Header image

a statement on my hugo nomination.

Posted on by Marko

Dear friends and readers:

I have officially withdrawn my acceptance of the Best Novel nomination for “Lines of Departure” at this year’s Hugo Awards. 

It has come to my attention that “Lines of Departure” was one of the nomination suggestions in Vox Day’s “Rabid Puppies” campaign. Therefore—and regardless of who else has recommended the novel for award consideration—the presence of “Lines of Departure” on the shortlist is almost certainly due to my inclusion on the “Rabid Puppies” slate. For that reason, I had no choice but to withdraw my acceptance of the nomination. I cannot in good conscience accept an award nomination that I feel I may not have earned solely with the quality of the nominated work.

I also wish to disassociate myself from the originator of the “Rabid Puppies” campaign. To put it bluntly: if this nomination gives even the appearance that Vox Day or anyone else had a hand in giving it to me because of my perceived political leanings, I don’t want it. I want to be nominated for awards because of the work, not because of the “right” or “wrong” politics.

Thank you to everyone who voted for “Lines of Departure” because you read the novel and genuinely thought it worthy of award recognition. Please be assured that I did not reach this decision lightly, and that I don’t want to nullify or minimize your opinion. But keeping the nomination is not a moral option at this point, and I hope you will understand.

This is my choice alone, and I am making it without pressure from any side in the current Hugo debate. Please respect it as such. 

Marko Kloos

April 15, 2015

Category: books., writing.

295 thoughts on “a statement on my hugo nomination.”

  1. Marko, I had never heard of you until today. Having read what you have to say, I feel great respect for your resolve, and I am moving to remedy my ignorance of your work bow.

  2. Pity, but, it is what it is. I read all of your books, more than once, just like I do Larry’s. Oh well. I can always re-nominate you for something in 2016. 🙂

    I want you to know, though, that despite being a Sad Puppy, you were on my list way before that.

  3. I just bought “Lines of Departure” and its prequel on Kindle, and have pre-ordered its sequel. I don’t know whether or not, as of now, I’ll like them, but I’ll absolutely read them. I already knew I like Annie Bellet, though I hadn’t read her nominee.

  5. How many times to you plan to do this? If you tick the guy off so that he keeps putting you on his List are you going to continue to march to his tune and remove yourself?

  6. It sucks to be in this situation. I hope you get nominated again, next time with no controversy. I support you making your honest decision with my wallet: I just bought the kindle and audible editions of book 1.

  8. Marko, I haven’t read any of your books yet but I just bought Terms of Enlistment because of your principled stance. Kudos to you!

  9. Your decision to make. But I would not have made the same decision.

    I was unaware until the recent flap that a Hugo was decided by a small slice of fandom who paid a modest fee. The statistical analysis David Freer is very convincing that only those who complied with the SJW view were earning Hugos in recent years and that the Hugo process prior to the Puppies was tainted in recent years.

    I was unaware of Vox Day prior to this. Larry Correia I knew of and owned many of his books. I agree with the Sad Puppies that Pournelle and Starship Troopers would have never been considered for a Hugo in the last 10 years. It also seems like Larry Correia was subject to a very nasty whisper campaign when his book was on the list at the Reno Worldcon and was blacklisted for being a gun store owner previously and not writing with the “right” political view. Typical SJW behavior.

    I’ve read SF for more than 40 years. Many of the “older” Hugo winners are among my favorites. And unlike winners in the last 10 years or so, many of the older Hugo works have stood the test of time and still sell very well today. Look at sales results on Amazon. Sales numbers don’t lie.

    I love military SF and because you were not on the Baen label – I had not read your work. I like this genre – and you can thank Sad Puppies and only Sad Puppies for coming to my attention. I’m probably going to pick up a kindle version of Line of Departure – and you can thank Larry et al for bringing your work to greater attention.

    But the outright lies, slander, and guilt-by-association directed at the Sad Puppies is an excellent example of current liberal lynch mob mentality. I’m sorry that you decided to decline the award. I think it sends the wrong message. But again – your choice.

    I’ve bought a WorldCon associate membership this week. I will vote now, and in the future as long as the SJW’s don’t ban actual fans from voting who do not ascribe to their groupthink mentality. I also think that Larry’s point about the Hugo’s being a rigged game and the reaction of those angry about “badfun” have come to fruition. Larry predicted this and the reaction occurred.

    The SJWs are sore losers. Their groupthink accomplices are largely nasty and don’t even look at http://www.monsterhunternation.com for the reasons why SadPuppies came about. They have found their straw man, Vox Day, and are happily setting it on fire.

    And once again SWJs – I had never heard of Vox Day, was heavily involved for Cons for a decade, and am a heavy book buyer my whole life. I am now a Hugo voter – even though I was not a member during the nomination process. At least the Sad Puppies are driven by actual facts and are not slandering their opponents.

    1. “The SJWs” is not a group of actual people, so don’t worry, ‘they’ will not make it against the rules for non-groupthink fans to vote.

      Now that you are a member of the Worldcon, you are a member of The World Science Fiction Society and have as much power over the rules of Hugo Voting as any other member. (Though historically, attending members have more power over WSFS business because they can attend the business meeting, but there is a proposal going through the process of being added to the rules that would make any rule change subject to a ratification by all members, which could take place online.)

    2. “Those People are politically monolithic lying cowards, which is why I won’t even look at books not on my politically friendly print unless someone I approve of politically points them out.

      And also they’re ruining science fiction by playing politics!”

  10. Bravo, sir. I hadn’t heard of you before this brouhaha, but now I’m looking forward to checking out your work.

  11. I’ll be voting for the Hugos, and I was looking forward to checking out your novel. But I respect your decision. It would be hard to get a Hugo nomination, much less win a rocket, and know that both sides of the debate would think that you only got there because of Vox Day’s intervention.

    As for the people saying that you’ll never get another nomination or that you are doing this to suck up to the “winning” side, ignore them. Keep writing Hugo-quality fiction, and you’ll get nominations and awards, and you’ll be able to accept them without feeling that you (unknowingly) sold your soul to the devil to do it.

    The Hugos will survive Vox Day, even if it takes a couple years of ugliness. In the meantime, you’ve shown principle in a tough situation. I congratulate you.

  13. To paraphrase one of the great robots, screw this contest! I’m gonna make you my own Hugo! And fill it with scotch! Don’t ask about the hookers. They, uh, didn’t fit.

  14. So the nutshell is that you’re pulling out lest people respect you less via guilt by association.

    Hmm.

    So you’re worried about what such people think. And by such people I mean the type who would condemn your work based not on the work itself, but because someone “icky” likes it.

    Yah. Not people whose esteem I’d much be worried about. Monumental shitweasels is what I’d call them.

    I think the less of you now for handwringing over such folks. I’m not regarding it as taking much courage to run with the soi disant cool kids.

    1. You “think the less of him” because you think that he was worried about other people thinking the less of him. Do you think he should worry about you thinking the less of him? If not, why did you feel the need to inform him as to the status of your thoughts about him? And if so, then why would you hold him worrying about other people thinking less of him against him?

      You don’t do self-awareness so well, do you, Malcolm?

  15. Mr. Kloos, well done in making a good decision under difficult circumstances.

  16. Good for you. I know nothing of your politics, and have not yet read your book, but I very much hope that you get a nomination soon on the merits of your work.

    1. Yes, because evidently the people who voted for him didn’t give a shit about his work, like how Kloos didn’t give a shit about anyone who thought he deserved the Hugo.

  17. Like many people, I respect your decision and, although I hadn’t been aware of your works prior to this, you can be sure that it’s now going on the list of books to purchase in the near future.

    Thank you for speaking up, and I’m sorry that this year’s Hugo’s ended with you having to pull out (although I’m sure it was a deserved nomination).

  19. Sorry it came to this for you. I only know of your work because I follow Williamson, and Correia, and now Torgersen and Hoyt. Good luck in your future endeavors, and I will be checking out your work based on the recommendations of people whose taste I trust.

Comments are closed.