David Gerrold’s Unrepentant ASStericks

And other Hugo slime.  There is a lot of it. Let’s start off with David.

First, there were at least a dozen people involved in the asterisk decision, most of whom have had considerable experience in Worldcon fandom. The idea was to find a way to acknowledge the elephant in the room without being deliberately antagonistic.

As the discussion proceeded, we realized that we had to acknowledge that this was “the year of the asterisk” — and then we realized that we could make the asterisk a salute to Terry Pratchett, because he was a master of the footnote — and we could sell asterisks as a way to raise money for his favorite charity, the Orangutan Foundation.
At no time, was there ever any intention of hurting anyone’s feelings. As I said repeatedly, at least once a week for the four months preceding the award ceremony, the event was the nominees’ night to shine and we were planning a celebration of the nominees. In fact, those of us involved in the planning were tiptoeing on eggshells the entire time, worrying over every single moment of the ceremony.

We knew a lot of people would be on edge, when the evening finally arrived, we saw that there was a lot of tension in the room.

But let’s be honest. There were people who arrived at the Hugo reception and the award ceremony with the intention of being offended, no matter what happened. These were the people who decided that the asterisks were intended as an insult.
I suppose I should be sorry about inadvertently hurting people’s feelings — and I would apologize to people like Toni Weisskopf and Bryan Thomas Schmidt and Ken Burnside (and a few others) if they took it the wrong way. I had hoped that everyone would see it as a chance to laugh away some of the tension.
I saw that travesty of a Hugo ceremony . The idea that any of it was inadvertent is ridiculous.  Let’s go on.
But the real hurt to all the qualified people on the ballot was the damage done by the slate-mongering in the first place and that’s where the real anger should be directed — not at the attempt to leaven the pain. People who should have gone home with trophies came in behind No Award because the great majority of fans voted no to the slates.
Who were the people who voted for those authors and books?  Fans.  Many of whom were participating more deeply in fandom for the first time. People who wanted to be part of the community that produced the things that they loved.  What was the response from old Fandom, right after they said that people were welcome? One huge month’s long smear ended by the that travesty at the Hugo ceremony.

And yet, there is this — despite all the Monday-morning complaining by the outrage committee, the sale of those little wooden asterisks raised $2800 for the Orangutan foundation — and that’s $2800 more than all the pissing and moaning and whining and name-calling raised for anything.

There are 400 of our red-haired cousins living at the sanctuary in Borneo. It costs an enormous amount of money to care for these magnificent animals, food and medicine in particular, but also rescuing orphans and training them to survive again in the wild — the issue is the prevention of extinction. Over here, I like knowing that fans made a difference. (Rent the DVD of “Born To Be Wild” to see the work being done.)
It seemed to me that the great majority of Worldcon attendees took an upset and turned it into something else, something that made a difference — that’s the true fannish tradition. And I can’t apologize for that.
So it’s OK to smear and hurt people as long as it’s in a good cause.  How low do these people go? Here were the real victims.
Kary English

Kary English I was hurt by the asterisks.

They were displayed on a table at the pre-Hugo reception, and I walked by the table without taking one. I was approached by a couple of people during the reception who wanted to make sure I got mine. Some of them were well-meaning and probably didn’t know who I was, and some of them seemed to want to make sure I got mine in a not so nice way.

After several instances of saying “no, thank you,” I finally accepted one because it was clear that not holding one was making me a target for further attempts to get me to take one.

To be honest, the whole thing felt like that creepy guy who maneuvers you into a situation where you have to choose between letting him give you a completely inappropriate hug or making a scene in public.

I would also like to push back against the idea that those of us who were hurt went there looking to be hurt, or that those of us who were hurt deserved to be hurt (said by someone in a recent File 770 roundup).

This is victim blaming, and it is not OK.


