Dave Creek, whose novella “The Jenregar and the Light” (Analog, Oct. 2014) was part of Brad Torgersen’s original Sad Puppies 3 slate, has posted a public statement on Facebook that he doesn’t want to be associated with Sad Puppies.
The story has already disappeared from Brad Torgersen’s Sad Puppies 3 blog post, with no explanation given.
Creek’s statement said in part:
I have a story on that list. I’m not mentioning the title because my aim here is not to promote myself. I was glad at first for the recognition.
But I wasn’t informed I was being considered for the list, and not told after the fact that I’d been placed on it. I only found out about it when Jason Sanford wrote about it on his blog.
So I looked more closely at the stated motivations behind these particular nominations and the reaction to them in some quarters.
A bit of background — I read SF for that old-fashioned “sensawonda” and write it hoping to evoke that feeling in others. I embrace its positive aspects and I’m generally not interested in fannish feuds or controversies.
But this goes beyond the usual fannish kerfuffle. Larry Correia, on his blog, talks about the list getting “SJWs” (Social Justice Warriors) to have a “giant, public freak out.” He’s referred to people he defines as SJWs as “control freaks” and “thought police.” Their primary sin seems to be promoting diversity among writers, as well as among the characters created in SF stories.
And Vox Day! I thought the name sounded vaguely familiar and when I looked into his background I realized Day (real name Theodore Beale) was the fellow who criticized Nora Jemisin’s Continuum GoH speech back in 2013. Continuum is an annual con held in Melbourne. Jemisin, who is African American, spoke about not feeling safe in either Australia or America. She spoke about the possibility of the creation of a permanent underclass in the United States. These topics and more, I’m sure, came from her sharply-felt experiences in both countries.
And what was Day/Beale’s “reasoned” response? He said he considers Jemisin not “fully civilized,” and in referring to African Americans compared to whites, states, “genetic science presently suggests that we are not equally homo sapiens sapiens.” I’ve never met Larry Correia or Vox Day. I’ve only “met” Brad Torgersen through online and email conversations, and he seems like a reasonable fellow, someone I could get together with sometime and have a beer and enjoy myself with even though we would have political differences. I bought both his short story collections and enjoyed them and I’m looking forward to the release of his first novel. I even approached him to write an introduction this past year for my latest short story collection. We’re both ANALOG authors, and I felt having his name on the cover would be a good move, a selling point. I still feel that way, and I’m proud to have his name there.
But being linked to Larry Correia makes me uncomfortable, and I wouldn’t want to be in the same room with Theodore Beale.
Other Sad Puppies Changes: There have been other additions and subtractions to the list since it was first posted on February 1 with reasons given in some cases but not in others.
- All the entries in the Dramatic Presentation (Short Form) were changed from entire series to individual episodes in series which alone are eligible.
- Jason Rennie’s Sci Phi Journal was dropped from the list for Semiprozine, no explanation given.
- SF Signal was dropped because its editor Jon DeNardo has said he will decline a nomination in 2015.
- Amy Turner Hughes was dropped as a John W. Campbell Award recommendation, no explanation given.
Other additions to the list, besides those in the Dramatic Presentation category, are:
- Short Story — “A Single Samurai” – Steve Diamond – Baen Big Book of Monsters
- Editor (Short Form) — William Schafer (Subterranean Press)
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
In Dave’s case, it was at his request. Ditto for Juliette Wade. So far, Dave and Juliette are the only two to have declined for other-than-technical reasons. Rennie indicated Sci Phi Journal didn’t have enough issues (in 2014) to qualify. Amy Turner Hughes is a very good new writer who is a Writers of the Future winner, but her story technically won’t reach print until this year; thus she’s not yet eligible.
Maybe Sad Puppies should add a story by Nora Jemisin to the list.
There you see? Diversity
But but but but but not feeling safe in Australia is far worse than calling women’s rights a disease that must be eradicated.
(I said sarcastically)
Vox day comes on strong but to be honest he is no worse than some radical left wingers. If one was to go by the definition of racism found in the dictionary. You could go some distance criticising a group of people before you start to meeting the definition. The problem these day is are you calling a man a bigot because of his politics or that he fits the definition of one.
As right winger my self I have to watch people on the left say and behave in ways that will have me up In front of a judge. (richard dawkins any one). One of points of sad puppies and one of the big myths these days is that there is no such thing as a progressive bigot . But every one else can be .
