. What should frighten them is the fact that I AM THE REASONABLE ONE here. Because the Evil Legion of Evil, the Dread Ilk, the Ilk, the Rabid Puppies, and above all, the Vile Faceless Minions, are not here to negotiate.


    An interesting admission and EPH analysis

    I have to admit, I’m a little surprised that the SJWs have been willing to be this blatant about their push to completely change the Hugo rules:

    Andrew Hickey on June 24, 2015 at 5:51 am said:
    [T]he point of the rules change isn’t to force “Day” to nominate a quota of Tor novels, or to affect people’s nominations in any way. It’s only meant to stop him having disproportionate power.

    Oh, is that all? They were fine with Tor wielding disproportionate power with its little 40-bloc vote, and reasonably so because prior to Scalzi and his greedy “award pimpage”, Tor was always circumspect about quite literally letting other people win from time to time, but it’s when the Puppies show up with seven times that number, suddenly change is needed.

    If I simply wanted to win a Hugo, I would have done what Jim Hines and Kameron Hurley did and picked off one or two of the easier ones like Fan Writer or Related Work by following the Scalzi model. Contra the constant SJW denials, people have been utilizing tightly focused bloc votes for decades, it’s just been hidden by the Worldcon counters. Note the Rosenberg votes in the 1984 example. I know of at least 12 other cases of focused bloc votes, in several cases directly from the Hugo nominee’s mouth who orchestrated the vote.

    It’s not irrelevant to note that Joel Rosenberg had 19 bullet votes at
    this stage (a few of whom had voted for other less popular candidates as
    well), and that these included ten voters with consecutive membership
    numbers who cast nominating votes identically for him in this category
    and for a novel called The Sleeping Dragon and a short story called “The Emigrant”. You’ll never guess who those works were by.

    Instead, I made about the biggest splash possible. Naturally, they conclude that this must mean that I want ALL THE HUGOS even though I didn’t nominate myself in numerous categories for which I was eligible. You would think that at some point, in the midst of all the angst and hysteria, they would stop and think for two seconds about what I meant by my statement that I will not destroy the Hugos, I will make them do it. Anyhow, we know better than to expect reason, coherence, or even the simple truth from SJWs

    JJ on June 24, 2015 at 6:22 am said:
    Well, the Gallo thing has pretty much run its course now, and the “boycott” of Tor has turned out to be an utter dud, and all the commenters here at File770 are talking more and more about books and paying less and less attention to the Puppies.

    What is amusing is that this comment was immediately preceded by:

    • 28 comments about me and the Puppies
    • 5 comments about books

    SJWs always lie.

    One of the more amusing aspects of File 770 is the way that the commenters there are both a) absolutely obsessed with me and b) hell-bent on denying that I am of any import whatsoever. So they repeatedly claim that they just want to talk about books while mostly talking about the Puppies; in the meantime, nary a link in the round-up has anything to do with anything that isn’t related to me, the Puppies, or the Torlings dutifully doing exactly what I assumed they would do from the start, which is destroy the village in the name of saving it.

    I find the EPH proposal to be very promising in this regard, as it is designed by the Torlings at Making Light to permit Tor Books to avoid being shut out in the future and ensure it at least one nomination per category every year. Of course, it will hand the Puppies the same fixed claim on the Hugos, which will gradually turn the award into a five-faction competition, perhaps four if we continue to build our numbers to the point where we can reliably lay claim to two nominations per category. It’s a very parliamentarian proposal.

    It means that DAW and some of the other smaller publishers had better decide quickly whether they are better off fighting amongst themselves for the 2-3 open slots or fight the proposal, because if EPH passes, some of them will never see another Hugo nomination after 2017… unless the TORlings are willing to give up one of their own seats on what will effectively be the Hugo Security Council.

    It’s telling that the Torlings would rather hand us the equivalent of a permanent nomination slot than compete directly with us. It demonstrates that for all of the bluster and splashing about of the small fry, the bigger fish in the little SF pond realize that the Puppies are a serious force with which they must expect to reckon indefinitely.

    I am neither endorsing nor opposing EPH or any other rules changes this year. The reason is that when those rules changes implode the awards as I anticipate, I want all responsibility for the changes to be credited to those who proposed and voted for them.