Some Notable Highlights from Larry Correia’s Open Letter Regarding the Sad Puppies Sweep of the Hugos

The whole thing is worth taking the time to read, but I wanted to share a few choice bits:

Note, a lot of the anger this week is about how my people are wrongfan having wrongfun, and thus are bad and should be dismissed, blocked somehow, or excluded. That kind of talk only proves my original point that started this all, and really, it is that sort of asinine, outlandish accusations that caused more of the previously apathetic fans to shell out their $40 to get involved too.


We’re getting condemned for bringing politics into the awards, but we all know politics have been in the awards for a long time. We just did it openly.

I never expected us to sweep the awards. Frankly, I was shocked by the results. I didn’t realize just how many regular fans had been turned off for so long.


Do you know the biggest single reason SP3 got more fans involved than SP2? My guess is that it was after the other side moved the goal posts, and danced in the streets about our “humiliating defeat”, and called all those outsiders first time voters stupid homophobic racist sexists and other super gracious acts, and Hugo award winning former SFWA presidents take to Twitter to have all caps rants about how my people are motivated by hate and racism, you shouldn’t be shocked when my people are increasingly motivated.


I don’t want the Nielsen Hayden’s throne of skulls. It doesn’t look very comfy to sit in.


(RE:)-The Hugos belong to a select few
My, how the tune has changed in just a few years. I loved when Teresa Nielsen Hayden proclaimed that, because when I said the same thing several years ago, I was a lair.

Think about this carefully moderates and SMOFs, the Hugos are either:

1. The most prestigious award in genre fiction that represents the best of all of fandom
2. An award for the favorites for one small group of people at one small convention.

You can’t have both.


Honestly, last year Fandom (capital F) insulted hundreds of outsider fans’ taste and intelligence, called them names, and basically treated them like trash (while the majority kept their mouths shut at best, or gave tacit approval at worst) and now you’re shocked when Vox Day has appealed directly to those people you mocked to vote in a manner that especially pisses you off?


There were like 2,000 total nominations. If it had been a GamerGate plot there would have been 20,000 nominations, and they would spammed it across the internet and had a great laugh about it.
Oh, quick note moderates and SMOFs, if you don’t want GamerGate to get involved in the Hugos, don’t blame me. Tell your Social Justice idiots to shut up on Twitter! TNH(Teresa Tielsen Hayden) is the one invoking and provoking them, not me.

Brianna Wu—who is despised by hundreds of thousands of gamers as an opportunistic vulture—took to Twitter after the nominations were announced, blaming GamerGate for ruining the Hugos, and then she tweeted about how the awards were precious and sacred to her because her husband has 4 Hugos. That is like waving the red cape in front of the bull.


But yeah, No Award a bunch of obviously worthy creators over politics and brag about it on the internet in advance. If I truly wanted to destroy the Hugos credibility to all but one tiny, insular little group of fans, that’s exactly what I’d do.

To me, the most shocking revelation is that barely over 2000 nominating ballots were submitted for what I thought was the biggest and most prestigious award in Science Fiction.  Really? That few people are voting for who is the Best of the Best in a system with relatively open voting?  No wonder these people are terrified: they are afraid that it will be revealed that not only are they in the minority of fandom, they are an insignificant part of it.  The worst thing that could happen to them would be even a few hundred fans of Science Fiction standing up and saying “I disagree”; the success of Sad Puppies showed just how weak their hold over things like the Hugo Awards is and they are at DefCon 1 over this.


7 responses to “Some Notable Highlights from Larry Correia’s Open Letter Regarding the Sad Puppies Sweep of the Hugos

  1. “Think about this carefully moderates and SMOFs, the Hugos are either:

    1. The most prestigious award in genre fiction that represents the best of all of fandom
    2. An award for the favorites for one small group of people at one small convention.

    You can’t have both.”

    Of course now it is *neither* and almost certainly will never be *1* again. We have the ideologically cooked choice of a medium sized group of internet conspiracy theorists. Great job! 🙂

    • To me, what would be nice would be greater all around involvement. I seriously had no idea before this how small the voting body for the Hugos were. This year actually set a record for most nominating ballots submitted at a mere 2100-ish.

      The one part that makes me squint my eyes with apprehension is the number of John C. Wright nominations across the board. I’m not familiar with his work, so I’m perfectly willing to snub him across the board if I find out that I simply can’t stomach his writing. More than anything, I’m just excited that I’m getting a packet with lots of new stuff I’ve never read or heard of. I’m woefully behind the times on my SF/F reading.

      This is one of those cases where attacks against and lies told about a group has made me more sympathetic to the group than the group itself would’ve in a vacuum. Frankly, my tastes in reading actually fall kind of on the progressive side of science-fiction & fantasy, but when you have headlines that are all “Racist group of sexists seek to exclude all women from award” when several women (including a self proclaimed LGBT socialist woman) WERE nominated because they WERE on the slate, I’m inclined to think that something is desperately wrong and while maybe the Rebel Alliance are a bunch of terrorists, the Empire is going around blowing up entire planets…

      • I can only think of one John C. Wright story I’ve read — in an anthology of tributes to Jack Vance. It was ok — like many of the stories in the collection it was deliberately imitative of Vance, and it made me want to read more Vance rather than Wright. The only other thing I know about Wright is his strenuously anti-gay, anti-liberal, anti-whatever-he-doesn’t-think-his-church-likes blog, and that is enough of a turn-off to make me not want to buy any of his books. He can’t be a completely terrible writer though if he can write a decent homage to Vance. I think his fan base is partly composed of those who share his ideology, and probably nominated him for that reason. But I don’t know. I think George RR Martin’s blog on the whole thing ( is pretty spot-on. Whatever the intentions of Corriea, and the intentions of the supporters of the slate, and the composition of the slate, it looks like the “Sad puppy” team would rather there be no Hugo awards in the future (or: no Hugo awards anyone can take seriously) than have awards go to stuff they don’t like.

      • I have read some of his blog stuff, and found him somewhat disagreeable, to be sure. Larry, Brad & Sarah I’ve found to be more affable. But as for “Hugo awards anyone can take seriously”, that ship may have already sailed; I suggest you read “If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love”, if you have not. I’m not sure what else was up for short fiction, but it’s kind of like if the “What What (In the Butt)” guy had won Best New Artist at the Grammys.

    • Case-in-point: I’m actually probably the sort of writer that would fall into the “turning sci-fi and fantasy into progressive gender-screed” camp. I mean, I never plan on publishing it, but I wrote a novel entirely around the concept of how a character would deal with the body horror and self-loathing of being magically gender reversed ala the Tomb of Horrors/2e wild mage wildsurge random results table.

  2. Yeah in all fairness I have not read last years nominees either. I guess part of the problem is lack of clarity about what the problem is with the awards — is it that they have been awarded to undeserving works/writers, or that the nominations are discriminating against certain authors on the basis of political views, or that they are discriminating in favor of certain works for ideological reasons, etc. The online discussion is so vitriolic it’s hard to enter from the sidelines.

    • I think the argument is for something of a combination: because the voting pool has been so small and cliquish in the past, inferior works by a small number of an in-group of writers with similar views get promoted as “best of the best”. Despite being pushed by conservative and libertarian authors, the Puppies slate has a wider range of politics (and ethnicity & gender) than the award has had in previous years.

      And yeah, there’s been a LOT of vitriol. It took me weeks to figure out why there was so much hatred going on.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s