Appeasement Fails

Following Dragon Con's reversal of their initial policy not to allow authors to withdraw from the Dragon Awards ballot, an SF SJW demonstrates the futility of DC's attempt at appeasement.


If any Dragon Con organizers are reading this, please read Greg's words closely. Remember: this comment was posted after the award administrators caved to SJW pressure and allowed authors to dictate a ballot that was supposed to be decided by fans.

How do SF SJWs thank Dragon Con for giving them what they want? By calling the award fake and accusing the organizers of being in league with white supremacists.

If you learn nothing else form this debacle, take this lesson to heart: the social justice warriors who destroyed the once venerable Hugo Awards care nothing for the readers who nominate their favorite works or for science fiction in general. Their sole concern is advancing a radical political agenda to the detriment of every field they infest. Look at the current state of comics, movies, and role-playing games for just a few prominent examples.

SJWs don't care about quality. They don't care about diversity. They don't care about fun. They care about power. Giving in to their demands only grants them power over the targeted organization. And in return, they will complain more loudly, hurl more vicious insults, and make ever more lavish demands. They are not rational and cannot be negotiated with.

The only effective response to SJW demands is a firm "no", repeated as often as necessary. And you must steel yourself to repeat it often. The opposition is relentless.

Greg is right in one regard. The Dragon Awards risk losing their intended meaning in only their second year. To salvage their integrity, the organizers are well advised to institute a new withdrawal policy, effective next year, stating that any author may withdraw from the ballot, but in so doing he incurs an automatic five-year disqualification from any of his works appearing on future Dragon Award ballots.

It's a stringent measure, but it will assure the fans that their votes won't be arbitrarily nullified on an author's petulant whim.

Eric Flint also had the right idea. The best way to ensure that no one group can dominate the Dragon Awards is to increase the voter base. On the chance that registration is still open, here is the link to request a free ballot.

Also, today is the last day that my Dragon Award-nominated space opera THE SECRET KINGS will be available for free in the Kindle Store. Download your copy now!



  1. Also goes to show that to the Worldcon crowd, a "white supremacist" is "anyone not an SJW."

    1. Yes. They've emptied the term of all other content.

    2. Crying wolf is an alien concept to SJWs.

    3. Yes, too true. I think its hilarious being accused of being a white supremacist. I mean, I know I was raised in the barrio by my single Puerto Rican mother, so am on the "to be lynched" list, but like Rawle, I just cant help myself, I must be an Uncle Juan, since I disagree with all things SJW, having seen the destruction their policies wreak first hand, and we are not allowed dissent from guilty white liberal orthodoxy. Ive also watched my one true hobby, reading, turned into a minefield trying to weed out all the message fic dreck.

    4. When an SJW calls someone a white supremacist, it means "I am a member of the cult accusing someone of heresy against the cult."

      They must continually find witches to denounce because SJW-ism = original sin + identity politics - hope of supernatural regeneration. They can never be absolved, and the only way to deflect their guilt is to project it onto someone else.

      Take heart! The dreck is busily weeding itself out, and many are standing up to replace the message fic with fun, honest stories.

  2. Man, I hate people who project like that. It's like they're so afraid of being called out that they virtue signal twice as hard the opposite direction in hopes that no one will call them a hypocrite.

  3. "White Supremacist": Any filthy non-Party Kulak we wish to put into GULAG. :/

    They have rendered the term meaningless.

  4. These writers need to be taken to task for exploiting a moral panic to smear their competitors with baseless accusations. The Scarlet Letter was a warning, not an instruction book.

    1. Yep. The Dragon is supposed to be a fan award. Right now, Dragon Con is letting a handful of prima donna authors a) thwart the fans' wishes and b) waste an enormous amount of the organizers' time.

      If DC wants to maintain any credibility, they need to be firm with snowflake authors.

  5. Is a real award like being a real writer? I mean you could sell enough books to buy a mountain fortress, but if the correct people don't like you it doesn't count. So if an award actually reflects what fans are reading (and more importantly buying) but isn't recognized by the League of the Wooden Assholes does it really count? I mean it really is all about them.

    1. Exactly. Note that Greg is inadvertently calling Scalzi indecent and a white supremacist.

  6. Brian wow so the latest obsessive meme is white supremacy?
    Lord John's right these people flee from reality and substitute it with shadows from the cave and sound clusters. How do we permanently kill thus toxic lie of white supremacy?
    Seriously I don't see Aye Robot or your books and others possibly cultivate that evil

    1. You kill it by winning. That is by buying the books you like to read, voting for the authors who truly entertain you, and in general supporting indie movement. Remember, they are living off of a dying business model. No one goes to the big name book stores (their main distribution advantage) any more, and no one is buying what they are trying to force feed us. So let them pretend they run the SF literary world a bit longer. We know the truth.

