Another roundup of links related to the fallout of the Hugos. Again, sharing link doesn’t imply either endorsement or chastisement of the contents.
Let’s start with the absolute craziest as John C. Wright produces an absolutely unhinged screed claiming that us not awarding him, the greatest gift to writing since clay tablets, lets Patrick Nielsen Hayden (also the gays?) win.
Brad Torgersen says he’s afraid he’ll never be allowed to forget his leadership of the Sad Puppy campaign and also that the Hugos really aren’t that big a deal anyway.
Larry Correia claims that Fandom is both monolithic enough to require Sad Puppy slate voting and so fractuous that the slate voting isn’t really needed to push names onto the ballot.
Vox Day probably said something too but I don’t care what he thinks.
John Scalzi suggests that acting like a jerk doesn’t pay.
This tumblr thread discusses why the Alfies were not the secret SJW Hugos.
Black Gate suggests that the failure of the Puppy slate might have to do more with the quality of the work than any political consideration.
Nick Mamatas also invites Sad Puppy partisans to defend the quality of the nominated works.
The Guardian reports on GRRM’s reaction to the Hugo results.
Tobias Buckell mocked up an alternate world ballot for the Hugos in which the Puppy campaigns hadn’t overrun the nominations.
Wired provided a moderately measured piece on the entire affair. Which was justifiably criticized for striking a tone as if women and people of colour were new to SFF (which they certainly aren’t).
Flavorwire attempted a brief summary of the whole mess.
Asia Times (and the China Daily) mostly just concentrated on the Best Novel win for Liu Cixin, entirely ignoring the puppy kerfuffle in their coverage.
NPR warns that this may not be a loss for the puppies, depending on how their goals are defined.
The Nielsen Haydens hosted a discussion thread on their blog which is mostly interesting for some otherwise quiet big names who popped in to leave their five cents.
Aliette De Bodard saw the Hugos as a win for a global vision of SF/F between the Liu Cixin / Ken Liu and Thomas Olde Heuvelt wins.
This is from before the awards but it is still relevant so I’ll include it: Kelly Robson suggested mediation between Puppy and other interest groups would be more productive than fighting.
Mike Selinker proposed a suggested fix for the Hugos based on video game testing methodology.
Abigail Nussbaum argues against the Hugos being seen as elitist or progressive to begin with, suggesting they tend to be populist and middle of the road.
Adam Shaftoe seconds Kelly Robson’s proposal for mediation and discourse.
Frank Wu suggests puppies abandon block voting in exchange for some big-name authors providing exposure to some Puppy-favourite work.
File 770 published a thorough collection of quotes from all sides.
An exceptional analysis from Eric Flint.
Arthur Chu suggests that the Sad Puppies really only exist online, thanks to the ability of the internet to favour those willing to burn the most time on an issue, and are effectively absent from physical spaces.
I may add to this as I see new things of interest. I moderate comments with a light hand but I too have a copy of Scalzi’s mallet of loving correction which I will use as I see fit. Please feel free to share links to either side of this discussion, except for Vox Day. No link to his blog will get out of moderation.
Simon McNeil 
I note you link to an essay where I call for prayers for my enemies, and speak of hope and peace, as unhinged, is the one to which you linked. You apparently assume none of your readers will click through the link and compare what you say I said to what I actually said.
No, if I’d wanted the I wouldn’t have included your article in a roundup article with a link to it, at the bloody top of the article. I very much want people to read that. Which, considering how entirely opposite our conception of morality is at several key issues should tell you what you need to know. I have allowed your comment. But think twice before considering that an invitation to debate. In truth I have nothing more to say to you.
I see a lot of angry people online who think if they phrase it a certain way, they can call someone something vile without having to face any repercussion from it. It’s a sort of magical thinking, like “if I spell out the insult, or drop one letter, then I never really said it and they can’t complain about it” — but of course they did say it.
Some of them think they can do this routinely, mumble into their hands on Sunday, and be the most moral guy on the block. I would expect that if their god can be fooled by that kind of cookie-jar stratagems, that god would have to be something less than they claim it to be.