On August 21st, the Hugo Awards were voted on and given out. This year was a bit controversial, as a group known as the Sad Puppies appeared to influence the nomination with a slate. This upset a great many within the Hugo Award community, and thus they decided to get even.
Before I go into the discussion of the awards themselves and analyze who should have won, I will give you a brief about this controversy.
First, you need to understand what a slate is. This is simply a list of people running for official or up for an award. When it was used as an insult to the Sad Puppies, it was a described as list that the Sad Puppies compiled that everyone should vote for, while ignoring everyone else. If you’re one of us, you must vote this way.
So is that wrong to do?
It is not wrong to do as far as the rules of the Hugo Awards are concerned. Having a slate is just a list of who you might vote for and you share it with others. It is rather immoral to have a list and demand that others follow this list for personal or political reasons.
It should be pointed out, however, that the Sad Puppies didn’t do that. Early 2015, Brad Torgersen asked his fans who he thought should win the Hugos. The fans, in large numbers, responded who had a good story and deserved to win. He then compiled a list based on fan recommendations and shared it with the world.
Doing this, he didn’t state this is how other Sad Puppies should vote, or how anyone should vote. He simply let fans of science fiction voice who they believed should win.
When it came time for the nominations, in which people voted on who got nominated for the Hugos, most from the Sad Puppies Slate got the highest votes and were then eligible to receive the Hugos during the ceremony.
The opposition, the SJWs of Hugos, were so upset by this “slate”, they banded together and made a list that everyone should follow in who to not vote for, pressuring or using misinformation to use only their list.
Take a moment and reread that last paragraph.
They were so upset on the idea of the Sad Puppies making a slate , that they made their own list specifically on who to not vote for and demanded that others use it for voting. So in essence, they made an anti-slate… slate. They did the very thing they were against.
Now one could argue that the SJWs were simply using the tactics of their opposition against them. Part of the problem was that Sad Puppies weren’t doing that, and it was a complete misunderstanding. The other problem with that, is that SJWs have been using their own slates for the last few years.
Slates have always been made up for the Hugos, likely since its beginning. Everyone makes up a list they believe should be elected and shared with others. Sci-Fi magazines likely had an editor’s choice for the Hugos, and fans put up their wishlists.
It’s only the SJWs who attempted to shame people into following their own slate. Not only for this year, but for years past. Their votes often revolved around minority/victim status. If a particular author was a woman, or was gay, or was non-white, or had a character that was any of those, they should win the Hugos. Doesn’t matter if their story was good or not, only if they represented a function of their threat narrative.
This year, in response to the nominations being mostly from the fan generated list given out by the Sad Puppies, the SJWs did something unspeakable. They gave out No Award.
No Award was first started in 1959. It was meant to be used if an individual felt that those who were running didn’t deserve the award or they didn’t think the category should exist. Since its inception, leading up to last year, only 5 No Awards have been given out for the first place for an award. However, the last No Award for a category was in 1977.
Until 2015. The SJWs were so angered by this, they not only voted for No Awards, but convinced a great many others to follow suit. Because of their manipulation and misinformation, they ended up giving out 5 No Awards for first place.
In one year, they managed to tie the record of the total number of awards that spanned 56 years. They increased the total number of No Awards for first place by 100%. It went from 5 to 10 in one year.
I know I’m beating a dead horse here, but I just want you to gain the full scope of this meaning. The SJWs were so upset that their apple cart was turned over, they elected to have no one win the award. Anyone who was on their list, whether they were actual members of the Sad Puppies or not, were voted against. People who worked hard to deliver solid science fiction stories were denied because, somewhere, someone made a list based on fan recommendations of who should win.
One thing you should take away from this, is the SJWs of the Hugos didn’t just attack the Sad Puppies, they attacked writers, editors, and fans of science fiction. Their selfish need to have things done their way, or else they have a tantrum, affected so many others.
They can declare a victory… but at what cost?
The voting wasn’t the only bad thing that they did. This year, they employed the Asterisk. Might sound like something cute, but it was a great insult.
Throughout the award ceremony, you saw asterisks everywhere. This year was dubbed as “The Year of Asterisks”. For those who don’t know, an Asterisks is often used as additional notes next to someones name. It is most famous in sports, when it is believed that someone winning an award or honor is somehow tainted, a belief for which a footnote is required. It’s seen as a greater dishonor compared to the achievement of receiving the award. Often it’s a reminder, “You only won on technicality.”
Some defenders might indicate that this was a joke, but this was not a laughing matter. You don’t joke about peoples achievement. If they earned an award and honor, you give it to them. You don’t put an asterisk next to their name simply because you don’t like them or didn’t vote for them. Who the fuck are you to decide that an asterisk should go next to someones name because a list came out generated by fans on who they thought should win? Fuck you for even joking about that, but fuck you for plastering it everywhere… telling anyone who got anything that night that it didn’t really mean anything.
For that reason, I went through each section of the Hugos and took out the No Awards vote. Since the No Awards were politically motivated this year, rather than be a reflection skill, I wanted to see who might have won with the votes they did get.
I want to point out, that while 5 No Awards were given out for first place, I did note 8 other occasions it was given out for other places. So, I will show who would have won in those places. More than that, I show many other awards that got first place with an overwhelming majority, in which that majority then voted 2nd place as No Award. As I will explain in each section, I took out those who got first place by a large number vote when that same large number then voted 2nd place for No Award, and I took out No Award.
The Hugos voting do a series of passes for each place, eliminate one person and revolving until one person is the winner. This allows those who voted for the person eliminate to recast their votes for others. So if their first choice doesn’t get it, then potentially their second or third choice does. I applied the same method.
I can’t know how people would have voted if they weren’t being selfish crybabies, so I only used the votes that were obtained to figure out who would have won, using the single elimination method.
Below is the Honey Badger Brigade’s list of those who should have won and why, but also honorable mentions to those also affected by the Hugos No Award. For now, we call them the Honey Puppies Award.
2015 for Best Novel
Looking at the nominations, it appears that last place (Skin Game) had the most nominations, while first place got the least of those that were eligible for the award. It should be noted however, that two writers declined nominations. Doing so allowed The Three Body Problem by Liu Cixin to be eligible, who ended up winning the award. Perhaps the votes were still politically motivated, but it appears that it was still rather fair in who won, as the votes were still spread among the writers. However, the votes did seem to be anti-Sad Puppies.
The two entries that were on the Sad Puppies slate were on the bottom of the list, and No Award was given before one of them got 5th place. Had No Award not been selected, both would have got a place. While first place is the only that receive an award, getting 5th place in the Hugos is still an honor.
2015 Best Novel Honourable Mentions
4th – Skin Game by Jim Butcher
5th – The Dark Between the Stars by Kevin J. Anderson
2015 Best Novella
This is one of five awards that received No Award for first place. Interesting to note, only three nominations for the Hugos were on the Sad Puppy Slate. So why weren’t the other two selected in place of the three the Sad Puppies had? Likely because one of the entries on the Sad Puppies slate was by author John C. Wright. This is important to know, because three of his books were listed for Best Novella.
I don’t know who John C. Wright is, and while he might be a good writer, I’ve heard rumor that his politics are not well received by many. But, his other books might have lost simply because John C. Wright was on the Sad Puppies list. His one entry on there may have affected him. Likely it is a combination of stuff, since after the No Award was given, the vast majority of those voted went with No Preference.
Had people not voted No Award, this is the results that it should have been:
2015 Best Novella
Flow by Arlan Andrews Sr
2015 Best Novella Honorable Mentions
2nd – Big Boys Don’t Cry by Tom Kratman
3rd – One Bright Star to Guide Them by John C. Wright
4th – Plural of Helen of Troy by John C. Wright
5th – Palm Realms of Shade by John C. Wright
2015 Best Novelette
This one is a bit tricky. 1st place was given to “The Day the World Turned Upside Down” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt. However, for the first place run, either people voted for him or No Award. Looking at the Sad Puppies Slate, this book was not featured on there. More than that, when looking at the nominations, I noted an interesting discrepancy.
First off, John C. Wright was deemed ineligible for his entry, as his work was published in 2013, not 2014. Because of this, Thomas Olde Heuvelt was given a nomination. But he only received 7% of the total votes. People could vote for multiple people, but when looking at the other nominees, they got on average 25.2% of the total votes. If we include John C. Wright (who was at 16%), it went down to 23.4%.
7% vs 24% – 26%. That’s a huge difference. The other nominees for this award were all listed on the Sad Puppies Slate. So, does that mean that Thomas Olde Heuvelt doesn’t deserve his award? I don’t really know. But it does seem he was voted as the anti-Sad Puppies choice, as he received 150% more votes than the next novelette.
When looking at the passes, it appeared No Award won the first three times. Once the other selections dropped off, the votes then seemed to favor him over No Award, and that is why he won. He was nearly a casualty of the No Award voting.
For this, an argument could be made either way. I will recognize that he did win the Hugos, but for the Honey Puppy Award, I will leave him as an honorable mention, but remove him from first place, as again, his winning seemed to be motivated for keeping any from the Sad Puppies Slate from winning.
2015 Best Novelette
The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale by Rajnar Vajra
2015 Best Novelette Honourable Mentions
2nd – Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium by Gary Rinehart
3rd – The Journeymen: In the Stone House by Michael F. Flynn
4th – Championship B’Tok by Edward Lerner
5th – The Day the World Turned Upside Down by Thomas Olde Heuvelt
2015 Best Short Story
This received a No Award for first place.
A few interesting notes on this one. Four of the five books on the Sad Puppies Slate was nominated, but one was ineligible, due to being published in 2015, and the other declined their nomination. Due to this, the fifth book on the Sad Puppies Slate was then nominated. So, two others were given the nomination for this award that were not on the Slate, but neither one of them got first place.
One likely didn’t get it as it was a story by John C. Wright. We discussed him already. The other didn’t get it. I don’t know why. Perhaps he’s associated with Sad Puppies in some way, even though he was not on the slate, or like John C. Wright, his politics is the issue. This was Steve Rzasa.
Taking the No Award out of contention, this is my list for the Honey Puppy Award:
2015 Best Short Story
Totaled by Kary English
2015 Best Short Story Honourable Mentions
2nd – Turncoat by Steve Rzasa
3rd – A Single Samuri by Steve Diamond
4th – On a Spirtual Path by Lou Antonelli
5th – The Parliament of Beasts and Birds by John C. Wright
2015 Best Related Work
This received No Award.
This is rather straight forward. Every related work listed here was on the Sad Puppies Slate. That is why they all lost.
Interesting note: Tropes vs Women: Women as Background Decorations by Anita Sarkeesian did receive 6.7% of the nominations, but was not eligible for a Hugo award, as it only take the top 5 nominees for each category to get the award.
2015 Best Related Work
The Hot Equations: Thermodynamics and Military SF by Ken Burnside
2015 Best Related Work Honorable Mentions
2nd – Why Science Never Settled by Tedd Roberts
3rd – Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth by John C. Wright
4th – Letters from Gardner by Lou Antonelli
5th – Wisdom from My Heart by Michael Z. Williamson
2015 Best Graphic Novel
Only one No Award was given here, which was for 5th place. This book was the only one in this set on the Sad Puppies Slate, and it had the highest nomination votes. I can make some guesses about this one, and while there is strong evidence that No Award was given to this one book, I can’t determine whether or not the other graphic novels deserve to win. So I only give an Honorable Mention.
2015 Best Graphic Novel Honourable Mention
5th – The Zombie Nation Book #2: Reduce Reuse Reanimate by Carter Reid
2015 Best Editor, Short Form
This received a No Award.
Four of the people going for this award were on the Sad Puppies Slate. The only one who wasn’t was Vox Day. Vox Day is part of Rabid Puppies, who got last place. But it should be noted that one of the people that was not selected was a woman. Why does that matter?
As mentioned above, the SJWs of the Hugos go out of their way to vote for women or minorities. In their effort to hurt the Sad Puppies, they threw a woman under the bus. Someone they would have likely voted for simply for being a woman, they didn’t vote for because she was put on a fan-generated Slate that was not by her own choice. That’s something to think about.
2015 Best Editor, Short Form
Mike Resnick
2015 Best Editor, Short Form Honourable Mentions
2nd – Jennifer Brozek
3rd – Vox Day
4th – Bryan Thomas Schmidt
5th – Edmund R. Schubert
2015 Best Editor, Long Form
No Award was given.
Here, were three women eligible for an award and none of them won. All three women were on the Sad Puppies Slate. There was also one man on the slate as well who ended up getting last place. Vox Day was not on the slate and didn’t place.
When analyzing the numbers, I did note a huge favoritism towards the women over the men. While no one won the award, the next three places were given to women by a large amount of votes. It may be that they deserved to win over the men, or that SJWs came in and push the votes for females to win. Regardless, when No Award was selected for first place, the next three places after that were all female in a landslide.
In talking to other writers, I learned that many felt that Toni should have won and strongly supported this idea. Many have high regards for Toni, and she was noted for leaving the awards at the sight of the asterisks. She also got 51% of the nominated votes.
Perhaps SJWs were trying to throw their weight around to prevent the men from running, but I will trust that these three women deserve be recognized and deserve the placement they got based on the votes.
2015 Best Editor, Long Form
Toni Wisskopf
2015 Best Editor, Long Form Honourable Mentions
2nd – Sheila Gilbert
3rd – Anne Sowards
4th – Jim Minz
5th – Vox Day
2015 Professional Artist
A few things were off about this one. First off, Carter Reid only got 9.7% of the votes but was in the top 5. This made no sense to me, as others got a higher ranking. Having calculated the total number of votes vs total ballots, the total was 0.22974. Or 23%. I believe this was a typo, and somehow they neglected the .22. Weird.
So, Julie Dillon got 66% of the vote before a No Award was given. Julie Dillion was not on the Sad Puppies Slate and had 358% greater votes than the next highest votes. Then, the 2nd place went to No Award. 85% of the number that voted for Julie Dillion voted No Award for 2nd place. In her nominations, while she got a low score, it was comparable to the other nominees.
Given that Julie Dillon was a woman and not on the Sad Puppies, it seems that Julie Dillion got an overwhelming support by those going against Sad Puppies. I don’t know who Julie Dillion is, but this appears to be a disservice to her, as she was only chosen for her gender and the fact that she wasn’t the the Sad Puppies Slate.
Because of this obvious favoritism, I took her out from first place as well as taking out No Award.
It is also likely that Kirk Duoponce was chosen for 3rd place because he wasn’t on the Sad Puppies Slate, but it was still a disservice to him that he had to come under No Award. That is why I am choosing to keep his name in.
2015 Profession Artist
Kirk DuoPonce
2015 Professional Artist
2nd – Nick Greenwood
3rd – Allan Pollock
4th – Carter Reid
2015 Semiprozine
Not much I can say here, only that those featured on Sad Puppies Slate were trumped by no Award.
2015 Semiprozine Honourable Mentions
4th – Abyss & Apex
5th – Andromeda Spaceways In-Flight Magazine
2015 Fanzine
This award suffered like the others. The first place had 68% of the vote with 121% great votes than the next highest No Award entry. Interestingly, 2nd place for No Award had 83% of the votes.
First place had only gotten 11% of the nomination, where the ones the Sad Puppies Slate have got at least 30%.
Black Gate was not on the Sad Puppies Slate, but ended up with 3rd. Of the three Fanzines that Sad Puppies did choose, two got a place and a third did not.
2015 Fanzine
Black Gate
2015 Fanzine Honourable Mentions
2nd – Tangent Online
3rd – Elitist Book Reviews
4th – The Revenge of Hump Day
2015 Fancast
The first two places were heavily favored before 3rd place got No Award. Looking at the nominations, if you combined them together, they barely get the same amount of the three chosen by Sad Puppies.
Unfortunately, knocking two out of their place with No Awards leave only three remaining. While there is clear evidence of political favoring for the first two, I draw the limit here, that I won’t knock two out of their place. Instead, I will only give honorable mentions.
2015 Fancast Honourable Mentions
3rd – The Sci Phi Show
4th – Adventures in SciFi Publishing
5th – Dungeon Crawlers Radio
2015 Fan Writer
Everyone the Sad Puppies had on their list got the most votes. However, one declined the nominations, to allow someone else to get on it, which then allowed that person to win. This was the only person not on the Sad Puppies Slate. She got 49% of the votes and had 357% more votes than the next person. No Award had 64% of the votes for 2nd place.
2015 Fan Writer
Jeffro Johnson
2015 Fan Writer Honourable Mentions
2nd – Dave Freer
3rd – Ceder Sanderson
4th – Amanda S. Green
John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer
Last on our list is the John W. Campbell Award. So the person who won (not to be confused with Arthur Chu) got the lowest amount of nominations, having 12% compared to the ones that the Sad Puppies had at 25% and above. They had 61% of the votes, followed by No Award for 2nd place with 54% of the vote.
Many felt that Kary English should have gotten the vote. Despite her being a woman, the SJWs disliked her because she was on the Sad Puppies Slate.
Rolf Nelson was not on the Sad Puppies Slate and also did not place.
2015 John W. Campbell Award
Kary English
2015 John W. Campbell Award Honourable Mentions
2015 John C. Campbell Award
2nd – Eric S. Raymond
3rd – Jason Cordova
4th – Rolf Nelson
As we can see, a lot of people who deserved to win got denied a chance to win because of politics. Even more people got denied a chance to place for the same reasons. SJWs felt that Sad Puppies were trying to corner the market, fearing that they were doing what SJWs had been doing for many years.
Instead, SJWs voted for people who were not on the list or No Award. Yes, the SJWs got what they wanted. They showed that the Hugo Awards were exactly what the Sad Puppies said it was; nothing more than a popularity contest whose winner was picked for political reasons. This year, we saw many people picked based on that criteria. The main reason being that they were not on the Sad Puppies slate. The SJWs attempted to punish the Sad Puppies, and in turn, punished everyone.
I don’t know what the future of the Hugos will be. Seeing what I saw this year, the hissy fit tantrum held by the SJWs, with blatant misuse of the No Awards and the Asterisks everywhere… all I can say is, I can no longer take anyone seriously when it comes to the Hugo Awards. I may even avoid future books that have won the Hugos, as I will never know if they won simply for being politically popular.
Whatever your personal politics might be, the Hugos need to be about the merit of the work itself and the skill of the writer, editor, and artist. This has been taken away, and when a few tried to bring it back, others attempted a scorch earth approach. They would rather destroy it for everyone else, rather than focus on what the Hugos were designed to be, to recognize the best stories in science fiction. I can only hope one day, the Hugos will be that once more. I can only hope that the No Award rule will be taken away to prevent this atrocity in the future.
He's an easy going guy who loves deep analytical thought, enjoys gaming, and being goofy.
- The Worst Crime - December 3, 2016
- Feminists Inject Shame Into Male Contraception - November 2, 2016
- Is there Racism While Driving? - September 22, 2016
by 
