[Dragon]

I think that when it comes to art, personal views of the author do not need to be factored into a decision whether something is good or not. H.P. Lovecraft was ridiculously racist by modern standards (less ridiculously so by contemporary standards), you can tell that from his works. Yet it doesn't take away from them, and "colored" people read and enjoyed his works just like white ones. Indeed, given the era his works are set in, this gives them a feeling of authenticity few modern writers would dare to evoke (indeed, many of those touches often get left out of adaptations, not always for the better).

If a work is good, then it is so regardless of whether the author is a prick or not. If he smuggles too much of his political views into the work, it'll simply stop being good, especially if those views are bigoted (or not, but writing something where you'd hate the message, yet can't help to admire otherwise takes a true master). As such, awards should be given out regardless of the author's personal rants. If he's too bigoted to share a room with people he hates, he can simply decline the award. Literary awards are given for literature, not social conduct.

[Grizzly]

<stuff>

Scotty worded my point in his post a lot better then I could have done. However, I am curious about one thing: "Witch hunting"? I thought that witch hunting is focussing on one individual and painting her as the source of all evil, whilst I am denouncing a campaign because of it's methods. Vote rigging to counter vote rigging is a terrible idea, esp. as the original claim of vote rigging seems to be unfounded as the infamous George RR Martin so neatly explains in this particular notablogpost.

Since reading that blogpost though (I follow GRRMs (not-a-)blog quite a bit), I also read this particular blogpost. That, along with General Battuta's posts here in this thread, made me realize that people are getting hurt over this. Your post makes a lot more sense in that context. I hate the justify the means approach, especially since lately the means seem to run counter to the ends. I apologize for having contributed to that in the OP, and I shall now excuse myself from the thread as I do not want to contribute to this extremely toxic issue in any way.

[Lorric]

This isn't an issue about the definition of the word "bigot" but more about the idea of how/when/where it gets applied and under what consideration/discretion vs. just by presumption. Especially with social media making it a lot easier for people to instantly jump on pretty much anything in a heartbeat and flail the **** out of it and suddenly somebody ends up dead, and for what reason?

This.

In this thread: Lorric defends equality.

Ftfy.

Goober are you seriously, seriously saying that John C. Wright should be nominated for or have the potential to receive an award of any kind despite his public declaration that black people aren't socially evolved enough to have developed a real society (among many other, equally or even more heinous things)?

What the ****, man.

Of course he should be nominated. Hugo awards should be apolitical, the work should be judged solely on its literary merit. Not by political views of the author. It should not matter whether the author is a white supremacist, black supremacist, anti-womens rights, radical feminist, far right activist, bigot, communist, anarchist or islamic fundamentalist.. if she writes great stories, then thats all that should matter.

This is an excellent summary of my stance on this.

@z64555

There is no contradiction. This isn’t about the individual consumer. They can spend their money on whatever they please, for whatever reason they please. This is about integrity of giving out awards. It should be based purely on the work. Judging the work, not the author. A level playing field for one and all.

The Swashy Award nominees for best self-characterization in this forum thread are:

I just gave you a Gold Star for that, I don't think I've laughed that hard in a while now.

Looks like Zacam wants to win the next Swashy Award. Blatantly buttering up the judge! Conspiracy!

It was nice to see someone try and inject some levity into the thread.

*looks in*

*sees all the mess*

*laughs at swashmebuckle's post*

*Gets the **** out*

It's so nice to have good, nuanced arguments furthering the thread and enlightening its readers like this.

I expect he has better things to do with his time than get dogpiled on and have his words twisted and be vilified and told he is wrong by The Clique.

Do such things qualify as good, nuanced arguments in your World I wonder?

As for the rest of you I am very happy to see that there are plenty of you who don’t subscribe to this imo insanity. It's agreeable to not tolerate intolerant behaviours. But you don't reverse or correct that intolerant behaviour by delivering against it the same format of intolerance.

[The E]

*looks in*

*sees all the mess*

*laughs at swashmebuckle's post*

*Gets the **** out*

It's so nice to have good, nuanced arguments furthering the thread and enlightening its readers like this.

I expect he has better things to do with his time than get dogpiled on and have his words twisted and be vilified and told he is wrong by The Clique.

Do such things qualify as good, nuanced arguments in your World I wonder?

If he has better things to do, which I would totally understand, then the done thing is to not post in the thread at all. To ignore it, and move on. Not to drop in, claim that everything's a mess, and drop out again. Can you understand why doing what Luis did does not do the discussion any good?

See, I know for a fact that Luis has opinions on this. We talked about them on Twitter. I would have liked to have his perspective here, where thoughts can go for more than just 140 characters. Instead, he ****posted and got out. That's not what I want to see in this, or any, thread.

[Lorric]

Ah, I understand.

[The E]

On topic:

Goober are you seriously, seriously saying that John C. Wright should be nominated for or have the potential to receive an award of any kind despite his public declaration that black people aren't socially evolved enough to have developed a real society (among many other, equally or even more heinous things)?

What the ****, man.

Of course he should be nominated. Hugo awards should be apolitical, the work should be judged solely on its literary merit. Not by political views of the author. It should not matter whether the author is a white supremacist, black supremacist, anti-womens rights, radical feminist, far right activist, bigot, communist, anarchist or islamic fundamentalist.. if she writes great stories, then thats all that should matter.

This is an excellent summary of my stance on this.

In principle, I have no issue with voting on merit alone, judging the work independent from the author. It's a good, useful stance.

But let me introduce you to a bit of a dilemma I recently encountered. Have you heard of Benjanun Sriduangkaew? She was one of 2012's big revelations, a young, female, lesbian author from Thailand who wrote stunning short fiction. She was a progressive SF's poster child, an aggressive and loud voice on social issues and a highly skilled writer, culminating in her being nominated for the John Campbell award for best new writer (Which is one of the Hugo awards) in 2014.

But that's not all she was. Under several pseudonyms, she was also an intensely toxic part of SFF fandom. She was trolling, manipulating, deceiving and has, together with the substantial following she gathered, driven other people out of fandom, and writing. There's a comprehensive report about her and her activities here.

Now, does that change her writing? Does this make Chang'e Dashes from the Moon worse? Of course it doesn't. But it does raise the question whether an individual like Sriduangkaew is someone we want to be honored or validated through awards. Whether we're willing to accept the toxic influence she, or someone like her, brings to the table in addition to her literary achievements. Personally, knowing what I now know, I cannot in good conscience recommend her work, even if it is good. The same mechanism is true for people like John C. Wright and Vox Day: I cannot disassociate their creative works and the rather toxic stuff they say and do elsewhere. These are not people I want to have as ambassadors for SF/F, as representatives of the best the field can do in this particular year.

[Bobboau]

*looks in*

*sees all the mess*

*laughs at swashmebuckle's post*

*Gets the **** out*

that's probably the correct response.

[Lorric]

@ The E

I Haven't heard of her.

I know what you mean. In terms of honouring people, I look at it differently. Yes, the author claims the reward, but I look at the work. The work will survive after the author's bones have turned to dust. Should we lose great work just because the author is a bad person?

In terms of the damaging impact someone might be having, I don't think the awards ceremony is the place to be opposing that. Let them claim the award if they have earned it. This individual did something positive and deserves the acknowledgement. That doesn't mean the bad things they have done just get swept under the rug. If the person is doing horrible things, then resistance to that should be through the proper channels. Through the law if it warrants it. I've got no issue with someone being exposed for what they are to the World. But it's credit where credit is due. Whether that is for producing great work or for being a horrible person.

In terms of your moral dilemma, I would advise to separate the work from the author. That doesn't mean you can't give your opinion on the author and the work at the same time. Give both. Then let the person decide what they want to do with all the information at their disposal.

[The E]

In terms of your moral dilemma, I would advise to separate the work from the author. That doesn't mean you can't give your opinion on the author and the work at the same time. Give both. Then let the person decide what they want to do with all the information at their disposal.

I am perfectly capable of that. I read John Ringo for fun, for crying out loud (and that dude's personal politics, which quite frequently enter his writing, are lightyears away from my own). And if it was simply a question of "is this book good or not", I have no problems recommending them while adding appropriate caveats.
But when it comes to figuring out whether a person should get an award, with all the prestige and sales-boosting that implies? That's a different issue. Not when the disagreement is over normal politics, of course. But when Wright goes on an epic rant over one of the tamest, most family-friendly portrayal of a bisexual couple, or VD calls people of color inhuman, then I'm going to firmly say no. Those people are NOT the best SF has to offer, and regardless of the merit of their work, dickishness on that scale does IMHO disqualify them for receiving awards like the Hugo, at least temporarily.

[Ghostavo]

In principle, I have no issue with voting on merit alone, judging the work independent from the author. It's a good, useful stance.

But let me introduce you to a bit of a dilemma I recently encountered. Have you heard of Benjanun Sriduangkaew? She was one of 2012's big revelations, a young, female, lesbian author from Thailand who wrote stunning short fiction. She was a progressive SF's poster child, an aggressive and loud voice on social issues and a highly skilled writer, culminating in her being nominated for the John Campbell award for best new writer (Which is one of the Hugo awards) in 2014.

But that's not all she was. Under several pseudonyms, she was also an intensely toxic part of SFF fandom. She was trolling, manipulating, deceiving and has, together with the substantial following she gathered, driven other people out of fandom, and writing. There's a comprehensive report about her and her activities here.

Now, does that change her writing? Does this make Chang'e Dashes from the Moon worse? Of course it doesn't. But it does raise the question whether an individual like Sriduangkaew is someone we want to be honored or validated through awards. Whether we're willing to accept the toxic influence she, or someone like her, brings to the table in addition to her literary achievements. Personally, knowing what I now know, I cannot in good conscience recommend her work, even if it is good. The same mechanism is true for people like John C. Wright and Vox Day: I cannot disassociate their creative works and the rather toxic stuff they say and do elsewhere. These are not people I want to have as ambassadors for SF/F, as representatives of the best the field can do in this particular year.

Then why keep naming the best new writer award, the Campbell award? If the issue is sullying the name of the awards, the fact that one of the awards is named after a bigot makes it a moot point.

[Dragon]

But when it comes to figuring out whether a person should get an award, with all the prestige and sales-boosting that implies? That's a different issue. Not when the disagreement is over normal politics, of course. But when Wright goes on an epic rant over one of the tamest, most family-friendly portrayal of a bisexual couple, or VD calls people of color inhuman, then I'm going to firmly say no. Those people are NOT the best SF has to offer, and regardless of the merit of their work, dickishness on that scale does IMHO disqualify them for receiving awards like the Hugo, at least temporarily.

No, it doesn't. You advocate bringing politics into something that is a purely literary award. Especially in light of what you said before (that this doesn't make the work any less good), it's hypocrisy. Credit is where credit's due, and awards should be given out fairly. If a racist tennis player wins a tennis match, would you disqualify him because he's racist? No, as long as he didn't do anything unsportsmanlike during the match, the ref has no right to deny him the cup. it's up to his manager or club (or, in extreme cases, authorities) to punish him for public displays of racial hatred. But, regardless of all that, he still won the match. He might be a prick about it, but if he didn't break any rules on the court, he won and that's beyond question.

Also, it's up to media to bring up the winner's dirty laundry in the aftermatch of the ceremony and let people know he's not a good person. This usually happens anyway, press loves doing that. A literary award committee should be impartial and is definitely not supposed to incite people boycott an author because of his views. People are free to do that on their own, if they so please. Judges should stay out of all disputes like that. Leave behind-the-scenes stuff to someone else. If you allow judges to engage in politics, then you'll have the award lose credibility.

[The E]

No, it doesn't. You advocate bringing politics into something that is a purely literary award. Especially in light of what you said before (that this doesn't make the work any less good), it's hypocrisy. Credit is where credit's due, and awards should be given out fairly. If a racist tennis player wins a tennis match, would you disqualify him because he's racist? No, as long as he didn't do anything unsportsmanlike during the match, the ref has no right to deny him the cup. it's up to his manager or club (or, in extreme cases, authorities) to punish him for public displays of racial hatred. But, regardless of all that, he still won the match. He might be a prick about it, but if he didn't break any rules on the court, he won and that's beyond question.

Okay, here's the thing.

I am explaining my personal preferences when it comes to these awards, and how I would vote if I had a vote. Yes, there's a political component. Yes, there's a difference between me voting on an award, and me recommending something to a friend or in a thread on the internet. Because I do believe that award winners for awards like the Hugo should be representative of the field. Homophobes and internet trolls? Not representative. People who used outrage mongering to get a nomination? Not representative (And yes, from what I can tell, SP/RP is outrage mongering at its finest).

I am voting, as I should, based on my personal preferences. Those preferences do include a preference for award winners who are non-****ty persons.

[Lorric]

In terms of your moral dilemma, I would advise to separate the work from the author. That doesn't mean you can't give your opinion on the author and the work at the same time. Give both. Then let the person decide what they want to do with all the information at their disposal.

I am perfectly capable of that. I read John Ringo for fun, for crying out loud (and that dude's personal politics, which quite frequently enter his writing, are lightyears away from my own). And if it was simply a question of "is this book good or not", I have no problems recommending them while adding appropriate caveats.
But when it comes to figuring out whether a person should get an award, with all the prestige and sales-boosting that implies? That's a different issue. Not when the disagreement is over normal politics, of course. But when Wright goes on an epic rant over one of the tamest, most family-friendly portrayal of a bisexual couple, or VD calls people of color inhuman, then I'm going to firmly say no. Those people are NOT the best SF has to offer, and regardless of the merit of their work, dickishness on that scale does IMHO disqualify them for receiving awards like the Hugo, at least temporarily.

I don't know if I can dissuade you from your personal in an ideal World opinion on this, but what about the issues of actually implementing such a thing? Even if we imagine you get your vision, it wouldn't stay like that. Besides the issues of how to actually manage such a system and where to draw the line, you'd get pressure groups wanting their personal blacklist put in place, people running the awards tweaking the eligibility rules to their liking, and then suddenly Award X is cut off to atheists and homosexuals, Award Y has restrictions on the content of the books crippling creativity, Award Z is a mess of Political Correctness gone mad. People might be innocent victims of smear campaigns to render them ineligible. It's Pandora's Box and once it's open I don't think you can put everything back in the box and shut it again.

If you have no discrimination, then no one will be treated unfairly. There won't be any victims. There won't be any preferred ideologies or people valued less than others. It is safe, clean and fair. Objective not subjective.

[666maslo666]

In principle, I have no issue with voting on merit alone, judging the work independent from the author. It's a good, useful stance.

But let me introduce you to a bit of a dilemma I recently encountered. Have you heard of Benjanun Sriduangkaew?

Give her the award if her work is up to it. I have no problem with an author being recognized for the quality of their work, and at the same time being shamed by sci-fi community as a toxic person. "Separating work from the author" is not just useful, it should be the main paradigm of any self-respecting awards, otherwise we risk Hugos degenerating into a popularity contest and a political slapfight.

[Luis Dias]

See, I know for a fact that Luis has opinions on this. We talked about them on Twitter. I would have liked to have his perspective here, where thoughts can go for more than just 140 characters. Instead, he ****posted and got out. That's not what I want to see in this, or any, thread.

I'm sorry The_E, it didn't come out well I agree. My sentiment was not so much "stoopid thread", more like "minefield thread, just *don't*".

Regarding my own views, they have been swinging and your own words and retweets and whatnots have indeed influenced my take on it. It also doesn't help that while I have my own views, I see here Battuta posting his own much more "insider" opinion on the matter (he is a TOR sci fi published author, after all!) and I just think that in this particular case, my words won't help many people anyway.

As a last sentiment, and take this with all the grains of salt of the world, I'd wish worldcon could finally come to terms what the Hugo's are actually about, if they are to be taken as seriously as an Oscar or a Pritzker, or if they are just this small sci-fi convention fans' thing. If the latter, well, rewrite the rules and make sure only those they approve of can win the prize. If the former, then a serious rethinking of the prize could be in order.

[The E]

I don't know if I can dissuade you from your personal in an ideal World opinion on this, but what about the issues of actually implementing such a thing? Even if we imagine you get your vision, it wouldn't stay like that. Besides the issues of how to actually manage such a system and where to draw the line, you'd get pressure groups wanting their personal blacklist put in place, people running the awards tweaking the eligibility rules to their liking, and then suddenly Award X is cut off to atheists and homosexuals, Award Y has restrictions on the content of the books crippling creativity, Award Z is a mess of Political Correctness gone mad. People might be innocent victims of smear campaigns to render them ineligible. It's Pandora's Box and once it's open I don't think you can put everything back in the box and shut it again.

And that the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies used explicitly political means towards an explicitly political goal, at the expense of a whole slew of novels and writers which under normal circumstances would have gotten their nominations and potential wins doesn't bother you? As far as I can tell, based on the pieces by GRRM and Storridge linked to in this thread, the politicization of the awards that the Sad/Rabid Puppies are fighting against doesn't exist. Now it does. Now the awards ARE politicized, quite blatantly so, because now there's an actual equivalent to a political party operating where there was none before.

What, I ask you, is more in keeping with the spirit of these awards? Me expressing my preferences, or me voting on a slate of works approved by party leaders?

If you have no discrimination, then no one will be treated unfairly. There won't be any victims. There won't be any preferred ideologies or people valued less than others. It is safe, clean and fair. Objective not subjective.

Dude. This is about matters of taste. The only objectivity here is in the aggregate, and the SP/RP people have thoroughly destroyed any possibility of it. There was discrimination at the Hugos this year. On an unprecedented scale.

[Bobboau]

how is this for a compromise, give horrible people the award if their work merits it and use the occasion to shame them?
not officially, or at the moment of them receiving it, but other than that fair game?
them winning the award gives you an opportunity to bring up all of their bad stuff?

[The E]

I don't think a compromise is needed. I'm talking about my personal stances on these issues, I am not trying to outline a code of conduct or anything for the Hugos.

[Luis Dias]

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".

And if you look at the last page filled with violent attacks of certain particular people due to their ignobil opinions on any matter (absolutely zero to do with Hugo awards), the last thing that comes to mind is "wow, this field is really apolitical, just look at these words, so void of politics". Beale, for all his .... ahhh... ideas, might not be 100% wrong in his take that there were machineries at work. Look at his numbers on his blog.

Regarding Beale's ideas... well. I have read many many things in my internet life. I like to proudly think I've stomached a lot of shenanigans just so I can try to understand the world from the writer's own point of view. Beale is at the forefront of the crazy, not entirely the nastiest of the nasty, but then I've read Unreserved Qualifications as well, so there.

[Flipside]

Thing is, are the Hugo awards any different from any other ceremony along similar lines? They are all popularity contests and political slap-fights at the end of the day.

I think the issue is not that the awards are politicized in some way, that's inevitable, the issue is that this is not how you deal with it, you'll just turn the Hugo awards into a kind of Eurovision song contest, and no-one takes that seriously any more. This kind of thing is far more likely to break something that has a problem rather than fix it.

This always happens when something that was considered 'niche' becomes more mainstream, look at Punk Rock, 'mainstream' Punk is practically an oxymoron in the first place, and the same goes for sci-fi/fantasy, it's big business now, not just the arena of kids and spectacle-wearing 'geeks' a-la George McFly, there's more money to be made, and that creates industrialization of the industry with its inevitable power-plays and conceptual battles and ends up killing the thing at the very heart of it, the love of the story.