Now we get to the crux of the matter. So… what exactly is behind Puppygate? What do the Sad Puppies truly want? For three years, they’ve launched separate campaigns, with a fourth threatened, and seemingly plans for a fifth, sixth, and seventh if this continues. This is a substantial amount of effort, time, and dedication. But to what end? What is their actual grievance? In essence, where’s the beef in their complaints?
After reviewing Brad Torgensen’s statements, Correia’s MONSTER HUNTER NATION, and countless comments from their supporters, it’s clear there’s a wide spectrum of opinions, as with any large group. Some Puppies express relatively moderate and reasonable viewpoints. Others, however, appear to be extreme, filled with rage and rants about SJWs, cliques, and secret conspiracies.
Filtering through the noise and dismissing the extremist rhetoric that seems primarily aimed at attacking liberals, feminists, and the LGBTQ+ community, the core complaint of the Puppy movement appears to be that the Hugo Awards have been hijacked by the left, by so-called “Social Justice Warriors.” These “CHORFs” (another derogatory, fabricated term, like SJWs) are accused of manipulating the awards to favor their own left-leaning “clique” or writers willing to pander to them, while allegedly ignoring or excluding other books and stories, and “blacklisting” certain writers.
Breaking down these accusations further, this supposed exclusion manifests in several forms, depending on which Puppy is speaking: (1) Some claim political bias, asserting that conservative and libertarian writers are unfairly shut out. (2) Others allege religious discrimination, insisting that Christian writers and “writers of Faith” are the ones being excluded. (3) A racial element surfaces in some comments (though not explicitly from Puppy leaders), suggesting that “straight white men” are the real victims. (4) Finally, there’s the literary argument, claiming that the ballots are filled with subpar, boring stories favored by the secret SJW cliques, while genuinely good, old-fashioned science fiction and fantasy – the kind readers truly enjoy – is ignored and suppressed.
Have I captured the essence of it, Puppies and Puppy supporters? Have I missed any key charges? Is this the root of the anger, the “revolt,” and the determination to “take back SF?” Because if this is the case… then you’ve been sold a false narrative. Let’s examine the facts and see if there’s any real beef to these claims.
Let’s look at the evidence, shall we? I acknowledge that some Puppies may genuinely feel excluded, disrespected, or shunned. However, feelings and facts are distinct.
Point (3), the claim of excluding straight white men, is easily debunked. Seriously? Really? Come on, guys. Just look at the Hugo ballots from the past five or ten years. Count the male nominees. Count the female nominees. Now count the Black, Asian, and international writers. Yes, things are evolving. We see more women and minorities nominated now than in, say, 1957 or even 1987. But the ballots are still predominantly white and male. As a straight white man myself, I’m certainly not advocating for excluding straight white men (and I disagree with Tempest Bradford’s challenge on this). I champion diversity and inclusion, bringing writers from diverse backgrounds and cultures into the genre. I don’t want straight white writers excluded from the ballot – I simply don’t believe they need to dominate all of it. We are science fiction and fantasy fans, after all. We revel in stories about aliens, vampires, and elves. Are we genuinely going to be bothered by seeing Asians and Native Americans on the ballot?
Let’s set aside that baseless claim and address the other three allegations. Are the Hugos biased against conservative writers, religious writers, or writers of “classic” genres like military SF, planetary adventures, space opera, sword & sorcery, and hard science?
The Puppies say yes. I say no. And the data supports my position.
This chart, though slightly outdated, provides a valuable historical overview of the awards:
http://www.sfadb.com/Hugo_Awards_Tallies
(Before diving into the list, let me reiterate: NOMINATION IS AN HONOR. Winning is a greater honor, of course, but being shortlisted is significant, as a co-founder of the Hugo Losers Club, I can attest).
What does this list reveal? Firstly, racking up numerous nominations is easier in categories focused on individuals (Best Artist, Best Editor, Best Fan Writer). British humorist Dave Langford leads with 55 nominations and 29 wins. Mike Glyer of FILE 770 follows with 52 nominations and 9 wins. Then come Charles N. Brown (LOCUS editor/publisher), David G. Hartwell (Tor/Signet/Timescape/Berkley editor), Mike Resnick, and Stan Schmidt (ANALOG editor).
While some of these perennial nominees may lean liberal, none are known for pushing a political agenda or being overtly political. No SJWs here. On the other hand, Stan Schmidt edited ANALOG, the most conservative magazine in the field, for decades, upholding the tradition of Campbellian science fiction. While Stan never won until his retirement year, he received thirty-five nominations. Is that exclusion? Resnick, a prolific writer and the most-nominated fiction writer on this list, was central to the SFWA BULLETIN controversy, hardly a leftist icon. David Hartwell, working for Tor (possibly seen negatively by extreme Puppies), has edited writers across the political spectrum and notably discovered John Wright, a six-time Puppy-favorite nominee this year.
So far, I see moderates, conservatives, Campbellians, and apolitical figures. Still no sign of the SJW cabal. Where’s the beef in the “SJW takeover” narrative when we look at these facts?
What about total WINS? Again, Langford, the fannish humorist and ANSIBLE publisher, leads with 29, tied with Charlie Brown of LOCUS. Charlie championed literary SF but also loved classic SF, a Vance and Heinlein fan. Gardner Dozois and Michael Whelan each had 15 wins when this list was compiled. Dozois, an influential editor and a liberal, also loves a good story, editing space opera anthologies like THE GOOD OLD STUFF and THE GOOD NEW STUFF, and retro-SF anthologies OLD MARS and OLD VENUS with me. Whelan is a brilliant artist. Next is Connie Willis, with 11 wins then, and likely more now. Connie is a woman and politically liberal (though not radical), and also religious, a long-time church choir member and regular church attendee (Episcopalian, which may or may not “count” for some Puppies who seem to define religious writers narrowly).
Further down the list: Richard E. Geis (politically right-wing, socially liberal) with 34 nominations, Robert Silverberg (conservative) with 28. Then, myself, a liberal, with 19 nominations (15 losses, 4 wins at the list’s creation), tied with conservative Larry Niven.
One notable absence from high on the list: Robert A. Heinlein. Heinlein didn’t amass many nominations due to the Hugos’ later inception compared to his early work, but he won Best Novel FOUR TIMES, a record tied only by Lois McMaster Bujold. Heinlein’s politics are complex: starting as a New Deal Democrat, then Republican and conservative, yet socially progressive on sexuality and religion until his death in 1988.
If you’re searching for SJWs, Harlan Ellison and Ursula K. Le Guin are on this list. Harlan was a firebrand, Ursula a leading feminist voice in SF for decades. They are also two of SF’s greatest talents, SFWA Grandmasters, and Hall of Fame inductees, beloved by generations. Claiming they were products of a “clique” is absurd. Again, where’s the beef in the idea that these awards are anti-talent and pro-ideology?
Ah, but the Sad Puppies object, “We never said the Hugos were always leftist-dominated. We said SJWs recently took over and ruined them, excluding good books and writers we like.”
Okay, fair enough. Let’s focus on the recent past, the ballots that triggered Puppygate. No rhetoric, just facts.
We know about this year’s Sasquan ballot, Puppy-heavy thanks to Sad Puppies 3 and Rabid Puppies. Last year, Loncon, was Sad Puppies 2’s year, placing Vox Day, Larry Correia, and other Puppy favorites on the shortlist. So, to see the pre-Puppy “SJW clique” dominance, we need to go further back.
Let’s examine 2012, LoneStarCon 3 in San Antonio, Texas – hardly an SJW stronghold. 1343 nominating ballots and 1848 final ballots determined the winners.
Best Novel went to John Scalzi for REDSHIRTS, beating Kim Stanley Robinson’s 2312, Saladin Ahmed’s THRONE OF THE CRESCENT MOON, Mira Grant’s BLACKOUT, and Lois McMaster Bujold’s CAPTAIN’S VORPATIL’S ALLIANCE. Three men, three women. Two white men, one Arab-American. Do the Puppies object to these nominees? Is this an “SJW slate”? Hard to see why. Publishers: Tor, DAW, Baen, Orbit – no single publisher dominating. Scalzi is liberal, yes, and disliked by Puppies for unclear reasons, but REDSHIRTS is light, fun SF, an affectionate STAR TREK riff. The other nominees? Only Robinson’s is remotely “literary SF,” a Puppy target. Ahmed’s is sword & sorcery, in the tradition of Robert E. Howard and the Arabian Nights. Bujold’s Miles Vorkosigan series is space opera or military SF, always entertaining. Mira Grant’s novel is a zombie story. Zombies.
Were these the best five novels of 2012? Personally, no. I nominated only one, along with others that didn’t make the ballot (check my blog archives). But it’s a typical ballot, some better, some worse, with ZERO evidence of a “social justice” agenda or conspiracy. So again, where’s the beef in the accusation of ideological bias?
Further down the LoneStarCon ballot: Novella winner: “The Emperor’s Soul” by Brandon Sanderson, traditional fantasy by a Mormon writer. (Religious bigotry? Did SJWs miss him?) One nominee was Aliette de Bodard, considered an SJW by some Puppies, but she lost. Other nominees: Nancy Kress, Jay Lake, and Mira Grant (again). Maybe a Mira Grant clique, but no SJW clique evident.
Novelette winner: “The Girl-Thing Who Went Out for Sushi” by Pat Cadigan. A brilliant story from a long-time fan, her first Hugo win after decades. A popular win with enthusiastic applause. She beat two stories by Seanan McGuire (aka Mira Grant), one by Catherynne Valente, and one by Thomsas Olde Heuvelt. Was this shortlist the Puppy trigger? Four women, one man? Too much McGuire/Grant? Or were there brilliant conservative novelettes overlooked? I honestly don’t know.
Short Story had only three nominees. Ken Liu won over Aliette de Bodard and Kij Johnson. SJWs failing to support their own: de Bodard lost again. (Hope she got a Hugo Loser ribbon). No other short story reached 5% of nominating ballots, hence the short list. Without slates, votes scatter.
Brandon Sanderson won again for Best Related Work. SAGA won Graphic Story (excellent choice). THE AVENGERS won Long Form Drama, and GAME OF THRONES won Short Form. Editor awards: Stanley Schmidt finally won for ANALOG, but Patrick Nielsen Hayden won Long Form Editor. The SJW power: ONE Hugo at LoneStarCon. Hardly a takeover. Where’s the beef in this “SJW domination”?
One year isn’t enough. Let’s go back to Chicon 7 in Chicago, 2011, for the best work of 2011.
Best Novel: Jo Walton for AMONG OTHERS. My nominee, A DANCE WITH DRAGONS, came last. Between them: China Mieville’s EMBASSYTOWN (leftist, yes, but a powerful writer), James S.A. Corey’s LEVIATHAN WAKES (rousing space opera, “Good Old Stuff” fans should love, now a SyFy series), and Mira Grant’s DEADLINE (another zombie novel, same world as her other nominees). Kij Johnson, Charlie Jane Anders, and Ken Liu won Short Fiction Awards. Do Puppies object to them or their stories? Literary style? Or…
Actually, this ballot might have sparked Proto-Puppy sadness. Mira Grant nominated again in novella. Mary Robinette Kowal was also nominated, and she’s disliked by the right for her SFWA VP role. Ken Liu won Short Story but lost novella. Catherynne Valente had a losing novella. Short Story ballot: Liu, E. Lily Yu, John Scalzi, Nancy Fulda, and… Mike Resnick – how did he slip past the liberal cabal?
Novelette is also interesting. Charlie Jane Anders won over Paul Cornell, Geoff Ryman, Rachel Swirsky (author of the dinosaur story that upset Puppies later), and Brad R. Torgersen’s “Ray of Light” from ANALOG.
