a statement on my hugo nomination.

Dear friends and readers:

I have officially withdrawn my acceptance of the Best Novel nomination for “Lines of Departure” at this year’s Hugo Awards. 

It has come to my attention that “Lines of Departure” was one of the nomination suggestions in Vox Day’s “Rabid Puppies” campaign. Therefore—and regardless of who else has recommended the novel for award consideration—the presence of “Lines of Departure” on the shortlist is almost certainly due to my inclusion on the “Rabid Puppies” slate. For that reason, I had no choice but to withdraw my acceptance of the nomination. I cannot in good conscience accept an award nomination that I feel I may not have earned solely with the quality of the nominated work.

I also wish to disassociate myself from the originator of the “Rabid Puppies” campaign. To put it bluntly: if this nomination gives even the appearance that Vox Day or anyone else had a hand in giving it to me because of my perceived political leanings, I don’t want it. I want to be nominated for awards because of the work, not because of the “right” or “wrong” politics.

Thank you to everyone who voted for “Lines of Departure” because you read the novel and genuinely thought it worthy of award recognition. Please be assured that I did not reach this decision lightly, and that I don’t want to nullify or minimize your opinion. But keeping the nomination is not a moral option at this point, and I hope you will understand.

This is my choice alone, and I am making it without pressure from any side in the current Hugo debate. Please respect it as such. 

Marko Kloos

April 15, 2015

295 thoughts on “a statement on my hugo nomination.

  1. I’m so sorry this happened to you. I am not yet a reader of yours, but in support of your writing, I will buy Frontlines books 1-3 today.

    • Ditto this sentiment and its action.
      Mad props to all fellow writers (and editors) out there going through this chaos. :/

    • Yep. Your withdrawal was brought to my attention by a writer friend on Facebook. I am so sorry you were faced with this very difficult decision. I look forward to catching up on your published work and reading your blog.

    • I support and understand why you felt the need to do this. So sad that something we all love has been made so ugly. I’ll be buying your books today.

    • I too have gone out and bought your books on the basis of your sentiment and actions.

      Good luck! It must have been a hard decision to make. I hope that knowing you have garnered support – and readers – from it has made it worthwhile.

  2. I’m sorry to hear that guilt-by-association harassment led you to decide that only one group of people are allowed to think your work is award-worthy.

    • And I’m sure you already knew that the same people would rush off to buy your book once you sided with them.


      • A thoroughly unpleasant insinuation as well as direct name-calling. One can hardly blame Marko from wanting to be disassociated from people who feel that type of response is appropriate.

        Far from spineless, I consider it to be a difficult decision made entirely in the service of personal integrity. It would take a very special person to consider that sort of decency “spineless”.

        • He has taken the side that brands “misogynistic white-supremacist conservative” on women, PoC, and people of various political views not because of anything they’ve done, but because the wrong fans voted for them.

          • That was utter nonsense. It’s a good think you don’t make your living writing.

          • And also who call people racist for quoting people in their own words when they call themselves “savages”

          • Vox Day is not a woman or a POC, and would probably be insulted to be lumped in with them, as he finds them inferior, so be careful there.

      • I am quite sure that this isn’t the type of response the Sad Puppies side would endorse slime, maybe go check out the discussion on monster hunter nation or Brad’s blog and get an idea of how to recalibrate yourself.

      • I’d honestly never heard of him before the Hugos (no offense, Mr. Kloos), and I tend to try and read Hugo-nominated works. This just means I’ll do it sooner rather than later, is all.

        (I think it’s a principled stand, and I appreciate people who can do that.)

        • Amen to that. He’s new to me, but seeing this both ethical and serious-minded gesture is definitely a reason for me to go look for his work. I have a feeling this will spur many more people to be interested than the number of those petty ones who are both mean-spirited enough to return them and delusional enough to think the author can make Amazon refund them. Mr. Kloos, apologies to you for having to deal with *any* of this unasked drama, hang in there!

    • Your martyrdom comes across as pathetic to as many who find it noble. Surprising to see an author spit in the face of current and potential fans who have a different opinion than you. Personally I am appreciative to the sad and rabid puppies for promoting works the rest of us might enjoy and look forward to checking out the other recommended authors, though I think I’ll wait now and see if any authors pull this kind of crap before I she’ll out any more of my money.

      • Seriously, dude, check your attitude. Obviously, Mr. Kloos and Ms. Bellet, who also withdrew from the nominations, are *not* caving to pressure from anyone. The withdrawal is a heavy decision made to step back from the politics, which is what SP3 was originally about; promoting authors of talent regardless of their politics/personal beliefs. This conflict has escalated and the authors are getting trampled in the wake of competing ideologies.
        It’s not his fight, not his flying monkeys; if he chooses not to be a token on the gameboard. I respect his choice. I would have liked the opportunity to evaluate his work and compare it to the other nominees, but maybe next time.

    • I actually kinda dig this comment because it’s so perfect an illustration of why he made the decision it should be framed and shown to others when asked what his reasons were.

      Because he made a decision to back the hell out of political infighting in the SF world clearly he did it because he got harassed until he caved and not because he simply didn’t want to join the circus even by proxy, and also he’s telling people that liked SP/RP that they’re not allowed to dig his stuff.

      Thus demonstrating that not only was he absolutely right about being unwillingly used as a piece in someone else’s game, he was also right about the reaction if he elected not to be.

      • This isn’t going to remove him from play, though. It’s just sent the ball over to a different part of the pitch.

          • More or less. Pretty much when you tell the people who are specifically nominating works that they like, that you will refuse any nominations or awards that they nominate you for, you are playing for the side that only wants those who rightthink to be eligible for awards.

            Sorry, but in my opinion authors shouldn’t have an option to decline a nomination for a Hugo, it isn’t supposed to be about the author, it is bluntly, a popularity contest for the story. If it is published and out there, not only do I not understand the mindset of refusing a nomination, I don’t understand the concept that the author CAN refuse. They have every right to refuse to accept the award, or campaign against themselves, but they have already submitted their story to the voters (readers) by publishing it, I don’t see how they should be able to take it off the ballot.

          • Nothing to do with that. If you prefer, think of it as an enthusiast wandering onto the pitch, realising everyone else is dressed in Mad Max style, and then noticing that they’ve ended up with one of the balls being tossed ’round.

            But let’s mix metaphors. Imagine the game is pinball instead, because all that’s going to happen now is both sides are going to be trying to bounce their balls off Marko and Alice(?) in order to score points in whatever game they’re playing. I don’t think this really removes them from the field at all, just makes them scoring zones.

          • Marko never said anything about rejecting his fans and the people who thought he was worthy of the nom- he was specifically disassociating himself from being part of *a slate*, and specifically a slate initiated and distributed by someone he won’t be associated with.

            A vote for a nomination is one thing; being unwittingly part of what amounts to a straight party ticket is quite another.

  3. Condolences on what must have been a very difficult decision. And congratulations for standing firm on your personal ethics. I, for one, am now seeking out Lines of Departure to add to my library.

  4. Bummer…I think you got it because of your work, and not because of “politics”, regardless of what the small minded fascists of the worldcon crowd thinks.

    But I can understand that the repercussions could be bad.

    • Excuse me, but I think it is very disrespectful (not to mention smallminded) for you to disregard Mr. Kloos’s own account of his thoughts and decide what he really must feel. He made this decision on his own. By refusing to accept this, you are in effect saying that only one course of action is the legitimate choice of a free individual… and what kind of freedom would that be?

    • When the full nomination vote counts get released after the Hugo election, we’ll find out whether Marko got enough votes to get the nomination on his own, or only with the aid of the puppies. (He didn’t get as many votes as Goblin Emperor or Ancillary Justice, but he might have placed in the top five non-slate votes or might not. Either way, he’s taking a brave stand and doing the right thing, and thanks.

  5. I congratulated you on twitter on the nomination, and I am very sorry that you have to withdraw because of an association you didn’t ask for and don’t agree with. I raced through Terms of Enlistment and moved Lines of Departure to the top of my reading pile, and now I am looking forward to the next book. Good, fun stories.

    A Hugo nomination can be a great thing for a writer and to give it up is not a thing you are doing lightly. Thank you for doing what you are doing.

        • That is the first genuine chuckle I have gotten out of this whole thing — Thank you, LabRat.

          (I will believe whatever Mark himself says about why he did this, and hope he is as honest as he appears to be. As one of the many people who have been called an SJW in the past who have encouraged everyone to read this year’s nominees and judge them on the work, not their slate association, I think Slime’s allegations about guilt-by-association harassment are probably just as totally lacking in foundation as most of the other allegations about SJWs I’ve seen in these discussions. I’ve seen many voters trying to figure out how to take the air out of VD’s attack on the Hugos who say in the same posts that they only feel sorry for the authors caught in the crossfire. I can only assume for those authors that it is even harder trying to figure out what next steps to take.)

        • I’m always telling myself not to read the comments… but just this once, I’m glad I read the comments, because that was priceless.

      • Dude, you are falling into the Way of Clamps.
        Do not follow in the Way of Clamps, even if you think you are doing it for Truth and Right.
        For Clamps is a Fool, and those who follow in his Way are likewise Fools.

  6. Having read and enjoyed your book (though I did not buy a supporting membership, so I wasn’t one of the folks who nominated it) sorry to see you put into this position. I think it was a book that probably deserved a nomination on its own merit, and it’s a shame it didn’t get that chance.

  7. I respect your opinion, although I was planning on voting for your novel on the grounds that I truly enjoyed it.

    I must admit to curiosity; would your decision have been different if your had been included instead int eh sad Puppies nomination list, which had nothing to do with Vox Day?

    • Lines of Departure was included in the Sad Puppy slate. Which has “nothing to do” with Vox Day like Inspector Renault in Casablanca had nothing to do with gamblers. (“Your winnings, sir.”)

      • Pity. I asked because he mentioned only the Rabid Puppies lsate, which as I understand it is somewhat separate.

      • Really, and exactly how do you come to this conclusion? Can I now lump all people doing similar things into the same tent? Can I lump the slates that have been run by anybody and everybody for years into the same tent?

        Tell me the special insight that tells you that Brad meant for VD to collude with him on this.

        Especially since the more controversy and blood spilled during the Hugos the happier VD seems to get. What happens if VD slates GRRM and Scalzi next year? Are they also tainted by association?

        I’m cool with Kloos’ option, I kind of wish he hadn’t withdrawn, but that’s his choice to make for his reasons. But to insist that only he can know his motivation, but assign nefarious motives to someone else on less weight is less than fair.

        “However, unless we can be clear that he made it onto the ballot through quality alone and not through a “small subset of fans” then the award itself becomes meaningless”

        No Hugos pass this test. By default Worldcon is a small subset of fans. Was Redshirts a story for the ages that can stand next to books 50 years old that are still read? Will anyone care about it in 10 years?

        The nominated authors declining the nomination after the fact are letting the ones who want to burn it all down win. This is no different than No Award slate voting. Ten years from now the politics of this will be just as buried as the past kerfluffles in Hugo history. The people who care about things like that will still obsess about the 2015 debacle, and the rest of the planet won’t give a crap.

      • VD basically copied the Sad Puppies slate, and added a couple of his own. He also seems to have a larger horde of voters than Brad.

    • I didn’t join Worldcon or read “Lines of Departure” (yet), so couldn’t nominate it; but I *am* a fan of Kloos’s work – “Terms of Enlistment” was one of the few fiction books I’ve ever reviewed on Amazon. I recall that I put a 4/5 on it – good, but not Hugo-worthy yet. From what I hear, LoD *is* Hugo-worthy.

      Being on a “puppy” list, then, would have no impact in how *I* view the author’s work. (For what it’s worth.)

      Kloos has his reasons, this time ’round; I’ll just say I hope to see his work in future Hugo runnings.

  8. Knowing nothing about what you speak I am upset as I do think you deserve a HUGO. That said its your choice. JUST PUBLISH SOME MORE WORK.

    Also allow me to formally say sorry for your recent loss and I hope that you (and the family)are continuing to work through it.

    I am excited about the upcoming book. Is there any chance of a preview?

  9. Because of that, I’m going to buy your book and read it. (Obviously, I can’t say more than that about it yet.) So at least you’re gaining a sale from your position.

  10. I applaud your taking what must be a difficult and painful decision. You are a writer of genuine moral integrity and honour. I will look for and read Lines of Departure because of this.

  11. <3 Thank you for your books, your professionalism, your grace in unpleasant circumstances.

  12. It seems as though I know far more about the people being hurt by the rabid puppies and their ilk than I know about the political situation itself. That said, bullies and closed minded people have no place in polite society, much less in the nominations for the highest award in the genre I most love. I honor people who maintain moral commitments, and plan to continue supporting the authors I respect!!!!!

  13. This must have been a tough decision to make, Marko. I respect you for making it and hope to see you on ballots in the years to come.

  14. Bummer, Marko! I think you totally deserved your shot at the rocket! But I understand if you feel like Vox Day made the effort not worth it. Still supporting you, and wishing you success going into 2016! You may be back on a Hugo ballot again some day. Though I suspect your fans and many readers only care if you keep putting out more books.

    • Brads comment, yes. This.

      I thoroughly enjoyed your books and am looking forward to the next one. And the one after that. And that. etc etc.

      Keep writing wordslave.

  15. Marko,
    You did exactly the right thing and I respect you so much for doing so. Regardless of your politics I shall continue to read your books. Thanks for writing them

  16. When the whole Puppy mess broke, I looked for sample writing by some of the SP/RP nominees so that I could try to make up my own mind about the quality of their nominees. Some of them (no names, no packdrill) I thought were very poorly written and unimaginative. My reaction after reading the first chapter of “Terms of Enlistment”, on the other hand, was “Hey, this is actually pretty good. I could read and enjoy this.”

    Withdrawing must have been a hard choice to have to make, but in this context it’s probably the honorable and certainly the smart thing to do. I hope you will get another chance at a nomination in future in less contentious circumstances.

  17. I am sorry to hear that you were forced into this position. You do deserve the nomination, the first story of your’s I read was Lucky 13 when it first hit this blog. It brought tears to my eyes. You are an awesome writer, but I can understand not wanting to be associated with Vox Day.

    You will always have my support, and your work is something that I will always eagerly anticipate.

  18. I admire your principles and your decision makes me more hopeful that in the future there will be a Hugo award with reputation intact for you to win.

  19. Very well said, Marko, and as a fan and a Hugo voter I respect you for this decision. Ignore what the “sad puppy” called “slime” has said in the comments above (why should anyone pay any attention to what cowards who won’t even sign their true names to a comment might have to say anyway?), I think you did the right thing in disassociating yourself from their act of “Hugo-terrorism”. I’ve not read your work before now, but in recognition of your courage in making this decision, I will look for and buy some of it now. I hope that the next time we see your name on an awards nomination there won’t be any Hugo-terrorists trying to drag you into their agenda.

    Curt Phillips – Science Fiction Fan

    • “Terrorism.” Really. For suggesting some nominations for a literary award, people are terrorists. I think you owe a lot of people an apology, Curt.

      • Vox Day is a smug, gleeful little monster, and yes, he is a terrorist. He gamed the Hugos, threatened to destroy them AND the Nebulas if he didn’t get goodies for himself and his buddy John C. Wright, and is a racist, a chauvinist, and a terrible writer. Why the hell are you defending him?

  20. I’m sorry you felt this was necessary, but completely understand and an impressed by your decision.

  21. I’m sorry that you’ve withdrawn – me, I think Lines absolutely deserved the nomination, but I understand your position and your desire to avoid being smeared with the skunky taint of VD and his ilk. What a disappointment for you!

  22. I am so very sorry you have found yourself in this position, and I greatly admire your courage and integrity. I have never read anything by you, but it shall remedy this omission.
    With admiration,
    Mary Kay Kare

  23. I just wrote a blog about why I was going to take my Hugo voting seriously (http://www.csdaley.com/?p=4293) despite the rabid puppy slate. I was actually looking forward to reading your novel.

    I understand and respect your decision. I just went and bought your book to read anyway. I am looking forward to it. I wish there was more I could do for all the people who got caught in the middle of this.

  24. Sorry to hear this, but totally respect your decision. If it makes any difference to you, I would have voted for you, and I had no idea you were on the RP ballot. The work deserved it (although Ancillary Sword was neck and neck).

  25. I totally understand why you did this, and respect you for it. Sorry you had to go through this. I was looking forward to reading your work in the packet, and am sad.

  26. I admired your perseverance and dedication, watching from the wings. But today, I do not think you’re making the correct choice. Been nice reading you.

  27. I must be honest, I bought and read your book yesterday as part of my Hugo reading and I wasn’t a huge fan – MilSF isn’t, for the most part, my thing. But I did want to say I deeply respect your position on this.

  28. This has got to be one of the hardest things a writer will ever be called on to do. My respects, sir, for having the raw integrity to grasp the nettle. I can only wish you many more nominations in the future, under better circumstances.

  29. Even though a longtime reader and Hugo voter, I knew neither you nor your work before the Hugo nominations. I congratulage you on an honorable, if difficult, decision. Best wishes for your future career.

  30. I have read both your books and the associated two short stories, and really enjoyed all of them, and I am looking forward to buying Angles of Attack.

    It can’t have been easy for you to be involved in this farrago, and I applaud your decision.

  31. I am impressed by your willingness to stand up for your beliefs and desire for your work to be judged on its own merits, not politics, even at the expense of the career boost of being a Hugo nominee. As a show of support, I just went to Amazon and bought your first book even though I don’t usually buy military sf.

  32. Rough ride. I respect the difficulty you have faced in making this decision and suspect next year’s Hugos will have an element of redo about them. So keep writing!

  33. I’m sad about this, your work was worthy of being there, but I understand and respect your decision. What has happened these last few days has revealed many things about fandom. Hopefully now your peace will be restored and you’ll be able to go on writing and making your readers spend more happy hours engrossed in your novels. Don’t let this get you down, please!

  34. This must have been a tough decision, but fwiw I think you’re doing the right thing. These slates can’t be allowed to succeed. Respect, man.

  35. lol dumbass hugos are decided by politics whether it’s vox or scalzi pulling the strings, you should’ve taken it while it’s still worth something.

      • so… much… lack… of ..understanding… in… that.. comment.

        Sock puppet = Fake account / not a real person. RP Slate == Suggesting real people act like sock puppets. Buying memberships for people to vote their own perspectives and then withdrawing yourself from the nomination pool in advance to make sure they can’t nominate you == something or other completely the opposite of both sock puppets and the RP slate.

        Sometimes I’m amazed the internet doesn’t just spontaneously combust from all this, er, ..fuel that’s spread all over it.

        • Right, buying nominations for people after the fact is so much more noble than encouraging people to shell out their own money and get involved.

  36. As one of your fans who spent money to nominate you, I find this very disapointing.

    • If you bought a supporting membership to this year’s Worldcon, you also get nomination rights next year. I believe Angles of Attack will be eligible for next year’s award. Keep participating in the process. Sooner or later we will be rid of this slate business somehow, and if Marko’s fans stay engaged (and he keeps writing well, which, well, Duh, he will), he will end up on the ballot again.

      (Or you can sell your membership. They are fully transferable. But I hope you will keep it and nominate next year.)

  37. Eh, too bad about that.

    Go make some more money writing good fiction. I had already pre-ordered your latest. Sitting an a pile of cash will make the pain go away quickly.

  38. Proof that it’s possible to be on either the right or the left without being a colossal dick about it.

    Good on you, sir. Off to purchase Terms of Enlistment.

  39. I’d never heard of you before the Sad Puppies thing, but I’m going to go buy one of your books now. I don’t even care which one. I just want you to have a dollar. (And I will read it and give your stories a chance, too!)

    You have done the right thing under very difficult circumstances. You are a gentleman, a scholar, and a fine judge of wine!

  40. I applaud your integrity and look forward to reading your current and future work!

  41. Marko, I’m sorry to hear you’ve withdrawn from the awards.

    I hadn’t heard of you until your book appeared on both the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies lists. Since the other authors and books that I already knew about on those lists are excellent, I bought Terms of Enlistment.

    It was awesome.

    I stayed up till 2 in the morning to finish it, even though I had work the next day, and started reading Lines of Departure the very next evening.

    That, too, was awesome.

    The reason I’m sorry that you’ve withdrawn your nomination is that the Hugo awards will be poorer this year without Lines of Departure being in the running. Your book was there on merit, because it is one of the best science fiction novels published last year. I read a lot of science fiction, and it’s been a while since I’ve enjoyed a new author’s work as much as yours.

    While I can’t agree with your reasoning here, I hope you keep writing awesome stories.

    Amazon tells me that Angles of Attack comes out next week, and I can’t wait to read it.

  42. Well my first thought was gutless. Then my second was if you’re up for the Hugo again I’ll find somebody more deserving of it. You’re letting the Making Light bullies push you around using guilt by association. I knew about the SP’s slate and I’m already a Worldcon member but since they wanted people to read the stories before they nominated and I didn’t have the time I didn’t nominate just like quite a few other members who didn’t have the time. So this crap about the SP’s voting a straight slate is just crap. The people who nominated you bought and read your novel which you could’ve found out by the increase in your Amazon sales rank. So Kloos do you think the people who pushed If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love to win a Nebula and get on the Hugo nomination list will ever nominate you for a Hugo in the future, well good luck.

    • He said nothing about the Sad Puppies slate. He rejects being on the Rabid Puppies slate, put together and promoted by known scum Vox Day. A tough decision, and made on principle.

      • Yes, he has a personal problem with Vox Day, fine leave the fans out of it. He did a disservice to his fans by withdrawing.

    • I find it extremely telling that most of the people directly criticizing his decision assume he must have caved to outside pressure from The Other Side and not made the decision for his own stated reasons.

      Also that apparently now his work is suddenly undeserving of being in the running next time.

      • Big fan of Marko from before I knew he was an author. I’m sorry he felt compelled to give up his nomination, but take no issue with his decision.

        What I find amusing is the series of responses to this post saying now they’ll read his book. kinda prove the Sad Puppies point.

        • And what point was that exactly?

          Kinda undermined by the number of Puppies howling that they’ll never read anything of his again if the point was “people will read an author they agree with politically”.

          Which, is actually not a particularly exciting point; that’s fiction, and arguably it’s *especially* science fiction. See: Robert Heinlein, king of the self-insert Author Filibuster, and king of libertarian science fiction fandom.

  43. I respect the difficult and gut-wrenching decision you are making and the ethical stand you are taking. I look forward to voting on your next novel in future years. Since I won’t get to read your novel as I get ready to vote, I will be adding your novel to my personal to-read list.

  44. This is a real shame. I read and enjoyed both “Terms of Enlistment” and “Lines of Departure” and both novels are as good as, or better than most of the science fiction on the market today. I don’t know what your political leanings are, and I don’t care. I just want some good stories, and you delivered. Keep up the good work – I’m looking forward to “Angles of Attack” arriving on my Kindle next week.

  45. Speaking as someone who was a fan from *very early* on: taking time from work to email you, letting you know that I had moved funds into your Paypal account so you could email me a copy of Terms of Enlistment: You had my vote for Best Novel, Mr. Kloos.

    I think it is unfortunate that you felt the need to drop out of contention. Especially when you are working through loss. Contra popular assertion, the entire point of both independent slates was precisely to pick works agnostic of the politics involved, both the Capital “P” macro-politics, and the small “P” group politics of the Hugo.

    Lines of Departure most certainly was worthy of its nomination. Period. Disingenuous attacks on the quality of Lines by people simply opposed to the Puppies campaigns notwithstanding.

    I for one will continue to *impatiently* wait for next Tuesday to see the fate of Earth surrounded by the Lankies.

    Thank you for writing great stories that have entertained for hours and hours.

  46. Bummer. I just paid for my worldcon supporter membership today (despite the controversy? because of it?) and was looking forward to the reader pack including your book (admission: haven’t read it yet). Much respects from someone on the other side of spectrum in all the things that don’t matter in the end except whether there’s a good story to be had.

  47. That’s pretty funny. You would never have got close to a damn hugo without the puppies campaign. Not because of quality. You know this. We know this. Disingenuous at the least to pretend otherwise. Too bad. I was a fan. But hey maybe now you’ll get a sympathy hugo!

    • Wow. Way to be insulting to your host, Torgo. Whether the book would have made the list without the slate is irrelevant; we will not know until the nomination data comes out after voting. The point here is to dissociate oneself from the odious Vox Day.

  48. Mr. Kloos,

    I am sorry that I only became aware of you due to this and not to the enthusiasm of fellow fans. But since you seem to be a stand-up person, I *will* be buying your novel and reading it with interest — I can’t guarantee I’ll like it, but I will read it.

  49. Mr. Kloos, I just wanted to say that I saw you were nominated before hearing about any of the Sad Puppy business and my first thought was “Good for him. He deserves it.” I also think you represent well for veterans in your writing. I am planning on buying book 3 on launch, and if it’s not a Hugo, I’ll put a couple dollars in your pocket because you’re a great writer and it’s the least I can do.

    • You can sell the membership to someone else and use the money to buy a copy of the book. Then Marko will get royalties and you’ll still have money left over for a sandwich to eat while reading the book. Win-win!

  50. Bravo. I would offer to rush out and buy your books, but I already own them all, have read and greatly enjoyed them.

    I’m one of those long time fans (over four decades of reading and watching and loving SF) who has been prompted by this entire debacle to get a membership and vote in the Hugo for the first time this year. Thankfully, I will be able in good conscience to nominate you next year for Angles of Attack.

    Thank you for standing up for what is right, at no small cost to yourself. It demonstrates your true character.

    • Wow. I’m an idiot. Angles of Attack hasn’t been published. Which kind of explains why I couldn’t remember it that well when I was typing the above, but I did remember that I liked everything I have read so far in this series and that I have pre-ordered it.

      So I can’t say for sure I will nominate it next year, but if past performance is anything to go on, I sure will!

  51. I started with your Frontlines books because of John Scalzi’s recommendation. I’m waiting now for the 3th one to appear on my reader later this month so I can start with it immediate. You are a pretty good writer, You’ll surely get an Hugo AND an actually prestigious award* in the future, congrats on putting your values first !!!

    *ouch, I know, but all this debacle has done is tarnish the Hugo Award value.

  52. This cannot have been a pleasant experience for you. I admire how you’ve decided to handle it. The following you’ve built up already speaks volumes in and of itself, regardless of any awards.

  53. Marko,

    it is your choice but I disagree with it. I checked and my “edition” of “Terms of Enlistment” was from April 9, 2013 so I’ve been enjoying your books and stories for the last two years. I was very happy to see you on the Sad Puppy’s short list as a quality indie author since it meant that others clearly agreed with me too. You have accepted a non-existent “guilt by association” argument from a group of people who never read your books and will only do so now because you are “like minded”. Look at the comments here.

    You have nothing to be ashamed of.


    • I agree with Andy. You have nothing to be ashamed of. I say this as not only an *early* fan who recommended Terms of Enlistment to many people, but a guy who first saw your book recommended at Vox Popoli.

    • I was going to read his book because it was nominated for a Hugo. I am going to read it now not because he is like minded because that is bullshit. I am going to read it because it was nominated for a Hugo. I am hoping to enjoy it like all the other books I read.

    • I find interesting that people are saying that his books are selling to people w h o are posting because he is “likeminded” with them. Some going so far as to say I won’t read you again. Is that because he wasn’t “like-minded” with you?

  54. Mr. Kloos, I’m glad you made a decision based on thinking about ethics. That’s admirable. I am surprised and saddened that some of your commenters feel empowered to insult you, either from one side of the argument or the other. That’s rude and shameful. I guess it’s true you should never read the comments.

  55. I don’t agree with your reasoning and am genuinely sorry I won’t be able to cast my vote for Lines of Departure, but it’s your career and you have to do what you think you have to do. I’ll still be looking for LoD’s sequel.

  56. My respect and sympathies to you–I know the decision can’t have been easy, and I know that no matter how you made it there were bound to be people who’d blame you for whatever you chose. I only hope that if I’m ever in a position as difficult as you are, I can find it in myself to do the right thing and stand by my principles.

  57. Kudos to you for making the honorable decision. I know it must’ve been a difficult choice. I have just purchased ‘Terms of Enlistment.’

  58. No worries Marko, we know you don’t need a rocket trophy to prove you can tell a story.

    No quite belly-aching and get back to writing that 4th book, damnit

  59. Congrats on the nomination. And the courage to withdraw. I’m sorry you have now become a target of the whiney puppies of all stripes. If they truly had open minds and hearts they would not have made this mess.

    I do not think this will be your last nomination. Not by a long shot. Good on you Marko. I know I will defy their high jacking and keep buying and reading what appeals to me. Not what I’m bullied to. You get my money.

  60. Your Blogarado invite was already secure and to be extended via a mutual friend , However I will personally and publicly Invite you out for the weekend of madcap hijinks right now . Columbus day weekend if you can make it . Dont hesitate to contact me or just visit with that redhead house sitter you have once in a while . All the best to you and yours

  61. I’m not sure what post you meant to reply to, but the one you actually replied to was stating the poster’s own opinion, not forcing an opinion on Mr. Kloos. This is signified by the use of the phrase “I think” at the beginning of the post.

  62. You’re a Gentleman, Sir.

    I see from some of the comments that you have visitors who believe you owe them something. This, if nothing else, truly highlights the correctness of your decision. You’re going to need a Rocket Shelf, and a Nebula Shelf to go with it. And you’ll do it without owing anyone a damned thing – regardless of what they say.

  63. Dear people that are posting angry: the author owes you *nothing*. Don’t respond with hate. Its up to you if you feel entitled to those feelings, but really, you’re just making yourself look bad. I’ll still give you a hug though.

    • Jesus; you must have a low bar for anger…I don’t see any particularly angry posts here. Some comments that he should not have done it….but nothing angry….

  64. Tough decision.
    I hope you gain a lot of readers for making it. I’ll be one to check out your stuff.

  65. I enjoyed “Terms of Enlistment” a hell of a lot. I can only imagine how difficult this decision must have been for you, but for what it’s worth, it kind of makes you my new hero. I know I’ll read many good novels from you in the future.

  66. Shit man I am glad to call you friend. You’ve got more balls and integrity than all your haters combined. You’ll survive this and rise above. Proud of you.

  67. I completely understand your decision, though I’m disappointed. The Hugo awards should be about the quality of someone’s work- not about having the “wrong” sort of fans. I find it unfortunate, judging by this comment thread alone, that your decision has fanned the flames and convinced the critics of SP that the “shame” strategy works.

    Like I said, I understand your decision, as sad as it makes me.

  68. It’s entirely possible that Mr. Kloos may have made more sales after this announcement than he would have if he’d actually won the Hugo. Ah, irony, I love you so.

    • I was thinking the same thing (as I wait for it to hit my kindle). Isn’t there a Ferengi rule about profiting from your own misfortunes? No? Should be.

  69. It’s my deadline day, so I don’t have time to read the comments, for which I apologize, but: Good, clear statement. I’ll look for your book once I get paid.

  70. I haven’t read it, but based on what a class act the author is, I’m buying a copy and giving it a go.

  71. That sucks man.

    Loved LOD , would’ve liked to see it win, but totally understand why you’re doing this.

  72. Here’s hoping there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Also, I just bought both your frontline books after having a look at them in Amazon. Looking forward to reading them!

  73. I tip my hat to you. You’re a class act!

    I don’t pay much attention to the Hugos, I buy books because I want to read them. But I’ll pick yours up. Classy people like you deserve a spending vote.

    (And the descriptions sound like they’re darn good books anyhow!)

  74. Sorry it came to this for you. I only know of your work because I follow Williamson, and Correia, and now Torgersen and Hoyt. Good luck in your future endeavors, and I will be checking out your work based on the recommendations of people whose taste I trust.

  75. Like many people, I respect your decision and, although I hadn’t been aware of your works prior to this, you can be sure that it’s now going on the list of books to purchase in the near future.

    Thank you for speaking up, and I’m sorry that this year’s Hugo’s ended with you having to pull out (although I’m sure it was a deserved nomination).

  76. Good for you. I know nothing of your politics, and have not yet read your book, but I very much hope that you get a nomination soon on the merits of your work.

    • Yes, because evidently the people who voted for him didn’t give a shit about his work, like how Kloos didn’t give a shit about anyone who thought he deserved the Hugo.

  77. Mr. Kloos, well done in making a good decision under difficult circumstances.

  78. So the nutshell is that you’re pulling out lest people respect you less via guilt by association.


    So you’re worried about what such people think. And by such people I mean the type who would condemn your work based not on the work itself, but because someone “icky” likes it.

    Yah. Not people whose esteem I’d much be worried about. Monumental shitweasels is what I’d call them.

    I think the less of you now for handwringing over such folks. I’m not regarding it as taking much courage to run with the soi disant cool kids.

    • You “think the less of him” because you think that he was worried about other people thinking the less of him. Do you think he should worry about you thinking the less of him? If not, why did you feel the need to inform him as to the status of your thoughts about him? And if so, then why would you hold him worrying about other people thinking less of him against him?

      You don’t do self-awareness so well, do you, Malcolm?

  79. To paraphrase one of the great robots, screw this contest! I’m gonna make you my own Hugo! And fill it with scotch! Don’t ask about the hookers. They, uh, didn’t fit.

  80. I’ll be voting for the Hugos, and I was looking forward to checking out your novel. But I respect your decision. It would be hard to get a Hugo nomination, much less win a rocket, and know that both sides of the debate would think that you only got there because of Vox Day’s intervention.

    As for the people saying that you’ll never get another nomination or that you are doing this to suck up to the “winning” side, ignore them. Keep writing Hugo-quality fiction, and you’ll get nominations and awards, and you’ll be able to accept them without feeling that you (unknowingly) sold your soul to the devil to do it.

    The Hugos will survive Vox Day, even if it takes a couple years of ugliness. In the meantime, you’ve shown principle in a tough situation. I congratulate you.

  81. Bravo, sir. I hadn’t heard of you before this brouhaha, but now I’m looking forward to checking out your work.

  82. Your decision to make. But I would not have made the same decision.

    I was unaware until the recent flap that a Hugo was decided by a small slice of fandom who paid a modest fee. The statistical analysis David Freer is very convincing that only those who complied with the SJW view were earning Hugos in recent years and that the Hugo process prior to the Puppies was tainted in recent years.

    I was unaware of Vox Day prior to this. Larry Correia I knew of and owned many of his books. I agree with the Sad Puppies that Pournelle and Starship Troopers would have never been considered for a Hugo in the last 10 years. It also seems like Larry Correia was subject to a very nasty whisper campaign when his book was on the list at the Reno Worldcon and was blacklisted for being a gun store owner previously and not writing with the “right” political view. Typical SJW behavior.

    I’ve read SF for more than 40 years. Many of the “older” Hugo winners are among my favorites. And unlike winners in the last 10 years or so, many of the older Hugo works have stood the test of time and still sell very well today. Look at sales results on Amazon. Sales numbers don’t lie.

    I love military SF and because you were not on the Baen label – I had not read your work. I like this genre – and you can thank Sad Puppies and only Sad Puppies for coming to my attention. I’m probably going to pick up a kindle version of Line of Departure – and you can thank Larry et al for bringing your work to greater attention.

    But the outright lies, slander, and guilt-by-association directed at the Sad Puppies is an excellent example of current liberal lynch mob mentality. I’m sorry that you decided to decline the award. I think it sends the wrong message. But again – your choice.

    I’ve bought a WorldCon associate membership this week. I will vote now, and in the future as long as the SJW’s don’t ban actual fans from voting who do not ascribe to their groupthink mentality. I also think that Larry’s point about the Hugo’s being a rigged game and the reaction of those angry about “badfun” have come to fruition. Larry predicted this and the reaction occurred.

    The SJWs are sore losers. Their groupthink accomplices are largely nasty and don’t even look at http://www.monsterhunternation.com for the reasons why SadPuppies came about. They have found their straw man, Vox Day, and are happily setting it on fire.

    And once again SWJs – I had never heard of Vox Day, was heavily involved for Cons for a decade, and am a heavy book buyer my whole life. I am now a Hugo voter – even though I was not a member during the nomination process. At least the Sad Puppies are driven by actual facts and are not slandering their opponents.

    • “The SJWs” is not a group of actual people, so don’t worry, ‘they’ will not make it against the rules for non-groupthink fans to vote.

      Now that you are a member of the Worldcon, you are a member of The World Science Fiction Society and have as much power over the rules of Hugo Voting as any other member. (Though historically, attending members have more power over WSFS business because they can attend the business meeting, but there is a proposal going through the process of being added to the rules that would make any rule change subject to a ratification by all members, which could take place online.)

    • “Those People are politically monolithic lying cowards, which is why I won’t even look at books not on my politically friendly print unless someone I approve of politically points them out.

      And also they’re ruining science fiction by playing politics!”

  83. Marko, I haven’t read any of your books yet but I just bought Terms of Enlistment because of your principled stance. Kudos to you!

  84. It sucks to be in this situation. I hope you get nominated again, next time with no controversy. I support you making your honest decision with my wallet: I just bought the kindle and audible editions of book 1.

  85. How many times to you plan to do this? If you tick the guy off so that he keeps putting you on his List are you going to continue to march to his tune and remove yourself?

  86. I just bought “Lines of Departure” and its prequel on Kindle, and have pre-ordered its sequel. I don’t know whether or not, as of now, I’ll like them, but I’ll absolutely read them. I already knew I like Annie Bellet, though I hadn’t read her nominee.

  87. Pity, but, it is what it is. I read all of your books, more than once, just like I do Larry’s. Oh well. I can always re-nominate you for something in 2016. :)

    I want you to know, though, that despite being a Sad Puppy, you were on my list way before that.

  88. Marko, I had never heard of you until today. Having read what you have to say, I feel great respect for your resolve, and I am moving to remedy my ignorance of your work bow.

  89. I can certainly understand wanting to be recognized for the quality of work, rather than any political consideration. Terms is why I purchased Lines and Lines is why I purchased AoA.

    Still, I’m not clear on your reasoning for declining the nomination. It appears that you’ve chosen to reject the support of those who support you because they believe you to be of like mind. With that restriction, I don’t see how you would ever be able to accept any award, much less one determined by a vote. I suspect a substantial portion of any vote is determined by the likability of the craftsmen, rather than the craft.

    So long as all concerned are free to participate, and I believe this is the case for the Hugo, I don’t understand the reasoning of withdrawing just because people who think of you positively are highly motivated. Is it your intent to never accept an award where people who find you personally appealing are highly motivated, out of fear that you, and not your work, will be what is rewarded?

    If it is your intention to reject those who voted for you because they found you, personally, likable, I’m afraid you’ve thrown out the baby with the bath water. You’ve also refused the votes of those who voted for you because they liked your work. Yes, you single out RP as the reason, but people who supported your work because they believed it to be good were given the same reward.

    In short, you’ve treated the people who placed personality and politics in the exact same manner as those who looked first to your work and found it worthy.

    If it’s your intention to avoid harassment, the actions appear consistent. The denunciation will probably save you the bile you would have received should you have won. Current hostility is probably reduced moderately. While one side will feel vindicated the other will be split between pity, disappointment and betrayal. Sales are a wash.

    As a writer, you put yourself out there just as much as your work, even though you might not wish that to be the case. I can certainly understand the desire to avoid traducement or association with someone you find distasteful. However, while this makes the most sense in terms of observable consistency and efficacy, you’ve said this isn’t why you made your decision.

    In the end, I just don’t understand the reasoning.

    • I cannot speak for what Marko thinks, of course; but I can say what reasoning I see in what he wrote above.

      The issue isn’t with people who like his work, nor with people who like him. It’s with people who have made explicit that they worked to put him on the ballot *without regard for* the quality of his work, solely and exclusively based on his perceived political ideology.

      If i were a fiction author, that would make me very uncomfortable as well. It would mean that neither I nor anyone else attempting to evaluate the quality they could expect to find between the covers of my books could trust the nomination, nor the award if I won it. They wouldn’t be able to tell if I had received an honor for having written a good book, or for having served as somebody’s inadvertent propaganda tool.

      And neither could I.

      I don’t imagine I’d like that feeling much. Maybe Marko doesn’t either.

    • “I can certainly understand the desire to avoid traducement or association with someone you find distasteful. However…you’ve said this isn’t why you made your decision.” Umm…no, he said quite clearly that that is precisely why he made his decision. And I quote: “I also wish to disassociate myself from the originator of the ‘Rabid Puppies’ campaign. To put it bluntly: if this nomination gives even the appearance that Vox Day…had a hand in giving it to me…I don’t want it.”

  90. Nobody blames J.D Salinger for the guy i’m not going to name for killing John Lennon, You are not responsible for who likes your books. I disagree with your decision. I also respect it. Now go write more please.

  91. You are aware that if Vox Day didn’t exist, there’d just be some other target, right? The same people screaming about the need to disassociate from the evil Vox Day would instead be screaming about the need to disassociate from the evil, I dunno, John C. Wright or somebody. And you would in the end be posting this same article, with the name “Vox Day” changed to “John C. Wright,” just so you could get out from under their fire.

      • *snort*

        you couldn’t have proven the point better.

        so, Marko, what do you say? you called Vox a ‘shitbag of the first order’.

        Raveen calls John C. Wright a ‘complete sack of crap’.

        looks like the exact same accusation too me.

        how many people are you going to throw overboard Marko? and how many CAN you throw over … before you look to your right and find no one there?

        because that’s when you’re going to find out that YOU are a shitbag of the first order and a complete sack of crap ( to the rest of the Left ). and that you’re the next one over the side.

        just ask Jemisin what she thinks of white men. i’m sure she’d be willing to tell you today.

      • I… wasn’t expecting the proof of what I said to appear so quickly, but then again, social justice does tend to narrow one’s mind and make one predictable.

        You see, Mr. Kloos? This isn’t about one person. This is about ideological conformity. You’ve bought a temporary respite from the mob, that’s all.

        • This is about ideological conformity.

          Right, because this is about politics. People are being maligned because they support conservative fiscal policy, and not because they go into whinging tirades about moral degradation in children’s cartoons because they dared to be offend his sensibilities.

          Or what about Kratman? Who is aside from being an abysmal writer also has the mindset of a twelve year old screaming at people over a game of Halo.

          Get real. These three writers are hated because they refuse to see the targets of their bigotry as people, and act like children and sociopaths while doing it.

    • Poor, poor unfairly maligned Vox. It’s just ’cause he’s a conservative and certainly not because of anything he’s ever said or done.

      • and John C. Wright? is he also [ sarcasm ] unfairly maligned [ /sarcasm ]?

        you clowns are the ones who made this an ideological battle. i’ve been buying the works of women ( McCaffrey, Meluch, Norton ) and queer / friendly ( Gerrold / Hughart / Meluch again) for decades, since the early 80s, ever since i had a disposable income. people of color i’m not sure about, as Delaney never did anything for me ( advocates of child molestation and the writer of things like ‘Hogg’ never would ) and i’m not sure who else would have been publishing that would have been ‘of color’. because i never went looking. BECAUSE I WASN’T RACIST ENOUGH TO CARE OR STUPID ENOUGH TO THINK that skin color made any difference to the quality of what had been written on the page.

        well, i’ll tell you what. ideologically, i’m to the right of the estimable Mr. John C. Wright. if John C. Wright is somebody you motherfuckers are going to shit on and shun and revile i will *make a point* of identifying every one of you Social Justice Whoreriors and anyone who bends a knee to them and never spending any money with you again.

        • “Social Justice Whoreiors”. Oh man, that’s freaking priceless, I love it when people wear nametages that advertise exactly who and what they are.

          Not that it matters to you, but my politics actually align a lot more closely with Larry Correia than most of the “SJW” authors, though he is socially to the right of me in some ways. I just thinking fighting the culture wars in speculative fiction in any way other than writing different stories is fucking stupid and that the Hugo thing has evolved to the point where a good thing has become poisonous. (And yes, the original political monolithic nature was part of that- though the “SJWs” have a point that it was politically monolithic in another way before they came along.) But, yannow. It’s ALL about which trench of the culture war you’re in and if you’re not in mine you’re in the other, apparently, no matter who you find yourself next to they’re better than The Other Side.

          Vox- how big of a compendium do you want on how he’s managed to make himself infamous? I mean, the most famous is that Jemisin Taylor (of whom I am no fan) rant that he got himself booted out of the SFWA for promoting on their twitter, and that one’s actually MUCH WORSE in context than the one clipped quote that keeps going around, but he has a rich omnibus of truly vile shit that horrifies people of just about any stripe.

          As for Mr. Wright… he believes that contraception is wrong, women should be subordinate to their husbands, and also that his brand of Christianity in general is Right and everyone else is Wrong and just generally destroying Western civilization. But he’s not a patch on Vox in terms of outright loathsomeness, though tellingly he is one of Vox’s defenders.

  92. I agree with your reasoning and admire your decision. But I also want you to know that I think your novel was good enough to be nominated on merit. I’ve been a regular sci-fi reader for over 30 years, but I’ve never participated in fandom. I only ran into this particular issue after wandering by GRRM’s blog–and lots of searching, clicking, and reading thereafter. I do often buy the Hugo best novel nominees that I haven’t already read–Lines of Departure belongs. I’ve bought, read, and enjoyed both Terms of Enlistment and Lines of Departure. I’m sure I’ll buy your next novel too.

    • Can you explain his stand to me? From the point of what is effective and consistent, I don’t follow his reasoning. I may be missing something, and I’d really like to know.

      • I can’t speak for him obviously, but it seemed straight-forward–he didn’t like being part of the RP slate because (1) it means too many votes came from people who voted for his work by rote rather than based appeciation of his creation, and (2) the RP progenitor is vile. These two reasons caused enough distaste that the nomination is tainted to him. He made a tough choice. Makes sense to me. And I agree. Recommendations are important in my filed, but there are people in my world that I would not want to recommend me, even if such a recommendation proved profitable. I could see reasonable people disagreeing, but the decision is rational.

      • Andrew: As I understand it, the RP and SP picked a bunch of books and got lots of people to nominate those books — WHETHER THEY READ THEM OR NOT.

        So, since his book was on that/those slates, he doesn’t know – and no one else knows – whether he was nominated because enough people thought he deserved it or whether it was because a bunch of people who hadn’t read his book voted they way they were told to.

        Being nominated for an award should be a huge compliment for your work. But if you then find out that the people who nominated you may not have even READ it — that has got to be a really crappy feeling!

        Mr. Kloos: I respect your decision and respect you for making it. I hope the supportive comments make the situation somewhat easier to bear. And I hope you can ignore the comment of those who are acting like jerks and spoiled children.


          you can repeat a lie all you want, that doesn’t make it true.

      • Marko’s perfectly capable of explaining himself, but the way I follow the reasoning is:

        The award isn’t an award to him because it is, to use a sports metaphor, an asterisk. If he was part of a slate that swept certain categories, then there’s no way to tell if he won because people would have voted for him because the work was excellent or because he was part of that slate, or what the proportions in that mix were.

        He’d rather no award than an asterisk.

  93. Marko, a slightly different version of the following is posted as a comment at Larry’s blog. I’m posting it here, not to blast you with my opinion, but because courtesy and respect demand that I address it directly to you so you can respond (or not) on your own ground, rather than somebody else’s place.

    I’ve enjoyed your books, and will continue to do so despite your withdrawal from the Hugo.
    But, while I respect your right to make the decision you’ve made, I will not support you in the future for a Hugo. The time to decline a nomination is when it is made, not days later. The timing of your decision is certain to damage the intent of SP3, that of encouraging the inclusion of works and authors which would normally be overlooked or actively excluded. Already, we’re seeing crows of triumph coming from those who seek to maintain a grip on the awards, limiting it to a small subset of fans.

    Whether intended or not, your decision has aided them, and hurt fans like me.

    I read and enjoyed both Terms of Enlistment and Lines of Departure long before LoD showed up on Vox Day’s list. My enjoyment of and support for the work had nothing to do with the RP campaign. By accepting the nomination, then reneging, you have made it apparent that my support, and the support of other fans like me, is less important to you than the ‘taint’ attached to Vox’s support. I read your apology to those like me who supported your work based on merit, and I accept that apology, and I bear you no ill will. However, your decision to withdraw did nullify and minimize my support.

    As I said, I will continue to buy and read your books, and let other people know how good they are. I just won’t be able to support you for future awards, lest another undesirable person’s support causes you to drop out again, minimizing my support again.

  94. I haven’t read your books, but after reading this post I went out and bought your first two books and pre-ordered your third in the series. I’m sorry that your nomination for a Hugo was marred by this whole ordeal and I hope the future sees you get a nomination that you feel is purely for the work and not because of some political nonsense.

    • I don’t think he can expect that. After all, you were willing to reward him with your patronage based purely on his personal stance. Curiosity would be to buy the first, not the first two. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with buying products of people you admire. It’s just that, there’s no reason to expect that no one would choose to do the same for a Hugo. Voting is as often about personality as it is about product. No reason to expect that to change. I can’t see how he can be consistent in the future without forgoing any awards that involve public voting.

  95. I recently heard good things about your book, so I began reading it on my kindle. Those good things I heard were not unfounded.

    As far as this controversy goes, I don’t think you really ever did anything wrong. As far as I know you didn’t actively campaign to get on the puppy ballot. Though, I completely understand why you wouldn’t want to be apart of this shitstorm. I think if I was in your shoes, I’d just say to hell with ’em. So, shame on those who would think to punish you just because you don’t want to be apart of this mess. Shame on those who would punish you for a tangential(and unrequested) association to someone they don’t like.

    I’m going to be honest with you. I don’t give a sh*t how good of a person you are. That’s what friends are for. Story above all else, everything else is secondary. On that metric, so far at least, LoD is definitely a worthy nomination. I look forward to reading more from you!

  96. A most wise an honorable decision. As Annie Bellet, author of another nominee who has now dropped out said, this will not be the last book you write; you may well have a chance at a future, untainted, Hugo.

  97. Good. Glad to see you gone. Every single man of principle should be shunned and you do it best by shunning them. Good for you.

    As you bask in your principled sunshine I want you to consider that I view it just as I do the Germans that took a step to one side when the SS came after their neighbor; the Jew.

    How very sanctimonious of you.

      • I know. You guys got your hate hats on.

        None of you ever read voxday’s blog do you? It would be like contaminating your vital essences to extend your oculars that far and actually read what the man writes instead of the in-stream shrieks of hatred launched that way by his nemeses.

        He doesn’t war with the likes of you and nor will I.

        Tell you what though. From the bursar of sasquan today, they have trouble keeping up with the things membership committees do for WSFS worldcon because they’ve had over 2000 requests for membership this month alone. I don’t write that in any threatening way but what happened with SP and RP was an avalanche of people deciding that they need to weigh in on the vote for the Hugo this year. Why exactly is that evil?

        I’m a 55 year old retired from the navy officer who retired from defense work and now works at a midwest university as a writing instructor for student scientists. I’m no hater but that’s reached the point of being and saying, I’m no nazi. Tell you what though fellows, it has reached the point where the tolerant denouncement of intolerance towards all signs of tolerance and a screed advancing nothing but intolerance is getting old. [parse that]

        You guys need to read more and clean up your act.

        Not sure how this site works and if it streams comments into place or just puts all new comments at the bottom. Don’t care much. ctl f will find my original comment and who I’m responding to.

  98. Your martyrdom comes across as pathetic to as many who find it noble. Surprising to see an author spit in the face of current and potential fans who have a different opinion than you. Personally I am appreciative to the sad and rabid puppies for promoting works the rest of us might enjoy and look forward to checking out the other recommended authors, though I think I’ll wait now and see if any authors pull this kind of crap before I she’ll out any more of my money.

    • Agh you can just delete this and the above comment please. I was hoping to change something here or delete but of course I have no ability. I’ll stick with my mistakenly in-thread comment above instead of this :/

  99. While I appreciate your position, I fear you have given Vox control of the Hugo. All he has to do to cast doubt on a book is to endorse it. He can even extol a nominee to his psychophants (sic) after it’s balloted, and there will be a pall over it if it wins.

    Sometimes, not playing still isn’t a win.

  100. Marko, I am sorry that you had to make this decision. I believe your writing is excellent. I can’t do anything other than thank you for your honesty, and wish that this whole messy situation was not happening.

    If I had any $$ right now — I don’t — I’d buy at least one thing just in support of your incredibly difficult decision. As it stands, though, I can wish you nothing but the best.

    You’re a class act.

  101. I’m sorry to see you go. I was looking forward to reading your book in consideration for the Hugos this year.
    I still hope to read it, but it won’t be for awhile. Reading the nominees this year before voting is a big job.
    I hope to see you get a nomination in the future that you feel comfortable accepting.

  102. I bought your books after seeing them on the slate for the Sad Puppies campaign, and I loved them. I’m very much looking forward to reading more of your work. I think it, especially the 2nd novel, which was better in my opinion than your 1st novel (as is to be expected for a budding author) is very much deserving of this nomination.

    I understand your decision to withdraw, and wish there wasn’t such a toxic political climate around the awards… but I also can’t help but be grateful to the Sad Puppies for bringing your work to my attention in the first place.

  103. It is never much fun finding yourself caught in a cross-fire, especially when you weren’t expecting it. People who you thought were friends are suddenly shooting right at you, careless of hitting you, just for the chance to hit someone beyond you. They return fire, also not caring that you happen to be stranded in the no-mans land. At the end of the day, you don’t really care who shot first, you just want it to stop, so you can make it home in one piece. One side promised to stop shooting, so long as you’ll decry their target. The target who happens to be a fan. Being shot at by other fans. No easy way out of this one.
    Once you have a little bit of breathing space, I recommend doing a little bit of math. Compare the boost in sales during the 3 weeks during and after the SP Book bombs, to the sales from the time of your withdrawal through the next 3 weeks. At the end of the day, let the monetary voice tell you who actually regrets shooting at you, and who doesn’t care if you get hit, so long as they hit those beyond you.
    Also, regardless of your personal opinion of Vox Day, he gave your book a fair shake, and encouraged people to buy and read it, even vote for it if they liked it, and told them to be classy when you withdrew. That strikes me as a bit more encouraging than the sentiments condemning you for having the wrong kind of fan.
    Best of luck, keep writing,

  104. Marko, I’ve enjoyed your books and believe they are praise worthy. It is sad that your first Hugo nom is cluttered with politics. You will be nominated again. Your work is that good. I’m hoping that other writers nominated can believe their work deserves a Hugo. I’m looking at you EBR! I am freedom loving enough to say that I respect your decision and leave it at that. Live long and prosper-writing!

  105. The only way to win is to not play the game. I am sorry for your situation – I really am – it sounds kind of like getting stomach flu that cancels a trip to Paris.

    I respect your decision. I also respect the choice of those who remain on the ballot. Fun times.

  106. I’ve already said as much to Marko elsewhere, but I owe him a free drink or several, maybe his very own beer. When the game isn’t about the game anymore: drop the ball and go find somewhere else to play. And contrary to some of the Saddest Puppies, it does take guts to do that, especially when some of your real friends are deeply involved.

    I’m also watching in some fascination because I’ve had a front row seat to all three years of circus. The original Sad Puppies thing had a point to make that the award had become very insular and more about back-scratching than quality- and then it *kept going*. To make what point? That the non-“in crowd” can swing a vote they way they want it too? If they can do it consistently with slates, doesn’t that actually kind of make them the new in crowd? Sadly I suspect the new point is enjoying pissing off the old crowd.

    I hear a lot about “SJWs”, who actually do exist in the sense actual social justice folks used to use the term- someone who’s more concerned with staying the center of attention and using social justice issues as a bludgeon and a derail, or even as a tool for bullying and organized harassment. (See: the Mixon Report and Benjanun Sriduangkaew.)

    Unfortunately, I hear the term a whole lot MORE these days to mean “person I don’t like to the left of me” or “person saying things marking them as an outgroup I can instantly dismiss without having to pay attention to anything they say.” Which makes me kind of want to instantly dismiss anyone using it, though if I catch myself doing so I stop.

    My attitude has broadly been “a pox on all their houses”. I’m of the very strong opinion that diversity of all kinds including political can only ever benefit speculative fiction, including the outright ludicrous and hateful. (After all, it’s always good to have warning that you should start out by running away screaming if you see someone coming.)

    It’s a self-selecting audience that’s going to get vocally butthurt about this, and not a representative one, but I gotta say I’m laughing and rolling my eyes by turn at people saying Marko’s caving to social pressure out of spinelessness, and to people who tar everyone with guilt by association, and to the politicization of the Hugos without regard to the quality of the work… while saying, often in the very same comment, that now they’ll never support him for a nomination, that he’s joined the other side and given aid and comfort to the enemy, and it’s probably because he’s one of them or at least they have his ear.

    K. Keep talking, seriously, it’s educational.

  107. I’m sorry it came to this, Marko, but I understand your principled approach and guess I would do the same if I were ever in your shoes (unlikely though that might be). I have read and admired your work, and as one of your legion of admiring fans assure you that you have a long and successful writing career ahead of you, with no need of Hugo baubles. That said, I hope you win in a clear vote in a future year. All the best.

  108. Sir,

    I am not a fan who usually writes to authors: though I enjoyed ‘Terms of Enlistment’, and expect to enjoy ‘Lines of Departure’.

    I have great respect for your principled decision. Though I hope that this is not seen as pressure on others on the Puppy’s slates, who I feel should each do as they think is right.

    I hope your action will mean that in future people stop nominating you because they are trying to play politics, and nominate you because you’re a damn fine writer instead. And whether or not they do, you and I will both know that you are.

  109. Marko,

    my highest respects for your wise and ethical decision. Your unambiguous decision to chose integrity and moral principles over a – at most temporary – venial prize show you to be a true gentleman. Again, my highest respects for your decision.

    All the best.

    Martin K.

  110. “Already, we’re seeing crows of triumph coming from those who seek to maintain a grip on the awards, limiting it to a small subset of fans.”

    Well aside from that “small subset of fans” being everyone who joins the worldcon and nominates, which is all of us (me included), falling for some conspiracy theory and then becoming one of the current “small subset of fans that want to maintain a grip on the awards” (the Rabid Puppies and allies) seems to be totally hypocritical.

    If anyone wanted more people to nominate, then they could have just told people to go read books, and then encourage them to nominate those they think are good enough for the awards. And I’m pleased that some people did indeed nominate Marko based entirely on the quality of his work.

    However, unless we can be clear that he made it onto the ballot through quality alone and not through a “small subset of fans” then the award itself becomes meaningless.

    Mr. Kloss has stood up and been counted, and I hope his work is widely read, and considered by each of us for nomination next year …

    This year’s awards have been totally tainted by the RP/SP cabal and so whatever results are announced, whoever wins this year, has won an award that’s tainted by Puppy Poop.

    The RP/SP have turned this into an Olympics where only one country is allowed to compete, so any medals won just makes you the least unpopular RP/SP rather than saying that among the whole field of SF & Fantasy, the fans voted for you to win.

    Marko deserves to be judged fairly, and if/when he wins, then to know he has won fairly.

  111. As someone who has read your work since the early days of your blog, bought your books as soon as they were available (counting the days ’til my pre-ordered AoA arrives), and paid $40 for the privilege of nominating you, I’m sorry.

    I’m sorry this happened to you so soon after the loss of your dog, and while your soul was likely occupied with other things.

    I’m also sorry I won’t get to vote for you this year. (Yeah, I know you’re up against Butcher, but I like what I like.)

    I hope your decision (among other things) buys you a respite from the involuntary, shit-covered dodge ball game, and a measure of peace.

  112. I am disappointed. I bought Terms of Enlistment and Lines of Departure last week because their inclusion on the Puppies slate made me think they would be worth reading and voting for.

    Now I find out that I’m not the kind of fan Kloos wants. My interest in his work doesn’t count, because I’m the wrong kind of person. I wish I could get a refund.

  113. It is always refreshing to see someone, like yourself, put morals above quick gratification. Unfortunately, in our newly designed Country a small group of well-organized people can and do sway the outcome of elections and awards (See money in Politics for details)

    Personally, when I read science fiction, I read it for enjoyment and escapism of the story. I usually reject blatant propaganda stories from the same author that are wrapped around current thirty second sound bites. I have enjoyed your writing style and sense of story and have purchased your last two books and pre-purchased your newest effort.

    I lean to the left. I served eight years in the US military, my brother-in-law just retired at camp Pendleton with the rank of colonel. My nephew flies trash haulers (AKA C-130S) in the Marines and my step-son is in the army and has four years to go before retirement. As a group, we are in the middle politically except possibly the colonel. While we don’t agree on everything, the one thing we do agree upon is the extreme right wing direction this Country is heading. Benjamin Franklin summed up our views with this quote –

    “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

    • While we don’t agree on everything, the one thing we do agree upon is the extreme right wing direction this Country is heading.

      because, of course, Obama and the Democrats are completely blameless when it comes to the kabuki theater that is airport security and all the rest of the state intrusions. yes, everyone who gets on a plane must be scanned down to their skin … but anyone who wants to wade across the Rio is granted voting rights? uh huh. somebody’s not very serious about security at all.

      what was is it that Obama wanted to do to Snowden, again? maybe you can help explain to me how his statements were the fault of the Republicans?

  114. Mr. Kloos,
    could you contact me, please, using the email I’m providing here. I bought Terms of Enlistment and Lines of Departure on the 7th on the strength of their inclusion in the Rabid Puppies slate and the Hugo nomination for the latter. Now that you’ve withdrawn, I want to return them for a refund. Please do that, or help me arrange with Amazon to do that. It’s outside the normal 7-day period that Amazon will allow Kindle returns.

    There is no need to publish this email. Or my last email either. Instead of complaining, I have decided I’d rather just do the civilized thing and return and refund.

    • Interesting this comment means that this person does not or can not think on his/her own. If you can not read a work of fiction on its own merits, WITHOUT someone telling you to “enjoy” the book it is not the author you should be worried about it is a view of yourself in a mirror that should be bothering you.

      “The mind is a terrible thing to waste” and your post exemplifies thiat statement!

    • EoI, I am not sure if Amazon will accept a note from Mr Kloos asking to excuse you from the normal rules of purchasing.

      Have you read the books? If so, why should you get a refund? (besides the fact you are in a snit because of Mr Kloos’ actions).

      If you haven’t read them, you have missed out on two very good books, so I would pull on your big-boy pants and read them for the sake of a good book, rather than for a “political” gesture.

    • Are you serious?! You bought a book, OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL, and you want the AUTHOR to refund you the purchase price?

    • Authors have zero control over Amazon return policies, and Mr. Kloos would have received only a fraction of the price. If I were you I’d stick to your belief that someone nominated by this group is worthy – unless you believe they weren’t really worthy in the first place, which would of course indicate this was nothing but a political stunt rather than belief in the work, and surely that isn’t the case.

    • Maybe you should read the books instead. You might find a writer worth continuing to read.

    • Here’s an idea: Sell it to Chris Garcia. Everyone wins!

      Really, you think you own the author, not his books?

  115. I have no idea who Vox Day is. I do know who Marko Kloos is and have been a fan since Terms of Enlistment. That said, I have also followed the works of Larry Corriea and JC Wright and have enjoyed their works also. When I first heard about the SP campaign I was neutral but leaning towards the side that winners should not be socially engineered. This is a more libertarian viewpoint then most which would explain my fondness for those authors works. So… I’d be on the side of measures opening up Hugos to the best stories not based upon the views of the author.

    I was happy to see Kloos getting a nomination. I am unhappy to see it declined. Why… because the act of declining is the same as taking a stance that the opening of the award to all stories is not correct. I’d have preferred if Kloos had simply not responded one way or the other and stayed above the fray. Now… he’s in the muck with both sides.

    Will that affect my decision to buy Book 3. maybe. The sad truth of being a reader is that the only power I have is where I spend my money.

    Thanks for allowing my viewpoint.

    • “Why… because the act of declining is the same as taking a stance that the opening of the award to all stories is not correct.”

      Disingenuous statements like this are why I have no sympathy for people who support the puppy slates, even if they might have a point about some works being overlooked. The awards HAVE been open to all stories; nobody’s been forbidden to nominate. It’s just that not enough people nominated works that made Day/Torgersen/Correia happy when left to their own devices, so they organized slates to ram their choices through. It worked, because slates will always beat people making individual choices, but it’s not some great uprising of the masses and it’s nothing to be proud of. It’s just a temper tantrum.

  116. I’m a writer too, and if I were on the Hugo ballot and felt I had to withdraw, it would be incredibly difficult for me. So for the record, I want you to know how much respect I have for what you’ve done. I also want you to know that I’m buying Terms of Enlistment and look forward to reading your series this summer.

    I’m so sorry this has happened to you, but I hope you find yourself on the ballot again someday.

  117. Instant reward (kleine Sünden bestraft der liebe Gott sofort): I had bought, but not yet read your novel in question. When I learned about the Rabid Puppies-campaign, I had decided to not even read it. NOW: decision reversed, very much looking forward to read ‘Lines of Departure’. Being a Hugo-nominee is great, being a decent person worth infinitely more.

  118. For how much everybody has gotten into a tizzy about these awards, it’s been easy to lose sight of the fact that many of the people nominated have also been victimized. It’s a shame that you got caught up in something beyond your control, but I’m impressed by your decision to decline the nomination. Either way, I’ve already picked up Lines of Departure and look forward to reading it.

    Hopefully next year will be kinder to you, Markos!

  119. Your work, your call, bro. Sucks to be collateral damage in someone else’s war.

    I plan to aid in your healing by continuing to buy everything you publish. All the best.

  120. Longtime Barfly, here. I commend you for making a difficult decision, and respect your reasoning. For what it may be worth, you’ve gained a fan. I’ll be picking up your stuff and adding it to the reading pile.

  121. Marko:

    You are like school in the summer – no class. Sure, make your nomination political and demonstrate that you are on the side of angels to the gangsters and thugs by declining the nomination. That makes you possibly just spineless and craven. But to insult and demean the people who voted for you, that is a tasteless move, and saying you shouldn’t have used a bad word in insulting everyone is no apology.

    I’m glad you took a side in the debate. It is good to know that you support the hate and abuse that all of the “tolerant” people have been using against ordinary sci-fi fans. It is good to know that you support racism and dishonesty. Picking which books to read in my limited time is always hard. I had bought your first book and was thinking about buying more. But you have made it easy to skip over your work in the future.

  122. I gotta say congrats for not letting these bumbaclots use you as a chess piece in their little coup. Best of luck next time the Hugos roll around.

  123. Thanks a bunch. Your actions only serve to make voting more difficult for those of us who planned to vote fairly, reading at least some of each work, and deciding on that basis which was the best. I have said elsewhere that I had no intention of allowing the internet to tell me how to vote. You have allowed the internet to tell me which works I can vote for!

  124. I am so sorry to hear about this Hoss. I enjoyed “Lines of Departure” just as I did “Terms of Enlistment” and I look forward to “Angles of Attack”.

    I’ll make you the same deal I make with the other authors I like.

    You keep writing them and I’ll keep buying and reading them 😉

    Bubba Man, One of the Bubba’s of the Apocalypse.

  125. This retraction makes me want to buy your book. I had not heard of you before recent events. Bravo. I am headed to Amazon.com this moment.

  126. As a lfe long SF and Fantasy fan I have to applaud what must have been a very fraught decision. I have yet to read your work but I feel I have to do so now because you are cerintly someone with integrity. The use of the Hugo’s this year have pretty well destroyed the future reputation of the honored rocket statue… I wish you none but the best in your writing future

  127. I respect your decision, but please do not let this crap dissuade you from fighting the good fight. Never give up. This cloud was none of your doing, but you have to suffer for it, and for that, I am very sorry. I was one of those who would judge your work on its merits.

    That being said, I not only respect you and your decision, but this whole event has ironically made me into a fan. If there is any justice, you will still be considered as a proud member of the Hugo Loser’s Club. It is filled with a long line of wonderful people, and the pall was none of your creation. You are a good person. I will raise a drink to you. I will be following your career closely and enjoy your novels.

    Never give up hope!

  128. Well, I’m still going to buy Angles of Attack, and read it…so there! Nyah!

    (You think Three Body Problem is really a worthy replacement? Seriously? Guess I should give it a read, then.)

  129. My sincere condolences on getting caught in the crosstown. I wish you luck next year.

  130. You keep writing great books – I’ll keep buying them and reading them – I feel pretty certain there are a lot of people that feel the same way, which I am grateful for as it means hopefully more books of yours to read in the future. To borrow from Twain “Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.” Maybe substitute “baffle” for “astonish” in this case. Screw the noise – do what you do.

  131. I had read your book, “Terms of Enlistment” long before all of this nonsense started and greatly enjoyed it. People don’t seem to notice how hard it is to write a book that’s so easy to read, they seem to think it is simplistic.

    It’s sad to see you withdraw from the Hugo’s, but I respect your decision. Here’s to next year and another nomination.

  132. I bought both of the Frontlines books to read them before my first ever Hugo vote.I am sad that you miss out on a chance to get the Hugo this year, but I applaud your integrity.

  133. Well, congratulations! Thanks for shortening my pile of books to read. Your spinal flexibility reminds me of the way Commie bloc writers went into internal emigration or sucked up to their respective regimes after being proprly chastised and browbeaten by Zhdanovshchina supporters. Mere fact that people who would probably despise your own political leanings – not to mention repulsive, vote buying creatures like Kowal – applaud your decision should tell you that you’ve screwed up. Enjoy your career – unlike your reputation, for now it remains something to be enjoyed.

  134. First I would like to remind some of the posters that words mean what they mean and the word terrorist means that they leave REAL bodies of REAL people scattered around in bloody shreds and the use of that word cheapens that reality.

    Second I am not going to buy works by this author because of his actions nor am I NOT going to buy his work because of his action.

    Whether or not I ever do buy his works depends on part on the reccomendation of Larry Correia who I REALLY like I have attended TWO Cons outside of my home city which has hosted ICON for the last 39 years. One was the hundred year birthday of Heinlein a few years back and the other was Ozfest in Omaha to meet Correia.

    So yeah I give Correia a lot of credit when he says something might be worth reading

    As to the Hugo deal? I came to all this late in the last few days.

    Mr Kloos has the right to make his own decisions I accept that but back in 1968 one of the networks had Gore Vidal and William F Buckley as commentators during the election and Vidal said to Buckley you may not agree with me but you have to respect my decision to say what I think.

    Buckley replied that he did not feel compelled to respect stupid,

    Sorry but while I stipulate Mr Kloos has the right to make his own decsions I don’t feel compelled to respect someone allowing any group to drive their life.

    I am that way I don’t lie down

    And because of that fact and the campaign signs I have put in my front yard I long since lost count of the signs I had to rerpair and put back up but I can count the number of times I have had to replace windows in my car, have my front porch light put back up on the wall once and have the downspout that was ripped off the side of my house repaird once

    I do beleive I have eaned my rifght to comment on political harrassment?

    But eveyone might not be as stupid and sturbborn as I am

    I don’t lie down

    Not even when someone tried to steal my identity and request the Host of my Website cancel my account

    Or reported to Facebook there was suspicious activity on my account which prompted them to have me swear that the finanacial means used by me to buy ads were my own and I had to submit a jpg of a Color Government issued Photo ID to verify that I am indeed a US citizen

    Or orgainzied a campaign of complaints that had my advertizing rights suspended which has just been reinstated after I sent FB some interestng detalls about my detractors.

    Yeah I know what harassment feels like,

    I could mention that possibly as a result of the excess stress I ended up having quintuple bypass open heart surgery

    But like I said I am stupid and stubborn and I don’t lie down

    So someone tell me

    If I should decide to jump into this Hugo deal why should I ever nominate Mr Kloos

    I know Larry Correia thinks he is a geat writer and quite a few here have said the same but wouldn’t I risk WASTING a nomination if he should wind up on a List by this VOX character or someone like him and withdraw Again?

    • ….All of which depends on the premise that science fiction should be the battlefield of a culture war Marko should be all in trying to win, as well as an assumption that he declined the nomination because one side was pressuring him to do so for political reasons and not because he disagreed with that premise.

      It seems to me that when he wound up unwittingly part of a slate distributed by someone who not only has a political agenda, but one that has a lot of features Marko finds repellent, he refused to allow THAT group to drive his life and stepped out rather than live with the doubt that he won on merit rather than because he was on a slate.

      But, y’know. The group that’s currently calling him a spineless coward lackey of a political side who should never be nominated again and wouldn’t have been without that slate isn’t applying pressure or slander or guilt by association. They’re just not lying down.

      • It’s different, because they are Warriors for Justice in Society, and not SJW’s.
        Which means they can defend Sad Puppies by using all the online tactics that Sad Puppies has stated to be against.

      • LabRat,

        The group that’s currently calling him a spineless coward lackey of a political side who should never be nominated again and wouldn’t have been without that slate isn’t applying pressure or slander or guilt by association. They’re just not lying down.

        Discovering just how scarce a commodity self-awareness actually is has been an unexpected bonus of this, no?

  135. Props, seriously. If you’re ever in the ATL I’ll buy you a beer. Just went and pre-ordered Angles in the olden days paper format. Hope that puts a few pennies in your pocket.

  136. Yikes. Screw politics. Marko shouldn’t have to experience this kinda stuff. Only commenting to add my .02c; that being that my man writes good books.

  137. Mr. Kloos, up until this point I have been a great fan, however, I nominated Lines of Departure because I thought is was worthy of an award, not because of whose list it was on. Granted it was the SP list that got me involved in the Hugo’s again, and hey, I happen to have similar reading tastes.

    Declining that nomination is a slap in the face to the fans who wanted to support you. If you have a personal problem with Vox Day, leave your fans out of it. In the end I think you will find your bowing down to an overly vocal minority will hurt you more than bowing out has helped you.

    As for me I will not make that mistake again.

  138. Marko, I’d like to suggest that you turn off the comments of this particular topic now. Just about everyone has surely had their chance to weigh in, and just about every possible point of view has now surely been expressed. The amazingly irritable and abusive folks who apparently think that you’re Satan Incarnate for your decision to remove your book from the Hugo ballot have now had so much to say that I fear for their blood pressures, not to mention the fact that I’m pretty thoroughly sick of wading through their frothings, myself. Besides; there must be *some* other topic out there in the world for them to shriek about, and we really should stop distracting them from their important work and let them get back to all those “whack-a-mole” concerns.

  139. Marko, you keep on writing, I’ll keep on reading. Good for you for sticking to your code, I know it’s not easy, especially when it comes to a career enhancing award.

  140. Keep on writing, Marko. Bought the first book in support of your move. Keep on writing.

  141. Followed you since Terms of Enlistment first came out on Amazon. As someone who has around 400 books in his kindle library, of which maybe 300-350 are science fiction, I had no clue what any of this drama was about, why? Because I don’t buy and read your books to get involved in some stupid cliquey community.

    The point of my post? I’m not a fan of your stories because of any personal views you have, or what your politics are. Frankly, the authors that suddenly start spouting personal politics piss me off- why? Because I buy science FICTION to read about IMAGINARY and SPECULATIVE worlds, not to read some ideological drivel. I’m in the process of self-publishing my own work- it involves fascism, and it doesn’t outright say fascism is wrong- does that mean I support fascism or am a fascist? No, because I don’t and I’m not, I simply enjoy writing and reading science FICTION, because it’s NOT REAL.

    Do I and every other reader have personal political and ideological beliefs, with varying degrees of passion/dogmatism in regard to those ideological beliefs? Sure, that doesn’t mean shit like this has to happen, this whole genre is science FICTION, it is SPECULATIVE, it is MAKE BELIEVE.

    The people who are really your fans- people that buy into the stories you tell- we don’t care. All this drama with SP/RP and the Hugo awards? I don’t care, I’ve never cared, I’m not going to care. You want to withdraw? Cool, I didn’t even know you were nominated because I only care about the stories you tell, not about some stupid cliquey community having some sort of civil war that reminds me of a gaming community gone wrong.

    So long as you continue to tell stories I enjoy, I will continue to give you my money and support. I do ask, as a side note though, that you cut this political drama out of your blog- it kills the vibe and I prefer the old posts about YOU, not about some dramatic communities’ clique civil war.

    tl;dr, Your real fans won’t give a shit about this, they may not give you support again with regards to this Hugo stuff, but they will continue to buy and read your work for as long as they enjoy doing so.

    Keep up the good work, Mr Kloos.

  142. I for one will miss voting for LOD. You see Mr. Kloos I stumbled over ToE on Amazon and then waited for LoD. I see from all the comments that since your decision you have made new friends who promise to buy your books all because you took a stand against Vox, not because they had ever heard of you before or if they had they would never have bought your books. Hell, I had never heard of Vox, but I always found it kind of amazing that the same authors kept getting the nominations all the time. Were there not new and exciting authors out there….yea there are, and I found one by the name of Markos Kloos.

    I don’t think I have bought a Hugo nominated book since the 70s….oh I have bought and read books that were nominated (prior to the nomination), but after they were nominated…no. I found that most of the nominated works were substandard pieces of floating debris and so sometime around the mid 70s, I think after Dahlgren and Lord of Light I stopped. Its a pity that you turned down the nomination because the right fans did not nominate your book.

    I read the comments above and so few people actually understand the nature of the problem. It’s not a left vs right problem; its log rolling – the practice of exchanging favors; hey lets nominate Jane this year, George the next and John for that piece of dreck that he calls a novel the year after.

    Have a good day sir…. Oh, one question…If you are nominated again sometime in the future will you decline the nomination if someone like say N.K.Jemison is also on the ballot. I mean you take one principle stand on racism shouldn’t you decry racism wherever it is? Or will you be a hypocrite?

  143. Sir, you were put in an extremely awkward position through no fault of your own and you responded honorably. I salute you and look forward to reading your books.

    The venom spewed above by supporters of the Sad Puppy and Rabid Puppy campaigns who condemn your decision speaks for itself. Evidently they don’t much like being frustrated by folks who can think for themselves and behave more honestly than they have.

    Life is too short to waste any more of it responding to their myriad lies and distortions about the nature of the science fiction field and its community, the winners and losers of Hugos over the years, or where our field should be heading. But the less they have to do with it, the better.

    I’m sure this feels like a low point in your life and career right now, but in the long run, it’s one you will be able to look back at with pride.

    Non timebo catulos!

  144. This would be extremely late, as is my custom. I had actually read Terms and Lines free through Amazon Prime, and your actions here finally got me off my butt to actually properly give you money for them. For what it’s worth, you certainly stood at the very top of the puppies slate for me. [/extremely faint praise]

    To be honest, I didn’t particularly know that you *had* a political stance from your writing, since did an excellent job crafting a world as opposed to an authorial soapbox.