Some thoughts before the Hugo Awards

[Robert B. Marks]

(Also posted on my Livejournal)

So, first off, I'm not planning to watch the Hugo Awards tonight. I've got a few reasons for it ? for one thing, I don't have to cover it for anybody, so there's no professional need or desire to watch it as it happens. And, after last time, let's just say that when the "will they or won't they?" is "burn down the Hugo Awards again," pain avoidance becomes a worthwhile thing.

(But, do you know what IS on tonight? LoadingReadyLive! Seriously, it's great comedy, and it's happy, fun stuff, and they do it live on Twitch! I'm going to watch that...we should all go and watch LoadingReadyLive...why are you looking at me like that?)

But...I haven't sealed myself off in a bubble. Every now and then I check in on it. And today, just to check in and see what is happening, I did a Google search on "Hugo Awards," and came across this article in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2016/aug/20/hugo-awards-reading-the-sad-puppies-pets

And I saw RED.

I covered the Puppy Wars last year for The Escapist in Garwulf's Corner. I didn't provide a lot of links in the article (right or wrong, it was a decision made for personal reasons ? I had been a member of that community, and it broke my heart to be talking about people I liked and respected doing bad things, and I didn't want to compound it all by linking to it), but I DID provide them to my editor ? this was one case where I didn't get so much as an inch of editorial leeway. Regardless of what my opinion might be, or if it was right or wrong, I had to be factually CORRECT. If I couldn't provide a link to a claim about who somebody was or what they had said, it got cut from the installment.

This article in the Guardian, however, is just plain wrong ? and I mean FACTUALLY wrong ? from the first paragraph. The Sad Puppies this year didn't state that they wanted to "poke the establishment in the eye" - they straight-up declared that they wanted to widen the Hugo voter pool to the point that it was not only more representative of fandom as a whole, but so wide that nobody could game it. When this article isn't putting words in people's mouths, it's conflating groups. If you go by Damien Walter's vision of the battle over the Hugos, there a war going on against a hardline conservative group called the Puppies who want science fiction to be dominated by badly written right-wing stories...that next to nobody reads and never get adapted to television (and how Walter came up with the latter part of THAT idea is beyond me ? I have yet to meet a fellow author who doesn't want their books to become bestsellers).

(I did send a letter to the Guardian's editor pointing out the factual errors with sources for the corrections, and hopefully they'll correct it. But still, it went up in the first place.)

We live in a world where so many things that could bring joy are being turned into battlefields. But, as Penn Jillette once said, the cure for bad speech is MORE speech. We solve these problems by talking about them, and discussing them ? finding common ground where we can, and finding a way to take a live and let live attitude when we can't. But this can't happen when the discussion is being defined by articles that are little more than slanderous attacks.

If you want to disagree with the Sad Puppies, or the Rabid Puppies, or the Hugo Defenders in print, then go ahead and do it ? that's what free speech is for! But if you're going to do that, at least take the time to do some basic research and fact checking. Otherwise, all you're doing is making things worse, and making it harder for those who actually do care about it all to fix things.

And if you'll excuse me, I'm off to go watch something uplifting. Whatever occurs during the Hugo Awards can wait until tomorrow morning.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

(For those who are interested, LoadingReadyLive can be found at: https://www.twitch.tv/loadingreadyrun)

 

[Zontar]

Ah the Hugo's, a once perctigious award for science fiction and fantasy that has now become an ideological battlefield due to a voting block pushing for personal politics instead of quality (seriously some of the winners in the past decade wouldn't win a local sci-fi convention contest if quality was the only factor) causing two other voting blocks to arise in a war that has burned what little credibility the awards have left.

This is going to be fun. I wonder if smut will be awarded again this year.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

Let me just say that some newspapers pursuit agenda instead of objective truth.
If publication with meaning 'x' has been published consider that they have 100% intended to do so, instead of some petty mistake.

Of course statement above do not have any particular relationship to The Guardian. Indeed, It could be ANYONE ANYWHERE ANY SPACE-TIME. Who am I to opinionate on such things?

Everyone must make their own decisions and opinions, and this one is yours. Carry on readers!

I for one, must watch the cycle unfold.. as it always have.

 

[Saelune]

I do not understand what this is about. Anyone feel like explaining to those of us who dunno what this is about? (I didn't even know what the Hugo Awards were until I just looked it up)

 

[Zontar]

I do not understand what this is about. Anyone feel like explaining to those of us who dunno what this is about? (I didn't even know what the Hugo Awards were until I just looked it up)

In recent years a voting block has taken over the Hugo's to give people awards in the categories they do work in for holding the right specific political views (which has resulted in outright trash winning in recent years), and the Sad Puppies arose in response to this in an attempt to make an organised voting block to coordinate for quality works to win. This block is the only one that has both left and right leaning people in it. Then there's the Rabbit Puppies, who are basically a group trying to burn the whole place down because reasons.

There's nuance to it all but that's the TL;DR of it. And yes, the people who took over in the first place and push for one single political view are pushing the same one that has infested every medium, media and community over the past 10 years with differing degrees of success.

 

[Saelune]

I do not understand what this is about. Anyone feel like explaining to those of us who dunno what this is about? (I didn't even know what the Hugo Awards were until I just looked it up)

In recent years a voting block has taken over the Hugo's to give people awards in the categories they do work in for holding the right specific political views (which has resulted in outright trash winning in recent years), and the Sad Puppies arose in response to this in an attempt to make an organised voting block to coordinate for quality works to win. This block is the only one that has both left and right leaning people in it. Then there's the Rabbit Puppies, who are basically a group trying to burn the whole place down because reasons.

There's nuance to it all but that's the TL;DR of it. And yes, the people who took over in the first place and push for one single political view are pushing the same one that has infested every medium, media and community over the past 10 years with differing degrees of success.

Mind specifying what those views are? Only really says "progressive political themes".

 

[Zontar]

I do not understand what this is about. Anyone feel like explaining to those of us who dunno what this is about? (I didn't even know what the Hugo Awards were until I just looked it up)

In recent years a voting block has taken over the Hugo's to give people awards in the categories they do work in for holding the right specific political views (which has resulted in outright trash winning in recent years), and the Sad Puppies arose in response to this in an attempt to make an organised voting block to coordinate for quality works to win. This block is the only one that has both left and right leaning people in it. Then there's the Rabbit Puppies, who are basically a group trying to burn the whole place down because reasons.

There's nuance to it all but that's the TL;DR of it. And yes, the people who took over in the first place and push for one single political view are pushing the same one that has infested every medium, media and community over the past 10 years with differing degrees of success.

Mind specifying what those views are? Only really says "progressive political themes".

Progressivism, specifically the current brand of American Progressivism that most Liberals are in opposition to (it's the brand that's either called the Illiberal Left or Regressive Left depending on who you ask) and that has spread to other English speaking nations and is starting to do the same with no-English nations.

If you ever read about an ideological divide within the left in the first world, they're the ones who lean on the social authoritarian side of the equation.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

If I remember correctly the sad puppies are pretty much dead and only the rabid puppies remind which is sad. Although I will say I don't think they were the good guy in this either. Anytime they say they want to bring quality books into the Hugo I will bring up The Zombie Nation Book that was their only nominee in Graphic Story. Also even though I don't think they meant to, they turn people who wanted nothing to do with their campaign into weapons which pissed a lot of them off. This has only got worse now that the rabid puppies are now on time (Erin dies alone is a good example). overall I hope the new rules will help make the hugos better but I doubt it will change much.

 

[Hawki]

To quote a Sad Puppies manifesto:

A few decades ago, if you saw a lovely spaceship on a book cover, with a gorgeous planet in the background, you could be pretty sure you were going to get a rousing space adventure featuring starships and distant, amazing worlds. If you saw a barbarian swinging an axe? You were going to get a rousing fantasy epic with broad-chested heroes who slay monsters, and run off with beautiful women. Battle-armored interstellar jump troops shooting up alien invaders? Yup. A gritty military SF war story, where the humans defeat the odds and save the Earth. And so on, and so forth.

These days, you can?t be sure.

The book has a spaceship on the cover, but is it really going to be a story about space exploration and pioneering derring-do? Or is the story merely about racial prejudice and exploitation, with interplanetary or interstellar trappings?

There?s a sword-swinger on the cover, but is it really about knights battling dragons? Or are the dragons suddenly the good guys, and the sword-swingers are the oppressive colonizers of Dragon Land?

A planet, framed by a galactic backdrop. Could it be an actual bona fide space opera? Heroes and princesses and laser blasters? No, wait. It?s about sexism and the oppression of women.

Finally, a book with a painting of a person wearing a mechanized suit of armor! Holding a rifle! War story ahoy! Nope, wait. It?s actually about gay and transgender issues.

Or it could be about the evils of capitalism and the despotism of the wealthy.

Do you see what I am trying to say here?

These are the people you're dealing with folks. People who claim that they want "quality works" to succeed (never mind that the judgement of quality is subjective), but instead what sci-fi and fantasy to stick to the box. I'd like to further point out to the Sad Puppies that you can read the back of a book and get an idea of the storyline, that the phrase "don't judge a book by its cover exists for a reason," and that their 'paradise' of a few decades prior comes off as trite and cliche to me.

Of course, that's just "to me." For instance, I have little love for Ancillary Justice, which won the award in 2014. But just because my tastes aren't universal, I'm hardly going to claim that there's a conspiracy at work.

The one thing I'll give the Sad Puppies is that I don't think their stance is rooted in racism, mysogeny, or anything like that. However, it does come off as a slightly more organized version of "the critics are out of touch" or "stop liking what I don't like!" that springs up on a regular basis in games and film.

 

[Zontar]

The one thing I'll give the Sad Puppies is that I don't think their stance is rooted in racism, mysogeny, or anything like that. However, it does come off as a slightly more organized version of "the critics are out of touch" or "stop liking what I don't like!" that springs up on a regular basis in games and film.

It's not really "the critics are out of touch" so much as there is very much an in-group/out-group where who is in and who is out is based purely on political leanings and has no connection whatsoever to quality. Which is why in the past 10 years even before the war started outright trash was wining.

 

[Fox12]

Oh Jesus. Oh, Jesus, not this shit show again. I can't stand the wandering droves of neckbearded manchildren trying to justify Vox Day again.

I do not understand what this is about. Anyone feel like explaining to those of us who dunno what this is about? (I didn't even know what the Hugo Awards were until I just looked it up)

A group of people calling themselves the Rabbid Puppies have attempted to ruin a sci-fi award ceremony every year for the last two years. They pretend like they're doing it because they care about the quality of the work, but they're really just trying to stick it to SJW. This is one of the books they nominated last year.

Spoiler

Admittedly, this is fucking hilarious, but it's also troubling. The leader, Vox Day, is a sexist and a racist. Not a fake internet one. A real one.
https://voxday.blogspot.com/2005/08/why-dont-women-have-to-vote.html
https://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/02/mailvox-which-is-worse-work-or-rape.html?showComment=1361440817175

Apparently some people have decided that allying themselves to Vox is okay, as long as they get to stick it to SJW. Because he's clearly the lesser of two evils.

 

[Hawki]

The one thing I'll give the Sad Puppies is that I don't think their stance is rooted in racism, mysogeny, or anything like that. However, it does come off as a slightly more organized version of "the critics are out of touch" or "stop liking what I don't like!" that springs up on a regular basis in games and film.

It's not really "the critics are out of touch" so much as there is very much an in-group/out-group where who is in and who is out is based purely on political leanings and has no connection whatsoever to quality. Which is why in the past 10 years even before the war started outright trash was wining.

Which is basically "the critics are out of touch" in slightly different, more elaborate form. The same way one may rationalize why someone may like/dislike something that they don't.

What sounds more likely - people like different things, or there's a conspiracy brewing to promote certain works? Certainly I consider Ancillary Justice to be lacklustre, but I don't immediately jump to the stage of rationalizing my discontent.

 

[Zontar]

What sounds more likely - people like different things, or there's a conspiracy brewing to promote certain works?

Considering the fact that every single person in the in-group holds the very same, narrow and fringe political views, and the fact that some of the stories are outright bad (not just unenjoyable or lackluster to those it's not pandering to, outright bad) I'd say the former is more likely. Either that or the intellectual inbreeding had reached the point where through their own enjoyment of trash subpar works keep getting nominated for what should be the height of quality for the genres. Which while not as malevolent would still be a problem that needs to be solved.

 

[Fox12]

The one thing I'll give the Sad Puppies is that I don't think their stance is rooted in racism, mysogeny, or anything like that. However, it does come off as a slightly more organized version of "the critics are out of touch" or "stop liking what I don't like!" that springs up on a regular basis in games and film.

It's not really "the critics are out of touch" so much as there is very much an in-group/out-group where who is in and who is out is based purely on political leanings and has no connection whatsoever to quality. Which is why in the past 10 years even before the war started outright trash was wining.

If the Sad Puppies didn't want to make this about politics, then why did they choose to make it about politics? They certainly didn't care about quality. I read the books they pushed. I read the books the founding members wrote. It was some of the most trite, cliche ridden drivel I've ever read.

Let's call the Sad Puppies movement what it is. An anti-intellectual movement being pushed by sad, unsuccessful anti-intellectual men.

 

[Zontar]

If the Sad Puppies didn't want to make this about politics, then why did they choose to make it about politics?

It was already political, they just took the stance that the other 90% of views (like conservatism and liberalism) should not make an author automatically removed from the selection process.

Let's call the Sad Puppies movement what it is. An anti-intellectual movement being pushed by sad, unsuccessful anti-intellectual men.

I think you're mixing up the Sad Puppies with the Rabbit Puppies, because while one is described horribly with that statement, the other is described perfectly.

 

[Hawki]

Considering the fact that every single person in the in-group holds the very same, narrow and fringe political views,

Source?

and the fact that some of the stories are outright bad (not just unenjoyable or lackluster to those it's not pandering to, outright bad)

Subjective. I'd also need distinct examples. That of course raises the issue of shared works that we've both read, but there you go.

Either that or the intellectual inbreeding had reached the point where through their own enjoyment of trash subpar works keep getting nominated for what should be the height of quality for the genres. Which while not as malevolent would still be a problem that needs to be solved.

"Intellectual inbreeding," as unfortunate a description as that is, could be applied to any group in any circumstance. That's also a term you could just as readily be applied to the Sad Puppies - a group of people who want to push THEIR idea of what good fiction could be.

 

[Fox12]

If the Sad Puppies didn't want to make this about politics, then why did they choose to make it about politics?

It was already political, they just took the stance that the other 90% of views (like conservatism and liberalism) should not make an author automatically removed from the selection process.I'm certain that you have evidence for that claim, other then the testament of the bitter author that started the group to begin with.

 

[Zontar]

If the Sad Puppies didn't want to make this about politics, then why did they choose to make it about politics?

It was already political, they just took the stance that the other 90% of views (like conservatism and liberalism) should not make an author automatically removed from the selection process.I'm certain that you have evidence for that claim, other then the testament of the bitter author that started the group to begin with.

Again, are you absolutely sure you're talking about the Sad Puppies? Because the more you talk about them the more it sounds like you've mixed them up with the Rabbit Puppies, since one is continually described inaccurately while the other perfectly, and it's not unusual for the two to be mixed up due to their names.

 

[Zontar]

"Intellectual inbreeding," as unfortunate a description as that is, could be applied to any group in any circumstance. That's also a term you could just as readily be applied to the Sad Puppies - a group of people who want to push THEIR idea of what good fiction could be.

While there is a debate to be had on that front, I wouldn't really call those sharing a single, rigid ideological view as being the same as those sharing pretty much the rest of the political spectrum.