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I have officially withdrawn my acceptance of the Best Novel nomination for “Lines of Departure” at this year’s Hugo Awards.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
Integrity!
I’m sorry it came to this, Marko, but I understand your principled approach and guess I would do the same if I were ever in your shoes (unlikely though that might be). I have read and admired your work, and as one of your legion of admiring fans assure you that you have a long and successful writing career ahead of you, with no need of Hugo baubles. That said, I hope you win in a clear vote in a future year. All the best.
I’ve already said as much to Marko elsewhere, but I owe him a free drink or several, maybe his very own beer. When the game isn’t about the game anymore: drop the ball and go find somewhere else to play. And contrary to some of the Saddest Puppies, it does take guts to do that, especially when some of your real friends are deeply involved.
I’m also watching in some fascination because I’ve had a front row seat to all three years of circus. The original Sad Puppies thing had a point to make that the award had become very insular and more about back-scratching than quality- and then it *kept going*. To make what point? That the non-“in crowd” can swing a vote they way they want it too? If they can do it consistently with slates, doesn’t that actually kind of make them the new in crowd? Sadly I suspect the new point is enjoying pissing off the old crowd.
I hear a lot about “SJWs”, who actually do exist in the sense actual social justice folks used to use the term- someone who’s more concerned with staying the center of attention and using social justice issues as a bludgeon and a derail, or even as a tool for bullying and organized harassment. (See: the Mixon Report and Benjanun Sriduangkaew.)
Unfortunately, I hear the term a whole lot MORE these days to mean “person I don’t like to the left of me” or “person saying things marking them as an outgroup I can instantly dismiss without having to pay attention to anything they say.” Which makes me kind of want to instantly dismiss anyone using it, though if I catch myself doing so I stop.
My attitude has broadly been “a pox on all their houses”. I’m of the very strong opinion that diversity of all kinds including political can only ever benefit speculative fiction, including the outright ludicrous and hateful. (After all, it’s always good to have warning that you should start out by running away screaming if you see someone coming.)
It’s a self-selecting audience that’s going to get vocally butthurt about this, and not a representative one, but I gotta say I’m laughing and rolling my eyes by turn at people saying Marko’s caving to social pressure out of spinelessness, and to people who tar everyone with guilt by association, and to the politicization of the Hugos without regard to the quality of the work… while saying, often in the very same comment, that now they’ll never support him for a nomination, that he’s joined the other side and given aid and comfort to the enemy, and it’s probably because he’s one of them or at least they have his ear.
K. Keep talking, seriously, it’s educational.
The only way to win is to not play the game. I am sorry for your situation – I really am – it sounds kind of like getting stomach flu that cancels a trip to Paris.
I respect your decision. I also respect the choice of those who remain on the ballot. Fun times.
Marko, I’ve enjoyed your books and believe they are praise worthy. It is sad that your first Hugo nom is cluttered with politics. You will be nominated again. Your work is that good. I’m hoping that other writers nominated can believe their work deserves a Hugo. I’m looking at you EBR! I am freedom loving enough to say that I respect your decision and leave it at that. Live long and prosper-writing!
Argh! That should be ESR!
It is never much fun finding yourself caught in a cross-fire, especially when you weren’t expecting it. People who you thought were friends are suddenly shooting right at you, careless of hitting you, just for the chance to hit someone beyond you. They return fire, also not caring that you happen to be stranded in the no-mans land. At the end of the day, you don’t really care who shot first, you just want it to stop, so you can make it home in one piece. One side promised to stop shooting, so long as you’ll decry their target. The target who happens to be a fan. Being shot at by other fans. No easy way out of this one.
Once you have a little bit of breathing space, I recommend doing a little bit of math. Compare the boost in sales during the 3 weeks during and after the SP Book bombs, to the sales from the time of your withdrawal through the next 3 weeks. At the end of the day, let the monetary voice tell you who actually regrets shooting at you, and who doesn’t care if you get hit, so long as they hit those beyond you.
Also, regardless of your personal opinion of Vox Day, he gave your book a fair shake, and encouraged people to buy and read it, even vote for it if they liked it, and told them to be classy when you withdrew. That strikes me as a bit more encouraging than the sentiments condemning you for having the wrong kind of fan.
Best of luck, keep writing,
Randomatos
I bought your books after seeing them on the slate for the Sad Puppies campaign, and I loved them. I’m very much looking forward to reading more of your work. I think it, especially the 2nd novel, which was better in my opinion than your 1st novel (as is to be expected for a budding author) is very much deserving of this nomination.
I understand your decision to withdraw, and wish there wasn’t such a toxic political climate around the awards… but I also can’t help but be grateful to the Sad Puppies for bringing your work to my attention in the first place.
I’m sorry to see you go. I was looking forward to reading your book in consideration for the Hugos this year.
I still hope to read it, but it won’t be for awhile. Reading the nominees this year before voting is a big job.
I hope to see you get a nomination in the future that you feel comfortable accepting.
Marko, I am sorry that you had to make this decision. I believe your writing is excellent. I can’t do anything other than thank you for your honesty, and wish that this whole messy situation was not happening.
If I had any $$ right now — I don’t — I’d buy at least one thing just in support of your incredibly difficult decision. As it stands, though, I can wish you nothing but the best.
You’re a class act.
While I appreciate your position, I fear you have given Vox control of the Hugo. All he has to do to cast doubt on a book is to endorse it. He can even extol a nominee to his psychophants (sic) after it’s balloted, and there will be a pall over it if it wins.
Sometimes, not playing still isn’t a win.
I was wondering that as well. Vox now has veto power over the Hugos. Still, this does not mean I blame Marko.
Your martyrdom comes across as pathetic to as many who find it noble. Surprising to see an author spit in the face of current and potential fans who have a different opinion than you. Personally I am appreciative to the sad and rabid puppies for promoting works the rest of us might enjoy and look forward to checking out the other recommended authors, though I think I’ll wait now and see if any authors pull this kind of crap before I she’ll out any more of my money.
Agh you can just delete this and the above comment please. I was hoping to change something here or delete but of course I have no ability. I’ll stick with my mistakenly in-thread comment above instead of this :/
Good. Glad to see you gone. Every single man of principle should be shunned and you do it best by shunning them. Good for you.
As you bask in your principled sunshine I want you to consider that I view it just as I do the Germans that took a step to one side when the SS came after their neighbor; the Jew.
How very sanctimonious of you.
NEW WINNER OF BEST COMMENT. TURNING DOWN THE HUGO NOM IS JUST LIKE LETTING THE NAZIS MURDER SIX MILLION JEWS.
That’s one hell of a Godwin, bruh
I know. You guys got your hate hats on.
None of you ever read voxday’s blog do you? It would be like contaminating your vital essences to extend your oculars that far and actually read what the man writes instead of the in-stream shrieks of hatred launched that way by his nemeses.
He doesn’t war with the likes of you and nor will I.
Tell you what though. From the bursar of sasquan today, they have trouble keeping up with the things membership committees do for WSFS worldcon because they’ve had over 2000 requests for membership this month alone. I don’t write that in any threatening way but what happened with SP and RP was an avalanche of people deciding that they need to weigh in on the vote for the Hugo this year. Why exactly is that evil?
I’m a 55 year old retired from the navy officer who retired from defense work and now works at a midwest university as a writing instructor for student scientists. I’m no hater but that’s reached the point of being and saying, I’m no nazi. Tell you what though fellows, it has reached the point where the tolerant denouncement of intolerance towards all signs of tolerance and a screed advancing nothing but intolerance is getting old. [parse that]
You guys need to read more and clean up your act.
Not sure how this site works and if it streams comments into place or just puts all new comments at the bottom. Don’t care much. ctl f will find my original comment and who I’m responding to.
“None of you ever read voxday’s blog do you?”
You mean other than for yuks?
A most wise an honorable decision. As Annie Bellet, author of another nominee who has now dropped out said, this will not be the last book you write; you may well have a chance at a future, untainted, Hugo.
I recently heard good things about your book, so I began reading it on my kindle. Those good things I heard were not unfounded.
As far as this controversy goes, I don’t think you really ever did anything wrong. As far as I know you didn’t actively campaign to get on the puppy ballot. Though, I completely understand why you wouldn’t want to be apart of this shitstorm. I think if I was in your shoes, I’d just say to hell with ’em. So, shame on those who would think to punish you just because you don’t want to be apart of this mess. Shame on those who would punish you for a tangential(and unrequested) association to someone they don’t like.
I’m going to be honest with you. I don’t give a sh*t how good of a person you are. That’s what friends are for. Story above all else, everything else is secondary. On that metric, so far at least, LoD is definitely a worthy nomination. I look forward to reading more from you!
I haven’t read your books, but after reading this post I went out and bought your first two books and pre-ordered your third in the series. I’m sorry that your nomination for a Hugo was marred by this whole ordeal and I hope the future sees you get a nomination that you feel is purely for the work and not because of some political nonsense.
I don’t think he can expect that. After all, you were willing to reward him with your patronage based purely on his personal stance. Curiosity would be to buy the first, not the first two. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with buying products of people you admire. It’s just that, there’s no reason to expect that no one would choose to do the same for a Hugo. Voting is as often about personality as it is about product. No reason to expect that to change. I can’t see how he can be consistent in the future without forgoing any awards that involve public voting.
Marko, a slightly different version of the following is posted as a comment at Larry’s blog. I’m posting it here, not to blast you with my opinion, but because courtesy and respect demand that I address it directly to you so you can respond (or not) on your own ground, rather than somebody else’s place.
I’ve enjoyed your books, and will continue to do so despite your withdrawal from the Hugo.
But, while I respect your right to make the decision you’ve made, I will not support you in the future for a Hugo. The time to decline a nomination is when it is made, not days later. The timing of your decision is certain to damage the intent of SP3, that of encouraging the inclusion of works and authors which would normally be overlooked or actively excluded. Already, we’re seeing crows of triumph coming from those who seek to maintain a grip on the awards, limiting it to a small subset of fans.
Whether intended or not, your decision has aided them, and hurt fans like me.
I read and enjoyed both Terms of Enlistment and Lines of Departure long before LoD showed up on Vox Day’s list. My enjoyment of and support for the work had nothing to do with the RP campaign. By accepting the nomination, then reneging, you have made it apparent that my support, and the support of other fans like me, is less important to you than the ‘taint’ attached to Vox’s support. I read your apology to those like me who supported your work based on merit, and I accept that apology, and I bear you no ill will. However, your decision to withdraw did nullify and minimize my support.
As I said, I will continue to buy and read your books, and let other people know how good they are. I just won’t be able to support you for future awards, lest another undesirable person’s support causes you to drop out again, minimizing my support again.
I agree with your reasoning and admire your decision. But I also want you to know that I think your novel was good enough to be nominated on merit. I’ve been a regular sci-fi reader for over 30 years, but I’ve never participated in fandom. I only ran into this particular issue after wandering by GRRM’s blog–and lots of searching, clicking, and reading thereafter. I do often buy the Hugo best novel nominees that I haven’t already read–Lines of Departure belongs. I’ve bought, read, and enjoyed both Terms of Enlistment and Lines of Departure. I’m sure I’ll buy your next novel too.
Can you explain his stand to me? From the point of what is effective and consistent, I don’t follow his reasoning. I may be missing something, and I’d really like to know.
I can’t speak for him obviously, but it seemed straight-forward–he didn’t like being part of the RP slate because (1) it means too many votes came from people who voted for his work by rote rather than based appeciation of his creation, and (2) the RP progenitor is vile. These two reasons caused enough distaste that the nomination is tainted to him. He made a tough choice. Makes sense to me. And I agree. Recommendations are important in my filed, but there are people in my world that I would not want to recommend me, even if such a recommendation proved profitable. I could see reasonable people disagreeing, but the decision is rational.
Andrew: As I understand it, the RP and SP picked a bunch of books and got lots of people to nominate those books — WHETHER THEY READ THEM OR NOT.
So, since his book was on that/those slates, he doesn’t know – and no one else knows – whether he was nominated because enough people thought he deserved it or whether it was because a bunch of people who hadn’t read his book voted they way they were told to.
Being nominated for an award should be a huge compliment for your work. But if you then find out that the people who nominated you may not have even READ it — that has got to be a really crappy feeling!
Mr. Kloos: I respect your decision and respect you for making it. I hope the supportive comments make the situation somewhat easier to bear. And I hope you can ignore the comment of those who are acting like jerks and spoiled children.
WHETHER THEY READ THEM OR NOT.
you can repeat a lie all you want, that doesn’t make it true.
Marko’s perfectly capable of explaining himself, but the way I follow the reasoning is:
The award isn’t an award to him because it is, to use a sports metaphor, an asterisk. If he was part of a slate that swept certain categories, then there’s no way to tell if he won because people would have voted for him because the work was excellent or because he was part of that slate, or what the proportions in that mix were.
He’d rather no award than an asterisk.
You are aware that if Vox Day didn’t exist, there’d just be some other target, right? The same people screaming about the need to disassociate from the evil Vox Day would instead be screaming about the need to disassociate from the evil, I dunno, John C. Wright or somebody. And you would in the end be posting this same article, with the name “Vox Day” changed to “John C. Wright,” just so you could get out from under their fire.
Hmmm…
John C. Wright is a complete sack of crap, yeah.
Tom Kratman as well.
*snort*
you couldn’t have proven the point better.
so, Marko, what do you say? you called Vox a ‘shitbag of the first order’.
Raveen calls John C. Wright a ‘complete sack of crap’.
looks like the exact same accusation too me.
how many people are you going to throw overboard Marko? and how many CAN you throw over … before you look to your right and find no one there?
because that’s when you’re going to find out that YOU are a shitbag of the first order and a complete sack of crap ( to the rest of the Left ). and that you’re the next one over the side.
just ask Jemisin what she thinks of white men. i’m sure she’d be willing to tell you today.
I… wasn’t expecting the proof of what I said to appear so quickly, but then again, social justice does tend to narrow one’s mind and make one predictable.
You see, Mr. Kloos? This isn’t about one person. This is about ideological conformity. You’ve bought a temporary respite from the mob, that’s all.
This is about ideological conformity.
Right, because this is about politics. People are being maligned because they support conservative fiscal policy, and not because they go into whinging tirades about moral degradation in children’s cartoons because they dared to be offend his sensibilities.
Or what about Kratman? Who is aside from being an abysmal writer also has the mindset of a twelve year old screaming at people over a game of Halo.
Get real. These three writers are hated because they refuse to see the targets of their bigotry as people, and act like children and sociopaths while doing it.
Wow! You’ve certainly proven that everyone has at least one, opinion-that is.
Poor, poor unfairly maligned Vox. It’s just ’cause he’s a conservative and certainly not because of anything he’s ever said or done.
and John C. Wright? is he also [ sarcasm ] unfairly maligned [ /sarcasm ]?
you clowns are the ones who made this an ideological battle. i’ve been buying the works of women ( McCaffrey, Meluch, Norton ) and queer / friendly ( Gerrold / Hughart / Meluch again) for decades, since the early 80s, ever since i had a disposable income. people of color i’m not sure about, as Delaney never did anything for me ( advocates of child molestation and the writer of things like ‘Hogg’ never would ) and i’m not sure who else would have been publishing that would have been ‘of color’. because i never went looking. BECAUSE I WASN’T RACIST ENOUGH TO CARE OR STUPID ENOUGH TO THINK that skin color made any difference to the quality of what had been written on the page.
well, i’ll tell you what. ideologically, i’m to the right of the estimable Mr. John C. Wright. if John C. Wright is somebody you motherfuckers are going to shit on and shun and revile i will *make a point* of identifying every one of you Social Justice Whoreriors and anyone who bends a knee to them and never spending any money with you again.
“Social Justice Whoreiors”. Oh man, that’s freaking priceless, I love it when people wear nametages that advertise exactly who and what they are.
Not that it matters to you, but my politics actually align a lot more closely with Larry Correia than most of the “SJW” authors, though he is socially to the right of me in some ways. I just thinking fighting the culture wars in speculative fiction in any way other than writing different stories is fucking stupid and that the Hugo thing has evolved to the point where a good thing has become poisonous. (And yes, the original political monolithic nature was part of that- though the “SJWs” have a point that it was politically monolithic in another way before they came along.) But, yannow. It’s ALL about which trench of the culture war you’re in and if you’re not in mine you’re in the other, apparently, no matter who you find yourself next to they’re better than The Other Side.
Vox- how big of a compendium do you want on how he’s managed to make himself infamous? I mean, the most famous is that Jemisin Taylor (of whom I am no fan) rant that he got himself booted out of the SFWA for promoting on their twitter, and that one’s actually MUCH WORSE in context than the one clipped quote that keeps going around, but he has a rich omnibus of truly vile shit that horrifies people of just about any stripe.
As for Mr. Wright… he believes that contraception is wrong, women should be subordinate to their husbands, and also that his brand of Christianity in general is Right and everyone else is Wrong and just generally destroying Western civilization. But he’s not a patch on Vox in terms of outright loathsomeness, though tellingly he is one of Vox’s defenders.
…..stupid chiclet laptop keyboard look at those typos. >_<
Well bless your li’l heart, Bob.
I think somebody needs a hug and a juice box.
Nobody blames J.D Salinger for the guy i’m not going to name for killing John Lennon, You are not responsible for who likes your books. I disagree with your decision. I also respect it. Now go write more please.
I can certainly understand wanting to be recognized for the quality of work, rather than any political consideration. Terms is why I purchased Lines and Lines is why I purchased AoA.
Still, I’m not clear on your reasoning for declining the nomination. It appears that you’ve chosen to reject the support of those who support you because they believe you to be of like mind. With that restriction, I don’t see how you would ever be able to accept any award, much less one determined by a vote. I suspect a substantial portion of any vote is determined by the likability of the craftsmen, rather than the craft.
So long as all concerned are free to participate, and I believe this is the case for the Hugo, I don’t understand the reasoning of withdrawing just because people who think of you positively are highly motivated. Is it your intent to never accept an award where people who find you personally appealing are highly motivated, out of fear that you, and not your work, will be what is rewarded?
If it is your intention to reject those who voted for you because they found you, personally, likable, I’m afraid you’ve thrown out the baby with the bath water. You’ve also refused the votes of those who voted for you because they liked your work. Yes, you single out RP as the reason, but people who supported your work because they believed it to be good were given the same reward.
In short, you’ve treated the people who placed personality and politics in the exact same manner as those who looked first to your work and found it worthy.
If it’s your intention to avoid harassment, the actions appear consistent. The denunciation will probably save you the bile you would have received should you have won. Current hostility is probably reduced moderately. While one side will feel vindicated the other will be split between pity, disappointment and betrayal. Sales are a wash.
As a writer, you put yourself out there just as much as your work, even though you might not wish that to be the case. I can certainly understand the desire to avoid traducement or association with someone you find distasteful. However, while this makes the most sense in terms of observable consistency and efficacy, you’ve said this isn’t why you made your decision.
In the end, I just don’t understand the reasoning.
I cannot speak for what Marko thinks, of course; but I can say what reasoning I see in what he wrote above.
The issue isn’t with people who like his work, nor with people who like him. It’s with people who have made explicit that they worked to put him on the ballot *without regard for* the quality of his work, solely and exclusively based on his perceived political ideology.
If i were a fiction author, that would make me very uncomfortable as well. It would mean that neither I nor anyone else attempting to evaluate the quality they could expect to find between the covers of my books could trust the nomination, nor the award if I won it. They wouldn’t be able to tell if I had received an honor for having written a good book, or for having served as somebody’s inadvertent propaganda tool.
And neither could I.
I don’t imagine I’d like that feeling much. Maybe Marko doesn’t either.
“I can certainly understand the desire to avoid traducement or association with someone you find distasteful. However…you’ve said this isn’t why you made your decision.” Umm…no, he said quite clearly that that is precisely why he made his decision. And I quote: “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…had a hand in giving it to me…I don’t want it.”