The United States of Rachael Does Not Negotiate With Terrorists 6

So this year’s Hugos is basically the same story as last year, but more so. Apparently we have not only the Sad Puppies, we have Rapid Puppies courtesy of that corpulent pustule on the anus of humanity, Vox Day. And I’ve heard mentions of Gamergate? Haven’t been able to easily locate the truth, don’t actually care that much, but it’d certainly be a match made in pathetic teenaged misogynist fantasy wankland.

My response is mostly the same as last year, to be honest. It’s going to be a personal choice how people react to what they are and aren’t willing to read. I’m not going to tell people how to conduct themselves. Everyone has a personal line that they’re going to draw, and it’s not mine to judge or argue.

I am personally, deeply uncomfortable with the idea of sight unseen torpedoing every work in a category because it’s got puppy shit on it, but on the other hand, I also have no leg to stand on to lecture other people on what should or shouldn’t let them sleep at night. Part of this is because I know Lou Antonelli and know him to be a good guy, and I’m definitely going to be reading and considering his stuff. Also, I don’t think blanket voting No Award is going to necessarily discourage this behavior in the future; we’re dealing with nihilistic wankbabies here that are going to play Heads We Win, Tails You Lose. The only ultimate win is figuring out a decent fix for the nomination process for the future, which is a whole other kettle of fish and involves going to WSFS meetings and dealing with the arcane rules lawyering that goes on there.

Yes, by the way, I will be going to the WSFS meetings at Worldcon this year, and as long as there is wifi, I will be liveblogging them. If no wifi, expect tweets.

Anyway, I had my attention drawn to this comment by the Pustule in another post:

If No Award takes a fiction category, you will likely never see another award given in that category again. The sword cuts both ways, Lois. We are prepared for all eventualities.

Well, that’s not threatening at all. It really sounds like “vote for the shit I have presented you, or the Hugos get it.” And sorry. The United States of Rachael does not negotiate with terrorists. Because this is the thing. Other than the Pustule’s story last year (which I actually did read, in its entirety, out loud, whilst drunk, and it was hilaribad) I actually tried to give all the nominees a fair shake. I made an attempt to read each and every one of the offerings. And most of them? I gave up after 10 pages, normally because I was bored, or occasionally offended, but ultimately entirely unconvinced by the work and its worthiness of even being considered for an award.

I’m not going to change that policy this year. If I can’t even fucking get through a story, it has no business being on an award ballot. If I finish reading it, and still have no idea why the hell it should even be considered award-worthy, I’m not going to vote to give it an award. It goes under No Award. Period. No matter who nominated it. You can’t make me.

Really, I’m a little stunned that the Pustule’s somehow managed to hit what I thought was the bedrock of deeply pathetic, then whip out a rotary drill and keep digging down. Look, dude. Forcing us to read your shit isn’t going to make us like it. Threatening to blow up our awards because we don’t like your shit is not going to make us like it. You cannot threaten people into loving or respecting you or your work. I’m sure if you literally held a gun to someone’s head, you could make them say just about anything, but none of it would be true. A compliment forcibly paid under duress does not change the basic facts of the matter.

If the only way you can gain acclaim or success is by cheating or threatening your way to it? You’ve already lost and will remain forever a giant, wanky loser.

Some other good posts about the general Hugos bullshittery:

6 thoughts on “The United States of Rachael Does Not Negotiate With Terrorists

  1. Reply JohnD Apr 10,2015 15:59

    Nicely put. Now if VD (was there ever a more apropos abbreviations?) would just put it nicely somewhere…

    What did you think of Sanford’s suggestion that the Hugos move to an Australian-style voting system? That would make it much harder (but not impossible) to game the system and answer many of the SP complaints.

  2. Reply Nicko Acks Apr 12,2015 18:16

    I haven’t ready any of Brad Torgerson’s or Larry Correia’s books (probably because I don’t think I would really be interested in them), but I think he has some valid points about the smearing going on:

    It really sounds more like the involvement of the people from Gamergate (and the tactics there of) rather than real honest to goodness fans that are driving all of this. While I don’t particularly agree with the Sad Puppies, taring all of them just because the Rabid Puppies decided to back them as well is just as much of a problem in my book.

  3. Reply Nicko Acks Apr 13,2015 00:15

    I almost wonder if the best response would be to vote in the worst entry in each category. Give them exactly what they want across the board. If someone like John C. Write won 4 Hugo awards this year, maybe it would be enough to force the community to see how silly this all has been (4 being the magical number that both Heinlein and Bujold have won).

    • Reply Rachael May 1,2015 14:00

      I’m pretty sure if I voted for Wright for anything other than Wanky Turd of the Year, I’d start bleeding from the eyes and then you’d hear a voice say, “Come and see.”

  4. Reply Nicko Acks Apr 13,2015 00:16

    ugh… edit before hitting post, that should have been “John C. Wright”.

Leave a Reply