Brad Torgersen has added a post to his blog: “Sad Puppies: We Are Not Rabid Puppies.”

Larry Correia has also spoken up on MONSTER HUNTER NATION: “I Am Not Vox Day.”

I commend them both for making the distinction so loudly and clearly. And I accept what they say. The Sad Puppies are not Rabid Puppies. Larry Correia is not Vox Day. I regret anything I might have done or said that blurred the line, or created a false impression that all Puppies were the same. (Admittedly, having ‘Puppies’ in the name of both slates does foster confusion). I am glad you set that straight.

But now… sorry, sorry… I have a few more thoughts that have occured to me about Puppygate. Questions, really.

I think we are all pretty clear on where the Rabid Puppy slate came from: Vox Day made it up. He listed a lot of books and movies and editors and writers he liked, told his followers to vote for them, and they did. Pretty cut and dried. And that’s the last I will say about the Rabids.

I am a little more unclear on the process that created the Sad Puppy slate. Brad, if I recall correctly (and do correct me if I am wrong), you said that you solicited nominations and suggestions from the readers of your blog. Presumably Mr. Correia did the same on MONSTER HUNTER NATION. Maybe other blogs were involved. Sarah Hoyt? I don’t know. In any case, you asked for suggestions, and you received a lot of them. And from those, you produced the Sad Puppy slate.

My question, though… how did you go about the winnowing? Presumably more than five books/ stories/ editors were suggested for each category. Yet you did not throw them all onto a long Recommended Reading list, as happens, say, with LOCUS or NESFA. Presumably some of your fans and readers did not see their own favorites reflected on the final list. So how was the slate selected? Were the books and stories you listed those that got the most votes? In other words, was your process a sort of “primary election,” to select candidates for the general? Alternatively, did you pick and choose, putting on some suggestions, discarding others? Did you do that by yourself? Was it you and Larry Correia? You and Larry and some other people of like minds?

In your last blog post, your wrote:

“The objectives of Sad Puppies 3 have been simple and consistent:

● Use the democratic selection system of the Hugo awards.
● No !œquiet! logrolling. Make it transparent.
● Boost authors, editors, and works !” regardless of political persuasion.
● Bring recognition to people who’ve been long overlooked.
● Get some good promotion for new folks coming up in the field.
● Have fun!“

I will take you at your word that these were the aims of the Sad Puppies, as opposed to those of the Rabid Puppies, which seem to be more simply, “Destroy the Hugos, outrage the liberals, and plunge all fandom into war.”

I’ll give you the fourth and fifth on your list. You did bring recognition to people who had long been overlooked (whether it was a good sort of recognition is another question, but you certainly got their names out there), and you did generate lots of promotion for some newer folks, most notably the Campbell nominees, and, well, the two young writers who have withdrawn.

I would quibble about your third stated aim. Yes, you did include some women and some minority writers and some writers with different political views on your Sad Puppy slate, but… oh, hell, look, I will grant you that one too, for the sake of argument. My interest is elsewhere.

And for aim number six — have fun — boy, howdy. Are we having fun yet? I’m not. Are you?

Moving on, though, I would like to focus on the first and second aims.

Number one, you wanted to use the democratic selection method of the Hugo Awards. And we’re all in favor of democracy, of course. Except… was your own selection procedure democractic? The stories and novels on your slate, were those the ones that were selected most often, the ones that got the most nominations? If you tell me they were, fine… then you had a primary. But if you tell me that you (or you and Mr. Correia, or you and he and some other Sad Puppies) made judgment calls of your own from amongst the books and stories put forward by your readers… why, that would not be democratic at all. That would be, well, a clique operating behind closed doors. Maybe even a one-man clique, if it was just you.

So tell me, if you would: how did you get from lots of suggestions down to four or five per category? What were your criteria, and who made the final choices??

Which brings me to your second stated aim. “No quiet logrolling. Make it transparent.”

The Hugo Awards have been transparent for decades. Not always, admittedly — final vote totals and nominations were not generally released in the 60s and 70s, and there were always rumors of funny stuff going on behind closed doors. I credit Charles Brown and LOCUS with breaking that down, by making a point of demanding the hard numbers year after year, until the concoms finally began to do so. This year, as for many years now, after all the rockets have been handed out, as the fans begin to leave the auditorium in Spokane, they will be handed sheets with a complete voting breakdown of every category. Sometimes the complete list of nominating totals are included as well; if not, those turn up slightly later. Nominations not just for the books and stories that made the ballot, but for all those that did not. Everyone will be able to see how much they won by, how much they lost by. Hard numbers. Transparency.

(I find these endlessly fascinating myself. Every year, I find myself poring over the numbers at the Hugo Losers party, when I really should be drinking and flirting. What can I say? I can’t help myself).

I am sure I would be equally intrigued by your own “primary” numbers. You favor transparency. Would you be willing to show us your own “primary” results? How many people made suggestions? How many books were nominated? How many votes did each of them get? Were any passed over for the slate, and if so, why? Hard numbers, same as the Hugos. Just so, you know, fandom — and your own Puppies — can know for certain that no “quiet log-rolling” went on.

One last question. You say you want inclusion. You say you want democracy. And you have already announced Sad Puppies 4, aimed at the 2016 Hugo Awards at Big Mac II. I understand that Kate Paulk of MAD GENIUS CLUB will be running things next year. I presume the mechanism will be the same — a call for suggestions, which will then somehow be winnowed down to a slate. (If that’s wrong, do correct me, I want to have the facts).

So maybe my last question is for Kate Paulk rather than you or Mr. Correia. I don’t know. But it’s a simple question. When you open up Sad Puppies 4 for nominations…

Can I nominate?

I read a lot of books and stories. I have editors and fan writers and artists I think are shamefully overlooked, same as you. I am a fan too. Can I nominate my own favorites, and be assured that they will be given equal weight to Larry Correia’s nominations, and Brad’s, and John C. Wright’s, and all the other Puppies?

We want democracy. We want transparency. We don’t want log-rolling. General elections need to be honest, but primary elections should be honest too. And you guys do NOT believe in any sort of political litmus tests, I know, you’ve said as much a hundred times… so I know you will welcome my own suggestions for Sad Puppies 4, right? Oh, and PNH and TNH, and N.K. Jemisin, and Connie Willis, and David Gerrold, and John Scalzi, and all my friends in the Brotherhood Without Banners… we all love science fiction, we all love puppies…

Can we play too?

The longer the Puppygate Wars drag on, the more pessimistic I grow about the future of the Hugo Awards. I started out by saying that the Sad Puppies (and their Rabid cousins) had broken them, and every day and every post and blog and story I read underlines the truth of that.

My friend Janice Gelb, long time worldcon volunteer and SMOF, has suggested that the only thing we can do at this point is abolish the Hugo Awards altogether. When I first heard that notion, I dismissed it out of hand. Some good will, some civility, a mutual exchange of ideas, and surely we could find a way to salvage the situation.

I am no longer convinced of that. The Sad Puppies are digging in and doubling down, and so is worldcon fandom. Meanwhile, off in the cesspools, the Rabid Puppies grow ever more rabid. Nuclear options are being seriously considered, and Vox Day has apparently threatened that if NO AWARD wins in any category, he will see to it that no award is ever given in that category again.

My first inclination was to dismiss that threat as so much toxic wind. But I am not so sure. According to FILE 770 http://file770.com/?p=21877 there have been 1352 new Supporting Memberships purchased this month, an unprecedented number. Very few of these purchases, I fear, were motivated by a sincere desire to support WorldCon. No, all these new supporting members are plonking down their money for a vote on the Hugos.

Ah, but which side do they represent? Are these members of traditional fandom, signing up to take back their awards? Are these Sad Puppy supporters, anxious to vote their slate to victory? Are these all NO AWARDers? Or maybe these are the Vox Day fans. Beale seems to have much more control over his followers than Correia and Torgensen do over theirs… the ballot actually has more Rabid Puppies than Sad ones. Could it be that Vox Day has successfully roused the GamerGate bogeyman that he was been threatening us with? No one knows. Unless…

I think it is All of the Above.

Meanwhile, two of this year’s nominees have withdrawn their stories from contention: Marko Kloos in Best Novel, and Annie Bellett in Best Short Story. I understand their desire to be out of this mess. Both nominations were, pretty clearly, due to their inclusion on the Sad Puppy slate, but neither writer was actually an active participant in the slate-making. And both were first time nominees. I remember how much joy my first Hugo nomination brought me in 1974, and I regret that these two young writers (I do not know either one, I am not familiar with their work, and I have no idea of their political, religious, or literary convictions) will think back on their own nominations with regret and rancor, rather than fondly. One’s first Hugo nomination, like one’s first sexual experience, should be a memory to treasure, not a trauma.

The flood of supporting memberships will continue, I think. I believe one can still join (and vote) up to July 1. Those 1300 new supporting members will become 1500… maybe 2000… maybe 3000. Very few of whom will bother to turn up at the con. Great news for SasQuan’s bottom line. Not so great for fandom. For worldcon. For SF. More Sad Puppies may withdraw, (I doubt very much that any of the Rabid Puppies will), like Kloos and Bellett. More presenters may withdraw, like Connie Willis. The business meeting will be loud and long and rancorous, as all these new rules proposals are debated and voted on. And the Hugo Awards themselves…

I do not see a happy outcome here.

Maybe all the new voters are Vox Day acolytes, and the Rabid Puppies will sweep the board.

Maybe the NO AWARDers will carry the day, and the night will end with no Hugos given out at all. And then Vox Day will double down next year and try to make good on his threat to make sure no more Hugos are ever given.

Maybe NO AWARD will win in the All-Puppy categories (Related Work and the three Short Fiction categories), while the other rockets go to the non-Puppy nominees in split categories. I actually thought this was the most likely outcome, until I read about the flood of new members.

Maybe some awards will go to Puppies, and some to non-Puppies. A split verdict. I don’t see this as likely at all, actually… I think those new voters are going to trend one way or another, heavily… but I supposed it could happen. And afterward, wow, what fun getting all the winners together for the traditional “class photograph.”

Any way the dice fall, I foresee lots of booing and hissing as the names are called out, lots of unhappy presenters, angry winners and angrier losers.

Only one thing for certain: no matter what happens, Vox Day will declare that he’s won.

And as for me… I don’t know right now. On odd numbered days, I lean toward opting out of SasQuan entirely. Stay home, work on the book, I don’t need this grief. On even numbered days, I am determined to go… and to go BIG. Take the Hugo Losers Party back. I started it, after all. And this year, so far as the Hugos are concerned, we are all going to be losers.

It is all very depressing.

Fandom is supposed to be fun.

Yes, I am aware that Larry Correia has once again responded to me on MONSTER HUNTER NATION. Thanks to the hundred and forty-two of you who emailed me to point this out.

(Some of you, I fear, just like the smell of blood. ‘Hey, let’s you and him fight.’ Pfui).

Anyway… no, I am not going to reply to his reply to my reply to his reply to my posts. This is not a fifteen-round title bout, thank you. We have reached the point of diminishing returns on this. The discourse has, I think, been revealing, and I appreciate that both of us have kept the tone relatively civil, but I sincerely doubt that either one of us has swayed the other an inch.

Larry has been declared the winner by a knockout on Monster Hunter Nation. Yay for him.

I have been declared the winner by a knockout here on my Not A Blog. Yay for me.

Have any minds been changed? Was it worth all that time, all those words?

I have no bloody idea.

I could say, “it was fun while it lasted,” except it wasn’t.

Mr. Correia and I will just have to continue to disagree.

Puppygate is the gift that keeps on giving… or taking away, in this case. Just when you think you’re out, they drag you back in.

Anyway, the battles continue to rage, all over the internet.

Connie Willis has issued a statement. If there is anyone worth listening to about the Hugo Awards, it is Connie. She has won more of them than anyone else. She has presented lots of them too. Her presentations are always hilarious, if excruciating for the poor sods who have been nominated. She is the funniest woman in science fiction. You would think that Connie might be someone that both sides in this fight would listen to with respect, since (1) her politics are liberal, (2) she is religious, a practicing Christian who attends church regularly and sings in the choir. So here is what she has to say:

http://azsf.net/cwblog/?p=116

David Gerrold has also weighed in on the debate. David, of course, is an award-winning novelist and screenwriter, who first broke into the field on Gene Roddenberry’s original STAR TREK, for which he penned “The Trouble With Tribbles.” He also played a crucial role in the creation of STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, and won all sorts of awards for his short story, “The Martian Child.” And of course, David Gerrold is also the Professional Guest of Honor at Sasquan, this year’s Worldcon. Here are some of his thoughts:

https://www.facebook.com/david.gerrold/posts/10205360779551319?pnref=story

Some of you will want to comment on what David and Connie had to say. Some of you, needless to say, will want to disagree. That’s fine, but once again, I expect a respectful tone, no personal attacks, no insults. Don’t go there, or your posts will be deleted. Also don’t send me long screeds about how you mislike my calls for civility. If you want to spit and fume and denounce, hey, there are plenty of other blogs on the internet where you can do that.

Connie and David are both friends of mine. I have known David since the early 70s, Connie since the late 70s. Connie, actually, is a very good friend of mine. (Don’t be fooled if you have seen us ripping on one another at cons. That’s the George and Connie show. It’s a bit, like Jack Benny being cheap. We have fun with it. I love Connie, and I think she likes me okay too. She does have more Hugos than I do, which is very annoying and has given her a big head, but I love her anyway, and besides, the one time we went head-to-head for a rocket, I won).

That being said, do please note: I am not Connie Willis. I am not David Gerrold. Their thoughts are their thoughts, and my thoughts… well, I have posted my thoughts at great length here, you guys should know them by now. I agree with much of what Connie and David are saying, but not every word by any means.

I am going to have some further thoughts of my own in the post that follows.