Featured in today’s roundup are David Gerrold, Vox Day, Jim Wright (no relation to John C.), Jason Cordova and Jason Sanford, Amanda Green and Edward Green, Mick and Mackintosh, Alexandra Erin, Philip Sandifer, plus all the other woofers and tweeters.
Eric James Stone
“Ruminations on Nominations” – April 20
- Voting: Various people have suggested voting “No Award” above any of the Puppy nominees regardless of the merits of any particular nominee, as a way of protesting the use of bloc voting for nominations. I think that’s an understandable reaction, and it’s not against the rules, so I do think that’s a valid strategy. But I think it’s unseemly; not as unseemly as bloc voting, but still unseemly. I don’t think it’s right to punish all the nominees on the Sad Puppies slate because they swept most of the available spot on the ballot, because I doubt any of them had any idea that was going to happen. This whole Sad Puppies seems to have grown out of what happened a few years ago when some people in the WorldCon community deliberately snubbed Larry Correia because of his politics and religion. Larry decided to push back, and received pushback on his pushback, and things escalated from there. It’s time to stop the escalation. I think George R.R. Martin, John Scalzi, and many others have the right idea: check out the individual nominees, and vote based on whether you consider them worthy or not. If that means “No Award” in some categories, so be it, but I think you should at least give the nominees a fair look.
- Self-Correction: Given the reaction this year, I think it’s fair to say people should be on notice about what it means to be on a slate, and a blanket No Award strategy for any nominees who are willing participants in a slate next year would be appropriate. Also, people will be alert to warn others who might have missed this year’s controversy as to what being on a slate means. With regard to the Sad Puppies campaign, I hope that if they do decide to continue with Sad Puppies 4, it is with a recommendation list far broader than a slate of nominees. Hopefully, next year slates will not be a problem, and so amending the rules (which takes two years) will turn out to be unnecessary.
Vox Day on Vox Popoli
“There is a theme” – April 21
This is an interesting exercise in rhetoric. Mr. Gerrold clearly wants us to be very impressed by his feelbads, and thereby convinced of the pure and utter evil of those who would cause such feelbads.
With all due respect, Mr. Gerrold, you’re not exactly convincing anyone. We’ve read STARTREKSHIRTS. We’ve read “If a Dinosaur Had a Cookie, My Love”. We’ve read “I am Chinese and I am Gay”. We’ve read LOOK MA, I CAN DO WHAT DAVID SILVERBERG DID NEARLY 30 YEARS AGO. The only soaring that is taking place here is the Muse of Science Fiction leaping out the window in protest. More interesting is Mr. Gerrold’s threats of unpersoning and banishment from that fine community of SF fandom, which of course proves exactly what we’ve been saying from the start.
Edward L. Green on Facebook – April 21
And when the SP/RPs do the same next year? Declare the war is over, and the Hugo is done. Business meeting votes to retire the award and box the rocket.
And when we bury it, we tell the world that Vox Day, Larry Correia and Brad R. Torgersen killed it.
Every time the Hugos are mentioned in the future, we say that same thing.
Vox Day, Larry Correia and Brad R. Torgersen killed it.
Now, I admit, at least one of those people seem to not care in the slightest that will happen.
But I suspect Correia and Torgersen might care. Or not. Hell, maybe they want their one lasting literary accomplishments to be to destroy a prestigious award like the Hugo.
Wouldn’t that look kinda neat of the cover of a novel?
“From The Author Who Helped Killed The Hugo.”
Now some might say ‘Those guys weren’t part of the RP Slate. They may have hung around them, and maybe spoke with them, but they weren’t part of it.” Correia and Torgesen are trying to distance themselves in a not distancing kind of way from this madness.
Amused how the Sad Puppies can say I'm a "rich, powerful" writer AND also maintain I don't actually sell books. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS, PUPPIES
— John Scalzi (@scalzi) April 21, 2015
Jim Wright (of Stonekettle Station) on Facebook – April 21
Some day, I hope to be on that stage receiving my own shiny rocketship, should that particular fantasy ever come to pass I’d like to think it was because I earned it on the strength of my ability and not because a bunch of you people stacked the ballot box for political reasons.
As to the Con itself, I don’t care about controversies. I. Don’t. Care. We’re gonna have fun. Repeat, we’re gonna have fun, huge goddamned fun, with a lot of really, really amazing and fun and talented people. If you’re determined to be miserable, don’t come. Please.
And on that note: for minions who plan on being at SASQUAN, I’ll be happy to meet up and share a drink and a story or two – especially if you’re buying.
Look for me, I’ll be the guy in the hat.
