Sad Puppies

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
AnOminous

AnOminous

Any road will take you there.
Retired Staff
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 28, 2014
Does anyone even care about the Hugo Awards any more? Just wondering. This is a semi-GG-related tard stampede, but I'm not sure if it deserves a thread. It's basically a bunch of people organizing a retarded bloc voting campaign to wreck the Hugo Awards because they're mad a bunch of people organized a retarded bloc voting campaign to wreck the Hugo Awards last year.

And then GG got involved.
 
Personally, I am hoping for No Award in Best Novella, so Tom Kratman will wax wroth about liberal conspiracy. Based on his 28-page argument over a 2-star review on Amazon,
- and the time he turned up on my now-defunct blog and called me a whore, probably fat -
there is potential for greatness here.
 
I only recently learned about the campaign, but online polls have been rigged for ages. Everyone knows SF/F is super lefty anyway.

I don't really know anything about any of the authors who got plugged. Are they good writers?
 
DawnMachine said:
I only recently learned about the campaign, but online polls have been rigged for ages. Everyone knows SF/F is super lefty anyway.

I don't really know anything about any of the authors who got plugged. Are they good writers?
Click to expand...

I know some of the popular writers who have been considered to be shut out of awards because of their politics are Orson Scott Card and David Drake. They're generally well regarded as writers.

I'm not sure about the current slate, but that probably says more about my lack of interest in current SF than their actual quality.

It also seems from some of what I've read that the cliquish voting of past years has disproportionately benefited one publisher, TOR books, and its associated cliques, so a lot of this may have as much to do with money as politics. So this kind of bloc voting is nothing new, the SJWs are just mad they lost this round.

For every one of the great Golden Age writers who is left-liberal, you have one like Heinlein who was more or less conservative. They generally mostly got along before this recent bullshit, at least to the point you wouldn't see organized award boycotts for having the wrong opinion.

In this case, it looks like SJWs basically overplayed their hand. They would have kept getting away with this had it been less blatant, but by making it really obvious that bloc voting could be done effectively, they basically encouraged retaliation in kind. And then GG stepped in to make it all about themselves again.
 
AnOminous said:
It also seems from some of what I've read that the cliquish voting of past years has disproportionately benefited one publisher, TOR books, and its associated cliques, so a lot of this may have as much to do with money as politics. So this kind of bloc voting is nothing new, the SJWs are just mad they lost this round.
Click to expand...
so exactly like gg then

AnOminous said:
For every one of the great Golden Age writers who is left-liberal, you have one like Heinlein who was more or less conservative. They generally mostly got along before this recent bullshit, at least to the point you wouldn't see organized award boycotts for having the wrong opinion.
Click to expand...

Oh, definitely. I just can't think of that many conservative SF authors who are still well known today (Orson Scott Card is the only one who comes to mind, and the whole bullshit over boycotting Ender's Game proves that he's probably more 'notorious' than 'popular' right now)
 
@DawnMachine , the thing that's killing me is how this isn't just an online poll that's open to anyone; these people each had to pony up $50 for the privilege of voting in the Hugo nominations! I expect someone at Worldcon is laughing all the way to the bank.

As a person who has always read a decent amount of SF but has never been invested in the community, I find it neat how the more polarizing Hugo nominations show where community fault lines lie, but I don't tend to find them useful for discovering favorite new works or authors. Nevertheless, I feel like the ginned-up politicized controversies make some less-than-good authors a lot more enjoyable in context.

I guess I've already expressed my longstanding affection for hilarious old coot Tom Kratman. His writing is almost so-bad-it's-good from the get-go, but then you see the headshot and logo on his poorly-made and largely broken website and you realize he's straight-up writing bad fanfiction about himself. And there's more than a whiff of early Sonichu about it - remember how Chris couldn't seem to win, even in his own fantasies, and his self-insert protagonist was so unsympathetic and unpleasant we wouldn't have even known he was supposed to be the good guy if he hadn't told us? I really like how even the Sad Puppies organizers could only bring themselves to boost his novella as "the best thing he's ever written" when bookbombing their slate to game Amazon; it might be true, but it's faint praise indeed. I'm really hoping for a No Award meltdown.

kratport.jpg

kratbann1.jpg

I thought I'd put these here because Kratman seems to monitor his incoming traffic like a hawk and googles himself obsessively. He fucking loves his piercing blue eyes.

And talking Tor, we've got last year's Best New Writer nominee Benjanun Sriduangkaew, who earned this thread when she was outed as longtime troll winterfox/acrackedmoon/Requires Hate. As RH, she's the archetypal mustache-twirling SJW villain, and her glossy hollow soulless writing under the BS persona becomes suddenly fucking fascinating when you realize she was writing fiction that's proof against her own arsenal. If she hadn't actually harmed people who didn't deserve it, both personally and professionally, I'd love her like the French love Jerry Lewis.

e: I guess my impression is that both sides are telling people we can't sit at their cool kids' table if we even read works that don't pass their purity test, let alone like them. It's so ridiculous I can't even muster the energy to get annoyed about it.
 
Last edited:
Dynastia said:
From what I saw, one of the TOR bosses accused gamergate of rigging the Hugoes and it was the first most of them had ever heard of Sad Puppies or the Hugoes. And their response was along the lines of "Huh, so this exists? Let's go actually rig it."
Click to expand...
I have to grudgingly admire how these folks are such - forgive me - master baiters. I mean, they not only had the chutzpah to use anti-intellectualism as a selling point among people who ostensibly read for pleasure, but also convinced people to spend real money for the privilege of saying they eat crap and like it.
 
Dynastia said:
I thought it was pretty funny too, until I found out everyone who buys voting rights gets about $200 worth of books.
Click to expand...
If people actually voted for things they liked, I can't get mad - asinus asinum fricat, as the saying goes. And if they only voted party line from spite and then read the books - well, that seems like its own most fitting punishment. Over the years, I've noticed stuff from the Hugo packet usually resells for less a dollar on Amazon, anyway. The publishing industry is so fucked in so many ways that are so much bigger than the Hugos, this is all just bread and circuses.
 
So apparently 7 different publications released articles calling SP racist and sexist, all on the same day. God damn, even rats can eventually figure out not to keep grabbing the cheese with the electrode in it.
 
I knew I had heard of John C. Wright somewhere before. He's the guy who got his jimmies extra rustled over the ending of Korra:

Someone who should probably calm down about children's cartoons said:
Mr DiMartino and Mr Konietzko: You are disgusting, limp, soulless sacks of filth. You have earned the contempt and hatred of all decent human beings forever, and we will do all we can to smash the filthy phallic idol of sodomy you bow and serve and worship. Contempt, because you struck from behind, cravenly; and hatred, because you serve a cloud of morally-retarded mental smog called Political Correctness, which is another word for hating everything good and bright and decent and sane in life.

I have no hatred in my heart for any man’s politics, policies, or faith, any more than I have hatred for termites; but once they start undermining my house where I live, it is time to exterminate them.

Sincerely,

A lifelong fan.
Click to expand...
 
Yet another embarrassingly self-serving diatribe from the angry clique that got displaced by the Sad Puppies electoral tactics.

This time from The Atlantic, yet another formerly respectable publication that has degenerated into pure angry clickbait lately.
 
AnOminous said:
yet another formerly respectable publication that has degenerated into pure angry clickbait lately.
Click to expand...

OT, but I'd have to disagree with you there. The Atlantic (or at least its staff writers) has been on a roll lately, tbh. This is just a guest piece which they lazily handed off to someone who obviously has skin in the game.
 
DawnMachine said:
OT, but I'd have to disagree with you there. The Atlantic (or at least its staff writers) has been on a roll lately, tbh. This is just a guest piece which they lazily handed off to someone who obviously has skin in the game.
Click to expand...

Well, to keep it brief because OT, this is far from the only disappointment The Atlantic has dished up recently, most particularly accepting "paid content" from the "Church" of Scientology cult and publishing it basically disguised as editorial content. Just that severely questionable judgment undermines anything from this outlet.

I've seen a writeup on ISIS that was pretty solid.

Otherwise, I've seen a flood of utter bullshit, repackaging Quinn/Sarkeesian lies as news, etc. lately.

Just a few examples:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/10/gamergate-and-comics/381686/
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...stential-crisis-of-public-life-online/382017/ (anti-GG rant dressed up with "existential")
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/12/new-harassment-policy-for-twitter/383344/

They are far from the only ones, though, and basically everything I have seen from this publication on this subject has been just acting as stenographers to repeat the same bullshit over and over.
 
If we're talking about The Atlantic, I think it's important to distinguish between articles that appear in the print magazine, versus online-only content. Like a lot of legacy publications, The Atlantic has struggled to establish an online presence geared to the new medium, and also with turning a profit. Their online-only content is very much in the Bustle/Buzzfeed vein; they preferentially source from writers who will work for cheap because they are not established or are otherwise struggling, and they use clickbait and sponsored content as a moneymaker to offset the costs of their higher-quality journalism.

@AnOminous , maybe that is your point? I notice you've chosen an article from the print magazine as your example of something solid The Atlantic has recently done, but I believe all the gamergate stuff was online-only, and therefore held to a lower editorial standard. If you care about gamergate, expecting quality coverage from The Atlantic seems optimistic, because their good reporting is geared toward old people who read print magazines.

(As an aside, the Atlantic often gets pegged as "moderate," but I think that's an error. It's a liberal publication that puts out a lot of articles that liberals find depressing.)

DawnMachine said:
I knew I had heard of John C. Wright somewhere before. He's the guy who got his jimmies extra rustled over the ending of Korra:
Click to expand...
Yep, surely he is the greatest wordsmith of our age.
 
Last edited:
buster_kitten said:
@AnOminous , maybe that is your point? I notice you've chosen an article from the print magazine as your example of something solid The Atlantic has recently done, but I believe all the gamergate stuff was online-only, and therefore held to a lower editorial standard. If you care about gamergate, expecting quality coverage from The Atlantic seems optimistic, because their good reporting is geared toward old people who read print magazines.
Click to expand...

I used to read things like this on paper, but not for years. When I read absolute garbage from an outlet, it reflects that brand. I'm not necessarily going to distinguish between where it's directed in evaluating the publication. It means that I see the name and I no longer evaluate content from that publication as being reliable or trustworthy. Maybe it's good, maybe it's another load of steaming BS.

Having an "anything goes" complete lack of editorial policy in the blog section is deadly. Other publications like NY Times have blog content without basically flushing their reputation down the toilet. After all, there is some level of trash that gets you fired.

Another example I'll note is National Review, a decidedly right-wing publication. They even split their online component explicitly by name, National Review Online. They fired Anne Coulter basically for lack of quality from the online publication. So it isn't like it's impossible to apply editorial standards online.

And there's just no excuse for paid content for a notorious scam cult like Scientology, and distributing it in a format where it looked like your actual editorial content. I don't care whether that's online or on paper. You do that, and you've just thrown away your credibility.

Anyway, this particular Sad Puppies story from The Atlantic was basically garbage. Not only was it from someone who won an award under the very electoral system under attack in the article, it completely failed to address any of the substantive issues raised by those people.

For instance, one of those is that one publisher, TOR, inordinately benefited from the prior regime. Did this author, who did win an award, address this in any way? Of course not. And, unsurprisingly, this author's book was published by TOR.

So of someone in position to address actual substantive concerns, what did we get? A lengthy "dass rayciss!" scream.
 
I can see where these people are coming from.

Honestly I am all for inserting social commentary in SF/F works, but goddamn how many times do we need it to be related to subjects such as racism/sexism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom