Lets start with John Scalzi.... and his moronic editorial for the LA Times. ROLL TAPE!
The Puppies will no doubt be happy to take credit for the appearance of these works and others on the finalist list. But, as with “Guardians of the Galaxy” last year, their endorsement probably doesn’t count for much in the grand scheme of things. “Seveneves,” one of the most talked-about science fiction books of 2015, was already a heavy favorite for an appearance on the finalist list for best novel.
Likewise, Gaiman’s long-awaited return to the beloved Sandman universe means his finalist listing in best graphic novel was the closest thing to a shoo-in that the Hugos have. If “The Martian” hadn’t been a finalist in its category (best dramatic presentation, long form), people would have been stunned.
In these cases as in several others, the Puppies are running in front of an existing parade and claiming to lead it. Few who know the field or the Hugos would give the slates credit for highlighting works and authors already well-appreciated in the genre, many of which have appeared this year as finalists for other awards or on bestseller lists.
Ah ha! Busted we are! We couldn't sneak our clever plan past these people! They are to smart! Or... wait... its that our plan was super obvious and we're dumb? either way.
Here are some problems with this claim. These big names? Jim Butcher was never nominated before the Rabid Puppies. Stephen King was last nominated for a Hugo in 1982. Until the Rabid Puppies came along that was the only Hugo nomination he'd received. When Chaos Horizons made their predictions about the Hugos they noted that Seveneves wouldn't have been a surprise... but it wasn't a given the way Scalzi wants to pretend. In fact if you look at the numbers Chaos Horizons put out.. without the Rabid Puppies... Seveneves may not have made it at all. In their scenario it was coming in dead last by a large margin... and two Sad Puppy works were nipping at its heals.
The fact is the Rabid Puppy full slate was published a month before the nominations were announced... and it was leaked out in sections weeks and months before that. So I must ask... if this obvious strategy was so obvious... why was it not predicted by the enemies of the Rabid Puppies?
Why did it only become obvious after the nominations where announced?
The answer is simple. These works were never shoe-ins or front runners until the Puppies made them so. Its not the Rabid Puppies trying to take credit for Gaiman's success. Its the CHORFS trying to take credit for the success of the Rabid Puppies.
Look at the Hugo awards from 2013... 2012... 2011. Show me the major commercially successful works that were winning back then.
What do you have? Red Shirts?
We don't have the actual vote data from the nomination process yet. When, and if, we do... the truth will come out.