What’s Happening With The Hugos?

[Kai "the spy"]

Gotta respect a man with principles.

 

[Reverend]

Just my personal opinion, but I think they should just cancel the award this year. It's pretty clear the well has been poisoned. The Hugo was meant to recognise the quality of work, not support or denounce one socio-political view or another.

 

[dansigal]

Just my personal opinion, but I think they should just cancel the award this year. It's pretty clear the well has been poisoned. The Hugo was meant to recognise the quality of work, not support or denounce one socio-political view or another.

I don't agree. If you cancel the awards you play directly into the SP paranoid narrative that the Hugos are actively trying to exclude any book that doesn't meet a particular agenda. Instead, why not double down on the idea that they are supposed to recognize quality? Read the nominees, vote for the ones that are deserving, but feel free to vote no award for the ones that aren't.

 

[theenglish]

Just my personal opinion, but I think they should just cancel the award this year. It's pretty clear the well has been poisoned. The Hugo was meant to recognise the quality of work, not support or denounce one socio-political view or another.

I don't agree. If you cancel the awards you play directly into the SP paranoid narrative that the Hugos are actively trying to exclude any book that doesn't meet a particular agenda. Instead, why not double down on the idea that they are supposed to recognize quality? Read the nominees, vote for the ones that are deserving, but feel free to vote no award for the ones that aren't.

Because the group is no trying to stack the votes for winners as well as the nominees. There is a nice reaction here:

http://azsf.net/cwblog/?p=116

 

[dansigal]

Just my personal opinion, but I think they should just cancel the award this year. It's pretty clear the well has been poisoned. The Hugo was meant to recognise the quality of work, not support or denounce one socio-political view or another.

I don't agree. If you cancel the awards you play directly into the SP paranoid narrative that the Hugos are actively trying to exclude any book that doesn't meet a particular agenda. Instead, why not double down on the idea that they are supposed to recognize quality? Read the nominees, vote for the ones that are deserving, but feel free to vote no award for the ones that aren't.

Because the group is no trying to stack the votes for winners as well as the nominees. There is a nice reaction here:

http://azsf.net/cwblog/?p=116

No need to stack the vote for winners when they already swept all the nominees. I don't like how the fact that they weren't nominated based on their quality, but I feel like I'd be a hypocrite to say that, and then not vote on them based on their quality. I'm sure some of the work is very good.

 

[BigJake]

I don't like how the fact that they weren't nominated based on their quality, but I feel like I'd be a hypocrite to say that, and then not vote on them based on their quality.

Why? If the slate was nominated based on gaming the rules (dishonestly so, if technically "legal") for the sake of ideology, then voting based on "quality" doesn't really mean much, since just as many or more quality works were excluded based on ideology. Or what passes for ideology with the Puppies and the various parties they recruited to assist them.

Connie Willis put it succinctly -- there is really no motivation to act like this is business as usual and everything is everything:

But then Vox Day and his followers made it impossible for me to remain silent , keep calm, and carry on. Not content with just using dirty tricks to get on the ballot, they’re now demanding they win, too, or they’ll destroy the Hugos altogether. When a commenter on File 770 suggested people fight back by voting for “No Award,” Vox Day wrote: “If No Award takes a fiction category, you will likely never see another award given in that category again. The sword cuts both ways, Lois. We are prepared for all eventualities.”

I assume that means they intend to use the same bloc-voting technique to block anyone but their nominees from winning in future years. Or, in other words, “If you ever want to see your precious award again, do exactly as I say.” It’s a threat, pure and simple. Everyone who votes has been ordered (under the threat of violence being done to something we love) to let their stories–stories which got on the ballot dishonestly–win.

In my own particular case, I feel I’ve also been ordered to go along with them and act as if this were an ordinary Hugo Awards ceremony. I’ve essentially been told to engage in some light-hearted banter with the nominees, give one of them the award, and by my presence–and my silence–lend cover and credibility to winners who got the award through bullying and extortion.

Well, I won’t do it. I can’t do it. If I did, I’d be collaborating with them in their scheme.

So to David, I have to say, with genuine regret, “I am really sorry I have to turn down your kind invitation.” And to the people running Worldcon, “I’m sorry I can’t present at the Hugo Awards ceremony, but I’ll definitely be attending the convention, and I’m supporting you all the way.”

[ . . . ]

And finally, to Vox Day, Brad Torgeson, and their followers, I have this to say:

“You may have been able to cheat your way onto the ballot. (And don’t talk to me about how this isn’t against the rules–doing anything except nominating the works you personally liked best is cheating in my book.) You may even be able to bully and intimidate people into voting for you. But you can’t make me hand you the Hugo and say “Congratulations,” just as if you’d actually won it. And you can’t make me appear onstage and tell jokes and act like this year’s Hugo ceremony is business as usual and what you’ve done is okay. I’m not going to help you get away with this. I love the Hugo Awards too much.”

Whole thing is worth reading.

 

[Neroon]

I found this blog entry concerning the Hugo awards/Sad Puppies controversy to be an interesting read, primarily from a data analytics perspective. As the author states, it's intent is not to come down squarely on either side, but to provide some interesting data about the Sad Puppies position. it also doesn't hurt that George R. R. martin is heavily invested in the exchange to which the author refers. In any event I think it's a worthwhile read for everyone

Link to article

 

[fireproof78]

Whole thing is worth reading.

Quite an interesting read. Thank you.

In a rather amusing moment, it reminded me of a quote from Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers."

"You! I've just awarded you the prize for the hundred-meter dash. Does it make you happy? […] No dodging, please. You have the prize — here, I'll write it out: 'Grand prize for the championship, one hundred-meter sprint.' " He had actually come back to my seat and pinned it on my chest. "There! Are you happy? You value it — or don't you?" Mr. Dubois had looked surprised. "It doesn't make you happy?"
"You know darn well I placed fourth!"
"Exactly! The prize for first place is worthless to you . . . because you haven't earned it. But you enjoy a modest satisfaction in placing fourth; you earned it."

To me, the sad thing is that by trying to prove a political point it makes the whole thing feel worthless. The tragedy is that so many authors will be dragged in because of politics and not quality.

 

[dansigal]

I found this blog entry concerning the Hugo awards/Sad Puppies controversy to be an interesting read, primarily from a data analytics perspective. As the author states, it's intent is not to come down squarely on either side, but to provide some interesting data about the Sad Puppies position. it also doesn't hurt that George R. R. martin is heavily invested in the exchange to which the author refers. In any event I think it's a worthwhile read for everyone

Link to article

If you're into data analytics, you should check out Chaos Horizon. It's a website devoted entirely to analyzing the Hugos and Nebulas from a data standpoint only. Here is the latest post on the effect the SP campaign had...

https://chaoshorizon.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/margin-of-victory-breaking-down-the-hugo-math/

 

[Neroon]

I found this blog entry concerning the Hugo awards/Sad Puppies controversy to be an interesting read, primarily from a data analytics perspective. As the author states, it's intent is not to come down squarely on either side, but to provide some interesting data about the Sad Puppies position. it also doesn't hurt that George R. R. martin is heavily invested in the exchange to which the author refers. In any event I think it's a worthwhile read for everyone

Link to article

If you're into data analytics, you should check out Chaos Horizon. It's a website devoted entirely to analyzing the Hugos and Nebulas from a data standpoint only. Here is the latest post on the effect the SP campaign had...

https://chaoshorizon.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/margin-of-victory-breaking-down-the-hugo-math/

Coolness! I will be passing that along!

 

[dansigal]

Chaos Horizon has spent the last six months trying to pick the Nebula and Hugo nominees through Data Analytics alone (spoiler: SP really threw off their predictions). They looked at breakdowns like historical trends science fiction v. fantasy, sequels, repeat winners, amazon sales and ratings, good read ratings. Some very cool stuff