Sad Puppies volunteer again as the shields for Vox and the Rabids: a reply to Larry C

Larry Correia has re-entered into the Hugo debate, apparently to lambast Hugo voters for not voting for the Rabid Puppies. As so often happens, Larry (and Brad) have forgotten briefly about the supposedly massive distinction between Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies and naturally has come down fair and square on the side of Vox Day’s fairly obvious griefing attempt.

Fast forward to now, and at least they are open it is all politics.

Politics? It is interesting that when Larry says “politics” it so often means either women or people of colour not being discriminated against. When this is pointed out, Larry then tends to go 180 degrees and loudly declares about how race or gender or ethnicity are irrelevant and that people are all meany heads for calling him a racist or that the Sad Puppy leadership is diverse. Which is odd, because by Larry’s standards all of that would amount to “politics” on his part.

Larry and the Sad Puppies declared many times that the problem with the Hugos was the same old people winning awards. Well, that isn’t want happened this year and so now Larry is complaining that it is “politics”.

Seriously what aspect of YOUR politics is it that is attacked when somebody like N.K.Jemisin wins a Hugo? Seriously – that is a genuine question, not a trick one. You say repeatedly how much of a non-racist you are and that’s great and I’d really, really, like to believe you. What would help, would be you trying to work out what you mean by “politics” – because it really doesn’t seem to be the economic policy beliefs of award winners or their views on foreign policy or even their stance on healthcare or even which political candidate they are going to vote for in the next election.

Just ask yourself this, what kind of scumbags would give No Award to Larry Elmore?

Wait – you are the guy who keeps saying awards don’t matter? So now ordinary voters are “scumbags” if they don’t give somebody an award? And you wonder how “Sad Puppy” became such a toxic brand. It might have worked for Donald Trump during the GOP Primary but insulting ordinary voters is a pretty crap way of winning support and a very quick way of becoming marginalised in terms of influence beyond your fanbase (yeah, yeah, I know you earn lots and your books are super popular etc – seriously I’m happy for you).

You can’t even make your mind up whether a Hugo Award is an irrelevance or a mark of toxicity or something so vital that a fan must be a “scumbag” if they don’t vote for somebody.

And you are back to the notion of a Hugo being some kind of lifetime achievement award. It isn’t. You might want it to be but that involves persuading people rather than shouting at them. It is noticeable that when people wouldn’t be bullied into doing what you wanted you withdrew rather than thinking about where you went wrong and trying to engage in a positive way. Shame that.

Moira Greyland exposed to the culture of rape and pedophilia in old fandom, and not the made up “rape culture” the modern feminists accuse anybody who disagrees with them of.

And noticeably the coverage of this was not something Sad Puppies felt was worth nominating last year. For example http://deirdre.net/marion-zimmer-bradley-its-worse-than-i-knew/

Does that mean you and Brad wanted it “swept under the rug”? Because not only did you not nominate any of the coverage you didn’t discuss in your blogs either. Whereas the “modern feminists” you attack did discuss it. Ah but they are awful people because while they took the issue seriously they didn’t the vote the way Vox Day told them to in an award that you think is irrelevant because…because why? Because now Larry Correia thinks the way of helping the victims of sexual abuse is to never talk about the issue but nominate things for a Hugo Award?

Nope. While “modern feminists” were pointing out this appalling part of fandom history, Sad Puppies was busy celebrating and promoting a rape apologist. Oh wait, but that’s “politics” again, isn’t it, if anybody dares mention the way Sad Puppies sought out and promoted Vox Day.

But here is why I didn’t vote for Moira Greyland’s essay https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2016/05/21/hugo-choices-2-best-related-work-the-story-of-moira-greyland/

Other people had other reasons.

Toni Weisskopf? No Award. But we already knew that was coming.

Yes, we did. Take for example Sad Puppy 4 supremo Kate Paulk’s take on Best Editor Long Form: https://madgeniusclub.com/2016/07/07/hugo-category-highlights-the-finalists-best-editor-short-form-and-long-form/

Yup, even the TOP Sad Puppy couldn’t find much of a reason to vote for Toni Weisskopf. Heck, judging from the Hugo packet Toni Weisskopf couldn’t think of any reasons why we should vote for Toni Weisskopf. And yet people are just the WORST if they don’t vote for her because…I guess we’ll never know other than because Larry said so.

And noticeable how you can’t bring yourself to congratulate Sheila E Gilbert for actually winning – you know the person who actually said what she edited last year. Amazing that.

And Jerry Pournelle… Living legend. You pieces of shit are honestly going to tell us that Jerry Pournelle is not award worthy?

Yes, because the work he was nominated for, There Will be War X,  was a bit shit. Also, it was forced onto the ballot by the publisher’s shenanigans – something Sad Puppies and yourself are supposed to be opposing.

Jerry Pournelle can be a living legend and if there is ever a Living Legend Hugo Award I might even give him some consideration (tough field, though). However, he was nominated for best editor on the basis of an anthology that was pretty bad compared to his earlier work.

