Hugos: Let me see if I understand this

So I’ve been a full time writer for nearly three decades and never so much as been nominated for a Hugo. Yet a racist, homophobic áššhølë is up for a Hugo this year because apparently he understands how to game the social network system. Because the Hugos will accept people who despise gays but draw the line at “Star Trek” novels.

Fine. Screw it.

I have a new novel coming out in July called “Artful.” It’s the previously untold story of the Artful Dodger, hunter of vampyres and other creatures. I want it to be up for a Hugo. Hëll, even a Nebula. And apparently sitting quiet for thirty years allowing fans to find my work on their own isn’t getting it done. So I’m starting a year early. “Artful” for the Hugo.

PAD

50 comments on “Hugos: Let me see if I understand this

  1. Not that my vote counts for anything, but you’ve got it anyway, PAD.

    Hey, Jeff Lynne is perennially overlooked for the RNR HOF induction. Talented individuals must endure this outrage constantly these days.

    Bob A

  2. I thoroughly enjoyed your Babylon-5 Legions of Fire novels; I eagerly await “Artful”, and will gladly consider it for a Hugo. Good luck!

  3. I don’t read enough SF or follow the genre awards circuit enough to know the story here (but I’ll get to Googling in a moment…) but can I ask this question, which, even though it might come off as snarky, I do ask earnestly: is the work for which this “racist, homophobic áššhølë” got nominated any good?

    I seem to recall a while back you favorably reviewing the ENDER’S GAME movie and wondering if Hugo nominators would be able to recognize its quality and nominate it despite the then-roiling controversy of OSC’s own attitudes and actions about gay marriage. (Apparently, they didn’t, since I don’t think that movie got a Hugo nod.) But if a work is good, even if the creator isn’t entirely admirable, should the work not be nominated?

    None of which alters the fact that any awards nomination process–especially one determined by as few participant voices as the Hugos seem to be–can surely see marketing and promotion win out over underlying quality. And if upticking the marketing and promotion of ARTFUL to singal-boost the message of its quality to whatever folks determine next year’s Hugos, then absolutely do whatever it takes on behalf of that book.

  4. I am so sorry. Seriously, your writing has touched the lives of so many people, including mine. I read your work when I was sick, and it made me braver to face the needles. And it meant a huge amount to me.

    You have achieved much more than a Hugo. Your work has empowered GLBT teens. Your work has empowered young girls. Your work has made people smile and think and grow intellectually. Your work has challenged people to become better people.

    The choosing committee owes you an apology, because you deserve the “highest honors bestowed in science fiction and fantasy writing” and the fact that they have overlooked you says more about them than you.

    1. The committee (aside from ruling on what works belong in what categories – see the first parenthetical in my comment a bit lower down about that) has little or nothing to do with what works are nominated for Hugos; that is done by popular vote of the members of the convention.

    1. Nope, he writes his bigoted crap under the same name. In fact, this whole thing is “revenge” for the SFWA kicking him out last year after he harassed a fellow member on their MBs and his blog. (The member was a black woman.)

  5. I haven’t voted for Hugos in years.

    When i did, i only voted in categories where i had some knowledge of all or most of the nominees. And i voted by the quality i sincerely perceived in the works.

    (And i got really ticked off with my New Orleans friends who ruled that Watchmen couldn’t be nominated for Best Novel – despite easily meeting the criteria in the rules – because “It’s not a novel, it’s a comic book.” Of course, considering how much else John and Justin managed to screw up, and worse, that’s minor…)

    I’m looking at the list of 2014 nominees.

    To which work are you referring?

    I was assuming from your opening that Scott Card must have one in there, but i don’t see any. So who?

    (Meanwhile, judging by commentary in the apa SFPA, next year’s committee are proceeding to screw up by the numbers on the Hugo rules – among other things. Sounds like this one may be a repeat of the competency level of 1988 – without the French Quarter within easy reach to save the day.)

    1. He’s referring to the work by the person with the initials VD. This person is a well known racist, sexist, homophobic, rape apologist. VD managed to get a push from Correia who asked his fans to do a block vote.

      I’ll also note, since Peter makes the point above that tie-in novels are not considered Hugo worthy by the voters, that the Dan Wells novella is a gaming related piece.

      I’m starting to seriously consider that the divisiveness I’m seeing in responses to this years shortlist is a feature of the Correia/VD plan. It’s working, which is sad, because I haven’t noticed anyone who is happy about it.

      1. Ah. I hadn’t heard of him.

        Correia is a half-decent writer, though some of the underlying attitudes i think i sense don’t appeal to me.

      2. Mike, that post was made over a year ago. There’s a whole mess of posts about it at VD’s blog. It doesn’t offend him at all. If anything, he’s amused by it.

  6. With both vocal homophobes Larry Correia and Brandon Sanderson both nominated for Best Novel I’m quite disgusted the voting. What a shocking state for the Hugos to be in! I’ve always thought the SF/F community to be somewhat progressive. Clearly, I’m wrong.

    1. I don’t really follow personal stories about writers, but I’ve really enjoyed the books of both Correia and Sanderson.

      I’m very surprised to hear that they both vocal homophobes – and I can’t really find any actual comments from either of them stat support that charge. Could you fill me in as to what they said, or give me a link? I’d like to see it before I buy anymore of their books!

    2. “Vocal homophobe” is a code phrase for “Mormon,” right?

      As Correia noted on his blog, his wife’s boss and his boyfriend (with whom the two of them double-dated) would find that amusing.

      And poor Brandon. He never says a word on politics (and almost nothing on religion beyond “I’m in town X on Sunday; where’s the closest temple?”), but he still can’t avoid the bigots…

      1. Sorry Alex, the above was meant for David. Haven’t gotten used to how the comment nesting works here yet.

  7. Kevin J. Anderson shares some of your pain, in that he’s been stigmatized by the tie-in stain as well; something I think SFWA really hasn’t ever cleaned up since the days when SFWA members were vocally considering jettisoning tie-in writers from the SFWA ranks.

    I think the era of “stay silent and hope” has been essentially shredded by the internet. Logrolling and “raising awareness” for one’s works (for the Hugo) is a more or less a) out-of-the-closet process that is now b) carried out on multiple fronts using Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc.

    As for Larry Correia, I have known this man personally for several years, and while it’s quite true that he is aggressively opinionated, I am sad to see so many people character assassinating the man based on hear-say and second and third-hand iterative complaints which have much more to do with hand-wringing hyperbole than they do with who Larry actually is as a human being. Is Larry provocative? Yes. Is he a bad guy? Absolutely not!

    I would even risk saying this of Vox, though I understand that Vox went to a very deliberate place with his antagonism in the halls of SFWA. I think Vox could have chosen different words at specific times. But in my limited dealings with the man, he is not (so far as I can tell) a monster. He pìššëd people off, sure. A provocateur. But not a monster. And if nothing else, now one of his works is up for actual consideration apart from his persona. Does it merit consideration? Readers with open minds should decide.

    For me this is my second go-round on the Hugo ballot, though I have the benefit of being able to point to Analog readers as much as being on a “vote card” from a friend like Larry. Analog’s readership is a political panoply, so I think it’s safe to say my particular inclusion on the ballot is not a result of malicious rigging or ballot-box-stuffing. But I understand this won’t be a sufficient explanation for people determined to view me through a clouded lens.

    But back to the original point, David, yes, by all means, announce your intent. Scalzi does it. Everyone else shouldn’t feel shy about doing it now too. If you want a Hugo, make it known you have work(s) in the running every year, and ask your fans to make it happen.

    Hëll, I am pretty sure Larry Correia would happily list you on a future iteration of Sad Puppies if only because Larry likes and admires men who have been successful with tie-in works and considers the prejudice against tie-in writers to be both wrong, and foolish.

    1. You might want to check out a few of “Vox Day”‘s public utterances – he thinks the Taliban throwing acid in the face of women who want to go to school is a good thing because it keeps women in their place.

      He says loudly that “marital rape” is impossible, and an offensive concept to True Men, because as soon as she says “I do” the woman has signed away her right to say “no” to the guy she marries whenever he feels frisky.

      The whole controversy that wound up with him tossed out of SFWA began with a personal attack in the most offensive racist terms on a fellow author, N K Jemisin (a woman of colour):

      Jemisin has it wrong; it is not that I, and others, do not view her as human, (although genetic science presently suggests that we are not equally homo sapiens sapiens), it is that we do not view her as being fully civilized for the obvious reason that she is not.

      She is lying about the laws in Texas and Florida too. The laws are not there to let whites “just shoot people like me, without consequence, as long as they feel threatened by my presence”, those self defence laws have been put in place to let whites defend themselves by shooting people, like her, who are savages in attacking white people.

      Jemisin’s disregard for the truth is no different than the average Chicago gáņgbáņgër’s disregard for the law.

      Unlike the white males she excoriates, there is no evidence that a society of NK Jemisins is capable of building an advanced civilization, or even successfully maintaining one without significant external support. Considering that it took my English and German ancestors more than one thousand years to become fully civilised after their first contact with an advanced civilisation, it is illogical to imagine, let alone insist, that Africans have somehow managed to do so in less than half the time with even less direct contact. These things take time.

      Being an educated, but ignorant savage, with no more understanding of what it took to build a new literature by “a bunch of beardy old middle-class middle-American guys” than an illiterate Igbotu tribesman has of how to build a jet engine, Jemisin clearly does not understand that her dishonest call for “reconciliation” and even more diversity with SF/F is tantamount to a call for its decline into irrelevance…

      Reconciliation is not possible between the realistic and the delusional.

      and, on “feminism”:

      The mental pollution of feminism extends well beyond the question of great thinkers. Women do not write hard science fiction today because so few can hack the physics, so they either write romance novels in space about strong, beautiful, independent and intelligent but lonely women who finally fall in love with rugged men who love them just as they are, or stick to fantasy where they can make things up without getting hammered by critics holding triple Ph.D.s in molecular engineering, astrophysics and Chaucer.

      and “On the merits of Anti-Semitism”:

      I’d never understood how the medieval kings found it so easy to get the common people to hate the Jews in their midst. But if those medieval Jewish leaders were anything like the idiots running the ADL, the ACLU and the Council of Jews, one can see where the idea of persecuting them would have held some appeal.

      These were things i found in just about fifteen minutes of Googling.

      What got him kicked out of SFWA was using a SFWA-owned account to disseminate his racist ravings in a way that could be read to imply that they were more-or-less supported by SFWA.

      I wonder if Mr Correia’s position in this whole kerfluffle is a belief that VD has been denied his right of “free speech”. There seems to be a body of opinion – held by about equal numbers of people on the Left and on the Right – that (stripped down to basic assumptions) “Free Speech” means that you can say whatever you want and no-one can call you to account for it.

      I do truly love to see loud-mouthed ideologues of whatever political strip getting all butt-hurt when they get spanked for their ravings.

      I sometimes find myself in the metaphorical position of getting a whack across the snout with a rolled-up newspaper {“Daddy – what’s a ‘newspaper’?”} when i go too far.

      And when i do, i may get vituperative, i may get defensive, i may roll up my metaphorical sleeves and dig in for a good argument – but i never whine that my right of “free speech” is being violated.

      “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”

      1. Grrr. I wish i’d drafted that in Notepad before posting – i failed to make clear that the first (long) quote is from the attack that got him bounced from SFWA and that the other two quotes are merely illustrative of the high level of logic and calm thought he puts into his writing.

        I don’t have the original reference to hand right now, but i’m pretty sure that the “feminism” one is from the Daily Caller; the one about anti-semitism is from his blog, Vox Popoli.

    2. I definitely think the era of sitting quiet and letting the fans discover your work is over. Several popular authors are constantly putting themselves out there doing podcasts (big fan of Sword and Laser), going on Facebook and Twitter, etc. Not just authors, but other content creators like Felicia Day. They are constantly plugging their own work, podcasts, you name it.

      Speaking of which, have you ever considered starting your own podcast or joining an established one? I once listened to a podcast where it was largely you and Paul Cornell talking about Doctor Who, and I greatly enjoyed it. (He’s a regular on SF Squeecast, I think.)

  8. From Sanderson’s Website:

    “I’m adding a note here in August of 2011, four or five years after writing and posting this essay. It draws attention now and then, and so I thought it was time for an update.

    I will leave the entire essay, unchanged, below as I don’t feel it is usually appropriate to go through and purge things like this. It has been linked around, and forcing all of those links point to a blank wall is hardly the right thing to do.

    However, I have not spent the years static on this issue. I’ve done a lot of thinking, partially because of the well-reasoned responses I’ve gotten. And so, I want to leave three notes here at the beginning.

    1) Please keep in mind that this essay was not intended to be an argument for or against homosexuality, or gay marriage. It was directed at members of my own community (I wasn’t nearly as well-known outside of that community when I posted this as I am now) whom I felt were being overly critical. In doing so, I had to define some of my feelings and positions, for those who did read the essay and were not part of that community.

    2) Looking back on it now, I find that—in speaking from a position of privilege—I speak of some things in a way that is likely offensive. These sorts of tones are very hard to avoid when speaking about a minority class from the perspective of one in the majority. I’m not certain I could write it now in a way that cut out that tone entirely, but I could probably do far better. If I casually offend, I apologize. Over the years, I’ve grown more and more aware of how the tone and biases of one like myself (white, male, straight) can itself be part of the problem.

    3) I have changed my stance on gay marriage somewhat. After a great deal of soul searching, thought, and discussion, I now believe that the best way to approach this is to push for ALL state unions to be civil unions. I believe we should establish what the state grants a union—whether it be straight or gay—and apply those rights universally to all.

    Marriage, I believe, should become an entirely religious term. Marriages should be performed by churches. In short, I believe that we should “Render unto Caesar that which is Ceasar’s, and Render unto God that which is God’s.”

    This would mean a great overhaul of civil code, but I find it the only solution my conscience will allow me to advocate. I cannot be deaf to the pleas of gay couples who want important things, such as hospital visitation rights, shared insurance, and custody rights.

    At the same time, I accept and sustain the leaders of the LDS church. I believe that a prophet of God has said that widespread legislation to approve gay marriage will bring pain and suffering to all involved. I trust those whom I have accepted as my spiritual leaders. I feel that what they have said is God’s will.

    I believe that moving to a government civil-union-only system would appease both sides. Religiously, I have heard no opposition to the idea of gay couples gaining the rights they demand—the argument is over the term ‘marriage.’ There is worry (some would say unfounded, but the worry is there) that legalizing gay marriage would lead to anti-discrimination suits against the church for not being willing to marry same-sex couples. We believe that marriage itself is something holy, something God must seal. Letting the rights be sorted out by the government and the religious aspect be sorted out by the churches seems the best way to truly separate church and state on this issue.

    And now, the original essay (which has a different focus.) As I said above, it is unchanged from how I originally wrote it. Thanks for reading, and hopefully we can continue to work together on this issue and both sides can abandon vitriol and actually TALK to one another. (And, please note, my position on this issue could change in many directions as the years pass. So maybe we’ll get another update in five years.)

    —Brandon Sanderson
    August 29th, 2011”

    Yup, seems like a real hater.

    1. Dan,
      I am afraid that some will view this as exactly that, hate speech. There is a very bad tendency, especially in traditionally ‘liberal’ populations, to view any dissent or disagreement with their views as ‘anti-‘ whatever their population is. It is part of the reason that rational discourse in this country has deteriorated so much in the last decade, it has been much more fun to denounce and defame, than to try and understand or persuade.

      1. Well, if it makes you both feel superior, have at it.

        As a liberal I give Brandon the finger. Not because his original essay (which I have not read), nor because of his changing views.

        But because he wants to take my marriage away and have me call it something else just to satisfy one religion’s narrow, petty, homophobic worldview.

        Marriage existed before said religion, and it will exist long after. The solution? Get religion entirely out of marriage, not the other way around.

    2. If you or Sanderson can explain what sort of rationale allows RELIGION to effectively “own” the word “marriage,” then, by all means, please explain it to me.

      “Marriage” is NOT the property of religion. It never has been. All the religious bullcrap about marriage being some sort of God-given gift doesn’t change the FACT that marriage existed before humans developed the first organized religious practice.

      Then, of course, we might consider how Sanderson’s LDS originators believed that “marriage” was between one man and many women. THAT was the OFFICAL stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. At least until the territory they lived in wanted to become a state. And the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT forced the Mormons to change their definition of marriage. And yet, the Mormons believed that (their) God ordained polygynous marriages but only until their chance to become a state was threatened.

      Sorry, but Sanderson (and you, by extension) are wrong. Marriage belongs to NO specific religion; it belongs to NO general religion. Hëll, Paul’s own words in the Bible specifically point out that marriage is basically for the weak, for the people who CANNOT fully control their base lusts. Celibacy was the command for good Christians–but those who couldn’t control their lustful behavior, well, they should marry for an acceptable outlet. Yep. That sounds like an incredibly reasonable argument that “God created marriage.”

      And, at one point in history (not really all that long ago in the scheme of things), marriage was the sole province of the nobility. Because of that, the ordinary folk, the commoners, were only permitted “common-law” marriage, a process by which a couple shared a single dwelling for a particular length of time and they were considered “married.” But even with the nobility, marriage wasn’t all that sacred (even as the couples had to be married by clergy); male nobles were as liable to indulge in mistresses and make brothel visits as they were to remain “faithful” to their wives. And the wives had little to no recourse (there had to be evidence of genuine PHYSICAL abuse before an unhappy wife could contemplate divorce–ironically, at the same period, Muslim women, especially among the Muslim nobility, had the guaranteed right to divorce a husband who didn’t fulfill his obligation to care for her properly). Women were PROPERTY of the men; their fathers and brothers before marriage, their husbands afterwards.

      Sanderson can word it in all sorts of pretty prose but, yeah. He’s a hater.

      1. I take it you believe that homosexual men don’t need marriage because they are so naturally good at restraining their lusts?

        Really?

        I figure that if words that describe cultural phenomenoma can be changed by judicial or legislative fiat, we should, as we change the meaning of marriage, should be sure that homosexual marriage must always be referred to as “muslim marriage”. After all if we can change the meaning of ‘marriage’ why not change the meaning of ‘muslim’ too.

      2. I honestly have no idea what kind of word salad you’re spewing but your first question makes NO sense at all. I was arguing that PAUL, the man who is most directly responsible for the very existence of Christianity as something more than a mere offshoot sect of Judaism, is the one who determined that marriage should only be for those who couldn’t control their lusts. Anyone who can’t understand that needs to spend a couple of days taking a class in “reading comprehension.” According to PAUL, marriage was NOT necessary for GOOD Christians–that GOOD Christians would remain celibate (that is, refraining from ALL sexual activities, both licit AND illicit).

        The very nature of marriage has changed because of “cultural phenomena.” As I pointed out (and you obviously missed–see that “reading comprehension” class recommendation I mentioned), marriage–a mere 1000 years ago–was NOT permitted to anyone but the nobility and the “landed” class. Anyone lower than that basically shacked up. That was the basis for what we now know as “common-law marriage.” (And you might note that, according to the law in most states, those who live in a common-law marriage are given all the same legal benefits of those who are LEGALLY married. Common-law spouses cannot be forced to testify against each other–just as if they were legal spouses.)

        Just a little over a century ago, women–especially those in the “upper class”–had NO say in their marriages. Women, as soon as they reached the legal age for marriage, could find themselves being trotted out to potential spouses, much like cattle and horses (or slaves) on the auction block. Many a young woman found herself marrying a man twice her age (he was more “settled” and more “stable”), and with NO regard for her feelings about the man.

        Do you believe the word “lawyer” or “doctor” have the same meanings they did 200 years ago? You know–an era when WOMEN were prohibited from attaining those titles. How about “nurse?” Half a century ago, you said “nurse” and you pictured a woman–usually dressed in white with some sort of cap on her head and wearing sensible shoes. Nowadays, you’re as likely to run into MEN acting as nurses.

        Since you want to change “muslim,” why not “christian?” Or “jew?” Oh “hindu?” Oh wait. Those aren’t “cultural phenomena”–like “star” or “idol.” (And on the topic of “cultural phenomena,” what about “American Idol?” How many seasons have we been getting “Idols?” And how many of them fit the mold of a traditional “idol?” Most of the “Idols” are forgettable.) Rock music doesn’t mean exactly what it did in 1956. Hëll, pop music doesn’t mean exactly what it did in 1956. Pop music then was Doris Day and Frankie Laine. Now, it’s Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber. Not quite the same thing, now is it?

