ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, April 09, 2015

George Martin admits Hugo campaigns

He is to be commended for not following the SJW lead in attempting to deny the undeniable, which is to say the long and easily verified history of organized Hugo campaigning:
 In the ongoing discussion of Puppygate, numerous people have cited one instance, wherein a stack of identical nominating ballots arrived with the same postmark, paid for by consecutive money orders. Those were disallowed. In 1987, members of the Church of Scientology campaigned successfully to place L. Ron Hubbard's BLACK GENESIS on the Best Novel ballot. That was not disallowed -- the Scientologists had done nothing illegal, after all, all they'd done is buy supporting memberships to a convention that they had no intention of attending, for the sole purpose of nominating LRH for a Hugo (hmmm, why does that tactic sound familiar?) -- but their campaign created a huge backlash. Hubbard's name was booed lustily at the Hugo ceremony in Brighton, and his book finished last in the final balloting, behind No Award. (The winner that year was Orson Scott Card, with SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD, for those who are counting).

Of course, there were also recommended reading lists. That wasn't campaigning, not strictly, but certain lists could have huge influence on the final ballot. The annual LOCUS Recommended Reading List, compiled by Charles Brown and his staff and reviewers, was the most influential. If your book or story made that list... well, it did not guarantee you a place on the ballot, but it sure improved your chances. NESFA (the New England fan club) had an annual list as well, and LASFS might have done the same, not sure. And of course the Nebulas, which came before the Hugos, carried a lot of weight too. Win a Nebula, and the chances were good that you'd be a Hugo nominee as well. Again, no guarantee, some years the shortlists diverged sharply... but more often than not, there was a lot of overlap.

So there were always these factors in play. Cliques, I can hear the Sad Puppies saying. Yeah, maybe. Thing is, they were COMPETING cliques. The NESFA list and the Nebula list were not the same, and the LOCUS list... the LOCUS list was always very long. Five spots on the Hugo ballot, and LOCUS would recommend twenty books, or thirty... sometimes more, when they started putting SF and fantasy in separate categories.

Bottom line, lots of people influenced the Hugos (or tried to), but no one ever successfully controlled the Hugos.

That became even more true when we entered the age of the internet. Suddenly blogs and bulletin boards and listservs were everywhere, and there were DOZENS of people drawing up recommended reading lists and suggesting books and writers and stories. Sweet chaos. It was glorious. So many people talking about books, arguing about books, reading books.

That was also when the practice of writers blogging about their own eligible books and stories took root. "Say, the Hugo nominations are coming up, and I had a few things out last year. Hey, check them out." Some people were deeply offended by this practice. (Some still are. Check out the blogs of Peter Watts and Adam Roberts on the subject, for instance). Others, especially newer writers and those hungry for attention, seized on it at once as a way of getting their name out there. Publishers and editors began to encourage it. Publicity and advertising budgets being what they were (non-existent in many cases), new writers and midlist writers soon realized that if they did not publicize their books, no one would.

And once it really got rolling, there was no stopping it. "Everyone else is doing it," you heard writers say. "I have to do it, in self-defense." They were not wrong. Sometimes the difference between making the Hugo ballot and falling short is a single vote. The writer who refused to self-promote and then fell a few votes short... ouch.

[And yes, I have done all this myself. Mentioned my own work, drawn up recommended reading lists, blogged passionately about people I thought deserved a nomination. I am not condemning the practice, just reporting on it. It always made me feel awkward, but like many of my friends, I knew that if I refrained and then missed the ballot by a few votes, I would be kicking myself. I'd sooner see the practice die out. But until it does, you have to play the game.]

Of course, not everyone was equally good at self-promotion. Certain subfandoms were better organized than others (the DOCTOR WHO fans, for instance). Certain writers were more skilled at social media than others, and built up huge personal followings on Twitter and Facebook, or through their blogs... numbers that soon translated to multiple Hugo nominations.

And that was pretty much where we stood, until the Sad Puppies came along.... The Sad Puppies did not invent Hugo campaigning, by any means. But they escalated it, just as that magazine/publisher partnership did way back when. They turned it up to eleven. Their slate was more effective that anyone could ever have dreamed, so effective that they drowned out pretty much all the other voices. They ran the best organized, most focused, and most effective awards campaign in the history of our genre, and showed everyone else how it's done.
It's fascinating to see SJWs like John Scalzi twittering that Sad Puppies are on the wrong side of Mr. Martin when he just cut the legs out from under most of the opposition's arguments. Observe what Mr. Martin has admitted, contra the SJWs, and particularly the Making Light clique.
  1.  Whisper campaigns and bloc votes are real and have existed for decades. I've talked to a number of old school authors and the story is the same in every case. People have bought multiple memberships for their families, for their extended families, and voted them as a bloc. Publishers used to send free copies of the books they were specifically pushing for Best Novel to all the convention voters. Authors agreed to trade votes with each other in an arrangement known as "logrolling".
  2. We did not invent Hugo campaigning. Neither did John Scalzi. But just as he created Award Pimpage and used his blog to get him a Fan Writer Hugo, then, in a tactic imitated by Jim Hines and Kameron Hurley, used it as a pivot for his successful Best Novel campaign. Now he has 9 Hugo nominations and 3 Hugo Awards, which means that he has more nominations than Jerry Pournelle and Arthur C. Clarke, and 3 more Hugo Awards than Ray Bradbury, A.E. van Vogt, Lester del Rey; Gregory Benford, Norman Spinrad, Terry Pratchett and Iain M. Banks combined. The difference is that Scalzi's Award Pimpage campaigns benefited only himself. Sad Puppies has helped bring attention to the work of a broad spectrum of hitherto unrecognized, but meritorious authors.
  3. Teresa Nielsen Hayden and everyone else who has claimed that there were no previous campaigns is lying.
  4. Mr. Martin correctly decries the No Award tactic as the nuclear option, because "too many innocents would be hurt, and the Hugos would be destroyed". He is correct. Those who are advocating it as a way to teach Sad Puppies a lesson are completely failing to understand the situation.
  5. There are those who think No Award will send a message that this kind of campaigning is not wanted at the Hugos. Sure, it will send a very clear message to Sad Puppies. And that message will be: unleash the Rabid Puppies. 
  6. We don't feel we're victims. We're not complaining that we've been overlooked for decades. We're not whining or crying about anything. But we were told by a certain clique that we had to kowtow to them because failing to do so would be "a career-limiting move." Now we are making sure that no one will ever have to kowtow to them, or cower before them, again.
  7. I published science fiction books for years without ever campaigning for them, listing their eligibility, or pimping them for awards, despite having the public platforms of a nationally syndicated column and a popular blog. And I'm not inclined to listen to criticism from anyone who ever did. 
  8. The two Puppies campaigns have resulted in the highest average Amazon rating in the Best Novel category going back to 1986. In 2015, the average is 4.46 stars. The 2010-2014 pre-Puppy average is 3.9 stars. Sad Puppies is objectively improving the quality of the nominated works and expanding the overall nominee pool.
UPDATE: Mr. Martin added this:
That business about one clique (those dreaded SJWs, I am sure) dominating the nominations for the last ten years strikes me as pure Puppy poop. Where's the evidence of that?
Someone needs to send him this quote from Charles "Three more Hugo nominations than Asimov or Heinlein" Stross at Making Light back in 2005:
For the purposes of assessing the impact of your words, it doesn't matter whether they're supported by the evidence or not -- we're talking perceptions here.

The people who live and work and pitch their tents in this field have long memories. You'll have to share the same field with them for a long time -- decades, maybe -- if you want to be in it at all. And you've just offended 75% of them? This is Not Clever.

You may not need them now, but you have no idea what your circumstances will look like in ten years' time. Twenty years. Thirty. Five minutes hence. (Etcetera.) Pissing people off for no good reason is counter-productive. In a corporate environment it's sometimes termed a career-limiting move. I think you just made a career-limiting move.
Keep in mind this was in response to a nationally syndicated op/ed column I had written for Universal Press Syndicate. And I was supposed to be concerned that I had limited my career by offending the Nielsen Hayden clique even though I didn't know who they were.

Labels:

149 Comments:

Anonymous dh April 09, 2015 10:01 AM  

I am glad that GRRM weighed in. But seriously. FINISH YOUR BOOK. You're an old man.

Blogger Josh April 09, 2015 10:07 AM  

Vox, Larry, Brad, please don't accept any party invitations from GRRM. It's probably a trap.

Anonymous jack April 09, 2015 10:07 AM  

Thank You, Mr. Martin. Its good to see that, with his notoriety and wealth, I would guess, GRR can be honest. Age too, I suppose. Or, he is much like Vox and could give a rats butt what others think of his opinion.

Anonymous Daniel April 09, 2015 10:10 AM  

Rabid Puppies and Sad Puppies

"Best organized, most focused, and most effective awards campaign in the history of genre." - George R.R. Martin

That, my friends, is what you call a tagline.

Anonymous Paul April 09, 2015 10:13 AM  

"Thing is, they were COMPETING cliques."
"Their slate was more effective that anyone could ever have dreamed, so effective that they drowned out pretty much all the other voices. "

My take is that he's fine with inter-rabbit competition, because everyone obeys rabbit-rules and no matter which rabbit clique wins it's all good as it stays in the warren.

Non-rabbits competing? Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Blogger Alexander April 09, 2015 10:16 AM  

Mr. Martin in response to 'should we all vote no award to protest':

I would be against that.

No Award is the nuclear option. I am not willing to drop the bomb yet. Too many innocents would be hurt, and the Hugos would be destroyed.

I will expand on my feelings about the No Award option in a later post.


Well, he gets it. Happily, the SJW crowd doesn't listen to people who speak sensible, even when it's put right before them.

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 10:17 AM  

Happily, the SJW crowd doesn't listen to people who speak sensible, even when it's put right before them.

He's just a wrongfan.

Blogger Hank Brown April 09, 2015 10:20 AM  

Translation: "But it's wrong when THEY do it!"

There still seems to be a vibe of "These intolerant cheaters are excluding people from the Sacrosanct Victim Class in order to push their own religious right vitriol!"

OpenID mattse001 April 09, 2015 10:20 AM  

"Cliques, I can hear the Sad Puppies saying. Yeah, maybe. Thing is, they were COMPETING cliques."
I guess the other cliques will just have to COMPETE a little harder...if they can.

Anonymous Alexander - participant in Best organized, most focused, and most effective awards campaign in the history of genre. April 09, 2015 10:25 AM  

They're still trying to differentiate between slates and Scalzi.

This is brilliant. The more Scalzi's name gets tied to 'not-a-slate', the better. It's going to be fun when the rabbits realize their amygdalas demand they be victorious over someone, and they can't defeat the puppies so... hey, if it wasn't for Scalzi, the puppies would never have attacked us.

I wonder if the wheels are turning in the SFWA.

What a time to be alive

Blogger IM2L844 April 09, 2015 10:29 AM  

Making a comprehensive list of the names of who voted for what publically available would solve much of the problem. I can't think of any good reasons why it should be a secret ballot. If people are informed and agree beforehand that is will be made public, what's the drawback? I certainly wouldn't care if everyone knew when, where and how I cast my votes.

Anonymous Salt April 09, 2015 10:30 AM  

The Sad Puppies did not invent Hugo campaigning, by any means. But they escalated it

No, I truly do not believe that. What the puppies did was do it openly.

Their slate was more effective that anyone could ever have dreamed

If it weren't for doing it openly, who would have known about the authors/books? Openly is what got the word out, made it effective. Marketing is seemingly not GRRM's forte, or is it?

Anonymous VD April 09, 2015 10:31 AM  

There is one difference between a slate and Scalzi. Scalzi serves only himself.

Anonymous J. J. April 09, 2015 10:38 AM  

"and showed everyone else how it's done"

What does this portend for next year? Will the pinkshirts truly have learned how it's done and counter-attack accordingly next time around?


Anonymous Bz April 09, 2015 10:40 AM  

A fairly good summary, though, speaking of effective campaigns, how many Hugos have Tor accumulated again? Let's not forget the quiet pros in all the excitement.

(And by the way, while it's good fun to see Vox in the running, one has to ask why fans are voting on something like "best long-form editor" in the first place? How on earth can they tell whether an editor is any good when they just see the finished product?)

Anonymous Bz April 09, 2015 10:46 AM  

There is one difference between a slate and Scalzi. Scalzi serves only himself.

"Non serviam, you guys!"

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 10:48 AM  

Here's a good idea that they should try: Gloat all the months until the vote that Puppies don't have the numbers to overcome a No Award campaign, and tie #GamerGate to it all.

Anonymous Alexander April 09, 2015 10:48 AM  

There is one difference between a slate and Scalzi. Scalzi serves only himself.

Not true. Do Scalzi a favor, and I am reliably informed he'll serve you in one of three ways, circumstances depending.

Anonymous Porky April 09, 2015 10:51 AM  

Will the pinkshirts truly have learned how it's done and counter-attack accordingly next time around?

Does water flow downhill?

OpenID cailcorishev April 09, 2015 10:55 AM  

Their slate was more effective that anyone could ever have dreamed, so effective that they drowned out pretty much all the other voices.

The question is: why? Why, if the Puppy fans are such a small, disliked minority of the fandom that they belong beneath everyone's notice, were they able to "drown out" all the other slates? After all, it's not like this year's efforts were a surprise. The SJWs knew this was coming, and had a year to prepare opposing slates, change the rules, get their many SJW friends to sign up and nominate....whatever it might take to preserve their awards. Why were they so utterly unable to do so?

Blogger Salt April 09, 2015 10:58 AM  

How on earth can they tell whether an editor is any good when they just see the finished product?

Because the author is to close to the work, cannot step back far enough from it. That's what the editor's job is. An editor may have to do a lot, and sometimes very little. As Vox said last night, people will read badly edited work because they like the story. How much better is the finished product when well edited?

Anonymous Statweasel April 09, 2015 11:02 AM  

The storyline has always been that there was a silent majority of SF readers who cared about story far more than they cared about SJW agenda pushing and that the SJW dominance of Hugo awards lately has solely been because a small minority seized control.

Well, this is the test of that - either the silent majority has now been motivated by the SadPuppies campaign or there is no silent majority and never was. The time to bring it, the time to pony up the $ 40, the time to prove a point - is now. If Noah Ward becomes the dominant category winner by virtue of SJW pushback, the storyline we all told ourselves is wrong - we're NOT a silent majority and we're NOT most fans. But if SadPuppies swamps the awards and wins multiple Hugos - well, it's a new day in fandom and we can consign the SJW minority to the ash heap of history.

Anonymous BigGaySteve April 09, 2015 11:02 AM  

"Vox, Larry, Brad, please don't accept any party invitations from GRRM. It's probably a trap"

Especially not gay wedding invitations.

My take is that he's fine with inter-rabbit competition, because everyone obeys rabbit-rules and no matter which rabbit clique wins it's all good as it stays in the warren.

He says that Vox is the best at being the worst.

Anonymous Gecko April 09, 2015 11:03 AM  

My first exposure to Martin was "Sandkings." I thought it was quite creative, and worthy of awards.

I've been through Ice and Fire, but haven't bothered with the video flavor. While I was disgusted with Feast and Dance, and assume the rest will be a big disappointment, I have lately become interested in the "mystery novel" aspect of the series. I think George has included an engaging and complex "hidden" story within, which has the POTENTIAL to be great if he could actually bring it together. It has to do with a plot of the Starks, Reeds, and Daynes to hide a living Rhaegar (now Mance) and his offspring in an attempt to combat the true threats to the realm - the Faceless Men and their Others. Despite the decay of the series, I find myself hoping beyond hope that George can harness this "conspiracy" aspect and make it work toward a satisfying end.

George and his tale may be disgusting right now. However, the man isn't an idiot. I'd like to believe that both are not beyond redemption. I think his (relative) honesty here demonstrates this.

Anonymous rho April 09, 2015 11:04 AM  

Will the pinkshirts truly have learned how it's done and counter-attack accordingly next time around?

If they count noses and come up short of overwhelming support, probably not.

Blogger Josh April 09, 2015 11:07 AM  

Especially not gay wedding invitations.

What if they bring pizza?

Blogger Lew Rand April 09, 2015 11:07 AM  

The question is: why? Why, if the Puppy fans are such a small, disliked minority of the fandom that they belong beneath everyone's notice, were they able to "drown out" all the other slates?

