Domain Query: What Voltotter said...

Good day, sir! I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR!

It appears that my last post generated some interest among the crowd over at File770. This is perhaps unsurprising, given that, in that post, I basically argued that if you think this year was contentious and divisive, just wait until next year rolls around. I also pointed out that there really isn't any downside for the Puppies now, and there won't be as long as our friends on the other side insist on doing their absolute level best to dismiss, disqualify, and destroy us.

These sentiments generated a fair few comments (by the standards of this pokey little blog of tumbleweeds and alcohol-fueled rants, anyway). Most of them were along the following lines:
  • "The Puppies lost in almost EVERY category in which they had works nominated, to NO AWARD, yet you claim victory. Are you really that stupid?"
  • "You seriously think that John C. Wright's work is award-worthy?!"
  • "So when democracy actually worked as it was intended to work, and the majority got its way, you're bitching about that fact? How big an idiot are you?"
Apparently, our SJW friends not only have no sense of humour, they also lack skills in basic reading comprehension as well. (SJWs weren't the only ones writing comments. But the ones that I published mostly came from them. So I'm responding to them and not to, say, Brigadon, who as far as I can tell supports the Puppies view of things.)

Never let it be said, though, that the Didact is unwilling to help his fellow Man to reach a deeper understanding of the way the world works. Given what follows, in fact, I fully expect a Nobel Peace Prize nomination to be forthcoming for my exceptional work to further comity and brotherly understanding.

Sins of Omission

Before I proceed with a much-needed round of adolt edumacation, though, I do need to clear up a couple of things.

Commenter Greg Machlin pointed out a very important mistake that I made:
"The Hugo and Nebula Awards were, essentially, reduced to a farce."

Wait, what? How did the Nebulas get in here? The Nebulas are a completely separate award, handled by a completely separate organization. That's a basic thing. Did you think they were the same award.
He is, in fact, correct. I should have written, "The Hugo and John W. Campbell Awards". That was a mistake on my part. The Nebula Awards, as Greg points out, are handed out not by the attendees and members of Worldcon, but by the members of the Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America.

That's right, it's an award controlled by the very same SFWA was all about "free speech" and expression, to the point that it expelled Vox Day for calling N. K. Jemisin "an educated, but ignorant, half-savage". It's also the very same SFWA that, until at least mid-2014, counted known child abusers and paedophiles among its members, and which appointed a self-professed reader and supporter of the NAMBLA bulletin as its 30th SFWA Grand Master in 2014.

The SFWA that once appointed legends and titans like Robert A. Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Robert Silverberg, and (most recently) Larry Niven as SFWA Grand Masters is not immune to the disease that has afflicted the Hugo Awards. Let us be under no illusions about that.

As for Greg's point above, he is correct and, as I said, I made a mistake. To which I can only say... oops.

Greg also pointed out the following:
"And the Hugo Awards committee crapped all over that idea in 2015." Are you thinking the Hugo Awards are decided by committee? Because it's a popular-vote award by all attending and supporting members of Worldcon. If you were under the impression that it was decided by committee, then you may may want to use strikethrough and revise and edit this.
As it happens, this quote is taken slightly out of context. Here is the rest of what I actually wrote:
The point was to get good works that fans of the genre actually like up for awards, to recognise their worth and to give recognition and credit where it's due. And the Hugo Awards committee crapped all over that idea in 2015.
What I meant by that last sentence is that the rules for the ways in which works are going to be nominated will be changed in the future, ostensibly to prevent bloc voting but really to prevent the Puppies from ever again having the audacity, the chutzpah, the bare-faced cheek, to get their choices onto the Hugo nominations slate.

Still and all, Greg has a perfectly valid point. I should have been more explicit and written out exactly what I meant by that last sentence. Fair dinkum, as the Aussies like to say.

Greg's comment was considerably more detailed than this, and is worthy of its own follow-up, especially in light of the fact that he made every effort to actually engage politely and rationally with the topic of discussion, instead of going off on tangents. I will respond to his other points when I have the time.

What Part of "We Don't Care" Don't You Understand?

With that out of the way, let's address the sum and substance- what little of it there is, anyway- of what the SJW set had to say about the results of the 2015 Hugo Awards.

Several of the comments to my last write-up essentially crowed about how "democracy has won out, and now you're complaining because you didn't get your way". (I'm being polite.)

Here's my response to that one:

I really can't make it any clearer than that, unless the good people over at File770 want me to break out a pack of crayons and draw them a picture. And I don't speak any dialect of dipsh*t, so even that probably won't help.

WE DON'T CARE whether or not our nominees won awards. Not this year, not next year, and not in any other year. It matters not the minutest quantum of a damn for us. As far as I, personally, am concerned, the Hugo Awards have lost their point and purpose and need to be torn down and replaced wholesale.

Larry Correia, International Lord of Hate and all-around awesome dude, started the Puppies slate three years back to prove a point: the Hugo Awards in particular, and SF/F in general, has fallen under the control of a nasty, cliquish group of social justice types who will punish and penalise anyone who doesn't toe the progressive line. The Hugo Awards results for the last three years have proven his point tenfold and more.

Mr. Correia, by the way, turned down his Hugo nomination for 2015 and has stated emphatically that he will never accept a nomination for a Hugo Award. It's not about awards for him, it's about proving a simple point. And that is how it is for us VFMs, too.

Let's just put the numbers into perspective here. Chaos Horizon put together some rough estimates as to the vote breakdowns for Best Novel award in 2015, and here are the results:
Core Rabid Puppies: 550-525
Core Sad Puppies: 500-400
Neutrals: 1400 (voted some Puppies, but not all)
Primarily No Awarders But Considered a Puppy Pick: 1000
Absolute No Awarders: 2500
There are approximately 10,000 Worldcon members globally, last time I checked. Roughly 6,000 of them voted this year across various categories- a massive increase in participation compared to last year.

That latter fact, incidentally, is something that the SJWs should thank us VFMs, Puppies, and associated horrible, evil, terrible, no-good, dastardly, villainous people for. After all, in 2014, only about 3,600 members voted for Best Novel; in 2015, 5,623 people voted. That's a... let's see... carry the one, drop the two... 56.76% increase in participation.

Now I, personally, have little more than utter contempt for democracy. But, the rules of the Hugo Awards are what they are. The Awards are handed out based on fan votes and are handed out based on fan participation. Says so right there in the fine print. So, if you're an SJW and you think that democracy is an unalloyed Good Thing- which, by the way, is a very good reason for people like me to treat your views with hoots of derision, since it is self-evident that you are incapable of understanding why democracy amounts to nothing better than mob rule- you really ought to be thanking us. It is thanks to us that participation increased so massively this year.

If LTC Tom Kratman, John C. Wright, John Ringo, Vox Day, Brad Torgersen, Kate Paulk, Sarah A. Hoyt, or any one of another half-dozen or so SF/F authors whose works I read were to actually win a Hugo Award, then that's great. Good men and women who write good work would get recognised for it.

But we know that's not going to happen. The results in 2015 proved this beyond any and all shadow of a doubt.

By the Pricking of My Thumbs...

Let's take a simple example to illustrate the problem here.

There were 5 possible choices for "Best Novella" in 2015. Every single one of them was on Vox Day's Rabid Puppies slate. No less than four of them were published by Castalia House, for which Vox Day is the senior editor.

Here were the choices:
  • “Flow”, Arlan Andrews, Sr. (Analog, 11-2014) 
  • "Big Boys Don’t Cry", Tom Kratman (Castalia House) 
  • "One Bright Star to Guide Them", John C. Wright (Castalia House) 
  • “The Plural of Helen of Troy”, John C. Wright (City Beyond Time: Tales of the Fall of Metachronopolis, Castalia House) 
  • “Pale Realms of Shade”, John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
And the award went to... NO AWARD.

The detailed breakdown of the numbers tells us that 5,950 fans voted for Best Novella. Damn near 3,500 of them went to NO AWARD. "Flow" was the second-highest with, in the final pass, about 1,180 votes.

Now go back to the numbers I posted above. There were, at most, 1,000 die-hard Puppies supporters among the voters. There is good reason to think that it was probably only about 600-700. We were outnumbered at least 4:1 in many of the categories in which our picks were nominated.

Simply put, there was absolutely no way our picks could have won on the backs of Puppies supporters alone. It was impossible. There were nowhere near enough pro-Puppy votes. It's just simple MAFF- something SJWs generally seem startlingly incapable of understanding.

So what did the non-Puppy Worldcon voters do? Instead of handing out awards to someone, anyone, other than those horrid, evil, unfeeling, vampiric, abhorrent, disgusting, wretched conservatives like LTC Tom Kratman or John C. Wright, THEY NO-AWARDED THAT CATEGORY.

And in the process, they made a mockery of their own award. They refused to hand out an award to "Flow", just to ensure that no one else got the award. They cut off their noses to spite their faces.

The Hugo Awards aren't about politics? Yeah, right. My muscular brown arse they aren't. The Hugo voters proved that they were, and are, perfectly willing to sacrifice the prestige and honour of their own awards in order to stop people they disagree with from even getting a sniff into the awards.

Punching Wolves in the Nose

Another, quite egregious, example of this sort of nonsense would be the award for "Best Editor - Long Form".

Toni Weisskopf of Baen was the front-runner for this award. She received 1,216 votes in the first pass. Again, DO. THE. MATHS. This means that quite a few non-Puppies supporters cast their votes for an editor who, in my opinion- given that I read quite a lot of Baen-published work- thoroughly deserved the award.

The next choice was Sheila Gilbert. Apparently, Ms. Weisskopf stated before the awards were handed out that she thought Ms. Gilbert deserved to win. That, my friends, is what is known as "class".

Our SJW colleagues could stand to learn a thing or two about it, given that every time a "NO AWARD" was announced, the result was greeted with applause and cheers.

Let's be clear about what "NO AWARD" means. This is what the official bumpf says:
If you vote for No Award in any other position it means that you believe the nominees you placed above No Award were worthy of a Hugo, but that those not placed above it were not worthy.
So basically, nearly 2,500 people voted to say that NOBODY deserved to win an award for "Best Editor - Long Form" this year. This, despite the presence of skilled, talented, hard-working and humble people like Toni Weisskopf, who as far as I can tell is regarded within the industry as the professional's professional.

Really?! Toni Weisskopf didn't deserve to win an award, Sheila Gilbert didn't deserve to win one, and NOBODY ELSE did either?


I mean, how much more blatant does an own-goal have to be before it's called as such?

Bombs Away

The final point that I think our friends keep missing is that they are taking this whole situation vastly more seriously than we are.

Speaking strictly for myself, I haven't had this much fun watching the Left squirm under the weight of its own delusions and internal contradictions in years.

And this is only the beginning. As I said in my previous post, I have no idea exactly what Vox Day plans for next year. I didn't vote this year for the Hugos- hell, I wasn't even a member of Worldcon. But that changes in 2016.

And I am not alone in that sentiment.

Judging by this year's fireworks, 2016 should be an explosion of truly epic proportions. I dare say that Hitler will have an even more spectacular meltdown after those are announced than he did this year- which, by the way, still hasn't stopped being hysterically funny:


  1. I don't actually support the 'puppies' view of things, as i am not actually a vile faceless minion, and have never actually read anything about what the puppies actually support.

    Instead I support the 'logical' view of the Hugos.

    Fact: A huge number of people voted 'No award', a far greater number than is the average representation of purchasers among worldcon attendants. This strongly suggests that the vast majority of those who voted 'no award' made such a vote due to considerations other than the quality of the works in question.

    Fact: Worldcon attendees have never been overwhelmingly represented by fans of the scifi-fantasy (although admittedly combining those two terms seems to be inappropriate, as I consider the genres to be almost completely separate) subgenre of 'military', and thus, military specfic and fantasy has a specifically uphill battle competing with other subgenres. Military specfic and fantasy is not, however, the lowest-ranking subgenre in terms of raw readership numbers, in fact it comes darn close to the top of the list. Thus, the Hugo Awards simply cannot accurately reflect the real readership of the subgenre by placing it in competition with other subgenres. The milfic subgenre especially is dominated by servicemen, law enforcement, and emergency personnel who are unable to take a vacation on a whim to attend worldcon without leaving vital services unattended... and since there is no real 'absentee ballot' system in place for non-attendants, a huge subsection of the fanbase is unrepresented.

    Fact: All categories reflect 'this award years work', and thus a 'no award' is clearly motivated by something other than the category's putative award, ie "Which editor this year has done the best work". Even if all of two years ago's editing and related works absolutely sucked, there would still be a 'best'. This means that the Hugo awards for those categories are quite literally invalid, since clearly there were entries in those categories. (as I recall the 'no award' years for the nebula reflected a lack of actual content)

    Fact: Several prominent writers directed their fanbases to vote 'no awards' in certain categories, and made that fact public knowledge. REGARDLESS of whether or not those fans had actually read the works in question. That the fanbases in question did, in fact, vote 'no award' in those categories means that they were following the directives of an author to vote in a category for which THAT AUTHOR HAD NOT BEEN NOMINATED. This means that logically, that category's vote had been corrupted by what can only be termed 'ballot stuffing', and thus several entire categories of the Hugos are obviously corrupted... casting doubts on the validity of all Hugo awards. How can you trust the 'best new writer' or 'best novel' award when Authors who have not been nominated to those categories have proven that they are willing and able to stuff the ballot boxes in favor of other authors?

