The community of authors is also pretty tightly knit - even the outcasts, like Larry and Vox are well known personally, if not liked.
If you think this, you have NO IDEA about the business.
Sure, a small group of authors know each other and are tight knit...but that's like .000001% of authors.
That's like looking at the golf players of a high school, and since they declare themselves a winner for the best person each year, declaring they are the entire High School student body and deserve such a thing.
Which insults most High School students while you are at it, AND ignores the majority of them even exists!
This explains some thoughts on the Hugo's over the past decade, if this is what people really think.
There is no "tight" knit community of authors unless you are talking specific publishers...in which case, you are saying that certain publishers control the book awards (which make it even more corrupt than what I was implying, though there are some which think it is that corrupt from what I've read above).
In the small community that you look at perhaps, but overall, the community of authors is a HUGE community. It's just one that is ignored largely by the elitists of the community.
I used to think it was Literature professors who were elitists, but the more I hear about the Hugo voting process, even the university professors (who tried to claim Tolkien was populist trash for decades, who put certain books over others and try to define what are classics and what are not) are more inclusive of the people and their tastes as well as what is well written and influential than the current Hugos!
It's probably better to say you are acquainted with the small group of authors (the golf club) that frequent the circles that currently are in contest for the Hugo's, but I highly doubt you associate or know much about the group of authors I'm with, or a few others that people know.
I DO know a few authors that HAVE gotten nominated for Hugos...but with them, I KNOW that they actuall would be the type that would have campaigned, at least a little bit, from previous years. Not that I hold it against them at ALL, but knowing them probably doesn't help solidify to me that the Hugo's have been this non-biased, unpolitical thing for Western Only authors.
In many ways I view the Hugos over the past ten years more like the Ennies or other awards which are given out at Cons these days...there ARE politics and groups and players. What happened this year is decidedly different, and I have no idea how that will affect it going forward.
That said, I really haven't care about the Hugos for the past decade or who wins (and really, still don't, it's an con award like any other award, those who actually sale books, like Rowling can be gracious, but really don't use it to promote their books anymore...though she is a prime case where the Hugos should have been awarded to her first book when it could have mattered, rather than later, also ironic...her book wasn't Sci-Fi. In addition, that was a case where I'd say it was the WRONG choice, despite glad Rowling won one if they are including Fantasy. I wonder if Martin would still agree with that.)
(I should also point out, the reason she probably didn't win previously was because she wasn't considered PART of this elite crowd at the time of her first book. She wasn't part of the golf club. I'm not sure after she made the football team if being given an award by the golf club was something that she relishes or not, as I believe she didn't even show up to accept).
However, I think the idea that they represent the world of science fiction is where it rubs me raw. It doesn't, and I don't even think they say so on their awards. It represents a small segment of the Sci-Fi society which has actually has branded themselves "elite" and going as far as trying to claim they are the Academy Awards of Science Fiction. They represent the WSFS and their award of what they feel is the best science fiction of the year.
That's a fine representation to me...however it seems that this statement
Finally requiring WSFS membership helps prevent ballot stuffing. If voting were free people might go around hassling their friends, or even random strangers, to vote for them. Because there is a small barrier they are much less inclined to do so.
Has been the DIRECT cause of their problems this year. If it were free, I doubt that small group of people could be that influential if they opened up the voting.
On the otherhand, opening it up would probably create even BIGGER problems than what you've seen this year.
But as a WSFS award, it's fine, just don't equate WSFS with the rest of society as it's a small group that's been elevated far in the estimation of some, than what they truly have been over the past decade.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pristine is a strong word. You're right, I doubt it's pristine. I also doubt it's seriously corrupt. It's a small fan/volunteer community doing the work. The community of authors is also pretty tightly knit - even the outcasts, like Larry and Vox are well known personally, if not liked.
The number of votes is publicly released (after the awards.) If there's dirty business going on, it's going to be pretty obvious. Like this.
There have been allegations from the Puppies of Tor doing something, but I haven't seen anything specific about what that is. Until I do, I'm writing it off as "Tor is winning too often, they must be dirty".
They aren't saying they are doing something nefarious. They are saying that they are a small group that has dominated the awards by being hostile to outsiders and making people not want to participate. If you have ever seen small convention politics, it fits right in with what sad puppies claim is happening. One clique gets slightly more powerful, pisses people off and drives them away. Now they get to dominate the awards by virtue of other people just not wanting to participate, and the awards skew towards one groups collective appetite. In this case, it looks like you only need about a dozen people to pull it off, which is really easy to do with just a single book club or social circle. A handful of charismatic people who convince their friends they should read certain books is all it takes. It doesn't need to be an organized effort for them to dominate the discussion. Sad Puppies is just an organized pushback against that behavior.
If that's really the case, then just pushing other people to vote, without pushing them to vote for a specific slate, should be sufficient. You'd need more, of course, but if there really are hordes of fans upset with the current state, just getting them to nominate should work.
Again, I'll point out that the last couple years when Sad Puppies was successful in getting a couple of nominees on the slate, they still lost.
It takes time to get disenfranchised people active in something.
It takes time to get disenfranchised people active in something.If that's really the case, then just pushing other people to vote, without pushing them to vote for a specific slate, should be sufficient. You'd need more, of course, but if there really are hordes of fans upset with the current state, just getting them to nominate should work.
Again, I'll point out that the last couple years when Sad Puppies was successful in getting a couple of nominees on the slate, they still lost.
So just break the system instead. Good plan.
Maybe there wasn't a conspiracy and the stuff these guys like just didn't win.
The system was already broken. They changed no rules. They just exploited the bad ones that were already in place.
From what I can tell, Sad Puppies is never claiming that there was an active conspiracy, just that the active voting pool was shifted towards one end of the ideological spectrum and was disenfranchising people who didn't fit in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At which point of course, there is no problem with voting No Award above any names on the slate, since that's allowed by the rules.
This isn't a government or giant corporation. It's a volunteer fan organization. Sure, there are basic rules, but it has run for decades mostly by the good will of those involved. It's not designed to be completely hack proof. And it probably can't be, without being changed beyond recognition.
As analogy, think of a munchkin building Pun-Pun or some similar exploit and insisting it was "rules legal and therefore...
Except that the slate didn't vote in things to troll, they voted in things that they thought were worthy but would not get consideration (at least the SP one, RP is a different story). By block voting No Award out of spite, you are telling everyone who likes those things that their opinions didn't matter, thus proving the point of the people who created the slate that the award has become an elitist clique. Sad Puppies wins either way. The only ones it hurts are the authors who got on the slate despite not having anything to do with Sad Puppies.
Scalzi has the right of it. Read the things that got nominated and make a judgement ignoring how they got on there. It is the only way to be fair to the authors.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, Benjamin Franklin once famously wrote that he became a Deist by reading anti-Deist publications (one specific one, if I recall, started this trend) and finding the accusations so specious that he became convinced that Deism was the correct path.
Before this thread, I'd never heard of "Sad Puppies" or "Rabid Puppies" or anything like that about the Hugos. Going on a basic run-down, sans any detailed information, I would have indeed agreed that both groups were excessively similar, and probably in the wrong.
After this thread... well, my opinion has definitely been cast.
The more I read about Vox Day, the more I agree that... well... ugh. He's pretty terrible, yeah. (Mr. Fischer, however, has made excellent points about the specific quotes used to "prove" this, however, are not necessarily the best to build said case.) I am insufficiently educated on the actual Rabid Puppies themselves to know, but it seems, from those things I have read, that they were created by him from his fanbase for the purpose of making things happen. That's... disconcerting.
The more anti-Sad Puppy things I read? The more I'm convinced that they're perfectly fine and, in fact, in fighting them as fiercely as folk are as vocally as folk are and as... poorly (if ferociously) as folk are (especially when compared to what they actually say) the more it simply makes them grow stronger, both in my eyes, and as a group they gain power and prestige from the vitriol turned against them... which is a bad thing. For them and their opponents.
Arguments such as,
No award can actually win, so that could be effective.
... are, despite claims to the contrary, actively,
Punish good authors for being liked by the wrong kind of people.
I know the idea is,
Shut down the attempt to game the system.
... but that seems to be a massive misunderstanding of what is going on here and how people work. Further,
Those authors were free to disassociate themselves from the Puppies attempt to do so. Some did.
... is unconvincing because, frankly, I'm not entirely sure that people should automatically disassociate themselves from the Sad Puppies.
Rabid? Yes, probably, given my limited knowledge.
Sad? It seems needless.
I somewhat like the response of the Award-givers, though I know such a thing could be spun into "positive" (blech) PR for those who truly want to try to do that sort of thing (it... doesn't take much effort or imagination on my part to come up with ways that those with disgusting views can "spin" things to look like a "good" thing from their perspective, unfortunately).
The best response to the various Puppies groups is for fans of the Hugos and those interested in the "purity" of the piece to become vocally active about various books they like, and encourage people to read them and make up their own minds.
Basically, do what the Sad Puppies do, only instead of as a singular group, do it as a sub-group.
Have forums where you get together and discuss books you've read, and nominate based off of that. Create "slates", perhaps, but "slates" based off of what you've all read, and hold discussions and views about those works. Build a list of recommendations based off of those things, explaining why you, personally, want to nominate X or Y thing.
This would guarantee that there is a selection for people to vote on that are based on public discourse and open clarity.
Scalzi's "suggestions" are worded in a much stronger and more provocative manner than the Sad Puppies' "slate". That doesn't make him bad, it doesn't mean he wants people to vote for things they don't read, it's just the way he communicated. He has a smaller "slate", but it seems just as much (if not more so) a "slate" than that of the SP.
And, because I'm ninja'd, basically:
Scalzi has the right of it. Read the things that got nominated and make a judgement ignoring how they got on there. It is the only way to be fair to the authors.
Only use the "No Award" if you, after reading the works, genuinely believe that there is no books worthy, regardless of how they ended up there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically what has happened here, is the 'sad puppies' have created a literary award american style political party. Its sort of a problem with the democratic process in general. A well organized group pushing a block of ideas that has the potential to pull in disperate supporters is superior to individuals pushing individual ideas.
Its easier to just tell someone 'vote xyz because reasons 1 2 and 3' then to get them to analyze and evaluate the issues that x, y and z represent solutions for. If someone was (had they evaluated everything in question) inclined to vote x,a,z, then theres a good chance they will just jump on the x,y,z bandwagon because human beings are suggestable and largely prefer others to make difficult choices for them.
The sad puppies are pushing the kind of books they want to see win awards. That in and of itself is fine. Its only different in scale and oraganization from well known figures in the genre recommending a given author or book. That is a pretty well established practice going back to the inception of things like the Hugos.
The problem is when one group gets oragnized, it pushes everyone to get organized to compete, and then you have a loss of ideas. Its probably the biggest problem with the american political system. You have 2 big voting blocks that sort of mash together a number of different positions, and in order to succeed you have to cram yourself into one of those two models or have little chance for success.
I am not really sure what the real solution is other then a countering force trying to 'get out the vote' for books other then whats on the sad puppy slate. Ofcourse you still have the problem of block voting being more effective then individual voting. You can say encourage people to read everything on the list and evaluate for themselves, but the truth is, that wont work as well as telling them what to vote for. It just wont. People dont work that way.
So basically what has happened here, is the 'sad puppies' have created a literary award american style political party. Its sort of a problem with the democratic process in general. A well organized group pushing a block of ideas that has the potential to pull in disperate supporters is superior to individuals pushing individual ideas.
Its easier to just tell someone 'vote xyz because reasons 1 2 and 3' then to get them to analyze and evaluate the issues that x, y and z represent solutions for. If someone was (had they evaluated everything in question) inclined to vote x,a,z, then theres a good chance they will just jump on the x,y,z bandwagon because human beings are suggestable and largely prefer others to make difficult choices for them.