Sad Puppies 1: They ignored it
Sad Puppies 2: They laughed at it

People know this pattern very well. If it continues, then Sad Puppies 5 may not be necessary as Sad Puppies 4 is the win if it really does pass on a yearly basis.

Honestly I think it will take a few years in stage 3 to clean the sewer.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus April 09, 2015 11:08 AM  

So there were always these factors in play. Cliques, I can hear the Sad Puppies saying. Yeah, maybe. Thing is, they were COMPETING cliques.

That's the ideal. Competition from the "right" is disallowed, but competition to be the most hard-core social justice warriors is encouraged, That competition keeps pushing everything in the direction of more anti-white, more anti-Christian, more anti-male and more anti-natural social justice warrior crazy. Eventually you get to If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love.

The problem with Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies isn't competition, since there already was competition, it's that it's the wrong kind of competition.

Anonymous Foosi April 09, 2015 11:12 AM  

Reading comprehension the lost art.

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 11:14 AM  

Cliques, I can hear the Sad Puppies saying. Yeah, maybe. Thing is, they were COMPETING cliques.

This is really funny, because not only was there another clique, the statistical analysis I've heard so far says that the other clique actually got more votes than Sad Puppies. Only difference is that the two people running the respective cliques were on friendly terms.

Blogger Alexander April 09, 2015 11:15 AM  

Stephen Leigh says:

@GRRM's: I've refused to 'trade' nominations for both Nebula and Hugo awards (and yes, I've been asked to do that by several writers over the years): "Nominate mine and I'll nominate yours..." It would just cheapen the nomination and render it meaningless.

So vote-trading was a pre-puppy thing for the Hugo's. Confirmed. Great.

via livejournal: I'd also like to add that Sheila Gilbert and DAW were nothing but encouraging about the LGBT content they've published in my books (hello, LGBT writer here) since way back in the 80's. Also nothing but encouraging about including people of colour, people with disabilities, and the fact that almost all my books have female protagonists and all my contemporary fantasy takes place outside the United States. (I reiterate - this has been going on FOR THE LAST THIRTY YEARS, it's not something new) She's worked her ass off to make my books better since 1985.

If you're a Hugo voter, remember that when you see Sheila Gilbert's name on the list.


So we should vote for someone explicitily because they check all the right goodthink boxes.

These people are their own best mouthpiece for us.

Anonymous Crude April 09, 2015 11:15 AM  

So there were always these factors in play. Cliques, I can hear the Sad Puppies saying. Yeah, maybe. Thing is, they were COMPETING cliques.

Martin is half-right, from what I can tell. As others have pointed out, these cliques all competed against themselves, insofar as it was leftist versus leftist.

But they were united against non-leftists. On that front, they did not compete against anyone but people who rejected the SJW line.

OpenID cailcorishev April 09, 2015 11:15 AM  

If they're still on record somewhere, it might be interesting to go back and look at some of those old "lists" (as opposed to "slates," I guess) and see whether they differed any more than SP and RP. How much "competing" did those lists really do?

I have my doubts; I'd guess that most years one person or group's recommendations looked a lot like another's, and that would be the case whether or not there was any behind-the-scenes coordination.

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 11:18 AM  

One clique - one clique - two cliques. This sounds like a Fibonacci sequence. If it's three next year, Martin should be a happy camper.

Anonymous Porky April 09, 2015 11:19 AM  

Martin's own words: "It always made me feel awkward."

Normal people just want to work. Progs love self-promotion and culture war. LOVE it.

It is the singular great passion which lends purpose to their otherwise purposeless lives.

They won't stop. Ever. They can't.


Anonymous Bz April 09, 2015 11:19 AM  

Salt,

(Note that "they" = fans here, not authors.)

Quite so, but, speaking as a reader, the only editor I can at all recall seeing the effect of is Gordon Lish (editor of Raymond Carver), but only after Carver's unedited/less-edited works were published. In our dear, sickly field, I for one can't say what value PNH added to the publications of his authors in order to get his 2007 award or how it compares to what David Hartwell did the same year. Makes it difficult to cast an informed vote, to say the least.

Anonymous NateM April 09, 2015 11:20 AM  

Not surprisingly, Scalzi tries to spin this as a Win

John Scalzi @scalzi · 10h 10 hours ago
GRRM continuing to be super sensible about the Hugos: https://grrm.livejournal.com/417521.html If you've lost GRRM, I suspect you've lost, period.
View summary 88 retweets 81 favorites
Reply Retweet88 Favorite81
More

Anonymous Alexander April 09, 2015 11:21 AM  

Or to put it another way, which is more disrespectful to the individual:

Vox - I nominate Sheila because I think she's a good editor.

Stephen - I nominate Sheila because she has the rightthink credentials, and it saddens me that Vox likes her too.

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 11:22 AM  

"They ran the best organized, most focused, and most effective awards campaign in the history of our genre, and showed everyone else how it's done."

Sounds like a defeat.

Der Krieg ist verloren. Tun sie was sie wollen.

Anonymous Aviendha April 09, 2015 11:23 AM  

Sorry fellas I didn't vote the slate. The titles on the "slate" only signified to me, that it was a book I probably hadn't heard of, and that I would pirate and read the first page, maybe chapter. If it was worth it I'd read it. Then I might vote for it. If it is really good, and a paper copy exists, I'd actually order a physical book.

I certainly didn't vote anyone's slate, but I did read more than I would have, and some of the 'slate' happened to be the best damn fiction I read all year so it got a vote.

I still have hundreds of books from the 60s to finish and rarely read anything published this century.

This has been one of the most entertaining uses of $40 in a long time, even inflation adjusted.

Blogger Cuca Culpa April 09, 2015 11:32 AM  

The HUGO Awards have been dead for a while.

They should make it offical..

They're now the HUGbOx Awards.

Blogger IM2L844 April 09, 2015 11:33 AM  

Progs love self-promotion and culture war. LOVE it.

Rabbits can't afford the luxury of complacency. It's all high drama all the time. They could be eaten alive at any moment.

Blogger Salt April 09, 2015 11:35 AM  

the only editor I can at all recall seeing the effect of is Gordon Lish (editor of Raymond Carver), but only after Carver's unedited/less-edited works were published.

All that told you was what the editor did. Assume something similar for all novelists. Now look at the final product.

Many Indie authors self-edit. Can be done. Takes a lot of time and heartache. Believe me, it's painful.

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 11:35 AM  

Sorry fellas I didn't vote the slate.

I don't think anyone specifically wanted people to vote the slate. And most people didn't, as shown by Vox's earlier statistical analysis. It was just a way to get the ball rolling. If you wanted to get in the game, and weren't aware of any eligible options that would be enjoyed by a blue/traditionalist person, then here are five options for you. Or less, if Vox/Brad wasn't aware of five in a particular category.

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 11:38 AM  

Hopefully the third slate won't be Queer Puppies by BigGaySteve...

Anonymous Porky April 09, 2015 11:41 AM  

Rabbits can't afford the luxury of complacency. It's all high drama all the time. They could be eaten alive at any moment.

Which is why rabbits reproduce so fast.

I have a pet theory that says they have substituted cultural reproduction of their ideas for actual reproduction.

Blogger Corvinus April 09, 2015 11:42 AM  

Not surprisingly, Scalzi tries to spin this as a Win

John Scalzi @scalzi · 10h 10 hours ago
GRRM continuing to be super sensible about the Hugos: https://grrm.livejournal.com/417521.html If you've lost GRRM, I suspect you've lost, period.


True, Scalzi. I think we all can recognize a "praise with faint damns".

Blogger James Dixon April 09, 2015 11:43 AM  

> What does this portend for next year? Will the pinkshirts truly have learned how it's done and counter-attack accordingly next time around?

They'll try. Which is going to make SP4 even more fun.

Anonymous OhBoy April 09, 2015 11:48 AM  

Will the pinkshirts truly have learned how it's done and counter-attack accordingly next time around?

Perhaps they'll start their own Hugo campaigns and call them Sick Kitties or even better Sick Pussies.

Anonymous Alexander April 09, 2015 11:52 AM  

You know how in parliamentary democracies, the far left of the curve is a dozen communist parties all raking in 0.017% of the vote, because there's no way to reconcile the Farmer and Workers Union with the Brotherhood of Workers and Farmers with the Union of Brotherhood?

Suffice it to say, watching the SJWs try to come up with a slate promises to be the must-watch event of next spring.

Blogger CM April 09, 2015 11:52 AM  

The comments on that post...

I don't understand the "not-a-fan" argument. Even that post on the non-convention attendees being considered "non-fans"...

Who are they to say who is a fan or not? Personally, i love Fantasy. I grew up on Grimm and Anderson, Alexander and Lewis... and I read just about anything that comes my way by recommendation as long as it is not retarded (Tiger's Curse... omg torture!) or raunchy.

I'm not well read in the genre, but probably for the same reason a lot of the readers here have given up on it and are trying to get it back. There's too much garbage out there.

Does that mean you aren't a fan if you think recent sci-fi is crap? Does it mean you aren't a fan when you finally find something you like and devour it but it isn't accepted by the reigning monarchy of award-dom?

It just seems really silly to me that they would write all you sci-fi readers as non-fans because you don't like the reigning landscape of sci-fi and don't attend conventions. It is narrow minded and judgemental in the extreme.

Blogger Salt April 09, 2015 11:52 AM  

That's the short version of Me & the Hugos, or What the Rocket Means to Me.

You will all have noted, no doubt, a common thread here: worldcon.

The Hugos belong to worldcon.

If the Sad Puppies wanted to start their own award... for Best Conservative SF, or Best Space Opera, or Best Military SF, or Best Old-Fashioned SF the Way It Used to Be... whatever it is they are actually looking for... hey, I don't think anyone would have any objections to that. I certainly wouldn't. More power to them.

But that's not what they are doing here, it seems to me. Instead they seem to want to take the Hugos and turn them into their own awards. Hey, anyone is welcome to join worldcon, to become part of worldcon fandom... but judging by the comments on the Torgesen and Correia sites, a lot of the Puppies seem to actively hate worldcon and the people who attend it, and want nothing to do with us. They want to determine who gets the Ditmars, but they don't want to be Australians.


I'd like to ask GRRM if Worldcon IS Social Justice Warriorism.

Anonymous SJW Sad Rabbit Slate April 09, 2015 11:54 AM  

So if we nominate a plural for an award, which front will have name be recognized, or will the Hugos overcome its intolerance and list all members of my system?

Blogger Danby April 09, 2015 11:56 AM  

@Markku
"Hopefully the third slate won't be Queer Puppies by BigGaySteve..."

Why not? The more the merrier, I say. Anything that gets the award out of the hands of the Stalinist clacque that's been running it for 30 years. And, I'm pretty sure Steve's list would be better than the some of shit that's gotten awards in the past.

Besides, if we get each little group to put up their own slate in a Hugo award with 10,000 voters, guess who loses?

Anonymous Mike Mike April 09, 2015 11:57 AM  

Loosely related... it only takes one person to stand up to SJWs... Coach Harbaugh did and the university corrected their stupidity.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/08/after-university-canceled-american-sniper-showing-football-coach-harbaugh-made-this-announcement/

Anonymous Steve April 09, 2015 12:01 PM  

I'd support Queer Puppies.

I'm behind you, BigGaySteve!

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 12:02 PM  

Why not?

I don't want to see the logo, for one...

Anonymous Porky April 09, 2015 12:03 PM  

Suffice it to say, watching the SJWs try to come up with a slate promises to be the must-watch event of next spring.

That's not how they work.

I'd expect them to declare that the system is broken and the rules must now be changed.

Blogger Danby April 09, 2015 12:05 PM  

@Markku,
Real life LOL.

@Steve

"I'm behind you, BigGaySteve!"

And BigGaySteve is fine with that.....

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 12:05 PM  

Not now. In two years. Them's rules. That means that by that strategy, they are necessarily at least two years behind Puppy strategy. Who SPECIALIZE in adapting as fast as possible.

Anonymous Jeanne April 09, 2015 12:07 PM  

You know, SJW's never do what they tell us to do (big surprise, I know). They say we should just start our own award instead of voting in the HUGO'S. Well, why didn't they just start their own camping group for boys instead of insisting and protesting until the Boy Scouts changed the rules and let homosexuals in, as just ONE example...

Anonymous Roundtine April 09, 2015 12:08 PM  

Will the pinkshirts truly have learned how it's done and counter-attack accordingly next time around?

I don't think so. They know how it's done, but they aren't unified. Just like the Democrats, they are unified in what they oppose, not in what they support. Their coalition is one of trading favors and strategic voting. There are both SJWs and publishers in the mix, so even if you figure out the most strategic voting choices, the equilibrium is not stable because the participants will all have reason to defect from the strategic vote.

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 12:11 PM  

They really messed all this up way earlier by driving blue SF/F into the fringes. That means that we will be able to have about five-ish options by statistical necessity. There can be no infighting about the slate because there are no options to fight about.

Whereas for the pinkos, well, the situation ain't so good.

Blogger Russell April 09, 2015 12:13 PM  

"That means that by that strategy, they are necessarily at least two years behind Puppy strategy."

In terms of OODA loops, SJWs aren't even in the game anymore.

Blogger Blume April 09, 2015 12:13 PM  

Could we if they go nuclear? And not just gay but super gay and bad? A sort of well if you guys want social just trash we will give you social just trash? Have John Ringo write a story about one legged blasian ninja Trans women lovers killing the evil westbero Baptist church.

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 12:14 PM  

Puppies' situation is now wu wei. They don't have to organize people to pick the correct five choices. They only have to persuade people to join. Organization will happen by nature, by necessity.

Pinkos' situation is the exact opposite.

Anonymous Steve April 09, 2015 12:18 PM  

Markku - I don't want to see the logo, for one...

A good looking pack of puppies with great hair and sculpted abs, dancing under a glitterball shaped like Saturn. In the background, a pink rocketship thusts gaily into the heavens.

Danby - And BigGaySteve is fine with that.....

He can be my wingman any time.

Anonymous BigGaySteve April 09, 2015 12:19 PM  

"Well, why didn't they just start their own camping group for boys instead of insisting and protesting until the Boy Scouts changed the rules and let homosexuals in, as just ONE example... "

To be fair Michael Jackson & Bryan Singer both tried that but it didn't take off for some reason.

Anonymous Ain April 09, 2015 12:23 PM  

"And once it really got rolling, there was no stopping it. "Everyone else is doing it," you heard writers say. "I have to do it, in self-defense." They were not wrong. Sometimes the difference between making the Hugo ballot and falling short is a single vote. The writer who refused to self-promote and then fell a few votes short... ouch.

If you can't beat them at their game, join them. Mr. Martin explains whether intentionally or not why SP is a perfectly justified, if not predictable movement.

As Vox said, the real reason they hate SP is because the Tor clique doesn't get to give themselves and their friends awards this year.

Anonymous Harsh April 09, 2015 12:23 PM  

Guys, help me out here. I've read the Hugo nomination list several times over and I can't find Scalzi's best novel nomination for LOCK IN. That's gotta be a mistake, right?

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 12:27 PM  

That's gotta be a mistake, right?

Yeah, I feel a bit bad for John. Perhaps for next year, he should try something tried and true?.

Anonymous Leonidas April 09, 2015 12:28 PM  

The problem with Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies isn't competition, since there already was competition, it's that it's the wrong kind of competition.

Also the problem is they don't like competing with people who actually know how to compete. The competition was all fine and dandy so long as nobody was any good at it. Now that someone comes in who really knows how to play the game it's terrible.

Blogger Blume April 09, 2015 12:30 PM  

Let's change the rules first. Don't supporting members get rules voting rights too? If not maybe the ilk should attend. The hugo business guy seems to indicate extremely low business meeting attendance.

Anonymous Knarf April 09, 2015 12:30 PM  

@ Porky I have a pet theory that says they have substituted cultural reproduction of their ideas for actual reproduction.

That's why so many go into teaching. They reproduce by stealing other people's children.

Blogger Student in Blue April 09, 2015 12:45 PM  

That's why so many go into teaching. They reproduce by stealing other people's children.

I'll add a hearty "hear, hear!" and note that it's not just young children as someone might infer, but extends into high school and university/college.

Anonymous Feh April 09, 2015 12:56 PM  

Porky is right.

They will change the rules to prevent, as Stross would say, the Bad Crazy from deciding the outcome.

