Hugo Drama 2015

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

basic thesis is that some on the far right contend that the far left has hijacked the awards in order to advance a non-heteronormative, secular/ahteist, and multiculturalist agenda (or sometimes it is literary formalist/experimentalist texts), at the expense of well written & entertaining books.

so they organized a slate for bloc voting purposes in order to exploit a design flaw in the nomination process, whereby a focused bloc might nominate the entire field, as against independent-minded dispersed nominations otherwise, for the final ballot.

it's ludicrous, of course. if a far left clique or cabal or conspiracy were managing the awards for its alleged agenda, then the slates would've failed.

I've read some of the back and forth between GRRM and Correia and I think your basic thesis is lacking a bit, at least as it was expressed by Correia.

The allegation was not that there was some vast, left-wing conspiracy governing the Hugos, but rather that the controlling/voting clique, which Correia stresses is ultimately a pretty small number of people, has a decidedly "left-wing" and "literary" bias. Correia is pretty clear about the process that led him to look at the ultimate voting numbers and his realization that they were pretty minuscule, which made it so easy for the Sad Puppy and Rabid Puppy slates to dominate.

Personally, I'm not into fandom and the Hugos don't mean much of anything to me. I'm also not well versed in the material to have an opinion about the political or "literary" biases of the Hugos, so I have no way to judge who has the better argument re: the allegations of "bias" in the Hugos. That being said, this "controversy" amounts to nothing much of anything as far as I'm concerned. If your voting is open to the public if they pay a small fee, then "this is what democracy looks like." If you want the Hugos to reward certain types of sci fi, you should probably be looking at a jury system of some kind. Either way is going to have its problems.

[Lily Valley]

Well,

I don't don't drink, but I'll shake your hand.

I get to seen Connie Willis at least once a year. She lives in Colorado, and I usually try to make it to one con a year that she attends. Her husband is a pretty nice guy as well.

Lucky. It'll be great to meet you.

You will, hopefully, still enjoy it.

I was at last year's Loncon and it was pretty huge and pretty easy to lose yourself from the drama of this kind of thing, should you wish. In fact, the truth is, cons really aren't about this shit. It's about hanging with friends, meeting new people, finding cool things, and bars. Lots and lots of bars. All this Sad Puppies Rabid Puppies is a bit whatevs when you're there. And so it should be - and so a lot (I dare say the majority) of authors will treat it. It's about meeting the people who read your books, getting into conversations with them, hearing the snide the remarks from people who don't like you, room parties and bars. Did I mention bars? Well. Bars. It's important.

And yeah, the Hugos are gonna suck. But it'll be a small part of it, and it'll likely end in a bar, and if I hadn't made it clear, that's where all the good things in a con happen.

But anyhow, I guess what I'm saying is, I still think quite strongly that you'll have a good time at your first Worldcon. I'll be quite surprised if there isn't extra effort by all who are involved (authors, fans, coordinators) to make sure it is good for people who show. After all, that's what's important.

I will know where to look for you. I'll be in my bathrobe in one of them. :cheers:

I usually go to the Hugo ceremony. This year, we'll see what happens. Could we have an informal BWB viewing party if we can get the Hugos on someone's hotel room TV?

Scot, I have a DRESS that I DID NOT get to wear to LonCon last year. I am GOING to the Hugos. Come with me! You already know it'll be fun. :)

George has just invited everyone to come to Sasquan through notablog.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Does that mean we're all invited to the "Hugo Losers Party"?

[Xray the Enforcer]

No.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Xray,

I know, I was teasing. :)

[farseer2]

Would some kind person be willing to give me (or point me in the direction of) a quick summary? Sad puppies, angry puppies, just plain puppies - I can't make sense of any of it.

http://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/325f50/

http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2015/04/14/sad-puppy-data-analysis/

[maarsen]

basic thesis is that some on the far right contend that the far left has hijacked the awards in order to advance a non-heteronormative, secular/ahteist, and multiculturalist agenda (or sometimes it is literary formalist/experimentalist texts), at the expense of well written & entertaining books.

so they organized a slate for bloc voting purposes in order to exploit a design flaw in the nomination process, whereby a focused bloc might nominate the entire field, as against independent-minded dispersed nominations otherwise, for the final ballot.

it's ludicrous, of course. if a far left clique or cabal or conspiracy were managing the awards for its alleged agenda, then the slates would've failed.

Same thesis applies to any grand conspiracy theory from lizard people to Elvis is alive. If they really were that powerful, why have you not been crushed like the bug that you are?

[benpeek]

I will know where to look for you. I'll be in my bathrobe in one of them. :cheers:

Haha.

I won't be at this one, though. I'd planned to go, but deadlines for books cut across it, and my girlfriend would like to return to the States over Xmas to see her family. Became a bit of a non-issue after that, I'm afraid.

[Squab]

I was aware of the Hugo award for a long time but never really looked too closely into it so I might be missing something. Why are so many classics never even nominated? Feist, Eddings, Tolkein, Jordan (although it looks as if he got a posthumous nomination only because nothing else in the series was ever nominated), Wurts, Weis and Hickman, Douglas Adams, Terry Brooks, Hobb, Douglass, Stephen King even. Seemingly all inclusive club indeed.

Although there are many good authors in the list of nominees over the years, especially in the 60's and 70's, there are many excellent authors who have never been nominated while others have won a hugo many many times, especially in recent years.

To me, it looks as if it needed a shake up to regain the relevence it previously may have had.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I was aware of the Hugo award for a long time but never really looked too closely into it so I might be missing something. Why are so many classics never even nominated? Feist, Eddings, Tolkein, Jordan (although it looks as if he got a posthumous nomination only because nothing else in the series was ever nominated), Wurts, Weis and Hickman, Douglas Adams, Terry Brooks, Hobb, Douglass, Stephen King even. Seemingly all inclusive club indeed.

