Tag Archives: Sad Puppies

Who are these puppy kickers?

In the past I’ve written about the SJW Howler Monkeys, individuals with Special Snowflake Syndrome, and extreme SJW sweathogs like TrigglyPuff – people so attached to their victimhood and entitlement, that they insist on safe spaces, demand special accommodations, such as imaginary pronouns, and work to end to speech they don’t like and destroy those who engage in such speech. In other words, they stomp through the developed world, leaving piles of ostracized and unemployed victims,  and decimated logic in their wake.

chunk-chorfIt is these creatures that are closely tied with individuals we call CHORFs (Cliquish, Holier-than-thou, Obnoxious, Reactionary, Fanatics) or puppy kickers – those sniffy, snotty, arrogant, easily-offended, intolerant (although, if you ask them, they’re the tolerant ones – of everything except the cisheteropatriarchywhatever), condescending  rodents.

As I wrote about the Dragon Awards this weekend, I predicted that the CHORFs – mostly excluded from the fun and honors – would “clutch their pearls, gnash their teeth, and snottily declare that the Dragon Awards don’t matter, because they’re not part of that elite clique of haughty Hugo recipients and nominees.” I projected they would immediately condemn the Dragon Awards as irrelevant and Puppy-driven, even though the awards were open to everyone, no one had to buy a membership to vote, and the process was completely transparent.

And I was right.

Remember PedoPhil?

Remember PedoPhil?

The shit-fest on CHORF sites and on Twitter is hilarious! Some bitterly and dismissively waved their little hands and claimed they’re glad the Puppies now have their own award, so they should leave their revered Hugos alone! Others – the usual suspects, of course – sniffed that the Dragon Awards were hijacked by neo-fascists, thereby relegating thousands of fans who voted for works they enjoyed to the bin of racism, hatred, misogyny, and any other prejudice they could think of.

Injustice Gamer documents some of the hilarious reactions here. Oh, the schadenfreude! It’s making my naughty bits tingle!

And then there were others, who implied on this very site that because many of the winners were recommended by the evil overlord of racism, homophobia, and misogyny Vox Day, they obviously didn’t count. These CHORFs see Vox Day as the boogieman under every bed. Anything that doesn’t conform to their idea of quality work, necessarily must be discounted, bad, and ultimately the work of the dastardly Vox.

I started thinking today about the types of people these CHORFs really are, and it occurred that they fit a particular type.

Insecure. They pathologically work to exclude anyone who doesn’t engage in their groupthink by disparaging and marginalizing those they claim are less refined and profound. Books shouldn’t just be fun, they claim. Low-class, boorish, simple entertainment shouldn’t win awards, they assert. All this to advance the perception that they are somehow more sophisticated and urbane. Many of them can’t sell books that entertain for the mere enjoyment of reading, so they create these lofty plateaus for the purpose of showing just how worldly and cultivated they are.

If you don’t enjoy their brand of pretentious word vomit, you simply are not suave enough.

Miserable, apprehensive, and mediocre, the only way they have to build themselves up is by tearing down others.

This contrived arrogance allows them to erect an image of themselves – if only in their own minds – of quality and virtue.

Frightened. The CHORFs are pathologically intimidated by criticism. They’re terrified. They huddle together in a tight group of mediocrities in order to protect themselves from any appraisal that’s less than complimentary to either their pet causes. Whether it’s “tolerance” for the victim class, whatever they may be that day, or promotion of works, artists, and authors whose only virtue is being as far away from the mainstream as possible. Anyone who challenges the heterodoxy frightens them so badly, they must be destroyed.

Unhappy. The toxicity surrounding the CHORFs is palpable. Misery is their natural state. Joy is dull to them. They aren’t interested in laughter and optimism. Those are too light. Ennui is more profound and cultured. Simple fun and entertainment is… well… simple. Melancholy is deep and complex. This reinforces their superiority armor – the shield they use to cover up their miserable inadequacies. After all, if you’re happy, you must be too shallow to be as enlightened as they are. Therefore, they’re just too good for you.

Compassionate. At least that’s how they want to appear. They want to be the defenders of the oppressed, the protectors of the meek, the white knights for anyone who is not straight, white, male, successful, or strong. Because after all, those people don’t need the CHORFs’ contrived sympathy.

white knightBut it’s not enough to shield the exploited from the torment by the strong. The strong must be destroyed. The successful must be suppressed. The rich must be stripped of their wealth. The hetero male has had his day, and must now be pulled out of the spotlight, because no one should hear what he has to say any longer. The hetero male is not important. It’s the turn of those whom he has oppressed for so long to have a voice. And if that voice has nothing of quality to say, that’s fine. They will make it quality.

