The Sad Puppies have totally moved on, completely, definitely, forgotten all about it, yes siree

Is it because it’s January? Is it because Hugo Nominations are open? For whatever reason a couple of outbreaks of emotive re-hashings of the past going on. First, at File770, an avowed Sad Puppy trying to revive John Scalzi bashing (apparently still sore from losing an argument in the comments to this post from 2007). Second, Larry Correia re-starts his game of claiming that people are being mean about and gets caught making stuff up. He’s since gone off on a further spittle-flecked rant about the fact that he got caught lying about stuff (not linking to it, it has zero content and is just very nasty invective).

Making stuff up to show how mean people are to him is not a new genre for Larry. A passing mention in a Guardian story about gender in science fiction. This was an accurate description of Larry’s stated position:

‘For writers and fans like Larry Correia, whose virulent attack on MacFarlane was excellently dissected by Jim C Hines, sex is a biological imperative and the idea of gender as a social construct is a damn liberal lie! But Correia boils it down to a much simpler argument. However accurate a queer future might be, SF authors must continue to pander to the bigotry of conservative readers if they want to be “commercial”.’

This brief mention has since been spun out by Larry into a claim that he was slandered and that it was also part of a conspiracy by The Guardian and writer and unknown Worldcon admins to make him look bad because he’d been nominated for a Hugo.

Prior to that Larry had claimed that his previous nomination for a Campbell Award resulted in this:

‘A European snob reviewer actually wrote “If Larry Correia wins the Campbell, it will END WRITING FOREVER.” ‘

‘Actually wrote’ as in ‘never wrote at all’. Larry changes the quote from time to time:

My favorite post however was from a British blogger who said that “if Larry Correia wins the Campbell it will end literature forever”.

The only source for either quote is…Larry Correia. In the past, I’ve speculated that it was a misremembering but the simplest explanation is that Larry makes stuff up and then claims that it is true. Specifically, he makes stuff up about what people he doesn’t like have said about him to cast himself as a victim of systematic persecution. It is a particularly odd habit as he’s not short of actual critics and people pointing out actual flaws in his behaviour and work.

It’s a weird tactic: avoiding criticism by heaping invective on yourself so that you can respond in kind.

The simple fact is that Larry Correia hates Mike Glyer and File 770 because the site presented accurate and truthful coverage of Sad Puppies. Mike gave Larry the kind of coverage that Larry thought he wanted because he expected everybody to be awed by his awesomeness. When they weren’t and his campaign spiraled into awfulness instead, he blamed the messenger. Don’t believe me that File770 gave the Larry the coverage he wanted? Let’s ask Larry:

‘On this note, I’d like to extend an olive branch to Mike Glyer at File 770. We’ve gone around a few times, but I’ve got to hand it to him. Recently he’s been fully quoting my side and letting our arguments stand without interpretation. Well done, sir.


32 thoughts on “The Sad Puppies have totally moved on, completely, definitely, forgotten all about it, yes siree

  1. For someone who places himself alongside the people whose go-to insult is “snowflake”, it sure seems ironic that Correia spends so much time melting down.

    Liked by 6 people

  2. I haven’t been reading File 770 almost at all now in months 😦 It’s entirely due to my having started to spend too much time on Twitter, a place I avoided for years. I started spending too much time on Twitter because of the rapidly, horrifyingly degrading national situation in the US – I’m like a dog constantly nosing around for little bites, but of news. Hopefully I’ll find the time again when things calm down here. I miss the place.

    Anyway, man, Correia never fails to bum me out with his unfathomable frothing about File 770 and Mike in particular. I understand it better now, after having watched our president do the same thing at every news outlet that accurately reports what he says and fact checks him. In fact, a lot of Puppy behavior that used to seem bizarre makes sense in light of our narcissistic authoritarian president.

    I was wondering if you were going to comment on a couple of MGC posts about new clauses showing up in publishing contracts allowing publishers to drop authors who do something in public that harms their reputation/sales. I saw someone in the comments at MGC claim people were calling for Puppies to be dropped from their contracts (can’t quite recall who they said was targeted – I think either Correia or Torgersen). Which seemed strange, because the only campaign to get someone fired that I recall in the Puppfuffle was against Tor employees PNH, TNH, and Gallo.

    Anyway, howdy! Still following your posts via email, but don’t have much commenting time lately.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I did start a post about it, specifically on that whole claim that people tried to get SP authors sacked. There are multiple examples from MGC alone on the Tor boycott but also the pushed the notion that Tor “let” John Scalzi say things (& other authors) as if Tor should be controlling what authors say.

      I decided not to though — partly because MGC largely seems to be trying to move on & partly because the main point of the post wasn’t terrible. SP was invoked more to get people to understand why the contract clause was a bad thing rather

      Liked by 3 people

      1. I have a bookmarked Twitter search which includes a bunch of terms including variations of Worldcon, Dublin 2019, File 770, and Hugo Awards, which is mostly how I read Twitter — and it’s been overrun with posts from 80 gazillion people promoting their work for the Hugos. It’s made keeping up with Twitter a real pain in the ass, trying to wade through all the chaff for the posts I actually want to see. At least I’ve been able to un-Mute that one magazine now, since they thankfully do not seem to be exploiting their disabled child to solicit Hugo nominations this year.

        Liked by 4 people

    2. Huh, is that a real thing that lots of publishers are doing, or something where there’s one example they’re getting overexcited about?

      (I’d find it more interesting in terms of the standard model of authors being self-employed rather than employees being slowly eroded, rather than whatever MGC took from it)


      1. Apparently, it’s something magazine publisher Condé Nast has inserted into contracts. So far, it doesn’t affect fiction writers at all and it certainly doesn’t apply to self-published writers like the majority of the MGC folks.

        Also, publishers have always had ways of getting rid of authors, when they became way more trouble than they are worth. There is a (very good) Turkish-German author of hardboiled cat mysteries (I used to say that his books ruined me for all other cat mysteries) whose publishing contract was cancelled and all his books taken down by his publisher, when he took a sharp turn to the right and started giving hateful speeches at far right protests, apparently totally unaware that he was one of the foreigners they hated. It’s a pity, because his books were good, but I fully understand the publisher’s decision.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. These alleged “morality” clauses in publishing contracts seem to be the hot topic du jour among rightwing writers these days. I saw someone complain about how such clauses infringed on their right of free speech on a forum for self-publisher with a link to the Passive Voice who in turn linked to a hyper-biassed National Review article (quel surprise).

      I pointed out that the National Review article referred to Condé Nast, a magazine publisher, so those alleged “morality clauses” were completely irrelevant to fiction writers. I also said that I suspected they were an emergency get-out clause for the publisher in case a highly problematic article bypassed the editor somehow or perhaps to get rid of awful people who deliver unpublishable books like Milo Y. Also, no one should sign any contract without first reading it and getting problematic clauses removed/altered.I I also wondered why self-published authors would even care.

      But it turned out they were worried that Amazon would include a morality clause in their terms and conditions. Whereupon I pointed out that it’s near impossible to get Amazon to pull actual hate speech and blatant scam books, since the only thing they seem to care about are people getting upset by erotica. And for that matter, why didn’t the defenders of free speech ever care about defending erotica authors who were actually being censored? Cue handwringing about how erotica was totally harmful and dangerous, unlike people calling for genocide.

      And now you’ve made me look at MGC.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. Okay, the MCG post links to a New York Times article, a less biassed source than the National Review, but it’s still mainly about Condé Nast. Which sucks for journalists, but a major German publisher of newspapers and magazines and even some books (they’re Harlequin/Mills & Boon’s German distribution partner) has had a “morality clause”, which forbids authors to criticise the US and Israel among other things, in its contract for twenty years or more now. And this clause doesn’t just apply to political journalists, but to everybody who writes for them, including the people who write horoscopes, crosswords, recipes, celebrity fluff articles, etc… This was widely known back when I was at university and also part of the reason why I would never work for that company.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. Yes, I saw that article on the passive voice to, and the comments were as you would expect.
        As for why self publishers care what traditional publishers are doing, that’s a question I’ve been asking myself for the last seven years, for some reason, those who self publish seem to think that everyone should do it that way and that those who don’t are fools.


    4. I’m in the same boat–I haven’t had the time to read File770 for the most part. I can read Cam’s blog more quickly, so I use it to fulfill my procrastination needs.

      (I’m really looking forward to having the time again to read File 770 and a bunch of other things.)

      Liked by 3 people

  3. Spittle-flecked, indeed. Good heavens. One wonders what kind of blood pressure medication Correia is on, and whether it will need adjusting, after such raging about.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Wow, I just tried to read Correia’s screed, but that was content-free spittle-flecked crap even by his admitedly standards. And of course, he has to attack me by name again, too, and he always has to mention my nationality, too, so his followers can call me a Nazi. Well, I guess they would know.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Sorry – I should have warned you about that bit. It’s also really weird: File770 is terrible because there’s a person who once (very briefly) mentioned that other people had said that rocket ships are phallic looking?

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Well, feline noir would certainly fit.

      Cat mysteries are a thing, but they’re mostly ultra cozy mysteries. This series was a lot more hardboiled and noir in tone – the cat referred to humans as “can openers” – and actually really good, if only the author hadn’t taken a sharp turn into nutty rightwing territory.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The only cat mystery series I can think of (and it took me a bit) is Lilian Jackson Braun’s “The Cat Who…” and I’m pretty sure they’re cozies. Feline noir sounds more fun, though.


      2. AFAIK, Carole Nelson Douglas hasn’t gone right-wing, and her cat mysteries are half cozy, half hardboiled, so if you haven’t read those, I recommend them.


    1. They’re both so driven by such an insatiable need for external validation that it seems pretty clear that at some level they don’t believe their own lies.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. The election of a Puppy president is the first piece of evidence that actually supports the puppy assertion that there are a yuge contingent supporting their preferred style of story and its absence from Hugo lists shows some sort of systematic exclusion. I mean it makes them seem less delusional, at least.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I just took a look at that 2007 discussion. It was a little long. Ironically, Bromfield’s main antagonist in that conversation was future puppy, Michael Z Williamson, who mocked Bromfield’s obsession with Ayn Rand and defended Scalzi.


  5. I also have been dashing in and out on the Internet and am behind reading File 770. It doesn’t surprise me that some of them are focused on the blog, though, as it’s still a clear target for them that pays them some attention when they get into it. It sounds like they’re just trying to relive their greatest hits — look, they still hate and persecute us!, etc. And yeah, I think it’s because Hugo nominations are open and people are putting up eligibility posts and announcements for them and other awards.

    But the Gaters from games that gave the Puppies any weight in their campaigns at all scuttled off to go at comics the last year and a half, are trying to do various movie franchise hatings, some kids animation isn’t sexy enough complaining, and left the Puppies all alone. Beale tried to take over CG and they turned on him and JDA, and I guess he’s trying to carve a niche as a never-Peterson complainer, though it really makes no sense. Peterson seems perfect for Beale to latch on to as an acolyte really. But I guess some of Peterson’s schtick pissed Beale off.

    I did find it funny that any of them would try to revive the Scalzi’s career is dying and propped up by Tor bit. That routine went into vehement flailing when he inked the 10 mil deal with Tor and then fell into decrepitude. He had two bestselling novels out in 2018, not something most authors pull off, and toured internationally on his publishers’ dime. And they keep trying to switch it up — he’s supposedly fading out in sales, but he is also a master of commercial marketing leading to sales, they want supposed literary elitists to stop getting awards instead of popular adventure stories but Scalzi’s bad and doesn’t deserve award nominations because he’s commercially popular in his writing, and so on. Eventually, in another decade down the road, Scalzi will have something of a fading because he’ll be one of the old authors of science fiction and that usually happens unless there’s a sudden t.v./film adaptation then. But right now, it’s just the weirdest sounding thing.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Their cognitive dissonance about Scalzi is like the old joke: “What do you think of the food here?” “It’s really terrible and the portions are too small!”

      Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.