Alexandra Erin on Storify
“Gamergate, Sad Puppies and the default narrative” – April 19
Alexandra Erin discusses how both GG and the Sad Puppies are both operating under the fallacy that the narrative that most closely aligns with their own world view and politics is the one “without politics”
But these guys, despite their heavily ideologically, message-centered, politicized writings, see themselves as basically neutral.
— Alexandra Erin | patreon.com/AlexandraErin (@AlexandraErin) April 19, 2015
Philip Sandifer
“Guided By The Beauty of Their Weapons: An Analysis of Theodore Beale and His Supporters” – April 21
All of these tropes are, of course, immediately visible in the Sad/Rabid Puppy narrative of the Hugos. Torgersen’s paean to the olden days of science fiction is straightforwardly the golden age myth. The claim that a leftist cabal of SJWs, the details of which are, as is always the case with these things, fuzzy, but which at the very least clearly includes John Scalzi, Teresa and Patrick Nielsen Hayden, and the publishing house Tor have since taken control of the Hugos is a classic stab-in-the-back myth. And the Puppy slates feature heroic men (Torgersen and Beale) who speak truth to power and call excitedly for the people to rise up and show their freedom by voting in complete lockstep with them. It’s a classically fascist myth, just like Gamergate (gaming used to be great, then the feminist SJWs took over the gaming press, and now Gamergate will liberate it) or Men’s Rights Activists (of which Beale is one).
I haven't paid much attention to Sad or Rabid Puppies, since attention is what they want, and my mindspace is limited.
— Joe Hill (@joe_hill) April 21, 2015
Steph Rodriguez in San Francisco Book Review
“War of the Worlds: Slate Voting Games” – April 21
“In science fiction, you cannot be an out-of-the- closet conservative without people sticking their nose in the air,” said Torgersen in a telephone interview from his home in Utah. “Science fiction is almost overwhelmingly, very progressive, very liberal, and there’s a monoculture that is formed, and, if you’re not part of it, you’re on the outs.”
…For science fiction author and Hugo Award winner Kameron Hurley, she noticed a definite shift in the science fiction community over the last five years, in terms of hosting a more diverse group of authors, whether it be male to female ratios, or even a more culturally varied lineup.
“Science fiction award ballots in 2009 through last year became more diverse and as it got more diverse, it started to frighten people, and they didn’t want their own slice of pie to get eaten by everyone,” Hurley explained. “[This year], there [are] nine nominations that come from this tiny, little [publishing] house in Finland, which one of the organizers of the slate, [Theodore Beale], actually owns. So, it’s an incredibly tiny minority. It’s not even really representative of science fiction publishers, let alone the full breath of science fiction.”
David Gerrold on Facebook – April 21
Some people have posted notes that suggest they believe that the host of the Hugo Award Ceremony will use the podium as an opportunity to take revenge on the sad puppies with some scathing ridicule.
No.
Absolutely not.
The Hugo Award Ceremony is the highlight of the fannish calendar. It is the most important fan event of the year. It is not a place for petty grudges, it is not a place for divisiveness. It is a celebration of excellence. It is a celebration of our community. And most of all, it is for the nominees — it is their moment to be recognized as the best in the field. And this year, despite the slate-mongering, despite the rancor, there are still many qualified works that have fairly earned their place on the ballot.
This is my commitment. We will do nothing to spoil their evening. We will honor them, we will celebrate them. We will congratulate them if they take home a trophy, we will give them an “attaboy” even if they don’t take a trophy home.
David Gerrold on Facebook – April 21
An open letter to Brad Torgersen,
Dear Brad,
It looks to me that there is a part of this situation that you have not considered.
Regardless of how you have justified yourself, you have failed to understand several things:
The Worldcon is created fresh every year — it’s a self-assembling village. It requires the work of hundreds of fans who volunteer their time and energy to have a five day celebration of science fiction. It belongs to no one. It belongs to all of us, regardless of politics, regardless of skin color, regardless of who we love, regardless of gender. It belongs to all of us — in the traditional sense of the word “all” — with no one and nothing left out.
While you may believe your slate-mongering was a moral act, a justified act, a pushback against some kind of social justice tyranny — at least that’s how it’s been characterized by some of those who favored the slate — while you may feel that your actions are not blameworthy, you have hurt the entire community.
Mick from Mick on Everything
“Why We Need Sad Puppies” – April 20
[First-ever post on this blog.]
Query: with everything I just wrote, does it surprise anyone still reading that I didn’t know I could vote on the Hugos until Sad Puppies 2? I was shocked to learn it. No wonder the insular cliques are running the show, the rest of us don’t even know we’re supposed to be contributing to the script!
The only way to change that is to erect a big tent and get everyone in. People like the trufen who scoff at me are already there. Sad Puppies have showed the rest of us that we can join too. And as a bonus, since SP3 started, I have a list of new authors to check out so long I can’t even remember them all at once. Everybody wins!
