First off...I am a bit cautious of posting this thread here, because I feel it touches upon some hot button (but important) issues that have resulted flame wars which in turn has led to locked threads on this forum.
But I think this is an important topic for discussion, and so I want to bring this up. I plead though for people to keep a calm head while posting, and respect the guidelines for posting on Paizo
With those opening statements...
The Hugo awards nominees were just announced, and the results were rather surprising for many people.
To give some background, the Hugos are decided by voting...anyone can vote, they just need to register for Worldcon or pay the fee for a nonvisiting member. Over the last couple of years, Larry Correia and Brad Torgerson have launched a campaign called the Sad Puppy Campaign, to addresses "imbalances" in the Hugo Awards. These imbalances have been stated to be a result of literary nominees winning over "popular" writers. There has also been an acusation that people getting nominated are doing so because either they belong to a minority group (Woman/LGBTQ/Person of Color) or because their writing "focuses" on those elements. There is very much also a strong political bend here, with conservative writers complaining about liberal winners
Torgerson elaborates on it here:
unraveling of a unreliable field
To "combat" these trends, they have for the last 3 years created a roster of nominees and have encouraged their fans/supporters to vote for these people. Another person started a similar roster (which was even more successful)
My understanding was the first year they were not that successful, probably because it was done fairly informally. Year two was more successful, getting several candidates onto the roster but no winners.
Well..as you can see from the above links...This year they scored big, and completely swept all the nominees for almost all of the written categories except graphic novel and novel (and even then they dominate the novel category)
Now there are multiple layers of concern here. First...there is the whole "rigging the vote" issue. Many people are angry that a small but vocal minority may have damaged the voting process. It's not just one or two nominees getting in, its the fact that you have people like John C. Wright, who have SIX nominations over 4 categories, something that is completely unprecedented in the History of the Hugos (I think there has only ever been one author since 1990 who has had 3 nominations). Combine that with the fact that a lot of these nominees are from small e-presses and even self-published...it makes you wonder if these nominees really deserve the praise. It also makes it difficult for those who did win...did they win because they deserved it, or because a bunch of people were convinced to vote form them.
Secondly, there is the whole gate-keeping argument of the Sad Puppies, which seems to try to state that their views represent the consensus of fandom, which I personally disagree with. This is not dissimilar to some recent controversies in video games and comics.
What makes the above worse...is that the blogs of many of the nominees...do not make really want to read them. Just look up John C. Wright and his statement about the Kora-Asami relationship...and try not to be sick that this guy has 6 nominations.
Anyway I am curious about what people feel about the above controversy, and what sort of impact they feel this will have for Worldcon and for the Hugos in general.
Well, at least the Movies and TV section seems pretty solid and Skin Game is on there.
Really all I have to say about that.
Well, at least the Movies and TV section seems pretty solid and Skin Game is on there.
Really all I have to say about that.
I was pretty surprised Grimm is on there honestly. I would have put an episode of Agents of Shield up there before that show.
Probably would have been a good idea to wait with posting this until the moderators are at work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grimm is pretty damn good.
Though that particular episode was kinda meh, IMO.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
K, so what exactly is 'wrong' or 'illegal' here?
It sounds like the voting process works a certain way.
One group used this to its advantage before others were aware of it.
Another group said "we can do that too!", did so, and now the first group is upset. Then they make a counter group to the other one and... well, it's Turtles, all the way down.
Yet... none of them did anything incorrect or illegal, but each side is upset that the other side is 'using the process wrong'.
I figure most responses will simply depend on which group you find more to your liking.
Many people are angry that a small but vocal minority may have damaged the voting process.
You just described politics in general. A small, vocal, voting minority swaying the process for its side.
Combine that with the fact that a lot of these nominees are from small e-presses and even self-published...it makes you wonder if these nominees really deserve the praise.
Is it, then, based simply how how well-known a Sci-Fi book is, the size of the publisher, and the amount of money it makes? Or is it about the quality of the work?
Personally, I'm all for 'lesser known' Davids getting the chance to stand with the fully-resourced Goliaths.
