Tuesday, April 26, 2016

#HugoAwards to #SadPuppies: We're Rabid

I told you so.

As I said on Tuesday's post, I wouldn't be getting a Hugo nomination.

Surprise surprise, no nomination. Not one, out of three categories.

Part of that is because that the Hugos this year have gone rabid. Very, rabid, really.

Seriously, the tagline for Vox this year should be "All your Hugos are belong to us."

Look at this, for example:

Image result for Asymmetrical Warfare hugo

Everything here is Rabid. Everything.

Asymmetrical Warfare is the only overlap with Sad Puppies.

No, I don't have a prediction outside of No Award....

Except .... This category was given no award last year. It might look suspicious if they did it again. (Nice category you have there, would be a shame if something should .... happen to it.)

With television, you might notice something stand out....

For the record, the My Little Pony nomination is definitely a Rabid choice, as well as a Sad Puppy choice.  Hmm.

Supernatural: Rabid

Grimm: Rabid

Doctor Who: Sad.

Jessica Jones: Nobody.

Prediction: if the Puppy Kickers show up, it'll be Jessica Jones. If it's the Rabids, it's My Little Pony. Otherwise, it's up for grabs.

Best Related is almost entirely Rabid. I mean, look at this.

Jeffro works for Vox. SJWs Always Lie is by Vox.  Safe Spaces as Rape Room is a Rabid pick.

And Gene Wolfe, the author, is awesome. The pick is rabid. As is the Moira Greyland one.

Appendix N and Safe Spaces as Rape Rooms had additional Sad Puppy Backing. But there was no other overlap.

So, yes, very Rabid.  And I'm apparently not Rabid enough, even though I'm very apathetic to the Hugos in the first place.

If I were to make a guess, if the Rabids get one, they go for SJWs always lie. Or Jeffro.

If the Kickers go for something, the safest bet is with Gene Wolfe and only Gene Wolfe. Remember, Gene Wolfe has been published with Tor for longer than the Neilsen-Haydens have been alive.

And now, I present Sad Puppies 4: The Revenge of Baen.
BEST EDITOR – LONG FORM (1764 ballots)Vox Day
Sheila E. Gilbert
Liz Gorinsky
Jim Minz
Toni Weisskopf
Oh look, Shiela Gilbert and Toni Weisskopf. Again. Because screw you, David Gerrold. Let's see them No Award Toni this year, huh?

Jim Mintz? Nominated by both puppies. As was Toni, I believe.

And Vox is Rabid. Obviously. Though he wasn't nominated by the Sad Puppies. Then again, Sad Puppies only had three editors they were interested in this year.

Liz Gorinsky, by the way, it also of Tor. And responsible for the Tor website. Which means I'm all in favor of her losing.

Next up is the award for Best New Writer, and our good acquaintance Brian Niemeier (from whom I stole all of the numbers crunching earlier one) wanted to be on this list, and this one alone.


Image result for Best New Writer 2016 hugo

And he got it. He was a joint pick, between Sad and Rabid.

Then again, he's also against Rabid pick Pierce Brown, Sebastien de Castell, and the almost guaranteed winner Andy Weir.

I have no idea who or what an Alyssa Wong is, except she's a Sad Puppy.

If Brian is reading this blog, 1) congratulations, 2) enjoy your hate mail, and 3) let me know if you need any help answering your hate mail. In public.

Yes, yes, I can hear you now: Come now, Declan, show us best novel, there's a good author.

Oh, you're probably wondering about best novel, aren't you?

Well, this is one where everybody, even the Puppy Kickers showed up in force.

And by "in force," I mean the Puppy Kickers got ONE novels. That's it, one. Because remember, this is what the Sad Puppy list looked like for Best Novel.

And Leckie will probably bow out (if I recall correctly, she didn't want to play this year).

At the end of the day, NK Jemisin, who would probably kill Vox if she could, is the only Puppy Kicker pick here. 

Butcher? Stephenson? Rabid and Sad nominated. 

Leckie and Naomi Novik? Sad Puppy only.

And Jemisin slipped through the crack there. (Though she was #12 on the Sad Puppy list, IIRC)

However, something I find interesting: first, nothing that was Rabid only was nominated for best novel. Which is odd, I would have thought, given most of the categories, that Vox would have had a monopoly. 

So what does this mean? It means that the Sad Puppies turned out in force for the Best Novel category, and perhaps only Best Novel. I mean, compare the voting. People turned out for Best Novel head and shoulders above every other category. This tracks with the voting on the original list. Most votes were cast for Best Novel than anything else.

Looking at the original Sad Puppies list, my bet is simple: The Puppies had already read Novik, Butcher and Stephenson, and no time to read anything else. So while they could agree on the top three novels (out of five) tastes varied wildly on the rest of them (Ringo and Correia said no, and Niemeier was more interested in the Campbell -- and Williamson is a matter of taste).

And let's face it, I don't have a wide readership yet. So ... no, that wasn't going to happen. Sorry, but no.

Leckie got in because the Hugo baseline already went for her book once, so that wasn't all the difficult. Same for Jemisin.

Frankly, it's the only reason I can think of for why John C. Wright didn't get a nomination this year. Remember, John was nominated in at least three different categories last year (it may have been five). And some of those categories, Wright was nominated three times.


Yes, if you compare the whole list -- and I give props to 770 for doing that job for me-- you'll see quite clearly just how much Vox dominated this list. It makes me wonder what would have happened if we went with five nominees this year instead of ten.

And, with a few exceptions, anything that isn't Rabid is Sad.

There is, already, I kid you not, a movement to no award the Hugos again. This tweet went up within the hour of the nominees being mentioned.

If you can see it properly, you can see that removing all of the Rabid stuff would no award best short story, best related and best graphic story -- the former two were no awarded last year.

I also suspect that there is a combination of 1) Sad Puppies focusing a lot on the Best novel and little else and 2) a lot of Sad Puppy followers becoming more rabid.

But let's look at this, shall we? Take it away, Nicki Kenyon.
Best Novel: All 5 nominees were in the top 12 recommended by SP4, including 3 of the top 7 recommended by the fans.

Best Novella: All top 4 SP4 recommendations were nominated, and all 5 nominees were in the top 8 slots SP4 compiled.

Best Novellete: Only 3 of the nominees were on the SP4 list (all within the top 6 slots). 19 works were recommended by SP4 overall.

Best Short Story: Only 2 of the nominees were on the list, both within the top 20 listed; 38 works were listed overall.

Best Editor (Long Form): 2 of the 3 recommendees by SP4 made the nominee list. Sadly, politics will almost definitely keep the extremely deserving Toni Weisskopf, who is one of the most influential and successful women in publishing, from being recognized with an award.

Campbell Nominees: All 5 of the works on the shortlist were recommended by SP4, including the top 3 selections agreed upon by the group. 19 total works were recommended overall.
So, despite appearances, Rabid Puppies didn't take EVERYTHING. But it feels like it. Well, I don't do "the feels." I do "the facts."

Though right now, according to Vox, the numbers are around 60 nominations out of 80-something. There is overlap, of course, but the Rabids came and they swept most of it.

As was noted
This year, the Sad and Rabid Puppies have done it again. Ten out of fifteen Hugo Award categories have been completely dominated by Puppy-endorsed nominees — double what the campaigns achieved in 2015. The Puppies have also secured three out of five nominations for Best Novel, three out of four nominations for Best Short-Form Dramatic Presentation, and three out of five nominations for Best Long-Form Editor.

In total, the Rabid Puppies swept six categories on their own, while a combination of Sad & Rabid puppy nominations swept a further four.

Some of the Rabid Puppies nominations this year — such as a My Little Pony episode for Best Short-Form Dramatic Presentation and a porn parody in Best Short Story — seem clearly intended as troll options, a demonstration of the Puppies’ power to exert their will on the awards.
Tell me again how the Puppies are irrelevant?

And of course, right after the Hugo nominations were announced, The Guardian published an article titled: "Hugo awards shortlist dominated by rightwing campaign."

As Kenyon continues to note, the usual puppy kickers made the following claims.
1) the Sad Puppies nominated quality works, but the quality works Sad Puppies nominated were nominated despite the Sad Puppies and
John Scalzi had an article about the Hugo awards TWENTY MINUTES BEFORE THE FINALISTS WERE ANNOUNCED. Nice trick, there, John-John. Are we using the Force again, or just a lucky guess?

In short, here we go again.

As for me?

Yeah, I'm good. Remember, I didn't even think I'd get on the Sad Puppy list, and you think I'd honestly expect a Hugo nod? Heh. I wasn't even sure I wanted a Hugo if they offered me one.

Also, I'm not worried about the Hugos. Why?

Because I'm....  [slides on shades] ...... chasing the Dragon.


Yes, yes, I know that the likelihood of me even being nominated for a Dragon is even worse than being a Hugo finalist, but hell, I didn't even think of getting on the Sad Puppy 4 list. What have I got to lose? If you don't try, you don't get.

I've had some people speculate that there might be something fishy about the Sad Puppy / Hugo discrepancy. There is none, really. Fans of mine voted for Honor at Stake on the SP4 list, which they were free to do, at no cost to themselves, I had about twenty fans do so. Those people who had never heard of me didn't have the time to read all of the books on the list. Let's face it, when you're given ten books and a small time frame to read them in, how are we going to play it? Are you going to read them in order, or are you going to read the ones with Big Names attached to them, that are vaguely familiar?

Anyway, this is my obligatory pull for Honor at Stake to be nominated for a Dragon Award.  Go, sign up, vote, it's free.

Be well all. And grab some popcorn, because we're not even done yet. Over the next week or two, expect people to be bullied off the nomination due to "concerns" about Puppies, or people who don't want the nomination to inform the Hugos loudly and publicly.

Brace yourselves, everyone, things are about to get interesting.



  1. The MLP episode is actually about Cultural Marxism. It's amazing that they let something like that on the air and even more amazing the Vox Day knew about it.

    I was disappointed the three books I actually read and enjoyed from last year didn't get on the list but there were some great nominees on there. I'm personally pulling for Appendix N, though Safe Space as Rape Room is pretty important too.

    And who voted for Jessica Jones over Daredevil? I mean, what is up with that?

    1. It was an SJW pick. They wrote enough articles about how "the show is all about rape! Isn't that just AWESOME!" [eye roll so hard, I pass out]

  2. Hmm. The File 770 link seems to have been eaten. I had sent a link to it to my brother earlier talking about the results, also non-functional, so I know it isn't your link that is wrong.

    Odd thing to disappear, it wasn't even editorializing at all, just showing the breakdown of what was Rabid and what was Sad.

    Related Works at least is going to go to no award, which is sad because VD aside some of the nominations there are really important good reads, if not comfortable. The story of Moira Greyland? Fandom as a whole would be well served by reading that.

    I predict a lot of no awards, actually. It's funny, in a sane universe having Sad Puppies and the established fans actually agreeing on some books would be cause for celebration and at least attempts at bridge building.

    Nope, hit pieces published within minutes (either way apparently) of the announcements.

    Bring on the Dragon Awards, and bring on the thousands and thousands of voters.

    1. Updated 770 link: http://file770.com/?p=28616

      No awarding Best Related? No bet. :)

      Amen on the Dragon.

    2. While I think it is very likely they nuke Related Works, it will be a PR disaster for Worldcon.

  3. Well, just finished registering and voting for the Dragons. Unfortunately, while I would have loved to vote for 'Honor at Stake', paranormal and fantasy happened to share the same category and I had to give the nom' to 'Son of the Black Sword' instead.

    Also just finished reading your Pious trilogy and quite enjoyed it.

    1. Well, I'm told some people preferred to nominate it for horror. So that's a thought. :)

      Ah, I was wondering who purchased those copies. Thanks. I look forward to reading your reviews on Amazon.

  4. "If Brian is reading this blog, 1) congratulations, 2) enjoy your hate mail, and 3) let me know if you need any help answering your hate mail. In public."

    1) Thank you!
    2)I expect to.
    3) Most folks would facetiously say, "I'll take you up on that."
    The difference between me and them is that I WILL take you up on that.

    Excellent analysis, by the way. One point of disagreement: I'm convinced that the CHORFs turned out in full force to vote for Best Novel so they could circle the wagons and keep Honor at Stake off the ballot.

    They did this because they fear you, as they should.

    1. 1) You're welcome
      2) Great.
      3) Look forward to it. [Cackles madly]

      Ha! Well, if Leckie decides she doesn't want an icky Puppies-backed nomination, I'll be interested to see who pops up in her place.

  5. Well "I" voted for you LOL I am amazed Steve Armstrong wrote a snotty blog post "2016 HUGO AWARDS SANS PUPPY TAINT" So I commented "I think I will just vote the Sad Puppy finalists and then No Award after that I mean the other side started the No Award if My guy does not get to be a finalist so it MUST be an ethical action?" been 6 hours its still up and the only commnt

    1. Thanks, I appreciate the vote.

      That you're the only comment after all that time says it all, doesn't it? :)

  6. The Scalzi/Chorf position of "the Sad Puppies nominated quality works, but the quality works Sad Puppies nominated were nominated despite the Sad Puppies" is their fall back position because of Kate Paulk. When Kate said anyone can nominate for SP4, just go to the SP4 site and put a nomination in (You know the same thing Brad did last year) the Chorf's didn't believe her. When the site opened up the Flinging Poo Monkeys of Vile 770 went and rushed to nominate because they were sure they could then go back to their ring leader and say "I couldn't nominate there, they lied>..." Of course the noms went through and the next position would be that Kate, and the other memembers of the Evil Legion of Evil (ELoE) under mind control from the International Lord of Hate (ILoH), would then toss out their noms and they would scream that out to the heavens because that is what they would have done in Kate's place. Didn't happen, so they are confused and off stride and come out with that 1st grade retort of they would have been nominated with out you anyway Sad Puppies.

    1. Yes. The contortions that Puppy Kickers must go through in order to support their world view is hilariously insane.

  7. Gadsden? Where did I remember that from? Oh yes:
    Mr. "No rules were broken. Still cheating."


Please, by all means, leave a message below. I welcome any and all comments. However, language that could not make it to network television will result in your comment being deleted. I don';t like saying it, but prior events have shown me that I need to. Thanks.