aka The Puppies Who Fell Up
Another burst of substantive, idea-filled posts highlight today’s roundup. The roll call includes Jeb Kinnison, Jaye Em Edgecliff, Brandon Kempner, Jeff Duntemann, Steve Davidson, Anthony Vicino, William Shaw and Kate Paulk. (Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editors of the day Laura Resnick and Jack Lint.)
Jeb Kinnison on The Subtstrate Wars
“SFF, Hugos, Curating the Best” – May 2
“Curating” means selecting for quality and audience. WorldCon has been tending to curate for a small and eccentric audience, and favor-trading, log-rolling, and political prejudice has been apparent since.. forever. WorldCon has already recognized the outreach possibility of the Internet. There is no longer a reason for what purports to be *the* award of SFF fans, not Worldcon attendees, to be closed to the fans who can’t be there, or as GRRM remarked, aren’t fannish enough to regularly read fanzines. If the award is to be chosen by small groups with a certain Fannish mindset, then it’s not *the* award of SFF readers and not a useful guide to quality for those who don’t share the mindset. And it will tend to slight publishers and authors who haven’t sucked up to the attendees and “curated” their online presence to groom their own fans. Some decry the possibility that the Hugos might become a mere popularity contest, with “Twilight”-ish popular works swamping the less-accessible quality fiction; but that ignores that the status quo prior to Puppies was a popularity contest among a small and not necessarily representative group shot through with personal conflicts of interest and logrolling.
We can honor all the work of the elders who curated and nurtured the Hugos when there was no other way for fans to get together. We can also open up the nominating and voting to committed readers who haven’t been Fannish, and the effort involved is more software and thinking about systems than sitting at tables and handing out papers while chatting with passersby. There are problems with nominating voters being unaware of what qualifies, and problems with qualifications — suggestions about more classes for long works and allowing small pub and self pub books more time to be discovered are good.
As a new author, I’d like to preserve a large market for fiction because it is inevitable that larger media productions will be unable to pioneer new ideas or truly eccentric new virtual worlds — there are just too many people involved in these larger productions to take as many risks on unique visions, and until the tools for game storytelling, for example, are easily accessible and usable by singleton game authors, games won’t be the medium to create the experience of the great novel or story. Opening up the Hugos and doing more outreach to fans of other media would help a lot in renovating fandom and bringing in more new readers. And if the field doesn’t start gaining more readers, it will die, since it is already harder to make a living writing for SFF than it used to be. If the only writers left working are supported by academia or other jobs, the field will lose its finest future works.
Brandon Kempner on Chaos Horizon
“Hugo Best Novel Nominees: Amazon and Goodreads Numbers, May 2015” – May 1
Let me emphasize again that these scores have never been predictive for the Hugo or Nebula: getting ranked higher on Amazon or Goodreads has not equated to winning the Hugo. It’s interesting that the Puppy picks are the outliers: higher and lower when it comes to Goodreads, with Leckie/Addision/Liu all within .05 points of each other. Amazon tends to be more generous with scoring, although Butcher’s 4.8 is very high.
The 2015 Hugo year is going to be largely useless when it comes to data: the unusual circumstances that led to this ballot (the Sad and Rabid Puppy campaigns, then various authors declining Best Novel nominations, and now the massive surge in voting number) mean that this data is going to be inconsistent with previous years. I think it’s still interesting to look at, but take all of this with four or five teaspoons of salt. Still, I’ll be checking in on these numbers every month until the awards are given, and it’ll be interesting to see what changes happen.
Jeff Duntemann on Jeff Duntemann’s Contrapositive Diary
“Rant: Sad Puppies vs. Anti-Puppies, as the Kilostreisands Pile Up” – May 2
How in hell could a couple of mostly unknown authors turn the venerable Hugo Awards inside-out?
My answer: adverse attention. For a definition, let me quote from a textbook that I made up just now: Zoftnoggin & Wiggout’s Fundamentals of Sociometry.
Adverse attention is a rise in the attention profile of a previously obscure phenomenon caused by the actions of an entity that opposes that phenomenon. In the vast majority of cases, the triggering force is outrage, though it sometimes appears through the action of envy, pride, lust, asshattedness, butthurt, or other largely emotional psychopathologies.
This being sociometry, adverse attention may be quantified, and there is a standard unit for expressing it:
The fundamental unit of adverse attention is the streisand, defined as one previously uninterested person achieving a degree of interest in a phenomenon sufficient to compel them to email, share, or retweet information about that phenomenon to one other person in a social network. As the information propagates across a social network, the connectedness of the network influences the total amount of adverse attention that arises. For example, if each of ten previously uninterested persons receiving the information passes it on to only one previously uninterested person, eleven streisands of adverse attention have been created. If one of those previously uninterested persons has 200 followers on Twitter or 1000 Facebook friends, the number of streisands increases rapidly. In a sufficiently dense network, the rate of increase can become close to exponential until the number of previously uninterested persons asymptotically approaches zero.
I’ve seen evidence for this in the comment sections of many blogs that have criticized or condemned the Sad Puppies. A common comment goes something like this: “Wow! I never knew that you could vote for the Hugos without going to Worldcon! And I just downloaded the free preview of Monster Hunter International. This is way cool!” Zing! The world gets another Puppy.
The emotional tenor of the criticism matters too. I’ve seen a few comments that go something like this: “I’d never heard of the Sad Puppies before. I’ve been trying to figure out which side is right, but the sheer nastiness of the Sad Puppies’ critics makes me think they’re just sore losers. I’m more or less with the Puppies now.” ….
And those streisands just keep piling up.
It’s something like a sociological law: Commotion attracts attention. Attention is unpredictable, because it reaches friend and foe alike. It can go your way, or it can go the other way. There’s no way to control the polarity of adverse attention. The only way to limit adverse attention is to stop the commotion.
In other words, just shut up.
I know, this is difficult. For some psychologies, hate is delicious to the point of being psychological crack, so it’s hard to just lecture them on the fact that hate has consequences, including but hardly limited to adverse attention.
My conclusion is this: The opponents of Sad Puppies 3 put them on the map, and probably took them from a fluke to a viable long-term institution. I don’t think this is what the APs intended. In the wake of the April 4 announcement of the final Hugo ballot, I’d guess the opposition has generated several hundred kilostreisands of adverse attention, and the numbers will continue to increase. Sad Puppies 4 has been announced. Larry Correia and Brad Torgersen have lots of new fans who’d never heard of them before. (I just bought the whole Monster Hunter International series and will review it in a future entry.)
To adapt a quote from…well, you know damned well whose quote I’m adapting: “Attack me, and I will become more popular than you could possibly imagine.”
Steve Davidson on Amazing Stories
“No Award is Not the Nuclear Option” – May 1
One final note. Some are arguing that rejecting all slated items punishes those who were not willing participants/had no knowledge they were being included. The solution there is simple. If you have an eligible work in any given year, clearly state somewhere that you do not participate in campaigning for the awards, reject any involuntary inclusion in such and do not give permission for your name and works to be included. Most everyone who would be in such a position in years to come have already pretty much taken a position: they’re either happy to take advantage of whatever benefit may be derived from being included on a slate, or they do not want to have anything to do with it. I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of voters will take you at your word – whether you are ultimately included on a slate or not.
Steve Davidson on Amazing Stories
“Thoughts on the Hugo Voters Packet” – May 2
Participation by authors and publishers was always presented as being voluntary on their part. Largely unspoken was the implied strong-arming: if you didn’t provide copies of a nominated work, you were likely insuring that the work in question would not win.
Last year, commentary regarding the publishers that chose not to participate in the packet pretty much follow those lines – not to mention edging over into public castigation of the publishing house itself. (Bad, bad publisher for not giving us free stuff.)
What follows on those coattails is pretty obvious: a growing sense of entitlement on the part of voters – a trap I myself fell into this year. I’d fully intended to read Cixin Lius’ The Three Body Problem (having been assured by no one less than its translator that it was worth the read) but the buzz made it so obvious that the novel would be on the final ballot that I chose to wait to get my free copy. And then of course the puppies shit the bed, and the first uncensored thought that popped into my head was “dammit, now I’m going to have to buy that novel!”.
Of course things have shifted again and Three Body is back on the ballot, so I will be getting a free copy (presumably), but in order to punish myself for those uncensored thoughts, I’m going to be buying a copy today. (I sure hope I like it….spending good money on a flyer like that….when I coulda gotten it for free….)
I find it odd that I do not have the same sense of entitlement regarding review copies that are or are not supplied to me for free by publishers looking to get a marketing push. Sometimes stuff just arrives in the mail (hey! yay! Free Book!) and sometimes I write to the author or editor or publicist or publisher and request a copy. Sometimes I get one (hey! yay! Free Book!) and sometimes I don’t even get a courtesy brush off, but I don’t even think about booing.
Maybe I feel entitled to the Hugo Packet because I spent forty or fifty bucks on a Supporting Membership (or more for an attending membership)? But there ought to be a disconnect there because a Supporting Membership is not a discount book program. It’s supporting the convention, of which the Hugo Awards are but one part. It’s for supporting the people who have been working on the convention for probably the past three or four YEARS. It’s supposed to be my way of saying: I can’t be there in person this year, but I believe in what you folks are doing and want to see it continue, so here’s some money.
