TEoAT Locus Review + Hugo Voting Closes
Posted on August 2, 2015 Posted by John Scalzi 96 Comments
The new edition of Locus came out yesterday and features a review of The End of All Things — a space opera/milSF book, genres which, you may recall, the magazine has been lately accused of never reviewing — and I found the opening graf interesting:
Just for a moment, let us put a pin in all that Scalzi has done and has come to represent – all of the multi-million dollar contract, all of the SJW hooha, all of the hanging out with Hollywood geeks – and pile all of that baggage someplace else for just a few minutes. Can Scalzi still tell a good story?
Ha! Well, it’s a fair question.
The good news is, at least for this reviewer (Adrienne Martini), the answer is yes; review is positive, and the novel is found to be “perhaps, the most Heinlein-esque of Scalzi’s novels.” It’s never a bad day for me when a science fiction book of mine is (positively) compared to Heinlein’s work.
I don’t think it will surprise anyone that I agree with the reviewer about what’s actually important here. At the end of the day, the salient question for a potential reader for my work is whether I tell a story worth their time — and also, their money. As long as I’m doing that the rest is sideshow. Now, of course, personal tastes come into play, and people will like my work or not, depending. But on this end of the computer screen, at least, I’m always writing something I would want to read. And I like a good story. I think that helps.
Also, you know. I’m not stupid. The foundation to my success as a novelist — and the reason for the contracts, and the Hollywood stuff, and the obvious envy of some very silly people manifesting as the equally very silly assertion that not being an actively bigoted jackhole is somehow a contemptible way to live — is the fact I’m pretty good at this storytelling thing. Without the storytelling thing, all the positive stuff is at a high risk of going away. So, yes. I’m going to stay focused on the storytelling thing, as long as I am able. On my end of things, at least, this is not a particularly complicated question.
Tangentially related to storytelling, and success, the voting for the Hugos this year has officially closed, and people are pinging me, wondering how I voted. I’ll say this much: I voted my conscience, which I encouraged everyone to do. In my case this means a) that in at least one category, all the Puppy nominees finished above “No Award,” b) there is at least one category where my ballot was “No Award” up top and everything else left off the ballot, c) I don’t think there’s ever been a year where I haven’t left something off the ballot and/or below “No Award,” so in that respect this year was not in the least bit exceptional.
It does seem to me that the all the Puppy bullshit ran down and out of steam there at the end; at a certain point there was nothing left to say, there was just the voting, and you voted or didn’t. The last bit of nonsense I saw from the Puppy environs was some of their nominees rage-quitting the Hugos and deciding to “No Award” themselves, and at least one of them saying that was the plan all along, because apparently when you have no idea what you’re doing, every outcome, no matter what it is, is a victory condition. At which point you just roll your eyes, pity the sad and meaningless sort of existence where being the turd in the punch bowl is a legitimate life goal for a presumably adult human, and move on.
In any event, the award ceremony is three weeks out; we’ll see what happens then.
I miss Charles Brown more today than most days. Oh the words he’d have had for this mess.
“when you have no idea what you’re doing, every outcome, no matter what it is, is a victory condition.”
Thanks for reminding me, just pre-ordered TEOAT.
Wait, what do you mean, that’s not how a boycott works ;)
I ended up putting “no award” at the top of every prose fiction category. I didn’t go in meaning to, but I refuse to vote for a slate nominee and none of the works that got in through good-faith efforts were, to my reading, worthy of a Hugo. (No disrespect to Sarah Monette, Liu Cixin, Thomas Huevelt, or especially Ann Leckie; writing something that merits a Hugo is hard — and doing it twice in a row is unfathomably so.)
10K members. Do we know yet how many voted?
This was my first year to participate in the Hugo voting. Got involved before I even knew the Puppy stuff was happening. What a crazy ride.
The short fiction nominees were IMO depressingly weak overall. I don’t care about an author’s personal opinions; I just want a good story that is well written and provokes me to think (even if I conclude that I disagree with their point).
If this slate is the best the Puppies could muster, God help them, their taste in literature sucks.
good review, have a nice day , message back?
I think Camestros Felapton voiced it first: the Pups mistook the Hugos for the sort of meaningless circular back-pat that a set of Chamber of Commerce awards for “best small business” would be.
To illustrate how I think it worked, I’d say “best small business producing bolts” for example. So the Pups nominated friends and business partners (Larry nominated Brad last year so Brad nominated Larry this year) who produced bolts and needed the publicity and also larger businesses they had no personal connection with but who were doing a good job at persuading people to choose bolts over glue or screws to meet their fastener needs. They referred to this latter category as “introducing people to SFF,” or “being ambassadors for SFF” and this is where Jim Butcher would probably fall. I suppose they thought surely nobody except industry insiders really cared *which* bolt producers got nominated.
I suspect they got quite a surprise when it turned out that many people *did* care about the (heh) nuts and bolts of of the bolt awards. And this is why they keep calling people SMOFs and CHORFs and truefen; they’re trying to paint everyone who cares as an industry insider who was using the awards to gratify personal friends with back-pats and publicity. They didn’t realize that the bolt-users voting on the awards really *do* see a difference in the quality of the bolts.
I put everything on the Pup slate below No Award because I don’t think it reached the ballot fairly, but I realize other people are going to do things differently. I’m betting on No Award to take a lot of the categories, but that could just be my personal bias in blogs I choose to follow. We’ll see how it turns out, I guess.
Not too long now.
I voted for the 3 non-slate novels, but voted No Award in all the other prose fiction categories.
Congratulations on the positive review for TEoAT from Locus! I’m looking forward to reading it, soon as I can…. Just read THE HUMAN FACTOR and enjoyed it thoroughly.
As for the Hugos – Well. What can you say other than, “Way to slime the system thoroughly, a*holes!”?
PS ABOUT YOUR TWITTER FEED FROM THIS MORNING: You do realize you’re not actually a seven-foot tall vaguely mantis(?) – like alien who could probably eat every Churro on the East Coast and not put on an ounce, right…?
