Some thoughts before the Hugo Awards

[shrekfan246]

I will say that it does make me laugh to think that all of these sci-fi "fans" who decry the "political" nature of "modern" sci-fi have apparently never heard of a little thing called [HEADING=1]Star Trek.[/HEADING]

That would be a good point if it wasn't for the fact that Star trek was far from alone when it come out in terms of views of those involved in the making of it, while today there's a concerted effort to push out those who don't subscribe to a very fringe political view.

Your example is like my arguing that those who complain about the inherent right wing nature of science fiction have never heard of a genre defining book called Starship Troopers.

A concerted effort made by who? The nominees aren't made in secret behind closed doors. It's decided by the community. The idea that the industry is controlled by a panel of industry elites is tinfoil hat levels of conspiracy silliness.

I don't see how his point is a counter to mine, anyway. In the first part he's reinforcing my point (which was really just altnameJag's point) that sci-fi has always been political, and typically in a progressive slant, and then in the second part he's... using a relatively right-wing book as an example of how sci-fi isn't right-wing? Or else completely missing the point I was making. Like, it wasn't until the film that Starship Troopers actually got a relatively satirical edge to it, and Heinlein's politics were always very weird in the first place.

But yes, the idea that there's "a concerted effort to push out" anyone from writing is hilarious. Racist, sexist bullshit doesn't win awards? Gee, there's a surprise. But nobody is actively trying to stop people like Vox Day from writing (though, to be perfectly honest I really wouldn't care one way or the other; on top of being an awful person, he's a dreadfully boring and unskilled writer).

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

But yes, the idea that there's "a concerted effort to push out" anyone from writing is hilarious. Racist, sexist bullshit doesn't win awards? Gee, there's a surprise. But nobody is actively trying to stop people like Vox Day from writing (though, to be perfectly honest I really wouldn't care one way or the other; on top of being an awful person, he's a dreadfully boring and unskilled writer).

Which of your books have you read? I've yet to be willing to give that sack of waste my money to indulge a morbid curiousity, so you're braver than I.

 

[shrekfan246]

But yes, the idea that there's "a concerted effort to push out" anyone from writing is hilarious. Racist, sexist bullshit doesn't win awards? Gee, there's a surprise. But nobody is actively trying to stop people like Vox Day from writing (though, to be perfectly honest I really wouldn't care one way or the other; on top of being an awful person, he's a dreadfully boring and unskilled writer).

Which of your books have you read? I've yet to be willing to give that sack of waste my money to indulge a morbid curiousity, so you're braver than I.

Oh, I haven't bought any of his books or anything. I've seen a lot from A Throne of Bones (el oh el) and just his personal blog and stuff, and it's pretty much absolute trash across the board. When he's not racist or sexist, he's bland and unimaginative.

 

[Fox12]

But yes, the idea that there's "a concerted effort to push out" anyone from writing is hilarious. Racist, sexist bullshit doesn't win awards? Gee, there's a surprise. But nobody is actively trying to stop people like Vox Day from writing (though, to be perfectly honest I really wouldn't care one way or the other; on top of being an awful person, he's a dreadfully boring and unskilled writer).

Which of your books have you read? I've yet to be willing to give that sack of waste my money to indulge a morbid curiousity, so you're braver than I.

I know Larry Correia, leader of the sad puppies, has posted a lot of his stuff online for free. His stuff is pretty embarrassing, though. I can't speak as much for Vox Day, but I haven't been impressed by his blog. Just compare it to Neil Gaimans.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

But yes, the idea that there's "a concerted effort to push out" anyone from writing is hilarious. Racist, sexist bullshit doesn't win awards? Gee, there's a surprise. But nobody is actively trying to stop people like Vox Day from writing (though, to be perfectly honest I really wouldn't care one way or the other; on top of being an awful person, he's a dreadfully boring and unskilled writer).

Which of your books have you read? I've yet to be willing to give that sack of waste my money to indulge a morbid curiousity, so you're braver than I.

Oh, I haven't bought any of his books or anything. I've seen a lot from A Throne of Bones (el oh el) and just his personal blog and stuff, and it's pretty much absolute trash across the board. When he's not racist or sexist, he's bland and unimaginative.

Does Escapist still run ads for his publishing house?

 

[shrekfan246]

But yes, the idea that there's "a concerted effort to push out" anyone from writing is hilarious. Racist, sexist bullshit doesn't win awards? Gee, there's a surprise. But nobody is actively trying to stop people like Vox Day from writing (though, to be perfectly honest I really wouldn't care one way or the other; on top of being an awful person, he's a dreadfully boring and unskilled writer).

Which of your books have you read? I've yet to be willing to give that sack of waste my money to indulge a morbid curiousity, so you're braver than I.

Oh, I haven't bought any of his books or anything. I've seen a lot from A Throne of Bones (el oh el) and just his personal blog and stuff, and it's pretty much absolute trash across the board. When he's not racist or sexist, he's bland and unimaginative.

Does Escapist still run ads for his publishing house?

I wouldn't be able to say, I'm one of the people who got PubClub from the Tech Team before they left, and I'm not about to check the website while logged out. XD

 

[Hawki]

Both Star Trek and Starship Troopers are good examples of left-wing/right-wing sci-fi, that came out seven years apart, that, in my case, I happen to enjoy for different reasons.

On another matter:

...and allowing for outright trash to start to win due to the political views of those who won.

Again, examples. You keep saying that poorly written works have been winning, but I've never seen you name any of those works and give reasons for why they're bad.

 

[Fox12]

I can't find anything on King refusing a Hugo. Apparently he was nominated this year, though, so he can't be that passionate about it. He lost to some Chinese lady.

 

[Nielas]

Both Star Trek and Starship Troopers are good examples of left-wing/right-wing sci-fi, that came out seven years apart, that, in my case, I happen to enjoy for different reasons.

Starship Troopers is actually much more progressive than people assume. People focus too much on the military side of the system and miss that it is a very egalitarian, merit-based society.

 

[Breakdown]

Star Trek is blatantly right wing. The vast majority of characters are in the military, with a Star Fleet career presented as the pinnacle of human achievement. Any normal Federation civilians tend to be shifty types who are up to no good, while there's no indication of how the economy works, or even if the Federation is actually a democracy. There's just a thin layer of surface level progressiveness smeared over a fascist framework.

 

[maninahat]

I take issue with the taking of issue with the fact checking. You criticise the Guardian's first paragraph for putting words into the mouths of the puppies, but after a minute's bit of research, I saw the Guardian's references to "poking the eye in the establishment" and "unabashed pulp" are direct quotes from Larry Correia, puppy leader and co-instigator of the campaign. [http://www.webcitation.org/6aRd3TqAI]. How malicious of the Guardian to put the puppies own word's back into their mouths! I grant you that Larry Correia's words may not represent every last motivation behind each individual puppy, but not only is that obvious enough to go without saying, it takes far more than that observation to assert the Guardian article is badly researched, when it has clearly gone to the source of the entire puppy campaign.

 

[Fox12]

I take issue with the taking of issue with the fact checking. You criticise the Guardian's first paragraph for putting words into the mouths of the puppies, but after a minute's bit of research, I saw the Guardian's references to "poking the eye in the establishment" and "unabashed pulp" are direct quotes from Larry Correia, puppy leader and co-instigator of the campaign. [http://www.webcitation.org/6aRd3TqAI]. How malicious of the Guardian to put the puppies own word's back into their mouths! I grant you that Larry Correia's words may not represent every last motivation behind each individual puppy, but not only is that obvious enough to go without saying, it takes far more than that observation to assert the Guardian article is badly researched, when it has clearly gone to the source of the entire puppy campaign.

I noticed that the Guardian chose to ignore the message that Robert sent them. I can't imagine why, in their wisdom, they would choose to do that. Apparently quoting people verbatim, instead of adding the appropriate dose of spin, makes him see red. At least he has his soap box here.

 

[Schadrach]

Anybody who wanted a vote for who won could've ponied up the $40, and if there were enough of them, they could've beat out the "No Award" votes.

It's just that most of the Internet Randos that got really into the Hugos last year, regardless which puppy they backed, weren't willing to put their money where their mouth was.

Untrue. To be able to nominate you had to pony up the money. What happened is when Puppies swept a category for nominations, their votes for the actual award were dispersed across the options while the "NO PUPPY NOMINATION CAN BE PERMITTED TO WIN, NO AWARD OVER ANY PUPPY CHOICE GETTING ANY AWARD" crowd were all voting No Award (there were literally more no award votes for the 2015 Hugos than cumulatively for the entire history of the awards prior to 2015). It's basically the spoiler effect in action -- a diffuse voting pattern for the Puppies versus the "anti-puppies" voting no award specifically to prevent any work associated with the puppies from winning. Better no award than someone with wrongthink get an award (it's almost shocking how often people talking about the Hugos that year were talking less about the nominated works and more about the author's politics, almost as though they felt that was more important or something).

What's interesting is that they're changing the nomination rules to weaken slate voting (which likewise lessens the hold the previous old guard can maintain because all sides were slate voting, the Puppies were just more overt about it). While it makes a slate weaker, it makes promoting a single work much more effective. Look for the next iteration of Rabid Puppies to push one work per category, and be far more able to actually get a work to win (because they'll be a more concentrated voting block), presuming they can get the numbers. They won't be able to sweep a category without doing something radically different, but that goes for everyone else too. So instead of seeing the Puppies hold a category, or the leading nominee be a short story about trying to stay in the closet in a world where water falls on your head whenever you lie, next time we'll likely see a Puppy, an overtly SJW choice and a couple of probably more reasonable choices.

I'd argue that Sad Puppies biggest mistake was made the first time they tried to make their point -- the first time they pushed a single nomination through, nominating the qualifying author they felt would be the most utterly offensive to the people controlling the noms previously -- Vox Day. Thus they drew the attention of the Eye of Sauron and he unleashed his Uruk-hai hordes in the Rabid Puppies.

Also, whose gaming the awards? The entire sci-fi community at large? Again, your claim makes no sense when the vote is open to the public.

Not completely open to the public, but you keep trying to ignore the very simple matter that pre-Puppies actual voter turnout was incredibly low.

Much like the POTUS, if you can get virtually any demographic group that can vote to actually mobilize and vote for you consistently you will win the nomination and potentially win the race, because overall turnout is so very, very poor. The Hugos are the same way, a handful of people with a handful of followers each is all it would take to swing the awards because so few bothered to vote. The number of votes for the 2015 Hugos was unprecedented, and was a result of both Puppies and anti-Puppies pulling for more people to get involved.

The argument made by the Puppies is essentially that someone like Heinlein or Card wouldn't be "allowed" to win nowadays. Mind you Card is still writing, and used to get at least nominated with some regularity but apparently his last 40-odd works just don't have that certain something that is totally unrelated to his views on homosexuality.

On a personal level, I'd love to see more stuff like Ra, Worm or Three Worlds Collide written and recognized, but I have atypical taste.

 

[Nielas]

The argument made by the Puppies is essentially that someone like Heinlein or Card wouldn't be "allowed" to win nowadays. Mind you Card is still writing, and used to get at least nominated with some regularity but apparently his last 40-odd works just don't have that certain something that is totally unrelated to his views on homosexuality.

I was never a big Card fan and I stopped reading his books after the American Empire series. His political views started affecting his writing and it lost its appeal to me.

My main issue with this debate is that I actually like many of the works trashed by the Puppies and I find the writing of people like Correia to be rather underwhelming. This makes it hard for me to buy into the argument that books I find to be good do not deserve nominations while stuff I find mediocre should win an award.

 

[Jux]

How is it that the only person who seemed to come out of this thing clean is the dude who writes porn for a living?

He/She/They/It immediately and hilariously started slamming Vox Day, the Rabids, and Anti-SJWs in general and, far as I can tell, never let up. Just hard pounding, from a variety of angles, with more stamina than I thought possible.

Just pounding it. Pounding it.


Pounding it.

You're a true buckaroo sir.

I don't follow the Hugo's, but it's good to see the Puppies once again told to fuck right off.

 

[Breakdown]

I take issue with the taking of issue with the fact checking. You criticise the Guardian's first paragraph for putting words into the mouths of the puppies, but after a minute's bit of research, I saw the Guardian's references to "poking the eye in the establishment" and "unabashed pulp" are direct quotes from Larry Correia, puppy leader and co-instigator of the campaign. [http://www.webcitation.org/6aRd3TqAI]. How malicious of the Guardian to put the puppies own word's back into their mouths! I grant you that Larry Correia's words may not represent every last motivation behind each individual puppy, but not only is that obvious enough to go without saying, it takes far more than that observation to assert the Guardian article is badly researched, when it has clearly gone to the source of the entire puppy campaign.

The OP is clearly referring to this year, while the eye poking quote was from 2013 according to Wikipedia. Larry Correia has stepped away from the Sad Puppies, and Kate Paulk has taken over. There is no evidence presented to support the idea that the Sad Puppies are mostly male, very white and overwhelmingly conservative. There was a recommended reading list rather than a voting slate, and Space Raptor Butt Invasion wasn't on it. In the process of writing this post I have done more research than the Guardian writer.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Anybody who wanted a vote for who won could've ponied up the $40, and if there were enough of them, they could've beat out the "No Award" votes.

It's just that most of the Internet Randos that got really into the Hugos last year, regardless which puppy they backed, weren't willing to put their money where their mouth was.

Untrue. To be able to nominate you had to pony up the money.

Huh, what do you know, I've been getting it wrong all this time.

What happened is when Puppies swept a category for nominations, their votes for the actual award were dispersed across the options while the "NO PUPPY NOMINATION CAN BE PERMITTED TO WIN, NO AWARD OVER ANY PUPPY CHOICE GETTING ANY AWARD" crowd were all voting No Award (there were literally more no award votes for the 2015 Hugos than cumulatively for the entire history of the awards prior to 2015).

Yeah, well, piss, Cheerios, not eating, etc.

It's basically the spoiler effect in action -- a diffuse voting pattern for the Puppies versus the "anti-puppies" voting no award specifically to prevent any work associated with the puppies from winning. Better no award than someone with wrongthink get an award (it's almost shocking how often people talking about the Hugos that year were talking less about the nominated works and more about the author's politics, almost as though they felt that was more important or something).

Yeah, like the people pushing the puppy slate.

What's interesting is that they're changing the nomination rules to weaken slate voting (which likewise lessens the hold the previous old guard can maintain because all sides were slate voting, the Puppies were just more overt about it).

Like has been asked for many times in this thread, got any proof of the old guard pushing slates? Some one having a fairly extensive list of recommended reading isn't a slate. (In that regard, this year the Sads didn't do anything wrong. I still don't like that it is an organized "this group is trying this thing", but individual authors have been putting out recommended readin lists for awhile).


Lastly, a lot of people talk shit over "The Water That Falls on You from Nowhere", but there were four other works nominated along side it, and finals voting always has more participants than nominations. There must be something there.

 

[Falling_v1legacy]

Anybody who wanted a vote for who won could've ponied up the $40, and if there were enough of them, they could've beat out the "No Award" votes.

It's just that most of the Internet Randos that got really into the Hugos last year, regardless which puppy they backed, weren't willing to put their money where their mouth was.

Untrue. To be able to nominate you had to pony up the money. What happened is when Puppies swept a category for nominations, their votes for the actual award were dispersed across the options while the "NO PUPPY NOMINATION CAN BE PERMITTED TO WIN, NO AWARD OVER ANY PUPPY CHOICE GETTING ANY AWARD" crowd were all voting No Award (there were literally more no award votes for the 2015 Hugos than cumulatively for the entire history of the awards prior to 2015). It's basically the spoiler effect in action -- a diffuse voting pattern for the Puppies versus the "anti-puppies" voting no award specifically to prevent any work associated with the puppies from winning. Better no award than someone with wrongthink get an award (it's almost shocking how often people talking about the Hugos that year were talking less about the nominated works and more about the author's politics, almost as though they felt that was more important or something).

You think Puppy votes were dispersed in 2015? 2016? That the Rabids were not voting as a bloc? I could see the Sads in 2015 maybe not voting as a bloc by the time it got to the finals after all that push back from clean sweeping the nominations. However, they were organized enough to shut out any other voice in sf/f fandom at the nomination stage (except that a bunch of people dropped out.)

But the Rabids? This year at least the Sads in the nominations were voting all over the place, as it was really only the Rabids that seemed to have made any impact on the nominations (or maybe most of the Sads became Rabids?) But again, while not everyone of Vox's people voted lockstep, I think there's some fairly easy patterns to look at.

Chaos Horizon did a bunch of guesswork to figure the numbers of Puppies in 2015
https://chaoshorizon.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/2015-hugo-stats-initial-analysis/

2016 the Rabids seem smaller and the Sads causing so little impact that it didn't warrant analysis.
https://chaoshorizon.wordpress.com/2016/08/20/2016-hugos-some-initial-stat-analysis/#comments

Another estimate of numbers guessing at hardcore disciplined voters.
http://www.rocketstackrank.com/2016/04/analysis-of-slate-voting-for-2016-hugos.html

A central premise of the Sads argument (as well as Rabid) is that the books being nominated at the Hugos were due to an organized minority bloc that do not represent the majority. When they swept the nominations that perhaps could look to be true... except once we hit the Finals and the Puppies were very clearly outnumbered. Their premise was therefore false otherwise they should have swept both the nominations AND the finals. Given that nomination votes should be the most dispersed (if people are not voting onto slate) and that the Puppies slate knocked everyone else out, but couldn't win, it's clear that the Puppies were the organized minority bloc, and not the majority like they claimed. In that context, all the No Awards in 2015 was a big 'No you can't organize into political voting blocs. Nominate according the merits of the books not as whipped political party.' Happily Paulk's Sad Puppies listened and moved to open recommendation lists rather slates. Vox Day continued his whipped voted and here we are today.

edit.
As an aside, I didn't particularly care for the Guardian article as it was lacking in nuance.
I think the Salon one is much better: (minus the Trump references, which were unnecessary)
http://www.salon.com/2016/08/23/the-alt-right-attacks-sci-fi-how-the-hugo-awards-got-hijacked-by-trumpian-style-culture-warriors/