For those who are already members of worldcon, Sasquan has opened Hugo voting. With the electronic ballot, you can go and post some preferences and votes now, then return a day later, or a week later, or a month later, and change them, or add some more rankings. Your vote does not get counted until balloting closes.

The ballot is here: http://sasquan.org/hugo-awards/voting/

If you have not voted the Hugo Awards before, please note that it is an “Australian ballot,” a preferential system whereby one ranks the nominees. You don’t just vote for one. You can rank NO AWARD as if it were any other finalist; ahead of some nominees, behind others.

(Which is the way I believe one should use NO AWARD. As I have stated previously, I am opposed to the nuclear option of just blindly voting NO AWARD in every category).

Of course, you need to member to vote. Supporting Memberships will cost you $40. You can sign up to buy one at https://sasquan.swoc.us/sasquan/reg.php

In addition to voting privileges, a Supporting Membership will get you the convention’s program book (usually a handsome item, though it varies from year to year) and other publications.

No, I am not saying don’t use NO AWARD at all when you vote for this year’s Hugo Awards.

NO AWARD has been, and remains, a viable and legitimate option for the Hugo voter. I’ve been voting on the Hugos since the 1970s, and I use NO AWARD every year, usually in about a third of the categories. However, I have seldom (not NEVER, just seldom) placed it first. I rank the finalists that I think worthy of the rocket above NO AWARD, and the ones I think unworthy below it. That’s the way I intend to use the option this year as well, in spite of the slatemaking campaigns that buggered the nomination process to the seven hells and back.

NO AWARD is a scalpel, not a bludgeon. Voting NO AWARD on everything down the line… or even (the lesser option) on everything that appeared on either Puppy slate… well, I don’t think it is smart, I don’t think it is fair, and I know damned well that a NO AWARD sweep will kill the Hugos.

I think I have made my disagreements with Larry Correia and Brad Torgersen and the rest of the Sad Puppies abundantly clear in the many blog posts that preceded this one, and in my debates with Correia both here and on his MONSTER HUNTER NATION. And I think I have made my disgust with Vox Day and his Rabid Puppies clear as well. No one should be in any doubt as to where I stand on all this.

As much as I am opposed to what the Puppies did, and what they are trying to do, I am also opposed to Guilt by Association. Like it or not, the ballot is the ballot, and it is before it now, for each of us to deal with as he or she thinks best. For my part, that means it is now about the stories, the books, the work itself. Reading, thinking, weighing my choices… voting.

I am not going to tell you who to vote for. I am not even going to tell you who I am going to vote for (with one exception, which I will get to in a later post). But I do intend to share some of my thoughts and opinions here as I go through the process. The Puppies bark and yelp about it all being about the work, but you may notice that they never actually TALK about the work (well, except to attack REDSHIRTS and That Infamous Dinosaur Story [which, it should be noted, did not even win the Hugo]). It is all SJWs and CHORFs and secret cabals over in Puppyland. But over here, I think it’s time to discuss the things the Hugo Awards are actually supposed to be about: writing, editing, drawing and painting, fanac…

Let me start with some easy categories.

BEST FAN ARTIST. This is the only category that is one hundred percent Puppy-free. I guess, not really being part of fandom, they don’t get any fanzines, so they didn’t know any fan artists. Whatever the reason, neither the Sads nor the Rabids threw up any candidates here. Which makes this, to my mind, the clearest refutation of the nuclear option. Do you really want to make these artists collateral damage? There is no possible reason to vote NO AWARD in this category, unless you honestly feel that none of the finalists is worthy of a Hugo. I don’t feel that way, so I will be voting for the Fan Artists I like best.

BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST. Ah, now this one is harder. The ballot here consists of Julie Dillon, last year’s winner, and four Puppy nominees. I met Julie for the first time just last month at Norwescon, where we were both guests. She seemed like a very nice person, and I already knew she was a very talented artist. Talented enough to win two Hugos in a row? In the past, this particular category has often been dominated by popular artists who put together long, long, LONG winning streaks (Freas, Whelan, Eggleston). Is Julie Dillon going to be the next? Maybe, maybe not. If she were contending against Donato Giancola, John Picacio, Dan Dos Santos, Michael Komarck, Marc Simonetti, John Jude Palencar, and some of the other top artists who have won (and lost) Hugos in years past, I’d rate her chances of repeating about 50/50… I mean, she’s good, but so are they. But thanks to the Puppies, none of them are on the ballot this year. Instead Julie Dillon is facing four artists that I’ve never heard of. Which is sort of curious, because I follow SF and fantasy art very closely. I check out the art shows at every con I go to (and buy art there), I read SPECTRUM religiously as soon as it comes out, I have a gallery of my own at my theatre, and I love illustrated books, comics, calendars, so I’m always looking for new artists. The Sad Puppies went in saying they wanted to put some new names on the ballot… hey, got to hand it to them, they did that here. Anyway, I’ve checked out the artwork of the four Puppy artists as best I can, via websites, Deviant Art, Google, and similar searches. I urge all of you to do the same. Then come back and tell me what you think. As for me… I will be using NO AWARD in this category, but not for first place. There is an artist here who is more than worthy of a Hugo.

Moving along…

The two DRAMATIC PRESENTATION categories — Long Form (for movies, mostly) and Short Form (for television episodes, mostly) — are another case in point where voting a straight NO AWARD ticket would be idiotic. Yes, four of the five nominated movies and three of the five nominated TV episodes appeared on one or the other of the two Puppy slates. But I can assure you, from a couple of decades laboring in the vineyards of Hollywood, that there are very few people at any of the studios and networks who even know what the Hugos are, much less the Sad Puppies. I doubt that any of them ever knew they were on anybody’s slate. Some of them don’t even know they are nominated. Voting NO AWARD over GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY or INTERSTELLAR because the Puppies liked it too gives Correia, Torgersen, and Vox Day power over your choices that is altogether unwarranted. It’s just stupid. Vote for the movies you liked best. Vote for the TV shows you liked best. If there are some you don’t think Hugo-worthy, rank them under NO AWARD. Looking at any of the Dramatic Presentations as part of any Puppy slate is hallucinatory.

There are also two categories for EDITOR — Long Form (for books, mostly) and Short Form (for magazine editors, anthology editors, and the like). Vox Day is nominated in both of them, which is a testament to how successful the Rabid Puppies were in getting out their vote, since he was not on the Sad Puppies slate, and I cannot imagine that a single trufan wrote in his name. If any further proof was required that the Rabids were more interested in “blowing up the heads of the SJWs” than in rewarding good work, well, look no further. The other Long Form finalists are Toni Weisskopf (Baen), Anne Sowards (Ace/ Roc/ Penguin), Sheila Gilbert (DAW), and Jim Minz (Baen). Please note that there are no editors from Tor nominated. Tor editors have dominated Long Form Editor for most of the category’s existence, but this year, it would seem, the Puppies chucked them out. (For some reason, the Puppies seem to hate Tor, despite the fact that Tor publishes a number of their favorite writers). Aside from the exclusion of Tor and the inclusion of Vox Day, this is a solid list, however. Yes, all of these nominees appeared on one or the other of the Puppy slates… but we now know that at least two of them were slated without their knowledge or consent (we don’t know either way about the other two). All four are long-time industry professionals who have done excellent work. None of them have ever won a Hugo. Some commenters have asked how they can possibly evaluate the work of an editor, since they don’t know what they started with. Fair point. We can only judge by the end results. Look at what DAW published last year, at what Baen published, at what Penguin published. Vote for the editor who gave us the most good books. I will be voting in this category as well. “Puppy taint” or no, I am not willing to throw four good people under the bus called NO AWARD.

Short Form Editor is a bit more problematic. The nominees here are all from the Puppy slates too. Edmund Schubert of ORSON SCOTT CARD’S INTERGALACTIC MEDICINE SHOW has withdrawn (see his statement in one of my earlier posts). That leaves anthologist Bryan Thomas Schmidt, anthologist Jennifer Brozek, and Mike Resnick, editor of GALAXY’S EDGE magazine and a seasoned anthologist himself. Resnick has been nominated for many many Hugos in the past, winning some, losing more… but never before as an editor, I think. The other two are first-time nominees. What is curious here is the absence of the “usual suspects,” the editors and anthologists who have dominated this category all the way back to when it was “Best Magazine.” Sheila Williams of ASIMOV’S is not here, Gordon Van Gelder of F&SF is not here, Trevor Quachri the new editor of ANALOG is not here. No Gardner Dozois, no Ellen Datlow… all swept away by the Puppies. It is, to be sure, nice to see some new contenders from time to time. But you know, they used to say that to be the champ, you need to beat the champ… and this year, the champs were not even allowed in the ring, thanks to the slatemakers. Do they despise ANALOG and ASIMOV’S and F&SF the same way they despise Tor? No idea, you’ll need to ask Correia and Torgersen. In any case, these are the nominees we have. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, I put Resnick, Schmidt, and Brozek in the same boat as the four legitimate Long Form editors, and I will be ranking them according to the quality of their editorial work, as best I can judge it from reading their magazines and books. I would urge all of you to do the same.

And that’s all the categories I care to tackle right now. It’s late, and I’m tired. But I will share more of my musings with you in the days and weeks to come. (I still have a lot of reading to do, needless to say).

Edmund R. Schubert, the editor of ORSON SCOTT CARD’S INTERGALACTIC MEDICINE SHOW, has announced his decision to withdraw from the Hugo race. Schubert was a nominee in the category Best Editor, Short Form. He had been included on both the Sad Puppy and Rabid Puppy slates, though apparently without his knowledge.

He has issued a statement explaining the reasons for his withdrawal, which you can read here:
http://aletheakontis.com/2015/04/in-which-edmund-schubert-withdraws-from-the-hugos/

Sasquan had previously announced that the Hugo ballot in now at the printers, so Schubert’s name will still appear, but he has indicated that he will refuse the award, should he win it.

I understand the reasons for his withdrawal and applaud his integrity. It cannot be easy to walk away from a major award, perhaps one that you have dreamed of someday winning. And this takes courage as well; like the others who have dropped off the Puppy slate, he will undoubtedly come in for a certain amount of angry barking from the kennels.

The membership numbers for Sasquan continue to climb higher and higher. In the past, worldcons in major metropolitan areas like LA, Chicago, Boston, and London have boasted the largest membership numbers, while those in smaller and more out-of-the way locales have been smaller. Spokane is about as small and out-of-the-way as worldcon sites are like to get, and therefore might reasonably have been expected to be one of the smaller worldcons in the past decade.

But this is no ordinary year. Thanks to Puppygate and the Hugo War, Sasquan’s membership numbers are way higher than anyone could have expected. The little con in Spokane even has an outside chance of eclipsing the record membership totals set last year by London.

FILE 770 has the numbers: http://file770.com/?p=22097

What’s even more unusual — though perfectly understandable in context — is that this huge upswell is for SUPPORTING memberships, not attending. In other words, these are people who want to vote on the Hugo Awards, but have no actual interest in attending the worldcon.

But who are they? Are these new members Sad Puppy fans, signing up to vote the Torgersen/ Correia slate to victory? Are these the Rabids, the lockstep legions of Vox Day? Or is this fandom, gathering to defend the integrity of the Hugos? Pronouncements abound, but no one really knows, and no one is likely to know until the envelopes are opened. This will be the most dramatic Hugo night in worldcon history. But not in a good way.

Myself, I think it’s All of the Above. Fans on both sides — or all three sides, if you want to draw a line between the Sad Puppies and the Rabids — are laying down their money to cast their vote. I also think the votes may be way closer than some of the people on “my side” think. I am sensing way too much complacency from fandom. The Puppies dominated the nominations by mustering 200-300 votes for their slate, out of 2000; the fans seem to be counting on the “other” 1800, the voters who scattered their own nominating ballots, to outvote the Pups. And yes, 1800 beats 200 every time… but that does NOT account for all these new members.

However this goes down, we will see more Hugo ballots cast than ever before. If any of this matters to you — yes, YOU, reading this right now — you can and should cast one of them. It will cost you $40, and you have until July 1 to sign up. Go to:

https://sasquan.swoc.us/sasquan/reg.php

Looking at those membership numbers, especially the number of Supporting Members as opposed to Attending, makes me wonder — are any of the Puppies actually planning on coming to Sasquan? If their slate should prevail and win a bunch of rockets, who is going to be there to accept them? We know Brad Torgersen cannot attend, since he is being deployed. I believe that Larry Correia had also stated that he won’t be going. So… who will?

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.