John C. Wright's Blog, page 17

Embargo On

Peter Grant is no longer going to buy anything from Tor:

Regrettably, due to the apparent lack of action by (and the deafening silence from) Tor and Macmillan, the time has come to do as I promised.  I therefore ask all those who believe, as I do, that the recent statement by Irene Gallo, and the pattern of behavior and statements from others at Tor whom I’ve previously named, are completely unacceptable, to join me in refusing to buy any of Tor’s products from now on.

I support and endorse what Larry Correia said about this yesterday.

    … this is between Tor and its readers who feel insulted, not the Sad Puppies campaign or the people who ran it … To the Sad Puppies supporters, do what you think is right. All I’m asking is that whatever you do, try to be as civil as possible in your disagreements. Stick with the facts.

I am not a member of, and I do not speak for, either the ‘Sad Puppies’ or ‘Rabid Puppies’ campaigns (although I support the former).  I don’t represent cute puppies, playful puppies, cuddly puppies or hush puppies – only myself.  If you share, in whole or in part, my values and outlook on life, I invite you to join me in this boycott.  Don’t do so just because I, or anyone else, is asking you to do so.  Act on the basis of your own informed conscience and reasoned judgment.

My comment: it seems the embargo is on.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Libertarian SF versus Establishment SF

The science fiction stories promoted by the establishment authors, libraries, schools and lit-critics has become so dreary, smug, self-righteous and politically correct as to be unreadable, save by those seeking a political commentary, not a space princess.

If the establishment were content to kept its moist hands to itself, and write books to its taste to please its own narrow niche audience, all would be well and good.

But the nature of dreary smug self-righteousness, the very definition, is a desire to improve the lives of others by vexing and browbeating them, and then shedding crocodile tears at any sign of opposition or demand for civility, as if such demands were cruel and heartless.

Such is the absurd situation in which science fiction finds itself today. The dreary and self-righteous nags and scolds will not let us be, and scream bloody murder if we, the normal and sane science fiction fans, the one who have been here since the genre was invented, want to give the normal science fiction awards to the normal writers based on merit, not on political correctness. That is something they cannot stand.

They seek to impose a tyranny of drear. Wrongfans, beware!

To paraphrase the great George Orwell, imagine a fat lady wagging her finger in a human face…. forever!

Mr Allan Davis Jr at the Lew Rockwell site describes the upcoming boycott of Tor Books in admirable brevity and precision:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/06/allan-davis/the-sci-fi-establishment/

I have been a science fiction fan from day one.

I can say that, with all honesty and a straight face.  My mother loves to tell the story of how she watched an episode of Star Trek while in the hospital in labor, and asked my father to buy a television set so she could watch more.

I’ve also been a reader of science fiction for as long as I can remember, since she loaned me her copy of Dune when I was eight years old.  My tastes in science fiction have always leaned towards the “hard”–Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, Robert L. Forward, Frederik Pohl, Jerry Pournelle, to offer up a few examples.  It’s getting harder and harder to find stuff by those authors, for the unfortunate reason that many of them aren’t around anymore.

…

For their part, Tor Books seems content to continue to ignore this dissatisfied segment of science fiction fandom.  And, in fact, Tor employees are content to insult them.

Irene Gallo, the Creative Director at Tor Books and an Associate Publisher at Tor.com, wrote

There are two extreme right-wing to neo-nazi groups, called the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies respectively, that are calling for the end of social justice in science fiction and fantasy. They are unrepentantly racist, misogynist, and homophobic. A noisy few but they’ve been able to gather some Gamergate folks around them and elect a slate of bad-to-reprehensible works on this year’s Hugo ballot.

In Ms. Gallo’s defense, these remarks were posted on her personal Facebook page.  On the other hand, they were in a thread announcing an upcoming Tor release.

…

Writer Peter Grant was infuriated.

…

He called for a deadline of June 15th, but was convinced to extend that deadline to Friday, June 19th.  If he has not heard any acceptable response from either Tor or Macmillan by then, he will call for a general boycott of Tor.

…

Vox Day called for a letter writing campaign, not only to Tor, but to Macmillan, their parent company.

Since many of those emails were copied to Vox and to Peter Grant, they were definitely sent.  To date, Tor has not responded to the emails or made any acknowledgement of the situation.

…

L. Jagi Lamplighter requested that science fiction fans take pictures of their Tor books and email them to her, “not to shame Tor, but to help readers let Tor know they are real people.”  

I have always preferred Robert Heinlein to Marion Zimmer Bradley, Robert Forward to Samuel Delaney, and, more recently, John C. Wright to John Scalzi and “A Throne of Bones” to “Game of Thrones.”  Somehow, those preferences in science fiction and fantasy apparently make me something other than a “science fiction fan”–at least in the eyes of the current science fiction establishment.  And, in the opinion of some, they make me a pariah, a “heretic against the true church of science fiction.”

At least, now I know I’m not the only one.

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Reviewer Praise for TRANSHUMAN AND SUBHUMAN

A robot named Stobor makes this observation on File 770 (http://file770.com/?p=23180&cpage=1#comment-285609)

Then there were the “Transhuman and Subhuman” essays. Admittedly, they aren’t stories, but in that case, being “hit over the head” doesn’t properly describe the experience. Rather, reading the author’s extremely non-mainstream views felt like being at ground zero of a nuclear explosion after being dosed with anthrax and sprayed with nerve gas.

I can think of no finer compliment. You may purchase this fine work, described with such glowing if not fulsome terms of praise, here: http://www.amazon.com/Transhuman-Subhuman-Essays-Science-Fiction-ebook/dp/B00K4D7LO6

By ‘non-mainstream’ of course, this reviewer, who is a Morlock of AD 802701, means that the views agree with what all normal Americans, all sober Christians and all faithful Catholics have known, lived and believed for two thousand years, and what all healthy men of ordinary and non-perverse tastes have known, lived and believed since before the dawn of recorded history.

Whereas I disagree with what is fashionable with an inbred, insular cult of degenerate cannibal troglodytes for this fashion season, and no more.

Sir, you lost my sympathy long before that rocket scientist who landed a robot on a speeding comet was mocked for wearing a Hawaiian shirt showing sexy action-hero girls. But I want to mention it again to show how far from the mainstream of human life, of Western civilization, of Christianity, and of humanity you have drifted.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

I Am A Real Person

Dear Readers,

I have received more messages, publicly and privately, from fans who enjoy and buy my works but who, deeply offended at at least four, perhaps more, of the ranking officers of my publisher, have told me they can no longer buy my works.

This is unprecedented, or, I should say, at least I have never heard of readers disavowing books based not on the content or author, but the publisher.

Some have likewise written to Tor books to express their displeasure at this high handed and unprofessional treatment.

However, the latest slander issued from the enemy is that these readers do not exist.

They are trying to blank you out of their minds. You are unpersons. The claim is that the emails and letters sent to Tor expressing the displeasure of the customer are said to be faked, counterfeit, written by robots.

If you are a reader of mine, and now or in times to come write to my publisher to express your preferences on how we are supposed to serve you and offer you goods for purchase, in order to prevent this slander from squelching your voice, please do the following:

Send to each of these three people one email apiece:

tom.doherty@tor.com

andrew.weber@macmillan.com

rhonda.brown@macmillan.com

Let the messages be curt, plain, and polite. Please put I AM A REAL PERSON in the subject line.

State that you are a real person, a customer, and not a robot.
If you have not been well served by the public statements of any senior persons at Tor Books, politely express your disapproval.
Request a confirmation that your email has been opened and read.

Remember Tor Books, and your truly, are in the business of providing you with entertainment. Tom Doherty has officially and publicly stated that we are in the business of finding great stories and promoting literature and are not about promoting a political agenda.

Of course he speaks for me and for all loyal authors and employees honored to be published or employed by him. I do not publish my humble works to promote a political agenda.

I can speak with authority for the other Sad Puppies. We explicitly and openly said and meant from the outset to promote the opposite of a political agenda with our slate:

We promoted for your consideration, dear readers, works thought good because they were entertaining, well crafted and imaginative; not bad works thought useful because they served political correctness, starred or were written by some favored mascot or supported some cause of the Left, and had no science fiction in them at all. The only color we care about is the black of the ink and the green of the pay. The hue of the hand that wields the pen does not somehow magically make the story more well written.

For this we were libeled, slandered, and insulted in every possible way in every venue the enemy could reach, with a fervor and a blinding soul-destroying hatred even now impossible to credit.

Who in his right mind calls his own authors and readers, on whom his livelihood depends, neo-nazi racist psycho bigots on the ground that they prefer this year’s offering by Cixin Liu to that of John Chu?

Those who make libelous, false, and outrageous statements about the authors and readers and fans of Tor’s many fine publications have no honest reason to remain at their posts at a company whom they despise and undermine, serving readers they hate.

Let them take their political divisions and unprofessional venom-tongued hysteria elsewhere, and leave the professionals alone to craft and sell our product, and entertain readers we adore and serve.

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Word Fetishes

This is a reprint of an earlier column which, due to a recent discussion here, bears repeating:

You cannot reason someone out of a stance he was not reasoned into.

A Leftist is not someone who has an alternative political philosophy to yours, or different reasons. He is someone who, in the realm of politics, has decided to eschew philosophy and abandon reason.

Leftism is what you get when you stop reasoning, kill it dead, and substitute word fetishes instead.

Consider: Marx proposed an economic system where goods and services would be produced without reference to prices, to supply and demand, and to the scarcity of resources. In other words, he proposed economics without economics. This would like someone who proposed a geometric system without points and lines, without definitions and without common notions. In order to answer his critics, Marx told them that to minds conditioned by bourgeoisie means of production, the results of the material dialectic once the dictatorship of the proletarian had ended the exploitation of private property forever was unimaginable to them. For those of you who don’t speak Leftist,  Marx merely proposed that oldest and most favorite of Leftist counter-arguments: he told them to shut up.

A close study of Marx will show that he was not an economist at all, he was someone making up a plethora of windbaggy excuses, slurs, counter-attacks, and slanders to deconstruct, that is, to destroy economics. Economics led to a conclusion that Marx did not like, namely, that there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch; you cannot eat your cake and save it, too. So rather than accept the conclusion, he rejected the art of reasoning. Keynes followed in his footsteps, and used a more convoluted terminology.

These terminologies are word-fetishes. A fetish is a magic token you use in order to get a magic effect in the world, and, when the effect does not take place, instead of throwing the fetish away, you adore it and implore it all the more.

A word-fetish is when you have a bit of language which you hope will have a magical effect on the world, turning gold into lead.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

The Hatreds of the Left

A boorish reader takes me to task for speaking the plain truth bluntly. He greatly surprised me by backing away from his boorishness for a moment, and, to return his courtesy, I owe him an answer to his question.

This is the statement he doubted, saying this had nothing to do with Marxism, and saying that Leftism was a term I had not defined.

They [the Left] hate money making. Hatred of being productive is the core of their thinking, next to hatred of truth, beauty, life, love, unborn babies, and Christ. «

Hatred is the emotion that accompanies a desire to abominate and destroy the object of hatred. Hence, without being a mind reader, the hatreds of the Left can be rightfully deduced by their acts and their rhetoric. They do not hide what they believe.

1. They hate making money.

While there are heterodox Leftists, the core of Leftism orthodoxy is the mistrust of something called Capitalism, which is a deceptive mischaracterization of the free market.

In the free market, free and equal men exchange goods and services through indirect barter to their mutual benefit.

In capitalism, a coherent class called Capitalists manipulates the power of the market and the state to deceive the proletarian class into a situation of exploitation: per Marx, the value of a good is based solely on the labor expended on making it, and this is equal to the contribution of the laborer.

The expense of arranging organization, bringing articles to market, advertizing, tools, training and a shed or factory in which to work, including maintenance and replacement of worn tools is called capital. All these are up-front costs, that is, they must be expended before the good is made. Per Marx the capital contribution counts for nothing. The goods are sold at the labor value, but the wage of the worker is necessarily below this. The profit of the investor or owner, paying him back for the up-front costs, is necessarily taken from the sale price of the good; the sale price is the labor value; the laborer hence, by definition, and in all cases and under all circumstances, is being cheated and exploited by the investor, whom Marx sneers at with the word capitalist, a term he invented for reasons of political correctness, that is for the purpose of describing a good thing as evil or an evil thing as good.

(The term has since, as all politically correct terms do, taking on the normal and honest connotations of the idea it represents in the common mind, and so is now no longer a slander word or sneer word, but used by free men with pride to describe themselves.)

Hence, under Marx, by definition, and under all circumstances, the investor being paid back for his investment, making a profit, is immoral and hateful. Marx blames the immorality on the institution of private property.

In real life, the free market is a positive sum game: both parties win. In the make believe of Marx, Capitalism is a negative sum game where the rich always win (or lose less) than the poor, and fatten themselves on the misery of the masses, which they inflict for profit. The iron law of wages always drives wages to starvation level; the economies of scale always force corporations into ever larger combinations and monopolies, until finally only one world monopoly will exist. The fact that these vapid errors in the science of economics were disproved a generation or two before Marx ever took pen to paper has never deterred a single zealot of the cult called socialism.

Most modern Leftists have not read Marx and know nothing of his abortive economic arguments, such as they are.

However, the vocabulary and raw emotional appeal of the sense of wounded self-righteousness remains, and parts of the analysis remain. One still hears the Politically Correct terms ‘social justice’ from time to time, or  ‘wage slavery’ , words used to make evil seem good and good seem evil. Newspeak is a pure Marxist invention, merely popularized by George Orwell.

Leftism includes as its core the psychopathology of phobia toward the free market, and a faith in the institutions of government to correct for alleged errors in a functioning free market system based on rule of law and the sacredness of private property.

Leftists define themselves as those who seek to overturn the rule of law and have law based on persons: one rule for the rich (to be taxed) and one for the poor (to receive the tax money).  In recent years, the naked evil of this lawlessness has become too plain, and instead race relations rather than rich and poor are often substituted, so that Black lives Matter, but saying White lives Matter is racist and condemned. The effort again is to substitute rule of law with rule by Mandarins, intellectuals, and self-anointed enlightened ones, law based on persons.

A person who departs from Leftist orthodoxy on this main point, fear and hatred of the economy, of the free market, cannot truly be called a Leftist.

2. Hatred of truth.

Political Correctness is a core Leftist orthodoxy, the belief that the manipulation of words to manipulate minds to manipulate social mores and customs to correct alleged social injustices is not only morally allowed, but morally required. The core of Political Correctness is factual incorrectness, that is, an opposition to the truth as dangerous and hateful. Countless examples are at hand: I will point to the recent false accusations of rape appearing in Rolling Stone magazine, the false accusations of neonazism directed against me personally, the false accusations of global warming against modern industrialism, and in each case the lies were defended on the grounds that it was moral and proper to lie and immoral and improper to tell the truth.

3. Hatred of beauty.

Go into any modern art museum. I need not repeat myself on this point. Here are my conclusions, with examples: http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/07/03/po...

4. Hatred of Life.

Euthanasia and aborticide are sacraments of the orthodox Left.

The holocaust of the Jews, the mass starvations of the Kulak, and the repeated mega-genocides of the Chinese were all accomplished in the Twentieth Century by socialists of the brownshirt or redshirt type, using the same philosophy. Leftism is a death cult. One cannot be a Leftist properly so called without being an apologist or a denier for a holocaust of human life, either of unborn children or some undesirable class needing liquidation. Perhaps in the past, before the fall of the Soviet Union, a belief in the benevolence of this deadly, humanity-destroying, mass-murdering political philosophy was excusable. Now, such ignorance is either negligence or willfulness. I do not believe any man is honestly unaware of the enormities of the Left in the Twentieth Century, the bloodiest in history. The whole of the Spanish Inquisition killed fewer people than Mao killed in one day.

5. Hatred of Love.

It was not always so, but modern orthodox Leftism exalts fornication and sodomy as the highest expressions of human sexuality, and they are praised in terms of their sacred and inviolate character. My school age son just this day was upbraided in a Boy Scout class for saying that there is only one form of family life, that is, monogamy, and was chided for calling children born out of wedlock bastards, and saying that a single-parent family is not a family, no more than a single-wheeled unicycle is a bicycle.

Love does not exist outside chastity, monogamy, and romance. These are unique Christian social artifacts. Marrying for love is unknown outside areas influenced by Christian thinking: absent the oath of matrimony, love is not true love, but mere lust, which is in many ways its opposite. The attack on the sacred character of monogamy has been unrelenting and lead to the current absurdities of transvestites and eunuchs wearing dresses barging into women’s dressing rooms.

Romance depends on the opposite and complementary nature of the sexes. A major branch of Leftism, and one which bids fair to bring all other branches to heel, makes any observation of the differences between the sexes to be a sign of oppression, and therefore is met with absolute hostility. I point to the firing of Larry Summers, dean of Harvard, as one example of countless.

6. Hatred of Unborn babies.

There are too many examples to mention. See, for example, this http://www.euthanasia.com/will.html

7. Hatred of Christ.

There are too many examples to mention. See, for example, this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religi...

One cannot be a Leftist and be a Christian. The worldviews are logically incompatible at every point. There are, to be sure, Leftists who call themselves Christian. Logic is not their strong suit.

Definition of Leftism

The cult of darkness variously known as Leftists, Liberals, Progressives, Brights, Socialists, Pinkos, Late Moderns, Collectivists, Traitors, is controlled by a Seven Bad Ideas around which their various emotions and interjections orbit.

The Seven Bad Ideas are:

Solipsism — the paradox that asserts that truth is personal, hence optional: “It is not true that truth is true.”
Relativism — the paradox that asserts that virtue is subjective, situational, relative: “It is wrong for you to judge right and wrong.”
Subjectivism — the paradox that asserts that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As if putting a urinal in an Art Museum, and betraying the standard somehow proves the standard wrong, not the betrayal.
Irrationalism — the paradox that asserts reason is untrustworthy. Each man’s reason is too biased by upbringing, class self interest, sex, race, and background such that no one, aside from members of a given race and sex and victim group, can be expected to understand or advise other members of the victim group. Of course, reaching this conclusion from that premise is itself an act of reasoning, requiring the reasoner to trust his reason, despite the background and race and sex of the reasoner.
Pervertarianism — the paradox that asserts it to be licit to seek the gratifications of sexual union of the reproductive act without the union, without the reproduction, and, in the case of sodomites, without the act. The same insane paradox asserts that females should be feminists rather than feminine; and that sexual predation is more romantic than romance.
Totalitarianism — the paradox that asserts that freedom is slavery, war is peace, ignorance is strength. The Constitution is a living, breathing document, ergo it must be smothered and killed.
Nihilism — the paradox of that the meaning of life is that it has no innate meaning.

No claim is being made that all Leftists believe all these things. They have their heterodoxies, as any heresy does. The claim is that about these seven core ideas most or all leftist ideas inch near and orbit near. They may throw up trivial distinctions or exceptions, but the overwhelming majority of Leftwing commentary follows these main lines of thought.

A Leftist who says he does not believe one of these seven will nonetheless speak of it with respect. A man who denies all seven is not a Leftist. Most Leftists are remarkably stupid people, unwilling to examine their own axioms, unaware of their own premises, and illiterate of their own founding doctrines and patrons.

No proof is being offered here that Leftists believe these ideas or make these assertions. The reader can discover that for himself, merely by listening to them talk, reading their works, and reaching his own conclusion.

If you cannot see it by reading what they say, you will not see it by my repeating what they say. Look for yourself.

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Beale v Sandifer

Here is a transcript of am unexpectedly polite mutual interview between my publisher Mr Beale, whom the Elves name Vox Day, and the orcs of the Dull-Eyed Land call Morgothrond the Voxinator, and a satanist named Mr Sandifer.

They each agreed to discuss one book the other finds terrible. I am curious whether anyone aside from myself agrees the debate has a clear winner, and who that was.

I note particularly each instance where Mr Sandifer will read directly from the text of ‘One Bright Star to Guide Them’ and then offer an interpretation directly and diametrically opposed to what the text says.

Again, I noted when Mr Sandifer’s criticism applied to plot elements, characterization, or craft (nearly none) as opposed to his personal allergic reaction to Christianity, which is nowhere explicitly advocated, or even mentioned, in the tale (nearly the whole).

He particularly dwells for an undue time on a monologue by the villain Richard, under the claim that real occultists do not actually perform the make believe rituals made up for my make believe story. Since the monologue is merely elements taken from Shaw and Nietzsche thrown together with the sacraments of the modern Democrat Party, namely, aborticide and fornication, I suspect Mr Sandifer’s offense comes mainly from the clarity of the looking glass: He is Richard.

I note also that he lambasts the tale for its Christian apologetic message, apparently without knowing that this story, in its first and short form, was written by an atheist. I penned it about the same time as LAST GUARDIAN OF EVERNESS, and it has the same theme; I did not erenow think the theme was hidden or indirect. Indeed, I recall fretting over how unsubtle I was.

But each reader reads a different tale, and the wise writer knows least of all men what his story means. Readers see the face of the story; writers see the mask from the concave side, and sees the joints and wires which makes the lips and eyelids of the mask to move.

Below are the opening remarks, enough to give the alert reader a taste of the difference in the mental caliber of the two men.

The full transcript is here: http://www.philipsandifer.com/2015/06...

The original audio is here: http://pexlives.libsyn.com/pex-lives-...

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Nethereal is Here

My pen pal and (as of now) fellow writer Brian Niemeier announces the birth of his first born. Novel. First novel, I meant.

Today marks the release of my first novel, Nethereal.

http://www.brianniemeier.com/2015/06/nethereal-is-now-available.html

.

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Honor is Satisfied

A reader asked what I meant when I said, that as a matter of formality, Irene Gallo’s pro forma and possibly insincere apology for her pro-forma and possibly insincerely insult satisfied my sense of honor.

It is difficult for me to explain something that is second nature to me, which is alien to the modern world at every point. In the military, the soldier is obligated to salute the uniform wore by officers of higher rank, not the man wearing it, and the man wearing it is obligated to behave as the uniform requires. The salute satisfies the formality.

An apology satisfies the demand for apology; if the person proffer it did so with deceptive intent, God Almighty, who sees and knows the hearts of the sinners, will punish the falsehood with penalties nightmarish, vehement, absolute, and infinite, that my heart quails to contemplate them. I cannot burn a disembodied soul in hell forever, and neither can I read minds and hearts. Hence, I am not in a position judge the sincerity of an apology, nor do I have the least desire to do so.

Honor is an external thing, a matter of form. If the form is satisfied, honor is satisfied. Refusing an apology on the grounds of it insincerity is a privilege reserved to women.

In the case of Irene Gallo, I do not need any further words from her, nor does she owe me anything more. I look forward to working with whomever Mr Doherty hires to replace her.

The honor of my readers, who were also equally or perhaps more gravely insulted, however, is theirs to look to.

I have heard that some of my readers are stacking up all their Tor books, photographing them, and sending the photo to the Tor and Macmillan management with a politely worded note mentioning how welcome the lady’s resignation will be when it comes.

I, for one, will regret the event, since a woman of such superlative skill will be hard to replace, but I am confident that Mr Doherty will not insist on keeping her at her tasks in the face of her own shame and regret.

How could she, in good conscience, design a book cover for authors she has so bitterly, absurdly and erratically libeled, and proffer it to book buyers for whom she equally has shone such scorn and mind-destroying hate? It would be cruel of Mr Doherty to insist on Irene Gallo continuing to labor under such adverse and unhappy conditions.

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Tom Doherty

Mr Doherty was pulled out of his sickbed to make the following announcement concerning the Irene Gallo affair.

A Message from Tom Doherty to Our Readers and Authors

Tom Doherty

Mon Jun 8, 2015 6:19pm Post a comment 1 Favorite [+]

The Science Fiction community is populated with engaged authors and fans many of whom have strong and varied opinions on many subjects. Tor supports that diversity of viewpoints by publishing a widely varied group of authors and books through Tor/Forge and by posting a variety of material and reader comment on Tor.com.

Last month, Irene Gallo, a member of Tor’s staff, posted comments about two groups of science fiction writers, Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies, and about the quality of some of the 2015 Hugo Award nominees, on her personal Facebook page. Ms. Gallo is identified on her page as working for Tor. She did not make it clear that her comments were hers alone. They do not reflect Tor’s views or mine. She has since clarified that her personal views are just that and apologized to anyone her comments may have hurt or offended.

The Puppies groups were organized to support a slate of authors for the Hugo Awards, given annually for the best science fiction or fantasy works and achievements of the previous year. Media coverage of the two groups initially suggested that they were organized simply to promote white men, which was not correct. Each Puppies’ slate of authors and editors included some women and writers of color, including Rajnar Vajra, Annie Bellet, Kary English, Toni Weisskopf, Ann Sowards, Megan Gray, Sheila Gilbert, Jennifer Brozek, Cedar Sanderson and Amanda Green. Some of the authors on the Sad Puppy slate have been published by Tor and Tor.com, including  Kevin J. Anderson, John C. Wright, Ed Lerner and Michael F. Flynn. Many, many Hugo Award nominees and winners are our authors too, including Kevin J. Anderson, John C. Wright and Katherine Addison this year and John Chu, John Scalzi, Cherie Priest and Jo Walton in past years, just to mention a few.

In short, we seek out and publish a diverse and wide ranging group of books. We are in the business of finding great stories and promoting literature and are not about promoting a political agenda

Tor employees, including Ms. Gallo, have been reminded that they are required to clarify when they are speaking for Tor and when they are speaking for themselves. We apologize for any confusion Ms. Gallo’s comments may have caused. Let me reiterate: the views expressed by Ms. Gallo are not those of Tor as an organization and are not my own views.  Rest assured, Tor remains committed to bringing readers the finest in science fiction – on a broad range of topics, from a broad range of authors.

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.