![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stormsewerI'm not generally a huge fan of spouting my opinions on the internet, but one exception seems to be the Hugo Awards. Far more posts in this blog in recent years have been devoted to that topic than any other (the complete list of my Hugo posts is here).
This year the Hugo nominations were announced at a time when I was too busy to pay much attention to them, but I do remember noticing that I had never heard of most of the nominees, and that one guy in particular who I had never heard of got three out of five of the novella nominations. On Twitter people were angry.
It was yesterday that I finally got around to investigating what happened. It turns out that 18/20 of the nominations in the main categories were all part of two very similar prearranged slates called "Sad Puppies" and "Rabid Puppies." Basically, the conservative block in fandom all got together and decided to vote for the same things, and managed to nearly sweep the nomination process this year. As best as I can tell [1], they believe that pretentious wannabe litfic has taken over the Hugos, that "social justice warriors" in the genre are systematically vilifying and excluding anyone who doesn't meet their notions of ideological purity, and that good ol' fashioned science fiction and fantasy should be brought back to the fore.
I mean, I can sympathize with some of their concerns. Much modern SFF does imitate all the worst aspects of literary fiction. Certainly many of the modern social justice types can be extremely frustrating to deal with, and some are even dangerous [2]. I even lament that stories where a hero-scientist saves the day by applying the scientific method are now a rare breed [3].
But there is no leftist cabal controlling nominations and wins. If there was, I can think of a number of winners from the last five years that wouldn't even have made the final ballot. I've often noted the strength of the nostalgia demographic in the Hugo Awards voters. If the Sad Puppies haven't been nominated or awarded as often as they seem to think they deserve, the solution is not to form an actual cabal to flip the ship, it's to start writing stories that don't suck [4].
If the Hugos are sick, the solution is not to kill them. People talk about "No Award" winning numerous categories as if that were the nuclear option, but I think Sad Puppies have already mashed that particular shiny red button.
This little exchange between Larry Correia and George R. R. Martin is telling:
CORREIA: Hypothetical question, if Robert Heinlein wrote Starship Troopers in 2014, could he get on the Hugo ballot now?
MARTIN: I don't think Heinlein would write STARSHIP TROOPERS in 2014. If you know Heinlein, you know that he was a man who changed with the times throughout his career. He was always trying new things, new techniques, new challenges... and his political views changed HUGELY over his lifetime. He wrote much of STARSHIP TROOPERS and STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND at the same time, yet one book is beloved of conservative military buffs while the other became a hippie bible. I have no idea what he would be writing in 2014... but if he were still at the top of his form, I would love to read it.
Exactly. It's not the 1960s anymore, and it hasn't been for a long time. Tastes have changed, and tastes even then weren't what the Sad Puppies seem to think they were. The world moves on, and though there will always be those who want to seal the past into formaldehyde jars and enshrine it, that's not what most people want or have ever wanted. Nostalgia has its niche, but when it takes over the main stage we might as well close the curtains and turn off the lights, because the show's over [5].
This is what I hear from the Sad Puppies: I didn't win any awards, and people on the internet were mean to me, therefore I'm being oppressed. But I know that I'm special and awesome, so it must be because of an ill-defined plot by all those authoritarians and their mindless obedient drones. The freedom-lover's solution, then, is for me to personally decree who should be considered for the awards, and then have all my partisans vote en masse for the choices I dictate to them. Oh, I'm a sad, sad, oppressed white male who just wants diversity and a place at the table. So much like a puppy, wouldn't you agree?
It doesn't make any sense, and its cognitive dissonance would be hilarious if it hadn't just successfully poisoned an institution that I love. The fact is that "Never before has any group worked so aggressively to deny others their place at the [SFF] table."
Every year for many years now I've read most of the Hugo fiction nominees and voted in Worldcon. It's always been a joy for me, even when my picks don't win (which is common). But if the Sad/Rabid nominees from last year are any guide, the reading this year will be about as much fun as decommissioning outhouses. The problem is that if this outhouse thing isn't handled, we might all be crapping in the woods next year and wiping our delicates with pine needles. So put on your rubber gloves and face-masks, boys and girls, because this shit ain't gonna shovel itself.
For the record, I don't actually think the rules should be rewritten to prevent this sort of thing. You don't rig democratic systems to prevent outcomes you don't like. I mean, I definitely don't think that political parties are what fandom needs, and I'm feeling growing resentment toward those who chased that snake out of its hole, but if that's how it's going to be, that's how it's going to be. But I'm still optimistic that all that really needs to be done is to take the nominating process more seriously in the future, so shenanigans like this don't fly under the radar again.
In the past I've been very hesitant to rank "No Award" anywhere on my ballot (honestly, last year was the first time I ever had), but that may have to change this time around. Will this be the year of No Award? What a shame if so. But they started this; we'll finish it.
"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted." -Emerson
[1] I've perused the blogs of Sad Puppy ringleaders, Brad Torgersen and Larry Correia, but found them rather sound and fury. I don't care to discuss the ringleader of the Rabid Puppies here.
[2] And certainly they are out in force in response to this.
[3] Not that the Sad Puppies crowd seem interested in reading or writing anything like that.
[4] Yes, I did enjoy The Lord of the Rings and even Starship Troopers; no, I'm not interested in your drowsy retreads of the same.
[5] Correia's response, by the way, was simply to complain that Martin didn't answer the question, thus demonstrating his complete missing of the point (specifically, that it was a nonsensical question to start with.)
This year the Hugo nominations were announced at a time when I was too busy to pay much attention to them, but I do remember noticing that I had never heard of most of the nominees, and that one guy in particular who I had never heard of got three out of five of the novella nominations. On Twitter people were angry.
It was yesterday that I finally got around to investigating what happened. It turns out that 18/20 of the nominations in the main categories were all part of two very similar prearranged slates called "Sad Puppies" and "Rabid Puppies." Basically, the conservative block in fandom all got together and decided to vote for the same things, and managed to nearly sweep the nomination process this year. As best as I can tell [1], they believe that pretentious wannabe litfic has taken over the Hugos, that "social justice warriors" in the genre are systematically vilifying and excluding anyone who doesn't meet their notions of ideological purity, and that good ol' fashioned science fiction and fantasy should be brought back to the fore.
I mean, I can sympathize with some of their concerns. Much modern SFF does imitate all the worst aspects of literary fiction. Certainly many of the modern social justice types can be extremely frustrating to deal with, and some are even dangerous [2]. I even lament that stories where a hero-scientist saves the day by applying the scientific method are now a rare breed [3].
But there is no leftist cabal controlling nominations and wins. If there was, I can think of a number of winners from the last five years that wouldn't even have made the final ballot. I've often noted the strength of the nostalgia demographic in the Hugo Awards voters. If the Sad Puppies haven't been nominated or awarded as often as they seem to think they deserve, the solution is not to form an actual cabal to flip the ship, it's to start writing stories that don't suck [4].
If the Hugos are sick, the solution is not to kill them. People talk about "No Award" winning numerous categories as if that were the nuclear option, but I think Sad Puppies have already mashed that particular shiny red button.
This little exchange between Larry Correia and George R. R. Martin is telling:
CORREIA: Hypothetical question, if Robert Heinlein wrote Starship Troopers in 2014, could he get on the Hugo ballot now?
MARTIN: I don't think Heinlein would write STARSHIP TROOPERS in 2014. If you know Heinlein, you know that he was a man who changed with the times throughout his career. He was always trying new things, new techniques, new challenges... and his political views changed HUGELY over his lifetime. He wrote much of STARSHIP TROOPERS and STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND at the same time, yet one book is beloved of conservative military buffs while the other became a hippie bible. I have no idea what he would be writing in 2014... but if he were still at the top of his form, I would love to read it.
Exactly. It's not the 1960s anymore, and it hasn't been for a long time. Tastes have changed, and tastes even then weren't what the Sad Puppies seem to think they were. The world moves on, and though there will always be those who want to seal the past into formaldehyde jars and enshrine it, that's not what most people want or have ever wanted. Nostalgia has its niche, but when it takes over the main stage we might as well close the curtains and turn off the lights, because the show's over [5].
This is what I hear from the Sad Puppies: I didn't win any awards, and people on the internet were mean to me, therefore I'm being oppressed. But I know that I'm special and awesome, so it must be because of an ill-defined plot by all those authoritarians and their mindless obedient drones. The freedom-lover's solution, then, is for me to personally decree who should be considered for the awards, and then have all my partisans vote en masse for the choices I dictate to them. Oh, I'm a sad, sad, oppressed white male who just wants diversity and a place at the table. So much like a puppy, wouldn't you agree?
It doesn't make any sense, and its cognitive dissonance would be hilarious if it hadn't just successfully poisoned an institution that I love. The fact is that "Never before has any group worked so aggressively to deny others their place at the [SFF] table."
Every year for many years now I've read most of the Hugo fiction nominees and voted in Worldcon. It's always been a joy for me, even when my picks don't win (which is common). But if the Sad/Rabid nominees from last year are any guide, the reading this year will be about as much fun as decommissioning outhouses. The problem is that if this outhouse thing isn't handled, we might all be crapping in the woods next year and wiping our delicates with pine needles. So put on your rubber gloves and face-masks, boys and girls, because this shit ain't gonna shovel itself.
For the record, I don't actually think the rules should be rewritten to prevent this sort of thing. You don't rig democratic systems to prevent outcomes you don't like. I mean, I definitely don't think that political parties are what fandom needs, and I'm feeling growing resentment toward those who chased that snake out of its hole, but if that's how it's going to be, that's how it's going to be. But I'm still optimistic that all that really needs to be done is to take the nominating process more seriously in the future, so shenanigans like this don't fly under the radar again.
In the past I've been very hesitant to rank "No Award" anywhere on my ballot (honestly, last year was the first time I ever had), but that may have to change this time around. Will this be the year of No Award? What a shame if so. But they started this; we'll finish it.
"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted." -Emerson
[1] I've perused the blogs of Sad Puppy ringleaders, Brad Torgersen and Larry Correia, but found them rather sound and fury. I don't care to discuss the ringleader of the Rabid Puppies here.
[2] And certainly they are out in force in response to this.
[3] Not that the Sad Puppies crowd seem interested in reading or writing anything like that.
[4] Yes, I did enjoy The Lord of the Rings and even Starship Troopers; no, I'm not interested in your drowsy retreads of the same.
[5] Correia's response, by the way, was simply to complain that Martin didn't answer the question, thus demonstrating his complete missing of the point (specifically, that it was a nonsensical question to start with.)
