[Lorric]

E, so do I understand correctly, you're just talking about your personal taste rather than wanting that taste imposed on award ceremonies?

About the Puppies, I don't know enough about the subject matter to know if they actually were discriminated against, but I do think that the belief was sincere. I don't think this was some cheap grab for awards, and a lot of people seem to have bought into it. It looks like they thought they were being discriminated against and so took matters into their own hands to combat that discrimination.

I said early in the thread that I think it will be interesting to see what happens after. It's unfortunate, and this year's awards will certainly have taken a heavy hit in credibility due to it. But what's done is done. Now people need to sit down and start talking about where this all went wrong and fix it. It's counterproductive to all involved if this degenerates into a politicised farce. The Hugos would soon lose all credibility and maybe even collapse completely and then everyone loses. And no one wants that.

[The E]

Just a small tidbit here. You claim that it wasn't politicized, well isn't that the exact accusation from sad puppies? That the whole enterprise was skewed politically in a way that perhaps just felt natural and lacking in ideology in any way to those who were inside of it like a fish being unaware he is inside water? Kinda reminds me that particular Errant Signal's video about politics in video games. There's never "politics" when things are just running well to you, it just feels "natural".

That is certainly a possibility. Still, I find the analysis Storridge and GRRM did to be compelling, more so than the case Correia et al have made.

E, so do I understand correctly, you're just talking about your personal taste rather than wanting that taste imposed on award ceremonies?

Yes, I am. I have no desire to impose my views on these matters on anyone, and I have certainly no desire to have another's opinion imposed on me.

About the Puppies, I don't know enough about the subject matter to know if they actually were discriminated against, but I do think that the belief was sincere. I don't think this was some cheap grab for awards, and a lot of people seem to have bought into it. It looks like they thought they were being discriminated against and so took matters into their own hands to combat that discrimination.

Oh, the belief was certainly sincere, but again: So far, it doesn't look particularly justified to me. Please read this.

I said early in the thread that I think it will be interesting to see what happens after. It's unfortunate, and this year's awards will certainly have taken a heavy hit in credibility due to it. But what's done is done. Now people need to sit down and start talking about where this all went wrong and fix it. It's counterproductive to all involved if this degenerates into a politicised farce. The Hugos would soon lose all credibility and maybe even collapse completely and then everyone loses. And no one wants that.

Here's the thing though: The awards haven't been awarded yet. That happens in August.

[Mr. Vega]

The Hugos are so biased against right-wing authors that Orson Scott Card won back to back Hugos for Best Novel.

I'm going to let that sink in for a second.

If you still aren't convinced, read George R. R. Martin's posts that were linked earlier in the thread.

On the subject of who should be considered for Hugos, no, political stances alone should never, ever be grounds for disqualifying someone for nomination for a literary award, doubly so if the awards are for speculative fiction, where an everything goes attitude needs to be encouraged.

But if you don't even think that some of the individuals you're going to be sharing the stage with are people, and have made statements about harming their kind due to that fact, you deserve to have your ass thrown out. I think that goes beyond political opinion.

[Luis Dias]

I'd argue that the reason Eurovision isn't taken seriously is precisely because all those machinations are deniable, they just feel wrong. If some crazy actor started saying it was all a scheme and proved it with his actions by winning it, then people would suddenly become interested again, just like when a sham is exposed.

I agree with the "love bit" though.

The Hugos are so biased against right-wing authors that Orson Scott Card won back to back Hugos for Best Novel.

He won his last Hugo award 24 years ago.

[Grizzly]

Regardless of what people think about what the Hugo Award's political biases were previously, it all pales in comparison to what the 'puppies have turned it into: Only one or two writers in each catagory of the awards are not on the SP or Vox Day lists.

[Mr. Vega]

Also, was KJA's nomination the work of the sad puppies?

[The E]

Well, he was on the SP3 slate.