Cat Faber wrote: ” I’m betting on No Award to take a lot of the categories, but that could just be my personal bias in blogs I choose to follow. We’ll see how it turns out, I guess. ”
I am really curious. I have been following the Kerfuffle on File 770 and last week there was a post that while membership was up to 10K, there was not that many votes cast at that point. Evidently, the total number of votes where being released to someone. There was some speculation what the low vote total meant. Some thought it would be a huge rush at the end. Some thought the membership spike was more related to voting for the next location. If the membership spike was related to lots of new pups, it would seem they would have voted. Or it could be True-Fans decided to get involved. I know that George Martin seemed concerned enough to ask people to please vote and that Larry Correia was doing the same.
Speaking of perspective on the Hugo, did our gracious host – between slices of lard cake, which I have to say sounds sort of Soylent Greenish, see the interview with Sam Delany in the New Yorker?
Interesting perspective on this flap from Mr. Delany, who presumably has been doing this long enough to meet the puppies definition of, you know, an actual SF writer?
Lard cake! Yikes! I hope you have good health insurance for that bypass you’re gonna need! You are right though, it’s too good.
I didn’t vote until yesterday, so on the assumption that lots of people procrastinated like me, I’m expecting a last-minute influx.
Tsk! Tsk! It’s bad netizenship to cite something with out linking to it. (Samuel Delany and the Past and Future of Science Fiction: http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/samuel-delany-and-the-past-and-future-of-science-fiction )
“Interesting perspective” is one way of putting it. Another might be to say that Chip is absolutely right.
I no awarded everything from the puppy lists with the exception of the drama categories. I really didn’t think any of the people associated with those categories, with the exception of GRRM, have heard of the puppy people let alone support them.
>> Interesting perspective on this flap from Mr. Delany, who presumably has been doing this long enough to meet the puppies definition of, you know, an actual SF writer?>>
They immediately wrote him off as a pervert and a NAMBLA supporter.
Thanks, Alan Bostick. Saved me from having to look for that.
I took EVERY Puppy nominee off my ballot when they attacked Irene Gallo. I don’t reward bad behaviour. So my ballot has many vast expanses occupied by “No Award.”
John: “At the end of the day, the salient question for a potential reader for my work is whether I tell a story worth their time — and also, their money. ”
Yeah, tell that one to Brendan Eich, see how he feels about it.
I read the comment you refer to — the one about “No Award” having been the goal all along — and thought, wait, that’s not when you said back then. I’m glad I’m not the only one who had that reaction. Basically, the leader of the Rabid Puppies has got this arranged in his mind so that no matter what the outcome, he wins.
I wasn’t aware that Scalzi was a CEO or that Eich wrote novels.
@Forgot My Name
Historically only a fraction of the WorldCon membership votes in the Hugos and an even smaller fraction nominates for them. There is nothing new about that. Last year there were 11K members, roughly, of whom 2.8K were supporting members (a record at that time) and about 3.5K of the 11K voted on the Hugos (and that was a big increase in voters over the year before.) I don’t know how that 3.5 K breaks down as to number of attending versus supporting members–both kinds are allowed to vote.
This year there are (checks File 770) 10K members as of mid July, of whom 5.5 K are supporting members (big jump in supporting memberships there–new record, I guess). Again according to File 770, 2.9K had already voted as of week before last, which is not far off the total number of Hugo votes last year. So I don’t know that I would call that “not that many votes.”
Many thanks Cat. I found the File 770 page you are referencing.
I No Awarded a lot of stuff. But I No Award something basically every year. There’s always something that makes me wonder “Why !@#% is this on the ballot? It SUCKS!” The Pups hit that metric a lot, but even in years when people didn’t F with the process, there’s something that gets on there that I just can’t stand. ([redacted b/c John wants us to play nice], I’m looking at you. You suck and if I find out there’s a cabal that keeps getting you on the ballot, I’m gonna treat all them with contempt too.)
I didn’t care about Pup blatherings about the movies — those folk had no idea about this, and the nominees came out exactly as I expected. I mean, c’mon, is there any way “Interstellar” would NOT be nominated? Of course not. In short form, I went for Doctor Who, because Capaldi. I mean duh.
I would like again to thank Deirdre Moen for her helpful canine-free guide for the lazy.
Nobody, but nobody, ever votes till the last minute, so last week’s numbers are useless. 90% of the voters were either filling out their ballots or adjusting them Friday afternoon. I voted mine a couple months ago, but went over it again on Friday, having had a couple further ruminations on Graphic Novel.
@P.Ineapple: Chip’s gay and black, so he doesn’t count as a person to them, let alone an expert, let alone completely correct. And magnificently-bearded. When Rothfuss’ beard grows up, it wants to be Chip’s.
I was wondering what Brendan Eich had to do with anything myself. Mayhap the point is of such subtlety we missed it completely.
As for the voting, I did the Noah Ward thing for the slate entries myself (excepting the long and shot media which really don’t need to be dragged into this mess). I would have done it anyway because I’m not going to reward that sort of behavior, but it turns out the stuff was almost entirely so wretched it clearly had no place on the Hugo shortlist.
An appeal to John Scalzi. I see that you will be on an interesting panel. Consider video taping it and putting it on youtube. I have seen some of the various panels from other conventions on youtube and some of them are really entertaining. I think yours will be entertaining too.
Speaking of Hugos, how does a serialized novel work as far as award eligibility goes. Is TEoAT eligible as a Novel, with the individually released pieces being also eligible as Novellas?
Just curious, when you talk about rage-quitters, are you referring to the people who recused themselves from the puppy slate? I know there were several authors who asked to be removed because they’d been added without permission, and a few more who asked to be removed because they decided they couldn’t conscionably remain on such an obviously politicized slate.
The whole novel is eligible for next year. The individual novellas are also eligible as they were released in the same calendar year.
I remember saying months ago that the Puppies (of all varieties) had set up their internal logic in the standard conspiracy-theorist fashion, such that every single outcome proves they were RIGHT! damnit! and that their opponents are horrible people. At least to them.
Think about it: if even a single Puppy candidate wins a Hugo, then they were RIGHT! damnit!, and they were being kept unjustifiably from the awards which should have been theirs all along!
If no Puppy candidates win a Hugo, then they were RIGHT! damnit!, and the whole thing is rigged against them (even when they’re trying to rig it in their own favour) and the SMOFs and SJWs have Ruined Science Fiction Forever!
If No Award comes first in enough categories, then they were RIGHT!, damnit!, and the SMOFs and SJWs will do anything to prevent them from having a chance at winning – even sabotaging their own award show!
If a meteor comes crashing down from space and lands on the convention hotel at the time of the Hugo ceremony, then they were RIGHT! damnit!, and the sMOFs and SJWs will REALLY do anything to prevent having to face this fact!
It doesn’t matter what happens now, because in their eyes no matter what the result, it’s one which proves them correct.
 Whereas every Final Fantasy VII fan will tell you that the meteor crashing down onto the convention hotel was actually the result of an overly-accurate Sephiroth cosplay in New York.
Thank you, Megpie! Absolute perfection!
Megpie, if I wasn’t so lazy (it’s a warm Sunday evening), I’d search back through the blog here for where and at what time you said this originally. So that we could enshrine it forever when the Pups declare victory even if it’s their third or fourth or fifth* version of what they wanted to accomplish with all this.
However, you forgot “If meteors crash down upon just them, it will prove they
arewere RIGHT! damnit! because the SJWs and SMOFs are actually SMOA’s (Secret Masters of Astrophysics).”
*they can’t seem to keep track of it, why should I?
If a Rabid Puppy idly supposes that No Award as the outcome in several categories, ahead of any Puppy nominees, will be a victory for the Rabids, then he is more delusional than a North Korean Victory Day parade.
The puppy thing was the same arguments back and forth. I was surprised that there were 100s of posts every day on file770. It was mainly the same people on both sides have the same fights and post 5-10 times each. There was literally nothing left to say. I’m not exactly a liberal here… as many have noticed, but I dont get it. I dont like alot of the stories that get nominated, but it doesn’t make me angry. They feel under represented, but then the guys who run it don’t want to attend Worldcon. Their fans won’t go if they don’t go. Its more about they are mad at some people so they decided to try to ridicule the award.
Its obvious in posts its about trying to ruin the award for everyone and not about trying to get more people to attend worldcon. The biggest suckers here are the people that actually paid $40 just to vote for the Sad Puppies. I didn’t sign up because I didn’t see enough stuff I wanted to read in the Hugo Packet. When I saw that 2 of the novels weren’t in it and I looked at the other stuff (I think Vox Day left all his stuff out of the packet anyway), I didn’t see value in spending $40 just to check a ballot.
This will go on next year. It doesn’t take many votes to take over a block with this many nominees. I dont think it will have steam for years to come. I would be surprised if that many people want to spend $40 for years to come just to go ‘hahaha’. These things send to fizzle out.
I voted on Wednesday or Thursday. I read as much as possible (although some things I gave up on before finishing them because I just couldn’t do that to my brain anymore). I voted as much as possible without regards to whether something was on a slate, but when I went back and compared my rankings with the slates, many of them ranked below no award (or were left off completely). Not all, but a definite majority. I didn’t vote for any of the drama categories for the simple fact that it’s been over 5 years since I’ve been to the movies and more than double that since I’ve had TV.
I am already compiling a list of nominations for next year so that hopefully the Hugo short list has more input.
I haven’t voted for the Hugos before (mainly because I don’t get around to it). This year was easy, because I felt NO obligation to read anything that wasn’t on the ballot legitimately. Every Puppy nominee was below No Award. The only time this was difficult was Skin Game, which I’d read and enjoyed before the nominations even came out. If it had been nominated legitimately, I’d’ve voted for it above Three-Body Problem, which was all hard-science until it got into some really stupid shit at the end (sentient protons, my foot).
I did number some things after No Award. The abovementioned Skin Game was one. I also numbered everything except Beale’s nominee in every category where he was nominated, because if one of the Puppy noms had to win, I’d like it to be anyone but Beale.
I also put one or two non-Puppy nominees below No Award, because I just didn’t think they were Hugo-worthy. Sorry, fellow Who fans, but “Listen” just wasn’t good enough.
I can’t wait for this to be over already.
Thanks to Mr. Bostick; I was using a fine Apple device, which although nifty, has a keyboard that my Selectric-trained hands have a hard time doing anything (like copying a link) with sucess.
@Guess: be careful, dude. Talking like that, they’re gonna call you a gamma or an SJW or gay or whatnot, and they’ll demand you be banned from the next conservative picnic or Republican primary or something. Although since you haven’t been banned from or ragequit Whatever, you’re probably insufficiently ideologically pure to them anyway.
@P.Ineapple: shout-out to my fellow Selectric-trainee. These kids today don’t know how easy they have it, with the built-in carriage return.
LARD, the unloved brother of bacon.
(DO NOT TAPE LARD TO YOUR CAT: you are a better man than that.)
I read everything on the ballot and gave it a fair shot. In the novel category I voted Ancillary Sword over Three Body Problem, The Goblin Emperor, Skin Game, No Award, and The Dark Between the Stars. I think The Peripheral By William Gibson was the best novel for that time period but obviously wasn’t a nominee.
I No Awarded all the other fiction categories and left the remaining selections blank with the exception of Totaled By Kary English. There was some really bad entries in the short fiction category. At least one of the stories I didn’t actually consider was at a professional level never mind award worthy.
I think in the other categories the only one I straight no awarded was the Best related work. That category also had the distinction of having by far the worst entry in the whole Hugo’s ballot with Wisdom from My Internet.
This year’s Hugos has had way too much dog shit in it. I hope the results come and the pups get kicked hard enough that they dont try this again next year. Crossing my fingers till the results come in…
And congrats and the good review!
The problem is that the pups are so convinced that they are the poor underdogs, that if they are kicked that hard they’ll (some of them anyhow) just take it as evidence the the system conspires against them and that they weren’t obnoxious enough.
I hope that they get bored.
Goblin, Sword, Three Body, Skin Game, No Award, Dark
No Award, Totalled.
Also No Awards in Fan Writer, Related Work, Short Form Editor
I’ve been thinking about the Puppy mess for a while now and I came up with this analogy:
Every year for decades now, you’ve thrown an annual party for the entire neighborhood. Anyone who wants to come is automatically invited, just bring one thing to eat or drink or otherwise contribute to the enjoyment of all. There is music, there’s dancing for those who like to dance, there are conversations and chats to be had. There are also a few contests of the kinds that you get in /good/ parties — from storytelling to bobbing for apples to a surprisingly good Karaoke machine. There’s no real prize money involved, but there’s a pretty bauble for the winner and a certain amount of informal respect that will stand them in good stead in the neighborhood for the year, and even the people who don’t win will happily cheer the one who did.
For the past few years, there’s been This Guy. He shows up every time with a bottle of cheap cooking oil — /technically/ an acceptable gift as per the rules of the party, as he will smugly point out to you.
He’s obnoxious; every conversation he enters into /has/ to be centered around him; if any music but the kind he likes is playing he will stomp over to the DJ and complain (loudly) until “his kind” of music is put on, at which point he reaches into the booth to crank up the volume, because this is great music that everyone needs to hear and thank him for the privilege of teaching them about it.
He (again, loudly) disdains most of the games as “faggoty” and other derogatory things, then mocks anyone who asks if he could perhaps try to be a /little/ more classy with his insults at the least, but tries to compete in a few others, then complains (you guessed it, loudly) when he fails, insisting that this is due to a conspiracy against him rather than the fact that when a hundred people enter the contest, ninety-nine of them will walk away without first prize.
And it’s gotten worse in recent years; he’s started to invite “friends” of his from out of town, all of whom show up with cheap and crappy cooking oil as their ‘gifts’ and behave as loud and toxic as That Guy. Everyone else is still trying to have fun, but that gets harder and harder because every year That Guy invites a few more “friends” and they get louder and more obnoxious; it’s getting to the point where several of your longstanding friends have let you know they won’t be attending this year because they’re not enjoying the party anymore.
1) Do nothing and hope that That Guy will get bored and find somewhere else to be toxic in before so many regulars stop coming that the party withers on the vine;
2) Stop holding the party altogether, because That Guy has now announced that (for some ineffable reason understood only by himself) it’s now his personal quest to destroy the party;
3) Politely but firmly inform him that he will not be welcome at next year’s party and neither will any of his friends?
I haven’t read the Locus review of TEoAT, but I probably will next week, and I’m really looking forward to reading the book!
I have some bad news for you. Are you sitting down?
The Pups have already said they’re going to do it again next year and have picked their leader. Somebody named Kate Paulk.
Oh yes. Kate is blogs over at Mad Genius. Some of this is just niche marketing I am starting to think. Anyway the wisdom of Kate:
“Because we are all Vox Day. Or Larry Correia. Or Brad Torgerson. Or anyone else who dares to disagree with the opinions of the would-be power-brokers. If we are not, then Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, Freedom is Slavery, and two plus two equals five.”
I hope that those at the business meeting will pass the “E Pluribus hugo” reform for nomination balloting. That doesn’t deny anyone a voice but limits the effectiveness of freeping. You notice the puppies don’t try to freep the Goodreads Choice Awards. With over 3M votes, they would be a rounding error. But the Hugo population of dedicated fans is fairly small and voting fans are smaller yet. So they are vulnerable to manipulation.
“The Pups have already said they’re going to do it again next year and have picked their leader. Somebody named Kate Paulk”
She’s one of the sad puppies.
She’s quite unhinged, she genuinely seems to believe that anyone who disagrees with the puppies is a marxist.
She also launched a really hateful tirade against File770’s Mike Glyer.. because he often quoted her (idiotic) comments during his daily roundups.
I disagree with “can Scalzi still tell a good story”. The Human Division was highly-predictable garbage.
Oh, Scorpius. You scamp!
Ed, I think you’re inadvertently describing Sarah Hoyt, another prominent puppy. As far as I know, Paulk has not feuded with Glyer, and Marxism is not a particular hot button for her.
Ed, that’s not Kate Paulk, that’s Sarah Hoyt.
I plan to watch the Hugo livecast just to see how many people with badge name “Noah Ward” or variations thereof, try to rush the stage to accept.
“No, I’m Noah!”
“I’m Noah! and so’s my cat!”
“And the winner is – wodewick!”
Only if they can get Biggus Diccus to hand out the awards.
I await my Subterranean Press signed copy of TEoAT to arrive with anxious delight. Just finished re-reading the previous five books of the OMW Universe and I’m thoroughly primed for THE GRAND FINALE. BTW, I was surprised that I hadn’t read Zoe’s Tale… thought I had, but I guess not. I found it very enjoyable and it nicely addressed a couple of concerns I had from The Lost Colony; especially the deau-ex-machina Consu device. What a great series so far!
@Lurkertype: What is a gamma? Is that the new thing for alpha male vs. beta male? So now its gamma male? I can’t keep track of this. Considering that I am 41 and will not get married because pre-nups are unreliable and I think if a woman wants security she should get a better job. Good luck with that one. Now on the flip side if Oprah is single, I am available. I am perfectly willing to avoid a prenup to become Mr Oprah Winfrey. Does that make me a gamma? I just see it as turning the tables on women.
You really don’t know anything about conservatives. Most conservatives tend to be the outdoor types. Most of us think that too much video game time is ruining the youth of America. Most can care less about a book award. Most of us are more concerned about the lefties bankrupting the country and look at Greece and go are we next? Or worry about ISIS selling girls into slavery. Arguing over book awards would get no traction at a Republican rally and people would think that anyone who brought this up was an idiot. The response to the Puppies if it got into the larger conservative community would be, let me get this straight numnut… You want me to spend $40 of my money to vote for your stupid book so you can get an award? This is a capitalist country. Write a book more people want to read and why would I care if liberals don’t like it? Put on your big boy pants and grow a pair. You don’t see a reaction from conservatives because most of us are not paying attention and don’t care about something as silly as this.
You should try hanging out with conservatives more and avoid the stereotypes. You don’t see John Scalzi posting stuff like this. I don’t see his right wing neighbors raiding the Scalzi compound with pitchforks over John’s online posts.
Let’s try not to wander off from the topic, please.
My bad, you guys are right, I’m thinking of Sarah Hoyt.
Apologies to Paulk for getting her mixed up with a crazy lady.
Let’s try not to wander off from the topic, please.
Dammit – JUST as I was going to tell what they did to those poor extras dressed as Roman soldiers during the “Biggus Diccus” scene…
First time Hugo voter. Until the current controversy – I did not know you could vote for a Hugo for a mere $40.
If you read monsterhunternation.com you see lots of people talking about reading the nominations and voting. Here and on other SJW discussions – you read lots of people talking about not voting for swaths of nominees because they were nominated “unfairly” (following the rules) or because they dislike people. Here you have people talking about not even reading nominees because they were nominated by people they dislike.
On monsterhunternation – you have people talking about books they otherwise would not have read that they liked (Goblin Emperor & Totaled for me). Here in the comments – we have people bragging they did not read nominees because they were nominated by “bad people.”
Sad Puppies was a success. More people voted for Hugos (or were eligible due to the larger number of supporting memberships & Sasquan attendees). A broader array of stories were nominated.
I hated most Hugo winners in the last 10 years. Starship Troopers would never win today.
I’ve also found out that some editors and writers have absolute contempt for those who pay them good money to read their works. Some writers and editors also will state outright lies about those they dislike. I appreciate knowing when someone whom I’m giving money to has contempt for me personally – it helps me avoid giving them money in the future.
And before you SJWs go nuts with slander about me:
1] I read the nominees
2] I fully realize Scalzi claims he also read the nominees and voted accordingly. Good for him.
3] I buy a ton of books in hardback & by ebook.
4] and last – I’m a “truefan” who has attended numerous cons and even written gaming tournaments used at multiple cons including Dragoncon.
Guess, the front runner for the Republican nom for President is Donald yougottabekiddingme Trump. So keep that in mind next time you want to give silly lecture about how conservatives are the serious party.
Airboy, “And before you SJWs go nuts with slander about me”
The pups gamed the system, that is all. The rules will be changed in two years, so you anklebiters have one more year of stupidity, and then you’re done. The only reaon all this crap got on the ballot is because the pups formed a political party and ran against unorganized candidates.
Go fly a confederate flag or something…
Airboy people would take you more seriously if you did not repeatedly named called people as SJW . Also you keep making claims as factual when they are anything but such as Starship Trooper would never win a Hugo today which is unprovable either way.
“Sad Puppies was a success.”
As noted above, it seems clear that the Puppy plan is to declare any outcome a victory, so this assertion of yours is, shall we say, entirely unsurprising. Also premature. If the reason that so many people bought supporting memberships was to “No Award” the Puppy nominations, as might well be the case, then the assertion of “success” is a bit silly, unless you define success as “irritating so many people that they voted against the Puppy nominees with their middle fingers.” Which, again, it may be; see previous notation re: victory conditions.
And yes, Airboy, your implication that everyone over there is perfectly reasonable whilst people here are prejudiced in one way or another is not in the least bit helped by your use of “SJW.” it very much gives your game away. As do the very silly cue card talking points like “a broader array of stories were nominated.” When six nominations (later five) were from the Puppy slates were from the same person, and even more nominations were from the same micro-publishing house fronted by the primary movers of the Puppies, well, you can make that argument with a straight face if you like, but it doesn’t mean it’s received in the same manner.
Re: Slander: Please, Airboy, do grow up. The “you’re all gonna hate on me anyway” thing is pathetic, although in line with standard defensive Puppy rhetoric that likes to suggest the whole world is against you. It wouldn’t be slander to note that appear to be trying to front the same canned and unsuccessful arguments that Puppy partisans have been attempting for month, or to note that you’re not notably more successful in offering them than any other Puppy has.
Airboy; It is well to know that, as you use it, “SJW” is a tribal shibboleth, like “gun nut”. It’s counterproductive when talking to anyone that isn’t already convinced that the tribe that likes to use it is right.
Airboy, I’m a first-time voter too, and I read and enjoyed things I otherwise would not have, such as Goblin Emperor and the graphic stories. I also have nothing but contempt for the way the Puppies chose their slate, as revealed in public reposting of the discussions, and for their strange (and oddly shifting) reasoning throughout this process, but I’m not going to beat that dead horse. If the mess weren’t so very messy and sad, especially for writers whose work got shoved aside for the sake of a unified slate, I would be able to summon up a morsel of schadenfreude (pie!) over the way the Rapid Puppies stole the Sad Puppies’ idea right out from under them and muscled some atrocious writing onto the ballot.
Unlike you, I didn’t hate most of the Hugo winners of the last 10 years. But as you know of course, people have different tastes, and yours and mine appear to be different. Luckily, there are plenty of books out there. You find a lot of books to buy, so clearly someone is writing to your taste. I find a lot of books to buy too, so people are writing to my taste too. This is win-win-win for you, me, and the authors. I’m not sure why you feel the amount of books you buy has any bearing on the matter, though.
And you’re right, Starship Troopers would never win today because it wasn’t eligible, not having been originally published in 2014.
Er, Rabid Puppies, not Rapid Puppies–though they do seem quick to claim victory about, well, anything.
“A broader array of stories were nominated.”
Yeahhh…. extending Hugo nominations to stories that would make a slush pile blush in embarrassment and to “jokes” from the internet has really moved the game dramatically forwards…
I just read “Old Venus” and there were at least half a dozen stories in there that were better than the short stories that made the Hugo list, and they also had to deal with the starting condition of being set in a swamp-like Venus.
To follow in Not Reddit Chris S. Footsteps I submit that the Baen published Best Military SF and Space Opera for 2014 contain much better stories than what was nominated this year.
I invite anyone to compare Damage http://www.tor.com/2015/01/21/damage-david-levine/ to the Hugo nominated Turncoat both of which deals with the same issues and tell me which is the better story by any metric.
After a Puppy-free month (July), today I happened to see a couple of Puppy supporters commenting online (here and on another blog)…. and I am amazed at how quickly I had forgotten just HOW silly, toxic, and disingenuous Puppy rhetoric is. Reading their statements typically feels like a phosphor equivalent of a sewer line breaking nearby.
The Puppy thing ran out of steam because it was antics without substance, posturing without relevance, and hysteria without cause. They signify nothing, and reading some of their supporters’ standard comments today remind me of how tiresome the Puppies are.
One author has writen under the name Noah Ward – David Gerrold. And he’s handing out the awards!
This year, I tried to reward work with plenty of unfamiliarity.
Novel – Three Body, Ancillary Sword, Goblin Emperor, No Award, Skin Game
Novella – No Award, Pale Realms of Shade (Apparently, I have an unexpected weakness for Mickey Spillane-meets-Saint Augustine. Surprisingly coherent for a Wright story.)
Novelette – No Award, followed by The Triple Sun (retro, but entertaining) then Ashes to Ashes. I’d gladly read the complete novel of which B’tok is a part, but there isn’t a category for Best Incomplete Story.
Short Story – No Award, then Totaled
Graphic Novel – Ms Marvel (A teenage Muslim as superhero! Rememember what I said about unfamiliarity?) followed by Saga vol. 3 (brilliant as always), then No Award, then Sex Criminals (I tried to like this, but… no.)
Dramatic Presentation – I didn’t see enough SF movies or TV to judge.
Best Fan Writer – Laura J. Mixon, No Award, Amanda Green. (Note to Dave and Cedar: when 100% of the stuff in your Hugo packet consists of SJW-bashing, please not to pretend to compete on the basis of quality.)
@Guess, you assume I don’t know any conservatives. My parents’ best friends are close personal friends of George W. Bush, and friendly with the whole Bush family. So talk to me about “not knowing Republicans” next time your parents’ BFFs go to a BBQ with the last two Republican presidents, m’kay? (All of whom have managed to be happily married for decades without prenups, FYI).
“the would-be power-brokers”
Ya mean the people who made sure only their buddies and themselves got all the nominations, leaving dozens of other people out in the cold? Fewer people nominated means broader nominations. Freedom is slavery, indeed. And irony is… not their strong suit.
@Geoff Thorpe: since the people presenting the award accept when the winner isn’t there, that’s going to work out perfectly!
First time voter. Didn’t have time to finish the novels, so I gave them a pass. Wasn’t impressed with Ancillary Sword. Noah would have gotten it if I had finished the rest. Three-Body Problem was OK, but the opening discussion of competing socialist factions didn’t spawn any interest for me. Sort of like figuring out if Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, or Jeffrey Dahmer should win when I’m perfectly OK with letting them all lose. Perhaps I’ll take another run at it later.
Generally disappointed with the shorter length works. Noah got a work out for both Puppy and non-Puppy noms.
Very disappointed by many/most of the Puppy entries. Found one or two that I really enjoyed.
I’ll get my write up on my blog in a few days. I’ll be dipped but that thing is getting long!
Taking some time out with selections from the library. What a relief.
Congrats on the review.
You say that you’re “pretty good at this storytelling thing” (and I do agree with you).
Does this also mean that you have the tendency and/or ability to foresee the plot twist in other people’s stories very early on?
And would you say that’s essential for a good storyteller/writer?
If so, any tips how to use this in writing a good story?
Considering that I am 41 and will not get married because pre-nups are unreliable and I think if a woman wants security she should get a better job.
Wow. That’s…Wow. I can’t even come up with a level of snark that’s enough for that level of sexism.
@Classclone I loved the narrative voice in Pale Realms of Shade. The identity of the killer was never a surprise, but that almost worked here, since the mystery was more about the “why” than the “who.” For the first third of it I thought there was a real story. Then it went wandering off into some strange place and never came back, even though I called, offered treats, and even posted “lost story” fliers on power poles. It was just gone.
@Marion: you made me giggle. Good metaphor.
@classclone: I really wanted to read Ms. Marvel based on the reviews but hadn’t gotten to my LCBS, and the price of single issues is ridiculous nowadays anyway. So I was delighted to get it in the packet and I voted it #1 as well. “Totaled” was a serviceable, workmanlike story, but those aren’t adjectives that say “Hugo-Worthy”. It would not have made it on the ballot in a normal year. It might have made the ballot in the 1970’s.
Question: What the hell is a “truefan”? I never go to cons. I’ve been to A-Kon twice and Tokyo In Tulsa once and that’s it. Am I not a true fan of speculative fiction? Am I not allowed to have an opinion about the sci-fi world because I haven’t accrued enough points in some mysterious punchcard?
Ok, it’s after midnight, so perhaps it’s not the best time to explain the fannish use of the word “fan” (plural “fen), but I’ll give it a shot. Here is a very short, and hence not guaranteed to be completely accurate, history of “fan”.
Unfortunately, back 80-odd years ago, First Fandom hit upon the word “fan” (or sometimes faan), later “trufan” to designate people who communicated with each other about SF/F and considered themselves part of the community who did so.
Originally, it started with letter columns, and then meetups and clubs, and then conventions and fanzines. We could all wish that they’d used some other word besides one that also meant “person who enjoys”, but they didn’t. “Trufan” didn’t mean that other people who weren’t part of that community (often called “Readers”) ddin’t enjoy SF. It didn’t mean Readers were not entitled to an opinion on SF.
If someone isn’t a “trufan” ALL IT MEANS is that they do not consider themselves part of that strange and amorphous and self-referential community who spends their time communicating with each other on SF and the community of fandom itself. Indeed, even early on there were enough people primarily interested in the community that they used the word “fakefan” to refer to people who were into fandom, but NOT SF/F (though, paradoxically, fakefen were also considered fen.)
But guess what? By being a commenter here and on other SF blogs, whether or not you ever go to conventions, you’re completely entitled to call yourself a trufan if you like. Because blogs like this are a combination fanzine and letter column. You don’t have to if you don’t want to, but you can, and there’s absolutely NOBODY with the authority to say you’re not a trufan.
There are all sorts of fine gradations and arguments and drawings of lines in the sand, because fandom is like that, but it comes down to this:
You’re a Fan (in the fannish sense of the word) if you consider yourself one.
(I think I’ve caught the most egregious typos; time to send this off before I edit it into even more incoherence than it already has)
The term “trufan” also shows up in some of the Puppy whining. I gather they’re claiming that they have been told (I don’t know by whom) that they are not “trufans” and they believe that the “trufans” want to exclude them and conspire against any of them ever winning a Hugo and like that.
Brad Torgerson (at https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/former-tor-editor-still-longs-to-gatekeep-the-field/) defines “TruFans” as “the dyed-in-the-wool, insular, legacy group of fans who cluster about World Science Fiction Convention,” and he claims that they are “a dying breed.” By contrast, he positions himself among “‘outside’ fans (you and me and the rest of the universe).” His definition is not the standard way of defining “trufans” and “the rest of the universe,” but in Puppy rhetoric, “trufan” has become something of a dog-whistle term.
They claim they have been told they aren’t real fans, just like they claim they’ve been told they aren’t real writers and they claim they’ve been told they are “wrongfans” having “wrongfun.” I think they are making most of it up.
In the meantime, hey, 5,950 people voted on the Hugos! That’s about 2,450 more than last year–that’s a big increase.
I’m very curious to see how it will turn out.
Yeah, someone showed up on day on my Facebook page, put words in my mouth, then criticized me for what he falsely claimed I had said. When I said, nope, I didn’t say that, and that’s not related to what I DID say, he declared I was calling him a “wrongfan” who was having “wrongfun” and just wanted him to shut up. (Well, okay, he was right about my wishing he’d shut up.)
Based not only on that, but on the similar fits I’ve seen various Puppies having elsewhere, that seems to be the sort of basis on which they claim they are “called” wrongfans or not-trufans and are accused of having “wrongfun.”
I’ve read far too much about this issue to ever be healthy again. I think it is fair to say that some folks are blowing things out of proportions.
But I also don’t think that the events that form the entry points for individuals aren’t made up.
i.e. A Hugo nominee claiming that potential voters were dismissing his work because he used to be engaged in the legal sale of fire arms rather than actually reading the nominated work. Or a currently independently published writer who watched the staff of a publishing house change their behavior towards her when they discovered she was mostly libertarian leaning. Or a magazine editor that has had authors tell him that they were advised not to submit work to his publication because some folks hold the publisher in low esteem.
It’s akin to watching one of my sons emit a piercing, high-pitched scream when he happens across a spider. Big or small, he screams at ’em all. The fact that his reaction is well out of proportion to the event does nothing to change the fact that there was a spider on the wall in need of relocation.
Cavalierly dismissing the reality of people’s lives simply because of their disproportionate response to an unpleasant event endorses the event and encourages similar future responses.
@dann665 not sure where most of your post is going but I assume you mean Correia by this “A Hugo nominee claiming that potential voters were dismissing his work because he used to be engaged in the legal sale of fire arms rather than actually reading the nominated work”. Well how many one? two? Millions? Are we going from a sample of one and extrapolating this to the entirety of Hugo voters? Sounds like sour grapes to me.
I read Correia’s nominated novel last year prior to knowing anything about him and voted the novel next to last just above the WOT. I just did not think it was terribly good. In fact between Corriea’s novel, the WOT series and Parasite I was baffled at what was considered Hugo worthy in the novel category.
dann665: “A Hugo nominee claiming that potential voters were dismissing his work because he used to be engaged in the legal sale of fire arms rather than actually reading the nominated work.” Okay, if that happened, it probably stung a bit if said nominee is sensitive to criticism. But it goes with the job. I’ve seen at least one person post here that he refused to read “Lock In” because Scalzi didn’t specify the gender of the protagonist and therefore [some conclusion the person drew about the story that was utterly incorrect and would have been cleared up if he had read the book instead of making up stuff about it]. Some people won’t read Scalzi’s books because he sounds off on social issues. Someone identifying as a Puppy supporter here bragged about not reading the work nominated for Hugos but voting for Puppy Slate nominees just to poke people in the eye. People decide not to read books for all sorts of reasons, or dismiss the work of particular writers for all sorts of reasons, or vote the Hugo ballot as they do for all sorts of reasons. I think people would have been a lot more sympathetic to the Puppies if they had admitted that the problem was hurt feelings instead of trying to brand it as a noble response to some imaginary conspiracy.
A child may scream as loudly as he wants when he sees a spider, and if he has a sympathetic parent, that’s a good thing. If the child tries to get everyone else to scream about spiders just because he’s seen one, that’s another matter. If he says he’s fine with spiders and he’s really screaming because those nasty people next door are doing something bad, that’s still another matter. If he’s an adult and still hasn’t come to terms with the existence of spiders, it’s long past time for him to grow up.
I get that Correia and Torgersen and some others feel rejected by what they think of as the sf publishing/fan establishment. What I don’t really get is why they thought sabotaging the Hugo Awards was an appropriate response. It sure looks like they just wanted to piss people off, and perhaps get more attention when they aired their grievances. If so they achieved their goals, whatever the results of the voting. I suspect the attention they’ve received hasn’t enhanced their reputations, but who knows. Maybe there are enough American right wingers out there who see the world as they do that the whole affair will be a net plus for them. This may have been their calculation from the start.
Honestly I’m just shocked and relived they didn’t try to get Fables nominated. Shocked because the author is very Conservative and a bit of a dick as can be seen here: http://www.themarysue.com/dissenting-opinions-may-occur/
His comic is also quite popular and has a fan base outside of puppydom that would support it. The reason I’m relieved is the fact that I am one of those fans. I really think that whatever my feeling towards Mr Willingham and some of the opinion’s that shine through in his comic are he has made a brilliant work (especially in the earlier issues) and I would hate to see it on a slate like this. It deserves to win but not like this.
I have somewhat similar views towards Skin Game incidentally. I really enjoyed it and I really like Jim Butcher’s work, but I don’t want it to win like this.
Wow, more Pup redefinition of words. They’re just masters of NewSpeak, aren’t they? I’ve never even HEARD the terms “wrongfan” and “wrongfun”, so I suspect they’re making that up as part of their erroneous persecution complexes.
And they most definitely haven’t been told they aren’t REAL writers. They may have been told they’re BAD writers. E.L. James is both Real and Bad and is both more popular/populist and richer than any of them will ever be. Real and Bad are orthogonal. Since Lawwy and Bwad were both nominated for the Campbell, they were thought of as both Real and Not Bad by the very organization they now decry.
Let’s face it: whipping up the right wing in America and online is a great way to make money and get attention.
All You Need to Know About Pups:
1. Bwad and Lawwy got their widdle fee-fees hurt by only being NOMINATED for one of the field’s biggest awards.
They thought they were insulted by not WINNING (Cuz they’re such speshul snowflakes, boo-hoo, stomp feet). Rather than admit that their competition was simply better than they were, they decided that there was some Vast Shadowy Cabal against them, and thus decided to prove how SO LITTLE THEY CARED about the VSC and the award that they SHOULD HAVE WON that they decided to UTTERLY DESTROY the award by starting a Non-Shadowy Cabal, that’ll show them. In the real world, we call this “sour grapes” and “poor sportsmanship”.
2. Teddy thought, “Hey, these are USEFUL IDIOTS I can co-opt for my own purposes!”
His purposes being to prop up his pathological grandiose ego, and to make money he didn’t inherit from his felon daddy. They started it and he took it away from them, using their own ideas, terminology, and even graphics. Make no mistake — he made the Sad Puppies his BITCH (And he’d damn well agree with that, cackling delightedly).
(Despite being totally awards-cuckolded by Teddy, Bwad and Lawwy are never gonna admit they completely lost control over this process to him. They think he actually likes them instead of seeing them as tools. Teddy doesn’t even think Mrs. Bwad is a human being!)
3. Others, including right-wingers, MRA’s, Gamergators, and those who either through ideology, or ignorance of those things the rest of us call “logical, consistent arguments supported with facts” went along.
(Juvenile language used deliberately to keep with the emotional level of the Pups. I calls ’em how I sees ’em, and I last sees this in kindergarten.)
TL;DR, Two guys had hurt feelings, one megalomaniac saw a chance to make money, and a bunch of tribal or uninformed people were conned into going along with it.
Let’s reel it back a bit, folks.
Lurkertype, that has recently been expressed to Larry on his own blog – much of it. And in a not unkind fashion. He really doesn’t respond well to it. It really is the puppys who declare that those awards determined by the Worlcon fans are the wrong type fiction and the Worldcon fan is the wrong fan having wrong fun. And then they throw in a few conspiracies about how there is a liberal cabal or a Tor cabal that pass awards back and forth.
My own view is there are no wrong fans or wrong fun (although puppies do seem to be Wright Fans and also right-wing fans). The fans of Worldcon voted what they voted in the past. If the puppies change the complexion of the fan base, it will vote that opinion in the future. Shrug.
I do hope E Pluribus Hugo passes so to cut down the freeping tactic. If it does, puppies will be represented in proportion to their membership but won’t be as able to wreak havoc. Consequently, they will drift away.
I avoided using names as our esteemed host wants to avoid being personal in this thread. I also think it helps if we avoid thinking about specific people 9who may/may not have behaved poorly) and think about the actions involved. Flip it the other way…”I won’t vote for that person’s work. They actively work for Move On.”…. just to think about things differently.
Which is the kind of response that is properly criticized when aimed at victims of far more serious and uncivilized behaviors; i.e. sexual harassment. “How often? What was said? Could you have taken it the wrong way? Sounds like you are a little oversensitive to me.” That sort of response would correctly get someone rhetorically crucified.
IMHO, had people responded appropriately to the original issues, then most of this would never have occurred.
Instead we have senior art directors disparaging a broad range of their company’s customers as well as authors that make their publishing house oodles of money in a fashion that can be politely described as “less than informed and modestly discourteous”.
Instead we have people praising the idea that readers should opt to totally exclude SW males from their SFF reading lists for some period of time.
That right there is enough for me. I read a lot of things by a lot of different kinds of people. Some I like. Some I don’t. But any judgement I make is based on the content of their work and not based on the author’s politics/gender/race.
FTR, none of Mr. Correia’s work seems attractive to me. But perhaps that is just poor synopsis preparation. I just can’t find anything that sounds better than the things on my nightstand or in my Nook.
Well, yes, there are folks on both sides of the issue that are behaving poorly. I try to be part of the solution for any problem. (Not always successfully, but no one bats 1.000.) Part of any solution is to acknowledge legitimate issues. Sort of like lancing a boil before it becomes a serious infection. Denying that any problems exist is counterproductive.
Credit where it is due. Places where an open discussion of the issues involved are rare. Whatever is one of those few places.
Dan 665 writes:
“Instead we have senior art directors disparaging a broad range of their company’s customers as well as authors that make their publishing house oodles of money…”
This turns out to be incorrect. She disparaged “A noisy few” who thought so little of Tor that they only nominated *one* work from that publishing house. It is true that she also disparaged some works that one or more authors who also write were not able to sell to that publishing house, but that really doesn’t say much about Tor customers, and certainly not a broad range.
Sorry, John. feels rush of wind as Mallet goes by