The Sad Puppy defeat could have been taken as a repudiation of what the Sad Puppies had stood for but in the wake of the Hugo Award ceremony, nobody had a clear idea what the Sad Puppies had stood for. Larry Correia’s original campaign had framed itself as promoting fun, honest action in science fiction as a blow against overly literary fiction yet Sad Puppies 2 had promoted Vox Day’s Opera Vita Aeterna, a story in which an elf discusses theology and Sad Puppies 3 had promoted the work of John C Wright, a writer even more obsessed with literary aesthetics and philosophical themes. Critics of Brad Torgersen’s original framing of the Sad Puppies 3 campaign had pointed to his anti-diversity rhetoric and yet Torgersen could genuinely point to a slate that was not homogeneously white and male. True, the impact of the Puppy slates reduced the representation of women on the ballot compared to 2013 but it was still a better balance than relatively recent Hugo ballots (e.g. 2007). Sad Puppy supporters had rallied around a claim that the Hugo Awards were biased against conservative writers and works but also the Sad Puppy leadership had denied that the campaign was political. In an attempt to prevent critics of the Sad Puppy campaign from framing the campaign in any particular way, defenders of the campaigns had counter-examples ready.
In late August, founding member of the Evil League of Evil and multi-nominated Sad & Rabid Puppy nominee, John C Wright reacted to the defeat of the Puppy slates at the Hugo Awards with a post where he attempted to encapsulate the campaign:
“If there are any honest columns, or even a column not choked to the brim with lies, from the viewpoint of our dishonorable and lying-ass attackers, I would surely link to it.https://www.scifiwright.com/2015/08/for-your-reading-pleasure/
There are none. Even columnists who perhaps imagine themselves to be neutral or balanced blithely fall into the orchestrated falsehoods, and do not admit what this struggle has always been about:
We are attempting to pry the control of the Hugos out of the hand of a clique or Inner Ring run by Patrick Nielsen Hayden for the benefit of his abortive antichristian ideology and the fiscal benefit (which, at one time there was to be had for publishing Hugo Award winning works), and return control to the fans.
We wanted it to stop being the Tor Award for Political Correctness and to return to being the Hugo Award.”
Yet even the framing of the campaign as anti-Tor Books was contradicted both by direct rhetoric and by actual actions. The Tor Boycott campaign (see earlier chapters) was stated to be not part of the Sad Puppy campaign per se both by its major advocate (Mad Genius Peter Grant) and from the other direction by a direct denial by Larry Correia that it was a Sad Puppy boycott. Further not only had the Sad Puppy slate ensured that a Tor published book was a finalist (The Dark Between the Stars by Kevin J Anderson) the eventual winner of the 2015 Hugo Awards was a Tor book that had received the overt and vocal support of Rabid Puppy supremo Vox Day (The Three-Body Problem by Cixin Liu).
Wright would go on to explain in the same column all the various things that the Puppy campaigns were not:
“Our motives are precisely what we said, both seriously and in jest.ibid
Seriously, we thought and said that limiting the award to the radical-feminist Intersection-Theory Critical-Theory homonormative crap that the Inner Ring likes damages the brand and threatens to turn science fiction into one more postmodern wasteland of dreary garbage, neither edifying nor entertaining.
When is the last time an award winning science fiction tale or related work had even an iota of real science in it? THE MARTIAN by Weir was crammed with diamond hard science. It won nothing.
When is the last time an award winning science fiction tale had profound literary merit, seeped in the traditions of Western epic and romance from the classical period to now? My one THE GOLDEN AGE was both imaginative and rooted in the classics. It won nothing.
When is the last time an award winning science fiction tale was fun? Read HARD MAGIC by Larry Correia. It won nothing.
In jest, we said that the leading cause of sadness syndrome in cute furry puppies was the predominance of brain-meltingly absurd uberleftist ideological agitprop being rocketed to the top of the most prestigious awards in the field, and we asked for the sake of the puppies to grant awards based on merit.
This is not about conservative versus liberal.