They will push it in the faces of the rest of the world and loudly trumpet how important and interesting that oppressed voice is, while proclaiming anyone who disagrees with the assessment of the quality of said voice as ignorant, hateful, bigoted, and narrow-minded. They have compassion for anyone who is not successful. They show sympathy, kindness, and grace to anyone who proclaims to be miserable, abused, exploited, and mistreated. It doesn’t have to be true. It just needs to be perceived and claimed to be true.

Elitist. This really goes along with the CHORFs’ insecurity. Being exclusive makes them feel superior. It provides value, even when there is none. Because when just anyone is allowed into a club, it’s no longer special. And when just anyone is allowed to vote on an award without being forced to purchase a membership, it’s an award for the plebes.

Deluded. Everything they accuse the Puppies of, they’re guilty of themselves. Elitism and exclusion. Who “No Awarded” entire categories of Hugo awards just to keep the “undesirables” from winning? Cheating. Who changed the rules for Hugo nominations this year to counter block voting, because dog forbid the “undesirables” capture the majority of categories? Fascism,elitism, and a loathing for equality. Who held an exclusive, private party last year for those whom the CHORFs “No Awarded” last year, because the Puppies’ choices got more votes? Who threatened careers and engaged in character assassinations? It certainly wasn’t the Sad Puppies.

But hey, don’t let the facts get in your way.

Sad PuppiesI’ll be honest. I’m tired of these people. I’ve taken a lot of time and effort to try and understand them, but frankly, what I discovered is that they’re a sad, miserable lot, who I wish would keep their own promises and relegate themselves to their froth-flecked circle jerk and leave the Puppies alone.

But they won’t, because they’re nothing without an enemy. They don’t have a purpose without their canine boogieman. They can’t be white knights riding in to rescue the vapid damsel in distress if there’s no evil (white, male) antagonist from whom to rescue her.

That’s the real reason they keep flogging the Puppies, even when the Puppies have nothing to do with a particular award, such as the Dragon.

Because without us, they’re nothing.


Dragon Awards: the Aftermath and Beyond

I was going to ridicule Lena Dunham today, but screw her! The Dragon Awards have been announced, and they’re fantastic!!!

First, let me explain. DragonCon took place this weekend in Atlanta, where the very first awards for science fiction and fantasy were presented. The awards were completely fan-driven. You registered. You received a ballot. You voted for your favorites. Your vote was recorded. The winners were announced today! That easy.

Like the Dragon, our recipients are extraordinary and unique. Fueled by the passion for their art, they have spread their wings and soared above us all. Their inner fire, the burning in their hearts and souls, cannot be restrained. Once set free, their work, their fire, has influenced and inspired countless others, burned into our hearts and minds forever.

In the spirit of the Dragon and with infinite admiration, we created The Dragon Award as a token of their individuality and greatness. We are pleased to present all of our award winners with the essence of the Dragon, its fire, suspended perpetually as a permanent reminder of their contributions.

Dragon_Award-221x300There’s no cliquish “No Award” for nominees that didn’t fit a particular mold. There are no nomination rule changes designed to counter bloc voting keep out undesirables.

Fans vote for their favorite. That’s it.

And this year is epic! I’m so excited for some friends of mine, I could squee! There are some categories in which I didn’t vote, because I hadn’t read any of the works, and I don’t play video games or role playing games, but overall, this was terrific! Fans voted for their favorite artists, authors, and works based on what they liked – a truly fan-driven, fan-awarded endeavor.

  • Best Science Fiction Novel: Somewither by John C. Wright.
  • Best Fantasy Novel: Son of the Black Sword by Larry Correia.
  • Best Teen/Middle Grade: Shepherd’s Crown by Terry Pratchett.
  • Best Military SF/F: Hell’s Foundations Quiver by David Weber.
  • Best Alternative History: League of Dragons by Naomi Novik.
  • Best Apocalyptic Novel: Ctrl Alt Revolt! by Nick Cole.
  • Best Horror: Souldancer by Brian Niemeier.
  • Comic Book: Ms. Marvel
  • Graphic Novel: The Sandman Overture by Neil Gaiman.
  • Best TV show: Game of Thrones
  • Best Movie: The Martian.
  • Best PC/Console Video Game: Fallout 4.
  • Best Mobile Game: Fallout Shelter.
  • Best Board Game: Pandemic Legacy.
  • Best RPG/Collectible/Card Game: Call of Cthulhu.

I just spoke with Nick Cole on Facebook. I have never seen anyone so excited, and I’m SO happy for him! If you haven’t read Ctrl Alt Revolt, go read it. Do yourselves a favor.  He’s great!

Nick Cole: So excited!!!! And thank you thank you thank you for your vote! I never win! What a day!!!!’

Nicki Kenyon: I’m currently imagining you hopping up and down. LOL! Awesome news!

Nick Cole: I was! My wife was doing cheerleader kicks!!!

And do know that Nick was facing some stiff competition, including from a novel I absolutely loved – Marina Fontaine’s “Chasing Freedom,” so you know it had to be good!

I’m so happy for both of them! Both are brilliant authors, so go and read!

I’m not a fan of Game of Thrones. I fell asleep when I tried to watch it. Not my thing. But I know a lot of others like the show, so more power to them!

honorFor Best Horror, I actually voted for Declan Finn’s “Honor at Stake,” and while he didn’t get the award, it’s a book I highly recommend you read. Declan first sent me a copy right before I went in for surgery, knowing I would be laid up and hungry for reading material. I’m SO grateful he did!

I will say, I’m not a vampire fan. Much like zombies, the genre is horribly overdone and difficult to do well and originally, so it takes a lot for me to enjoy a vampire story.

But Declan approached it from a different point of view. He examined the mythology from the perspective of a Catholic, and a doctor. He posed a plausible medical explanations for vampirism and for good vice bad vampires from a religious context.

The sociopath and the vampire – two characters you would expect to be evil (or anticipate one of them would sparkle, if you’re into that sort of thing) – are completely antithetical to what you would anticipate. Their actions define them, not their thoughts or their “nature.” I kind of like that.

evil laughBut putting all of that aside, Declan’s story is fun! It’s fast-paced. It’s action-filled. It’s sweet at times. It’s enjoyable, and it’s not over! There’s another on the way. *insert evil, satisfied laugh here*

If I have one criticism, it’s that the way he wrote the Russian character isn’t exactly accurate, both in language and in speech. But being from that part of the world, I’m picky.

Pick it up. You’ll enjoy it. Trust me.

I’m also experiencing tingly sensations at the fact that Larry Correia – the International Lord of Hate himself – has won the award for best Fantasy Novel! I have “Son of a Black Sword” in hardcover, vice in electronic form. The reviews – deservedly so – are stellar! On Amazon, 78 percent of reviews gave the novel five stars, and an additional 15 percent gave it four stars. Of the one-star reviews one admitted they didn’t read the book, because the Kindle version was too expensive. Another one thought he’d be smart and give it one star for keeping the reader on the edge of his seat! And a third claimed the book was too “sad.”

It’s interesting to note that when fans are legitimately given the opportunity to vote for the works they enjoy, there’s no “No Award.” There’s no wooden assholes. There’s no chortling, cackling CHORFs, snottily snickering how they kept the undesirables at bay.

There are fans. They vote for what they like, and the writers, artists, cinematographers, and others reap the benefits – the gratitude of thousands of fans, who enjoyed the work and wanted to reward their faves with recognition.

And that will inevitably cause the CHORFs to clutch their pearls, gnash their teeth, and snottily declare that the Dragon Awards don’t matter, because they’re not part of that elite clique of haughty Hugo recipients and nominees. They will mumble about how the pathetic Sad Puppies got so trounced, they had to go and start an award of their own, even though that’s a ridiculous contention. There will be slander in the press and on social media. Don’t believe me? It’s starting already. From File 770:

Gee, an award put together by puppies, was awarded to puppies.

Color me shocked. SHOCKED!

Here’s some sour grapes for you from the same site.

Good. The Puppies have been saying since these were first announced that they would be the “real” awards as far as they were concerned. They get to give each other awards, they’ll hopefully leave the rest of us alone, everyone wins. And as it’s a new award, there’s no cultural expectation getting in their way. They can talk on their own blogs about how the Hugos are irrelevant, and we can ignore them.

And more unfounded accusations from the CHORF set, because RABIDPUPPIESSADPUPPIES!

Congratulations to VD. Now he has found an award that actually is run by a cabal (albeit his cabal), maybe he’ll fuck off and leave the Hugo’s alone.

I encourage everyone to go look at the opening page of Somewhither on Amazon. Shocking piece of sophomoric crap.

For Puppies by Puppies, as mentioned above.

Evidence? Screw your evidence? Let’s make caustic accusations without a shred of proof to back them up, because we weren’t a part of this, and because we didn’t get our chance to castigate the puppies (whom we see as a boogie man under every bed) with “No Awards” to prove our superiority.

And then we have this mutant.


pearlsIt’s all good. I expect these bitter, sad little howler monkeys to hurl their acrimonious turds. It’s what they do in between pearl clutching and insulting those evil non-enlightened juvenile canines with wooden assholes.

It’s about time a real fan award took center stage. Congratulations to all the winners, and the Hugos can keep the assterisks.

Damien Walter’s Ugly Tie

tieThose of you who have kids may remember their gifts to dad early on, which usually consisted of a mangled ashtray they made in art class, which you kept as a sacred treasure because your baby made it (yes, I still have a ceramic hedgehog from one of mine). Sometimes, though, when there was nothing to present from art class, the munchkins would go out and buy a hideous tie for dad’s birthday – a tie he would be embarrassed to wear were it from any source other than the child.

Yeah, that tie.

You don’t want to wear it, because Punkin spent hard-earned allowance money getting you that ugly tie as a present, and you want to honor that gesture by wearing it on a special occasion, so you pat them on the head and hug and kiss them, and they feel so good, because daddy likes their present!

Well, yesterday was Larry Correia’s birthday. Larry – the author of some of my favorite books, and the SJW-proclaimed International Lord of Hate – got a present for his special day from the Guardian’s resident Oozing Vagoo Damien Walter – an article on Dimwit’s Guardian blog critiquing Larry’s novels, as well as some other authors whom I love.

Note also that Dimwit has made his Twitter feed protected, so only the correct sort of readers may follow him and read his 140-character brain droppings. Dimwit doesn’t exactly like criticism. Perhaps THAT’S why he hasn’t managed to shit out a book, even thought the British government has given him other people’s money to do so.

I’m not linking to Dimwit’s ponderous swamp of viscous (no, not vicious – I meant viscous, as in gelatinous or mucusy), mangled pseudo-thought. You can use the Google Machine for his snark-filled, condescending screed “Hugo Awards: Reading the Sad Puppies’ Pets.” It’s also archived here. If there’s one thing clear from Dimwit’s blithering excretion, it’s that even though he claims to have read these authors’ books and found them to be clearly substandard, his idea of “reading” involves skimming a few pages of a single work, skimming a few others – maybe, asserting how awful they are, and then basing his critique attack on other Sad Puppy authors on those limited, half-witted views.

And he claims the Guardian pays him to read books! Perhaps they should ask for their money back, because he’s quite obviously incapable of reading – or at least comprehending – books he claims are oh-so-low class, they’re comparable to straight-to-video Dolph Lundgren films. Those damn proles.

OK, I like Dolph Lundgren. He’s fun – something that Dimwit obviously avoids like a bad case of the herp (which, he likely wouldn’t get anyway, because – really – who the hell would want to fuck that omega male?) – and contrary to what some supercilious twat wads believe, entertainment can not contain haughty, overbearing social or political messages and still be worthwhile.

Also, Dolph Lundgren is much smarter than Dimwit, the self-described “male feminist” who hasn’t been able to birth a book, even though the British government apparently paid him a grant to do so, but who apparently teaches writing, even though he’s apparently incapable of reading an entire book, let alone writing one even with taxpayer money incentives. Maybe Larry’s writing is a bit too complex for Dimwit.

Dolph Lundgren has a degree in chemistry from Washington State University, a degree in chemical engineering from the Royal Institute of Technology, and a Master’s in chemical engineering from the University of Sydney. He also stars in movies people actually see, and is a much more recognizable persona than Dimwit. So Dimwit denigrating Lundgren is as laughable as Dimwit denigrating Larry Correia, who somehow manages to write entertaining stories, makes a great living, has a huge fan base, and unlike Dimwit, can actually write a book – a number of them, in fact – that people love to read.

I also note that aside from a few outliers, Dimwit’s blog averages about as many comments per entry as mine does – UNLESS he is writing about the Sad Puppies, which brings out the pusillanimous Puppy Kickers to pile on and pat one another on the back about how enlightened they are for hating that pulp fiction pablum. This tells me Dimwit simply trots out the Puppies when things get particularly slow on his Guardian blog, because let’s face it, folks – Dimwit needs the hits.

And that’s pretty much what he’s done in this latest gutless harangue.

For the last few years, the Hugo awards for science fiction have been campaigned against by a group of writers and fans calling themselves the Sad Puppies – mostly male, very white, and overwhelmingly conservative. Unhappy with sci-fi’s growing diversity, the Puppies have deliberately block-voted for certain titles to get them nominated for Hugos at the expense of a wider field. They say it is their goal to “poke the establishment in the eye” by nominating “unabashed pulp action that isn’t heavy-handed message fic”. I say it is to sponsor awful writers.

So Dimwit starts out with a deliberate lie, given that Sad Puppies 4 was run by all women, who are overwhelmingly libertarian, and that those “certain titles” recommended by the Puppies were voted on by anyone who has read a work and liked it, and included such SJW favorites as Ann Leckie.

Never let facts get in the way of your attempts to gain readership at the expense of the people whom you revile, but whose accomplishments you couldn’t hope to match, let alone exceed, Dimwit.

