Hugo awards 2015 discussion


Books

101 to 150 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

LazarX wrote:
Zhangar wrote:


My own impression from the article is that Vox Day doesn't even believe in any of the crap he spouts; he simply tries to make the world a worse place for fun.
A person may not be a racist at heart, but if he starts wearing a white hood and sets crucifixes on fire, as far as I'm concerned, he's a Klansman, and will be regarded as such.

Hell, he's arguably actually worse.

What the hell sort of person becomes a Klansman because he thinks its fun?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:

Correia declares over 3,000 voters to be "allied useful idiots" and "snide exclusive a$#~#@*s."

Correia is attacking everyone that voted against the Puppies.

Scalzi's pointing out that Correia and the rest of the Puppy leadership are jerks, and they got voted down for pissing people off.

Correia's slate got rejected because of Correia's own conduct, and he's doing his damnedest to shift the blame on to others.

Edit: for rephrasing my last line.

Correia actually provides evidence and reasoning for all of his comments. Correia is pissed because the voting public didn't insult him, they insulted the people he thought were good, many of whom had nothing to do with Sad Puppies.

Scalzi provides none, and instead just relies on him calling them jerks with no supporting evidence. Scalzi advocates for spurning and insulting deserving people because a jerk likes them.

In my mind, Scalzi is lightyears worse than Correia.


Actually, what Scalzi advocated was voting voting your conscience.

Scalzi himself voted for a number of the Puppy nominees - as he noted elsewhere, just because someone's a complete jerk doesn't exclude them from having good taste in books.

That being said, the voting represents Correia provoking a massive backlash, and it's not shocking at all that it did.

I do wonder if the Sad Puppies would've done much better if they'd been smart enough to distance themselves from Vox Day. But they weren't.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:

Actually, what Scalzi advocated was voting voting your conscience.

Scalzi himself voted for a number of the Puppy nominees - as he noted elsewhere, just because someone's a complete jerk doesn't exclude them from having good taste in books.

That being said, the voting represents Correia provoking a massive backlash, and it's not shocking at all that it did.

I do wonder if the Sad Puppies would've done much better if they'd been smart enough to distance themselves from Vox Day. But they weren't.

They did try to distance themselves. Many, many times. In fact, they brought it up in practically everything I saw from them. You can't distance yourself when your opposition is actively tying you together so that they can attack you as one.


True, there'd certainly been a lot of furious backpedaling. But I don't feel sorry for Correia in the slightest. I feel bad for the authors whose nominations the dope managed to taint.

Vox Day is a stain that doesn't come off, which I'm sure is to Vox Day's delight =P


Caineach wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Actually, what Scalzi advocated was voting voting your conscience.

Scalzi himself voted for a number of the Puppy nominees - as he noted elsewhere, just because someone's a complete jerk doesn't exclude them from having good taste in books.

That being said, the voting represents Correia provoking a massive backlash, and it's not shocking at all that it did.

I do wonder if the Sad Puppies would've done much better if they'd been smart enough to distance themselves from Vox Day. But they weren't.

They did try to distance themselves. Many, many times. In fact, they brought it up in practically everything I saw from them. You can't distance yourself when your opposition is actively tying you together so that they can attack you as one.

More importantly, you can't distance yourself when the guy you're distancing yourself from is taking over the movement. The nominations were a victory for Vox. Without the Rapid ones, the Sad Puppies might not have done much better than they did the year before.

All the attempts to bash the opposition for tying Vox to them just serve to distract from Vox playing them for laughs. Correia and Torgersen are just cover for Vox now.


Zhangar wrote:

True, there'd certainly been a lot of furious backpedaling. But I don't feel sorry for Correia in the slightest. I feel bad for the authors the dope managed to taint.

Vox Day is a stain that doesn't come off, which I'm sure is to Vox Day's delight =P

I love the fact that this article ignores that Vox started by copying them, but now insists that they are the ones who need to be responsible for distancing themselves.


Heh.

