Puppies, Redux
Last year, I did a roundup on the history of the Sad Puppies Hugo campaigns, focusing on what the leadership of the different puppy campaigns had actually said and done, as opposed to what was being said about them. What began with Larry Correia campaigning for a Hugo in year one turned into a full blown slate, with more explicitly political goals. Sad Puppies III last year also got tangled up with Theodore Beale’s Rabid Puppy campaign to promote himself and his publishing house, which resulted in the two puppy campaigns sweeping much of the ballot, and then losing to No Award as Hugo voters expressed their distaste for a) slates and b) the puppy-nominated material.
Sad Puppies 4:
Sad Puppies IV launched under the leadership of Kate Paulk, Sarah Hoyt, and Amanda Green, all of whom have officially recused themselves from the awards this year. Having read some of their commentary in the past, I was worried this meant we were in for another year of all-out war and nastiness. I’m happy to say that so far, I seem to have been wrong.
From the About page:
SP4 is all about MOAR! More voters. More votes. More people. We want to make the Hugos bigger and more representative of fandom as a whole, to bring people in rather than give them an asterisk that looks kind of wrong (especially beside the rocket) to try to drive the “interlopers” out.
So far, I’m more or less on board. I like the idea of getting more people involved in fandom and Worldcon and the awards. I worry that they’re starting out by dragging last year’s grudges into this year, and the belief that the asterisks were about trying to drive people out.
That paragraph continues:
SF is a big tent: we don’t want to kick out anyone, even writers of bad message fiction that makes puppies sad.
I guess it wouldn’t be a puppies campaign without a jab at “message fiction.” But overall, when you compare it to Brad Torgersen’s announcement post and comments from last year, the SP4 announcement is positively friendly and welcoming.
The Process:
SP4 has open threads to collect nomination recommendations, which will be tallied up and posted with the top ten or so works recommended in each category. They explicitly say “The List will not be a slate.” Which is good.
What’s less good is the follow-up.
If you want to see your favorite author receive a nomination and an award, your best bet will be to cast your nomination ballot for one of popular works on The List – provided you’ve read it and agree that it’s worth an award.
If they’d stopped at putting together recommendation lists, I’d be on board. Instead, they’re giving advice on how people should strategically cast their votes, and that advice is not to simply vote for your favorite works.
On the other hand, Paulk, Hoyt, and Green are keeping the threads and the process open. Whereas Torgersen last year dismissed Ann Leckie’s awards as “affirmative action,” Leckie’s name shows up with several nominations in the SP4 threads. I expect the SP4 recommendation list to still reflect the same sort of political and ideological leanings as in previous years, but that feels more like an effect of who’s still following and invested in the puppies, as opposed to deliberately mocking and attacking those with different political leanings like we’ve seen in previous years.
Other Players:
Theodore Beale’s Rabid Puppies campaign piggybacked on the work of the Sad Puppies last year. He’ll be releasing his Rabid Puppies slate soon.
“The Rabid Puppy List of Recommendations That Is Most Certainly Not a Slate, Much Less a Direct Order From the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil will be posted in February.” (Source)
This means the rabid slate will be out before the Sad Puppy recommendation list (which will be out in early March). This could mean less overlap between the groups. I’ll be interested to see if this dilutes Beale’s influence this year.
SP4 leader Sarah Hoyt has an fascinating perspective on the relationship between the Sad and Rabid campaigns:
“They also don’t realize that Sad Puppies was the only thing PROTECTING them from Vox. I don’t know if we still are enough to protect them…” (Source)
Um … okay, sure. Thus far, Beale has taken his Rabid Puppies campaign to Goodreads to try to attack his Enemies with one-star reviews, a strategy carried out so cleverly that he immediately got himself and his group booted from Goodreads. He also ran a five-part series about SF/F and child molestation, in part as an excuse to bad-mouth his hate-crush John Scalzi again. I imagine he’ll be pushing this for Best Related Work.
Meanwhile, Beale’s darling Hugo nominee John C. Wright continues his reasonable and level-headed discussion of the conflicts.
“[T]he Thought Police of SocJus. Morlocks laugh their barbaric, harsh, ungainly laughter at facts. Appeals to justice and fairness they greet with dull, slow stares of open-mouthed incomprehension … They will never cease to abuse, demean, and insult us, and desecrate everything we love, and to slander and libel us with mouth-frothingly stupid and freakishly counterproductive lies … So, you had your chance with the Sad Puppies, Oh hypocrites, sons of vipers, Social-justice propagandists, socialists, christophobes, Morlocks and morons.” (Source)
Brad Torgersen has doubled down on his insults against “the other side” and his unsupported claims of vote manipulation, but I’m not sure how many people are paying attention now that he’s stepped out of the leadership spotlight.
