Warning here — and I hate trigger warnings — but I’m coming off of a bout of food poisoning so I’m tired, sore and out of sorts. But that’s my problem. The trigger warning (and, gah, I hate that term) is simple: if you are one of those whining about the outcome of the Hugo nominations, then you probably don’t want to read this. Why? Because I’m tired of your whining. I’m tired of you accusing Larry Correia of gaming the system. Hell, I’m tired of you claiming he bought and then fraudulently voted multiple memberships. Most of all, I’m tired of you whining and gnashing your teeth and crying foul over something your side has been doing for years.
Funny, no one had any problem with Larry’s Sad Puppy posts last year — when he didn’t make the short list for the Hugos. In fact, there were some of you who danced gleefully, pointing fingers and tossing confetti in the air because his efforts didn’t work. None of you batted an eyelash when others with eligible titles panned the internet waters for votes. Why? Because they were the right sort of folks.
That changed this year when Larry made it onto the ballot. I don’t know what is worse in your eyes — the fact that someone who is proud to be male, happy as a husband and father and (gasp) non-liberal, gun owning writer was nominated or that he used your own tactics against you. Sure, he reminded folks to buy their memberships if they hadn’t already. He reminded them that they could vote once they did. Golly, how many of your side did the same thing? If you’re honest, you’ll see that more than a few did.
But what Larry did was make it fun. He did not, as Cora of the “did you read the same thing I did” said, threaten to kill puppies if he didn’t win. Nor has he, as some of your kind have said, desired to tie gays to the back of his truck and go speeding down the street. How come your side gets to make these outrageous — and slanderous — statements about the man and yet you cringe if he quotes you, accurately, in his posts? Oh, I know. He’s a cismale (another term I hate) who isn’t afraid of expressing his opinions and pointing out the fallacies in your own. Funny, I thought that was part of our rights as Americans. Guess you have a different interpretation of the First Amendment than I do — and than the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court.
What finally set me off was reading a series of posts — including some by TOR editors — extolling their followers to vote a slate that doesn’t include Larry or any of those authors and editors he supported. Golly, isn’t that sort the pot calling the kettle black? Looks like it to me but then I’m not one of the cool kids.
Then there are the posts saying that they have every right to tell people not to vote for works written by people like Larry because he’s evil and they don’t agree with his politics. They admit that what they are advocating is voting for the author and not the work. They admit they haven’t read the titles in question and have no desire to do so because, duh, written by evil white men.
This is where it gets really funny. Of those nominated for Best Novel, Larry is the only one that I know of who comes close to qualifying as a “minority”. Why? Because he is technically Hispanic thanks to being Portuguese. But he doesn’t fit the mold the other side has painted and he doesn’t embrace his victimhood. So, he is nothing more than a white, cismale who loves his guns and wants to keep his wife pregnant and in the kitchen.
As an aside, I dare anyone to say that to Mrs. Correia’s face. From what I hear, she makes her husband look like the teddy bear he really is.
If all that isn’t enough, now there is a call to change how the Hugos are nominated and winners determined. The poor GHHers and their SJW counterparts are no longer satisfied with the Hugo being a popularity contest. Why? Because they weren’t the most popular in this vote. Sooooo sorry. So now they want to change the rules. Add professional critics and professors and folks who know what “real literature” is all about. Funny, I thought we already had enough awards like that.
And how many of those award winning titles have actually been read by the people who put money into the pockets of authors by buying their books? And how much did winning the award increase the print run of the author’s next book?
I know there will be more people out there crying and whining about the sad state of the Hugos because the wrong sort of people were nominated. I have two things to say to them in closing: before condemning the books, read them. Do it with as much of an open mind as you’re capable of having (and I know that very well might be an oxymoron). Then take a good, hard look at what your own side has done for years and quit applying a double standard to things just because you don’t like the outcome.
In other words, grow up and quit whining. Instead, sit your butt back down in your chair and write a better book.