    2. "You kill it by winning. That is by buying the books you like to read, voting for the authors who truly entertain you, and in general supporting indie movement."

      Correct. And man, are you guys doing it! Take that guy in the OP comments who trotted out the finalists' then-current Amazon ranks to DISQUALIFY! the Dragons.

      1) He did some conspicuous cherry-picking. No Correia/Ringo, for instance.
      2) Thanks to you guys, THE SECRET KINGS currently outranks every book on that CHORF's list :)

      One of the biggest kicks I get out of this is watching the SF SJWs sputter and fabricate ad hoc rationalizations for why unapproved books keep getting nominated. They look at Goodreads and Amazon ranks and wonder how a guy like me can go toe-to-toe with a Worldcon golden boy like Scalzi.

      Because they obsess over abstract numbers like some malfunctioning ST: TOS robot, they miss the fact that unlike Scalzi, I don't call my readers assholes. I appreciate them, and they reciprocate. This ain't rocket science :)

      Thanks, everybody!

    3. @Brian --

      "1) He did some conspicuous cherry-picking. No Correia/Ringo, for instance."

      Since you mentioned it, here are yesterday's sales rankings at Amazon for Jemisin and Correia, listing the three most recent works for each.

      The Fifth Season: #499 Kindle (wow!), #771 books (paper) — two years after publication!
      The Obelisk Gate: #961 Kindle, #2823 books (paper)
      The Stone Sky: #509 Kindle, #994 books (paper)

      Here’s Larry’s last three:

      Monster Hunter Seige: #1805 Kindle, #35,009 Books (hard)
      Monster Hunters Sinners: #28,776 Kindle, #123,424 Books (hard), #937,426 (paper)
      Monster Hunters Grunge: #33,752 Kindle, #560,342 Books (hard), #76,491 Books (paper)

      You're welcome.

      "2) Thanks to you guys, THE SECRET KINGS currently outranks every book on that CHORF's list :)"

      Actually, here are today's sales rankings for your three most recent books:

      Nethereal -- #226,355 Kindle, #1,260,190 Book (paper)
      Souldancer -- #282,003 Kindle, #2,321,067 Books (paper)
      The Secret Kings -- #289,123 Kindle, #2,152,613 Books (paper)


  7. Chris,
    Excellent advice but how consolidate the network? So that buying books, magazine and other forms of entertainment are blocked or sent to the memory hole by the controllers? Already Google is going nuts demonetizing wrongthink youtubers and so on. We need to get our hands on the infrastructure and backbones. but how?


    1. As far as networking goes, you're soaking in it. Aside from Brian, pretty much every non-sjw type author has a website/blog. They also tend to post on each other's blogs and appear on each other's podcasts. A great place to start podcast-wise is Geek Gab. The Castalia House blog is great place for general genre fiction discussion. If you are looking for a one stop shopping thing, indie doesn't work that way. Which is why the sjw's will never win.


    2. excellent points I'm an occasional listener of Geek gab. My only grumble is that the sound could be better but these are growing pains


  8. Greg Hullender has just ensured that I have no interest in reading anything by Greg Hullender.

  9. "According to George R.R. Martin, Eric Flint had intended to..."

    How about we ask Eric?

    1. Not a bad idea.

      Even if Eric didn't make plans to get out the vote, he should have.

  10. They did the same thing all through Puppies. Puppies made clear statements that recommendations were not ideological. On. Purpose. That the goal was absolute neutrality on ideology and neutrality on the author's politics or opinions. But if everyone the least bit "left" is bullied into demanding that their books be taken off the list, the list is no longer neutral. And who takes the blame for that? Do the bullies take the blame? No. They blame the "out group" that they hate so much.

    No list and no *award* should ever allow an author to remove their work from the list. (If someone doesn't want to be voted for, they can take it up with their fans.) And anyone who would *blame an author* for being popular or for being voted on by the vast majority of voters who haven't the first clue about genre infighting, who get to have their enthusiasm spit on, is a bully.

    AND... since I'm on a roll... if one takes their *message* seriously, and they don't want their ideological foes reading their work... THEY'RE DOING IT WRONG.


    1. "Puppies made clear statements that recommendations were not ideological."

      Good point. This is why Dragon Con should know better. SP 3 & 4 proved that bending over backwards to appease the CHORFs doesn't work. It just sends the message that their accusations were justified.

      It's OK. Now we know that we can never accept the SF SJWs' terms. If they claim we're being partisan, ignore them. When they play the guilt by association game by invoking white supremacists, ask why they associate with pedophiles. No apologies. No retreat. No compromise.

      "No list and no *award* should ever allow an author to remove their work from the list. (If someone doesn't want to be voted for, they can take it up with their fans.)"

      Amen. The reader is king. Any author, publisher, or convention that fails to realize this is in for a world of hurt.

    2. And bankruptcy as well as well earned oblivion. Really insulting your customer is utterly against your rational interest as a business. But ideology blinds them

  11. ah yes, Hullander. Tor's pet Statistician, who invented EPH to further obscure the nomination process, and Negative 3SV so that they can kick out anyone they don't like from the Ballot. The guy who was allowed access to the Hugo nominating data that nobody else could examine because they claimed it couldn't be anonymized enough. Yeah, he's just protecting his Hugo Fiefdom by jacking down any other award. He was a real dick over on my blog.

    1. It's *that* guy! Heh. Heheh. HAHAHAHA!

      Worldcon attendance, Hugo nominating ballots, and final ballots down 50% in the first year Greg's master plan is in place. And he calls the Dragon a fake award! :D

      With results like that, anybody who takes advice from Greg "Hugo-ender" should be barred from voting--not just in SF awards. I'm talking local, state, and national elections :)

    2. Nope, that's not who Greg Hullender is. He's a reviewer.

      You're probably struggling for the name "Jameson Quinn", although as there was no single creator of EPH the rest of your description isn't quite right either. 3SV was originally proposed by Kevin Standlee and the main designers of EPH didn't get involved, so that's not really right either.

      He is a guy called Greg though, so you got that right.

    3. The Hugos will only last as long as Tor does, and I'm not bullish about that. Eight years. Maybe ten. Winter is coming.

    4. First -- pardon me if you receive multiple attempts at posting this. Your blog doesn't seem to get along with my regular browser.

      Now -- here are the actual voting numbers for the Hugos over the last ten years. Tell me again how Hugo participation is supposedly tanking? Sure, we can see that the "year of VD" provided a fleeting bump in numbers -- but otherwise, those numbers have been increasing steadily.

      Welcome to reality.

      2008 -- 483 nominating ballots, 895 final ballots
      2009 -- 639 nominating ballots, 1074 final ballots
      2010 -- 864 nominating ballots, 1094 final ballots
      2011 -- 1,006 nominating ballots, 2,100 final ballots
      2012 -- 1,101 nominating ballots, 1,922 final ballots
      2013 -- 1,343 nominating ballots, 1,848 final ballots
      2014 -- 1,923 nominating ballots, 3,587 final ballots
      2015 -- 2,122 nominating ballots, 5,950 final ballots
      2016 -- 4,032 nominating ballots, 3,130 final ballots
      2017 -- 2,464 nominating ballots, 3,319 final ballots

    5. Jeff, I've been meaning to ask you: why is it when you talk about the Hugos do you never mention that you were a double finalist? I mean, you list it in your bio so presumably you think it's something worth highlighting.
      Anyway, it's a bit sad to see you swallowing the anti-Tor story; maybe you should consider who started it and why, and whether it's based on anything real.

    6. "Welcome to reality."

      Already here. With my Dragon Award and my Campbell nomination :)

      But keep sperging over arbitrary figures if it makes you feel better.

      On second thought, you'd better put a lid on the sperging. It's boring the fuck out of everyone.

    7. Really, because he sure did a really good job pretending to be that guy on my blog, spouting statistic after statistic and linking back to his own blog with its in depth analysis of the Hugo votes that were obtained from that data.

    8. @Brian --

      " arbitrary figures"

      Oh, I see. Hugo voting numbers are significant when you think they support your claims, but they magically become arbitrary when you find out that they actually do no such thing.

      How convenient for you.


      If you interested in a few more actual facts, I put up a graph of Hugo voting data that has a few additional years included, showing a very obvious UPward trend from year to year:


    9. It's really important to you that the Hugos and Hugo-winning authors are popular, isn't it? ;)

      You still want to play the numbers game?

      Let's look at audio, the fastest-growing book market, and one favored by folks with actual jobs.

      Dangerous by MILO: #1 Best Seller in Politics & Current Events

      Monster Hunter Siege by Larry Correia: #1 New Release in Contemporary Fantasy

      The Fifth Season by N.K. Jemisin: #18 in Action & Adventure. (Ooo. So close! But doesn't quite take the twinkie.)

    10. @Brian --

      You're trying to play games with categories, Brian. But don't worry, we see what you did there. ;-)

      Additionally, audio sales are only a fraction of Kindle and Book sales.

      Try comparing apples to apples instead of apples to grapefruits, and try looking at the bulk of the market instead of the fringe. Oh, and since we're talking about the Hugos, non-fiction (Milo does claim his book to be non-fiction, right?) is irrelevant -- but I'll list him anyway, just to make you happy.

      Also remember that The Fifth Season has been out for two years now, and it's STILL selling near the top of the charts. Milo's book just came out in July, so it's most likely at the top of its sales trajectory right now -- and it STILL can't match any of Jemisin's books in Kindle sales. And the same with Correia -- his book just came out in August, and it STILL can't match any of Jemisin's.

      Here's today's listings:

      Dangerous -- #2,126 Paid in Kindle Store, #392 in Books (hard)

      Monster Hunter Siege -- #2,295 Paid in Kindle Store, #22,537 in Books (hard)

      The Fifth Season -- #607 Paid in Kindle Store, #688 in Books (paper)
      The Obelisk Gate -- #1,126 Paid in Kindle Store, #1,865 in Books (paper)
      The Stone Sky -- #572 Paid in Kindle Store, #1,066 in Books (paper)

      Keep trying.

    11. A bit of additional info on US sales figures, 2015 (the last complete year I saw on a quick look):

      Downloaded audio: $552 million
      eBooks: $2.84 billion
      Paperback books: $5.23 billion
      Hardback books: $5.40 billion

    12. Non-fiction is irrelevant to the Hugos? Then in your estimation, Best Related Work winner Kameron Hurley is irrelevant. Why so sexist, bro?

    13. Sorry, we were talking about Hugo novels. If you want to talk about best related work, we could do that -- but that would be an entirely new topic. :-)

    14. Looks like hardback sales are the bulk of the market. Let's compare apples to apples in the biggest book category.

      Dangerous: #392 (hard)

      The Fifth Season: N/A
      The Obelisk Gate: N/A

      Jemisin is popular, her publisher didn't even release her book in the most popular format!

      Fail! :D

    15. @Brian --

      Hardback and paperback sales are about equal, as I posted. Milo and Larry are so popular, their publishers didn't even release their books in paper -- fail!


    16. Oh, also -- UNIT sales are actually much higher in paper than in hardcover.


      Milo and Larry are popular, their publisher didn't even release their books in the most popular format!

      Number of units sold by format

      Physical Audio & Downloaded Audio: 81 million
      eBook: 424 million
      Paperback & Mass Market: 1.18 billion
      Hardback: 577 million

    17. Yep. Jemisin's popularity outside of the Hugo clique is such that she withdrew from a contest where anyone can vote.

      After all, we can't have a novel given an award by a tiny subculture losing a people's choice award, now can we? ;)

    18. Now, now, Brian.

      Anyone can vote in the Hugos as well. They just have to have enough interest in the genre to put their money where their mouth is. ;-)

      And the Dragons are hardly a legit award in any case. Their own website says that they only record emails and can change any of the votes at the whim of the admins. The setup is ideal for scammers, and has no accountability whatsoever.

      Why would Jemisin want to be associated with anything like that? She's already won the biggest sff award out there -- twice in a row -- and judging by initial reviews of The Stone Sky, I won't be surprised if she makes it a threepeat. Being associated with something like the Dragons would only tarnish her reputation.

      But hey, go enjoy those Dragons. You're more than welcome to them. Vote early and often! :-)

    19. 2 answers for every 1 of mine. CogDis much, bro?

      The constant salty flow of statistical spergouts, rules twink nitpicks, and--this is the best part--accusations of white supremacy just broadcasts you losers' helplessness to the world :)

      Why would Jemisin want to be associated with the Dragons? Because her readers nominated her. (Ostensibly, that is. Fraud accusations cut both ways).

      Why do you refuse to step into the ring with a prize fighter? Because you're afraid you'll lose. Any other excuse is just ad hoc rationalization.

      Protip to Jemisin: if you want to keep your sales up, giving your fans the dirt shoulder for supporting your work in an award contest ain't the smartest move.

      Meanwhile, I've got awesome readers who enjoy my work, support my endeavors, and challenge me to do my best. We understand that I serve them; not vice versa.

      They're the ones who earned me my Campbell pin ;)

      More importantly, I would never spit in their faces by declaring myself too good for an award they nominated me for.

      Your side are the ones who gave my readers the "we don't serve your kind here" treatment at the Hugos. How'd that work out for you?

      (Hint: if you think it was a win for your guys, you are too oblivious to venture outside without your helper monkey.)

      Anyway, I'm sure all of this will just bounce off your epistemic closure shield. But before you get back to boring my readers with the endless spreadsheets that let you vicariously thrill to your betters' achievements, do me a favor:

      Show me your books.
      Show me your sales figures.
      Show me your awards.

      Or, alternately, GTFO :)

    20. @Brian --

      "The constant salty flow of statistical spergouts"

      Yeah, I know those pesky old facts can be mighty inconvenient when you're trying to carry on with comfy little fact-free fantasies. Sorry-not-sorry. ;-)

      "accusations of white supremacy"

      For the record, I don't think all pups or all Dragon voters are white supremacists. Some are, sure, but I don't agree with Greg's claim that the Dragons are "meant to boost the sales of books by white supremacists."

      You know, we evil non-puppy losers are allowed to disagree that way. ;-)

      "Fraud accusations cut both ways."

      Sure. So why would Jemisin want anything to do with a system that's ripe for fraud? Answer: she wouldn't.

      "They're the ones who earned me my Campbell pin ;)"

      Lovely participation award you got there. Congratulations for participating! :-)

      "Your side are the ones who gave my readers the "we don't serve your kind here" treatment at the Hugos. How'd that work out for you? "

      Just fine, thanks. Though you're wrong about "we don't serve your kind" -- everyone is welcome to participate and vote, as long as they do so honestly and within both the letter AND the spirit of the rules. But if you try to vandalize the awards, be prepared for more Noahs. That's what they're there for.

      "Hint: if you think it was a win for your guys, you are too oblivious to venture outside without your helper monkey."

      Participation in the Hugos has been rising steadily since about 2008. We're doing just fine, thanks, and the pups have mostly turned tail and scarpered off to cheaper and easier to scam pastures like the Dragons. :-)

      "Show me your books."

      Sorry, not an author. Never pretended to be. Just a concerned fan. You care about fans, remember? ;-)

    21. Mauser, you had that long conversation with Greg on your blog and you don't know that he's not the same person as Quinn? In that case I'm afraid I can't help you.

    22. "Anyone can vote in the Hugos as well. They just have to have enough interest in the genre to put their money where their mouth is. ;-)"

      We did that several times after being told for years we just needed to show up and vote for what we wanted if we wanted stuff we liked to get awards. For our trouble, we got called dangerous sexist racists out to kick women and minorities out of the field. Then your guys changed the voting rules to try to mitigate outside influences from joining in and created a booby prize intentionally designed to look like a wooden anus to insult authors we supported.

    23. "I don't think all pups or all Dragon voters are white supremacists."

      Nice non-retraction retraction. The correct answer is "NO pups are white supremacists."

      "So why would Jemisin want anything to do with a system that's ripe for fraud? Answer: she wouldn't."

      Your boy Scalzi had the right of this one. I have no qualms about admitting that he's the best self-promoter in the business.

      He knew what losing to me will do to his brand, so he tried to back out. Then he realized that backstabbing his fans looks just as bad. I'll say this for him: he got back in the ring. Should've let Jon Del Arroz take him to the ballgame, though. Good times.

      Scalzi and Jemisin both faced the same no-win situation: stay on the Dragon ballot and detonate the CHORFs' claim that the Dragons aren't legit, or withdraw and piss off their fans. Scalzi chose one fate. Jemisin chose the other.

      Personally, I not only agree with your prediction of a Jemisin Hugo threepeat. I'm counting on it :)

      "Lovely participation award you got there."

      Tell that to Laurie Penny. Again, why so sexist?

      "But if you try to vandalize the awards, be prepared for more Noahs. That's what they're there for."

      "Vandalize the awards"? Are you referring to Dr. Chuck Tingle, perhaps? Why so homophobic?

      "Participation in the Hugos has been rising steadily since about 2008."

      Look at your own figures from this year, and stop lying.

      "the pups have mostly turned tail and scarpered off to cheaper and easier to scam pastures like the Dragons."

      Do try to keep up. There were no Puppies this year, Sad or Rabid, which gives the lie to your claims that a) Hugo participation is up and b) the Puppies are scamming the Dragons.

