While I was in an elevator leaving the Hugo ceremonies, Frank somebody looked me in the eye and said “How’d you like that. That’s what you wanted, wasn’t it,” in a surly voice. Since he was being rude I told him to get off my case.
But let me answer Frank’s question now. The whole situation is a tragedy. It would have been a worse tragedy if any of these slate nominees had been rewarded with a Hugo. For that reason, yes, the outcome was what I voted for.
That should not detract from the accomplishment of Hugo ceremony hosts David Gerrold and Tananarive Due in pulling off a ceremony that was often funny, rich in creativity, and somber when appropriate (Gerrold was reduced to tears by seeing Nimoy on the in memoriam list).
Things began with a giant grim reaper figure lumbering onstage accompanied by an evil assistant. Three Star Trek redshirts, led by Due, battled with them and the lone survivor, Due, cleared the stage so that a reluctant David Gerrold could follow her out.
Some other highlights were Robert Silverberg’s “blessing of the Hugos” — a reminiscence of the “tension, apprehension and dissension” that plagued the 1968 Worldcon, including intermittent clouds of tear gas drifting up from downtown Berkeley, and to dispel similar tensions in 2015 he ended by taking out a tambourine and performing the Hare Krishna chant sung by street-roaming initiates back then.
Later, Connie Willis took a turn on stage, talking about her experience being bitten by a bat, and a mild concern about possible vampirism. Then she reassured Gerrold and Due about the challenges of emceeing the Hugos, remembering half a dozen things that have actually gone wrong at Worldcons, and suggesting a couple more that haven’t gone wrong yet but could, all of which despite being comedy seemed to leave Gerrold and Due a little more shaky than before she started.
During the introduction, Linda Deneroff of Sasquan’s WSFS Division laid the foundation for Hugo voters exercising the no award option. And it came up several times in the pro categories, as you know, though at the beginning there was a whole string of fan categories which had winners and the night seemed darned near normal for a little while.
TAFF delegate Nina Horvath was the presenter of all the fan categories. Gerrold personally handled most of the categories where there was no winner (though not ONLY those categories, so it wasn’t entirely a tell.) And for the dramatic categories he was assisted by a lifesize Dalek, which provided considerable amusement.
The acceptances were fun, best of which was Pat Cadigan reading Thomas Heuvelt’s speech from a tablet, with her characteristic asides and humorous timing. Campbell winner Wesley Chu obviously enjoyed himself, spontaneously falling to his knees before the bearer of the Campbell tiara so it could be placed on his brow.
Although I had a press seat in the balcony, the house lights were so low I couldn’t see a screen or write a note. Thus the File 770 Hugo coverage was provided by commenters watching the livestream — you all did a hell of a job, and extra credit for finding links to the voting stats and other commentary!
Definitely buying a tablet or something before I tackle another Worldcon though. This hotel computer is so limited — can’t edit or post photos, can’t copy between windows, etc. etc. But I will recharge my Kindle and be back at work in the morning.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Went on safari to Puppyland. I see that total meltdowns are the order of the day, yes? And that the puppies are doing their best to logically and reasonably refute the voters’ decisions here by highlighting their status as petulant male anatomy parts? Good, good, please proceed. I brought enough popcorn to last at least four days.
That Cedar Sanderson piece has some top comments, my favourite being:
I was talking with a friend today who is a practicing Psychiatrist, and he characterized the SJWs as pure evil. Mentally ill bullies who can only destroy.
Classic.
“That Cedar Sanderson piece has some top comments, my favourite being:
I was talking with a friend today who is a practicing Psychiatrist, and he characterized the SJWs as pure evil. Mentally ill bullies who can only destroy.
Classic.”
Haven’t met many “Psychiatrists” who throw around terms like pure evil.
I must run in the wrong circles.
Okay, I think I’ve figured out what bothers me about the we-should-not-have-applauded thing.
Tone policing.
For a whole lot of people, the Puppies insulted our friends, our colleagues, people we loved, work we were proud of, communities we valued. And they did it over and over and over and over and over. And when the moment comes when finally, finally, the end is in sight and it’s not what we feared and the whole festering mess has clearly been soundly repudiated…must we go immediately into self-flagellation about whether our applause was too unkind to people, many of whom willingly threw in with–well, insert your favorite lines by Wright and Day here?
I think it’s pretty crummy to judge how people express themselves in those situations. Nobody got violent. Nobody stood on the battlements screaming obscenities. The boos were stopped immediately. It was just applause.
I can’t find it in my heart to think that because a thousand people did not do a stoic more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger that they did something wrong. Let people feel what they feel and express it harmlessly. Otherwise it feels like saying we should just swallow it so that people on the Puppy ballot don’t feel like we were mean, and for god’s sake.
He might need to practice some more.
@RedWombat
Very true, what else were the crowd actually to do? Things like individually booing puppy nominees, or noticeably only cheering non-puppy noms, would have been crass, but as far as I could tell from the uStream nothing of the sort happened. Expecting that people would remain stoically silent as the result that the majority of WorldCon members wanted and voted for was announced is just unrealistic.
Mark: it looks like one of their new talking points is that Gerrold asking for no boos was Gerrold “banning” pro-puppies from booing at No Award.
… while totally ignoring that this meant that, when their names and “works” were read off in the list of “nominees”, there was no booing of them by non-Puppies (as many people were no doubt tempted to do — something I would have not wanted to happen).
The No-Booing rule was a courtesy to everyone involved, especially a courtesy to the Puppies who have, many times over, earned the unhappiness and scorn that non-Puppies feel, and I applaud Gerrold for setting that rule and enforcing it.
As Red Wombat points out, expecting non-Puppies not to applaud the fact that the integrity of the Hugo Awards was maintained in Puppy-ridden categories is just more of the unjustified entitlement the Puppies have been exhibiting: “we’re going to force our stuff onto the ballot, and you should be forced to read it and vote for it and not applaud when we don’t win”.
No. I don’t think they’re entitled to demand those things.
I’m glad I was at home so no one (except my husband and my cat) got to see/hear my reaction to the No Awards. Particularly the Related Work No Award.
@JJ
Precisely. I have to say that when Gerrold made the comment I’d heard no boos on the uStream, but that could have been down to the mic position.
I’m convinced that if, say, Kary English had been trotting up to collect a Hugo (and while I didn’t rate her story enough, I’d have accepted others thinking it was above NA) there’d have been applause of at least the polite variety and little or no booing.
The quality of the fandom condemning intellects corralled by the Puppies is best summed up by this tweet, from a person calling his or herself Escape Velocity, that appeared on Saturday. During the build-up to the Hugo ceremony.
When I read that on the #HugoAward live feed, my eyes just about popped out of my skull. This SJW condemning hater of all-who-don’t/didn’t-vote-for-Puppies doesn’t know that GoH stands for Guest of Honor? Methinks this individual has never, ever been to a SFF convention. Or any convention.
I also doubt that he or she will be around next year. Save for some irksome tweets.
@Chad
That particular twitter account had me trying to figure out how to use Stylish to hide selected tweets from a search. I never did figure it out and finally gave up on Twitter because the signal to noise was becoming so horrible.
Mark: I’m convinced that if, say, Kary English had been trotting up to collect a Hugo (and while I didn’t rate her story enough, I’d have accepted others thinking it was above NA) there’d have been applause of at least the polite variety and little or no booing.
I’d like to believe that, too. I found Heuvelt’s story horrible and was not pleased that it won, but I certainly wasn’t going to boo it. I applauded politely, as civilized people do.
I was fully prepared to shut down any booing of Puppy names around me during the readings of the nominees, but it was not necessary — everyone listened quietly and politely, as civilized people do.
After the first (I think) category the hosts also asked people to refrain from any cheering or clapping until all of the nominee names in each ategory had been read out, neatly avoiding loud applause for ordinary nominees which may have been conspicuous by its absense for many of the slate nominees. I thought that was rather kind.
(Gosh, that Freer post. When has OGH ever edited or editorialised on anything in that fashion??)
“ISIS is a term that recognizes them as a legitimate national government, Edwin. If you’re determined to take a stand that knowledge is bad, at least go with ISIL. I mean, unless you want to come across as thinking they are a legitimate national government. Hope that helps!”
Obama declared that ISIS “has no place in the 21st century.” That is plainly incorrect. They do have a place in the 21st century, and a somewhat large place at that, unfortunately.
SJWs, and Obama is one, make declarations and express lofty words, as if that changes the facts on the ground. Cleverly calling them ISIL and Daesh hasn’t stopped the defenestration of gays, the sexual slavery of women and small children, the crucifixions, the total destruction of art and architecture in the region.
ISIS should not have a place in the 21st century, and legitimate justice warriors such as Torgersen are making sure that happens. Meanwhile SJWs play all day with labels, as history rolls on.
@Gabriel F
The worst thing about what the Puppies did is that people and works that should have been on the ballot never got to be there.
@Gabriel F: LOVELY essay on “Invisible”–you so brilliantly summed up everything I was sort of fumbling to express and couldn’t.
@Nigel: *falls off chair laughing*
I see what you did there!
@RedWombat: Tone policing.
For a whole lot of people, the Puppies insulted our friends, our colleagues, people we loved, work we were proud of, communities we valued. And they did it over and over and over and over and over. And when the moment comes when finally, finally, the end is in sight and it’s not what we feared and the whole festering mess has clearly been soundly repudiated…must we go immediately into self-flagellation about whether our applause was too unkind to people, many of whom willingly threw in with–well, insert your favorite lines by Wright and Day here?
I think it’s pretty crummy to judge how people express themselves in those situations. Nobody got violent. Nobody stood on the battlements screaming obscenities. The boos were stopped immediately. It was just applause.
THank you!
YES!
That was bugging me too, and your analysis makes *so* **much** ***sense.***
Part of my abandoned comment to idk included a paragraph roughly along the lines of:
You keep claiming you have no skin in this and don’t really care about the Hugo’s, so maybe you shouldn’t try to police the emotional reactions of people who spent the last few months being insulted and lied about while something they loved got dragged through the mud.
So… Basically a +1 @RedWombat. 🙂
RedWombat, thank you. I will confess that I bounced up and down in my computer chair and laughed with relief at every “No Award.”
I’m sorry that the Puppies’ path brought them only pain. But they were told during SP 1 & 2 what the result would be, and they doubled down with SP3 — and like a willful toddler they put their fingers on the stove…and got burned.
And their candidates will ALWAYS have to live with the fact that their work lost to “No Award.” The Kindly Ones DO punish hubris.
So, Edwin, I guess you figure your part in consigning ISIS to the dustbin of history is being Brad’s sycophant on internet fora? I suppose it could work…
I’m still not clear why bad behaviour in one arena ought not to count because of actions in another arena, but I doubt I’ll get a straight answer any time soon so I think I’d rather talk to people I actually like instead.
@Meredith: I feel a song coming on!
I want to apologise to anyone who felt like I was tone policing. I’m being honest when I say that I winced at that first big cheer. But I completely understand the impulse in that room and would probably done the same if I was there. I don’t blame or judge anyone. A spontaneous reaction is by definition not consciously decided ahead of time, it is what it is. I had the luxury of watching it alone hundreds of miles away, AND I only know a couple of involved persons personally. And the last few months have been painful and aggravating on a near daily basis for me–I’m sure it has been excruciating for those physically and emotionally closer to the whole thing. Besides, it is not like the Puppies would not have taken umbrage no matter how the crowd reacted.
“I am a skilled author, one of the finest working today.”
I paraphrase:
“Boy, your ego’s writing checks your skills can’t cash!”
Dr. Strangelobe, the man really, really, really needs a pshrink. It’s ok to think those things when you’re looking at your face in a mirror — but you damn well NEVER put something like that in print and most especially not on social media.
The applause at the first No Award? It was a spontaneous emotional response, a catharsis. I also cheered in relief that the Puppies were not the silent majority after all. That the Hugo was not going to be awarded to mostly crappy works (I did my due diligence and read them and I stand by my assessment) placed on the final ballot by bloc-voting.
This after months of bile, of being told that I didn’t nominate & vote for things I loved, but only for things that checked the correct PC tickyboxes? After months of Puppy spokespeople spreading toxicity, belittling fans, casting aspersions on the integrity of the Hugo administrators? Of course I applauded the first No Award. I am not a Vulcan or a robot.
Though I did also feel bad for the nominees caught up in the situation, I was more concerned with the big picture.
Also, massive kudos to the ceremony organisers. The request to wait until after all the nominees were announced before applauding worked well. After the first No Award, we went to the memorial which served to bring it back to a more even keel. Also note that the awards were announced in a different order to the sequence in previous years as a management tactic. The MCs (Due & Gerrold did an excellent job under difficult circumstances) took it on themselves to announce all the No Awards (but not only the No Awards). Add to that Gerrold’s admonishment that applause was appropriate, boos were not.
The ceremony went about as well as we could have hoped given the circumstances.
@Dr Strangelobe
One can only imagine the results.
You want books that use strange and unusual English words and are fun to read?
Try Diana Gabaldon’s Outlander series.
ETA: The applause for subsequent No Awards was *much* more muted as the relief wore off. Or at least that’s my sense of it.
In the latest Breitbart imitation of “journalism” (not surprisingly, written by GamerGater Milo Y), VD mentions
Damn, it really burns when you snort wine up your nose.
And then the bartender says “What is this? A joke?”
Re: Clapping
I winced a bit but I think no matter the result people were going to clap. There was too much stress built up – what would the voting return ? I think people more than anything wanted the night to go without incident.
@Lori Coulson
I calls ’em like I see them.
And I’m tired of that pretentious … person.
@ Rrede
Thanks, I’m glad! I had so much conflict in my brain and heart to try and get down in a coherent fashion!
I’m not sure what other reaction to No Award would be possible.
Dead silence?
If they’d managed to co-ordinate everyone into giving one massive sigh of relief, then all slid off their chairs as the tension left their bodies.
God Stalk
Oh, yes, if they’d all punched the air and chanted GOD STALK. That would have worked.
Did any of the puppies note that Due led the applause for Related Work, that she stood there and did the exaggerated applause thing that you do to get the audience to respond, and that the audience did respond? It was an act of kindness which seems to have completely overlooked.
Me, I was at home. When No Award won Related Work, I not only applauded, I fucking Kermit-flailed. Possibly I’d’ve have been more polite if I had been in public.
The other thing about the “boos are not appropriate” was that it helped remind us of our better natures, and helped ensure that when we looked back on the event, we will see joy and celebration, not our worse natures coming out. This is true of the puppies, too, though perhaps they wouldn’t mind having a tarnished memory. But our memories will be gold and not dross, and that’s partly because the MCs did a good job under very difficult circumstances.
I never did hear the booing that David Gerrold shut down, though I was on the other side of the theater (row G). Never heard any booing at all. But it was an extremely good decision to shut down the individual finalist applause. The bits during the Campbell announcement made it clear that most slate finalists would get a polite smattering while non-slated would get loud cheers.
Couldn’t help joining in the applause for the first No Award, but after that I settled for grimly marking an X through a whole category in my Hugo program book whenever “no award will be given” was announced. Kept my hands busy. (I’d gone through beforehand and marked finalists as Sad, Rabid, both, or none so I could keep better track during the ceremony.) I think I reflexively clapped a couple of times for one of the later announcements, too, probably Novella. There was just so much relief in the air.
@Wildcat
There was a few boos just about audible at the end of one of the cheers&claps for one of the No Awards (the first fiction category?), at least on the livestream. There weren’t many and they were few enough that you couldn’t hear them until people had mostly stopped clapping.
Ensuring that people clapped all the nominees as a whole was an excellent choice, and done on the fly. I was impressed.
@Meredith
I didn’t hear any boos on the livestream, but I was using a phone with a very tinny speaker so I may have missed them. Hopefully the video will be up soon enough – I missed the pre-show and everything before Tambourine Bob.
The move to ask for applause at the end of the nominees was a slick one.
I saw the latter part of the preshow and honestly, you didn’t miss much. Especially as the start of the awards began to run late and the three guys started digging a little desperately for more things to talk about. Maybe the early going was more interesting.
@Mark
They were quiet, only audible for about a second (or less) at the end of cheering, and there weren’t many of them (I think at most I could isolate about three voices), so I’m not surprised if people missed them. I’m glad it got shut down, boos at the Hugo ceremony are inappropriate, although I can sympathise with any Puppies in the audience who felt the need to counter the cheering and attempt something to support their candidates.
@Meredith
Thanks for clarifying. Must have been my tinny tiny speaker making me miss them. While any booing is obviously disappointing, such a tiny minority is pretty much to be expected when passions (and possibly drink!) are running high. The interpretation in puppydom seems to be that people were shut down from booing No Award, but it could just have easily been people booing puppy nominees. There’s certainly a lack of people coming out and saying “I booed No Award and got told to stop” which they surely would be.
@cmm
Well, I’ve watched most of the business meetings, so at this point I’m just being completist!
@Mark
It’s impossible to tell what the motivation for booing was. As far as I know no-one has admitted doing it let alone said why. Whatever the reason, it was correct to shut it down, just as it was correct to get the crowd to applaud after all the nominees were announced instead of individually. I’m not impressed that the Puppies are focusing on the booing and not the hosts preventing an obvious difference in levels of support between candidates.
Meredith: I’m not impressed that the Puppies are focusing on the booing and not the hosts preventing an obvious difference in levels of support between candidates.
They are lucky that Gerrold shut the booing down. There were so few of them that their booing would not have been heard above all the loud applause for No Award — but if people had been allowed to boo the individual Puppy candidates as their names were read, it would have been very loud and noticeable.
It amazes me that they don’t seem to recognize this.
It amazes me that they don’t seem to recognize this.
They probably do realize this, but the truth has never stopped them from whining. Complaints based upon lies are pretty much the Puppy stock in trade.