Scalzi And Who’s A Jerk

I hate to call ANYBODY a liar.  I  would like to believe that they may be mistaken. Or not have a knowledge about the facts.  Or willfully blind.  Outright lying?  Not usually. That especially goes for authors.  There was a time not too long ago when I held Authors in rather high esteem.  I still do for most.  For some though, like Mr. Scalzi that’s been rather eroded.  Especially when I see stuff like this:

He starts out saying that the puppies acted like jerks.  As if somehow the puppies created a world wide media smear campaign to smear the clique that ran world cons.  Or pressure authors to withdraw their nominations.  Or derided fans who nominated the “wrong books” as “wrong fans.”  The puppies did all that?  Actually no.  That was Scalzi and his friends.

His primary complaint is that the puppies created a slate.  He’s all angry about that.  As if this was the first time that anybody had a campaign to nominate books.  As if HE, himself had not campaigned to get his stuff nominated.  Or maybe it’s because he wasn’t in this year.  Did he really think that he was ENTITLED to award nominations every year?  I guess so. Anyway, Lets look at his list and maybe get a grasp of the truth here.

1.They created slates for awards that are meant to be about an individual’s personal tastes and choices. That’s a jerk maneuver.

So why did he think that a bunch of individuals can’t get together and make a list that we could all vote on.  Actually, I think that what he’s saying is that the nasty puppies got together with their list and took the industry professionals and their preplanned nominations by surprise.  Sorry, but the Hugos are FAN award, not the sole property of Tor, Locus, Daw and the NESFA to split amongst themselves.  Actually the puppies had been plugging books in PJmedia, their blogs and other places all year.  By the time the noms came around it was pretty easy to make a list up.

2. They gloated about the slates getting on the ballot, and the upset that this caused other people. That’s a jerk maneuver.

I guess poor Johnny took some of the things Larry said too personally.  As if Scalzi hasn’t acted like a jerk in the past. Still I’ve seen everything from the puppies and the reaction over the noms wasn’t gloating, it was surprise.  And things only got nasty after the huge libelous media campaign.

3. They created an imaginary cabal of people and asserted without evidence that this cabal indulged in slate-making, and used this assertion to justify their own bad action. That’s a jerk maneuver.

The cabal is there.  Who else could have created that travesty of an awards ceremony last weekend.  Imaginary things don’t create media campaigns,  don’t spew out thousands of tweets and run a consistent coordinated smear campaign across the science fiction blogs for month.  Guys, you couldn’t have bothered to come up with different ways to say the same things some of the time?

4. They spent months insulting the people they associated with their imaginary cabal. That’s a jerk maneuver.

Really.  Now Larry may have been insulting and argumentative. He’s like that and it was his second getting through the manure pile you people create.  But Brad certainly wasn’t.  Meanwhile there was all that stuff from the likes of Moshe Feder, Damien at the Guardian and all the rest.  I don’t think that Mr. Scalzi know what it’s like to be constantly insulted and smeared.  Brad does though.

5.They spent months crapping on the writers they dragooned into their imaginary cabal, and crapping on the work those writers created. That’s a jerk maneuver.

Now here is an outright lie. And a disgusting one at that.  I’ve been watching this thing from the beginning and at no point did any puppy act in any way other than supportive and compassionately to any of the authors on the list. That includes Annie Bellet and Marko Kloos. The only thing that the puppies didn’t do was tell the authors that they would be the victims of a weird sort of SJW show trial that would go on for months and attempt to destroy them simply for being on the wrong list. Well that was because the puppies didn’t know how much crap the puppy kickers would throw.

 6. They spent months denigrating the award they went out of their way to build slates for. That’s a jerk maneuver.

I’ve seen every post made by a puppy.  ALL of them.  Many of them have been posted here on this blog.  Mr. Scalzi, I challenge you to find even one quote anywhere, by any major puppies where we have anything other than the greatest respect for the award and what it stands for.  I also challenge you to find something on your side that doesn’t advocate dragging the awards through the mud simply because your side doesn’t  have any nominations.

7. They spent months pissing on the people who love and care about the awards, and the convention that hosts both. That’s a jerk maneuver.

Didn’t happen.  Not one bit of it.  Mr Scalzi, if you believe that, you are acting on something that has not one shred of evidence to back it up.

8. They expected the people who they’d been treating with contempt to give them the respect they would not afford them. That’s a jerk maneuver.

Actually, no we didn’t.  We expected what we got, more or less.  The fact that your crew managed to hurt  people we respect and admire, that we elected to put on the ballot, some of us being supporting members for the first time, was what we expected your bunch of selfish people to do.  After all we’ve seen your antics for months we realistically could expect nothing else.  We are disappointed though, at how hard you worked to exceed our expectations. Wooden buttholes, seriously?

9.They pretended they didn’t actually care about the awards for which they put in months and sometimes years of effort to get work on the ballot. That’s a jerk maneuver.

That might have some validity if the puppies hadn’t recused themselves from the nominations.  Larry and Brad both withdrew from their nominations.  So neither of them had any direct object to gain from winning.  The puppies did and do care about the awards and what they represent.  Something that your crew has seems  to have forgotten.

10. They had the poor grace to whine about people potentially voting “no award,” which is fully allowed by the rules, after gleefully pointing out that slating was not disallowed. That’s a jerk maneuver.

Actually the puppies pointed out that “No Awarding” everything in sight would turn the awards into a travesty.  That turned out to be correct.  Watching that show at Sasquan was pathetic.  As was the performance of your crew.   Which demonstrated to the world this, Mr. Scalzi:

Consonantly: If you perform a bunch of jerk maneuvers, you might, in fact, actually be a jerk. Not always. But the correlation is there, and that correlation gets increasingly significant the more jerk maneuvers you perform.

The only people who’ve pulled jerk maneuvers here are your side.  There were no media barrages from the puppies, no slanderous lies, no pressure to withdraw nominations, no “no award” slates(well except from vox and one category), no one star review campaigns or all the rest of it.  That all came from your side.

It’s obvious from your blog post that you and your side aren’t really happy with the results.  Obviously you feel compelled to endlessly explain how virtuous you are in your fight against Straw Larry and Brad TorgersOn.  I can understand it. Those guys are jerks.    Of course they also aren’t real.  Which, in the end makes the only jerk in the room, you, Mr. Scalzi.

The Hugo Awards.


  1. Mark Alger · August 27, 2015

    “Look what you made me do!” the plaint of 2-dimensional cardboard villains throughout literary history.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Uncle Lar · August 28, 2015

      Not to mention the classic excuse of every physical or psychological abuser. It’s your fault, you made me hurt you, if you were better I wouldn’t have to punish you.

      Liked by 1 person

      • T.L. Knighton · August 28, 2015

        And yet, when I pointed this out a month or so back, that post was treated like the most offensive thing evah!!!

        The thing is, hurting someone because of what a third part did? Yeah, jerk move.


  2. James Schardt · August 27, 2015

    I guess they’ll have to console themselves by renting a mansion and giving themselves the awards they think they are entitled to.


    • jccarlton · August 27, 2015

      I hear that hood ornaments work well. Jesus. George, all that talent working for you on GOT and that was the best you could do?


  3. Jeffery D. Kooistra · August 27, 2015

    Scalzi has an alternate universe fantasy in his head that he confuses with reality.


  4. davefreer · August 27, 2015

    John, I hate to disagree with your otherwise excellent post, but (3) The fact that PNH knew, in advance, what the nominations were (which he publicized on ML and we have screenshots of) means there is actual, concrete evidence of wrongdoing – which took the willing co-operation of at the very least two people and most likely, all of those on Martin ‘faux award’ list. The low variance in nomination numbers is a further piece of supporting evidence. Scalzi probably only considers these things ‘wrong’ when done by people outside his In-clique. He has somewhat flexible standards as you have demonstrated.


    • jccarlton · August 27, 2015

      Dave, it’s SCALZI who’s claiming that the puppies came up with an “imaginary cabal.” I was quoting him directly. The numbered points are SCALZI’s, not mine.

      Liked by 1 person

      • davefreer · August 27, 2015

        My lack of clarity, John. Apologies. I mean your reply to it. What I was saying is there is hard evidence as well, as the co-ordinated hate attacks


      • jccarlton · August 27, 2015

        I was trying to keep it simple. I knew about the hard evidence, but that stuff can be trolled and I don’t want to have to try to find stuff that may have been deleted. The media campaign on the other hand, I have links to ALL of it.


  5. kamas716 · August 27, 2015

    Reblogged this on westfargomusings and commented:
    Well done fisking. I guess Scalzi is just reinforcing the rule that SJWs always lie.


  6. Brad R. Torgersen · August 27, 2015

    Scalzi likes to quote himself: “The failure mode of clever, is asshole.” Too often, Scalzi is his own best exemplar of this truism. Of course, I would not expect a man who has been one of the primary beneficiaries of the sausage-making, to appreciate it when somebody messes with the status quo. What Scalzi really needs most, is to be forced to operate without a safety net. He’s like Jon Stewart trying to be funny in front of a non-friendly crowd — the cute just won’t cut it. Like Patrick Nielsen-Hayden, Scalzi enjoys being one of the princes of the water empire inside the desert terrarium — big fish, very small bowl. Does anyone who fawns over him ever stop to wonder if maybe Scalzi is part of the problem? Naaaaaaaaah.


    • jccarlton · August 27, 2015

      Brad as far as I’m concerned the biggest way to be an asshole is to never admit you made a mistake. That’s exactly what Scalzi and the rest are doing. What they don’t seem to understand is that the world changed while they weren’t looking and now they are being assholes on the world stage, with who knows how many people watching. Ten years ago the could get away with what they did because there wasn’t really any social media or distributed video to expose them. Now, everything they do is going to be broadcast to place they won’t even understand and people are not their sycophants. I’ve seen at least three blogs, one of whom the person who writes it I know, writing about that travesty of an awards show and the puppies.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Brad R. Torgersen · August 28, 2015

        I agree with you very much. One of the things I learned as the SP3 spokesmanatee was that everything could be perceived more than one way. Scalzi is clearly posturing for the choir, but the choir aren’t the only ones paying attention. Behaving like a smug, preening dick in the wake of a colossal series of dick moves — Saturday night — then calling the other guys dicks? Yeah, you stay classy, Scalzi. You stay classy.


  7. oaksden · August 27, 2015

    Scalzi sucks scissors sideways.


  8. Rick Ewald · August 27, 2015

    Very well put. I wonder what color the sky is on Scalzi’s planet?


  9. mickoneverything · August 28, 2015

    Reblogged this on Mick On Everything and commented:
    Outstanding fisk of a guy who “couldn’t give the smallest shit” about anyone who sympathizes with puppies.


  10. Standback · August 28, 2015

    Mr. Scalzi, I challenge you to find even one quote anywhere, by any major puppies where we have anything other than the greatest respect for the award and what it stands for.

    I’m here via today’s File770 roundup. I’ve got a lot of sympathy and agreement for the basic Puppy argument that the Hugo awards cater to only a small subset of SF fandom; I liked how Tom Knighton put that just today: “We want the Hugos to be a fan award, and not a Fan award.”

    But as for “even one quote anywhere,” well, that’s not very hard. Theodore Beale is certainly one of the most major Puppies around:

    “I wanted to leave a big smoking hole where the Hugo Awards were,” [Beale] told me before the winners were announced. “All this has ever been is a giant Fuck You—one massive gesture of contempt.”

    That’s a direct quote. “One massive gesture of contempt,” as the defining characteristic and overriding motive of the entire Rabid Puppies effort.

    I know there’s a difference between the Sad Puppies and the Rabid ones, and there’s certainly a difference between Beale and the individual Puppy supporters who went into this actually pushing for better Hugo nominees. But… major Puppy. “One massive gesture of contempt.” I can certainly see why people who care deeply about the Hugos wouldn’t take very kindly to a campaign like that. No?

    I think a lot of this mess is due to each side assuming the other side is acting maliciously, with the single goal of hurting or controlling the other side. I think for the vast majority of participants, that isn’t the case, but they’re misreading each other, interpreting things in the worst light because they’re already assuming malice.

    But Beale – Beale is malicious as all get-out.


