• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What’s Happening With The Hugos?

Zaku

Fleet Captain
Fleet Captain
So What’s Happening With The Hugos

I used to buy the Hugo winner books, now I'm not so sure anymore...

So the Hugo nominees have been announced…

I didn’t actually manage to get my own nominations in this year, sadly — I couldn’t get the website to work properly, but it wouldn’t have mattered because everything I nominated was small press stuff that only I would have nominated.

The “Sad Puppies” did, however, manage to get their nominations in, and got nearly a clean sweep of the nominations. Many of the nominations that weren’t from their slate were from “Vox Day”s overlapping slate, including “Day” himself, a man who has advocated throwing acid into the face of women and claims that black people are not homo sapiens.

This has caused a lot of controversy among SF fans, and I’m going to briefly explain why.

There are a group of science fiction writers, loosely centred around the right-wing author Larry Correia, who believe that real science fiction and fantasy is what they write, and that everything else is tainted by the evil social justice warriors. I’ve written a little about this group last year, and I’ll be dealing with their thought processes more in another post I plan to write, but for now just accept this group exists. They are mostly Mormon, almost exclusively white right-wing males, and regarded by most SF fans as hacks, though some of them are relatively popular hacks.

Two years ago, Correia launched what he called the “Sad Puppies” campaign, to get himself and his friends nominated for Hugo awards. As with many right-wing “we’re the silent majority not like you liberal elitist” campaigns, the argument seemed to be simultaneously “we will do this and prove we are better by winning the award” and “we will do this and prove things are biased against us by losing even though we’re clearly better”.

The latter happened — Correia and his friends lost, in a big way.
Last year, Correia repeated the campaign, this time including “Vox Day” to stir up some extra controversy, so if he and his friends lost it was clearly because people were politically biased against them. While my politics are as far from Correia’s as possible, I can say as a Hugo voter last year who read all the nominated works that the reason the Sad Puppies lost is because the work they nominated ranged from the barely competent to the utterly shit. Just on a basic writing level, most of the people nominated couldn’t actually put together sentences that were worth reading, and their ideas of plots were mostly old hat in the 1930s. Given that there were books and stories by good writers on the list, it was inevitable that anyone comparing them would go for the books with plots and ideas and well-written sentences.

This year, they’ve tried another tack. Brad Torgerson, the least obviously ideologically-motivated of the Sad Puppies (in that he merely sneers about queer and trans people while feigning politeness, rather than advocating their murder as “Day” does) put together the list, and has acted as a smiling “gosh gee all we want is some good old-fashioned storytelling” frontman, but in the background they’ve been recruiting people from Gamergate.

Now, in theory I have no problem with that — well, actually, that’s a lie, I have a HUGE fucking problem with Gamergate, given that one of their two biggest targets is the partner of one of my friends, and if you send death and rape threats to my friends’ partners, I am going to have problems with you. But ignoring things like that, the problem is what this does to the Hugos.

You see, anyone with a membership to Worldcon can nominate for the Hugos, and then the five things in each category that get the most nominations go on the ballot. Last year, when the “Sad Puppies” were keeping within SF fandom, this was fine. They got a couple of things in each category on the ballot, and people could vote for them or not as they chose. Mostly they chose not.

This time, the Sad Puppies have swamped the nominations with people who aren’t SF fans, who don’t read SF, but who want to “humble SJW” and “fight the SJW infection” (SJW — right-wing arseholes’ abbreviation for “Social Justice Warrior”, their term for anyone who cares about anyone other than straight white cis men). And this causes a problem, because they nominated as a bloc.

While people nominating based on their own actual taste will all be nominating different things — some might nominate Charles Stross, or Ann Leckie, or John Scalzi, or even some of the Sad Puppy slate like maybe Kevin Anderson, whoever they think wrote the best book — the “Sad Puppies” were all nominating the same five things in each category. And as such they’ve swamped the ballot paper.

In some categories, one or two non-Sad-Puppy nominations made it — Ann Leckie’s Ancillary Sword, for example, was so hugely popular that no-one could keep it off, and the same goes for Doctor Who and Game of Thrones in the drama categories — but the Sad Puppies and their friends make up all or nearly all of the nominations.

This is strictly within the rules, but it’s the worst kind of entryism in that it denies the majority a voice.

The majority of SF fans have proved, for several years running, that they simply don’t like the work of the Sad Puppy faction. They think the only way they can get an award, then, is to stop there being a non-Sad-Puppy option on the ballot. They’re probably right about that.

Except for one thing. There’s a No Award option on the ballot. If everyone uses that option — either because they genuinely think that nothing the Sad Puppies have nominated deserves an award on its own merits, or because they want to protest against entryism, or both — then no award will be given.

Personally, I’d rather see no award be given than to reward entryism, especially entryism using a group (Gamergate) that in my mind are only not considered a terrorist group because they’re white men who target less-privileged women.

I urge EVERYONE who can afford a supporting membership to worldcon this year to buy one, read the entries, and give your honest opinion in the vote. I will, of course, be reading everything before I vote on anything, but given the subliterate, cretinous, shit that these people spew out and call stories, I don’t think there’ll be many things getting a preference below “No Award” this year.
 
So there's a thread going on about this in the Doctor Who section, though I think this is probably the more appropriate place for this.

I think its disappointing. I don't have much to say on the political skewing of nominated works. I'm highly skeptical of the Sad Puppies claim that there's any social justice agenda to what gets nominated. I think it's likely true that those who vote, in general, tend to be more open minded, liberal type people, and you get works like Ancillary Justice winning best novel, which had a pretty cool gender neutral future society thing going for it. I also think it's true that more mainstream fantasy and scifi (with some exceptions of course) tend not to get as much Hugo attention. I just don't believe in past years that Hugo voters had any political agenda, i just think it's been the natural flow of what's been nominated.

What I think is disappointing is that Sad Puppies are now pushing nominees, not based on the quality of the work, but to prove a political point. Sure, all the SP organizers will say that these are worthy works that are just getting ignored because they don't have a social agenda. And honestly, they might be worthy, I haven't read most of them, so I can't comment one way or another. But at the end of the day, they are pushing a block vote to make a point, and I'd be willing to bet that the vast vast majority of those who voted for the block hadn't even read most of what they nominated, and that is what disappoints me. Votes should be made based on quality and quality alone.

A few more side things...If I'm being honest with myself, I'm excited that the Sad Puppies campaign finally got Jim Butcher's
Dresden series a best novel nomination. While I don't think it had anything to do with the series not having any social justice type messages, it is the type of mainstream work that the Hugos have tended to ignore in the past. It's well deserved and long overdue. On Larry Correia. I've never read his Monster Hunter series, but I did read the Grimnoir series that got nominated last year. It's a fun series, and he's a good writer. It's hard to say that he did this just to get himself nominated, when he actually turned down the nomination for best novel this year because he didn't want to personally benefit from Sad Puppies. I don't agree with the guy's politics, but at the very least, he's not just blowing smoke, I think he honestly believes he's fighting to get deserving works past some perceived biased. Now I can't say the same for Vox Day, who is just absolute racist and misogynistic trash. Go Google some of what he's said online, it's pretty bad.
 
Sounds like it's time to take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
 
Actually, people associated with the puppies had already reached out to users of the GamerGate hashtag to get them involved. Here, for example, is Larry Correia welcoming them with open arms. Frankly, the two movements were made for each other: both see a very mild drift toward inclusion and new modes of storytelling as signs of a terrible conspiracy that will ruin their preferred medium, and both are pretty comfortable with overt expressions of bigotry.
 
I'm probably opening a can of worms here, but I'm a bit confused as to how there's this supposedly nasty organisation, when all it really is is a bunch of different groups using opposing hashtags on twitter, often at total odds with others supposedly on their own respective side.

I've kept half an eye on this thing from a distance for the last 6-8 months and as far as I can tell the whole situation boils down to basically this.
Or perhaps more accurately like...look, has anyone ever been in/witnessed a bar fight where this one gobby bloke gets in between two groups, winds up both sides against the other, planks someone at random (usually someone's girlfriend) and does a roadrunner act so he can watch the ensuing carnage from a distance? Like that, but more so...and with memes.
 
I've kept half an eye on this thing from a distance for the last 6-8 months and as far as I can tell the whole situation boils down to basically this.

Errr.... I don't think that all people that have been targeted by GamerGate, like Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian, think that it's just a matter of "Purple/Green"...
 
^Like I said, gobby arsehole who planks someone and does a runner. But I think you misunderstand the thrust of the analogy.

From what I've seen, there's isn't a single GG entity, just a bunch of arseholes using a hashtag as an excuse to act like complete twats one both sides of this increasingly imaginary line. To my mind and organization has to be...well...organised.
A meme or a hashtage does not an organization make. It's just a bit of coloured cloth.
 
just glancing at this convo....not really into the Hugos...i get that "stuffing the ballot" is bad.

But i think it brings up some legitimate conversations -- the past awards have been a narrower point of view....if someone can correct me, but how many non-white people have won any rewards? They don't have the "power" of right wingers, but are still ignored by "progressives". Maybe they should do a Sad Puppies move to help open up their readership/respect?

Also, i think the Sad Puppies have a point...i mean, Orson Scott Card (is that his name -- of Ender's Game) and his upcoming (at the time) movie were spoken of very positively. But then his views on marriage and family came out -- and then he was demonized. The body of work didn't change, but then it suddenly became crappy work due to his personal politics.
 
just glancing at this convo....not really into the Hugos...i get that "stuffing the ballot" is bad.

But i think it brings up some legitimate conversations -- the past awards have been a narrower point of view....if someone can correct me, but how many non-white people have won any rewards? They don't have the "power" of right wingers, but are still ignored by "progressives". Maybe they should do a Sad Puppies move to help open up their readership/respect?

Also, i think the Sad Puppies have a point...i mean, Orson Scott Card (is that his name -- of Ender's Game) and his upcoming (at the time) movie were spoken of very positively. But then his views on marriage and family came out -- and then he was demonized. The body of work didn't change, but then it suddenly became crappy work due to his personal politics.

One assume that in the past (at least I hope so) works where nominated for Hugos based on their quality, not the ethnicity, gender, orientation or politics of the authors. Of course award committies being what they are, it's probably inevitable that socio-political agendas from one quarter or another would seep in.

As for OSC's views...I'm of two minds as to how one associates or indeed separates an author and their work. I'd like to think the two are separate and that a work should be judged on it's own merit, but on the other side I really don't want to knowingly offer financial support (even in part) when I know that money is going to go towards something I honestly find morally repulsive.

Short version: Ender's Game was still a good book, but I'm not giving that guy any money for it.
 
Larry Correia is a fun writer, but he's also a far-rightwing nutjob dick. I only read his books from the library, as I won't put a single penny in his pocket.

His Monster Hunter International RPG from HERO Games is the only HERO Games publication I haven't bought since 1984.
 
just glancing at this convo....not really into the Hugos...i get that "stuffing the ballot" is bad.

But i think it brings up some legitimate conversations -- the past awards have been a narrower point of view....if someone can correct me, but how many non-white people have won any rewards? They don't have the "power" of right wingers, but are still ignored by "progressives". Maybe they should do a Sad Puppies move to help open up their readership/respect?
Then it just becomes power bloc vs. power bloc. Which does not really sound ideal.

Also, i think the Sad Puppies have a point...i mean, Orson Scott Card (is that his name -- of Ender's Game) and his upcoming (at the time) movie were spoken of very positively. But then his views on marriage and family came out -- and then he was demonized. The body of work didn't change, but then it suddenly became crappy work due to his personal politics.

I dunno, I jumped off the Ender train after Shadow Puppets because it had all gone to shit, and that was long before I knew about Card's bigotry. I haven't liked a Card novel since Ender's Shadow.
 
Hugo Award nominations spark row over diversity in sci-fi

Sci-fi awards have been roped into GamerGate-style furore

The Hugo Awards have been at the centre of a furore after two campaigns successfully prevented female authors and authors of colour from being proportionally nominated. Some people are comparing the controversy to GamerGate, which in 2014 saw coordinated misogynist attacks aimed at people who spoke out about sexism in the gaming industry.
 
One assume that in the past (at least I hope so) works where nominated for Hugos based on their quality, not the ethnicity, gender, orientation or politics of the authors.

Well, it helped to be a conservative white guy who schmoozed a lot with convention-goers.

"Quality" is completely subjective where popular genre stuff is concerned. The Hugo awards have always been a popularity contest.
 
One assume that in the past (at least I hope so) works where nominated for Hugos based on their quality, not the ethnicity, gender, orientation or politics of the authors.

Well, it helped to be a conservative white guy who schmoozed a lot with convention-goers.

"Quality" is completely subjective where popular genre stuff is concerned. The Hugo awards have always been a popularity contest.

I guess I've always assumed (perhaps a bit naively) that literature is an inherently colour/gender blind medium and that Sci-Fi as a genre has long been among the most inclusive. But you're right, any such award is essentially a popularity contest and unfortunately vulnerable to this kind of manipulation.
 
Yeah, popular sf in the U.S. has never been particularly inclusive. The greatest evangelist for the genre back in the pulp days was John W. Campbell, who edited Astounding Science Fiction (later Analog). He was right-leaning and tended to promote (white male) writers who were at least pragmatically conservative and expressed such ideas in their fiction. He customarily addressed his readership as "Gentlemen..." On at least one occasion he suggested to an author that he adopt a "non-jewish" pen name. The few women writers working regularly in pulp sf did well to adopt pen names that obscured their gender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Campbell#Assessment_by_peers
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top