Let the sunshine in

As a result of attacks posted on Mike Glyer's web site, File 770 - the Pravda of the left-wing asshole science fiction establishment - I have reactivated this blog as a forum for people who want to call out this son of a bitch for his constant torrent of lies and abuse. We hope this will become a place for decent people to discuss how literary science fiction can be rescued from being the left-wing political sounding board it has become.

A plague on both their houses

In rare moments of quiet contemplation, I recall how a year ago my every day was assaulted by an ongoing outpouring of hate from David Gerrold, directed towards myself and the other Hugo finalists who did not meet with his approval.

He had a repetitious tirade which boilerplated a litany that began with something like "Can you tell me why these stories should be considered the equivalent of..." and then he'd run through a list of the same famous stories and novels - the same list day after day after day.

I think he went back and deleted those dozens of posts. Doesn't matter - I'll never forget what he did.

This year he doesn't seem to be spewing The Daily Big Lie. Of course, he isn't the presenter at the ceremony this year.

I had trouble last year explaining to normal people - like my wife - how a person designated as master of ceremonies of an awards event was daily posting vicious diatribes against people who were allegedly finalists for the same award. My wife simply did not believe me, or my prediction that not only would I not probably win in the categories I was nominated in, but Gerrold and his coterie would probably not present the award rather than give it to people they didn't like.

Imagine if, for the four months preceding an Academy Awards ceremony, the master of ceremonies was allowed to viciously attack - on an ongoing, daily basis - some of the Oscar contenders.

I sat through the atrocity of the Hugo ceremony in person, while my wife watched it on live streaming at home - until she turned it off in disgust. When I got home, I said "I'm sorry you had to see that, but now you know what assholes these people are."

She believes me now.

This year, the Sad Puppies took the high road and stuck strictly to a list of reading recommendations. Vox Day got his minions to screw up the ballot - this time on purpose. I'm chuckling from the sidelines. I hope both sides wipe each other out.

On constructive criticism

The news that Lois Tilton has resigned from reviewing for Locus reminds me to mention my personal theory about constructive criticism:

There's no such thing.

Criticism is criticism - it's always some kind of fault-finding, and it's always personal, because some person did or created what you are criticizing.

The fact it's so common doesn't mean its helpful or even useful.

I've always felt criticism should be an internal process; rather than just lazily blurt out the problem you see, analyze the problem, and then offer a solution.

That's called advice.

The criticism is implicit in the advice, but when you're at least trying to be helpful, the subject can skate past the fault-finding and go straight to improvement.

Many people also criticize others for things which are really matters of personal taste. If you go on a date, and you order chocolate ice cream for dessert, and your date asks for strawberry, you don't jump up and shout:

"You're a complete idiot! How can you like strawberry ice cream! What a sorry little asshole you are!"

Of course, those of you who follow science fiction these days know most criticism sounds like this. That kind of reaction is the product of privilege, from people with a very limited world view who have grown up never hearing anyone disagree with them because of their political, social or financial privilege.

Last year most of the criticism of Hugo nominated works was done in bad faith from people who simply deep down don't like the fact the authors existed at all. The fact they weren't aware or couldn't acknowledge their preconceived biases is immaterial.

Most of the reviews of my short story "On a Spiritual Plain" boiled down to "The premise sucks, and it's a weak story, and it's badly written, and Lou Antonelli is a miserable human being, anyhow."

Occasionally I was surprised by some genuinely thoughtful reviews. Any author worth his salt will recognize VALID criticisms. For example, saying a story of mine relies too much on dialogue and first person narration is valid; I lean on that a lot, and it indicates a weakness in my writing skills.

But IMHO, overall most so-called constructive criticism I hear simply reminds me (having been raised a Catholic) of original sin. Deep down, we're all sinners, and it's something we all have to fight constantly - to do good and help people, and improve the world.

Constructive criticism is usually just a justification for hatefulness.

The Year in Review in the rear view mirror

Back on Dec. 31 I posted a short Year in Review on my blog, This Way to Texas and my Facebook page, which mostly consisted of reviewing what a miserable year it was for us financially, with a paragraph at the end noting how much the Hugo nomination hurt.

Mike Glyer, the Lavrenty Beria of the s-f establishment (look it up), pulled out that last part and posted it his web site, File 770. I didn’t get savaged too badly, but I thought I’d run through a few of the comments:

The original post on File 770 on Jan. 2:

(13) YEAR IN REVIEW. Like on that game show, Lou Antonelli delivers the answer in the form of a question: ”2015? The Year in Review?” at This Way to Texas.

“And then, what I would have thought would be be a great thing, being nominated for the Hugo award twice, turned out to be the worst thing that ever happened in my life. But it helped me realize that, in the end, I really only write for myself and friends, and in literature – as in other things in life – trying to please other people is the fast track to misery.”

Teresa Nielsen Hayden immediately said:
“I doubt this is true or even possible, and if it is, it’s certainly not undeserved; but Antonelli doesn’t hesitate to baste himself in self-pity. He got two Hugo nominations, lo how he suffers!

To which Hampus Eckerman replied:
“I actually believe this might be how he feels and I see absolutely no reason to denigrate a person for feeling miserable, regardless of if it might have been deserved or not. Antonelli is human and it must have been a terrible situation for him where badly miscalculated the reactions of the Worldcon fandom and also managed to create a horrible PR catastrophes right before which severely damaged his reputation. I guess he now feels that his career has been damaged, possibly with no chance of recuperation and it is absolutely something he is allowed to feel miserable about.

RedWombat followed up::
“He’s certainly allowed to feel miserable, and in isolation, the blog post does nothing to indicate how much responsibility he feels for that….miscalculation.
“In…ah…gestalt, I’d be surprised if he took any responsibility for his part in it, but I suppose he could surprise me. I do hope his next year is better–regardless of how much of an ass he’s been, financial instability sucks. But I wouldn’t be human if I didn’t give his commentary a little bit of a side-eye, considering.

Teresa Nielsen Hayden comes back:
“Hampus, I’d feel more sympathetic if I hadn’t watched Antonelli and the other Pups repeatedly go way out of their way to misinterpret friendly-to-neutral fannish input as further evidence of their martyrdom. They insist on it, even when doing so requires that they flat-out contradict known and easily checked facts.
“When people work that hard to embrace that unlikely a conclusion, I start doubting that it hurts, or that they don’t want to reach it.

Lexica then said:
“If getting nominated for two Hugos and not winning is the worst thing that’s happened to Lou Antonelli, I envy him.

Hampus Eckerman replied:
“Here is the thing. I’m as much as for smacking down on bad behaviour as anyone else. But this was a post from Antonelli on a very bad year that cost both him and his wife financially. It was also a post that did not attack anyone else.
“It was a post about the Hugos without lashing out. Without putting blame on others. A post only about how the experience left him feeling miserable. And I think it is ok to write those posts without getting snarky comments back.
“If it had been the usual puppy nonsense with attacking absolutely everyone else, yes, then snark would have been appropriate. But I don’t like attacking people when they’re down.

Then McJulie weighs in:
“If Mr. Antonelli is going through hard times money or healthwise, I’m sorry for his troubles. But if he wants sympathy because he just feels really bad now about the fact that his former bad actions have led him to a worse place in his life… I’m not willing to grant that.
---

Of course, I didn’t reply to any of this on File 770. One thing I certainly learned last year is never comment or reply on a forum you don’t moderate. John C. Wright made some comments on that same day’s posting and got the usual savaging. The people who comment on File 770 are generally the worst people on the internet – not the s-f world, the internet, period.

So here are my comments by way of a follow-up:

Teresa Nielsen Hayden seems to think getting even a Hugo nomination is a big deal. Well, maybe once, but not anymore, and certainly not after 2015. Vox Day is in the process of destroying the award, and Nielsen Hayden and her chums are cooperating magnificently. I respected and admired the award once, also, but the way things are preceding, I doubt it will be around along much longer, and its respectability is already destroyed.
So, yes, catching a lot of shit over a worthless award was the worst thing that happened in my life, especially when you factor in my disappointment.

Hampus Eckerman seemed to embrace a small flicker of humanity in that pixeled cesspool, and “got it”. I’m impressed.

Finally, I made my original comments simply as s statement of fact, certainly not looking for sympathy. Don’t ever go on the internet looking for sympathy.

Special Announcement for All SF/F Fans from Dave Truesdale of Tangent Online

Dave Truesdale discusses the upcoming Sad Puppies 4 recommended reading list and process at the Tangent Online 2015 Recommended Reading list, which you can find here:

Otherwise, I have cut and pasted his excellent post below:

---

If you are a science fiction or fantasy fan and are looking for a place to let others know what you think is Hugo Award worthy from 2015, now you have such a place.

Sad Puppies 4 is helmed this year by Kate Paulk, with able assistance from Amanda Green and Sarah A. Hoyt. As many groups and individual fans do every year, they will be posting a list of suggestions, possible recommendations for the Hugo Award in each of its numerous categories.

What makes it special this year is that the recommendations will come from anyone who chooses to visit the Sad Puppies 4 web page and enters a recommendation. It's that simple. Read a great short story or novel this year? Follow a terrific tv show or have seen a fantastic movie? All you need to do to share your favorite choices is to enter your recommendations at the SP4 web page, which you can find here.

Sad Puppies was the name given to a small group of fans four years ago who had become disgruntled after seeing many of the same names on the final Hugo ballot, year after year. It was spearheaded that first year by SF author Larry Correia, who decided to put forth a list of authors and works he believed were being overlooked. He recused himself from being recommended or being nominated. No one was obligated to vote for any author or work on his recommended list, but he found that he was not the only fan grumbling about the general sameness of the final Hugo ballot (grumbling about this aspect of the Hugo awards had been going on for many years, it should be noted).

A handful of names kept cropping up for several years (in one category or another) and though fans continued to grumble (conventions, blogs, etc.) nothing ever seemed to change, so Larry Correia decided it was time for a wake up call. Thus, Sad Puppies was born. As one might imagine, it raised hell among those satisfied with the status quo (those voters obviously liked those who kept winning awards, and why not?).

I won't recount every detail of the back and forth since then (it would take forever), but the situation came to a head last year with Sad Puppies 3. One side saw nothing wrong with the way things were working in regards to the Hugo award nominating process, while the other side tried to get fresh names on the ballot while at the same time increasing the voting base. Encouraging more fans to get involved was a core goal, for from either lack of interest or lack of knowledge many fans weren't participating in either the nominating or final ballot voting; thus, all it took for some categories to produce a winner was decided by a miniscule 40-50 votes out of (in some cases) only a few hundred (depending on the category).

To nominate or vote on the Hugo awards one must be a paid member. That's how it works and is fine. What has been troubling is that many fans, paid members of any given worldcon, had no idea they could nominate or vote. A positive side-effect of the Sad Puppy “movement” is that now awareness has been raised and many more eligible voters, SF fans of all stripe, are actively participating. That in itself is a Good Thing. Fresh perspectives, new fan involvement in their own awards, and a more representative slice of “fandom.” And possibly different (and hopefully worthy) names on the final Hugo ballots. Or maybe not. Maybe all of these fresh new voters would cast their ballots for the names they'd already seen on the ballot many times in recent years, because they liked what or who they saw, affirming the prior voters' choices as the best. After all, it's well known that short story writers or novelists “get on a roll” for any number of years and produce some of their finest work in spurts lasting years.

So why not recognize their achievements for several years in a row? That's only fair in my book. Point being is that there would be no guarantee how fans would cast their ballots, but at least there would be a larger number involved and participating in the process.

Sad Puppies 2 & 3 also produced a list of recommendations, though the selection process, frankly, left a lot to be desired. They were not open to the public (the fans) but selected by one or two (or maybe a few more) individuals. And add to the mix that a certain individual not affiliated with Sad Puppies and with a decidedly different (and purposely destructive) agenda co-opted the name and changed the first word from “Sad” to something similarly associated with the canine species, placing some of the same recommendations on his list, and it was low-hanging fruit for those siding against the Sad Puppy list to merge the two, trying to smear Sad Puppies with posts and personal views the unwelcome outsider had made or espoused. And thus the sides became even more divided into what became more a fight over social and political ideologies (fiction where social or political ideology—message fiction—was taking over many of the Hugo awards voted on by a relative few; and SF/F where story came first and any “message,” political or otherwise, came second) than what the original, core purpose was to have been: increasing awareness of overlooked authors whose work was well written and well received by readers (in a few cases for years or decades), but who were not getting their just due.

The nasty intrusion of politics led to the Hugo awards being blown to hell and back last year, with a certain faction gaining enough votes to cast NO AWARD for any category in which a Sad Puppy nomination had made the final ballot. Thus, in several important categories (regardless of how many innocent final nominees were hurt by the tactic), no Hugo award was presented in more categories than ever in the history of the awards. What a shame. Were the illustrious fan awards, the Hugos, broken beyond repair? What, if anything, could be done to avoid a repeat at 2016's Worldcon, MidAmericon II and its Hugo Awards, to be held in Kansas City, MO for the second time, and the first since the groundbreaking worldcon it held in 1976, affectionately dubbed BigMac?

Sad Puppies 4 has taken a giant step forward to insure that the original, core, at-the-bottom-of-it-all purpose now buried beneath all of the nasty politics—that of increasing SF/F fan interest and perhaps, just maybe, seeing a few overlooked authors getting a shot at a Hugo—is once more front and center. Kate Paulk and crew have opened the doors wide this year. Any fan may cast their recommendation for anything or anyone. You don't have to pay for a membership, you don't have to be a member of a publication where only critics or reviewers provide suggestions or recommendations for further reading (Locus or Tangent Online, for instance)—or a possible Hugo nomination. Regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, age, or political persuasion the Sad Puppy 4 website is open to all. Again, it can be found here, where you will find a drop down menu in the lower right corner of the Sad Puppies IV banner/title. Clicking on it will show all the available categories in which you may enter a recommendation.

To provide proper perspective on just what fans are casting their recommendations for, it is not for a final ballot Hugo nomination. That step in the process is way down the road. The SP4 final recommendation list will simply provide (once the votes are tabulated) a list of the top 10 vote getters in each category which will then be placed on a large recommendation list for possible consideration for those paid members of worldcon who can actually cast a valid nomination for the Hugo. There is no guarantee that anything on the final SP4 list of recommended works will even end up on the final 2016 Hugo ballot. But it is a start. It will hopefully get more fans involved who believed they had no voice in the Hugos at any stage in the process. If this effort sparks individual interest maybe some will spring for a worldcon membership for the first time in their lives, and eventually become more involved in some aspect of fandom beyond reading or watching it (and be eligible to actually vote on the Hugos—we all had to start sometime as neofans, remember? So maybe this will lead to a few more fans who catch the fanac [fan activity] bug and who will, in time, become the new blood every organization needs, replenishing the ranks of fandom as older fans bow out or pass away. This cycle of fannish renewal is a Good Thing).

I think there is reason to be optimistic this year. There have been calls from both sides for fans to vote for the best work, and not a specific work or author purely on grounds of the work's or author's political viewpoint. Outspoken anti-puppy proponent of last year, past SFWA President and multiple award winning author John Scalzi, stated recently on his blog that he was removing himself for any 2016 award consideration, and asked his many followers to give other worthy writers the spotlight this year. This is also what Sad Puppies are seeking and have made abundantly clear.

Scalzi writes on his blog: “I’ve decided I’d like to sit out the year, awards-wise.” And further along, “But for work that was put out in 2015, please look past me. Find the other writers whose work deserves the spotlight you can put on them with your attention, nomination and vote. Find the works that move your heart and your mind. Find the writers whose work you love and who you feel a nomination can help in their careers and their lives. Look past your usual suspects — including me! — and find someone new to you whose stories and effort you can champion to others. Put those people and works on your ballots. 2015 has been a genuinely great year for science fiction and fantasy; it won’t be difficult to find deserving work and people for your consideration.” —John Scalzi, from a blogpost dated November 18, 2015.

George R. R. Martin (GRRM)—another outspoken and highly influential critic against last year's SP3 efforts—finds hope after viewing the SP4 growing recommendation list this year, when he writes on his blog: “Call me naive. Call me an innocent. Call me too trusting by half, too nice a guy to see how things really are... but, really, I am starting to have some hope. All over the internet, people are already talking about the Hugo Awards, making recommendations, discussing the work... the WORK, the things we love, the stuff that unites us instead of the stuff that divides us. I've been trying to do my part, here on my Not A Blog, and will continue to do so.”

 And further on, returning from viewing the SP4 recommendation page, George writes: “As of a few minutes ago, there were 159 'thoughts' in the Best Novel section, which suggests a healthy level of participation. And, I am pleased to say, almost all of what follows seems to be honest and enthusiastic discussion of the work.” George continues a bit later with, “...people are recommending books. A very wide range of books. Sure, new works by familiar Puppy favorites like Larry Correia, Mike Williamson, and John C. Wright are being recommended (no surprise there)... but so are works by Neal Stephenson, James S.A. Corey, Naomi Novik, Victor Milan, Terry Pratchett, S.M. Stirling, Ian Tregillis, Ernie Cline, Elizabeth Bear, Gene Wolfe, Michael Moorcock, Orson Scott Card, Greg Bear, Kate Elliott, and many others... including the latest Marko Kloos, and... wonder of wonder... novels from N.K. Jemisin and Anne Leckie!

"There are some really good names on that list. Some really good books. (And many I have not read yet, but will look up now). And there's an amazing range of literary styles, subgenres, and... yes... political and religious views. And all this is to the good.” And to wrap up George's comments we have: “For decades now, LOCUS and NESFA and other fan groups have produced reading lists at year's end, long lists generated by recommendations from their editors/ members/ etc. If at the end of this process, Sad Puppies 4 puts forth a similar list, one that has room for BOTH Larry Correia and Anne Leckie, I don't think anyone could possibly object. I won't, certainly. A list like that would not be a slate, and the whole "slate voting" thing will become moot.

“And that would be great. That would mean no Puppygate II. That would mean a spirited literary debate about writers and books without the acrimony and the name-calling. From that debate a truly democratic and diverse ballot could emerge, one that represents all tastes. That would mean no 'No Awards' at Big MAC II, and the Hugo ceremony could once again become a joyous celebration of the best and brightest in our field.” —George R. R. Martin, from his blog post of December 24, 2015, the full text of which is here, and the title of this particular blog entry is “Puppies at Christmas” for those wishing to read the complete post."

Though I appreciate and agree with George's comments, I would like to make a fine distinction, a clarification if you will, concerning something he wrote. To wit: “If at the end of this process, Sad Puppies 4 puts forth a similar list, one that has room for BOTH Larry Correia and Anne Leckie, I don't think anyone could possibly object.” In truth, Sad Puppies 4 will have no say, or control, on what makes their list—the fans who contribute and participate will define what makes the list. It will be up to the fans, not SP4, for SP4 merely provides the means for the fans to speak and be heard. The final list will reflect the views of the fans—and no one else.

All of that said, and with outspoken SP critics John Scalzi and George R. R. Martin either calling for fresh names on the final Hugo ballot, or observing (cautiously) that, so far, the SP4 plan seems to be working quite well, there will always be those on both sides of the issue who wish to dwell on the past, who continue to stoke the flames of discord by posting inflammatory pieces on the internet, or who troll the internet looking for individual posts against whatever side they are on, and then collecting them on their own websites to somehow show how idiotic the other side is, and then purposely misinterpreting or distorting what was originally said—and then attempting to label one side or the other as indicative of the entire opposition based on their own spin on what someone else said with which they disagree. Well, as we all know, anyone can find anything on the internet supporting or disagreeing with any side of any issue.

It's easy to do. For those who do so, I would call into question your true motives for doing so. Are you of the opinion that only “trufans” (in large measure, those fans who have been involved with fandom for a long time, or who run conventions, or are otherwise involved) as some have narrowly defined them, are somehow privileged, and thus their opinions count more than those of other fans who enjoy fandom on their own terms? That including these not-trufans (new fans, or “neofans,” those attending their first convention, or worldcon or who have otherwise found SF fandom for the first time through film or magazines or tv or any other entry point) would be harmful to fandom? Please to remember that each and every one of us was at one time a raw, stumbling neofan just happy and grinning from ear to ear to have found other friends of like mind—and try to recall how we were treated by more experienced fans. In my case I was welcomed with open arms. Those who believe in the narrow and self-serving definition of “trufan” might wish to revisit their roots, and then begin to welcome any and all to the ranks of science fiction fandom. It's not a closed club for those who believe they are of some privileged elite class simply because they've been involved in SF fandom long enough to receive a gold watch. That attitude is insular, elitist, and divisive, and dishonors one of fandom's finest, most cherished, and longest-standing traditions—that of a large tent and a welcome-to-the-party drink and metaphorical hug.

In closing:

1: Sad Puppies 4 welcomes anyone to their recommendation page. It is non-partisan and a-political. It is aligned with no other group and stands steadfastly in opposition to any individual or group trading off of its name or logo.

2: The Sad Puppies 4 recommendation list is but a preliminary list of suggestions and recommendations from fans from all walks of life who choose to participate. Any work or author ending up on the list is guaranteed nothing, for it will be paid, voting members of worldcon whose votes select all final Hugo nominees.

3: The final Sad Puppies 4 list of recommendations will consist of 10 recommendations in each category. That is quite a large pool of suggested reading or viewing for the interested SF/F fan, but serves the purpose of providing exposure to new, or unknown authors or their work. If nothing on the SP4 2015 recommended list is to your liking and your favorite author or work is not in the top 10 (and you are a paid worldcon member eligible to vote), then by all means nominate your own favorites when MidAmericon II opens the doors to Hugo nominations in the near future. No one is bound by any recommendation on the SP4 list. This seems obvious, but needed to be said.

4: The Sad Puppies 4 nominating and final selection process will be open and above-board on all counts. Though stated on the SP4 website, I asked Kate Paulk about the number of selections in each category, to which she replied (and with permission to quote): “I'll be posting the top 10 in each category, and linking to the full list—which will contain every recommendation made.”

With the SP4 format and process now explained, I quote again from George R. R. Martin:

“If at the end of this process, Sad Puppies 4 puts forth a similar list, one that has room for BOTH Larry Correia and Anne Leckie, I don't think anyone could possibly object.”

Who indeed?

---

If you would like to go the Sad Puppies 4 Recommended Reading list, here you go:

Phosphors on Parade: Welcome to the madhouse

On Dec. 28, I posted a link of my Facebook page to the File 666 republication of Kate Paulk’s letter where she emailed the Director of Programming for MidAmericon II, next year's WorldCon in Kansas City, suggesting panels on the subject of the Sad Puppies be included in new year’s programming.

This led to an extremely long and healthy discussion thread, which I have edited and copied below. Along the way Paulk, as well as Sad Puppy 3 leader Brad Torgersen, jumped in, as well as the many other people, including Kevin Standlee, who chaired the WorldCon business meeting, and many other people who got involved one way or another, voluntarily or involuntarily.

People jumped in from both sides. Darrell Schweitzer and Ed Dravecky were among the most prominent Puppy skeptics.

Here is what I have boiled the thread down into, 12.566 words:

---

Chery Clark: And she will either get the thanks but no thanks response or crickets.

Bryan Thomas Schmidt: I know these chairs and they say Sad Puppies are welcome along with anyone else. If she is respectful in her letter, she will not have problems. I have had numerous direct discusions with them about this issue. I also know the programming people. Don't assume. These are not the asshats who ran Sasquan.

Louis Antonelli” Last year was the first time I ever went to Conquest in Kansas City, and I enjoyed it immensely. The convention was well-run and the people wonderful. If there is any overlap between the two conventions, I'm sure things will be fine.

Bryan Thomas Schmidt: There is a lot of overlap.

Louis Antonelli: Great to hear.

Julie Doornbos: Very good to hear. I will be cautiously optimistic.

James L Young:  Louis--Last year was my first Conquest as well. I will likely return as a guest again this year depending on what else is cooking.

Nicki Kenyon: The puppy kickers will come out in droves questioning her motives or twisting her words.

Robert Dean: I worry that either the people that should be attending, won't, or they'll attend to heckle instead of listen.

Michael A Rothman I should point out and we should constantly remind ourselves that if we don't want the nomination method to change, we need to represent that in Midamericon II next year or the way nominations work will be turned on its head. They changed the rules for 2017, but only if ratified in WorldCon 2016. Whether it was changed for the better or for the worse, I'll leave to you to decide. I'm just noting this for the record that the change isn't set in stone yet, but more soft-set in jello at the moment.

Joseph Crouse: Any way you change the rules they can be gamed. This stack of nerds can mess with it anyway we wish because we understand math

Wendy Delmater Thies: The sad fact is that if you do not want the method of voting to change, you'll need scores of SP4 people at the business meeting. They take up three hours every single morning, and you have to go to them to keep things from getting voted on in your absence. I did it at Sasquan. It's a HUGE time commitment. NOTE: If you are a panelist and want to go to the business meetings, you should not allow them to schedule any ANY panels for you in the morning.

Michael A Rothman: Agreed Wendy. However I will say that the gentleman that ran the business meeting did it in an exemplary fashion. I run these kinds of meetings for standards organizations that dwarf WorldCon and I have a basis for such an opinion. Kevin Standlee did a fantastic job and I told him so privately. He ran the business meeting like a professional, so I'll at least credit him for that. He did it fairly even squelching within a nanosecond the first mention on the podium of Vox or puppies. His comment being something akin to not bringing up members or issues that aren't relevant to business discussion.

Kevin Standlee: To be fair, it required another member raising a point of order (that I sustained) regarding the particular matter to which you refer. I'm not perfect; sometimes I can get so wrapped up in looking at individual branches on the tree that I forget that I'm supposed to be a forest ranger.

Michael A Rothman: Kevin, my intent was to say that I think you did your job as ranger admirably. Even though I see myself as a partisan, I thought you ran the meeting fairly.

Kevin Standlee: Thank you. That was my intention. I wanted everyone in that meeting, regardless of whether he or she "won," to come away thinking that the process was administered fairly, openly, and even-handedly. That some people win and some people lose is the essence of a democracy, and the ability to be a good loser is a key part of being a member of a free, democratic society.

(Remember, I personally lost on a matter that I've been talking about for most of the past ten years and into which I invested a fair bit of my own political capital. I was unable to persuade a majority of the members participating that my proposal was the right course for WSFS. It was disappointing, but it didn't leave me griping that the process was broken.)

Ed Dravecky III: She thinks voting was dwindling to single digits? Not a great way to have a proposal taken seriously.

Patrick Richardson: Given that prior to the puppies voting was down to a couple hundred -- yeah, it's possible. Also, Kate, didn't actually think that. Ed, I don't know you, but Ryk, you're a writer, you should know about hyperbole used to make a point.

Ed Dravecky III: Hyperbole is a terrible way to convince anybody that calm fact-based presentation is your primary goal.

Patrick Richardson: Given the "facts" which have been presented by the Puppy-kickers from the beginning, what assurances does Kate have that there will be anything resembling "calm" from her critics, let alone facts?

Louis Antonelli: It's a new year and a new convention, and we're on the far side of the embarrassing Hugo ceremony. People have had time to think.

Patrick Richardson: That's true. The problem is the puppy-kickers have started in _before_ we've even put forth suggestions. It's clear no "calm" discussion is going to be possible.

Ed Dravecky III: Yes, and loaded terms like "puppy-kickers" aren't contributing to the calm either. If you want serious discussion then you have to show you're serious. Hyperbole and insults only confirm current opinions.

Louis Antonelli: I don't know, the radicals on both side - Vox Day versus Steve Davidson - don't seem to have learned anything, but from what I see a lot of people piped down after the Hugo  Awards. Their side won, and in a way that made them seem like bullies. Loading the nominations was a mistake, but then denying any award to a lot of worthy people was also a mistake. Two wrongs don't make a right, but it does make things even.

Patrick Richardson: I calls 'em, like I sees 'em. Vox ain't high on my list of favorite people, but idiots like Davidson gave him EXACTLY what he wanted. Moreover, the puppies weren't the ones calling people "racist, sexist, homophobes" _in national publications_.Oh, and we tried to have a serious conversation from the beginning _three years ago_ and were met with insult, derision and ridicule. Not to mention _literal_ libel. We've shown ourselves willing. Your turn.

Tully D. Roberts: She was clearly talking about the future trend. A bit of hyperbole, to be sure, but it's not an outrageous statement considering that there have been times in the last decade pre-Puppies when it was possible to get on the ballot in some categories with fewer than 20 nominating votes. Which isn't single digits, but sure is getting down there.

Ed Dravecky III: Prove you're better by rising above. Be the adult in the room. Leave the name-calling to children.

Patrick Richardson: Yeah, because _that's_ worked so well in the past with people who see any attempt to remain reasoned and calm and compromise as weakness to be attacked.

Tully D. Roberts: Ed, you're not doing a good job of making your case when you lead off with an intentional misrepresentation of what Ms. Paulk actually said.

Luis M Milan Leal: Hyperbole only makes this discussion a million, billion times more

Patrick Richardson: Tell that to the kickers. We're perfectly willing to have a reasoned, fact-based discussion. Just as soon as they stop calling us VILE names.

Ed Dravecky III: You want adult conversation? Act like an adult. If you can't, don't be surprised when you're not treated like one.

Patrick Richardson: Entertainment Weekly ran a hit piece so vile they had to take it down within a matter of hours to prevent lawsuits.

Ed Dravecky III: "But he started it!" is the defense of a child. If that's all you've got as a reason to prolong the childish behavior, good luck being taken seriously.

Patrick Richardson: Ed, if we stopped firing back today, it would be seen as weakness and the attacks would escalate. Given that, why should we bother?

Wendy Delmater Thies: Ed, "Puppy Kickers" has the advantage of calling out their behavior, not attacking the persons but the actions. It was and is preferable to demonizing human beings.

Tully D. Roberts: In 2008 Mary Robinette Kowal made the Campbell ballot on 17 nominations, and won. That's not a healthy nominating pool.

Ed Dravecky III: Nominating and voting are not the same thing. The actual voting data exists for all to see. It was not trending toward single digits.

Larry Mitchell: The absolute best thing is that the hugo and other awards get as many voters as possible. Anything that does this is a good

Luis M Milan Leal: She (Tor Editor Irene Gallo) did group both Sads and Rabids when she called all of them racists, homophobes and misogynists. What she did was really reproachable and she deserves all of the scorn she's received for what she wrote.

Larry Mitchell; Iit was beyond the pale and that her and others at TOR have that attitude indicates a certain institutional bias

Larry Mitchell: Tully D. Roberts - I bet you the author of Empress Theresa could get more than 17 nominations. This is not something that should be considered a good thing

Seamus Curran: Considering the nominations for some categories was down to double digits.

Larry Mitchell: Yep, just not enough for quality. Sure that eventual award winner may be quality but a rating pool that small ...

Tully D. Roberts: Very LOW double-digits. And Ed wants to nitpick that nominating is not voting, yet the Puppies stand accused of bloc-voting for simply nominating, and the evidence shows that in the final balloting the SP'rs did not bloc vote, whereas the No Award crowd obviously did.  Ed would prefer to drag us off into the weeds on technical minutiae while avoiding the actual point, as he does not want to discuss the point. Classic goalpost-shifting and distraction.

Ed Dravecky III: No, Tully, you accused me of misinterpretation and I demonstrated that I did not. That you want to twist this beyond that by pretending that words don't mean things is hilarious and sad. I think they call your behavior "projection" but I'm not a doctor.

Kevin Standlee: Patrick Richardson - "Prior to the puppies voting was down to a couple hundred" is not a factually correct statement, unless you define "Prior to the puppies voting," to be sometime in the 1960s, in which case it's technically correct.

Kate Paulk I don't have access to the data back to the 1960s or I might have drawn a different conclusion from it. As things stand, the conclusion I drew from the data on the Hugo site was that *at best* voting and nominating ballots were more or less stable at somewhere around 1000. Decline seemed more likely to me from the data I could view. After the Sad Puppies campaigns started, numbers shot up and more than doubled in three years, not including 2015. That does suggest a need to involve more people in the nomination and voting processes - the more voters and nominators the more difficult it becomes for any faction to game the awards no matter what the award rules are.

Cheryl Clark: Ed Dravecky III - then you may want to tell that to George RR Martin that already is starting the name calling. And as one that is not a puppy but a fan of many that got cheated out of awards by the no award I find the Hugo's to be a joke.  I read every word she (Irene Gallo) wrote and no she never made the distinction of the two. She lumped any fan that liked the authors in question in within the same group. I may not have been a puppy then but in honesty I just might be one now.

Ed Dravecky III: Then be the better person. Don't use a child's excuse to perpetuate name-calling. Be the adult in the room.

Richard D. Cartwright: Mr. Dravecky, you seem hung up our names. Sometimes names are shorthand. I use "puppy kicker" as shorthand for "elitist, censoring, disingenuous, dishonorable person who pursues an agenda that I believe hurts the SF&F genre." If you think another word is better, then please advise. Lest you attempt to dismiss the above as "name calling ", they are all documentable behaviors by persons on your side of the issue.

Sanford Begley: Why is it that the pups are asked to be adult and behave with decorum while the chorfs are encouraged to be foul and insulting?

Ed Dravecky III:  Sanford: it's the hypocrisy of complaining about name-calling while actively engaged in name-calling. All this "chorf" and "puppy-kicker" nonsense paints you as childish, not to be taken seriously. I'd ask everybody in this to be adults, not just one side or another.

Steve Barish: I don't recall asking anyone to stop name calling. I do recall stating pretty forcefully that libel is generally a Bad Thing for people in publishing to be engaged in. I also have issues with people who declare themselves to be the Shining Example of Tolerance...but only on their terms and only if you agree with them or only if you are "the adult in the room..." Bullshit. A group of people who GRRM has labeled the Trufans has repeatedly accused me, someone who spends my hard earned cash on the product base that keeps them enjoyed, of being a racist, a misogynist, of being a scientific illiterate, and has made allegations about those things being my motivation in joining the SP movement. You don't like "puppy-kicker" Mr. Dravecky. Fine. I submit "intolerant assholes" instead.

Patrick Richardson: Ed Dravecky III - You ask us to be better than the name calling, fair enough, I am awaiting a commitment from your side to refrain as well? *crickets* ah, what I thought.

Cheryl Clark: Ed Dravecky III, I haven't done any name calling. Yet those that outright attacked Brad did exactly that, name call and worse. Lol I am so outside the so-called labels that were used last year. 

Richard Hartman E.D.3 -- what name would you prefer that we use for the side that explicitly represents repressing new voices and has resorted to libelous tactics? "Puppy-kickers" is a tame, but still accurate, handle. But go ahead, tell us your preferred appellation.

Ed Dravecky III:  Patrick - you'd ask me to make promises for a big group of people I mostly don't know while you can't even make that promise about yourself? Huh.

Patrick Richardson: You asked me to make the same promise Ed, you asked us to refrain from name calling. Given some of the names I've been called during this mess "puppy-kicker" is pretty mild. Not my fault your side has sand in their bits.

Ed Dravecky III No, Patrick, I asked you to be an adult. I never asked you to make commitments for others. I'm a firm believer in individual responsibility, not ceding control of my actions or beliefs to any bloc or group. If you're more comfortable letting people you claim to oppose dictate your beliefs and behaviors then, well, that's on you.

Patrick Richardson: Ed, I am an adult. Adults do not allow others to bully them without response. Since physically tracking down and punching every bully in the nose is prohibitively expensive, (and would get me arrested) I must respond in the only way left to me. I suppose I could ignore the CHORFS like yourself, but that is ceding the field which I -- along with many others -- am unwilling to do. But you just keep projecting, I'm sure it works well for you.

Ed Dravecky III: Violent fantasies and poor impulse control? You must be fun at parties.

Michael A Rothman: Ultimately - it depends on who reads that note as to how it is received. Comments like "the Sad Puppies want to save the Hugo Awards from irrelevance" will not warm the cockles of anyone's heart and will likely get knee-jerk reactions from devote old-guard fans. I can predict the retort, "Even if it went back to just a vote of a few hundred, that is all that matters. Adding the opinions of people who aren't real fans in our sense of the definition is meaningless." Toss in some racist homophobic slurs about SP and you get the picture.

Kate Paulk: And yet, thanks to the Sad Puppy campaigns more people know the Hugo Awards exist now than did 5 years ago. More people know the Hugo Awards are (self-styled according to their website) the most prestigious awards in science fiction. When SF is practically mainstream (look at the widespread popularity of Star Wars and Star Trek, not to mention the 70k plus attendance at DragonCon (which is not the largest SF convention) compared to an all time high number of voters below 6000? That's not the most prestigious award in science fiction. It's borderline irrelevant. How many years is it since award winning and nominated books proudly listed their awards or nominations? When the publishers don't bother to put that information on the covers, it's irrelevant. I haven't seen "Hugo Award Winner" on the cover of books I know won. Either those books don't sell fast enough that the copies are sitting in the bookstores long enough to still be there years after their Hugo award (unlikely) or the publisher doesn't care enough to mention it. A voting of a few hundred old-guard fans isn't a prestigious genre award, it's (pardon the crude imagery: I'm Australian) a circle-jerk.

Michael A Rothman: Agreed Kate. It's actually marketing. The Oscars aren't much different - except they are a closed voting circle and representative of a small subset of the actual consumers. Yet nonetheless, there is prestige given to such things.

Kate Paulk: If they do nothing for sales, and they're only prestigious within a very small community, they're irrelevant. If there are people who use the Hugo Awards as a "what not to buy" guideline (which I've heard from multiple sources), they're worse than irrelevant. Awards that have honored the likes of Heinlein, Asimov, and so on do not deserve that fate.

Michael A Rothman: I'd assert the awards of late have been awarded to dubious targets. Certainly the nominees have been a bit bizarre at times. (The Dinosaur one comes to mind). But I also recognize the differences in taste. I cannot fathom why people think Leckie's stories are so awe-inspiring and amazing. I tried reading it and was bored to tears after the first 100 pages and gave up. My son did the same. Evidently, after 200 pages the action kicks into gear. Bah humbug I say. But, nonetheless - it's supposed to be amazing, yet not my cup of tea (more like arsenic). It makes me realize that the voting group is very different than my tastes. I'd rather not believe that they do it out of gimmicks like race of author or gender preference or strange all-female pronouns etc.... I've seen that people in the voting group sometimes aren't voting for the best comfy story - but something new and different.  I suppose that's an approach, but I'm sorry - new and different aren't always good things. Sometimes things seem new and different because others have tried it and learned that it sucks and they never do it again. Then again, I'd never have predicted dinosaur porn, yet there it is.

Kate Paulk: Personally, I found Leckie's works workmanlike with clunky prose (not including the pronoun games) and faulty cuing. Nothing particularly offensive, but nothing extraordinary, either. The pronoun thing... meh. Others have done it better, including Asimov and LeGuin. It certainly wasn't as revolutionary as claimed. I suspect the old-guard voting group is suffering from a variant of killer mailbox syndrome - when you've hit your fourth killer mailbox story in a row, you never want to see another one again. In this case, they've been around and been dedicated fans for so long they've seen practically everything the genre has to offer, with the result that something magnificent which fits into genre norms and looks effortless will "feel" old-hat while something that breaks all the rules (even if it's badly written) will "feel" fresh and new. That's one of the other reasons a large voting base is a good thing.

Michael A Rothman: Yes - that's always been my argument. Wider voting base can NEVER be bad.

Chris Wilson: Kate, agreed with you on Leckie. I wasn't all that impressed, but I knew why the in-crowd loved it.

Kate Paulk: This is why the primary goal of Sad Puppies 4 is to widen the voting base. That particular fact has a tendency to get lost in all the other things that are said about the Sad Puppies.

Michael A Rothman: I'll further note that I've talked at length with both sides. Probably more than any sane person should. I can tell you that an SP panel is doomed from the start. Why? Simple, this is an ideological/religious thing. Not in the liberal/conservative sense, nope. OldGuard/Upstarts (SP). Any argument put forth that says what has been is wrong will be met with derision. A very reasonable argument can be made that says X winners of the past Y years have generally stunk, and it is for Z reasons. Well, they can just as easily say that they disagree on all points - and there isn't a definitive right or wrong metric. Just like with the Ghostbusters switchover to all 4 females. Some might say that's a message (dog whistle?). Others might say, having it previously as four men was a message. There's no right or wrong for this topic, it is purely subjective. If the old guard would be reasonable and comprehend that there can be difference of opinion on subjective matters and not reduce it to name calling, it would be a better place, but many in the crowd that largely encompasses the Old Guard is incapable it seems to see that both sides have a valid argument or at least a valid perception. Is there an answer? Who knows. I just find that the Old Guard has not comported themselves in a manner that is indicative of being receptive to any discussion on SP that doesn't devolve into name calling and personal attacks.

Ed Dravecky III: That discussion here went right to calling people "puppy-kickers" shows that personal attacks and name-calling is a problem for both so-called sides.

Michael A Rothman: Ed, puppy-kickers isn't in the same vein of name-calling that nazi or racist is. It is in fact a truism. Those who'd rather kick the so-called puppies to the curb.  Last I checked, none of the SP side had resorted to those type of tactics.

Ed Dravecky III: Name-calling is name-calling, even if you're down to making up your own words (CHORFs, for example).

Rick Ewald: Out of curiosity Ed how many times does a guy like Brad Torgersen have to called a racist before he gets to call them on their bullshit?  Once that threshold has been reached what term should he be allowed to use?

Michael A Rothman: On the whole Brad/racist thing - the one thing of the whole SP back and forth that probably pissed me off more than anything was the accusation that Brad used his family as a shield. I thought that was utterly infuriating.

Edward Foy: Funny thing about that. Brad Torgersen kept saying he was being accused of racism, misogyny AND homophobia. He would defend himself against the first two vociferously, then maintain silence on the third claim.

Michael A Rothman: One shouldn't have to defend themselves about accusations unless they're founded in some type of something called proof. Where has he made racist misogynistic or homophobic remarks? Enough said.

Edward Foy: If someone announces that they've been called a wifebeater, an embezzler, and an arsonist, and point to evidence that nullifies the first two charges yet elides the third; I'm gonna ask about the arson.

Michael A Rothman: Show me that exchange and I'll comment - otherwise this is all hypothetical. And let's be realistic. Anytime anyone is accused of a thought crime - there's no way to defend yourself that won't be turned back on the person. I could be accused of racism, and say that I have black friends, which would of course be laughed at as apocryphal and such. Now if you caught me in the act of denigrating someone because they were purple-skinned or bald or whathaveyou - then you could have an argument. An accusation without a basis in proof is hot air, nothing more. Show me Brad's actions that were homophobic. His choosing not to even give lip service to a baseless accusation isn't proof of anything other than your predisposition for believing something (if you're the accuser).

Larry Mitchell: Both Larry and Brad has asked for proof that they has been any of these. All I saw was the accusations and not any prof whatsoever. Put up or shut up

Rick Ewald: Brad did address the homophobic charge. As I recall his answer may not have been to the SJW party line, it was not homophobic IMHO. Of course the people making the charge are going to continue to call him that until he moves to West Hollywood and leads the gay pride parade wearing ass-less chaps.

Michael A Rothman: Rick Ewald No, then he'd just be using that action as a ruse to try to defend against his real homophobia.

Larry Mitchell: He would need to marry a man to stop it but I would expect that they would say that was a shield as well

Michael A Rothman: Exactly.... can't win such ridiculous things. Just give them the middle finger.

Rick Ewald: Not to mention then he would be a racist for divorcing his wife of color.  That's some catch that catch 22.

Brad Torgersen: Ed Dravecky - I was personally called a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a nazi, and a liar. All of this is false, and it was screamed at me (at high decibel level) using media outlets, blogs, etc. I had to threaten Entertainment Weekly with libel, to get them to fact-check their own hit piece; which they then sloppily redacted. Because, lo and behold, their hit piece contained no facts. Whoopsie! Meanwhile, people on the other side seem mortally hurt by an acronym that accurately describes both their behavior and their reactions to the Sad Puppies. Boo hoo hoo.

Larry Mitchell: “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” - Mark Twain. Ed, really you should fact check these things before mindless repeating them. It speaks ill of you

Brad Torgersen: ^ That was precisely my experience. And to paraphrase a line from an old movie, lies were told about me, by people who find it easy to lie. Some of them are even paid experts at it.

Larry Mitchell “Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth - Marcus Aurelius. And that quote from Mark Twain is also attributes to Winston Churchill

William Scott Lahna: Facts are irrelevant.

Cynthia Tish Groller: As part of the "Old Guard" I have a real problem with World Con in general after the very distasteful A** hole award and the overall OKing the behavior of utter disrespect towards the Hugo's and nominees. I am sorry that they did not have the good sense to realize that there are Humans who have dedicated their lives to Fandom and deserved better. After 30 years of working within World Cons I will never dirty myself with them again, nor waste my money to attend one.

Ed Dravecky III: It's almost as if the writer wants the proposal rejected to further a victimhood narrative.

Richard D. Cartwright: Ed, see that's your problem. We don't frack with victimhood narratives. We see problems and fix them. No matter how long it takes. Because hiding in ghett... I mean "safe spaces" solves nothing

Michael A. Armstrong: This statement is incredibly naive. Also, funny. ""I understand there are those who believe that the motives of the Sad Puppies supporters are to destroy the Hugo Awards. Nothing could be further from the truth: the Sad Puppies want to save the Hugo Awards.”

Cynthia Tish Groller: I attended the Spokane Hugo ceremony, with one of the nominees, it was absolutely heart breaking.... While I would love to see the "Integrity" returned and on many levels I agree that it has become "stacked".

Kevin Standlee: Participation in the Hugo Awards was increasing before the Puppy campaigns began. Cherry-picking numbers doesn't make the result true. There is a reasonable expectation that the rate of growth in participation would have increased at roughly the rate it had been growing without the Puppy campaign. And as near as I can make it out, most of the growth in participation has come from people who are not particularly enthusiastic with many stated goals of the various Puppies. Nonetheless, I suppose we have to be grateful for the increase in income. It has helped us fund a project on which we've been wanting to work for some years now, which was the registration of the WSFS service marks in the EU. (This process is now under way, funded by donations from Sasquan the 73rd World Science Fiction Convention, LoneStarCon 3, and David J Lally.) I expect that most people are unaware of this, but each Worldcon is a completely legally and financially independent organization, and the World Science Fiction Society's only permanent entity does not have any direct call on Worldcon funds. Like the original government of the USA, it can merely ask for funds; it cannot demand them. Fortunately, Sasquan was quite generous, even though they were not required to be.

Kate Paulk: Kevin, the data that's available on the Hugo site shows that between Sad Puppies 1 and Sad Puppies 3 the number of ballots cast more than doubled, compared to the much more modest year-to-year increases shown for the previous 3 years

Kevin Standlee: You're not going far enough back to realize where the trend was. My statement was that we were having slow but steady year-over-year increases, and that we would expect to see such increased to have continued regardless of any Pupply campaign.

Kate Paulk: I did not have that data available to me. The furthest back I found on the Hugo website was 2008. Right now I don't have time to look into the link you've provided (thank you, BTW) - I've got it flagged to come back to.

Kevin Standlee: People have been digging up details and sending them to me. I've updated the Hugo Awards web site where I could, and also have updated my LiveJournal post where I posted the data from above so I would be less likely to lose track of it. The gist of the data is that from 1999-2007, the number of people nominating each year ranged from the mid 400s to the low 700s, with what looks to me like random noise in the figures. After WSFS set up a Marketing Committee and started trying to emphasize the Hugo Awards more, and after the introduction of the Hugo Voter Packet (which, it must always be pointed out, is not guaranteed and might be dropped at any time, because it depends on the goodwill of the publishers and the time investment of the administering Worldcon), nominating increased to over 1000 for the first time in the history of the Worldcon, _before_ any Puppy Campaigns started.  What we do not know (and almost certainly will not be able to determine) is what percentage of the eligible members at the time participated. Most past Worldcons did not keep sufficiently detailed figures of memberships as of given dates (most importantly for this discussion, the Hugo nominating deadline), and if they did, the figures are long lost. Also, the eligible electorate has been expanding over time, as WSFS extended the nominating electorate first to the previous year's members, and then to the following year's members. While the gross number of people nominating is going up, it's actually possible that the percentage of eligible members participating is going _down_ or holding steady.

Kate Paulk: Thank you for this extra information, Kevin. It's going to be a while before I get to really look at your data: my PC chose this afternoon to die on my and I'm on the backup system right now (and missing all my shortcuts, preferred apps, and just about everything, alas). I *will* dig into it, and I will make my conclusions public regardless of what they are. Regardless, that 400 - 700 figure is far from healthy, and whatever has caused it to increase steadily in the last few years is a good thing. My goal with Sad Puppies 4 is to increase the number of people voting and nominating because I believe the Hugo Award becomes much more healthy that way.

Kevin Standlee: Kate - What I want to know is "How many nominators would be sufficient? 2,000? 10,000? 50,000? 1 Million? The Hugo Awards are not a poll of every single person in the world who has consumed SF/F popular-culture entertainment. They are a poll generated by the members of a club called the World Science Fiction Society. Generally speaking, somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-30% of members of that club have been participating in that poll. I'm of the opinion that there are people out there who think that somehow the Hugo Awards belong to ever consumer of SF/F pop-culture entertainment. This is not true. Now if someone wants to actually create such an award, they are of course welcome to do so. I'm surely not going to stop them. But I suspect that anyone setting out to create such an award will discover that it's a lot harder than they think it is.

Dave R Mann: ^ then stop saying it is Science Fiction's most prestigious fan voted award. Say it is the "club award" of the WSFS. Right up front, not in the small print.

Seamus Curran: Kevin Standlee  - Given how much the population has increased since the Hugos started the numbers of Nominations being up to the last 5 or so years stagnant is worrying as hell. The high point seems to have been the 1980 though given the nature of worldcon the actual numbers move around alot.

Eric M. Snodgrass: A large number of them really don't like open discussion. Anywhere. Chu has even openly called for making site owners potentially liable for posts on their fora.

Michael A Rothman: Let's face it, Chu who is an idiot-savant of trivia, is totally clueless about the law. He's actually pathetic IMHO and is milking whatever he can out of his singular accomplishment in life. However, you're right. Open discussion isn't that Old Guard's forte it seems. And I say that only through observation of the last year or so. I've had rather good discussions with folks privately - but in the groupthink arena, not a chance.

Eric M. Snodgrass: He's calling for a change in the law, a chilling one. Groupthink is at the core of PC, which is why they save their strongest ire for those who disagree with them on a few points rather than all. Individual discussion can and does make progress, as long as they don't disown it when the clique can hear.

Michael A Rothman: Let me note for the record, I admire Kate for trying, but alas I think it is tilting at windmills in the end.

Brian Smith: I still haven't decided if I'm going to bother making the short drive from Wichita to KC for Worldcon. San Antonio was such a massive disappointment, that I'm not sure it is worth spending my time and money on.

Michael A Rothman: Brian, I'm curious - why did San Antonio disappoint? I just want to compare notes and see if I experienced the same in Spokane.

Brian Smith: At the time, I hadn't been to any other cons except for a small local one. When you grow up in the middle of Kansas, there aren't exactly a lot of opportunities if you have geeky interests. I'd heard for years about how awesome Worldcons were, especially in some of Niven's and Pournelle's anthology books. When I got there, I found that almost everyone was at least 20-30 years older than me. Which is the exact opposite of how things were at the local con I went to. I was one of the older folks at that one. There was a ton of discussion about events at previous cons and the con circuit in general. I kept hearing stuff like, "Well at the 1989, NASFIC..." Seemed like a lot of people were more into organizing con bids than SF and Fantasy. The dealers room was fairly small, just a small section of the convention hall with tables of used books and some t-shirt stands. I also expected more fun stuff. For example, at Planet Comicon the past couple of years, there was something for everyone. Gaming, costumes, comics, books, tv, movies, etc. It also drew a huge crowd. Worldcon felt like a a run down museum crossed with a used book flea market and academic seminar. It was like hanging out at a retirement home where people would reminisce about the glory days of decades past. This was during Sad Puppies I, so that bullshit wasn't nearly as pronounced as it probably was in Spokane, but I did get the feeling that I wouldn't exactly get along with most of the attendees from a political perspective. There were some exceptions. I did enjoy the Sigma panels put on by Arlan Andrews, and Taylor Anderson had some good gun related stuff on the panels he was on. Overall though, I could tell there was a general vibe to the crowd. It would also creep into the panels as well. I went to one about costuming that immediately got sidetracked into SJW land. I just wanted to hear something about costume making, and they immediately swerved off into talking about people getting harassed and feeling unsafe. One of them even used the phrase "take back the night" for fucks sake. That was in the middle of Texas too, I can only imagine it was much worse in London or Spokane.

Michael A Rothman: Brian - your description confirms what I somewhat feared. I think Fandom (Old Guard) is too wrapped up in as you said, the glory days. And that's fine for them - since I believe many of these people are much more devoted to attending these things than I had ever even thought.  In Spokane, I'd say that the majority of the attendees in the awards ceremony had been there 20 or more times. Some of them 40 or more. It's a culture that is very tight, and one in which you can easily get a vibe that you're an outsider.  Is it its own clique? Sure it is. Is that bad? Not necessarily. Yes, the demographic is most certainly older in general, with many of the attendees being quite a bit older than me - oftentimes by at least a decade or two (and I'm on the near end of 50). I'm sure they don't see themselves as a clique, nor do they see themselves as bullies. We oftentimes don't see ourselves in the way others do. That's just the way it is. Like my kids said, they'd much rather attend a ComicCon than a WorldCon simply because there's more fun stuff there. The panels at WorldCon were "okay" and I'll be truthful and say I spent more of my time talking with Jagi and her husband along with a few editors and authors I knew than anything else. I personally didn't see the attraction other than the awards ceremony which was an utter FAIL for oh so many reasons.

Brian Smith: The panels aren't necessarily the problem. I actually like some of the more academic topics, and I'd rather go to something like that than a huge mega panel with actors from a popular tv show. However, there needs to be some balance. Lighten things up a bit. I'd love to attend a lecture from a NASA astronaut while also sitting next to someone that is dressed like Boba Fett. That's why I'm really looking forward to going to Dragoncon for the first time next year. From what I've read, it has panels and events for every interest under the sun.

Michael A Rothman Well, all I can say at this last WorldCon, I actually volunteered to be on a panel for science and technology. Let's just say I'm qualified by anyone's rational definition. I wasn't chosen, and so be it. But the folks that were chosen - well, it was fascinating. I'll say this much - I'd never even hire those people as interns.

Ted Nelson: I've only made it to one DragonCon, and it was awesome. WorldCon needs to just declare themselves a private club and quit trying to lie to everyone that they want the public there. It's pretty obvious that they don't.

Dan Poore: Brian, if you've not been to really big cons you may get a bit of a shock at D*C, which I've attended all but one year since 1997 (and that exception only because of a scheduling conflict, not a lack of desire). IIRC that first year I went was a bit below 50K people, and this year's was north of 70K. (I dunno how "north", because I think they were fudging the numbers on the low side to keep the Atlanta Fire Marshal from having a stroke and shutting everything down. tongue emoticon ) That said, it does indeed have panels and events " for every interest under the sun." Just be aware that even if you don't attend the Sat AM parade, you will actually be "under the sun" for at least part of your travel, with 4 hotels hosting con stuff. Bring sunblock and water, or at least a hat.

Brian Smith: The biggest one I've been to was Planet Comicon in KC. I think attendance was somewhere around 40k for the weekend, so maybe half the size of Dragoncon. It was all in one big convention center though, not spread out among the hotels.

Kevin Standlee: Ted Nelson - What, in your mind, is the distinction between a "private club" to which any person in the world may join by paying the organization's membership dues and an event where "they want the public there?" D*C and some of the other events mentioned in this thread are for-profit organizations who, in effect, sell tickets to an entertainment event for market-driven reasons. Worldcon is a non-profit organization that is set up to sell memberships and organize event that its own members want to have. If you don't like how a Worldcon is run, nobody is stopping you from bidding for one, and if you can convince a majority of those people voting on where to hold the Worldcon two years hence that you are the bid for them, then you get to run things your way, subject to some not-particularly-onerous requirements of the WSFS Constitution. The members of Worldcon select where to hold Worldcon and who gets to run it. It's not a gate show run by an entertainment conglomerate whose primary purpose is to run bodies through a turnstile. In my opinion, there is room enough in the world for both types of event.

Michael A Rothman: Kevin Standee - Welcome to the madhouse, Kevin. Somewhere buried in this thread, I actually brought your name up as a shining light (business meeting). Regarding your comment above - you're right. However, I'd assert just like any other proposition, there would be an almost insurmountable headwind for any significant changes - and truthfully, I'm not sure that a change is necessary in rules - because the rules seem fine. I think we have some personalities that are very opposed to not throwing poo (on both sides). Now personally, I see the poo coming more from one side than the other, but I admit that I am likely biased.

Ted Nelson: Re change via business meetings, that sounds as useful as voting republican in Chicago.

Sanford Begley: Kevin Standlee - I do believe that in most organizations that are not cliqueish and run by the worst members publicly insulting and calling those who disagree with you is frowned upon. Come to think of it taking a crap on dues paying members of a percentage large enough to be of more than minor significance is also not done. And the whole movement to disenfranchise anyone not a member of the junta is also considered gauche. Oh and dishonoring honest people who are doing their best by stating any award they won is bogus and giving them plaques signifying them as assholes is also frowned upon. This puppy supporter isn't someone you have to worry about any more. After last time I think I will avoid the septic tank that is the "Truefen" membership.

Michael A Rothman: In defense of the folks running WorldCon itself (who Kevin is at least involved in) - they at least publicly kept themselves fairly cordial. I know I was treated well by the Sasquan folks once they figured out who I was - but there are lots of strong personalities (usually the most vocal) who are members with long standing in the general population who are at best abrasive and at worst, abusive. That's a shame. And it is those people who inevitably make it unpleasant for others.Sanford - on the asshole award, I wholeheartedly agree that is was a despicable move. In horrible taste. And those who organized that should be ashamed. Yet - there are those who thought it was good-natured fun and not intended as an insult (wink-wink).... So be it.

Sanford Begley: Anyone who had anything to do with the Chorfholes has nothing clean about them, no matter how they tried to pretend they were above such things

Michael A Rothman: Very few other than the guest of honor have claimed paternity to that award. But even then there's lots of finger pointing.

Sanford Begley: Claimed it no, been party to it, yes. For that matter not stepping in and putting a stop to it was pretty scummy

Michael A Rothman: I've been privy to e-mails from the inside Sanford. There was lots of confusion on those awards, who started it, where they came from, what the deal was. So blaming anyone or claiming who was involved - it's murky at best. Most reasonable people on both sides think the award was in horrible taste despite the veneer of being a method to raise money. It was a shitty thing to do.

Dan Poore While the asterisks were definitely a crappy thing to do regardless of who was/wasn't involved, that's not the only issue with the presentation in August (see DG's "fuck you" skits, f'rex).

Michael A Rothman: Dan, there's a big chasm between poor taste or "would I have done the same thing?" And something that is wrong. I wouldn't expect staff to cry foul on the choices of the guest of honor, even though I likely hold the same general opinions as you do.

Sanford Begley: Funny, the outsider Puppies had all heard of what was coming before they were passed out. It seems odd that those directly involved had no clue

Michael A Rothman: That it was happening sure, on who's direction? Picture lots of people in a room pointing at each other. That's what the insider emails were like. Pointless to even wonder.

Sanford Begley: Yep "I didn't do it" is a very common figure in such groups

Cynthia Tish Groller: Dan Poore - There has always been "the select honored" in Fandom they have existed since the beginning they do not cotton to change of any kind, but they do pull the strings. As for WSFS, I can skip attending a meeting for 5 years come back and the same "issues" will still be there, they are truly their own worst enemy... They should belong to the Senate or Congress they accomplish about the same amount of success.

Kevin Standlee: Sanford Begley - "And the whole movement to disenfranchise anyone not a member of the junta is also considered gauche." Would you care to explain what you mean here? There was a proposal -- I co-authored it -- that would have expanded the electorate to ratify changes to the WSFS Constitution to all members, not just those attending the Business Meeting. It failed; however, it could not be legitimately be described as "disenfranchising" anyone given that the same people were eligible to vote at the end as at the beginning.

Sanford Begley: So there were no votes passed at Spokeane that were directly aimed at destroying the Puppies? If you claim that you lose credibility. We watched them trying to craft this rule change.

Michael A Rothman: Sanford, there was absolutely no mention of puppies in the business meetings. I was there for the whole thing. That doesn't mean there weren't proposals brought forward by members that were related to nomination strategies (E Pluribus). But that's the way WSFS works - anyone can propose anything.

Kevin Standlee: Sanford Begley - Define what you mean by "destroy the Puppies." As Michael A Rothman just said, any two members of WSFS can propose anything they want to propose. They do have to convince a majority of the members (in two consecutive years) that their ideas are good ones. That's how democracy works.

Sanford Begley: And pass anything apparently. All we want is reasonable control means we want to confiscate. They don't have to state in the meeting what they are doing or why

Michael A Rothman: Things pass or fail in the main meeting or not at all. So not sure what you mean. And yes, motivation is usually part of the discussion and there are opportunities for people to speak for and against. Like Kevin said, democracy. The only puppy related discussion had to do with slate voting and coming up with means of limiting the effect of such. That's what the E Pluribus was about.

Cynthia Tish Groller: with a 2 min time limit ; )

Kevin Standlee: I do see the smiley, but there's a serious point there. 1. Debate time limits vary and are not always two minutes. 2. The rules for setting debate time limits are themselves open and accessible and can be changed. 3. There is a principle of democracy that a strong majority (>2/3) has the right to not have its time wasted, and thus has the right to limit and close debate. If you're referring to the two-minute limit on debate on the motion to Postpone Indefinitely: note that until last year, there was no debate allowed at all on the equivalent motion (Objection to Consideration). I'm one of the co-authors of the change that allowed for limited debate on the motion to quash new proposals upon their initial introduction.

Cynthia Tish Groller: Understood, I have sat many a meeting over the years.... and have seen the long winded as well as those who cannot pose their thoughts on a time limit. I understand the procedure and why it is used.

Seamus Curran: Dan Poore, the whole prehugo panel they had was despicable.

Darrell Schweitzer: Sad Puppies are well on their way to being the SF equivalent of the Harold Stassen presidential campaign, i.e. an annual joke. It is time to disband any movement and just nominate and vote for what you like.

Sanford Begley: I assume from that statement you are a chorf and know you are losing

Darrell Schweitzer I am not involved enough to be either winning or losing, but I think the Puppies are roadkill. What we saw last time was an overwhelming rejection of them and their agenda. When you talk to fans less informed of the ideology behind it, it becomes clear that this was mostly a response to the sheer awfulness of the material nominated. For instance, the Philadelphia Science Fiction Society's Hugo predictions panel was made up of people who had to have the term "Sad Puppies" explained to them. Their reaction to the material was overwhelmingly negative. They voted for No Award even more extensively than the actual Hugo voters did. It swept all the fiction categories except novel,which went to THE DRAGON EMPEROR, and almost everything else. "Worst in Show" went to one of the graphic novels. I think the closest comparison is to what happened when the Scientologists got Hubbard's BLACK GENESIS on the ballot. This forced people to actually read it, after which there was no hope of victory. It finished 6th in the field of five, below No Award. It's over. The Puppies will be flattened again this year. And do you really think the fans in Helsinki are going to care about this?

Sanford Begley: Sounds like the cry of the frightened chorf to me. Certainly not like a disinterested party

Darrell Schweitzer: Not afraid of anything. I describe what I see. The Puppies are like Confederates in 1866 muttering "The South will rise again." They will drift to the edges of fan culture and be forgotten. I am still not totally sure what a chorf is.

Michael A. Armstrong: Cliquish, Holier-than-thou, Obnoxious, Reactionary, Fanatics. Brad Torgerson made it up. https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/.../chorf-its-a.../

David Burkhead:  When your "opposition" gives you advice, you need to question whether it's for your benefit, or his. Is there any particular reason to believe Mr. Schweitzer actually has the Puppy supporters' best interests at heart?

Michael A. Armstrong David B., step back and look at the result of the Sad Puppy effort to get certain works on the Hugo ballot. Good news! It worked. Bad news! None of the nominees won and in most cases No Award was the winner. This would suggest that future efforts would meet with similar results. Sherman has marched through Atlanta and the war is over.

David Burkhead: And in so doing proved _everything_ Larry, and later Brad, had to say about the self-selected group that largely dominated the Hugos. And the beauty of it is that they are so immured in groupthink that they don't recognize it as they keep doubling down. Sherman isn't the model you're looking cor. Pyrrus is.

Michael A. Armstrong: And to go all Saul Alinksy on ya, let's suppose one wants to encourage sf of a certain flavor to win awards. How do you do that? You don't try something again that failed miserably. If I wanted sf of a certain flavor to get more attention, I would work to support those kinds of writers. I would start writers groups and workshops. I would start magazines and book publishers, and not obscure presses. I would write fiction so awesome and cool that even Tor would buy it. Write great sf. That's how you win awards.

David Burkhead "Write great SF" you misspelled "write forgettable dreck that happens to fit the prejudices of the CHORFS that largely dominate through tiny, non-representative sample, that drives Hugo voting."

Darrell Schweitzer: If you want to know how to win a Hugo, capture an audience, as Niven or Willis or Resnick or any of the other notably successful writers in our field in recent years did it. It doesn't matter which publisher you sell it to as long as it is a major one. Sell books. Be in every Barnes & Noble in America. Hugo nominations require exposure. For fans, the thing to do to support the books you like by buying them. Talk them up, Write reviews. It has always been done this way and it will be done this way when the Puppies are an obscure episode of fan history only remembered by a few old-timers, akin to, say, Michelism. (That is an obscure fannish reference. Look it up.) Another thing to keep in mind is that fandom does not drive the book market, above the small press level. No movement in fandom can sell 100,000 copies. Ultimately there is a Darwinian selection at work. Either audiences want it or they don't. If they don't, it does not sell. If it does not sell, the Barnes & Noble computer spits it out and refuses to take orders for more copies or future titles.

Joseph Capdepon II: No movement in fandom can sell 100k copies? You don't know much do you? As for Barnes and Noble, they are dying, and are not the measuring stick one should use.

Eric McLaughlin "Barnes & Noble..." Bwahahahahaha! That's a good one! Wait, you were serious?!

Richard Hartman: Actually, any correlation between # books sold and hugo awards won is slight, or possibly even negative.

Darrell Schweitzer: A Hugo nomination requires exposure. This may be less true in the Internet age, when something can be sent around electronically, but to get an honest nomination, as opposed to a campaigned one, the work has to be generally available. Thus, a story published in a Postscripts anthology cannot make the ballot, regardless of quality, because it is only available in an expensive (about $40) and rather limited British hardcover. A novel, to be nominated, does not have to be a bestseller, but it has to be in stores or otherwise widely available so that readers can find it. In the old days the factors that determined a possible Hugo nomination for novels were a paperback or book club edition within the nominating year. (The only other factor could be serialization in a major magazine; this is vastly less important today. THEY'D RATHER BE RIGHT is a good example of a book that won a Hugo on the basis of the serial.) If the book was only available in a trade hardcover, it did not stand a chance. A classic example of last-minute exposure making the difference is with the 1969 winner, "Time Considered as a Helix of Semi-Precious Stones" by Samuel Delany. This story had been published only in NEW WORLDS, which by this point had a very tiny circulation and was not available in the US except for a few copies sold by F&SF Book Co. But the story was picked up for the Ace YEAR'S BEST anthology, which came out about April 1969. That made the story available enough to get a nomination, which otherwise never could have happened.

David Burkhead: "No movement in fandom can sell 100,000 copies". Thank you for demonstrating how irrelevant "fandom" is.

Eric Tank Time to just nominate and vote for what you like. So, exactly what the SP campaigns, plural, have been saying since they were started?  And the CHORFs did exactly what was predicted of them in response. And are bragging about how that means they won, and does NOT demonstrate their poor sportsmanship or unwillingness to be civil. Yup, sounds like you've got a keen eye for what happened there... Not.

Michael A. Armstrong: There's a logical fallacy in the SP strategy, though, which is why any such approach is ultimately doomed to fail. The SP idea is to promote a slate of works. If a small group nominates en masse, it can overcome the diluted effort of other people nominating for many works not on a slate. That's how the SPs and Rabid Puppies got so many works on last year's Hugo ballot. Hey, points to them for gaming the system. That approach won't work for voting for winners, though. All the opposition has to do is vote for either No Award or a single, non-SP work. That's what happened. The SPs won the battle but lost the war. As long as there's an opposition which right or wrong opposes the SP effort, the current strategy may succeed in getting many works on the ballot, but it won't result in winners. It will result in a stalemate.  I'm not sure what Ms. Paulk's plan is for SP4. If the idea is to somehow get an SP work to actually win, the current strategy isn't going to get you there.

Darrell Schweitzer: The Puppies did exactly what was predicted of them too. They got creamed in the voting and declared victory. I think you will find that fandom rapidly loses interest and moves on. "Chorf" is a babytalk word. It was clearly coined by someone who does not know what the term "reactionary" means. Do not use big words until you know what they mean.

Michael A. Armstrong: David, pardon me for presuming winning was the goal of campaigning in a contest where the prize is to win. Your ways are far too sophisticated for me.

David Burkhead: Let me guess. You haven't actually read anything that the SP supporters have had to say on the subject leading up to the various Sad Puppies campaigns relying instead on the misrepresentations of the screaming tantrums (exactly as Larry predicted.