This is how the puppy kickers get their kicks. by adding insult to injury and then not owning up to their intentions.  That whole travesty was intended right from the start to hurt those that were nominated by the Puppies, to demonstrate in no uncertain terms what true fandom thought of those who they should realize, kept them fed.  Well David should realize that buying books or NOT buying books is a CHOICE and NOT buying, NOT reading and NOT having anything to do with puppy kicker is looking like the right thing for everybody.

The withdrawals continue.

Why did we decline? While we won’t know the exact number of nominating ballots until the stats are released (after the Hugos are awarded), it’s clear that Black Gate largely benefited from Vox Day’s Rabid Puppy Hugo slate. As we reported Wednesday, roughly 80% of this year’s Hugo ballot was dictated by that slate — it swept six categories, including Short Story, Graphic Story, and Fanzine. Our choice to withdraw was informed by many of the same factors that led us to make the same decision last year.

It also seems fairly obvious that we cannot win. Of the 61 nominees the Puppy ballots placed on the Hugo ballot last year, only one, Guardians of the Galaxy, received an award. The Rabid Puppy brand, which BG is now unwillingly associated with, is so toxic that it’s virtually impossible to overcome that association without the equivalent of a $100 million advertising campaign. Those nominees who stubbornly argued otherwise last year, and attended the Hugo ceremony with high hopes, learned that the hard way, unceremoniously losing out to No Award in a painful rout across virtually every category. (Incidentally, I also voted No Award for most of the ballot.)

So the fact they may not win means that they are happy to slap the faces of those that nominated them because they weren’t the “right people.”


Black Gate Withdraws From Hugo Ballot

Of course George weighs in.

This is the second year that BLACK GATE has refused a nomination, so one certainly has to admire them for their consistency. And no one can deny that this is a very difficult decision for those, like BLACK GATE, that were put on the ballot by the Rabids without their consent (it is an easy decision for the Rabids themselves and their allies, of course, most of whom are squealing as happily as pigs in shit).

Since I’m on record as urging the “hostages” to stand their ground, I can’t applaud this decision. But I will not criticize it either. They had a tough call and they made it, consistent with their own politics and principles.

I will quibble, however, about one of their assertions: that even if BLACK GATE had elected to remain on the ballot, they had no chance of winning. I am not going to go so far as to say they were the favorite… but I think they would have had a shot. All five of this year’s nominees were on the Rabid Slate, yes. But two of the five — BLACK GATE and FILE 770 — are clearly hostages, slated without their consent. Despite the success of No Award in last year’s voting, I think the presence of so many hostages this year changes the equation. My hope is that fewer fans will resort to the Nuclear Option. If so, I think FILE 770 will win here… but BLACK GATE would have given Glyer’s zine its strongest competition. Oh, and yes, No Award will be contending too. TANGENT might have a very slim outside chance.

BLACK GATE’s withdrawal changes all that, of course. The big question is, what takes its place? Whatever it is, I’d say that it instantly becomes a major contender here, just as THREE BODY PROBLEM became a contender last year after Marko Kloos pulled out of novel. My guess is that the rocket goes to either FILE 770 or the new nominee…


No Award is an option.  The problem for the kickers is that it’s an option for everybody.  Have they thought about what it’s going to look like if NO Hugos are awarded.  The temptation to No award over any non puppy choice is rather overwhelming if this keeps up.

Of course Damien has an option.  “Ban all the puppies.”


Here’s the thing Damien, Puppies are fans too and they paid their registrations just like everybody else and are entitled to the full privileges of their Worldcon memberships.  Banning anybody because of how they vote means that the Worldcon would be obligated to pay the money back.  Which Worldcon cannot afford. Damien, if Worldcon did what yo wanted, there will shortly thereafter be NO Worldcon.

