Today, two writers pulled their names off the Hugo ballots.

Cited was the indirect association with Vox Day, who may be the most hated man in SF. Also cited was the harassment they were obviously getting.  They each expressed their thoughts differently on these.

On the second:  Congratulations, "tolerant" "liberals," especially those of you with multiple chrome phallus statues. You've successfully protected your precious award from a gay woman and an immigrant.  You just keep on talking about tolerance.  We hear you.

As to the first:  I very much sympathize with the writers' positions. It's not easy taking flak for someone else who deserves it, even if it's misplaced.

However, this behavior is dangerous.  

It gives Vox more control over the Hugos.  All he has to do to prevent someone winning is have his psychophants (sic) nominate them, and they have to withdraw in shame.  And he can even endorse someone AFTER they're balloted, and there will be a pall over their win.

Also, if his endorsement was genuine (He IS a sci fi fan, after all), then you've narrowed the number of potential candidates his fans will vote for, thus increasing the odds another of his nominees will win.

Yes, he's a troll and an asshole.  He trolled SFWA into removing him, even though per their own bylaws the officers have no authority to do so.  He might be planning a lawsuit as we speak.  NEVER think you can win against a man like this.  He is narcissistic, vicious, and an expert at manipulation.

The only way to win is not to play.  If his endorsement was serious, then it's still real. You can't control the personalities of people who read your work.  If he was trolling, you're playing into his hands.

Participants:  Ignore the man. Vote as your conscience dictates, on the quality of the work, only. To do otherwise gives him what he wants.

https://amazingstoriesmag.com/2015/04/ill-casting-final-hugo-vote/

 

And here was our exchange: 

 

Mike Williamson  Apr 2 (12 days ago)

to Info
I intended no "Disrespect for the institution" by my accidental early announcement, which I deleted once I was aware of the matter.

I did not receive the full email, and was not aware of the tradition of waiting for public announcement, which I support.

I apologized to the committee, who assured me it wasn't a problem.

Had you, or any other offended party, informed at once, I'd have removed it at once. As it was, I heard from a friend about 24 hours later.

Your actions are a textbook example of the problem. Rather than communicate, you'd rather rage in public. You did nothing to address the matter, but only used it for clickbait.

The SP slate included quite a few liberal authors, had you bothered to actually look at the proposed authors, rather than scream and leap.

I, for one, am nowhere near "conservative," and disdain the association.

It is unfortunate that rational discourse has become impossible with certain elements of fandom.

As to TNH's ridiculous and egotistical assertion that only certain fans are really fen:

https://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/who-s-a-real-fan

I would hope for more mature behavior from people with such credentials.

Thanks

Mike



Steve Davidson - Amazing Stories
Apr 2 (12 days ago)

to me
Mike,

I mentioned the circumstance, I did not name any names.

I have looked at the slate. My argument clearly states that it has nothing to do with the individuals involved or the works in question. It addresses the methodology.

I do not believe that the Hugo Awards are a proper venue for political action.

I'm sorry you got caught in the cross fire. I do however believe that you should have checked before announcing.

I made a distinction between fans and "politicized fans", nowhere did I suggest that the people involved are not fans.

Nowhere did I mention Teresa Nielsen Hayden.


steve



Mike Williamson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Apr 2 (12 days ago)

to Steve
If you see "politicized fans," it says more about you than about others.

And what "Checking" was I supposed to do? My point stands--bunches of people, including you and TNH, apparently started twitstorm about how I was ruining things. None of you took the time to send a polite reminder, which I would have heeded. It was 24 hours later when a friend more familiar, having been nominated before, made mention to me.

[EDIT:  NOTE: I BELIEVE THE OTHER EARLY ANNOUNCER WAS A NON-SP WRITER WITH TOR. SOMEHOW, THAT WRITER GETS BOTH A PASS, AND THEIR WRONG ASSIGNED TO SP.  THIS IS WHAT PASSES AS JOURNALISM IN THIS DEBATE.]