Well, when you jump into a pile of s#@*, whose responsibility is it to get you back out?


Zhangar wrote:

Heh.

Well, when you jump into a pile of s*#@, whose responsibility is it to get you back out?

It would be amusing if next year they decide not to protect the awards from Vox


Caineach wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Heh.

Well, when you jump into a pile of s*#@, whose responsibility is it to get you back out?

It would be amusing if next year they decide not to protect the awards from Vox

"Protect the awards from Vox"?

I think that's up to the rest of us, not the Sad Puppies.

Though it does bring to mind the cartoon in Zhangar's link.


thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Heh.

Well, when you jump into a pile of s*#@, whose responsibility is it to get you back out?

It would be amusing if next year they decide not to protect the awards from Vox

"Protect the awards from Vox"?

I think that's up to the rest of us, not the Sad Puppies.

Though it does bring to mind the cartoon in Zhangar's link.

Corriea and Torgersen have both talked about how they were personally calling Vox to try to convince him to tame his s*@# down.


I wonder if there is any way to set up an alternate fandom. What's the point of having everyone in the same house at this point?

Personally I want nothing to do with Scalzi. And if you are a fan, what would we have to talk about really?

Time to split things up. Then everyone can be happy.


@ Cainech - And they expected that to work?

I started this day assuming Corriea and Torgerson were at least competent, and now I question that assessment.

The Sad Puppies should really be looking into new leadership next year.

I believe any changes made this year don't take effect until 2017, so we should be having another round of this next year.

And yeah, I'm curious as to how the nomination process will go next year (and how many authors will respond to an offer to be on Vox's slate with "hell no!").

I'm curious as to how the Puppies will do if they avoid overlapping with Vox next year.

@ Sunbeam - starting another convention would actually be pretty smart. The Hugo isn't the only award around, but more never hurts.


Zhangar wrote:

@ Cainech - And they expected that to work?

I started this day assuming Corriea and Torgerson were at least competent, and now I question that assessment.

The Sad Puppies should really be looking into new leadership next year.

I believe any changes made this year don't take effect until 2017, so we should be having another round of this next year.

And yeah, I'm curious as to how the nomination process will go next year (and how many authors will respond to an offer to be on Vox's slate with "hell no!").

Except that Vox can put them on his slate anyway since he has no obligation to tell them, and arguing that he does is wrong. Historically, authors that put together nomination lists prior to sad puppies were not requested to have permission. Why should Vox have to follow different rules just because he is a jerk?
Quote:

I'm curious as to how the Puppies will do if they avoid overlapping with Vox next year.

You can't not overlap with someone who takes your work and then adds to it.

Quote:


@ Sunbeam - starting another convention would actually be pretty smart. The Hugo isn't the only award around, but more never hurts.

It would be an absolutely terrible idea that would never gain any traction. It would probably just end up with people insisting that it gets boycotted for being racist/sexist/homophobic and the people who accept awards being derided.


Caineach wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

@ Cainech - And they expected that to work?

I started this day assuming Corriea and Torgerson were at least competent, and now I question that assessment.

The Sad Puppies should really be looking into new leadership next year.

I believe any changes made this year don't take effect until 2017, so we should be having another round of this next year.

And yeah, I'm curious as to how the nomination process will go next year (and how many authors will respond to an offer to be on Vox's slate with "hell no!").

Except that Vox can put them on his slate anyway since he has no obligation to tell them, and arguing that he does is wrong. Historically, authors that put together nomination lists prior to sad puppies were not requested to have permission. Why should Vox have to follow different rules just because he is a jerk?

He's a jerk, so he's not going to follow any non-legally enforceable rules anyway.

I doubt anyone who'd put together whatever it is you're calling a "nomination list" prior to sad puppies (and probably even including the Sad Puppies) would have left anyone in who'd said "Hell no!" when they found out about it.


"I told the white supremacist to take me off of his slate" is a bit different from "I didn't bother to say anything."

And I don't see Vox tossing around a slate of authors that openly want nothing to do with him. I don't see him promoting a slate of "savages" or whatever he feels like calling his detractors at the moment.