I swear that man has become even more insufferable ever since he decided to claim native American ancestry.
I guess Dave Creek, white, does not wish to be in the same room as Larry(Latno) and Beale(Native American). At lease we can now live in comfort as the white liberals try to put in place the minority authors who disagree politically with them.
Does anyone else find this funny?
It’s not funny, it’s just really really obnoxious.
“Their primary sin seems to be promoting diversity among writers, as well as among the characters created in SF stories.”
Well, that’s ONE way of putting it. Thing is, they’re usually correcting an imaginary sin. And their methodology seems to prefer dragging down a target rather than building up the ones they want to promote.
Basically, any time I see someone talking about “Leveling the playing field” I realize they’re using the same form of the verb found in “Leveling the building”, and SFF seems to be that building.
Deep Thought: Not funny ha-ha, no. It’s simply amazing to think that you would take the time to type this gibberish. Especially when you don’t even believe what you’re saying.
But then, from start to finish, Sad Puppies is a bunch of dishonest posturing, crippled by moral self-contradictions.
Creek’s evident fear at being even tenuously associated with the unclean ones is proof that the premise of sad puppies is accurate. If modern sci-fi existed within a healthy intellectual environment no-one would ever consider that being named on a small awards shortlist might cause them trouble. It would be absurd to think so.
I thought the Sad Puppies were actually discussing the best conservative science fiction with each other before posting a slate, which I thought would lead to the slate containing works… lets say “of wider interest.”
Alas, I was apparently mistaken. The Sad Puppy slate seems to have been chosen by Correia, Torgersen and a handful of other writers who were not named. They give the word, and the Sad Puppies march. (Or not–we’ll be able to see their effects after the Hugos, when the nomination figures are released.)
I do think this is a little hard on some of the authors, who weren’t *asked* before they were splashed with the Sad Puppy mud.
Nevertheless, if they were pushed onto the slate by Sad Puppies marching in unison instead of by people voting in the usual cat-herding manner for things they enjoyed, I’m going to bear that in mind as I read and vote.
During the last discussion of the Sad Puppies slate, I began wondering about something. Why does the slate include fan items. Fans express any opinions they feel like expressing for whatever reasons they feel like expressing them. How is the slate supposed to change that? What do the Sad Puppies people want from fan publishing?
I just wanted to point out how cleverly VD phrased his comment about genetics. “Genetic science presently suggests that we are not equally homo sapiens sapiens” is an allusion to the fact that Neanderthal genes have been found in all human populations *except sub-Saharan Africans* – thus, only sub-Saharan Africans are “fully” homo sapiens sapiens. Everyone else has some homo sapiens neanderthalensis in them (although saying this of Jemisin ignores the fact that it’s rather unlikely for a 21st-century descendant of American slaves to not have *any* white ancestry).
@Milt
So you are saying there are no awards, voting or anything else for the Fan category? Or perhaps you missed the point that the Sad Puppies slate is an effort to show just how little any of the awards given out at the Hugos reflect anything other than the small, cliquish, Progressive end of the political spectrum. Don’t forget that a former president of the SFWA got himself on the ballot as a “Fan writer” (yes, John Scalzi). What would I “want” from Fan publishing? How about fewer professionals getting awards for it?
@Damon
Replacing left wingers with right wingers in writing awards isn’t an improvement in my opinion. Given the choice between the two, I will vote no award.
@Cat
Congratulations, you have summed up the problem that sad puppies was created to address.
I do think this is a little hard on some of the authors, who weren’t *asked* before they were splashed with the Sad Puppy mud.
Mud, Cat?
The creators of these lists have nothing but praise for these authors. You are implying that by simply being associated with the list creators that somehow these authors careers will be damaged? Isn’t that precisely what Larry Corriea set out to prove was happening in science fiction? That a small vocal group had moved in and taken over the awards and the publishing houses and heaven help your career if you disagreed with them politically?
Mud? Who is doing the throwing Cat. These authors MAY be in fear for their careers, but it isn’t because of Vox Day or Larry Corriea.
Mike, I don’t mind people criticizing the project simply because they don’t like the project. That’s fine. Nobody has to like it. But your accusation that this is merely dishonest posturing and moral self-contradiction is itself a piece of dishonest posturing. Sad Puppies 3 has been clear in its intent from the start. The slate of works and authors covers a political range I’d call exemplary, compared to other recommendation lists which skew heavily to one side. And all Sad Puppies 3 has ever done is encourage fans to get involved. Period. Not, “Let’s ruin the Hugos!” Not, “Let’s burn it down!” No. “Get involved and vote for the authors and works you want to see on the ballot!” The end.
This is a matter of fact.
You can certainly invent straw men aplenty and light them on fire, declaring yourself the ethical victor in a battle against an imaginary foe. But it won’t change the fact that Sad Puppies 3 is doing a good thing for the Hugos.
You might disagree. But then you’re the guy with 45 nominations. Of course you think the Worldcon status quo is just fine.
Others may think it’s a cage in need of a little rattling.
The interesting thing here is I’ve been reading SF since 1978, attending cons since 1988, including several Worldcons, selling since 2002, getting published since 2004, have 15 books out, 80 editions, 3 languages, craptons of shorts and articles, consult for TV shows…
And I’ve never heard of Mr Glyer.
I’m gathering his Hugos and noms aren’t for best novel. Ah. Fan stuff. And his sole fiction sale was for a pastiche of Bester.
So he’s certainly entitled to his opinion, but I don’t think it carries much weight.
I guess Larry will have to settle for his 10 million copies sold and his private mountain. And KJA, of course, lives in a castle.
Which reinforces to me that most of the awards are pretty meaningless.
Or maybe it’s just that your memory’s not very good? Because you and I have exchanged e-mails before. You’ve also commented on this blog before. See, you have heard of me after all.
In any case, ideas have to stand on their own. Here’s my idea: People should only nominate for the Hugos work they have read and think is worthy of an award.
Golly, Mike, that’s pretty much what SP3 advocates too. Only, when we do it, we’re bad guys? And just for the record, I love the actual Hugo lists that declare they will vote for books before even reading the work. Note that they’re not on my side of the fence in this.
“Creek’s evident fear at being even tenuously associated with the unclean ones is proof that the premise of sad puppies is accurate. If modern sci-fi existed within a healthy intellectual environment no-one would ever consider that being named on a small awards shortlist might cause them trouble. It would be absurd to think so.”
what if it was the KKK’s shortlist?
No, that isn’t what SP3 advocates. If it was, you would have said so but it’s not part of your marching orders in Announcing Sad Puppies 3. Here’s what you wrote:
That says, “Go and vote” not “Go and read.”
Allow me to confirm that Mr Williamson is not the only one:
The interesting thing here is I’ve been reading SF since 1970, attending cons since 1986, including at least one Worldcon, getting published since 1995, have 16 books out, more if you include nonfiction, in 5 languages, and a plethora shorts and nonfiction articles on the science fiction field…
And I’ve never heard of Mr Glyer.
I’m gathering his Hugos and nominations aren’t for best novel. Or anything I have read, saw reviewed, or heard discussed by fans.
It is not clear why his opinions should carry any weight.
John, we’re going to have to change your middle initial to “P” for Pinocchio if you keep carrying on this way. You have also commented here before.
How can you guys not know who he is? He’s got twice as many Hugos as Robert Heinlein. So from the picture, I’m assuming he is actually Santa Claus.
I already explained it to Glyer-45-Hugos over on my blog comments when he tried the same obfuscation there and I provided quotes showing that I think people should read for themselves and judge accordingly.
Apparently I was not blatant enough. Some things are just so stupidly obvious that you shouldn’t have to say them, but apparently that is not the case. So here, allow me to go on the record here on this totally unbiased blog with 28 Hugo nominations about some things that we should all agree on:
You should always wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
You should look both ways before crossing the street.
You should read things before nominating them.
There you go. On the record. With this kind of hard hitting reporting maybe next year you’ll get to be Glyer-50-Hugo.
Oh, and to clarify, I am most certainly NOT equating the Sad Puppies with the KKK, the NSDAP, NAMBLA, or any other such horrible organization. I’m simply pointing out that receiving an official endorsement from a group or organization can be the sort of thing one does not appreciate.
Commenting on a blog isn’t the same as remembering, knowing anything about, or caring to know anything about the author of the blog.