The sad puppies are pushing the kind of books they want to see win awards. That in and of itself is fine. Its only different in scale and oraganization from well known figures in the genre recommending a given author or book. That is a pretty well established practice going back to the inception of things like the Hugos.
The problem is when one group gets oragnized, it pushes everyone to get organized to compete, and then you have a loss of ideas. Its probably the biggest problem with the american political system. You have 2 big voting blocks that sort of mash together a number of different positions, and in order to succeed you have to cram yourself into one of those two models or have little chance for success.
I am not really sure what the real solution is other then a countering force trying to 'get out the vote' for books other then whats on the sad puppy slate. Ofcourse you still have the problem of block voting being more effective then individual voting. You can say encourage people to read everything on the list and evaluate for themselves, but the truth is, that wont work as well as telling them what to vote for. It just wont. People dont work that way.
From what I can tell, their recommendations weren't even hitting significantly more numbers than other people who have done the same thing. They are basically posting some recommendations around a few author's message boards. The difference is the amount of buy-in they have gotten from their fanbase, which left wing ideologues have apparently driven into a frenzy.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This movement isn't about inclusion. It's about reactionaries attempting to exert control over a system that hasnt been favoring them. The condescending and patronizing attitude of the sponsers of Sad Puppies towards those that they believe have "stolen" the awards from "true" sci-fi becomes extraordinarily clear in the banter they have with their followers and their attacks on critics in the comments on their sites.
The Rapid Puppies list was more successful than the more moderate Sad Puppies one. That fact alone gives an idea of what kind of person is behind this movement. The name "Sad Puppies" alone is a perfect example of the kind of self-indulgent victim complex that motivates its creators.
Once again, nobody has given any evidence that there was any form of vote tampering in the past. Saying "certainly it must have happened at some point" doesn't cut it, sorry. The only evidence presented amounts to "I dont like thing and everyone in my social circle doesnt like thing so it must win awards by cheating." This mentality pops up all the time when one group feels marginalized: they characterize anyone that disagrees with them as illegitimate because CLEARLY they deserve to be in charge regardless of any facts or evidence. It's nothing but unfettered ressentiment and it's disgusting no matter what group is guilty of it.
People here keep saying that it's just about a group of fans trying to get more of the sci-fi they like visible, but people keep dancing around the topic of what that actually means in this context. This movement is not about quality writing; it's about censuring certain categories of content. Just like Gamergate, Sad Puppies brings along the baggage of unleashing a horde of vitriolic negativity on a group of people that have commited the apparently heinous crime of caring too much about social issues and writing about them. My God.
The leaders of Sad Puppies want to define "good sci-fi" as being free of LGBT themes and social justice issues. I have not seen one critique of the actual writing skills of an author, only snide comments on the interests of the supposed elites. This Sad Puppies group of reactionaries has declared an entire group of writers--and by extension their fans--illegitimate because of the subject matter of their stories. How does that make the field more open? How does that fight for the rights of artistic expression?
I accept that the arts will always have works I don't like and that other people will. Camus put it better than me when he wrote that "A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad." You can dislike the works, but that is no argument against leaving the creative marketplace free and open. Creative people need an open environment to work in, to feel free to take risks. Taking risks means making mistakes, trying things that haven't been done before. How are writers supposed to feel comfortable when they know that any slight trace of social conscience will earn them a fanatical hatedom? Sad Puppies claims that they felt punished for not kow-towing to some unproven--and completely unevidenced--liberal conspiracy by being denied awards. How terrible. Correia even mentions in one of his dismissive comments on his site that he has a pile of money. I really see how marginalized he is. Not winning an award vs having people grabbing torches and pitchforks because you wrote a gay couple. I wonder which is worse for the industry. I wonder which infringes more upon the freedom of artists to follow their inspiration.
Correia and Turgeson and Wright can say they are just underdogs fighting the good fight until the end of the world. It doesnt mean anything if their actions dont support that.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This movement isn't about inclusion. It's about reactionaries attempting to exert control over a system that hasnt been favoring them. The condescending and patronizing attitude of the sponsers of Sad Puppies towards those that they believe have "stolen" the awards from "true" sci-fi becomes extraordinarily clear in the banter they have with their followers and their attacks on critics in the comments on their sites.
And have you looked at the banter they are responding to? The Sad Puppies have been downright civil in their response.
The Rapid Puppies list was more successful than the more moderate Sad Puppies one. That fact alone gives an idea of what kind of person is behind this movement. The name "Sad Puppies" alone is a perfect example of the kind of self-indulgent victim complex that motivates its creators.
Yes, because using a mocking joke of a name for what started as a gag is somehow a self-indulgent victim complex. Or it is a guy with a sense of humor who understands how the internet works and how to connect with his fans. Apparently understanding how PR works is evil.
Once again, nobody has given any evidence that there was any form of vote tampering in the past. Saying "certainly it must have happened at some point" doesn't cut it, sorry. The only evidence presented amounts to "I dont like thing and everyone in my social circle doesnt like thing so it must win awards by cheating." This mentality pops up all the time when one group feels marginalized: they characterize anyone that disagrees with them as illegitimate because CLEARLY they deserve to be in charge regardless of any facts or evidence. It's nothing but unfettered ressentiment and it's disgusting no matter what group is guilty of it.
Or it could be that the group is actually being marginalized and shut out of the conversation. Gotta love a group claiming to be open and welcoming hurling insults and vilifying a group for saying they feel like their voices aren't being heard and then doing something about it.
People here keep saying that it's just about a group of fans trying to get more of the sci-fi they like visible, but people keep dancing around the topic of what that actually means in this context. This movement is not about quality writing; it's about censuring certain categories of content. Just like Gamergate, Sad Puppies brings along the baggage of unleashing a horde of vitriolic negativity on a group of people that have commited the apparently heinous crime of caring too much about social issues and writing about them. My God.The leaders of Sad Puppies want to define "good sci-fi" as being free of LGBT themes and social justice issues. I have not seen one critique of the actual writing skills of an author, only snide comments on the interests of the supposed elites. This Sad Puppies group of reactionaries has declared an entire group of writers--and by extension their fans--illegitimate because of the subject matter of their stories. How does that make the field more open? How does that fight for the rights of artistic expression?
Apparently that is why the creator uses an ethnically diverse cast in his novels, and the recommendations included works with non-hetero-normative main characters from a group of authors across the political spectrum. Because they think those things shouldn't be included...
I accept that the arts will always have works I don't like and that other people will. Camus put it better than me when he wrote that "A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad." You can dislike the works, but that is no argument against leaving the creative marketplace free and open. Creative people need an open environment to work in, to feel free to take risks. Taking risks means making mistakes, trying things that haven't been done before. How are writers supposed to feel comfortable when they know that any slight trace of social conscience will earn them a fanatical hatedom? Sad Puppies claims that they felt punished for not kow-towing to some unproven--and completely unevidenced--liberal conspiracy by being denied awards. How terrible. Correia even mentions in one of his dismissive comments on his site that he has a pile of money. I really see how marginalized he is. Not winning an award vs having people grabbing torches and pitchforks because you wrote a gay couple. I wonder which is worse for the industry. I wonder which infringes more upon the freedom of artists to follow their inspiration.
Yes. Because the traditional voters response to Correia getting his first nomination before he became popular (complete boycott of his works because of his support for the Republican party) and publicly encouraging people to refuse to read it is so open and welcoming to new authors. If you are only open and welcoming when people don't dissent with you, your not actually open and welcoming.
Correia and Turgeson and Wright can say they are just underdogs fighting the good fight until the end of the world. It doesnt mean anything if their actions dont support that.
But they seem to be growing and converting undecided in their favor, so you may want to take a look and actually read their points before outright ignoring them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what you mean by "hitting significantly more numbers". Are you saying less people read those message boards than Scalzi's, for example?
Exactly. More people read Scalzi's message board, but he failed to conver them into voters.
Their recommendations certainly drew more votes than anyone elses, even assuming there was anything to directly compare them too. Partly because they framed it as "Here's your chance to stick it to them."
And by "left wing ideologues", they basically mean people who write stories featuring LGBTQ characters in positive roles, right?
If that were the case, Correia would be eliminating himself, as well as a number of authors on the sad puppies list. There is a difference between people who support LGBTQ issues and people and the people who have become rabid in their attacks against anyone who doesn't support the party line. There is a reason Bill Maher of all people recently called out the left for attacking its own, and you are starting to see news articles about the left being self-destructive with its political correctness on places like Huffington Post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Caineach made my point much better than I, so that part has been redacted.
There's a huge difference between saying you don't want the quality of a work being defined by whether or not it follows a specific theme towards "social justice" and saying that you don't care about someone else's sexual orientation / social justice issue and that the work should be either considered good or bad based on the quality of its writing.
The most resentful group I'm seeing from this is the group who apparently have been getting bent out of shape that there are more people involved in the Hugos nomination and voting process. If you're opposed to block voting, it's wonderfully ironic that you're trying to get everyone to vote the same way, "No Award".
-TimD
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What points? As I indicated when I paraphrase one of Correia's comments, I've been to their website and read their side. Where is the evidence there was any sort of organized liberal cabal, that quality works were systematically excluded from the process because they didn't meet an arbitrary level of social conscience?
Until there is compelling evidence that such corruption existed and actually affected the results in a meaningful way, Sad Puppies has no legs to stand on. Sometimes groups are marginal because they just aren't popular.
Once again, where are the critiques of the quality of the writing of the supposedly undeserving works? Where is the evidence that a liberal elite has made attempting to tackle social issues trump writing quality? All I'm seeing from Sad Puppies is a bunch of people complaining about SJWs.
As for the political comments, if I go to a liberal news site, they will say that conservatives are imploding. If I go to a conservative one, it will say liberals are imploding. I'm well familir with Bill Maher, and in the case you mention, he was resentful because he got pushback for his attitudes towards Islam, which are hardly uncontroversial. I'm also not sure how unbiased a person would be on the subject of political correctness when they name their show Politically Incorrect as a badge of honor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where is the evidence there was any sort of organized liberal cabal, that quality works were systematically excluded from the process because they didn't meet an arbitrary level of social conscience?
Actually, I was pointed to this blog post by Vox Day, in which he compares the nomination tallies of Tor authors/editors.
200843 Best Fan Writer John Scalzi
41 Best Novel The Last Colony John Scalzi
40 Best Novel Halting State Charles Stross
...
2014120 Best Novel Neptune's Brood Charles Stross
127 Best Novella Equoid Charles Stross
118 Best Novelette Lady Astronaut of Mars Mary Kowal
...
201249 Best Novel The Wise Man’s Fear by Patrick Rothfuss
48 Best Novel Fuzzy Nation by John Scalzi
44 Best Editor Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Those numbers certainly seem suggestive to me, if not of malicious manipulation, then at least a lot of mutual backscratching among Tor authors/editors/superfans. Add to that the week leading up to the announcement, when the Nielson Haydens openly admitted to knowing not only what the non-Puppy nominees were, but also that the Hugo administrators were upset about it. The very existence of that kind of rumor mill speaks to an unhealthy level of behind-the-scenes activity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What points? As I indicated when I paraphrase one of Correia's comments, I've been to their website and read their side. Where is the evidence there was any sort of organized liberal cabal, that quality works were systematically excluded from the process because they didn't meet an arbitrary level of social conscience?
Until there is compelling evidence that such corruption existed and actually affected the results in a meaningful way, Sad Puppies has no legs to stand on. Sometimes groups are marginal because they just aren't popular.
They dont really need a leg. They want a certain kind of story to be at the forefront of sci fy and fantasy. For a time, (in their opinion) that kind of story wasnt getting recognized in the way that they wished. They are now promoting authors who write the kind of story they like. Thats how voting for a thing is supposed to work.
There doesn't have to be an organized movement promoting stories they dont like in order to justify them promoting the ones they do. Regardless of how you feel about the individuals involved, or the problems their method of block voting might have caused, the simple fact that they care about who wins the awards is sufficient justification to try to promote stories they like. Just like anyone has the option to post on social media about stories they like.
Once again, where are the critiques of the quality of the writing of the supposedly undeserving works? Where is the evidence that a liberal elite has made attempting to tackle social issues trump writing quality? All I'm seeing from Sad Puppies is a bunch of people complaining about SJWs.
A story doesn't have to be bad for you to want another story to win and award over it. You just have to like a different story more. Its not immorral to say you dont want socially challenging things in your entertainment. Its narrow minded sure, but if you just want worry free comfortable (read not morally or idealogically challenging) fiction to be popular, it makes sense to approach it via awards. The awards are meaningful. Putting 'nebula award winner' or 'hugo award winner' on the cover of a book does in fact increase sales, even for fans that dont actively follow or participate in the process itself.
More sales means ultimately more stories of that variety. Authors of that style will gain popularity, and in all likelyhood publish more. They are trying to get more stories of the kind that they like in the forefront of the genre.
'I want more carefree stories like the ones I read growing up' is not an immorral sentance. They also arent trying to pressure people to not write the kinds of stories they dont like. They are trying to promote the ones they do. Their personal politics or comments from trolls on a given forum is pretty irrelevant to that act trying to 'get out the vote'.
If you dont like it, try to spread the word about the stories you like. Thats how open votes work. If you want careful reasoned examination of all the merits both literary and societal of a host of disperate candidates, democracy is a crumy method. But then again, an Oligarchy only works when you trust and agree with the oligarchs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What points? As I indicated when I paraphrase one of Correia's comments, I've been to their website and read their side. Where is the evidence there was any sort of organized liberal cabal, that quality works were systematically excluded from the process because they didn't meet an arbitrary level of social conscience?
Until there is compelling evidence that such corruption existed and actually affected the results in a meaningful way, Sad Puppies has no legs to stand on. Sometimes groups are marginal because they just aren't popular.
Once again, where are the critiques of the quality of the writing of the supposedly undeserving works? Where is the evidence that a liberal elite has made attempting to tackle social issues trump writing quality? All I'm seeing from Sad Puppies is a bunch of people complaining about SJWs.
As for the political comments, if I go to a liberal news site, they will say that conservatives are imploding. If I go to a conservative one, it will say liberals are imploding. I'm well familir with Bill Maher, and in the case you mention, he was resentful because he got pushback for his attitudes towards Islam, which are hardly uncontroversial. I'm also not sure how unbiased a person would be on the subject of political correctness when they name their show Politically Incorrect as a badge of honor.
As many have said, the "cabal" didn't have to be organized because the voting public was so small that it could have been an informal friends circle that just circulated recommendations to eachother and thus dominated the voting. As was pointed out above, it could take as little as 12 votes to get on the short list in some categories, and if those groups were the active particpants in other parts of the con they could easily drive other people away from voting just by being annoying. The convention circuit is extremely cliquey, and this award could easily be dominated by the active cliques through normal social interactions.
As for the Bill Maher comments, it had nothing to do the backlash against his Islamic beliefs. It is about his comments on Elton John attacking Dolce and Gobbana and backlash against a university professor saying "all live matter" instead of "black lives matter". And your comments about going to conservative sites to see them talking about the other side imploding makes no sense with regards to me mentioning Huffington Post, since Huffington Post is one of the most liberal news outlets with respectability.
Yes. Because the traditional voters response to Correia getting his first nomination before he became popular (complete boycott of his works because of his support for the Republican party) and publicly encouraging people to refuse to read it is so open and welcoming to new authors.OK, that I hadn't heard and would like to see more on.
Honestly, I haven't looked to verify the claim. I'm mostly going on Correia's response to last year's backlash, which I think is a really well written piece that puts most of the people complaining about him to shame.
Yes. Because the traditional voters response to Correia getting his first nomination before he became popular (complete boycott of his works because of his support for the Republican party) and publicly encouraging people to refuse to read it is so open and welcoming to new authors.OK, that I hadn't heard and would like to see more on.
Less familiar with Scalzi's side of things, but did find some really biased crap from TNH from last year if you're interested...
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/015838.html#2220863
#342 ::: Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: April 25, 2014, 01:17 AM:
Here's the deal for me:
Why should I vote to tell the rest of the world that SF is a place where the only difference between James White and Vox Day is their commercially published texts?
The awards we give out are are a giant signal saying "This is what we love, this is what we value, this is what we think is important."
Why the hell am I supposed to lie about what those things are?
Why have I not been flaming hairless people who refer to the bizarre text-only voting protocol they're trying to push on me as "honest"? It's obvious they're suggesting that doing anything else is dishonest.
The way they want me to vote is not honest. It's not how I think. Nor is it how I've ever voted. Nor is it how most of fandom has thought, or how it's voted, year after year, for many decades.
...
Or maybe it's something else.
And one more truth: everyone on both sides of this argument has a carefully tended and highly sophisticated ability to judge a book without reading it. We all do that. So why are they suddenly acting like it's something new and horrible?
... and I'm about as moderate as I think I can get when it comes to the Scalzi v. Correia "sides" of the publishing biz (looking at my librarything account, I own 8 Scalzi novels and 7 Correia novels).
Stuff like the quoted text above was one reason why I was disappointed in Tor due to their website policies. Fortunately, it appears that TNH is no longer with Tor for whatever reason.
-TimD
Edit: OK, librarything is even more awesome than I thought... I can search by publisher - apparently I own 270 Tor novels... not sure what the other side of that would be... probably Baen... which I'm showing at 214...
*Sigh*
Once again, Caineach has a faster response time - I give up. Will meander back this way again later.
-TimD
|
|
@RainyDayNinja I'm guessing you are suggesting that the numbers being similar is somehow indicative of something.
You have given evidence of a correlation between number of votes and being affiliated with Tor, nothing more, and weak evidence at that. I don't see any evidence as to what caused it. Patterns emerge in any system of data if you look hard enough and long enough at it and feel free to cherry-pick data. Also, Day is quick to try to explain away the years in which the category numbers didnt all match up, nor does he include any kind of analysis of the overall pattern of voting data. Unless vote manipulation has been endemic from the beginning, there should be clear and marked changes in the voting data around the time the manipulation began, which would be much easier to show. He is clearly trying to find a pattern.
Extrapolating sound conclusions from data is hard enough with organized and randomized studies and actual statistical analysis tools. Expecting a non-random sample cherry-picked from all the years of data to give insight just wastes everyone's time.
@koloktroni
Trying to "rock the vote" so to speak isn't the issue. My issue is with the premise of Sad Puppies that their preferred works were being marginalized by an illegitimate force and that they had to react. That narrative doesn't hold water.
@Caineach
You don't have to convince me that the nomination process is not constructed well and leaves great potential for abuse. However, having great potential for abuse does not equate to that abuse having occurred.
As to politics, my point was that any two news sources can have a wildly different view of things. The old "politcal correctness will doom the liberals" is a shibboleth that has been circulating since the phrase "political correctness" was invented. I've probably heard we are a year away from the Republican party splintering over the libertarian and conservative Christian divide for 10 years, too. I was also thinking about one of the many other times Bill Maher has complained about political correctness. Once again, shibboleth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scalzi's "suggestions" are worded in a much stronger and more provocative manner than the Sad Puppies' "slate". That doesn't make him bad, it doesn't mean he wants people to vote for things they don't read, it's just the way he communicated. He has a smaller "slate", but it seems just as much (if not more so) a "slate" than that of the SP.
Can you link this? Because I've been defending Scalzi on the grounds that the "suggestions" I've seen were just his works that were eligible without any "strong or provocative" language.
If I'm missing something, I'd like to know.
Oy. Been with my son all day. My apologies for the delayed reply, but, frankly, I didn't want to get dragged into this conversation or muck any more than I already had.
I will make a hem-haw, as your reading of what I wrote was not what I meant (even if it is an understandable take - my own language was stronger than I was attempting to convey), however, earlier in this thread, this link was placed.
I was going to quote a single, central quote, but his language - which can be taken strongly - is spread throughout, rather than found at a single place. Thus, there's a lot to respond to, rather than a little. Below is an example.
Even people you might think are a~*#!@*s can have decent taste from time to time. I’m not inclined to punish creators strictly on the basis of who has nominated them, or why.
First, by noting that people are [redacted, 'cause language I'm uncomfortable with publishing, even if minor] he is engaging in strong, provocative language. Second, intentionally or not, by highlighting the word "strictly" the way he did (the italics was in the original - I coded it to appear correctly, as it does in the link I proved, here on the forums), he communicates a message very different than that of his words - that he is inclined to punish creators on the bases of who nominated them (or why), just not strictly on that basis. It's quite possibly a cultural thing - it may be that such emphasis means something slightly different, and, given the majority of his post, I suspect it does.
But, from my reading, it comes off the way I describe. Strong. Provocative.
7. That said, when a slate of nominees is offered whose very title explictly carries in it a desire to vex and annoy other people, it’s legitimate for people to ask whether what’s been nominated on the slate has been placed there solely on the basis of quality.
Who is he talking about here? Which group? Both groups combined? By not noting which title (I'm guessing, it's "rabid puppies", but I honestly am not sure), he, intentionally or not, indicates that "those people" (whoever they are, as they are unnamed) are automatically inferior and lumped together, whether they are intentionally related or not, and thus can be taken by the reader to be either set of 'Puppies. This is neither good nor clear.
It’s also legitimate for people to decide that in general, slates of nominations are not something they’re comfortable with, or wish to support. There is no rule that disallows nominating for the Hugos from a slate; there’s also no rule that disallows Hugo voters from then registering their displeasure that these slates exist.
This is an excellent point... it's also somewhat provocative and strong language. It points no fingers (and thus avoids being extremely strong), but by linking what he does (in a justifiable effort to make his point), he also condemns the Sad Puppies via that same language and communication (as the link explicitly does so).
I also think it’s okay to penalize graceless award grasping by people who clearly despise the Hugo and what they believe it represents, and yet so very desperately crave the legitimacy they believe the award will confer to them. Therapy is the answer there, not a literary award.
The good news, for me, at least, is that it’s generally obvious in the reading what’s on the ballot on the basis of quality, and what’s there, essentially, as trolling. Good stuff will be on my final ballot, ranked appropriately. Trollage will not. It’s just that simple.
These are both excellent points (and correct), but also contain strong, provocative language. Very much so.
The entire thing comes off as a strong "holier-than-<them>" attitude, though without the negative connotations that such things usually come with - he's correct, at least on one point, that he is better than some of those he can be taken as referring to. By nature.
Sad Puppies by comparison:
And here it is! After much combobulating, the official SAD PUPPIES 3 slate is assembled! As noted earlier in the year, the SAD PUPPIES 3 list is a recommendation. Not an absolute. Gathered here is the best list (we think!) of entirely deserving works, writers, and editors — all of whom would not otherwise find themselves on the Hugo ballot without some extra oomph received from beyond the rarefied, insular halls of 21st century Worldcon “fandom.”
Which is where YOU guys come in. Everyone who’s signed up as a full or supporting member of either Loncon 3 (last year’s Worldcon) or Sasquan (this year’s Worldcon) or MidAmeriCon II (next year’s Worldcon.) If you agree with our slate below — and we suspect you might — this is YOUR chance to make sure YOUR voice is heard. This is YOUR award (as SF/F’s self-proclaimed “most prestigious award”) and YOU get to have a say in who is acknowledged.
What is here? A suggestion that some wouldn't be nominated. Aaaaaaaaaaand that's it.
These are just two quickly-located links.
I'm not going to continue this conversation, but having been requested of things I've read, I am providing them.
I'm not saying Scalzi is bad - far from it. Just that, like how you read my own post, his can be taken for a far stronger stance (with intimations of stronger language) than what's found on the SP's own words.
That, I would agree, is more strongly worded than the formal Sad Puppies post, though not than the Rabid one.
Wanting to point out that I agreed.
The content of the post however, isn't even as strong as other suggestions: It is basically: "I'm going to read the works on the short list, rank those I think are worthy, then put No Award."
Also agreed. This is also "he communicates a point differently than his words" that I noted - his words said one thing, subtle emphasis indicated another... though I'm more likely to presume that his words are what he means, and the subtle emphasis is part of the the impersonal nature of text attempting to be used to convey personal feelings.
My point was only what I made and nothing beyond. His points were well-made, simply "more strongly" worded. Hence the notation. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I haven't looked to verify the claim. I'm mostly going on Correia's response to last year's backlash, which I think is a really well written piece that puts most of the people complaining about him to shame.Yes. Because the traditional voters response to Correia getting his first nomination before he became popular (complete boycott of his works because of his support for the Republican party) and publicly encouraging people to refuse to read it is so open and welcoming to new authors.OK, that I hadn't heard and would like to see more on.
The internet is a convoluted "place". It awakens a part of human mentality that has always been there, the part that would like to group together and hunt the witch. To me, it seems that the liberal minded crowed is not at all immune to that. In fact, recently the tendency to exaggerate, miserably fail to fact check and (worst) outright lie has been very prominent. I have made my disdain for the internet feminist witch hunts known several times in the forum (these drive me nuts. That I can share my opinion with people who share none of my urge to actually base my thoughts on consideration of facts weakens the integrity of my own beliefs).
I am not at all surprised that Correia suffered public shaming and abuse. I'm not at all surprised that people made up dumb rumors about him and misread things that he said.
However, what he wrote in the linked article conceals some of the truth. It conceals what is actually worrying about his slate - the fact that it is a slate, the likes of which have either never been made before or never been so publicly announced before. It forces everyone invloved in the rewards to reconsider if this was their original intention and if the results of the voting this year are legitimate.
As was said before in this thread that actual works the sad puppies promoted are not all bad, not they do represent a spectrum of styles and opinions. The problem with sad puppies is not the Correia is a baby eater - its that it pushes the dynamic of the voting process away from "each person should vote for the most deserving winners according to their own impressions of the work" to "each person should decide which group to affiliate themseves with in order to have a chance of having their voice heard". As someone else mentioned before, this begins to sound like the idea of a political party. We don't want the Hugo awards to look like elections or to be about politics, and Sad Puppies are pushing us in that direction.
As for the Sad Puppies themselves - I disagree with them on many things, but that does not make anything that they do evil by default.
However, what he wrote in the linked article conceals some of the truth. It conceals what is actually worrying about his slate - the fact that it is a slate, the likes of which have either never been made before or never been so publicly announced before. It forces everyone invloved in the rewards to reconsider if this was their original intention and if the results of the voting this year are legitimate.
As was said before in this thread that actual works the sad puppies promoted are not all bad, not they do represent a spectrum of styles and opinions. The problem with sad puppies is not the Correia is a baby eater - its that it pushes the dynamic of the voting process away from "each person should vote for the most deserving winners according to their own impressions of the work" to "each person should decide which group to affiliate themseves with in order to have a chance of having their voice heard". As someone else mentioned before, this begins to sound like the idea of a political party. We don't want the Hugo awards to look like elections or to be about politics, and Sad Puppies are pushing us in that direction.
As for the Sad Puppies themselves - I disagree with them on many things, but that does not make anything that they do evil by default.
This is the actual problem here. Not their perceived or self proclaimed motivations, not their personal beliefs. Anything that is open to public vote is vulnerable to this problme. It doesnt matter what you feel about any of the individuals involved, or if they are full of it on their explanation for what they are doing. All of that is irrelevant. The problem would still be present if any influencial person or group of persons was pushing a slate of authors/novels, for any reason. Good, bad, it doesnt matter.
The problem is that it's possible. Nothing prevents them from encouraging block voting. And short of radically changing how things work, little can be done to prevent it. I am not sure its even possible to unring this particular bell. Organized block voting is exceptionally effective. You could try to grind the whole thing into the ground, or you can form your own blocks to counter those blocks.
Its the same way that despite the fact that the framers of our constitution never imagined the monolithic messes of political parties in the US, short of outright banning the concept of a political party, you arent going to go away from it. Its too effective, and anyone that tries to break away is more or less instantly marginalized.
I am not saying the sad puppies are or are not full of it, I am not saying I agree with them. I am just saying it doesnt matter. What matters is how to address the simple concept of block voting. Focus your energy there instead of trying to prove a point that doesnt actually mean anything, and the people you need to get to listen (those who are voting for the block) aren't going to be receptive to anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why the concept of voting "No Award" before any entries on the slates is attractive, even if it seems unfair to deserving authors on the list.The other, even more radical notion I've seen is to just vote "No Award" entirely - declare this year's Hugos null and void.
The question is whether the Puppies will be able to keep this up in the face of losing, possibly to nothing, in the actual voting.
Responding with progressive slates would break the system.
Except the 'no award' method is treading very close to tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Do you somehow think one hugo session of not getting their way will stop the Puppies? With people who have enough passion about a subject to actually do this sort of thing, thats sort of silly. Did losing the 2008 presidential election disband the republican party? Did losing the 2000 election disband the democratic party?
How many years of no hugo awards are you willing to tolerate to try to fix this? Because everything I know of people like Larry Correia says they would be just fine playing chicken with you.
And in the meantime, while you fight for supremacy with the puppies, real people (authors) are affected personally (I have to assume winning a hugo makes a difference to an author personally), and financially (like I said before, putting Hugo Award winner on the cover of a book is meaningful to sales).
Which is why the concept of voting "No Award" before any entries on the slates is attractive, even if it seems unfair to deserving authors on the list.