    This basically equates to overwhelming evidence that the Hugo awards are no longer an accurate reflection of the categories in question, and are dominated solely by factors OTHER than quality, workmanship, and popularity, the very factors that the Hugo award categories are putatively designed to reflect.

  2. If that places me in the 'puppies' camp, that is certainly a pleasant coincidence, but if the puppies are an action group that is simply opposed to the SJW activism of other groups, then I am not a reliable vile faceless minion... I would like to convince others of the truth, that many venues for judging good fiction are corrupt, but I am not going to provide a 'counterweight' corruption to SJW corruption... I will not vote the puppies slate in order to balance the SJW slate.

    I would rather burn the Hugos down permanently than help clear them of undue influence. Perhaps they can be replaced with a more valid method of judging a work's merit and we can pull that damnable 'written by the Hugo award winning author of...' blurb off the front cover of books.

    As far as actual fiction is concerned, I certainly detest George raperape's books and the pressure to write Roddenberry-esque 'the future is all happy marxism' in order to sell books, and while I certainly consider a complete lack of human understanding to be a factor in book quality, I won't downrate a book all that much when the world is completely unbelievable, as long as the other factors in the book... the plot, the characters themselves, and the prose... make up the lack.

    For instance, I greatly enjoyed Eric Flint's 1632 despite the inclusion of a lot of complete baloney... such as Cromwell being a decent guy, the incredible competence under fire of every single female in the book, the multicultural apologism, Gung-ho Unionism, and the ridiculous excuses he makes for jewish historical oppression (which honestly would have improved the book had he left it out) because in the end, a bunch of high-tech time-warped underdogs fending off a mongol invasion is a pretty kickass story and decently written.

    I have a feeling, though, that many puppies would disagree.

    btw- hate the 4096 limit. I am a writer too (if unpublished) and love being wordy.

  3. Seriously, dude, get a grip -- the Pup fiction nominees didn't lose because they were written by conservatives, they lost because they weren't very good. It isn't more complicated than that. And yes, I read every single nominated story before I voted.

    1. Then explain why "Best Related Work" was given "NO AWARD, when "The Hot Equations" was in fact quite eligible for such a thing. Or why "Best Editor - Long Form" was given NO AWARD, when all the voting bloc had to do was vote for Anne Sowards or Jim Minz.

    2. And, once again, it appears you lack the ability to read. What part of "We Don't Care" do you not understand? Whether the Puppies-nominated works won or not was never our primary motivation. Holding up a mirror to the ugly realities of the Hugo Awards was. And in that, we succeeded.

    3. Oh, and some people may have different criteria for "eligible" vs. "Hugo-worthy." Apparently, if I copy and paste a bunch of Internet memes into a Word document, now I can be eligible for a Hugo. Gonna vote for me?

    4. Apparently, if I copy and paste a bunch of Internet memes into a Word document, now I can be eligible for a Hugo.

      Pretty apt description of Redshirts in many ways, actually. Which WAS found to be Hugo-worthy.

    5. @Didact -- (1) People who don't care don't spend a lot of time writing angry posts saying they don't care. They walk away and do something else. So nobody believes you when you say you don't care. Really. The whole "we planned this all along" is just Vox Day's alternate "declare victory" speech. he has one for every occasion whether they make sense or not. (2) Don't know why other people voted NO AWARD over "The Hot Equations," but I did it because I found multiple technical mistakes in the text. (3) Can't speak for why Anne Sowards didn't win -- I voted for Sheila Gilbert, myself -- but Jim Minz lost to NO AWARD for the same reason that Toni Weisskopf did -- the average Baen Book is poorly edited (check the average typo count sometime) and nothing in the Hugos Voter Packet made them seem like they deserved the award. [Insert: I knew and worked with Jim Baen going all the way back to 1974. He would not have been impressed with the Sad/Rabid Puppies movement. He liked a whole lot of fiction that the Sad/Rabids hate.] (4) Trying to claim equivalent between REDSHIRTS and "Wisdom from My Internet" is rhetorical nonsense.

    6. (1) People who don't care don't spend a lot of time writing angry posts saying they don't care.

      So what are you still doing here, then?

