The Gang’ll Know I Died Standing Pat

Over the last few days, since Kate published the list of Sad Puppies recommends, we’ve been inundated both in email and in social media by people requesting, clamoring and whining to be removed from the list.  The eructations from these special snow flakes vary in levels of self-delusion and insanity and at least one was very polite.

The prize MUST go to Damien Walter of Grauniad fame for tweeting that he hopes Kate Paulk has deep pockets, to withstand all the lawsuits resultant from putting people on the list without asking their permission.

I know that poor Damien probably was born with rocks for brain (I apologize to any rocks I might be maligning) before he filled it with Marxist excrement, but seriously, kid, DO pull your socks up and try to keep up with those of normal intelligence.  What Kate did was collect recommendations for an AWARD — you know, something that publishers and writers in the past have shown they covet? — from fans of the writer and then use arithmetic — you know, that thing you slept through in first grade while collecting grievances and how people told you to pull your socks up? — to collate a list of recommended reading for those intending to nominate for the award.

If that’s actionable in your world, then your tweet is a walking libel case, and the things you grace the pages of Teh Grauniad with should see you flogged at Charing Cross — at least in more vigorous times.

And no, little Damien, this is not actionable either.  This is merely a statement of your actions and an inference of your intellectual capacity.

When you tell people who have actually been slandered in mainstream media and called racists, sexists and homophobes not only with no evidence but with contrary evidence, that RECOMMENDING SOMEONE FOR AN AWARD without “asking their permission” is actionable, you are suffering levels of delusion that most people are medicated for.  Either that or you lack the intellectual capacity G-d gave a goose.

Speaking of which, all of you, even the polite ones, who send me purple prose about how badly Brad Torgersen ran Sad Puppies IV and how he created an evil slate also make me doubt your mental capacity.  Seriously, guys?  A slate?  If you’d bothered to look at the numbers and had a minimum of arithmetic ability (did you also sleep through it in first grade, while dreaming of little Damien’s slights and grievances?  — Seriously, he really should pull his socks up) you’d have realized the only real slate was “no award.”  Sad puppies nominations and votes were not only not lockstep but all over the place. Because, you know, they were reading what was suggested and making up their own minds, instead of — like the other side — taking marching orders from their betters who told them to not even read and just vote no-award.

Also, and btw, if you’d bothered to read the definition of slate, you’d stop thinking it was some uber evil thing:

a fine-grained rock formed by the metamorphosis of clay, shale, etc., that tends to split along parallel cleavage planes, usually at an angle to the planes of stratification.
a thin piece or plate of this rock or a similar material, used especially for roofing or as a writing surface.
a dull, dark bluish gray.
a list of candidates, officers, etc., to be considered for nomination, appointment, election, or the like.

A list of candidates TO BE CONSIDERED.  I.e., in book terms, read them and vote for what you like.

In other words, what Locus publishes when it does its list of recommendation?  Slate.  What various names in SF publish every year?  Slate. And by this I don’t mean a dull dark bluish gray, except in the case of the lists published by some writers, which do tend to the grey goo.

So, where is that evil evil “vote lockstep” meaning in it?  Nowhere.  Were you so sure your “thought leaders” (who apparently have your thoughts on a little chain) were correct you never bothered to check the definition?  And you call yourself thinking adults?

Oh, well done.

A list, which Brad also compiled in public from recommendations suddenly became a magical and somehow evil “slate” that must be stopped at all costs, because some loudmouths with vested interests thought so.

And speaking of vested interests darling brainless ones: HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE YOU’RE SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER?

Over and over in the media — much of it the sort of mass media only a mainstream publisher can reach through their contacts — you talked about a cabal of powerful white, straight men trying to keep women and minorities from science fiction or at least from recognition in science fiction.

This took the sort of faith that used to lead people to convince themselves they’d seen street-corner sorcerers perform magic.  Seriously.

First if you’d bother to look at that evil recommends list, you’d have seen plenty of women and some minorities. At least before you browbeat some of them into public denunciations of the list and self-deleting. Most of this in public, btw.  Second, if you’d bothered thinking for two minutes, you’d have realized the Sad Puppies cohort consisted mainly of fairly new writers.  Yes, one is a bestseller, but he’s fairly new. He also publishes only with Baen, the publisher none of you wants into.

I think I’m the longest published there, and I’m a midlister, which in this field means I have no power of any kind, save the power to scream when I’m cut from a publisher’s list.  Also, last I checked I’m a woman and the federal government insists I’m Latina (at least some departments, but even for the census I fall in under Galician since Galicia extends to Portugal and the area my family comes from. And while that’s not a race group but a culture group let me assure you if I am out in the sun and mildly well as opposed to as ill as I’ve been the last few years,  I can still spot melanin to your entire side while remaining darker than average.)

Two other women on our side are INDIE published only (except for short stories) even though one of them makes a living at it. Oh, and while I’ve never looked up close and personal (we’re not that kind of friends) I have it on fairly good authority that they’re both women.  One of them gave birth to a kid, after all.

So tell me by what feat of insanity you think any of us — if we wanted to do that, which none of us do — could keep women or minorities out of the field?

I tell you who could: a major publisher, which can decide who gets published and not, and which can spend to buy memberships for its people so that they can vote lockstep for the awards.  (They probably expense it.  And they probably have some under-secretary deputized to make sure all the ballots are absolutely alike.)

You know, the same people who have been accusing us — people with no power in the field — of distorting and perverting the awards.  Those people.  The people with all the power.

But they told you that you were speaking truth to power and you believed them.  Or perhaps worse, you know they were lying, but you are so desirous of the benefits that power can confer on you that you’ll slander, lie and attack on command, knowing its a lie and wishing only to receive the benefits of that lie commanded by evil and self-interested people.

I can’t tell which is which: whether you’re dumb or conniving.  I’ll leave that for you to decide in front of your mirror every morning of the rest of your life.

I’ll only note you’re worse than the Soviets who condemned the Kulaks during holodomor, worse than the people on the street who mouthed the Nazi lies about Jews during WWII.  Why worse?  Because those people lived in fear of their lives.  They had to say what they did because they feared being next on the kill list.

But you?  You willingly go along with slanders and destroy reputations and attempt to destroy livelihoods for the sake of a plastic rocket.  To coin a phrase:  It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … but for Wales, Richard?

One of you I knew to be insane since an unprovoked orchestrated attack years ago, but the rest of you (Damien excepted. Damien is just funny) I had some respect for, ranging from lots of it to residues.  Now I don’t.

Depart from us in peace.  Go lick your chains and cavort before your masters at their command.  Relish the slavery you purchased so dearly.

As for us, we shall make some note you requested removal, in some way that YOU insult the fans who went through so much trouble to nominate you and who up-voted your work enough times to get it on our list.  We won’t insult them for you.

Until Kate returns from Lunacon that’s the only answer I’m willing to give you. And it’s more than courtesy demands, since I know you’ll take no answer but what comes from those who hold your thoughts captive.

Someday maybe you’ll wake up and realize what you’ve done.  On that day may you be able to forgive yourselves.

738 thoughts on “The Gang’ll Know I Died Standing Pat

    1. Don’t be too hard on him. He’s doing the world a favor by sucking up excess stupidity that could contaminate someone decent.

    2. DW has obviously passed peak stupidity and achieved negative intelligence: his every utterance reducing the supply of intelligence in the world.

      There is one appropriate reply to his threats to have his lawyer take up this tort of “recommendation without permission”: “And I will take it up with mine – Lawyer Daggett. And he will make money and I will make money and your lawyer will make money… and you, Mr. Damien Walter, you will foot the bill.”

      1. Arguably, the UK taxpayer will foot the bill, if indirectly, via those subsidies he’s getting for his work.

        Yeah, I’m sure that gives those SPs in the UK all sorts of warmfuzzy feelings. 😛

        1. In Googling for the precise phrasing of that quote I searched for “Lawyer Daggett” and discovered there is a local law firm, Daggett Shuler, comprised of attorneys (among others) Griffis C. (Griff) Shuler and David D. Daggett. Appropriately, they bill themselves as a personal injury law firm.

          Were I more flush I would put them on retainer just so I could threaten miscreants with Lawyer Daggett.

            1. “Back in 1871, firm founders Richard “Dickie” Dewey and Chester Cheatham joined together to lay the foundation of our firm. The two met while assisting a number of individuals seeking benefits as Civil War veterans. Despite government claims that their clients had never served in uniform, Dewey & Cheatham were able to secure substantial pensions for all of their clients in a precursor to modern-day class action lawsuits, as the government sought to avoid the expense of litigating each claim.”

              Oddly, the Consumer Financial Protection Racket Bureau has adopted this practice, insisting that automobile finance companies found by disparate impact studies to have conceivably discriminated against minorities must pay penalties to Caucasian car-buyers whose names kinda-sorta sound like they might be minorities.

              1. N.B. — the practice cited above has the great benefit of not requiring actual proof of any thing as mundane as mens rea, the accused’s guilt being assumed and any effort of theirs to “prove” their innocence is more evidence of their culpability.

              2. Back about 15 years or so there was a real law firm by this name — as I vaguely recall, two of the partners had appropriate names so they just tacked on the third to complete the set. Well, at least they had a sense of humor. 🙂

      2. “If that’s actionable in your world, then your tweet is a walking libel case, and the things you grace the pages of Teh Grauniad with should see you flogged at Charing Cross — at least in more vigorous times.

        And no, little Damien, this is not actionable either. This is merely a statement of your actions and an inference of your intellectual capacity.”

        “you, Mr. Damien Walter, you will foot the bill.”

        Unfortunately for Kate, and Sarah, that’s not what is likely to happen. Instead, they will pick a reliably blue state, like, oh, Massachusetts, and TNH / Tor / Scalzi will covertly fund pro se (self filed) lawsuits by various authors that weren’t removed over the next couple of years. Odds are they will stack on civil RICO since you are obviously a conspiracy.

        Assuming you can afford the travel to the state where the case is filed, you might manage to win all of them even with blue state juries / judges, but you will not get legal fees and court costs since we don’t have loser pays. This is precisely the tactic that drove Sarah Palin to resign as governor, except that Alaska had an ethics law they could use on her. The term is lawfare, and the process will be the punishment.

        1. They can file in the blue state; there’s nothing in the law that will necessarily keep it there. If you can show that the District has no rational jurisdiction in the case, then you can have jurisdiction moved.

          1. Yep, theoretically it can. How many lawyer hours will that take?

            Again, it isn’t about the winning, it’s about the pain of the process.

            1. People who think that is a way to win, and they often do, keep at it while pushing those they are beating closer and closer to alternative action.

              In the Plastic Rocket game it won’t spill over but in other realms it is starting to do so. Once it spills in enough places it will spill everywhere.

    3. He seriously is a black hole of stupid. A vortex so fast, that it sucks up everything it encounters, like a garbage disposal of lunacy.

    4. The really amazing thing about this is that he’s never written a book, is taking government money to write a book (which he seemingly can’t finish) and yet has the gall to lecture published authors on whether or not they’re sufficiently authentic writers.

    5. Clearly, they fear the puppies, for they might just get licked to death, with a side of doggie breath. The HORROR!! The horror…

    1. That was a brilliant comment, perfectly summing up every substantive thing that has been said so far. I’m so…will the community forgive me if I say that I’m so mooved?

      1. The Spouse commented, “And we shall not steered.”

        My head sings: ‘We shall not, We shall not be mooved!’

          1. “Truth, Sir, is a cow which will yield such people no more milk, and so they are gone to milk the bull.”

        1. Naw, I figger I gotta shank somebody over dis, I just gotta figger out moo. Uh, who.

          1. I veal this “cows with puns” thread has butchered the language enough already. I’m primed to have a few choice words with someone about it.

  1. In a sane world, Damien would be working the checkout line at a Tesco’s (since the UK doesn’t have Wally Worlds) instead of wasting his actual employer’s time and money. Alas, we don’t live in a sane world, and the socjus bullies are but one example of that.

    They won’t be happy until they get somebody killed for the sake of their plastic rocket. Preferably one or more of us, for having the temerity to stand up to their BS.

    1. To be fair, there’s probably not much competition for the job he already has.

        1. And I’ve got chickens, so I’m all set. (Yes, really – three of them. We call them the Three Chicken Stooges: Larry-Bird, Maureen and Carly.)

            1. There are three of them, my daughter wanted to call them Larry, Moe and Curly, but I pointed out that they were laying pullets, so it would have to be Laureena, Maureen and Carly … but it turned out that one was a rooster, Hence “Larry-Bird.” It seems that sexing Barred Plymouth Rocks as chicks is not an exact science.

                1. Because sexing chicks takes approximately three seconds per, and trying to keep all the tests and chicks matched up for doing it the other way would likely result in more errors, rather than fewer.

      1. “How will this end?”

        ‘O Oysters,’ said the Carpenter,
        ‘You’ve had a pleasant run!
        Shall we be trotting home again?’
        But answer came there none —
        And this was scarcely odd, because
        They’d eaten every one.

        Goo goo g’joob.

      1. “…To quote: Item Sixteen, the severed head of the Tir Dal Ron on a silver platter. In no metaphorical sense. End quote.”…”

        1. The B5 story i would most like to see filmed is the fall of centauri prime from the books. Vir’s transition is great.

        2. At DragonCon 2000(?), the B5 track had a panel; with Ed Wasser and Stephen Furst on it. For some reason, Stephen had to cancel and Ed was the only one who showed up. He got introduced, stood up, said, “OK, let’s get right to it.” and did Vir’s little finger wave as the audience broke up.

          Then he looked around and asked, “Where is Vir?” and some smart ass told him “Vir’s in the dealer’s room; one of the weapons dealers is running a sale on pikes.”

  2. And the Puppy-kickers will read this and say “Ah-ha! You ADMIT that your recommendation list is really a slate!”

      1. Does it stand between the candle and the star? The darkness and the light? (Er, or should I go upthread for the B5 references?)

              1. This Dragon isn’t a fool. I’m not going to Zha’ha’dum unless I have help from a First One (preferably the First Dragon). 😀

                  1. ::A Certain Male Dragon Gives Patrick A Stern Look::

                    I hope that you don’t intend to collect my balls. 👿

                    1. No, it’s something from an anime series called Dragonballs. They’re magical spheres that when gathered can be used to call upon a great dragon who will grant one wish.

                      It’s also the source of the “It’s OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!!” meme. 😉

                    2. A minor inquiry of Herr Chester: Are you perhaps the pat she died standing? Are you that hard to stand?

                    3. Sigh.

                      Try to make a joke and he misses it.

                      I know about Dragonball.

    1. And it probably would not make good roofing material, or an old-school chalkboard (or blackboards, as they were called then. Your local museum might have one, kids.)

        1. And the table would be useless in tornado season.

          Yes, if you do not have a basement, you hide under the billiard table, because nothing less than an F-5 is going to move it. Roof caves in? Pool table will still be there (Omaha, 1975).

  3. “Speaking Truth To Power” is nonsense when “you” are more powerful than those “you’re” speaking against.

    Of course, it’s really really nonsense when you’re speaking Lies and/or Garbage instead of “Truth”.

      1. That too. But they fantasize that they are some how doing great deeds while attempting to suppress those who dare to stand up to the power.

        1. Much safer that way. Also less danger of doing anything and so having to go on to new issues or worse having to live a life.

      2. They’re speaking power to themselves. It’s not about us. It’s about those in their own ranks who are insufficiently committed to the Narrative.

      3. Some people are talking here as if there might be some grounds for Kate to be sued, but you have to have some precedence, it has to have been done before. There are centuries of solid law that a critic cannot be sued for saying a work of entertainment is bad, how are people to be sued for saying a work is good?

        1. Charles, please Google “The Process is the Punishment” and educate yourself on the current legal environment.

          It doesn’t MATTER if they have an actual legal case. The point is simply to force her to spend money and time in the legal process.

          1. Yes, consider Mark Stein and Michael Mann. Mann sued, and for 5 years they have been stuck at the ‘discovery’ phase because Mann realized he would have to produce his bogus data.

    1. Drak they are speaking power to those not in positions of temporal power and fantasize to themselves they they are wonderful for doing that.

      I note our hostess and her friends do not allow themselves to be oppressed and victimized because they don’t roll over for it and wave their paws in the air screaming for safe spaces.

  4. But the most galling comment came from lurkertype over at File 770:

    “I also predicted the Sads would use Kate for bear food, and they have. Not a word from Brad, Larry, or even her “co-bitch” Sarah who was supposedly shoulder to shoulder with her this year. They’ve cut her loose, probably so they can blame the whole fiasco on her. AND they’re making her run the Worldcon safe space for Puppies.”

    lurkertype: If you think this of us, you don’t know us. At all.

    1. Well, I’ve been moving and packing in rather a hurry due to crazy landlord. Brad is deployed and Larry said LAST YEAR that he was washing his hands of the whole thing. Idiots.

      1. But… but… they’re yanking the strings as hard as they can, and you’re just not cooperating at all.

        Too bad they didn’t notice the nice sharp scissors…

      2. Sarah they don’t know what having a life is. Thus they huddle around and make themselves feel virtuous by speaking power to truth.

      3. Last post of Amanda’s I saw suggested she was having some distractions at the moment.

      4. Sarah, lurker is offering you and Kate a perfect chance to play the Female Victim Card. You can both come out about how the Evil Penis People made you do Sad Puppies — even though you were adamantly against it — and then we cut you loose in space, to drift cold and alone to your doom. Because that’s just how Evil Penis People roll. We make you do our Evil Penis People bidding, then we drop you like a sack of hot cow manure. This is your big chance! If you act now, they might let you and Kate sit at the kids’ table! Never the big people table, of course. You’re both branded for life. But they will let you be at the kids’ table — so you can pretend like you might one day get promoted to where the adults of the genre get to talk shop. How can you resist the golden opportunity? 😉

          1. No objective standard required. Those who are with us are Good, and those who are against us, are Evil.

        1. Mosler is/was a Safe/Vault making company for banks. Can’t remember if it’s based in SW Ohio like Hamilton Safe or relocated (I seem to remember both companies being in Butler County, Ohio, where I was born).

          Sometimes I think that the SJW safe spaces are their product, only without the legally required vents to allow oxygen in. There’s obvious brain damage from where they’ve shut themselves in so many times…

    2. The very concept that Kate the Impaler would get thrown from the sleigh shows a truly tsarist disdain for reality-as-we-know-it.

      Of course they might have trouble getting their heads around the idea that Kate doesn’t need an entire support group to travel with her and guard her from badfeelz.

      1. To be fair, she’ll need a few people to provide witnesses when she’s at WorldCon, in case someone attempts harassment.

      2. I actually find it a bit amusing how the people who are so big on “empowered women”, believing that they don’t need men in their life, think that women can’t speak on their own behalf or otherwise defend themselves without backup from the Right Minded People(tm).

    3. Heh. That’s hilarious. Kate Paulk can only be used for bear-food, if there are, dontcha know, actual bears.

      I hope you got a screen cap of that one: It’s useful when accidental honesty breaks out.

  5. Wanna really piss Cat Valente off? Call her a cool kid.

    I knew Penguicon had gone over to the dark side when they invited both her and Ann Leckie to be GoHs. We’ll see how SJW-infested it is this year…and my decision about whether to go next year will hinge on the answer.

    1. Ms Valente is an author who doesn’t even know what the word reactionar means. I wouldn’t expect too much from that source. All fur coat and no knickers.

  6. It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … but for Wales, Richard?

    I understand that Wales is quite lovely, even if its place names can strain a giraffe’s larynx. I am sure that living there would be quite soothing to one’s soul.

    1. And never forget that classic line by Miles. “The one thing you can’t trade for your heart’s desire is your heart.”

    2. There’s probably a fat-shaming joke to be made from that line by adding an H appropriately. But that would be mean so I won’t make it, even though it would seem to describe quite a few CHORFs

    3. It’s a line from “A Man for All Seasons” by Robert Bolt, play and movie. There was some issue in Wales, he didn’t mean the whole country.

      1. Actually, it was that Rich has been appointed crown attorney general for Wales in exchange for perjured testimony against Sir Thomas More.

  7. “Innundated”? There aren’t enough people on the list to “innundate” you. (Because more people didn’t nominate, duh.)

  8. “They’re speaking power to truth.” Great line.

    The behaviour your post looks at is a fine (if that is the word) example of “moral” tribalism trumping reason — hence the fear of Sad Puppies cooties. And, of course, the use of boo words to block evidence and subvert reason; postmodern progressivism yet again demonstrating that the allegedly Post-Enlightenment is just the Counter-Enlightenment rebooted. (The post where I discuss that includes a nice long quote from you, thanks again for that.)

    1. There is a theory he also ignored his reading teacher in first grade, because he told Damien to pull up his socks, which as we all know is a macro aggression ELEVENTY.

    1. Yep, that was my first thought on seeing the title, too. But for listening, I prefer Josh White’s Free and Equal Blues – seems a bit more hopeful.

    2. Artie Shaw’s is good, but for me the definitive version is Cab Calloway’s,

      Rotoscoped here by the Fleischer Studio.

      1. Great cartoon. There are also several good recordings and live performances on line by Van Morrison.

        1. This is a particularly nice rendition …

          There are also fine covers by Arlo Guthrie, Eric Clapton & Dr John, Allen Toussaint, Hugh Laurie, Janis Joplin, Joe Cocker, The Doors, and, of course, the Preservation Hall Jazz Band.

          Readers of a certain vintage fondly recall the song’s association with Henry Kuttner’s Proud Robot.

    3. I learned it singing along with (an LP of) the Kingston Trio. There’s other verses I’ve heard done live that add a bit more, hmmm, cultural context to the ballad. But this being a PG-13 blog . . .

  9. I can understand why certain people might be upset they appeared on the SPIV list; they’ve now been associated with the uber-horrible group and will get castigated and/or thrown out of the cool-kids clique. And that has to be terrifying to them.

    1. I’m sure that the Puppy Kickers will be appeased if she merely disembowels herself in public. They’ll even let her have a friend to cut off her head after she’s made the ritual cuts!

  10. But the Locus recommendation list is okay, right? Because Catherynne Valente is on that three times and I don’t hear her repudiating them.

    1. In fairness, I’ll note here that Valente has backed off of her outrage and posted a blog entry that says that, as long as it’s a recommendation list and not a slate, she has no objections to it. She says her initial outrage was from not being asked if she wanted to be on it, in the belief that authors would be asked; once she read the post and said that nobody was asked, that made her feel better.

      1. It boggles me mind to muse ‘pon the idea that anybody would think “a slate” had any power to move voters.

        As for recommendations … well, I’ll stop recommending books when I’m dead, and if you don’t like what I recommend don’t read ’em. When Damien Walters achieves his goal of making it a crime to recommend books only criminals will recommend books.

        Perhaps their aim is to only permit licensed recommenders to recommend books? Can’t have the unwashed masses running ’bout, touting books — that’s how things like book clubs get committed!

        1. Recommendations… Is Amazon next on his list? Now that would be an interesting – if extremely short – court battle.

        2. I don’t know, anyone who asks to be removed is saying to me, “Never recommend my books” and, even if I like said book, I’ll respect the author. If she makes less than other people who right books I enjoy and aren’t uptight about my telling people I enjoyed them that’s her problem.

          Although if she complains about her lack of income I might point out she asked people not to recommend her and thus what does she expect.

          1. You’re too nice. My response would be, “Nope, I like your books and I’ll recommend them to anyone I want to. It’s really none of your business, except maybe to say you’re happy people of all kinds like what you do.”

            1. I’m all for putting a statement of some sort saying as bluntly as possibly that the author was too stupid to say “Thanks for liking my work” and apparently doesn’t want anyone reading their works, and then leaving everything in place.
              I think this is where the previous SP lists have gone wrong. Except for Larry’s “I really don’t want it to be about me being on the list” or Jason’s “I won’t accept the award”, I think all the others should have been told “Too bad, we like the book/story/work, and it stands as is. Though your stance will be noted.”. Heck, come to think on it, I’d do the same thing to Jason, and as Larry has proved his points (in spades … a deck full of spades), he no longer gets to beg off … especially as it was a vote on “who have you read/seen/heard/watched, do you think we should nominate?” (wow, ain’t that like what the award is actually, you know, supposedly, is in reality? “Hey! These books are pretty good, vote for what you think is best!”)

              1. Heck, the author doesn’t even have to go that far. If they just ignored it and didn’t even mention the list it wouldn’t be like they were endorsing any viewpoint. The closest thing to an SP endorsement they would be doing, would be cashing the checks Puppies paid them for their books.
                And somehow I doubt the Puppies would be tremendously upset about an author not acknowledging their lists.

            2. Given the number of people I know who buy books when I do (including ordering via Amazon as we talk) it I wouldn’t consider excluding you from the list nice.

              It generally means I won’t bother to buy you in the future as well. I wouldn’t want you to be embarrassed if people see me reading your books (waves at Dr. Reynolds).

              Jim Butcher more and more appears to be the smarter writer out there.

      2. It seems to me that a logical person would say something like “Hey look I’ve been nominated by Locus and by the SPs, cool beans looks like I might get a Hugo because people like what I wrote”

        Apparently though, if the wrong people nominate you that’s unspeakably bad and so you shouldn’t accept their praise. Even though the nomination suggests that more than one person you dislike spend their money to buy your product. Clearly it is better to be pure and unsullied than have beans on the table.

        It’s OK from now on I’ll never nominate a work by Cat Valente because from now on I shall never read a work by Cat Valente, let alone purchase it. If she doesn’t want to be polluted by my filthy lucre then $deity forbid that I do so.

        1. That’s what makes me blink, too. This is the Hugo Award. This is the award that [terrified authors] would dearly love to win, but only if they are nominated by the Right Kind of Fan? (TM)

          That said, the reaction by some people has been so vicious that in the unlikely event I made the top ten or so, I’d already made some damage control plans for work, in case someone decided to track me down and tried to raise a fuss there.

          1. I know, right? All I can do is a bad Jake Gittes imitation and say, “Forget it Jake … it’s Chinatown.” (Or whoever it was said that in Chinatown. Long time since I saw that movie.)
            I’m kind of glad to be self-employed, at this point; Anything the Puppy-Hating Scum can do to a Friend of the Puppies would only be free materiel and exposure for me.

            1. Also, another apropos quote (that I will now intentionally mangle):

              They’re even dumber than they think we think they are.

          2. As an intellectual exercise in the exceedingly unlikely, I too have considered — what if the Most Wrong People Who Shall Not Be Named were to put my work on their shortlist?

            And the most I can come up with is bemusement (and “okay, they have good taste” 😀 ). Forces that actually have weight in the Real World[TM] have already done their worst to me; the slings and arrows of fandom? Ha. Free advertising.

            1. Yes, seriously. Beyond “wow, even so and so can be right once, maybe by accident” what is there to say? And why?

      3. There’s nothing to be fair about. She did her virtue signalling by being outraged, and that post was a transparent attempt to not completely alienate the people who recommended her for nomination.

      4. She was already on my “do not buy under any circumstances” list due to her over-the-top puppy-kicking histrionics last year.

        “These writers are politically conservative, mostly deeply religious, and profoundly homophobic, sexist, racist, the whole nine.”

        This year’s public meltdown just served to confirm that decision.

        1. (Scratches head) Is that entire sentence meant to be insulting? Because I think it is, and I’m not sure why the first two traits she listed are inherently bad.

          1. Yes. Of course, it’s not even remotely true. I’m politically libertarian, not particularly religious, and have more melanin in the parts of me that rarely see sunlight than Catherynne Valente has in her entire body.

        2. Deeply religious”?
          profoundly homophobic, sexist, racist”

          Does that women even think about what her adjectives mean? Can she define “deeply” in context of religious faith? Does she not recognize that homophobia, sexism and racism are the opposite of profound?

          Of course she has no evidence in support of her assertions — they are a profound expression of her deeply held biases, her preconceptions, her bigotry.

          1. I’m not sure I count as “deeply” agnostic. Maybe I should run around from church to church and shout “YOU DON’T KNOW!1!!” and do the same to any atheist I come across? 😉

            1. So you’re a bit like Joe Haldeman’s definition of an Aggressively Agnostic?
              “There might be a God, but he isn’t anyone I’d invite to dinner.”

              1. Nah, I was trying to think of how to be “deeply” agnostic and probably strayed into “obnoxiously” agnostic instead. Oops.

                1. I am not sure they grok the difference between being deeply and being obnoxiously pro something.

                  For that matter, I suspect for most of them anything beyond the first sixteenth of an inch constitutes deep.

        3. “These writers are politically conservative, mostly deeply religious, and profoundly homophobic, sexist, racist, the whole nine.”

          Which is of course a combination of half-truths of non-evil traits (why is it evil to be “conservative” or “religious,” and it’s still a half-truth since some SP’s are atheists or agnostics, and not all are conservatives) and lies about evil traits (it’s fairly clear that the SP’s aren’t homophobic, sexist or racist). And if Cat really does know a lot about the fan community, then she KNOWS SHE LIED).

  11. One would think they would simply be happy that a bunch of people read their work and liked it enough to nominate it for an award. But no. These pernicious shit wits are so entitled, that they actually demand that only the RIGHT kinds of fans like them! Are they really so successful that they can afford to reject readers?


    1. Remember, they’re not working writers, they’re Ah-tists.

      Well, in fairness, some of them probably are working writers, who are worried that they’ll be blacklisted from TradPub and the Leftist small press. The fact that the SPs make up more of the reading public is easy to miss if you hang out in those circles.

  12. It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … but for Wales, Richard?

    Ah! A Man For All Seasons! The magnificent Paul Scofield version directed by Fred Zinneman won just about every award in sight. Love you for quoting this, Sarah.

      1. That points up a critical distinction between conservatives and liberals: one faction emphasizes process while the other obsesses over results.

        On this, the tenth anniversary (more or less) of the Duke Lacrosse rape case, the distinction between the twain ought be clear.

        Nifong conducted frequent media interviews after the story went national—Fox News, CBS, MSNBC, Newsweek—describing players as uncooperative and worse, and assuring their conviction as part of his primary election campaign. What he didn’t do was talk to the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, about her story. How closed off was he from alternative theories of the case?

        “We tried to convince him that we had a story to tell ourselves. Mr. Nifong put his hands over his ears and said I don’t want to hear it,” said Wade Smith, attorney for accused player Collin Finnerty.

        “He literally put his hands over his ears,” said Jim Cooney, lawyer for accused player Reade Seligmann.

        Seligmann’s mother Kathy added: “You don’t speak to the accuser and you don’t speak to the accused, but you’re positive something happened?”

        The facts are irrelevant to their quest for Cosmic Justice™.

        1. “That points up a critical distinction between conservatives and liberals: one faction emphasizes process while the other obsesses over results.”

          You are being far too generous. One faction emphasizes process, while the other obsesses over intentions.

        2. Seligmann’s mother Kathy added: “You don’t speak to the accuser and you don’t speak to the accused, but you’re positive something happened?”

          Of course something had happened. The question was what it was that had happened.

          Nifong made no effort to ascertain what that actually was. As time has passed it has become apparent that he probably studiously avoided any possible information that did not suit him.

          Instead Nifong latched on to a spectacular story, riding it for all it was worth, until it broke down, taking him with it.

  13. Either that or you lack the intellectual capacity G-d gave a goose.

    Geese are extremely ornery, quite stubborn and thoroughly obnoxious …

    1. Not to mention that they freely poop all over anything they come near without even the first thought, let alone a second one.

          1. Well, I respect the aquatic fowl more as if I stay away from them, they won’t seek me out. 😈

          2. They are both aggressive species that see backing down as a sign of weakness. The only way to gain respect with them is to punch back twice as hard.

            1. You can about guarantee that one has spent time swimming in a sewage treatment facility, the other one lives there.

        1. That’s what I was getting at, playing off of the post by CACS.

          And “intellectual turds” is a literal description. I’d credit them with more intellect than him.

  14. Cut Kate loose as bear food? HA! Kate could run circles around Isabel.

    Adventures Of Isabel (Ogden Nash):

    Isabel met an enormous bear,
    Isabel, Isabel, didn’t care;
    The bear was hungry, the bear was ravenous,
    The bear’s big mouth was cruel and cavernous.
    The bear said, Isabel, glad to meet you,
    How do, Isabel, now I’ll eat you!
    Isabel, Isabel, didn’t worry.
    Isabel didn’t scream or scurry.
    She washed her hands and she straightened her hair up,
    Then Isabel quietly ate the bear up.
    Once in a night as black as pitch
    Isabel met a wicked old witch.
    the witch’s face was cross and wrinkled,
    The witch’s gums with teeth were sprinkled.
    Ho, ho, Isabel! the old witch crowed,
    I’ll turn you into an ugly toad!
    Isabel, Isabel, didn’t worry,
    Isabel didn’t scream or scurry,
    She showed no rage and she showed no rancor,
    But she turned the witch into milk and drank her.
    Isabel met a hideous giant,
    Isabel continued self reliant.
    The giant was hairy, the giant was horrid,
    He had one eye in the middle of his forehead.
    Good morning, Isabel, the giant said,
    I’ll grind your bones to make my bread.
    Isabel, Isabel, didn’t worry,
    Isabel didn’t scream or scurry.
    She nibbled the zwieback that she always fed off,
    And when it was gone, she cut the giant’s head off.
    Isabel met a troublesome doctor,
    He punched and he poked till he really shocked her.
    The doctor’s talk was of coughs and chills
    And the doctor’s satchel bulged with pills.
    The doctor said unto Isabel,
    Swallow this, it will make you well.
    Isabel, Isabel, didn’t worry,
    Isabel didn’t scream or scurry.
    She took those pills from the pill concocter,
    And Isabel calmly cured the doctor.

    1. Read by Mary Eberstadt,

      at the 24 minute mark.

      WARNING: This video is an enormous time sink of delightful poems for children.

    2. is not KATE THE IMPALER also known as
      oh crap here she comes, run.
      a tip of the hat to mr green

    3. Every now and then, I play with the idea of coming up with a melody for The Tale of Custard the Dragon. So far, I haven’t managed to come up with a good tune; they’re all too derivative of other things.

  15. Wait, a fan award is actually being nominated by the FANS?

    The horrors! What is the world coming to?

    1. Well, you know, sort of. They have to be properly guided, lest they make incorrect choices…

      “Besides, we don’t care who you vote for as long as we do the counting.”

    2. It’s supposed to be awarded by the Trufans, dammit!! Not this sorry lot of wrongfans!!

  16. Sarah, you wrote:
    “I can’t tell which is which: whether you’re dumb or conniving…”
    Embrace the power of “and”.

    Great post. A home run for sure, and possibly a grand slam. Inspiring as well.

    1. The thought that comes to my mind when reading the “dumb or conniving” portion was the question “Are you that F^(#ing Ignorant, or just G@d Damned F^(#ing Evil?”

  17. Do please let us know, if you can, who has asked not to be nominated for a Hugo. There are too many books on the list for me to read them all before nominations close, and I’m glad to focus my attention on those who might want to be recognized for good work.

    1. I refuse to be nominated for a Hugo, I don’t give a shit who does it. I was okay with the Campbell Award nomination last year because it wasn’t a Hugo.

      If I am nominated I will decline the nomination. As long as the organization celebrates child molesters and those who advocate it, I will hope that the org continues to go down in an oily fire.

  18. I’m gonna make some popcorn, sit back and watch, since as a scribbler of historical fiction, in this fight I have no dog.
    I do, however, read the odd pro-puppy author. Latest pic was Dave Freer, Rats, Bats, and Vats … quel droll and quite enjoyable.

    1. Dave Freer is kind of like Pratchett. I would read his grocery list and find it enjoyable.
      While I believe a Sarah book is what clued me into Baen Books, Freer and Flint convinced me that I had found the place for good SF/F.

    2. As a historical writer, social justice demands you write a trilogy proving the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars were all the fault of the American Baptist South! We DEMAND it!

      Just because they haven’t got to you yet doesn’t mean they’ll get to you last.

        1. It is well recognized that slavery was introduced into ancient times by time-travelling Southern Baptists, fleeing the defeat of their hateful ideology by the armies of noble Democrat President Lincoln.

            1. As many millions of words as Turtledove’s written on various alternate history timelines, it’d be next to impossible not to stumble over something he’s committed The real challenge would be finding which 900-page tome with 24 interwoven plot lines that make three appearances each he did it in.

              1. Harry Turtledove is proof that you can do something with a PhD in History besides teach.

            2. Actually, it’s probably one of the out of service exits in Zelazny’s Roadmarks (an under appreciated book IMHO).

              1. I’ve been wondering for a while now why so little of Zelazny’s work is available on Kindle. The first three Amber books are finally out in Kindle editions, but none of the later ones (I do not count the ones by John Betancourt as being true Amber books).

                Do his heirs not realize that they’re leaving money on the table?

                Not long ago I wanted to replace my ancient paperback copies, and really wanted to buy them on Kindle. Not when the series is incomplete (with no guarantee that the others will ever come out), and definitely not at those prices. Not when I can get a paper copy of the ten volume omnibus edition for $18.00 new (and much less used). I wound up buying it used, so neither the publisher nor the heirs saw a penny.

                1. You’d expect his former agent(s) would be managing his work for his estate or inheritors, but having seen families fall out over trivial inheritances, I wouldn’t be surprised if the reasons turned out to be a lot simpler than ignorance or incompetence.

                2. A few years ago I saw the first few Amber novels in abridged audiobook on CD, produced and read by the author — so those were clearly made before his demise.

                  The Amber stories are all available unabridged through Audible, but none of his other works — Lord of Light nor Creatures of Light and Darkness nor any other are on offer.

                  1. I’ve listened to the audiobook version of “A Night in the Lonesome October”, read by Zelazny himself. I only took it off the rack because I needed something to listen to; I’d already read the book and thought it was definitely not one of Zelazny’s better attempts.

                    Though I thought the book was flat and affectless, Zelazny’s spoken version was *much* better. Usually it’s the other way around…

                3. This has been rough on me as I came to him late and read about books I have a hard time finding and really want to read.

                  In fact, my first Zelazny was Roadmarks in the early 80s in HS. I didn’t read any Amber until the 90s.

                  1. I remember reading Nine Princes in Amber while in high school. I loved it but felt short changed. Read the Guns of Avalon and again wanted more. The last two were serialized in Galaxy or Worlds of If. So frustrating to read part 1 of book 4, then part 2.

                    Zelazny is only behind Heinlein in my Pantheon.

                    1. Right behind RAH? I think Norton is probably there for me but it’s a big cluster with Zelazny, Norton, Piper (would be right behind Heinlein if the corpus wasn’t so small I suspect), Wolfe, and more modern maybe, maybe Allen Steele (I was a bit miffed when Coyote books went environmental catastrophe after the first few*).

                      One thing about Zelazny (and Wolfe) is both are experimental writers with literary mindsets in at least some books. Roadmarks is very experimental with only two chapter headings (“One” and “Two”) and only the first is arranged linearly. He actually shuffled all the “Two” chapters into the manuscript.

                      Yet somehow they have coherent stories, interesting characters (although not necessarily heroes), and provide a good read. That is despite using trendy literary techniques like unreliable narrators (the essence of Severain), very non-linear time, and so on. They often aren’t easy. The Book of the New Sun is a hard read. However, like Umberto Eco and unlike most of the “literary” sci-fi that gets awards, the effort pays off with a story that made you think. Those books resurface over and over again in many contexts as snippets and ideas.

                      Yet each of them wrote pretty straight forward adventure sf/f. They learned to write and tell stories and then wrote the hard stuff. Dali, asked by a painter’s mother what her son needed to learn to become an excellent surrealist. Dali told her he must first become an excellent realist (which Dali himself was). You must master the rules to break them.

                      I wish the grey goo crowd realized that. I suspect a lot of them could be decent straight forward writers and one or two might find having mastered the basics they could write the wild stuff and have it be readable.

                      But wait, what I am saying, I am a Sad Puppy so I only like strong jawed white American men defeating brown aliens in mindless adventure stories.

                      *As an aside I think Coyote has one of the best sci-fi portrayals of a right-wing dictatorship in the US and it looks nothing like the crap most of the grey gooers and Puppy Kickers claim they see.

                    2. Yet each of them wrote pretty straight forward adventure sf/f. They learned to write and tell stories and then wrote the hard stuff. Dali, asked by a painter’s mother what her son needed to learn to become an excellent surrealist. Dali told her he must first become an excellent realist (which Dali himself was). You must master the rules to break them.

                      Like Robert Frost’s advice to a poet:“You’re trying too hard, son. Go write some Rhymey-Dimey stuff.”

    1. Checked, doesn’t look like it. My apologies. Your reviews look like fan writer or related work, and I overlooked you on the days when I was putting together my suggestions for those.

      1. I haven’t read Branca, but I have checked out the book just now. I THINK Branca was one of the references cited in the Ayoob book; not sure, but I have them linked by at least two brain cells (one ‘to’ and one ‘fro.’)
        Both of them are KU eligible, so my only investment will be my time, which is the most valuable commodity anyway….

      2. Okay, here’s the answer: Branca and Ayoob cover the same material; Branca identifies Ayoob as one of his primary inspirations; Branca lists applicable state law at the end of each chapter. If I was going to teach a class, I’d probably use Branca as the text, just because of the references. HOWEVER, it is in the nature of things that references get outdated, so YMMV. Both of them are books I can highly recommend.

  19. As I pointed out on Facebook, the SJWs don’t get it.

    If you write something so good that even your perceived enemies think it deserves praise, and you object solely because they like it too, perhaps it shows where the real intolerance lies?

    1. Ye Auld Kafkatrap.
      -If we don’t recommend things the SJW’s like, we’re a bunch of Fascist Locksteppers looking to promote our own Ideological kindred.
      -If we do recommend things the SJW’s like, we’re eeeeveeeeilllyy forcing the poor innocent little authors into our vile embrace.

  20. Here’s a question: Why Are We Bothering?

    I was in a B&N last Thursday. The SF section is down to a rack and a half in length before it morphs into Manga and complation graphic novels.

    NYC publishing just had another round of coagulation, er, mergers. More cushy jobs for the special snowflakes are going away.

    They. Are. Dying. Why should we watch, much less provide hospice care for their pretensions and their Devalued Plastic Rockets?

    Unless/until they can pull a Mozilla on Jeff Bezos there is NOTHING they can do to keep us from getting into print and reaching our readers. So let them cluster with the InfoWars and PlanetX Conspiracy Freaks in their dark little basements and watch the candle dwindle. How much of our light are they entitled to?

    1. Not all the B&N are like quite that denuded. The one in my hometown has something like a thirty-foot shelf devoted to SF/F–double-sided.

      1. Well, at least you *have* a Barnes * Noble. The one local to me closed their doors long ago.

        1. Atlanta has lost at least two that I can think of since I moved here in 2010 and I expect two more to go soon. We may be down to two, one ITP and one North OTP, soon.

          But we are getting two Half-Priced Books: better selection, better prices, and less clueless staff. We’ve also gotten at least two new independent stores to my knowledge…yet, they are pretty prog oriented but they are at least somewhat knowledgeable and work with locals.

    2. “They. Are. Dying.”

      Yes, they are. Look at Worldcon photos from say, 1970 and Worldcon photos from now and the difference is striking.

      Of course, the kids today do go to anime, comic, and media conventions, which are also sniffed at by the SMOF gerontocracy.

      The weird thing is that these people still somehow believe that they are the Hip Young Rebels Fighting the Man.

      I’ve noted before that it is simply not possible to be any more “The Man” in the SF world than John Scalzi and the Nielsen Haydens.

      1. “The weird thing is that these people still somehow believe that they are the Hip Young Rebels Fighting the Man.”

        You mean the hip young rebels with a forehead the size of a Ford Fairlane hood, and a gray ponytail?

        1. It’s sad to see people in their sixties acting like teenagers. They have grown old with out growing up.

        2. Just like the grey/silver/bald politicians trying to lead the revolution of ’68 all over again. And waving their canes as they chant, “Hey hey, ho ho/ LBJ has got to go!”

      2. Pictures? Hell, look at attendence.

        Or look at the fact that Dragoncon has pushed it out of its traditional Labor Day weekend because WorldCon couldn’t compete and DragonCon has never, ever, felt the need to be a WorldCon (the only Atlanta WorldCon was ConFederation in 1986 while DragonCon I was 1987).

        In a decade they will have to have it in their nursing home and it’ll only take up two tables in the dining hall.

        1. Worldcon could take place in a very tiny corner of Dragoncon’s convention space. Like, an unnoticeably small corner. Probably just by using empty rooms in between other programming.

          But I forget, the people at DragonCon aren’t real Fans.

          1. Real fans or not they basically own downtown every Labor Day Weekend.

            I’m going to try and work from home Friday of the weekend this year.

            1. I remember driving down past IIRC GA Power building in Midtown and seeing a furry, a storm trooper and some sort of fantasy guy waiting for a bus. Sadly never actually got out to it.

              1. You never road MARTA during DragonCon?

                Even if you don’t need to ride that is the one weekend to give it a shot. The SJW complaints about unwanted attention while riding public transit in cosplay outfits (and my favorite was clearly wishful thinking that she was being stared at) is a delicious icing.

                1. I only rode the red/gold line to the airport most of the time. Because of the route structure it was easier to walk to Post Renaissance from school than to take the bus (GT to 5 Pt then 5 Pt. to Post.) Scared a homeless guy once because of my habit of putting my thumbs in my pockets.

        2. I remember the SMOF contingent becoming severely butthurt when Dragon*Con switched to Labor Day, allegedly to poach Worldcon’s attendees (rather than the real reason: Labor Day was cheaper and had more hotel rooms available — i.e., the same reason Worldcon picked Labor Day to begin with).

          Even back then Dragon*Con had 4x the number of attendees. Nowadays Worldcon’s attendance figure would be a Dragon*Con rounding error.

          1. Another failure to understand capitalism. They could only poach if they provided a better product.

            Which they clearly do.

          2. For those wondering:
            Sasquan, per their registration numbers, had 5,822 attending registrations. That includes dealers, child-in-tow, children’s memberships, one-day and staff.

            Dragon*Con had over 70,000 attendees, which wouldn’t include the staff or dealers.

            Oh, and Dragon*Con gets in the news like this:

            not by whining about how abused they are by people buying memberships and following the rules.

              1. Dude, if you figure out how to be INDIANA JONES and you’re in a wheel chair, and it WORKS, you are AWESOME!!!!

                (Bit under halfway down; it’s the scene with the mine carts.)

              2. One year they had “retired Spartans” at DragonCon parade:

                The Retired Spartans

                I wish I could have gotten “Drag Queens of Gor” (from the wished for novel of the same name) to follow them as camp followers and war booty.

            1. Yes, but thsoe 70,000 people aren’t really fans…just ask everyone at Sasquan.

              I actually have a teeny, tiny bit of sympathy for that idea. Looking at DragonCon programming I haven’t gone because they seem to have very little written material programming most years. So they arguably are a different segment than WorldCon but the numbers tell you how much the written sci-fi side has pretty much cast off anyone else instead of trying to induce them to read.

              1. I’m not buying your tickets so it’s your judgement, but I’ll point out that of the first 12 “past guests” listed, five are writers, two are graphic artists(one of those being a webcomic folks here know of), and one “has always scribbled monsters” so I’m not sure what he is.

                Next twelve only has 4 authors, but has four additional comic book type authors and artists and two TV/movie script writers.

                1. I have been told that when I looked (when I first moved to Atlanta) those were abnormal years (the first had no track with even majority author planels when it looked).

                  I could finally go…for a while work would prevent it (my old team lead’s big vacation each year is DC so the rest of us knew not to take it off). However, 70K is a lot of people. In some ways even 5K is. I like my 300 person gaming con.

    3. They. Are. Dying. Why should we watch, much less provide hospice care for their pretensions and their Devalued Plastic Rockets?

      Not to mention thanks to indie the only new paper sci-fi or fantasy I’ve bought in at least a year are reprints of things I really want to have if the lights go out (Titan’s Moorcock reprints, DAW’s Lee reprints), the new Dresden (not Butcher in general, but Dresden), some of Larry’s book bombs, and the Wearing the Cape series as their Kindle is over my electron’s price point but I really like them.

      I have bought a lot of used paper including books released in the past year…it was the only way I bought the last Kitty the Werewolf book although if Vaughn had a tip jar I’d throw her full retail for the entire series directly given how much I enjoyed it (there is no author with an established audience and back catalog who wouldn’t benefit going indie just on the royalties alone IMHO).

      Add in I’m on the TOR boycott (made easy because they have had only two books I was remotely interested in) and my chasing several indie series (Cedar’s Pixie Noir, Pam’s Wine of the Gods which saw a book eat my productivity Thursday and Friday, said capes books), doing Larry’s book bombs, reading a few of detective writers who backlists are gone (including Lawrence Block, I mean, wtf is NY thinking letting his stuff go…he’s better off indie but they aren’t) including ones I’ve only found since they reverted and went indie, and the stuff from the reading list here or recommendations and I don’t need them or their Hugos (or Locus’s reading lists for that matter).

      I say let them stroke their plastic rocketships in their mass circle jerk until they’re all on welfare like Damion.

        1. I was a bit disappointed in where the first ended to be honest. This was compounded by misunderstanding which was book two and thinking for a long time there was no follow-up to the exile and instead we moved 1000+ years immediately.

          When I realized book 2 starts during the last scene of book 1 I immediately read it. This turned out to be a big mistake as the damn things are addictive.

          Plus, Pam won’t be embarrassed if I tell people about them 🙂

        1. That is the answer. The question is: What did Tiger Woods catch in the rough on the 7th fairway?

  21. I’m not closely involved with all this, but I hope Kate’s response to all these whiners insisting they be removed from the recommendation list is something on the order of: “Nope, just because you don’t like us doesn’t mean we don’t think your work is worth recommending. You don’t get to insist a review of your work is withdrawn because you don’t like the reviewer; you likewise don’t get to insist a recommendation of your work be withdrawn because you don’t like the recommender.”

    1. Maybe she should just quote Brigadier General McAuliffe’s response to the request to surrender Bastogne.

    2. How about “We won’t withdraw THIS recommendation, but we promise never to recommend you for anything again. In fact, we promise to oppose your being awarded anything, forever.

  22. And over at Vile, some weapon’s grade projection:

    “Laura Resnick on March 19, 2016 at 11:13 am said:

    I think that Pupppies manipulating the Hugo ballot, bullying various people, and spreading malicious fabrications should not be ignored. Such behavior should be countered.

    Other than mitigating the damage the Puppies do to individuals, institutions, or the genre, though, I am in favor of ignoring them. I found that almost impossible in 2014, but easy in 2013 and relatively easy–thank goodness!–in 2015. I don’t care what Puppies and their supporters, Rabid or Sad, talk about in their own echo chamber. I don’t care what they think. I don’t care what fiction they write. I don’t care what fiction they read. I don’t care what prose, movies, art, or fanzines they do or do not like.

    I care only that they don’t get to manipulate the Hugos, bully others, spread malicious fabrications, etc. without being firmly and loudly opposed.”

    Who did we bully? What lies did we tell?

    1. Who did we bully? What lies did we tell?

      Projection, it’s not just for theaters any more.

    2. Who did we bully? What lies did we tell?

      I’m sure the voices in her head know quite well… too bad we don’t.

    3. I’m half-tempted to try to find the thread and ask for… support of her interesting theory, but I suspect doing things like asking for proof will be called “bullying” and I’d rather continue leveling my latest scoundrel through SWTOR.

      Or perhaps finally start a Fallout 4 campaign and ignore any cool new mods that come up. Or finish the currently available episodes of Gate (finished season 1) on Crunchyroll.

        1. Oh good. I sometimes fear for my sanity, but one peek at the SJW mentality convinces me that I just have a few quirks and am otherwise sane.

        2. “Sea-Lioning” A term invented by SJW’s to dismiss anyone correcting their misguided views so that they can continue to enjoy their echo-chamber.

          1. The frustrating thing there is that a) the original comic was quite funny; second, it’s actually a handy term in that sense, especially on the Internet; but iii. they’ve destroyed its usefulness by overbroadening and inappropriate pejorative use, much like they’ve done with fascist and racist. Ugh.

            1. The original comic also somewhat misrepresented the situation it was presenting. And even so, a lot of people think that the comic presented a stronger case for the sea lion than the creator intended.

        1. Yes. I also haven’t completed an X-COM: Enemy Unknown game yet and the second game is out already. *sigh*

            1. Yeah. I think I prefer the original series progression where one of the sequels featured using reverse-engineered tech to go out amongst the stars and take the war to the aliens. (X-COM Interceptor, IIRC.)

      1. You’re contemplating asking for actual fact to support their assertions?

        …well, everybody’s gotta have a hobby, I guess, but watching paint dry would probably be less of a waste of your time.

      1. Since I started following some author blogs a few years back I’ve been surprised at the number of writers who spend their time online slagging off major demographic blocs of their paying customers.

        That might be the latest trendy “branding” technique, but I’m old-fashioned enough to prefer not supporting people who insult me.

    4. “Reading them” and “nominating them” are bullying I suspect.

      Perhaps the lies are “we read and liked their work”.

  23. I think we have a lead-in for responses to these folks, whether in the Subject Line for the first line after:
    ‘Dear [insert name]’,

    “… but for Wales, Richard?”

  24. PNH & TNH want the list of books to be awarded at *their* WorldCon in KC to be those of the Right Kind. All power to the CORRECT people!

    1. I see that Alistair Reynolds has gone public, stating: “I don’t care for any work of mine to be associated with any list curated by the Sad Puppies.”

      Fair enough. In the future, neither will any work of his be associated with any of my money.

      1. Wow…and to think I’ve purchased everything he’s written.

        Up to now.

        Was going to comment my opinion on the book but realize that is unwanted.

        Oh well…

      2. Just left the following on Dr. Reynold’s blog;

        Dr. Reynolds, having enjoyed your work over the years since I first bought Revelation Space I most apologize that I have recommended it and brought you so much dishonest in your eyes.

        I will refrain from recommending your works to anyone in the future.

        It’s his work. I don’t want to sully it by association with the likes of me.

          1. Nope…he’s a Welsh physicist who actually made very good use of relativity and its effects on his intersteller human culture.

      3. The only appropriate response to that is, “Gee fellow, it must suck to be you.” Just because he doesn’t want the wrong people liking his work is no reason for us wrong people to accede to his demands.

      4. [sigh] I would have thought Reynolds was smarter than that. I guess the virtue-signaling urge was too much to resist.

        “Slow Bullets” and the Sad Puppies
        I was away for a few days without internet access and discovered when I returned that my novella “Slow Bullets” has been included on the “SP4” Sad Puppies list for Hugo nominators.

        At this point it’s of no concern to me whether this is a slate or a set of recommendations. Given the taint left by last year’s antics, I don’t care for any work of mine to be associated with any list curated by the Sad Puppies.

        The list was announced at Kate Paulk’s website Late last night I left a comment asking – politely, I hope – for the story to be removed, but after I checked the site in the morning I couldn’t find my comment and the story was still listed. I’ve tried to leave another comment to the same effect.

        1. Sooooo. They help piss all over a bunch of folks and their project, and now are concerned that some of the stank will rub off on them?

          The schadenfreude, it burns.

  25. Orson Scott Card was right. SF/F is like watching a herd of Tsarists fervently preach Bolshevism, all the while oppressing the peasantry. Now we’re treated to yet another scurrying display of plausible deniability, as the various brave and noble souls of the genre tuck tail and run — lest they be caught on the wrong lists. You know, the bad lists. Just ask the Cheka which lists are good, and which lists are bad. Absolutely do not get caught on the bad list.

    1. *cocks head sideways* Is it me, or is she siding with the fraction that attacked her Father a few years ago?

            1. Thanks, I was trying to figure out when OSC had become a she.

              Can I ask how the heck everybody else figured out who Eeyore was talking about?

              1. It was the reference to “siding with those who attacked her father” a few years back. As I recall it, Mike Resnick ran afoul of the maenads for the unforgivable sexist crime of referring to a certain female editor as a “lady”.

    2. You know, it’s always been my policy to recommend whatever and whoever the patrons in my library will like, regardless of my personal feelings about the work. (And especially disregarding my personal feelings about the authors)

      A good example would be Laurel K. Hamilton’s stuff. From the bits and pieces I’ve seen here and there I feel fairly confident saying that she’s a lovely lady and she’s definitely one who writes well, it’s just… I’m firmly not in her target audience. I didn’t like the changes in the series after the first few books. That’s fine, of course, there are plenty of people who love the series, and many of them (and many of the potentials) come into my library.

      Same with Scalzi. I’ve recommended him before.

      So the whole idea of being upset someone recommends your work… it just doesn’t click for me.

      Its like there some ungodly taint they see (well, perhaps ungodly isn’t the proper words choice, given a lot of the people involved) on people they disagree with, and it automatically makes everything they like suspect.

      This requires a degree of absolutism that is frankly absurd, of course.

      I mean, jeez, ‘he who shall not be named’ likes breathing and eating, are they going to disavow that too? I hear certain dictators liked dogs, do they think we should wipe out the species?

      This whole silliness won’t change how I work, of course. I’ll go right on recommending whoever and whatever I think the patrons will enjoy.

      (Though I am still human, and must admit I will recommend stuff I personally like more enthusiastically and more often, if only because I know the items in question better and honestly think other people will like them too.)

      What I spend my precious personal reading time/budget on though? That’s a little more interesting.

      1. Actually there is a fair amount of overlap between SF’s SJWs and those who would like all domestication of animals to cease; not just dogs.

        1. Dogs have been domesticated for at least 27,000 years. It would be very cruel to abandon them.
          Cats fortunately, have never been domesticated, so if a cat chooses to live with you, you can’t be blamed.

          1. Actually, I have to beg to differ:

            The evidence on the issue does not make it clear as to who domesticated who. I suspect that there was as much opportunistic exploitation on the dog precursor side as there was on the human side. I would be willing to bet good money that a large part of why there are no Neanderthals about these days has to do with the fact that they apparently were not dog people. When confronted with being forced to compete with Homo Sap+Dog, they ceased to dominate post-Ice Age Eurasia. The lack of dog remains speaks volumes.

            Personally, I suspect that it probably had a lot to do with human patience and playfulness. The dogs chose and essentially bred for the best stick throwers… Any human band with dogs was more likely to survive, would have more leisure time, and the proto-dogs wanted someone to throw things for them.

            In short, I think that the geniuses have got it wrong; dogs aren’t a project of ours, we’re a project of theirs. Things just got a little out of hand…

            1. “In short, I think that the geniuses have got it wrong; dogs aren’t a project of ours, we’re a project of theirs. Things just got a little out of hand…”

              Yes, is it the king or the lowly guardsman who points at something and orders the other to kill it? Now are dogs masters or loyal minions?

              1. Not every relationship is a binary master/servant one.

                Bluntly put, about the time we took up agriculture is where the program got out of hand for the dogs. Up to that point, everything was golden, from their perspective. Help with the hunt, help with security at night, and you get scritches, thrown things, and a warm place by the fire in your old age. After man settled down, and went all agricultural, things started to devolve, a bit.

                I don’t think the dogs did it with a degree of conscious and abstract thought. They just felt simpatico with us, and helped out around the hunting band, in return for hands. Probably the longest-lasting cross-species relationship on record, and certainly the one that probably put the idea of domesticating other animals into our heads.

                1. Kirk,

                  1) I was supporting your theory
                  2) I was using hyperbole in poor attempt at humor.

                  Yes, domesticating dogs probably did more for the advancement of civilization than any other one act. And I generally prefer the company of my dogs to the company of other humans.

                  1. 🙂 Sorry!

                    I’m humor-impaired, so I tend to take a lot of things at face value. If you think I’m bad here, try me in real life: I’m the straight man in most social situations because I can’t tell, on a moment-to-moment basis, when people are joking or serious. Even when I am consciously aware of that fact, I still get it wrong, sooo… Straight man, it is.

                2. Second longest. Everything you know about human reproduction is a lie! Men and women were originally alien extraterrestrials of different species. Covering this up takes the constant efforts of almost everyone. I somehow know that you are not only outside of the conspiracy, but are also unaware of the conspiracy.

                  This message was paid for by Bob the spam bot for President, 2020. “If Cruz wins, we can do better. Otherwise, I won’t make things that much worse. I dunno. We shall see.”

                  1. Now, here is a case of genuine convergent development, because I’ve been saying this for years.

                    Although, my theory is that there was a sexually-selective disease agent that killed off all or most of one human sub-species males, and then killed off the females of another one, leaving the two sub-species the choice of either mating and making it work, or dying out separately.

                    This would account for soooooo many things, when it comes to relations between the sexes…

                    Of course, it could be down to simple evolution taking place–The touchy-feely males mostly died out, trying to make friends with the mammoths and cave bears, while the practically-minded women said “Screw this for a lark… Imma gonna go live by myself… I want nothing to do with the drama and sexual politics inside the band…”.

                    Either way, we’re a sexually-dimorphic species, and have to deal with it. Although, the space aliens idea is one I could get behind, given a little of the right evidence…

                1. Preeee-cisely… The hint is right out there, in the open.

                  And, I don’t think he’s gonna be happy, when he comes back and finds out what we did to the Chihuahua… Let alone, the Pekingese or the Pug…

                  We’re gonna have so much to answer for…

                  1. Both offer unconditional love, forgive all trespasses and (according to Abraham) enjoy walkies.

            2. If you haven’t already read it, track down William Tenn’s Null-P.
              “All he is, I am afraid, a bell-shaped curve with ambition, the median made flesh.”

              For those too young to have discovered him, Wiki offers an excellent background and a link to his official webpage.

              For why the Puppy Kickers wouldn’t like him.

            3. Given the extended amount of time they’re now believed to have coexisted with Cro-Magnon man, and the sheer amount of interbreeding that went on, it’s more likely that CMs just had kids earlier and more often and so absorbed all the much smaller Neanderthal societies they encountered

          2. I watched a documentary about a pack of babboons that lived with a band of wild dogs. The dogs provided perimeter security and the babboons groomed the dogs.

            1. ??? From what I understand about baboons, dogs providing perimeter security for them would be akin to kindergarteners protecting Green Berets.

              1. Baboons are only pretty badass compared to other primates. They’re easy meat for a lot of predators, so a commensal relationship with dogs makes sense.

                We humans might want to think a bit more carefully, about taking care of our old alliances, or we might be dealing with an entirely new set of baboon overlords…

                And, the key thing the dogs provide, as with humans, is the warning.

                1. Primates once filled quite a few ecological niches. Other than sapiens, they’re greatly reduced in range, living almost entirely in the equatorial regions, and the great apes are so few in number most are protected.

                  The sapiens, on the other hand, have spread across almost every inhabitable landmass by the billions. Some of this is probably because the sapiens are less territorial than most primates, but mostly because only the sapiens have feet. Those, and their oversized legs, give them a huge advantage in gathering and hunting range compared to the othe primates, who depend on brachiation or gimping around lower limbs with hands.

                  Sapiens have bigger brains and better opposable thumbs than their competition, but it’s the feet that give them the edge.

              2. bearcat, if you can find some of Peter Capstick’s big game hunting books, African wild dogs are a heck of a sight closer to wolves than a pack of neighborhood mutts. Something like 90% success rate in hunting, etc. He said that nothing, including lions, tended to spook game like the herd spotting wild dogs.

      2. When they talk about bullying, they are talking about me. When they talk about lying, they are talking about me. (I’ve claimed that I had written permission from Hitler to suggest the Battle of France for a retro-Hugo.)

        Wanting to have nothing to do with me is perfectly reasonable. I’m just that evil. They figure that since y’all tolerate me, you are tarred with the same brush.

        Grins, Ducks, and Runs Away! 🙂

    3. You know, that just gives the Puppies more power than they had before. Want to destroy an SJW-appeasing writer? Praise his work!

  26. We need a list of those people who wanted to be removed from the list. I need to stop wasting so much money on literature and that would make eliminating the insane ones easier.

    1. The plan right now is to put an asterisk after the names and indicate that they asked to be removed. That way we don’t disrespect their fans who nominated them and we respect their wishes to be known to want to dissociate from us.

      1. So last year the ‘uncool’ got as(s)terisks [“stars on thars”] and this year the ‘cool’ will have asterisks? Egad, it is the Sneetches, just with an early scene reversed.

      2. Is there any footnote that indicates that the asterisk means this author is a whiny little wuss who complained about the wrong people liking his work?

          1. U+273b (✻) or U+273d (✽) are perhaps more similar to the actual image used last year, but the distinguishing characteristic of U+273c (✼) is too perfect to pass on.

            1. And yet it is so subtle and small that it truly could be considered a micro-aggression, should someone peer that closely.

      3. Can we have different types of markings for people who want to be removed for various reasons?

        Something like:

        An asterisk for the “How dare Sad Puppies nominate me?”
        A dagger for “Love you guys, but don’t want to be associated with the Hugos.”
        A double dagger for “A pox on both your houses!” (I don’t know if there are any of those yet, but if this goes on another year or two, there definitely will be.)

        1. There are some single and double daggerline marks sometimes used to indicate footnotes. I bet they’re in some of the Unicode sets.

        2. No, the other ones we’re letting go through. The writers just said they’ll refuse, but that’s… their problem. I want John Ringo to win because of what he said he’d do to the rocket. Let’s make it so. (Also Black Tide is a great work.)

          1. because of what he said he’d do to the rocket

            I’m simultaneously curious and terrified. Would I be right to guess it is not family-friendly?

            1. I’d guess that D-size model rocket engines are just the starting point, but I’m a little scared to much beyond that thought.

          2. Wait, what is eligible by John Ringo? I thought Strands of Sorrow was ineligible because the ebook version came out in December of 2014?

  27. (Scratches head) So, let me make sure I have this straight.
    One faction nominates whoever, wherever, no politics involved.
    The other faction is so terrified of being associated with the first that they don’t want them to publicly state they enjoy their work.
    And we’re the bullies?

    1. And we’re the bullies?

      SJWs: No honesty or sanity required. In fact, they’re liabilities for SocJus.

      1. In the real world we have SJW’s and incompetents in our government. It’s a tragedy. In SF we have SJWs and it’s a farce.

    2. Of course we’re bullying them — by putting their work on our list we’re implying that it has a plot, admirable characters and may pose serious risk of entertainment.

      That kind of endorsement could kill their social standing.

      If that isn’t threatening to them, what is it?

  28. We failed to roll over and apologize when attacked, so that makes us the bullies.

    You’re falling behind on your Narrative!

  29. Completely unrelated, but I finally got around to watching The Last Ship today. Four episodes in, and it’s awesome, it’s intense, and it’s very cool to see Adam Baldwin play something so straightlaced. Good to see he has so much flexibility to his skills. Oh, and I keep wanting to go hug my kids every five minutes. They don’t feel like sucker punches, no cheap shoehorned emotional plays, but the shots to the Dad buttons hit hard.

    1. Saw the first episode, and it turned me off. I can’t remember the details of the scene, but when they go over to the other boat, and that one guy loses his mask? I distinctly remember thinking, “Well, now they’re all contaminated, because they forgot to do (simple thing I don’t remember now). Now they’re going to take the virus back to their ship, and they’re all going to be dead.”

      Of course, I’d just read Ringo’s series a few weeks/months prior, so it’s not too surprising that I found the plot of The Last Ship to suffer by comparison. I just wish I could remember why I had an issue with that scene. But I don’t feel like watching it again to find out, not when I hated the scene the first time.

      Anyway, if you can remember the details of that episode-1 scene I’m complaining about, maybe you can tell me whether I have a point, or whether I’m completely off the mark.

    2. Really? I quit watching when the ship’s captain was leading a team on the initial recon of Guantanamo. That’s strictly Star Trek stuff; the ship’s captain would never be on such a mission–that’s what Marines are for!

      1. I briefly noticed that point (and it happens again a couple episodes later), but I was having too much fun to quibble. There are probably other inaccuracies that would bother a vet, especially a squid, but since I’m strictly civilian, I would only notice the egregious ones.

      2. While I agree and the early episodes of the BSG reboot captured me with their much more accurate military both formally (the XO runs damage control so the CO can fight the ship) and informally (in 33 when Adama can’t remember if it is his or Tigh’s turn to sleep and Tigh tells him it is Adama’s even though it’s Tigh’s because, “If the old man can’t remember whose turn it is it’s his turn.”) I generally gloss over this as just what you said, “Star Trek stuff”.

      3. Shifts uncomfortably. Points out Stephen Decatur. Points out a lot of other Napoleonic-era naval captains doing the same thing. So it’s really Hornblower stuff, or Aubrey and Maturin stuff. Roddenberry stole that bit.

        (And actually, I heard that Roddenberry served under a destroyer captain who was big on grabbing the controls from his people and steering the ship himself, or hitting the weapons himself. Not because he was a jerk, but because he was one of those weird intuitive guys when it came to hunting subs. The Navy put up with him because it worked, and his people put up with it because they learned the intuition from him. Basically Roddenberry grabbed a bunch of odd captain quirky behaviors from different sources, and gave them all to James T. Kirk.)

        1. Besides, the captain is the lead, and the lead gets first crack at doing fun stuff.

        2. But that’s not quite the same thing. That’s the ship’s captain directly taking over the role of one of his subordinates, but while remaining on his ship. What I can’t believe is the ship’s captain removing himself from his ship entirely, to lead a mission on land for which he is almost definitely untrained.

          1. Think of it as an alternate reality, like large apartments (necessary for TV sets so as to be able to have actors go offstage) in Manhattan.

            Dramatic needs, and all that.

        3. I believe the statement I heard was “Kirk knows this is the most dangerous planet in the universe so he takes his entire bridge with him” plot quirk.

          Admittedly understandable in that the stories took place on planets more than ship and the captain was supposed to be main character and to have him acting properly makes him less main. Just like how police procedurals mash fifty people and roles into one character

          1. Agreed, which is why I think Trek would have been loads better if the protagonist(s) had been someone or someones a bit further down the chain of command.

          2. Oh “Kirk is main character”, in one of my “lost” SF stories, my Main Character was a junior officer who was to command “landing parties”.

            Of course, in that “universe” the Main Exploration Ship would leave a “landing party” on a world while it would check out other systems in the area.

            Said landing party would have a smaller ship that would provide sleeping quarters, long-range communications and a way home if something happened to the Main Exploration Ship. 🙂

    3. I like the series. Yeah, some things are a bit of a stretch, but it’s fun and it gets much better as the season progresses.

  30. I’ll only note you’re worse than the Soviets who condemned the Kulaks during holodomor….

    I thought kulaks were sort of pants my aunt made my cousin swim in for reasons of modesty. (Wait an excessively wealthy farmer per the Communist–they thought he was beating the wheat?)

    Holodomor–man-made famine (Yeah, heard of the event; didn’t know there was a term for it.)

    1. Yup, it’s the Ukrainian term for it. If you go looking for info on the ‘Net, skip Hohodomor DOT info. Its a conspiracy site, rather nasty one IMHO.

      1. Grrr. Holodomor DOT info. I’m using a different keyboard this AM and it is throwing my typing off more than usual.

      2. Hohodomor was that scare we had a few years back when Hostess temporarily went out of business and people were selling boxes of Twinkies on eBay for fifty bucks.

        Fortunately the brand is back in business, and Ho Hos, Twinkies, Ding Dongs, and all their high-carb brethren are readily available once again.

        1. Gee, you mean popular but mismanaged products and brands can, if the mismanaging company goes bankrupt and has to sell them, can return successfully under better management?

          What government department manages it because I”m reliably told capitalism would just abandon them as worthless.

          1. They were basically killed by an ignorant union. Yeah, some poor management was in there too, but it was the baker’s union that dealt the final death blow.

            The friggin’ Teamsters came in and audited their books, said “Yup, youse guyz ain’t got no more money.” and backed off on their demands. The bakers union refused to believe it until they showed up at work and “work” just wasn’t there any more.

            1. Yes, I remember that. If even the Teamsters come in saying that striking is a bad idea, then striking is a very bad idea.

              I think that the thing that made me them most mad, though, was that the strike killed all the little day old Wonder stores that were around. Sure, the brand came back, but those little stores didn’t.

            2. It has happened a few times…the Rutland and Rock Island railroads both died on strikes as well.

              I probably should have phrased it “inefficiently run” instead of “mismanaged” as it lets the blame go to more than just management.

                1. always brings to mind “Get your damned plane out of this neighborhood!”
                  The then mayor of Kenner, La. after the Eastern crash on takeoff from New Orleans International. I lived right across the canal from that neighborhood. Worked with a kid who had the plan knock their house over while they were eating.

            3. Same sorta thing happened to Bear Archery in Michigan and the fool union considered Bear closing the doors, and after a reorg, moving to Florida, as a “victory”. Grayling, Mi. never really recovered from that.

          2. The irony is, they are being run by the very company the unions refused to allow the old owners to sell out to, and the unions are exactly what killed Hostess.

  31. Delurking to point out this little gem from 770:
    “Had this come out in January, I wouldn’t have had any issues with it. As it is, the list is good for me only for artist and blog suggestions, as my reading stack is full. My concern is that some people will simply vote by cribbing the list without reading anything. They were so late to the party, I cannot see another use for it.” – GSLamb on March 19, 2016 at 5:14 am

    Last year, they claimed your recommendation were a slate because you didn’t have enough slots per category. The current list mostly meets this requirement, a few categories accepted. Now they say you didn’t publish this early enough. It’s moving goalposts. Reminds me of the old SNL (I think?) sketch “You Can’t Win.”

  32. Over at File 770, Steve Davidson responds to this post and demonstrates all the rational, tolerant qualities that we’ve all come to expect from him:

    “steve davidson on March 20, 2016 at 6:09 am said:

    @Aaron: UNintentionally? I thought it quite deliberate.

    on commenting: wordpress blogs can be set up in a variety of different ways; multiple contributors with direct control and multiple contributors with centralized control being two ends of the spectrum and all possible modifications in between.

    HOWEVER: as was pointed out to me several years ago, if the head office is going to be empty over a given weekend, it’s probably a good idea to put someone else in charge, if only temporarily. Like, just in case the internet should decide to explode while you’re away…

    …speaking of which – especially if the reason you are away is because the SJWs conspired to host a convention you HAD to attend so they could lure you away from the helm, right as they begin their vicious, idiotic, lame, clueless, lock-step, stupid, actionable, agenda-driven, PNH-inspired, contradictory, Scalzi-flavored, Portuguese-insulting(?), crazy-talk attacks.

    I’m pretty sure the authors demanding to be removed from the slate probably do want people to read their stuff…probably. I just think…and I could be wrong…that they object to their works and their names being used as political footballs. I mean, we can all understand if Stormfront puts Mein Kampf on a “reading list”, but if one were to find Weisel’s Night on the list, we’re entitled to a raised eyebrow and to reasonably question the motive.

    Such distinctions are sadly beyond most puppies, as are, seemingly, the common courtesy of not peeing in the pool. Let me take that one step further: they’re peeing in a pool that they know has the chemical that makes the water turn green; they’re turning to their friends and saying “watch me empty the pool”, giggling and then cutting loose. I’ll remind them of a known biological fact: no organism can survive in an environment comprised of its own waste.

    (Where’d all this come from? I just spent the past half hour reading the comments on Hoyt’s latest, that’s where.)”

      1. Maybe he read the retro-related works category. They may have thought that was a political recommendation rather than technical, trolling, and especially for both sides of the Battle of Britain.

      2. I made it almost halfway through Mein Kampf. That’s about 10x further than I could grind through any of Valente’s yarns.

    1. (Scratches head)
      Has he ever actually BEEN to Stormfront?
      Or, here’s another question. Did he miss the giant ruckus that happened here a couple of weeks ago after the Volksdeutsche Expatriate declared that Mrs. Hoyt wasn’t a real American?

      1. Has lack of direct knowledge of a subject ever deterred them from opining on what the subject would do?

      2. I’m sure if Steve Davidson was well aware of it then he would not have let that stop him from comparing Sad Puppies to Stormfront. Dishonest jackasses are like that.

      3. So whenever Stormfront or other Nazi groups link to a medieval romance or Norse saga site as a sterling example of Aryan culture (something which happens quite often), the medievalists should immediately commit seppuku?

        Yeah, I don’t think so.

          1. Oh, you don’t know how right you are. Some medievalist wrote a post on her blog, talking about how, ironically, white men had voted for the rights of minorities and women, supported their education, etc., and how personally she didn’t hate her own dad. And six months later, somebody browses her blog, finds the post, and loses his/her composure all over Facebook.

            This chick was the liberal sort of libertarian, mostly, but in her world that constitutes being Conservative and Evil.

        1. Actually, in most popular fields of study or writing, it is quite common for writers to get fanmail from criminals, or for political groups the author doesn’t endorse to use the author’s stories or the professor’s facts in order to make unrelated points. Conspiracy theorists appear and gladly claim to understand your secret information. Little neopagan kids write to archaeology professors, desperate to find out what kind of magical crystals were being used at the dig site.

          There’s a bandwagon to get onto. There’s momentum created by readers rather than authors. In short, there is the sometimes-mixed blessing of audience response. The more someone plugs into the deep questions and archetypes of human existence, the more this tends to happen.

          However, this is obviously not something that has ever been experienced by most of these folks, as they actively seek the purity of obscurity.

          1. I remember when Bush I got an endorsement from the Klan.

            “Well, gee, fellas, ah…”

        2. If you’re using “Nazi” in the SJW sense, one word is as good as another. However, the Stormfronters are a disaffected social group; the American Nazi Party presents itself as a political party and thinks they’re a bunch of wussies.

          At the other end, the Communist Party of the USA, the one founded by Soviet provocateurs, folded around the turn of the century. I guess the FBI quit funding it. Someone picked up the domain when it expired and set up a web site that I’m pretty sure is just a “donate to my beer fund” thing. It looks a lot slicker now than it did a few years ago; maybe some Believers have taken over the web admin duties.

          1. TBH….why run a Communist party when you can just run a Democrat party with the same planks, just worded more weasely

      4. I thought that was pretty hilarious. Vox, the Real American (T) who flees the country to live in Europe, pontificating about the lack of American status of the Portugee Princess who CHOSE to come live in America. 😀 Vox is a jerk.

    2. His error is in blaming the Puppies for these works becoming “political footballs.” The Puppies do not have a political motive — the argument is for a more inclusive Hugo, one which more truly reflects the diversity of SF/F fandom.

      The people politicizing this are the folk like Davidson, peeing in the pool so that only they and their friends remain in, congratulating one another on the lovely green shade they maintain.

      They remind me of nothing so much as the bully demanding to know “Why do you keep hitting yourself?”

      1. Wanting the Hugo to be more inclusive is political, just like campaigning for women’s voting rights, or the right of blacks to vote was political.

        1. Yeah, well, they need to check their privilege.

          Their attempts to deny their privilege are proof of their privilege.

          Their’s is the exercise of the privilege of the Cheka: “The All-Fandom Emergency Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage.”

      2. People who think the Personal is Political tend to presume others are just like them. It’s one of the main reasons why I tend to use the word “projection” to describe many SJW claims and actions.

    3. “HOWEVER: as was pointed out to me several years ago, if the head office is going to be empty over a given weekend”

      How many people does his “magazine” have on staff over a typical weekend, do you figure?

      I still fail to see why (apparently successful) trademark squatting gives this guy any credibility or moral standing whatsoever.

      1. They suffer from the delusion that we care about them as much as they do.

        Probably because when they read or hear us kicking over our traces at censorship, bigotry, or slander, they think it’s the rocket we care about, rather than justice.

      1. What’s even more amazing is to realize that the people who find that everything is political… Are so poor at actual, y’know, politicking. In their reality, politics is using rule-gaming and subversion to get what they want. When the larger reality intrudes, which defines politics as being more about genuine back-and-forth discussion/compromise, they can’t handle it.

        They don’t “do” politics; they’ve defined the colonization crap they’ve been doing for decades as such, and are completely unable to cope when the real sort of “politics” shows up.

    4. Just amazing. Does he really think that their brow-beating the SJW-appeasing writers into tearfully demanding that the Puppies not admit that they like and recommend said writers’ works will have any effect on the Puppies? If I were Kate, I’d just say, “Yeah, no. We liked and recommended those books and we won’t change that. Perhaps in the future we won’t bother reading their works or recommending them to others since the writers don’t seem to have working spines, but for now the list stands.”

  33. All this talk from them reminds me of an atheist who didn’t want people to pray for them because “we aren’t good enough to pray for them”.

    The SJWs are saying that “we aren’t good enough to nominate for the Hugos”. 😦

      1. Yes, because they are soo much smarter than us. I mean, they have a collection of little pieces of paper that talk about their degrees in doofus studies to prove it. And they will fix you a mean cup of coffee down at Starbucks when they are at work, too!

  34. And more:

    “steve davidson on March 20, 2016 at 8:10 am said:

    Aaron – oh, I think the whole thing was intentional. They’re at the stage now where they want to drive people away and are goading in order to reinforce the reasons why.

    They’re on the verge of establishing the People’s (Real) Republic of Fandom (Except We Call It the Democratic Federalism of Fandom in Public) and they’ll not be able to sustain the borders and checkpoints without establishing an existential threat.

    If anyone wants to have real fun, talk about infiltrating their Puppy Safe Space at Worldcon. I’m sure the cabal will be more than happy to let us all know what room at the facilities has been set aside for them beforehand so the room can be bugged….”

    Such charming people.

    1. “steve davidson on March 20, 2016 at 12:57 pm said:

      Soon Lee, Steve Wright, et al:

      I know that libel/slander laws are handled differently in UK/EU than in the states. The difference may be the reason Walters tweeted what he twoted.

      I don’t know, maybe it’s me, but – courtesy. I know Hugo Admins are required by by-laws to inform finalists beforehand to give them an opportunity to withdraw. That’s because, among other things, they’re publishing a specific list, with a specific intent that is designed to gain as much public traction as possible. The SPIV slate does the exact same thing, yet they’ve not only chosen to deny participation to the people for whom the list is focused on but are using that denial to further spread the message.

      Me? I still think that we’re kinda all in this together (at least the fans) and even where I disagree, I direct my attention to the actions, statements and positions, not the individual. (Like anyone else I’ve slipped up occasionally and have apologized when I’ve done so.)

      Do these people not understand that over the course of time, things change and they may find themselves dependent or having to work with one of these people? I mean, imagine if Damien Walters becomes the editor of the entertainment news at the Guardian? What kind of coverage are self-identified puppies going to get? What editors are going to have their ears whispered into? Who is making the drinks at the bar?

      Word to the wise: don’t complain about food at the restaurant, send it back to the kitchen and then actually eat whatever they bring back to the table.”

      There is absolutely nothing I could possibly add that would make this comment more absurd than it already is.

      1. Steve Davidson is aware of what Damian Walter tried to pull with Correia, right?

        Furthermore, I would bet good money that Davidson is one of those people who doesn’t tip if the level of water in his glass gets down below the ice.

      2. What kind of coverage are self-identified puppies going to get? What editors are going to have their ears whispered into? Who is making the drinks at the bar?

        Judging from the libel/slander directed against the Puppies, I find myself not really desiring to make nice with these people. What are they going to do? Publish a whole slew of hit pieces smearing the Puppies? Oh wait, they already did that.

        1. Davidson is clearly libeling Damien Walter, suggesting that Walter’s professionalism is impaired by his personal animus. Davidson as much as said Walter is a petty, vengeful hack who subordinates his duty as a journalist to his private vendettas.

          Of course, if Water fails to challenge Davidson’s assertion, perhaps it is not libelous.

          1. Davidson as much as said Walter is a petty, vengeful hack who subordinates his duty as a journalist to his private vendettas.

            I think it falls under “definition of character”. 😉

        2. They’ve already played their {T,t}rump card. They don’t really matter. All they can do is… more of the same. So what? They wanna look like fools, well, we can hardly stop them.

        3. I’m sorry, Mr. Davidson is warning people that they may get bad coverage and whispered campaigns of hostility among editors . . . when the single most fundamental stance of the anti-SP group is that the SPs are fundamentally wrong in their belief about how such unprofessional methods are regularly used to influence the awards?

          Honestly, that strikes me as something like the Muslim protests against Pope Benedict’s Regensburg speech: “How dare you criticize our faith as having strains of illogic and violence in it?! We’ll kill you for that!”

      3. Doesn’t really get it, does he? Editors are becoming increasingly less relevant as indy self-publishing goes more and more mainstream. As for coverage, what coverage do those editors and reviewers give Puppy-supporting writers now? And does anyone really read the entertainment news in the Guardian to get SF book reviews? I’d be vastly surprised to learn that the answer is yes, lots of people.

        1. Years ago ( >10) there was fairly interesting article in the Guardian about why ‘football’ (soccer) wasn’t popular in the USA. Curiously, it was seen that basketball managed fill that niche – despite all the obvious differences. It made sense when I read it, up to the last paragraph or so. For near the end of the article, which was utterly non-political aside from UK/USA differences, they just HAD to put in a stupid Bush slam. If I ever took the Guardian at all seriously, that cured me of it.

    2. With an… interesting fantasy life.

      With SJWs I always worry if I’m using the term “projection” too much. Sadly, after I look at what they say, I find myself concluding that I’m restraining myself. :-/

    3. A bugged room? Oh the fun that could be had with that!
      (But how do we get a complete deeply serious, no busting up laughing reading of Eye of Argon?)

      1. Is such a thing even possible? Or would it invite the stars aligning in such a way as to summon the Great Old Ones?

    4. And this is why if I go to Worldcon this year I will have audio and video recording of every minute I am outside my room. These people have no ethics, and if they can screw us over, they will.

  35. For what it’s worth coming from me, I looked at the SP4 list, read “Tuesdays with Molakesh the Destroyer”, and thought it was a fine story. So it seems likely that Kate Paulk did a good job, and SP4 is a reading list, not a slate, and that’s as it should be, and all is good. (The Declan Finn voters felt like sock puppets to me, though. Plus none of the five novels I nominated got any votes but mine, so I call shenanigans!)

    However, it remains true that last year, the puppy voters (and yes, I know that sad puppies are just shocked that anyone would associate them with rabid puppies) nominated John C. Wright, who is virulently and publicly homophobic, six minus one times. And as evidencd by comments and articles here, there is still a good deal of conspiracy mongering among puppies of all stripes.

    So it’s understandable that people don’t want to be on your list. It’s not that they don’t want you to like them, it’s that they don’t want other people to think you like them because they’re like you. When David Duke recommends a candidate, people think it’s because he considers that candidate a kindred spirit. Candidates other than Trump who do not care to be considered such repudiate the recommendation.

    And yes, people who threaten to sue over this are idiots.

    1. Mr. Rosen,

      Last time you made a nasty accusation, I challenged you to produce your evidence, or be known as a liar.

      You have not yet responded to my challenge. However, since that may be because you didn’t see it, I will give you one more chance. I’m pretty sure you’re going to see this response, since I’m posting it less than an hour after you made your statement.

      So: please produce the evidence I asked for. What did RES ever do to make you think he wants a theocracy?

      If you are unable to produce said evidence, I will conclude that you are someone who: 1) is willing to make scurrilous accusations against others with no evidence, 2) is therefore a liar, and 3) cannot be trusted.

      Your choice. But this is your last warning. Fail to produce evidence this time, and next time you show up, I will call you a liar to your face.

      1. Ah. Time zone math was off. Less than two hours after, not one hour. Still. The rest of my comment, including my “produce evidence or I will call you a liar to your face” challenge, stands as written.

      2. Oh, the heck with why Hyr thinks I want a theocracy — I am sure it requires reading so deeply between the lines of anything I’ve ever actually posted that it requires a mining excavator to dredge up the evidence.

        What I want to know is: What is his definition of “homophobic” and how has John C Wright’s storytelling” ever expressed that?

        Because I am confident that Hyr would agree that we must distinguish between the story teller and the stories told. For all their personal perversions, Marion Zimmer Bradley and Arthur C. Clarke could tell a good story, after all.

        1. Well dang — insert an appropriately bracketed /I after “storytelling” in place of the gratuitous ”

          New keyboard, still getting fingers lost from time to time.

    2. Mr. Rosen,

      I notice that you have twice accused John Wright of being a homophobe, both here and on the Mad Genius blog.

      You are aware, are you not, that he maintains a blog at and allows public comments?

      If you wish to call him a homophobe in public, have the decency to do so to his face.

      1. That would require him to actually engage with him. And Hyrosen knows Wright would rhetorically kick him from one end of the room to the other and back again.

        “Homosexuality is a sexual perversion, ergo wrong.”

        I’m not interested in his parsing out, should he choose to, why this statement and others do not mean he’s a homophobe. I just point out that a movement that results in his being nominated for the Hugo six minus one times is a movement that many people do not want associated with them, including being recommended by that movement, and neither by people who claim not to be part of that movement but who appear to be fellow travelers by name and belief.

        I claimed RES wants a theocracy wrongly and completely without evidence. I got carried away with the opportunity to turn “turn the other cheek” back on the writer. You may call me a liar to (the picture of) my face. My trousers are uncomfortably warm. Would you like to buy an Isuzu?

        1. Well done; you have regained a measure of my respect by admitting error squarely and without qualification. And since you have retracted your false accusation of RES, I will not call you a liar. A liar would have doubled down; your actions in this instance are those of an honorable man. One who, yes, made a mistake, but was honorable enough to admit to it when it was pointed out.

          1. I notice that, in the context of my use of the phrase “turn the other cheek” to reference the buttocks, Hyr’s effort “to turn ‘turn the other cheek’ back on the writer” means Hyr was showing his arse.

        2. I must, however, criticize you for using the ridiculous “homophobe” label. Believing that adultery is morally wrong does not make one a Clintonophobe, not does believing that theft is morally wrong make one a kleptophobe. Although you may not choose to believe it, there are plenty of people who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, yet choose to treat homosexuals with just as much grace as any other sinner, because by their beliefs, we are ALL sinners, themselves included. To the best of my knowledge, nothing that John Wright has written has ever called for homosexuals to be stoned, arrested, or in any way mistreated. If there’s anything he has written that HAS called for those things, please do point it out to me.

          1. Homophobe is not a “ridiculous” term.

            It is a Hateful term as the people who use it do so toward anybody who doesn’t accept their view of Homosexuality.

            Their “use” ranges from “homosexuality bothers me” to “Death to Gays”.

            Thus, they will use it for people “who believe homosexuality is sinful behavior but still treat gays as fellow human beings”.

            Therefore people who use that term to label people are in my list of “haters”.

            1. Quite right, Drak! It is a Thought Police bludgeon used to shut down discussion and enforce conformity. Its purpose is to “otherwise” dissenters, much as Orwell explained had happened with “Fascist.”

              One might find it interesting to consider why we have so many such bludgeons in our modern linguistic repertoire: fascist, homophobe, racist, sexist, and, of course, check your privilege.

              Are there any such terms of opprobrium used by conservatives? Liberal nor Socialist are employed as elements of accuracy in labeling; nobody believes they are intended to curtail debate — or at least, nobody save those who use such terms’ deployment as excuse to storm off in high dudgeon rather than stand and defend their propositions.

            2. Their “use” ranges from “homosexuality bothers me” to “Death to Gays”.

              Oddly enough, it seems the ones who fling the word “homophobe” around fling a great deal of venom at the “bothers me” category… and lots of excuses or nothing at all toward the “Death to Gays” category.

              Almost as if it were safer to expend much vitriol, legal/mob action, attempts to ruin lives, etc. at the former group and a bit… riskier towards the latter.

              Oh wait… am I making certain people’s virtue signaling seem a bit not-very-virtuous when I put it that way? I’m strangely unmoved.

              1. One of the reasons I think it’s going to have to come down to serious violence is they won’t leave us alone without that encouragement.

          2. Even stipulating, for purpose of this discussion, that Wright is homophobic, what does that have to do with his writing?

            I’ve no doubt Samuel Delaney is a morally depraved loathsome human being — but that does not mean that in his era (pre-Dahlgren) he was one of the best SF writers plying the trade.

            Are the Hugos awarded based on an author being a good person or a good writer? Must authors meet the first criterion before the second is considered?

        3. Wow. So John C. Wright is a homophobe for adhering to the teachings of the Catholic Church and Orthodox Judaism on this matter.
          My thanks for demonstrating, once again, the limits of leftist tolerance and thinking. It is very much appreciated.

          1. It might be noted that those teachings essentially denounce homosexual acts which constitute sex outside of marriage — something also forbidden heterosexuals.

            1. In fairness, it should be noted that homosexuals are not allowed to marry people who they are sexually attracted to, as both sets of teachings hold that marriage is a heterosexual institution.
              That having been said, such a statement is also true for other persons who have…different brain wiring than the norm.

            2. I’m not a Catholic, but Catholic Answers does an excellent job of explaining the Christian belief on homosexuality.

              Having homosexual desires is no more wrong than an unmarried (or married for that matter) man desiring a woman, or a drug addict desiring a fix. It is acting on those desires that is morally wrong.

                1. Yes — contra Rebbe Carter, my desire to kill the person driving six minus one miles under the speed limit in the left lane does not make me a murderer.

              1. Hence my use of “acts” rather than “desires” — and thank you for driving the point home for the casual reader.

                1. Nobody ever accused me of quitting when the horse was only mostly dead, or of quitting before it was mostly decomposed, for that matter. 🙂

        4. I’m not interested in ]Wright’s] parsing out, should he choose to, why this statement and others do not mean he’s a homophobe.

          No, Hyr is only interested in warming himself at the blaze of his indignation, in lynching the “bigot”, facts be damned.

          As demonstrated in his justification of warrantlessly accusing me of desiring a theocracy, Hyr is more eager to count coup by signaling his virtue than to engage in judicious evaluation of facts. In this he displays much in common with those voting for Trump and with his party’s historical enforcers in white sheets.

          1. I imagine, back in the day, there were people who sincerely believed in “separate but equal” and wanted to provide truly equal facilities while maintaining segregation. They were as racist as the people who participated in lynchings.

            You commenters claim it’s the rabid puppies who nominated Wright, but you are happy to name him as “not a homophobe” by, my goodness, looking up the word in a dictionary. Because dictionaries are all about understanding the social zeitgeist. Or he’s not a homophobe, he just demands that the law for all gay people adhere to his particular religious principles.

            He, and you, are free to believe and speak as you please. But it gives you cooties, and there are people who think that if they appear on your lists, they’ll catch them. But I reserve the fierceness of my anger, my wrath, my indignation, and my trouble for when the nominations become filled with him and people like him, and then we send messengers of evil to vote them down. (Why, yes, Passover is very soon and I haven’t cleaned my kitchen yet, why do you ask?)

            And if the purpose of sad puppies is to broaden the readership for science fiction, to bring back the fun, to give voice to the writers who are neglected and ostracised by the SMOFs, to shower the popular writers with awards in the hope that this will burnish the field, it’s a poor poster boy you chose.

            1. We should care what a bunch of bigots think?

              Sorry Hyrosen, but the SJWs and other Lefties have already shown that they are a bunch of bigots.

              1. “We should care what a bunch of bigots think?”

                That depends on your goals. If your goals include “nominate writers in what you believe are underrepresented subgenres for Hugo awards and have them win”, you failed in 2015 because more people voted against your nominees than for them. If you still want to accomplish this goal in 2016, you need to care what the “bunch of bigots” think, because if you don’t, you will lose again. On the other hand, if you relish the fight more than the outcome, have at it.

                1. Sure a bunch of bigots hired people to vote “No Award” for books that we liked.

                  Sorry but I don’t give a sh*t what those sort of bigots want.

                  You are “preaching” surrender to the Puppy Kickers.

                  1. There is a certain amusement to be found in observing a bunch of bigots denounce presumed bigotry by demanding their own bigotry be indulged.

                    1. It is very similar to watching the hair-on-fire panic of the NY Times, Washington Post and GOPe over the Trump Campaign’s successes.

                      Or like Attila, the Scourge of God, laying waste to the hypocritical Defenders of Christendom.

                2. Which side is the one standing in the way of the Hugos being truly representative… the ‘bigots’ that want everyone to have a chance on their merits, or the bigots demanding certain authors be excluded for having unpopular views (or that others claim have unpopular views, or that are friends with people with unpopular views…)?

                  Either bigotry is wrong, in which case we expect you to make an effort to clean your own house before we’ll listen to you talk about ours, or it’s all a popularity contest, which is what “If you still want to accomplish this goal in 2016, you need to care what the “bunch of bigots” think, because if you don’t, you will lose again” calls for.

            2. Interestingly, there are people today not merely arguing for but demanding separate but equal facilities at institutions of higher learning, based upon race, gender and orientation — yet Hyr is among those denouncing opponents of such division as racist, sexist, and [fill-in-the-blank]-ophobic.

              Many of these same people are demanding that only “minority” teachers be employed in “minority”-majority classrooms, because “minority” kids need role-models with whom they can identify. And anybody disagreeing with this assertion of the limits of “minority” students is denounced.

              Acknowledging that there exists a “Homosexual” movement, comprised of an angry minority of homosexuals, is no more Homophobia than it is Islamophobia to recognize that an active minority of Muslims hates and wishes to destroy the modern world, or that it would be Christophobia to acknowledge a minority within the Christian faith desire dominance for their creed, nor is it Antisemitism to consider the possibility that some extreme Orthodox Jews would not demur at ethnic-cleansing of the non-Jews from the Jewish ancestral homeland.

              Some people have flaws and confess them, others have flaws and project them.

              1. “yet Hyr is among those denouncing opponents of such division as racist, sexist, and [fill-in-the-blank]-ophobic.”

                (I’m Hyman Rosen, so “Hy” is more appropriate as a short nickname, unless you just want to call me “Hyr”, in which case, go ahead.)

                Um, somewhat back at you, I don’t believe you can find any evidence that I want such division, or that I have denounced opponents of such division in any way. In fact, I fiercely believe in free speech and academic freedom, and oppose heckler’s vetoes from any side. In matters of history, literature, and philosophy, there must be no requirement that students share a common belief in order to be permitted to study those fields, or professors to teach them. (In science, to the extent that good evidence exists, students must accept the common belief at least for the duration of their course of study. In math, it doesn’t really matter.)

                As for an “angry minority of homosexuals”, you may want to recall this:
                Back then it was “outside agitators” who were supposedly causing trouble. It is homophobia to want to deny gay people the right to marry people of the same gender, to foster and adopt children, and in the old days, to arrest them for their sexual practices. And it doesn’t really matter if you think it isn’t; some of the people who you’ve placed on your list think that it is, and think that you practice it, and want nothing to do with you.

                1. So actual, real, _vital_ tolerance is dead then? We’re to be left with division upon division because no one agrees with anyone else 100%.

                  That leaves us, eventually, fighting out whose political and social mores are right, and whose are dead in a ditch.

                  If we can’t find common ground despite disagreements we’re doomed. Not just SFF, but as civilizations.

                  At what point do we start labeling people reviling the Catholic church for thinking homosexual acts sinful as Catholicphobes?

                  Think it’s far fetched? We already have Islamophobia being bandied about with reckless abandon, the legitimately concerned bludgeoned alongside the actual bigots.

                  I mean jeez, if everyone who thinks homosexual acts are sinful is automatically a homophobe and therefore outside the bounds of human fellowship you’re up to 3 billion people just between Catholics and Muslims in the world. I wouldn’t be surprised if that number exceeded 4 or 5 billion all told.

                  Is that what you want? No Muslim ever to win a Hugo because of his private religious beliefs?

                2. Hyr, it is laughable you denounce guilt by association when applied to yourself while, in the self same comment, denounce others for guilt by association.

                  You’ve also engaged in tautological argument in defining Homophopbia, straw man argument by associating opponents of your agenda with Democrat governor and presidential contender George Wallace, invalid analogy by correlating African-American Civil Rights with those demanded by Homosexuals, false diversion by not addressing the fact that the activists are not representative of Homosexuals as a whole (few activist groups are representative of the whole of the faction for which they claim to stand) and enough other logical fallacies fill a Wiki article.

                  One minor matter about which I am curious: you write of cleansing for Passover, presumably removing the chametz to render your house Pesachdik, yet you seem to find no problem going against the Torah’s proscriptions of Homosexuality. Do you commonly selectively practice the faith’s tenets or do you seem them as a holistic entirety, to be adhered to in all aspects or none? Do you perceive no tension over opting to supersede YHWH’s judgement with your own?

                  1. I’m not accusing anyone of guilt by association, just of actual guilt. The people who want off the list are the ones who feel guilt by association, just for being on the list.

                    It’s always been a tactic to claim that opponents are simply a small, angry group unreflective of the broad “silent majority” who agree with you. Sometimes that’s true, sometimes it’s not. In the case of denying equal rights to gay people, I think the fight is lost, to the good fortune of our nation, and further attempts to oppose them will result in more and more people peeling away from the homophobes until there’s just an irredeemable hardcore remnant who can be blasted out of the sky (I *really* liked _Voyage to Yesteryear_; it’s a pity Hogan turned loony.)

                    Are there several billion homophobes in the world? I wouldn’t be at all surprised. In Western civilization, and especially in the United States, we acknowledge that we have the individual freedom to believe as we wish, but we also acknowledge that we do not force others to abide by our beliefs and practices. Other places have not yet reached that level of enlightenment (or Enlightenment); after all, somebody must be first. I do understand that there are people who believe that forbidding the prohibition of same-sex marriage is forcing them to abide by abhorrent beliefs; ultimately, we must still have the election to decide whose view carries the day.

                    As for my religious beliefs, I am a non-practicing atheist. I was raised in what would today be considered Modern Orthodox Judaism, and thanks to reading every single Isaac Asimov book I could find, realized some time during high school that science, not religion, was the true description of the universe. But I’m comfortable in Judaism. It’s where my family and friends are, the practices don’t bother me too much, and today I’m in a Conservative Jewish congregation where my religious views are not all that unusual, maybe just a bit more extreme. (Our rabbi sometimes comes off as apologetic when he expresses his belief in God during a sermon.)

                    Someone who is knowledgeable about the laws of Judaism can rattle off long lists of workarounds in which legalisms are used to avoid onerous or annoying rules – eruv tavshilin, eruv hatzeros, mechiras chometz, heter mechira, prusbul, kdeirah blech, shabbos goyim, siyyum, the takkanah of Rabbeinu Gershom, and chalitzah, just off the top of my head. So even for believers, the notion that they know God’s will so well that they should continue oppressive practices because they think that’s what the law mandates should give them pause. For the rest of us who follow the laws, not using computers on Shabbos and not eating bacon cheeseburgers and shrimp cocktails is one thing; condemning people to a life of ostracism and misery is quite another.

                    1. What you are doing, at the moment, is engaging in a Motte and Bailey argument.

                      You talk about people limiting rights to homosexuals, yet condemn Mr. Wright for his religious feelings about sin.

                      Not any actions he’s actually taken, or even an expressed desire to reverse the recent ruling on same sex marriage, but merely him expressing his theological beliefs about the sinful nature of the acts. Never mind that questions of sins and legality are almost wholly separate.

                      You also sidestepped a question I put forth – if you condemn Mr. Wright and consider him unfit for consideration of a literary award because of his personal belief that homosexual acts are sinful, do you likewise think no practicing Muslim who thinks the same should be considered?

                    2. If not an accusation of guilt by association, what is the basis of your condemnation of the Puppies for association with John Wright?

                      For that matter, what has his (stipulated) homophobia to do with Wright’s story-telling? Your criticisms have utterly failed to address his writing but have instead attacked his character. That is as nonsensical as calling Babel-17 a failed novel because Delany’s a pedophile.

                      The hyperbole about “a life of ostracism and misery” is as incoherent and nonsensical as being an atheist (how does one go about “non-practicing” that? Are their atheistic rituals of which I’ve not heard?) while participating in Judaic rites. If there is no YHWH then Abraham was talking to himself, Jacob wrestled alone, and Moses wrote what is certainly the best-selling novel of all time.

                      Of course, I can see how following laws which have no meaning can suit a person to the political philosophy you’ve expressed in this venue.

                    3. It’s always been a tactic to claim that opponents are simply a small, angry group unreflective of the broad “silent majority” who agree with you.

                      It has also been a tactic to claim that your opponents are motivated by fear, hatred and wee willies.

                      Which is entirely irrelevant to the facts of the claim. Homosexual activists are a minority amongst homosexuals. This does nothing to validate or invalidate their activism.

                      Your (and their) definition of Homophobia is a political tactuc, an effort to “otherize” opposing views and deny them legitimacy rather than to defend your own positions. Your reasoning remains circular and your logic fallacious.

                    4. All of that and yet you (to our virtual faces as it were) try to tell us that you know better than we do our own motivations, including what we like and dislike, but that we are in fact the Rabid Puppies.

                      What was that you were saying about not indulging in guilt by association?

                      Never mind that even then the attempt falls flat.

                      Everything I’ve ever nominated of Mr. Wrights’ was nominated because I read it and loved it.

                      Vox Day, whatever his faults may or may not be, is more than capable of taking responsibility for his own actions.

                      Based on the perusal of his list this year the ones I happen to have read were quite good, so I am willing to say, so far as I know, his taste in books appears to be good. Anything beyond that is between him and me and none of your business, not that I think he cares what I think either.

                      You didn’t like Count to a Trillion. Okay, whatever. I haven’t read that one yet, so I can’t say if I do or not, but whether I do or not, as well as you not liking it, matters not one whit in regards to others liking it.

                    5. thanks to reading every single Isaac Asimov book I could find, realized some time during high school that science, not religion, was the true description of the universe.

                      Religion describes a moral universe; science a physical one. Learn the difference.

                    6. Of course, Isaac Asimov’s Second Foundation was about a “Secret Conspiracy of Smarter-Than-Thou people” who were working to create a galaxy with them in control.

                      Of course, they had to create people who didn’t mind being ruled by them.

                      Very much the Dream of Progressives. 😦

                    7. Mensa defines “smart people” as people who do well on tests, not as people who do well in life.

                      The people who remain in Mensa are mostly those who have never learned the distinction between being smart and being wise.

                      It used to be said that “a wise wife lets her husband think he is smarter than her” but we know now that is sexist.

                    8. Never been a member of Mensa but I agree especially since the Second Foundation had Mule-Like-Powers to “change people’s minds”. (That’s Asimov’s Mule not Sarah’s Mules).

                      Oh funny thought, I almost wrote “Mesa” instead of “Mensa”.

                      In David Weber’s Honorverse, Mesa is the home of genetic super-humans who see nothing wrong with enslaving lessers and is the home of a Conspiracy to take over the “lesser Humans” in the Honorverse. 😉

                    9. One thing almost your entire list shares is that the “onerous or annoying rules” they work around are rabbinic in nature—not chalitzah, but then chalitzah itself is as explicitly provided-for in Scripture as yibbum itself—i.e., the work-around was established by the same authority as the rule. [Note to bystanders: yibbum = “levirate marriage”; chalitzah = the shoe-removal ceremony which removes the need for levirate marriage.] As for the enactments of Rabbeinu Gershom, they’re nothing more than rules saying, “don’t hide behind halacha to take unfair advantage”; until the last 30–40 years, this is what “tikkun ‘olam” meant.

                    10. It’s always been a tactic to claim that opponents are simply a small, angry group unreflective of the broad “silent majority” who agree with you.

                      Sounds like the motte-and-bailey definitions of the word “homophobe”: it alternately means the unreasoning visceral “gay panic” some people (claim to) have (in which case it’s reasonably defined as a phobia, and only including a “small, angry group unreflective of the broad ‘silent majority’”), and any moral or religious objection to homosexual behavior.

                      (I note that the usual proof-text of JCW’s “homophobia” is a [probably deliberate] misreading of a blog post he wrote making this exact point.)

                3. Since I want this comment to go through quickly without being auto-moderated, I’ll have to limit myself to only one link.

                  I have never seen you, personally, advocate for “safe spaces” or any other form of segregation by race. However, I do know of someone who has passionately argued against them for many years. Here is one example:


                  So there is one case of your “hav[ing] denounced opponents of such division in any way”. I’m sure others with more time than I can spare at the moment will be able to find other examples.

                  1. I don’t think this works the way you think it does; if John C. Wright also happens to enjoy calamari, you could argue that it is a lie that I have never denounced anyone who likes calamari. Denouncing someone for their beliefs includes naming the beliefs that are being denounced.

                    I do find it very strange that people who do not understand that people can feel erased by not seeing people like themselves represented feel erased by not seeing themselves represented in the Hugos!

                    1. Yawn!

                      We want Good Reads not stories about “People Like Us”.

                      We dislike most of the recent Hugo winners because they are not Good Reads.

                      It is nut-cases like you who want “Proper Leftish Views” and “Proper Victim Classes” in Hugo Winners.

                      Sarah Hoyt’s _A Few Good Men_ gave us a Good Read with a Main Character who just happened to be gay.

                      You think it is OK to hate an author because he lacks the Proper Leftish Views and you are unable to show how “terrible” his work is.

                      The more you talk, the more bigoted you sound.

                    2. “I do find it very strange that people who do not understand that people can feel erased by not seeing people like themselves represented feel erased by not seeing themselves represented in the Hugos!”

                      Objection, facts not in evidence.

                      Were I to nominate the latest Honor Harrington novel it is not because she is like me. Indeed, there is very little about her that is like me. I am neither female nor asian, in the navy (space or otherwise) nor an officer. I have no children, no wife and husband, and I have never been in combat in my life.

                      It would also not be because David Weber and I share much of anything in characteristics – he may be male and white, but that’s about where our similarities end.

                      No, I would nominate it because it was among the best books I read that year.

                      I would nominate it because I can empathize with the character and learn from her experiences, regardless of how different we are.

                      And isn’t that part of the point of Science Fiction? To make the impossible real?

                      To allow us to empathize with things alien to our lives and experiences.

                      Let me put it another way.

                      Q put the Enterprise on trial, ostensibly for seven years.

                      Picard passed, not because of his diplomacy, his fighting abilities, his relationships with the crew, any of that.

                      He passed because, for one moment, he was able to broaden his thinking and realize that the anomaly was one of Anti-Time, that there could exist a thing that was opposite from the very bedrock of his existence as a 3-dimensional being travelling forwards through the 4th dimension.

                      Skin color? Gender? Preferences? Those tell me very little about a character, about a person.

                      I am concerned with more weighty things.

                    3. As someone who could be described as:

                      Burkean conservative, Eastern Orthodox, bisexual, submissive in a D/s relation, gender experimenter, musician, veteran, white, and too much to list

                      I know this, your allies routinely erase me and people like me in a way no one on the Puppies side, not even John Wright, has in my experience. None of them claim I am self-loathing or suffer from false consciousness or have betrayed people who might share a trait with me because of other traits.

                      You do more to demean people by insisting one characteristic of a pretty simple and arbitary set: gentiles, prefered gentiles, desired gentiles, and skin tone, must define everything about that person from the politics they support to the kinds of culture they are allowed to enjoy.

                      At least among those like John Wright they are willing to see me as a person and that it is possible, even likely, to not line up to some “approved” version of myself.

                      Then again, by your standards Andy Warhol was a homophobe so I shouldn’t be surprised you want to erase people in the name of inclusion.

                    4. I do find it very strange that people who do not understand that people can feel erased by not seeing people like themselves represented feel erased by not seeing themselves represented in the Hugos!

                      I almost find it odd that people that demand diversity in the Hugos get angry when confronted with requests that ideological diversity be respected as well. I would find it puzzling, were it not obvious that the current narrow in-group that wins the awards used ‘diversity’ as a ladder to get up, and now that they’re on top, has kicked down the ladder so others can’t use it to replace them.

                    5. “I almost find it odd that people that demand diversity in the Hugos get angry when confronted with requests that ideological diversity be respected as well. ”

                      It’s a special kind of diversity – diversity for me according to MY definition of it, but none for thee, because you’re just WRONG and I say so/

                    6. That’s what I find so baffling. The vast majority of this century’s Hugo winning novels are Very Good Reads. Look at just some of the list: A Deepness in the Sky; American Gods; Ancillary Justice; Blackout; The Graveyard Book; Spin; Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell; The Windup Girl; The City & the City. To believe that these books are not enjoyable to read, that they are not popular, that they are not good novels but just represent a series of social-justice inclusiveness checkmarks, that a cabal had to engineer their victories, is to live so far up the black hole of your echo chamber that there is no hope of ever emerging.

                      Of the people voting for Hugos, not enough of them like what you do, so the things you like don’t win. That’s not a conspiracy, that’s just a contest.

                    7. Objection, further facts not in evidence.

                      You don’t seem to be willing to really debate in good faith – ignoring questions you don’t want to answer, argue against injustice in action to condemn private thoughts not attached to any action, and of course telling us what our motivations are.

                      “The vast majority of this century’s Hugo winning novels are Very Good Reads.”

                      I haven’t seen anyone who disagrees with you there.

                      But recently? That is more open to dispute.

                      “Of the people voting for Hugos, not enough of them like what you do, so the things you like don’t win.”

                      Yes, which is why the biggest facet of SP has been, essentially, a rock the vote initiative, getting people who weren’t voting involved to diversify the broader pool of voters.

                      Besides, I suggest you embrace the power of AND.

                      The majority of voters not liking something and a small group taking advantage of the small numbers to sway things their way aren’t mutually exclusive.

                      Seriously, less than 20 votes could sway whole categories in the past. For a supposed worldwide award decided by the fans that number is utterly laughable.

                      The total voting pool is still laughable when compared to the attendance of even a mid-sized comic con.

                      Salt Lake Comic Con alone brings in twenty times as many fans.

                    8. The complaint has been that too many stories which we consider Very Good Reads are being eliminated from Hugo voting not because they aren’t Very Good Reads but because certain voting interests insist they are “Bad People” and thus not deserving of consideration. Their definitions of what are “good” and “no good” reads corresponds suspiciously with certain external characteristics to a degree revealing a correlation approaching 1.

                      Ex post facto claims of the works being poorly written carry the distinctive stench of sour grapes.

                    9. That’s what I find so baffling. The vast majority of this century’s Hugo winning novels are Very Good Reads. Look at just some of the list: A Deepness in the Sky; American Gods; Ancillary Justice; Blackout; The Graveyard Book; Spin; Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell; The Windup Girl; The City & the City. To believe that these books are not enjoyable to read, that they are not popular, that they are not good novels but just represent a series of social-justice inclusiveness checkmarks, that a cabal had to engineer their victories, is to live so far up the black hole of your echo chamber that there is no hope of ever emerging.

                      You keep making this argument, and it continues to fail. As I asked in another thread, compare this centuries list to that of the 1960’s: Starship Troopers, A Canticle for Liebowitz, Stranger in a Strange Land, The Man in the High Castle, Dune and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, all of which are still relevant today. If those works you cited are so popular, where are they outside your narrow circle? Where are the movie adaptations, the frenzied fans, the new release parties? (A brief spot on the best seller list doesn’t count).

                      I notice you leave out Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, which won in 2001, sold a lot more copies, spawned major works in lots of other media, and brought in tons of new readers, most of whom seem to have skipped all your ‘popular’ works. If the books you cite are so good, why are they so irrelevant when compared to Rowling’s books or the winners from the 1960s?

                      Likewise, to believe an author (John C. Wright) that was lauded for his original works to the point of being a 2002 Nebula finalist is an untalented hack that can’t write is to be stuck in your own black hole echo chamber.

                      Of the people voting for Hugos, not enough of them like what you do, so the things you like don’t win. That’s not a conspiracy, that’s just a contest.

                      Bringing in new people, new blood, should be a good thing, both for the awards and Science Fiction in general. It shouldn’t lead to slamming the door in their faces.

                    10. You know, when Hugo winners from decades back (Dune, Ender’s Game) consistently outsell the ones from the last ten years, something may be implied about the relative quality.

                    11. I do find it very strange that people who do not understand that people can feel erased by not seeing people like themselves represented feel erased by not seeing themselves represented in the Hugos!

                      …and that is why you fail.You think one can only enjoy something if their particular gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. are “represented” in it.

                    12. It is as if they lack a fundamental component of empathy and are unable to empathize with people who are not just like them.

                      Perhaps a consequence of a tendency toward social confirmation is to view any challenge to the social consensus as an assault on their identities?

                    13. I once got a record for my birthday with a song that had my name in it. Part of the lyrics, even. It was pretty neat… when I was six or so.

                      Nowadays… no. Though I am amused that “Patrick” is one of the names Codsworth from Fallout 4 will address the Sole Survivor as if you use that as a name. I won’t create a Sole Survivor named Patrick, though. Or one that looks like me. Partly because I like creating different characters, though mostly because I think I look like a big doof. 😉

                    14. The vast majority of this century’s Hugo winning novels are Very Good Reads.

                      Matter of opinion.

                    15. If you feel erased because people who don’t look like
                      1. won an award
                      2. worked a job
                      3. appeared in a story
                      4. marched in a parade
                      5. did any of the myriad things that human beans want (or need) to do…

                      You’re either nuttier than an almond processing plant, or the biggest bully on the planet. What kind of fool puts his happiness, his personal sense of existence in the hands of strangers? What kind of horrifically ego-maniacal crybaby demands total strangers write, draw, work, march or do any particular job because you “need” to “see” them doing it?

                      Great Scott.

                      On the other hand, when I see people who want to work, write, draw, march or do any of the myriad activities people want or need to do, being actively stopped from so doing because of what they look like, or worse, what they believe…

                      Then I speak up.

                      It’s simple justice to to say “It’s wrong to sideline people for being white, Morman, conservative, or libertarian. And making everyone–even your fellow idealogues kiss the ring and play suck up before they’re allowed in the game is just disgusting.”

                      Which is why I admire Mssr.s Correia & Torgersen, as well as the ladies who picked up the torch they passed on and ran with it.

                      For real justice, not the Animal Farm version the SJWs play at.

                4. It is homophobia to want to deny gay people the right to marry people of the same gender, to foster and adopt children, and in the old days, to arrest them for their sexual practices.

                  Beg pardon, but no, refusing to approve of giving full legal endorsement and support to practices which one considers morally wrong is not homophobia.

                  1. This “right to adopt” – where is it found, exactly? And if it’s a right, why does officialdom put so many barriers in the way?

                    1. Oh, they don’t want to actually adopt just be able to not allow Catholic Charties to place family groups, older children, and children with disabilities in order to get even with…someone.

                      As they proved within two years of getting gay marriage in Massachusettes…they made sure the agency focused on that set of adoptions was forced out of business because they prefered not to adopt to gay couples (despite plenty of gay friendly agencies). Of course, not a single gay activist stepped forward to replace Catholic Charties because it’s not like adoption is about caring for children…it’s about gay feels.

                      I remember that very well because that is when I quit supporting gay marriage of any kind or form. I saw it was about settling scores no matter who go hurt and not really about gay couples at all.

                    2. The “right to adopt” does not allow Caucasian parents to adopt African-American nor Amerindian children, by most reports. Should the same logic be applied to only allow adoption of homosexual children by homosexuals?

                    3. Yep, Liberal Social Workers refuse to allow White Couples to adopt or care for non-White Children.

                      If White Couples refused to take in such children, it would be called Racism.

                      But in the “minds” of such Liberal Social Workers, it would be racist to allow those White Couples to take in such children. 😦

                      Note this is the mindset that Sarah talks about concerning certain teachers and her kids.

                      IE “Culture equals Race”.

                    4. Oh, you need to check back, RES. Because once they turned her over to the Choctaw Nation, the decision was made to place her with parents who had some sort of tribal connection but NOT ONE DROP OF CHOCTAW BLOOD IN THEIR VEINS.

                      “to live with a non-blood related family who aren’t even members of the tribe,”


                    5. I remember that very well because that is when I quit supporting gay marriage of any kind or form. I saw it was about settling scores no matter who go hurt and not really about gay couples at all.

                      Since I’m a smartass, I still say I support gay marriage and am waiting for a movement to come about actually advocating it instead of using the concept as an excuse to screech “hater” or “homophobe” at those who disagree. 😉

                    6. You and me three HerbN. I was neutral on the topic when it first crossed my path in the early 90s, because I hadn’t really thought about it. As far as I was concerned people had the right to love whoever they liked without being hassled about it (Sexual promiscuity, not so much) All the feelz said, sure, why not call the sky green if it makes ’em happy. No skin of my nose, and stupider laws have been passed.

                      But then, taking the time to work through the implications for everyone…. (Gay and straight, mono & poly). Not so good.

                      But the activists were what sealed the deal. Never pay the danegeld, for starters, and if the law you want passed requires slander, intimidation, lawfare, censorship, harming innocents…. No go

                  2. …but it’s easier to screech “homophobe” rather than try to convince people to change the concept of marriage.

                    Bonus: Since those who disagree with gay marriage are such evil awful “homophobes” it becomes easier to excuse doing whatever can be done to ruin their lives. Since they’re such “haters” they must “deserve” it.

            3. Since Wright’s novella “One Bright Star to Guide Them,” was on the Sad Puppies 3 list, I’m not sure why you say that we’re saying that he was only on the Rabid Puppy list. (Only the one book, though.)

            4. Yep, I looked it up in the dictionary, not because I wasn’t aware of it’s meaning, but because you obviously were not and arguing over something without either side providing facts for their argument is just a he said/she said peeing contest.
              So I provided that ultimate of evils, a reference citation, and you immediately dismissed it out of hand, you didn’t attempt to refute it, you just dismissed it as irrelevant and obviously wrong, because it disagreed with your belief.

              You remind me of the Calvin and Hobbes comic, where Calvin sticks his fingers in his ears and announces, “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts.”

              Interestingly enough, I believe the first time that quote was seen, was when a prominent Alaskan Democratic Legislature, put a sign on his desk saying, “I’ve made up my mind — don’t confuse me with facts.”

        5. Homophobe


          a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.

          That is the ONLY definition offered by Believing homosexuality is morally wrong does not mean you fear or hate it. There are some homosexual regulars on this blog, I may believe they are sinning, but I most certainly don’t fear or even hate them for it. Now I’m sure you can attempt to “parse” that to show that actually I do fear/hate them, I just won’t admit it, but you are going to be lying when you do so. The truth is that I don’t believe that homosexual relations are any more wrong than pre-marital sex, just less common, and while at my age now, most of my friends are married, let me tell you, back when I was in my late teens/early twenties, hating everyone who practiced pre-marital sex would have certainly narrowed my pool of friends dramatically.

          1. That requires nuance. And respect for other people’s positions. And the notion that one can think someone is doing wrong without hating the wrongdoer.

            1. Also, if you are going to call on the other side to denounce and cast out someone on their side for an offense, it also requires that nobody on your side of the debate be guilty of similar offenses from the perspective of the other side.

              It’s trivial to find examples of people on the anti-puppy side guilty of several types of bigotry.

          2. For that matter, the term “Homophobic” was originally “a fear of being considered homosexual”.

            Gay Activists stole the term to refer to anybody who didn’t support them.

            Pure and simple, Homophobic is a Hate-Term used against anybody who doesn’t support Gay Activists.


            John sez:
            “Men abhor homosexuals on a visceral level.”
            “In any case, I have never heard of a group of women descended on a lesbian couple and beating them to death with axhandles and tire-irons, but that is the instinctive reaction of men towards fags.”
            “The pity and respect I owe and show homosexuals struggling with their perversion I do not owe to those who undermine that struggle, or belittle it.”

            You can pull out the dictionaries and sea-lion as much as you want; the problem is that you have to convince normal people that this isn’t homophobic ranting, and at that you fail. If you nominate this writer as the symbol of your disaffection, people will understand that it is not in the cause of increasing the fun in SF, but rather in the cause of bigotry and hatred. And in fact, that is what happened. People enlisted in droves to vote him down, and now you exude such a stink that there are people who will never want to be near you.

            1. Now we come to the Moment Of Truth.

              In your “World-View” we are a bunch of Nazi, Sexists, Homophobics, etc.

              So the question is “Why are you bothering to come here?”.

              1. And that people were enlisted, in bulk, to vote based on a relentless stream of smears and outright lies renders his argument moot. You can’t separate all those arguments from the rest in determining why people voted. The anti-puppy campaign had at its roots a bunch of lies, amplified and spread by a group just as flawed as the people they lied about.

                Meanwhile, aside from pointing out the hypocrisy, we’ve kept our comments to the works, and not the writers or fans. I’d rather keep it that way, but the more the hate campaigns win, the more tempted we are to resort to using them ourselves. Kate’s kept to the moral high ground, so far, and it looks like it’s still generating the same hate from the other side.

            2. The pity and respect I owe and show homosexuals struggling with their perversion I do not owe to those who undermine that struggle, or belittle it.

              John Wright believes he owes homosexuals respect.

              That is more than most of the left offers anyone, even those they champion, based on their willingness to erase anyone who doesn’t fit the “approved victims thoughts”. Look at recent reaction to Caitlyn Jenner from the left.

              If Wright is homophobic then what is the lot of you who only want gay people who fit your pattern of “acceptable faggot” instead of the wide range of people they are?

              1. They are the Good Men who know the Proper Way To Behave.

                Any disagreement with the Good Men is Heresy.

              2. Wright is homophobic because he thinks being gay and engaging in the corresponding sexual practices is perversion. There are people of every persuasion and political identity who think they have a right to define acceptable behavior. They all tend to be jerks.

                1. Yes, and? Are you going to say that he’s an adulterophobe next?
                  You really don’t get just how ludicrous your definition of phobia is.
                  Nor, I suspect, will you ever.

                  1. … Are you going to say that he’s an adulterophobe next? …

                    You misspelled “Clintonophobe” there. 😉

                  2. Why should he? He needs it so he can pretend he’s an enlightened, open-minded individual beset by naughty “phobia” everywhere.

                    Virtue-signaling, IOW. Nice term. Certainly shorter than my own “Oh look at me, aren’t I enlightened?” phrase. 😉

                2. There are people of every persuasion and political identity who think they have a right to define acceptable behavior. They all tend to be jerks.

                  Yes, you are…because you just defined not only acceptable behavior but acceptable thought.

                  1. It’s amusing and sad how little self-awareness he has. To busy preening about how enlightened he is compared to us mere peasants, I guess.

                3. Wright is homophobic because he thinks being gay and engaging in the corresponding sexual practices is perversion.

                  Correction, he thinks engagin in the sexual practices is a perversion (which, btw, so do I despite having done so…am I homophobic? ). Having the desires, ie “being gay”, isn’t listed.

                  Speaking of, do you think Andy Warhol was homophobic?

            3. Funny thing is, there are plenty of people commenting here who don’t agree with Mr. Wright about his views on homosexuality.

              Our whole point is that none of that should matter.
              ***Is. The. Book. Good.***

              Used to be that was the case. Most people would agree that Harlan Ellison is at absolute best a curmudgeon and at worse a misanthrope, but he is also an astoundingly good writer.

              As for the quotes you’ve put there?

              Yeah, they’re pretty heated.

              My personal views about them are between myself and Mr. Wright, and none of your blasted business.

              I do note he also said the following, about your second quote:

              “I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that homosexuals must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

              I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

              I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

              However, those who think it right and just, a holy crusade, and a way of sticking to The Man, to offer a drunk a drink, and hand him the car keys to drive, and urge him to his destruction, knowing he is afflicted — such a vile, pitiless, foolish and ghastly hypocrites as this are guilty of something far worse than pride, and will answer a far sterner judge than I for the crime. The pity and respect I owe and show homosexuals struggling with their perversion I do not owe to those who undermine that struggle, or belittle it.”

              As for the first:

              “Here is the question from a reader I was answering:

              Lesbians, lesbians, lesbians. Why is it always lesbians? When did “same-sex relationship” in fiction become identical with “lesbians”? I once made a list of the homosexual relationships I had seen in various TV shows and movies I watched and, without a doubt, each and every single one was a lesbian pairing. It’s only very recently that a show I watched featured a gay man in any way other than as a comic relief.

              I’m trying to figure this one out. When the media tries to shove sexual perversions down our throat, why is it always in the form of lesbians? Is it related to porn (for surely “hot girl-on-girl action” gets more clicks than “hot guy-on-guy action”)? It seems that, for whatever reason, all leftist creators and media outlets have decided that, for making the unpalatable palatable, their audience is more accepting of lesbians. This can’t be a coincidence.

              He is asking why Leftist activist in the media think their audience is more accepting of lesbians. And here is the first part of my answer that was edited out:

              I am not sure, but I have a theory:

              It is because the two sexes differ.

              Lesbians in fiction look like Asami Sato, young and pretty. Even guys who have no fetish for seeing pretty lesbians make out understand their attraction to each other, because we also are attracted to pretty girls. It does not trigger a puke response. Woman also can look at female beauty and see it, that is, see the beauty.

              The reverse is not true. Men abhor homosexuals on a visceral level. While girls sometimes are attracted to them, they tend to be ‘bishounen’ rather handsome, if effete, men.

              So a man who is attractive is attractive for his spiritual qualities of leadership, manliness, courage, and strength, even if his face is as pretty as that of Humphrey Bogart, who turns out to be homosexual is neither attractive to a male nor to a female general audience.

              In any case, I have never heard of a group of women descended on a lesbian couple and beating them to death with axhandles and tire-irons.

              Got that? I was asked about what I thought the thought process of “leftist creators and media outlets” and I answered with a theory about THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS.

              . . .

              Even if you missed the sarcasm, any honest man would have to see that the words on their plain meaning express no approval. As if I reported the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, and you were to conclude that I applauded the attempt of the Nazis.

              Anyone clicking through the link there will come to this:

              I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that homosexuals must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
              I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
              I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
              I believe everything the one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic Church teaches.
              So, from your reaction, I take it you did not click through the link.”

              1. “Our whole point is that none of that should matter. ***Is. The. Book. Good.***”

                The problem is, for the Hugo winners of this century, the answer is almost invariably ***The. Book. Is. Good.***. But the puppies insist otherwise, insist that no one likes these books, no one reads these books, these books were selected by a conspiratorial cabal of SMOFs, these books are written to a checklist of social justice tropes. Then they nominate six minus one times a homophobic author whose recent novel _Count to a Trillion_ is a horrible, unreadable mess, a book so ***Bad*** it was one of the very few books ever that I could not finish. (He definitely could write once upon a time; The Golden Oecumene trilogy was fine, as far as I can remember.)

                So outside of the puppy echo chamber, it looks to everyone like this is pure culture war; a group of right-wing fans and writers deliberately setting out to hijack the awards and give them to people that non-right-wingers would find awful. The effort bears the same relation to “Is the Book Good” as GamerGate does to “ethics in journalism”, which is to say, none.

                This year’s list, curated by Kate Paulk, actually does look like it might be about “Is The Book Good”. But some people aren’t going to be bothered to find out or care, because they assume that people who choose to maintain the puppy association are exactly as awful this year as they were last year, and they don’t want anything to do with them, including being liked by them, because it’s no compliment to be liked by terrible people.

                1. “because it’s no compliment to be liked by terrible people.”

                  Congratulations. You’ve twigged to why we are pleased that people like PNH and TNH, Jim Hines, John Scalzi, and yourself hate our stinkin’ guts.

                2. The effort bears the same relation to “Is the Book Good” as GamerGate does to “ethics in journalism”, which is to say, none.

                  Because fucking your way into good reviews and being a con artist who is years behind on her kickstarter and had to lie to prove her thesis in her first video anyway has everything to do with ethics and promoting women.

                  1. Never mind a number of the reviews focused not on whether the game WAS good but rather whether or not the game would DO good in terms of proselytizing their faith. The fact that this is part and parcel of the long standing lack of any ethics in journalism as a whole (whether it is the AAA studios purchase via advertising or indy backscratching, or sock puppeting, or the standard revolving door of political cronies and news editors and wonks in politics) was part of what drove the blow up on all sides. Then the standard relating of multiple audiences together (Someone who plays freeware games on a cell phone vs a hardcore player who builds systems for games; there will always be more of the former but it may not be your driving clientele and you may not want to insult the latter.) with the ‘Gamers are Dead’ Debacle (Featuring many of the same names that later slandered SP3)

                    But the fact that you can expect that Star Wars’ nomination this year will result in ebullience over the fact that a strong woman and poc lead were nominated does connect the two issues.

                    1. … Rey and Finn are both excellent characters in their own right …

                      I do have one big problem with Rey, and that’s that she leans too far towards Mary Sue-ism — to the point where she crosses the line, IMHO. The biggest problem is that most of her skills are never adequately explained. Naturally gifted mechanic? I can totally buy that, and her backstory explains it perfectly. (She’s had LOTS of time to learn.) Can fly a ship she’s never been behind the controls of? Well, I could accept that if she was doing basic stuff like lifting to orbit and jumping to hyperspace. But given that the first scene in which she flies the Millennium Falcon involves nap-of-the-earth piloting AND fitting it through narrow gaps by virtue of its unique shape (all this in a ship whose cockpit is not centered, making it far more difficult to judge the ship’s position)… no, I can’t buy that she could do that without training. Showing her getting training would have taken just a few seconds of the movie, too — for example, when she goes home and pulls out the Rebellion-fighter-pilot helmet (left for her, I’m guessing, by her father*), we could have seen her sitting down in some sort of flight simulator, and choosing an X-wing from a list of ships that included a YT-1300. Fifteen seconds of screen time, and her piloting skill would be adequately explained. But no, J.J. Abrams decided that Rey’s being a natural pilot needed to explanation.

                      And on top of that, she learns to use Force suggestion from a single mind-to-mind encounter with an enemy? When Luke Skywalker had to spend months training on Dagobah to learn to use the Force well enough, Rey picks it up in minutes? With nobody ever having explained it to her at all? That she’s Force-sensitive, I can totally buy (and it was well foreshadowed), but that she’d be able to use her Force powers with no training, when previous films have made a VERY BIG DEAL over how necessary training is to become a good Jedi? Nope. Her piloting skill was close enough to Mary Sue territory, but her unexplained talent for the Force pushes it over the line.

                      She’s still a fun character to watch — that scene with her and Finn enthusing at each other in the Falcon was especially cute — but her I-can-do-all-this-stuff-with-no-training-required skills bother me a lot.

                      * My guess is that she’s Luke Skywalker’s daughter, and he hid her there for her own safety, like he was hidden away on Tatooine as a child.

                    2. I’m actually inclined to disagree on that score, mostly on the following grounds:
                      1. I’m pretty sure Luke didn’t get months of training on Dagobah–it looked to me like he got maybe a week.
                      2. While I get the issue of piloting, let’s note that Luke made the trench run on the Death Star, as near as I can tell, with the same level of prior experience that Rey had–that is to say, flying speeder bikes.

                      That having been said, I get why a lot of people think Rey has Sue-ish tendencies, but I think they’re a bit overblown.

                    3. There’s still one difference with that scenario, which is that they acknowledged a reason why Luke might have a certain amount of comfort with flying through a trench. Two quotes: “It’ll be just like Beggar’s Canyon back home!” and “I used to bull’s-eye womp rats in my T-16 back home. They’re not much bigger than two meters.”

                      A T-16 is a 3-dimensional flyer, according to the pre-Disney canon (and I don’t think the Disney canon changed the technology, just wiped the backstory clean of anything not shown in the movies).

                      All they needed was a line or two from Rey, like “Don’t worry, I’ve flown this model in a simulator before!” Finn, voice going high-pitched: “A simulator?!? Ever flown one for real?” Rey: “You worry too much!” Done and dusted, and her skill with the YT-1300 is adequately explained.

                      You’re right about Luke’s training time, though. Although we’re never told exactly how much time elapsed, Han, Leia, Chewbacca and the droids were likely sitting around in Cloud City for a few days, but probably not a month. So the only real problem becomes how she did that with nobody to teach her. Which is still bad enough that it feels Sue-ish to me, though. We needed so little to fix the problem, too — it’s a shame Abrams didn’t notice it (or, if he did notice it, didn’t care).

                    4. “A T-16 is a 3-dimensional flyer, according to the pre-Disney canon (and I don’t think the Disney canon changed the technology, just wiped the backstory clean of anything not shown in the movies).”

                      Hmm. Interesting. I always figured the T-16 was the speeder we saw Luke driving while on Tatooine, seeing as that’s all we ever saw Luke the movie before he jumped in an X-wing.

                      Which, in the end, is why I don’t think that, based on the movies, Rey is a Sue–or, at least, any more of a Sue than Luke was a Stu.

                      I agree J.J. Abrams could have handled it better–considerably better–but it’s not a deal-breaker. I may revise my estimate later.

                    5. there is an entire deleted t-16 sequence, but Luke fiddles with a T-16 model briefly. The model Luke messes with was actually the miniature. Its the triangular-looking craft. Supposedly built by the same company as X-wings so the controls are similar.

                    6. Yes, the T-16 Skyhopper and T-65 X-Wing were both produced by the Incom Corporation.

                3. “… the puppy echo chamber …”

                  Do you have the foggiest idea how ridiculous that sounds to someone who’s been reading this blog for years?

                  “Echo chamber”! You actually think there’s an echo chamber here! Wow. No wonder you’re missing the point on a few other items.

                  The effort bears the same relation to “Is the Book Good” as GamerGate does to “ethics in journalism”, which is to say, none.

                  Ahhh, I see. Much is explained. The Gamergate movement write lots and lots of things about how video-game journalism is corrupt, yet when their opponents claim that it’s really about sexism, the Gamergaters’ own words (and actions!) are to be disbelieved. (I.e., the Gamergaters set up a fund for encouraging more young women to get into game development, and donated about $75,000 to it. When they invited their ideological opponents to contribute also, those opponents declined.)

                  And likewise, when the Sad Puppy movement insists from the very beginning that what we want to see is more fun stories rather than boring “message fiction” (as opposed to fun fiction that manages to convey a message), and every year our recommended-reading lists are posted with “Hey, here’s a bunch of fun stories that we like”… our words and actions are to be disbelieved. Because… well, the only evidence you cite is that you didn’t like John Wright’s novel Count to a Trillion. I haven’t read it myself so I can’t opine on it, but I looked up its Amazon reviews. They were quite mixed. Many people loved it, citing his wordy, erudite prose style as being one of the awesome things about the novel. And many people gave it 1 star, citing… his wordy, erudite prose style as being one of the awful things about the novel. Very few people held middle-ground opinions about his prose style; either they loved it, or they hated it. You’re in the latter camp; fair enough. But the evidence of the Amazon reviews says that about twice as many people posted 5-star reviews as 1-star reviews, so assuming that the good and bad reviews are a representative sample of strong opinions (which is likely, since people who hold strong opinions about a book are more likely to review it than people who say “Meh”), about twice as many people seriously liked that book as the number of people who seriously disliked it. Additionally, I found no 5-star reviews that cited the book’s or author’s politics as reasons to like it, and VERY few 1-star reviews that cited the author’s politics as a reason to dislike it. (There were a few, but the vast majority disliked the writing style and said nothing about politics). Therefore, it’s far more likely that it was nominated because people liked the book than that it was nominated for political reasons.

                  In other words, the Sad Puppy movement’s actions have been, in all years, entirely consistent with their words. As, I will point out, have the Gamergater movement’s actions. Yet in both cases, you insist on disbelieving one group, and believing their ideological opponents, with no evidence that you’ve been able to cite. (The fact that you disliked a novel is not evidence that was nominated for political reasons, as I’ve shown in my previous paragraph).

                  Why? Why do you insist that the Gamergaters’ words and actions are to be disregarded in evaluating their intent, and that the Sad Puppies’ words and actions are to be disregarded in evaluating their intent? Are those the attitudes of a reasonable man, or of a bigot who has made up his mind?

                  1. I will say one thing about JCW. He is of the wordy, thesaurus intensive style writing. Not my taste but I do enjoy the stories that lie behind them when I read and it does actually work once in a while. But I’d also state that stylistic differences between Hemmingway and Lovecraft don’t change the literary abilities of either man, just their methodology of expressing.

                4. Then they nominate six minus one times a homophobic author whose recent novel _Count to a Trillion_ is a horrible, unreadable mess, a book so ***Bad*** it was one of the very few books ever that I could not finish.

                  Was Count to a Trillion one of those twelve minus seven works nominated? If not, then your complaint is an irrelevancy. I can think of virtually no SF writer with work covering more than a decade who hasn’t produced at least one work I didn’t like. That includes Heinlein, in pretty much each decade he wrote.

                  Unlike Hyr, I do not confuse “a book I didn’t care for” with “a book that is not good.” Tastes vary and anybody who claims to have knowledge of a universal standard is asinine. I know of NO significant writer in the English language whose works have not at some point been panned by some critic or another, and that includes Austen, Dickens, Trollope, Hardy, Twain and pretty much any other you could cite. And more than one critically acclaimed writer has bored me to tears.

                  Selectively limiting the voting pool for Hugos is rank discrimination. Period.

              2. There are several people who agree with John Wright on homosexuality and yet like my books with heroic gay characters. Heck, John’s wife gave me a great review.

                1. But your characters are heroes who happen to be gay. Not heroes solely because they are gay. Ergo they are not true homosexuals in their mind.

                  It’s like what I see IRL a lot. I doubt most puppies care if someone brings their same sex SO to the Christmas Dinner as their +1. They may have an issue if they are performing tonsilectomies at the table. And would have similar issues with opposite sex. But that’s hate.

                2. Heck, I’m one of those people, and I’ll state that I generally like your books better than John’s. But then I like his wife’s books better than most of his, simply because I am not a huge fan of his prose style, not because I prefer her morals over his. That style of prose is one of the few times I prefer short stories over novels, what is an interesting style in a short story is just to much for me to take in a full length novel. Doesn’t mean I can’t see his talent, just that I don’t generally care for it in novel length. On the other hand, I heard him read aloud at Sasquan last year, and he probably should read his own audiobooks, that prose just begs to be read aloud, with someone putting stress in all the right places.

            4. Now you’re being deliberately foolish. It’s not “sea-lioning” to point out that your definitions are faulty and your premises are ridiculous.
              Sorry, but there’s only one person here who exudes a noxious odor.
              That person is you.

              1. It’s not “sea-lioning” to point out that your definitions are faulty and your premises are ridiculous.

                …but it’s all he really has. We’re supposed to shut up and obey his Enlightened Words, after all.

            5. You must be very dim, Hyr, that you cannot see that none of those statements express any antagonism of Wright toward homosexuals?

              Discussion of an instinctive reaction of “men” toward homosexuality no more asserts Wright’s agreement with that reaction than your describing the reaction of Nazis toward Jews would signal your agreement with them. The only personal view Wright explicitly expressed was one of empathy and respect for some homosexuals and hostility toward those who undermine their efforts to control their desires — much as any sane person would empathize and respect the drug addicted and detest those who attempt legitimization of drug abuse.

              You STILL fail to address the only salient issue, whether he writes well, and denounce him for reasons wholly unrelated to his w-r-i-t-i-n-g. And those of us who assert that it is ONLY his writing that the Hugos ought consider are tarred by your brush of associative guilt.

            6. John sez:
              “Men abhor homosexuals on a visceral level.”

              I should have read further before replying above, because this is exactly what I meant.

              Look up that essay, not just selected quotes. Mr Wright was illustrating what might legitimately be called “homophobia”—e.g. (he said), the men who experience such a visceral feeling—and adding that this “homophobia” does not seem to extend to lesbians. (I’ve heard of brutal attacks on lesbians that seem to have a similar source, but I’m not here to argue that he is correct in all his facts.) He then contrasts this with religious and moral disapproval, which is not a visceral feeling, which applies equally to other sexual behavior such as adultery or polygamy, and—most importantly—does not preclude treating everybody with respect.

              It’s ironic how an essay arguing that the word “homophobe” is being applied dishonestly is itself being taken as evidence of homophobia.

        6. I’m not interested in his parsing out, should he choose to, why this statement and others do not mean he’s a homophobe.

          Son, when was the last time:

          1. You were in a gay bar
          2. Let a gay man try and chat you up
          3. Engaged with another man in sexual activity

          Yes, I am asking for a reason.

          1. Never to 1 and 3. I’ve certainly spoken with gay men, but if by #2 you mean try to pick me up, I don’t think so, but then I’m probably too oblivious to have noticed.

            Are you asking because you’re looking for a date?

            1. Please…I do better than you without trying and if I am going to be with a man I want someone intelligent and well equipped.which you are clearly neither.

              I just wondered how it feels to be a homophobe given you clearly are. You avoid gay men (#1), you refuse to acknowledge their sexuality(#2), and refuse to even experiment (#3), probably out of disgust.

              1. Not seek out is not the same as avoid. Being oblivious is not the same as refusing to acknowledge. (I was always awful at dating, did very little of it, and my wife and I were set up by friends.) I don’t think your notion of experimenting is how people work, but again, I’m probably not the right person to ask. I do understand that whether I like or dislike something does not give me control over whether other people should feel the same, and that sexual preferences are sometimes very broad, sometimes very narrow, and in any case, I am now past the time when it matters.

                1. Really, not seek out is not the same as avoid? Are you sure?

                  Yet the Puppies are racist, sexist, and homophobic for not seeking out writers who meet specific criteria but sticking to their old know and tried. Reading the same old thing is proof of racism, sexism, and homphobia so I don’t see how f*****g the same old type of genitels isn’t homophobia.

                  1. The puppies nominated a writer six minus one times whose public writings are homophobic. It was an obvious attempt at a poke in the eye, and it was met as such. Hugo awards are not given out by social justice trope checklists. They are given to people whose work the Hugo voters like best.

                    1. “Hugo awards are not given out by social justice trope checklists. They are given to people whose work the Hugo voters like best.”

                      These are not mutually exclusive statements.

                    2. The puppies nominated a writer six minus one times whose public writings are homophobic. It was an obvious attempt at a poke in the eye, and it was met as such. Hugo awards are not given out by social justice trope checklists. They are given to people whose work the Hugo voters like best.

                      Perhaps they thought that the 2002 Nebula Award finalist was a good author? Certainly people thought he was a good author before he developed inconvenient political opinions. Orson Scott Card seems to have suffered the same fate; despite two wins and six other nominations, he’s a lousy author because of his politics.

                      Oh, while we’re at it: what redeeming qualities besides social justice trope checklist membership does If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love have?

                    3. Hugo voters and social justice checklists may not be mutually exclusive, but I’ve read most of the Hugo novel winners this century, and I don’t see any evidence of the latter. (_Ancillary Justice_ has social justice, but it’s of the “galactic dictators wiping out entire planets is bad” sort.)

                      I didn’t read Dinosaur, so I can’t comment on its merits or lack of them. I read hardly any short fiction. I also don’t know which 2002 Nebula finalist you mean. I don’t think that people believe that Card is a bad writer. I think they believe he’s a bad person who’s a good writer, in the same way that Mel Gibson is a bad person and a good filmmaker and Bill Cosby is a bad person and a good comedian.

                      OK, I just read Dinosaur. Oy vey iz mir. It’s just awful. How did it ever win a Hugo?

                    4. Clarification: It won the Nebula, and was nominated for the Hugo (does anyone have the vote count for that year handy to see how much it lost by?)

                      As to how it won, look at the writer’s demographics and in-group connections, as well as the demographics of the story’s villains. And I’m not really reaching here – these were actual arguments given by the story’s proponents, as I recall. The small pool of voters probably helped quite a bit, since that tends to magnify the in-group connection aspect.

                      IIRC, the Accordingtohoyt post on the matter was epic, even for Sarah. I’ll see if I can dig it up when I get home (I get A2H on RSS, so I have it all on my hard drive).

                      Unless someone can provide a link?

                    5. A work can win a Hugo with fewer than one thousand NINE HUNDRED votes? And that is supposed to represent the collected “wisdom” of fandom?

                      Pathetic. That’s like Rhode Island choosing the next president of the USA.

                      There needs to be a standard — in any award category, if a work cannot get the support of a thousand fans, “Noah” ought take the trophy.

                    6. For comparison:
                      the comic I linked a week or so back has a “pay to support” option.


                      She has two hundred paying supporters. More than half pay over $5 a month. For a twice-a-week web comic, and some perks like “Watch the lady draw.”

                      The combined might of fandom, or at least a really good representative sample, is… five times a small but high quality web comic?

                    7. Molakesh isn’t Earth-shattering either, but I wouldn’t mind if it won. Water was OK, I guess. Like I said, I’m not a short fiction reader, so I don’t know what the alternatives were, but I probably would have nominated and voted for other stories. (As I have been informed, I’m homophobic because I don’t hang out in gay bars and let myself get picked up, so I guess that’s why I wouldn’t have voted for Water 🙂

                      I think I need to make a concerted effort to make short-fiction nominations this year. We’ll see.

                    8. Hey, go for it. Read stuff, then nominate what you like. That’s what SP is all about, after all.

                    9. The puppies nominated a writer six minus one times whose public writings are homophobic.

                      We’ve gotten off track with all this discussion of homophobes. Would you believe that this century there have been Socialists nominated for the Hugo? Proponents of the political system responsible for the deaths of more than 100 million this century? Why you’re worried about homophobes is beyond me.

                      I’m making a point here. Your original argument was that obviously Wright was a problem for his beliefs, but there are a lot of people out there with beliefs that are problematic to large groups of people. Either we ask everyone to step back and evaluate works on their merits, or we all play ‘ban the person with the beliefs that I find offensive’. Right now, the puppies have been consistently open with nominating works on the quality as perceived by the puppies, and not by a litmus test of appropriate beliefs. If you think we should be just as vigilant at weeding out beliefs we find offensive as the anti-puppies, let us know. (Sorry, Eric Flint).

                    10. As I have been informed, I’m homophobic because I don’t hang out in gay bars and let myself get picked up

                      Laugh it up fuzzball because that isn’t off the mark. As I said, it is proof that you are racist/sexist/homophobic if you don’t seek out relaxation and recreational reading material by brown people, women, and gays explicitly. In fact, reading one or more of those categories just because you like it is no defense. My love of McCaffrey, Cherryh, Norton, and Bradley is no evidence against sexist or, in two cases, homophobia (although I only knew Bradley was gay prior to this year). However, my mixed feelings about Bradley after her daughter’s revolations (I knew about Breen but until recently though it was spousal blindness on Bradely’s part) is proof of my homophobia.

                      For that matter, by the definition of homophobia you gave in this thread I am homophobic. So, someone who does, in fact, do some of their drinking at a gay bar (less since I moved…I hit the Eagle more when it was a block away), has been hit on by gay men, and has had sex with a man. That a person who fits that description is homophobic by your defition proves it is ridiculous. At least mine takes actions into account.

                      Then again, defining someone as straight, gay, or bi strictly on their sexual behavior is, IMHO, ridiculous…either that or we need new words for gay and bi because those are doing double duty.

                      Finally, I’d recommend you google the phrase, “you will be made to care”. In this world where neutrality, ie “I don’t care what you do, just don’t do it where it frightens women and children”, is increasingly seen as proof of hate and only open endorsement proves tolerance it will not be long before never having gay sex IS proof of homophobia.

                    11. Given my generally glum approach to life (Puddleglum and Eeyore were optimists) I don’t believe I’ve ever had gay sex. Grateful sex, dour sex, but not, I think, gay sex.

                      Or does that word not mean what I believe it to have traditiionally meant?

                    12. Oh good, maybe in the future I can be labeled a homophobe by rejecting an offer of sex with the helpful phrase: “Awwww… Mongo Straight!”

                    13. @Matthew & Jared:

                      Interestingly I went back and read that Dinosaur ATC post and made an interesting connection:

                      Instead, they imagine everyone not a college professor as a sort of grown up feral highschool student crossed with the worst stereotypes from older books and movies.

                      They imagine beneath their enlightened selves a lumpen mass of troglodytes who hate anyone who is different, and particularly anyone who is LEARNED like them. They think working class automatically means racist and sexist and anti-intellectual.

                      And immediately thought of David Brooks’s anti-Trump article from last Friday and the similar Jim Sleeper story. Sleeper has the better pull quote illustrating it from an interview he did about the article:

                      We’ve used our classism to condemn their racism, which is very brutal, without understanding that we were contributing to the sense of alienation and dispossession with our own disdain.

                      Even realizing they have finally created their desired killers a la Dinosaur they can’t avoid spewing the same assumptions on the way down.

                    14. Could you please give up on the “six minus one times”? Most of us here graduated first grade math a long time ago, we don’t need to have constant pop quizzes in it.

    3. What Robin said, plus, they can repudiate the recommendation all they like; it just makes them look like whiny little gits. What they can’t do is demand that the recommendation be removed.

    4. And yet, your side continues to push conspiracy theories about Vox Day running both Puppy lists.