The Morlocks are not liberals, except in the sense that they use the liberal vocabulary to express their illiberal ideas. And, of the four founding members of the Evil Legion of Evil Authors who decided to stand up to the Inner Ringwraiths, I am the only social and political conservative properly so called.
This is not about white males versus minorities.
Again, of the founding four, I am the only white male. (For those of you racists who insist we call carry an Ahnenpass, the others are Female, Hispanic, American Indian).
This is not about fun adventure fiction versus highbrow literary fiction.
I write highbrow literary fiction more filled with allusion and philosophical depth than anything the Morlocks recommend. Each time they claim to be what I am, an refined aesthete of exquisite literary accomplishment, another imp in hell laughs in the delight and the Empire of Lies grows another inch. Unlike the poseurs and pretend intellectuals, however, I can also read, admire and applaud wrecked but well meant pulp fiction and lowbrow fun. Because I am human and I like humans, whereas the Morlocks regard humans as food animals.
This is not about returning to the past of John W. Campbell versus the wondrous new future promised by Michael Moorcock and the New Wave, or whatever. This is not about rebels versus reactionaries.”
That other supporters of the Puppy campaigns or even major figures in the campaigns had said or implied that the campaigns were about at least some of the things Wright had listed was neither here nor there. Pulp v literary, right v left, diversity v homogeneity, Campbell v New Wave, Trad-publishing v Indie? Counter-examples to generalisations abounded. Wright was confident that the Puppy campaigns were about something, spectators were less sure. Even Wright’s example of Andy Weir’s breakout hit The Martian as an example of what the Puppies were fighting for and what the non-Puppies were opposed to was contradicted by the Hugo nomination statistics. Without the Puppy slates, Andy Weir would have been a finalist for the Astounding/Campbell Award for Best New Writer.
Back in April, after the shock of the Puppy sweep of the Hugo nominations had sunk in among fans, author and editor Nick Mamatas had focused on a key claim of the Sad Puppy campaign (one alluded to in Wright’s later post above). In a comment at John Scalzi’s blog, Mamatas had laid out a specific challenge:
“If the Hugos have really been dominated by leftist material that prized message over story since the mid-1990s (Brad’s timeline), it should be very simple for members of the Puppy Party to nameNick Mamatas, comment https://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/04/20/keeping-up-with-the-hugos-42015/#comment-781272
a. one work of fiction
b. that won a Hugo Award
c. while foregrounding a left message to the extent that the story was ruined or misshaped
d. per set of winners since 1995.
That’s all. Just a list of twenty books or stories—a single winner per year. Even though a single winner per year wouldn’t prove domination, I’m happy to make it easy for the Puppies.
Any Puppy Partisan want to start naming some names?”
Puppy supporters had raised objections to four works over the past few years, specifically John Scalzi’s Redshirts, Ann Leckie’s Ancillary Justice, John Chu’s The Water that Falls on You From Nowhere and Rachel Swirsky’s If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love. However, those criticisms were inconsistent, poorly sourced or often incorrect (If You Were a Dinosaur My Love had won the Nebula Award, not the Hugo Award). Despite the many column inches that had been written about the Hugo Awards by supporters of the Puppy campaigns, a sustained, coherent and well-referenced critique of the award from a Puppy perspective simply didn’t exist.
Back in July, when Mike Glyer’s File 770 was winding back the daily Puppy round-ups, one of the many regulars who were discussing the Puppy campaigns in the comments summed up their own puzzlement about the past several months of conflict:
“Here at the End of All Things, are some answers/ things we’re still missing:Snowcrash, comment http://file770.com/to-your-scattered-kennels-go-76/comment-page-3/#comment-303817
– A honest explanation as to how the SP3 slate was created,
– How the tactics of slate-nominations furthers *any* of the constantly changing rationales provided by the Puppies
– Anyone taking on the Mamatas Challenge
– Evidence of a previous slate/ bloc-voting effort. The Puppies keep saying that’s the only way Stuff They Don’t Like Could have won, but are strangely reticent at providing any evidence or proof of their allegations.