The Puppies have two criteria for what they deem excellence: does it turn a buck? And has the author dared to say anything, ever, that they disagree with? This, paired with their conspiracy theories about some big sci-fi publishers, means that they tend to champion mostly self-published authors. Nothing about quality – though you don’t need an in-depth knowledge of sci-fi to understand that a short story called Space Raptor Butt Invasion (yes, really) has not arrived on the Hugo lists because of its calibre.

Wow, what utter dreck! Fans nominated works they liked using whatever criteria they wanted. The organizers of Sad Puppies 4 spent a lot of time compiling recommendations based on those nominations in a completely open and transparent process. Larry Correia repeatedly and quite openly stated why he started the campaign in the first place – another piece Dimwit is apparently incapable of understanding. And, the Sad Puppies had nothing to do with “Space Raptor Butt Invasion,” no matter how hard Dimwit twists and strains to make that connection.

With this year’s Hugo awards coming on Saturday night in the US, I thought I’d read some of the authors championed by the Puppies. (Don’t ever say I don’t do anything for you.)

If you find meaning in straight-to-video Dolph Lundgren films, then Larry Correia’s novels will be your kind of read. Correia, accountant-turned-author-turned-Sad-Puppies-creator, kicked off his Monster Hunter series with Monster Hunter International, about an accountant whose boss turns into a monster. So he shoots him. In fact, much of the Monster Hunter series relies rather heavily on people the hero doesn’t like turning into monsters … so he can shoot them.

There’s a problem here. Dimwit either engages in seriously sloppy writing, or he read a few pages, saw a reference to a gun, shat himself in utter terror, and couldn’t continue reading.

Yes, the novel’s main character does shoot his boss at first, but since his boss is a werewolf, shooting him does nothing, so Owen Zastava Pitt subsequently kills his werewolf boss by chucking him out of a window, and dropping a desk on him. So by implying that Z kills the monster by shooting it, and then making absolutely false claims about the rest of the series, Dimwit is either a mediocre and careless writer, who hasn’t understood what he read, or he hasn’t actually read anything but the first few pages of Monster Hunter International, saw the passage about the shooting, got scared, hid under his desk for a while until the tremors subsided, predicted he’s read all he needs and that the rest would be much of the same, and proceeded to write about it.

My bet would be on the latter.

Because if it’s the former, then he’s guilty of the kind of writing crimes of which he accuses authors he doesn’t like.

Dimwit goes on to trash popular novelists such as Sarah A. Hoyt and Brad Torgersen, John C. Wright and Dave Freer, and anyone else whom he considers part of the Sad Puppy cisheteropatriarchaloppressors. He doesn’t get into details, other than to claim sentences are “mangled,” whatever that means, and accuses these talented writers of “vomiting onto the page” whatever passes through their heads.

This coming from someone whose claim to fame is proclaiming himself to be a “male feminist” and spewing out such literary feculence as “My Lovesick Zombie Boy Band.” I get this feeling Dimwit is just too stupid to understand words on a page, so he denigrates the authors in hopes of concealing his own inadequacies.

But the Sad Puppies don’t want any of their books to end up on bestseller lists or TV screens. It’s the same frustrating paradigm that British MP Michael Gove hit upon when he said that people were sick of experts, or what Donald Trump plays upon when he rails against “professional politicians”. We’re seeing the Dunning-Kruger effect played out on a mass scale, and the Sad Puppies are just a speck in that wider problem.

No, of course Sad Puppies don’t want their books on bestseller lists! Larry Correia winding up on Entertainment Weekly’s bestseller list and on the New York Times bestseller list must have been an accident! He didn’t want any of that! Totes unintentional!

You know, it’s amusing to see Dimwit flailing – allowing Larry not only to live rent-free in his head, but to flood the toilet, toss around stale pizza boxes, run up the pay-per-view bill, and stain the shag carpet. Larry had nothing to do with the Hugos this year. He declined his nomination last year. He’s ignored poor Dimwit, because Larry is doing what Larry does best – writing entertaining books for his fans and having fun.

And yet, here’s Dimwit, once again trying to get Larry’s attention, like a slow child presenting daddy with that ugly tie for Father’s Day.

Yep, this article is Dimwit’s ugly tie – published right on time for dad’s Larry’s birthday.

Meanwhile, the talented, smart, generous authors beloved by fans and reviled by the SJW Howler Monkeys as melancholy juvenile canines, will continue selling books and thrilling their audiences.

That’s nice, Dimmy. Maybe daddy will wear your tie next time.

Nicki on why Scalzi is a bitter, petty dick cheese (and so are Damien Walter and David Barnett)

sad puppies

Edited to add: some astute readers pointed out that the Guardian drivel was actually written by David Barnett, who actually did manage to write several books, but who is nonetheless in dire need of some butthurt cream, while Damien Walter actually wrote this grumpy little piece, muttering how much the Sad Puppies don’t matter this year. This is what I get for blogging after no sleep. But nonetheless…

If you hadn’t heard, this year’s Hugo Award nominations are out, and the Social Justice Whiner butthurt is EPIC!

