The Elephant in the Room Points Out the Elephant in the Room

I covered the revisionism of Sarah Hoyt’s account of the Sad Puppy debarkle yesterday. Lots of people noticed a very weird issue with her account – no Rabid Puppies were mentioned. Now true the two campaigns were different (we are a polypuppyist school here unlike those monopuppyists)  but it is weird to discuss the actions and motivations of everyone else involved without mentioning the Rabid Puppy campaign. By omitting the ‘alt-right’ from the account, Hoyt herself blurred the distinction between the campaigns.

What is obvious to the critics of the Sad Pups is also obvious to the hydrophobic hounds also. Here is Vox Day’s commentary on the Hoyt piece (direct link and archive link if you don’t want to give clicks).

“I find this rather fascinating for what it omits. The Baen cum Sad Puppies crowd is in an uncomfortable position not terribly different from that of Never Trump and the cuckservatives. They are accustomed to being the sole opposition to the SJWs in science fiction, and viewing themselves as the proper and respectable opposition, so they really don’t know what to do about the Rabid Puppies…”

And the lyssavirus  labradors continue:

“So, they push a narrative to the public in which we don’t exist, even though without us, Sad Puppies would have remained what it was prior to our involvement, a minor bump in the road that didn’t even require any suppression outside of the usual routine. This is not to say that what they did was not admirable, and indeed, their construction of the Dragon Awards will likely prove to be more significant in the long run than our demolition of the Hugo Awards. I merely observe that their efforts would have been insufficient in our absence.”

Vox is also prone to self-delusion but not to the same extent as Hoyt perhaps because he’s already accepted that his positions are appalling and inimical to freedom. Of course, he’s still deluded that somehow the Hugos were destroyed when they continue at least as actively as prior to the Sad Pups. However, parts of his analysis there are correct – the Sad Pups want credit for the scale of their actions but want to pretend the Rabids had nothing to do with – to the extent of airbrushing them out of the photo.

Advertisements

66 comments

  1. redpandafraction

    Well, well, well.
    “This is not to say that what they did was not admirable, and indeed, their construction of the Dragon Awards will likely prove to be more significant in the long run than our demolition of the Hugo Awards.”

    Liked by 2 people

    • camestrosfelapton

      Yes, interesting attribution. Of course, Vox is a source of zero credibility but in this case not necessarily negative credibility. Still fascinating that he sees the Sads as the people who created the Dragons.

      Liked by 2 people

      • redpandafraction

        I’d wager that a simple “Get Out The Vote” campaign for the Dragon Awards would pull it pretty much in line with Goodreads End of Year Awards. The more people that know about it and vote, the more mainstream it would be.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Space Oddity

        Beale’s stuck himself in an eternal Red Queen’s Race where he has to convince himself that more and more failures are in fact successes. It’s significant because he NEEDS it to be significant.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Mark Hepworth

        I’m not sure on that. Assuming that the published GR votes total of 3,887,950 means each vote during each round, and everyone voted for everything possible, that’s c65,000 voters last year. Assumptions of more limited engagement quickly push that upwards to points that would require the whole DC attendance to be voting to match it. WorldCon get less than 50% engagement with the Hugos despite the longstanding tradition of it.
        (Which isn’t to say the Dragon Awards couldn’t get a high level of voters if run well, just that GR is *very* well supported)

        Liked by 2 people

      • redpandafraction

        I think you’re right, Mark. But the Puppies would get maybe 2-3 wins out of the current literary categories based on last year’s results. I’m not sure how the new Best Media Tie-In Novel will go.

        Liked by 3 people

  2. Space Oddity

    It’s hard saying “Beale has a level of self-awareness that some of his supposedly more moderate fellows lack”, but it is the truth. (Hell, I’d argue it comes out in some of his fiction. Many repugnant right-wing authors write stories where the “hero” strikes the average reader as a villain, but Beale writes stories where the “hero” strikes the average reader as a pathetic villain wracked with guilt and creating rationalizations for his acts that he doesn’t quite buy.) With that sad, the grandiose threats and boasts in that column of his are a bit much to take.

    To put it mildly.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Mark Hepworth

    Vox is not wrong.

    (Now I need to disinfect my typing fingers)

    More interesting is that he either saw that via usual conservative media (quite possible), he’s reading Hoyt regularly (seems unlikely), or he’s reading this blog (amusing evidence of being unable to “let it go”)

    Liked by 4 people

  4. greghullender

    What I’ve gradually come to see is that the Sad Puppies are a group of authors who support one another. There are a number of different author support groups out there, and they tend to be fiercely protective of their members. I can see how from their perspective it was wrong to equate them with the RPs, most of whom are likely not writers. From our perspective, as fans, it’s just hard to see the difference.

    The revisionist history does make it harder to take them seriously. I wonder if they believe this stuff themselves?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Cora

      There are a couple of writers affiliated more with the rabid puppies than with the sads, mostly Castalia House authors like JCW and Cheah Kai Wai as well as the pulp revolution people and some Superversive SF people like Brian Niemeier. But the majority of the people VD persuaded to buy supporting memberships and nominate according to his edicts were probably not writers but alt-right followers of his blog eager to stick it to the SJW.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Space Oddity

        As I understand it, most of that bunch was pretty much the squad of young nitwits he picked up during Gamergate who were looking for some more metaphorical windows to smash and had come to consider Ted a great and worthy leader in awfulness. I often consider Beale a particularly crap Gabriele D’Annunzio, all the awfulness, none of the talent.

        Still, at least he’s never inflicted any nude photo portraits of himself upon the world.

        Crap, I shouldn’t have said that.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Pixlaw

        Space Oddity, I tend to think that D’Annunuzio’s major talent was for self-promotion. Most of the people I’ve known who were most impressed by his life and work always seemed overly similar to people who were impressed by Ayn Rand. But I’ve got to say that he rivals Warhol for his ability to generate worshipful press coverage.

        Of course, it’s possible that I’m just an overly cynical old fart.

        Like

      • Space Oddity

        No, that’s pretty on the money. I mean–he’s the godfather of Fascism, and a guy who headed one of the most ludicrous unrecognized states in history. Being a crap version of that is truly awful,

        Like

      • Lurkertype

        That pic that Dr. Tingle uses to illustrate BAD NEWS DOGS is bad enough.

        Gabriele D’A was apparently capable of being lyrical and writing things that didn’t pain people to read them. He got his start the same way, off his daddy’s money, but managed to achieve things (bad things, but still things) on his own.

        Like

      • Space Oddity

        He was also a skilled aviator who actually fought in a war. That D’Annunnzio had genuine talents and accomplishments underneath the hot air I won’t deny. But on the whole, this is a man who left the world a significantly worse place.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Lurkertype

    I LOVE “debarkle”. LOVE IT. “Lyssavirus Labradors” is also good.

    Hey, Teddy just pointed out what we all knew — the Dragons were a Sad Puppy creation intended purely to get some shiny award for them and theirs! Thus the terrible voting mechanism! Then the Scraps got in on it (poor Declan).

    The Sads are going to have to turn up their “ignore Teddy” filter even further after this. They really don’t wanna acknowledge that his campaign was vastly more influential than theirs, at least as far as getting shit onto the ballot that was No Awarded. Even us SJWs know he got more shit done.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Schnookums Von Fancypants

    So this not mentioning the rabids at all…is that the “Unpersoning” thing they kept screeching about so much?

    Liked by 6 people

  7. Kat Goodwin

    Beale took that thing over as soon as he got put on the slate by LC. And the Sad Puppies slate and the Rabid Puppies slate were practically the same, minus Beale’s more obvious Cas House picks. The only Sad Puppies slate entries that made the nominations were the ones that were also on the Rabid Puppies slate because the voters they brought in were Beale’s Gamergaters, as we know, and they weren’t looking at the Sad Puppy slate when they voted. Conservative pals whose support they wanted didn’t want to be involved with Beale and those they shoved on the slate wanted off largely because of Beasle. Half the press coverage they got was focused on Beale, the bigoted things he’s said in the past, and his Gamergater troops. When the Sad Puppies then separated themselves from Beale, they had no real impact on the Hugos at all that year. The elephant wasn’t in the room, it was the room, which I’m sure Beale is fairly pleased about since it boosted his profile in the right o’sphere and now he’s off to attack other things.

    But it is kind of weird that he’s not claiming the Dragon Awards too.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Space Oddity

      Maybe he thinks he’s being magnanimous. And maybe he has no actual idea what’s going on and is simply spinning his wheels.

      Never underestimate Beale’s tendency to claim secret knowledge he does not possess. It’s pretty much how he’s operated for most of his life.

      Liked by 2 people

    • michaeleochaidh

      He’s smart enough to know that gaming the Dragon awards isn’t going to work in the long run. JCW and Brian Niemeier won Dragon awards in 2016 with books that don’t have a lot of reviews on Goodreads, but the only puppy-adjacent names I recognized from 2017 have decent sales (e.g., Larry Correia/John Ringo and Jim Butcher [and Butcher is stretching it]). I don’t think he has enough followers to game them now, and if they pick up steam in the next couple of years he definitely won’t.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Kat Goodwin

        Probably when the Dragon Awards begged Scalzi and Jemisin to stay on as nominees (Scalzi eventually agreed, Jemisin withdrew,) Beale decided to declare he had nothing to do with the Dragon Awards. I forgot that part.

        There are a bunch of young regulars at Dragon Con who aren’t really happy with the Puppy associations of the Dragons and are working to publicize the contest to the rest of the convention membership more effectively. They were going to be kind of puppy like about putting together a rec list and I think we persuaded them enough to contact the authors they wanted to list before they put them on a list, unlike the Puppies. So in a few years I think the Dragons might be a more interesting award rather than a puppy pen, the way it’s going.

        Liked by 1 person

      • JJ

        Kat Goodwin: There are a bunch of young regulars at Dragon Con who aren’t really happy with the Puppy associations of the Dragons and are working to publicize the contest to the rest of the convention membership more effectively.

        I wish them luck, and I hope they can succeed. My impression is that the Dragon Awards are being managed by someone(s) who is a Silent Puppy, and who has deliberately chosen not to publicize the award more widely, because they know that if that happens, Puppies will no longer be getting onto the final ballot, never mind winning a Dragon Award.

        I mean, it’s just insane that DragonCon does not send an e-mail to all of its members saying, “nominations are open, please consider nominating your favorites here (URL)”, and another one when the final ballot is announced which encourages them to vote.

        It’s also insane that they have chosen to make it so gameable by whichever unknown authors are willing to make the effort to create mass e-mails and nominations for themselves.

        Until those things are changed, the Dragon Awards will continue to be a joke.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Kat Goodwin

        Agreed, that’s true. The sentiments expressed by the organizers have been very Puppyish. But bigger name authors the Puppies don’t like ended up in the final nominations last year anyway, and the organizers begged those authors not to withdraw their nominations. Alison Littlewood first wanted to withdraw her nomination. They at first refused to let her do so (because the organizers are Puppies,) but then they gave in and let her withdraw. They also begged Scalzi and Jemisin to stay on the ballot as nominees. Jemisin understandably did not stay. Scalzi reconsidered when they let Littlewood go and promised to do better.

        https://whatever.scalzi.com/?s=Dragon+Awards

        So they know that big names are needed to make the Dragon Awards worth anything, even if they are hated SJW’s, that any authors including big names pulling out of nominations is not a good look for them. So while they are willing at the moment for it to be a Puppy pen, they are definitely wanting the awards to get bigger and be seen as less of a fix. So if the SJW young ‘uns can mobilize the young Dragon Con attendees — whose average interests they feel are being horribly misrepresented by the current Dragon Awards — the organizers are not going to be thwarting it. And there’s also just evolution over time. Dragon Con doesn’t have much incentive to care about the awards in their programming (written stuff being of less interest unless it’s comics anyway there,) but they also have little incentive to get rid of them either. Which means they will get more established and likely the voting system will tighten up. More people and a more variety of people will vote over the years, especially if big name authors can’t be bothered to withdraw and are the nominees. So likely the Dragons will slowly change, which maybe Beale can see on the horizon. Or, it’s all some inter-factional dispute we don’t really know about. But all the Puppies for a bit were ra ra Dragon Awards, so that’s a change.

        It is a question for you Puppyologists — will the history of Sad Puppies get dragged out every time there’s a controversy over a harassing loud mouth like Ringo, and will it always omit Beale’s existence from said history?

        Liked by 1 person

      • camestrosfelapton

        Ringo’s puppy credentials were made explicit this time because of a piece he’d written but later deleted. To be honest, I hadn’t really thought of him as a Puppy or even “puppy adjacent” so much as somebody who played to the same audience. I’d forgotten (or it had passed me by) the piece he’d written and Scalzi’s reply to it (timeline now updated).

        Like

      • Lurkertype

        The only person who ever claimed to have any info of what was going on the first year of the Dragons was Larry C.

        Not that that’s suspicious or anything.
        Not that their repeated refusal to release the numbers as promised is suspicious.
        Not that the possibility of the mystery administrators adding nominees whenever they want exists.
        Not that the fact they don’t bother to tell their own membership the awards even exist isn’t suspicious and/or pathetic.

        More power to the young’uns at getting the Dragon Awards to represent the membership and the field as a whole. They have interesting categories that I’d like to be able to use as guides to quality stuff.

        Like

  8. SherpaDon

    Over 7,000,000 books sold to readers around the world but a bunch of nutjobs, cranks, freaks and idiots have confused the author with one of his creations and object to the author because of his prose. How fucking lame is that? Admit it. You hate him and you hate the other popular authors who sell books by the million because they aren’t freaks, cranks, tools, nutjobs and losers.
    We got it right. You keep getting woke and going broke. How many cons have been starved to death because SJWs vandalize the underlying purpose of the con which is to gather and celebrate not gather in a circle and throw rocks at other authors you dislike because they are smart and you are not.

    Like

      • Aaron Pound

        I think “he” is Ringo, and SD thinks that people are down on Ringo because of the rapey protagonist in the book Ghost and doesn’t realize that there is an extensive paper trail documenting the creepy and crappy behaviour that Ringo has engaged in at conventions.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Mark Hepworth

        I’m guessing Ringo, but it’s not exactly clear from the spluttering indignation is it? It doesn’t bode well for the quality of his fans if they jump into a random blog and forget to mention who they’re talking about!

        Incidentally, the Wertzone reports all-time sales figures estimates each year, and they have Ringo at less than half that 7M claimed 🙂

        “How many cons have been starved to death because SJWs…” is actually an interesting question – I’m gong to start with “none” and await credible evidence to the contrary.

        Liked by 4 people

      • JJ

        Mark Hepworth: I’m guessing Ringo, but it’s not exactly clear from the spluttering indignation is it?

        Huh. Bizarre. You’d think he’d post his incoherent rantings on a blog post which was actually about Ringo, instead of just picking one at random.

        Maybe he’s illiterate, so he just had to take a wild-ass guess at which blog post to comment on. He does seem to have a chip on his shoulder about people being smarter than him.

        I’m still trying to figure out which of Ringo’s books that 38-page excerpt, the one which everyone is mistaking for a first-person real-life account, is from. Because I didn’t realize that he’d named one of his characters — oops, sorry, creations — “John Ringo”.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Aaron Pound

        My first thought on the “starved to death” conventions was that he was referring to the now-defunct SheVa Con, which he mentions in his 38 page screed as being a place where he had a bad experience, but SheVa Con closed up shop in 2013, years after Ringo’s 2006 screed. Further, I would wager that competition from MystiCon, which is also held in Roanoke, was probably more of a factor in SheVa Con’s demise than anything related to its “wokeness”.

        The notion that conventions are hurt by being “woke” is pretty silly – both because there is just no evidence for it being true, and the fact that anyone who thinks conventions are particularly “woke” in any real sense is deluding themselves. Conventions are only “woke” if you are sitting on the right-wing fringe comparing them to your preferences.

        The thing is, if you are motivated to find “problems” with convention, you can pretty much always find some that have closed up shop in the recent past. The history of fandom is littered with conventions that closed down, but this isn’t because of evil “SJWs” causing problems, it is because running conventions is hard. For fan conventions (and all of the conventions being brought up in this conversation are fan conventions), you have to get people who are willing to put in lots of work for free. No one is paid to run fan conventions, and most people running them actually end up spending money for the privilege of doing a lot of work. Fans don’t go into running conventions because they want to make a lot of money, they go into it because they want to put on an event about something they love. Most fan-run conventions don’t make much money, and are often doing well if they break even. And if there is a financial hiccup, or there aren’t enough people willing to put in dozens or even hundreds of hours of unpaid labor, or if there are any number of other setbacks, it can deal a fatal blow to a convention. To be honest, I’m often surprised that conventions exist at all given how many obstacles there are to their continued viability.

        Liked by 3 people

    • greghullender

      At first, I agree that it did look as though a group of people wanted to remove Ringo from the con due to a combination of disliking his politics (he thinks minorities need no help from the government) and some of the characters in his books. If that were all it was, I don’t think anything would have come of it. What sank his boat was people who’d been on panels with him complained that he’d harassed them. The only response I’ve heard to that amounted to “they deserved it.”

      Excluding someone from a con because he/she can’t be civil to other panelists makes total sense.

      Liked by 3 people

      • The Mighty Routemaster

        From the reports I’ve read – which may be prejudiced, of course – he’s been excluded because he’s a bad panellist: he reportedly hogs the mike or talks over and is rude to other guests. His politics seem to be the icing on an unpleasant cake.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Jessica

      Those are words, and individually they each have a meaning. But jumbled together in that word salad all they do is paint a picture of a sad little man who has no idea what he’s saying yet thinks he has the right to say it unopposed.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Kat Goodwin

      So everybody got that? According to SherpaDon, it’s “celebrating” for Ringo to tell a woman attendee at a convention panel that he’s been looking at her tits. And J.K. Rowling and Stephen King, two SJW authors, are not the biggest selling authors globally, but are actually broke.

      The argument that an author sells well so he should be allowed to harass, discriminate and interfere with other authors trying to do their work at a convention is weak sauce. The insistence that those authors don’t pull out of going to the convention because he’ll be there as a special guest, harassing and insulting them on panels and sabotaging their convention work as he has done repeatedly and infamously before, is a demand fans like SherpaDon don’t get to make of them. If Ringo gets to decide his behavior, so do they. They don’t have to go to a convention where they aren’t being celebrated but instead harassed by John Ringo and his pals. Which we have public evidence of him doing before numerous witnesses at earlier conventions, including by his own proud assertions that he did it.

      Likewise, the Sad Puppies think that by saying “this is what happened,” it somehow wipes out other people’s memories of facts, their own past public writing statements on the Internet, etc. If they just pretend that Beale never happened to them, it never happened. It’s the wish impermanence of toddlers.

      Liked by 4 people

  9. katster

    I’ve always thought that Larry Correia provided both motive and proof of concept to Beale. Larry nominated Beale in novelette, and Beale proceeded to place 6 out of 5. That’s powerful motive for Beale to wreck the Hugos, because by placing him after No Award, we hurt his ego and his sense of innate superiority. (I mean, geez, look at his long-running one-sided feud with Scalzi. Scalzi is everything Beale wants to be, and doesn’t care about being superior. It drives Beale crazy.)

    The proof of concept came in the fact that Larry managed to game him onto the ballot in the first place. Mix the two together, add a bunch of well-meaning but fundamentally unsound folks who also want to game things onto the ballot, and…well, you have the perfect mix of toxicity.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Laura Resnick

      “Larry nominated Beale in novelette, and Beale proceeded to place 6 out of 5. That’s powerful motive for Beale to wreck the Hugos, because by placing him after No Award, we hurt his ego and his sense of innate superiority.”

      I agree. I don’t think there ever would have been a “Rabid Puppies” if Larry Correia had not deliberately involved Beale by campaigning to get his novella onto the ballot in 2014. So we have Mr. Correia to thank (so to speak) for that.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Kat Goodwin

      I don’t read what happened quite like that. I think LC wanted to make a big stink, from what he said publicly at the time, thinking that the controversy would gain more attention to his campaign, bring folks to his side and get him that Hugo nomination, maybe even a win. And who was one of the people who had become notorious in SFF circles, who was most criticized by the “liberal” authors LC was accusing of fraud regarding the Hugos? Beale, who the year before had gotten himself expelled from the SFWA. And Beale had access to folk in the Gamergater world, fellow conservatives, who he could bring in some to vote. So LC brought on Beale — the “devil” — and declared that Beale was not as bad as the evil SJW’s said, that he’d said outrageous things to be outrageous, etc. — the same stuff we heard from The Atlantic editors about Kevin Williamson as an editorial columnist and many other similar incidents. LC thought he could just make an ideological point by including Beale on his slate. And just like what happened with Williamson, LC found that Beale and his pals were toxic and sucked all the oxygen out of the room. So he got his nomination, but then he tried to distance himself after that, having burned many bridges.

      BT took over the Sad Puppies 3 but he’d already lost. Beale set up the Rabid Puppies and put his power base of Gamergater voters behind it. That dictated what Sad Puppies could do — they couldn’t diverge too far from the Rabids and still keep the voters for their agenda, and the council of leaders (I forget what they called it,) had Beale on it, which meant the guy who could bring the voters got to give the magnanimous nod on who would be most pushed on both voting slates. Beale also hogged the media coverage, because again he brought the Gamergaters that the media was interested in, and otherwise the media didn’t bother much with differentiating between the Sad Puppies and the Rabids, calling them all Sad Puppies most of the time. So they were Beale’s group, whether they liked it or not. By that point, a lot of folks in fandom were angry at them because they’d brought in Beale and given him a platform and a lot of them weren’t liberals. And then they pretty much all fell apart as people lost interest.

      But it seemed pretty clear that LC wanted to use Beale — and did to some extent; he did get his nomination — but Beale took things over because he could temporarily get the people to do it as voters, using LC’s idea. So having a history of the Sad Puppies without Beale in it is pretty far-fetched. Practically all we ever heard about during the thing was Beale; the others only tended to come up when they said something outrageous. And none of them had clout with the Gamergater circles. Beale had a small bit and used the Puppies to gain more there, at least temporarily again.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Laura Resnick

        IIRC, the Sads and the Rabids denied that Gamergaters were involved or that they had reached out to them. (Also IIRC, there were screepcaps showing Puppy social media comments trying to get Gamergaters involved.)

        I watched the 2015 Hugos at home, via live streaming. And that experience was what convinced me Gamgergaters were involved, despite Puppy denials. There was also a live social media text feed running on my screen at the same time, and it was clear from the content that a lot of the people on there felt very invested in the Hugo vote and interested in the outcome and yet, at the same time, were completely ignorant of written sf/f and the sf/f community. Various very well-known sf/f writers appeared on stage and/or were mentioned during the hosts’ routines, and the comments in the feed about these sf/f headliners were typically, “Who the fuck is that person?” (There was also a lot of profanity, slurs, vulgarity, and misspelling in the feed.) To me, that feed of other people who were, like me, watching the Hugo cermony at home, made it clear that a lot of people felt invested in the 2015 Hugos who otherwise took no interest in written sf/f–and that said “Gamergaters” to me.

        Liked by 2 people

      • camestrosfelapton

        Given the nebulous nature of Gamergate I doubt we’ll ever see how much involvement there was. Our now clearer understanding of the alt-right to me suggests the Gamergate influence was just the intersection of Vox Day’s following in Gamergate (I’d guess nearly all of his minions identify with GG but not vice versa). I don’t think the numbers suggest many non-VD aligned GGs voted.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Kat Goodwin

        Yeah, but that was enough. It gave Beale a voting block that would vote for his slate. The Sad Puppies failed to organize anywhere near as large a block of voters. And that meant Beale ran the show. Which destroyed the show. IIRC, there were several nominees who were Cas House nominees and not on the Sad Puppy slate. The Sad Puppies got nobody nominated, I think, who wasn’t also on the Rabid Puppies list. They did not have the major influence. Beale did. And he got most of the press coverage. And when they tried to separate from the Rabids to just do a rec list the next year, they basically weren’t really involved at all, other than pissing off another bunch of authors who they put on their rec list and didn’t want to take off when the authors didn’t want to be on any type of list being presented by the Sad Puppies.

        What’s interesting is that Hoyt didn’t include Beale and she didn’t blame him for anything in her account; she just tried to pretend he wasn’t there. Which apparently didn’t work.

        Liked by 4 people

  10. iamzenu

    Correia and Vox are part of the same pack. It’s just that Vox doesn’t “sound” as despicable as Larry.
    In the end, the fans took back their award and Larry still doesn’t have a Hugo Award that he went to war to get.
    I am glad the it all worked out in the end. I did enjoy baiting Vox into taking a shot at freeping the Goodreads award. We all saw how that turned out. It was pretty funny.

    Best,
    Zenu AKA George Kirby

    Like