Puppies in Their Own Words
I’ve spent several hours on this, which is ridiculous. I don’t even know why, except that I’m frustrated by all of the “I never said…” “He really said…” “No he didn’t, you’re a lying liar!” “No, you’re the lying liar!” and so on.
An infinite number of monkeys have said an infinite number of things about the Hugos this year. People on all sides have said intelligent and insightful things, and people on all sides have said asinine things. The amount of words spent on this makes the Wheel of Time saga look like flash fiction. File770 has been doing an admirable job of posting links to the ongoing conversation.
I wanted to try to sort through the noise and hone in on what Correia and Torgersen themselves have been saying. As the founder and current leader, respectively, of the Sad Puppies, it seems fair to look to them for what the puppy campaign is truly about.
Sad Puppies I: Birth of Puppies: The Sad Puppies bit started with Larry Correia. He had used the tag a few times to criticize President Obama and argue about privilege before calling on his readers to nominate him for a Hugo in early 2013.
“[D]espite providing hours of explosion filled enjoyment to their readers, most pulp novelists will never be recognized by critics, and in fact, they will be abused by the literati elite.”
“Much like Michael Vick, literary critics hate pulp novelists and make them fight in vicious underground novelist fighting arenas. I actually did pretty good, until Dan Wells made a shiv from a sharpened spoon and got me in the kidney.”
Sad Puppies 1 wasn’t about slate voting; it was simply an author promoting himself and some folks he liked for Hugos. Some bits may trigger eye-rolling; other parts were amusing to read. The whole thing was clearly framed as pulp writers/explosions/excitement vs. the snobbish literary message-loving elite.
“[I]f Monster Hunter Legion were to become a Hugo finalist, elitist literary snobs around the world would have a complete come apart that something which was unabashed pulp, had an actual plot, had characters who actually did stuff, and wasn’t heavy handed message fiction dared tread into their sacred halls.” (Source)
In the end, Correia did not get nominated, though some of his recommendations did. It’s interesting to note that even then, Correia referred to it as a “stacking campaign.”
“So the Sad Puppies Hugo stacking campaign was a success for almost everybody else I pushed, but me…” (Source)
Sad Puppies II: Revenge of Puppies: Correia returned to Sad Puppies again in 2014, with the same anti-literati message.
“[Y]ou can support awesome books winning fancy Hugo awards and drive the literati insane! … No more boring, pretentious literati-wannabe dreck! … Vote for Warbound!” (Source)
“The ugly truth is that the most prestigious award in sci-fi/fantasy is basically just a popularity contest, where the people who are popular with a tiny little group of WorldCon voters get nominated and thousands of other works are ignored. Books that tickle them are declared good and anybody who publically deviates from groupthink is bad. Over time this lame ass award process has become increasingly snooty and pretentious…” (Source)
Really, the whole thing seemed to come down to Larry thinking bad, boring, pretentious stories keep winning Hugos over good, fun, pulp stories like his, so he’s calling upon his readers to vote for him and people like him, and to make literari head explodes in the process.
This time, Larry described his picks as a slate.
“Almost the entire rest of the Sad Puppy 2 slate has been nominated.” (Source)
He also got more explicit about the political motivations.
“I said a chunk of the Hugo voters are biased toward the left, and put the author’s politics far ahead of the quality of the work. Those openly on the right are sabotaged. This was denied. So I got some right wingers on the ballot.” (Source)
Among other people on Correia’s Sad Puppy 2 slate was Vox Day, who would go on to run Rabid Puppies in 2015.
Sad Puppies III: The Apupolypse Begins: In 2015, Correia handed the torch to Brad Torgersen, who said:
“I am going to slowly compile a slate. Of books and stories (and other things, and people) for the different categories. So that hopefully deserving works and artists — who tend to be snubbed at awards season — get a chance on the final ballot.” (Source)
One of Brad’s arguments was that Worldcon didn’t represent fandom as a larger whole. He posted a Venn Diagram suggesting that most Worldcon attendees aren’t even fans. (While Worldcon is a very small percentage of fandom as a whole, to suggest that most of them aren’t fans is rather silly.)
Like Larry before him, Brad saw this in part as a political battle, but also claimed to want to get worthy authors onto the ballot regardless of political ideology.
“[T]he voting body of ‘fandom’ have tended to go in the opposite direction: niche, academic, overtly to the Left in ideology and flavor, and ultimately lacking what might best be called visceral, gut-level, swashbuckling fun … To that end, SAD PUPPIES has basic objectives: Get works and authors onto the Hugo ballot who might not otherwise be there; regardless of political persuasion.” (Source)
Evolution of the Sad Puppies III Slate: A number of folks have asked exactly how the slate was put together in 2015. Brad mentions soliciting suggestions, and said, “I’ve had a great many very good suggestions, and I am mulling the potential list now.” (Source)
The final slate was announced on his blog on February 1, noting, “If you agree with our slate below — and we suspect you might — this is YOUR chance to make sure YOUR voice is heard.”
So who made the final decision in this process? One commenter on Brad’s site noted:
“This list was generated by Brad Torgersen, Larry Correia, and a few other authors. Their fans have been suggesting various works, but, ultimately, the decision of which works to include was solely that of the participating authors.”
This was neither confirmed nor denied by Brad, who claims, “SP3 is not a same-minded collective. We’ve actually had a tremendous amount of internal debate about how to proceed.” But who the “SP3 Brain Trust” includes is never clarified. Brad mentions only Larry Correia and Vox Day in that same post.
Unlike the prior two years, Sad Puppies III presented a relatively full slate, with four or five nominees in most categories. While Torgersen suggests this list was a democratic group decision, a spreadsheet posted on Google docs suggests that most of the Sad Puppy candidates were not mentioned at all in the brainstorming blog posts, and were either suggested by other means, or else were the personal choices of Brad, Larry, and Vox. There have been many questions about this, and despite Brad’s claims of transparency, I’m not aware of Brad having answered them. (I’m happy to update this if I’m mistaken.)
Updates – Two comments from Brad:
“[A]t this stage, how the slate was assembled, doesn’t really matter. The facts of the assembly have been out there since Day 1 and if you still have a problem with that … oh well.” (Source)
“[I]f you can use the internet, you can Google (within 30 seconds) the original announcement, and the request for suggestions, see the many responses in the blog thread, etc. It was a mish-mash of comments and e-mails from various sources.” (Source – Screencapped)
The Unraveling: In the beginning of Sad Puppies III, I was hoping Torgersen would try to pull things up out of the mud. Over time, he seems to have gone in the opposite direction. By February 18, he was bashing John Scalzi for what he perceived as a slight against Baen. Then there was a shot against Nick Mamatas. He put forth CHORFS as an acronym for Cliquish, Holier-than-thou, Obnoxious, Reactionary, Fanatics. He designated Teresa Nielsen Hayden as the CHORF Queen in a rather lengthy and over-the-top rant after Nielsen Hayden (correctly) pointed out that the Hugos are representative of Worldcon, not fandom as a whole.
TNH: When I say the Hugos belong to the worldcon, I’m talking about the literal legal status of the award. But I also know that one of the biggest reasons the rocket is magic is because it spiritually belongs to all of us who love SF.
