There’s been a pretty big book worth of ink spilled over the Hugo ballots. Here’s what some people are saying:

• Elizabeth Bear discusses the problems, and benefits of fandom as self-sustaining anarchy.
• Matthew David Surridge explains why he declined his Hugo nomination in one of the most detailed and thoughtful analyses of the Sad Puppies written to date.
• Black Gate explains why they didn’t decline their nomination.
• John Scalzi talks about trying to work with the nominees on the ballot from a place of individual merit.
• Chuck Wendig talks about the ties between Sad Rabid Puppies and Gamergate.
• Amal El-Mohtar shows absolutely no surprise over the situation.
• File 770 discusses some notable absences on the ballot from the puppy slates.
• Peter Watts suggests people upset over the Puppy gaming of the Hugos would be best served addressing how to discourage future gaming rather than gaming  themselves.
• Wendy Delmater discusses the inclusion of Abyss & Apex on the Sad Puppy slate.
• Arthur Chu compares the Sad Puppies to the “Know Nothing” movement that delayed construction of the Washington Monument.
• Damiel Walter, writing for the Guardian, posits that the Sad Puppies are more motivated by self-promotion than by political ideal, and decries the lack of international voices on the Hugo ballot.
• Suzanne Church discusses why she doesn’t believe awards are ever only about merit.
• Larry Correia rants about SMOFs and SJWs a lot. He also argues that the SP slate for best novel is not motivated by personal politics (a personal aside, I think this is the category where the Sad Puppy slate, despite its success did the least harm, as I’ve said previously.) Then he goes back to ranting about SJWs and Requires Hate.
• Jim C. Hines provides a list of ten thoughts on the Sad Puppies Hugo kerfuffle.
• Annie Bellet gives a heartwarming short discussion on not wanting to be defined by her personal identity or inclusion on a slate but rather on the quality of her work.
• Adam Shaftoe suggests an unexpected potential silver lining of the Hugo Awards kerfuffle.
• Mary Robinette Kowal reminds everybody that it doesn’t matter how frustrated we might be over a slate of award nominations, it’s never appropriate, under any circumstances, at all, to send anybody death threats. Ever. Seriously. (This one I am 100% emphatically endorsing.)
• Charles Stross suggests the Rabid Puppies care more about the Nebulas.
• Peter Darbyshire provides another good roundup of Sad Puppy slate related links with some context for people interested in a dispassionate history of what the kerfuffle is about.

This is what I’ve read so far, and could remember how to find. A note, I don’t agree with all of what’s been said on this list, and unless my comments include a specific endorsement (such as calling something “on of the most detailed and thoughtful analyses of the Sad Puppies) inclusion on the roundup should not be construed as overt endorsement of the comments therein. Furthermore, unless I include specifically incendiary language (ex: “rants about SMOFs and SJWs”) inclusion should not be considered criticism of the comments. My criteria is literally, “I read it and thought it mentioned something unique regarding the debate.” Please share links of interest in the comments and I’ll update the roundup periodically with additional links.