    • jccarlton · August 28, 2015

      Vox is Vox. He’s got his reasons and he is really pissed off. He’s doing his thing for his own reasons that really have more to do with hurting a bunch of people, of whom Scalzi is one of them, who hurt him pretty badly when he innocently walked in to SFWA and said, “can I be a member of this club, I just paid my lifetime mebership.” That was a mistake And that group of people have been in his sights ever since. If you want to know how Vox wants things to go read Dumas. But that’s not the puppies, as much as you guys consistently try to drag him in. In fact by invoking him constantly, you only distort the argument. All the puppies really want to do is get editors and authors we admire on the ballot, specifically Toni Wieskoph, who EVERYBODY says deserves the Hugo, yet somehow, hell is going to freeze over and the puppy kickers are going to nuke the Hugos for as lons is takes to make sure that Toni never gets one. That’s what we all saw in the travesty last weekend, where it wasn’t Vox, but some foolish and petty people that, for petty politics and spite, nuked the Hugos. In your fear over Vox, you blew the Hugos up yourselves. You did it in public, you did it all over blogs like File770, and you marched into perdition and destruction in lockstep to the tune of “No Award, No Award,” pushing the button to leave that “big smoking hole where the Huogs were.” Vox couldn’t have done it without you jerks.


      • Standback · August 28, 2015

        I agree with you that Vox doesn’t represent the Sad Puppies; as I wrote in my original post, the Sads and the Rabids are two distinct groups, and Beale’s clearly doing his own thing.

        But you are both on the playing field at the same time. And that means the the traditional Hugo voters aren’t responding only to the Sad Puppies; they’re responding to both factions. Sometimes separately; sometimes together.

        Let’s try to separate the two, then. It sounds like we’re both agreed the Beale’s aims are destructive and malicious. That being the case, what do you think the appropriate response is to Beale and the Rabid Puppies? You’re a reader who cares about the Hugos; Beale wants to leave ’em a smoking hole. What should we be doing about that?


      • jccarlton · August 28, 2015

        The problem with “no award.” It’s not exactly a precision weapon. The collateral damage is huge. Especially when coupled with a constant bombardment of filth and lies. That wasn’t Vox, that was your guys. Your guys went out of their way to hurt people who by and large were only involved with the puppies by being nominated by them. Maybe before looking at what Vox did, you spend some time looking at the actions of your own side. You can justify it all you want, but what it comes down to is “we had to beat you because we didn’t like that other guy.” My advice would be to look at yourselves honestly, because from where I stand, Vox’s opinion of you is starting to look more and more correct.
        That’s not a good thing.
        To be honest, after last weekend, I’m more likely to side with Vox and just go for ‘NO AWARDING’ everything. with Scalzi as the guest of honor and a resin asshole for all the approved nominees and GRRM giving the taillight award for the end of what was once an award that meant something. IN the end Vox didn’t nuke the Hugos, you guys did it all to your selves, even awarded the all to appropriate wooden buttholes to yourselves.


      • Standback · August 29, 2015

        That isn’t what I said. I understand why you’re assuming I’m making certain arguments, because, heck, those arguments have been heard a lot.

        But I think my biggest interest is “I want the Hugos to feature good fiction (and not endless fan drama and fighting),” and it sounds to me like your interest is pretty much the same thing, so to me, talking a bit is worth some time 🙂 (If you’re trying to place me on the spectrum of Puppy commentariat, I think I align fairly closely with Eric Flint.)

        I agree with you that a whole lot of voters conflated the Sad Puppies together with the Rabid Puppies.
        That’s really a lot of the problem – that the traditional WorldCon/Hugo folks perceived both Puppy groups as hostile and malicious, and based a lot of their response on that. In that light, pretty much anything looks like a jerk move to them, because they’re operating on the basic assumption that the Puppies are jerks. And of course if you’re operating on the opposite assumption, then the Puppies aren’t jerks, and so lashing back against them is the jerk move.

        I think we both agree that Beale and the Rabid Puppies are hostile and malicious. So that seems to me like solid ground, where we’re both agreed and we can have a useful discussion – what do you do about a hostile, malicious attempt to “invade” a public-ish voting award? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, because I think we’ll find a fair amount in common.

        I also think we both agree that a lot of voters lumped the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies together – or even simply treated the Sad Puppies as hostile to begin with, even discounting Beale entirely. I’d be happy to talk about that, too, because I can see a few different reasons people made that assumption. Would you rather talk about that?


  11. oldshib · August 28, 2015

    I’m sure he could go through the thousands upon thousands of comments on sad puppy postings and find examples of puppies behaving badly. The comments, mind you, not the posts. But he refuses to see that on the kicker side, the abuse was from ringleaders, from major publications, from PNH and THN (or whatever the initials are). From Scalzi himself.And as I have said elsewhere, this was Sad Puppies THREE. To accurately give context, he needs to go back and understand the abuse to which Larry and the puppies had been subject from the start.


  12. dougirvin · August 28, 2015

    Excellent post, Tom. But in reply to one of the commenters here: Beale is NOT a Sad Puppy – and Sad Puppies are the ones under discussion. Vox Day made his own group, called it Rabid Puppies, and came up with a similar list of writing works, but there is no other connection. True, several people corresponded with him – as we did with you, and Scalzi, and Martin, and tried to do so with the TOR crowd. But not all attempts at a dialogue are successful, especially when one side closes off their hearing and hums while posting cutesy cat pictures. Or curses out a woman who is only trying to make a peaceful approach.
    The issue is simple: whenever a Sad Puppy tried to make a conversation, they were shut down. Heralds to a parley were shot. Appeals were burned.
    We did not start the war. We pointed out a problem, then were attacked viciously and unnecessarily.
    We shall, however, finish the conflict. Choose your side wisely.


    • Tim McDonald · August 28, 2015

      Indeed, but many Sad Puppies will be Rabid Puppies next year. In addition to the 4-500 Rabid Puppy votes Vox will have, add in 2-300 like me who have already decided that next year is the No Award year, and every category gets No Award next year. And the ONLY way to combat it is to do a slate consisting of one nominee in each category. I doubt the megalomaniacs who think they own the Hugos can agree among themselves on that, which means No Award is going to be REALLY hard to beat next year.


  13. That's Right. · August 29, 2015

    Just show a mirror to a SJW Hypocrite and use their words against them.

    SP’s/RP’s thought they were being marginalized and didn’t have a voice.

    The SJW’s thought you shouldn’t have a voice and should be marginalized.

    Basically the argument for many was to be included and not excluded.

    But the very group that excludes you, loves to pretend they are the Inclusive ones.(Almost no way to win against this type of mental disorder)

    But you could just take there comments and replace Sad Pups etc. with the words “Black” or “PoC”

    Now that would show a high level of bigotry,stereotyping,profiling and hypocrisy, so much so that Entertainment weekly might get confused and do a feature about how the SJW’s are actually Facist’s.

    Why here is a Snarky comment I just read linked from the SFSIgnal. It’s a quote by Jason Clark from “Your Nerd is Showing”

    “The community came to together in way that, sadly, my gamer community hasn’t dreamed of yet, and told the ..(Blacks/POC) that they would not be argued or reasoned with. They would simply be shown the door.”

    Now how could anyone deny that isn’t a bigoted statement, Oh I know they would, but people with common sense would see them for “Who they truly are”


  14. Wendy Delmater Thies · August 31, 2015

    Standback, one HOPES that next year there will be a serious effort on the part of SP4 to distance themselves fro the Rabids and Beale. Trademark protection. Crowdfunded lawsuits, if necessary. that should have happened this year.


    • jccarlton · August 31, 2015

      One HOPES that the puppy kickers will make some effort to separate themselves from the people sending out libelous press releases and throwing things like “racist” and “Nazis” around willy nilly. Since that’s the kind of people the puppy kickers ARE, that’s too much to hope for. Also see forthcoming post “You Must Denounce!!” for why this point of view is wrong and immoral.


    • Standback · August 31, 2015

      Oh, that would be fantastic 🙂 Probably unlikely, and I don’t know if anything would come of it; lawsuits are long and messy. But really, anything that helps publicly disentangle the two will be good.

      I hope Beale won’t be duplicating the SP slate again. Kate Paulk’s declaration that she’s planning recommendation list, with (I think? not finding the link at the moment) 10 suggestions per category, will be massively helpful there – a recommendation list will garner support around popular suggestions, and make it much harder for Beale to ride on an identical slate with some minor adjustments, like he did this year.

      (And as an aside, I also like that Paulk’s planning a “blog tour” soliciting suggestions for the SP4 recommendation list. That sounds like a great way to get the Sad Puppies talking about individual stories and books, which IMHO was really missing this year, except for the one thread where Brad Torgeresen asked for suggestions. I’m looking forward to reading those threads!)


  15. Pingback: You know You Are In A War When the Other Side Lobs Artillery Fire At You | The Arts Mechanical
  16. Pingback: Hugo Stuff | The Arts Mechanical

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s