“All is fair in love and war, and for the block-bombers and CHORFholers, this was absolutely a war. Before, it was a cold war — when they could treat the not-quite-good-enough-fans like shit, and nobody said or did much about it. Sad Puppies became an exercise in second-class citizenry demanding full participation and recognition, which caused the block-bombers — and the CHORFs, with their crybully accomplices — to launch not just a wide media slander campaign, but a deliberate destruction of the Hugos proper; in direct violation of their own stated principles.” (Source)
What feels encouraging to me is that Sad Puppies 4 seems to be less about this kind of frothing and ranting, and is focusing on collecting nominations instead of amplifying rants like Wright’s and Torgersen’s. I questioned whether it was even worth including them here, but decided to do so mostly for the contrast between them and Sad Puppies 4.
Predictions:
I don’t know for certain what’s going to happen this year. My personal opinion, for whatever it’s worth, is that there’s been so much hatred and nastiness surrounding Sad Puppies that it’s all but impossible to run a “clean” recommendations list under that brand. That said, SP4 seems to be genuinely trying for openness and to escape last year’s nastiness. Props to the organizers for that, and I hope it continues.
Given everything that went down in 2015, I don’t expect the Sad and Rapid Puppy groups to have as much influence on the final ballot. I imagine they’ll get some nominees from their lists onto the ballot, but it won’t be the same kind of shutout we saw in 2015.
As for Beale specifically, I suspect he’ll continue to do whatever he believes will best promote himself and his work, and help him wallow in his grudges against Tor, SFWA, John Scalzi, etc. I also fully expect him to direct his minions to vote No Award for any and all of the final nominees he doesn’t like. I don’t expect this to work, but I expect him to try.
My Suggestions:
If you can, and if you want to, pick up a supporting or full membership to Worldcon, and then nominate stuff you think is awesome. (You must have that membership by today in order to nominate, by the way.)
Don’t be that guy who uncritically accepts the lies and fear-mongering to the point where you feel you have to carry a gun at Worldcon to protect yourself from SJWs.
If you want to recommend works for the SP4 lists, go for it. If you want to avoid them, that’s fine too. I would recommend avoiding the comments on the blog posts. Those can get pretty nasty and political, but it’s not being facilitated and encouraged by the SP4 leadership the way we saw last year, which is nice.
Basically, nominate what you love, and try not to let this year’s process cause as many ulcers as it did last year.
ETA:
Several people have asked whether it’s possible to escape the negativity and political baggage of previous Sad Puppy campaigns, and I think that’s a fair question. If the goal is truly just to broaden participation in the Hugo process in an inclusive and politically neutral way, why attach yourself to the Sad Puppy name at all?
I don’t have an answer. I suspect partly the desire to “broaden” Hugo participation comes from the perception of it being dominated by “the other side’s” stories and politics. Doing this as Sad Puppies 4 instead of an independent effort means a lot of the core SP supporters from previous years will be on board, which isn’t exactly a politically moderate crowd.
Alternately, it could be an effort at reclamation, to take Sad Puppies 4 and use it as a way to prove “not all puppies” are as over-the-top with their nastiness and hatred as Torgersen was last year.
I don’t know. Like I said, I’m happy to see the changes in how SP4 is going about everything this year. That’s not the same as saying I trust them. At this point, I mostly have a wait and see attitude. And I hope whatever happens, it won’t be as unpleasant as last year.
Muccamukk
January 31, 2016 @ 12:43 pm
Oh dear. I don’t think I’m quite recovered from the last round of this nonsense.
Tegan
January 31, 2016 @ 12:55 pm
Thanks for continuing these recaps!
Matthew Foster
January 31, 2016 @ 1:53 pm
Yup, though you see light exactly where I see darkness. I do not think the toning down of some rhetoric or the relative openness are good things. Rather, signs that they have learned–as I saw numerous Pups say after the last awards. They won their first battle last year, but lost the second. They are adjusting their techniques a bit to try to win the second battle this year. And I do think “battle” is the proper word for what they believe they are doing.
The new Pup leaders have said things every bit as extreme as the old. And they are still acting as a political party. The only difference is now they are adjusting a few things they know will get fans who aren’t extremely involved to boot them. It is a smart technique, and one I predicted as likely before Sad Pup 4 began. This makes them more of a problem than before, not less.
Jim C. Hines
January 31, 2016 @ 1:56 pm
How do you see them continuing to act as a political party?
Laura Resnick
January 31, 2016 @ 2:45 pm
IMO, the vicious toxicity and reality-free claims of SP3 has eliminated credibility for anyone who promoted it, campaigned for it, and blogged for it. Which includes various MGC bloggers who campaigned for SP3 and posted typical SP3 essays on the blog where they’re now running SP4. I think SP is overall a well that’s so polluted it will never be clean.
Jim C. Hines
January 31, 2016 @ 2:49 pm
“I think SP is overall a well that’s so polluted it will never be clean.”
That’s very possible, yes.
Emi
January 31, 2016 @ 3:14 pm
It’s too bad that it’s so important for people to push their political agendas in these types of things so far past reality, when we should just be celebrating good writing. That’s one thing I appreciate about your recommendations. You tell people to nominate and vote for those writers and their work that they love. That really should be what people do.