Re: New convention - well, if the Sad Puppies really represent the populace at large like they're claiming, a new convention shouldn't have any problems taking off and gaining legitimacy with the people they actually want to be recognized by.

It'd take a few years, I'm sure. If that's unbearable to them, then oh well.

Part of the Sad Puppies' problem is that they bitterly hate the World Science Fiction Convention, and for some damn reason want to control the award it gives out instead of just washing their hands of it.


Zhangar wrote:

"I told the white supremacist to take me off of his slate" is a bit different from "I didn't bother to say anything."

And I don't see Vox tossing around a slate of authors that openly want nothing to do with him. I don't see him promoting a slate of "savages" or whatever he feels like calling his detractors at the moment.

Well, he did. Both Bellet and Kloos wanted nothing to do with him and apparently knew nothing of the Rabid slate until after the nominations were picked. Bellet, at least, doesn't seem like the type Vox would want to promote. As she suggested, it's most likely he just copied her name from the Sad Puppy slate without knowing more about her or even reading the story.


Zhangar wrote:


Part of the Sad Puppies' problem is that they bitterly hate the World Science Fiction Convention, and for some damn reason want to control the award it gives out instead of just washing their hands of it.

Perhaps because for the past 50 years it has been the most prestigious award in the field, but for the past 20 (if the various authors are to be believed) it has drifted further and further away from what is actually popular based off sales?


Caineach wrote:
Zhangar wrote:


Part of the Sad Puppies' problem is that they bitterly hate the World Science Fiction Convention, and for some damn reason want to control the award it gives out instead of just washing their hands of it.
Perhaps because for the past 50 years it has been the most prestigious award in the field, but for the past 20 (if the various authors are to be believed) it has drifted further and further away from what is actually popular based off sales?

Or perhaps, it's never been what's most popular based off sales?

Even when, as Flint's article suggested, the field was small enough that you could read everything and many fans did.

If you want to give awards for the most popular works based off sales, that's simple: Look at what sold the most, give that an award.


Except that based on the Eric Flint article posted upthread, that's pretty much always been the case.

The Hugo is an award representing what the members of the World Science Fiction Convention like.

I don't see it as a problem if their tastes deviate from the mainstream?

I mean, an argument for "they don't give the award to things that are actually popular!" pretty much amounts to arguing that the Hugo should be based on who makes the most money.

I'm not sure that's really the best metric to be basing on an award ceremony on.

The Late, Great Sir Terry Pratchett wrote:
There are better writers than me and J.K. Rowling who aren't particularly financially successful.

There's a better, snarkier quote from Sir Pratchett along the lines "No, I didn't win an award. I'll now go cry on my mountain of money" but I can't find it readily.


I guess it's the same as fundamental problems with free markets. Or for that matter, democracy. But that's probably a separate issue.

thejeff wrote:
Reading that thread, I really don't see anything nasty. Of course, some are deleted and it appears the worst was in email anyway, but I don't see how you can conclude from that thread that "it's when the anti-Puppies start making it personal that things turn nasty."

Everything looks fine until someone drags in an agenda and starts all but shaming her because of the kind of people supporting her and not just "hey, great story" which is what it seems plenty of people with a variety of views are doing up until those points. I'd call that nasty, since they're clearly not "just saying" they're provoking with intent, in a way that looks pretty dishonest and manipulative.


Zhangar wrote:

Except that based on the Eric Flint article posted upthread, that's pretty much always been the case.

The Hugo is an award representing what the members of the World Science Fiction Convention like.

I don't see it as a problem if their tastes deviate from the mainstream

The difference now (and for much of my lifetime) is that "Fans*" are an even smaller and possibly less representative slice of the total readership of science fiction & fantasy than they were back in the day.

One interesting thought would be expand voting membership from WorldCon to any science-fiction/fantasy convention**, bringing in those involved in Fandom, but not able to travel to WorldCon. Sort of what the voting only memberships are intended to do, but not as easily abusable.