Anonymous Feh April 09, 2015 1:00 PM  

And they will feel totally justified in doing so. Because Vox is stupid, and evil, and crazy, and stuff.

Anonymous bw April 09, 2015 1:08 PM  

It is simply their versions of "tenure" and "peer review".

Anonymous Bz April 09, 2015 1:09 PM  

"All that told you was what the editor did. Assume something similar for all novelists. Now look at the final product."

Well, yeah, but "best long-form editor Hugo award" is presumably about what the editor has done, not the writer.

"Many Indie authors self-edit. Can be done. Takes a lot of time and heartache. Believe me, it's painful."

Heh, no doubt. I've had my own editing struggles with non-fiction, which I expect is easier.

Anonymous public domain April 09, 2015 1:14 PM  

"Hugo belongs to worldcon." I may have missed it, but is that true? Is it copyrighted or somehow protected? Vox, you use intellectual property lawyers - who DOES Hugo belong to?

Blogger Corvinus April 09, 2015 1:15 PM  

Because Vox is stupid, and evil, and crazy, and stuff.

And waging his own culture war.

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 1:16 PM  

Quote: THE HUGO AWARD is a trademark of World Science Fiction Society.

Blogger JDC April 09, 2015 1:18 PM  

@Ain - How's your cousin?

Blogger CM April 09, 2015 1:21 PM  

Salt -
The Hugos belong to worldcon.

I'm not overly familiar with literary awards and the award process, nominations, and voting...

But are all awards like this? i think of the Caldecott awards for exceptional children's literature and there is no convention... so why are the hugos so "special" on this?

I really like the idea of a voting system among readers, but if the goal is "best in sci fi" instead of "most popular of world con attendees", then wouldn't it benefit them to... you know... not limit it to world con?

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 1:27 PM  

Guess who are Worldcon? Sad Puppies. They purchased membership. WSFS took their money. The award belongs to Sad Puppies at least as much as it belongs to anyone.

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 09, 2015 1:28 PM  

"Cliques, I can hear the Sad Puppies saying. Yeah, maybe. Thing is, they were COMPETING cliques."

And there we see the amorality of the leftist writ large. There's nothing wrong with the tactic, you just can't win so one-sidedly, because it might make the losers feel bad.

Stupid beyond reason.

Anonymous Lana April 09, 2015 1:34 PM  

This is really funny, because not only was there another clique, the statistical analysis I've heard so far says that the other clique actually got more votes than Sad Puppies. Only difference is that the two people running the respective cliques were on friendly terms.

Wait, what?? That is fascinating. Do tell us more.

Anonymous Knarf April 09, 2015 1:34 PM  

But are all awards like this?

Generally, yes. They all belong to whichever society or organization gives them out. That's what stops you from deciding to award yourself a Pulitzer. The Caldecott is a juried award given out by the American Library Association, which means that it represents the opinion of a committee of 15 people.

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 1:46 PM  

Again I remind all Puppies who aren't quite with the program: It is YOUR organization now. You bought membership, they took your money. It is not some insiders scheming against you poor outsiders, it is your peers. If you immediately lose the fighting spirit just because the opponent MIGHT be scheming, then you deserve to lose.

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 1:50 PM  

If, however, you fight and lose, then that's life. You'll do better next time.

Anonymous FP April 09, 2015 1:51 PM  

"Hopefully the third slate won't be Queer Puppies by BigGaySteve..."

For GRRM it would be "Floppy Weiners" sweeping the awards.

Blogger CM April 09, 2015 1:55 PM  

Again I remind all Puppies who aren't quite with the program: It is YOUR organization now.

Yes... I think this is it. World con is an event owned by this society. Not all members are required to attend. The award doesn't belong to world con. The award and con belong to the society. And you dues-payers are members of the society.

I'd expect them to revert to a panel after this.

Blogger Josh April 09, 2015 1:55 PM  

Puppies, remember, "I am world con and so can you"

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 2:05 PM  

I'd expect them to revert to a panel after this.

You have to understand the... nuclearness of that nuclear option. The Hugo Award's prestige comes from the fact that they have been a democratically chosen award ever since 1955. That option essentialy destroys the award. They might in their desperation go for mutually assured destruction, but anyone who has even a teeniest weeniest bit of Joker in them should consider it worth $40 to have been a part of such a historical event.

Blogger dfordoom April 09, 2015 2:05 PM  

So when it comes to these meetings where they can change the rules - how many people attend these meetings? How many puppies turning up would it take to control such a meeting?

Blogger James Dixon April 09, 2015 2:08 PM  

> Perhaps for next year, he should try something tried and true?

If he had anything good to sell, I doubt you'd turn him down. But man would that be humiliating for him. :)

> Let's change the rules first. Don't supporting members get rules voting rights too? If not maybe the ilk should attend.

No, supporting members do not get to vote on rule changes. You have to attend the business meetings, which are held at the convention. So you have to be an attending member.

Blogger James Dixon April 09, 2015 2:11 PM  

> how many people attend these meetings?

I have no idea. But given what I do know about such things, I'd guess well less than a hundred people. Possibly as few as 20-30.

> How many puppies turning up would it take to control such a meeting?

I doubt it would take more than 50. 100 should do it easily.

Blogger Alexander April 09, 2015 2:15 PM  

What's the required advanced work. Obviously the rule change itself must be presented at the meeting and voted upon, but is there any preliminary stuff that must be done?

Would be... interesting... if amongst all the proposals, someone just wanted to 'lay out all the possibilities' and proposed that a panel of Dread Ilk would determine all award winners.

Blogger Salt April 09, 2015 2:16 PM  

That option essentialy destroys the award

The award is all but destroyed now. The way the Hugo was set up was only viable if the participants were of moral character. Now, where have I heard that before?

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 2:25 PM  

If he had anything good to sell, I doubt you'd turn him down.

I would even go so far as to insist that our lead editor himself reads that particular entry in the slush pile.

Anonymous Heh April 09, 2015 2:33 PM  

When will Vox organize a Sad Puppies campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize? That goddamn thing has been dominated by a smug clique of SJWs since Theodore Roosevelt won it.

Geez, I'd rather see NO AWARD than have it go to yet another communist.

Anonymous Heh April 09, 2015 2:43 PM  

"Pissing people off for no good reason is counter-productive."

I said exactly that to Scalzi on his blog back in 2008 in reference to his gratuitous attacks on Republicans.

He promptly deleted the comment and banned me.

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 09, 2015 2:46 PM  

I said exactly that to Scalzi on his blog back in 2008 in reference to his gratuitous attacks on Republicans.

He promptly deleted the comment and banned me.


Well, duh! Republicans aren't people...

Blogger S1AL April 09, 2015 2:46 PM  

Please tell me you didn't just compare Roosevelt to SJW's...

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 09, 2015 3:16 PM  

Please tell me you didn't just compare Roosevelt to SJW's...

Teddy was a charismatic, manly guy that's hard to dislike personally.... but he was a terrible President, and much of the progressive nonsense that we've had to deal with for the last century was pioneered by him (and Wilson.)

Anonymous Mavwreck April 09, 2015 3:35 PM  

What's the required advanced work. Obviously the rule change itself must be presented at the meeting and voted upon, but is there any preliminary stuff that must be done?

The rules for the Hugo Awards are part of the World Science Fiction Society's constitution. Now, the members of the upcoming Worldcon are, by definition, members of the WSFS, and they can vote on amendments to the WSFS constitution. However, two things make amendments harder to influence than the Hugos:

1. Supporting members just get to vote on the Hugos and site selection. Only "attending members" (i.e., the ones who pay full price) can attend the business meeting, where amendments are proposed & voted on. I don't know if you can vote at the business meeting without being there (either by proxy or electronically), but I'd imagine any remote voting would be restricted to paid-up attending members.

2. For an amendment to take effect, it has to be passed by one Worldcon, and then ratified by the next Worldcon.

Based on all that, it would take $300 or so to vote on a Hugo rule change, and that's assuming remote voting is allowed; if it isn't, then you'd also have to travel to two separate Worldcons, which are usually pretty far apart.