Mark
January 31, 2016 @ 3:14 pm
“Leckie’s name shows up with several nominations in the SP4 threads.”
Most, if not all, of those Leckie recommendations are from non-puppies. That does show they’re being genuinely open in their process, but unfortunately not whether the bizarre branding of Leckie as affirmative action exhibit #1 has genuinely ended.
Jim C. Hines
January 31, 2016 @ 3:19 pm
I’m sure a number of people still see Leckie as an affirmative action case, and her status as a NYT Bestseller is entirely made up and not actually proof that lots of people like and buy her work, and so on. But at least SP4 doesn’t appear to be actively encouraging or perpetuating that nonsense, if that makes sense?
Mark
January 31, 2016 @ 3:46 pm
That did make sense, yes, and I think you’re right to give credit where you find it, just as you point out the issues you see.
Gary D
January 31, 2016 @ 6:02 pm
The racist and anti-liberal and negative attitudes of Sad Puppies continue to be expressed in the comments. The new batch of leaders is a bit smarter but they have the same old followers.
Geeking Out About… » Setting on the Road to the 2016 Hugo Awards
January 31, 2016 @ 6:05 pm
[…] Because this year, I have a Supporting Membership to the 74th WorldCon, and I’m not afraid to use it. […]
D. D. Webb
January 31, 2016 @ 11:16 pm
This entire puppy debacle, all the last few years of it, has mostly served to damage any interest I had remaining in the Hugos–and to be frank, I’ve had questions starting before then about the wisdom of handing out literary awards based on what ends up being a popularity contest. There’ve been questionable results before someone had the bright idea to politicize it, which was only a matter of time anyway.
Then again, my entire literary credentials are “some dingaling with an internet connection.” I guess we’ll see what we see.
Ken Marable
January 31, 2016 @ 11:16 pm
I’m cautiously optimistic as well. It will be VERY interesting to see the results of the nominations this year.
One small thing I’m trying to do is encourage everyone to take part in the Hugo Recommendation Season – and post about what works you loved last year! This week in particular with the sudden focus on nominations, I think it would be great if everyone posted somewhere their recommendations for Best Novel.
If everyone wants to avoid the nastiness and name-calling then it’s up to us to make that a reality. So let’s all talk about what works we loved and that can drown out the Beales and Wrights (well, except Steven Wright – no relation – he has been posting recommendations for every category so far. It’s awesome!)
L. Jagi Lamplighter
January 31, 2016 @ 11:28 pm
Nice round-up. I do wonder whether people realize that everything John writes–despite his flowery language–should be read in a calm, dry tone. Taken out of context, as you have it, it kind of looks like it’s supposed to be read as frothing at the mouth…but it isn’t. 😉
I think the real question is: five years from now, are we still going to constantly run into fans who say, “I used to enjoy books with a Hugo symbol on them, but for about fifteen years now, I haven’t. If I see Hugo, I stay away.”
If that stops, everyone wins.
Fraser
February 1, 2016 @ 3:47 am
Imagining Mr. Wright’s political statements being said in a calm dry tone doesn’t improve them at all. Nor does reading him in context.
Mark
February 1, 2016 @ 4:44 am
Having heard JCW speak on podcasts, I can agree that he is nowhere close to frothing at the mouth, but I can also agree with Fraser that that doesn’t improve what he says one iota.
LJL, so many people have published long, reasoned disagreements with your husband over the years that your wondering if people are mistaking his _tone_ isn’t really viable. People disagree with his content, to put it mildly.
Steve davidson
February 1, 2016 @ 5:16 am
If SPIV really wanted to take their show non-political and non-slate, they’d not be under the puppy name, they’d have taken care to truly divorce the new year from the previous year(s); they’d discourage the political commentary, they’d not be creating a ‘finalist list’. Or, at the very least, they’d have taken a time out from organized slate voting and let everyone recover. Then start fresh.
This year the open recommendation list is nothing but cover for the same old thing from last year. They’ve not gone far enough, nor done anything substantive to convince me otherwise.
Jonathon Side
February 1, 2016 @ 5:22 am
Weeeeeell, one of the recurring refrains last year (from David Gerrold, at least, if not others) was that they should have made a recommendation list instead of setting out a block of five-and-no-more-than-five candidates. I think the idea was that it would spread the voting a bit more.
We can’t really criticise them for actually seeming to follow the advice they were given.
Although a ‘finalist list’ does still seem to be missing the point.
Ken Marable
February 1, 2016 @ 6:57 am
Also, stepping into their shoes, they don’t see any fundamental flaws in the whole Sad Puppy movement. SP3 was a success – they managed to get works nominated they wanted nominated and the voter base increased even more. They may feel that they were unnecessarily ganged up on and so may be trying to change tactics and taking other people’s advice like Jonathon says.
