Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[valkygrrl]

I'm sure at least some of you are aware of the controversy in this year's Hugo award nominations. If not George R R Martin's coverage is the least heated I've seen. It can be found at http://grrm.livejournal.com/

For the Hugo voters and potential Hugo voters here, how do we move forward? It looks like bad choices all around.

Don't vote (if you normally do) and the sad puppies win by hostile takeover.

Vote based on what's on the ballot and the sad puppies win by having only their choices available for the award in some categories.

Vote for perennial Hugo loser, Noah Ward (No Award) and the sad puppies win by virtue of if we can't have Hugos no one can. The tactic of burning the fields in advance of an invading army isn't unknown though.

Vote only the non slate choices, the sad puppies win by Noah sweeping some categories and cheapen the award in others by having the winners not have actually competed against a full field, a Hugo with an asterix. This is the option I'm leaning toward but it feels wrong.

Try to figure out who agreed to be on the slate and only dismiss those people treat the others as innocent bystanders. The sad puppies still got to control some categories. This is probably acceptable in the dramatic presentation categories, what's there was probably always going to be there but it still rewards slate voting and the political aims of the sad puppies. I don't think I could do it but i understand if other people view it differently. I doubt the sad and rabid puppies consulted the producers of Guardians of the Galaxy or that said producers would have deigned to respond anyway, why would they know anything about the inner workings of a very specific part of fandom.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

[Undrneath]

I think regardless of controversy or popular opinion everyone should vote for what or whomever they feel truly deserve to win. That is the only way to retain integrity. The truth will out.

[maxusy3k]

I'm following this only as it relates to the drama that is Gamergate and it's interesting to see the difference in response between the two. The puppies thing seems to be "out" and known for what it is, whereas Gamergate still maintains some thin air of legitimacy if only because those with power and reach largely decide not to discuss it.

I just wanted to pitch in to say, if you weren't already aware, at least two authors who made the slate have withdrawn their stories from the nominations, which is a very positive response to the hypocrisy that is the puppy claim of "retaking the awards for works based on merit and not politics" while ensuring only those they have deigned fit for representation make the slate. That first link speaks of the guilt that would come from winning an award based on political posturing and not quality of work which, as a wannabe writer myself, I can completely understand.

I don't really know much about the Hugo's myself so most of what I understand of the situation has either come from people I follow on Twitter or GRRM's own blog, but I don't think a boycott is the right idea here. GRRM has advocated using the slate as is and voting based on merit of work (with Noah being an appropriate choice if the works are poor) and that's all I guess folk can do without burning the whole thing down to the ground. It's a mess, but it's the situation as it is.

[Kugai]

I think one of my favorite Authors would be disgusted at the behavior of Sad Puppies and Gamergate combined.

I hate to say this, but I'm glad Anne's no longer around to see this.

[Half Empty Coffee Cup]

Sounds like the solution is to go Academy Awards style and limit who gets to vote.

[jwhouk]

Sounds like the solution is to go Academy Awards style and limit who gets to vote.

I thought the Hugos already were that, though?

[Half Empty Coffee Cup]

The right to vote in the Hugos can be purchased. Not so with the Academy Awards.

[maxusy3k]

That is part of the point though. The Academy Awards are almost a punchline now with the joke being favouritism and judge appeal, which I suspect those deeply involved with the Hugos wish to avoid. The reason this has happened is because the voting is essentially open to fans of the media, which is something I believe people want to preserve. With a fixed panel you run the very real risk of works being selected that cater to particular tastes, not to mention how that panel should be selected in the first place.

[Half Empty Coffee Cup]

And yet you'll never see ideologues suddenly take it over, leading to works being selected that cater to particular tastes, if not outright favoritism.

[valkygrrl]

If you look only at the argument the puppies wanted to publicly put forward it is 'hey some books sell 50000 copies and get no awards' to which I reply McDonalds sells millions of hambugers and their reward is money, awards are for making something extra special.

Brad's still smarting over his dead last placement in 2012. I voted that year, I'm one of the people who put him dead last. It wasn't for his politics which I didn't know at the time, it was for the steaming pile he left in my Hugo and Campbell packets. All the stories had the same plot, one underwater the rest in space, I've seen the story of Brigham Young's trek out to Utah done before, and done better. Battlestar Galactica this was not. In that same packet _Six months and three days_ was an even better take on predestination than Vionnegut's Timequake. It knocked my socks off and got an enthusiastic vote from me. It wasn't affirmative action, I didn't know Charlie Jane Anders was trans till she got up and gave her acceptance speech, neither did the transwoman I was sitting with at the award ceremony.

[jwhouk]

And to the 90% of the population who DGNF (as the youth at my workplace are prone to say) about the Hugos, this is all greeted with a "Meh".

[hazlett]

Two finalist had withdraw their titles. They don't want to participate in scheme.

[maxusy3k]

Interesting (and lengthy) article on the subject here.

[Jimor]

The systemic problem exists because very few eligible voters (attendees of the World Science Fiction Convention, or those who buy "supporting" memberships for ~$40) bother, so the nominating process is wide open for gaming like this. The real solution is to encourage more nominations and voting, even if the seriousness of those extra votes is more casual in nature. I get the sense that this kind of solution would be more troubling to the people in charge than dealing directly with controversies like this. As an example, the gnashing of teeth over one of the Harry Potter books winning, while less public than the current mess, was no less intense.

If you want to maintain the limitation to members, I'd restrict it to actual attendees, but make the period of eligibility to vote extend 10 years after going. Otherwise, open it up to a much wider audience of popular voting with very few restrictions.

[valkygrrl]

another take http://www.amnottheonlyone.com/the-psychology-of-hugo-sad-puppies-and-rabid-puppies/

Jimor any changes to the rules are a problem for later and involve a 2 year process. This year I and others have to deal with the choices we've been given.

[Jimor]

That may be part of the answer, then. A couple of years of "No Award" is a pretty strong signal that voting reform of some kind is a priority. I have a feeling, however, that the institutional solution would be to complicate the process even further rather than simplifying and opening things up to make organized efforts like this drown under the critical mass. The "Importance" of the Hugos is the highest priority. Strike that -- the illusion of the importance of the Hugos is the highest priority.

You have to remember that the fandom that runs conventions is a step removed from the fandom that attends conventions, and the fandom that attends conventions is s step removed from the fandom that reads SF/F, and the fandom that reads SF/F is a step removed from the public that reads SF/F. There are people who exist across those categories of course, but they are relatively rare, and thus don't have the influence they need to bring all the interests together.

You notice I've had nothing to say about the Sick Puppies, and that's because they're nothing but another set of trolls vying for attention. They'll only go away when they can't get that attention anymore, and that means fixing systemic issues within the community that have allowed trolls of all kinds to stir shit over the past few years. The only reason they knew they could accomplish this much is because they've seen how effective it can be over and over and over again.

[valkygrrl]

Blackgate has decided to withdraw after the ballot was locked. http://www.blackgate.com/2015/04/19/black-gate-withdraws-from-hugo-consideration/ shouldn't be a big deal since they were already suggesting people vote for No Award. As in all things puppies took to the comments to blame it on evil SJWs.

[Thrillho]

Side note, I know, because I only just about understand what's going down and find all of it depressing - why are these allegedly threatening pressure groups of cataclysmic assholes calling themselves 'puppies' of various flavours?

[valkygrrl]

It was originally called _Sad Puppies: Think of the Children_, intended as a dig against *scratches head* well see it was to stick it to... uh, people with... empathy? I understand trolling but I don't exactly understand what all the right-wing dog-whistles mean.

I always thought 'think of the children' came from the right wing using children as shields to deny people whatever. Gay people can't _hold hands_ think of the children!

Edit: first post using the sad puppy name http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/01/16/how-to-get-correia-nominated-for-a-hugo-part-2-a-very-special-message/

[valkygrrl]

Hugo voting is now open. http://sasquan.org/hugo-awards/voting/

The emails haven't gone out, or at least I haven't gotten mine yet.