You speak in similar tones, I assume you are similar in outlook.

I don't believe anyone is trying to ruin, usurp, or otherwise damage the Hugos.

Again, that, to me, says more about you than others.

I would actually have preferred one of my other works of the year, which I feel was a story with serious merit. But then, it is a popularity award, and always has been. The Nebulae are the professional award. This is a fan award.


Steve Davidson - Amazing Stories
Apr 3 (11 days ago)

to me
Mike,

and its obvious to me that you read things through heavily tinted glasses.

Who should you have asked? How about the awards committee?

I think its pointless for us to trade emails.

steve



Mike Williamson
Apr 3 (11 days ago)

to Steve
To ask them, I'd have had to know to ask them. I assumed such info would be in the email--and it was, just buried.

But, you likewise could have asked me, as a courtesy, rather than assuming my intent was to "denigrate" the awards.

There's your tinted glasses.

It is indeed pointless. You have labeled me a villain without knowing me, and are uninterested in polite discussion.

In any case, the awards committee, whose opinion matters, assures me it's not a problem.

George R.R. Martin (grrm) replied to a comment you left in a LiveJournal

post (https://grrm.livejournal.com/417812.html). The comment they replied to
was:

> GRRM said, “If the Sad Puppies wanted to start their own award… for Best
> Conservative SF, or Best Space Opera, or Best Military SF, or Best
> Old-Fashioned SF the Way It Used to Be… whatever it is they are actually
> looking for
[emphasis mine]… hey, I don’t think anyone would have any objections to that.
> I certainly wouldnΓÇÖt. More power to them.ΓÇ¥

> Joshua, on April 9, 2015 at 9:24 pm said: If gays want to have their own
> pizzas places that cater their weddings, hey, I donΓÇÖt think anyone would
> have any objections to that. I certainly wouldnΓÇÖt. More power to them.

Their reply was:

 Subject: Re: That sounds familiar...

  Oh, nonsense.

 ~~~

Okay, so you're one of the richest, highest paid writers in the world, but you couldn't be bothered to click on a link to find out what one side of the debate was before putting fingers to keys?  Professional much?

Seriously, 7th graders fail papers for doing that.

https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/announcing-sad-puppies-3/

As I've said before, and to you, the recent decade of Hugo winners show a spectrum of Writers of Palor, mostly left leaning, largely from a couple of publishing houses.  Again, this is not evidence of collusion, but it is evidence of incestuousness.

We're writers and fans who want more diversity in the Hugo. Writers of color. Immigrants.  Citizens of other nations.  Politics across the spectrum.  You can talk about it all you want, but when you use the epithet, "Many of them conservative," you attempt to condemn by association everyone in this fight who isn't.

You don't know what we want or why we're upset?  Here's a headline for you: RICH WHITE MILLIONAIRE AUTHOR WITH 9 NOMS AND 6 WINS SAYS "LET THEM EAT CAKE!"

And yes, Joshua's comparison IS correct.  "Sure, these people are part of our society, but they're not the part of society we want to deal with, so they should just go away.  They can have something separate, but equal, but it won't really be equal."

BTW, the Prometheus Award, that you're not sure where it's awarded, is often awarded at Worldcon, often in a bar or restaurant, because "Real" SF won't acknowledge it.  This year it's at Marcon.  But hey, you're sure it's a worthy award. You just couldn't be bothered to look it up.

We write SF and related works, we do SF art. That makes us part of SF fandom, and part of the culture.  We are not the "Wrong" type of fans, and anyone who thinks so is the wrong type of fan.

How's that Iron Throne padded with $100 bills feel, George?  I bet it's comfy.

Oh, yeah--you also like that people have to shell out at least a couple of Jacksons to vote, to keep the award "Special."  So special that most of the world can't afford to participate.

But we're the hateful conservatives.  Got it.

Several years back, when I was still a SFWA member, there was a huge panic over the "Threat" of electronic publishing.

Think about that. In an organization of writers of speculative fiction, there were a large number of people who wanted to shovel back the tide.  The smart ones got into it on the ground floor and are making money. Some of them fought it for years and didn't.

The second part of the discussion was a writer complaining about "pixel-stained, technopeasant wretches" giving work away for free online, thus watering down the paying market for "real" writers.

I had a very polite discussion with Piers Anthony, who expressed the opinion that while online presence was probably marketable, he didn't see how it could compare to a "well-run ad campaign."

Of course, an ad campaign costs money for either publisher or author, and if the publisher, it cuts into their margin for other matters, including paying the writers, which is why it's generally reserved for well-known, big-selling authors.

At the time, I'd written five books in two years, but was still largely unknown.  I pointed out that one of my free satirical pieces had been Farked, and gotten a half million hits in under 24 hours.  There's no way I could have bought publicity like that.  It was off the cuff snark that took me perhaps two hours, for which I might have eventually been paid $200.  Which would you rather have, $200 now, or half a million prospective readers for the future?

Piers was absolutely correct, but he was also speaking from a zone of comfort in an established position.

I attended SFWA functions at Torcon, where I tended bar, Loscon, and then Philcon.  The staff of SFWA knew who I was.  They greeted me on sight by first name. When I pulled out cover sheets of my next book ("The Hero"), one of the officers said, "Oh, a collaboration. Who's John Ringo?"

At that point, John had about ten more books than I did, including three NYT bestsellers with David Weber.

But the in-crowd hadn't heard of him.

And thus it often still is.  The in-crowd goes to the meetings, to the literary conventions, the writer that goes with them gets known, and then gets mentioned by friends, blogged about, and eventually, gifted with suggestions of awards.

Think about winners the last few years.  Are they good?  Generally. Popular? Within a small subsect always.  Not always among SF fans overall.  Can you think of any winners, where you'd think, "This other book that came out that year was better. Why didn't it win?"

George RR Martin laments the "marketing" that has come to the Hugos, that the Old Way is no longer respected. 

That's because an NYT bestseller with 13 books out was unknown to the people who promote the award.

And this is not their fault. When Piers and George started selling, there was no internet, and bookstores, quite common, if they sold SF, had a section with most of the current releases and staff who knew what they were.

It is no longer that time.  There are works that were promoted for the ballot this year that are good works, two of them from friends, and I never knew these works existed.  There's just no way to track the huge disbursement of SF.  We won.  Nerds won the culture war. We're everywhere.

We're so everywhere we don't even know who each other is anymore.

It used to be that the World Science Fiction Convention was THE place in the industry, and everyone knew everyone through no more than two connections.

Now, though, the comic cons, GenCon and DragonCon get more writers, and more readers, than Worldcon.

The only reason the internet wasn't used as a huge pimping and platform tool until now is because so many of the younger fen had no idea what the Hugo was, or how it was decided.

Once they discovered it, these young kids, in our thirties and forties (!) realized the only way to get seen was to make use of technology.

Piers laments free content (or did. That was some years ago).  George laments internet marketing. But both are here to stay, and I doubt most younger fen have any objection at all.

There are rumblings, proposals, and I fully expect that next year, there will be a dozen slates on major blogs promoting works for the Hugos.

So how is that bad?  Works you've not heard of will be mentioned, where you can easily see them. This translates as more sales for the authors. (My piece, https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00QZV08SW?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwmichaelzwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00QZV08SW, when promoted, shot back into the Amazon top ten for Political Humor.  It had been #1.  Most of you have never heard of it until now, of course.)  It translates into more visibility for the award, more participation, more works proposed, more slated.

This is not the end of the Hugos. It is the rebirth.

Let us not rally the old guard to protect it from the future.  Let us celebrate it.