Brad: You hear that, fans? We don’t count. The Hugo is Teresa’s personal prize. Hers, and that of the other TruFen and CHORFs. (Source)
To be fair, people were absolutely talking crap about Torgersen, too. There was crap-talking on all sides. Just like you had people in Torgersen’s blog threatening to dox folks from the “anti-puppy” side, calling them “pussy,” and so on. But Torgersen is the Head Puppy this year, and this is part of how he chose to shape Sad Puppies.
He also reaffirmed his connection to Vox Day, saying, “I don’t mind being linked to Vox, because I don’t hate and fear Vox like a little schoolgirl who’s been stung by a wasp.”
Over time, Brad began talking less about recognizing worthy authors and more about his perceived persecution and fear in the genre, his imagined war against the CHORFS, the SJWs, and so on:
Me? My cohorts in Sad Puppies? … We’re done with playing the game. We’re calling out the fear-mongers and we’re saying, ‘Go to hell, you can’t stop us, because you were never as powerful as you thought you were.’ And it’s true. A lot of this correctness crap is a tissue. A smokescreen. The CHORFs, the Social Justice scolds, the taste-maker poseurs, et al., it’s like an overlapping venn diagram of noxious people…” (Source)
He also refused to accept that people could disagree with slate and bloc voting, describing Sad Puppies as a “peasant revolution” and claiming, “100% of the opposition to SP3 can be distilled down to that single concept: snobbery.” (Source)
As word of the Sad Puppy sweep of the Hugo ballot spread, larger media outlets picked up on it, many of them unfavorably, and some of them in aggressively critical ways. Brad saw this as further evidence of conspiracy:
“I suspect some of the insider SF/F people who dislike Sad Puppies 3 decided that the best way to “win” the insider baseball argument, was to stage a broader media flare-up for the sake of fatally discrediting the “poster people” of Sad Puppies 3.” (Source)
His blog posts got more over-the-top, comparing voting No Award to the Judgement of Solomon, likening fandom to a Gulag, and even trying to link it all to 9/11.
He began accusing “The Left” and CHORFs of hounding nominees off the ballots, even when those nominees explicitly stated this wasn’t the case.
Brad: Nobody should have to be afraid of being on a list of suggestions. But Juliette (and a few others) were. Because they didn’t want to be punished for an association. Brilliant, folks! Just brilliant. Let’s make hard-working authors afraid of having the “wrong” people put those authors forward, for recognition.
Brad: You know, 1984 wasn’t supposed to be an owners manual. Juliette’s one of Analog’s bright stars. I think she deserves a Hugo. She was upset because she realized she was going to become a target — a target for the CHORFs. As soon as that hit her, she came to me and requested to be pulled. I think she’s honest about not understanding the “slate” and SP3 were the same thing. But her motivation for wanting off was all about fear. She didn’t want to have to deal with the Peoples Republic of Science Fiction’s version of the NKVD.
Juliette: Brad Torgersen, you are pretty brazen, trying to speak for me, and I would appreciate it if you never attempted to do so again. I was entirely unaware of the Sad Puppy connection … I guess I was too idealistic, thinking that Sad Puppies might be over and that you would just be talking to me about some Hugo recommendations … Just to be clear, you have clearly got no idea of my motivations and are trying to spin them to your benefit … I would never, ever have wanted to associate with Sad Puppies after last year, because of the depth of my anger over their behavior. I felt sick that you had deceived me and betrayed my confidence, and the fact that you denied having done so is irrelevant. You, and your actions, were what I was avoiding in pulling myself off the list.
I know how much time I lost on this post. I can’t imagine how much time Brad has invested in all of his blog posts, and showing up on other Facebook posts, blog posts, and on Twitter to argue with people. It feels obsessive. (And I say that having written a 2800-word post on the subject.) It looks to me like Brad’s primary focus with Sad Puppies isn’t to promote good works so much as it is to argue with everyone.
The Real Problems:
Here are some of the things Brad has pointed to as problems with the Hugo awards and fandom.
“The Hugos especially have become prone to focusing on issues-first fiction. If not outright tokenism and affirmative action, for the sake of the sexuality, gender, and ethnicity of the authors themselves. In those cases, the content of the story is practically irrelevant. It’s the box-checking that counts.” (Source)
“[T]he Worldcon tribe — or at least certain vocal members within the tribe — have gone full-retard-tribal about the affront to “their” award, and “their” convention. So it’s tribe-vs-tribe. Are you in-tribe or out-tribe?” (Source)
“maybe just be wholly transparent and call it White American Liberals Con — An inclusive, diverse place where everyone talks about the same things, has the same tastes, votes the same way, and looks at the world through the same pair of eyes. Whitelibbycon. With the trophy: whitelibbyrocket.” (Source)
“I am pretty sure the point of Sad Puppies 3 was to make the final ballot more inclusive, not less … Oh, SP3 pointedly criticized affirmative action — which makes demographics paramount over content and quality.” (Source)
“We (Sad Puppies Inc.) threatened nothing, demanded nothing, and closed no doors in any faces. We threw the tent flaps wide and beckoned to anyone and everyone: come on in, join the fun! The Puppy-kickers have threatened and demanded a great deal. They most certainly do not want the “wrong” fans being allowed to participate in “their” (the Puppy-kickers’) award.” (Source)
“It wasn’t about dialing the field back to the Golden Age as much as it was about using the extant democratic process to broaden the extent of the Hugo’s coverage; to include Hugo-worthy works (and authors, and editors, and artists) who’d ordinarily fall into the blind spots. And let’s be clear: the Hugo selection process in 2015 does have blind spots. Such as the consistent bias against tie-in novels and tie-in novel authors…” (Source)*
*It should be noted that Brad included zero tie-in works on the 2015 Sad Puppy slate.
Racism/Sexism:
A number of people have talked about racism/sexism and the puppies. Some directly accused Brad et al of being racist, sexist, etc. Others pointed to the number of racists, sexists, and bigots among the slates. I pointed out that the puppies had reversed a five-year trend toward gender balance in the Hugo awards.
“[T]he narrative is stupid. That Sad Puppies 3 is sexist, racist, etc. It was stupid when it was concocted. It remains stupid. It was stupid the second Entertainment Weekly stepped on its own tongue, after being spoon-fed an uproariously amateurish and error-festooned hit piece, by parties who have no regard for facts, and who were eager to smear Sad Puppies 3 and everyone associated with it.” (Source)
Part of this aspect seems to be disagreement about what constitutes racism, etc. Brad hasn’t been out burning crosses or anything. Indeed, he pointed out that he’s married to a black woman. The puppy slates included women and non-white authors.
So are Brad and Larry racist? Sexist? Homophobic? What about their slates?
I don’t see an active or conscious effort to shut out authors who aren’t straight white males.
I do see that the effect of the slates was to drastically reduce the number of women on the final ballots.
Torgersen made a now-infamous homophobic remark about John Scalzi, which he later apologized for. I don’t see this as suggesting Torgersen is a frothing bigot; it does suggest he has some homophobic attitudes or beliefs he should probably reexamine and work on.
More central to the Sad Puppies, when I see Brad railing against “affirmative action” fiction, I see a man who seems utterly incapable of understanding sometimes people write “non-default” characters not because they’re checking off boxes on a quota, but because those are the stories they want to tell, and the characters they want to write about. Dismissing all of those amazing, wonderful, and award-winning stories as nothing but affirmative-action cases? Yeah, that sounds pretty bigoted to me.