I am positive beyond any shred of doubt that I am not the only Hugo Voter who has had this creeping sense of entitlement grow upon them over the past several years.
Jaye Em Edgecliff
“Puppies…” – May 2
Do not, instead, decide that it’s about bringing back the good ol’ adventure yarn in places of “message fic” (also do not knock “message fic” while it is possible to witness your orgasmic pleasure you derive by merely typing the name Robert A Heinlen, it REALLY spoils your point), but then start bitching that things don’t qualify when numerous items are pointed out, but those items just happen to have females who play a role other than damsel in distress (Uh, one word for you, buddies, little thing you probably never heard of from the early 20th century Triplanetary … she wasn’t a damsel in distress), characters who incidentally are gay or trans or black or fuchsia or vegetarian or ¼ amphibian … If you’re trying to claim you aren’t over-privileged, white-supremacist, homophobic, transphobic, etc it’d help if you didn’t call things that are exactly the old-fashioned classic adventure yarn you claim to want “message fic about gay issues [for example]” just because a character is gay. Trust me, there’s a difference between a character being gay and a story dealing with gay issues. My stories touch on gay issues, they aren’t strictly about them, and in SF/F there frequently is the conceit that the society has no gay issues in the first place….
Anthony Vicino on One Lazy Robot
“Why Ratings and Reviews Don’t Matter Anymore (sort of)” – May 2
[A lot of interesting statistical analysis in here. Can’t even begin to scratch the surface with an excerpt.]
In particular, the books with the most lopsided ratings tend to be from self-published authors. What do I mean by this? Well, self-published authors, whether they be fairly popular, or not, tend to have significantly higher ratings than their traditionally published brethren.
Before we get into the why and the how, I want to substantiate this claim with some examples. I spent a little bit of time this morning compiling some datas that I now want to throw in your face. Incoming!
First, I googled top 100 science fiction books of all time. What pops up reads as a who’s who of sci-fi literary mastery. So I just went down the list, took the top 12 titles and searched their Amazon rating to get a baseline. Here we go:
William Shaw in Oxford Student
“Censorship and the Hugo awards” – May 2
You see, Beale and his supporters mounted this campaign because they believed that the awards were being dominated by broadly left-wing fiction because of the censorship of a shadowy group of left-wing authors, rather than because the books they wanted to see nominated just weren’t any good. And so they decided to stuff the ballot. They reacted to an unfounded conspiracy of censorship by actively engaging in censorship themselves. What happens to the Hugos as a result of this still ongoing controversy remains to be seen, but we can learn a crucial lesson from it. Which is that the would-be censor can all too easily turn anti-censorship rhetoric to their advantage. We must be mindful of that, and remain vigilant if we want to see truly free and open artistic expression.
http://t.co/5d3Tc4WOiD SLATES ARE BAD! hey can someone give me a slate of books nominate so I don't have to read them? #SadPuppies
— Nate (@bloggerblaster) May 2, 2015
Kate Paulk on Mad Genius Club
“A Mad Genius Goes to RavenCon (Part the Second)” – May 2
Much joyous conversation was had upon the nature of weaponry, the importance of ending the Sadness of the Canines of Youth, and the prospect of selling buttons with the arcane cantrip “Barfly Central is my Safe Space”. And lo! The Convention of Raven has not descended to the madness of the Safe Space, for among the Secret Masters of Fandom in the shining city of Richmond there are those who know the never-to-be-spoken truth: that the Safe Space so celebrated by the Glittery Warriors of Social Justice is merely the demon of Apartheid masquerading under a pretty name and suit of demonic glitter….
Upon completion of the panel, the warrior maiden did retreat to her “safe space” (Barfly Central) wherein she did converse with many of the Flies of Bar and did meet in person the redoubtable warriors John C Wright and L Jagi Lamplighter (for as with many in these modern times the warrior maiden had conversed with both through the Internet of Tubes). ‘Twas here that Kate the Impaler did learn of the attempt of the GOH of Wrongness to have a person ejected from the Convention of Raven and that the GOH of Wrongness did have no copanelists. Speculation there was that the GOH of Wrongness was of such wrongness that no other wished to join for any panel.
I should note that I have an actual conflict of interest there.
— Ted "Theodore" Logan (@calvinsdad) May 2, 2015
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Brian Z: “etc. etc. Grimnoir etc. etc. last year etc. etc”
And here you are, once again attempting to de-rail the discussion by posting something completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
We’ll just let everyone who hasn’t seen them already read your lists of Puppy Talking Points
and
your list of bad-faith comments directed at people who oppose the hijacking of the Hugo Awards ballot.
You might as well just come completely out of the closet at this point. There are plenty more of your pro-Puppy arguments to which I haven’t even linked yet.
And, oh yes, on the subject of evasion, you’ve still never responded to Rick Moen’s repeated requests in that other thread to explain your thinly-veiled threat about what will happen to the Hugos next year if the voters use “No Award” this year.
@GK Chesterton: Uh…also no. I was responding to Kevin who was complaining about the increased workload and again telling us to go elsewhere and found our own award.
In lovingkindness, my good ersatz English writer, I am going to suggest that you apologise to Kevin Standlee, before you post a single other word. I doubt that anyone in the entire 76-year history of WSFS worked harder and with more famous impartiality to make sure everyone who wishes to participate in WSFS can do so and understands how. He will lavish hours of his time helping total strangers draft Business Meeting motions so they have their best chance of surviving scrutiny by the assembly, even if he completely disagrees with the aims of the motions — like Aristeides the Just and the ostraka. (See, the real GK Chesterton would get that reference. You, uncertain at best.)
Kevin will be going through a great deal of trouble to run a fair and scrupulously inclusive set of Business Meetings at Sasquan in strict accordance to the rules. He deserves nothing but respect, even from throwaway handles like you.
Rick Moen
[email protected]
@JJ: For the record, I think Brian Z eventually made clear that his initially rather vague concept of Puppyish ‘retribution’ boiled down to ‘nominations will end up looking strange again in 2016 in similar fashion’. To which I figuratively shrugged and said that’s already IMO highly likely, because the election mechanics so permit at least through 2016, and that the only thing likely to change 2016 being a similar omnishambles would be for enough voters in 2015 making clear to 2016’s nominees that any discovered bloc-vote support is a bad idea and in their interest to disavow.
[end recap]
Brian basically says — my interpretation, yours for a small fee — pay the Danegeld to make the Danes go away. I’m a history nut (and Viking-descendent), ergo I distrust Brian Z’s (alleged) strategic intuition. A cynic would wonder about the gentleman’s aims, but I’d rather be polite and wonder about his analytic aptitude. ;->
Rick Moen
[email protected]
JJ, Rick Moen is quite able to argue his own case so you hardly need to stick up for him. We have all talked the idea that there may be puppy retaliation for a No Award campaign to death. Rick sagely pointed out that I don’t have anything terribly brilliant to add to that point beyond reiterating that 2016 could be a complete disaster: and I don’t.
I don’t assume that you are interested in hearing about my taste in literature, but since you keep engaging me on the subject of my membership in the puppy brigade I thought I might switch it up a little by telling you what I think about some of the authors involved. Or, you could also ask me what I think of Vox Day, if you actually wanted to know. Or we can both shut up about it. But what is your goal in insisting over and over that I belong to a group that I say I have no connection with? To browbeat me into submission?
Brian Z: “what is your goal?”
For you to stop pretending that you’re neutral, when you’re clearly not.
As Rick has pointed out to you elsewhere, Hugo voters are high-information people. They are quite intelligent. Your attempts to fool them with a snow-job are transparent, amateurish, and insulting to their intelligence.
You keep trying to paint the use of “No Award” as being intended to punish authors who are on the Puppy slates through no choice of their own, and arguing that people shouldn’t use “No Award” because of this. (And yes, if you insist, I can go get links to your numerous posts on this. Perhaps you’re just better off admitting that you’ve made them.)
Various people have pointed out to you that your premise is false; that the use of “No Award” is 1) to indicate that items read are not deserving of a place on the ballot, and 2) to indicated that employment of slates will not get the slatemakers their desired result. Both of these are quite valid.
And yet you keep trying this argument on, even though numerous people have pointed out to you that it’s a false argument. Why are you continuing to try to dissuade people from using the “No Award” option, using specious guilt-trip arguments? Why don’t you just do whatever your conscience dictates, and let other people do the same?
Brian, if you’re trying to be impartial, maybe you’re not being good at it. I assumed you were “pro-puppy” (I feel so stupid typing that) from your other statements. Not a skeevy partisan like our pal GK over there, but nonetheless thought you had “chosen a side.” I guess I wasn’t the only one thinking that.
Rick, that is a good summation, thank you, except my intuition is that you ARE paying the Dane-geld – just not in the currency you expected.
“trying to be impartial”
Well, I’m less interested in waging puppy war than in the war’s impact on the institutions of fandom. Does that make sense?
That does make sense, though I disagree with you about the use of No Award.
Coelacanth, and feel free to change my mind; I’m listening.
You’re listening, Brian? I ask, because you seem to have an odd tendency to keep asking questions that have already been answered, when _you_ asked them, in the thread before, or the day before. If you actually have anteretrograde amnesia, and you keep having to be told new things every thread because you’re just not retaining it, then I’m sorry, because that sounds very unpleasant.
The problem is Brian, you aren’t listening. People have told you again and again what their position is and you never respond to that stated position. Instead you retread the same talking points seemingly having heard or learned nothing.
Tintinaus: jinx!
well, we weren’t saying exactly the same thing, but close enough to count 🙂
MickyFinn and Tintinaus @ 9:44pm
Heck, yesterday Rick Moen convinced me that I was overstating the immense gravity of the peril of employing the “Nuclear Option”, on the grounds that 2016 is likely a write-off whatever we do (though I still feel more optimistic than he does).
Today I made two points, prompted by the Amazing Stories article linked above and the subsequent discussion: a) I still don’t think it is fair to put authors in a bind by demanding they renounce a puppy flock who might be helping pay their rent, and b) there are some hints at least that the puppy edifices might slowly erode on their own.
If you want to say I’m wrong, say I’m wrong. If you want to convince me otherwise, convince me otherwise.
J. Coelacanth – ‘Name one person who paid their membership dues to WSFS who was not allowed to vote.” That’s not the issue; they weren’t allowed to win.’
This is what bothers me about the whole thing, the audacity for some folks to tell Worldcon voters that they’re just not voting on the right stuff.
In case anyone has been missing it, there has been an absolutely fascinating comment thread on the post about Juliette Wade’s request that she be removed from the Sad Puppy slate.
https://file770.com/?p=22293
Brad Torgersen came on and flat out contradicted Ms. Wade’s own account in the most concerned tones of a man truly protective of her fearful self, in the name of his friendship with Ms. Wade.
Then Ms. Wade came on and set the matter straight.
It is regrettable but informative to watch the logic fails, the bland contradictions, the boorishness, and the presumption (I can only assume) that no one here remembers a statement from one moment to the next, in real time, in the very same thread, in words right there on the page for anyone to read.
It is like a microcosm of what’s going on in compact, easily read form.
Brian Z: “I still don’t think it is fair to put authors in a bind by demanding they renounce a puppy flock who might be helping pay their rent.”
You’ve said htis several times now, in several threads.
No one is demanding this, including the Amazing Stories blog post you reference. No one. I have read hundreds and hundreds of blog posts in the last month, and I have never yet seen anyone demand that authors renounce the Puppies.
Your repeated insistence on claiming that this is happening is pretty damn indicative of bad faith on your part.
@Brian Z: For the record, I have absolutely no problem believing you’ve been expressing your honest take on things all along, and appreciate it. I also (most often) find second-guessing of alleged conversational gamesmanship tiresome and unconstructive. Generally assuming good faith strikes me as good policy, as is assuming it whenever even halfway plausible. Voicing that even if you don’t think it strikes me as even better policy. ;-> Less metadiscussion means less noise, in my view.
I’d like to be able to shake the hand of anyone in present company at Sasquan and other places, and enjoy both beers together (or other $BEVERAGE) and also some of the world’s best science fiction and fantasy. And that includes all of you pseudonymous people.
Rick Moen
[email protected]
@JJ:
If I squint, I think I can see what Brian Z might be trying to say. If he equates “don’t put me on a Puppy slate” with “renouncing a puppy flock”*, and further equates participation in a Puppy slate with an observable increase in sales**, then his argument kinda-sorta makes a little sense.
The big hole in it, however, is that everyone I’ve seen speak out against slates is doing just that: speaking out against slates. Not just the Puppy campaigns, but any and all slates that exist or may be formed. Join a slate, get No-Awarded, period.
That’s not an anti-conservative position, nor is it an anti-SJW position. It’s an anti-slate position, one which would fix the original Puppy complaint – specifically, that a small group was controlling the nominations. Make that a mathematical impossibility, and the Puppies have no further reason to complain.
That is, IF the Puppy motivation really is what’s been stated. If the “SJW cabal” claptrap is actually just a thin veneer over a hopped-up culture war, though, they won’t stop until either their coup succeeds or they destroy the awards.
* Puppies have flocks? I thought they ran in packs.
** Conveniently ignoring the prospect of sales lost to anti-slate readers by joining the slate…
Thanks for squeezing a response to my argument in among the insults, JJ. I did qualify my point, at the top of this thread, by pointing out that some say “all slates are bad” and as soon as a non-puppy slate appears the situation will become more complicated.
“No one is demanding this, including the Amazing Stories blog…”
The blog says that from now on every author simply needs to post a disclaimer somewhere saying “I do not participate in campaigning and I do not wish to be included in any slate.” Easy, just denounce your fans, stop doing the self-promotion your own publisher wants you to do, and everything will go back to normal. The editor of Amazing Stories also said “I’m going to place ANY nominee that is associated with advancing a political agenda BELOW No Award.” There is a mixed message – are slates bad, or having a political agenda? Lots of science fiction is political.
Rick: offer to share $BEVERAGE accepted.
“renouncing the puppy flock”
Rev. Bob, in the sense of “from the puppy pulpit.” 😀
I think your points are well stated.
“Join a slate, get No-Awarded, period.”
In a political party, if you are a card-carrying member you can become a candidate. In a list of recommendations for nominating for a literary award, somebody puts your name on a list. In my own view, I think Brad Torgersen muddied the waters considerably by asking people if they wanted to be on it or not, and GRRM was right to say “Heck, I didn’t ask people if I could recommend them before I plugged them on my blog and I don’t see what Brad has to either.”
Jeb Kinnison. Good Lord. Puppies supporters keep varying between the arguments that the insular Worldcon is ignoring all the vastly popular best-selling authors when they give Hugos, and that SF will die unless a few hundred people take over this insignificant award that only a couple of thousand people vote on.
Brian Z: “Thanks for squeezing a response to my argument in among the insults…”
[insult citation required]
The author on the Amazing Stories blog still hasn’t “demanded that authors renounce the Puppies”. What he actually has said is how he is going to regard slates, and how he is going to respond to slates. He’s stated his opinion. Nowhere has he demanded that authors renounce the Puppies, or that everyone else has to follow his decisions.
” There is a mixed message — are slates bad, or having a political agenda?”
Are you honestly not understanding that he’s saying the Slate is the political agenda? Is your reading comprehension really that poor?
“citation”
You are right, I shouldn’t say that. Please consider my comment withdrawn.
“Are you honestly not understanding that he’s saying the Slate is the political agenda?”
Read the full post and see what you think:
http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2015/04/ill-casting-final-hugo-vote/
In brief, he says that Sad Puppies have no right to try to advance a political agenda, and the only time it is legitimate to create a slate of recommended works is when you list only works that are “really good and deserving of the award.”
Am I the only one who hears a bit of a mixed message?
Brian: Just a quick quote for you from the comments section of the article you linked to
“in this case and from now on – I will not tolerate organized voting slates, nor support them. Any work on such a slate automatically goes below No Award – REGARDLESS OF WHO IT WAS WRITTEN BY, WHAT IT IS ABOUT OR WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE VOTING SLATE WAS.”
That’s from Steve Davidson, who wrote the article. Reading the full thing, and making an effort to fairly represent the authors views would have been so hard, wouldn’t it.
MickyFinn, thanks for adding that.
With due respect to Mr. Davidson, who has clearly been thinking carefully about the issue and continuing to refine his views, though, I still wonder how after several paragraphs making a case for why he thinks making a politically driven list of recommendations is wrong, he could close his editorial (!) with “I’m going to publish my final ballot.”
The key assertion might be: “They do so by by creating a false equivalence between a voting slate with a political agenda behind it and non-politicized eligibility mentions.” I don’t share Larry Correia’s politics, but I don’t feel entirely comfortable being told I must be non-politicized either!
Refusing to be listed on a slate shouldn’t be a rejection of your fans, unless for some bizarre reason (like Gene Wolfe’s character Loyal to the Group of Seventeen), absolutely the only way they can expression their admiration of your work come award time is via a slate. Otherwise, you can simply encourage them to vote like everyone else’s fans do all the time, and have ever since the ’50s, as individuals, exercising their individual judgments.
Brian Z, the full quote is :
“I’m going to publish my final ballot once I’ve submitted it.”
In case you’re unaware, every voters Hugo ballot remains open until the closing time of 11:59 PM PDT, 31 July 2015, at which point EVERY VOTERS ballot is locked and submitted.
As such, by publicising it after submission, Davidson does in fact ensure that no one else is driven to vote the way he did, as all voting would have been closed by then.
Bruce, some of those fans may not want to be told what to think, though. My main worry would be: how do you refuse a slate? Brad took people off as a courtesy on request, but VD didn’t and others might not. GRRM argues he’s recommended works for the Hugo without asking the author for permission and does not feel there should be a double standard.
snowcrash, I think he meant he’ll publish once he has submitted it the first time – obviously yes, he can change it up until the deadline.
Look I see that Mr. Davidson is sincere and wants to do what is best for fandom and the genre. But if no one else but me sees even a small amount of irony in an editorial arguing for using the ballot as a means to help exclude “political beliefs” from the list of valid reasons one can recommend and nominate a work of science fiction for an award…
Brian Z: “I don’t share Larry Correia’s politics, but I don’t feel entirely comfortable being told I must be non-politicized either!”
I’m sorry, who’s told you that? And can you provide a link?
JJ, come on, obviously Steve Davidson did. He said if I publish a list of recommended works that I think are “deserving”, that is OK, but if I my recommendations are motivated by a political agenda (instead of what is “deserving” which is undefined), that is wrong.
Brian Z: “GRRM argues he’s recommended works for the Hugo without asking the author for permission and does not feel there should be a double standard.”
I don’t have the ability to go trawl through numerous posts and dozens of comments right now, but as I remember it, GRRM made 2 points: 1) asking permission to put someone on your recommendation list is not required; 2) what the Puppies did is not a “recommendation” list.
Brian Z: “But if no one else but me sees even a small amount of irony in an editorial arguing for using the ballot as a means to help exclude “political beliefs” from the list of valid reasons”
Again, you are mischaracterizing what he’s said (and I am starting to believe that repetition implies deliberation). He’s saying that the Slate itself is a political agenda. He recommends using the ballot to make it clear that such abuse of the Hugo Awards system is not acceptable.
Of course it was a recommendation list. Davidson has defined it as a recommendation list with a political agenda.
Kim Stanley Robinson is a popular writer who has been known to let his politics get in the way of a good story and come out with a heartfelt clunker. If someone posts a list of left-wing recommendations that includes his next book in large part because they approve of his politics, is that forbidden too? What about those people who chose to read no white men for a year, is their recommendation list political? One’s politics may inform all of one’s choices. Is adhering scrupulously to “literary” standards when nominating for a fan award a political choice too? I’m not sure if I know the answer, or if Mr. Davidson really does.
Brian Z, you said the following:
“He said if I publish a list of recommended works that I think are “deserving”, that is OK, but if I my recommendations are motivated by a political agenda (instead of what is “deserving” which is undefined), that is wrong.”
Where are you getting that from Davidsons article? What he said was:
“I don’t have to worry about whether or not a nominated work is really good and deserving of the award: if it’s on a voting slate, it’s taken itself out of the running so far as I’m concerned ”
That translates quite clearly as if your work is on a voting slate for any reason, his default response is to rank it below NO AWARD.
You’re quite clearly confusing his reference to an “eligibility list” ie, a list of work that is eligible for that year with your own “list of recommended works”.
snowcrash,
People have been posting lists of recommendations and suggestions from 1953 until the present without interruption.
Davidson defines the “voting slate” as being a recommendation list with a political agenda. Do you agree?
Brian,
How are you managing to read that into Davidson’s words?! You are so wrong it is beyond belief.
Put simply, there is a vast divide between a post that says “btw, my novel X is eligible for the Hugo Awards this year” and “nominate these works by these authors in order to give greater recognition and influence to the political positions we embrace”. – 2nd half of 7th para.
He is saying that it is the Puppies that place their politics into the conversation about the slate. Everyone else is mainly focusing on the slate itself. There is no politics in rejecting a slate, except that you don’t like slates. It is the Puppies that are using all the derogative acronyms and claim victimhood. But not the victimisation of making a slate(they are currently claiming their slate isn’t a slate) – but because people who oppose their actions deep down hate their politics. Which is total BS.
Something else Mr. Davidson said down in the comments just struck me:
Organized voting campaigns are the exact opposite of what the Hugo Awards are about and I believe that if we go down this path (because the most immediate and potentially effective way to counter what Sad Puppies is doing is for the group that THEY claim is in the majority to do the same, and if they are in fact starting from a majority position and choose to go down that path, no work championed by underdogs (real underdogs or self-appointed underdogs), we’ll quickly see the demise of the Hugo awards, and I don’t want that to happen.
Do you get the sense that the whole debate is framed in terms of how the real or self-appointed underdogs (and I appreciate he caught the irony there) can best save the Hugos from the Puppies? How about thanking them for their participation, then making a point to remember to nominate next year?
Oops, stuffed up my HTML. Obviously only the second para should be italicised.
“How are you managing to read that into Davidson’s words?!”
I’m sorry, can you quote what I said that I’m managing to read into Davidson’s words? Just to be completely clear, not because I’m challenging you.
I was responding to your comment to Snowcrash
Davidson defines the “voting slate” as being a recommendation list with a political agenda. Do you agree?
Got it, thanks.
“They do so by by creating a false equivalence between a voting slate with a political agenda behind it and non-politicized eligibility mentions.”
Doesn’t that define a voting slate as a list with a political agenda behind it, in contrast with a non-politicized list, like “here are a bunch of things I like and intend to nominate”? Or if not, how do you read the sentence.
Brian Z: “Doesn’t that define a voting slate as a list with a political agenda behind it, in contrast with a non-politicized list, like “here are a bunch of things I like and intend to nominate”? Or if not, how do you read the sentence.”
No, it defines a voting slate as a slate, and eligibility mentions as eligibility mentions:
“They do so by by creating a false equivalence between a voting slate with a political agenda behind it and non-politicized eligibility mentions.”
I’m seriously starting to believe that you’re a graduate of the Brad R. Torgersen School Of Putting In Other Peoples’ Mouths Words They’ve Never Actually Said.
You claim good faith in your postings — yet you keep doing this mischaracterization thing over and over and OVER again. How is this “good faith”?
Oh, looks like we’re back to debating the definition of the word “slate” again. Because we need to do that every few days in case we’ve forgotten the last comment section where we did that.
Brian please read my third para. I state that the only people talking politics are the Puppies themselves.
Up until now I didn’t know what the politics of most of the Puppies were. If they wanted to talk about their politics on their site – fine. If they want t tell their readers that they have Hugo nominateable stuff up for grabs – fine. But when they tell their followers to vote a slate, which is an inherently political act; and that when that slate is criticized, claim victimhood based on their politics, all of a sudden their politics is in my face. And that is something I don’t need.
Ah, I see the tactic now. Reminds me of an annoying person I used to interact with, who got so obsessive about how one draws boundaries that nobody could do so to his satisfaction. “You say that is blue and this is purple, but that first one looks purple to me. Who’s to say I’m wrong?”
Still, being a quixotic fool, I’ll give it a shot.
The difference between a rec list and a slate is in the pitch. A rec list is either no-sell or soft-sell: “I thought this stuff was pretty neat, and I’m thinking of nominating it. You might like it, too.” A slate is hard-sell: “This is the good stuff, and if you’re a right-thinking person like all my REAL fans are, you’ll nominate it like I am!”
Some people get hung up on how large the slate is, but it’s possible to have a one-item slate. The Scientologists did it in the late 80s with the first Mission: Earth book, and it got No Awarded. People tend not to mind those as much, simply because they can’t do much damage even if they succeed – one clunker out of five contenders isn’t much.
The Puppies committed a more greivous sin last year and compounded it this year. Their slate wasn’t about how good their choices were, but how awful the people making other choices were. Instead of “good versus better, decide for yourself,” it was “good versus evil, vote with us because those people are putting the very existence of SF at risk.” Which is, y’know, insane.
I love rec lists. Most of the time, they’re made by real fans of the works, and they’re more than happy to gush about why this book is cool or how neat this plot twist was… they’ll geek over it at the drop of a hat, because they love the work and want to share that. I haven’t seen a shred of that from the Puppies. They’ve incanted the rote phrases, “this is good,” “cracking good story,” and “I liked that,” but that’s all they say. They’re remarkably reluctant to say why they liked it or what was good about it. It smells fishy, like drones advocating for things they haven’t read because they’ve been told to do so. There’s something wrong there.
Give me rec lists all day long, but shove that slate spam. I’m not going to trust someone’s judgment that Book X is good if they’re too busy frothing about the Evil Others to tell me what’s good about the book.
Wildcat, we’ve gone over this before, but we don’t seem to be on the same page yet.
Let’s try a concrete example. Here is what I would consider an excellent recommendation post:
http://wrongquestions.blogspot.co.il/2015/03/the-2015-hugo-awards-my-hugo-ballot.html
Ms. Nussbaum lists five things she wants to nominate in each category, then explains why. Myself, since nobody has time to read everything and I tend to trust her judgment, I use this kind of post to help me decide what to read. Is that bad? No. Do I assume that she has no political views whatsoever, or that those views don’t inform her recommendations? No.
I understand that I’m “putting words in his mouth” here, and apologize if I’m misrepresenting him, but I hear Mr. Davidson saying, as he made explicit in a comment I just quoted above, is that publishing a voting slate ceases to be OK when there is organized campaigning surrounding it. I guess that might include things like crossposting on several blogs, designing a catchy logo, and stirring up the enthusiasm of your fan base.
Saying that is wrong or can have a negative effect on the awards is OK up to a point. But it also becomes problematic, because all authors have to self-promote these days – their publishers ain’t gonna do it. Some people can act aloof, like Alastair Reynolds, and never win a Hugo, but just because it worked for him, it ain’t gonna work for everybody.
I don’t mean Mr. Davidson is wrong – but I do hear him saying something more nuanced than “slate = bad.”