That’s what it’s really about. I just spent 1,300+ words telling you why my fandom should count. That doesn’t invalidate anyone else’s fandom. I am still laboring to understand how “fandom” became a contest. My whole life, “fandom” has meant that I can share books, and games, and movies with people with similar interests, and they will share theirs with me, and we will both get enjoyment.
Now, “fandom” is being construed to mean the taste-makers, the CHORFs who get to tell the rest of us how awful we are for simply enjoying our entertainment. I have rarely been so enraged as when I read Making Light, or George RR Martin’s attempts to sugarcoat the groupthink, with the supposed kingmakers telling me that I don’t matter. As if my 25+ years of actually reading and supporting these genres makes me unworthy of their eminence. As if they and their ilk are better than the rest of us.
Jason Sanford
“Thank you to our genre’s many volunteers (and please don’t attack them)” – April 21
One of the most disgusting things I’ve seen since the launch of the Puppy campaigns is how people are attacking these genre volunteers. Some of these attacks are subtle, such as the Puppies saying Worldcon and the Hugo Awards don’t represent the true fans (whatever that means). But if you’re saying that, then you’re also saying everyone who volunteers to make the Worldcon and the Hugo Awards happen aren’t true SF/F fans.
Other attacks aren’t subtle, such as the attempt to create insulting names to call our genre volunteers. Or saying you’ll destroy the Hugo Awards, which amounts to an attempt to destroy the work of generations of Worldcon volunteers merely to accomplish your political goals.
I recently read a comment which sums up the pain many of these volunteers are feeling over having something they love turned into a political football. Chris Barkley, who is a long-time WorldCon volunteer and has worked on the Hugo Awards, recently wrote the following:
“As someone who has been deeply and personally involved with the Hugos Awards for the past 16 years, I find this…situation, extremely distressing. I, and many others involved with the Worldcon and the Business Meeting have worked VERY hard to make the award categories inclusive, fair, engaging and most importantly, relevant, in the 21st century. To see all of that jeopardized, by people who should know better, for all the wrong headed reasons, is something I never saw coming…”
Paul St. John Mackintosh on TeleRead
“Hugo Gernsback: The man who put the Hugo – and the bad karma – in the Hugos” – April 21
The sad Sad Puppies saga in the Hugo Awards casts an unflattering light – in fact, two lights – on the man whose name they bear: Hugo Gernsback, “who founded the pioneering science fiction magazine Amazing Stories and who is considered one of the “fathers” of the science fiction genre,” as the Hugo Awards Wikipedia page says. In fact, in 1960 he received a special Hugo Award as “The Father of Magazine Science Fiction.” And the two lights are: first, Gernsback’s personal ethics when dealing with his stable of pioneering science fiction authors, which according to quite a few sources, were shoddy. And second, the whole notion of “good old-fashioned SF and fantasy, the stuff the readers really love,” as George R.R. Martin described it, which Gernsback personified and which many Sad Puppies proponents have claimed to be defending.
Tim Hall on Trebuchet Magazine
“Watching the Hugos burn. Sci-Fi Controversy Wreaks Havoc” – April 21
[Largely repeats two of Hall’s blog posts referenced earlier, for those who’ve been tracking these roundups since the beginning.]
At this point, the Hugo Awards of 2015 look as good as dead, and everyone is now fighting over a corpse. Whether The Hugos can be salvaged in future years is another matter, and it does need a consensus on what the awards actually represent, and who they belong to. At the moment it’s degenerated into a fight to the death which will only destroy the object being fought over. Science Fiction itself is the loser.
Maybe cooler heads will prevail in 2016. A few people have tried to build bridges and find some common ground, but they’re still being drowned out by the louder and angrier voices.
There do need to be changes, and there is still the chance that some long-term good can come out of this mess.
Slate voting has demonstrated how a relatively small minority voting the same way can sweep entire categories. But it didn’t start with the Sad and Rabid Puppies. It was broken before, and it didn’t need an organised conspiracy to do it. With a small voting pool all it took was a critical mass of people with heavily-overlapping tastes to crowd everything else off the ballot. That fuelled the perceptions, true or not, that second-rate work was ending up on the ballot simply because the author was friends with the right people, and even that the whole thing was being fixed behind the scenes by an imaginary cabal.
R. C. Hipp on The Drakehall Broadsheet
“Shakespeare and that Sad Puppies Thing” – April 21
…Othello wins hands down because the titular character has a full blown panic attack. Contemplating Desdemona’s (invented) betrayal and the reparative action required of him by the demented Man Code of his time (murdering her), Othello becomes so unhinged that he babbles half-incoherently before falling “in a trance” to the stage.
