AISFP 291 — Anti-Sad Puppies with Paul Weimer

Paul Weimer of The Skiffy and Fanty Show and SF Signal joins us on the day of the Hugo nomination deadline to provide the Anti-Sad Puppies point of view about the Sad Puppies effort and the Hugo Awards.

This episode is brought to you by Edge of Dark from Brenda Cooper, and published by Pyr.

What if a society banished its worst nightmare to the far edge of the solar system, destined to sip only dregs of light and struggle for the barest living. And yet, that life thrived? It grew and learned and became far more than you ever expected, and it wanted to return to the sun. What if it didn’t share your moral compass in any way?

The Glittering Edge duology describes the clash of forces when an advanced society that has filled a solar system with flesh and blood life meets the near-AI’s that it banished long ago. This is a story of love for the wild and natural life on a colony planet, complex adventure set in powerful space stations, and the desire to live completely whether you are made of flesh and bone or silicon and carbon fiber.

In Edge of Dark, meet ranger Charlie Windar and his adopted wild predator, and explore their home on a planet that has been raped and restored more than once. Meet Nona Hall, child of power and privilege from the greatest station in the system, the Diamond Deep. Meet Nona’s best friend, a young woman named Chrystal who awakens in a robotic body….

Buy on Amazon!

You also can enter the Edge of Dark giveaway (U.S. residents only) by emailing us your contact information (email and physical address) at adventuresinscifipublishing [at] gmail [dot] com or by sharing episode 291 on Facebook or Twitter (make sure to tag us so we see your post). Enter by Monday, April 13.

In our Anti-Sad Puppies chat with Paul, Brent and Kristi discuss:

The Skiffy and Fanty Show and some of their fun, featured segments, including their 2015 focus on women and non-binary authors; some of the common ground Paul shares with Sad Puppies and where the effort has gone wrong; the issue of flame wars in speculative fiction and what changes he’d make to the Hugo Awards if he were all-powerful.





In the show’s intro, we promised to share tributes to Sir Terry Pratchett (he was highlighted in our book releases this week, as well).

Revisit episode 289 — Sad Puppies for the interview with Larry Correia and Brad R. Torgersen or visit the following blog posts for the varying opinions:

Brad R. Torgersen “Why Sad Puppies is Going to Destroy Science Fiction

Larry Correia “Sad Puppies 3: The Ensaddening

Paul Weimer’s “Thoughts on ‘Sad Puppies 3‘”

John Scalzi’s:


Connect with Adventures in SciFi Publishing

Subscribe to podcast on: iTunes | Stitcher Radio (Android users) | Podcast RSS | Website RSS


  1. As I said here in the comments years ago (I looked it up it was in 2011), the Hugos are not about the best, never have been, they are about what a small section of fans that bother to participate in Worldcon think.

    I will say that I am sort of shocked at how even handed PrinceJVstan seemed to be, I was expecting a totally different thing.

    Mr Weimer being shocked that that someone might not link to Hurley in order to keep from being dog-piled, makes me think Mr Weimer had a very large blind spot with regards to his, and his friends, twitter/blog behavior. I used to follow him and others on the twitters, but I got tired of the daily spamming of passive aggressive subtweets, or complaints that someone dared to have a different opinion…I cant imagine what it would be like to be someone that thinks a group that behaves like that might hold the secret to success.

    • Paul Weimer says

      Well, TW I am sorry I offended you with my twitter stream.

      Unsubscribing from my feed was probably the best choice for you.


  2. I think Hugo Voters are left of the Sad Puppies because most SF readers are left of the Sad Puppies. Let’s face it, a genre based on new ideas is going to attract more people who embrace change and fewer people who cling to the past.

    It certainly is the case that some excellent writers never get nominated for a Hugo and others have a shelf full of nominations and awards. I think it’s a case of which people the Hugo Voters are already aware of. And, while you have to have a certain amount of exposure to get a nomination in the first place, being a bestseller doesn’t help you woo Hugo Voters, who take fierce pride in thinking for themselves.

    I will say that I see an enormous difference between the Dr Who fans nominating several episodes of Dr Who and the Sad Puppies nominating _Opera Vita Aeterna_. The Dr Who fans nominate something they love because they love it. The Sad Puppies nominated dreck far outside their normal tastes because they hate non-Puppies. That’s not the same thing at all.

    The Sad Puppies is not about nominating quality and never was.

  3. The Sad Puppies debate passed me by, but now that I’ve caught up and did a search to find out exactly what it was, nothing about it surprises me. I haven’t read any of Mr. Correia’s work, but I know Heinlein is considered right wing also, and I’ve read him (even though I consider myself more left wing or liberal, if you like). Freedom of speech is a good thing, I feel, but this kind of stuff shows the more negative aspects of that. Good work should stand for itself, whether you agree with the politics or not – if you don’t like it, don’t read it, basically. But the publishing industry as with the movie industry, has always operated within constrained parameters, where money and politics and profile are more important than the quality of the work. To put it another way, “New York Times Bestseller” is no guarantee that a book is any good; all that means is that it sold a lot of copies. And there have been some pretty awful “bestsellers” out there, after all.

  4. Michael Jorgensen says

    Cat makes two really good points about:

    1) The Hugos reflecting the community that created and votes for them. Of course the Hugos are skewed and insular – just like any other award. Such is the nature of awards! You might as well argue that they’re skewed towards American (or at least English language) writers because they don’t consider translations. The same point could be made for the Oscars, Grammys, etc. I (a Dane) have no problem with an award administered by a specific (American) community reflecting that community’s views. I fully accept that those are the premises of that particular award.

    2) If you disagree with the ballot, the solution is certainly not to nominate racist dribble just to say “I told you so”.

    And one more thing: It puzzles me why the Sad Puppies seem to want so badly to be part of a community that they claim to disagree with so vehemently – and that they claim despises them and discriminates against them. If they really think the Hugos are so unrepresentative of good SF, why do they even care? To parafrase Groucho Marx: Why would you want to be a member of a club that doesn’t want you as a member?

Speak Your Mind


WordPress Anti-Spam by WP-SpamShield