The only reason I know who you are is because I kept getting trackbacks as you posted nonsense about me. I had to look up File 770 on Wikipedia. When I saw you had 28 Hugos I laughed. Little did I realize it was actually worse. I’m still trying to wrap my brain around 45 Hugos for this slipshod nonsense. If anything is proof that the pond has grown stagnant, it is you.
Mike, the announcement predated the slate. I did not say, “Here is the slate, vote for it without reading it.” I said, “Let’s start gathering works and authors.” If you’d bothered to read the comments on the announcement, many of the suggestions came from readers who had actually read the work. You’re chasing after a red herring.
Seriously, this whole argument would be much simpler if you’d stop trying to argue from an assumed pedestal of procedural propriety, and just admit that you don’t like Sad Puppies 3 because Sad Puppies 3 bugs you personally. This is very personal with you. And you consider it an affront that anyone could question how or why a system that has given you 45 nominations might possibly have some tilt, skew, or bias in it; things in need of correction. Or at least push-back.
Here to corroborate Mike Williamson, John C. Wright and Larry Correia.
I’ve been reading science fiction since 1970. I have attended five or six worldcons. I have been published (in novels) since 2001. I have 23 novels out and have published over 125 short stories at pro rates.
I have never to my knowledge had any idea who Glyer was, nor — KNOWINGLY — read anything by him.
That he has more Hugos than Heinlein is as great an indictment of the Hugos lack of reach, insularity and log-rolling as any I’ve seen.
This is why Sad Puppies is needed.
You know, I’d expect people who write for a living to actually know how to read, rather than just assume that every person who has been nominated for a Hugo Award has won every time. They wouldn’t assume that just because Mike has been nominated 45 times for various Hugo Awards, he’s won every one of them.
But of course, we also are facing people who only care about one or two categories and the rest are irrelevant. Only BIG NAME AUTHORS WHO ARE BEST SELLING NEW YORK TIMES AUTHORS matter, per Michael Z. Williamson above.
BTW, Michael Z. Williamson, as you airily dismiss mere “fan stuff,” consider this: without the fans, there wouldn’t be any Hugo Awards at all because nobody gets paid to do them. People spend their own money and put in their own effort to organize these events and do the work so that you can dismiss them as “just fans.”
“John, we’re going to have to change your middle initial to “P” for Pinocchio if you keep carrying on this way.”
Sorry, sir, but I have left a number of comments on the electronic brain system called the Internet you have here in the future, and I honestly don’t remember you, remember anything you’ve written, never heard anyone talk about you.
Now, when I quit from SFWA rather publicly, several people in the field asked each other, “John Wright? Who is he?” — I did not say “YOU LIE!” because that would be childish and stupid. I said, “I am no one of consequence” which is true.
But, good heavens, are you throwing out an accusation as your only possible response to criticism? Calling an honest man a liar? Calling my character into question?
Well, I now know more about you, and what I now know does not speak well of you. For shame, sir.
“And just for the record, I love the actual Hugo lists that declare they will vote for books before even reading the work.”
Brad – I’m guessing you’re referring to this part of Aidan’s post?
“From books I enjoyed, but don’t think are quite up to standard that I hold the Hugo shortlist, to novels that I expect might end up on my shortlist if I read them before nominations, this is a list of other 2014 novels worth looking at…”
Look, I get that you’re feeling defensive here. You’re taking a lot of heat from various quarters. But misquoting and misrepresenting people from “the other side” to try to bolster yourself? You’re better than that.
(If Aidan said or suggested in that post that he’ll be voting for books he hasn’t read, then I apologize. Because I agree that would be uncool — if it was actually what he said he was doing.)
Brad, spin as hard you want, but proxy readers putting things on your list is not the same as telling people to read the work and judge whether they think it’s award quality.
When you and Larry and whoever else may be doing it throw my nominations in my face it’s just another sleazy way to try and discredit an argument you have admitted to yourself that you cannot answer. How can you claim the moral high ground when you are asking people to act without integrity?
And of course, I’m just a fan, so why would you need to inform yourself about my actual views or my long track record of criticizing bloc voting, no matter who the beneficiary may be?
Ken from the Hugo awards said: “You know, I’d expect people who write for a living to actually know how to read, rather than just assume that every person who has been nominated for a Hugo Award has won every time. They wouldn’t assume that just because Mike has been nominated 45 times for various Hugo Awards, he’s won every one of them.”
– Why, that would be silly! Glyer-45-Hugos has 45 nominations but has only won a paltry 9! How dare Mike Williamson not be super nit picky and descriptive! Why, that barbarian didn’t even use a trigger warning. Sure, that’s like twice as many Hugo wins as Robert Heinlein, but in no way demonstrates that the awards are really just a popularity contest for one tiny little in bred clique, because that’s what Larry Correia said they were, and he’s awful and bad, and his Wrong Kind of Fans suck and are mean.
But don’t worry, Glyer-50-Hugos, I have gone on official public record for you:
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/10/sad-puppies-3-update-2-1-addendum-to-prior-update/
There you go. I am in favor of book reading and hand washing. Now you can start working on your next asinine allegation so I can make fun of it too.
Ah! Now that you remind me, I remember commenting here before! You are correct, sir!
You made false statements about me, due to someone impersonating John Scalzi, and retracted them, and I dropped by, with my normal good grace to say that there was no enmity between Mr Scalzi and myself. And then you — ah — no, I am sorry, I cannot place you, exactly.
I am sure it is because I have no memory for names, and not because you are a bloviating nobody who was posting negligent slanders about me heretofore, which I graciously forgave and then forgot.
So, then, now that you have established that I do indeed know you, Mr Glue, or whatever, is our close, long, transparent and intimate association with each other your basis for your assessment of my secret motives of my inmost heart, and those of my compatriots?
Or was my one gentlemanly comment here, long since forgotten, a sufficient evidential basis to justify your accusations?
So my question should not have been ‘Who the hell are you?’ but ‘Who the hell are you to play accuser and scandalmonger with us?’
John: This reminds me why I was sorry that time I made fun of Cyrano de Bergerac’s nose.
Hines,
When somebody declares, “I will probably vote for this, even though I have not read it yet,” I take them at their word. Go down in the comments (on that link) to see what I am talking about.
If the mortal sin (according to Glyer) is voting for a thing sight unseen, I don’t think Sad Puppies supporters can be dipped in boiling oil all by themselves.
I also think Glyer is doing his own bit of artful dodging by claiming that I told SP supporters to vote for anything sight unseen. Which I did not. And I think Glyer knows that. Which is why I wish Mike would just admit that he personally thinks we stink, for the sake of stinkyness. Instead of claiming, “You didn’t warn them that failure to floss leads to cavities, so clearly you are advocating that people not floss, therefore you are wanting them to get cavities, therefore you are a bad, bad man!”
Glyer,
I think opposition to block voting is a noble (if naive) sentiment, and is not borne out by reality. Do you really think everyone who voted for Ancillary Justice or Red Shirts read those books? If the answer is, “Yes,” then I have a bridge to sell you!
Brad,
I’ve gone through the comments, and I’m not finding where anyone said that. Could you please give me the actual quote, not your rephrasing of what you want people to think was said?
Brad: You might as well ask me “Do you think everyone who has money got it without robbing a bank?” Because then what am I supposed to say — everybody go rob a bank?
That’s one of the biggest problems with Sad Puppies, your supposition that the Hugos are so important they need to be saved, but they’re not important enough to participate in in a legitimate way.
Brad–you said “lets start gathering works, and authors” which I took to mean at the time that you were soliciting suggestions from people who read your blog. Great! I thought. Wider input will surely lead to better suggestions.
But then when you put up the slate, you said that you, and Larry, and perhaps a few other authors you didn’t name picked them. So I guess when you said “let’s start gathering works” you were asking your readers to jog your memory about what you liked.
And I sure don’t remember seeing you say “read these books and see if you think they’re worth voting for. Please start soon, because you only have a few weeks to make up your mind.” I guess I missed that part of your post.
I actually saw someone claiming the Sad Puppies slate “wasn’t a slate.” If not, you might want to change what you’re calling it. And maybe you should get the word out to Larry and Vox, oh, and Breitbart. Good luck!
——————-
Yes, John VI. Mud. (To be polite about it.)
The Sad Puppies run around claiming Hugo voters are prejudiced and vote for works they don’t actually enjoy to support the politics of left-wing authors. Indeed, they run around claiming we want to kill science fiction and don’t want anyone to enjoy reading. They’re telling ugly lies about us so we quite understandably think they are jerks.
Then they claim Writer X as one of their own, and try to push Writer X onto the ballot in a block vote.
No wonder Writer X says “Excuse me! I’m not *with* them!”
