Ah yet another decrier of the puppies

This one is called Holding the Hugo’s Hostage. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa!!. Wait. Stop The Press, Hold the phone and put the brakes on already. “Holding the Hugo’s hostage?”  Uhmm Ma’am?  Do you not know the definition of Hostage? Here let me help ya out

A HOSTAGE is defined as A. : a person held by one party in a conflict as a pledge pending the fulfillment of an agreement
B. one that is involuntarily controlled by an outside influence.

So having put this information out there that states a person is a hostage, just how the fuck do  you hold an abstract thing or inanimate object…hostage?  Really?  Sheesh.   Sigh…as usual mine in italics the post being defiled, debunked, derailed,[pick another word. Go ahead…so long as it starts with D.] etc etc..in normal font.  Keep in mind the OP made her post on the 8th of this month. So it’s been several weeks.

The Hugo nominees were announced on Saturday. It is now Wednesday. In internet days, that’s about a decade. Enough for me to read through several 1000-comment threads about What Happened, to laugh, to cry, to be disgusted, to be angry, for my face to get stuck in permanent dropped-jaw mode. And to move from information gathering to a little analysis. Everything that can be said about how incredibly unpleasant this whole situation is has been said, so I won’t add my two WTFs to it. If you don’t know what I’m referring to, there are lots of places to read about it. I’ll sum up quickly. The following facts are not, as far as I know, in doubt:

Welll…technically it’s sunday at not quite O dark thirty. What’s the O stand for? O for crying out loud why am I up fisking this thing instead of crawling into bed and going to sleep?!  The answer being..damned if I know. Guess my bod ain’t ready for morpheus yet.  Wow several 1000 comment threads?  Meh…I’ve read any number of threads myself on this. The most I’ve seen is a couple to several hundred comments Depending on where it is, who wrote it and how much spread it’s getting in the social media gossip chain. How unpleasant this is?  *falls off chair laughing*  Lady..this whole unpleasant situation…has been in place for years. Some people finally got tired of it though and decided to speak out; and along the way…prove a point.

1. A group of writers led by, but not limited to, Brad Torgerson, Larry Correia, and Vox Day, pulled a swell little 1919 and told their followers to vote a straight ticket–a slate devised and approved by these writers. There were two slates with many works in common, the “Sad Puppies” led by Torgerson and the “Rabid Puppies” led by Vox Day. This is the third year this group(s) have done this, but the first that it has been so overwhelmingly successful. Due to many factors in the Hugo nomination process, this resulted in a nearly-swept ballot of approved authors and works.

Sigh.  Nooo…Larry and Brad specifically said there’s were “suggestions”   To actually READ the suggested works and if you liked them and thought them worth it…nominate them.  If you had something better than by all means put the work you like that isn’t on the list, up for nomination.   Oh and minor factual correction ma’am. It’s the SAD Puppies 3rd year.    For the Rabid Puppies this is the first year. As last year, Vox simply posted the Sad Puppies list on his site and added a couple more for good measure.  Clear? Goooood.  A little work with google, going to Vox’s page and going through his posts for that time of year would have told you that much, but…that don’t fit your narrative. Yep it was successful and ya’ll have been screaming “racist, bigoted, homophobic misogynists” at the top of your lungs ever since.

2. These writers are politically conservative, mostly deeply religious, and profoundly homophobic, sexist, racist, the whole nine. This is indeed the Vox Day who got kicked out of SFWA for using the official channel to harass N.K. Jemisin and call her subhuman. Though there are some exceptions, many of the works on the slate are also by writers of this political persuasion.

Blah Blah. Some of that is libel, provably so. Entertainment Weekly has learned this lesson the hard way. Popular Science was equally stupid.but because the person and people calling them out directly was Vox and his readers…don’t know that he made as much headway with PS as Brad and the rest did with EW, *checks the link* Nope…thaaat figures.  Oh and if you’d just done a little bit of research before running off at the mouth you’d have discovered there were people who were politically speaking…of your persuasion and centrists and so on. IOW people of all stripes. Which the Hugo’s claims to champion. ROFLOLOL
By the way..have you actually looked at the group photos of winners over the last whatever years?  Predominantly white, predominantly male, a good chunk elderly. Yet folks like yourselves are the champions of diversity?  smh. Some of ya’ll silly saps need to look up the definition of diversity in the dictionary. Because to quote the great literary genius Inigo Montoya “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”

3. The group is of the opinion that their work was being overlooked because of their politics, and that the Hugo ballots and winners of the last several years were only awarded due to leftist politics and the racial/sexual/gender identities of their authors, not quality. The tenor of the call to arms was explicitly and often resoundingly political–“this is your chance to hurt SJWs.” If you don’t know what an SJW is, I hope you’re enjoying your new computer. It stands for Social Justice Warrior, which to a normal person sounds like someone who fights for justice and cares about all human beings, and to conservatives like the devil himself. The implication that they then must support injustice seems to be lost.

They were being overlooked because of their politics. The calls for “no award” votes for anything on the Puppies ballot that might make it are staggering.  The unexpected “sweep” of folks from the Puppies list that made it onto the official ballot is as stunning as it is pleasing. The reaction of calls to only vote for those nominees that aren’t from the puppies slate without even bothering to read them, is not so pleasing and oddly…not really all that surprising.  Proving Correia’s original points when he started the campaign 3 years ago. Frankly ya’ll silly infantile twits are starting to bore me.

4. None of this is strictly speaking against the rules. It’s unethical. It’s almost laughably petty and mean-spirited. It’s most certainly against the spirit of the awards, which is why no one else has done it.And to an author of integrity, it’s a pointless act of bullying, because if you don’t compete against the best, an award is meaningless. But there is no bylaw that says not to cheat in this particular way.

Nope, not against the rules at all.  The only reason it’s a problem now is because well…thanks to the efforts of Larry, Brad and the Sad Puppies campaign?  Okay fine.  Vox and the Rabid pups too.  The Hugo voting pool has deepened and widened. Bringing in more participants than ever before. Bringing in yet more actually still.  Diluting the previous control, lean, predilictions, what have you; of the original inbred voting pool. Bullying?  Actually all the bullying I see being done by you folks. Shotgun style I might add so the innocent get caught in the crossfire with the willfully stupid and the “guilty”   Who are among the innocent were caught?  Well how about Annie Bellet who is apparently, ideologically speaking, a socialist. IOW she was in your camp politically, but because she was nominated by someone whose politics and opinions you despise?  *shrug* She saw the screaming hordes of the terminally stupid, the howls of faux outrage of the professional outragers and decided to get out of the way before the shotgun blast hit her dead on.  Choke on that irony, lady.

Two more which are being hotly debated:

5. Whether or not it was successful, there is no doubt that SP and RP attempted to reach out to GamerGate to drum up support for their plan, and that “hurting SJWs” was the rallying cry, not “support great science fiction.” When questioned on this, they have refused to respond. The extent to which they found comrades among that crowd isn’t clear. A slate is so inherently unfair that it doesn’t take many people to fix the outcome, so despite the crowd of GGers on my Twitter feed telling me I’m an idiot for thinking they were involved, only a handful had to jump on board to make a difference, and they absolutely went looking in the halls of GamerGate for that handful. Which is maybe isn’t that surprising, given GG’s history of harassment and horrific examples of human behavior.

Actually as has been stated repeatedly the only GamerGate’ers involved in this are Vox and a twitter friend named Daddy Warpig.  I don’t recall them calling on the gamergate community. The GG’ers iirc at this point, were summoned by folks like welll….like yourself.  How did you do this?   By arbitrarily  lumping the Sad Pups and the Rabid ones into the same pile as the GG’s  and insulting them. Slandering them…etc etc.  IOW you were gutted by your own sword.   Reap the whirlwind ma’am. Me  I’m gonna sit here laughing while you scream about it. 

6. I will probably get some heat for this. But the emperor is butt damn naked. This is not, and has never been, about getting quality science fiction with a conservative slant on the Hugo ballot. The ballot looks ridiculous. John C. Wright has three nominations in the novella category and six overall, a record. The vast majority of the works are published by Castalia House, a Finnish micropublisher barely a year old and owned, I’m sure coincidentally, by Vox Day. Wisdom From My Internet, nominated in the Best Related Work category, is neither science fiction, nor, strictly speaking, a book, (Edit: many things not books have been nominated in the category, let’s say it’s not an original work) but a collection of right-wing chain emails and one liners–which, among other works, edged the biography of Daddy Heinlein off the ballot. This is not what an organic ballot looks like. Big publishers can only dream of dominating awards in this way. No one can argue Wisdom From My Internet is the best SFF has to offer. It’s absurd on the face of it to say there was nothing better than this small clique of authors in 2014. That John C. Wright is, essentially, the greatest science fiction writer of all time. These are works by the friends, employees, and, perceived or actual, allies of Brad Torgerson, Larry Correia, and Vox Day. That is their chief, and in some cases only, virtue. (There are some works of some merit. But their merit seems to have been secondary to their ideological purity, especially with regards to someone like Jim Butcher, whose books feature sexist attitudes meant to indicate a flawed character, not a mission statement.)

Oh geez. Get off your high horse. I’ve tried to read Hugo nominees, mostly in the novels category, of the recent past. Emphasis on tried in a number of cases. It’s never been about getting quality “conservative” sci fi on the ballot, lady.  It’s about getting good quality fun reads on the ballots, period dot.  Politics of the authors be damned.  I have actually been  stunned to find out the actual political leanings of some of my favorites authors over the years.  Stunned because they put story before message and they are all..damn good story tellers.  Yeah yeah..Castalia house had a good run in this slate. So what? Do you have any idea how many wins authors from the house of Tor have had? Let alone the number of nominations?  No? Didn’t think so.  Also, just because Castalia managed to get a surprising number on the ballot [or the number of noms that John C. Wright got for that matter] is not necessarily a precursor sign that they’re all going to win. As stated before, here’s a breathtakingly simple concept. How about you actually READ the nominated works before passing judgement? Hmmmm

7. Some of the benefitting authors knew and approved of the slate, some did not, Torgerson claims to have sought consent from everyone, some say this is untrue. Some nominated authors have said nothing either way. Not all the information is in.

Brad and Larry are oddly, I think..Diogenes with his lamp.  Not a comparison I’m sure they’ll agree with, I know you won’t. However…to me it’s apt one. Heh “not all the information is in”. Ma’am that’s one of the few forthrightly honest, and intelligent things you’ve said in this entire stinking pile.

I think that’s about it.

You mean we’re near the end of this? Thank whatever benevolent deity you believe in, for small favors.  This is already gonna fill the wall on this here page. Oof.

I’ve been accused, as have many at this point, of only caring because of personal reasons. After all, I’m not on the ballot, so I must be crying tears of selfishness. Well, I barely had anything eligible this year and did not for a moment expect to be on the ballot, so that’s not even a little personal.

*shrug* that’s as it may be. However, many people involved from  your side of it, [most of them actually it seems sometimes] including yourself, are making it personal. Or did you think  hanging tags and slurs on them such as ” profoundly homophobic, sexist, racist, the whole nine.”   isn’t making it personal? You didn’t?  How odd.

But on the other hand, when these men talk about how horrible recent ballots have been, how they have no literary merit, how they are simply leftists voting for leftists regardless of quality, how the nominated works have been terrible, how they have ruined both science fiction and the Hugos for the Real Fans…well, I’m included in that. Since my first nomination in 2010 I’ve been nominated seven times, only missing one year. They are talking about stories I’ve loved and voted for as well as stories I’ve written. I’m part of the shit they want to clean up. I guess I should have been collecting chain emails all this time if I wanted to make real art. So it does take me aback on that level, because here I thought I was spending years working hard at my craft, when I was actually part of a leftist conspiracy to get nominations. (Which, if leftists could work together long enough to conspiracy? We’ d probably aim higher.)

Hey lady..I thought you said you were almost done? From where I’m sitting though…there’s still a fair piece left. sheesh.

What’s shocked me, through all of this, and disturbed me even more than the fixing of the Hugos itself, is that the Sad and Rabid and Otherwise Emotionally Overwrought Puppies seem to have wholly lost their grip on the English language. It’s deeply unsettling to watch writers denying that words have meanings. YOU GUYS, WORDS MEAN THINGS. IT IS YOUR JOB TO KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN.

Actually I suspect Larry, Brad and a number of others who have commented on this topic DO in fact have a better grasp of the english language.  I have doubts about yours sometimes as it pertains to this article though.

For example, one of the new acronyms for “people we don’t like” is, apparently, CHORF, which stands for Cliquish, Holier-Than-Thou, Obnoxious, Reactionary Fanatics. It truly floors me that people who are busy gathering their friends into a group that believes it is on the right side of God, calling names and yelling about how we need to go back to the old way of doing science fiction and colluding to fix an award can use that acronym for anyone other than themselves. The DICTIONARY DEFINITION of reactionary is: of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change. How can this possibly describe the Evil Leftists such Brave Puppies must fight against? You keep telling us you’re the best writers in the genre, and yet basic words and their meanings seem to elude you! And while I’ve been told over and over that the Wicked Lefty Clique I am apparently a part of does “the same thing,” all that ever seems to mean is a link to John Scalzi or Charlie Stross’s blogs, as though John telling people what he has eligible and then opening his comments for others to do the same, or Charlie saying his editor is eligible, is some kind of evidence. The word “slate” means something. You know it does. It’s monstrously disingenuous to pretend any kind of “Hi, I have a book eligible” is identical to blatant vote-fixing and ballot-stuffing. There is no “both sides do it” or rules would have been changed a long time ago, as they may be changed now. No one would be shocked if this had been going on all along. The last people who tried this were Scientologists. The very fact that the Puppies are accusing others of having conspired–admitting by implication that this is wrong–while absolutely having conspired themselves–but insisting this was right–gives me a migraine.

Hold it. Stop the press.  That’s the definition of reactionary? Hmm lets look at this. Fortunately I still have an old  Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary I keep to hand.  Here’s the ORIGINAL definitions of reactionary
1. of,pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction.
2. a person who favors or inclines to reaction.

And what’s the common  definition of reaction? Hmmm :  a reverse movement or tendency. action in response to some influence or event etc.

So yes…your side are in fact being ‘reactionary’ in response to the Puppies  reaction to your actions. Was that sentence redundant enough for everyone? Yes? Awesome, mission accomplished in that regard then.

Ah ah ah. Stop. Chillax for a minute.. Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect 200 dollars.  Larry, Brad and the rest IIRC never SAID they were the best. They simply said they and a great many others weren’t getting enough consideration because the awards are basically controlled by a small cabal.  A cabal who are putting stories that are message fiction, stories that slant and deliver the message they believe in,  over stories that are good stories that may or may not contain a message in and of themselves. Stories that the puppies  personally think are award worthy.  Point being the story comes first.  I suspect Larry is getting tired of repeating that last bit and frankly..so am I. It’s tiring  trying to repeatedly hammer that point through to people.
Why do you assume it’s not going on or it would have been changed long ago ma’am?  That’s an incredibly….naive view.    If it’s worked[and it has] for the other side for years.  WHY would they change the rules to prevent something that directly benefits them and gives them, for lack of a better word at the moment…control?  The answer is they wouldn’t!  It’s only now that the peons are starting to realize they have a voice in all this, that the anti puppies want to now change the rules.  Which isn’t too surprising a reaction actually. Irritating mind you, but not surprising.

I’ve repeatedly seen Brad Torgerson and Ken Burnside (a nominee but not an organizer) refer to the ballot as a “more inclusive” and “more diverse” ballot than recent years have offered. That…is not what inclusive means. It’s definitely not what diverse means. This ballot features one man in three out of five novella slots and six in total, one publisher in nine slots, and an overwhelming majority of white straight men. Even if you think all this is appropriate and excellent, you cannot call it inclusive or diverse without assaulting the English language. Let’s go to the dictionary! Inclusive: including a great deal, or including everything concerned; comprehensive! Diverse: of varying kinds, multiform, including representatives from more than one social, cultural, or economic group, especially members of ethnic or religious minority groups!

Actually that’s the most diverse ballot politically and culturally speaking I’ve seen and by your own posted and probably accurate definition.    Hell as I pointed out earlier one of your own politically ideologically speaking, got tossed in the way of the shotgun blasts by the liberal progressive [ie socialist] rage factory.  Pity. I think I’ll go check her story out anyway. The foaming at the mouth reactions of your side of the argument aside…I just might enjoy it. And why not? I enjoy  Eric Flint’s novels.  The man can write a good story. He’s a dyed in the wool socialist himself ya know.  Mr Flint wrote a nice piece about this whole kerfluffle and not too surprisingly I disagree with him on some points and agree with him on others. Problem is you refuse to see the diversity. Why? because the people promoting it, are your ideological opposites so…automatically wrong.

I suppose you could say “this list is more inclusive of myself and my friends, and more diverse in that myself and my friends are on it when we were not before” but that’s not what any of it actually means. It’s grotesque to defend oneself by claiming inclusivity and diversity when that is exactly what the unaltered ballots of recent years, the ones they hate so much, have given us.

Sigh…again are  the ballots in previous years any different by your own definition? Nope. Just they were YOUR friends not someone elses.  Yes some of the people on that slate are known personally by Brad or Larry. So what?  I’ll simply point out that genetically and ideologically  speaking the “slate” WAS diverse!  EVeryone in that list has differing opinions and mindsets.  Surprise surprise.

It’s a near intolerable amount of cognitive dissonance, and it betrays a deep confusion. The Puppies hate SJWs–those awful people who keep prattling on about inclusivity and diversity. So why in the world would they claim to support those things? Why not use some other word to describe the ballot they’ve made–strong, perhaps, or exciting?

Oh I don’t know that the Puppies  HATE SJW’s.    They pity you, hold you in contempt, disdain your ideals….etc. Frankly from where I’m sitting, the only ones truly suffering cognitive dissonance and spewing hatred  are on anti puppy  side[ ie your side] of the argument.

I suspect it’s because they know inclusivity and diversity are considered positive attributes by most people. Exclusivity and uniformity don’t sell. Despite their conviction that they are the persecuted majority, they know that no one wants to hear: we made a club so that we could be sure only people we approved politically and personally would be nominated. No one wants to hear: isn’t it nice how we’ve scrubbed the ballot of all those undesirables? Now it’s just us! What they did is unpalatable, and they know it. But now that they’ve gotten what they want, they need people to be happy about it in order for the award to have any meaning, and so they’ve grabbed the language of the enemy to praise themselves. Only it doesn’t work, because words have meanings. It’s a pretty classic conservative technique (see the fact that Social Justice Warrior now means a bad person), but it’s depressing–or perhaps hilarious–to see it used by individuals because they can’t face the consequences of what they’ve done. You guys spent ages telling us diversity was bullshit and inclusivity was a creeping evil. Why are you now telling us, with a sneer and a smirk, that you are their champions? What is wrong with you? It’s all so unfathomably dishonest and intellectually bankrupt I have a hard time believing any of these people put together a coherent novel at any point.

Blah blah blah, evil white males, blah blah blah, misogynist conservative bastards, blah blah blah. Seriously? that’s what I’m hearing in my head right now.

Puppies: if you truly believe that what you did was right and good and honest, if you believe you have struck a blow for virtue and excellence–be straight with us. Tell us that.

They did. Your  side put their fingers in their  ears and started humming real loud[like you yourself are doing right now ma’am] rather than listen.

Don’t try to paint over the mess you made by insisting you’ve done it all for the sake of inclusive, diverse happy kittens and rainbows. Conservative politics are supposed to be all about straight-shooting real talk. So just say you used your clique (and probably some others) to do something you believed in, no matter what the cost. You do not get to have your ballot and eat it, too. You did this. You have to face the consequences. You cannot tell the world that they should vote for you to strike back at women, liberal, people of color, and queer writers (and even worse–literary science fiction authors, the horror!) and then call yourselves diverse and inclusive.

The Sad Puppies didn’t try to paint over the mess they made. They simply pointed out the mess was already there and needed to be addressed.  Those on the anti puppy  side of the argument are denying the problem exists at all, when it does.  The Puppies campaign has been all straight talk and in public. Where as all the anti-puppies have been doing is running a slander campaign of provably false libelous statements against the “leaders” of the puppies and all who follow. Also in public and doing it more vociferously and in more places. There by acing on one of the prime principles of propaganda.  That principle being that if you repeat a lie often enough people will start to believe whether it’s true or not.

I don’t know what’s going to happen to the Hugos. I haven’t yet seen a suggestion for rule changes that would fix much of anything. I suspect that even the Puppies are embarrassed that their tampering is so obvious, but they won’t break ranks now. I suspect this will be the most awkward award ceremony in history. It seems strangely small potatoes, to pick a science fiction award as your battlefield to die on when it can have so little effect on the political world at large. Surely there are larger stakes when you see the world as one huge Us vs. Them. I suppose you have to start somewhere. Even Darth Vader did data entry for awhile. I don’t even know what I’m going to do–whether I’ll go to Worldcon, whether I’ll vote No Award.

At the rate the melt down of the anti puppies is proceeding…I expect the Hugo’s will be a burned out cinder of it’s former self before too long. OTOH something better than it is now..might rise from the ash pile.   I could be wrong though and the Hugo’s might survive with some changes made to number of nominees and number of categories.  I wouldn’t object to the latter actually, it was a good idea put forth by Eric Flint.
LOL The puppies stated what their intentions were from the beginning and did so publicly. Tampering my ass. They’ve brought more voters into the voting pool, more money into the Con’s coffers and more readers out of the darkness into the light. Where they’re finally being active over something they love. This is a bad thing?  Lady you need to look up the definition of “bad”.  Also it’s not so strange to pick a SCifi award as a battleground. Between opposing ideologies..the entire WORLD is at war. The award is just one campaign, one battle of many.  Dying?  Lady, no one is dead yet on this battleground.  Though some have been terrified into hiding by the crap coming from the anti puppies.  Yet the Sad Puppies continue their campaign..it’s for the sake children don’t you know?
*he says with tongue firmly planted in cheek*

But I would like to ask, for the sake of a language I love: however you vote this summer, when you see people using words to mean their opposite, when you see these attempts at kidnapping and rehabilitating language, if nothing else, call them out on that. If they want the ballot, that’s one thing, but they can’t just take English. The rest of us are still using it.

Oh I’ll go you one better. For the sake of the genre. READ THE STORIES AND JUDGE THEM ON THEIR OWN MERITS!  POLITICS OF THE AUTHORS BE DAMNED!  If you can’t do that. You’re a raging hypocrite.  That is all.

Edit:  Why did I waste 2hrs or so of my life on this when I could have spent it on something I actually enjoy? Say, bbq’ing, reading a book [currently rereading the Black Jewels trilogy by Anne Bishop by the way…fucking AWESOME] playing a game or watching a movie? good question. The answer? *shrug* why not?
Further note…4900 plus words?  Holy shit! Granted most of them belong to the OP of the vivisected article but daaaaaaaammmmnnn!!!

Original link: http://www.catherynnemvalente.com/holding-the-hugos-and-the-english-language-hostage-for-fun-and-profit/


3 thoughts on “Ah yet another decrier of the puppies

  1. Well done, sir. Well done indeed.

    The truth is, Cat Valente is the beneficiary of the system as it stands now, so her opinions about any flaws in that system should be suspect. It’s not like she’s holding up her seven nominations since 2010 as evidence of a flaw in the system. No, she’s using that as a reason to remind us that she’s insulted by our position.

    Well, get used to being insulted then, because it ain’t changing any time soon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s