      Also, as I suspected- you are, indeed, functionally illiterate:

      "Speaking strictly for myself, I haven't had this much fun watching the Left squirm under the weight of its own delusions and internal contradictions in years... I didn't vote this year for the Hugos- hell, I wasn't even a member of Worldcon."

      Can't speak for why Anne Sowards didn't win

      Are you innumerate as well as illiterate? The maths breakdown is very clear. Nearly 2,500 members of Worldcon voted NO AWARD. Anne Sowards got just 217 votes. Vox Day got more than twice as many votes as Jim Minz did.

      The numbers point to an inescapable conclusion: the Hugos are not about merit, they are about politics.

  4. Brigadon -- Your said "and since there is no real 'absentee ballot' system in place for non-attendants, a huge subsection of the fanbase is unrepresented." But this is wrong. You don't have to attend Worldcon to vote. You just have to be a supporting member. And all votes by attending and non-attending members are counted equally.

  5. You know, I generally don't spend $40 on things I don't care about ($90, if you plan on voting this year too) but hey, whatever makes you happy. That frothing, shouting rant is "happiness" for you, right? Kind of hard to be sure.

    1. Do you people have to get a mandatory ironioctomy before you're allowed to post on File770?

  6. Abigail Nussbaum
Liz Bourke
Natalie Luhrs
Anita Sarkeesian
Mark Oshiro
Lynn Thomas
Shaun Duke
Paul Weimer
Rachel Acks
Aiden Moher
Anna Grilo
    Thea James
Neil Clarke
Beth Meacham
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
John Scalzi
Ken Liu
Rachel Swirsky
Seanan McGuire
Kai Ashante Wilson
Aliette de Bodard
Amal El-Mohtar
Max Gladstone
Alyssa Wong
Carmen Machado
Django Wexler
    Jim Hines
    Ursula Vernon

    That list above is the answer to the question Standlee, File 770, Flint, Martin and others can't or won't address, which is why I'm presenting it Jeopardy-style. It is the most significant event out of this year's Hugos that SP3/RP accidentally exposed. When you can ask the proper question, you'll see the 800 lb. gorilla and why SP4 has already run off the rails and crashed and burned in the gorge below.

    1. why SP4 has already run off the rails and crashed and burned in the gorge below

      SP4 has only just been announced, with no nominations forthcoming until March next year. Reports of its demise are perhaps a tad premature.

  7. It is really extremely odd.

    "The sjw's said they were going to ruin the Hugos by voting several categories 'no award"
    "They succeeded, proving it's not about quality, it's about politics."

    And yet, a bunch of people keep reading that statement as 'Boo hoo my favorite authors didn't win." even though no author or category was mentioned, nothing besides the 'no awards' which are over twice as many in one con as have ever been given out before total in the history of the Hugo/Nebula awards.

    It's like... buying a car who's brakes fail on the way home from the dealership, and when you contact the company they keep stating that "You cannot complain about the color, you picked it yourself!" even though you never even mention color.

    Is their argument really so weak that they have to have both sides of the conversation?

    1. Well, indeed. As I keep saying, WE DON'T CARE whether our chosen nominees win or not. If they do, great. If they don't, fine. We do care, however, about holding up a mirror to the SJWs running around giving No Award to categories where they don't approve of the nominees.

      Which is, of course, precisely what they did.

      2016 should be quite good fun. Dunno about you, but I'm bringing marshmallows to that particular bonfire.

    2. I think the Bonfire is blazing right now.

      They proved it. They won. They said they could cheat the Hugos, and they proved it in the most conspicuous way possible. We called their bluff, and their hand came up 5 aces.
      Does it hurt them to be on the winning side? The privileged majority? Why do they keep insisting that their own victory proves nothing? Are they so addicted to being oppressed minority that when they flat-out prove that competence, artistry, and skill are utterly irrelevant in the face of the raw power of hate, they simply cannot accept their victory?

      The more you point out that they are a living testimony to the power of the political majority, the harder they fight to try and convince you that they are the underdogs.

      They won, why are they acting like losers? They are the victors, why are they acting like such poor sports about it?

    3. They won, why are they acting like losers? They are the victors, why are they acting like such poor sports about it?

      Well, they "won" if you count scorched-earth tactics as victory. Worked for the Russians against the Germans in WWII because the Germans actually wanted that territory. With us, not so much, since the Hugo Awards aren't something we particularly want- as stated above, I'd be perfectly happy to see the awards burned to the ground and the soil sowed with salt.

      As to why they act like the losers- Third Rule of Social Justice: SJWs ALWAYS Project.


Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts