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I have officially withdrawn my acceptance of the Best Novel nomination for “Lines of Departure” at this year’s Hugo Awards.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
This retraction makes me want to buy your book. I had not heard of you before recent events. Bravo. I am headed to Amazon.com this moment.
I am so sorry to hear about this Hoss. I enjoyed “Lines of Departure” just as I did “Terms of Enlistment” and I look forward to “Angles of Attack”.
I’ll make you the same deal I make with the other authors I like.
You keep writing them and I’ll keep buying and reading them 😉
Bubba Man, One of the Bubba’s of the Apocalypse.
Thanks a bunch. Your actions only serve to make voting more difficult for those of us who planned to vote fairly, reading at least some of each work, and deciding on that basis which was the best. I have said elsewhere that I had no intention of allowing the internet to tell me how to vote. You have allowed the internet to tell me which works I can vote for!
I gotta say congrats for not letting these bumbaclots use you as a chess piece in their little coup. Best of luck next time the Hugos roll around.
Marko:
You are like school in the summer – no class. Sure, make your nomination political and demonstrate that you are on the side of angels to the gangsters and thugs by declining the nomination. That makes you possibly just spineless and craven. But to insult and demean the people who voted for you, that is a tasteless move, and saying you shouldn’t have used a bad word in insulting everyone is no apology.
I’m glad you took a side in the debate. It is good to know that you support the hate and abuse that all of the “tolerant” people have been using against ordinary sci-fi fans. It is good to know that you support racism and dishonesty. Picking which books to read in my limited time is always hard. I had bought your first book and was thinking about buying more. But you have made it easy to skip over your work in the future.
Way to demonstrate cognitive dissonance for the home audience…
“It is good to know that you support racism and dishonesty”
Distancing himself from vox day is supporting racism? I don’t think you quite get how this works, slick.
Longtime Barfly, here. I commend you for making a difficult decision, and respect your reasoning. For what it may be worth, you’ve gained a fan. I’ll be picking up your stuff and adding it to the reading pile.
Your work, your call, bro. Sucks to be collateral damage in someone else’s war.
I plan to aid in your healing by continuing to buy everything you publish. All the best.
You pussy.
Oh, put a sock in it, Internet Tough Guy.
For how much everybody has gotten into a tizzy about these awards, it’s been easy to lose sight of the fact that many of the people nominated have also been victimized. It’s a shame that you got caught up in something beyond your control, but I’m impressed by your decision to decline the nomination. Either way, I’ve already picked up Lines of Departure and look forward to reading it.
Hopefully next year will be kinder to you, Markos!
Instant reward (kleine Sünden bestraft der liebe Gott sofort): I had bought, but not yet read your novel in question. When I learned about the Rabid Puppies-campaign, I had decided to not even read it. NOW: decision reversed, very much looking forward to read ‘Lines of Departure’. Being a Hugo-nominee is great, being a decent person worth infinitely more.
Gladly demonstrating the problem…
I’m a writer too, and if I were on the Hugo ballot and felt I had to withdraw, it would be incredibly difficult for me. So for the record, I want you to know how much respect I have for what you’ve done. I also want you to know that I’m buying Terms of Enlistment and look forward to reading your series this summer.
I’m so sorry this has happened to you, but I hope you find yourself on the ballot again someday.
I have no idea who Vox Day is. I do know who Marko Kloos is and have been a fan since Terms of Enlistment. That said, I have also followed the works of Larry Corriea and JC Wright and have enjoyed their works also. When I first heard about the SP campaign I was neutral but leaning towards the side that winners should not be socially engineered. This is a more libertarian viewpoint then most which would explain my fondness for those authors works. So… I’d be on the side of measures opening up Hugos to the best stories not based upon the views of the author.
I was happy to see Kloos getting a nomination. I am unhappy to see it declined. Why… because the act of declining is the same as taking a stance that the opening of the award to all stories is not correct. I’d have preferred if Kloos had simply not responded one way or the other and stayed above the fray. Now… he’s in the muck with both sides.
Will that affect my decision to buy Book 3. maybe. The sad truth of being a reader is that the only power I have is where I spend my money.
Thanks for allowing my viewpoint.
“Why… because the act of declining is the same as taking a stance that the opening of the award to all stories is not correct.”
Disingenuous statements like this are why I have no sympathy for people who support the puppy slates, even if they might have a point about some works being overlooked. The awards HAVE been open to all stories; nobody’s been forbidden to nominate. It’s just that not enough people nominated works that made Day/Torgersen/Correia happy when left to their own devices, so they organized slates to ram their choices through. It worked, because slates will always beat people making individual choices, but it’s not some great uprising of the masses and it’s nothing to be proud of. It’s just a temper tantrum.
Mr. Kloos,
could you contact me, please, using the email I’m providing here. I bought Terms of Enlistment and Lines of Departure on the 7th on the strength of their inclusion in the Rabid Puppies slate and the Hugo nomination for the latter. Now that you’ve withdrawn, I want to return them for a refund. Please do that, or help me arrange with Amazon to do that. It’s outside the normal 7-day period that Amazon will allow Kindle returns.
There is no need to publish this email. Or my last email either. Instead of complaining, I have decided I’d rather just do the civilized thing and return and refund.
Interesting this comment means that this person does not or can not think on his/her own. If you can not read a work of fiction on its own merits, WITHOUT someone telling you to “enjoy” the book it is not the author you should be worried about it is a view of yourself in a mirror that should be bothering you.
“The mind is a terrible thing to waste” and your post exemplifies thiat statement!
EoI, I am not sure if Amazon will accept a note from Mr Kloos asking to excuse you from the normal rules of purchasing.
Have you read the books? If so, why should you get a refund? (besides the fact you are in a snit because of Mr Kloos’ actions).
If you haven’t read them, you have missed out on two very good books, so I would pull on your big-boy pants and read them for the sake of a good book, rather than for a “political” gesture.
That’s not how buying things works, bub.
Are you serious?! You bought a book, OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL, and you want the AUTHOR to refund you the purchase price?
Guess what, Emps: 7 days, you lose. Authors have no control over vendors’ return policies. .
Authors have zero control over Amazon return policies, and Mr. Kloos would have received only a fraction of the price. If I were you I’d stick to your belief that someone nominated by this group is worthy – unless you believe they weren’t really worthy in the first place, which would of course indicate this was nothing but a political stunt rather than belief in the work, and surely that isn’t the case.
Surely!
Maybe you should read the books instead. You might find a writer worth continuing to read.
Here’s an idea: Sell it to Chris Garcia. Everyone wins!
Really, you think you own the author, not his books?
It is always refreshing to see someone, like yourself, put morals above quick gratification. Unfortunately, in our newly designed Country a small group of well-organized people can and do sway the outcome of elections and awards (See money in Politics for details)
Personally, when I read science fiction, I read it for enjoyment and escapism of the story. I usually reject blatant propaganda stories from the same author that are wrapped around current thirty second sound bites. I have enjoyed your writing style and sense of story and have purchased your last two books and pre-purchased your newest effort.
I lean to the left. I served eight years in the US military, my brother-in-law just retired at camp Pendleton with the rank of colonel. My nephew flies trash haulers (AKA C-130S) in the Marines and my step-son is in the army and has four years to go before retirement. As a group, we are in the middle politically except possibly the colonel. While we don’t agree on everything, the one thing we do agree upon is the extreme right wing direction this Country is heading. Benjamin Franklin summed up our views with this quote –
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
While we don’t agree on everything, the one thing we do agree upon is the extreme right wing direction this Country is heading.
because, of course, Obama and the Democrats are completely blameless when it comes to the kabuki theater that is airport security and all the rest of the state intrusions. yes, everyone who gets on a plane must be scanned down to their skin … but anyone who wants to wade across the Rio is granted voting rights? uh huh. somebody’s not very serious about security at all.
what was is it that Obama wanted to do to Snowden, again? maybe you can help explain to me how his statements were the fault of the Republicans?
I am disappointed. I bought Terms of Enlistment and Lines of Departure last week because their inclusion on the Puppies slate made me think they would be worth reading and voting for.
Now I find out that I’m not the kind of fan Kloos wants. My interest in his work doesn’t count, because I’m the wrong kind of person. I wish I could get a refund.
You’ve obviously completely missed the point of the Sad Puppies campaign. I guess Rabid Puppies was designed differently.
As someone who has read your work since the early days of your blog, bought your books as soon as they were available (counting the days ’til my pre-ordered AoA arrives), and paid $40 for the privilege of nominating you, I’m sorry.
I’m sorry this happened to you so soon after the loss of your dog, and while your soul was likely occupied with other things.
I’m also sorry I won’t get to vote for you this year. (Yeah, I know you’re up against Butcher, but I like what I like.)
I hope your decision (among other things) buys you a respite from the involuntary, shit-covered dodge ball game, and a measure of peace.
“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.”
Well aside from that “small subset of fans” being everyone who joins the worldcon and nominates, which is all of us (me included), falling for some conspiracy theory and then becoming one of the current “small subset of fans that want to maintain a grip on the awards” (the Rabid Puppies and allies) seems to be totally hypocritical.
If anyone wanted more people to nominate, then they could have just told people to go read books, and then encourage them to nominate those they think are good enough for the awards. And I’m pleased that some people did indeed nominate Marko based entirely on the quality of his work.
However, unless we can be clear that he made it onto the ballot through quality alone and not through a “small subset of fans” then the award itself becomes meaningless.
Mr. Kloss has stood up and been counted, and I hope his work is widely read, and considered by each of us for nomination next year …
This year’s awards have been totally tainted by the RP/SP cabal and so whatever results are announced, whoever wins this year, has won an award that’s tainted by Puppy Poop.
The RP/SP have turned this into an Olympics where only one country is allowed to compete, so any medals won just makes you the least unpopular RP/SP rather than saying that among the whole field of SF & Fantasy, the fans voted for you to win.
Marko deserves to be judged fairly, and if/when he wins, then to know he has won fairly.
Marko,
my highest respects for your wise and ethical decision. Your unambiguous decision to chose integrity and moral principles over a – at most temporary – venial prize show you to be a true gentleman. Again, my highest respects for your decision.
All the best.
Martin K.
I’m darned sorry Marko withdrew, but I understand why. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Sir,
I am not a fan who usually writes to authors: though I enjoyed ‘Terms of Enlistment’, and expect to enjoy ‘Lines of Departure’.
I have great respect for your principled decision. Though I hope that this is not seen as pressure on others on the Puppy’s slates, who I feel should each do as they think is right.
I hope your action will mean that in future people stop nominating you because they are trying to play politics, and nominate you because you’re a damn fine writer instead. And whether or not they do, you and I will both know that you are.