First, let’s recap. The Sad Puppies 4 campaign was run by three amazing women writers I am proud to call my friends: Kate Paulk, Sarah Hoyt, and Amanda Green – all bright, talented, creative, driven women writers (even if some morons do claim Sarah is somehow a white, Mormon male).

The Sad Puppies 4 campaign was open, transparent, and completely objective. Even the most ardent of Puppy Kickers had to admit this. And the list this year included some stellar works.

A friend noted the following on social media:

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.

Anyone with half a brain, who had been following the controversy since last year could tell that the Sad Puppies campaign was not only a success once again this year, but it was open and non-political, no matter how much Steve Davidson tried to make it so.

But that’s not good enough. It’s never good enough for whining Social Justice Howler Monkeys. The usual horde of haters have crawled out from under their rocks to claim 1) the Sad Puppies nominated quality works, but the quality works Sad Puppies nominated were nominated despite the Sad Puppies 2) The Sad Puppies don’t matter anyway, and 3) HUGOS WERE HIJACKED BY BAD BAD EVIL RIGHTWINGERS AGAIN THIS YEAR, AND I’M BUTTHURT ABOUT IT!

The first claim came from the cavernous hole of none other than the feminist dick cheese of science fiction, John Scalzi, who first had to remind us that rabid, arrogant howler monkeys “No Awarded” entire categories in last year’s Hugo fiasco – all to keep the “wrong” kinds of writers and editors from getting the award, and then proceeded to talk about how luminaries such as Lois McMaster Bujold, Neil Gaiman, Brandon Sanderson and Stephen King were nominated by the Sad Puppies this year, but the Sad Puppies are dirty scum, whom he hates anyway, and these writers would have gotten nominated without them, because FUCK YOU, PUPPIES.

The second grudgingly mutters how the Puppies don’t matter this year and comes from sci-fi’s most inept “writer,” if he can be called that. The oozing vagina of the Guardian, Damien Walter, who can’t seem to finish a novel, even when the British government gives him money to do so, grumbles how inconsequential the Sad Puppies are and claims that the campaign – despite being run by three women – is nothing more than a “publicity vehicle for a bored, ageing frat boy and his buddies.” 

Well, we all know to whom he refers here, even though the International Lord Of Hate hasn’t been involved with the Sad Puppies or the Hugos this year, but Damien can’t resist a swipe. Larry Correia is the great white whale to Damien’s mentally challenged Ahab. 

He also gives into his statist streak, demanding that Vox Day and his supporters be removed from the voting pool for being WrongFans, as if his inability to finish a novel qualifies him to speak for fandom writ large. How much of an oozing rectal lesion to you have to be to make Vox sympathetic by comparison?

The third – another Guardian writer David Barnett (the Guardian is like the gift that keeps on giving) – spent much bandwidth complaining about those EVIL RIGHTWINGERS having taken over the Hugos again this year. *sniffle*

The Puppies factions will undoubtedly be celebrating their successes on the ballot, but for many people engaged in the science-fiction and fantasy genres this news will not be well-received. The Hugo awards, once the watchword of quality in the SFF world, appear to have been utterly derailed for the second year running.

And there was much butthurt in SJW world.

But at least Barnett made somewhat of an effort not to conflate Rabid Puppies and Sad Puppies this year, which Damien doesn’t bother doing – not really. Grudgingly and somewhat ineptly, as his sniveling screed made no real effort to mention that the Sad Puppies recommendation list was diverse, open, and truly a reflection of the varied tastes of fandom, but rather proceeded to complain about the Rabids.


It would be amusing if it wasn’t so petty and pathetic.

Here’s what really happened.

The Sad Puppies did exactly what they said they would do: they nominated works they liked transparently, cleanly, without politics playing into it.

Kate, Sarah, and Amanda tallied the votes, and put forth a recommendation list of varied, diverse works readers felt were worthy of a Hugo.

Some authors, afraid to be associated with the “wrong” type of fans gnashed teeth, clutched pearls, and wet themselves.

A good number Sad Puppy recommendations made it on the Hugo nomination list.

Horrified that they didn’t have reason to kick the Puppies around this year, quivering-lipped, arrogant, self-anointed arbiters of all that is good, just, and right in science fiction and fantasy, decided to kick the Puppies anyway. These ass weasels were so desperate for drama they couldn’t wait to create sturm and drang where there was none, and most of us are chuckling at their pathetic efforts to once again denigrate a large group of fans in a vain attempt at relevance.

Grow up, you sad excuses for human beings! No one but a few frothing, deluded acolytes actually takes you seriously. You’re nothing but an object of mockery and ridicule, which is occasionally entertaining, but ultimately just kind of sad – like an overweight, former prom queen at her 20-year high school reunion struggling to regain some semblance of her bubbly popularity.

Go write something worthy of reading, or something.

Why the Puppies Are Sad

You want to know why the Sad Puppies campaign still exists? Do you want to know why fans continue to nominate authors they consider to be worthy of a Hugo Award even though the elitist Puppy Kickers made damn sure everyone knew that no award would be given to any worthy author or editor if they were nominated by the “wrong” people?

Here’s one reason.

“Speak Easy” by Catherynne M. Valente was submitted for a Sad Puppies 4 nomination in September 2015. Several fans thought it was worthy of the award. Comments included:

“… I liked it a lot and will be nominating it for a Hugo.”

“…There is so much to discover in this little book and it absolutely blew me away”

I would think that any author would be grateful that readers not only bought her work, but read it and enjoyed it enough to recommend it for a prestigious award. I would think the author would be gracious and thank the readers for the honor. One would think that being included in a list of recommendations that this year includes such great and diverse writers as Lois McMaster Bujold, Ann Leckie, Stephen King, Eric Flint, and John Scalzi would be met with gratitude and some dignity.

But apparently, if you’re the wrong kind of thinker, the wrong kind of reader, who has the wrong kind of social justice and political views, Ms. Valente doesn’t want your business. She doesn’t want your praise or recommendation. She doesn’t want your recognition.

As a matter of fact, if you’re the wrong type of science fiction fan, she will meowl and howl and demand that her name be removed from consideration. Then, she will vent her spleen on the Internet (then think better of it and admit it was not her “best reaction), and then she will post a much more temperate contemplation, trying to explain why she was so damn angry that a bunch of fans liked her writing enough to read it and to think it was worthy of an award.

I was upset because I wasn’t asked whether I was okay with being put on this list. I had thought I remembered SP saying they would ask authors for permission in the future, but it’s since been pointed out to me that my memory, as with all human cognition, is faulty, and the truth is the opposite–they, in fact, pledged not to ask permission or remove names on request.

Ms. Valente apparently thinks she should be consulted about whether or not it would be OK for a group of fans to like and appreciate her writing enough to think she merits an award. Apparently, she’s so important, that fans need her permission to publicly like her work! I will freely admit I’ve never heard of her until this year, so I wasn’t sure how successful or popular she was.

She’s apparently fairly prolific, if you believe Wikipedia, but I cannot imagine an author can get so prominent that she would actively reject readers who like her writing. But that’s exactly what she did.

Because she doesn’t want to be “associated” with the wrong type of fans.

Because she and other spitting whiners are suspicious that somehow this is somehow an effort to “legitimize” Sad Puppies, rather than a simple submission by people who happened to like her work.

Because somehow pointing out her lack of graciousness on social media equates to attacking her.

And it occurs to me that I would feel far less anger and confusion if one single person had calmly and without rancor said to me: “Hey, last year was a clusterfuck all around. This year we’re trying to put all that behind us and do a straight recommendation list. That’s all that’s going on.” But instead, it was the same instant name-calling and attacks that went down last time.

Of course, several people pointed out that the Sad Puppies list this year is a diverse recommendation list by fans who liked her work, but Ms. Valente appears to be so filled with rancor and hatred, that she just ignored them and continued on.

One reply pointed out that fans liked her work, and thought it was worthy.

Another one also acknowledged the effort to keep politics and acrimony out of it.

A third one noted that this the Sad Puppies list is a pretty simple recommendation from multiple fans.

But apparently, that’s not good enough.

So I spent the night trying to get my thoughts in order on this. Because, yes, if you strip away all the context of the Sad Puppies campaigns, it’s just a recommendation list, and I was happy enough to be on the Locus List (which doesn’t ask permission), so I should simply be joyful that people liked Speak Easyenough to recommend others take a look at it. A recommendation list, as we have been saying all along, is not a slate.

But you can’t strip away the context. Context is content. Context is everything.

Here’s your context, Ms. Valente.

So, SP4 is all about MOAR! More voters. More votes. More people. We want to make the Hugos bigger and more representative of fandom as a whole, to bring people in rather than give them an asterisk that looks kind of wrong (especially beside the rocket) to try to drive the “interlopers” out. SF is a big tent: we don’t want to kick out anyone, even writers of bad message fiction that makes puppies sad.

That is all. It is simple and publicly stated. There’s no hidden context or agenda. There never has been, despite some people’s best efforts to conflate the Sad Puppies movement with something onerous and clandestine.

I promised last year not to allow my name on any slate, for any reason, in perpetuity. Which means that if SP4 is, somehow, a slate, it would be hypocritical of me to shrug and say I’m cool with it just because my name happens to be on it. This is where I get stuck, because I feel there is a moral morass here. Call me old-fashioned: when I give my word, it still means something to me. This puts me in an incredibly difficult position, from which there is no easy extrication.

This is not about you allowing anything, Ms. Valente, unless you really expect fans you don’t like for nebulous reasons such as their “association” with other fans, to refuse to like or read your literature, in which case I would question your sanity and your intellect.

Bottom line: some people read your novella, and they liked it enough to submit it for an award. That’s it. Nothing else. But your lack of congeniality is noted.

The problem is, I spent a year listening to how the Puppies are Master Strategists. You can’t blame me for doing a Perception Roll and looking for traps. And that is my fear. That, with apologies to Admiral Akbar, it’s a trap.

Maybe you should take a year actually examining evidence with an objective eye, reading what has been written on the subject without judging, and stop being so paranoid.

I don’t want to be anyone’s shield. I want any nomination to be about my work and my work alone. I don’t want to be used to add legitimacy to a slate, I don’t want to be used to whitewash the history of a movement that, at the very minimum, has behaved poorly and rudely toward a large number of people, including me, my loved ones, and my colleagues. I don’t want to be fodder for a “we all know the first five are the real slate” strategy. I don’t want to be used as agotcha!, forced to withdraw in order to keep my moral house in order and make room for more works along the lines of “Safe Space as Rape Room” and “Sad Puppies Bite Back” or remain on the list and force a conversation about No Awarding so that the Puppies can watch the people they targeted last year get No Awarded or call us all hypocrites at large for not doing it–victory declared at any result.

Couple of things are notable here. chu

First, Ms. Valente appears to be hanging out with the likes of Arthur Chu, who last year viciously attacked Brad Torgersen as a racist and even posted a photo of his African American wife and biracial daughter, claiming they were shields for Brad’s alleged racism.

Are these the kinds of people with whom you want to be associated, Ms. Valente? Because you certainly sound like one of them.

A shield? It must be difficult to think so little of your own work that you believe the only reason people with opposing views to yours would like your writing is as a shield!

Second, Ms. Valente ignores the very real, vile, repugnant, and false accusations of racism, misogyny, bigotry, and other filth hurled at the Sad Puppies last year. It must be so comfy living in that soft, opaque world, so devoid of diverse points of view!

Third, she admits outright that the “No Awarding” of numerous categories at the Hugo Awards last year was an effort to keep the “undesirables” out, and worse, she’s afraid inclusion by the “wrong” kinds of fans will deprive her of her rightful chance for an award.

I will give Ms. Valente credit for admitting that the Sad Puppies this year did exactly what they said they would – create an open, transparent, diverse list recommended by numerous readers.

They seem to have done everything people said they should do to make it a recommendation list and not a slate. It’s democratic, it’s open, there are either more or less than five recs for every slot. The Rabid Puppy list has almost nothing in common with the Sad Puppy list.

At least she’s intellectually honorable enough to admit this much, but then she slides back into paranoia, and proceeds to blame the fans – the same fans who recommended works they enjoyed last year for a prestigious award and included her on this list – for her own paranoia, and continues to perpetuate the lies that angered kind, generous, gentle authors and fans last year, accusing us of racism, homophobia, and sexism and conflate Sad Puppies with the snarling, frothing Rabids, whose stated goal was to submarine the Hugos.

But it’s absurd to get angry at someone for thinking there might be something more to it. After all the talk about manipulation and strategy, all the insults flung and accusations levied, this is the result. It is hard to trust. And it is impossible to just pull the tablecloth out from under the Sad Puppies and leave the flowers and the silver still standing. The Puppies are a political group. They specifically did what they did last year to make “SJW heads explode.” Members have engaged in racists, homophobic, and sexist rhetoric. They have stated that the last several years of Hugos, during which I won and was nominated, were a lie and a farce, only existing due to affirmative action.

The rest of her post is self-inflicted angst and agony. Her stomach hurts. She’s honestly torn. She doesn’t know what to do.

And then, she “magnanimously” proclaimed that she will give us all a chance. She will give us her oh-so-generous benefit of the doubt. She’s choosing to believe that the Sad Puppies are sincere, despite the skewed history that she’s been led to believe, and dog forbid we let her down!

Please, lady!

Give it a rest! People read your work. They enjoyed it. They liked it enough to recommend it for a prestigious award. Be gracious. Say “thank you.” Enjoy the fact that a bigger fan base read your novella and enjoyed it, despite their perceived disagreements with you on politics or whatever else.

Stop worrying about some biased version of “history” and realize you’re not ENTITLED to demand that fans ask your permission to like and recommend your work.

You promised to believe in our good faith? So stop with the caveats and the angst, so we can believe in yours!


%d bloggers like this: