This is mostly a quotes post, and again I'm putting it behind the cut for folks who just aren't interested.
George R. R. Martin has been incredibly patient with puppy leader Brad Torgersen... but in this comment thread, that patience appears to have worn out. Here are some quotes from GRRM in those comments.
The "unhappiness" here is a campaign orchestrated by the odious Mr. Beale, and once again you Sad Puppies have lined up behind the Rabids. Early in this debate, I heard a lot of stuff from your side about careers being threatened and your opponents saying "you will never work in this town again" and similar crap. Not one instance of that was ever substantiated. But now we are seeing a deliberate internet campaign to cost someone their career -- and it is coming from VD, with the full howling support of Puppies of all stripes.You know, it's probably not the best idea to get a man who regularly kills off the main characters of his books in incredibly creative ways this peeved at you. And since he's also a blockbuster writer who has had success you will only dream of? Yeah...
No one on "my side" ever threatened anyone's livelihood or career. Your side is doing just that. In public.
"My latest offensive epithet was suggested a female member of the slate who was tired...," etc. What does it matter that she was female? And she was tired of ad hominem attacks? Yeah, so am I. So are lots of people. On both sides, I am sure.I just love how Torgerson claimed he wasn't attacking people in the same sentence in which he attacks people, and I really love that GRRM pointed it out so clearly.
Yet even as you accuse the other side of being "nasty churls," you engage in ad hominem attacks yourself IN THE SAME SENTENCE. Nasty churls? Really? Really? I know you are not Vox Day, but you have read the stuff he writes, I must assume. You have presumably read the comments James May is putting up... well, everywhere. How about John C. Wright? Have you read his blog? And you and this unnamed female who coined "Puppy-Kicker" have the gall to complain about nasty churls on the fannish side?
Look around the kennel, Brad. You want to see some nasty churls? They are all around you, wearing Puppy collars and baying for fannish blood.
If you really want more civility, how about deleting some of the uglier posts from your blog. That would be a start. You guys keep throwing gasoline on the fire, then bitching about how high the flames are going.
CHORF and Puppy-kicker don't "seem offensive to some," they ARE offensive, and deliberately so. That's why you guys made them up, to offend and insult, not to "refine the conversation."...
If you really HONESTLY want to dial things down, how about you start by banishing those ugly terms "CHORF" and "Puppy-kicker" from your own blog and your own posts.I have to agree... there was an excerpt on File 770 from a guy who lied outright and claimed that people who dislike what the puppies have done made up "Social Justice Warriors" and called themselves that. I'm not sure whether the guy was lying because he was embarrassed to be part of a group that constantly calls people names or because he's genuinely ignorant of the origins of the term. Whichever, it's the puppies (who DEFINITELY named THEMSELVES that) who are constantly calling other people names. And claiming that name-calling is a method of "refining" the conversation is such bull that I doubt Torgerson could have typed it with a straight face, unless he is well and truly delusional.
You and Larry were both welcomed into the SF field with open arms and nominated for major awards. No, you did not win... but Eric Flint has dealt with that very thoroughly in his latest. No one is entitled to an award. You were nominated for a Hugo, a Nebula, and a Campbell in the same year... and from that, you take the lesson that you were being treated as a "second class citizen" and deemed to be "cut rate." C'mon, Brad. Really.I addressed one potential origin of the attitudes of persecution in my last Hugo post. I don't know if I'm completely off-base or closer to the truth than I want to be, but from the way GRRM describes it, I really tend to find myself believing I might be more right than wrong.
You know, Brad, I think these exchanges of ours have come full circle. You keep repeating the same tired claims you started with, claims that, as far as I am concerned, have been thoroughly discredited and disproved. By me, and many other people.It's just... wow. Amazing that GRRM tolerated the puppy leader so long, but it looks like he's finally fed up with it. I hope he gets back to slaughtering his characters in his books instead of eviscerating Sad Puppies.
Worldcon has been, and is, a wonderful place. The Hugo has been, and remains, the most prestigious award in science fiction... though I will concede that if some (note: some) of the Puppy nominees win this year, that prestige will be severely damaged.
The "sniff test" is all in your mind. As for the awards going to the "correct" kind of artist and writer... yes, sure, so long as "correct" means "excellent." It was not, and never has been, an award for longevity or mediocrity... or even for popularity, as measured by sales figures. It is an award for LITERARY EXCELLENCE. Period. Conservative writers, like Niven, have won plenty of Hugos. Mediocre writers win fewer. Bad writers win none.
But why I am bothering? I have explained all this before, as patiently as I could. I have cited all the facts, traced the history. It seems plain that neither logic nor facts will budge you. You have your story and you're sticking to it.
OK. But don't tell me the wounds were "self-inflicted," please. You sound like the grade school bully who grabs a kid's arm and makes him whack himself in the face with it, all the time saying, "Hey, why are you hitting yourself? Hey, stop punching yourself."
I don't entirely agree with GRRM on everything about the Hugos, though I'm impressed with his views. It seems to me that most fans have their own opinions. While a few people group themselves into...ahem... slates, and march in lockstep, most of the time with fandom if you get four fans in a room talking about a subject, they'll have at least five, and more usually 20, opinions.
I just spent a fabulous weekend in Seattle with a number of awesome fans. I had the time of my life and feel better than ever about fandom. This Hugo mess is very sad, but fandom is really strong and will survive. We will do what it takes to make sure awards go to the best works, despite slates and hates. What will last is a lot of bad feelings on the parts of many people, especially those who were the direct victims of this nastiness and these attacks. One of them posts in the same comment thread as above. I have made no secret that I'm a big fan of Ursula Vernon and was delighted by her Hugo win for Digger. She posts as well:
Mr. Torgersen, I don't think you know me. Up until this Puppy thing, I didn't know you.Thank you Ursula. I doubt my opinion means beans to the puppies since it sure seems like the vast majority of them are misogynistic brats, but *I* really appreciate both your work and your willingness to speak out. Thank you.
I've got a Hugo, as it happens. I won it in 2012, for Best Graphic Story. I've been a little afraid to talk about this now, because of some of your friends, but perhaps it's time that I say something.
Can you understand why being told that our much cherished awards were an affirmative action movement, and we weren’t REALLY creating anything worthwhile, might not have inclined some of us kindly toward you?
From my point of view, "Torgersen" went from a name on the Campbell ballot to a dude who had just insulted something I poured a decade of my life into. And then various other people on the Sad Puppy leadership began talking about Glittery Hoo-has, and...wow. Way to reduce a project that I sweated blood over, a project that I was very proud of, to a vagina joke.
Way to diminish something I worked damn hard on, to reduce it down to "Oh, well, 700+ pages for years of your life, that doesn't matter, the only reason anybody could possibly be impressed with your stuff is because you're a GIRL."
Do you understand why that would upset me a little?
Can you at least reach across the aisle to understand why I might think you weren't a very nice guy after that? When I'd never said anything about you at all, and you started off by attacking something I was very proud of?
Why maybe I wouldn't be very happy at the Sad Puppies, when the beginning of your campaign was to insult me, and people like me, by implying we hadn't earned the thing that we were proud of?
I'd never spoken a word to you, and you insulted my work out of the blue. That's why I'm upset.
I suppose you probably won't read this. But at least I'll have said it, and that's probably worth something.