The last couple of blogs have brought me back to looking at the Sad/Rabid Puppy complaints. The tendency is to get swept up in the histrionics about the Hugo slate and to consider Vox Day and the Puppies shrill low-lifes that have corrupted the awards just because of innate meanness. However, getting caught up in this means we’re not objectively looking at the situation and what they might be complaining about.

The Sad/Rabid Puppies are thinking they’ve been excluded from the Hugo Awards because of diversity vs. white men, or SJWs vs. conservative values. But, I’ve just pointed out Eugie Foster, an Asian woman who failed to make the ballot, according to some opinions just because her story was published in Daily SF instead of Asimov’s, Clarkesworld or Lightspeed.

Looking at things this way, nothing from Castalia House would ever be considered for an award mainly because the perception is that Castalia House is a loser publisher that doesn’t win awards. This same kind of cachet could be attached to a writer who normally does work for hire, or someone who normally does hack work but suddenly produces something earth-shakingly brilliant. The opportunity passes for nomination because of community expectations.

This is not to say that the Puppy slate this year featured high quality work. Now I’m wondering if they chose so many stories from Analog because of its status as a “big pro magazine.”