Condolences, Brad. Hugo Loser. But congratulations, Hugo Loser! Exclusive club. We meet annually, toast, and chant “It’s an honor just to be nominated.” Were you at Chicon? Did I give you a ribbon? If not, I will if we meet. Wear it proudly. I’ve lost fifteen, if that list is accurate. Losers congratulate winners, then attend the Hugo Loser Party to get drunk and bitter. Friends tell me I was robbed, even when untrue.
Looking further at Chicon: John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer (not a Hugo). E. Lily Yu won over Karen Lord, Stina Leicht, Mur Lafferty, and… Brad R. Torgersen again. Sorry, Brad. Two losses in one night. But an honor too. Few are nominated for both Campbell and Hugo in the same year. You might be the first. Campbell Award losers aren’t officially Hugo Losers Club members, but we usually admit them. I lost the first Campbell Award in 1973 at Torcon II. Nominee, not contender. Jerry Pournelle won, narrowly beating George Alec Effinger (who got a special runner-up plaque, unique in Campbell history). I was far behind. No plaques. But I lost two Hugos in one night in 1976 in Kansas City, to Larry Niven and Roger Zelazny. The next night, Gardner Dozois and I founded the Hugo Losers Club and held the first party in my room.
Back further: Renovation, Reno, Nevada, 2011. Best work of 2010. Connie Willis won Best Novel for BLACKOUT/ALL CLEAR. Other nominees: Mira Grant (FEED, her zombie cycle’s first?), Lois McMaster Bujold, N.K. Jemison’s THE HUNDRED THOUSAND KINGDOMS, and Ian McDonald’s THE DERVISH HOUSE.
I know Vox Day’s views on Jemison (read his poisonous rant). He’s a Rabid Puppy, not Sad Puppy, and I hope SPs disavow his bile, regardless of literary or political views. Vox attacked Jemison’s Australian convention GOH speech. But Sad Puppies claim to care only about the work, not the writer’s race or views. Surely no objections to THE HUNDRED THOUSAND KINGDOMS, Bujold, or McDonald?
Novella went to Ted Chiang, literary SF writer, but one of the most powerful in the field. Chiang wins every time he’s nominated. He’s that good. Novelette: Alan Steele for “The Emperor of Mars,” classic retro-SF, written for OLD MARS anthology Gardner and I were assembling. Project delayed, Steele sold it to ASIMOV’S, and it won him a Hugo. Classic old-style SF in the Edgar Rice Burroughs tradition.
Skipping the rest of Reno, except the John W. Campbell Award. Fans chose Lev Grossman as Best New Writer over Lauren Beukes, Saladin Ahmed, Dan Wells, and Larry Correia. This was before Correia’s first Puppies campaign. Dan Wells was also a Sad Puppy once, but asked to be removed from the slate this year.
I’ve read Correia’s blog, he says he was badly treated at Reno Worldcon, attacked for his views, called racist and homophobe. I was at Reno, but don’t recall meeting him, so I don’t know details. I’m shocked, as fandom is usually welcoming to all political views. We’re there to party, flirt, and celebrate SF. I regret any personal attacks Correia suffered.
However, losing to Lev Grossman is no dishonor. Many great writers have lost the Campbell Award, starting with me. And nomination is an incredible honor. Think about it. Hundreds of new writers enter the field yearly, all dreaming of careers, recognition, and maybe rockets. Of all those, fans nominated FIVE (or six) for the Campbell.
There were no Sad Puppies when Larry Correia and Brad Torgersen were nominated for the Campbell, or when Torgersen got his first Hugo nomination. (Later nominations might be Puppy campaign results). The traditional Hugo electorate put you on the ballot – you, and many other conservative, religious, white male writers, and writers of space opera, military SF, and Good Old Stuff.
Sad Puppies never needed to “take back” the Hugos. Feminists, minorities, literary cliques, and Social Justice Warriors never took them in the first place. That’s a myth. The facts presented here prove it conclusively. So, ultimately, when it comes to the “SJW takeover” of the Hugos, the real question isn’t about conspiracies or biases, but simply: where’s the beef? The data simply doesn’t support the claim.