Daniel Polansky accepts the nomination:

Some background: I wrote a book called The Builders, about a team of woodland animals called together for one final act of nefarious violence, sort of a Peckinpah Redwall. I like to think that it is funny, mean, and well-written. It is, indisputably, utterly apolitical. It sat on my hard drive for a while, and then the kind folk at Tor.com bought it for the new novella list they were putting together. People seemed to sort of like it, and it sold pretty well for a novella, and fans sent me cool art in the shape of the characters, and I cashed a check and felt generally good about myself. Maybe six weeks ago my editor at Tor contacted me to let me know I was part of the Rabid Puppy Hugo slate for best novella. (If you don’t know who the Rabid Puppies are, I’m not going to get into it here. Google ‘Hugo controversy’, or better yet, go outside and take a long walk, or read a book, or hug a child. Your child, I mean. Or an appropriate child at least, not just anyone’s child. Where were we?) My reactions were something like: “Who? Them? Why? Aren’t they boycotting Tor? Do I know what the world ‘boycott’ means?” My team at Tor suggested it was best to just ignore the thing, and in deference to their greater expertise on the matter I decided to do just that, which played well to the broad apathy which is my defining characteristic. In retrospect I probably wish I had asked to be taken off said list, though apparently Alistair Reynolds did just that and had no luck. The matter seemed irrelevant when, midway through April, I had yet to be contacted from anyone at the Hugo’s. It seemed my dreams of putting a silver phallus on my desk would have to be pushed back another year.

You can imagine my surprise when my twitter feed blew up Tuesday with the announcement that the Builders had been nominated in the best novella category.

That brings us to the present. It’s been, frankly, a frustrating week. An essentially private person, I resent intensely having been dragged into a controversy which I had no role in creating and little interest in generally. My initial reaction was to withdraw from the contest immediately—I wrote a really nasty post to this effect, condemning all involved parties, raining rhetorical fire down from the sky, etc. ‘A pox on both your houses! You won’t have Dan Polansky to kick around anymore!’ So on and so forth. But upon consideration, and in consultation with some of my fellow nominees, I’ve decided to stay in, which seems to be the least-worst option. I’m reasonably convinced it minimizes the harm which the organizers of the slate intended to do to the award itself. If you read the Builders, and you thought it was deserving of a Hugo, by all means, vote for it. If you preferred the work of one of the other fine nominees, vote for that. If you want to no-decision the lot of us, that’s entirely understandable as well. As far as I’m concerned, that’s the end of a matter which has already cost me more in terms of time and energy than I would have preferred to offer to anything that isn’t my work, family, or friends.



A reminder to Puppies to never nominate, buy or read anything by Ms. Bolander again. She apparently doesn’t like having the wrong fans nominate her for awards.

So. That silly cyberpulp story I wrote and sold to Lightspeed a year ago has now managed to net itself a hat trick of nominations: Nebula, Sturgeon, and Hugo. I’m honoured. I’m beyond honoured: I’m fucking stunned and honoured. However, making this pretty much the textbook definition of a pyrrhic victory, the Hugos have yet again been hijacked by semi-sentient anal glands, who spewed hot, smelly ass juice all over the ballot, squeezing deserving legitimate work out and smearing the palmful of legitimate noms who got through with expressed butt infection funk. This gunk is straight-up rancid. Stains clothes, kills flowers, soils hope. In an attempt to be very clever doggies, they also stuck several legitimate, worthy works that would have probably gotten on the ballot anyway onto their slates as shields.


Alyssa Wong is a bit more positive, but don’t these writers understand that if they want to keep the fans they depend on a little gratefulness and a lot less smearing goes a VERY long way. She should be thanking  her fans for caring enough about her stuff to give it enough votes to overcome the other nominees, not going on about other fans  and how they voted.

