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I have officially withdrawn my acceptance of the Best Novel nomination for “Lines of Departure” at this year’s Hugo Awards.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. <3 Thank you for your books, your professionalism, your grace in unpleasant circumstances.

  2. I applaud your taking what must be a difficult and painful decision. You are a writer of genuine moral integrity and honour. I will look for and read Lines of Departure because of this.

  4. Because of that, I’m going to buy your book and read it. (Obviously, I can’t say more than that about it yet.) So at least you’re gaining a sale from your position.

  5. Knowing nothing about what you speak I am upset as I do think you deserve a HUGO. That said its your choice. JUST PUBLISH SOME MORE WORK.

    Also allow me to formally say sorry for your recent loss and I hope that you (and the family)are continuing to work through it.

    I am excited about the upcoming book. Is there any chance of a preview?

    1. I didn’t join Worldcon or read “Lines of Departure” (yet), so couldn’t nominate it; but I *am* a fan of Kloos’s work – “Terms of Enlistment” was one of the few fiction books I’ve ever reviewed on Amazon. I recall that I put a 4/5 on it – good, but not Hugo-worthy yet. From what I hear, LoD *is* Hugo-worthy.

      Being on a “puppy” list, then, would have no impact in how *I* view the author’s work. (For what it’s worth.)

      Kloos has his reasons, this time ’round; I’ll just say I hope to see his work in future Hugo runnings.

  10. I respect your opinion, although I was planning on voting for your novel on the grounds that I truly enjoyed it.

    I must admit to curiosity; would your decision have been different if your had been included instead int eh sad Puppies nomination list, which had nothing to do with Vox Day?

    1. Lines of Departure was included in the Sad Puppy slate. Which has “nothing to do” with Vox Day like Inspector Renault in Casablanca had nothing to do with gamblers. (“Your winnings, sir.”)

      1. Pity. I asked because he mentioned only the Rabid Puppies lsate, which as I understand it is somewhat separate.

      2. Really, and exactly how do you come to this conclusion? Can I now lump all people doing similar things into the same tent? Can I lump the slates that have been run by anybody and everybody for years into the same tent?

        Tell me the special insight that tells you that Brad meant for VD to collude with him on this.

        Especially since the more controversy and blood spilled during the Hugos the happier VD seems to get. What happens if VD slates GRRM and Scalzi next year? Are they also tainted by association?

        I’m cool with Kloos’ option, I kind of wish he hadn’t withdrawn, but that’s his choice to make for his reasons. But to insist that only he can know his motivation, but assign nefarious motives to someone else on less weight is less than fair.

        “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”

        No Hugos pass this test. By default Worldcon is a small subset of fans. Was Redshirts a story for the ages that can stand next to books 50 years old that are still read? Will anyone care about it in 10 years?

        The nominated authors declining the nomination after the fact are letting the ones who want to burn it all down win. This is no different than No Award slate voting. Ten years from now the politics of this will be just as buried as the past kerfluffles in Hugo history. The people who care about things like that will still obsess about the 2015 debacle, and the rest of the planet won’t give a crap.

      3. VD basically copied the Sad Puppies slate, and added a couple of his own. He also seems to have a larger horde of voters than Brad.

  11. Having read and enjoyed your book (though I did not buy a supporting membership, so I wasn’t one of the folks who nominated it) sorry to see you put into this position. I think it was a book that probably deserved a nomination on its own merit, and it’s a shame it didn’t get that chance.

        1. That is the first genuine chuckle I have gotten out of this whole thing — Thank you, LabRat.

          (I will believe whatever Mark himself says about why he did this, and hope he is as honest as he appears to be. As one of the many people who have been called an SJW in the past who have encouraged everyone to read this year’s nominees and judge them on the work, not their slate association, I think Slime’s allegations about guilt-by-association harassment are probably just as totally lacking in foundation as most of the other allegations about SJWs I’ve seen in these discussions. I’ve seen many voters trying to figure out how to take the air out of VD’s attack on the Hugos who say in the same posts that they only feel sorry for the authors caught in the crossfire. I can only assume for those authors that it is even harder trying to figure out what next steps to take.)

        3. I’m always telling myself not to read the comments… but just this once, I’m glad I read the comments, because that was priceless.

      2. Dude, you are falling into the Way of Clamps.
        Do not follow in the Way of Clamps, even if you think you are doing it for Truth and Right.
        For Clamps is a Fool, and those who follow in his Way are likewise Fools.

  13. I congratulated you on twitter on the nomination, and I am very sorry that you have to withdraw because of an association you didn’t ask for and don’t agree with. I raced through Terms of Enlistment and moved Lines of Departure to the top of my reading pile, and now I am looking forward to the next book. Good, fun stories.

    A Hugo nomination can be a great thing for a writer and to give it up is not a thing you are doing lightly. Thank you for doing what you are doing.

  14. Bummer…I think you got it because of your work, and not because of “politics”, regardless of what the small minded fascists of the worldcon crowd thinks.

    But I can understand that the repercussions could be bad.

    1. Excuse me, but I think it is very disrespectful (not to mention smallminded) for you to disregard Mr. Kloos’s own account of his thoughts and decide what he really must feel. He made this decision on his own. By refusing to accept this, you are in effect saying that only one course of action is the legitimate choice of a free individual… and what kind of freedom would that be?

    2. When the full nomination vote counts get released after the Hugo election, we’ll find out whether Marko got enough votes to get the nomination on his own, or only with the aid of the puppies. (He didn’t get as many votes as Goblin Emperor or Ancillary Justice, but he might have placed in the top five non-slate votes or might not. Either way, he’s taking a brave stand and doing the right thing, and thanks.

  17. Condolences on what must have been a very difficult decision. And congratulations for standing firm on your personal ethics. I, for one, am now seeking out Lines of Departure to add to my library.

  18. I’m sorry to hear that guilt-by-association harassment led you to decide that only one group of people are allowed to think your work is award-worthy.

    1. And I’m sure you already knew that the same people would rush off to buy your book once you sided with them.

      Spineless.

      1. A thoroughly unpleasant insinuation as well as direct name-calling. One can hardly blame Marko from wanting to be disassociated from people who feel that type of response is appropriate.

        Far from spineless, I consider it to be a difficult decision made entirely in the service of personal integrity. It would take a very special person to consider that sort of decency “spineless”.

        1. He has taken the side that brands “misogynistic white-supremacist conservative” on women, PoC, and people of various political views not because of anything they’ve done, but because the wrong fans voted for them.

          1. That was utter nonsense. It’s a good think you don’t make your living writing.

          2. And also who call people racist for quoting people in their own words when they call themselves “savages”

          3. Vox Day is not a woman or a POC, and would probably be insulted to be lumped in with them, as he finds them inferior, so be careful there.

      2. I am quite sure that this isn’t the type of response the Sad Puppies side would endorse slime, maybe go check out the discussion on monster hunter nation or Brad’s blog and get an idea of how to recalibrate yourself.

      3. I’d honestly never heard of him before the Hugos (no offense, Mr. Kloos), and I tend to try and read Hugo-nominated works. This just means I’ll do it sooner rather than later, is all.

        (I think it’s a principled stand, and I appreciate people who can do that.)

        1. Amen to that. He’s new to me, but seeing this both ethical and serious-minded gesture is definitely a reason for me to go look for his work. I have a feeling this will spur many more people to be interested than the number of those petty ones who are both mean-spirited enough to return them and delusional enough to think the author can make Amazon refund them. Mr. Kloos, apologies to you for having to deal with *any* of this unasked drama, hang in there!

    3. 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.

      1. Seriously, dude, check your attitude. Obviously, Mr. Kloos and Ms. Bellet, who also withdrew from the nominations, are *not* caving to pressure from anyone. The withdrawal is a heavy decision made to step back from the politics, which is what SP3 was originally about; promoting authors of talent regardless of their politics/personal beliefs. This conflict has escalated and the authors are getting trampled in the wake of competing ideologies.
        It’s not his fight, not his flying monkeys; if he chooses not to be a token on the gameboard. I respect his choice. I would have liked the opportunity to evaluate his work and compare it to the other nominees, but maybe next time.

    4. I actually kinda dig this comment because it’s so perfect an illustration of why he made the decision it should be framed and shown to others when asked what his reasons were.

      Because he made a decision to back the hell out of political infighting in the SF world clearly he did it because he got harassed until he caved and not because he simply didn’t want to join the circus even by proxy, and also he’s telling people that liked SP/RP that they’re not allowed to dig his stuff.

      Thus demonstrating that not only was he absolutely right about being unwillingly used as a piece in someone else’s game, he was also right about the reaction if he elected not to be.

      1. This isn’t going to remove him from play, though. It’s just sent the ball over to a different part of the pitch.

          1. More or less. Pretty much when you tell the people who are specifically nominating works that they like, that you will refuse any nominations or awards that they nominate you for, you are playing for the side that only wants those who rightthink to be eligible for awards.

            Sorry, but in my opinion authors shouldn’t have an option to decline a nomination for a Hugo, it isn’t supposed to be about the author, it is bluntly, a popularity contest for the story. If it is published and out there, not only do I not understand the mindset of refusing a nomination, I don’t understand the concept that the author CAN refuse. They have every right to refuse to accept the award, or campaign against themselves, but they have already submitted their story to the voters (readers) by publishing it, I don’t see how they should be able to take it off the ballot.

          2. Nothing to do with that. If you prefer, think of it as an enthusiast wandering onto the pitch, realising everyone else is dressed in Mad Max style, and then noticing that they’ve ended up with one of the balls being tossed ’round.

            But let’s mix metaphors. Imagine the game is pinball instead, because all that’s going to happen now is both sides are going to be trying to bounce their balls off Marko and Alice(?) in order to score points in whatever game they’re playing. I don’t think this really removes them from the field at all, just makes them scoring zones.

          4. Marko never said anything about rejecting his fans and the people who thought he was worthy of the nom- he was specifically disassociating himself from being part of *a slate*, and specifically a slate initiated and distributed by someone he won’t be associated with.

            A vote for a nomination is one thing; being unwittingly part of what amounts to a straight party ticket is quite another.

    3. Yep. Your withdrawal was brought to my attention by a writer friend on Facebook. I am so sorry you were faced with this very difficult decision. I look forward to catching up on your published work and reading your blog.

    4. I support and understand why you felt the need to do this. So sad that something we all love has been made so ugly. I’ll be buying your books today.

    5. I too have gone out and bought your books on the basis of your sentiment and actions.

      Good luck! It must have been a hard decision to make. I hope that knowing you have garnered support – and readers – from it has made it worthwhile.

Comments are closed.