Yup, that’s a panic attack.
You probably get the idea that while elves and aliens are important to me, so are more meaty and realistic things. I like to see race, gender, and religion in my speculative fiction. I like to read about mental illness (and wellness). If the characters are fighting a daemon or a mega corporation that’s all well and good. But when it becomes clear the dragon is a stand-in for something else, something I or my friends have to deal with in real life, that’s when I’m jumping up and down in my seat.
So I don’t get the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies.
If you haven’t heard (you probably have, I’m about two weeks late to this party and in Internet Years that’s a millennia) a bunch of dimbulbs worked together to ensure that only “fun” stories were nominated for the Hugos this year. “Fun” as opposed to “niche, academic, overtly [leftist]”. Mainstream escapism for the overprivileged as opposed to anything else.
Amanda S. Green on Noctural Lives
“An update, a thought or two, and a snippet” – April 21
Frankly, I am more than disappointed with how a number of them have reacted to the current situation. Here are authors who ought to know better trying to get their peers and fans to vote No Award ahead of nominated works simply because they don’t like they think something made it onto the ballot. They don’t give a damn about the author or the work. They are making a “statement” — well, I hate to tell them this but it is a chickenshit statement and one that shows just how petty they are. I have looked at the ballot and there are works on it that I have a pretty good idea I won’t like — and yes, they come from one of the so-called slates. But I am not going to vote No Award because of the slate it was on. Nor am I going to vote No Award because I think I won’t like it. What I will do is read it, as well as the other entries. Then and only then will I cast my ballot. The only way I will vote No Award is if I think a work — after reading or watching it — is not worthy of being awarded the Hugo. Too bad others can’t do the same.
The Prussian on The Prussian
“Don’t Bring A Toothpick to a Tank Fight” – April 21
Before I go on, let me say that I don’t give a damn about literary awards. I’m a reader, not a writer, so I have no financial interest in the awards, and that is the only reason anyone should be interested in them. I’m only interested in good books – words put together on paper in a new and interesting way.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that getting an award is a bad thing or that they only go to crappy authors. Obviously not – Neil Gaiman and Harlan Ellison have won multiple Hugos and V.S. Naipaul won the Nobel Prize for literature. But on the other hand, neither Nabokov nor Borges ever won the Nobel Prize in literature, and Ray Bradbury never won a Hugo, and Terry Pratchett, Michael Moorcock and J.G. Ballard were never even nominated.
So, yeah. For someone who cares about writing and literature, the awards are irrelevant.
…Now usually in these issues, I wind up by pointing out that this is dangerous, because it opens up the field to truly scary types. That’s not true here – as I’ve said, awards are pretty meaningless, so we’re not really playing for high stakes. Just a word of warning: if you are relying on SJWs to defend issues that actually matter – anti-racialism, women’s emancipation, free speech, the defense of civilization – you are relying on people who cannot even rig an award competently.
Sci Phi Journal
“Lou Antonelli’s Hugo-nominated Short “On A Spiritual Plain” Available for Free” – April 21
You can get Lou Antonelli’s “On a Spiritual Plain” for free in EPUB and MOBI The download also includes the story of how “On a Spiritual Plain” came to be included in Sci Phi.
Jason Cordova
“#FreeSpeech” – April 21
I’ve been having a <<censored>> day so far, trying to <<censored>> <<censored>> before I <<censored>>. It’s a <<censored>> way to live, but hey, gotta <<censored>>, am I right?
A lot of <<censored>> have been contacting me this week regarding <<censored>>. One of the things I like to <<censored>> is that <<censored>> is open to the <<censored>> of <<censored>> speech. <<censored>> speech is one of the most important basics of our <<censored>> nation, yet the muzzle of <<censored>> has been slowly being applied to the <<censored>> mouth over the past 50 years. Not only is our <<censored>> of speech being attacked in the name of <<censored>>, certain individuals and groups are now <<censored>> their own allies, feasting upon them as the Ouroboros does its own tail. But it’s <<censored>> <censored>> who are <<censored>> and <<censored>>. Do I have that right?
<<censored>> of <<censored>> — it’s why we have such a great <<censored>>.
glaurung_quena comment on More Words, Deeper Hole
The theory is that one nominates the best stories you’ve read in the past year — stuff that knocked your socks off. Judging by the quality of the puppy slate, I can only conclude that they have very loose socks
Damon G. Walter on Patreon
Damien Walter is creating Nothing
Other than the things I already do.
The Hugo Awards ballot and ceremony appear to be unhanged for the last two days now. I don't know how to react.
— Ray Radlein (@Radlein) April 21, 2015
[sic]
https://twitter.com/JackLint1984/status/590507566335045632
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Thanks for the share!
Thanks for the link, Mike! Now, I need your authentication code…
Ed: Here you go — it’s BNF 5XL
“Science fiction award ballots in 2009 through last year became more diverse and as it got more diverse, it started to frighten people…”
Is there even one shred of evidence to support that which doesn’t include mindreading and the usual innuendoes that white straight men as a group are morally and spiritually inferior as well as a pack of racists? These people never stop with that stuff – not for one day. In my opinion they are incapable of it.
“… she noticed a definite shift in the science fiction community over the last five years.”
To me that remark is just awesomely funny. So have I, so have I. That’s when the White Privilege Conference busted in and Jim Crow and ancient women-hatred walked through SFF in scare quotes.
“Lou Antonelli’s Hug-nominated Short “On A Spiritual Plain” Available for Free”
I may well have been nominated for a hug or two, but I suspect you meant Hugo-nominated.
Thanks, now I have to clean diet coke off my computer screen…
Beyond Anon: Thanks for catching the typo. Though I do like that “hug-nominated” concept.
Good grief, people. The whole thing was a dumb idea but Brad Torgersen didn’t kill the Hugos. His cohort didn’t even vote in lockstep (though a few of Vox Day’s apparently did). Do you realize what descending on the Puppy Tabernacle with torches and pitchforks looks like? Step back for a minute.
There is no 62-year-old “loophole.” A slate can dominate because fans have the right to take someone’s opinion under advisement if they want to. No Award can dominate because fans have the right to nuke the site from orbit if they want to. Not a bug, a feature.
If a gentleman’s agreement was broken, then go change some hearts and minds. Who’s doing that? Mike. Anyone else?
Thanks for the link!
On the other hand, maybe the silver lining of No Award followed by Nuclear Winter is that we all have time to read a few books.
I’m tired at the level of nonsense already, but since yesterday I mentioned that I thought the Hugos were becoming less representative of fandom in general, and becoming representative only of a small subset of fandom, I would like to comment on Jason Sanford’s words:
—–One of the most disgusting things I’ve seen since the launch of the Puppy campaigns is how people are attacking these genre volunteers.—-
I have seen many disgusting things lately, but that certainly sounds disgusting too. Who is attacking genre volunteers?
It turns out that I’m one of the attackers:
—–Some of these attacks are subtle, such as the Puppies saying Worldcon and the Hugo Awards don’t represent the true fans (whatever that means).—–
???? Really? Apart from the straw man of talking about true fans (there can’t be any other kind, because anyone who feels like a fan is a true fan by definition), what is Mr. Sanford saying here, that thinking that the WorldCon is not representative of all fandom is an attack on volunteers? Really, Mr. Sanford? Some people will agree with my opinion. Others will disagree and say that WorldCon perfectly represents all fandom. But attacking volunteers? …
—–But if you’re saying that, then you’re also saying everyone who volunteers to make the Worldcon and the Hugo Awards happen aren’t true SF/F fans.—–
Free logic lesson, basic level:
a) Many X are not Y
does *not* imply:
b) Y are not X
I do believe that the post from Eric James Stone was the best of them all. And I really liked the post from Jason Sanford. Somewhere, all these people working for free to organize the conventions and the awards, were forgotten. If conventions and award ceremonies aren’t fun, people will stop organizing them.
And now some weird american cultural war is destroying everything, even for people who aren’t even living in US.
TB: ‘We’ve read STARTREKSHIRTS. We’ve read “If a Dinosaur Had a Cookie, My Love”. We’ve read “I am Chinese and I am Gay”. We’ve read LOOK MA, I CAN DO WHAT DAVID SILVERBERG DID NEARLY 30 YEARS AGO.’
And he goes and nominates, for one, that ‘Yes Virginia’ story as a corrective. This is one of those ‘go by what he does, not what he says’ moments.
Non sequitur: I’m amused, Mike, how you keep coming up for titles of these roundups. 🙂
‘thinking that the WorldCon is not representative of all fandom is an attack on volunteers?’
Yes, when it is phrased as an attack. Here’s one from above:
‘Now, “fandom” is being construed to mean the taste-makers, the CHORFs who get to tell the rest of us how awful we are for simply enjoying our entertainment. I have rarely been so enraged as when I read Making Light, or George RR Martin’s attempts to sugarcoat the groupthink, with the supposed kingmakers telling me that I don’t matter. As if my 25+ years of actually reading and supporting these genres makes me unworthy of their eminence. As if they and their ilk are better than the rest of us.’
Given that all this centers on Hugos and Worldcon, is hard to avoid assuming that the people who organise the Hugos and Worldcon aren’t being included in this charming broadside along with the usual named suspects. Groupthinking kingmaking tastemakers who think people who read to be entertained are awful and don’t count.
Lest we forget, Larry Correia was nominated before the SP thing ever began, on his own merits as an entertaining writer. Not only insulting; blatantly and stupidly false.
I liked this one, too, also from above, since Worldcon organisers (et al) and SJWs have been rendered idiotically synonymous:
‘Just a word of warning: if you are relying on SJWs to defend issues that actually matter – anti-racialism, women’s emancipation, free speech, the defense of civilization – you are relying on people who cannot even rig an award competently.’
That’s a marvelous new variation on the ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ trick. Once the allegations have proved unprovable, it’s ‘That fellow can’t even beat his wife properly!’
You can say some group doesn’t represent all of fandom, and it’s just self evident. Or you can attack some group as not representing all of fandom because you’re engaging in a process of turning the people who work and volunteer and organise into an enemy and a target so you can whip up a few votes for your slate. You either forget or you don’t care that those are real people at the end of these accusations of cliques and cabals and gatekeepers.
TB doesn’t care, not that anybody expected him to:
‘Mr. Gerrold clearly wants us to be very impressed by his feelbads, and thereby convinced of the pure and utter evil of those who would cause such feelbads.’
Utterly dismissive of every ounce of energy and time and care put into organising Worldcon and the Hugos. Contemptuous and disrespectful. Again, nobody expected different from him, but you let him set the tone, so you might as well own it.
Hampus: under “Politics,” and without commenting on points 5 and 6 which I couldn’t evaluate without reading some outrageous number of archived blog posts (others are of course free to have it), I was with him on points 1 to 3, and had no objection to 5, 8 and 9.
“4. Rules.” Surely the fans of yore, like Hari Seldon, thought long and hard before drafting/amending the WSFS Constitution. What is the ineffable quality that gave the Hugos prestige and longevity? If we don’t know, gutting the system might not be the best idea. Amendments rushed through in the spirit of punishing wrong behavior, or keeping people out, could have a variety of unforeseen consequences. Also, would some fancy algorithm maximizing fairness/happiness really be the most effective way to shortlist the best work of the year? Better test it carefully first.
“10. Voting.” I don’t feel that I have the right, at least, to tell someone they have to read something if they don’t want to.
“11. Self-Correction.” Here we are at the edge of the shadows. “People should be on notice about what it means to be on a slate.” Are we sure we want to go there?
Sorry for the typo. Should be “without commenting on points 6 and 7.”
By the way, I see “10. Voting” on Eric James Stone’s blog, but Mike has it at “11.” Was one point removed?
Brian Z:
I agree with your points on 4, but think it was covered in the text.
Regarding 10, there are other ways to check if an author is worthy than reading him/her. You can also check if a person got to the nomination willingly and knowingly using unfair methods. And if you think not, then yes, I think you should try to read the work to give it a fair chance.
And regarding 11: Yes, if there is something we should have learned from this debacle, it is to give authors a chance to not be included on slates and also give them a chance to speak out if they found out they are put on one. I really don’t want to give slate voting a foothold. That would be the end of the Hugos.
good, finish, work, collapse, helluva, dudes, CalgaryExpo, believe, people, idea, free, free, great, censorship, collective’s, freedom, liberalism, censoring, white, men, bigoted, narrow-minded, freedom, speech, country.
The words to fill in Jason Cordova’s post, copied from his blog.
Hampus, re. 4, you are right that he considered at least some of those concerns, so I suppose I was commenting more generally on the various “fixes” being tabled. My own first reaction to think some quick fix at the next business meeting might solve the problem, but not once I stopped to think about it.
If slate voting is really “the end of the Hugos” (I suppose I’m an optimist, since I am not sure that has been demonstrated yet) I have to stop and wonder, at least, if I might not rather watch them go under than participate in a campaign to pressure other readers into reading things that they truly find objectionable for their own personal or ideological reasons which are perhaps not my business to judge.
The prospect of (in effect, or at least temporarily) blacklisting an author because a third party unrelated to them has enjoyed their work and recommended it for an award, and said author has failed to publicly and unequivocally denounce said third party, also makes me more uneasy than I guess has made some other people.
Brian Z: Lets not muddy the water. There is quite a difference with adding someone to a slate for block voting and to recommend a person.
And I haven’t seen anyone propose a special paragraph to the rules on having to read all works. It’s just me personally who think you should at least try.
I was reading David Green’s Facebook post about killing the Hugos. In my opinion-
He’s right that SP/RP have the “traditional” Hugo voters between a rock and a hard place. But I disagree with his assessment that fans will blame Larry Corriea and Brad Torgersen for killing the Hugos, if traditional fans “push the button.” The only thing that will kill the Hugos is if people fail to act like rational adults.
I also don’t think he’s thought things all the way through from the perspective of Vox Day. Day doesn’t care about the Hugos, traditional fans, etc. Day cares about winning and vengeance. And killing the Hugos hands Day both on a massive scale, more so than a straight forward vote, so it is a feature, not a bug.
Day’s obviously thinking tactically and has set up a win-win situation (and probably other scenarios I haven’t gleaned yet- for example, I suspect he’s lining up the SFWA). If people vote their conscience after reading the material, he or his authors have a decent chance of collecting a Hugo award or two (Wright is good and has multiple chances of winning, and Riding the Red Horse is very good, in parts). This obviously benefits his new publishing house. But isn’t a 100% that Castalia or its authors win, only possibility, and if they don’t, he’ll have to be content with the nominations (which means he’s already won, if only to a lesser degree).
Alternatively, if Green and others reflexively vote No Award for the SP/RP candidates, then Day also wins. Remember, he took 6th on a 5 person field last year, losing to No Award. If a host of respectable authors are also No Awarded, then he’s in good company. The “No Award” rebuke is less relevant, as are the Hugos themselves. The slight paid to him last year is rendered meaningless and, possibly, he torpedoes the Hugos which gets even for a host of insults, real or imagined. Even better, Day adds to his reputation as the person who is not to be trifled with.
Either way, Day wins. If my analysis is correct, the real question is how big a win do you want to hand him? Thinking tactically, sometimes its more about minimizing losses than it is about achieving victory.
If I were thinking tactically for the benefit of those traditional Hugo voters, the best advice that they could be given would be to keep calm and carry on. Running around in a fit of self-righteous fury, threatening retaliation and consequences, serves no purpose and only benefits Day.
Hampus, these are points I hoped to clarify, thank you.
Are the magic words “I’m asking everyone reading this to nominate this list of five works as is”, at which point each author should be expected to post a statement disassociating themselves or face consequences? Or is the line somewhere else?
I don’t mean to be facetious. I would like to know what you think.
“Either way, Day wins.”
Day is going to claim victory no matter what occurs. It is a fool’s errand for people to take any action based on what they think Mr. Ten Year Revenge Plan will do.
rcade- Yes, he will. You are right. The question is how much credence do you want to lend to Day’s proclamations of victory? A smoking hole where the Hugos once where would be a clear indicator that he’s “won.”
In general, what is the proper form when repudiating a slate in the future?
“I, Author, have been informed that there is a list with my name on it. You folks had better not vote for me because I was on that list, or else I will decline the nomination.”
Do I have that right?
“The question is how much credence do you want to lend to Day’s proclamations of victory?”
Anyone who would give Day credence isn’t worth my attention. The future of the Hugos will be decided by the kind of people who have cared about them for six decades, not a grudge-nursing “arsonist” who talks like he’s an Austin Powers supervillain.
My main concern, vis-a-vis long-term strategy, is providing a disincentive for anyone else to follow in Torgersen’s and Correia’s footsteps. Ten years from now, if some popular left-winger says “hey, I’m going to draw up a slate of SF stories by African-American women and encourage all my fans to nominate them for Hugos, so that African-American women can sweep next year’s Hugo nominations”, I want the whole fannish Internet, including the putative SJW cabal, to rise up as one and say “OH HELL NO THAT WILL NOT END WELL FOR YOU”.
Brian Z:
I don’t believe in magic words. And think it is really weird to start to speculate on the exact compositions of words. The thing is just that after this debacle you should be careful about being put on slates, because now you should know what people think of them. You shouldn’t be able to use “plausible deniability” or ask what is wrong with block voting. It should be appearant by now.
Seth, I somehow doubt we’ll have to wait ten years.
Hampus, “magic words” probably didn’t achieve the tone I was going for, sorry. But in the spirit of good-natured discussion: say that you (a fan living outside the US, right?) were to post on your personal blog: “Here are five great short stories by international authors. Please read them and if you find them worthy vote and help raise the profile of international science fiction.” How do those five authors need respond? Does it change if posted by, say, Benjanun Sriduangkaew?
“Day is going to claim victory no matter what occurs. It is a fool’s errand for people to take any action based on what they think Mr. Ten Year Revenge Plan will do.”
Of course I claimed victory. RP already won this year whether the SJWs blow up the awards or not. SP sincerely believed the SJWs were sane, but I knew better.
Next year is a new game. Bring in your reinforcements. We may be able to find a few ourselves.
Mike, I just wanted to add my voice to those saying “Thank you!” for your great work collecting these round-ups. They’ve been helpful to me, in a big way, each day.
Seth, I’m sure we won’t have to wait ten years for someone on the left to propose a slate, but I’m not sure where you got “African-American women to sweep” – I assume it was a random example picked from a hat.
Brian Z:
In the spirit of good-natured discussion, I will keep the discussion on a good-natured level. As I’ve allready said: There is a difference in giving recommendations and to ask people to block vote for a prepared slate. Really, you should understand the difference by now.
Also, this is a matter of individual voting. *I* will look att authors willingly and knowingly participating in block voting attempts and vote them below No Award. From which you might glean that I think it is a good idea for others to do the same. But it is up to every voter to decide on his/her own.
If you are an author, you should be know how people feel about block voting on slates and take steps to avoid being on them. That is what I am saying.
There are good stories on the ballot and they deserve a fair read wherever they came from. Otherwise, we end up in the strange situation of objecting to Three-Body Problem because Beale likes it. I understand and share the objection to slate voting– I think it’s corrosive and needs to be addressed– but not by throwing the ballot out.
Hampus, OK. I’m genuinely curious about your thoughts on my last question (what should the five listed authors do in those two hypothetical cases) but we don’t have to belabor the issue. Thank you for the good discussion.
“Otherwise, we end up in the strange situation of objecting to Three-Body Problem because Beale likes it.”
I’m trying to picture Liu Cixin’s reaction to being told Dark Forest may be voted under No Award in 2016 because an American science fiction writer who has a small press in Europe and a blog really likes it, but I’m drawing a blank.
Brian Z: What I mean is, I don’t want slate voting to become a permanent in the Hugo process even if people whose politics I agree with are proposing the slates.
If Rabid Puppies won the nomination battle, as seems to be the case, then Sad Puppies lost. I’m surprised that the organizers can’t seem to realize this, or admit it, and still plan to continue their campaign of futility for another year.
Seth’s prediction will certainly not take ten years to play out. 2016 will be the Game of Slates. I suspect that even now the various realms are listing their nominees.
Seth: got it, thanks.
Brian Z
“Do I have that right?”
I think you are on the right track, but what you wrote uses Oldspeak and lacks the proper amount of grovelling.
+++
I, author’s name, apologize fullwise for my ownlife, my thoughtcrimes, and that ungood prole-fans have nominated me for the Hugo. I abase myself before the Thought Police and beg forgiveness, so that I will not be labeled an unperson and my works will not disappear down the memory hole. From this day forward, I will be free of crimethink and will only perpetuate goodthink.
Yes, but what kind of ballot will Game of Slates produce?
Lois, I haven’t noted any slates other than the SP/RP ones yet, so perhaps it won’t come to that. What might happen instead is that there will be more discussion about what people think is Hugo-worthy and why, here and elsewhere.
The Three-Body Problem is something I’m looking forward to reading now, based on the praise I’ve read from others about it, so that’s a start.
“Otherwise, we end up in the strange situation of objecting to Three-Body Problem because Beale likes it.”
The Three-Body Problem wasn’t on a Puppies slate. So if you’re voting No Award above slate nominees to protest the bloc voting tactic, it wouldn’t be one of the works affected.
David W – I think it’s the way to bet. Even if the SP organizers come to their senses, VD is promising another RP slate for 2016. So There Will Be Slates, and I think that means Slate Wars. The tactic has been proved effective, so I predict others will be using it.
People are decrying that the Hugo process has been broken. What it’s been has been changed, perhaps irrevocably. But change is inevitable and the question isn’t how to put things back the way they were, because that’s not going to happen. The internet will ensure this.
But prospective slate-makers should consider that you don’t win the next war by basing your strategy on the last one.
Lois, so maybe we’ll get those secret slates after all.
Lois Tilton- Well said.
If there are slate wars for nomination, I guess the there will be “No Award” for all nominees. So another lost year. And then hopefully a rule change will take care of the slate mongers.
‘Anyone who would give Day credence isn’t worth my attention. The future of the Hugos will be decided by the kind of people who have cared about them for six decades, not a grudge-nursing “arsonist” who talks like he’s an Austin Powers supervillain’
Yep, the Hugos will be just fine. The genre has plenty of talented writers who will keep writing the SF/F they dislike (and plenty that they like as well) regardless of recognition of it. The fans who’ve built it up will continue to do so regardless of the destructive intent of anyone else. It’s nothing more than a silly anecdote that in a couple years people will be laughing about.
I’m hopeful that next year won’t be Game of Slates. There has been a huge *anti-slate* backlash that should make most people (possibly even SPs, though admittedly not RP) shy away from proposing or being on a slate.
Nitpicky pt: I wish people would stop complaining that Terry Pratchett was never given a Hugo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_Postal