Two notes:
- I'm basing all of this off of the WSFS Web site (http://www.wsfs.org), including its constitution listed there. The Web sites of the current Worldcons aren't as clear about the voting rights of supporting members, but the WSFS constitution is pretty explicit.
- My $300 estimate is based on the current "early bird" price of $150 for MidAmeriCon II (the 2016 Worldcon) times 2. Starting the process now would cost $360, as the 2015 Worldcon (Sasquan) is at $210.

Blogger Corvinus April 09, 2015 3:38 PM  

Someone needs to send him this quote from Charles "Three more Hugo nominations than Asimov or Heinlein" Stross at Making Light back in 2005:

"For the purposes of assessing the impact of your words, it doesn't matter whether they're supported by the evidence or not -- we're talking perceptions here.


Ha, yet again, an SJW yelling, "Truth is no excuse!"

The people who live and work and pitch their tents in this field have long memories. You'll have to share the same field with them for a long time -- decades, maybe -- if you want to be in it at all. And you've just offended 75% of them? This is Not Clever.
Sounds a bit like this.

Anonymous Alexander April 09, 2015 3:39 PM  

Thanks. I for one am content to let the SJWs fight the battle two years in the will-be past, but if there's a need to move on this front, it's good to know the rules ahead of time.

Blogger Migly April 09, 2015 3:46 PM  

Simply because someone above seemed interested in the answer --

The World Science Fiction Society is an unincorporated governance body that awards the rights to host the Worldcon (through a process described in its constitution) and the responsibility for carrying out the Hugo Awards selection process.

The WSFS entity holds the service mark on the Hugos.

Worldcon members are eligible to vote at the Worldcon business meeting. But the voters do not have ownership of the entity.

Also, Worldcons are run by committees chosen by voters who are nearly always organized as nonprofit corporations. So there's no "ownership" at that level either.

Anonymous malcolm April 09, 2015 3:47 PM  

I hope someone is keeping track of and recording all the instances where the SJWs say that they would never support a slate, no matter who proposes it. It will be great to throw their own words back in their faces next year when they come out with their slates. They'll explain that it is the only way to combat SP/RP, etc.

Blogger Migly April 09, 2015 3:49 PM  

"But the voters do not have ownership of the entity." Maybe that's too pedantic. Obviously they can vote to exercise the powers of the entity, and dispose of its property, like the service marks. So everyone is an owner collectively, but no individual has an ownership share. I guess you could say the same about your home town, local county, etc.

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 3:54 PM  

Yes, TNH said that the awards belong to the WORLDCON. Not WSFS. That means that "belong" is used in such a way that the conclusion is that they belong to SP/RP precisely as much as to anyone else.

If she said WSFS, then "belong" would mean who controls the trademark, and that's a different story.

Blogger S1AL April 09, 2015 3:58 PM  

"Teddy was a charismatic, manly guy that's hard to dislike personally.... but he was a terrible President, and much of the progressive nonsense that we've had to deal with for the last century was pioneered by him (and Wilson.)"

Uhhhh... I honestly don't know where you got that impression. Aside from restraints regarding monopolization, anything that would be regarded as "progressive" by today's standards came from much later. Roosevelt was much more interested in reforming corrupt institutions (see: NYPD, the original "badge gang") and creating *necessary* federal institutions (yes, FDA is necessary for a finctioning modern society).

He also opposed the concept of the League of Nations, not to mention questioned the wisdom of looser immigration laws.

Roosevelt was a progressive in the original sense of the word, not the modern one, and that is a very, very big difference.

Blogger Migly April 09, 2015 4:10 PM  

Markku: I took your point right away, but was I wrong about what the fellow who questioned you wanted to know? I thought it was a case of you being figurative and him wanting the literal answer. Certainly you are right about what TNH had in mind.

Blogger ScuzzaMan April 09, 2015 4:13 PM  

As some guy noted on the Grauniad's comment section regarding Martin's latest work of fiction:

When WE monopolise the thing, it is working perfectly.

When SOMEONE ELSE monopolises it, it is broken beyond all repair.

What a tosser.

Anonymous Scintan April 09, 2015 4:44 PM  

Uhhhh... I honestly don't know where you got that impression. Aside from restraints regarding monopolization, anything that would be regarded as "progressive" by today's standards came from much later.

Don't kid yourself:

Roosevelt is the guy who gave us the U.S. Forest Service and 'protected' 230,000,000 acres of land for the Federal government.

Anonymous Scintan April 09, 2015 4:47 PM  

If the Sad Puppies wanted to start their own award... for Best Conservative SF, or Best Space Opera, or Best Military SF, or Best Old-Fashioned SF the Way It Used to Be... whatever it is they are actually looking for... hey, I don't think anyone would have any objections to that. I certainly wouldn't. More power to them.

But that's not what they are doing here, it seems to me.


If the homosexuals wanted to open their own bakeries...
If women wanted to open their own clubs...
If immigrants wanted to better their lives in their own countries...

People on the right could play this game all day.

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 09, 2015 4:48 PM  

Uhhhh... I honestly don't know where you got that impression. Aside from restraints regarding monopolization, anything that would be regarded as "progressive" by today's standards came from much later. Roosevelt was much more interested in reforming corrupt institutions (see: NYPD, the original "badge gang") and creating *necessary* federal institutions (yes, FDA is necessary for a finctioning modern society).

Since Wikipedia summarizes so nicely without me having to do too much work:
* trust-busting via regulation
* supporter of labor unions. specifically coal miners union
* Hepburn bill full of regulation on interstate commerce
* Pushed through Meat Packing Act
* same for Pure Food and Drug Act (for that matter, the whole notion of the President pushing through legislation in the first place by heavily leaning on Congress, in violation of the principle of the separation of powers)
* Supported graduated inheritance tax
* Biographer Brands states that, "Even his friends occasionally wondered whether there wasn't any custom or practice too minor for him to try to regulate, update or otherwise improve."
* Wanted to mess with the rules of football (! -- even I didn't know that one)
* Personally oversaw reminting operations of a coin he didn't like
* Attempted to codify spelling simplifications into government documents
* Imperial designs on the Philippines and Panama
* Mediated treaty to end Russo-Japanese war

Anyway, I could go on, but I'm getting tired already. The guy was an interventionist control freak who wanted to regulate everything he could. About the only one that I approve of, although I admit that I don't do so on principle, but rather just because I like that they're there, is the establishment of the National Park Service. He was a big government proto-socialist who sided with leftist and imperialistic causes nearly every chance he could.

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 4:51 PM  

If the Sad Puppies wanted to start their own award... for Best Conservative SF, or Best Space Opera, or Best Military SF, or Best Old-Fashioned SF the Way It Used to Be... whatever it is they are actually looking for... hey, I don't think anyone would have any objections to that.

Sure, they'd like us out of sight and out of mind. But we won't be, not any more. And it's ok to object to that. But it is not ok to say we did something against the rules, since we didn't. Martin didn't say that, so we have no problem with Martin, so far.

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 4:55 PM  

Also, if Hugos openly admitted to excluding those from our political background, then we'd be sporting fellows and stay out. Just like we'd demand that they stay out of said hypothetical Conservative award. But this was supposed to be politically agnostic. So, here we are, us wrongfans.

Blogger CM April 09, 2015 5:01 PM  

I thought FDR was the severe, progressive interventionist of the 1920s.

Not Teddy... Please not Teddy.

My post 1890 history is pretty shoddy due and limited to high school education, though.

Blogger Desiderius April 09, 2015 5:18 PM  

Porky,

"I have a pet theory that says they have substituted cultural reproduction of their ideas for actual reproduction."

Today's SJWs are either trustifarians whose parents were too busy making money to raise them right or offspring of Moral Majority parents too lazy/complacent to do so (we'll just outbreed the Left!)

Easy pickings for cultural cuckolding

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus April 09, 2015 5:19 PM  

It's typical of social justice warriors to alternate between threatening you with the fact that they've stitched up the field and denying that they've stitched up the field.

It's also typical of social justice warriors that it is frequently impossible to quote them on serious issues without uttering a string of obscenities. This is at least partly because their minds are sunk in hatred and filth. There also seems to be a tactical point: to render public fora so disgusting that nobody decent would go there, which both supports demoralization of society and excludes no social warriors but a lot of their potential opponents.