*Where Fans is defined strictly as members of WorldCon, but more loosely as those actively involved in Fandom - conventions, fanzines, etc.

**Defining "science-fiction/fantasy convention" is left as an exercise for the reader.:)


Totes McScrotes wrote:

I guess it's the same as fundamental problems with free markets. Or for that matter, democracy. But that's probably a separate issue.

thejeff wrote:
Reading that thread, I really don't see anything nasty. Of course, some are deleted and it appears the worst was in email anyway, but I don't see how you can conclude from that thread that "it's when the anti-Puppies start making it personal that things turn nasty."
Everything looks fine until someone drags in an agenda and starts all but shaming her because of the kind of people supporting her and not just "hey, great story" which is what it seems plenty of people with a variety of views are doing up until those points. I'd call that nasty, since they're clearly not "just saying" they're provoking with intent, in a way that looks pretty dishonest and manipulative.

Quote? Cause I really didn't see it and I'm still not sure which post you're talking about.


Zhangar wrote:

Except that based on the Eric Flint article posted upthread, that's pretty much always been the case.

The Hugo is an award representing what the members of the World Science Fiction Convention like.

I don't see it as a problem if their tastes deviate from the mainstream?

I mean, an argument for "they don't give the award to things that are actually popular!" pretty much amounts to arguing that the Hugo should be based on who makes the most money.

I'm not sure that's really the best metric to be basing on an award ceremony on.

Except they still advertise it as the fan award for the greater community. You can't have it both ways, telling people it is the fan award and still expect it to stay within your little clique. Martin had a good blog post on it.


Caineach wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Except that based on the Eric Flint article posted upthread, that's pretty much always been the case.

The Hugo is an award representing what the members of the World Science Fiction Convention like.

I don't see it as a problem if their tastes deviate from the mainstream?

I mean, an argument for "they don't give the award to things that are actually popular!" pretty much amounts to arguing that the Hugo should be based on who makes the most money.

I'm not sure that's really the best metric to be basing on an award ceremony on.

Except they still advertise it as the fan award for the greater community. You can't have it both ways, telling people it is the fan award and still expect it to stay within your little clique. Martin had a good blog post on it.

Which one?

I assume it wasn't this one, where he talks about the various Puppies being nominated by that little clique.


Gerrib, Cirsova, rcade and yamamanama all keep dragging up the issue and politicizing it after she asks explicitly not to, like they're talking over her. The people with pro-Puppy slants in contrast respect her wishes and leave all such discussion out as per her request.


Totes McScrotes wrote:
Gerrib, Cirsova, rcade and yamamanama all keep dragging up the issue and politicizing it after she asks explicitly not to, like they're talking over her. The people with pro-Puppy slants in contrast respect her wishes and leave all such discussion out as per her request.

None of whose posts, at least undeleted ones are nasty or personal. Several of them say they're sorry for the grief she's getting and say they'll read and possibly vote for her story.

They are, admittedly, bringing the politics up when she asks for it not to be, which is rude. Still, that's a very low standard for nasty or personal.

Cirsova, btw, reads to me as a pro-Puppy slant. Or at least not an anti-Puppy one.


sunbeam wrote:

I wonder if there is any way to set up an alternate fandom. What's the point of having everyone in the same house at this point?

Personally I want nothing to do with Scalzi. And if you are a fan, what would we have to talk about really?

Time to split things up. Then everyone can be happy.

Um...there are already many many fandoms, and it was never unified. You have the Twilight fans, the YA fiction readers, Potter fanatics, Lovecraft disciples, Urban fantasy readers, military science fiction contingent, epic fantasy diehards, etc. That's just books...and doesn't get into all the Trekkies and browncoats, or the Comic fans. Sure some overlap. But the fanbase has probably been too large for everyone to fit under a single umbrella since the 80's, if not before.