– Why Wisdom of the Internet???? Seriously why? (And yelling about Scalzi is not a good answer)”
The leaders of the Puppy campaigns and the many people who had supported those campaigns had a myriad of motives, perspectives and anxieties about social change. The Hugo Award campaigns had given disparate individuals a common purpose without any clear common philosophy. As Snowcrash’s question highlighted, there was not even a clear idea of how the Hugo slates would achieve any of the various aims that had been stated. In the end, only Vox Day had any clarity but even he had multiple motives including his personal feuds against the Nielsen Haydens and John Scalzi, his overt anti-feminist and ethno-nationalist beliefs and his desire to run his own GamerGate-like campaign.
In the wake of the defeat at the Hugo Awards, the less immediate reactions from supporters of the Puppy campaigns were also manifold.
At Mad Genius Club, ex-pat Australian Kate Paulk had taken on the mantle of organising Sad Puppies 4. The next part of the Debarkle will look at this iteration of the Puppies, but Paulk was promising a campaign that would directly address the more practical criticisms of Sad Puppies 3. The new campaign would be transparent about the nomination process and would also not present a simple slate of five works per category. The stated objective was to increase involvement in the Hugo Awards.
Others looked to new awards as an alternative to the Hugos. Author M.A.Rothman had been deeply disappointed by the results of the Hugo Award and the ceremony itself. He had encouraged his children to take an interest in the ballot and they were upset when multiple categories went to ‘no award’.
“I find that a great shame – and I blame not the people who established the ballots to vote for (for my kids enjoyed a great deal of what they read on the ballots), but as my kids noted – they blame the ones who made them feel “like the rug was pulled out from under me.”https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204934540299315
I’d offered Fandom my boys – my boys now reject them.”
Inspired in part by the disappointment that Rothman had expressed and by the perceived injustice of the ‘no award’ results, the short-lived Jovian Awards were delivered in late December. Mike Resnick, Kary English, Arlan Andrews, Ken Burnside, and Toni Weisskopf, were each sent impressive glass ball trophies. These winners of the Jovians were the Hugo finalists who had come second to ‘no award’ in Hugo categories with no winner.
English wrote about the award she received:
“The photo doesn’t do it justice. The swirls are a deep, rich purple, and those sparkles near the bottom are coppery. The award is weighty, and it arrived in a velvet-lined presentation box. The award came with a certificate that praised both the story and the way I conducted myself throughout Hugo season.http://karyenglish.com/2015/12/my-jovian-award-a-nifty-tilting-planet/
I’ll be frank, here – after everything that went on, this brought tears to my eyes. So thank you, Jovians, whoever you are.”
In a similar vein, George Phillies at the National Fantasy Fan Federation, re-started group’s Neffy Awards that had been discontinued in 2012. Only two awards were give out for 2015:
Heroic Achievement: All Hugo Fandom — for reviving the all-hobby fan feudhttps://tnfff.org/neffy-awards/
Best Editor: Toni Weisskopf – Baen
The Neffy Awards would continue on for several years with a bigger range of categories and finalists but up to this point, each year Toni Weisskopf has been the sole nominee and winner in the Best Editor category.
The not-unreasonable idea that there were some Puppy-slated nominees who deserved awards for their work implied the existence of a broad middle position on the so-called Puppy Kerfuffle of 2015. People who had been perceived as critics of the Puppies such as George R.R. Martin and Eric Flint had both argued against using ‘no award’ on more credible finalists. Fan writer Mike Glyer was regarded with particular hostility among Puppy supporters because of his daily Puppy round-ups at File 770 and the way the comment section to the round-ups had been a major centre of anti-Puppy criticism — yet, Glyer had put forward cogent arguments for Toni Weiskopf to win the Best Editor Hugo Award over more than one of the Sad Puppy campaigns. Likewise, there were people perceived as supporters of the Sad Puppy slates that in the aftermath of the Hugo vote offered cogent criticism of the tactics and tone of the Puppy campaign.
Baen author Chuck Gannon was in the unusual position of being on the Sad Puppy slate for his novel Trial By Fire but not an actual finalist. In an added twist, his novel was a finalist for the Nebula awards without the intervention of a slate. In September 2015, Gannon wrote an essay that was posted as a comment at John Scalzi’s Whatever blog and also as a guest post on Larry Correia’s Monster Hunter Nation blog. Gannon’s argument was primarily about tone and invective and rested on the kind of both-sides style argument that George R.R. Martin had sometimes deployed:
“So that’s why my concern is with how the discourse is conducted. Yes, there are always going to be arguments and debates, some more ferocious than others. And some burn themselves out. But some go on for longer, and do far more damage, than they must. And that typically happens when a debate starts falling under the real (or perceived) rhetorical influence of radical extremists like Vox Day or Requires Hate. Because although they might sound like they are deeply invested in the debate, their involvement is motivated by other objectives.”https://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/09/02/wrapping-up-2015-a-hugo-awards-open-thread/#comment-796394
The comparison of Vox Day with Requires Hate was one that had been made by others even though the juxtaposition is flawed in multiple ways. At Monster Hunter Nation, Gannon’s thoughtful words were met with more direct hostility from Vox Day:
“I happen to know that Charles Gannon is both a coward and a liar. But more importantly, he’s just wrong. He demands unilateral disarmament when it comes to rhetoric and completely fails to observe that you cannot “choose your battles” when you are attacked by SJWs.https://monsterhunternation.com/2015/10/12/sad-puppies-guest-post-by-chuck-gannon/#comment-71380
No doubt he’ll eventually learn this when they turn on him for one reason or another; they always do, sooner or later.”
Gannon’s thoughts were not the only retrospective on the Puppy campaign from people partially involved. Ken Burnside had been on the Puppy slates for his essay The Hot Equations, which was one of the more critically well-regarded finalists for Best Related Work. In a guest post at Mad Genius Club, Burnside attempted to unravel the distinction between a list of recommendations and a slate. In his opinion, Brad Torgersen’s initial attempts at the Sad Puppy 3 slate was more akin to a set of recommendations whereas the Rabid Puppy slate was unambiguously a slate. However, the Sad Puppy campaign as a whole was a different matter:
“The Sad Puppies recommended reading list became the basis of the Rabid Puppies slate. The first pieces describing how the two were indistinguishable came out in early March. While I was published by Vox Day, I was a Sad Puppy, not a Rabid one. One very important difference between the two: Vox said to vote his slate; Brad said “These are highly recommended, worth reading, and if you agree, worth nominating.”https://madgeniusclub.com/2015/08/30/guest-post-by-ken-burnside/
The announcement of the Sad Puppies slate was a mishmash of “Let’s get a certain type of SF represented” which I agree with, and a large charge of “Let’s turn this into a culture-war front.” I agree with the former. I think the latter is profoundly stupid.”
Burnside also discussed the hostility he experienced:
“In the four month span between the ballot being made public and the end of voting on July 31st, I got threats of assault if I showed up at WorldCon (none materialized), I got called a racist, homophobic sexist neo-Nazi, and I watched lies and fabrications show up in national media. The Puppies are all racist white men (which is why the nominated slate had seven women in it). I mostly played duck-and-cover; Brad Torgersen was on scapegoat duty.”ibid
On the ceremony itself he discussed his dislike of the asterisks (citing Kurt Vonnegut’s comparison of the symbol to an anus) and events of the night itself, including the booing:
“Then Best Editor, Long Form went to No Award, and the cheering made the floor tremble. Several people (myself included) started booing. David said “booing is not appropriate” and I came about a half-second away from standing up and jumping on the stage to grab the mic. Bryan Thomas Schmidt DID get up and curse loudly. Toni Weisskopf apparently never went to the ceremony at all; per Bryan the two of them commiserated for a few hours after the ceremony.”ibid
However, Burnside differed sharply from Brad Torgersen and other Puppy supporters in his analysis of what the underlying issues were. For him, the changes in what science fiction was being awarded were natural organic changes. Writing in science fiction had become organically more sophisticated. The “Heroic Engineer/Officer/Competent Protagonist Solves The Problem” style of story from the John Campbell age had given way to writing with characters with more depth and more flaws. Inevitably, works with literary elements were the ones going to win literary awards. While Burnside had joined the Puppy slates to address the “imbalance”, the campaign itself had failed.
“What happened instead? The Hugos became a front in the culture war. Brad Torgersen’s posts at the very beginning about “victim class check box fiction” destroyed any rapport with people who weren’t already in his camp. Other comments made by Torgersen kept the same divisive tone. Vox Day’s posts on the subject started at inflammatory and went up from there. His business model is built off of it.ibid
Both were using the tactic of “say something outrageous, wait for the ‘other side’ to get pissed off, and turn to the choir to say ‘see, I told you they’d over-react.” When trying to build a roster of voters nominating literary works, this sure as hell doesn’t convince people that your side has any merit.
Conducting literary criticism via the rhetoric of culture war is profoundly stupid if you want your complaints listened to. The counter-reaction to the Puppies was justifiable, predictable, and seems to have fed into a considerable media campaign, one that Torgersen had to threaten libel lawsuits to tone down”
Figures like Chuck Gannon, Wendy Delamater of Abyss & Apex magazine and Kary English had each become involved in the Sad Puppy campaigns but had attempted to push back against the influence of Vox Day (sometimes in the mildest way). They also offered different rationalisations and expectations about the nature of the Sad Puppy campaign. Making generalisation about the Sad Puppies in the widest sense of the term is difficult because of these contrasting viewpoints.
In the case of Ken Burnside, he overtly stated that “while I was published by Vox Day, I was a Sad Puppy, not a Rabid one”. However, the multiple nominations on the Sad Puppy slate of works from Castalia House (such as Burnside’s essay from the Riding the Red Horse anthology) had added to the entanglement of the two campaigns.
However, common to the critique of events from this quasi-middle ground was a sense of the Hugo Awards, for non-malicious reasons, were overlooking certain styles and approaches to science-fiction that had once been popular. George R.R. Martin was not averse to a degree of rapprochement on this issue. In late December he expressed hope that the Sad Puppies 4 campaign would be focused on a recommended reading list.
“And that would be great. That would mean no Puppygate II. That would mean a spirited literary debate about writers and books without the acrimony and the name-calling. From that debate a truly democratic and diverse ballot could emerge, one that represents all tastes. That would mean no ‘No Awards‘ at Big MAC II, and the Hugo ceremony could once again become a joyous celebration of the best and brightest in our field.”https://grrm.livejournal.com/461206.html
In response, Brad Torgersen’s anger had not mellowed:
“I suspect that in order for a genuine mending to take place, between your average Sad Puppy, and the SF/F establishment, there would need to be several things.https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/12/27/sad-puppies-and-the-future/
1) A very public admission by the establishment that the NO AWARD bombing of the 2015 Hugos was a gross error.
2) A very public admission by the establishment that the CHORFholes were also a gross error.
3) A very public apology from the establishment, for the deliberate conflation of the Sads, with the Rabids.
4) A cessation of the endless game of shibboleths and street cred checks, on the part of Trufans, as conducted against everybody else (looks hard at Steve Davidson.)”
Torgersen had coined his own term for wooden asterisks that David Gerrold had handed out at the award ceremony. Combining his earlier term “CHORF” (see chapter 38) with “asshole” to create the portmanteau term “CHORFhole”, the asterisks were one of Torgersen’s top four lingering issues with the events of 2015.
However, as the Hugo statistics had revealed, it had been the Rabid Puppy campaign that had had the stronger numbers and the better discipline in the 2015 Hugo nominations. Vox Day’s motives may have been mixed and sometimes unclear but he was clear that his intent towards the Hugo Awards was hostile. He was also under no illusions that he or a work from his publishing house stood any chance of winning a Hugo Award. He was under no personal need to appear to be working within the system or to achieve results by legitimate means.
Day was not going to publicly announce his plans for Rabid Puppies 2 until he was ready but it was reasonable to assume that Castalia House would be part of his strategy. Brad Torgersen’s picks for Sad Puppies 3 had included four different works from Castalia House and these works had also received promotional “Book Bombs” from Larry Correia. Even without the Rabid Puppy slate, the 2015 Hugo Award controversy had been an effective promotional exercise for Day. The conflict had brought the publisher’s output to the attention of right-leaning fans of military science fiction i.e. many of the supporters of the Sad Puppies and many Baen Books fans.
Castalia House had built upon the success of Riding the Red Horse with a minor publishing coup. In April of 2015, the publisher had announced that they would be republishing the series of military science fiction anthologies created by veteran author Jerry Pournelle. In September Pournelle announced via File 770 that there would be a new volume in the series, again published by Castalia House. Pournelle explained how he saw the continuing relevance of the series:
“I’m vain enough to think it’s an important series, TWBW, and now that Iran is likely to have the bomb perhaps we need to think about the future of war. It seemed impossible to get out of the Cold War without at least a few atomic explosions, but we did it with containment, deterrence, and defense. I won’t live to see the end of the next phase, but I like to believe TWBW helped get people thinking about how to get out of the Cold War alive; maybe a couple of new volumes will help with these new dangers.”http://file770.com/pournelle-resumes-there-will-be-war-anthology-series/
Pournelle was famously one of the more consistently right-wing voices in science fiction over several decades but even so, his choice of publishing with Castalia House added an additional degree of apparent legitimacy to the publisher. Castalia was also publishing more new work from John C. Wright as well as works of science fiction scholarship such as a multi-volume examination of the work of Gene Wolfe.
A second source for potential nominees to promote the publisher was the Castalia House blog. Puppy-slated Hugo 2015 Finalist Jeffro Johnson had begun a mammoth series reviewing the fantasy novels that had been listed in the so-called “Appendix N” of the original version of Dungeons & Dragons by Gary Gygax. These books were intended as a way of encapsulating the kind of settings and stories that Gygax hoped to emulate in the role-playing game.
“The forty-three installments of this series delve only into the books that Gary Gygax singled out in particular, and for the authors that he recommended their entire body of works, I only covered a single novel. Then there are the series that he highlighted– I stopped with those after the first volume when I sometimes wanted to put the entire project on hold to read them all. Finally, there are all the fantasy authors that wrote since the seventies that people think deserve a place on a list like this. People want to know if more recent authors measure up to these old classics, sure. But people really want to know which contemporaries of the Appendix N authors got snubbed by being excluded when they really deserved to be there.”http://www.castaliahouse.com/appendix-n-matters/
Johnson was one of several people associated with the Puppy campaigns who had taken a renewed interest in the history of the genre. The Castalia House blog had begun looking back to the older pulp era of science fiction characterised by the first half of the twentieth century. If Brad Torgersen and Sarah Hoyt had been making aesthetic appeals to the height of John Campbell’s or Robert Heinlein’s influence on science fiction, there was now a section of right-leaning fandom looking even further back.
This interest in pre-war pulps was not a particular interest of Vox Day’s but other aspects of the Castalia House blog more clearly reflected Day’s agenda. Blogger Daniel Eness produced a five-part series on the blog entitled “Safe Space as Rape Room” that claimed to expose a pattern of collusion and cover-up of child sexual abuse within science fiction. The series repeated and expanded upon Vox Day’s posts on the same topic from 2014 and looked at figures who had been convicted of child-abuse related crimes: Walter Breen, Ed Kramer and Isaac Asimov’s son David. The series also looked at Marion Zimmer Bradley as well as accusations of various kinds levelled at Arthur C. Clarke and Samuel R. Delany. The argumentative style followed the same premise as Vox Day’s 2014 posts on the topic and attempted to connect historic abuse with the recent leadership of the SFWA (see earlier chapters).
Day would not be lacking for items to include in his 2016 Rabid Puppies list.
Meanwhile, the true significance of the ‘no award’ vote was visible by an absence. One fear expressed earlier in 2015 was that the response to the Puppy slates would be left-leaning counter slates. A moderately well-disciplined anti-Puppy slate could, in theory, easily overwhelm any impact of new Puppy slates. However, this strategy would seriously impact the credibility of the Hugo Awards and essentially convert the award from a popular vote to one with a narrow jury i.e. whoever controlled the counter-slate. The visible and emphatic vote against slates in the final voting of the 2015 Hugo Awards sent a clear message that slates of any kind were unlikely to succeed.
Instead of counter slates, 2015 had brought renewed attention to the resources needed to read and nominate. Many of these resources pre-dated the Sad Puppies 3 campaign. The online blog/fanzine Lady Business had started a Google Spreadsheet for Hugo suggestions for the 2014 Hugo Awards. That approach helped inspire a Wiki-style site for collating Hugo Award suggestions. In early January 2015, fan writer and reviewer Charles Payseur began his “Quick Sip Reviews” of short fiction across multiple magazines. With the impact of the Puppies, more people began seeking out sites like Payseur’s that would help people find interesting short fiction. In September 2015, Greg Hullender and Eric Wong created Rocket Stack Rank, an online resource to help fans to find copies of short-fiction stories (something that was difficult for non-subscribers), and took on the added challenge of defining a systematic rating system, reviewing up to 700 stories a year, and presenting the result on a searchable website. In addition to these resources, websites and fan communities that had engaged with the Puppy conflict were sharing reviews and recommendations to encourage people to find works that they liked.
Nobody knew what 2016 would bring to the Hugo Awards but after the events of 2015 nobody wanted to go into them again unprepared. Meanwhile, events beyond fandom were taking their own unexpected turn…
Next Time: Meanwhile…Donald Trump
-  https://web.archive.org/web/20161106235150/https://thejovianaward.com/ only the front page is archived but parts of the reasoning behind the award are quoted here http://file770.com/pixel-scroll-1230-the-scrolls-have-eyes/comment-page-2/#comment-383616
-  Whatever version https://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/09/02/wrapping-up-2015-a-hugo-awards-open-thread/#comment-796394 and MHN version https://monsterhunternation.com/2015/10/12/sad-puppies-guest-post-by-chuck-gannon/ Gannon’s main text is the same but the framing by the blog hosts are different as are the comments (obviously).
-  a full discussion is beyond the scope of this project but even if all aspects of the Mixon report and RH’s critics are taken at face value, the behaviour outlined is comparable to multiple lower-ranked supporters of Day or GamerGate participants. Seeing Day as an online bully underestimates the issue.
-  Burnside misremembers the order in which the awards were announced (he places Short Story out of sequence). Gerrold’s comment on booing was much later in the ceremony. The editor categories can be watched here at around 5:45 mark https://www.ustream.tv/recorded/71474005 Gerrold’s booing comment was after Short Story was announced (at 21:35 mark). It is also worth noting, that the audience overall applauds the announcement of all finalists before the winner (or non-winner) was announced.
-  for example https://monsterhunternation.com/2015/03/04/sad-puppies-book-bomb-best-related-work-and-campbell-award-for-best-new-writer/
-  http://file770.com/there-will-be-war-again/
-  http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?527699
-  http://file770.com/pixel-scroll-1211-fresh-squeezed-pixel-juice/
-  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gEo318AwiDegc5dEuDbd4RLjADT2xswo0JEAgXbV0tU/edit#gid=17
-  https://hugonoms2015.fandom.com/wiki/Hugo_Nominees_2016
-  http://www.rocketstackrank.com/2015/09/welcome-to-rocket-stack-rank.html
-  for example https://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/weird-kitties-an-organized-anti-slate-for-the-2016-hugos