      "Sorry, not an author. Never pretended to be. Just a concerned fan. You care about fans, remember? ;-)"

      1. "Sorry" is exactly the right word for you. See? You've got some writing talent after all :)

      2. Concern troll is concerned.

      3. Bitch, please. Run that Alinsky con on some NRO rube. I care about my readers, and you're too dumb to be one.

      You're also banned for repeatedly lying and the even more grievous crime of being terminally boring. Now fuck off :)

    24. "Nice non-retraction retraction. The correct answer is "NO pups are white supremacists.""

      Nope. I wouldn't say "no Hugo voters are white supremacists", so why would I say "no pups are white supremacists"? I'm pretty sure there's at least a few white supremacists in both camps.

      "Tell that to Laurie Penny. Again, why so sexist?"

      I put Ada Palmer at the top of my ballot this year. Sexist? ;-)

      "Are you referring to Dr. Chuck Tingle, perhaps? Why so homophobic?"

      I put Chuck at the top of my fan writer ballot this year. Homophobic? ;-)

      "Look at your own figures from this year, and stop lying."

      Sheesh. How short your memory is. As I already said in an earlier post: "Sure, we can see that the "year of VD" provided a fleeting bump in numbers -- but otherwise, those numbers have been increasing steadily."

      "There were no Puppies this year, Sad or Rabid"

      Suuuuuuuuuuuuure, Brian. Those nominating recommendations from VD were just a figment of our imagination. Uh-huh.

    25. @Ranba --

      "For our trouble, we got called dangerous sexist racists out to kick women and minorities out of the field."

      Folks are allowed to call people whatever they want. Have you seen some of the arguments between Hugo voters? You're allowed to have your own views, and other people are allowed to disagree with them.

      "Then your guys changed the voting rules to try to mitigate outside influences from joining in"

      No. EPH was instituted to decrease the power of slate voting. That applies equally to "internal" slates as to "external" slates. It applies to all slates, period.

      "intentionally designed to look like a wooden anus"

      Ummmm, no. It was an asterisk -- you know, a common symbol to denote that a name or other reference had a special condition attached to it. You guys are the ones who added the "Ass" to it.

    26. Vox didn't recommend anything of mine for the Hugos or the Dragons this year. His pick for Best SF Novel didn't make the final Dragon ballot, but Secret Kings did.

      You should be far more concerned about my readers racking up Dragon nominations and wins honestly than Vox the boogeyman scamming the awards.

      Not that you'll take my advice, since your reading comprehension is as faulty as your memory. You posted twice, and lied again, after being banned. Post again, and you're spammed.

    27. You're spammed, Contrarius. Go whine about freedom of speech to some liberal sap. Error has no rights.

    28. The smarm is real.

      It's no wonder fans are abandoning the Sci-Fi community at an alarming rate.

      Glad I never joined.

    29. Yep, with representatives like In-Continentius, the CHORFs shouldn't be surprised if most people see their graying clique as a bunch of obsessive, autistic assholes :)

    30. CHORFs are advertising their low-IQs HARD this year.

      More popcorn, please!

  12. This is so childish.

    "Real" books. "Real" awards. "Real" fans.

    People like this are why people like me have avoided modern fiction for most of our lives. They're hateful, petty, and too self-important to reach out to "fake" fans.

    Once the Big 5 are gone I think everyone will be surprised just how many people there are waiting in the wings.

    1. And l8ke the Soviet era KGB archives how many really good books have been suppressed and/or plagarized

    2. The Big Five are so bad at picking winners and so ideologically incestuous that they almost certainly passed over any number of potential classics and best sellers.

      Luckily, Amazon has solved that problem.

  13. And non-Amazon independent publishers in other countries have also done their part.
    In a way, the net and Amazon has brought cultural production back to its roots: local patronage and entertainment driven just like in the old days before publishing companies existed and consolidated.

  14. Fiannawolf here, for some reason it wouldn't let me use my google email.

    Usually some of the hugo award winners get a boost in sales because they put them down to 2.99 or 1.99 depending. SO thats when people like me buy them and then I kinda just loose interest half way thru. Give me stories. Not preaching. To be frank, I liked her Thousand Kingdoms trilogy a whole lot more then her current stuff. Much less preachy. Then again, it was her first series and the editors probably steered it better then her later stuff.

    At least my review of last year's travesty saved people some money:

    2.0 out of 5 stars
    Glad I only spent 1.99 on this.
    By Fiannawolf on March 4, 2017
    Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase
    Interesting world building. Ill give it that. The rest of it, storyline and characters, didn't grab me. Gave up around page 289. In all honesty, download the sample and see if it works for you.

    How this won a hugo, I don't quite understand it, if you want epic story and characters look to the Dune series by Frank Herbert. Or if you need a fantasy kick, I quite enjoyed the Black Company by Glenn Cook or The Emperor's Blades by Brian Staveley.

    At this point I'd much rather give my money to 3-5 excellent indies then more Preachy dull stories.

    I gotta wonder though, if her books sell so well, why do many of these "bigger" names in sci fi rely mostly on patreon:


    She's making a whole lot of money off of something she kinda hates: Goodwill and Capitalism. I suppose there's enough "fools and money soon parted" in her fanbase but its their right to throw money away if they want to.


    And this one makes twice the amount then N.K...

    Heck, the only trad pub things I buy now are from Baen books, the Alien/Katt series by Koch,Safehold because of Weber and Shadow Campaigns series from Wexler.

    The rest of them, Ill usually wait til they do a flash sale, 50/50 on whether or not I am disappointed by spending 2.00 dollars on it, then remember why I dont go near hugo nominated things anymore.

    The hugos dont remember how to be fun! You can have an underlining message and still be entertaining/amusing. Most of them are too wrapped up in themselves to provide readers with a good escape. They just want to remind their audience of X-ism here, Y problem there, W sucks because of this, and all the while I am thinking: WHO THE FRACK CARES! I want a story! Thats why I gave money to be entertained. Very simple concept.

    1. "How this won a hugo, I don't quite understand"

      It won a Hugo because, as the statsperg above said, the Worldcon crowd will circle the wagons to ostracize any author who "tries to vandalize the award"; where "vandalize" means "have non-hivemind-approved opinions".

      Jemisin is the tradpub SJWs' new and final standard-bearer. They're putting all the spasmodic energy of their death throes into making her a big name author. But because they're cargo cultists who can't understand what you pointed out--that readers want fun stories--they don't see that pushing token pseudo-SF litfic authors like Jemisin just eviscerates the Hugos' credibility.

      That's why she'll be issued a third Best Novel Hugo next year, and why, now that Sad Puppies is dead, the drop off in Hugo participation we saw this year will drastically accelerate.

  15. Fiannawolf

    Oy, well at least I have indie publish and a handful of others I like that can give me what used to be "Hugo in its prime" adventures. SJW really do ruin everything they touch in the name of politics. At least the whole event from 2014 til now has lead me to many amazing writers. So thats some silver lining right there.

    I guess if their "Check marks the spot" writer Jemisin wins a 3rd one then they will feel awesome because their token beat everyone again. If i was her I'd be a bit insulted because the only reason they vote for me is because of my own views and skin color. Not because of actual skill. Her prose is purple as hell but she can world build somewhat, its just that her preaching makes everything else flat. No thank you.

    I guess most of trad pub is like govt spending now: They dont catch people that want to spend their own money but try to pillage money from some unsuspecting and willing shills. This "We know best" mentality isnt going to end well. And thats just my observations as a relative nobody reader. The only reason this whole thing came to my attention a few years ago because they started blaming gamergate for the state of books ect. So that segued into other avenues of "fun".

    If any SJW writers are reading this (mainly because i know some of them lurk fairly often because I do too!):

    I don't care about your politics, gimmie stories and Ill still buy stuff from you, esp based on the twitter feed from some writers' books I like but they dont infect their books as much, they still write actual stories. Even if they are the exact opposite of me in terms of political leanings.

    As a reader, when I pick up a book and its fun, again I could care a less if that writer was from left or right, my money will support things I find fun. Why some insist on insulting their audiences Ill never understand.

    Oh and by the way:

    Many readers that support the dragons are like me, just to clarify, because we want to give money to books that truly do gives us worlds to explore.

    Entertain us and we will give you goods/services for that entertainment.

    The majority of us will vote with our wallets. Most, unless they are thrust into the sphere of book politics, won't even realize any sort of culture war is going on. SocJus is alienating people without even realizing the consequences.

    As for Mr. Niemeier: Thanks for the hours of adventure so far. I'll gladly give you more modes of money for more entertainment. :D

    1. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It's an important message. Let's hope tradpub is listening.

      "If i was her I'd be a bit insulted because the only reason they vote for me is because of my own views and skin color."

      She is. That's why she didn't show up to accept either of her Hugos and why she withdrew from the Dragons.

      "And thats just my observations as a relative nobody reader."

      You're not a nobody. As a reader, you're my boss :)

      "As for Mr. Niemeier: Thanks for the hours of adventure so far."

      A pleasure to serve!

  16. (Multi-Part – Part 1)
    *Slow Clap* Here we go folks the ol' 'lets include people of color because there aren't enough in the room' tactic. Alright, lets take this apart:

    1) The current SFF writer population is mostly white males.

    2) The population of the world includes other kinds/types/races/genders/ethnicities than the current majority of writers in SFF.

    3) SFF (sometimes, though not always) is about exploring the outer boundaries (social, political, technological, etc...) of concepts.

    4) To fully understand the conceptual boundaries of the aforementioned concepts, as many people from as many backgrounds are necessary. This necessity arises from the limitations of the human mind in that our ideas and thoughts are primarily based on the context in which they were formed in (ex: Newton, apple, thus gravity). Since a single person, or a single group, cannot experience all possible concepts, thereby they cannot think all possible new ideas. For all possible new ideas to be thought and expressed, all possible contexts must be experienced, creating the necessity for multiple different populations to be involved.

    5) Since there is a necessity of other viewpoints, it is natural (thereby - good) for every possible population must be included.

    6) All things are drawn towards what is natural to them. (This is an axiom of sorts that I haven't the time to defend, but I feel it is reasonable, so I'm using it.)

    Thus, we must purposely include people unlike the majority in order to fulfill the natural inclinations of the phenomena called 'SFF'

    See, everything works right up until the conclusion, which is one I have heard many times in person and seen many times in writing.

    Firstly, writers' purpose is communicate, and all do to some degree both through the blatant and the subtle (Lets not bring up DaDa, post-structuralist, and the cut-up novel. All of these groups purposely set themselves up to step outside the norm, and thus can only be spoken about in a specific sense when speaking about writing, not in the general sense I am using here). The problem in including a person in a group because of an aspect of their identity is that is cuts them off at the knees with regards to their perceived ability to communicate. When singling out a group or set of groups to include based purely upon their identity, it communicates the opinion that these group members only communicate 'LOOK! LOOK! I'M !' disregarding their actual message entirely.

    When SFF publishers/sellers/awards purposely exclude a group based upon an aspect of that groups identity, they need to be confronted with proof of their misdeed.

    However, proof must be provided, definitive enough to combat reasonable doubt. The lack of a particular group's presence in an event is not definitive proof, even when base population statistics would indicate they should be present.

  17. (Part 2)

    The reason for this is partly explained in point 4. Ideas highly based on the context in which they were formed in. They come about through combinations that are partly random, and partly set, though due to the lack of complete knowledge it should be treated as truly random.

    SFF and their attached industries haven't been around long enough to ensure an even spread of author identities given the near random nature of attainment of writing skill (either the drive to get better or the in-born talent) or the near random generation of ideas that are required to write in SFF.

    I am skeptical of the current award set actively ignoring other groups, due to the prevalence of easily monitored/recorded communications. Purposeful exclusion requires collusion when more than one person controls any given thing. These awards would be setting themselves up for multiple lawsuits and media-firestorms by engaging in this kind of exclusion, since collusion could be easily proved.

    In conclusion. Forcing a group into another based upon identity, when said group is unified based upon a particular skill set in counter productive and demeaning to the shoehorned group. If these awards are engaging in purposeful exclusion, it would require collusion among a number of parties, which would leave a paper trail. Show me the paper-trail, if the DNC (a multi-billion dollar entity with the money to throw at hefty cyber-security) can be hacked and their e-mails brought to the public eye, I do not see how this cannot be done with these 'white-supremacist' awards, since they run on a shoe-string budget off of personal computers, not high-dollar Cisco servers.

    1. Well argued. That kind of rigorous dialectic is refreshing.

      As a wise man once wrote, if you're gonna play ball, you need to enforce the same strike zone for both teams.

  18. I know I'm this evil, white, middle-aged male that's personally responsible for every black person sold into slavery before the Civil War (although how I'm not sure as the Paolinelli's didn't land on American shores until 30 years after the war ended) and so must be run out of the country and barred from making a single penny.

    But all I try to do is just write an entertaining story and sell it for $2.99 - because $12.99 for an e-book is immoral, IMHO.

    Personally, I never check the gender or skin color of the author before I pick up a book. I tend to judge it by what is written within.

    But that's just me, thinking with my brain instead of screeching about "muh feelz" and all that.

    1. "(although how I'm not sure as the Paolinelli's didn't land on American shores until 30 years after the war ended)"

      When asked how the Paolinellis could have started the American slave trade despite not being in America until 3 decades after slavery ended, SJWs responded, "They were very clever."

      "$12.99 for an e-book is immoral, IMHO."


  19. I wouldn't say it's immoral to charge $12.99 for an ebook, just unbelievably stupid.