        Play the troll all you want. The fact remains that you can get MARRIED by a judge at your local city hall or county courthouse with NO religious bullcrap whatsoever. Or do you think people who get married in those situations shouldn’t be described as “married”–even though marriage in the West has been as much a CIVIL construct as it was a religious one. You and your fellow morons probably don’t realize that since you’re not really good with history–the state and church were united at one point in history and even though they aren’t any more, that’s part of the reason why a religious leader who officiates at a wedding utters the phrase, “By the power vested in me by the STATE of ________” just before the pronouncement of marital status.

    3. Sanderson doesn’t come across (to me) as a hater.

      The problem is real damage can be done by people for whom it’s nothing personal. What Sanderson wants to do here is make the perfect the enemy of the good, because he thinks it is what the Supernatural wants.

      The problem with the cause is that nobody can perceive what the Supernatural wants. If we could, we woulldn’t have 400 some-odd religions in the world, with deities male, female, both, neither, humanoid, animal, plant, combinations of same, with a thousand different supposed desires and characteristics.

      And the problem with the effect is it turns one simple effective surgical strike into a thousand, thousand house-to-house, street-by-street battles in which the open haters can fight rearguard actions to keep LBGT people from getting equal treatment–and during all these lengthy drawn-out battles, with appeals and counter-appeals and referenda that drag on months and years and decades, LBGT people *still* don’t have basic fairness.

      It certaintly doesn’t appear personal for Mr. Sanderson. But it is just as harmful as if it were, with the additional issue that opposing his idea can be twisted to look like intolerance.

  9. Yeah Pete, I REALLY dig your writing but I’m just not seeing this guy’s nomination as a credit to his beliefs on homosexuals or gay marriage.
    Nonetheless, IF I had a vote in this matter, I’d vote for your book 100 times out of 100. Not because of your Liberal views but rather because I just dig your writing style and think you have a good grasp of your character’s voices both collectively and individually.
    So there.

    1. I don’t think that was PAD’s point but I can see how it can be interpreted that way. The way I read the original post PAD was saying the person game the system by using social media to get a nomination in spite of having views that may cause people to boycott him. PAD is now going to do the same to try to get nominated despite being considered a writer of “Star Trek” novels.

      1. Another way to view it is he has considerably more fans than one may think. Take away the politics and what you have is an author who’s not afraid to say what he thinks and a published story that people have taking a liking to.

        On a completely separate note, before the hubaloo over the hugo, I’d never heard of Peter David and I don’t read star trek novels. Maybe some personal brand marketing wouldn’t be a bad idea.

      2. Yeah I agree, that may well be the case. I have never heard of the nominated author before. I was not familiar with his work or his views. I am not saying I agree with PAD on his views that the nominated author “gamed the system” either. I was just giving my interpretation of the original post.

        I do not think Peter David was saying the nomination was unmerited because of this person’s views because that is not consistent with Peter’s previous posts on this site. He has multiple posts in the vast against boycotting artists for his views and instead he is for judging the work for its own merits. For example the Ender’s Game movie.

  10. Yeah Pete, I REALLY dig your writing but I’m just not seeing this guy’s nomination as a credit to his beliefs on homosexuals or gay marriage.
    Nonetheless, IF I had a vote in this matter, I’d vote for your book 100 times out of 100. Not because of your Liberal views but rather because I just dig your writing style and think you have a good grasp of your character’s voices both collectively and individually.
    So there.

  11. Mr. Paddock:

    Mr. Sanderson’s comments which quote above are not vitriolic or aggressive, but hateful isn’t the worst possible descriptor.

    Mr. Sanderson asserts that gay marriage is unholy and contrary to God’s will. In the world view of a Mormon, is there any greater condemnation? Could not one describe pedophilia and cannibalism with exactly the same terms? How, then, should Mr. Sanderson’s attitudes toward gay marriage (and perhaps gay people?) be described?

    1. And thus the truth is revealed. Homosexuals spend decades fighting for tolerance, but when they get it, they spit it back in our faces. You will not tolerate our religious beliefs, even when we accept that no one else need follow them, but must repudiate them and endorse your behavior, or else be blacklisted from society.

      1. Mr. Valenzuela:

        First off, not that it matters, but I’m not gay, so if my position were intolerant, it would not be a gay person’s intolerance.

        Second, you have missed the point. Denouncing homosexuality as ungodly, unnatural, criminal, etc. is an attempt to banish it from the public sphere, to exclude gay people from full membership in our society, and to do so on the basis of their biology. Arguing that exclusion of gay people from participation in our shared existence because of their inherent nature is no different from arguing that dark-skinned people should also be excluded.

        The difference here is that people like me are NOT saying “Mormons (or whoever) have no place in society”. We are saying: “Certain beliefs are unacceptable in America, and one of them is that it’s OK to exclude people on the basis of their innate nature. We must do this because the whole point of America is that everyone matters, everyone belongs, and everyone gets to be part of public life.”

        So if you catch hëll because you’re a bigot, it’s only because you are opposing the lynchpin of our society. (You’re also ignoring the teachings of Jesus, who told you to love your neighbor as yourself, but that’s between you and him.)

        I should point out that you are still getting to be part of a public discussion, you still get to vote, you still get to serve in public office, you still get social security, you still get to file joint taxes, you still get to adopt children without additional scrutiny, you still get to visit a sick spouse in the hospital with hassles, and so on and so forth, so please consider exactly what “intolerance” you are facing.

        If you feel that others don’t respect your opinion on this matter, it’s because your opinion is hateful and wrong.

  12. The problem is worse than you think: there are at least a dozen racist gender-phobic áššhølëš up for Hugos this year.

  13. “Yet a racist, homophobic áššhølë is up for a Hugo this year because apparently he understands how to game the social network system.”

    Many people think last year’s winner gamed the system too.

    “Because the Hugos will accept people who despise gays but draw the line at “Star Trek” novels.”

    Just write a steaming pile of crap based on Star Trek and then shamelessly promote it and you’re a shoe-in. It worked last year. Although, after reading your bibliography and realizing I’ve read/watched a lot of your works and enjoyed them, I don’t think it would come close to being a piece of crap. So, bring on “Artful”. I promise to judge it by the writing alone and not on your personal opinions.

    1. Well, that’s a key thing, isn’t it?

      If I get bored after 10 pages in, I’ll probably decide he didn’t, and proceed from there. If I don’t, I’ll compare.

      Either way, it doesn’t mean I’d like him as a party guest.

  14. By the way, I think the case is that if you vote in this year’s Hugo, you have a say in nominating next year’s Hugos.

    And you can vote by getting a supporting membership, about $42. That membership gets you, at least, the printed nominees (and that includes ALL of the Wheel of Time novels) for the 2014 Hugos; not sure if this will include any of the Retro Hugo nominees.

    1. And personally, if this inspires you to buy a membership to vote, I don’t think of that as a bad thing. Get lots of reading material at a bargain price, get a say on how things are decided. Win-win.

    2. That does bring up my one fear in all this. I tend to think that the outrage over the nomination of Vox will be enough that they’ll change the rules (regardless if he wins) so that a select committee of people who believe the “correct things” will be appointed for the purpose of nominating only those who write the “correct things.”

      I think that the nomination of Correia alone would have been enough to start that move, but the nomination of Vox almost makes it assured. Of course, I’m only going by what I’ve seen coming out of the SFWA lately, and it’s only speculation on my part.

      1. Don’t think that’ll happen.

        What might happen is to make it harder for people to gift memberships or pass them out, which I think is proper. Most of the sentiment I;ve seen is to just to open up memberships or advertise them more. Again, not a problem for me.

  15. Vox Day makes money from his writing. Lots of money. For him to get an award would be a footnote.

    Awards can be consolation prizes for folks who don’t get big bucks. Big bucks are prizes for people who are really good at what they do.

    Glad I could clear that up for you.

  16. Peter I don’t know if you know this or not but the Dan Wells novella nomination is media tie. It is from a miniatures game. Oh and ya about half the purpose of Sad Puppies was to show everyone that merit didn’t mean anything because the Hugo was a straight up popularity contest and you just needed to get your fan base motivated to vote for you.

Comments are closed.