The Hugo Awards
- Thread starter Breakdown
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Or, as an alternate take, bug him for a free copy of his book, read it and enjoy the experience.Breakdown said:
He's completely right about them being weirdos though.
All this situation has done for me is reinforce that awards are of no interest.
They don't make me more likely to purchase a book (or game).
If anything, the amount of accusations regarding 'gaming' awards systems being thrown around these days, seeing a lot of them on a product makes me more likely to apply greater scrutiny to a product than I would normally.
They're almost becoming a negative.
No one, from Scalzi to Martin to io9 (and obviously the Sad Puppies crew), has suggested that people haven't gamed or tried to exploit the Hugo awards. The problem everyone has is:
1) Someone stepped up gaming from being a passive in-club style "hey, you would really like this and should vote for it" to a straight up campaign dedicated to the job.
2) Said people that stepped up are not held in high regard by the those who used the do the low key gaming and they felt there was a line crossed somewhere between the former friendly competition and current unabashed gaming by the sad puppies.
The case of the original sad puppies crew is that they, and authors like them, were being forced out of the good ol' boys club and thus couldn't get any recognition, because winning a Hugo has a meaningful impact on your career and future work. Thus was born Sad Puppies.
1) Someone stepped up gaming from being a passive in-club style "hey, you would really like this and should vote for it" to a straight up campaign dedicated to the job.
2) Said people that stepped up are not held in high regard by the those who used the do the low key gaming and they felt there was a line crossed somewhere between the former friendly competition and current unabashed gaming by the sad puppies.
The case of the original sad puppies crew is that they, and authors like them, were being forced out of the good ol' boys club and thus couldn't get any recognition, because winning a Hugo has a meaningful impact on your career and future work. Thus was born Sad Puppies.
My entire family consists of weirdos, on both sides. At least he's in the GOOD WEIRD category. Those are the keepers v:Breakdown said:
Pay attention, politics was never the problem. Cliques, groupthink and nepotism are the problems, they've always been the problem. You ever notice that the people accused of this type of shit immediately fall back to the 'you're all evil right wingers' argument? because I'm starting to notice a pattern.Phasmal said:
Now Sad Puppies could be blowing smoke up our butts, or they could be telling the truth, but dismissing the entire thing as 'people dont want politics in their entertainment' is garbage.
I don't pay much attention to awards either. I looked at the list of past Hugo winners when I started this thread and some of the past winners and nominees are a bit questionable to say the least. And is novelette really a necessary category?Mikeybb said:
I have no clue how you managed to get this opinion from the shitstorm this thread is devolving into but I have to congratulate you for getting to a fair and reasonable opinion that takes into account both sides of the argument fairly and reasonably and I wish more people involved did this.Breakdown said:
Or you did your own research.
Any way. yeah... This is pretty much sums up the whole fiasco quite neatly.
P.S. If I come off as a sarcy git I was trying to be disparaging to a couple of posters in this thread, not you OP.
Go back to science fiction without politics?
I'm sorry, Starship Troopers and the Forever War happened right? Also, politics are in EVERYTHING! Just because you don't notice them doesn't mean they're not there.
Aside from that, no idea what's going on. *Peeks at George Martin's blood" ANOTHER FUCKING GATE!?
No, I'm out. Someone needs to put the word gate out of its misery already.
I'm sorry, Starship Troopers and the Forever War happened right? Also, politics are in EVERYTHING! Just because you don't notice them doesn't mean they're not there.
Aside from that, no idea what's going on. *Peeks at George Martin's blood" ANOTHER FUCKING GATE!?
No, I'm out. Someone needs to put the word gate out of its misery already.
To be honest this thread seems pretty easy going compared to some of the Gamergate related threads I've been involved in...MiskWisk said:
Any evidence of such a club and them being forced out? If not then it would seem the puppies are rallying support on dubious pretenses.ceyan said:
1. oh my god!!! the books are making me think about things! why can't I just have my pew pew space? poor meVault101 said:
2. its FALSE anyway, Sci Fi has ALWAYS had a shit-ton of "politics" in it, anyone who desies that is either being wilfully ignorant or is a pretty poor "sci fi fan" clearly somoen hasn't read enough sci fi[/quote]
That quite strikes me as pretty mind-numblingly stupid. So every hacky cover that was ever made was a "rousing tale" of something that you could completely predict? And knowing exactly what a story was going to be based on the cover was a good thing?
And even besides that, as you say, science fiction has always been about examining politics and big philosophical or social issues, that was a huge part of the appeal for a lot of it. Thinking otherwise is some serious "le wrong generation" fogeyist bullshit.
That depends. If he was on the Sad Puppies slate, then it depends on whether or not you'd disown him over potentially (but not necessarily) not having the "right" (by which I mean a specific flavor of far left) politics.Chemical Alia said:
Long story short, an award for sci-fi/fantasy authors was basically being controlled by a small group keeping the nominations within certain political lines by general voter apathy. A group called Sad Puppies proposed an alternative set of nominations and pushed hard to get people voting for them, and got most of their nominations in. The clique that usually controls the nominations flipped their shit, and are now openly looking for ways to rig the awards so that Sad Puppies nominations won't win and will never be nominated again, generally taking issue not with the works themselves but with the political views of the authors (thus proving right the idea that there was a clique controlling who was nominated along political lines).
Interesting that some people equate NK Jemisin with Vox Day- is there something particular that she wrote that I ought to know about? Because this was the original speech she gave:
http://nkjemisin.com/2013/06/continuum-goh-speech/
And here was Vox Day's response:
http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2013/06/a-black-female-fantasist.html
While they may both be passionate in their beliefs, their beliefs are not equal
Vox Day:
But enough with the Rabid Puppies.
My problem with the Sad Puppies is while they have developed this idea of a leftist conspiracy (something I wouldn't much like as a right of centre voter) much of the evidence is in generalities or else there are reasonable alternative explanations. For one thing, there are only 5 nominations per category and only one winner in each category by year- this inherently means a whole lot of losers. But not winning or not winning a nomination is not necessarily evidence of a conspiracy of commissars (to borrow a word much loved in their circles.) Amazing authors can get left off just due to how many other excellent books there are and a loser in one year might have been a winner in a different year just due to stiff competition from an even better book.
Furthermore, I have seen (I think it was Brad) have taken as evidence of conspiracy- career authors never receiving a nomination despite decades of writing and dozens of books. Authors like Kevin J Anderson. However, this presupposes that longevity and quantity inherently leads to quality. GRRM made a similar point- that it is entirely possible to write mediocre books for decades. He didn't name any names, but it is an entirely reasonable point. Persistence is laudable, but the Hugo's are not to award persistence, but excellence. I have not read all of Kevin's books, but the one's I have read were pretty mediocre. His more recent writings may have gotten better. Or not. But it would come as no surprise to me and would require no leftist conspiracy if Kevin had NEVER received a Hugo nomination in his lifetime (without the puppy slate, that is.)
Furthermore, as GRRM tried to drill down and get the facts of which years the puppy brigade had felt got over-run by the Left, and in those years lo and behold- Sad Puppies were nominated (Brad and Larry both) Mormon's have been nominated, right of centre and left of centre have been nominated. Yes, the puppies HATE that one dragon book, but aside from that, I have rarely seen them get specific. Yes, Scalzi has given a breakdown of books he liked as have other authors, but there was no coordinated drive to get in Scalzi's Stooges. But there really wasn't this big lock out of Good Ol SciFi, nor of the right centred authors. GRRM wanted to know which other books, were rammed through by the leftist cabal, but the responses went even more generic. I basically do not see what they are seeing except that they are interpreting all event through the lens of (distinctly American) Left-Right politics. The partisan lens adds a redundant layer of causal explanation.
@Chemical Alia
Do not worry about your cousin. Most of those put on the puppy slate had little conception of what was about to transpire, if they even knew about it at all. (For instance, I highly doubt the contacted the moviemakers on their slate. And while Brad asked around, I'm not sure few if any knew that Vox Day was going to ram them through nominations.)
http://nkjemisin.com/2013/06/continuum-goh-speech/
And here was Vox Day's response:
http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2013/06/a-black-female-fantasist.html
While they may both be passionate in their beliefs, their beliefs are not equal
Vox Day:
It goes on.
But enough with the Rabid Puppies.
My problem with the Sad Puppies is while they have developed this idea of a leftist conspiracy (something I wouldn't much like as a right of centre voter) much of the evidence is in generalities or else there are reasonable alternative explanations. For one thing, there are only 5 nominations per category and only one winner in each category by year- this inherently means a whole lot of losers. But not winning or not winning a nomination is not necessarily evidence of a conspiracy of commissars (to borrow a word much loved in their circles.) Amazing authors can get left off just due to how many other excellent books there are and a loser in one year might have been a winner in a different year just due to stiff competition from an even better book.
Furthermore, I have seen (I think it was Brad) have taken as evidence of conspiracy- career authors never receiving a nomination despite decades of writing and dozens of books. Authors like Kevin J Anderson. However, this presupposes that longevity and quantity inherently leads to quality. GRRM made a similar point- that it is entirely possible to write mediocre books for decades. He didn't name any names, but it is an entirely reasonable point. Persistence is laudable, but the Hugo's are not to award persistence, but excellence. I have not read all of Kevin's books, but the one's I have read were pretty mediocre. His more recent writings may have gotten better. Or not. But it would come as no surprise to me and would require no leftist conspiracy if Kevin had NEVER received a Hugo nomination in his lifetime (without the puppy slate, that is.)
Furthermore, as GRRM tried to drill down and get the facts of which years the puppy brigade had felt got over-run by the Left, and in those years lo and behold- Sad Puppies were nominated (Brad and Larry both) Mormon's have been nominated, right of centre and left of centre have been nominated. Yes, the puppies HATE that one dragon book, but aside from that, I have rarely seen them get specific. Yes, Scalzi has given a breakdown of books he liked as have other authors, but there was no coordinated drive to get in Scalzi's Stooges. But there really wasn't this big lock out of Good Ol SciFi, nor of the right centred authors. GRRM wanted to know which other books, were rammed through by the leftist cabal, but the responses went even more generic. I basically do not see what they are seeing except that they are interpreting all event through the lens of (distinctly American) Left-Right politics. The partisan lens adds a redundant layer of causal explanation.
@Chemical Alia
Do not worry about your cousin. Most of those put on the puppy slate had little conception of what was about to transpire, if they even knew about it at all. (For instance, I highly doubt the contacted the moviemakers on their slate. And while Brad asked around, I'm not sure few if any knew that Vox Day was going to ram them through nominations.)
For those who are interested, Honey Badger Radio had Brad Torgersen, Sarah Hoyt, and Mike Williamson on. Episode title "BadgerPod GamerGate 11: Sad Pound Puppies":
For those not familiar with Honey Badger Radio, they do multiple episodes a week, in three subseries: Badgerpod Nerdcast which is about various geeky things, the main Honey Badger Radio which tend to be more politically oriented, and for the past few months Badgerpod GamerGate which has been a mix of GamerGate related stuff, the various scandals in which outraged mobs demand some piece of geeky art be changed for them, that kind of thing. Usually one episode of each per week, sometimes they skip one (usually it's the GamerGate series they skip).
The usual panelists are some combination of Rachel Edwards (Naughty Nerdess), Mike Stephenson (DoctorRandomerCam -- you can basically describe his YouTube channel as humorous internet asshole), Karen Straughn (GirlWritesWhat), Hanna Wallen (Breaking the Glasses), Brian Martinez (Good Guy Comics), Anna Cherry (cosplayer and porn star), and Alison Tieman (Xenospora).
For those not familiar with Honey Badger Radio, they do multiple episodes a week, in three subseries: Badgerpod Nerdcast which is about various geeky things, the main Honey Badger Radio which tend to be more politically oriented, and for the past few months Badgerpod GamerGate which has been a mix of GamerGate related stuff, the various scandals in which outraged mobs demand some piece of geeky art be changed for them, that kind of thing. Usually one episode of each per week, sometimes they skip one (usually it's the GamerGate series they skip).
The usual panelists are some combination of Rachel Edwards (Naughty Nerdess), Mike Stephenson (DoctorRandomerCam -- you can basically describe his YouTube channel as humorous internet asshole), Karen Straughn (GirlWritesWhat), Hanna Wallen (Breaking the Glasses), Brian Martinez (Good Guy Comics), Anna Cherry (cosplayer and porn star), and Alison Tieman (Xenospora).
Hm. I wish they would stop talking about games and Gamergate as I would be more inclined to finish the podcast. Because in regards to Hugos, I'd like to hear more on what the specific authors said against Sad Puppies rather than the all encompassing 'they' of the so-called Trust-fund gaming journalists. A lot of authors have blogs and quite a few have chimed in, so I'm not sure why what 'they' think needs to be so generic, nor why gaming journalists' views need be used as a placeholder for specific views that were actually said.
I don't know anything about the politics of the Hugos, but for the past five years I've been voting in the Hugos and in my opinion the works that have been nominated were quite good. It the sjws are responsible for this than I say god speed. On a side note Larry Correia is a crappy writer that is the reason he has never won a Hugo it has nothing to do with his politics.
Of course not. The list is literally just a "We think these are fantastic works and you should vote for them." The very concept that people should be ashamed that their works are praised by the "wrong" people is absurd and frankly offensive.Chemical Alia said:
There are genuine problems with the way Sad Puppies works. For example, it can lead people to vote for books without reading them. (That said, this has always been a problem.) This is nothing more than a recommendation list. The anger over Sad Puppies has very little to do with the works on the slate, most of which are perfectly ordinary. It has everything to do with a small group of bigots who are outraged that those EVIL RIGHT WINGERS might be able to sway the Hugos vote using perfectly legal means. The venom I've seen thrown at people for even ASSOCIATING with the so-called "neofascists" behind Sad Puppies reveals that science fiction communities have a serious political prejudice problem.
I don't think that's the issue that's frustrating people. I know that, for me, the reason I'm mad is because they've broken the Hugo's, and are posing a real threat to its credibility. Unless the process is changed (which it may be) they may have ushered in an era of block voting, and I cannot forgive any group that does that, regardless of their politics.Ambient_Malice said:
Don't get me wrong, I understand what your saying, but I'm not convinced there is a great political bias. The nominees of the past few years have been pretty solid. I can't speak for all the people Sad Puppies nominated, since I confess I haven't read them all, but I do wonder if their quality had more to do with their lack of nomination then their politics. I can attest that larry correia, the author of Monster Hunter, and the leader of the movement, is a rather poor writer. He's... just not good, regardless of his politics. I've read his samples, and it's the kind of stuff you find on a dollar store rack in paper back. The fact that he seems to have an issue with "literary" sci-fi only intensifies my dislike of him, and I wonder if he's not simply jaded.
I find this whole situation rather distressing, as an aspiring novelist whose invested in the health of the industry. Historically, the decisions were made through a popular vote. Now its become about politics, and I can't help but feel that Sad Puppies have made it this way.
Edit: Incidentally, anyone who would like to decide for themselves can find his writing samples available here, legally, for free.
http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/1439132852/1439132852.htm
Can you give examples? Because I've read through GRRM, MRK, and Scalzi's related blogs (and comments) and I am really not seeing the bigotry in the articles or in the comments. Also, I think the true anger is directed at the Rabid Puppies/ Vox Day more than at Brad and company (I have for instance seen Mary peaceably posting on one of their blogs (Brad's maybe?)Ambient_Malice said: