Hugo Delenda Est (?!)

One of the surging Puppy memes lately, in the wake of the 2016 Hugo Awards and the inaugural 2016 Dragon Awards, is “Hugo Delenda Est”. A check of Google shows that the idea has been in Puppyland for at least a year, but I noticed it when I visited John C Wright’s blog. , when he took issue with comments about the Dragon Award winning Somewhither. At the end of that post, he signed it off for (as far as the first time I can tell) with that phrase.

In PKD** fashion, I am tempted to tell you all about the etymology of the phrase and its origins. Rome and Carthage, Cato the Elder, and all that. I do find it interesting that the Puppies have cast themselves as Rome, and the “Puppykickers and SJWs” (their labels, not mine) as the Carthaginians. Since the Carthaginians performed child sacrifice (and truthfully, at that period, so did the Romans), the anti-abortion side of the Puppies might find this parallel even MORE appealing and apropos.

I do find it interesting that the “mask” is off. Mr. Wright was genuinely pleased by his Hugo nominations, and John, fun fact, its an honor to be nominated, even if you lose. But it appears that the “Puppykickers and SJWs” use of the No Award option the last couple of years cannot be borne.

So Hugo Delenda Est?

Bitch, please.

There have been complaints about who has gotten Hugos since, it seems, since the second year of the awards (They Rather Be Right, *really*?). And as Cora Buhlert pointed out in a recent blog post, back in 2013, when the Puppies were just getting going, there were rumblings and discussions in the SF field about the kind of works that were getting nominated. Those complaints were that the award was TOO commercial and was missing important books and stories in the field in favor of much more commercial and mainstream works. (In other words, the exact opposite argument the Puppies advance). I should know about these rumblings and discussions–because I was there. I was actively tweeting and commenting and talking on podcasts at the time. I ALSO remember that some of those people who were unhappy pondered and contemplated the possibility of starting a new award. That turned out to be naught, because, well, its difficult to get an award up and running. Look at the Dragon Award, where a suspicious number of the winners match Theodore Beale’s “Not a Slate” slate.

But destroy the Hugos? Why? Isn’t destroying the Hugos because you don’t like the books and works winning a case of that charge you throw at SJWs of accusing Puppies? Are SJWs wrongfans having wrongfun?

We’re not having wrongfun, and you aren’t either when you read the works you like to read and talk about same. As I have said a thousand times, my only beef with the Puppies in regards to the science fiction they love is the use of slate tactics to put works on the Hugo ballot..

My only beef with the Puppies in regards to the science fiction they love is the use of slate tactics to put works on the Hugo ballot.

And when you try to *troll* the awards by slating Chuck Tingle, then my ire gets up to 11.

Read what you love, and be done. No one has to destroy anything. Or should want to.

**Oh yes, this SJW read and talks about Philip K Dick, Jack Vance, Alfred Bester, Robert Heinlein, and plenty of other authors that, if the Puppies are to believed, I should say penance to a statue of Astarte for if I even utter their names.

No, we don’t hate Sad Puppies for the reasons you give.

believe the gap between the puppy kickers and the sad puppies was trenched deliberately. It is not because they misunderstand us that they hate us; they hate us because we love science fiction for its own sake, as an imaginative exercise opening realms of wonder. They see science fiction as they see all things, as tools useful for social engineering and thought policing. We seek to free the mind, they seek to chain the mind.

–John C Wright. “Superversive: Puppy Pictures, Please

No, John. “Puppy Kickers” do NOT hate the Sad and Rabid Puppies because you love SF for its own sake. Those opposed to the Puppies object
to Theodore Fucking Beale making slates and using such tactics to put shit works on the Hugo Ballot.

I do not hate Theodore Beale because he loves SF for his own sake. I hate Theodore Beale because in a fit of pique, he has decided to try and spoil Science Fiction for his own amusement. Or do you think it was an act of love and respect on Theodore Beale and the Rabids part for Science Fiction that they slated Chuck Tingle onto the Hugo Ballot this year?

Theodore Beale and the Rabids are Jokers, John, in the Batman sense of the word. I hate him because he is anti-Science Fiction, against this genre that you *know* that I love.

The photo I took when I was terribly lost in the wilderness

A bit dramatic, but not inaccurate.

On the way back from Lake of Glass (see the email I sent the other day), I went off trail to try and get a better picture of The Loch once I made it to the Vale. Being too clever by half, I did not retrace my steps right back to the trail, but instead went on, figuring I would intersect the trail and all would be well.

This proved not to be the case. I went further and further off trail, walking through the forest, and not sure at all where I was or even what direction I was headed.

Finally I climbed a rather imposing slope to an outcrop to get my bearings. I figured I would see the Loch nearby, reorient myself and get myself unlost.

What I saw when I got to the top of the knob was this:


You can see the Loch, where I was when I started going off trail as that tiny dark patch at about the middle of the photo. I had somehow, someway gotten way out south, thinking I was really east of the lake the entire time.

Later, now, I figure I had managed to get onto the hill in this map marked “glacier” (its actually cut off and should be “Glacier knob”. I didn’t know that at the time.


So I headed straight down in the direction of the Loch, figuring I HAD to hit the lake, or the trail, first. Halfway down the knob, I saw people walking on the trail, and I managed to scramble my way to known territory again.

The Golden Age of SF is 12 and the unbound time of SF

“The Golden Age of SF is 12”

You’ve heard that phrase, right?

For me, it may be the SF I read when I was 12, but I was not yet reading contemporary SF at that point. Thanks to an older brother introducing me to HIS Science fiction, I was reading for the most part slightly older science fiction than the contemporary at the beginning.

The 1984 Hugo novel nominees, for novels in 1983, when I was 12:

Startide Rising by David Brin [Bantam, 1983]
Tea with the Black Dragon by R. A. MacAvoy [Bantam, 1983]
Millennium by John Varley [Berkley, 1983]
Moreta: Dragonlady of Pern by Anne McCaffrey [Ballantine Del Rey, 1983]
The Robots of Dawn by Isaac Asimov [Doubleday, 1983]

I read none of these in 1983 or 1984. It would take me a couple of years to discover Brin, Varley, McCaffrey. It was a long time before I hit on MacAvoy. I was reading Asimov at that point, Asimov was one of my first authors but I was reading used paperbacks, not new ones. So I didn’t get to this one for a while.

Similarly, I hit Cyberpunk and Neuromancer a few years after its Annus mirabilis of 1984. I wanted to “catch up” with all the back history of the field, you see.

Zelazny’s Merlin novels were the first novels I was eagerly trying to read “in real time”. As time went on, I slowly started to shift toward new or recently published SF. It was the mid to late 90’s when I started reading Hugo and Nebula nominees in the year they came out, as a way of staying abreast of the field.

When I started reviewing seriously enough to have publishers start sending me books was when I started managing to read books *before* official release, but that wasn’t until about 5 or 6 years ago.

Self Defense and John C Wright

A quote for today

In the rightwing view, each man is or should be mature and able to defend himself. More than this, it is his duty to defend himself and his family. The role of the police is limited to avenging wrongs after they are done, not preventing them. Police are not bodyguards and have no enforceable, legal duty to protect citizens.

_ John C Wright

I disagree. What of those citizens who have no capacity or talent for self defense? Not everyone is a Heinleinian uber competent. And this doesn’t even get into physically challenged citizens. So, a blind head of household should be able to defend himself and his family or else he’s a failure as a man and a citizen?

The post talks about examining assumptions and a failure on the left to do so. The same might be said of you, John.

A Reality-Based Blog for Paul Weimer's interests, including but not limited to Science and F/SF, books, Movies, NFL Football, Role Playing Games, Photography, and why 6*9=42. "Living in the Science Fiction Present", Proudly supporting Anti-Mundane SF, and aware of all internet traditions! I'm just this guy, you know?