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.
And sorry, about to mount a hobbyhorse. You’ve been warned.
I actually sort of consider myself conservative: Michael Oakeshott’s Rationalism in Politics and Roger Scruton’s A Political Philosophy are two books I love. And I love accounts of Burke (even if I’m not actually a fan of his Reflections). I think one must pay attention to history, avoid sweeping changes when possible, and provide continuity between present and past. Hell, I even feel we have moral obligations to the deceased which partly means continuing their projects.
But when it comes down to behavior, it’s often the self-proclaimed conservatives who want to sweep everything away, base their claims on an imagined history, and–let’s face it–be assholes and ignore and belittle other people’s traditions and concerns. It’s really irritating–and why for convenience sake I generally identify as a liberal. People like Jay really, really frustrate me.
(and just noticed that andyl largely said what I wanted to say, but better. not going to waste this rant though).
So I hear GRRM gave out his own awards afterward? I hope he publishes the list.
– Matt Y, about City of Stairs
Ah, but it’s also got anti-colonialism woven into it – not in your face, but it’s there nonetheless – plus one of the characters makes a speech denouncing tyrannical, legalistic religion near the end.
So had it made the ballot, some of the Puppies (JCW, most definitely) would have hated it, even though it’s a great book.
And needless to say, everything I said applies to the Puppies. By using a Slate they gleefully violated the traditional norms of Worldcon. They also advocate radical change (“burn it down” etc) and have the strangest view of sci-fi history and the Hugo awards I can imagine. They like to say Heinlein would never win nowadays. I wonder what they think of Asimov or Le Guin.
They are just awful.
Burke opposed colonialism! So did Hume!
In short, modern conservatives are in many ways much worse than traditional conservatives.
ETA: Shutting up now. I should only ride my hobbyhorse so far.
Enough of this. Time to get started on the 2015 nominations. Time to read Uprooted.
That is what bugs me so. He just asserts, e.g. claiming that the Puppy Slate is representative of conservative taste. Pretty much nothing he says is true or backed up at all.
That’s been the operative mode of the Pups throughout the last six months. The volume of raw bullshit that has come from the various Puppy mouthpieces has been nothing short of amazing.
@nickpheas: Uprooted is on my list–it’s incredible (I finished it, took a deep breath, and started over again because it was SO good).
Also highly recommending: N. K. Jemisin’s The Fifth Season First of t trilogy, alas, which means I’ll have to wait for the next one.
Will R.
No need for him to publish it! WorldCon published it for him!
http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2015HugoStatistics.pdf
One for each of the categories no Awarded, with the winner the one below the fold. Then one each for Annie Bellet, Marko Kloos, and Eric Flint for Actions above and beyond.
@Alexvdl: As many Hugo nominations as Mike Resnick has, the all-time top nominee is David Langford with 55. See http://www.sfadb.com/Hugo_Awards_Tallies for more rankings.
@alexvdl Thanks for enlightening me on the algrrmthm.
OK, that one, I really should be banned for.
@ Andyl: Agree with you on the use of unadorned “conservative.”
In the U.S. (since that’s all I can speak to, and I know there are different meanings/shades in other countries), for some decades now, there’s been a difference between “economic conservative” and “social or evengelical conservative,” with shades in between. Unfortunately, when Reagan began the Southern Strategy, wooing white populist/religious groups with racist dogwhistles (“Moral Majority” my ass), it was the first steps on the path to today’s Tea Party and the domination of the Republican politics (especially on the state legislature and gubnatorial levels). I’m hoping to see the extremist evangelical side and the more moderate financial side split at some point…..although in all honesty, I think the biggest problem in American politics is the corporate and special interests funding of ALL politicians (I think Bernie Sanders is the only one not taking the big bucks at the moment)…sorry, will shut up now.
But yes “conservative” has to be clarified….
@Shao Ping: Good rant.
And then of course there are the libertarians to complicate things in the US……
Let’s.
My favorite novel so far is Flex by Ferrett Steinmetz.
Uprooted looks really good, too; I’ll have to read it.
The Mary Sue about the awards:
http://www.themarysue.com/puppy-transphobia-hugo-awards/
NPR about the award:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/23/434013387/amid-a-hubbub-at-the-hugos-puppies-see-little-success
Vulture about the award:
http://www.vulture.com/2015/08/how-this-years-hugo-awards-got-hijacked.html
Boing Boing about the award:
http://boingboing.net/2015/08/23/sad-puppies-rabid-puppies-los.html
Wall Street Journal:
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2015/08/23/no-puppy-love-at-science-fictions-hugo-awards/
The Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/aug/23/no-award-hugo-awards-following-controversy
Rrede
I was worried; your posts at the top of the page worried me because they didn’t sound like you, and it seemed as if you were stepping, or possibly jumping away.
Losing a Hugo nomination says nothing about you and a great deal about the people who stole it from you. Please remember that a lot of people admire you, and your work, and we are greatly looking forward to seeing you one day getting the Hugo you so greatly deserve..
I think the absolute rejection of slates is pretty damning. It probably means that nobody is actually going to want to be on a slate for next year, unless it is for a different reason than getting an award. Say, a political reason or to make a point. It would be lovely if this motivated the puppies to promote their preferred work, in a, you know, “read this, this is amazing – old fashioned space battles and stuff, tons of fun”-kind of way, instead of spending all their time thinking up names for the people who disagree with them.
I hope people are bookmarking all the Pup blogs & etc in which Pups make noise about yeah, we’re gonna nominate SJWs so that the CHORFs gotta No Award their own kind! Because any time the Pups put forth a no-it-can’t-possibly-be-a-SLATE-‘coz-we-didn’t-call-it-that which is totally an honest expression of What Works They Love, it will be helpful to be able to cite their own we gonna stick it to the SJWs!!1! rhetoric right back at them.
Of course, pointing out the Pups’ hypocrisy and incoherence won’t dissuade a dyed-in-the-wool Kulturkampf warrior from their tribal allegiance to the Pups. That’s fine; it’ll still be a good litmus test to help distinguish between knowing minions and useful idiots.
@Cubist I’ve already seen one in the wild, but there are better things to do in life.
I know that is VD’s big amazing plan. But I think the weakness of it is that people will nominate and vote for work that they like. If the Puppies had nominated really excellent work it would have been difficult to sort out what deserved an award and what did not. So if VD nominates a bunch of work that would have been nominated anyway I don’t have a problem with voting for it. I think that VD will end up trying to promote garbage from his publishing house rather than truly good work. He just won’t be able to help it.
My voting procedure this time involved ignoring whether any given work was on a slate or not. So if the Puppies nominate some high-quality, broadly popular works next time, my reaction will probably be to say “Mission F****** Accomplished” and happily vote for some of those.
There are a few authors whose work I won’t read or support, sight unseen, but in most cases they’re not of such caliber that I feel I’m missing very much. The probability that I’ll avoid voting for an otherwise deserving work on that basis is pretty low.
Not that anybody would imagine that I did but I didn’t post a message saying “YOU MADE US DO IT!” on Brad T’s blog. He edited it afterwards. https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/science-fictions-so-called-true-fandom-throws-women-under-the-bus/
Ever so classy.
Torgersen edited a number of comments, it seems.
Apparently Brad is editing every non-Puppy comment to say the same thing.
Wow. Just….wow.
@rrede – Yeah, that sounds familiar. I think I liked the main character of the first… two(?) books more than you, but mostly I remember the worldbuilding. Loved that.
@Camestros His rationale there has to go down as an all-time classic. I foresee a trend of well-manicured comments sections. Blogscaping, they’ll call it.
“YOU MADE HIM EDIT YOUR COMMENTS”
It’s Pravda 770, so we know a good Potemkin Comment Section when we see one.
What a shock. Sarah Hoyt defending the transphobic? I am so shocked and surprised.
you know what? If your only contribution to the party is trying to ruin it for everyone except your own friends and supporters … then yes I don’t really want you to come. If you are determined to turn yourself into a martyr over that … knock yourself out.
Best demonstration yet that Brad and co. are covering their ears and ignoring any outside influences, such as reality.
Apparently Brad is editing every non-Puppy comment to say the same thing.
But it is the “SJWs” who are censoring people.
Hypocrisy thy name is Brad Torgersen.
Oh wow he did the same thing to Chris Gerrib and someone called KA.
I know Camestros; he wouldn’t say that. I know Chris Gerrib. Hitting the capslock is not his weakness. Nor would Spacefaring Kitten. So I’m going to go out on a limb and say KA and Daveon wouldn’t do that either.
Wow. I’ve seen people disemvowel comments for trolling. I’ve seen people just delete comments for trolling. I’ve never seen someone convert comments into trolling so he can complain.
I… thought somewhat better of Brad. I wonder if his commenters did also.
@clif
If he just deleted those comments he’d just be a hypocrite. Turning them into something they’re not–that’s bearing false witness.
Pups can dish it out–take it, not so much I guess.
Dave Freer 17 August:
Brad Torgersen 24 August:
Well. At this point, it’s pretty clear that Torgersen cannot and will not publicly acknowledge any possibility of error on his part. The more interesting question is, is he capable of recognizing that he and his ELE buddies done screwed the morose, immature pooch? Am toying with the idea of a betting pool re: Torgersen’s possible future behavior, based on whether he’s a True Believer, or he’s just riding the gravy train for whatever benefits he can derive from his Pupular comrades, or what.
If he just deleted those comments he’d just be a hypocrite. Turning them into something they’re not–that’s bearing false witness.
That is true. Torgersen has complained that people have called him a liar. So, in response, he does this, which is lying. Makes perfect Puppy sense.
airboy-“An objective analysis would suggest that there were anywhere from 2,496 to 3,053 hard core, SJW “no award everything as a slate vote” for people we dislike who slate nominated someone.
So approximately 2,500 to 3,050 slate voted “no award” because they were not part of the SJW clique.”
I will pay more attention when you can explain to me how you can tell the difference between SJWs who no awarded with out reading the nominees because of the slating and someone who read everything and then no awarded most of it for being trash.
@Petra–“I will pay more attention when you can explain to me how you can tell the difference between SJWs who no awarded with out reading the nominees because of the slating and someone who read everything and then no awarded most of it for being trash.”
But that’s what great for them–they don’t have to because SJWs always lie. After all, apparently there were people all over the internet who announced they were voting No Award without reading anything.
It looks like a number of them are in a spiral towards insanity.
BT is editing his commenters to make himself eligible for the Best Editor Hugo next year.
I wish everybody who got bumped could have gotten an Alfie–but yeah, ok, would have been a whole lot of rockets!
My buddy Mur accepted mine for me and she called the next morning to tell me and then sent me photos of the award with all these people at the party–Bear and Lynch and Willis and Scalzi and a bunch of others–and that is how GRRM made me cry over my phone at Waffle House without killing a single Stark.
@James:
Let me help you with your shame. Brad Torgersen’s military service means nothing whatsoever in terms of evaluating his conduct in civilian life. How he treats his fellow human beings when not on reserve deployment is what matters there. Whether he loves his neighbor as himself. Whether what is hateful to him he does not do to anybody. (That is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary.) There is no scale where “Goes on deployment as agreed when he signed up for reserve duty” balances out or overtips “Accuses colleagues of whom he is jealous of only succeeding for illegitimate reasons and accuses fans who favor work he doesn’t like of conspiracies against him and his buddies.” Those are separate things.
If you stop indulging him you’ve got a good chance of no longer feeling unmanned by the dude.
We don’t serve with Brad Torgersen. Instead we share a fandom with him. Within that fandom he is a toxic presence. As a public figure within that fandom, he is corrupt and dishonest and bitter and small. He is thin-skinned and exquisitely sensitive about his own feelings and “honor” and blithe about the feelings and honor of anyone he considers outside his circle. There are plenty of service members who manage to show up for their tours while not being those things in their non-military lives.
We are, right now, approaching a crux in Brad Torgersen’s life and career, whether he recognizes it or not. It is painful to be rebuked for your conduct in such a public way. The natural, human instinct is to lash out, to shirk introspection and give in to rage. The hard thing to do is recognize that some rebukes we earn. Some rebukes we need.
Torgersen right now has to realize that there is no way for the Sad Puppies campaign to actually garner awards and acclaim for his cronies and friends. Indeed it can only hurt their careers or at best embarrass them. Brad Torgersen’s choices led to several of his buddies and business partners suffering public humiliation, and if his Evil League of Evil tries it again, it will happen again.
That is the reality. Just as two years of Puppy-slating taking ballot spots is a trend, two years of voters rebuking slates in the final voting is also a trend. If Brad cares about his friends and colleagues, if he genuinely wants to help their careers, he needs to find another way to do it.
Or, he can go the Vex Doh! route and use his buddies and business partners for purely destructive gamesmanship. He can subject them to embarrassment, disappointment and scorn in the service of denying pleasure to people he hates, people he considers enemies and spends his free time dreaming up insulting terms for. He can use the people in his life as disposable ammo in a war against “the CHORFs.”
If, and only if, his “honor” is so compartmentalized and limited that he can only spare it for his time in uniform.
He can take the pain of this rebuke and learn from it and grow. I don’t expect him to do this. It’s hard for anybody, and Torgersen has given every evidence of being unusually thin-souled and weak-willed. But the opportunity is there, if he will leave off the self-righteousness and self-pity long enough to seize it.
Thanks to the Fan Gods that this is, maybe, over…
The Hugos have been a punching bag and worse, for far too long.
I’ll stay away until it gets better. Sad to say.
You’re being very decent, Jim H. Thank you.
@Harold Osler:
Hey wait a minute! If SJWs always lie and they said they were voting No Award without reading anything…well, help me out here. This seems like a very difficult problem.