How will this affect the Hugo and Worldcon? It will probably either make them revise their rules to get what those currently in control desire to be the proper focus, or they will likely remain the same if a sufficient amount of the 'vocal minority' itself becomes the majority and wants it to stay that way.
The worst that can happen is that hundreds or thousands more people on both sides are drawn into Sci-Fi because of the 'competition' and the entire field gets a lot more notice. I'd chalk that up as a win for both sides, myself.
---
Also, Grimm is an amazing show. Though, as Rynjin said, the past couple weren't so hot compared to the seasons previous. But it will take several more stinkers in a row before it ceases to be one of my favorites.
I think it's the whole "Adelind is pregnant again" plotline that's throwing things out of whack. It looks like the actress is pregnant IRL so they had to hastily throw something together to explain it, which seems to be contributing to the slow progression of the whole Juliet thing, and throwing everything else off balance.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am very much hoping Goblin Emperor wins. And if it does I am very sad it has to be surrounded by this mess.
Vox Day and John C Wright are both disgusting individuals, and I don't throw that kind of negativity around lightly. Any cause that props those two up is beyond suspect.
On the bright side, at least their efforts didn't manage to bump the Mixon Report on Benjanun Sriduangkaew/Winterfox/Requires Hate/too many aliases. So at least that abusive individual won't be getting off the hook. Unfortunately this gives her ammo to use to claim Mixon is guilty by association with the Sad/Rabid Puppies bunch somehow.
I knew the Hugo Awards were going to be a trainwreck a week ago from all the whispers in anonspace. It's still a shock to see it so thoroughly trashed by reactionary jerks who can't stand people unlike themselves writing stories about people unlike themselves.
Props to those that gave up their nomination after finding out where it came from though. Not so much those that knowingly rode it out until they got a nomination.
(I'd be fine with Ancillary Sword winning too, but Goblin Emperor is the one I'm really hoping for. It's the opposite of so much of the cynical grimdark that's been swamping fantasy and flooding everything else out for over a decade.)
True. Remarked to my GF two episodes ago that it seems to be descending into "Soap Opera Territory". I seriously hope they iron that silliness out soon.
I mean, they could have just had her wearing coats or something. Not that hard to cover up. I hope what you say is true, because it's a better option than having the script writers dropping the ball.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm all for 'lesser known' Davids getting the chance to stand with the fully-resourced Goliaths.
That isn't what happened here. This is Gamergate-style/Gamergate-backed bullying.
The people and books that got bumped from the ballot were far from being any sort of Goliath.
And Vox Day and John C Wright are far from any sort of heroic underdog figure. Vox Day in particular is a bigot and misogynist of horrific proportions. That is not hyperbole. His slurs towards NK Jeminsin are just the tip of the racist iceberg.
These are bad men.
Further reading:
Larry Correia, on why he turned down his nomination
And, Hell, more Larry Correia on Sad Puppies
My only surprise is that it took this long for something like this to happen. That someone would finally take advantage of the gaping loopholes in the Hugo award process was not a matter of "if" but "when".
What gaping loopholes are we talking about?
Is it the fact that people are ponying up something like $50 to vote which Science Fiction/Fantasy books should get a prestigious award? Should that entry fee be bumped up to $500 to keep out the riffraff? Should the democratic election be changed to a closed jury selected by an elite few?
Is it the fact that authors are totally free to suggest Hugo nominations to their fans, have been totally free to do so and *gasp* the wrong people are doing it now? Should there be a ban on anyone, absolutely anyone who received promotion from getting a Hugo nomination?
Sad Puppies is a good thing, because it's getting more people involved in the Hugos and Worldcon. Better yet, the inevitable counterreaction is going to draw even more people. That means that this type of cliquish territorial pissing contest will hopefully disappear as there are too many fans involved for politics to sway things one way or the other.
The Sad Puppies campaign didn't just get me to get involved, it got me to buy a Worldcon membership so I could attend when it visits my state this summer. I signed up too late for the nomination process (And wouldn't have followed the Sad Puppies slate. Unless Kevin J. Anderson has significantly improved in the years since I read his books, he just doesn't merit one) but it's nice to see more than a few books I'd read on the ballot.
