[AtomicClucker]

Welp, I actually have little to say about the Hugo Awards except Social Media is full of idiocy that it makes mah brain hurt.

While social media was supposed to an ideal place for people to exchange and share information, not all that info is going to be pretty and people don't agree. (I would argue in the wake of GG and Twitter hashtags, grandstanding IS a thing now because people recognize it generates buzz, no matter the message or intent, however, sooner or later people will stop giving a damn when the fad grows old).

Authors can say wacky things, and even be utter cynical degrading pricks, but it opens a can of worms if a work of literature should be judged on its merits or its connotations with its authors?

I'm just going to say that social media has its boons, and its busts for things we love or hold very dear as our hobbies.

[Flipside]

That's the whole reason that having a sane, mature discussion on the Internet is so hard, controversy=attention, and there seem to be a LOT of attention whores out there these days.

[Dragon]

There isn't any more attention whores these days than before, it's just that they internet gave them a whole slew of ways to attract attention. Previously, you could make an idiot of yourself and end up on some local newspaper, but you had to work hard even for that unless news were really slow that day. Now, you can make an idiot of yourself and post it on YouTube for the entire world to see.

[Grizzly]

In response to the stuff going on, Connie Willis has declined her invitation to become a presenter.

It is an interesting bit as it does show how far things have come all of a sudden.

[The E]

And in further news, Annie Bellet (Nominee for best short story for "Goodnight Stars") and Marko Kloos (Nominee for best novel for "Lines of Departure") have both withdrawn their nominations. Both of these authors were featured on the Sad/Rabid Puppies slates.

Bellet says:

I want to make it clear I am not doing this lightly. I am not doing it because I
am ashamed. I am not doing it because I was pressured by anyone either way or on
any “side,” though many friends have made cogent arguments for both keeping my
nomination and sticking it out, as well as for retracting it and letting things proceed without me in the middle.

I am withdrawing because this has become about something very different than great science fiction.  I find my story, and by extension myself, stuck in a game of political dodge ball, where I’m both a conscripted player and also a ball. (Wrap your head around that analogy, if you can, ha!) All joy that might have come from this nomination has been co-opted, ruined, or sapped away. This is not about celebrating good writing anymore, and I don’t want to be a part of what it has become.

I am not a ball. I do not want to be a player. This is not what my writing is about. This is not why I write. I believe in a compassionate, diverse, and inclusive world. I try to write my own take on human experiences and relationships, and present my fiction as entertainingly and honestly as I can.

Kloos:

It has come to my attention that “Lines of Departure” was one of the nomination suggestions in Vox Day’s “Rabid Puppies” campaign. Therefore—and regardless of who else has recommended the novel for award consideration—the presence of “Lines of Departure” on the shortlist is almost certainly due to my inclusion on the “Rabid Puppies” slate. For that reason, I had no choice but to withdraw my acceptance of the nomination. I cannot in good conscience accept an award nomination that I feel I may not have earned solely with the quality of the nominated work.

I also wish to disassociate myself from the originator of the “Rabid Puppies” campaign. To put it bluntly: if this nomination gives even the appearance that Vox Day or anyone else had a hand in giving it to me because of my perceived political leanings, I don’t want it. I want to be nominated for awards because of the work, not because of the “right” or “wrong” politics.

He further posted this on facebook:

"My withdrawal has nothing to do with Larry Correia or Brad Torgersen. I don’t know Brad personally, but Larry is a long-time online acquaintance and friend. We’ve known each other since before our writing days. I have no issue with Larry or the Sad Puppies. I’m pulling out of the Hugo process solely because Vox Day also included me on his “Rabid Puppies” slate, and his RP crowd provided the necessary weight to the ballot to put me on the shortlist. I think Vox Day is a ****bag of the first order, and I don’t want any association with him, especially not a Hugo nomination made possible by his followers being the deciding factor. That stench don’t wash off."

[Luis Dias]

This will therefore probably reach a critical mass in which all the remaining authors who were nominated by being in the slates will be naturally pressed (not literally, but in matters of conscience, etc.) to withdraw as well. It's a proper response. The puppies were too successful for their own good, and while they have demonstrated that the whole process was flawed to begin with, they were incapable of showing the way forward. Especially rabid puppies. So all the while Vox is gleefully watching the Hugo process burning to the ground, the Hugos are burning to the ground.

Is it still possible to create a system that enables real inclusivity (and not just "for show" all the while suspicions of cliques dominating the processes are handwaved off) or are the Hugos killed for good? Because even if they somehow manage to kill the puppies and solve this problem by officially shunning away the conservative side of sci-fi for good as some kind of retaliation, then the Hugo's become effectively dead as an universal symbol of merit. They will become increasingly progressive for the mere inexistence of conservative pressure, and will very slowly (decades) turn into a ridiculous parody of itself.

This is why Beale thinks this is a no-lose situation for him. Either way the status quo responds to this crisis will mean a win for his agenda. Either the Hugo reforms itself and starts including conservatives more, or it decides to turn into tumblr sci fi awards, and it will happen in the name of getting rid the "scene" from "bigots and bigoted points of view", (it's always for good reasons that things go to ****, just watch the sad puppies go as an example), etc. It will be a ride to watch it unfold through the years.

[The E]

There's a post by Bruce Schneier on alternate voting systems over on Making Light. The thing is, every voting system can be gamed by a sufficiently determined and organized group. I think trying to determine eligibility by judging according to some arbitrary standard of "bigoted" is wrongness incarnate, this is not something the organizers of the awards should be in a position to do. If this is to be fixed, then the new system must be prepared to deal with slate voting as a constant and adjust for it.

[The E]

 

And the results are in!

So, what did the people who actually showed up at Sasquan vote for? Turns out, while the Puppies were apparently great at doing the bits of Hugo influencing that doesn't actually require any real effort, they really sucked in the more important "Actually show up at WorldCon to vote" part.

End result: In all categories where the only nominees were from the (Sad|Rabid) Puppies slates (Best Novella, Short Story, Related Work, Editor Short Form, and Editor Long Form), they were outclassed by noted author No Award.

The other winners are:

BEST NOVEL: The Three Body Problem, Cixin Liu, Ken Liu translator (Tor Books)

BEST NOVELETTE: "The Day the World Turned Upside Down”, Thomas Olde Heuvelt, Lia Belt translator (Lightspeed, 04-2014)

BEST GRAPHIC STORY: Ms. Marvel Volume 1: No Normal, written by G. Willow Wilson, illustrated by Adrian Alphona and Jake Wyatt, (Marvel Comics)

BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, LONG FORM: Guardians of the Galaxy, written by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman, directed by James Gunn (Marvel Studios, Moving Picture Company)

BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, SHORT FORM: Orphan Black: “By Means Which Have Never Yet Been Tried”, ” written by Graham Manson, directed by John Fawcett (Temple Street Productions, Space/BBC America)

BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST: Julie Dillon

BEST SEMIPROZINE: Lightspeed Magazine, edited by John Joseph Adams, Stefan Rudnicki, Rich Horton, Wendy N. Wagner, and Christie Yant

BEST FANZINE: Journey Planet, edited by James Bacon, Christopher J Garcia, Colin Harris, Alissa McKersie, and Helen J. Montgomery

BEST FANCAST: Galactic Suburbia Podcast, Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, Tansy Rayner Roberts (Presenters) and Andrew Finch (Producer)

BEST FAN WRITER: Laura J. Mixon

BEST FAN ARTIST: Elizabeth Leggett

JOHN W. CAMPBELL AWARD FOR BEST NEW WRITER: Wesley Chu

It should be noted that this marks not only the first time a chinese Novel won Best Novel, but also the first time a translated work did so.

[Goober5000]

So, what did the people who actually showed up at Sasquan vote for? Turns out, while the Puppies were apparently great at doing the bits of Hugo influencing that doesn't actually require any real effort, they really sucked in the more important "Actually show up at WorldCon to vote" part.

End result: In all categories where the only nominees were from the (Sad|Rabid) Puppies slates (Best Novella, Short Story, Related Work, Editor Short Form, and Editor Long Form), they were outclassed by noted author No Award.

Fascinating.  I think this decisively proves the very point the Puppies were trying to make all along.

I will begin stocking up on popcorn for next year.

[General Battuta]

I'm at Sasquan and got my hands on the nomination data. Hilariously, Brad Torgersen would've been nominated fair and square...except that he was bumped off by his own slate.

[The E]

So, what did the people who actually showed up at Sasquan vote for? Turns out, while the Puppies were apparently great at doing the bits of Hugo influencing that doesn't actually require any real effort, they really sucked in the more important "Actually show up at WorldCon to vote" part.

End result: In all categories where the only nominees were from the (Sad|Rabid) Puppies slates (Best Novella, Short Story, Related Work, Editor Short Form, and Editor Long Form), they were outclassed by noted author No Award.

Fascinating.  I think this decisively proves the very point the Puppies were trying to make all along.

I will begin stocking up on popcorn for next year.

Really? I think all it proves is that for all the talking Torgersen, Beale, Wright, Correia et al did, they weren't able to actually get their supporters to put in more than a token effort of support. Consider: Sasquan had an unprecedented number of memberships, and record attendance. As it turns out, most of the attendees were people who rejected the puppy slates; If the Puppy assumption that they represent some form of silent majority longing for the good ole days was true, one would think that they would have been able to motivate people to attend the Con and vote.

[DarkBasilisk]

So, what did the people who actually showed up at Sasquan vote for? Turns out, while the Puppies were apparently great at doing the bits of Hugo influencing that doesn't actually require any real effort, they really sucked in the more important "Actually show up at WorldCon to vote" part.

End result: In all categories where the only nominees were from the (Sad|Rabid) Puppies slates (Best Novella, Short Story, Related Work, Editor Short Form, and Editor Long Form), they were outclassed by noted author No Award.

Fascinating.  I think this decisively proves the very point the Puppies were trying to make all along.

I will begin stocking up on popcorn for next year.

Really? I think all it proves is that for all the talking Torgersen, Beale, Wright, Correia et al did, they weren't able to actually get their supporters to put in more than a token effort of support. Consider: Sasquan had an unprecedented number of memberships, and record attendance. As it turns out, most of the attendees were people who rejected the puppy slates; If the Puppy assumption that they represent some form of silent majority longing for the good ole days was true, one would think that they would have been able to motivate people to attend the Con and vote.

I think this token effort stuff more explains most politically-motivated abusive behavior. People don't like <group>. They believe <group> is actively harming or posing some future threat to them/society/their dog. But people shy away from the intimidating amount of work to combat that problem correctly... and instead appropriate whatever 'tools' might be on hand to fight that fight at the moment.

It's really one of the more disgusting trends I've seen lately, and a mockery of the kind of political organization and change I was hoping to see the internet make possible and more common.

I started to agree with the idea of 'not supporting' some of the really distasteful people mentioned by keeping them out of awards (hell, I strongly dislike Larry Correia as a person precisely because of the toxic effect I've seen him contribute to political discussions)... but doing that would, admittedly, be doing the same thing I was just railing against. The real solution isn't about barring Vox Day into the awards room/ceremony/whatever. It's about addressing his behavior directly. Make clear that anyone can get into that room via merits of their work but the second they start causing harm to others there, they can be booted right the hell out. And I am well aware, the mechanics of making fair rules for that kind of thing are difficult, but it's a difficult discussion that needs to happen.

And fight the fight in the greater social sphere about how we feel about certain cultural values and behaviors. That's where things belong.

[666maslo666]

As it turns out, most of the attendees were people who rejected the puppy slates

Thus showing their bias and proving the puppies right. Unless the quality of works in puppy slates was abnormally low (I do not believe so), then in an absence of politicized voting we should expect them to win categories as usual. Obviously, many were voting "no award" only because the alternative would be voting for one of puppy nominees. That is not what should happen in a fair system.

[karajorma]

Or they just simply didn't think anything on the slate was the best thing they'd read that year. If you asked me to choose between the various Sharknado films for best action movie ever made, I would simply say "none of them".

Are you claiming you'd pick one?

[Luis Dias]

What are the odds of that, Karajorma? The very five works that were poised to win were outnumbered by an almost unprecedented rally of "No Award"s? Man, I feel I could sell you so many ****ing bridges.

[The E]

To be fair to the Puppies, there was no way they would lose this thing. If they had gotten the awards, they would have proved that their brand of "good ole SF that totally is not message-driven or literary" has a larger following than whatever the Conspiracy That Ate Fandom wants to nominate; if they didn't, they would have proven that they were barred from winning the Hugos by the Conspiracy That Ate Fandom.

It's a nice little setup, isn't it? Not at all biased or unbalanced or anything.

But yeah. Let's listen to these 500-odd people led by a ****ing racist, they are certainly the true voice of fandom here.

[DarkBasilisk]

To be fair to the Puppies, there was no way they would lose this thing. If they had gotten the awards, they would have proved that their brand of "good ole SF that totally is not message-driven or literary" has a larger following than whatever the Conspiracy That Ate Fandom wants to nominate; if they didn't, they would have proven that they were barred from winning the Hugos by the Conspiracy That Ate Fandom.

It's a nice little setup, isn't it? Not at all biased or unbalanced or anything.

But yeah. Let's listen to these 500-odd people led by a ****ing racist, they are certainly the true voice of fandom here.

This is the typical thing I've encountered with this kind of behavior. The situation is usually a hedged bet or self-fulfilling prophecy. It has to be to keep people motivated since the worst thing people that aren't doing something meaningful like to hear is that they're not doing something meaningful, frustratingly.  So it is best to be either successful or persecuted

[Grizzly]

As it turns out, most of the attendees were people who rejected the puppy slates

Thus showing their bias and proving the puppies right. Unless the quality of works in puppy slates was abnormally low (I do not believe so), then in an absence of politicized voting we should expect them to win categories as usual. Obviously, many were voting "no award" only because the alternative would be voting for one of puppy nominees. That is not what should happen in a fair system.

The thing is that the Puppies introduced politicized voting by mass-nominating SFF writers that follow their particular viewpoint. As such, the result was always going to be influenced by that. For the same money, hwoever, the voters subscribed to the notion that no awards should ever be given to people who rig awards for political purposes --- which is something I can relate to anyhow.

The puppies wanted to prove a political bias in the system. They decided to do so by introcing a massive political bias in the system. As such, any result of their 'experiment' is automatically flawed, as refusing to subscribe to a political act (in this case voting for "No Awards") is in itself a political act, albeit a far more fair one.

edit: added a bit for clarity.

[NGTM-1R]

Thus showing their bias

Bias, like douchebaggery, is not a zero-sum game. There is never only one answer as to the bias being expressed.

[Grizzly]

It should be interesting to note that Black Gate withdrew from the hugo awards  because they felt that,

In short, over the last two weeks I have come to agree with those arguing that the use of a slate — and particularly a slate that has 11 nominees from Vox Day’s Castalia House, and nominates him personally for two awards — is a serious threat to the perceived integrity of the Hugo Awards.

They did this after they found out they were on one of the ballots (iirc the Rabid Puppy ones)).

It does explain why people voted no award:

The growing sentiment among many Hugo voters is to respond to this perceived threat by placing “No Award” ahead of every one of the Rabid Puppies and Sad Puppies on the ballot, which would deny the members of those slates a Hugo Award. A number of sites offer guidance on exactly how to do this, including Deirdre Saoirse Moen’s “The Puppy-Free Hugo Award Voter’s Guide.”

The vast majority of fans I’ve spoken with have no particular animosity towards the Puppies’ stated objectives, or their right-wing leanings. The “No Award” movement is broad-based response motivated by a sincere desire to protect the integrity of the Hugo Awards, and is not politically-motivated.

As the E mentioned, this sentiment is shared by other writers who withdrew as well