[Flipside]

I'd argue that the reason Eurovision isn't taken seriously is precisely because all those machinations are deniable, they just feel wrong. If some crazy actor started saying it was all a scheme and proved it with his actions by winning it, then people would suddenly become interested again, just like when a sham is exposed.

I agree with the "love bit" though.

The Hugos are so biased against right-wing authors that Orson Scott Card won back to back Hugos for Best Novel.

He won his last Hugo award 24 years ago.

The thing is, the reason that Eurovision became such a joke was because of bloc voting that was obviously designed to meet political goals rather than artistic ones, that's why nobody really makes an effort any more, because they know it doesn't matter how good or bad they are, the relationship between their governments has far more impact on the vote, if you inject the same mentality into the Hugo awards you'll get the same result.

The ironic part is, it won't damage sci-fi any more than Eurovision has damaged music, but it will just make the whole award thing less relevant, so at the end of the day, it just seems a case of people firmly taking aim at their own feet.

[Ghostavo]

This suggests there may have been some collusion with a member of the award committee and an editor from Tor

[Lorric]

There's a comprehensive report about her and her activities here.

I read that. Ugly stuff.

I wonder if there might actually be a legitimate case to blacklist this one. Since she's been attacking her fellow writers directly, that could be seen as damaging the competition. The personal and the professional are entwined.

[The E]

This suggests there may have been some collusion with a member of the award committee and an editor from Tor

Also a bunch of very angry rhetoric and capital letters and a measly two links. Not really that credible, by my estimation.

[Ghostavo]

Have you actually read it? Why should I be expected to read the links you posted when you can just write "lol, TLDR"?

Summarizing it for you, how did Teresa Nielsen Hayden know that Larry Correia had been nominated before he rejected the nomination and announced it?

[The E]

I read it. And the author manages to blow that question up into several paragraphs worth of angry ranting. And all of that not to prove that the Hugo organizers are corrupt or manipulating votes or anything that would actually matter, but no. It's all about the evil Teresa Nielsen-Hayden and journalists writing hit pieces.

[Ghostavo]

I read it. And the author manages to blow that question up into several paragraphs worth of angry ranting. And all of that not to prove that the Hugo organizers are corrupt or manipulating votes or anything that would actually matter, but no. It's all about the evil Teresa Nielsen-Hayden and journalists writing hit pieces.

I was going to write that TNH knowing about the results before hand could mean in terms of corruption of the Hugos. But you know what? I'm tired.

If in the end you will ignore anything I write in favor of "Well, the author is obviously angry and biased" I might as well not waste my time.

[MP-Ryan]

I'd been tangentially following this for a while, read GRRM's piece before it was posted here. Whether Sad Puppies / Rabid Puppies have a point I'll leave to others to work out.  From GRRM's analysis, it appears not.

Whether they're justified in putting forward groups of candidates... well, yeah.  Anyone is free to conduct advocacy work, whether or not we agree with it, on what work deserves recognition and what does not.  We all have different tastes, whether politically-motivated or not, and are free to act on them.  If the people who are so vociferously against SP and RP don't like those slates, they are free to (1) advocate for a rule change, (2) nominate their own slates, or (3) both.  Or they can ***** online and trash their opponents reputations (not that ****heads like Vox Day haven't done all the damage they can do to themselves).  There's a far bit of hashtag activism in this whole thing which isn't accomplishing much at all... much like certain other online movements/counter-movements whose names shall not be uttered.

On the notion that we should judge a work independent of its author, I actually agree.  There are a lot of ****heads that write really compelling work; there are also a lot of really awful works written by some otherwise great people.  Awards should be for merit.  On the other hand, I fully support activism and boycotts of people who are REALLY ****ty, their word notwithstanding.  For example, Orson Scott Card, despite having written some things I've found interesting, will never see so much as a cent from me because of his political views and who he uses his money to support.  Does that mean his work doesn't deserve an award? Not necessarily - but I wouldn't have a problem with people promoting another on-par-for-quality work over his on an award slate.

I grow increasingly wary of online campaigns against the injustice-du-jour because I'm not entirely convinced that there is truly a right or a wrong side to many of them, just slightly different perspectives being blown way out of proportion in social media.  And as far as the Hugo's go, there seems a relatively straightforward fix that either hasn't occurred to the people opposing SP/RP, or simply hasn't been acted on, to which I say:  stop hashtagging and do something about it already.  All awards ceremonies are political *gasp*.  If you want your politics to win, start doing something about it. Irate tweets, blogs, and Facebook posts without a course of action don't count.

But Vox Day is a straight-up bigoted asshole, lest there be any confusion on that point.

[Turambar]

I find it hilarious how butthurt the conservative folks are about their ideas sucking so much that they can't legitimately win awards.  I wonder if this 'controversy' has a conservapedia article.

[Bobboau]

@MP-Ryan:
You would not believe how refreshing it is to hear a reasonable attitude such as yours presented here. Thank you.

[swashmebuckle]

It seems like there's kind of an awkward tension between SciFi's pluralist "lets explore lots of different ideas with our imaginations!" current and the basic idea of an award, which is a pretty unicultural "There can be only one victor!" jam. These cracks in the foundation are there in all art awards to a greater or lesser degree though (the Annual Biggest Statue Awards being the notable and ironic exception), so maybe the Hugos' problem is really that there just isn't enough money to hold everything together at the moment.

$40 buys you a vote? What the dunkey dung is that? All the legit awards are transparent 'money-grabby under a thin veneer of artsiness' affairs where the people voting have (or at one point had) a vested interest in the promotion of the medium. Your voting strategy has to either be only the people who are paying serious dues and really want to promote it or otherwise let anybody vote with as low a barrier as possible a la Kids Choice Awards. Putting up a middling barrier to voting is the worst possible method. If legit award shows worked that way, you would see "The Passion of the Christ" taking home the Oscar for Best Documentary.

You think I'm done ranting?! I've gota  GOld StarrOK. People think the Hugos are about "norming" and exercising social control? That's a joke, home slice! Those chumps can't even exercise proper control over the people who win! As the recent recipient of HLP's prestigious Gold Star, there have already been several occasions where I've kept my mouth shut because the Gold Star Award can be revoked at any time and I didn't want to risk losing that sweet added bit of luster in my late posting career. Can a Hugo even be taken away? If Battuta wins a Hugo and then we figure out he's a genocidal robot, is Hugo gonna come to my house and pick up my Kindle and rip off the cover of all of his Ebooks that were sold with their badge on it? The Gold Star is ten times the award the Hugo is! Even in this very thread I've wanted to give Goober and Zacam and Karajorma WHO I NOTE IS CONVENIENTLY ABSENT a piece of my mind but that shiny star by my name has held my tongue. You know what?... NO LONGER! I'm tired of this tyranny, it's time to stand up for femalnism and let slip some choice words!

Ah, but the star, the star. Well, maybe just one choice word:

Spoiler:

Marmaduke

[Grizzly]

basic idea of an award, which is a pretty unicultural "There can be only one victor!" jam.

Quote sniping FTW

But... As the Hugo Loser's club shows, being nominated in itself is a great honour - it's a bit like the olympics - sure you want to be the best of the best, but if you lose, you are still part of the best.

[swashmebuckle]

I agree with that, I just think that any group that tries to position itself as an authority on a given (highly subjective) subject and goes about making a show of picking out winners and losers isn't ever really going to be in sync with the artistic side of things, especially in a field founded on an infinite diversity of "what if" types of ideas. What an award system is in sync with is industry-wide promotion and making a lot of money. The Oscars rake in colossal sums of money for the movie industry every year because not only do people watch the show, they've gone out beforehand and seen all the movies that got nominated or even just got Oscar buzz. I suspect Science Fiction readers are just as passionate as movie buffs if not more so despite the much smaller nature of the business, but if the Hugos are their main award then the industry seems to be doing a pretty bad job of protecting their collective brand.