Anonymous Dikaios_Rik April 09, 2015 5:20 PM  

I quote one of the inimitable anons on 8ch.net:

"ANY WORD YOU TYPE OR SAY THAT IS NOT PART OF BOOK FUCKING SIX OR SEVEN IS A WASTED WORD, YOU AGING, MORBIDLY OBESE FUCK.

LONGEVITY TECH ISN'T GOING TO GET HERE QUICK ENOUGH TO SAVE YOUR PREDIABETIC ASS IF YOU KEEP SHOVING FUCKING NACHOS DOWN YOUR THROAT.

VALAR MORGHULIS, AND YOU ARE THE VALAR WHO'S GOING TO FUCKING MORGHULIS.

TYPED WITH ONE FINGER ON THE SHIFT KEY"


It's poetry.

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 09, 2015 5:20 PM  

I thought FDR was the severe, progressive interventionist of the 1920s.

Not Teddy... Please not Teddy.


No, he was the severe, progressive interventionist of the 30s and 40s.

Blogger Desiderius April 09, 2015 5:20 PM  

"Not Teddy... Please not Teddy."

The actual name of the Bull Moose party was the Progressive Party. He was wrong. It happens.

Anonymous Scintan April 09, 2015 5:23 PM  

Lois Tilton on April 9, 2015 at 12:23 pm said:

VD – “objectively superior as rated by Amazon” is self-contradictory, just as “objectively factual as stated in Wikipedia”.

Amazon ratings are the product of self selection bias, they have no -objective- bearing on literary quality or excellence.

My reviews are the product of my own subjective judgment, which also has no -objective- bearing on literary quality or excellence.


Someone, and I'm not saying it's Lois (but it's Lois), needs to look up the word "objective" in the dictionary.

Blogger S1AL April 09, 2015 5:25 PM  

Vox, if our off-topic conversation is annoying, please let me know and I'll stop.

Joshua Dyal -

There are issues here that depend on your stance on just how much the federal government should do I fall on the right/small-to-moderate-government stance generally, but I'm neither hard libertarian nor hard right.

Of the things you listed (yes, I have Wikipedia, too), there are a couple different categories

1) Trust-busting and Supported graduated inheritance tax: There are some very classical notions that argue for trust-busting. The Roman Empire came about in part due to Gaius Julius and his friends/family coming to own well over half of the businesses and financial interests of Rome and the surrounding area. We could argue for days about the exact implementation, but I consider this an area of reasonable government intervention.

The graduated inheritance tax is one of those "other things" that probably sounded like a good idea at the time but rapidly spiraled into bad places. Nobody is perfect.

2) Unions have a place and serve a purpose. I don't like most modern unions, but I do support the right of workers to unionize (and the right of businesses to say "Hell no!") when the situation merits it. Keeping in mind the conditions of mine work in that age, I don't see an issue with this.

3) Large federal regulation bills/FDA/etc. - Again, conditions then were often horrendous and these were populist responses to the problems. Every government agency and act comes with baggage, but these can at least claim to be very beneficial.

4)

* Wanted to mess with the rules of football (! -- even I didn't know that one)
* Personally oversaw reminting operations of a coin he didn't like
* Attempted to codify spelling simplifications into government documents
* Imperial designs on the Philippines and Panama
* Mediated treaty to end Russo-Japanese war

Most of these... eh. Half of them have nothing to do with government. If the President can help arrange a peace treaty with two foreign powers close to our interests, I don't see an issue with that.

---

The disconnect here is that I see a value in certain areas of the original Progressive platform. The Interstate system was a "progressive" concept from Eisenhower. It's phenomenal. Similarly, the FDA is a necessary tool for a modern multi-million-person state.

The difference between TR and later progressives is that the things he supported generally accomplish good things. And the globalist/welfare state? Yeah, he was having none of that. In short, he's my model of what a reasonable progressive, the kind who's attempting to "promote the general Welfare," not in being on "the right side of history."

Also, he had some great quotes that make modern Progressives spontaneously combust:

"A good knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education."

"If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn't sit for a month."

"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life."

"I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us."

Blogger Markku April 09, 2015 5:45 PM  

GRRM is playing a dangerous version of "or the bunny gets it", namely "invent the elixir of youth, or your favorite series gets it!"

George: Sooo, how's it going?
Stem cell researcher: Go away, George.

Anonymous Anubis April 09, 2015 5:47 PM  

" please don't accept any party invitations from GRRM. It's probably a trap" Especially not gay wedding invitations"

Shotgun weddings would be the worse.

@Steve "I'm behind you, BigGaySteve!" And BigGaySteve is fine with that.....

If I recall Gay Steve's boyfriend might have a problem with it, has assess to guns and either Nate or Gay Steve owns glocks.

"blasian ninja Trans women lovers killing the evil westbero Baptist church."

I read somewhere that a number of the Westbero churches members where democrat supporters in the past, meaning they could be a living strawman argument. Instead of talking to Ron Paul for a conservative viewpoint here is the Westbero representative to be the lone conservative voice on a show.


"Based on all that, it would take $300 or so to vote on a Hugo rule change, and that's assuming remote voting is allowed; if it isn't,"

If remote voting is allowed, how do you know it wont meet the fate of HilLIARy's server?

OpenID cailcorishev April 09, 2015 5:54 PM  

"And once it really got rolling, there was no stopping it. "Everyone else is doing it," you heard writers say. "I have to do it, in self-defense." They were not wrong. Sometimes the difference between making the Hugo ballot and falling short is a single vote. The writer who refused to self-promote and then fell a few votes short... ouch.

This perfectly explains how the SJWs were able to take over the process: their opponents don't think this way. Sure, a Blue author would be honored to receive an award that truly indicates the respect of his peers or the fans, but he'd never see the point in pursuing it. A typical Blue author just wouldn't think, "They're doing it, so I guess I'd better too," because how would he know whether the award showed true success or good self-promotion? If he noticed it going on at all, he'd think, "Well, I guess that award is pretty meaningless now," and go back to writing. There's no "ouch" if you know the process is a joke.

So the SJWs, who value the symbol of success (the award) over the reality, and the moderates who are concerned enough to try to play along, gradually dominate the process because there's no one involved from the other side. After a few years, they can't remember it being any other way.

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 09, 2015 6:20 PM  

Will the pinkshirts truly have learned how it's done and counter-attack accordingly next time around?


Interesting question. Let us wargame it a little.

Their actions next year are heavily dependent upon the results of this years Hugos.

Okay it turned out that was not ‘a little’. At six hundred words that would officially constitute a thread hijack. I posted my slightly more indepth thoughts at my own blog. If you are curious about my reasoning check it out there. Here is the stripped down version.

Scenario 1. No Award wins in all categories.

Result: Winning a Hugo becomes completely merit-less. The award will die in two years.


Scenario 2. Mixed results; No Award wins for somethings and Sad Puppies win for others.

Result: By 2017 the Sad Puppies controls the award due to competing slates from the major publishers.


Scenario 3. Sad Puppies wins big but No Award is present on all of the final tallies.

Result; pretty much the same as Scenario 2 but with a lot more screaming and crying.

Scenario 4. The Enpuppying. Puppies both Sad and Rabid run the table at WorldCon. Vox Day wins for best editor Long Form. No Award doesn’t appear on the final tally for anything.

Result: The SJWs will set up their own juried award at another convention.

Overall result in all cases. The Hugo will never be able to go back to business as usual.

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 09, 2015 6:36 PM  

Like I said.. He's likable. I just have a major problem with the trajectory that our government is on, and no matter what you think of any specific cause he championed, he had to accept a great deal if the blame for that.

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 09, 2015 6:38 PM  

The pastor and leader of the movement ran for office multiple times. Always as a democrat.

OpenID malcolmthecynic April 09, 2015 6:49 PM  

Amazing. Martin completely torpedoed his own cause and was too shortsighted to realize it.

I hesitate to call him dumb; clearly he is capable of genius.

But this was really, really dumb.

Blogger Desiderius April 09, 2015 7:00 PM  

cail,

"So the SJWs, who value the symbol of success (the award) over the reality, and the moderates who are concerned enough to try to play along, gradually dominate the process because there's no one involved from the other side. After a few years, they can't remember it being any other way."

Plus, the only voice the common man has is exit, to read or do something else with his time, and many did in response to the dreck being published and awarded.

Anonymous friendo April 09, 2015 8:41 PM  

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it before - but the British newspaper The Independent has an article on Martin's comments re: SP. Mentions the hospodar by name, as well as John C Wright.

