Puppygate

Jacuzzi Billy

Watching PTI
Donator
#1
I guess there is some bullshit controversy going on with the Hugo awards. Here is the link if you care...

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/17/hugo-award-nominees-withdraw-amid-puppygate-storm

And here are the nominees for best novel....


  • Ancillary Sword, Ann Leckie (Orbit US/Orbit UK)
  • The Dark Between the Stars, Kevin J. Anderson (Tor Books)
  • The Goblin Emperor, Katherine Addison (Sarah Monette) (Tor Books)
  • Skin Game, Jim Butcher (Orbit UK/Roc Books)
  • The Three Body Problem, Cixin Liu, Ken Liu translator (Tor Books)
If you read the article, you have already discovered one of the authors at the center of the controversy. If you didn't read it, it is none other than the Wackbag favorite, Marko Kloos. (@LiddyRules @Falldog ). THIS MOTHER FUCKER WAS NOMINATED FOR A HUGO!!! It's hilarious that he turned it down. Before I knew the reason, I was speculating that he turned it down because he felt his novel was not worthy. I may have actually gained some respect for him but that wasn't the case.

I also wonder how much of this has to do with Scalzi winning last year.
edit: Guess that was two years ago.
 
Last edited:

HandPanzer

Shantih Shantih Shantih
#2
Motherfucker teases puppies in the title and slaps my face with Marko Kloos?! Just wait until I start replying to your posts without quoting you...revenge!

I also wish George RR Martin would stop wading into this and focus on finishing the Goddamn series before he kicks the bucket, but he seems to be right about this nonsense (unless I'm totally missing something, which is possible due to how boring I find the perpetual outrage).

Right when he says this, I mean:
Whether you vote for the Sad Puppies, or for the Rabid Puppies, or against the Puppies, or vote NO AWARD on everything, or read the work and vote on what you like, or abstain, or elect some combination of all of those … that’s up to you. The important thing is that you vote, however you think best
 

Jacuzzi Billy

Watching PTI
Donator
#3
Looks like Larry Correia is one of the main guys behind the Sad Puppies movement. I don't think him and Scalzi are fond of one another.
 

Jacuzzi Billy

Watching PTI
Donator
#4
Motherfucker teases puppies in the title and slaps my face with Marko Kloos?! Just wait until I start replying to your posts without quoting you...revenge!
I really should have posted puppies although the book forum would have been an odd place for that thread.
 
Last edited:

HandPanzer

Shantih Shantih Shantih
#5

This post is in reply to JayBee's post above. Revenge!
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
#6
‘I want to be nominated for awards because of the work’ ... Marko Kloos with his dog Ygraine. Photograph: PR
Well that shouldn't happen either.
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
#7
Holy shit, why didn't anyone tell me there was a sequel to Ancillary Justice?
 

LiddyRules

RIP King of France. Gutted Like Fish Under R Line
#8
I have no idea what's going on, I don't see any puppies, I don't want Sad Puppies, and Kloos is an Award Nominated Author. Today has started off mad.
 

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
#9
I was told there would be puppies.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
#10
Ok, this is a lot more complicated than the Guardian article (I'm shocked...) paints it.

I thought about posting on WB about this, but I figured ya'll wouldn't be interested. You're probably not interested still, but here goes:

Spoiler for length:
The Hugo Awards are THE awards in science fiction/fantasy literature. They're the Big Dog, the creme de la creme, the most prestigious award in SF/F. And most fans, myself included, had no idea how the Hugos were determined up until about four years ago.

That's when Larry Correia spoke up. Essentially, he accused the Hugos of becoming an "in" award among SJW types who who placed a higher value on social commentary than in actual readability of their work. He was *NOT* saying that the Hugo winners were unworthy: just that when it came down to a choice between an SJW and a... more conservative writer, it wasn't going to be close. Conservative writers could get nominated (Correia himself was nominated for the Campbell Award for best new writer), but there wasn't a chance in hell that they'd win, starting at around 2000 or so. This was based on his personal experience as a nominee for the above mentioned award and his reception by what he felt was a Hugo "in crowd" when he actually attended WorldCon, which in his opinion had a very different feel than other SF/F conventions he had attended. Correia's hypothesis was that the Hugos no longer represented SF/F fandom in general but a specific segment of fandom.

Correia received a "Oh, stop bitching, the Hugos AREN'T an 'in crowd' award, stop being a dick!" response. In return, Correia started "Sad Puppies", a humorous blog campaign where he 1.) posted about his theories, 2.) explained how the Hugos were actually determined (if you pay the ~$50 WorldCon registration fee, you get to nominate and vote for the Hugos), and 3.) had a suggested reading/recommended list of books, short stories, authors, and editors that his readers could check out and vote for should they choose to do so.

Larry got a few responses.
1.) "Nuh unh! The Hugos aren't an 'in crowd' award!"
2.) "You're trying to stuff the ballot! How DARE you put up a suggested nominee list???"
3.) "You're just putting up conservative writers and trying to drown out DIVERSITY!!!"
4.) From his readers: "Ok, let's check this out."
5.) From some of his readers: "FUCK THE SJWS!!!!! FUCK THEM UP THE ASS!!! HOW MUCH DO I HAVE TO SPEND FOR TEN MEMBERSHIPS????"

Larry had moderate success with Sad Puppies I & II. This year, he was unable to fun Sad Puppies III, so his friend (and helper SP1 and SP2, and author) Brad R Torgerson ran things. Torgerson put up a broader list, with more suggested nominees. Then Vox Day got involved.

Vox is... well, he's a conservative dick. He'd fit right in on WB. He practically enjoys pissing off SJWs, especially after he got kicked out of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Of America (SFWA) organization for having some... controversial attitudes towards race and gender.

Vox put up the "Rabid Puppies" suggested nominee list. It had some congruence with the Sad Puppies III list. And in the major categories for the Hugo nominees, the Rabid Puppies nominees effectively swept the field. For some awards (IIRC, best novel and short story), it's effectively the Rabid Puppies slate in its entirety, so it's about 80% the Sad Puppies III list as well.

In response, in order, to the above responses to Correia's Sad Puppies campaign:
1.) "Nuh unh! The Hugos aren't an 'in crowd' award!"
Response: Except, within the last year, there have been several blogs and articles by the people running WorldCon 3-4 years ago, including the publisher at Tor, along the lines of "Well, dammit, this was OUR sandbox, what the fuck are you conservative assholes doing in it????"

2.) "You're trying to stuff the ballot! How DARE you put up a suggested nominee list???"
Response: This came from, among others, Scalzi. Who, by the way, had been posting a suggested Hugo nominee list of his own for a couple of years before Sad Puppies started. And Correia and Torgerson (I'm not so sure about Vox...) were quite clear in asking their readers to actually READ the suggested nominees before voting. Which, well, wasn't always the case for others.

3.) "You're just putting up conservative writers and trying to drown out DIVERSITY!!!"
Response: You mean, when the entire Sad Puppies thing was started by a Hispanic man? When the SP3 slate has more POCs (I know, I know, gross nomenclature) and women on the slate than the SJWs have nominated for Hugos in the last DECADE? Using the SJWs own standards, Sad Puppies is approximately 12X more diverse in race and gender than the "open minded" SJWs.

4.) From his readers: "Ok, let's check this out."
Response: What I'd *like* to think is the reaction of most of Larry's readers.

5.) From some of his readers: "FUCK THE SJWS!!!!! FUCK THEM UP THE ASS!!! HOW MUCH DO I HAVE TO SPEND FOR TEN MEMBERSHIPS????"
Response: To be perfectly honest, what probably propelled Sad Puppies III and Rabid Puppies over the top.

I prefer the group in #4. It's totally ok by me that SJW "message" fiction wins the Hugos fairly often. That's kind of the place of science fiction. Yeah, you're kind of supposed to explore things like what would a society with in vitro gestation look like. The argument that Correia made, repeatedly, was that the STORY should come first. If you can fit in a message (and his books have plenty of messages, just not the ones that SJWs necessarily like, even if they ideologically kind of should...), great. But the STORY comes first.

It's been more than a decade since the winner of the John W Campbell Award For Best New Writer could have gotten hired by John W Campbell. Maybe Scalzi within that decade (like his politics or not, he's a good writer), but that's about it. Not saying Campbell was without fault, but it kind of says something when the man you name the award after wouldn't give 99% of the winners of that award the time of day for their actual work.

The Hugos are like any other popularity contest. Correia was just pointing out that the popularity contest was within a particularly small group of like-minded people, and that for an award that was supposed to represent ALL of SF/F fandom that wasn't the way it should work.

Now, some nominees declined because Vox nominated them. That's understandable. Vox is a dick, even if you agree with him. He is kind of like how Voss' Tumor was: even if you agreed with his basic premise, he tended to piss you off pretty badly. But Correia's basic assertion that the Hugos were an "in crowd" award has been demonstrated and that situation has been corrected. And it's the correction to that situation that has people from the Guardian, Salon, and other SJW organizations all pissed off, because their happy little playpen has been upset and the hypocrisy of their "inclusive" philosophy has been exposed.

TL;DR: That Guardian piece is full of shit. Larry Correia was right and has been proven so.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
#11
And, you know, Larry actually writes readable, fun, and interesting books. I highly recommend the Monster Hunter International series as well as the Grimnoir series.
 

Jacuzzi Billy

Watching PTI
Donator
#12
Ok, this is a lot more complicated than the Guardian article (I'm shocked...) paints it.

I thought about posting on WB about this, but I figured ya'll wouldn't be interested. You're probably not interested still, but here goes:

Spoiler for length:
The Hugo Awards are THE awards in science fiction/fantasy literature. They're the Big Dog, the creme de la creme, the most prestigious award in SF/F. And most fans, myself included, had no idea how the Hugos were determined up until about four years ago.

That's when Larry Correia spoke up. Essentially, he accused the Hugos of becoming an "in" award among SJW types who who placed a higher value on social commentary than in actual readability of their work. He was *NOT* saying that the Hugo winners were unworthy: just that when it came down to a choice between an SJW and a... more conservative writer, it wasn't going to be close. Conservative writers could get nominated (Correia himself was nominated for the Campbell Award for best new writer), but there wasn't a chance in hell that they'd win, starting at around 2000 or so. This was based on his personal experience as a nominee for the above mentioned award and his reception by what he felt was a Hugo "in crowd" when he actually attended WorldCon, which in his opinion had a very different feel than other SF/F conventions he had attended. Correia's hypothesis was that the Hugos no longer represented SF/F fandom in general but a specific segment of fandom.

Correia received a "Oh, stop bitching, the Hugos AREN'T an 'in crowd' award, stop being a dick!" response. In return, Correia started "Sad Puppies", a humorous blog campaign where he 1.) posted about his theories, 2.) explained how the Hugos were actually determined (if you pay the ~$50 WorldCon registration fee, you get to nominate and vote for the Hugos), and 3.) had a suggested reading/recommended list of books, short stories, authors, and editors that his readers could check out and vote for should they choose to do so.

Larry got a few responses.
1.) "Nuh unh! The Hugos aren't an 'in crowd' award!"
2.) "You're trying to stuff the ballot! How DARE you put up a suggested nominee list???"
3.) "You're just putting up conservative writers and trying to drown out DIVERSITY!!!"
4.) From his readers: "Ok, let's check this out."
5.) From some of his readers: "FUCK THE SJWS!!!!! FUCK THEM UP THE ASS!!! HOW MUCH DO I HAVE TO SPEND FOR TEN MEMBERSHIPS????"

Larry had moderate success with Sad Puppies I & II. This year, he was unable to fun Sad Puppies III, so his friend (and helper SP1 and SP2, and author) Brad R Torgerson ran things. Torgerson put up a broader list, with more suggested nominees. Then Vox Day got involved.

Vox is... well, he's a conservative dick. He'd fit right in on WB. He practically enjoys pissing off SJWs, especially after he got kicked out of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Of America (SFWA) organization for having some... controversial attitudes towards race and gender.

Vox put up the "Rabid Puppies" suggested nominee list. It had some congruence with the Sad Puppies III list. And in the major categories for the Hugo nominees, the Rabid Puppies nominees effectively swept the field. For some awards (IIRC, best novel and short story), it's effectively the Rabid Puppies slate in its entirety, so it's about 80% the Sad Puppies III list as well.

In response, in order, to the above responses to Correia's Sad Puppies campaign:
1.) "Nuh unh! The Hugos aren't an 'in crowd' award!"
Response: Except, within the last year, there have been several blogs and articles by the people running WorldCon 3-4 years ago, including the publisher at Tor, along the lines of "Well, dammit, this was OUR sandbox, what the fuck are you conservative assholes doing in it????"

2.) "You're trying to stuff the ballot! How DARE you put up a suggested nominee list???"
Response: This came from, among others, Scalzi. Who, by the way, had been posting a suggested Hugo nominee list of his own for a couple of years before Sad Puppies started. And Correia and Torgerson (I'm not so sure about Vox...) were quite clear in asking their readers to actually READ the suggested nominees before voting. Which, well, wasn't always the case for others.

3.) "You're just putting up conservative writers and trying to drown out DIVERSITY!!!"
Response: You mean, when the entire Sad Puppies thing was started by a Hispanic man? When the SP3 slate has more POCs (I know, I know, gross nomenclature) and women on the slate than the SJWs have nominated for Hugos in the last DECADE? Using the SJWs own standards, Sad Puppies is approximately 12X more diverse in race and gender than the "open minded" SJWs.

4.) From his readers: "Ok, let's check this out."
Response: What I'd *like* to think is the reaction of most of Larry's readers.

5.) From some of his readers: "FUCK THE SJWS!!!!! FUCK THEM UP THE ASS!!! HOW MUCH DO I HAVE TO SPEND FOR TEN MEMBERSHIPS????"
Response: To be perfectly honest, what probably propelled Sad Puppies III and Rabid Puppies over the top.

I prefer the group in #4. It's totally ok by me that SJW "message" fiction wins the Hugos fairly often. That's kind of the place of science fiction. Yeah, you're kind of supposed to explore things like what would a society with in vitro gestation look like. The argument that Correia made, repeatedly, was that the STORY should come first. If you can fit in a message (and his books have plenty of messages, just not the ones that SJWs necessarily like, even if they ideologically kind of should...), great. But the STORY comes first.

It's been more than a decade since the winner of the John W Campbell Award For Best New Writer could have gotten hired by John W Campbell. Maybe Scalzi within that decade (like his politics or not, he's a good writer), but that's about it. Not saying Campbell was without fault, but it kind of says something when the man you name the award after wouldn't give 99% of the winners of that award the time of day for their actual work.

The Hugos are like any other popularity contest. Correia was just pointing out that the popularity contest was within a particularly small group of like-minded people, and that for an award that was supposed to represent ALL of SF/F fandom that wasn't the way it should work.

Now, some nominees declined because Vox nominated them. That's understandable. Vox is a dick, even if you agree with him. He is kind of like how Voss' Tumor was: even if you agreed with his basic premise, he tended to piss you off pretty badly. But Correia's basic assertion that the Hugos were an "in crowd" award has been demonstrated and that situation has been corrected. And it's the correction to that situation that has people from the Guardian, Salon, and other SJW organizations all pissed off, because their happy little playpen has been upset and the hypocrisy of their "inclusive" philosophy has been exposed.

TL;DR: That Guardian piece is full of shit. Larry Correia was right and has been proven so.
I mainly posted it for the Marko Kloos connection but I'm sorta interested. I had a feeling it was more complicated than the article and you would know more about it judging by a few posts you have made. Thanks for the summary.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
#13
I mainly posted it for the Marko Kloos connection but I'm sorta interested. I had a feeling it was more complicated than the article and you would know more about it judging by a few posts you have made. Thanks for the summary.
I don't know much about Kloos, but I wouldn't hold his reaction to Vox Day for or against him. Vox is such a purposeful dick that he causes more problems, IMO, than he fixes.
 

Jacuzzi Billy

Watching PTI
Donator
#14
I don't know much about Kloos, but I wouldn't hold his reaction to Vox Day for or against him. Vox is such a purposeful dick that he causes more problems, IMO, than he fixes.
I don't blame Marko for pulling out. I wish his father had pulled out too. You should read Terms of Enlistment and see what you think of it. You may find it fun but you would better understand why some of us give him such a hard time.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
#15
I don't blame Marko for pulling out. I wish his father had pulled out too. You should read Terms of Enlistment and see what you think of it. You may find it fun but you would better understand why some of us give him such a hard time.
Sure. If someone were to put a Dropbox link in my PMs to an epub file for said book, I might peruse it for a moment. If it is as problematic as some seem to suggest, I don't feel comfortable contributing to an author's pocketbook. OTOH, if I read it and like it, I'd buy it right off.
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
#16
I think we give him an overly bad time. His books aren't bad per say, nor are they good. They're just mediocre. But some of the praise they receive makes it sound like the next coming of Christ.
 

Jacuzzi Billy

Watching PTI
Donator
#17
I think we give him an overly bad time. His books aren't bad per say, nor are they good. They're just mediocre. But some of the praise they receive makes it sound like the next coming of Christ.
Yeah, the praise he gets is what causes the problem. I do wonder if he buys into the praise. Is he thinking, "these fans are right, I'm the next Heinlein" or is he thinking, "excellent, keep handing over the money for this mediocre sci-fi"?
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
#18
Yeah, the praise he gets is what causes the problem. I do wonder if he buys into the praise. Is he thinking, "these fans are right, I'm the next Heinlein" or is he thinking, "excellent, keep handing over the money for this mediocre sci-fi"?
I've avoided finding anything out about him. I'm afraid he'll turn out to be a really nice guy and I'll feel bad for trashing his books.
 

Jacuzzi Billy

Watching PTI
Donator
#19
I've avoided finding anything out about him. I'm afraid he'll turn out to be a really nice guy and I'll feel bad for trashing his books.
He's probably super nice.

Well, we don't have to worry about Marko being nominated next year. The Sad Puppies surely won't have an author on their list that is so progressive he had a gay Russian character.
 

Jacuzzi Billy

Watching PTI
Donator
#20
I guess this all resulted in 5 "No Awards" at this year's Hugos. Best Novel was awarded which is all that matters anyway.
 
Top