#
Most folks already know I think both puppy campaigns are nonsense, and their claims that they’re just doing what “the other side” used to do are wishful thinking with no evidence or basis in reality than I’ve seen. I’ve been remarkably unimpressed with most of the puppy-nominated work I’ve read so far. (One of their recs in Best Related Work doesn’t actually appear to be at all related to SF/F.) I’ll be voting accordingly, and presumably so will the rest of the voters.
There’s a lot more to it all, I know. But I’ve got deadlines, and can’t afford to spend even more time on this today. I’m sure some folks will complain that I’m cherry-picking, but I’ve done my best to find quotes that are either representative of the larger posts and comments, or else demonstrate that yes, so-and-so did say that thing you claim they didn’t say.
Enjoy what’s left of your weekend, folks!
Rens
June 9, 2015 @ 3:39 am
Sir Pterry was, by absolutely all accounts from those who knew him, an amazingly kind and warm-hearted human being.
Jim C. Hines
June 9, 2015 @ 7:28 am
I do tend to agree that Beale effectively used Brad and the Sad Puppies for his own agenda. And it’s been shown that the Rabid Puppies were more effective in influencing the final ballot.
That said, the Sad Pups had an impact as well, and I’ve seen a lot more disagreement about what the Sads actually said or did, which is what I wanted to talk about here.
Jim C. Hines
June 9, 2015 @ 7:32 am
“In other words, about just as Organized as Sad Puppies itself.”
Then you should have no problem pointing to the leader of the 2014 or 2015 No Award movements, the equivalent of first Larry Correia and then Brad Torgersen publicly stepping forward as the spokespups for the Sad Puppies.
“Why Didn’t You Blog About ________?”
June 9, 2015 @ 8:27 am
[…] post about the Sad Puppies is up to 100+ comments at this point, and several of those comments have expressed frustration that […]
rodgerdodger
June 9, 2015 @ 8:37 am
Yes, that certainly was the case. Voting is voting.
Dr. Mauser
June 9, 2015 @ 8:43 am
Okay, this is weird. Jim, can you believe your post here has been copied, and reworded slightly? Not sure the point of this site, but you’ve become fodder for it.
http://blog.tiamart.com/2015/06/puppies-in-their-own-words/
Dr. Mauser
June 9, 2015 @ 8:49 am
You know, I’ve seen that analysis, but really, just because more of the unique items from RP scored than the unique items from SP, doesn’t necessarily map to the common items to say that more of the votes for them come from RP voters. (OTOH, more SP voters have made a point about stating that they’ve deviated from the slate (which ironically makes it less of a slate) so who can tell?)
We can’t even really guess until the results are revealed after the vote. But even then, without a privacy-violating examination of the ballots, there’s no way to tell for sure.
Dr. Mauser
June 9, 2015 @ 8:51 am
Sorry, that was in reply to “Jim C. Hines Jun 09, 2015 @ 07:28:54” a few comments above.
Brad Hadley
June 9, 2015 @ 9:03 am
Jim,
The main problem I have is the huge blind spots in the recent Hugos. And the fact that there are disproportional amounts of progressive liberal and LGBT stories nominated for Hugos compared to the field at large. As you reaffirmed, this is because the people who go to WorldCons tend to like those stories. That is fine. But they do not represent Fandom as whole and should not present an award as representing Fandom as whole when they continue to ignore writers of different flavors. It is sad when authors like Jerry Pournelle walk up to candidates who have been publishing for over a decade and are on this years SP slate and say “Its about damn time you were nominated!” Obviously people of caliber are being overlooked by the WorldCon community.
So then you look at who was promoted instead of them? And that is when it becomes apparent that WorldCon is using the Hugos to push an agenda. And if you want to talk about the specifics, I will gladly answer questions the next time I see you. I hope you and the family have a great time outdoors this summer.
Jim C. Hines
June 9, 2015 @ 9:09 am
“And the fact that there are disproportional amounts of progressive liberal and LGBT stories nominated for Hugos compared to the field at large.”
Do you have data on this, or is it a perception/opinion?
The Revolution of Self-Righteous Dickery with Not Be Moderated | Kameron Hurley
June 9, 2015 @ 9:11 am
[…] a public dressing-down from her employer after somebody complained that she’d, you know, said a true […]
Jim C. Hines
June 9, 2015 @ 9:11 am
It happens sometimes. Basically sites harvesting content for clicks and ad revenue. It’s annoying, and I’ll occasionally send a DMCA note to the host if I have the time and energy.
Brad Hadley
June 9, 2015 @ 9:18 am
Matthew this is well written. But “white privledge” are going on here. Do you live among a lot of same thinking people? I count John Scalzi, Jim Hines, Brad Torgeson and Larry Corriea as friends. I have a very diverse set of outside influences so I cans see things from many angles. If you likewise receive many viewpoints then you are the best of Fandom.
Jim talks about completing “Check the box” writing. I will give you an example. Tim Pratt wrote “Reign of Stars”. It is advertised on the back blurb, “From Hugo Award Winner Tim Pratt”. On page 175 Tim goes on to insert a short section that has nothing to with the story but promotes the benefits of gay sex and prostitution.” Now I have 2 problems with this, 1) the insertion has nothing to do with the story and 2) this book is targeted to teenagers. It is a “Pathfinder RPG Book”. I bet NAMBLA was happy to see Tim do this but as a parent I find it horrible.
Now before you go on about how homophobic I must be, I have to point out that not only does my 10 year old know who Capt. Jack Harkness is, he thinks he is cool. I do not mind stories where the sexual orientation is relevant to character. But I do not like the 30 second insertion so that the authors have carried the torch like a good little propagandist.
Brad Hadley
June 9, 2015 @ 9:23 am
After Irene Gallo, the Creative Director at TOR called John and the rest of the SP slate a bunch of m”unrepentantly racist, misogynist, and homophobic.” The fall out continues. The sense is that while people respect Tom, TOR has some issues that need to be addressed.
Brad Hadley
June 9, 2015 @ 9:28 am
Some of the Authors who have declined in the past should recieve Lifetime Achievement Awards and instead of only one award per year, let there be more then one. And set the bar high on voting like over a 75% approval rating from the voting bloc.
Brad Hadley
June 9, 2015 @ 9:34 am
“for those who care about the award” so you own the award and it does not belong to fandom at large? Very interesting.
As it has been pointed out. What the slates did was perfectly legal.
You sound like the petulant person who has had a public park in their neighborhood all to themselves and now that the rest of the taxpayers have found out how cool it is, you complain about them playing in your park.
Sarah
June 9, 2015 @ 10:29 am
Lol, says the man to the THIRD person who accused the others of saying things they haven’t said. Ignoring the two who he agrees with. How dishonest.
Jim Henley: They think women and WoC *couldn’t have* written an award worthy story [No one has ever said this – find a quote if you disagree]
Jim C Hines: [Silence]
S.M. Carrière: Yes, they think they were only given the award because of box-checking, not because they could possibly have written good story. It’s subtle bigotry [Again no one said they couldn’t, just they didn’t. Quote someone if you disagree]
Jim C. Hines: [Still silent]
Patrick Richardson: YOU are the ones insisting we should look at dangly bits or lack thereof, and skin pigmentation FIRST. [No one has said this either]
Jim C Hines: I’m shocked I tell you, shocked that this third person is making things up about what people have said. I repeat my earlier comments about the first two. [Silence]
I’m #notapuppy but seriously, at least try for a semblance of even handedness. It’s just stupid to be so openly biased.
Jim C. Hines
June 9, 2015 @ 10:42 am
Sarah,
I did a quick Control+F for the two quotes you’re complaining about, and neither of them show up here, so I assume you’re paraphrasing.
“They think they were only given the award because of box-checking…”
Did you read the original post, which included this statement from Brad? “If not outright tokenism and affirmative action, for the sake of the sexuality, gender, and ethnicity of the authors themselves. In those cases, the content of the story is practically irrelevant. It’s the box-checking that counts.”
You’re nitpicking the hell out of a single word (could) that could be interpreted in multiple ways in order to create your false equivalence and unload snark and sarcasm.
If you wish to continue commenting here, that’s fine, but knock of the condescending bullshit.
steve davidson
June 9, 2015 @ 10:49 am
I see. We’re playing verbal games. OK.
I live outside of your bubble and therefore do not see things that way.
steve davidson
June 9, 2015 @ 10:57 am
In my original post on how I’d be voting on the final ballot (http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2015/04/ill-casting-final-hugo-vote/) I stated categorically that I completely and entirely disagree with block voting and slates and that my purpose in voting on the final ballot was to send the message that I rejected such gaming of the system. In order to register that position, I was going to vote No Award in any and all categories that had only works from slates, and would vote No Award below non-slate works in the remaining categories.
Without exception, because my vote this year has been reduced to choosing between whether to endorse or not endorse what the puppies have done.
This unfortunately means that I have to place some things I truly enjoyed – and would have voted for – off the ballot because they appeared on a slate. Picking and choosing to do so for some categories and not others because of a belief that some works might have been on the final ballot anyways is to dilute the only effective vote I can make.
I haven’t posted about the Puppies lately… | Crime and the Blog of Evil
June 9, 2015 @ 12:25 pm
[…] if you miss that whole mess and want something new, here’s a post from Jim Hines called Puppies in their Own Words. It’s mostly extensive quotes from Sad leadership, and leaves white supremacist Rabid leader […]
CiaraCat
June 9, 2015 @ 1:48 pm
“Vox Day and his publishing house were -nowhere- on the Sad Puppies III slate, and I guess he was upset about that.”
Here’s the Sad Puppy 3 slate:
https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/02/01/sad-puppies-3-the-2015-hugo-slate/
I count Castalia House four times: twice in Novella, twice in Related Work. You are correct that VD loaded the RP slate more heavily with Castalia House, but four =/= zero.
“because two days later he posted his competing, heavily-slanted Vox & Castalia House slate.”
Sad puppy slate post, dated 2/2/15 1:00 am:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/02/rabid-puppies-2015.html
Sad puppy 3 slate post, dated 2/1/15 8:12 pm:
https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/02/01/sad-puppies-3-the-2015-hugo-slate/
I don’t know what time zones they were in, but I think it’s fair to assume that a few hours, at most, separated the two posts.
The Givens post Safewrite links was one of the links I was going to post too, as well as this Sanford post:
http://www.jasonsanford.com/blog/2015/4/on-screaming-were-not-vd-while-not-mentioning-your-relationship-with-vd
And as Tom Galloway links in another comment here, Vox Day was part of the ELoE group deciding the SP slate.
Matthew Thyer
June 9, 2015 @ 2:36 pm
Brad, I live in the Pacific North West within an incredibly diverse community of people. Sexually, politically, spiritually I am an oddball roaming an odd land. I’m well aware of where my intolerance lives and I’m at least willing to entertain debate, but I’m also capable and willing to live by my own moral code.
I’ve at least met Brad (who presents in person far differently than he does online), sat on panels with Scalzi, and read from my works along side Jim (thanks again Jim). I count the latter two friends as well as colleagues and I hope they feel the same about me although I recognize that I’m a whole lot less mature in my career as a writer than any of these guys.
Forgive me, I’m a little confused. I’m not certain where you believe there might white privilege happening. Are you suggesting that I’m exercising unjustified privilege in putting down books I don’t like that are both on the ballot and the SP/RP slate?
I don’t know/haven’t read Tim Pratt and I’m not a big Dr. Who fan so I really can’t comment on either, but I’m curious, what constitutes propagandizing in fiction? Do you believe that there is a threshold the divides a legitimate theme in a story from incidental propaganda?
Matthew Thyer
June 9, 2015 @ 2:38 pm
Also, good grief, that’s just full of typos. Forgive me I drove 1,100 miles yesterday and I’m tuckered.
Matthew Thyer
June 9, 2015 @ 2:39 pm
Thanks Ikeke35 and Andrew, I’m glad that resonated.
CiaraCat
June 9, 2015 @ 2:49 pm
I think it’s interesting, too, that in his SP1 campaign, and up until near the end of the SP2 campaign, Correia makes sure to point out that people should join so they can get the voter’s packet. Late in SP2 (see Mr. Hines’ links above) he starts saying “most of [the stories in the voter’s packet] are screeds about corporate greed, global warming, dying polar bears, or whatever the left wing cause of the day is.” Prior to that, he talks about what a great deal it is for the money.
And in this SP1 post:
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/01/23/how-to-get-correia-nominated-for-a-hugo-part-3-wont-somebody-please-think-of-the-children/
He even says:
“Plus, in prior years all of the voters have received big packets of eBooks, and all the shorts, novelletes, novellas, Campbell novels, comic books, and more so they can be informed voters. So you get more than your entry fee back in reading material, some of which is actually good!”
Wait, so his tastes in SF *do* historically have representation? I guess it would be silly to propose otherwise, since both Correia and Torgersen were Hugo nominees before Sad Puppies existed.
So, some representation of his tastes is not good enough? The WHOLE BALLOT has to represent his tastes?
Personally, I’d be really disappointed if the entirety of any Hugo category ever represented only my tastes. There are always at least one or two nominees per category that I can’t stand. But there are often one or two that I find I adore, that I might never have heard of or picked up otherwise, and thus I learn and grow.
CiaraCat
June 9, 2015 @ 2:58 pm
I don’t think there’s any question that “check the box” writing occurs. I think the question under discussion here is whether “check the box” writing is being singled out for exclusive consideration for the Hugo awards. Your example here was not a nominee that I can recall – am I misremembering? (This assumes your example reads as “check the box” and irrelevant to everyone else, too… sometimes a theme in a work can read as disingenuous to a reader for whom it doesn’t resonate, but could be really important to the story for others for whom it does happen to resonate. I haven’t read this story in your example.)
Jim C. Hines
June 9, 2015 @ 3:05 pm
Are there instances where we know a story or book was written in that “check the box” fashion? As opposed to readers who are so used to the default that they get jarred out of the story, and assume the diversity in said story must have been artificially forced?
I’m not saying it never happens. But I’ve yet to see proof or evidence of that oft-repeated claim.
BlueCube
June 9, 2015 @ 3:09 pm
It seems to me that Teresa Nielsen Hayden has taken the position that the Hugos are a provincial creature of the tiny sect of priests of SF. I assume, on the other hand, that when publishers put a big “Hugo Award Winner” sign on a book cover, that they expect it to help sell books to the entire broad market, not just the tiny sect. In essence, from the view of the broader SF world, the Hugo awards are juried awards with a really big jury. That world is trusting us as Hugo voters, at least those who even notice if a book has a Hugo.
I remember a time when I considered Hugo nominees and winners as a viable suggestion list. Now I am much less likely to buy a book for that reason. It doesn’t seem to me that the trust has been very well placed. So a few years ago I realized that if I had a complaint, I could join the fray. I’m sympathetic to Sad Puppies, though it seems to me that Brad’s tastes run a bit too much toward popcorn.
I’m a bit puzzled by his references to democracy. I never had the impression he was taking a vote on the suggestions for nominees. They were suggestions.
The announcement page contains the text “Gathered here is the best list (we think!) of entirely deserving works, writers, and editors” Elsewhere (not sure where), he indicated that the works were chosen to span SF in some sense, though I question how well they did in that respect.
CiaraCat
June 9, 2015 @ 3:14 pm
Thank you – you said that much better than my parenthetical attempt. Which is probably why you’re the award-winning writer! 🙂
It’s been my experience that one person’s “check-the-box annoying diversion from the story” is often the next person’s “resonance with how they’ve experienced reality.”
Jim C. Hines
June 9, 2015 @ 3:16 pm
“It seems to me that Teresa Nielsen Hayden has taken the position that the Hugos are a provincial creature of the tiny sect of priests of SF.”
That’s the spin Brad has been trying to push. What I’ve seen TNH actually doing is pointing out that the Hugo Awards are voted on by members of Worldcon. People are correct that this is a tiny portion of SF/F fans.
I’m not aware of anyone saying the “Wrong People” shouldn’t be allowed to join Worldcon and participate in nominating and voting, or anything like that. But there’s been a lot of pushback against bloc voting and gaming the system.
CiaraCat
June 9, 2015 @ 3:42 pm
There’s history of push-back against bloc voting and gaming the system, regardless of the reasons for the bloc voting and system gaming. Just last year, the Sad Puppies weren’t the only ones being No Award-ed in response to the bloc voting and system gaming.
Wheel of Time was also No Awarded by quite a lot of people, also for bloc voting and system gaming. There was an open campaign to bring Wheel of Time fans into Worldcon membership to vote for Wheel of Time and game the rules to nominate the WHOLE series.
While it can easily be proven via the links above that a lot of motivations existed for the Puppies, including political motivations, I don’t think you can really make the argument that the WoT bloc voting and system gaming was done for any reason other than love of the work of fiction.
The motivations weren’t relevant. A large portion of the Worldcon membership seems to really dislike bloc voting and system gaming, and they use No Award accordingly.
Danny in Canada
June 9, 2015 @ 4:03 pm
hey, Brad H. ? I read _Reign of Stars_ and… as I recall, the character who talked about “the benefits of gay sex and prostitution” was… a criminal? A crimelord, a smuggler who routinely had people killed? Am I wrong?
Matt
June 9, 2015 @ 4:09 pm
“so you own the award and it does not belong to fandom at large? Very interesting.”
I’m not sure how you got “owning the award” from people “[caring] about the award.”
“What the slates did was perfectly legal”
Legal != ethical, right, or in good spirits.
Alexandra Erin
June 9, 2015 @ 4:10 pm
You know, I’m very skeptical of the way accusations of “cherry-picking” get thrown around.
If you go to a restaurant and get excellent service and good food throughout, but at the end you’re handed a bill that contains an item that you neither ordered nor received, it’s not “cherry picking” to point it out and ask (even demand) it be removed.
People don’t really have to go digging to find quotes where the Puppies are saying that they are in fully favor of all the good things and totally against all the bad ones. They’ll beat those drums themselves at every opportunity, while doing things like denying that any of their number (much less their leaders) ever said this was about pulp vs. literature or said they wanted to make heads explode or poke people in the eye.
If the point of this post—and as I took it, it was—was to round up the early, unsubstantiated, and now frequently denied comments with the premise that they show the Puppies’ true colors, I don’t think there’s a duty of care to include everything else that the Puppies have said or done along the way, any more than Batman was obligated to play all of the Penguin’s glowing mayoral campaign promises alongside his comment about having played the city like a harp from hell in Batman Returns.
People can manage their own PR campaigns. It’s neither fair nor balanced to expect everyone else to do it for them.
Alexandra Erin
June 9, 2015 @ 4:13 pm
So you can just respond to a comment and make up things that you wish it had said that would be more devastating for the perceived “other side”? Very interesting.
Alexandra Erin
June 9, 2015 @ 4:21 pm
Excuse me, but I think a lot of the Puppies themselves would be the first ones to point out that nothing is free, someone always pays for it.
To say that Vox Day lives rent-free in people’s heads demeans the huge amount of intense labor he performs daily to maintain those lodgings, and I think it’s hugely unfair to him to not give him full credit for that.
steve davidson
June 9, 2015 @ 4:28 pm
Whether or not you can substantiate the claim regarding the type of works nominated for the Hugo awards in past years, your initial statement is completely wrong and designed to confuse the issue.
The Hugo Awards ARE NOT a publicly open, popular award. They ARE the awards presented annually by the World Science Fiction Society.
The fact that any fan may join that society by purchasing a membership (most people do not realize that they are not purchasing a convention ticket – they’re purchasing an annual membership of one kind or another in a Society) does not make the awards popular/open to the public. We have the annual Locus Poll for that.
This is not going to change. The population demographics of WSFS may change, but the award is never going to be what you seem to think it ought to be. Never has, never will.
BlueCube
June 9, 2015 @ 4:43 pm
WoT didn’t do very well on my ballot, and I question the wisdom of designating a giant series of novels with two authors as a single work, but why should I be unhappy that a bunch of people who loved a work campaigned for it.
“TNH: When I say the Hugos belong to the worldcon, I’m talking about the literal legal status of the award. But I also know that one of the biggest reasons the rocket is magic is because it spiritually belongs to all of us who love SF.”
I did slog through some 1200 messages of the Making Light discussion before I gave up.
It did seem to me that TNH was conveying a general attitude that Hugos are a Wordlcon thing and Puppies aren’t our people and don’t love SF like we do. Perhaps that is because of the perception that some of Vox’s followers are only interested in the politics of the thing and not SF. I don’t follow Vox. Perhaps that part is true.
From my point of view it seemed like she was accusing a bunch of SF fans of being Fake Geek Girls.
steve davidson
June 9, 2015 @ 4:46 pm
“It seems to me that Teresa Nielsen Hayden has taken the position that the Hugos are a provincial creature of the tiny sect of priests of SF.”
If you knew how the Hugo Awards and Worldcon/WSFS really worked, you’d realize that whatever Teresa said, it was her opinion and has not one whit of impact on the awards.
What Teresa actually said was that A: the awards belong to WSFS in a legal fashion. That’s entirely and completely true: “Registration Date July 24, 1984
Owner (REGISTRANT) World Science Fiction Society association (unincorporated)
UNITED STATES c/o Kevin Standlee PO Box 64128 Sunnyvale CALIFORNIA 94088
Attorney of Record Esther J. Horwich” (trade/service mark registration at the USPTO)
Further, that it is voted on by those who choose to join WSFS, which extends unfettered voting rights to all members, provided that their membership dues are paid in time to nominate and vote.
If you want to call WSFS a “tiny sect of priests of SF”, that’s your privilege, but you’re indicting everyone who ever joined WSFS from 1953 on with such a statement; if you are voting this year, you’re pointing that finger at yourself as well. And at me. If I were to give it credence, I think I’d resent the implication.
Redshoeson
June 9, 2015 @ 5:09 pm
Well done here. I’m a long-time queer, female, 30-something SF/F fan (enjoyed your Libriomancer series last year) who has been on the periphery of the SP/RP bonanza. Interesting to see a summary of it – thank you!
BlueCube
June 9, 2015 @ 5:09 pm
Yes I’m aware that the Hugos belong to the WSFS, and that fan-run litcons have memberships and not tickets, and that this is an objective truth. TNH was making a broader statement about what the Hugos represent, or at least it seemed so to me.
Publishers emblazon books with Hugo winner because they expect customers to care. They emblazon books with Nebula winner because they hope that people care, that people expect award givers know something. In truth, most SF readers haven’t any idea where these awards come from and can’t tell the WSFS from the SFWA.
Yes, it really is a tiny group of people who love SF enough to vote. “Sect of priests” is of course metaphor, but yes it includes me, and I’m fine with it. I’ll be making the pilgrimage to Spokane. So I’m not indicting anyone, if by “indicting” you are implying that I think it’s a bad thing to be a Worldcon Member.
A Hugo Aggregation. | The Arts Mechanical
June 9, 2015 @ 6:04 pm
[…] http://www.jimchines.com/2015/06/puppies-in-their-own-words/ […]
Richard Hartman
June 9, 2015 @ 6:18 pm
The problem is that some of what they have said — perhaps toe _worst_ of what they have said — is in direct response to some rather vile things beings said about them and to them. Context matters. If you had just covered the _basis_ for the puppy movement, and their goals, and the statements that had been made solely about the project itself … well and good. But when you cite some some of their responses without giving the context of what they have been responding to, the picture is incomplete.
Yoyo
June 9, 2015 @ 6:59 pm
Of course and I take your point that its the motivations of the sads you want to examine. If anything I think Brad and Larry’s positions have become more ideological and entrenched during this process, whereas the vox has always promoted this as a blood fight for the luls and the bucks. I’m not sure which group Sara originated in but her recent writing has been really apocalyptic. was she originally a sad who has moved over. (Although the boarders are much more pourus than admitted.)
Becca Stareyes
June 9, 2015 @ 7:26 pm
Last week, I was playing a SF game when I was jarred out by noticing that of the dozen-or-so characters I’d met so far, three were female, and two had romantic subtext with Our Hero. I started feeling like the writers had an assumption that male = default, and so only made someone a woman if they had a distinct reason. On the other hand, I bet other players wouldn’t notice that, and if I had my druthers and recast some of the male characters as female characters, some would be complaining about quotas and feminist propaganda.
Brad Handley
June 9, 2015 @ 9:24 pm
Jim,
If you want to go into in details I will gladly do it when I see you at con. But as you are aware the LBGTQ+ community is less then 5% of the US. Assuming that the writing community is representative of that now look at the people nominated. It may be perspective, but it is based on fairly sound logic.
Brad Handley
June 9, 2015 @ 9:26 pm
Laura,
Tom had to personally step into the mess.
http://www.tor.com/2015/06/08/a-message-from-tom-doherty-to-our-readers-and-authors/comment-page-2/#comment-526535
Brad Handley
June 9, 2015 @ 9:31 pm
Matt the point is that Steve incorrectly assumes that the people who voted for the Hugos for the first time do not care about it. Can you prove that he is correct?
While Legal does not equal ethical – Ethical does not make right. Your ethics may say that killing someone is wrong. My ethics may say that you trying to badly injure someone physically and emotionally justifies me killing you if it is the only way I can protect your victim. We both can have conflicting ethics and views about what is “Right” and neither of us will feel we are incorrect.
Matthew Thyer
June 9, 2015 @ 9:38 pm
Take this a step further, publishers buy books based on their potential to earn an award. A really good story, one that you know will outsell a mediocre story based on similar theme, should be an easy win for the writer and his or her publisher.
The slates break that model too.
Matthew Thyer
June 9, 2015 @ 9:39 pm
Link or it never happened. -_-
Brad Handley
June 9, 2015 @ 9:41 pm
Sorry for a not precisely chosen phrase. The aspect of White Privilege I was referring to was the Echo chamber and unawareness of the echo chamber. A white man from the upper class does not even know how he benefited from his privileged life because it is like everyone else around him. And so many fen never leave the circle of friends they are in that they are completely unaware of other viewpoints of fandom. They to live in their echo chamber. Having lived in Washington as well I can tell you that the Fen up there have a viewpoint vastly different from those of the South East.
I hope that clarifies my poorly chosen words. I apologize for not laying it out clearly.
Brad Handley
June 9, 2015 @ 9:47 pm
Becca if it did not add to the story line then it was not needed. And I do not like it where the games incorporate sexual fantasy undertones just to please the juvenile in us. And if you switched the characters like Briana Wu did, could please make the women look believeable and like “Barbie on Steriods”? I want my daughter to have a game where the overweight evil money man is WOMAN!
If the game stoops to sex to sell it, then I do not want to play it and that is what you were encountering. It works for 15 year olds, but I am not 15.
Lenora Rose
June 9, 2015 @ 10:26 pm
A minority win is not “undemocratic”. If the minority (or “under 50%) is a greater number of votes than any other candidate got, it’s still a win in “first past the post” style voting, which is what the nomination process is. It’s actually par for the course in places where there’s more than two relevant political parties (ie, not the US). And since the nomination process has a field of candidates that is literally as big as “all the sff books published in the relevant year”, it’s inevitable that things will get on the list with less than 10% of the vote. In fact, that’s why a relatively small group voting in lockstep (and here I mean the rabids, not the sads) could game the system.
I will say that the Sad Puppies’ open and democratc process for choosing the slate looks to me a bit like the US presidential election, where everyone puts in their votes, then a small group (the Electoral College) chooses the result – in theory following the voted will of the majority, but fully capable of doing otherwise if the fancy hits them. (Note: we don’t know this happened. We don’t know who emailed Brad, or how it differed from the visible suggestions. The problem IS that not knowing.)
blatanville
June 10, 2015 @ 12:02 am
Brad actually wrote “have gone full-retard-tribal”?
Reason enough to avoid the man’s writings, and those who associate with him.
And Now For Something Completely Distempered 6/9 | File 770
June 10, 2015 @ 12:11 am
[…] post about the Sad Puppies is up to 100+ comments at this point, and several of those comments have expressed frustration that […]
Adrienne
June 10, 2015 @ 3:35 am
I’m just joining the conversation and I’m appalled.
Why are we giving any time to band standers?
As far as I can tell the “puppies” (do they know that’s a term for a very specific, and often gay, BDSM lifestyle?) are just raising hell cause they want their books to be noticed. But if their books aren’t good enough to garner an award, then they’re not worth noticing.
One of these nobs pointed our that the LGBT community made up less than 5% of the US population. As if that means only 5% of our fiction should be about them. I’ve never read anything by this gentleman, but if he doesn’t understand that fiction should be about things outside of the everyday then I don’t think there’s much hope for him. If all fiction writers wrote about what 95% of people did/were no one would read. We read to be transported and taken outside ourselves.
There have been a lot of comments about how these puppies are racists and homophones, but there hasn’t been enough conversation about the fact that there taste in fiction is boring.
Yoyo
June 10, 2015 @ 3:55 am
Adrienne, you are so right. When/if I wanted to read christian dominationist apologetics there are much better and more “honest” sources. I don’t need Beale or Wright telling me that the only reason I enjoy China Meiville or Gibson or any other is because of false SJW consciousness. their books just suck!
Aimery
June 10, 2015 @ 4:01 am
A good piece of journalism, Jim.
Dr. Mauser
June 10, 2015 @ 4:35 am
“Further, that it is voted on by those who choose to join WSFS, which extends unfettered voting rights to all members, provided that their membership dues are paid in time to nominate and vote.”
Which happens to include every single person who submitted a nomination ballot with some or all of Brad’s suggestions on it. If you try to exclude them by any means, you are violating everything meaningful about the Hugos.
steve davidson
June 10, 2015 @ 5:42 am
Dr. Mauser,
No one is trying to exclude them. You’re picking this out is simply more of the same goading and obfuscation you continually try to inject into the conversation.
When did you stop beating your wife? Is nearly the same as “…exclude them by any means” implies that this was attempted. Anyone claiming that wasn’t so implies that it might have been.
I’m sick enough of this kind of puerile BS that I’ll not be responding to your commentary here any more. Which of course you’ll use in some manner to further inflate your bubble – or not, if doing so better serves your purpose.
Christopher Weuve
June 10, 2015 @ 5:49 am
Steve: A perfect description of my position as well. This was an attack on the system (and justified as such), and in my mind needs to be responded too as such.
Greg
June 10, 2015 @ 8:18 am
Thanks for writing this.
The pups have gone full blown delusional. They keep trying to invent some reason, any reason, that would explain why the stuff they write and the stuff they read didnt win the award they wanted, so that it isnt simply that the work isnt that good, isnt liked by the majority of fans.
Its a conspiracy! Illuminati! Chorfs! Vote fixing! Ballot stuffing! Affirmative action! Box checking!
Anything, anything at all, so long as the root cause is not that their works were bested fairly in a fair vote.
This total avoidance of responsibility has lead to a willingness to create and believe wholeheartedly total nonsense so long as the nonsense blames anyone but a fair vote. This total lack of responsibility has also lead to a willingness to justify bad things (from slate voting, to pretending to be open and transparent to suggestions and ignoring those suggestions, to threatening people, demonizing people, nominating total crap for pure political reasons, etc) because its not their fault, someone else started it, they’re the good guys fighting some imagined evil that justifies any response whatsoever, and so on.
All slate works are going below no award on my ballot. The pup ringleaders wont be on my ballot at all. Hopefully everyone else eoes this, and this nonsense gets zero rewards for a repeat performance next year. And hopefully worldcon can start the process to change the rules for nominations to defang the power of a few to control entire categories of nominees.
Sad Puppies roundup, and the Irene Gallo controversy - TeleRead: News and views on e-books, libraries, publishing and related topics
June 10, 2015 @ 8:19 am
[…] of all, Jim C. Hines has put a lot of time and effort into compiling a comprehensive history of the whole Sad and Rabid Puppies movements, dating back to Sad Puppies’ first appearance several years ago. While there is not exactly any […]
steve davidson
June 10, 2015 @ 8:46 am
“…is less then 5% of the US.”
Of course the population within the SF community might be different, or authors representative of the LGBTQ+ community might be doing more interesting work, or maybe it’s just circumstantial that works you think are coming from that community happen to be really good the past couple of years, or maybe you’re conflating author identity with themes that may or may not be present in the works in question, or…
But those possibilities apparently don’t count, because somehow what gets considered for awards has to attain some kind of quota with some other numbers that may or may not be accurate….
Cole Pram
June 10, 2015 @ 10:24 am
It does really bother me that it’s a lose-lose situation.
If you don’t elect women and PoC you are a misogynistic sexist racist bigot.
If you do elect women and PoC you’re just covering the fact that you’re a misogynistic sexist racist bigot.
People will then go dig into your history to find out of context comments made to people, who were likely treating you just as badly, to support those claims.
I don’t know about CHORFS is real or not, but it really does appear there are people that think they’re the only ones that should be deciding what’s good for everyone in the fandom. If you don’t agree, they’ll do everything they can to slander and/or liable you. The same thing is going on in gaming with GamerGate. It’s very disconcerting.
Kate Tremaine
June 10, 2015 @ 10:24 am
One of my friends, back when this was starting to blow up, noted that Torgersen’s “CHORF” acronym sounds like something a college fratboy dudebro would say. Like “Brah, these SJWs are totally makin’ me chorf, dude.”
Rob Gates
June 10, 2015 @ 11:34 am
I think one of the inherent and rarely spoken misconceptions of people who think inclusion of LGBT characters (or characters of multiple races, cultures, etc) is the idea that the default – even for background, casual, secondary, etc characters – is supposed to be straight white WASP and any deviation from that must have import to the story. Why? Why should the *default* be straight and white? Do we consider it “checking-the-box” to include a straight white guy? No we don’t…and that’s the unspoken heart of the problem with the “they’re checking a box” stance. There doesn’t have to be a reason for an LGBT character to be there and to share something about themselves.
alex
June 10, 2015 @ 11:38 am
So, a bunch of sore looses.
alex
June 10, 2015 @ 11:40 am
losers
SF puppy drama update - mathew’s web site
June 10, 2015 @ 11:45 am
[…] Angry supporters of the Puppy campaigns insist that there is zero truth in the accusation that it’s a neo-nazi movement, and that leader Vox Day’s opinions are emphatically not neo-nazi, that none of them are racists, sexists and homophobes. […]
Timothy Liebe
June 10, 2015 @ 12:12 pm
@Becca – No Bet, Peewee!
Bill Peschel
June 10, 2015 @ 12:34 pm
Great work, Hines. That appeared very balanced and comprehensive.
Has there been any discussion or analysis by anyone of the past Hugo winners? I’ve only seen general criticism, but nothing that, say, looked at the winners from 2012 and judged them as good science-fiction (or not). Surely there must have been something.
Jim C. Hines
June 10, 2015 @ 12:44 pm
Plenty of discussion, but I’m not aware of anything I’d describe as analysis. But people reviewing and talking about (and complaining about) the nominees and winners from year to year is a long-standing tradition.
Timothy Liebe
June 10, 2015 @ 12:48 pm
@Rob Gates – are you sharing that space about LGBT characters in SF/Fantasy, or are you mocking that mindset?
The problem was that, for a long time, if you had a LGBT character in genre fiction it felt like you needed to have a reason for them to be there. S/he couldn’t Incidentally Just Be LGBT – you had to have something to say about being gay or bi, or the fluidity of gender….or (all too often) you either needed a supporting character to ‘fridge, or a way to make your villain extra-special despicable and there weren’t any puppies around to kick! It was one of those “accepted” things in genre writing – kind of like how White PIs in mystery fiction have Black best friends/sidekicks to show what great guys they are.
Additional shots fired in the Puppy Wars – angelahighland.com
June 10, 2015 @ 12:56 pm
[…] from a roiling boil down to a disgruntled simmer, with a notable spike of activity prompted by Jim Hines posting a roundup of actual Puppy quotes in an attempt to document his […]
steve davidson
June 10, 2015 @ 1:07 pm
Bill,
I’m not trying to be antagonistic when I ask you to look at what you wrote – “looked at the winners from 2012 and judged them as good science-fiction (or not).” – and think about it for a second.
By the definition of the Hugo Awards, the winners from 2012 ARE good science fiction. That’s why they won. The members of WSFS who chose to vote (and I won’t hesitate to say that more should have) determined collectively that those were the best works from the previous year.
Any “look” at them to determine whether they are good SF or not will only yield one of three results:
1. Yes they were (agreement with the voters)
2. Good, but (I) wouldn’t have voted for it
3. Not Good
I don’t see how any analysis of the kind you are looking for can be anything other than those three, nor can I figure out what can be gained by such a look-in-hindsight would do.
On the other hand, if what you are asking for is “how do the works and their authors align politically?”, that might yield some paydirt – but I think it would be largely useless as I know many voters and their track record seems to suggest that the vast majority of votes are made along “good story, worthy of a Hugo” lines, rather than on political grounds.
Past Hugo winners? Take a look here http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/ I’d suggest that with works like Gateway, The Demolished Man, Starship Troopers, Way Station, Dune, The Left Hand of Darkness, Stand on Zanzibar, To Your Scattered Bodies Go, The Gods Themselves, Downbelow Station, Neuromancer, Ender’s Game, Blue Mars, Forever Peace, Rainbow’s End, Among Others and Ancillary Justice, the answer is:
the Hugo Awards have an exemplary history of recognizing top flight science fiction of wildly varying types and form throughout its history.
Bill Peschel
June 10, 2015 @ 1:19 pm
Steve, I’m aware of the history of the Hugo. At one time I was reading quite a lot of it, but I hadn’t in the last decade for other reasons. So, I was asking more for information about what’s been happening in the last few years. The puppies contend that the awards have been skewed for more ideological reasons than any other. Has anyone actually looked at them and made a case one way or the other?
Timothy Liebe
June 10, 2015 @ 1:33 pm
Yeah, funny how that works, @Gabriel F.
It’s so White Male/Right Wing of the Puppies to wrap themselves in a Persecution Complex when other people turn their guns (i.e., boycotts) on them, isn’t it, @Gabriel F? You’d think they didn’t have the run of things for, oh, centuries, the way they do carry on….
I’m a Straight White Male myself – and the Sad/Rabid Puppies, and the GamerGaters they’ve allied themselves to, and the Teabagging White Right Wing they undoubtedly all belong to, make me ashamed to be one.
Timothy Liebe
June 10, 2015 @ 1:36 pm
To be fair to Correia (something I really hate having to do!), @Emi, he could be using that phrasing to show a “jes’ folks” stance.
Y’all know what I mean…?
Timothy Liebe
June 10, 2015 @ 1:40 pm
Dr. Mauser is clearly persecuted – you hear me? PERSECUTED! By the Pluralistic Feminazi Ho-MO-Sexual LIbburul Mafia!
I wonder if he remembered to include Communists, Negros and Jew Bankers in his screed….
To quote a far from liberal former boss of mine? “Mah heart bleeds buttermilk….”
Jim C. Hines
June 10, 2015 @ 1:46 pm
As we get close to 200 comments here, is there any point to leaving comments open on this one? More and more, it feels like most of us are simply repeating the same things and hitting the same points…
Timothy Liebe
June 10, 2015 @ 1:47 pm
“Dr. Mauser” is what not having strangled Rush Limbaugh and Fox News in their cribs has led to – a bunch of Right Wingers who not only abuse, but also misapply, basic logic to score cheap points on anybody who doesn’t agree with them.
My Logic and Metaphysics Professor, Fr. Krisovich, SJ, would have flunked him for the logical fallacies in his perorations (I won’t dignify them by calling them “statements”). I was a “C” student in his class, and I can do better than that.
steve davidson
June 10, 2015 @ 1:48 pm
Bill, again: what kind of results are you going to get from such an analysis?
Anyone doing it, no matter how unbiased they might be in actuality will be called out for introducing bias by whichever side the analysis seems to go against.
Individuals have looked at what you are asking about. Some have said there is no skewing beyond natural change, others have stated categorically that awarded works have gone far left in their totality.
As someone with a degree in literature, I can assure you that if I had to write a paper that compared Hamlet unfavorably to the San Francisco Phone Book, I could make a reasonable case.
This is literature (or at least “fiction”). The reception of a work is entirely subjective. Good, bad, apolitical, political, message fiction, good story, all in the eye of the (potentially agendaized) beholder.
Mark
June 10, 2015 @ 2:04 pm
As a current File 770 regular, I assure you that this can go on _forever_.
Jim C. Hines
June 10, 2015 @ 2:07 pm
Which is one of the things I’d like to avoid. If there’s productive conversation or debate, great. But it feels like we’re reaching the point of diminishing returns.
blatanville
June 10, 2015 @ 2:21 pm
http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls7nbbHBUM1qf9zb0o1_500.gif
Lenora Rose
June 10, 2015 @ 3:22 pm
Timothy: That’s pretty much an ad hominem attack. Mock the point, not the person.
Lenora Rose
June 10, 2015 @ 3:25 pm
Timothy: I’m pretty sure your logic professor would agree with me that this is another ad hominem attack. Mock the point, not the person.
Lenora Rose
June 10, 2015 @ 3:34 pm
If they were being excluded by any means, they wouldn’t be on the ballot. They exploited a loophole to get on, but they’re there. That they got there via a method that is legal **but not moral** is why many of us are downvoting them, and some are looking to close the loophole. I wish Torgersen no ill, myself, and I actively regret not being able to vote for some puppy picks.
Lenora Rose
June 10, 2015 @ 3:46 pm
They also miss that 5% of characters, not of fiction, should be GBLT if we’re being fair, and since most books have more than 1 character, that means they “should” show up in a lot more than 5% of books.
IF they actually believe the idea that we, the ones they call SJWs, put diverse people in books only for quota reasons, which is NOT why I do it, at least. (I do it because I know literally, not figuratively, dozens of GBLTTQA people besides myself (bi) and it would seem weird to exclude such a large number of people who exist all around me.)
I Stand By Irene Gallo | Alas, a Blog
June 10, 2015 @ 7:39 pm
[…] a prestigious writing award without having to earn it through merit. (That’s certainly what the history suggests). But reasonable people might […]
Willard Stone
June 10, 2015 @ 7:48 pm
well said, agreed
Willard Stone
June 10, 2015 @ 7:53 pm
please no more….
Sad Puppies Roundup | The Passive Voice | A Lawyer's Thoughts on Authors, Self-Publishing and Traditional Publishing
June 11, 2015 @ 10:30 am
[…] of all, Jim C. Hines has put a lot of time and effort into compiling a comprehensive history of the whole Sad Puppies movement, dating back to Sad Puppies’ first appearance several years ago. While there is not exactly any […]
John Brown
June 12, 2015 @ 12:08 am
Jim,
Nice, accurate summary. Of course, some may disagree with your opinion of the matter, but it’s clear you tried to simply report the facts.
Friday Links (baby small-clawed otters edition) | Font Folly
June 12, 2015 @ 10:06 am
[…] Puppies in Their Own Words. I disagree with one of Jim’s conclusions… but my disagreement deserves a blot post of its own. […]
A rant about puppies born of frustration | Camestros Felapton
June 12, 2015 @ 5:53 pm
[…] intended toward my correspondent. Oh! and it is worth reading Jim Hines catalog of puppy comments here before proceeding to get what I’m going on […]
Weekend Links: June 13, 2015 | SF Bluestocking
June 13, 2015 @ 9:02 am
[…] Jim C. Hines collects shit the Puppies have said in “Puppies in Their Own Words.” […]
Weekend link dump for June 14 – Off the Kuff
June 14, 2015 @ 2:59 pm
[…] you wanted to know about the Sad Puppies Hugo-nominations campaign, if you’re into that sort of thing and aren’t completely over it by […]