Now, I may agree with you that any Puppy-related organized effort is misguided and deeply tainted by past history. But *as far the Hugos goes* I’m willing to overlook that and judge this year on this year. Also, I’m willing to judge SP4 on SP4’s merits, not the merits of its leaders. Although I haven’t read too deeply, the impression I have so far is that their personal blogging and Mad Genius Club posts are largely separate from the SP4 actions. Even if I vehemently disagree with a lot of what they say personally, if those opinions stay away from how SP4 is run, then that’s fine with me. Last year, the ugliness got so monolithic with the puppies, that it was hard to keep up and natural to lump it all together. But if this year personal views are posted personally, and SP4 is kept separate, then I’m willing to not call SP4 out on what one of it’s leaders says elsewhere. If I need to, I will call out that person for what they said where they said it, and not judge SP4 by their separate actions. Others may disagree, but this, to me, seems like the best way forward.
I don’t see anyone convincing any of them that the whole SP movement is misguided any year soon. The most likely way I see of the whole SP thing going away is when people realize it’s unnecessary – and that there isn’t a “them” and an “us” at all but just fans. There’s no conspiracy, just a bunch of people having fun loving SFF and giving out awards. If people want to be included, it’s real easy to be included (there’s even instructions, I hear, on making it official by buying a membership!).:) If they want to wall themselves off, then that doesn’t sound like fun to me, but it still won’t make it into an “us” and “them” when it’s really easy to join in.
Cat Sittingstill
February 1, 2016 @ 8:14 am
I can’t speak for Matthew Foster, but I personally see them as a political party because they are basically trying to come up with a set of candidates that a large group of people will consider acceptable second bests and vote for (nominate) in order to get greater power over the nominating process.
I don’t see how that is different from running a primary election (and this is a best case scenario that assumes they are being honest about how the process will work) which strikes me as the act of a political party.
UrsulaV
February 1, 2016 @ 8:21 am
Ms. Lamplighter, are you saying that he doesn’t actually mean what he says? Because a cool dry tone is not going to fix namecalling your perceived enemies, insulting their faith, ethics, sexuality etc. So unless you actually mean that Mr. Wright is (to take one of the less egregious examples) not actually sincerely calling many religious people “christophobes” then his tone doesn’t help much, does it?
Either he means what he says or he doesn’t. Which is it?
NowhereMan
February 1, 2016 @ 9:12 am
http://fail-fandomanon.dreamwidth.org/180613.html?thread=980980869#cmt980980869
Vox Day is releasing his ‘preliminary’ slate on a per category basis. Today is the Campbell, for which he nominated 5 authors. One is a hardcore Puppy (Cheah “Benjamin” Kai Wai, whose site is full of complaints about Goodreads banning Vox and Twitter unverifiying some gamergate reporter named Milo), and then there’s Andy Weir, Sebastien de Castell, Pierce Brown, and Marc Miller, who aren’t known Puppies to the best of my knowledge.
Kip W
February 1, 2016 @ 9:27 am
There’s a tradition among perceived underdogs, exemplified in the Chick tract “Big Daddy,” that says that the opposition must always be mouth-frothing mad at every calm point made respectfully by the author’s avatar. Some achieve this by choosing neutral words for their statements. They eliminate most adjectives and avoid spending half their time making up belittling names, initialisms, and acronyms for their opponents.
Another approach is to write overheated prose but specify that it must be read in a calm, dry voice of tolerance and amused detachment.
The first approach requires restraint and self-editing to write. The other is more cathartic to the writer, and puts the burden on the reader to impose calmness on what otherwise reads like sputtering rage.
TheYoungPretender
February 1, 2016 @ 9:32 am
M. Lamplighter, I’ve listened to M. Wright’s podcasts, I would say that keeping a smooth and even tone is one of his strengths. I had, however, been under the impression that another of his strengths was not beating around the bush, not cloaking his true beliefs in weasel words, and being a person of firm and unshakeable moral convictions.
Are you now saying that M. Wright in fact lacks the courage of his convictions, and does not mean what he says? Should we parse everyone of his statements for it’s real meaning, and assume he’s actually a squish on most of these things he speaks so highly of? That we may no longer take him at his word?
L. Jagi Lamplighter
February 1, 2016 @ 10:01 am
Not saying any of those things. It was just that when I read the quote above, I foergot momentarily myself to read it in a calm tone of voice.
Jim C. Hines
February 1, 2016 @ 10:12 am
I don’t want this to turn into a debate about John Wright, so all I’ll say is that having met him and heard him speak, I generally do read his words in that calm, projecting voice. In some ways, for me, that makes it worse, because it comes across less as someone caught up in the throes of anger, and more like the measured words of someone who’s thought about it and genuinely means every insult and attack he hurls.
L. Jagi Lamplighter
February 1, 2016 @ 10:30 am
One thing that I don’t think John makes clear is, when he talks about Morlocks, etc. He means, very specifically, the folks who are now called crybullies…ring leadrrs that do things like organize attacks on the internet. A group that I doubt anyone here is a member of. But for reasons too long to put here, he often words things in a way that makes it sound as if he is addressing everyone on the left.
His methods are so different from mine…I work very hard to understand everyone’s point of view…that I shall not attempt any further defense of his approach.
Jim C. Hines
February 1, 2016 @ 10:39 am
“He means, very specifically, the folks who are now called crybullies…ring leadrrs that do things like organize attacks on the internet.”
The only deliberately organized attacks I’ve seen evidence for recently (at least in our circle of the internet) came from John’s own publisher, Theodore Beale. (See the Goodreads link above for one example.)
TheYoungPretender
February 1, 2016 @ 10:51 am
I’m afraid I’m still puzzled. If his calm dry tone is what has people taking him out of context, does that mean that he doesn’t equate a teenage character who happens to be an immigrant Muslim as the equivalent of a Nazi? Or that he, dryly, does not have a desire to do violence to the male members of one segment of society?
I have read some of M. Wright’s novels, and I had no idea that man was so avant-garde in his social media presence! Saying things, but in such a way that it is taking him out of context for others to say he means what he says. I’m afraid I have simpler tastes in stories, when it comes to people publishing their thoughts online.
L. Jagi Lamplighter
February 1, 2016 @ 10:59 am
One of the sad things about the modern day is how little each side sees what is happening ont the other side. Concerted online attacks is one of the things that has brought folks flocking to the Puppy banner.
Mark
February 1, 2016 @ 11:02 am
LJL: I don’t actually think that’s the specific meaning he applies when he refers to Morlocks, but let’s accept your proposition for a minute and look at what he says when specifically addressing everyone in the left: “Leftism is hatred. Everything that is normal, sane, healthy, holy, rational, or good, they hate.” (And that’s by far the most complementary part of that particular paragraph).
JCW has as many characters as he wants on his blog to make himself clear and specify his targets; it’s clear to me that he knows exactly what he’s saying and who he’s saying it to.
L. Jagi Lamplighter
February 1, 2016 @ 11:07 am
He and I argue about this all the time…for hours on end…so I can assure you that I know exactly what he thinks on the subject.
Why he words it the way he does….God only knows.
Mark
February 1, 2016 @ 11:21 am
LJL, I won’t gainsay your conviction that he in some way doesn’t mean what he actually writes, but he does choose to write it, repeatedly and at length. And if, as I did above, I accept for the sake of discussion that he doesn’t intend quite such a broad brush then he is still accusing _someone_ of these things, and what’s been quoted above is frankly just the tip of the iceberg.
Jim C. Hines
February 1, 2016 @ 12:17 pm
I’ve seen lots of accusations of concerted online attacks, cabals, conspiracies, etc. But despite numerous people asking numerous times, I’ve never seen evidence to support these accusations.
There are certainly people across all spectrums who harass and attack others online. I’m not arguing that point. But the idea of concerted or organized attacks? If someone, somewhere has actual evidence of this that rises above moon-landing conspiracy-type nonsense, I’d love to see it.
UrsulaV
February 1, 2016 @ 12:23 pm
Are you genuinely asking those of us on the Left not take offense at that characterization, because….ah…reasons?
Fraser
February 1, 2016 @ 1:01 pm
Doesn’t matter what he really thinks, I’m afraid. As someone who’s written about politics in various venues over the year, what counts is what’s on the page, not what’s in the writer’s headcanon. If I were sloppy enough to write “conservatives do X” when I meant “some conservatives do X” people are entitled to criticize me for the blanket statement.
CPaca
February 1, 2016 @ 1:16 pm
“Taken out of context, as you have it, it kind of looks like it’s supposed to be read as frothing at the mouth…but it isn’t. ”
I see. So when he talks about the instinctive reaction of men to beat gays to death with axhandles and tire-irons, we should be taking that as a calm and rational comment on which he has thought carefully and stated exactly what he intended to say.
Well, that makes things so much better.
Craig Laurance Gidney
February 1, 2016 @ 1:43 pm
Well, I’m glad that the SPs have separating themselves from the open bigotry of the RPs. I’m hoping that they choose stuff they love, as opposed to stuff that will stick it to SJWs or CHORFs or whatever. Yay, progress, I guess. What might be more convincing is if there was some acknowledgement that the SP3 campaign was destructive…but I’m not holding my breath.
Jim C. Hines
February 1, 2016 @ 2:02 pm
LJL said upthread that she was stepping back from trying to defend John’s approach, and it feels a little like trying to argue by proxy.
I think the comments here make it pretty clear that whatever the intentions or tone, a lot of John’s writing has been actively hurtful, harmful, and hateful. If LJL wants to continue discussing that, that’s one thing. But since she’s said she wants to back away, I don’t feel comfortable trying to force her to defend her husband.
I’ve been struggling for a few minutes with how to phrase my discomfort here, so I hope that made sense…
Laura Resnick
February 1, 2016 @ 2:12 pm
Yes, I think positive engagement–more people taking the trouble to nominate their favorite works of 2015–is the best antidote to Puppy antics. There was record-high registration, as well as record-high voter turnout, for the final vote in 2015. Here’s hoping those people remain engaged enough to nominate this year. The more people nominate, the less vulnerable the ballot is to manipulation by one particular faction.
Craig Laurance Gidney
February 1, 2016 @ 2:26 pm
LJL–your husband’s rhetoric is inflammatory. I was relieved when I met you and worked along side you at World Fantasy, and that you, at least, didn’t wish violence upon me– a gay black man.
Fraser
February 1, 2016 @ 2:37 pm
A fair point.
Jonathon Side
February 1, 2016 @ 3:08 pm
Makes sense to me.
Becca Stareyes
February 1, 2016 @ 3:41 pm
Milo Yiannopoulos, I assume, who is a writer at Breitbart. (Basically, he broke some rules at Twitter, such that they decided to take their little blue check mark away.)
CPaca
February 1, 2016 @ 3:51 pm
A commentator named Lee made a very astute comment on File770 recently:
sistercoyote
February 1, 2016 @ 4:14 pm
I would be somewhat startled to discover Weir was a Puppy.
And so it begins…Hugo nominations are open | stompydragons
February 1, 2016 @ 5:27 pm
[…] anyone new to the Hugos, Jim C Hines has an excellent write-up of what happened last year, what the Puppy situation is currently, and why nominating is so […]
Jonesie
February 1, 2016 @ 9:07 pm
Yeah. While I don’t know Andy well, I’ve had enough conversations with him in real life and online that I’d say with some assurance there’s no way he’s a Puppy-type.
L. Jagi Lamplighter
February 1, 2016 @ 10:44 pm
Craig…it isd true that mynhusband and I see things veryu differently. However, my hisband doesn’t have anything against gay Black men, either. He is against stories being hijacked for political purposes. He is all about theory, not violence. I have gay friends. One lived with us for three months. John does not treat them any differently than he treats any of my other friends.
L. Jagi Lamplighter
February 1, 2016 @ 10:45 pm
That was the worst typing ever.
Sorry.
L. Jagi Lamplighter
February 1, 2016 @ 10:46 pm
Actually, come to think of it, two of my gay friends have lived with us at some poimt.
L. Jagi Lamplighter
February 1, 2016 @ 10:47 pm
Thanks 😉
L. Jagi Lamplighter
February 1, 2016 @ 10:49 pm
That was his description of what liberals say conservatrives think….NOT what he thinks…kind of weird that it only ever seems to be read out of context.
ursulaV
February 2, 2016 @ 12:59 am
Uh….
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/.a/6a00d834515c2369e201b8d0fe24dc970c-popup
That’s the screen cap, as stored by Google cache. It was from your husband’s rant about the perversion of Legend of Korra.
Can you explain how someone is supposed to get “this is a description of how liberals think someone like me thinks!” out of that comment? I’ll grant you may have specialized knowledge, but either he’s a dreadful communicator or there is some serious retconning going on here. I don’t see how, even if you’re right about his intent, that anybody could be expected get that out of the available data.
ursulaV
February 2, 2016 @ 1:00 am
Sorry, didn’t scroll down far enough. Feel free to delete my last comment, Jim.
CPaca
February 2, 2016 @ 2:15 am
Can you explain how someone is supposed to get “this is a description of how liberals think someone like me thinks!” out of that comment?
I’d also like to see an answer to Ursula’s question. With respect to Jim’s wishes, this isn’t asking Jagi to defend her husband, but to defend her attempted retcon of his statement – as screencapped and captured.
Sad puppies, Christmas failures and other writing links (#SFWApro) | Fraser Sherman's Blog
February 2, 2016 @ 5:00 am
[…] and a new campaign; Jim Hines looks at Sad Puppies IV and speculates it may turn out to be a less heavy-handed process. Time will tell. You can find Hines’ critique of previous campaigns at his […]
Jim C. Hines
February 2, 2016 @ 2:25 pm
No worries. I think it was a fair question, but I’ll leave it to LJL to decide whether or not she wants to respond.
Brad Handley
February 2, 2016 @ 6:12 pm
Locus Awards – There is no bias in the Sci Fi Award Community….Right…
Del Rey Got 5 recommendations
DAW Got 3 Recommendations
Baen got 1 Recommendation
And how many Recommendations did TOR/Tor.com get?
27……….Right no bias.
Jim,
As a DAW writer yourself I know you can understand the Frustration of the Locus being a TOR promotion.
I feel it is part of the Justification for slighting Sheila Gilbert….. Since so little of her work is awarded for Locus, how can she be worthy of Hugo.
Sally
February 2, 2016 @ 6:45 pm
Yeah, either he isn’t very good with words (which you wouldn’t expect from a multiple Hugo nominee), or he’s retconning (which you wouldn’t expect from a good Christian).
Which is it?
Sally
February 2, 2016 @ 6:51 pm
Weir’s not — and after all, it was Puppies who kept him from a well-deserved Campbell nomination last year. But the Rabid Puppies believe that the shadowy cabal of their shadowy enemies will automatically shadow-ily No Award anyone they put on their slates.
Instead of the truth, that there are thousands of random individuals who look at the nominations and decide them on their separate merits.
Puppies nominated “Guardians of the Galaxy” last year, and yet it won easily. Because everyone loves Groot, Rocket, and the gang.
Jim C. Hines
February 2, 2016 @ 7:43 pm
Glad the comment went through this time.
Okay, a couple of comments. Yes, I believe Sheila Gilbert deserves a Hugo. I’m not sure what you mean about slighting her, since she’s been nominated several times in previous years. I believe she could have been nominated last year on her own merits, regardless of any slates. What none of us can know is whether or not she would have won last year if not for puppy shenanigans.
Re: Locus, I believe you’re talking about the Locus Recommended Reading List, not the Locus Awards, yes? If you’re going to make these comparisons, you can’t conflate Tor (a novel publisher) and Tor.com (an online zine primarily for shorter fiction). I see 16 Tor books on that list. 17 if you count The Sorcerer of the Wildeeps, which was also pubbed as a novel. I see 2 from DAW, 1 anthology from Baen, 5 from Del Rey, 6 from Subterranean, and so on.
So yes, Locus recommended more Tor books than Baen or DAW or most other publishers. That much we agree on, at least.
Now, according to the ISFDB, Baen published 136 books in 2015. Tor, not counting the Tor.com stuff, published 316, more than twice as many. This is probably another reason you’ll see more Tor books than Baen on various lists and such.
Numbers alone don’t explain everything, of course. So yes, it would appear that the folks who put together the Locus Recommended Reading List did prefer Tor’s books as a whole over Baen’s books. Not as drastically as you’ve claimed, but the preference is there, yes.
Of course, Locus =/= the “Sci Fi Award Community.” I’m guessing by that you actually mean the Worldcon membership who votes on the Hugo awards? The novels on the Locus list were selected by 18 people. Almost 6000 people voted in last year’s Hugo awards.
Baen books have made the final Hugo ballot in 1991, 1995, 1997 (two books), 2000, 2011, 2013, and 2014. By comparison, Saladin Ahmed’s nomination in 2013 was the first time a DAW book made the final ballot since 1986. That means in the past 20 years, Baen books have been Hugo finalists eight times more than DAW books. Does that mean the Hugo Award Community has a bias for Baen and against DAW?
Hugo Nominations | FeetForBrains
February 5, 2016 @ 1:41 pm
[…] Jim C. Hines has yet again done a bang up job of consolidating the facts while providing a cogent analysis of the issues. Seriously, these posts just might deserve a nomination for “Best Related Work” if only because they’re bringing together so many disparate pieces of a complex puzzle. […]
Brad Handley
February 5, 2016 @ 5:15 pm
I am saying that there is a blatant valuing of TOR above other houses. I using your number if all things are equal then proportionally Bean should have at least 1/3 on the recommended reading list. How about DAW and Del Rey how many did they publish? Did DAW really only publish 60 books all year? that is the proportional representation. From the numbers it appears that the Locus Awards has for their selected reading list the “BEST OF TOR”. And the shenanigans that shafted Sheila were by the people who “No Awarded” the category. Where I saw this being pushed was on blogs that were otherwise Pro-Tor. But my side point is that if Sheila and her team are so badly represented in this award, it lends credibility to claim that people voted “NO AWARD” because it appears they feel that the smaller houses can not edit good books. IF the book was any good then it must be at TOR.
Brad Handley
February 5, 2016 @ 5:16 pm
Bah typos…
Kip W
February 5, 2016 @ 6:22 pm
So you’re saying there should be a strict quota system, and if a publishing house puts out 27% of books, it should get 27% of awards, regardless of any other factors? Sounds like some sort of prize for showing up. Are the sales for all books allotted this way, too, or do some publishers proportionally sell more?
Brad Handley
February 6, 2016 @ 10:13 pm
No, But I do believe that there are more good books then what you will find at TOR. I also know some really good books that were indie published. There are some nice “diamonds in the rough” of Indie publishing. And yet the Locus reading list sounds like a “Best of Tor/Tor.Com” Why can’t Locus at least show they value someone besides Tor?
Brad Handley
February 6, 2016 @ 10:32 pm
Kip I recently sat in on a panel where Patrick Nielsen Hayden felt that Hugos should not give out e-books or physical copies. He felt that editors should select excerpts from the books….. So the idea one of TOR’s leading editor’s wants to promote for the Hugos is the equivalent of giving out the Academy Award for the best Picture to an extended Trailer. Kip, how does that sound to you? IT grates in my craw. TOR has some good writers, but the way they want to, and appear to manipulate awards is disturbing.
In the same panel PHN admitted that winning a Hugo makes good money for the publishing house and the author. So he wants the bump in sales from each award that his writers can win, but he does not want to spend the money on e-books to promote the titles. Just hand over that cash that the awards generate. The Puppies are trying to show that the bias people are showing is not good for Science Fiction as a genre.
Kip W
February 6, 2016 @ 10:39 pm
“There are more good books…” And Tor is not the only nominee.
“How does that sound to you?”