And to Neil Gaiman, boldly standing up to those pesky Puppies during his speech…

When you got your buddy Jonathan Ross to volunteer to MC the awards, it wasn’t those jerky Sad Puppies that formed an angry twitter mob because he *might* tell a fat joke.

That is true and note he still thinks “puppies” are bigger jerks.

You might want to stop and reflect on that for a moment. People who have actually experienced some of the supposedly awful oppression of the supposedly awful SJWs (mainly people being cross on the internet) see your “Puppy” brand as more obnoxious than that.

Now, why do you think that is Larry?

HINT: you have singularly failed to expand your base and done nothing but help Vox Day and the alt-right solidify theirs.

I still recall how discombobulated you were when Donald Trump effectively won the GOP nominations. You just couldn’t make sense of it – despite all your effort to legitimise and promote alt-right figures, alt-right narratives and alt-right talking points.

It still amazes me how much people on the right work so, so hard to boost people who then laugh at them and call them “cuckservatives” and then hijack their movement. And here we are again – you are posting a long rant about how awful those Hugo voters are and how “political” they are for not embracing Vox Day.

by the way, Neil, there were two separate groups of Puppies with entirely different goals and methods

Says Larry, rushing to defend the Rabid Puppies after they get trounced in a popular vote. Amazing how often Larry or Brad would rhetorically jump in front of criticism of the Rabid Puppies considering how different the two campaigns are. And I’m not being sarcastic – Larry is right, the Sads and Rabids really are qualitatively different. The most obvious difference is that Vox is quite happy to laugh and mock the Sad Puppies while the Sad Puppies jump to Vox’s defence – just as Larry does in this piece.

[Update: Larry’s post-Hugo rant appears to be the ONLY time he has EVER mentioned Moira Greyland on his blog (based on a search of the term “Greyland”). He cares SO MUCH about the issues she raised that he only ever got round to mentioning her this week and as part of his standard rant that everybody else are wrongfans]

 

Advertisements

77 comments

  1. Nigel

    I’m still mildly bemused at his epic tantrum after last year’s awards where he basically told us we now only had ourselves to blame for Vox going Full Vox on this year’s Hugos. Now he’s complaining that Full Vox didn’t make us vote the way he wanted us to, and we’re the assholes for not giving in to a threat, and then for effectively neutralising the threat, and for having the temerity to not like the people making the threat or the person carrying it out. Correia holding up Pournelle and Greyland in this context emphasises the heartless cynical cruelty of the whole ‘human shield’ aspect of the slates. They were nominated purely so this complaint could be made at this point. He’s not just defending Beale, he’s participating in Beale’s strategy.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Mark

    What I find particularly disappointing is Larry demonstrating the SP/ex-SP’s willingness to carry VDs water with regard to his pedophilia slurs. They are demonstrably intelligent enough to see through his tactic, but instead many of them have embraced it.

    Like

      • Mark

        Scalzi says something rather on point to this:

        “The Beale brand, earned through time and repetition, is “graspingly untalented bigot.” And of course Beale knows this, the poor bastard, which is why he tried to drag down actually talented people and their good work by attempting to associate his brand with them. That didn’t work (because again people aren’t stupid), but if you actually intentionally attach yourself to the Beale brand? Then, yes, “associates with graspingly untalented bigot” is now part of your brand, too. If it’s powerful enough to drag down Jerry Pournelle, a man of no uncertain talent and accomplishment who does in fact deserve better than to finish below “No Award,” think what it’ll do to you.”

        http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/08/22/gum-on-the-shoe-of-history-or-why-the-hugos-are-still-not-destroyed/

        Liked by 2 people

  3. thephantom182

    “Larry Correia has re-entered into the Hugo debate, apparently to lambast Hugo voters for not voting for the Rabid Puppies.”

    Jerry Pournell, Larry Elmore, Moira Greyland and Toni Weisskopf lost to Noah, Camestros. Let’s not screw around, shall we? Those four, below No Award? I want to hear the “quality” argument now from somebody. Please, go ahead and explain how these four pics were “just not Hugo quality,” okay? I can wait.

    It’s a political vote. They were punished for being on the Wrong Side, and no one is even trying to pretend otherwise.

    That’s all anybody has been saying all this time. The vote is political, and all the “poor quality Puppy picks” and “but its a SLAAAAATE!” arguments are horse hockey. Now y’all are proudly announcing a Victory For Social Justice and a Victory For Feminism!

    Yeah. We know. Hooray, you win. Go Team SJW. You shut out the evil racist barbarians.

    Like

    • Mark

      “Jerry Pournell, Larry Elmore, Moira Greyland and Toni Weisskopf lost to Noah, Camestros. Let’s not screw around, shall we? Those four, below No Award? I want to hear the “quality” argument now from somebody. Please, go ahead and explain how these four pics were “just not Hugo quality,” okay? I can wait.”

      OK!

      Pournelle edited a mediocre anthology. His competition edited top-quality zines, multiple good anthologies, or both. His previous editing work has been much better, but 2015 wasn’t his A game.

      Larry Elmore – his sole identified 2015 work is a cover for Larry C (http://2015hugoart.tumblr.com/post/148179008757/larry-elmore-has-been-a-professional-fantasy). It’s basically a small logo. I love me some Elmore – he’s on the cover of a whole bunch of old D&D books on my shelf – but what did he do that outclassed everyone else last year?

      Moira Greyland – 50% extremely tragic story that, apart from being in her own words, wasn’t new information, and 50% using that tragedy to promote her anti-gay marriage agenda. I can’t judge the first half of the piece without the second, and the overall result is a political screed.

      Weiskoppf – Simple, I don’t know what she edited in 2015, and she’s not interested in telling me.

      Liked by 3 people

      • thephantom182

        “Pournelle edited a mediocre anthology.”

        Yeah, and it was so bad it needed to be put below No Award? Given “The World Turned Upside Down” last year as a yardstick for “award worthy?”

        And there was nobody out there yelling “Don’t bother reading it, because Beall! No Award!” That never happened, right? Everybody -totally- judged it on its merits, uh huh. All the ranting at Vile 666, I010, Making Dark, all a mirage?

        I believe you. Your amazing argument has convinced me. Clearly, SJW politics played no part at all in the award voting. None. Totally legit.

        Like

      • Mark

        Phantom, you asked the question, I answered. You’ll also find plenty of people giving similar answers if you bother to do your own research. You’ll also find people who advocated for Castalia House products to be ignored (the research on that one is quite easy).

        If you’re determined to call me a liar no matter what I say then there’s even less point than usual in continuing this.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thephantom182

        I’m not calling you a liar Mark, perish the thought. I’m calling you a political partisan. I’m actually the liar this time. I lied when I said your argument convinced me. I should say a Hail Mary for that one, it was a whopper.

        I’m saying WorldCon voters pretty much slated everything Puppy based on it being Puppy, Sad or Rabid made no difference that I can see. The argument that you make about Tony Weisskopf can be made of every editor every year. No Award two years in a row is politics.

        I09 is busy crowing about 4 women sweeping the major awards, two of them POC. That’s politics. And so forth.

        Four years ago, everybody would swear on a stack of bibles that politics played no part in any vote, it was All About The Story. This year, same people involved, its All About Beating The Raaaacist Puppies. Politics. Hell, even Scalzi says its politics.

        Like

      • Mark

        “The argument that you make about Tony Weisskopf can be made of every editor every year. ”

        Literally not true (in the old, proper meaning of literally!) Other editors, including Jim Minz, made packet submissions. TW didn’t, two years in a row.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thephantom182

        “Women winning things is “politics”? Seriously you type this stuff and you can’t even see how daft it sounds.”

        Hey, I just report on what I see. You go read I09 and tell me that wasn’t the purest SJW politics and braying they’d Beat The Racists again, because Four Women Won! Yay Women, Boo Patriarchy! Uh, politics is what that is.

        I’ve said many times before this, what matters in an author is not plumbing and surface albedo. What matters in a story is not who wrote it. The story matters. I do not care that J.K. Rowling is a woman, or white, or blonde/brunette/redhead. I do not care if she has or does not have a nice rack. I do not care if she looks good in a bathing suit. Because I can’t see that stuff. It’s a book. There’s only writing, no pictures.

        I do not care about Nora K’s issues, race, sex, religion, dietary habits, what have you. It’s a BOOK. A very nasssty book that I really don’t want to read. Ever. Maybe someday she’ll write something I like. It could happen, Stross used to after all. Should that happen, I’ll read it. Because its a book. I don’t care who wrote it.

        When the race, sex, orientation, birth sign, hair style or whatever the f- of the author is a deciding factor or even a contributing factor in who gets an award, that is a political consideration that has nothing to do with the story.

        Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        //I do not care about Nora K’s issues, race, sex, religion, dietary habits, what have you.//

        Don’t you? And yet its “politics” if her book wins and somehow proof of the end of SF as we know it etc etc etc.

        You’ve seen what I’ve written about her book – now put aside the fact that it isn’t to your taste (and tastes differ) – what makes you think that I’m not actual genuinely amazed by how great The Fifth Season is?

        Yes, I get that it is not a book you like the sound of but it is a book I really, really enjoyed – more than any book I’ve read for a long while. Why is my enjoyment not valid?

        Liked by 2 people

    • David Brain

      Please, go ahead and explain how these four pics were “just not Hugo quality,” okay? I can wait.
      Well considering that the article doesn’t even use “just not Hugo quality” as a reason, but discusses very specific reasons as to why voters might have rejected them, you might be waiting a long time.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thephantom182

        Are you going to pretend along with Mr. ‘Mission Impossible’ Phelpatron that the vote was not 100% political, all based on who nominated the work?

        Why? It was. Everybody is declaring political victory over the racists today. Grog Hullblender is probably still doing his happy dance! Don’t you care that eeeeevile was defeated? Man, show a little solidarity eh?

        Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        If it was based on who nominated the work then the vote would have been very different – please try to keep up Phantom. Works that had been on the Rabid slate won some categories and beat No Award in others. You need to update your argument – you are using a stale one from last year.

        Liked by 2 people

      • David Brain

        Are you going to pretend along with Mr. ‘Mission Impossible’ Phelpatron that the vote was not 100% political, all based on who nominated the work?
        I nominated several things that ended up on the ballot. I also voted for those. So yes, I admit that my vote was 100% political based on who nominated the work. (One of them even won its category. Huzzah for me. I hereby declare victory over the Hugos.)

        Like

      • thephantom182

        Well now. When I read the blurb for “There Will Be War” I was interested and engaged. It sounded like something fun to read, with plenty of guns and explosions, clever tactics, brave characters doing great deeds. That sort of thing appeals to my ever-so-racist childlike mind, you see. I like it when I read something and it makes me happy.

        When I read the blurb for “The Fifth Season”, by contrast, I felt vaguely nauseous. I believe I commented as much here on this blog when you reviewed it. Something about I’d rather have a root canal, because that at least would leave me with something beneficial to justify the crushing pain.

        Now, it must be said that the ability to cause nausea in the reader, just from the cover blurb, does indicate a high level of writing ability. Should I require an emetic, I’ll be sure to reach for “The Fifth Season.” But should I be seeking edifying entertainment, I will seek out the works of Mr. Pournelle.

        Putting edifying entertainment below No Award, while giving the rocket to harrowing, nauseating torture fic, is exactly everything I’ve come to expect from WorldCon voters these last 20 years.

        As for quality, after “Redshirts”, “The World Turned Upside Down”, “The Pee That Falls On You From Nowhere”, and a few more like that the last couple of years, the claim “mediocre” when applied to a Puppy pick really means “political.”

        Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        That’s great for you Phantom. i appreciate that you are angry that people are going around enjoying different things than you. Unfortunately that isn’t a problem I can help you with.

        Glad you’ve recovered from you sudden boredom attack 😉

        Liked by 1 person

      • thephantom182

        ” i appreciate that you are angry that people are going around enjoying different things than you.”

        You’re cute when you try to put words in my mouth like that. It’s so clumsy that it’s endearing, you know? Like a swan, crash landing.

        Like

      • thephantom182

        So Camestros, is it like totally cool for Grog to step right up and spit in my eye like that? Do I get to swear at him yet, or does the bile have to kinda build up a bit first?

        Hey Grog, read down a bit for my actual racist comment. It’s where I say that I can’t tell the author’s race because there’s no pictures. Because that’s racist, right? Also I mention J.K. Rowling’s rack, so extra sexism points there.

        Like

      • RDF

        When I read the blurb for “There Will Be War” I was interested and engaged

        Good for you, mate.

        I suspect that Hugo voters tend to read the books and vote on that basis rather than the blurbs. But at least you’re owning up to your limitations.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Cora

      I did not no award Larry Elmore, though he placed low on my ballot, because the cover for Larry Correia’s book was very unremarkable.

      I no awarded Toni Weisskopf, because she did not let us know what she edited (unlike Jim Minz, Sheila Gilbert and Liz Gorisnky) and because I am not happy with the direction Baen has taken since Jim Baen’s death. Baen books have editing issues, too.

      I no awarded Moira Greyland, because she used her personal tragedy for an anti-gay.marriage polemic. If the piece had just been a retelling of her abuse at the hands of her parents without the anti-gay.marriage stuff, my decision would probably have been different. Besides, it’s a well known tactic of the right to use pedophilia accusations to smear their opponents and I’m not playing. If the puppies cared so much about Moira Greyland, why not promote Deirdre S. Moen’s exposé of the scandal last year?

      I no awarded Jerry Pournelle, though I felt a bit bad about it, because the anthology was just not very good. The mix of fiction and non-fiction did not work and only one story was IMO decent (What Price Humanity? which I placed above No Award).

      Phantom, it’s perfectly okay if you did not enjoy The Fifth Season. It wasn’t my top pick either, though I can see why so many others like it. However, I also did not want to be forced to read Larry Correia’s Mary Sueish gun porn for the Hugos two years ago nor Charles Stross being boring about economics again in 2014 nor Neal Stephenson’s endless infodumps this year. Alas, other Hugo voters and nomines obviously don’t share my taste. It happens.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Lurkertype

    Teddy must be pretty happy at how he not only completely stole Larry’s movement out from under him, but that Larry keeps volunteering as a human shield/useful idiot. Definitely worth a “mwah ha ha” or an “exxxxxcellent”.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Ratzilla

    Phantom: I No Awarded both editor categories because they are difficult to judge unless you are inside SFF publishing. I would like to see these categories dropped from the Hugo’s, maybe instituting not-a-Hugo lifetime awards for editing instead. Elmore’s stuff doesn’t appeal to me. Greyland’s work was distorted for me by the conclusions she reached. The piece would have been stronger had her account stood alone. No, I didn’t find it award worthy. Hope this helps you.
    You haven’t mentioned the book on Gene Wolfe which with better editing would have been pretty good.

    Like

    • thephantom182

      I didn’t read the book on Gene Wolfe. Neither did most people who gave that award to Noah because of the -publisher’s- name.

      If you didn’t want to pass judgement on editing, it would be easy enough to skip that category. By voting No Award, you are passing judgement that all the nominated editors suck.

      I didn’t vote on fan art, because I don’t look at fan art. Had I No-Awarded the category, I’d have been taking a big dump on all those fan artist nominees. That would be pretty crappy of me, I think.

      If Elmore’s stuff doesn’t appeal to you, don’t vote for Elmore. If you don’t like it and there’s nothing better, skip the category. By voting No Award you’re not saying you don’t care or didn’t want to judge, you’re saying “It’s Crap!”

      Five Noahs last year, two this year? Two for Weisskopf? Larry Fricking Elmore, who’s on every cover since forever?

      But “Redshirts” wins?

      Seriously, pull the other one. It has bells on it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • camestrosfelapton

        You do get that there is a vast space between “award worthy” and “crap”? Apparently not.

        Lots of OK books are neither crap nor award worthy. Cinder Spires was fine, fun in places but only just got above No Award in my vote. I’m reading a Jim C Hines book right now which is a decent read on the train – if it was nominated for a Hugo it go below No Award.

        Like

      • sjsundell

        From Hugo Awards site http://www.thehugoawards.org/the-voting-system/ :

        “You should vote for No Award as your first choice if you believe that none of the nominees are worthy of the Award, or that the Award category should be abolished.”

        Not only is Ratzilla’s No Award allowed, it’s actually one of the specifically mentioned ways No Award vote should be used.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Andrew M

      I No Awarded both editor categories because they are difficult to judge unless you are inside SFF publishing.

      Can I just point out that’s really not true of Editor Short Form, which is basically a proxy for Best Magazine. It is odd that they just list the editors and not the magazines, but samples of the magazines are in the packet. There is a proposal afoot to actually make the award Best Magazine, but it won’t be brought up until slate-related debates have died down.

      I agree that it would be a good idea to replace Long Form with a not-Hugo.

      Like

      • Mark

        This is true, if you’re paying attention to zines and/or anthos. I was, so I was happy voting in short form. I also voted in long form, but with less confidence.

        I do think that any category where quite a lot of people ignore it or protest-NA it needs a long hard look, and the magazine/publisher suggestions look pretty sensible to me.

        Like

  6. KR

    This comment section feels like a bad acid trip/ 70s dream sequence to me: absurd, illogical, phantasmagorical, looping back on itself and not intersecting with a plane of reality on which resides accepted branches of knowledge like literary criticism, anthropology, literary studies, psychology, theology, and history. Perhaps CF can add a psychedelic corner with some tie-dyed merch and Beatles-inflected ashram walrus .gifs…. I bet he could also neutralize the crassness by coming up with something witty about (w)racking one’s brain that would fit on the chest of a t-shirt too 🙂

    But more to the point, Phantom, all human tale-telling has had a moral message to it (you seem to be conflating “moral” with “political”, which, though they are related, are not the same thing). Tale-telling predates the written record. Humans tell stories to solidify communities, to instruct others how to behave in those communities (ie: discipline), and to imagine new possible futures. Likewise, all human interaction is political in the sense that it involves relationship dynamics, personal/ contextual preferences, and hoped-for outcomes all of which rely on both power and persuasion. Everything has a politics, as well as an economy and a history.

    As John Lennon said, strange days indeed.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thephantom182

      “Tale-telling predates the written record.”

      Helium is used in airships KR. Isn’t that fascinating? Equally fascinating, writing was invented for book keeping, not tale telling. But also fascinating, beer predates the written word. Beer is yummy.

      In other news, Pournelle and Elmore did not lose to a better nominee. They got No-Awarded. Because Racist Puppies, and every SJW donkey and its rider are crowing about it since the weeners were announced. Weisskopf did not lose to a better nominee. She got No Awarded twice. Because Racist Puppies. That’s what we call -politics-, when using the word as it is normally used.

      But not immoral. People can be jerks if they want. It’s a free country.

      Like

      • KR

        I rank you below No Award in reading comprehension, but you are certainly a contender in the categories of name-calling, topic-changing, and sarcasm.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Nigel

        Phantom must be incredibly angry at Beale for co-opting Pournelle and Elmore and others onto an avowedly political and destructive venture to either get awards for his own publishing house, irregardless of quality, or to wreck those awards, effectively an act of blackmail, involving torrents of abuse and lies about the organisers and voters, leading to many of his nominees being rejected in a popular vote. The kicker being that the pattern of voting indicates that works on the slate regarded as award-worthy were not automatically rejected, suggesting that Beale’s biggest offence in the eyes of the voters wasn’t his vandalism or threats or his abuse and lies, but the poor quality of most of the works he slated. Phantom must be furious about that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Cora

        Larry Elmore lost to Abigail Larson, who actually was a slate nominee, and Jerry Pournelle lost to Ellen Datlow and everybody else in that category. Other voters had different tastes than you, Phantom. It happens.

        Liked by 2 people

      • RDF

        Helium is used in airships KR. Isn’t that fascinating? Equally fascinating, writing was invented for book keeping, not tale telling

        Writing was invented to keep track of tax obligations – so you’re BOTH right… 😎

        Like

  7. thephantom182

    Let us go back to the source material, shall we? This is the -full- quote from Larry’s “defense of the odious Mr. Beal” as you are styling it, Camestros.

    “Funny. When I started Sad Puppies four years ago, the narrative was all about how the Hugos were a celebration of what was great, representing the best of all of fandom. I said nope, it is decided by cliques, ass kissing, and politics. They called me a liar. Fast forward to now, and at least they are open it is all politics. Hell, they’re celebrating it.”

    Above, we see 38 posts. Which are all either me pointing out that LC was right four years ago and he’s right now, or somebody telling me not to believe my lying eyes.

    So the new narrative is that none of the political speech that’s going on about how the Puppies Lost!!!11! including your own frigging headlines, Cameestros, “The Rabids Lost 25 to 5” and “How badly did the Rabid Puppies lose?” , none of that is political. It’s all down to “quality.”

    Sure. Why not? If “The World Turned Upside Down” is the best short story of 2015, then “Hugo Awards Celebrate Women in Sci-Fi, Send Rabid Puppies to Doghouse” has nothing to do with politics. Nothing at all. Total quality argument, all the way.

    You sold me, Camestros. I belieeeeeeve you. Now if you will excuse me. “Hail Mary, full of grace…”

    Like

    • Kasa Obake

      Dude. Larry had a legit nomination for the Campbell. He didn’t win and has spent the last 4 fucking years being a pissy little manbaby about it. Same with Brad, though for a little less time. It’s not even about politics; it’s about manchildren thinking they’re owed something and flailing for reasons why they weren’t given it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • camestrosfelapton

      Huh? That makes zero sense Phantom. So now if I discuss the Rabid campaign that means *I* am the one being political?

      As far as weird demands go, that everybody now has to PRETEND there wasn’t a Rabid campaign is one of the weirdest.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Cora

      “The Day the World Turned Upside Down” only won the best novelette Hugo last year, because the puppies both sad and rabid filled the ballot with crap. Though one story was decent enough to land over no award for me. If we’d had an organic novelette ballot in 2015, there would have been a lot stronger choices and it’s unlikely that “The Day the World Turned Upside Down”, which only narrowly finished above No Award, as far as I recall, would have won.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Mark

        The longlist suggests that tDtWTUD should have been up against:
        Each to Each Seanan McGuire
        The Devil In America Kai Ashante Wilson
        The Litany of Earth Ruthana Emrys
        The Magician and Laplace’s Demon Tom Crosshill

        I’ve only got strong memories of the middle two, but would definitely have voted them above tDtWTUD, so I certainly agree with you.

        Like

      • Sami Sundell

        I agree.

        Having said that, I disagree with the sentiment that could be read from “The Day the World Turned Upside Down” winning the Hugo – that if there’s only one non-Puppy choice that it should win by default. No, it should still be judged based on its own merits.

        Personally, I voted The Day the World Turned Upside Down below No Award along with everything else in that category – I don’t think it was even the best of the last year’s nominees. It did get to the ballot, however, so obviously some people found it to have some appeal that I just couldn’t see.

        Like

      • CeeV

        Considering the fact that Heuvelt’s 2013 Hugo-nominated novelette “The Boy Who Cast No Shadow” and his 2014 nominated short story “The Ink Readers of Doi Saket” both placed last in their categories (though each of them above no award), I think you’re absolutely right. Heuvelt has a passionate fanbase, which is why he keeps getting on the ballot, but the wider group of Worldcon voters has historically been less taken by his work.

        Also, as a reminder, among the less-than-stellar novelettes pushed onto the ballot by the slates last year, two of them weren’t even complete stories (and they read like incomplete stories): Flynn’s “The Journeyman: In the Stone House” and Lerner’s “Championship B’Tok.” Personally, I hated “The Day the World Turned Upside Down,” and I still put it in fourth place on my ballot, above Flynn’s and Lerner’s stories.

        Like

      • Lurkertype

        I voted it below No Award, as I have voted each of Heuvelt’s stories. I would like people to stop nominating him, because I think he’s a terrible writer.

        As far as last year, if things hadn’t been slated, I’d have gone with “The Litany of Earth”, with “Devil in America” second.

        Like

      • JJ

        I think that Olde Heuvelt has a small but very ardent group of fans, mostly in the Netherlands, who are organized enough to keep getting his works on the ballot. I thought his first two nominated stories were pretty good — but if we’d had 3SV last year, I would have voted to remove TDtWTUD from the ballot: it was that bad. I put it below No Award on my ballot (and in fact, it only fairly narrowly beat NA). If you removed 1500 of the NA votes above it on the assumption that they were all from Puppies (something I think is unlikely, since a lot of the Puppies clearly did not understand what No Award was or how it was used), there were still at least 500 people like me who put it below No Award. Once again, clear evidence that people were voting on perceived quality rather than on “politics”.

        Like

    • iamzenu

      That’s because he’s a liar. And he started out by saying how great the Hugos are. LC has the maturity of a 12 year old.

      The clique you refer to are the Fans of Worldcon. I don’t think you understand how it works. See the Fans pay their dues and then they get the vote. How they vote decides who gets the award. See that? Next year is the same. Join them. Pay your money and then vote. Your vote will be as good as any vote. But since you are all about the culture war and not so much the SFF, you will be a FINO.

      Like

  8. Mark

    Taking a step back and being a bit more meta about it, it looks like this years tactic in reacting to the results is pretty similar to last years – be outraged about the use of No Award. I find myself pretty unconcerned this year, because they can hardly claim it was a surprise, and also because its clear that voters have looked at slated nominees and made a judgement – hence Stephen King beating NA, along with all of the novellas, Beneath Ceaseless Skies, etc. The voters have clearly considered more than just whether a work was slated.
    There were some NAs I didn’t agree with and had voted above the line – Daily SF (but I recall their packet submission was poor or non-existent), Jim Minz (bothered with a submission so I voted him above NA), Tangent Online (although I’m glad I didn’t have to make that decision with Truesdales ranting fresh in my mind).
    I said a while ago that Pournelle was being set up as this years Toni Weisskopf, which is looking spot-on. (Although Weisskopf is also being this years Weisskopf, so there’s that).
    The other total lack of surprise is VD declaring victory in all circumstances.
    Looking at the year, while there are a lot of disappointments in the nominations, the winners are excellent, and ultimately that is what the average fan is going to see in the news or on Wikipedia – no-one’s going to look at this year’s winners and ask WTF? which is what is necessary for VD to have succeeded.

    Like

  9. lauowolf

    thephantom182
    “Weisskopf did not lose to a better nominee. She got No Awarded twice. Because Racist Puppies. That’s what we call -politics-, when using the word as it is normally used.”

    Point of information, here.
    (Sorry to interrupt ranting with facts.)
    Toni Weisskopf was not No Awarded this year – see final results for that category.
    Weisskopf was significantly ahead of No Award in all voting passes, but she was also even more significantly behind both front-runners in all stages of the ballot.
    She simply did not win, the voters having preferred, as is their right, other candidates.
    As many people have remarked her chosen tactic of failing to provide useful information to the packet may not be a good one.

    Race For Position 1
    Finalist Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3 Pass 4 Pass 5 Runoff
    Sheila E. Gilbert 688 696 705 726 862 1416
    Liz Gorinsky 646 652 657 669 768
    Toni Weisskopf 458 470 605 621
    No Award 399 399 403 754
    Vox Day 165 167
    Jim Minz 30

    Like

    • Mark

      That’s the position 1 results, you need to look at “race for position 3” in the hugo stats doc, where she lost to NA 1150 to 1094, and so NA took 3rd place ahead of her.
      That’s a lot tighter than 2015, when she lost 1st position to NA by 2496 to 1216. Clearly a lot more people were prepared to give her consideration this year. I doubt that’s much consolation to her or her supporters though.

      Like

      • lauowolf

        Ah, yes, I see.
        Though the first one is the shuffle for the top slot, which is the one she’d have to win in order to, you know, win.
        And after that it turns into rank choice voting detail. and getting into math.
        I guess my point remains that she wasn’t merely No Awarded, she was also still beaten handily by the top two choices of other editors.
        I suspect that doesn’t make it any better.
        But, really, if people won’t bother with assembling a packet, why should they assume voters would pick them, given essentially nothing to base that choice upon (I’m looking askance as well at Elmore with just the one cover)?
        I didn’t vote best novel on the basis of blubs, I read the things.
        And I didn’t vote on reputation, or on demographic categories either, I voted the packet.
        (I’m perfectly happy with the resulting wins by women and POC, though, but that was just the cherry on top of the sundae.)
        And unless the reasoning is something along the lines that the right people shouldn’t actually need to submit materials, I’m not sure why anyone would expect to win, or even come up ahead of No Award, without putting together a killer packet submission.
        Unless they think it is all really about who knows who, rather than about their 2015 work itself.
        But I thought was the kind of insider entitlement the puppies claimed to be exposing to begin with.

        Like

  10. Ratzilla

    What have you liked and found award worthy in the past year? Any nominations lined up for next year’s Hugo’s?