Seamus Curran: Darrell Schweitzer - Bullshit. The validity of the arguement that the puppy slate lost b/c of poor qualitity went out the window the second they nuked the editor categories. Or are you going to tell me that Mike Resnick, Toni Weisskopf, Sheila Gilbert, etc are shit? Or for that matter that Jim Butcher is?

William Scott Lahna: Worldcon sounds like the worst way ever for a wrongfan to spend a weekend. If I wanted pointless hostility, rumors, accusations and related jackassery I'd go visit my family. No, thank you.

Dave Mundt: Wow....I used to be impressed with SF writers and Fandom. They always struck me as being stranger than the FSM, but, in general rather more intelligent than the average bear. The whole "Puppies" thing, and the actions generated against it seem to have all the intellectual and emotional maturity of a 5 year old!.

D Jason Fleming: To which the puppy-kickers would reply with some variation of the rubber and glue defense.

Brad Torgersen: After what they did at the Hugo ceremony, William, I think you're not far off the mark. Fandom (caps f) had a chance to be classy and magnanimous. They not only whiffed, they cheered themselves doing it too.

Eric M. Snodgrass: Sounded more like an extended fart than a whiff.

Dave Mundt: D Jason Fleming HA! well done! Even when I was 5, I thought that was nearly the stupidest attempt to deny and argument that I had ever heard!

Brian Allen: Hell of a thing. Instead of going to a pleasurable event, it's become a visit to hostile territory. On reflection, it's indicative of the ongoing Balkanisation of the media and genre events.

Michael A Rothman: There's something to be said about ComicCons. Less ideology and more commercial. But you know what? You don't get the weird bullshit we saw at WorldCon with the cliques etc. My kids now prefer ComicCon after having experiencing WorldCon and getting the middle finger from them. I don't blame them.

Eric M. Snodgrass: Don't be surprised if ComicCon and its ilk are next. PC is insidious. Most of its adherents probably rooted for the Borg.

Michael A Rothman: Sure there will be some - but realize that with ComicCon - it is a much wider tent. It is a commercial interest which cannot afford to alienate large segments - so they'll squash too much of the rabid side on either extreme. It should be somewhat like Disney World. Apolitical and a place truly of a genre and that is all. A nerd Disney World if you will.

Garland Noel Go to Gen Con.... It's a great time, and I've yet to encounter SJWs in any large number.

Brad Torgersen: Worldcon and WSFS are perhaps best explained via Pournelle's Iron Law.

Adrienne Foster: It would help Sad Puppies astronomically if it would put more effort into discrediting Vox Day. Most people don't see the difference the Sad and Rabid Puppies and Vox Day has been leading a crusade to destroy the Hugos.

Ted Nelson: Yes, I'm sure once everyone you object to is cut out, that they'd finally welcome us with open arms and minds.

Michael A Rothman: Adrienne, there shouldn't be a need to discredit anyone, period. Brad wrote quite a long and eloquent article on such. Brad nor anyone else is responsible for Vox and Vox will do whatever Vox does.

Michael A Rothman: Louis, did you expect so much activity on such a rather innocuous post?

Louis Antonelli: Unlike some other venues, I don't mind free and open discussion from people on both sides of an issue - so, yes.

Michael A Rothman: I'll say this much - it's been rather civilized, and I can appreciate that.

Ted Nelson: Everybody's even still got all their vowels!

Michael A Rothman: You're confusing this with the Nielsen-Hayden's site. No disemvoweling here.

Louis Antonelli: In moderating a discussion on my page, I think "What would they do at File 770?" - and then do the opposite.

Brian Smith: Hey this kind of thing is why I follow the various authors.

Michael A. Armstrong: I went to MidAmeriCon in 1976 and had a great time. Robert Heinlein was the Guest of Honor. Joe Haldeman won a Hugo for Forever War. This was a while ago. I know some of the Kansas City people involved. They're tried and true sf fans who trace their roots back to Wilson Bob Tucker. They're good people, especially Robin Bailey. If I can make the time, I'm going.

Everitt Mickey: Everyone needs a hobby I suppose. I think the Hugo's are irrelevant. They are the Anti Award. I can see sometime in the future an author putting a blurb on his book cover "NOT nominated for the Hugos"

Darrell Schweitzer :None of that will mean anything to the general reader who does not even know that organized fandom exists or that there are conventions. You must keep in mind that a book, to be successful on a commercial level, must sell to a lot more people than attend conventions. Get some perspective. Fandom is neither the tail nor the dog. It is not important enough. I am sure that at the higher levels of publishing, no one is paying the slightest attention to such controversies.

Joseph Capdepon II: Tell it to the Puppy Kickers.

Darrell Schweitzer: I am reminded of a story Chip Delany tells. About 1966 he was having lunch with an important Doubleday editor. (At this time, Doubleday was the major publisher of SF hardcovers.) He knew that Doubleday had rejected Zelazny's THIS IMMORTAL. Chip said, "That book just won a Hugo. Don't you think that maybe you missed something?" The editor said, "What's a Hugo?" Now that wouldn't happen like that today, but it is still true that pros, particularly publishing industry professionals, pay a lot less attention to awards and controversies than fans do.

David Burkhead: For a sufficiently narrow, and carefully tailored definition of "fan" (which definition makes it pretty much circular actually).

Joseph Capdepon II: "Now that wouldn't happen like that today, but it is still true that pros, particularly publishing industry professionals, pay a lot less attention to awards and controversies than fans do." Is that why some big shots at Tor started smearing others when they dared to try to get fans involved?

Kamas Kirian: Tor seems pretty invested in the Hugo. They splash references about it all over their blurbs

Darrell Schweitzer It's a deep dark secret that they let you in on when you become a pro -- it comes with the secret handshake -- that most fan controversies and fandom as a whole are irrelevant to publishing at a commercial level. This has always been the case. It was even so in the days of the pulps. If ASTOUNDING sold 100,000 copies in the 1930s, and there were maybe 200 active fans, the fans might fill up the letter columns but they could not influence sales much. Thus fans might have objected to the Ray Palmer AMAZING and even tried to get it banned from the mails (a resolution to this effect was brought up at the 1947 worldcon; the argument was that the Shaver mystery was dangerous to mental health), fandom had no impact whatsover and the magazine broke all circulation records. Today, for all most fans loathe THE SWORD OF SHANARRA, do you think this has had any impact on Terry Brooks's success? He's got a TV series now. The history of SF specialty publishing is littered with defunct firms that failed to grasp this awful truth. In the old days, fans were too few in number even to sustain a specialty press like Gnome Press or Arkham House, which had to sell a good deal of their books to libraries. David H. Keller was still a fan favorite in the late '40s, but of no interest to the more general reader. Attempts to do Keller hardcovers finished off three publishers and nearly sank Arkham House. (Ironically it was a loan from Keller which bailed them out, but the firm made its money selling Lovecraft and his colleagues, and also such new writers as Bradbury and Fritz Leiber.) The profound change over the last 40 years or so is that fandom has grown to the point that you CAN sell one or two thousand copies of some limited edition book at conventions, and not bother with conventional distribution, but on the level of big books, this will not matter. Something like my recent Fedogan & Bremer collection will sell out through fandom. But when you get into the land of six or seven figure advances, all that matters is whether or not the sales can earn that out.

Bob Cruze Jr.: There is a certain perspective in knowing that while those of us who are involved with fandom to one degree or another see this as some deep and multifaceted conflict over what may be the very soul of the genre, those on the outside see a bunch of nerds arguing over who gets to wear the Spock ears.

Seamus Curran: Kevin Standlee - Given how much the population has increased since the Hugos started the numbers of Nominations being up to the last 5 or so years stagnant is worrying as hell. The high point seems to have been the 1980 though given the nature of worldcon the actual numbers move around alot.

Kevin Standlee: I wouldn't be as worried as you are. The attendance of Worldcon has been very broadly stable ever since a huge surge in the late 1970s brought it up to the level where it is: roughly 5000 with a large variance.

Seamus Curran: My point is the Worldcon population as it were is relatively stable, given with large fluctuations for things like overseas conventions. It shouldn't be, the US population has grown, the world population has grown, but the WorldCon Population is stagnant.

Kevin Standlee: Okay, that's a different question entirely. There are structural reasons why Worldcons aren't much larger than they are. The convention is held in a different city every year. It is run by a completely separate organization every single year.  The conventions are legally and financially independent of each other every year. It is a completely volunteer-run event with no permanent staff. You seem to be suggesting that there should be >100,000 people attending Worldcon, like ComicCon in San Diego, or at least a high-five-figure attendance. Well, if the same group ran Worldcon every year, and held it in the same place (almost certainly a large American metropolitan area), and concentrated on growing the size of the convention, then it probably would grow like that. But as long as it keeps moving, it's not that likely to grow to be that large. (For example, the Australian Worldcons were much smaller; but notice that a year when Worldcon was very small, the participation was larger than usual in both absolute and percentage terms.) So on the average, it does not look to me as though the percentage of participation was changing that much. Very roughly, about 10-30% of the eligible electorate was participation each year.Analogy: Imagine that DragonCon in Atlanta dissolved its corporation after one year, and next year's DC was in London. Then Yokohama. Then Chicago. Then Montreal. Then Helsinki. Then Anaheim. Each year's event starts from scratch, with only a relatively small contribution of funds from its predecessor. (And if they lose money, they can't make it up next year because there isn't a next year.) And every year, it was a brand new convention, run by a different organization, with the only thing in common being the name. Do you really think it would be as large as it is now under those circumstances? In other words, you _can_ grow Worldcon significantly, but it would probably lose a lot of its justification in being called a "World" convention because it would never be anywhere but a single large American city. Currently, WSFS rules _force_ Worldcons to move around. (The site of the two-years-hence Worldcon must be at least 800 km/500 mi from the current Worldcon.) In other words, the people who attend Worldcon now and participate in its governance want the convention to move around and not take up root in a single location. They own the convention (technically, what the members own is the convention's intellectual property, i.e. the service mark on "Worldcon," "Hugo Award," etc.) and they can arrange things how they like. Anyone who wants to change it has to convince enough of the current members to want to change things. Democracy is a messy and difficult business.