Sounds like not giving the store away. Publishing is a business, as you probably know, but I’ll remind you anyway.
Jim C. Hines
February 6, 2016 @ 10:41 pm
“…the way they want to, and appear to manipulate awards is disturbing.”
Citation needed.
Mark
February 7, 2016 @ 5:08 am
Brad, what you are describing is the decision on whether to put the whole book in the Hugo packet. This is entirely voluntary, and many publishers do what PNH was describing and only place lengthy excerpts. Orbit are a good example of a publisher that follows this policy. Tor have, so far, made full books available, but they do not have to. If PNH thinks Tor ought to follow Orbit’s lead then its a valid viewpoint – the packet is not an entitlement.
If you want to criticise someone, why aren’t you criticising Orbit? The focus on Tor is odd.
Don’t look at the words I wrote, go by my headcanon of what I really meant | Fraser Sherman's Blog
February 7, 2016 @ 6:05 pm
[…] in the Jim Hines post on the Sad Puppies IV list (which I referenced last post), Hines quotes conservative SF author John […]
Brad Handley
February 8, 2016 @ 3:40 pm
Kip,
Shortly after the turn of the century, Eric Flint did an experiment wit Jim Baen that proved that giving away free books led to more sales of his books. This was such a successful strategy that some Baen reader tell friends, when giving them a free book, “The first hit is free”. Because good books are like drugs, you can’t get enough.
This experiment has been repeated and proven repeatedly, Here is an article that discusses it in great detal from a non-sci-fi point of view.
And not being willing to give away 5,000 free e-books that cost less then $5.00 when it will generate over $50,000 in sales for a Hugo Winner is ridiculous. You tell a group businessman that you may have over $50,000 in sales, and you better be ready to buried in $5 bills.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simone-collins/why-successful-authors-ar_b_4115300.html
Brad Handley
February 8, 2016 @ 3:46 pm
Mark,
Why am I focused of the “3,000 pound gorilla” and not Orbit….. Because the “3,000 pound gorilla”, Tor, received over 3 times the nominations of Orbit. (16-5)
Brad Handley
February 8, 2016 @ 4:02 pm
Jim,
That was a fragmented thought and I would have finished if I knew how to edit it.
“…the way they want to, and appear to manipulate awards is disturbing.”
At the panel PNH made it very clear that TOR/he wants to change the way the World Cons structure the book bundles and control how things were disseminated to the votes. He does not want give the voters of the Awards a reasonable request, free E-Books. However, he does want the sales that a nomination or an award category will will give. Yes TOR is a corporation, but that is extreme mercenary capitalism. I find that disturbing.
Ken
February 8, 2016 @ 4:06 pm
Brad,
The issue isn’t whether or not it is a *good* decision. The issue is that it is *their* decision to make.
We can be armchair managers all we like (and it seems Tor is doing just fine without us telling them how to run a business), but that is absolutely irrelevant. They are well within their rights to choose to include the free ebooks or not. Even as a believer that free ebooks can increase sales, I recognize that 1) it’s a complicated relationship and not a a direct “every free book = $x in profits”, and 2) it is absurd for me to demand that a business give me free stuff because I think it is in their best interest. That’s ridiculous.
Plus there is this quote of yours:
“In the same panel PHN admitted that winning a Hugo makes good money for the publishing house and the author. So he wants the bump in sales from each award that his writers can win, but he does not want to spend the money on e-books to promote the titles. Just hand over that cash that the awards generate.”
I don’t understand what you are saying. Are you saying that Tor isn’t willing to pay the Hugo voters in free ebooks and therefore shouldn’t deserve to get the financial gains of winning the award? I’m sure I’m misunderstanding something, because I thought books should be voted on their merits, not on whether or not you get a free copy. But I can’t figure out any other way to parse those sentences than “if Tor doesn’t give out free ebooks, they don’t deserve to win.” The Puppies have been accused of many things, but this would be a new one.
Besides, the Hugo packet is a relatively recent creation and a fine example of how doing something nice once makes it a wonderful bonus, but doing it twice makes it an entitlement.
TheYoungPretender
February 8, 2016 @ 4:22 pm
I’ve noticed a certain trend here from Puppy-dom.
On Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, Tor is are evil cultural Marxists meant on destroying the free market with their insidious SJW idea. They do this because their dreadful books would never make do in the Free Market against manly tales of ray guns and rocket ships.
Yet on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, Tor embodies mercenary hyper-capitalism that oppresses fandom with a desire to make money. Their desire to run a business and profit by it makes them evil manipulators of awards.
On Sunday, they presumably rest.
Jim C. Hines
February 8, 2016 @ 4:27 pm
I wonder how many people know that Tor author John Scalzi is the one who first started creating the Hugo Voter’s Packet. Might be worth reading some of his thoughts on this at http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/05/13/notes-on-this-years-hugo-voters-packet/
“He does not want give the voters of the Awards a reasonable request, free E-Books.”
As Ken noted, it’s odd how quickly a bonus put together through the work of volunteers and the generosity of publishers comes to be seen as an entitlement.