    Like

    • Mark

      My draft list is a bit behind (I tend to leave notes on my kindle then go back through them), but personally for Novel I’m excited by Lovecraft Country by Matt Ruff, Nine Fox Gambit by Yoon Ha Lee, and perhaps All The Birds in the Sky by Charlie Jane Anders and Who Killed Sherlock Holmes by Paul Cornell (3rd in a series so unlikely to get anywhere). In novella I think my current favourites are Forest of Memory by Mary Robinette Kowal and Every Heart A Doorway by Seanan McGuire.
      Over in Semiprozine I think the standout new entry is Mothership Zeta, but as a paid zine it may not get enough readers to get traction.

      Like

      • Ratzilla

        Yup, I climbed Mt All the Reading for the Hugo’s 2016, and now I’m scrambling for 2017. The story Finnegan’s Field stands out for me.

        Like

      • Mark

        Ah, I have a “v good” against Finnegan’s Field on my kindle, so I seem to agree!

        I’ve actually got a good number of novelettes jotted down, far more than last year when I struggled a bit.
        The Tomato Thief – Ursula Vernon
        The Virgin Played Bass – Maria Dahvana Headley
        Coral Bones – Fox Meadows
        Love is never still – Rachel Swirsky
        A dead djinn in Cairo – P. Djeli Clark
        All except Coral Bones are free online, and the collection that contains Coral Bones is definitely worth spending money on.

        Like

      • po8crg

        I’ve been dazzled by the first four or five chapters of Too Like the Lightning by Ada Palmer, and it will get a nomination if it keeps it up.

        Like

  11. iamzenu

    Wow. Great reply. I don’t think the cat could have done better.

    You know LC did a whole blog entry on why he is not Vox Day. I don’t really believe him.

    But… I do believe the Doggy Wars are over. Next year, I see no reason to care what they do. Fans took care of business.

    Like

  12. iamzenu

    The Phantom said:

    “Well now. When I read the blurb for “There Will Be War” I was interested and engaged. It sounded like something fun to read, with plenty of guns and explosions, clever tactics, brave characters doing great deeds. That sort of thing appeals to my ever-so-racist childlike mind, you see. I like it when I read something and it makes me happy.

    When I read the blurb for “The Fifth Season”, by contrast, I felt vaguely nauseous. I believe I commented as much here on this blog when you reviewed it. Something about I’d rather have a root canal, because that at least would leave me with something beneficial to justify the crushing pain.

    Now, it must be said that the ability to cause nausea in the reader, just from the cover blurb, does indicate a high level of writing ability. Should I require an emetic, I’ll be sure to reach for “The Fifth Season.” But should I be seeking edifying entertainment, I will seek out the works of Mr. Pournelle.”

    And there you have it. It is always the same with the dogs. When you get to the bottom of the argument it is Worldcon Fans are Wrong Fans, reading Wrong Works, and having Wrong Fun. Fans really liked “Fifth Season”. He doesn’t. Although he hasn’t read it. That’s fine for him. It’s also fine for Worldcon SFF Fans to have their taste and opinions.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Aaron

    Unlike some posters who have only read the blurbs for the two books, I actually read all of The Fifth Season and There Will Be War, Volume X. I can explain why the first won a Hugo and the second saw its editor place behind “No Award”: The Fifth Season is an excellent science fiction novel, while There Will Be War, Volume X is an anthology of stories that run from mediocre and uninspired to so awful you wonder how they got published.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. jj3333

    Aaron’s captured my response on those two ballot entries exactly.

    Pournelle wasn’t up for “Best Editor Lifetime Achievement Award”. He was up for Best Editor, Short Form of 2015. There Will Be War Volume X was his only contribution falling into that category — and the stories in it ranged from unremarkable to execrable. No Award was not even a question where his nomination was concerned. Just as it was not a question for the stories from that anthology which were gamed onto the ballot.

    Likewise, Larry Elmore didn’t have a packet entry, and the only 2015 published work of his of which I was aware was the cover of Correia’s book — which barely qualifies as artwork. Again, No Award was not even a question where his nomination was concerned.

    If the Puppies want good works to be recognized, they need to nominate good works. Funny, isn’t it, how the good works on their slate did get placed above No Award, or even took home a rocket?

    Ticking to bookmark the lists of recommended 2016 works. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  15. supplanter

    I have to say, Phantom imagining that his opinion blurbs settles an argument about books is so funny all his other posts here are nearly worth the bandwidth reading them took.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. supplanter

    Hey, I finally put this post and the previous post together! I’ve long been amused and puzzled by just how convinced Larry and Sarah H. are that their Portuguese heritage somehow makes them people of color as Americans reckon things these days. Now I realize: They think this because they hang out with Vox! It must be like being besties with Nigel Fawlty. He’s probably had to assure them that “dago” is a term of endearment.

    “Vox is smart, and he thinks we’re practically Negroes. Okay!”

    Liked by 1 person

    • camestrosfelapton

      Yes, I mean, I thought I was being unsubtle underlining that! Vox genuinely thinks that Larry Correia should not be allowed to vote and is not a proper American. Given how thin-skinned Larry is about people thinking he isn’t somehow a ‘proper’ writer, he is surprisingly OK with this.

      [For the record, I think Larry is both a proper writer and a proper American]

      Like