The other, even more radical notion I've seen is to just vote "No Award" entirely - declare this year's Hugos null and void.
The question is whether the Puppies will be able to keep this up in the face of losing, possibly to nothing, in the actual voting.
Responding with progressive slates would break the system
And all this would do is show that the puppies are right and that people would rather be spiteful than allow things supported by someone they don't like to possibly get an award.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
George R. R Martin gives his perspective.
He has actually made several posts on this topic thus far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its the same way that despite the fact that the framers of our constitution never imagined the monolithic messes of political parties in the US,
A bit off-topic, but um, no, they understood full-well the risk...
21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
... the more you knooooowwwww...
We now return you to your regularly scheduled awards program, already in progress...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@RainyDayNinja I'm guessing you are suggesting that the numbers being similar is somehow indicative of something.
You have given evidence of a correlation between number of votes and being affiliated with Tor, nothing more, and weak evidence at that. I don't see any evidence as to what caused it. Patterns emerge in any system of data if you look hard enough and long enough at it and feel free to cherry-pick data. Also, Day is quick to try to explain away the years in which the category numbers didnt all match up, nor does he include any kind of analysis of the overall pattern of voting data. Unless vote manipulation has been endemic from the beginning, there should be clear and marked changes in the voting data around the time the manipulation began, which would be much easier to show. He is clearly trying to find a pattern.
Extrapolating sound conclusions from data is hard enough with organized and randomized studies and actual statistical analysis tools. Expecting a non-random sample cherry-picked from all the years of data to give insight just wastes everyone's time.
Actually, the number of votes each thing got is a huge indicator and ridiculously important. It shows that people did not vote for the Sad Puppies list en mass without consideration, as 1 work on the list has twice the number of votes as another. It also shows that the previous voting had those Sad Puppies is accusing of block voting having large chunks within 10% of eachother. So, Sad Puppies, publicly announcing their slate, do not show signs of block voting but their opposition, who is denouncing the block voting, does.
@koloktroniTrying to "rock the vote" so to speak isn't the issue. My issue is with the premise of Sad Puppies that their preferred works were being marginalized by an illegitimate force and that they had to react. That narrative doesn't hold water.
Actually, It holds a lot of water with me. The works they support are frequently a different style that sells really well but does not get recognized by awards. They are the cheesy romance novels of science fiction.
@CaineachYou don't have to convince me that the nomination process is not constructed well and leaves great potential for abuse. However, having great potential for abuse does not equate to that abuse having occurred.
As to politics, my point was that any two news sources can have a wildly different view of things. The old "politcal correctness will doom the liberals" is a shibboleth that has been circulating since the phrase "political correctness" was invented. I've probably heard we are a year away from the Republican party splintering over the libertarian and conservative Christian divide for 10 years, too. I was also thinking about one of the many other times Bill Maher has complained about political correctness. Once again, shibboleth.
Political correctness was originally a conservative push and has changed meaning since the 90s. That it has now taken over the left and is strangling it is slowly becoming more evident, from the redacted story Entertainment Weekly published on this to the death threats being sent to the pizzeria in Indiana. You can find the redacted article at the end of Coreia's response to sad puppies 3 backlash
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I went through this thread intending to link Mr. Correria's statement on it, but someone already did!
But from where I've been sitting, the crux of this argument seems to boil down to...
The Sad Puppies, which has been going on for three years now, rises up because of Mr. Correria on the basis that lauds should be given for the quality of a work, as opposed to the person who wrote it, or the necessary social justice check marks the book hits. It does not matter who wrote the book (be they christian, muslim, jew, or a three gendered sapient pitcher plant from the shoulder of orion), it matters if the book entertains.
The SPs proposed a slate consisting of authors who are all over the place in terms of demographics and philosophy because they didn't give a damn about demographics or philosophy when selecting their books . They selected on the basis of they thought these books were good, I remember from reading Mr. Correria and Mr. Wright's blogs frequently they made a point of telling people to actually read said suggestions and only vote if they agreed on their quality.
For the utmost sin of trying to vote in a non-tokenist manner and reward what they perceived as actual quality, they are therefore villified. Some of the SP guys themselves don't get along with Beale. I don't like Mr. Beale, but I might still buy his books to see if they're any good.
And personally, I don't see what the issue is with Mr. Wright (I read his blog regularly though, so I'm probably 'part of the problem' myself to some of you guys though.) He seems in general to be a bit old fashioned, and follows the dictates of his faith as truly as he can. Most of his statements on issues appear to be totally in line with Roman Catholic positions, presuming someone actually reads what he says. I'm not going to play the white knight for Mr. Wright though, if you have an issue head over to his blog, send him an email and ask him directly, he'll probably respond (and may or may not make a post out of it).
Also, did you guys even see some of the crap that previously got awarded? Stuff like 'If you were a dinosaur my love?' by Rachel Swirsky? Which isn't really science fiction so much as a tale of a woman getting angry and envisioning her boyfriend turning into a dinosaur because he was being beaten by (inexplicably) gin-swilling rednecks.
I've read it (a while ago). You can too, right Here.
Mr. Wright wrote The Queen of the Tyrant Lizards to show how it could have been done as an actual science fiction story.
In my humble opinion, Miss Swirsky's story, is crap. And Mr. Wright, like the SP ethic in general was basically like 'Guys, stuff like this is winning awards.' You've got guys who are best-sellers who don't and haven't gotten Nebula awards, but this kind of thing does. Its a good thing, it works both ways. Don't think Mr. Swirsky's story is crap? Then vote for it! Then my crap-vote and you're 'its beautiful' vote cancel each other out democratically.
SP basically prodded a sleeping portion of the sci-fi fandom (although some Tor editors have called SP supporters 'not real fans') and roused them to action.
They certainly haven't prevented other people from participating. There's no group of portly Monster Hunter International fans prowling back and forth in front of a Philadelphia Nebula voting office with truncheons here.
My god. I haven't actually read much stuff on the Hugo list, but 'If you were a dinosaur my love?' is terrible. How the hell did that dretch get an award?