Although there are many good authors in the list of nominees over the years, especially in the 60's and 70's, there are many excellent authors who have never been nominated while others have won a hugo many many times, especially in recent years.

To me, it looks as if it needed a shake up to regain the relevence it previously may have had.

1. Some of those it would be a real stretch to call "classics"

2. I get the impression that the awards are biased towards Science Fiction over fantasy.

3. It, like all awards, seems to have a bias against comedy and satire.

4. Name one major award designed to honor achievements of the past year, in any category, that doesn't have a long list of embarrassing snubs. It's inevitable when you look back on a year with only a few months past.

[Squab]

1. Some of those it would be a real stretch to call "classics"

2. I get the impression that the awards are biased towards Science Fiction over fantasy.

3. It, like all awards, seems to have a bias against comedy and satire.

4. Name one major award designed to honor achievements of the past year, in any category, that doesn't have a long list of embarrassing snubs. It's inevitable when you look back on a year with only a few months past.

1. Agreed. Might be wishful thinking on my behalf for some. But many big names have been missed. There will be some i havent mentioned as well.

2. Agreed. I get the impression it is biased too.

3. Connie Willis - 11 hugos in last 25 to 30 years and is considered comedy or satire to a degree.

4. Length of that list should be related to the awards relevence and quality. Hopefully not just that but it should be taken into account.

[Procrastimancer]

You also have to look at what was nominated in the years that those books came out. There have been more than a few "why hasn't x" been nominated posts around (not here) that were easily answered with a list of the books that made the ballot instead.

By the way, Tolkien was nominated for "Best All-Time Series" in 1966. He lost to Asimov's Foundation series. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was nominated for Best Dramatic Presentation as it was originally released as a radio broadcast. It lost to Superman. Robin Hobb was never nominated, but she received a nomination for Best Novella in 1990 writing as Megan Lindholm. Stephen King was nominated for and won Best Non-Fiction Book in 1982 for Danse Macabre.

I have way too much time on my hands.

[Brendan Moody]

Two new works have been added to the ballot to replace those withdrawn by their authors. The new short story is "A Single Samurai" by Steven Diamond, which is from the Sad Puppies slate. The new novel is Cixin Liu's The Three-Body Problem, which is not from either Puppy slate.

[sologdin]

heh. comical if most of the slate nominees withdraw and are replaced by the evil librul agenda.

[Serious Callers Only]

All kidding aside, the sad fact is that secularization of the scientific community has arguably decreased the rate of the advance of science. Universities founded by or run by the Church study real knowledge and produce real science, because they believe God is Truth, and the cosmos was made by Him to be studied and understood. Institutions funded by the government study government-approved science, which, if not correct, is politically correct. They understand where their grant money comes from.

John C. Wright - TRANSHUMAN AND SUBHUMAN

Actually and literally quote from a Hugo nominated work

[Squab]

basic thesis is that some on the far right contend that the far left has hijacked the awards in order to advance a non-heteronormative, secular/ahteist, and multiculturalist agenda (or sometimes it is literary formalist/experimentalist texts), at the expense of well written & entertaining books.

so they organized a slate for bloc voting purposes in order to exploit a design flaw in the nomination process, whereby a focused bloc might nominate the entire field, as against independent-minded dispersed nominations otherwise, for the final ballot.

it's ludicrous, of course. if a far left clique or cabal or conspiracy were managing the awards for its alleged agenda, then the slates would've failed.

In regards to the last line, no matter who win the hugos this year (Puppies, SJWs or No Award Given), conspiracy theorists will have a great time and likely with an element of truth (albeit small) considering the influence of the people writing the blogs about "us and them".

Havent there been slates voting in the hugos for some time and the latest is just the largest and most connected (thanks to the interwebz)? i thought that was how this all started, no? Or is it about with people voting for the writer and their politics rather than the work? I dunno.

It all seems a bit ugly and is dimishing the award tbh.

[farseer2]

Actually and literally quote from a Hugo nominated work

It sounds like SF to me :lmao:

[Squab]

Actually and literally quote from a Hugo nominated work

That is a terrible quote and if the rest of the book is like that, i dont think its really my cup of tea. I also think its hard to judge a book from one paragraph.

There's a whole group of southern seppos that'd love that paragraph, I'm sure. Maybe thats his audience. Politicians have been voted in appealing to that demogaphic. Don't see why a book would be any different. Ya gots ta love democracy, it can be ugly at times.

[felice]

Havent there been slates voting in the hugos for some time and the latest is just the largest and most connected (thanks to the interwebz)?

Nope. If you're going to claim there's ever been a non-Puppy slate that had any meaningful effect on the Hugos, what was on that slate and where was it promoted?

[Squab]

You also have to look at what was nominated in the years that those books came out. There have been more than a few "why hasn't x" been nominated posts around (not here) that were easily answered with a list of the books that made the ballot instead.

By the way, Tolkien was nominated for "Best All-Time Series" in 1966. He lost to Asimov's Foundation series. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was nominated for Best Dramatic Presentation as it was originally released as a radio broadcast. It lost to Superman. Robin Hobb was never nominated, but she received a nomination for Best Novella in 1990 writing as Megan Lindholm. Stephen King was nominated for and won Best Non-Fiction Book in 1982 for Danse Macabre.

I have way too much time on my hands.

Thank you, that gives it some more credence. If you've got a lot of time on your hands, its not a bad way to spend it.