What’s amazing to me is how many of the puppy kickers think so little of themselves and their fellow writers and creators that the idea that fans might like their stuff seems unimaginable to them.  Somehow it’s all about “shields” or “coverage” rather than admit that puppies may actually have a modicum of good taste. The idea that puppies choose stuff because it’s good, except for Vox’s obvious troll choices, seems never enter their thinking even when theirs plenty of written evidence that was the goal of the sad puppies right from the onset.  The idea that the puppies would deliberately pick bad stories simply to kick “deserving” stories off the ballot was absurd in 2015.  I don’t think that anybody on the sad puppy side expected to sweep the noms.  The puppies just did what everybody else did which was to  put together a list and vote on it.  I think that the only puppy revolution was the realization that anybody could participate in Fandom and the Hugos  And caring enough to pony up the 4o bucks to participate.

Doing a nomination sheet is a bit  different than just voting for existing nominees and especially “no awarding”  everything in sight.  You actually have to think about what you are filling in even if you are just following a slate like the rabid puppy one.  I bet that even the rabids took the time to at least look at the stuff that Vox recommended and from what I saw of his recommendations overall, they were by and large deserving.  I will also note that the puppies were able to sweep the noms because it seems like the puppy kickers couldn’t bring themselves to care.  It’s as if all those “no award registrations that made such a big splash last year couldn’t bring themselves to care enough about nominating the stuff they supposedly wanted to get enough votes to nominate anything.  Which says volumes about them.  The authors here complaining about getting nominated by the puppies should thank us because otherwise they would be nowhere.  The only all reason anybody’s on the ballot is because the puppies wanted to be a part of the science fiction scene.  Because apparently True fandom can’t be bothered to nominate anything.


And what was our thanks for wanting to be part of the scene.  Well this: “the Hugos have yet again been hijacked by semi-sentient anal glands, who spewed hot, smelly ass juice all over the ballot, squeezing deserving legitimate work out and smearing the palmful of legitimate noms who got through with expressed butt infection funk.” So much for being part of fandom.  Well for me at least it’s going to be more NOT buying books from people that treat me like this.  If I am considered a “semi-sentient anal gland” certainly I’m too stupid to spend my money on books written by people that think of me that way.

Ps: The Kicker elite want some votes to count and other votes to not count.

Kevin Standlee
A factor regarding invoking the convention Code of Conduct against Griefers (I’m looking at Christopher J Garcia and Sean Wallace in particular) and disqualifying their ballots and revoking their memberships that only came to me this morning:

The current Worldcon in Kansas City does have the right to regulate its own membership. They could, if they so choose, decide to revoke the memberships of individuals for just about any reasons unless it was prohibited by law. So in theory they could revoke the memberships of individual members who they believed were violating their Code of Conduct by the way they cast their Hugo Award nominating ballots.

However, what about the members of the Spokane and Helsinki Worldcons? All of their members as of January 31, 2016 were also eligible to nominate. Kansas City is obliged to honor those nominations as part of the WSFS Constitution, which is the “contract” under which MidAmeriCon II was granted the right to hold the 2016 Worldcon. MAC2 does not have jurisdiction over the memberships of the 2015 and 2017 Worldcons. They don’t have the right to revoke the memberships of members of either of those two conventions. If, as seems likely to me, most of the Griefers are coasting along on the memberships they bought to Sasquan, MAC2 doesn’t seem to me to have the right to ignore those persons’ votes — not unless they could somehow get the legal remnant of the 2015 Worldcon committee to revoke those persons’ memberships.

Yes, I know I’m being legalistic. That’s what I do. Throwing out the rule of law just because you don’t like how some people voted is IMO giving the Griefers exactly what they want — a plausible legal excuse to hammer the Hugo Awards and Worldcon with. They’re trying to goad us into an extra-legal response.

David Dyer-Bennet
Lacking the Arisians to identify and certify a reliable supply of “philosopher kings”, I think rule of law is our best choice, however annoying some of the intermediate steps may be.

Christopher J Garcia
It’s not about the votes – it’s about the use of the Hugos as a platform for a hate group..

Kevin Standlee
You’d need to withdraw the nominating rights from the previous/subsequent years’ members in order to give a single legal entity (the current Worldcon) the right to revoke the memberships (and thus not count the ballots) of the people you consider unworthy of voting, for whatever reason, including being part of what you’ve decided is a hate group.

Christopher J Garcia
It’s not about the voting. It’s allowing members of a hate group (and the Rabid Puppies qualify as such under the SPLC, ADL, and FBI definitions) to opperate within the awards. We are implicitly accepting their presence by not acting to remove them.

Kevin Standlee
No. You are only a member of WSFS for the current “Worldcon Year,” which runs from end of Worldcon to end of Worldcon. There are, however, residual rights that attach to past and future Worldcons of which you may be a member.

Kevin Standlee
I don’t dispute that there is a de facto hate group acting here. What I’m saying is that while an individual Worldcon may choose to revoke the memberships of its members for any non-prohibited-by-law reason, they cannot IMO legally revoke. Incidentally, one of the “residual rights” is to inspect the accounts of the Worldcon of which you were a member. The “sunshine clause” is rarely invoked, but it is in there.

Christopher Carson
It’s not about the votes, it’s not about the nominations — so you’re mad at an abstract concept?

Michael Lee
I could make the case that the code of conduct applies to all participants in an activity of a particular convention, and that the nomination phase is an activity not of three conventions, but of one particular convention, so that individual convention’s code of conduct would apply. And it is the responsibility of an individual convention to administer the Hugo Awards.

Kevin Standlee
Michael Lee I can see your point; however, I can also see that if I were a member of the previous Worldcon who had my vote tossed by the current Worldcon, I would have standing to sue to the current Worldcon for failing to abide by the terms of their contract (the WSFS Constitution).

Kevin Standlee
Codes of conduct aren’t mentioned in the WSFS Constitution, so it’s unclear just how much any one convention’s CoC can have jurisdiction over another convention’s members. In particular, look at this section of the WSFS Constitution:

Section 1.6: Authority. Authority and responsibility for all matters concerning the Worldcon, except those reserved herein to WSFS, shall rest with the Worldcon Committee, which shall act in its own name and not in that of WSFS. And that seems to me to give a Worldcon to regulate its own members, but not any other convention’s members.

Linda Deneroff
I thought well prior to 2012 the WSFS Constitution permitted the prior year’s worldcon members to nominate, but back before computers it was nearly impossible to make it practical or viable.

Kevin Standlee
Prior years’ members have been eligible to nominate since 1989. The subsequent year’s members were only extended the nominating privilege effective in 2012 (ratified in 2011).

Christopher Hensley
Which is why I am a little miffed at Sasquan. They actually had the power to do it, but they did not.

Linda Deneroff
20-20 hindsight is wonderful.

Christopher Hensley
To be fair, they are doing exactly what they said they would do since the nominating period opened last year.

Aaron Kashtan
Wouldn’t it be better to create a rule that the current Worldcon can, at its discretion, reject any Hugo nominee that threatens to bring the Hugos or Worldcon into disrepute? Like the rule that caused the rejection of the name Boaty McBoatface? I’m sure this idea has been suggested before.

Kevin Standlee
Such a rule would be legal, but it does not currently exist. And beware of rules that can be turned against you. However, if you want help crafting such a rule, contact me directly and I’ll help you write it. Convincing two consecutive WSFS Business Meetings to vote for it would be your problem.

Richard Man
I think any NEW rule, would not help for 2016 (and of course not 2015) due to the ratification requirements. I think the WSFS charter founders are pretty crafty in makes things fairly democratic, within the limits of the charters. They just never expected influential arseholes.

Christopher Carson
Pretty sure fandom has never been short of “influential arseholes”.

Richard Man
… but ones that screw up the Hugos two years in a year ;-P?

Kevin Standlee
WSFS rules are designed with an assumption that people will act in good faith.

I’ve repeatedly said that WSFS operates much like the USA did for the first twenty years after it declared independence. The manifest flaws of the Articles of Confederation led to the adoption of the current much-stronger Constitution of 1787. But it took several years for that to happen, too, and the challenges facing the young USA were a lot worse than a bunch of bad actors trolling a literary award.

Dave O’Neill
I don’t think anybody expected any of the individual arseholes to actually have followers.

Kevin Standlee
True. And most of the individuals within Worldcon-attending fandom have been prepared to play within the _spirit_ of the rules as well as its letter. Heck, there were a couple of “puppy” sympathizers at the 2015 WSFS Business Meeting.

Dave O’Neill
I can assure you that his motion would have failed. There was no way it was going through. But yes, I recall him well. I also recall all the people of the opinion that this was a ‘one off’ and we shouldn’t do anything as they’ll get bored.

Kevin Standlee
That was only the second time that I’ve seen Adjourn moved in its debatable form in any situation other than routinely at the end of a day or of the session. The first time was when I made it myself many years ago (L.A. con III, as I recall) because I thought the people present didn’t want to go in to the nitty-gritty of a complex report I was presenting and wanted to put it off until the next day. I was wrong.

Mike Glyer
This kind of tortured logic undermines the much needed benefits of Codes of Conduct. Beware.

Christopher Hensley
The move away from a pure legalistic approach represents a major shift in the community over the last few years.

Kevin Standlee
Understood about the beware. Any committee wanting to invoke their Code of Conduct in this situation would have to consider balancing the harm done to itself by Griefers against the potential harm of dealing with a lawsuit from them.

Christopher Hensley
I also worry about the opposite. That they will try to nominate a work that while protected by the absolute speech protections inherent in US will run afoul libel or hate crime laws outside of it. If nothing else it would kill the packet, or require saying “we refuse to distribute this”. Possibly even cause problems with advertising the finalists. A certain title which make accusations about John Scalzi come to mind.

Kevin Standlee
Funny thing, that. Imagine such a case next year, in which Finnish and EU law applies. IMO, the committee would be totally justified in disqualifying such a work, because local law always trumps the WSFS Constitution.

Mike Glyer
It’s reasonable to anticipate that they will keep moving down the continuum, finding more transgressive works to nominate. They would do it anyway, and if EPH is effective in limiting their impact, would want to devote the slots they get to items that …

Kevin Standlee
Me, too, and it was one of the reasons I didn’t like trying to invoke it as a legitimate reason to disqualify nominations, members, or finalists.

Christopher Hensley
There are two questions in my mind. One are their actions, which are clearly an ongoing campaign of harassment. The other is the works themselves. It should be a much higher bar on that but not an impossible one. What happens when they nominate non-fiction works which promote violence against LGBT persons, racial minorities or Muslims?

Dave O’Neill
Surely the administrators have some wiggle room in those situations? If not then there does need to be a disrepute clause brought in.

Kevin Standlee
I don’t really see much room for maneuver by the Administrators. Every individual natural person is eligible to become a member by existing rules.

Dave O’Neill
I was thinking more if somebody nominated a hardcore porn SF parody or similar? Rather than dealing with members – I was under the impression the administrators had the final word in eligibility?

Christopher Hensley
Tingle’s stuff is more performance art then porn parody. He has a following that loves his over the top antics and hopelessly positive message. But yes, Tingle is absolutely backfiring on Day. He’ll say it was his plan all along but it is stealing his spotlight.

Dave O’Neill
well, I wasn’t actually thinking of Tingle then as, yes, it’s part of a gag. I was thinking more of a “Game of Boners” type stuff.

Mem Morman
What’s a “Griefer”?

Kevin Standlee
The people wanting to destroy the Hugo Awards by nominating a slate that includes a fair number of obviously awful things. In effect, the Rabid Puppies.

Dave O’Neill
Somebody who deliberately tries to spoil things for other players.

Dave O’Neill
Although I really think the Chuck Tingle thing is going to backfire spectacularly on Ted.

Christopher Hensley
“Griefing” originally a video gaming term referring to players who kill their own teammates in multiplayer.

Kevin Standlee
I like how it can be easily mistaken as Grifters, which seems appropriate to me given their Sooper Genius Evil Overlord.

Alfred Kruse
“And so it begins…”

Covert J Beach
I would consider canceling memberships based on nominations for the Hugo to be the Nuclear Option. I think this becomes a slippery slope to the point where the Cure will be worse than the Disease. This idea is another version of Strong Administrator, and should be invoked as a last resort and only in desperation. In theory bad ideas should be trampled in the free marketplace of ideas. The Griefers as you refer to them have found a mechanical way to make the marketplace less free (by packing the limited number of nominations.) Even if we can agree that this group needs to be dealt with, there comes the future time where someone with a hot button gets to make a well intentioned call that blows up in the convention’s face. The solution is to free up the marketplace of ideas. EPH+6/4 or Semi-final voting do this.


Update, 05/10/16, an outsider looks in and gives a good summary of event so far.


Chris Chupick weighs in on Sarah’s blog.

Nobody Expects the Fannish Inquisition! By Christopher M. Chupik


More Hugo stuff







  1. Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » AH, THE CRAZY YEARS: David Gerrold’s Unrepentant ASStericks….
  2. MishaBurnett · May 4, 2016

    I responded to David Gerrold’s post. Unfortunately I didn’t screenshot it, and it seems to be gone now. What I said was that I felt that the Spokane Hugo Award ceremony sent a clear message that outsiders were not welcome in Science Fiction. He responded with some variant of “Come on in, everyone’s welcome here!” I responded back and said that, no matter what was intended, the result of his behavior was to publicly humiliate a group of outsiders, and that I had no intention of being part of a group that does that. He didn’t respond to that.


  3. EndOfPatience · May 4, 2016

    David Gerrold? Wasn’t he an author, once upon a time? Before he discarded his intelligence and abandoned the profession to become just another SJW?


    • Tacitus Jones · May 4, 2016

      David Gerrold appears to have made a career out of writing one of the better (not the best) episodes from Star Trek TOS. But has he written anything of note, say in the last ten years or so? Longer? I certainly can’t remember seeing any of his books in a Barnes & Noble or Books A Million in recent memory. To be fair, I enjoyed Yesterday’s Children, and the first couple of Chtorr books. That said, is he even relevant to science fiction anymore? Isn’t it time for him to step aside, and let others take up the torch. He makes me think of someone who has become bitter because he can no longer compete with the current crop of writers in a field once had success in. Step aside David Gerrold. Let us remember your for the body of work that you created, and not for the bitter, angry man that you’ve become.


  4. Donald Campbell · May 4, 2016

    Crocodile tears; these are my crocodile tears for poor David Gerrold and all the ‘trufans’ for their destroying the one set of awards I have ever paid attention to (note: pre-2005, since then not a whole lot).
    Having read every Terry Pratchett novel, I do not associate asterisk with him. Much like Ghost Busters and the GOP 2016 ‘slate’, the whining glitterati of TORdom have chosen the form of their destructor. That form is “If You Were an Award, My Love” and “Space Raptor Butt Invasion”. These are exactly the writings that Mr. Gerrold deserves.
    Long ago, America was a place with diversity of opinion; that diversity was reflected in the wonderful art of Science Fiction and the author’s so awarded by the Hugo.
    Gerrold and his ilk have proven their opinion of diversity, “our way or the highway”. Vox Day is probably the realist among us. There is no middle ground, only the destruction of the Hugos will pry their grasping SJW hands away, and frankly, I find no group more deserving of mockery.


  5. ct236 · May 4, 2016

    It’s worth mentioning how this all started: Successful sci fi-fantasy author Larry Correia noticed that Worldcon and sci fi-fantasy publishing had come under control of what we now call SJW’s. Other authors confirmed it to Larry: Fandom had been infiltrated by SJW “little hitlers” who were determined to enforce thought control (and writing control) in fandom. But the industry SJW’s totally, completely, assuredly, emphatically, and heatedly denied any such thing was going on! So Mr. Correia set out to demonstrate that the SJW’s had indeed cast their ugly influence over sci fi-fantasy publishing.

    After several years of general conflict, abuse, fighting, and SJW attacks and insults, we come up to the present. Larry Correia? Mission accomplished.


  6. Epobirs · May 4, 2016

    Trying to create the impression that Terry Pratchett, a recently dead man who was in no position to render an opinion, had any involvement or anything remotely like approval, tells you all you need to know about these people. It is the nature of SJWs to attempt to hijack any element of culture in service to their personal obsessions.

    Recently, somebody I’ve know for thirty year demanded that any of his Facebooks ‘friends’ who has anything bad to say about Obamacare should unfriend him right then and there. I did so and frankly it was a relief. No more did I have his parade of likes for male prostitutes filling my feed, nor his constant linking to David Gerrold. Gerrold peaked decades ago but retains a following on the insane love of a single Star Trek episode. I stopped paying attention to his fiction long ago but his Facebook stream made it clear to me that he wasn’t an oppressed minority. He was just a jerk.


  7. Brad R. Torgersen · May 4, 2016

    David Gerrold doesn’t understand that intentions matter far, far less, than results. He also doesn’t understand that the problem with fig leaves, is that they cover so very, very little of the true dickishness behind them. The CHORFhole (and the cheering of “No Award”) are the stones which will permanently dangle around the necks of those who made it their business to not only go after myself, Larry Correia, etc., but also every single voter and nominee who participated from the Puppy side — be it Sad, or Rabid.

    Regarding committed Puppy-kickers, We’re dealing with high-IQ, but low emotional-IQ people. They don’t understand nor perceive the multi-layered perceptions that sprang from their actions. Or maybe they do, and they simply don’t care to admit that malicious recrimination was their intent the entire time — and they’re just too cowardly to fess up?

    Regardless, the damage has been done. Just as George did damage with his “Come to my Richie Rich Cool Kids party, and let me buy everyone’s favor!” event. If George had actually wanted to do some good, he’d have awarded Alfies to every single person who deserved one — especially those who were NO AWARDED that night. George — whether he knew it or not — sent a very strong, very clear signal, by leaving the NO AWARD victims out.

    Thankfully, the people doing those Jovian trophies seem to have the right idea, and somebody over at N3F made sure that Toni Weisskopf got some well-earned recognition. This gives me hope that not everyone in Fandom (much less fandom) is not stuck on derp. But there were 2,500 derp-heads who thought the best way to glorify the Hugos and celebrate science fiction, was to hold a witch-burning.


  8. CeliaHayes · May 4, 2016

    I think for disgusting, Brook Bolander’s post takes the absolute prize. If I was ever tempted to read anything of hers, I’m over it now. Enjoy your increasingly selective appeal, Brookie.


  9. Dr. Mauser · May 4, 2016

    I’m just wondering how Mr. Standlee proposes to determine who is, or is not, a Rabid Puppy for the purposes of drumming them out of the fandom. De-anonymizing their Hugo ballots, and kicking out anyone who nominates or votes for the Wrong Kind of Book? Who will be the members of the Worldcon Unfannish Activities Committee (WUAC)? Inquiring minds want to know.


    • snelson134 · May 6, 2016

      I’m interested in knowing that too. Are they going to go by e-mail addresses? A search on Open Secrets to see if you donated to any candidate who isn’t a Party member? Or just require a photo with all Worldcon memberships so they can assign the proper quotas?

      I think it would be amusing to see if these conventions can be declared a “public accommodation” under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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