Merged 2014 Hugo awards.

So, have those dedicated Sad Puppies naysayers listened yet to the podcast ? Have you taken the time to actually listen to what Brad, Sarah, and Kate have to say for themselves rather than what others have claimed they have said? Have you listened to it and found examples of them being sexist or racist?

Can't say I have and can't say I'm going to. But then again I don't go listening to Scientology propaganda videos talking about how great they are and how much they have helped people either. I'd rather examine their actions.

The Puppies actions have spoken for themselves.
 
I've been reading through this thread, but I still don't feel like I have a firm grasp on the controversy. It's hard to get a non-one-sided factual account. The Breitbart article was utterly unreadable. And the more mainstream articles spoke mainly in generalities (plus I've learned that mainstream articles can also be very untrustworthy on these types of stories). At this point I am leaning heavily against having any sympathy for the puppies, but I'm willing to learn more. Preferably without having to listen to a 2 hour podcast.

What, specifically, motivated the puppies to campaign for certain works to be nominated? What was their specific complaint or complaints with the Hugo awards?

If I understand the complaints against the puppies correctly, it's that they organized a bunch of people to vote/nominate for the Hugos in a certain way in order to push an ideological or political agenda rather than for the sake of literary merit. I also got the impression that a lot of the people they organized to vote aren't even necessarily sci-fi fans/readers. I'm not exactly sure what ideological agenda they are supposedly trying to promote or push against, though. I gather it's right wing ideas like military machismo/ruthlessness, "traditional" marriage, anti-abortion, patriarchal societal structures? Or are they just "neutral" works that they believe lack "liberal" agenda-pushing of some sort?


As an aside, I highly recommend Ursula Le Guin's introduction to The Left Hand of Darkness. It is a brilliant piece of writing about science fiction.

[...]

This book is not about the future. Yes, it begins by announcing that it’s set in the “Ekumenical Year 1490-97,” but surely you don’t believe that? Yes, indeed the people in it are androgynous, but that doesn’t mean that I’m predicting that in a millennium or so we will all be androgynous, or announcing that I think we damned well ought to be androgynous. I’m merely observing, in the peculiar, devious, and thought-experimental manner proper to science fiction, that if you look at us at certain odd times of the day in certain weathers, we already are. I am not predicting, or prescribing. I am describing. I am describing certain aspects of psychological reality in the novelist’s way, which is by inventing elaborately circumstantial lies.

In reading a novel, any novel, we have to know perfectly well that the whole thing is nonsense, and then while reading, believe every word of it. Finally, when we’re done with it, we may find—if it’s a good novel—that we’re a bit different from what we were before we read it, that we have been changed a little, as if by having met a new face, crossed a street we never crossed before. But it’s very hard to say just what we learned, how we were changed.

The artist deals with what cannot be said in words.

The artist whose medium is fiction does this in words.

[...]

(full text here)
 
Last edited:
I've been reading through this thread, but I still don't feel like I have a firm grasp on the controversy. It's hard to get a non-one-sided factual account. The Breitbart article was utterly unreadable. And the more mainstream articles spoke mainly in generalities (plus I've learned that mainstream articles can also be very untrustworthy on these types of stories). At this point I am leaning heavily against having any sympathy for the puppies, but I'm willing to learn more. Preferably without having to listen to a 2 hour podcast.

I'm going to post George Martin's reply Larry Correia's open letter to him. Correia is a primary figure of the Sad Puppies (the Rabid Puppies are another matter). I'm going to actually suggest not concentrating on Martin's replies (although they can be enlightening and historically important) but rather on Correia's words. You'll see his complaint.

In my opinion, it is a boatload of 'I wuz robbed!!!!'. Martin's replies put that into perspective but you almost don't need them.

For the record, Correia replied to Martin's reply. You can find it easily enough. Martin begged off further reply, stating what needed to be said was said. I agree, and most of it was said by Correia.
 
I'm going to post George Martin's reply Larry Correia's open letter to him. Correia is a primary figure of the Sad Puppies (the Rabid Puppies are another matter). I'm going to actually suggest not concentrating on Martin's replies (although they can be enlightening and historically important) but rather on Correia's words. You'll see his complaint.

That helps, although most of Correia's complaints are hard to assess, because they are non-specific and seemingly unsubstantiated.

Martin's replies put that into perspective but you almost don't need them.

I was impressed by GRRM's replies, nonetheless.
 
I've been reading through this thread, but I still don't feel like I have a firm grasp on the controversy. It's hard to get a non-one-sided factual account. The Breitbart article was utterly unreadable. And the more mainstream articles spoke mainly in generalities (plus I've learned that mainstream articles can also be very untrustworthy on these types of stories). At this point I am leaning heavily against having any sympathy for the puppies, but I'm willing to learn more. Preferably without having to listen to a 2 hour podcast.

What, specifically, motivated the puppies to campaign for certain works to be nominated? What was their specific complaint or complaints with the Hugo awards?

If I understand the complaints against the puppies correctly, it's that they organized a bunch of people to vote/nominate for the Hugos in a certain way in order to push an ideological or political agenda rather than for the sake of literary merit. I also got the impression that a lot of the people they organized to vote aren't even necessarily sci-fi fans/readers. I'm not exactly sure what ideological agenda they are supposedly trying to promote or push against, though. I gather it's right wing ideas like military machismo/ruthlessness, "traditional" marriage, anti-abortion, patriarchal societal structures? Or are they just "neutral" works that they believe lack "liberal" agenda-pushing of some sort?

You could learn about Sad Puppies 3 directly from Torgersen's blog. Go to the link below, hit "Older posts" until you get to the first one (January 2015), and read up to get the sequence of events from his POV.

https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/category/tornadoes-in-teacups/sad-puppies-3/

The Rabid Puppies were more problematic. They were led by Theodore Beale, who provided much of the racist, evangelist, freakshow component.
 
I'm going to post George Martin's reply Larry Correia's open letter to him. Correia is a primary figure of the Sad Puppies (the Rabid Puppies are another matter). I'm going to actually suggest not concentrating on Martin's replies (although they can be enlightening and historically important) but rather on Correia's words. You'll see his complaint.

In my opinion, it is a boatload of 'I wuz robbed!!!!'. Martin's replies put that into perspective but you almost don't need them.

For the record, Correia replied to Martin's reply. You can find it easily enough. Martin begged off further reply, stating what needed to be said was said. I agree, and most of it was said by Correia.
Not a bad blog for Not a Blog!!!!!!
 
PS, I remember the Eisensteins with fondness. Been way too long since I ran across them!!!!! (from the Blog mention)
 
<snip>
The Rabid Puppies were more problematic. They were led by Theodore Beale, who provided much of the racist, evangelist, freakshow component.

That Beale is a real piece of work. According to this article that appeared on io9, he has already trashed Neal Stephenson's well-reviewed novel, Seveneves, stating:

“I started reading Neal Stephenson’s latest novel, Seveneves, and it is truly depressing. Less because nearly everyone on Earth dies than because he appears to have gone full SJW [Social Justice Warrior] with a Gamma [male] sauce. It’s the first time I’ve found it necessary to force myself to keep reading one of his books, and the first time one of his books has struck me as being proper Pink SF. Female presidents, token ethnic melanges, you name it, he’s got it to such an extent that were it not for Stephenson’s past gamma [male] markers, I would almost suspect an epic, master-class trolling of the current genre.”

I question if he really read the book, as (and I most definitely have to use the "spoiler" tag here:)

The female president that appeared in the story is somewhat of a villain. First, she violated protocol by flying up to the evacuation fleet at the last minute (all the other world leaders had agreed to "go down with the planet.") Then when up there, she spreads enough dissent to trigger a significant mutiny among the fleet. The deaths resulting from that event was one of the reasons that at one point it appeared that the human race had been reduced to the "seven eves."

In fact, it was likely that the ONLY reason she was not thrown out of an airlock was that one of the other "eves" was beyond child-bearing age, and the others realized that they needed as many separate genetic lines as possible (if you are anti-GMO, or against human genetic manipulation, this is not the novel for you.:D)
 


How does one tell the difference between "intolerant SJWS" "burning down the fields" vs people annoyed at the idea slate-voting and expressing their displeasure via voting against the slate?

What, specifically, motivated the puppies to campaign for certain works to be nominated? What was their specific complaint or complaints with the Hugo awards?

Basically:

1) Science fiction should be fun and exciting, but recently what's been getting awards has been boring.

2) A group of liberals has secretly formed a voting bloc to nominate SF stories that have a liberal message.
 
How does one tell the difference between "intolerant SJWS" "burning down the fields" vs people annoyed at the idea slate-voting and expressing their displeasure via voting against the slate?

I'd say that'd be very difficult since the results generally followed the "Puppy Free" how to vote thing with the exception of Three Body Problem for best novella, which came top apparently because of Vox Day's/Rabid Puppies final how to vote thing, and Guardians of the Galaxy which from what I heard was a shoo-in regardless of any voting slates.
 
...

I am an avid science fiction consumer; I find the attempt to hijack one of fandom's major awards by a clique of lunatics, misogynists and bigots to push their dreck worthy of attention. And I find the way fandom has united to stop them both worthy of attention and approbation.

[portion only quoted]

With respect to rabid puppies, perhaps; with respect to the sad puppies, however wrong you may think they are it's unfair to call them that.

Also, I think their argument would be that the awards have already been hijacked - by those who want winning to be based on social commentary primarily rather than scientific speculation, quality of prose, excitement, interest, etc.
 
[portion only quoted]

With respect to rabid puppies, perhaps; with respect to the sad puppies, however wrong you may think they are it's unfair to call them that.

Also, I think their argument would be that the awards have already been hijacked - by those who want winning to be based on social commentary primarily rather than scientific speculation, quality of prose, excitement, interest, etc.

Re your second para - I agree they would argue that, but the evidence suggests otherwise - particularly in respect of the Rabid voting slate. Vox Day's material and that of his trivial publishing house (suspiciously well represented in the nominations) is pretty fracking ordinary - and that's being generous.
 
The Chicago Tribune recently ran an analysis of the Hugo Awards controversy. The final three paragraphs were especially interesting:

"The final irony in all this is that the Hugo Awards, while more diverse and international in recent years, have never really disdained the kind of adventure fiction that the Puppies claim to champion. I met the winning novelist, Cixin Liu, when he was in Chicago earlier this year, and he made it clear that his idols are classic writers like Robert A. Heinlein and Isaac Asimov. "The Three-Body Problem" itself concerns communications with an alien race, the Trisolarans, whose plan is to invade the Earth as a refuge for their own endangered civilization — surely one of the oldest plots in science fiction. John Scalzi, who became one of the chief targets of Puppy vituperation, is a white male who won the Hugo in 2013 for "Redshirts," a space opera adventure with knowing references to "Star Trek." Among the novellas bumped off the ballot this year by the Puppy slate was Nancy Kress' "Yesterday's Kin," a well-written tale that begins with an alien spaceship parking itself over New York harbor.

"The problem, I suspect, is that none of these works are only about revisiting these favored old tropes. Sometimes they satirize them (as with Scalzi). Sometimes they introduce political themes (as with Cixin Liu, whose novel opens with a harrowing account of China's Cultural Revolution). Sometimes they focus on character and family relationships (as with Kress). What seems to threaten the Puppies is not that science fiction has forsaken its origins (which it clearly hasn't), but that readers have come to expect more and to welcome different voices. The old-fashioned modes of space adventure and military science fiction still have substantial markets, but it's probably true that such works show up less on Hugo or Nebula award ballots than their supporters would like.

"There will always be readers in any genre who seek to celebrate the past, but awards — not always, but often — go to works that are seen as moving the genre forward in some way — they "ask the next question," as the classic science fiction author Theodore Sturgeon once put it. Women, LGBT writers, international writers, writers of color, all have made measurable progress in the past few years of Hugo voting — but many still find it hard to get published, or are expected to focus on certain kinds of fiction simply because of who they are. The outright rejection by Hugo voters of the Puppy slate — a few of whom, it must be said, might deserve recognition on their own merits — is not a rejection of a particular mode of writing, but of bullying and bad behavior — and, frankly, bad fiction — and of an almost desperate effort to unravel the progress that has already been made, and that is still far from complete."
 
From Cathy Young, posted on Rear Clear Politics: Mutiny at the Hugo Awards.

(The $64,000 question: Will it be ignored like everything that dares challenge the anti-SP narrative? Or will some exercise a little critical thinking and skepticism and realize there just might be more than one side to the story?)
 
From Cathy Young, posted on Rear Clear Politics: Mutiny at the Hugo Awards.

(The $64,000 question: Will it be ignored like everything that dares challenge the anti-SP narrative? Or will some exercise a little critical thinking and skepticism and realize there just might be more than one side to the story?)
No, it'll be examined, criticised and found wanting. As it has been.
The hysterical claims of "progressive authoritarianism" no more stand up to examination that those made by a lunatic conservative on this site. Likewise her apologism for Poxy ("It’s hard to tell to what extent Vox Day’s public persona is performance art played for shock" and her overarching and unsupported claims ("Given the tenor and frequent sloppiness of anti-Puppy critiques").


For anyone interested here is a projection of what the Hugos might have looked like free of being crapped upon by the puppyboys.
 
From Cathy Young, posted on Rear Clear Politics: Mutiny at the Hugo Awards.

Oh joy, you have dropped yet another pro-puppy article at our feet.

What does she have to say that the puppies haven't already said. I read it and found it very sorry. Here is why:

1) She characterizes it as a fight between 'factions'. No, really you can't call it that when there is one faction (in two parts) and everyone else.

2) Compares the reaction to the puppies as the 'Empire' (just like Milo!)

3) Tries to defend the puppies because they have a woman or two on their side

4) This woman obviously doesn't really get science fiction, yet wants us to side with the puppies.

5) She glosses over the sad puppies alliance with the rabid puppies, comparing it to Churchill allying with Stalin..gosh what does that make people who oppose the puppies?

(The $64,000 question: Will it be ignored like everything that dares challenge the anti-SP narrative? Or will some exercise a little critical thinking and skepticism and realize there just might be more than one side to the story?)

Or maybe, just maybe we have already read the words of the puppies themselves and found their motives and aims repulsive.

When you keep plopping down sloppy articles and insisting that somehow they must change our mind or we are close-minded you sound just like a truther saying debunkers are adhering to the 'official story'.

The puppies lost, not becuase of some swell of SJWs or Political Correctness but because people don't like what the puppies brought to the tablle, let alone how they did it.
 
In order not to seem like whiners and bullies, the Puppies needed to show that their high-handed interference with the Hugos was justified by some equally high-handed action on the part of a lib conspiracy that they claim holds power. This was not done, nor was any lib conspiracy ever shown to be real, so the attempted Puppy coup failed both conceptually and on the ground.

As hard as it is for some conservatives to imagine, everyone doesn't share their tastes, their values, or their paranoid ideations. This is the main lesson the Puppies could learn if they want to.
 

Back
Top Bottom