I see something from John ONeill on File 770 about the costs of being a loser in the 2015 Hugo Awards that bears consideration. ONeill notes that in several categories, being a loser means the author or editor lost to “no award,” which isn’t the best thing to put on a list of credits. Best just to say one was nominated, I’d guess. The other thing is that everyone the Puppies nominated now carries the stain of puppyism. This includes both people who agreed to be nominated and those who didn’t. Even people who ran for the hills, figuratively, and withdrew from consideration may not have escaped the evil taint. ONeill now pronounces the Puppies a “losing brand” because of the rebuke the awards gave their nominations. If winning a Hugo increases sales, will being associated with the Puppy plot reduce sales? Hm.

This raises the question about whether the Puppies will be able to maintain a slate to pull the same game again next year. Will any authors agree to remain on the ballot when it associates them with a losing brand? Or will everyone decline?

Word is that the Puppies are huddled, talking strategy. Stay tuned to see if it works.