Some writers are big enough they haven’t noticed or don’t care. But the average writer doesn’t want to be dragged into Sad Puppy politics. Unless they are a Sad Puppy, of course.
First point: I don’t buy the critique made by advocates of sad puppies–that there is systematic liberal bias in the Hugos. There IS systematic bias, but it’s in favor of a particular kind of author–the kind who write “cleverfun” science fiction and fantasy. You know: John Scalzi, Seanan McGuire, Lois McMaster Bujold, Neil Gaiman, Connie Willis, Jack McDevitt. Regular WorldCon types particularly like light adventure combined with snarky dialog, “meta humor,” fandom in-jokes, etc. For the record, this is not my favorite kind of science fiction and fantasy. But it’s hardly popular because the authors are all liberals or “SJWs” or whatever buzzwords people who like to argue from the wings favor these days. Once upon a time Hugo voters were all gaga over Vernor Vinge, David Brin and Orson Scott Card–none of whom are liberal “SJWs.” And I don’t think the voters favored them because YAY LIBERTARIANISM either.
Second point: I also really don’t care if there is a sad puppies slate, and suggest everyone who isn’t directly involved would be better off not caring as well. Why? Because it’s a popular vote, so anyone can vote however they want as long as they pay what WorldCon requires them to pay, and posting lists of recommended stuff is kind of common.
Plus I’m pretty sure the ultimate goal is to goad liberals into overreacting and trying to shout them down. That feeds the snake, so to speak, so I’m not sure what anyone thinks they will accomplish that way (except, of course, the very small but vocal hard left, who basically operate the same exact way as sad puppies–they love it, as it gives them another excuse to pile-on the soft left, who are their real targets).
For political moderates like me who don’t identify with committed right or left, which I think describes like 90% of fans, these things are best left to the true believers. If the rest of us stop paying attention, then they will eventually move elsewhere. Or just publish lists of who they think should win the awards without making it into some big melodrama.
Sad Puppies aren’t much fun/ they don’t win any awards at all / their remainders line the halls/ Sad puppies aren’t much fun / a sad puppy wrote a novel late last fall / he now has no nominations at all/ sad puppies aren’t much fun / My Mom says puppies days are through / they don’t understand the cultural stew…sad puppies
(sing to the tune (sort of) to Ogden Edsel’s “Dead Puppies)….
Brad Torgersen said:
“Golly, Mike, that’s pretty much what SP3 advocates too. Only, when we do it, we’re bad guys? And just for the record, I love the actual Hugo lists that declare they will vote for books before even reading the work. Note that they’re not on my side of the fence in this.”
Um? I’ve just read through the Aidan Moher post, and the concomitant discussion thread, three times, and I don’t see where anyone said anything about nominating a work without having read it? What am I missing?
“I haven’t read this book yet. I plan to read it. It got good reviews from people whose opinions I respect, and I’ve previously enjoyed other works by this author. If the book is as good as I’m expecting it to be, then I’ll probably nominate it for a Hugo.” Is this an objectionable statement?
Brad, Jim, Danny,
The only thing I can see re: Aidan’s post and nominating something not read is the comment about the Southern Reach trilogy, mentioning that he would nominate Annihilation (which he says he has read) or the whole trilogy (which he has not finished).
Seeing as though I’m in the same boat as Aidan at this point (I’ve read Annihilation, plan to read the rest but haven’t yet), I think Brad’s point is a bit of a nitpick. Annihilation was pretty cool (not sure if I’ll be nominating, but I can see why someone would love it), it’s fair to speculate that the two sequels (which all came out in relatively short order) would be equally cool.
Also, while we’re doing close reads of blog posts, the SP3 slate announcement post says the “list is a recommendation. Not an absolute.” and “If you agree with our slate below — and we suspect you might — this is YOUR chance to make sure YOUR voice is heard.” I don’t view that as “vote for these without reading”.
Vox Day’s post about Rabid Puppies, on the other hand, is much more combative and does lend the impression that it’s driven by politics and that you should totes vote for his recommendations if you trust his taste (which does imply voting without reading).
Personally, I tend to think of people who vote on the Hugos as individuals who vote for books they’ve read and liked (whether they are sad puppies, SJWs, left, right, center, whatever). I wouldn’t have thought this a revolutionary sentiment, but then, here we are.