The Hugo Awards

[rcs619]

There appears to be some kind of controversy with the Hugo awards this year. I don't really pay attention to awards, and looking at the wikipedia page I'm not really familiar with the authors nominated in the past couple of years. Except the Wheel of Time for best novel in 2014 - what?

So are the 2015 nominations really right wing?

From what I understand a lot of it is coordinated by Larry Correia who, over the last couple years, has become convinced that the sci-fi and fantasy genre is run by a bunch of big-city liberals who intentionally go out of their way to snub conservative authors. He's tried to organize his fans and colleagues to stuff the Hugo ballot box with their own people for the last couple years and generally failed miserably. However, this year, he's teamed up with several controversial figures like Vox Day (who, is completely and totally off his rocker) to try and rile up the Gamersgate sorta crowd and make it about conservatives vs liberals/SJW's, whatever. Apparently this is working better than his other attempts to rig the ballots, so that's why it's actually news.

This whole mess is problematic for me, because I actually do find Larry Correia's novels to be kind of enjoyable. They're fun, fast-paced adventure stories about a rag-tag band of mercenaries who fight mythical monsters in modern times and save the world by shooting zombies, werewolves, vampires and lovecraftian horrors in the face. It's nothing too deep, and nothing that will change your worldview, but it's a fun little series. Correia as a person though, I find him much too abrasive and obnoxious, and far too eager to make everything about how it relates to his personal ideology.

And the thing is, I can see where he and his colleagues would feel that way. Sci-fi, as a genre, *does* tend to veer towards being socially progressive. Part of the reason Star Trek was kind of radical was because you had all these different people, men, women, russians, working together as colleagues and friends. Part of the appeal of sci-fi is looking to the future, and in a lot of those futures, modern day social issues are little more than footnotes. So, I totally get where he might see sci-fi as an overwhelmingly liberal genre (Even David Weber, who is an admitted conservative on a lot of issues, still writes about a future where gender and racial issues are basically a non-factor because humans have worked that shit out over the 2000 years between now and then). But, going out of his way to raise a stink, trying to rig the ballot and teaming up with Vox goddamned Day, of all people. That's just too much for me.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Wanting to bring back fantasy that is just fantasy, or sci-if that is just sci-fi? Sure, whatever, that's okay. I mean, the first work of science fiction was more a collection of Romantic ideology than science and C.S. Lewis and Tolkein can hardly be called simple adventure writers, but sure, plain fun adventure is ok. Wanting to help push their rabidly right-wing ideology to the forefront pay piggybacking on the efforts of Internet reactionaries in other realms? Horrible. A line was crossed by these guys. There is a core idea that is fine, but the broad sweep is wrong.

The problem with your assessment is that no ideology was pushed by Sad Puppies. Like, at all. Not a single one. Right wing or otherwise. The only thing that got pushed was a part off the radical left, and the only pushing it got was out.

Except that in this case we have discernible leaders, and they include a homophobe and a mysogynist who thinks women shouldn't be allowed to vote. So I am in no way inclined to believe you. Go ahead and wail about the PC police Internet progressives all you want, I do not and never will care. My issue lies with these two, their movement, and their agendas.

Edit: also, sadly, the John C wright homophobia is in no way made up
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/12/the-perversion-of-a-legend/

 

[StreamerDarkly]

it was totally about politics

they didn't like the apparent "poltics" of previosu winners so they'd replace them with their own, some of which came from questionable authors (and some didn't)

But it was A-OK and totally apolitical when Scalzi was directly soliciting votes on his own website, right?


To the OP, there are several interesting happenings to this whole shitstorm. I will summarize a few of them.

(1) Many of the recent Hugo nominations and winners were political appointments on the far left side of the spectrum. That is, the books were disproportionately written by minority/women authors or featured main characters from those same demographics. Quite the opposite of the quality narrative that Vault101 is spinning, it appears that many of these books were selected because they spread the 'correct' message.

(2) The SJW faction of Sci-Fi and Fantasy writers erupted in a fantasm of rage when it was announced that many of this years nominees were from the Sad Puppies slates. The professional SJWs on Twitter joined them of course. Accusations of racism and misogyny were flying. Notably, the owners of the major Sci-Fi publishing house Tor are very angry as they view the Hugos as their own personal property, claiming that it's now being stolen away by wrong type of fans.

(3) Entertainment Weekly (EW) published a hit piece on the Sad Puppies Campaign, accusing its orchestrators, Larry Correia and Brad Torgersen, of racism, misogyny and corruption. EW quickly retracted the nastiest allegations in their article once it became clear that they were false and that EW might be open to claims of libel. It turns out that EW had simply parroted a couple blogs without any sort of fact checking.

(4) Larry Correia and Brad Torgersen have both published lengthy blog posts about the Sad Puppies campaign and the resulting controversy. Judge for yourself if they come across as credible.
Larry Correia: A letter to the SMOFs, moderates and fence sitters from the author who started Sad Puppies [http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/06/a-letter-to-the-smofs-moderates-and-fence-sitters-from-the-author-who-started-sad-puppies/]
Brad Torgersen: A dispatch from Fort Living Room [http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/8172999-a-dispatch-from-fort-living-room]

(5) The most bitter members of the Sci-Fi community are now trying to organize a vote spoiling campaign for the Hugos. Note that the actual award winners haven't been voted on yet, only the nominees for each category.

(6) GamerGate has been accused of having a hand in influencing this year's Hugo nominations. However, it was demonstrated that the number of voters increased only modestly compared to last year (about 5%), so the usual accusations against the boogeyman responsible for all evils just doesn't hold water.

(7) Some of the usual suspects have been running their mouths on Twitter. For example, Arthur Chu accused Brad Torgerson of using his African-American wife and his daughter as a shield against accusations of racism.

 

[Fox12]

*Cracks Knuckles*

Last year, a year heralded as a milestone in diversity for the Hugo awards, there was only one visible minority who won. There is quite literally no way to argue this years awards where somehow less diverse then of recent years dominated by the click which Sad Puppies was in opposition to.

That's my entire point. They claim they're fighting for representation of right leaning writers, and that the Hugo's are too politicized, and yet, historically, this isn't true. The "SJW" weren't giving special privileges to people based on race or even politics. If they were then the makeup of the awards would have been quite different.

Here's a pro-puppy writer talking about their political bent.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/08/the-hugo-awards-culture-wars/

I'd also like links to your two claims, since this is the internet so it's almost assured someone took "the ending of Korra was poorly written drivel that used 'suddenly gay syndrome' to escape its deserved criticism" and twisted it to be homophobic, and I find it very unlikely that the second claim to be the case in any way. Basically citation needed.

John C. Wright, a right wing member of the movement, was nominated three times. Here's his lovely view on Kora. I love the bit where he calls them "disgusting, limp, soulless sacks of filth."
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/12/the-perversion-of-a-legend/

As for sexism, well, I already posted a link, but apparently more is needed. Vox Day is the leader of the Rabbid Puppies, a radical branch of the movement. Here's him questioning why women should have the right to vote.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2005/08/why-dont-women-have-to-vote.html

Here's him arguing that women being educated is disadvantageous to society because their less likely to get married at a young age and reproduce. He then says that women are not needed in professional fields, and implies that they shouold stay at home while their husbands earn a steady wage.
http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2012/06/scientist-beats-up-pz.html

Here's a set of quotes from him. I particulalry fond of him defending throwing acid into a woman's face if it prevents divorce. I'll admit the site is biased in this case, though, so maybe the acid line was taken out of context. I'll let you decide in what context it's appropriate.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/06/06/vox-day-is-one-sick-puppy/

Again, this is one of the central leaders, not a random member. Incidentally, he supports GG.

I'll say it again: citation needed.

A citation for my opinion? Can I just point to the whole "women shouldn't vote" thing again? Or does that not count as misogyny?

For Vox: I saw you check this sight on your blog. On the off chance you happen to read this, then "HEY VOX! FUCK YOU! I'LL SEE YOU AT THE HUGO'S IN A YEAR OR TWO!"

 

[Vault101]

(1) Many of the recent Hugo nominations and winners were political appointments on the far left side of the spectrum. That is, the books were disproportionately written by minority/women authors or featured main characters from those same demographics. Quite the opposite of the quality narrative that Vault101 is spinning, it appears that many of these books were selected because they spread the 'correct' message.
.

whats "political" about being written by and/or featuring female/LGBT/POC/whatever's? why is that considered an aversion to some kind of norm?

why do they only get through "because of that" but everything else is just business as usual?

people constantly say "oh but it shouldn't matter" when clearly it friggen does with these people

 

[Vault101]

Wanting to bring back fantasy that is just fantasy, or sci-if that is just sci-fi?

there was never "just" sci fi

I mean unless genre space opera pulp is "just" sci fi (with hilariously little "sci") though I thought that image was one the genre was trying desperately to shake but hey what do I know...

But as has been pointed out in this very thread, the "sad puppy" slate pulled from a variety of people and view points. So basically, there are two factions opposing yours, and you're dismissing both because of the flaws of one. It's dishonest.

[i/]"but but but...we have BINDERS FULL OF MINORITYS!"[/i]

I've heard it a million times before I don't believe it and I've yet to be convinced

For Vox: I saw you check this sight on your blog. On the off chance you happen to read this, then "HEY VOX! FUCK YOU! I'LL SEE YOU AT THE HUGO'S IN A YEAR OR TWO!"

I'm gonna pay the damn $40 to vote I swear

 

[Fox12]

I'm gonna pay the damn $40 to vote I swear

Maybe I'll see you there. I'll be holding the damn trophy >: (

 

[MorphBallBomb]

Conflating Rabid Puppies with Sad Puppies to condemn Sad Puppies is illogical. Just because both groups have gripes with the politics of the Hugos and want to effect change doesn't make them the same. If so, then the counter response of pre-emptively voting no award on what will undoubtedly be some worthy works in an effort to spite these slates is just as bad, if not worse.

I would argue that it is worse, mainly because voting on a work without reading it is shitty regardless.

If you're of the opinion that all sides are wrong in this, and coalitions/politicking for vote gaming in the popularity contest that is the Hugos corrupts the Hugos, then I can't fault you for that opinion.

If you want to condemn Rabid Puppies for being associated with assholes you don't like, that's also something I can't find fault with, if you're part of a group disparaged by those people--I'm leaving room open for realpolitik here as justification for behavior I deplore in my words below.

I find it hard, personally, to find fault with Sad Puppies. And I will tell you why. I have submitted a few stories to a few big name publications. All rejected, I know, because I sincerely know my stories were not good enough and I am grateful to have been spared the embarrassment of having crap attached to my name thus far. However, one thing did bother me when I submitted, and that was the note on the submissions pages of a few of these sites that specifically encouraged or solicited works based on the identity of the author, e.g. underrepresentation, as a form of literary affirmative action.

I take issue with this because I would never construct this sentence: "I am a poor LGBT, please read my story about space travel" and expect anything to come of it, even though it was true. The author identity should not matter at all, it should be the quality of the work that matters. I can't find the alternative to be resonate with my artistic conscience.

 

[MorphBallBomb]

But as has been pointed out in this very thread, the "sad puppy" slate pulled from a variety of people and view points. So basically, there are two factions opposing yours, and you're dismissing both because of the flaws of one. It's dishonest.

[i/]"but but but...we have BINDERS FULL OF MINORITYS!"[/i]

I've heard it a million times before I don't believe it and I've yet to be convinced

good thing the identities of the Sad Puppies slate's authors are known facts which can be verified by looking, unless one was ideologically compelled not to respond to that evidence.

 

[Fox12]

Conflating Rabid Puppies with Sad Puppies to condemn Sad Puppies is illogical. Just because both groups have gripes with the politics of the Hugos and want to effect change doesn't make them the same.

But they are tied together, even loosely. However, I'll grant you that sad puppies shouldn't be judged by their more radical cousins.

That said, do they support homophobic and potentially sexist writers? As I listed above, John C. Wright was pushed through by this movement, and he's clearly a homophobe. So yes, they do. Now, should a writers works be judged by the authors views, even if the works, themselves, are not homophobic? No, I think. Orson Scott Card comes to mind, for instance. His work is good, independent of the authors views. However, it seems to me that sad puppies selected authors based on their right wing leanings, as several of their supporters have proudly claimed. This strikes me as hypocritical.

Personally, though, I hate this group for another reason. I consider their outlook both regressive and childish. Essentially arguing that sci-fi genre should be narrowed down to simple swash buckling action romps is completely ridiculous. That stuff can be great, but there's nothing wrong with more serious fiction that tries to tackle big problems. Those writers are just as passionate about their work, and cutting them off seems damaging to the genre as a whole.

I would argue that it is worse, mainly because voting on a work without reading it is shitty regardless.

I agree, voting for no winner is unfair to everyone involved. They're simply trying to unify votes in order to shut down the awards. Sad puppies haven't technically broken any rules, so opponents should simply unify their own literary heavy hitters. The irony is that you now have literary political parties formed, which is beyond all help, because small puppies has just made the awards more political then they've ever been. It's not about quality writing any more, it's about winning a culture war.

However, one thing did bother me when I submitted, and that was the note on the submissions pages of a few of these sites that specifically encouraged or solicited works based on the identity of the author, e.g. underrepresentation, as a form of literary affirmative action.

I take issue with this because I would never construct this sentence: "I am a poor LGBT, please read my story about space travel" and expect anything to come of it, even though it was true. The author identity should not matter at all, it should be the quality of the work that matters. I can't find the alternative to be resonate with my artistic conscience.

I agree with you here, affirmative action is bull shit. Writing should be based on quality, more then any other art form.

 

[Phasmal]

Yeah... cause good sci-fi/fantasy never has politics in it....? Fucking hell.
I suppose the politics of the `default` POV in books is just not politics, right?

Ugh, this is just gross. It's no fun to be in nerd culture recently, just a bunch of angry dudes everywhere. People need to chill.

 

[Silence]

*Cracks Knuckles*

Last year, a year heralded as a milestone in diversity for the Hugo awards, there was only one visible minority who won. There is quite literally no way to argue this years awards where somehow less diverse then of recent years dominated by the click which Sad Puppies was in opposition to.

That's my entire point. They claim they're fighting for representation of right leaning writers, and that the Hugo's are too politicized, and yet, historically, this isn't true. The "SJW" weren't giving special privileges to people based on race or even politics. If they were then the makeup of the awards would have been quite different.

Here's a pro-puppy writer talking about their political bent.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/08/the-hugo-awards-culture-wars/

If you read the stuff from the founder of sad puppies it sounds more that he believes that there are too many people getting nominated because of their political views/their clique, NOT because they feature any specific protagonist. So what you should do to debunk him is looking at the political views of the participants and count how many are of a specific type of left. I don't know, I'm open to both sides of the debates, but honestly, the leftist media has in this case kind of fucked up by calling them racists.

This John Wright is kind of lol, but well, why should I care about one single person's dumb views? If it was every person nominated, well, then it would be something to be concerned about.

Rabid Puppies is, afaik from the statements of the Sad Puppies founder, not really related to Sad Puppies. It sounds more like the thing you are describing (right-wing-nuts who think gay protagonists are pushing political views on people), but still, seems to be more as a response to Sad Puppies because RP didn't think SP would go far enough in their political nuttiness. (As you can see by the different nominated people).

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Don't know any of the recent nominees/winners. Going by the historical winners, I'd say the Hugo Awards have been pretty righteous. Aldiss, Asimov, Bradbury, Card, Dick, Gaiman, Heinlein, Herbert, Martin... even Rowling got one.

 

[Zalmoxis]

Screaming "Fascist!" randomly in all directions is a phase that most people get out of their systems after their first year at university.

Terry Pratchett never won a Hugo, he must have been somewhere to the right of Josef Mengele.

Or maybe, you don't suppose that he just never curried favor with the inbred clique that runs the Hugo Awards like it was their own private club?

Nah.

http://madgeniusclub.com/2015/04/02/%EF%BB%BF-terry-pratchett-and-the-sadness-of-puppies/

 

[Ambient_Malice]

I wondered a few years back whether in this political climate the illustrious Philip K. Dick would be shunned for having the "wrong" political views.

He responded to Roe vs Wade by writing The Pre Persons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pre-persons Can you imagine if an openly anti-abortion short story were nominated, or even won a Hugo, in 2015? Surely you would have people shouting that the Hugos had become "hostile" to women or "non-inclusive" or some shit.

There just seems to be this unpleasant political cloud hanging over everything now. I suppose it is a reflection of the growing political prejudice in society.

 

[rcs619]

Screaming "Fascist!" randomly in all directions is a phase that most people get out of their systems after their first year at university.

Terry Pratchett never won a Hugo, he must have been somewhere to the right of Josef Mengele.

Or maybe, you don't suppose that he just never curried favor with the inbred clique that runs the Hugo Awards like it was their own private club?

Nah.

http://madgeniusclub.com/2015/04/02/%EF%BB%BF-terry-pratchett-and-the-sadness-of-puppies/

Trying to bring Terry Pratchett into this debate when he is no longer here to be able to express his actual views seems just a bit, wrong. To me at least. If you want to lament on the fact that a good author didn't win an award you felt he should have, that's one thing. But, bringing him in to try and prop up this whole Sad Puppies thing just seems opportunistic at best. Can we give the man some time to acclimate to the afterlife before we drag him in posthumously to internet-drama?

I feel like the problem with the whole Sad Puppies is the conflation of two distinct issues. If you want to say that the people who run the Hugos are an insular clique that tends to predominantly pick some types of stories over another, that's one thing. The Oscars are famous for a similar sort of issue. It is run by old, oldfashioned, serious-drama sorts of people, and they predominantly tend to pick certain types of movies for best picture. To the point where "Oscar bait" has become a fairly distinct sub-genre among movies every time awards season runs around.

However, trying to frame this thing within the "socially-conservative, religious and right vs progressives, the left, and 'SJWs'" debate that has become so prominent and toxic the last few years is something else entirely. You've taken a discussion about inherent biases and potential flaws in how an award is given, and turned it into a duel between ideologies and a concerted attempt by one to keep the other down. It's gone from "Hey, maybe there are some issues in this process" to "they're bad and they're trying to keep everyone they don't like down." The Oscars don't refuse to give science-fiction movies awards they arguably deserve because of liberalism vs conservativism or whatever buzzwords are popular, they do it because they're a bunch of old men, and that particular genre is just not one that interests a lot of them.

And the arguments about sci-fi and fantasy never being political, or dealing with social issues is just dumb. Sci-fi and fantasy have, traditionally, been very political, and very much concerned with social issues. That's part of the point of them. You're using a different world and a different set of contexts to explore or shed a different light on things we may take for granted. Some of the more interesting parts of David Weber's (who no one is going to call a raging liberal) Honorverse series is about the planet Grayson, a backwards, middle-of-nowhere colony founded by religious nutters, and how they have to adapt to being drawn into the larger-scale politics around them. By putting it within a sci-fi context, he's able to deal with issues like fundamentalist religion having to adapt to a wider universe (and gender issues, considering that Grayson women are second-class citizens who become more emboldened when they see other star nations actually allow their women to do things besides raise kids) without necessarily calling out any particular real-world religion.

Even Correia, one of the main guys behind this movement, is very much guilty of letting his politics seep through into his writing. In his books the Federal government is both incredibly incompetent, but also constantly meddling, and with almost zero regard for killing or arresting any of the plucky heroes who get in its way. Everyone always has guns, religion and spiritual faith are tangible forces that the good guys can use to fight with, and the answer to every problem is to shoot it in the face. It doesn't keep his stories from being fun little adventures, but he's the last one to complain about someone inserting their own experiences and biases into their writing.

 

[Saetha]

But as has been pointed out in this very thread, the "sad puppy" slate pulled from a variety of people and view points. So basically, there are two factions opposing yours, and you're dismissing both because of the flaws of one. It's dishonest.

[i/]"but but but...we have BINDERS FULL OF MINORITYS!"[/i]

I've heard it a million times before I don't believe it and I've yet to be convinced

That's... still just saying "Nah your argument's wrong," so...?

 

[Breakdown]

Having read up on some of the articles about this subject, it does seem that while the Sad/Rad Puppies movement is a bit extreme, there are issues with the Hugo awards that should be challenged. John Scalzi has already been manipulating the nominations in a similar way for years, and then there was the backlash last year against Jonathan Ross hosting the awards that led to his family being harrassed.

 

[MorphBallBomb]

However, it seems to me that sad puppies selected authors based on their right wing leanings, as several of their supporters have proudly claimed. This strikes me as hypocritical.

I implore you to look into the political views of the authors on the slate. You'll find they're ideologically diverse.

I agree, voting for no winner is unfair to everyone involved. They're simply trying to unify votes in order to shut down the awards. Sad puppies haven't technically broken any rules, so opponents should simply unify their own literary heavy hitters. The irony is that you now have literary political parties formed, which is beyond all help, because small puppies has just made the awards more political then they've ever been. It's not about quality writing any more, it's about winning a culture war.

Is a two party system more political than a one party system? Maybe, but I doubt it. I think it is fair to take the organizers of sad puppies at their word, that they were aiming to get works onto the ballot that they liked and thought worthy but didn't think would stand a chance, given the extant political environment of the Hugos they cited. Politics aren't just about wings, but about interpersonal spats that are asinine.

Consider that most great sci fi authors existed contemporaneously with great sci authors with different political beliefs and managed to not get mired in shit in the course of their professional business. The Internet is certainly a factor.

 

[Fox12]

However, it seems to me that sad puppies selected authors based on their right wing leanings, as several of their supporters have proudly claimed. This strikes me as hypocritical.

I implore you to look into the political views of the authors on the slate. You'll find they're ideologically diverse.

I agree, voting for no winner is unfair to everyone involved. They're simply trying to unify votes in order to shut down the awards. Sad puppies haven't technically broken any rules, so opponents should simply unify their own literary heavy hitters. The irony is that you now have literary political parties formed, which is beyond all help, because small puppies has just made the awards more political then they've ever been. It's not about quality writing any more, it's about winning a culture war.

Is a two party system more political than a one party system? Maybe, but I doubt it. I think it is fair to take the organizers of sad puppies at their word, that they were aiming to get works onto the ballot that they liked and thought worthy but didn't think would stand a chance, given the extant political environment of the Hugos they cited. Politics aren't just about wings, but about interpersonal spats that are asinine.

Consider that most great sci fi authors existed contemporaneously with great sci authors with different political beliefs and managed to not get mired in shit in the course of their professional business. The Internet is certainly a factor.

A two party system may be better then a one party system, but no party system is better then any party system. I find it hard to believe that quality of writing was superceded by politics. The Hugo awards have always been diverse, and sci-fi writers have always covered both political spectrums. Can you imagine two writers more diverse then Harlan Ellison and Ray Bradbury? But they were both friends, and both enjoyed successful careers in the industry.

Besides, this is about much more then just right wings politics. This is also about literary fiction versus popular fiction. It's, essentially, a war over the soul of sci-fi and fantasy, and it's proffesional place in society. Personally I can't understand why a story can't be high brow literary fiction and still be popular and accesible. LotR bridged the gap perfectly. The same could be said for Neon Genesis, though that's obviously not literature. But the Sad Puppies movement wants to essentially strip away any form of literary fiction in favor of low brow fantasy and sci-fi. As a huge fan of sci-fi and fantasy I can't see this as anything but regressive. This is the opposite of what the community needs. If they want simple adventure serials about space pirates and fantasy barbarians running of with women then I say they take their nonsense elsewhere. These are the Hugo awards, not the cover of an issue of Heavy Metal Magazine.