Bullying? They are forcing, intimidating, threatening, or coercing other people into voting their way or not voting at all?
Summoning up more voters to cast more votes is not, by any stretch, bullying. Calling it such is, in fact, hyperbole.
The people and books that got bumped from the ballot were far from being any sort of Goliath.
Well, I'm just going off of the original post here, where they were looked down on for being self-published or from E-presses. I had assumed that the ones that were NOT given such a poor comparison were from major publishers or at least NOT self-published or from E-presses.
Vox Day in particular is a bigot and misogynist of horrific proportions. That is not hyperbole.
Well, given as the bullying was, and also given that I know very little about this guy (I'm assuming it's a guy, correct me if I'm wrong), I'm giving this one the benefit of the doubt until something particularly 'horrific' is shown.
---
Better yet, the inevitable counterreaction is going to draw even more people. That means that this type of cliquish territorial pissing contest will hopefully disappear as there are too many fans involved for politics to sway things one way or the other.
I see we have similar views on this. I like the way you think.
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ask and ye shall receiveVox Day in particular is a bigot and misogynist of horrific proportions. That is not hyperbole.Well, given as the bullying was, and also given that I know very little about this guy (I'm assuming it's a guy, correct me if I'm wrong), I'm giving this one the benefit of the doubt until something particularly 'horrific' is shown.
First hit: Vox Day blaming women for withholding sex and causing the Germanwings crash.
I have a lot more to say about your post. Suffice to say I disagree strongly. But right now I'm on a phone that's running out of juice and I'm mad as hell. And I don't like posting angry or mean.
This is a net loss. And running roughshod over a vulnerable community and vulnerable writers is bullying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vox Day and John C Wright
Literally who?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vox Day in particular is a bigot and misogynist of horrific proportions. That is not hyperbole.Well, given as the bullying was, and also given that I know very little about this guy (I'm assuming it's a guy, correct me if I'm wrong), I'm giving this one the benefit of the doubt until something particularly 'horrific' is shown.
Well, assuming Vox Day is that Theodore Beale guy...he's pretty hateful. You can see his wiki summary if you wish, but his own books are pretty unpleasant. He's against women's rights, as he seems to feel that they can't follow there dreams due to too many choices. He even says,
"Ironically, in light of the strong correlation between female education and demographic decline, a purely empirical perspective on Malala Yousafzai, the poster girl for global female education, may indicate that the Taliban's attempt to silence her was perfectly rational and scientifically justifiable."
He's also got an interesting view of gay people, explaining,
"Logic has always dictated that if there was a material cause for orientational challenges, there would always be at least the potential for medical science to successfully address that cause and correct for the defective orientation."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ask and ye shall receive
OK, first off--I don't like having to go three links deep to get to the source. Gimme what the guy SAYS or DOES, not what people who hate him says or does as they cherry pick his words and put more words in his mouth.
I could easily tear into the false accusations and outright slander by that first site. It's hilarious how much hate they have for him. All it seems they are doing is accusing him of exactly what they themselves are saying about him. The only 'moral high ground' they might have is that he said something first, but then they squander it with all the hated and false accusations they spew.The only thing in that link even close to what you are saying is the "infestation" comment, and I can't tell if he's being serious or putting slanderous words in someone else's mouth. I'd say he gets about a 3 of 5 on the Bigot scale from that, along the lines of one's affably bigoted grandparent who states socially inappropriate things in public and needs a gentle hand to guide them away from the crowd before they piss someone off.
---
And here's more.
Now THAT's how it's done! Straight from the horse's mouth, nobody mucking about with it and putting their own words in.
I see no problem with any of this, until he opens his mouth about women.That bigot scale above? I stand by it, and don't see it being much of a problem. Your comments on 'horrific misogyny'? Yeah... You're right. Full 5 out of 5, assuming the scale doesn't blow up.
And running roughshod over a vulnerable community and vulnerable writers is bullying.
And just when you're on a roll, you say something like this and I am sad.
This is by NO sense of the word anything like bullying. Votes legal go a direction you don't like? NOT bullying. No coercion, intimidation, threat, force, or threat of force? It's not bullying, plain and simple. Calling someone a bully just because they get their way is wrong, both morally and factually.Still, the misogyny thing? OUCH.
"Ironically, in light of the strong correlation between female education and demographic decline, a purely empirical perspective on Malala Yousafzai, the poster girl for global female education, may indicate that the Taliban's attempt to silence her was perfectly rational and scientifically justifiable."
(Your link was broken, BTW, but I was able to Copy and Paste it and remove the broken part, might want to edit that for future readers.)
I'd be somewhat upset at this if it wasn't viewed through the lens of who he's talking about. He's saying that (near as I can tell, may be putting words in his mouth by accident), from the Taliban's point of view, having a bunch of uneducated women basically being forced into childbearing slavery is pretty much their best option for producing more disposable minions.
That may not be their actual plan, but he's stating that if it is, then keeping them a subjugated 'third class citizen' (aka slave) makes logical sense. Disgusting, terrible, horrific sense. They want to 'silence' (a disturbing enough euphemism) a woman who breaks the mold of the society they want to enforce to better herself. They don't want her to.
Vox isn't stating anything horrific here. He is, however, basically on the same side as them if he's saying that women shouldn't get educations. I wonder if he realizes that? Cause that's some rather terrible hypocrisy, and not a good place to be.
So... you were right, but for the wrong reason. It's not what he said about them, but him having functionally the same view. Arguably, that's worse than what you were saying. Good call.
I think that Misogyny Meter just exploded.
"Logic has always dictated that if there was a material cause for orientational challenges, there would always be at least the potential for medical science to successfully address that cause and correct for the defective orientation."
Yeah, this is another one that makes perfect sense in context. Have to read the rest of the article. He's simply saying that if a 'gay gene' exists, then medical science can find a way to change or modify it in utero. Which falls directly into eugenics, but whatever. He's not supporting it, merely pointing out the logical quandaries. I'm OK with him doing that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could easily tear into the false accusations and outright slander by that first site. It's hilarious how much hate they have for him. All it seems they are doing is accusing him of exactly what they themselves are saying about him. The only 'moral high ground' they might have is that he said something first, but then they squander it with all the hated and false accusations they spew.
That bigot scale above? I stand by it, and don't see it being much of a problem. Your comments on 'horrific misogyny'? Yeah... You're right. Full 5 out of 5, assuming the scale doesn't blow up.
Welcome to the wonderful, wonderful world of Ted Beale, where the guy's a [Profanity-laced tirade omitted for polite company] with his head [Let's not go there either] and so are his detractors. You can't stick up for him because he's indefensible, but you have a hard time siding with the critics because you got to comb through their blog posts to sort out the facts from the hyperbole.
What's the guy's fiction like? I don't know, haven't bothered reading what he's written. Only now he's made the ballot, so I have to read it so I can judge it fairly. This'll be interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Welcome to the wonderful, wonderful world of Ted Beale, where the guy's a [Profanity-laced tirade omitted for polite company] with his head [Let's not go there either] and so are his detractors. You can't stick up for him because he's indefensible, but you have a hard time siding with the critics because you got to comb through their blog posts to sort out the facts from the hyperbole.
Yeah.... I just... man.
It's rare that I see what seems to be hyperbole on the internet ("He is a misogynist of horrific proportions"), only for it to be understatement.
I completely agree with your stance, though. Mind you, his detractors here are quite reasonable, so I've nothing against them in particular.
Yeah.... I just... man.It's rare that I see what seems to be hyperbole on the internet ("He is a misogynist of horrific proportions"), only for it to be understatement.
I know. Hell, him being called a misogynist actually increased my surprise when I read what he was writing. It pretty much went "Eh, he was probably quoted out of context... HOLY S@~@!"
I completely agree with your stance, though. Mind you, his detractors here are quite reasonable, so I've nothing against them in particular.
Oh, no, of course not. We've got a pretty good group around here.
The use of a slate, while not against the rules, is gaming the system and many view it as dishonorable. "Sad Puppies" did not start the trend of people publishing lists of who they think should be voted for, but it is the first instance of multiple influential people pushing the same list. Voting together on a slate when everyone is supposed to vote their own personal choices gives the slate disproportionate strength. These people think they are taking back the fandom, but they see no problem with gaming the system for every advantage rather than just voting for who they think should be on the ballot and letting their "superior numbers" win the day for them.
One of the things on their slate I also voted for, and several of them, IMO, are not undeserving. There are also some people I view as despicable in the running now as well as some things I enjoyed but do not think are good enough to be on the list. I just hope everyone reads everything nominated and votes for what they honestly think is best rather than voting as a bloc to troll/"take back" the fandom.
Sorry I lurk, but don't really have much experience posting or writing posts. Answering more to the idea behind the thread:
Honestly I think that in the long run this will only make the Hugos better. While I fully believe that there are some disingenuous trolls, I think that most of them are just fans who think their voices are not being heard.
If they lose despite three years of trying to game the system it proves them the minority. Worldcon profits from the money they paid to vote.
If they win this year, then the trolls out to prove their superiority and power will lose steam having "proved" their point and will have trouble orchestrating such a large bloc again. The honest people who want their voices heard will hopefully remain and "fun" will weigh a bit more, "literary" will weigh a bit less and the Hugos will reflect the fandom that much better. I think too many believe themselves to be the good guys for them to keep gaming the system after winning a victory. I think many would start voting for what they personally think should win rather than blindly following a slate. If this changes the direction of the Hugos then it is a direction the Hugos should be going in. There will always be the Nebulas and Tiptree.
Worst case is next year there are competing slates, basically creating political parties. I think the professional world (minus lunatic fringes) is too big and interconnected for that to happen.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Worst case is next year there are competing slates, basically creating political parties. I think the professional world (minus lunatic fringes) is too big and interconnected for that to happen.
I too once believed in the goodness of men, and other fairy tales.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, interesting subject. The answers are not as clear cut as they could be.
I firmly belong in the camp that would have preferred a Sad-Puppies free world (for various reasons, not the least of which is that puppies are too darn cute to be sad). My political views are liberal, I believe in true equality among people of all blah blah, the usual thing.
But I also happen to think that rumors of racism and other kinds of hatred in the SFF world have been wildly exaggerated - mostly because the internet is a great tool for exaggeration. Considering the matter rationally, even if the science fiction fandom leans very heavily towards liberalism (which by most accounts it does), that can't possibly mean 100% liberals. Realistically, some % of any group of people that have only one real element in common (enjoy some subset of books that belong to the somewhat ephemeral SFF genres) is always going to have some opinion if the group is large enough.
In this case, said opinion is sexism/racism/whatever. Once you look objectively at things you'll know there will always be SF readers who are like that. And you really don't need many of them at all to create a large internet tantrum - if one out of a hundred SF fans is like that, and one out of a hundred of those people is willing to make internet noise... well, that accumulates to a lot of noise, and I'm sure the actual numbers are way worse than these.
That is why, when I hear that some author or another was harassed or received death threats or had some other unpleasant experience of the sort because of their race or gender or opinion, while I sympathize that that is truly unpleasant, I simply can't take that seriously as proof that racism is a major issue in our genre.
Some also go farther than that and say that if you go to a panel and see an all white, all male participants, that's an example of racism (to me that seems like more of an example of demographic distribution - for example, about 15% of Americans are black, I would expect that blacks are underrepresented in SF fandom because of social and economic issues that are bigger than the genre, so if about one out of 10 panelists is black, that just means equal treatment).
All of that is just general background to the issue itself though - what I was saying is that I simply don't think bigotry is any sort of serious issue for SF readers and writers. Among all accounts that I read of the issue, I have yet to encounter one that was truly convincing.
So, when a movement like Sad Puppies arises, I just see that as farther proof that bigots are a minority in our community. They feel left out, they are the ones who feel a need to get organized and shout from the rooftops, and all the while the majority of fans continue to read and enjoy books of an ever expending club of writers - most of them still white males because that's how statistics work, but some by other kinds of people as well. A true vision of equality, as far as I can see. Not perfect, of course, but nothing has ever been, and what we have now is way closer than what most of humanity ever had.
There have been hugo controversies in the past. In fact, the very second Hugo had accusations of ballot-stuffing, although in this case it was a result warring in fandom over which sci-fi magazine was the best, and people thinking one magazine got snubbed. You also have the wars against inclusion of Fantasy, back in the 80's and 90's, as well as the recent drive to get Brian Sanderson/Robert Jordan a Hugo for Wheel of Time.
But I think this is the first time anyone disseminated a roster of votes across all categories for people to follow. Despite the Sad Puppies claims, liberal writers have in fact not done anything along these lines. Some, like Strauss and Scalzi, have hosted discussions of who in the last year deserves a nomination, but it's never resulted in a roster of people given to a fanbase, telling them to vote. And despite claims to the contrary, the patterns of voting are nothing new..."Message" Science fiction has been winning awards since the 60's. The only difference is that the Sad Puppies "grew" up with that, whereas the new stuff is less familiar.
And really...it doesn't make people just a tad bit dubious that some of the people have so many noms? Do you really think John C. Wright is such a good author that he needs six nominations, a feat that even the legends in science fiction have never accomplished?
What is going to happen is...Several categories are going to get No Award votes, which means that deserving authors are going to be shut out of this years award with no award given. And some authors/stuff are going to get shut out for getting nominated by Sad Puppies even though they are solid works, stuff like Kloos and Dresden, or the Game of Thrones TV show, which would have gotten a nomination ANYWAY.
Really it comes down to a group of people getting mad that stuff isn't going their way, and deciding to break the system. If the roster had only been composed of one or two entries per category, I think there would have been less complaints (I certainly would not have been mad). As is I think have the categories are going to get No Award, and that will be that...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And some authors/stuff are going to get shut out for getting nominated by Sad Puppies even though they are solid works, stuff like Kloos and Dresden, or the Game of Thrones TV show, which would have gotten a nomination ANYWAY.
So which bias do you think is the wrong one?
The one that says "Hey, we think Dresden is awesome, read it and if you agree, vote" or the one that says "Vote against Dresden, because Sad Puppies thinks he's awesome"?Really it comes down to a group of people getting mad that stuff isn't going their way, and deciding to break the system.
Well, from what you said above, I'd agree, but I think we're thinking of two different groups...
-TimD
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ask and ye shall receiveOK, first off--I don't like having to go three links deep to get to the source. Gimme what the guy SAYS or DOES, not what people who hate him says or does as they cherry pick his words and put more words in his mouth.
I could easily tear into the false accusations and outright slander by that first site. It's hilarious how much hate they have for him. All it seems they are doing is accusing him of exactly what they themselves are saying about him. The only 'moral high ground' they might have is that he said something first, but then they squander it with all the hated and false accusations they spew.The only thing in that link even close to what you are saying is the "infestation" comment, and I can't tell if he's being serious or putting slanderous words in someone else's mouth. I'd say he gets about a 3 of 5 on the Bigot scale from that, along the lines of one's affably bigoted grandparent who states socially inappropriate things in public and needs a gentle hand to guide them away from the crowd before they piss someone off.
---
And here's more.Now THAT's how it's done! Straight from the horse's mouth, nobody mucking about with it and putting their own words in.
I see no problem with any of this, until he opens his mouth about women.
That bigot scale above? I stand by it, and don't see it being much of a problem. Your comments on 'horrific misogyny'? Yeah... You're right. Full 5 out of 5, assuming the scale doesn't blow up.And running roughshod over a vulnerable community and vulnerable writers is bullying.And just when you're on a roll, you say something like this and I am sad.
This is by NO sense of the word anything like bullying. Votes legal go a direction you don't like? NOT bullying. No coercion, intimidation, threat, force, or threat of force? It's not bullying, plain and simple. Calling someone a bully just because they get...
I'm on mobile and short for time, but:
If you can't see how VD is as horrible a racist and homophobe as he is a misogynist, you didn't continue reading those entries. They go on for several pages, and are not all inclusive.
VD doesn't get to call someone subhuman and walk away from that without being called what he is. His hatefulness and language towards Jeminsin alone should be enough to establish that this man is no one to stand behind.
As for John C Wright:
As for this not amounting to bullying, that's laughable. That is exactly what we are seeing here. These are people who see others getting some of the pie they once held in entirety and can only see that as themselves as losing ground when they still have the vast majority of media catering to them already.
There is a lot of stuff going on here and a ton of bad history behind the architects of this mess.
A couple of months ago I would have considered the Benjanun Sriduangkaew/Winterfox fiasco to be the most dangerous trend in SF/F lit, because I thought the Sad/Rabid Puppies crowd was more obviously and widely seen as the abusive jerks that they are.
It is really depressing to see that isn't the case.
I really hope Goblin Emperor and Ancillary Sword stomp the competition now, regardless of which one wins.
(but I'm still mostly pulling for Goblin Emperor)
I've been paying attention to the Sad Puppies thing since last year, and I was one of those who didn't even know the Hugo Award still existed before that. From what I've seen, the award in recent years was controlled by a small clique of fans centered around Tor Books and social justice issues. They had a disproportionate influence on the awards just because the voting base was so incredibly small, and people who didn't like it were more likely to just walk away than to recruit others with similar tastes to join in. Until now, anyway.
In general I agree with the idea behind the Sad Puppies campaign, but it's disappointing that Vox Day apparently didn't like being left off, so he added himself and everything his company published to his own version of the slate.
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hanging around in inclusive, open, and welcoming fanspaces will quickly disabuse anyone with open eyes of the notion that there's no diversity in fandom.
Gencon, freaking Tumblr, anonspace, and this very forum all speak of a more diverse geek culture than you would have us believe.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Science fiction has always been one of the best places for exploring issues of social justice.
Issues of gender, issues of race, issues of humanity, issues of human rights.
A Case of Conscience by Blish won the Hugo in 1958.
Heinlein's books were often either basically a defense of the military state or a defense of having as much sex as you want with whomever you want so long as no one gets pregnant.
A Canticle of Leibowitz by Miller Jr. won in 1961 and examines the issues of church and state.
Way Station by Simak won in 1964 and explored humanity's tendency towards violence and war.
Zelanzy's Lord of Light (won in '68) is nothing but an examination of power, repression, caste systems and rebellion.
Left Hand of Darkness by Le Guin won in '70 and dealt with gender issues we're still struggling with today.
Gibson won in 1985 with Neuromancer which explores the connection between man and machine and corporation and individual.
Brin's Uplift War won in 1988 dealt with the rights of minorities vs those in power.
I could go on but that's a good enough chunk, I think, to make my point.
Science fiction exists, in part, to explore issues of humanity and social justice. Why shouldn't the awards reflect that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find junk like this very, very disappointing; I can't see a downside of having more diverse writers, or more literary writing win awards within the genre. Speaking as a white dude, I always enjoyed fantasy and science fiction for the diversity of the authors, and the literary quality of the writing. Sure, sometimes that was Philip Jose Farmer's hallucinogenic were world poet, but sometimes it was Kindred by Octavia Butler. Then again, if the field is getting diverse enough that the dudes feel a need to DO SOMETHING, that might actually be a net positive, provided they're not successful.
Yeesh, remember when the biggest controversy about the Hugo Awards was how they invented the category of Best Other Format so the prose novels wouldn't have to compete with Watchmen?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I view art as a method to widen my perspective, to give me insight into how other people view the world. Speculative fiction serves this purpose extraordinarily well, as it can even challenge our most basic concepts of reality.
Why wouldn't I want diversity in the field? Why wouldn't I want to hear new and different voices?