I admit that is sort of what irritates me about this whole situation. There is a lot of arguing (both sides) over who are fans and who are not. In particular I get really annoyed when I read puppy editorials that seem to imply that their fans (and there opinions) reflect a majority opinion. Because attached to that is often a subtle (or sometimes not so subtle) suggestion that I am some sort of poser. The Hugos rather easily showed that particular opinion to be wrong (well the majority idea, not the poser thing :) ). I have no problem believing that Correia and folks have a large fanbase, but they are one of many competing fanbases, and they certainly don't speak for my opinion and evidently they don't for the worldcon folks.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

I liked this take from Blackfive.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Correia's response to the Hugo awards.

Heh. The sheer venom in Correia's post (and in his comments section) is impressive. Scalzi predicted his response pretty well.

About 2,000 more ballots were cast this year than last year.

Apparently, the Puppies succeeded in inspiring a significant number of people to join in the Hugos just to vote them down.

Wonder if they'll inspire even more people to do that next year.

Great work, guys.

Actually, both authors manage an impressive amount of hypocrisy and doublethink in their posts. Scalzi is quick to lash out with the jerk-stick without recognizing almost all "jerk moves" he describes have definitely been enacted by him and his followers. Correia blames the NO AWARDS results on his detractors without for a moment reflecting if he and his actions had a lot to do with creating the situation in the first place.


thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Except that based on the Eric Flint article posted upthread, that's pretty much always been the case.

The Hugo is an award representing what the members of the World Science Fiction Convention like.

I don't see it as a problem if their tastes deviate from the mainstream?

I mean, an argument for "they don't give the award to things that are actually popular!" pretty much amounts to arguing that the Hugo should be based on who makes the most money.

I'm not sure that's really the best metric to be basing on an award ceremony on.

Except they still advertise it as the fan award for the greater community. You can't have it both ways, telling people it is the fan award and still expect it to stay within your little clique. Martin had a good blog post on it.

Which one?

I assume it wasn't this one, where he talks about the various Puppies being nominated by that little clique.

No. Before that one you had this one


Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Except that based on the Eric Flint article posted upthread, that's pretty much always been the case.

The Hugo is an award representing what the members of the World Science Fiction Convention like.

I don't see it as a problem if their tastes deviate from the mainstream?

I mean, an argument for "they don't give the award to things that are actually popular!" pretty much amounts to arguing that the Hugo should be based on who makes the most money.

I'm not sure that's really the best metric to be basing on an award ceremony on.

Except they still advertise it as the fan award for the greater community. You can't have it both ways, telling people it is the fan award and still expect it to stay within your little clique. Martin had a good blog post on it.

Which one?

I assume it wasn't this one, where he talks about the various Puppies being nominated by that little clique.

No. Before that one you had this one

I still don't think Martin's saying what you think he's saying. They're WorldCon's awards. Which used to be far more the center of fandom than they are now.

Yeah, it's a fan award and fandom can be cliquish, but not really in the way the Puppies claim. From one of Martin's comment's on that same blog entry
Quote:
I see lots of evidence to the contrary. Conservative editors publishing liberal writers, liberal editors publishing conservative writers. Orson Scott Card still seems to have a flourishing career. So does Dan Simmon. Tor Books publishes John Wright. Gardner Dozois and I, flaming liberals both, bought a story from him for our Vance anthology. And on the other side, I've had several of my own books published by Baen.

Both Correia and Torgersen were nominated for the Campbell (which is done by the same clique as the Hugos). Torgersen had been nominated for a Hugo as well. All before the Puppies started.

WorldCon is a small clique in the larger SF/F world, but not so much in an exclusive sense.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And on the flip side, as Flint pointed out, the supposedly liberal secret masters of fandom (ie, the Hugos) have shown far more love to Correia, Torgersen, et al then they have to him, Brust, or Lackey who are all further to the left then the Puppies are to the right.

