Hugo Drama III: Will "the ilk" come to Spokane?

[TannerSack]

Sometimes I question my own sanity, and need to find something legitimately nuts to make me feel better by comparison. I'll just say that for the past few weeks, Wright's blog delivers..

Good Stuff! like that you found a way to put a positive spin on it.

[Cubarey]

You missed my point somehow I think,

My strong opinion is that when you get voted in by some extremely ignorant group, you might want to make a case for yourself that you do not approve. This slate garbage hasn't happened before so your comparisons are quite moot.

I would read and judge the books on there merit in any given year I have the time and the books are of interest to me, like any bibliophile I would assume. However, if it is a bunch nominated by a slate and it isn't best of year quality, far from it, and the author is to disinterested, cowardly, or concerned with their sales to take a stand, well screw them. No award is better in that scenario. In areas like Best Novel there is no way you should have NA at the top. It always should be quality first, strength of character second, then nominate the slush pile. IMHO most of the slate voting is way below an average year of nominees, and I have already "struggled" but read through most of their nominees, it is really badWell

Well of course you really cannot tell if the quality of the nominations are not best of year till you actually take the time to read, them. Also you missed at least two possibilities for the authors actions: he either agrees with the political views or disagrees that be slate is somehow cowardly, or second they can honestly believe their work is worthy of the award and do not have you take on either slate nominations (one of the points that can be made is that Slate nominations however objectionable do make the type of back scratching and cronyism that even GRRM admits to have occurred prior to the Puppies very hard to succeed). If you actually took the time to struggle throught the nominated works then I have no objections to however you vote.

cub, that quotation is from the oh john ringo no article, linked several posts up thread.

LV, does that mean that JCW considers the beale screed regarding jemisin to be non-racist?

ETA: just read it in the comments there; he does think the jemisin thing is not racist! hahahahahaha

Thanks I was having so much trouble simply getting on to the forums that did not want to search back through the thread to see if i could find the source for the quoted material. I will scan back through your posts to read the article when not posting .

[Cubarey]

Can some smart person help me with this logic? I am reading a /=a here.

"The purpose of science fiction is not to tell a good story. Most of what people call ‘good stories’ are not stories that promote social justice. So ‘good story’ or not good story, (and there we get to matters of taste) they are not good science fiction. Good science fiction is only that science fiction which promotes social justice."

Context from file770.com Courtesy of John Ringo

The original fb post was not available.

Edit: after continued reading (after exhausting my WAT?? lens) I decided to repost the entire foolishness:

My question being is there any logic at all here? Any?

Certainly there is a logic, you may not buy its validity (I probably do not buy it's validity) but there is a logic. Ringo is stating that for SJW the purpose of science fiction is not entertainment but to further their few of Social Justice. In furtherence of this they not only put ideological purity above ability to entertain (what some might call quality) but they in keeping with their Social Justice agenda will classify ideological works in a higherarchy that promotes members of "oppressed groups" ahead of members of the dominant group. You may not agree with the argument, hell you can think it as totally lacking in factual evidence, hell I think it's without merit. However, the argument is inherently logical and follows that logic. It is thus a bad, or invalid arguement but not illogical ( in the sense that it's not self contradictory or does follow a consistent pattern of thought).

[Cubarey]

Double post. damn either my posts get eaten up or I post them multiple times.

[TannerSack]

Well of course you really cannot tell if the quality of the nominations are not best of year till you actually take the time to read, them. Also you missed at least two possibilities for the authors actions: he either agrees with the political views or disagrees that be slate is somehow cowardly, or second they can honestly believe their work is worthy of the award and do not have you take on either slate nominations (one of the points that can be made is that Slate nominations however objectionable do make the type of back scratching and cronyism that even GRRM admits to have occurred prior to the Puppies very hard to succeed). If you actually took the time to struggle throught the nominated works then I have no objections to however you vote.

Thanks I was having so much trouble simply getting on to the forums that did not want to search back through the thread to see if i could find the source for the quoted material. I will scan back through your posts to read the article when not posting .

I never said the slate is cowardly(not sure how you drew that out), the slate is obnoxious. I want to know where these authors/artists stand, whether they support this manipulation or not. Secondly, if they do believe their work is that good then more power to them but if you are voted in by clearly manipulative means how can you justify feeling legitimately awarded praise in a fair process? I think you can't and it annoys me that these people stay silent. It can be many things and I think they are all weak

[Cubarey]

I never said the slate is cowardly(not sure how you drew that out), the slate is obnoxious. I want to know where these authors/artists stand, whether they support this manipulation or not. Secondly, if they do believe their work is that good then more power to them but if you are voted in by clearly manipulative means how can you justify feeling legitimately awarded praise in a fair process? I think you can't and it annoys me that these people stay silent. It can be many things and I think they are all weak

Well, as GRRM admitted in his blog back scratching and cronyism was well known in the process before the Puppies. So should those who were nominated or won because of such manipulation of the system have rejected their awards or nominations? Now I stand corrected you did not say the Slate was cowardly only that those who were nominated are cowardly for accepting the nomination. I simply disagree, if you are an author (or fan) not interested in the political infighting you are going to be just grateful for the nomination. Lack of political interest or disinterest in a debate between people who have both manipulated the system in their own way is not cowardly, I would say instead its the optimum and logical choice.

[TannerSack]

The past manipulation of voting, from everything I ever read, has never come close to this gross amount of a takeover/sabotage, the comparison to some group of fans or profiteers backing one or a few pieces of fiction is not relevant, the larder was small scale, this is far more grand scale and more importantly people are "aware" of it, most of us were not in the past. Oh, and GRRM said the comparison was nil himself from my best recollection.

Also, I didn't say they were cowardly for embracing the slates, I said they were cowardly for not being outspoken. It is a way of capitalizing and/or keeping your self interest without saying anything. It is a political type of stance that lacks any character. Most of all it is a logical choice for those who care more for themselves then right or wrong.

Here is a fine example of the sham voting, although you probably already know. One of the puppies groups manipulated by John Wright and Vox Day nominated the same writer for 3 of 5 slots and one other writer in the "Best Novella" category of 5 eligible works Oh, and by the way this writer, John Wright was the benefactor, and this other guy Vox Day are pushing very little other then their own publishing company(Castalia House) most of us never heard of for a reason. It is of literary slush pile quality.

This is blanket voting to get recognition and attention . How can anyone possibly want to stand behind a group that voted you in and lumps you with the likes of these gratuitous self promoters and feel gratitude and have a sense of legitimacy, that is absurd.

If you disagree with that then it looks like this debate of moral scruples is at an impasse and not worth pursuing.

Frankly, it is kind of sad to debate the merits of anything related to these camps of literary radicals, whiners and ignorants.

[AncalagonTheBlack]

The Hugo 2015 short fiction reviewed - http://secritcrush.livejournal.com/tag/hugo%20madness

[Cubarey]

The past manipulation of voting, from everything I ever read, has never come close to this gross amount of a takeover/sabotage, the comparison to some group of fans or profiteers backing one or a few pieces of fiction is not relevant, the larder was small scale, this is far more grand scale and more importantly people are "aware" of it, most of us were not in the past. Oh, and GRRM said the comparison was nil himself from my best recollection.

Also, I didn't say they were cowardly for embracing the slates, I said they were cowardly for not being outspoken. It is a way of capitalizing and/or keeping your self interest without saying anything. It is a political type of stance that lacks any character. Most of all it is a logical choice for those who care more for themselves then right or wrong.

Here is a fine example of the sham voting, although you probably already know. One of the puppies groups manipulated by John Wright and Vox Day nominated the same writer for 3 of 5 slots and one other writer in the "Best Novella" category of 5 eligible works Oh, and by the way this writer, John Wright was the benefactor, and this other guy Vox Day are pushing very little other then their own publishing company(Castalia House) most of us never heard of for a reason. It is of literary slush pile quality.

This is blanket voting to get recognition and attention . How can anyone possibly want to stand behind a group that voted you in and lumps you with the likes of these gratuitous self promoters and feel gratitude and have a sense of legitimacy, that is absurd.

If you disagree with that then it looks like this debate of moral scruples is at an impasse and not worth pursuing.

Frankly, it is kind of sad to debate the merits of anything related to these camps of literary radicals, whiners and ignorants.

That the scope that prior manipulation did not rise to the level of the Slate proposed by the Sad Puppies, I think is factually wrong. No a single person or group did not advance a single Slate but the whisper campaigns, handshake agreements and back scratching assured that the vast number of awards and nominations went to those involved in the cronyism and back scratching and that many deserving authors and works were left out.

Plus the fact that people today are aware of the past manipulation can be creditied to Correia and the Sad Puppies who not publicly pronounced that fact but stated the Puppies campaign to prove that the system of nominating and choosing winners was in the hands of such a small group of persons that it could (and had been) easily be manipulated.

As for an author's cowardice, you might have a point if the authors that spoke up actually share your opinion as to past and present attempts to effect the voting. However, the likelihood is that many of those authors either have no real opinion on the controversy or have views that are somewhere in between our extremes ( mainly they do not think that the Sad Puppies have made their case but neither do they believe that the Hugo's were in the recent past just handed out based on merit). For them not speaking up is the sane option. Why piss of part of your fanbase (or potential fanbase) by public choosing a side in a controversy that you regard as irrelevant or in which you agree with some points made by both sides?

As for the Rabid Puppies and what they did, I am not one of them, I do not control them, I have voiced my opinion that VOX Day is beyond the pale, does that does not mean that I will stop making points I believe in simply because they choose for their own reasons to agree with them. Further, While Vox Day is in my opinion a gadfly whose only interest self promotion . John Wright however, is a much more complicated figure; he has written works that people on all sides have acknowledged as quite good and worthy of praise.

If you have gone to the Sad Puppy sites you would see that while the entire Slate is exhibited and praised the fans have also been admonished to make up their own minds. I also note that when casting votes for nominations there was quite a varied outcome. Some suggested Sad Puppy Slate choices got a lot of support from their fans, others got significantly less support. I also note that this is exactly the same as GRRM seperating one or several nominees and suggesting to his fans that they should read the offerings and vote for them. I also note that Slate voting is not against the rules; and that it has not been heretofore used not because of some inherent undemocratic feature that it possesses but because it negates the ability to do the behind the door deals, back scratching and cronyism that has longed plagued the Hugo's.

Lastly, what is sad in my opinion is that people are unwlilling to admit that those they disagree with may have some valid points and that all that dsagree are lumped together in one group and branded with the same epitaphs.

[Larry of the Lawn]

@cubarey - either there was a secret cabal before or there wasnt - the puppies proved there wasn't.

[Cubarey]

@cubarey - either there was a secret cabal before or there wasnt - the puppies proved there wasn't.

Proving a negative is not logically possible. Second, a Cabal, as a unified secret group, no one ever claimed that such a group existed. A small group of people with similar beliefs that were able to manipulate the system to split up the vast majority of the nominations and awards among themselves and those they approved of for a prolonged period of time? I think there is a lot of evidence for that. What the puppies proved was that the scheme was possible because the Hugo nominations where controlled by a few hundred people who choose their own or those they approved of for nominations and awards. The Puppies also proved that if anyone outside this small clique attempted to organize to get authors or works they like nominations and awards the Cliques and their supporters would not only cry foul but charge the upstarts with every possible derogatory claim going so far as not even have the common courtesy or sense to distinguish folks who have a rather varied set of beliefs and opinions and who have used quite different methods of supporting those beliefs and opinions..

[mormont]

Proving a negative is not logically possible.

How about proving a positive, then? Show some evidence of the existence of a concerted attempt to manipulate the ballot for political reasons, as opposed to people simply recommending particular eligible works for consideration, which was common.

This has happened before. It happened with the L Ron Hubbard incident, as well as the previous Puppies slates. But where is the evidence that it's been done in any organised or secretive fashion by people on the left? Where's the evidence that, for example, 'The Water That Falls On You From Nowhere' owed its presence on the Hugo list to underhand tactics?

And, for that matter, I said this in a previous thread: say what you like about 'The Water That Falls On You From Nowhere', the story was made available to every single Hugo voter regardless of their politics to read and they all got a fair opportunity to vote for it or not. This is largely due to the initiative of John Scalzi in creating a voter packet, and subsequent con committees in keeping it going and promoting it. These are not the actions of a secretive cabal trying to rig the vote. How does this fit your narrative? (Clue: it doesn't.)

Second, a Cabal, as a unified secret group, no one ever claimed that such a group existed. A small group of people with similar beliefs that were able to manipulate the system to split up the vast majority of the nominations and awards among themselves and those they approved of for a prolonged period of time? I think there is a lot of evidence for that.

What is that evidence, then? Do you have tales of 'unsuitable' ballots being thrown out, of mysterious voters whose nominations arrived in batches, of figures being fixed? Do you have secret emails being passed around agreeing on a list of 'acceptable' nominees that the cabal will all promote? Do you even have a blog entry that promotes an actual slate under a logo with an explicitly political rationale and an exhortation to vote the ticket?

Or do you just have some winners you don't think were very good, plus the fact that some writers from time to time said 'hey guys, the Hugos are coming up and here's some eligible stuff I wrote and/or some other eligible stuff I quite enjoyed'?

What the puppies proved was that the scheme was possible because the Hugo nominations where controlled by a few hundred people who choose their own or those they approved of for nominations and awards.

I've asked this before, without reply. How was this 'control' exerted? How did these 'few hundred people' co-ordinate their activity to manipulate the ballot? How did they agree on who they would approve and who they would exclude? Where's the evidence that these voters were a single group with a single set of motivations?

The group of nominators each year do have a degree of consistency, because there are people (of all political persuasions, by the way) who've been going to WorldCon every year, or most years, for decades. But it's doubtful that they make up the majority: there are also many, many nominators each year who go infrequently or have never been before.

You've claimed that there's evidence of what you're saying, but for some reason never cite it. I suggest it's because there isn't any, because what you're saying is not in fact true.

[Ran]

Maybe the evidence is this completely specious claim from someone from Vox Day's Castalia House that a couple of sets of recommendations from the 2001 NESFA recommended reading list were somehow decisive rather than simply showing congruency. It's one of the most inane posts I've seen come from the RP camp to date, and that's saying something.

[Lily Valley]

I finished "The Day the World Turned Upside Down" and "The Journeyman: In the Stone House"

"Stone House" appears to be a serial, the ending wasn't particularly satisfying. Post-apocalypse sword-fighting fiction with lengthy descriptions of hand-to-hand combat and the difference between heavy and light cavalry. Between the military emphasis and the pidgen it reminded me very much of SM Stirling's "Dies the Fire" series.

"The Day the World Turned Upside Down" was...just....

sigh. I think I have to just let the secritcrush review speak for me on this one.

Moving along.

[David Selig]

Torgersen is really embarrassing himself over at File 770 in the comments of this thread - http://file770.com/?p=22293

Basically one of the authors he tried to put on the slate (Juliette Wade) explained why she refused and how he wasn't completely honest with her when he first contacted her about putting that. Torgersen appeared in the comments and explained how the actual reason was Wade's fear of the SJWs (he is like a broken record). Then Wade herself appeared in the comments and called him out for talking nonsense as usual and explained her actual reasons again.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Torgersen is really embarrassing himself over at File 770 in the comments of this thread - http://file770.com/?p=22293

Basically one of the authors he tried to put on the slate (Juliette Wade) explained why she refused and how he wasn't completely honest with her when he first contacted her about putting that. Torgersen appeared in the comments and explained how the actual reason was Wade's fear of the SJWs (he is like a broken record). Then Wade herself appeared in the comments and called him out for talking nonsense as usual and explained her actual reasons again.

Obviously, Torgersen has no business spinning paranoid, self-serving fantasies about the alleged internal decision-making processes of people who are more than capable of speaking up for themselves.

That having being said, Wade's response strikes me as the lady doth protesting too much. By her own admission, Wade was familiar with Torgersen, friends with him on Facebook, familiar with the Sad Puppy movement from the year prior, and familiar with the slate that Torgersen had proposed last year. When Torgersen asked to include her on his slate this year, she either knew the score or should have known the score without Torgersen explicitly spelling everything out for her. Based on the exchange they had, there was no deception, intentionally or otherwise and the whole "I hate the Sad Puppies, I hated your slate last year and I've hated you for the past two years and was deceived" strikes me as overcompensating.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

David,

Vox Day is in there scretching about "Social Justice Warriors and their evil plans

:rolleyes:

[mormont]

That having being said, Wade's response strikes me as the lady doth protesting too much. By her own admission, Wade was familiar with Torgersen, friends with him on Facebook, familiar with the Sad Puppy movement from the year prior, and familiar with the slate that Torgersen had proposed last year.

I'm not an aspiring author with a pressing need to network, and even I have over 400 friends on Facebook. And, I must shamefacedly disclose, I'm not actually very good friends with some of them.

I'm also familiar with the Sad Puppy slate from last year - familiar enough to know it wasn't run by Brad Torgersen and didn't run a full slate. So I can easily see how Ms Wade may not have immediately twigged.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I'm not an aspiring author with a pressing need to network, and even I have over 400 friends on Facebook. And, I must shamefacedly disclose, I'm not actually very good friends with some of them.

I'm also familiar with the Sad Puppy slate from last year - familiar enough to know it wasn't run by Brad Torgersen and didn't run a full slate. So I can easily see how Ms Wade may not have immediately twigged.

Except that Ms. Wade herself says that she was aware of Torgersen's involvement in the Sad Puppies stuff last year: "I was appalled by your actions in the Sad Puppy business last year "

And her claim about Torgersen was not just that she wasn't familiar with the Sad Puppies stuff this year because she hadn't bothered to check his page because they're just not close, but rather that she's been actively avoiding his presence online because she's really disliked him for two years! " I was entirely unaware of the Sad Puppy connection because I had deliberately been avoiding looking at your wall, much less your blog, for going on two years."

But, of course, she was all too happy to agree to be put on his Hugo slate for this year, even though she's been avoiding him for two years and was appalled by him last year!

Never mind that, though. Juliette Wade was at war with Brad Torgersen; therefore Juliette Wade had always been at war with Brad Torgersen!

[mormont]

She was aware of his involvement, yes. (He was a nominee - she could hardly not be!) But that's not the same as 'she must have realised that he was organising this year's Sad Puppies slate'.

And yeah, I think any author starting out who is asked if they want to be on an established author's rec list is unlikely to say 'no'. Even if it's by a casual acquaintance whose FB wall they avoid checking because they differ on political issues. But that author may have a different attitude if they realise that list is actually driven by a political agenda. I find that perfectly credible.