Blogger James Dixon April 09, 2015 8:44 PM  

> I would even go so far as to insist that our lead editor himself reads that particular entry in the slush pile.

Oh, that was a given, Markku. :)

Mavwreck, I'd say your analysis matches what I understand of the process.

Blogger automatthew April 09, 2015 8:44 PM  

Neal Stephenson has a novel due to be published in 2015. That should make things interesting.

Anonymous Toz April 09, 2015 11:48 PM  

> (1) some say the exclusion is political in nature, that conservative and libertarian writers are being unfairly shut out,
> (2) others charge religious discrimination, insisting the Christian writers and "writers of Faith" are the ones being excluded,
> (3) there's a racial component in some comments (not from the Puppy leaders, but from their followers), wherein we are told that "straight white men" are the victims here,
> (4) and finally, there's the literary argument, wherein we are told that the ballots are full of bad boring crappy stories that no one really likes, placed there in some nefarious manner by the secret SJW cliques, whereas good old-fashioned SF and fantasy, the stuff the readers really love, is shut out and ignored.

GRRM is at least trying to understand. (4) is closest to the actual reason. I would say that the stories nominated almost always:

A. Include a "strong" woman character.
B. Shed any/all minorities in a non-stereotypically good way.
C. Spout liberal talking points (diversity is good! conservatives are bad and racist! guns are bad!)

I would be interested in an analysis of nominated works/authors from 2010-2013 based on this criteria.

Blogger S1AL April 10, 2015 12:07 AM  

Joshua Dual - I guess that comes down to a difference of opinion. I might support moving my walkway 5 feet, but not 20, and not blame the former for the latter.

Also, after the Hugo's, I think it's time to turn the spotlight on the entirety of internet journalism. Because d.a.m.n.

Blogger bob k. mando April 10, 2015 12:22 AM  

Statweasel April 09, 2015 11:02 AM
If Noah Ward becomes the dominant category winner by virtue of SJW pushback, the storyline we all told ourselves is wrong



not true.

at ~1500 ballots cast for nominees and another ~2000 cast for the award, even in a market as small as SF/F, that is NOT a significant sampling of the fan base.

hell, Larry Correia alone has more than 2000 people buying his books. what about Hugh Howey? Marko Kloos?

will there be overlap in those author fanbase populations? certainly. but SF/F still sells ~ 10 million units every year.

http://io9.com/5977221/a-chart-that-shows-a-dismal-trend-in-sales-of-print-science-fiction-and-fantasy-books

this should indicate a fan base at least in the high six figures. but, let's call the total SF/F annual buyers base 500,000 ... 2,000 ballots cast ( many by industry insiders ) amounts to sampling .4% of the population. that's *4/10s* of a percent of the fan base.

the error bars on a sample that small are going to be ginormous.

and remember, the SP / RP slates have already been driving Worldcon memberships higher. Hugo nom participation has never been higher than it was this year.


and, just so everybody knows ...
Hosts: David Gerrold and Tananarive Due

that's a queer ( who has refused to do significant work on his magnum opus in 20 years ) and a black woman. so ... Sasquan has already checked off all the SJW boxes.


Feh April 09, 2015 12:56 PM
the Bad Crazy



ah HA!! we've got theme music-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3YjvLlCToo

"you won't believe what i believe when i'm alone"

or even what i believe in public



Markku April 09, 2015 2:25 PM
I would even go so far as to insist that our lead editor himself reads that particular entry in the slush pile.



Markku creates a situation in which all possibilities lead to maximum lulz for himself.



No Award doesn’t appear on the final tally for anything.


oh, i don't think that's going to happen.

these little shits have gotten obnoxious enough that if i shell out to vote, i'm going to make a point of Noah Warding every single non-SP/RP.

and i'd be surprised if i was the only one.

there's a serious possibility that we could take Vox's "6th out of 5" from last year and ram it right up their asses.

i'm not saying i'm going to vote a straight RP/SP ticket, but i'm damned if i'm going to vote Tor for best novel.

Blogger Corvinus April 10, 2015 1:39 AM  

Amanjaw Marcuntte grumbles about Sad Puppies:

Link

Anonymous joe doakes April 10, 2015 9:42 AM  

Markku, Migly, and Mavwreck, thank you, you answered the question I asked. Perhaps I asked the wrong question. Please help me work through this . . .

The World Science Fiction Society holds the trademark (service mark?, whatever, it owns the rights). Nobody can call a book award a "Hugo" without their permission, just as nobody can sell soda pop called "Coke" without permission.

WSFS delegates permission to the local Con to award the Hugo based on a vote of the membership of that Con. Presently, it's the paid membership, not attending membership, which is why SP/RP can derail SJWs from their usual awards hijacking -- we pay and vote, but don't have to show up.

The only way to change that is to restrict voting to attending members which requires a rule change at the 2015 Con, ratified at the 2016 Con, takes effect for the 2017 Con. [Unless they ignore the rules as SFWA did when it purportedly kicked out Vox].

So, for SP/RP to take away SJWs power to hijack awards, we launch endless Puppy campaigns or we get a rule change taking the award away from the local Con and giving it to some other group.

Leaving aside the logistics of getting SP/RP to two Cons to vote, what other group would we trust to award the Hugo fairly?

The campaign began because SJW preaching in pink s/f was the leading cause of puppy-related sadness. Two years later, we're up to our ass in alligators and we're winning, but . . . what was the mission, again?
.

Blogger Markku April 10, 2015 10:32 AM  

what was the mission, again?

The overall grand vision from my perspective is to raise awareness of Blue SF/F and it has already been accomplished to a stupefying degree.

That's strategy. Then there's tactics. Tactics will be adaptive, depending on what the enemy does.

Blogger SirHamster April 10, 2015 12:53 PM  

The overall grand vision from my perspective is to raise awareness of Blue SF/F and it has already been accomplished to a stupefying degree.

Two years ago, I didn't even know there was a thing such as Pink/Blue SF/F. All I knew was some of the last SF I read from the local library had interesting adventures in space and exotic planets ... with a non-sequitor reference to a female protagonist's two dads in a loving, nurturing relationship.

Now I know why, and who to direct ire towards. With #GamerGate and SP/RP, I'm not the only one.

Blogger Danby April 11, 2015 1:00 AM  

I used to be a fan. I was an early reader, and started reading SF when I was 6, good old-fashioned space opera from Burroughs and Verne. I was also a voracious reader, and had worked my way up to Frank Herbert and Heinlein by the time I was 12.

And, sometime in the mid-1980s, something happened to SF. It wasn't interesting enough to bother with. Every story I tried to read was either godawful boring or personally insulting. At first I retreated into classics, re-reading Heinlein and Haldeman, evn Asimov's hackish shorts. Buying up old Astounding mags at garage sales.

Eventually, I just gave up. That's sad, because I had missed out on some good writers, like J C Wright and Brad Torgerson.

I've read more new SF in the last year than I had in the previous 30. And it's been good writing too.

Thanks Markku, and Vox, you've given me back something I had thought lost.

Anonymous Mavwreck April 11, 2015 3:39 AM  

@joe doakes:

Your idea of getting another group to award the Hugos (i.e., someone other than Worldcon's members) is an interesting idea. However, your comment has a problem with definitions - it's technically minor, but its consequences are major.

WSFS does not delegate the right (or responsibility?) to award Hugos to a Worldcon. It retains that right itself. It just happens that the members of WSFS are defined as "the members of the upcoming Worldcon".

WSFS could certainly delegate Hugo awarding rights to another group. However, it wouldn't be changing the delegation from one party to another - it would be giving up that power itself.

That makes it much less likely the sort of measure you're suggesting would pass. In fact, the WSFS constitution defines awarding the Hugos as the first of its five functions. You're asking the WSFS to delegate itself (partially) out of existence.

As for the root of your question:

what other group would we trust to award the Hugo fairly?

I don't know. I'll think of an answer, but presumably we'd want the intent of the Hugos to remain (open to all fans, and granted to the best SF works of the previous year). I'm not sure there is a better way - or at least one that can't be hijacked by some sub-group in the future.

Blogger Blume April 11, 2015 4:30 PM  

It's a perception thing, like always with them. Progs favor the illusion over the truth.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts