Of course quality is subjective. Reverent isn't saying it isn't. What he's saying is that works were nominated, based on people's opinion of their quality, but now because of SP, we have a slate of nominees that people chose to nominate based more on a political preference than quality of work. So yeah, it's always been a popularity contest, but now it's a different kind of popularity contest, one that has little to do with the quality of the work.
What’s Happening With The Hugos?
- Thread starter Zaku
- Start date
Of course quality is subjective. Reverent isn't saying it isn't. What he's saying is that works were nominated, based on people's opinion of their quality, but now because of SP, we have a slate of nominees that people chose to nominate based more on a political preference than quality of work. So yeah, it's always been a popularity contest, but now it's a different kind of popularity contest, one that has little to do with the quality of the work.
It never had that much to do with the quality of the work.
People have been bitching about "log rolling" at the Hugos for as long as I can remember (at least back to the late 1960s). The Vietnamese war got dragged into campaigns (speaking of "quality," the size and make-up of mailing lists were more valuable than gold in fan circles in those days). Jeez, IIRC one year there was a grudge campaign going on between fans of two nominees who'd been together but bitterly split.
Mainstream press characterizing the Hugos as "the Oscars of science fiction" is not really as inapt as all that.
People have been bitching about "log rolling" at the Hugos for as long as I can remember (at least back to the late 1960s). The Vietnamese war got dragged into campaigns (speaking of "quality," the size and make-up of mailing lists were more valuable than gold in fan circles in those days). Jeez, IIRC one year there was a grudge campaign going on between fans of two nominees who'd been together but bitterly split.
Mainstream press characterizing the Hugos as "the Oscars of science fiction" is not really as inapt as all that.
Do I understand this issue correctly:
a group of people are trying to rig a popularity contest to win an award that only means something within a rather small community?
a group of people are trying to rig a popularity contest to win an award that only means something within a rather small community?
It should also be noted that a lot of SF has had fascist subtext.
I remember that at the end of A Princess of Mars, John Carter pretty much commited genocide without any reflection about whether that was right.
Classic BSG portrayed the noble military leaders pretty much saving the people from the naivety of elected representatives.
Basically, for every leftie Alien-Invaders-Stand-Ins-for-British-Empire H.G. Wells, there was at least one right-wing pure-good-race-against-pure-evil-race 'Doc' Smith.
Pretty much. Hugos are sometimes good for a decent advance against royalties on your next book, because "Hugo Award Winner" on the cover is arguably a sales advantage.
Now, as I said log rolling is an old Hugo tradition - but not necessarily an effective one. "Sad Puppies" or whatever probably can't turn the vote, and if they do they're not going to capture control of the Hugos for more than that one year. It's not like this is the U.S. House of Representatives or something.
British and European sf - Wells, for instance - owes a great deal less to the pulp magazine markets of the 1920s-1960s and therefore bears fewer marks of influence from the whackadoodles who edited and published them.
Last edited:
Well, although most literature in the late 19th and early 20th century was published in magazines and newspapers in Europe as well as in the U.S., it is true that most European editors didn't push a certain political agenda.
Published European genre writers were still almost exclusively white (well, it was Europe, after all) males. Female writers were mostly writing drama and poetry, SF was a male thing back then (even though it might be argued that the modern genre was created by Mary Shelley).
Btw, Britain is European, too.
And so have 31 other European countries outside the eurozone.
Again: tell the women who've been run out of their homes by death threats that it's an "imaginary line."
The GamerGator phenomenon is a small core of misogynistic Internet trolls who've been attacking women online forever and briefly acquired a hashtag, a higher profile and mobs of variously-deluded fellow travellers. That's basically it. They're just a loosely-organized hate group who think it's okay to intimidate and harass women, and who can variously persuade other assholes to join in on this behaviour or not depending on circumstance.
There's no "imaginary line" and there's no equally-evil opposing "side." There's just a group of trolls and the targets who sometimes fight back and sometimes don't bother. And of course a broader community that either understands what's happening or doesn't bother to try.
I've never been a fan of the Hugos. Almost all of the novels that are nominated are incredibly boring to me.
Shouldn't be too hard in most categories, since they swept the nominations. For most categories it'll either be a SP nominee or Noah Ward.
Ms. Sarkesian & Ms. Quinn have most likely blown out of proportion what threats they've suffered, as well as blown out of proportion what sexism there is in video games (Quinn has also claimed the bullcaca idea that what she's doing is just like punk rock when it really isn't [and the games made by her and her contemporaries are crap, IMHO.])
Also, not everybody involved in GamerGate (namely the people behind #NotYourShield) are out to get both women, save for disagreeing with Ms. Sarkesian about games (if games are so bad, according to her, what's with all of the female characters in video games that have been front and center for years?) If she wants to make a game that she thinks is better than anything out there, then she should just take whatever monies she's collected thus far, hire the staff needed to make the game and make said game. She and fellow activists should not be forcing game companies to make each and every game to be as 'unoffensive as' she wants them to be; this is an industry based on realistic business principles, and if people don't want to pay for said games, then they won't, it's that simple.
With regards to the matter under discussion, if said 'social justice warriors' are causing good books to be not awarded because of whatever agenda they've got, then they need to be told to just let the writings of the nominated works speak for themselves (and I say this as a pragmatic progressive who cares nothing for the mindset or politics of the Puppies.)
Michael Moorcock talked about this in a famous essay: Starship Stormtroopers
Last edited:
There's nothing to stop the puppies (or any other group, for that matter) from doing the same thing next year. This is, after all, the third straight year they've tried this, with greater success every time. There are discussions underway about changing the rules to discourage slate voting, but coming up with a workable model is harder than it might seem. And even if one is devised it can't go into effect until it's been approved at two consecutive Worldcons, which means next year's Hugos are already guaranteed to run under the current rules.
It's a pity they can't grasp that the behaviour effectively renders their prized objective meaningless.
I've dealt with them online. It's all trolls attacking women or idiots going along with the trolls and don't have any idea of what they are even defending. It's just vague remarks about ethics in journalism, but their targets are always twitter users and bloggers. It is never the gaming companies that pay off journalists for good reviews. If they had actually done that, I'd give them some credit. But it's just an excuse to attack women and really nothing more. I've seen horrific remarks sent to friends for even bringing it up. Anyone who supports it is either a troll or is too stupid to understand what they are doing.
^Well, I'n not one of those people, and I don't support anybody being harassed. And if people have a grievance about journos propping up Sarkesian and Quinn, the respective organizations and bloggers need to address that, especially if what they're trying to push is crappy shovelware not as half as good as most AAA games.
^ Also, if you prefer not to be identified as a purveyor of misogyny, then along with not defending a hate group and repeating its lies and slanders, you might also want to try not peddling completely insane conspiracy theories about feminists trying to replace AAA games with "shovelware." That sort of thing is very revealing.
Why? There are bloggers I don't agree with. Doesn't negatively affect my life in any way. It's pathetic to seek out material you don't like just to get upset about it.
Similar threads