Largely the issue seems to stem from the structural and community issues be that Flint and Martin discuss and that Correia and Torgersen can't accept that the sorts of people that, until now, cared about taking part in the Hugos (which is a subset of a subset) were not the sorts of people who cared about their work. Just like they don't care about lots of other genres and styles and authors that are WAY more popular on their own than the Puppies are put together.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Both Correia and Torgersen were nominated for the Campbell (which is done by the same clique as the Hugos). Torgersen had been nominated for a Hugo as well. All before the Puppies started.

WorldCon is a small clique in the larger SF/F world, but not so much in an exclusive sense.

And as Correia routinely points out, Torgersen was nominated after already being a multiple time NYT best sellers, while many of the nominees are virtually unheard of by the public. As this has routinely been advertised as a fan favorite award, why are top grossing works with the largest fanbases not making the cut?

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, where's Laurell K Hamilton's Hugo?!

Military Science Fiction is no where near the largest fanbase in science fiction.

The people who care about voting in the Hugos don't typically care about the sort of stories Torgerson writes, and the people who like Torgerson's work don't usually care about voting in the Hugos.

End of story.

Liberty's Edge

Also, you have a citation for Torgerson being on the best seller's list? I don't see it anywhere and he's only published one novel and two short fiction collections.

The Exchange

Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Both Correia and Torgersen were nominated for the Campbell (which is done by the same clique as the Hugos). Torgersen had been nominated for a Hugo as well. All before the Puppies started.

WorldCon is a small clique in the larger SF/F world, but not so much in an exclusive sense.

And as Correia routinely points out, Torgersen was nominated after already being a multiple time NYT best sellers, while many of the nominees are virtually unheard of by the public. As this has routinely been advertised as a fan favorite award, why are top grossing works with the largest fanbases not making the cut?

Depends on which public. The people who pull the weight to lift a book into a bestseller list are not those who spend their days in the SFF blogosphere, for the most part. On the other hand, those who nominate and vote for books on the Hugos definitely do. Why is it a surprise that those two very different demographic - the general audience VS. the enfranchised, I'm-willing-to-travel-the-world-for-a-book-convention crowd, have very different tastes and know about different works?

Eric Flint's article expresses this expertly - you wouldn't expect a half Labrador mutt to win an award in a dog breeding convention, even though it is probably in the category of dogs that are most popular in the general public. On the other hand, the dog that does win an award in that convention likely does so by meeting some criteria that most people don't care about or even would have thought existed, and the breed of the dog might be virtually unheard of by most people.


Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Both Correia and Torgersen were nominated for the Campbell (which is done by the same clique as the Hugos). Torgersen had been nominated for a Hugo as well. All before the Puppies started.

WorldCon is a small clique in the larger SF/F world, but not so much in an exclusive sense.

And as Correia routinely points out, Torgersen was nominated after already being a multiple time NYT best sellers, while many of the nominees are virtually unheard of by the public. As this has routinely been advertised as a fan favorite award, why are top grossing works with the largest fanbases not making the cut?

I don't think that's actually true. Torgersen was nominated for the Campbell Best New Writer award in 2012. I don't think he'd published an actual novel at that point (shorts, novellettes and novellas), so I doubt he'd been on the NYT best seller list.

Correia apparently was.

But again, if you want awards that go directly to the top grossing authors, there's a simple way to do that. Much easier that hacking the Hugo process.

Edit: The point being there was no conspiracy to keep Torgersen out. He got in. Correia did as well, though you can argue that was because his financial success forced his way in. You can't make that claim for Torgersen.


Krensky wrote:

Yeah, where's Laurell K Hamilton's Hugo?!

Military Science Fiction is no where near the largest fanbase in science fiction.

The people who care about voting in the Hugos don't typically care about the sort of stories Torgerson writes, and the people who like Torgerson's work don't usually care about voting in the Hugos.

End of story.

Except they have never said that military science fiction was the most popular, and often aren't even saying that they are the primary ones being left out. Hell, I've seen them talk about lack of Urban Fantasy on the list more than the lack of military sci fi. Kinda why they put Skin Game as their top pick for novel.


Krensky wrote:
Also, you have a citation for Torgerson being on the best seller's list? I don't see it anywhere and he's only published one novel and two short fiction collections.

I'm probably mixing up authors and will try to get back to you


Lord Snow wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Both Correia and Torgersen were nominated for the Campbell (which is done by the same clique as the Hugos). Torgersen had been nominated for a Hugo as well. All before the Puppies started.

WorldCon is a small clique in the larger SF/F world, but not so much in an exclusive sense.

And as Correia routinely points out, Torgersen was nominated after already being a multiple time NYT best sellers, while many of the nominees are virtually unheard of by the public. As this has routinely been advertised as a fan favorite award, why are top grossing works with the largest fanbases not making the cut?

Depends on which public. The people who pull the weight to lift a book into a bestseller list are not those who spend their days in the SFF blogosphere, for the most part. On the other hand, those who nominate and vote for books on the Hugos definitely do. Why is it a surprise that those two very different demographic - the general audience VS. the enfranchised, I'm-willing-to-travel-the-world-for-a-book-convention crowd, have very different tastes and know about different works?

Eric Flint's article expresses this expertly - you wouldn't expect a half Labrador mutt to win an award in a dog breeding convention, even though it is probably in the category of dogs that are most popular in the general public. On the other hand, the dog that does win an award in that convention likely does so by meeting some criteria that most people don't care about or even would have thought existed, and the breed of the dog might be virtually unheard of by most people.

Yes, but the award doesn't advertise itself as favorite of a niche group. It advertises itself as favorite of all of fandom. Until they resolve that disconnect, they are going to have problems.


Caineach wrote:
Yes, but the award doesn't advertise itself as favorite of a niche group. It advertises itself as favorite of all of fandom. Until they resolve that disconnect, they are going to have problems.

"Fandom" is a specific term. It's not "anyone who likes SF/F"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Yes, but the award doesn't advertise itself as favorite of a niche group. It advertises itself as favorite of all of fandom. Until they resolve that disconnect, they are going to have problems.

"Fandom" is a specific term. It's not "anyone who likes SF/F"

Fandom has no fixed definition, which is a huge part of the problem. Everyone has a different idea of what constitutes fandom.

Liberty's Edge

Caineach wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Yeah, where's Laurell K Hamilton's Hugo?!

Military Science Fiction is no where near the largest fanbase in science fiction.

The people who care about voting in the Hugos don't typically care about the sort of stories Torgerson writes, and the people who like Torgerson's work don't usually care about voting in the Hugos.

End of story.

Except they have never said that military science fiction was the most popular, and often aren't even saying that they are the primary ones being left out. Hell, I've seen them talk about lack of Urban Fantasy on the list more than the lack of military sci fi. Kinda why they put Skin Game as their top pick for novel.

Of course.

As someone who likes Corriea's work (in addition to lots of others) and generally doesn't like what has been winning awards, I have to say:

So?

Also, they put one work of Urban Fantasy on their list. Big whoop. Where's the young adult or paranormal romance?


Krensky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Yeah, where's Laurell K Hamilton's Hugo?!

Military Science Fiction is no where near the largest fanbase in science fiction.

The people who care about voting in the Hugos don't typically care about the sort of stories Torgerson writes, and the people who like Torgerson's work don't usually care about voting in the Hugos.

End of story.

Except they have never said that military science fiction was the most popular, and often aren't even saying that they are the primary ones being left out. Hell, I've seen them talk about lack of Urban Fantasy on the list more than the lack of military sci fi. Kinda why they put Skin Game as their top pick for novel.

Of course.

As someone who likes Corriea's work (in addition to lots of others) and generally doesn't like what has been winning awards, I have to say:

So?

Also, they put one work of Urban Fantasy on their list. Big whoop. Where's the young adult or paranormal romance?

They don't like it so why should they put it on their fan awards? Everyone else is still welcome to vote for things they like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Yes, but the award doesn't advertise itself as favorite of a niche group. It advertises itself as favorite of all of fandom. Until they resolve that disconnect, they are going to have problems.

"Fandom" is a specific term. It's not "anyone who likes SF/F"

Yeah there is absolutely no such thing as a single fandom. I don't know why anyone would claim otherwise. Hell, I got into Fandom clashes online before I even graduated high school (B5 vs Star Trek!), so I don't know why other people don't realize this. From a book standpoint, you have so many books released per year that its almost impossible to keep track of a single subgenre, nevertheless all of fantasy and science fiction. People gravitate to the types of books they enjoy the most, whether that is supernatural romance, Star Wars novelizations, or Hard science fiction.

At one point the Hugos did pretty much represent all of Fandom, but that is because the field was small enough that someone could realistically have read or at least be familiar with most of the works being published. That's not the case anymore, and I think the way forward is just to acknowledge that and start up separate awards, or try to get new award categories put in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Both Correia and Torgersen were nominated for the Campbell (which is done by the same clique as the Hugos). Torgersen had been nominated for a Hugo as well. All before the Puppies started.

WorldCon is a small clique in the larger SF/F world, but not so much in an exclusive sense.

And as Correia routinely points out, Torgersen was nominated after already being a multiple time NYT best sellers, while many of the nominees are virtually unheard of by the public. As this has routinely been advertised as a fan favorite award, why are top grossing works with the largest fanbases not making the cut?

NYT bestsellers are already rewarded for that accomplishment, by having piles of money to sleep on.

At any rate...do we want to make the Hugos about what is successful? Because profitable/popular doesn't necessarily equal good. I am going to make a leap and say that none of the people following this thread think the Twilight series is that great, or deserving of a special award. Based on the above logic though, every single Twilight book should have earned a Hugo, because clearly they have a large fanbase and are popular.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Yeah, where's Laurell K Hamilton's Hugo?!

Military Science Fiction is no where near the largest fanbase in science fiction.

The people who care about voting in the Hugos don't typically care about the sort of stories Torgerson writes, and the people who like Torgerson's work don't usually care about voting in the Hugos.

End of story.

Except they have never said that military science fiction was the most popular, and often aren't even saying that they are the primary ones being left out. Hell, I've seen them talk about lack of Urban Fantasy on the list more than the lack of military sci fi. Kinda why they put Skin Game as their top pick for novel.

Of course.

As someone who likes Corriea's work (in addition to lots of others) and generally doesn't like what has been winning awards, I have to say:

So?

Also, they put one work of Urban Fantasy on their list. Big whoop. Where's the young adult or paranormal romance?

They don't like it so why should they put it on their fan awards? Everyone else is still welcome to vote for things they like.

* Facepalm.

Reread what you wrote. Multiple times if needed. Come back when you realise where you tripped over a double standard.


Krensky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Yeah, where's Laurell K Hamilton's Hugo?!

Military Science Fiction is no where near the largest fanbase in science fiction.

The people who care about voting in the Hugos don't typically care about the sort of stories Torgerson writes, and the people who like Torgerson's work don't usually care about voting in the Hugos.

End of story.

Except they have never said that military science fiction was the most popular, and often aren't even saying that they are the primary ones being left out. Hell, I've seen them talk about lack of Urban Fantasy on the list more than the lack of military sci fi. Kinda why they put Skin Game as their top pick for novel.

Of course.

As someone who likes Corriea's work (in addition to lots of others) and generally doesn't like what has been winning awards, I have to say:

So?

Also, they put one work of Urban Fantasy on their list. Big whoop. Where's the young adult or paranormal romance?

They don't like it so why should they put it on their fan awards? Everyone else is still welcome to vote for things they like.

* Facepalm.

Reread what you wrote. Multiple times if needed. Come back when you realise where you tripped over a double standard.

There is none. Everyone else is welcome to vote for what they want to vote for. The puppies did nothing new other than be successful at what many others tried.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So the Puppies don't have to give recommendations to stuff they don't like, but Hugo voters have to give Hugo to stuff they don't like?

And that's not a double standard?

The mind boggles.

101 to 150 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Books / Hugo awards 2015 discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.