Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Next Year's Hugos

The Hugo Awards for 2015 have been announced, the rockets handed out, the post-mortems written and published. You can read analyses all over the internet. My own thoughts on the results can be found below, so I won't recap them here. The Great Puppy War is over.

Or is it?

That's the question. Where do we go from here?

I know where I'd like to go: back to normalcy, as old Warren G. Harding once said.

No one who truly cares about science fiction, fantasy, or fandom could possibly want a Second Puppy War. The past half year has been deeply unpleasant for writers and readers on both sides. Next year's worldcon is in Kansas City, and it would be great if the Hugo ceremony next August could once again be a celebration of excellence, rewarding all the writers, editors, artists, and fans who had done outstanding work in 2015.

Can that possibly happen? Can we remember that "we are all science fiction," as some of the ribbons I saw at Sasquan proclaimed? Can we have a reconciliation?

I think there's a chance. But a chance is not a certainty. It depends. Mostly, I think, it depends on the Sad Puppies.

We already know that VD Beale and the Rabid Puppies are going to try to do it again. They want to destroy the award, and they will no doubt do their damndest, and there will be a rabid slate. Nothing can be done about that... except to ignore the troll. Fandom -- liberal and conservative, Sad Puppy and Truefan, have all been paying too much attention to Beale. Our links and denunciations have driven his page views higher and higher. And too many people empowered VD and his slate... either by voting for the work he slated (often unread) or by voting AGAINST the work he slated. We should not be giving these toxic clowns the power to sway our votes either way. Beale will do a slate, no doubt. Just ignore it. Nominate and vote as if the Rabid Puppies did not exist. That's certainly what I intend to do.

Which brings me to the Sad Puppies. Brad Torgersen has retired from the fray, he tells us. There will be a Sad Puppies 4 campaign, but it will be run by Kate Paulk. It is my understanding that she does not intend to generate a slate, but rather a recommended reading list, similar in scope and intent to the LOCUS Recommended Reading List, or that of NESFA, or LASFS. I think that's good. Unlike the Torgersen list, which was carefully "curated," Paulk has said that her list will focus on the works that receive the most suggestions from those participating, that it could include "even David Gerrold" if a lot of people suggest him. I think that's VERY good. Could it also include "even" N.K. Jemisin and Rachel Swirsky and Ken Liu and Mary Robinette Kowal? Even better. Not that I think it will... the Puppies may not be all conservative, but certainly more of them tend right than left, and their literary tastes undoubtedly run to more traditional forms and styles too. But if Paulk is honestly willing to consider all the suggestions she gets, without litmus tests, I applaud that. It should enable her to produce a recommended reading list that is far more varied, and far more interesting, than the SP3 slate.

Slating was one of this year's big problems. It was SLATING that produced the avalanche of "No Award" voting in this year's Hugo balloting, the widespread perception in fandom that the slated nominees were illegitimate. If there is no slating (save for the Rabid slate, which I fear is inescapable), I think fandom as a whole will be far more open to the suggestions of the Sad Puppies.

Let's make it about the work. Let's argue about the BOOKS. And yes, of course, it will be an argument. I may not like the stories you like. You may not like the stories I like. We can all live with that, I think. I survived the Old Wave/ New Wave debate. Hell, I enjoyed parts of it... because it was about literature, about prose style, characterization, storytelling. Some of the stuff that Jo Walton explores in her Alfie-winning Best Related Work, WHAT MAKES THIS BOOK SO GREAT? That's the sort of debate we should be having.

The elimination of slates will be a huge step toward the end of hostilities.

But there's a second step that's also necessary. One I have touched on many times before. We have to put an end to the name-calling. To the stupid epithets.

I have seen some hopeful signs on that front in some of the Hugo round-ups I've read. Puppies and Puppy sympathizers using terms like Fan (with a capital), or trufan, or anti-Puppy, all of which I am fine with. I am not fine with CHORF, ASP, Puppy-kicker, Morlock, SJW, Social Justice Bully, and some of the other stupid, offensive labels that some Pups (please note, I said SOME) have repeatedly used for describe their opponents since this whole thing began. I am REALLY not fine with the loonies on the Puppy side who find even those insults too mild, and prefer to call us Marxists, Maoists, feminazis, Nazis, Christ-hating Sodomites, and the like. There have been some truly insane analogies coming from the kennels too -- comparisons to World War II, to the Nazi death camps, to ethnic cleansing. Guy, come on, cool down. WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT A LITERARY AWARD THAT BEGAN AS AN OLDSMOBILE HOOD ORNAMENT. Even getting voted below No Award is NOT the same as being put on a train to Auschwitz, and when you type shit like that, well...

The Pups have often complained that they don't get no respect... which has never actually been true, as the pre-Puppy awards nominations of Correia and Torgersen have proved... but never mind, the point here is that to get respect, you need to give respect.

And before any of the Puppies jump on here to say, "you did or first," or "you did it worse," well... I think you're wrong, but we've argued it before, and there is no point in arguing it again. A lot of things were said during the past few months. Do we want to keep rehashing them endlessly, or do we want to move on?

I am very proud of what I did with the Alfies; the reactions of the winners, and the way the awards have been received by fandom, pleases me no end. Sometimes it is better to give than to receive, and I got as much joy from giving out the Alfies than I have from receiving any of my Hugo awards, Nebulas, or World Fantasy Awards.

But I don't want to have to give them again.

I voted No Award in several Hugo categories this year, because the finalists were unworthy of the rocket, but I was not pleased to do so.

I would rather not have to do that again either. Next year, I hope, the Hugo ballot will present me with so many excellent choices that No Award will be ranked last in every category.

If there are fans of good will on the other side who share these hopes, be they liberal or conservative, left wing or right wing, great... I am holding out my hand. Let's talk about books. We may disagree... probably WILL disagree... but that's not the end of the world, or even the Hugos. That's just fandom. If you have ever been to a con, you'll know that the best panels are the ones with a little lively disagreement.

((And for those of you who would prefer to continue to call names and throw stones and talk about cabals and conspiracies and death trains... sorry, not going to engage. Hatespeech is not lively disagreement. I am too old, too smart, and too rich to waste my time with assholes.))


Sep. 1st, 2015 04:26 am (UTC)

What I'd like to see? The Sad Puppies do a long recommended reading list, just like Locus and Nesfa. It tends "conservative", sure, since that's their run in tastes, and that's fine. Everybody picks from their preferred list(s) the works they like best. And some of the slots are taken up by Puppy choices, and some are not. And since they're the collective choices of a lot of individuals, they're all among the best, and we have good choices from a wide variety of SF on our ballot, as things had always been.

And if enough of us nominate, it will drown out anything that Beale tries to do. Please, Sad Puppies, do not allow yourself to be seduced by him. You mostly say you separate yourself from him: I hope that's true. I'd like to see a ballot of which it can be said that it doesn't matter whether anything on it was a Rabid slate choice or not.
Sep. 1st, 2015 05:18 am (UTC)
Frank Probst
Sep. 1st, 2015 12:25 pm (UTC)
Kate Paulk
File 770 posted a partial transcript of an interview with her, and she said that she was planning on recommending about 10 works per category.
Sep. 2nd, 2015 09:39 am (UTC)
Re: Kate Paulk
Good. I hope she does. I'll try to read them.
Aimee Morgan
Sep. 1st, 2015 02:42 pm (UTC)
Vox Day did not influence the Sad Puppies. Vox Day COPIED the Sad Puppies. He copied the name, copied the logo, and laughed his ass off everytime someone conflated the two in their haste to attack him. The Sad "slate" had a very diverse collection of genders, ethnicities, political beliefs, and sexual orientations (look at all of the suggested works, not just those that made the ballot).

Brad's curating of the list was just narrowing it down to a manageable list because - and this is important - we were expected to READ the stories before nominating, and to help that he organized Book Bombs, and pointed us to where we could read them. That is not feasible with a list of twenty ir thirty novellas.
Sep. 1st, 2015 04:55 pm (UTC)
Twenty or thirty would have made it comparable to the LOCUS or NESFA lists.

Five per category, or less, made it a slate.

Regardless of intention, that was the mistake.
Sep. 1st, 2015 05:07 pm (UTC)
Much of what you're saying here does not correlate with my understanding of the facts. Torgersen did not "narrow it to a manageable list". He made a slate. A manageable list would have been 10-15 items per category, what Paulk is planning. Analysis of what had been suggested to Torgersen in his comments section did not show a strong correlation with what appeared on his slate. Most importantly, much of what was hideous and offensive on the Rabid slate was already present in the Sad slate. The worst category in the entire ballot was Best Related Work, and all five of the finalists were on both slates. Lastly, Torgersen and Correia have both testified to regular communication with Beale, much of which (they say) consisted of futile attempts to get him to tone his rhetoric down. That is not something you do if you're not colluding, and claims by Torgersen and Correia that they weren't associated with Beale were not rendered believable by the tepidness of their protests and by the Beale-like heat of their own rhetoric. Torgersen's implication that Scalzi is gay has to rank as the most inept attempt at an insult in SF history.
Sep. 1st, 2015 06:39 pm (UTC)
Brad's "curating" also discarded most of the recommendations he'd received from others not part of the Evil League of Evil, and also consisted of, per Williamson's own words, calling up Williamson to ask him what he had done in 2014 that could be nominated. Not to mention that the number of correlating nomination ballots was ridiculously high. Given the number of recommendations per category that he did get, and the lack of any of them getting more than 3-5 recs (and much of what was on the slate getting 0 recs), it's completely unheard of for so many nominating ballots to match 1-2 conjoined "recommendation lists" so closely.


George R.R. Martin
George R. R. Martin

Latest Month

April 2018


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner