Fantasy Faction

Fantasy Faction => Fantasy Book & Author Discussion => Topic started by: Saraband on April 08, 2015, 12:42:41 PM

Title: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Saraband on April 08, 2015, 12:42:41 PM
So, another year, another controversy surrounding the Hugo Awards.

Quote
Members of the sci-fi and fantasy community have been arguing about the make-up of this year’s Hugo nominations on two accounts: the race and gender of the authors nominated and the subject of their work, and the extent to which their work fits into the sci-fi and fantasy genres.

People have been posting their opinions in blog posts and on social media.

One group within the community, called Sad Puppies, have been attempting to lobby voters by presenting their ideal list of suggested nominees in February.

They say that their list contains: “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’.”

Brad R Torgersen and Larry Correia are members of the Sad Puppies who put forward the list, or slate.

Full article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/11517920/Hugo-Award-nominations-spark-criticism-over-diversity-in-sci-fi.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/11517920/Hugo-Award-nominations-spark-criticism-over-diversity-in-sci-fi.html)

I'm still digesting the whole thing, and trying to see both sides of the argument. I hope I won't end up blacklisting more authors because of this, as I did with Seanan McGuire a.k.a. Mira Grant last year. Correia and Torgersen aren't looking that good after this, and I hope they present a reasonable argument for their stance, as their present one is easily proven wrong. Beauty in Ruins just did, actually:

http://beauty-in-ruins.blogspot.pt/2015/04/the-pick-of-litter-box-and-hugo-awards.html (http://beauty-in-ruins.blogspot.pt/2015/04/the-pick-of-litter-box-and-hugo-awards.html)
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: JMack on April 08, 2015, 01:21:13 PM
The idea of a group of folks suggesting worthy books seems pretty useful to me.
The idea of framing them as a debate about the "dangers of inclusiveness" is problematic, because you are actually arguing not on merit but on source. Arguing on merit would simply be: write the list, defend it, hope for the best.
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Yora on April 08, 2015, 01:23:49 PM
The only sensible thing to me seems to be just ignore it. The people who are in charge should come up with a new selection process that is less vulnerable to manipulation, and until then the awards given by the old process considered irrelevant.

Sure, you could counter-manipulate in the other direction, but what would that accomplish?
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: DrNefario on April 08, 2015, 01:52:51 PM
That quoted passage seems like an incredibly gentle way of describing it.

The shortlists have been gamed by right-wing extremist trolls to such an extent that there are no alternative choices in many categories.

Sad, for an award with such a long history.
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Arry on April 08, 2015, 03:52:14 PM
I liked Wes Chu's post about it:

http://wesleychu.com/how-this-years-hugo-drama-has-affected-my-worldcon/


And Justin Landon's which was posted on pornokitsch:

http://www.pornokitsch.com/2015/04/justin-landon-on-the-hugo-awards-an-entity-at-war-with-itself-.html
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Raptori on April 08, 2015, 04:17:07 PM
Erm so... what? I'll read the articles later, but can anyone summarise what's going on? Based on those quotes, my guess is that some people are complaining that some books have only been nominated due to the author's race or gender? Could easily be the opposite though, since they're pretty ambiguous...  :o
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: ScarletBea on April 08, 2015, 04:25:44 PM
A good summary of awards controversy:
http://mark---lawrence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-gemmell-awards.html (http://mark---lawrence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-gemmell-awards.html)

Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Yora on April 08, 2015, 04:30:27 PM
It seems that the problem is really mostly that the voting system is designed in a way that can easily be broken and manipulated. That the first ones to really exploit those vulnerabilities are right-wing white men makes it seem more ideologically charged then it is, but the way to manipulate it is open to everyone. And to counter them we're most likely going to see another group exploit the vulnerability even more next year to "prevent manipulation".
Arrys second link goes into detail on that.
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Saraband on April 08, 2015, 04:31:58 PM
I liked Wes Chu's post about it:

http://wesleychu.com/how-this-years-hugo-drama-has-affected-my-worldcon/


And Justin Landon's which was posted on pornokitsch:

http://www.pornokitsch.com/2015/04/justin-landon-on-the-hugo-awards-an-entity-at-war-with-itself-.html

I just finished reading both articles, and they helped me make more sense of the situation. Thanks for sharing them, @Arry (http://fantasy-faction.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=8809)  ;)

some people are complaining that some books have only been nominated due to the author's race or gender? Could easily be the opposite though, since they're pretty ambiguous...  :o

It's basically that. A group claims some of the Hugo electorate is pushing a liberal agenda focused on promoting minority authors, while another group claims the Hugo's are still a 'white guys' thing. Check Arry's second link, it really breaks down the whole thing.
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Nighteyes on April 08, 2015, 04:40:54 PM
A good summary of awards controversy:
http://mark---lawrence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-gemmell-awards.html (http://mark---lawrence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-gemmell-awards.html)

Please don't quote Mark Lawrence! That guy has too much spare time on his hands. He probably worked out the email addresses of everyone who voted against him and personally emailed them to ask why they didn't vote for his books. (Probably accusing them of being in the political correctness brigade.)
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Raptori on April 08, 2015, 04:46:51 PM
Lol so in other words, it's a great big mess.  :D
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: DrNefario on April 08, 2015, 04:52:03 PM
A group claims some of the Hugo electorate is pushing a liberal agenda focused on promoting minority authors
The group that claims this (wrongly, in my opinion) has banded together and completely dominated the shortlists for this year's Hugos, meaning there is now no way to disagree with them except to vote for No Award in several categories. Quite a few people are unhappy about this.

I've participated in the Hugos for the last few years, and won't be bothering this year.
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Saraband on April 08, 2015, 04:53:33 PM
Lol so in other words, it's a great big mess.  :D

Quite an embuggerance, using Terry Pratchett's beloved expression  ;)
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: DrNefario on April 08, 2015, 04:58:02 PM
A good summary of awards controversy:
http://mark---lawrence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-gemmell-awards.html (http://mark---lawrence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-gemmell-awards.html)
It seems to me like the Gemmells might have been gamed by the Warhammer crowd, once or twice. But on the other hand, it seems kind of right that Warhammer books should be recognised there, of all places.
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Doctor_Chill on April 08, 2015, 05:28:00 PM
Ah, I was waiting for this to pop up. ;)

Nah, I agree largely with the links Arry posted. While it might be good in theory to push another side (not the usual crowd at least, and it creates diversity, don'tcha think?) but it was very counterproductive. Though I will say it did show the nasty side of some authors, which was interesting. Maybe they're scared they might lose to a BAEN book.

...Yeah.

Digging has shown some hypocrisy, like John Scalzi (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2008/01/03/the-2008-award-pimpage-post/) and Charlie Stross (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/03/shameless-hugo-nomination-tout.html) manipulating the broken machine, too. No outcry there (though not on the same stage as this slate), so one could argue a potential bias.

I'm more interested to see a BAEN book beat a TOR book in the Hugo's. ;D (Though, Tor has won a good bit of awards from the Hugo's. One might even call it a monopoly. 38 of the 156 noms in the past 30 years, won 50 percent of the short story noms, and 20 percent of the novellete noms. Might not seem big, but with merely 5/6 other big name publishers competing, let alone smaller press, it's a good bit.)

But the bigger question is: Who really cares about the Hugo's anymore? I thought they were populated by old white men before this? ;)
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: JMack on April 08, 2015, 06:01:33 PM
Who cares about the Hugo...

The casual fan, I think. Which has been me until F-F.
Every once in a while, I'd pull up the Hugo's and say: "What have I missed? Oh, I guess I should read that."

Now I pay more attention to certain sites, but Huos have definitely been in my shopping behavior.

Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Raptori on April 08, 2015, 06:13:08 PM
Who cares about the Hugo...

The casual fan, I think. Which has been me until F-F.
Every once in a while, I'd pull up the Hugo's and say: "What have I missed? Oh, I guess I should read that."

Now I pay more attention to certain sites, but Huos have definitely been in my shopping behavior.
Yeah I'm the same, haven't paid attention to them for a while now. I actually rarely read reviews on sites like F-F, instead I read through some 5* and 1* reviews on GR to get a feel for whether or not I'll like something. It's worked a lot better than just following what's popular/wins awards.  :)
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Idlewilder on April 08, 2015, 06:14:01 PM
I've always wondered how much of a difference there is in, let's call it, 'The Importance of the Hugo' between the US and, say the UK. I've never felt in any way attached to the Hugo award and have always found it very US-centric, despite being hosted by Worldcon - which like 80% of the time takes place in the US anyway. There's so many people in the community - mainly I see this on Twitter - who seem to hold the Hugo up as a benchmark for the genre, and yet I really don't think non-Americans generally care as much. (Of course this isn't true for everyone - I know Elfy attends Worldcon fairly regularly, for instance, and votes in the Hugos every year)

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: ScarletBea on April 08, 2015, 06:30:42 PM
I have to admit not caring about awards...
In fact, if a book wins something, I might not consider it :-\
So I'd rather not know.
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Eclipse on April 08, 2015, 06:32:50 PM
I have to admit not caring about awards...
In fact, if a book wins something, I might not consider it :-\
So I'd rather not know.

That's like the Oscars for me for films haha
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Overlord on April 08, 2015, 08:14:18 PM
I just ignore them these days. The problem with them is that like many awards they aren't really what fans or the industry think is the best book, but instead invitations by certain people to other certain people to enter into their fold or a pat on the back between friends.

The problem is that you can only do this for so long before a pattern is noticed... when that happens people panic and overcompensate by choosing the opposite group of people to those they'd previously been letting in and it becomes even more blatant that 'choice' selection based on the people / subjects rather than the actual books is actually taking place.

At this point it becomes almost impossible to return to any means of normality. How can you be more well-rounded when at your core you are not well-rounded at all without being false?
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: xiagan on April 08, 2015, 08:53:01 PM
In conclusion, we do need our own awards. ;)

(See multiple topics to that theme from the last three years.)
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Elfy on April 09, 2015, 01:32:31 AM
Worldcon is seen as a bit of a US thing, mainly because it originated there and it's held there more often than anywhere else. They are trying to change that, though. It was held in Melbourne, Australia for the 4th time in 2010 and last year it was in London, which actually had the biggest turnout and the largest number of voters for the Hugo. The matter of voting for the Hugo has always been problematic because it's a populist award. It's been 'gamed' on a number of occasions. Have a look at the results of 1955 and tell me what the common denominator in award winners is there. If you look at the Best Novel nominations for this year it's not a whole lot different. We've got two books by popular authors, who may be of questionable quality, but they sell well, and if the casual genre reader sees Hugo nomination on the front cover of one of those books they may be minded to find out more about it and start to read more widely within the genre, they may even become Hugo voters, and as they've said on a number of occasions they're all about inclusion and getting rid of exclusivity, I think that to a certain extent influenced the win by Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire in 2001. The other books are one that gained popularity as an ebook and was then traditionally published by 47North (Amazon's trad publishing imprint), the author's work may fit in with Sad Puppies slate, but he doesn't personally subscribe to anything they advocate, and he wasn't asked to be part of their movement or advised that they were campaigning on his behalf (one half of the duo that began the movement Larry Correia did actually get Monster Hunter: Nemesis on the list, but declined the nomination). Then we've got Katherine Addison's Goblin Emperor and Ann Leckie's follow up to Ancillary Justice: Ancillary Sword, which is about as far from Sad Puppies as anything could get.
The Hugo is largely a science fiction award, fantasy's only started to make recent raids on it, due to the rise of the genre's popularity. I'd actually prefer that it did things in the same way as the Nebula and had a fantasy award and a science fiction award. The Sad Puppies thing may have significantly influenced categories like Novella, Novelette and Short Story, witness John C. Wright's multiple nominations. Vox Day somehow managed to get a nomination in Best Editor, but he runs his own campaign called Rabid Puppies. The best way to react to this and to do something about it is to register to vote and put your vote for what you genuinely want to see win. It's $40 US for a supporting membership. That gets you an electronic packet with most of the nominated works (I suspect Kloos book may not be in it), not just the novels, but the short work also, and there 3 categories worth of those. I know that Lejays17 has been turned onto a few authors that she wouldn't have otherwise read if not for the Hugo voting process (three of those are: Jo Walton, Connie Willis and Lois McMaster Bujold). It's a flawed system, that is true, but if you want to change it and you want to keep this award, which has been in place since the early '50's and whose past winners include some of the biggest most revered names in the genre, then get involved, buy a supporting membership if you can afford it, go to Worldcon if you can (there's a lot more there than just the Hugos, and you have a far greater chance of interacting with some of your favourite authors than you do at a bookstore signing or other appearance), look at the nominated works, read them, make your own decisions. Finally if you really want to do some research into who is on the committee that looks after the Hugo and Worldcon, send them an email, a tweet, leave a message on their live journal or Facebook pages voicing your concerns.
There's just a lot of disinformation out there and it saddens me that it is affecting the perception of the award the way that it is. Sad Puppies was in operation last year, and given the book that actually won Best Novel was Ancillary Justice, a debut science fiction novel by a woman that dealt with binary gender, I think they kind of failed miserably. It's highly likely that Ancillary Sword could take the award out this year.
A number of the authors that have been linked to Sad Puppies were not asked and they did not know that the movement was campaigning on their behalf, so its rather unfair to punish those people for actions that they did not take. I'd rather the work be judged on it's merits. Is this a good or a bad book? And if so, why? Unless the author is openly advocating a political position which the reader finds objectionable then what they do outside of the writing shouldn't really come into it. There are of course exceptions, the names Orson Scott Card, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Vox Day, John C. Wright and L. Ron Hubbard immediately spring to mind.


Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: JMack on April 09, 2015, 01:54:47 AM
Quote
The best way to react to this and to do something about it is to register to vote and put your vote for what you genuinely want to see win.

Just registered.
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: cupiscent on April 09, 2015, 02:10:13 AM
I'm deeply disappointed by what the various Puppy slates have done with the nomination process. I enjoy award shortlists (if not necessarily paying attention to who wins) as an opportunity to see what people are excited about that I might not have heard of. But with the dominance of the set slates, I cannot trust that these nominations are actually buoyed by the excitement of my fellow fans rather than politicking or simply being one of the group. And that makes me sad.

The immense difference between Scalzi, Stross and indeed any other individual author saying, "Hey, here's what I've written that is eligible for awards this year" (which is a useful resource for those of us who haven't time to look up the rules of the award and the publishing dates of all our favourite things) and a cabal of people saying, "Here is a list of precisely the number of nominations you are allowed to nominate in each category" should be manifestly obvious. The Puppy slates are not lists of suggested reading for your consideration, they are carefully selected party tickets. Indeed, when several authors who were originally included asked to be removed, replacements were found. Why weren't those works on the list in the first place, if they're worthy? Because this isn't about drawing attention to worthy works, it's about ensuring "our guys" get on the ballot. Which isn't about quality, isn't about excitement, isn't about fantasy and sci-fi at all. And that makes me double-sad.

And if this makes you sad - or, hell, excited, or just interested in an award you've never thought that much about before - then I agree with the advice given: register to vote and have a say. (To help ensure your vote says exactly what you want it to say, you might be interested in this great breakdown of what No Award means and does (http://kevin-standlee.livejournal.com/1440530.html).)

And because I haven't seen it here yet: a breakdown of which nominees came from which Puppy slates, and which came from neither (http://file770.com/?p=21708).
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: JMack on April 09, 2015, 02:14:01 AM
@cupiscent (http://fantasy-faction.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=32615), the bottom link isn't working?
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Raptori on April 09, 2015, 02:15:39 AM
@cupiscent (http://fantasy-faction.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=32615), the bottom link isn't working?

Here you go! (http://file770.com/?p=21708)  :P
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: cupiscent on April 09, 2015, 02:16:06 AM
@cupiscent (http://fantasy-faction.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=32615), the bottom link isn't working?

Sorry, looks like I mucked up all my link coding, is hopefully fixed now!
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Elfy on April 09, 2015, 02:36:40 AM
Thanks for that @cupiscent (http://fantasy-faction.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=32615). Unfortunately there are some genuinely decent and talented people appearing on both the Sad and Rabid Puppies list. I know George Martin would be horrified to realise that he's associated with Rabid Puppies, in any way, shape or form, because the nominated episode of Game of Thrones appears on it. He's already written a blog post about how the whole thing saddens him. Likewise names like Jennifer Brozek and Sheila Gilbert.
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: DrNefario on April 09, 2015, 01:08:20 PM
I really liked the Marko Kloos books - I read them both through the Kindle Lending Library earlier this year. I didn't think the second one was as good as the first one, so it missed out on my nomination for best novel, but I did back Kloos for the Campbell.

The fact that they have backed some decent works doesn't really excuse the way they've gone about it, and might actually end up doing more harm than good to their favoured few.
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Nighteyes on April 09, 2015, 04:38:37 PM
George RR Martin has added his sixpence worth.  Wise words. 

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/09/george-rr-martin-right-wing-broken-hugo-awards?CMP=twt_gu
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Elfy on April 09, 2015, 11:48:44 PM
I really liked the Marko Kloos books - I read them both through the Kindle Lending Library earlier this year. I didn't think the second one was as good as the first one, so it missed out on my nomination for best novel, but I did back Kloos for the Campbell.

The fact that they have backed some decent works doesn't really excuse the way they've gone about it, and might actually end up doing more harm than good to their favoured few.
And that is part of the problem. From what I know Kloos was unaware that he was on their slate. From what little I know about Marko, he's on the opposite side of the political spectrum from SP. They'd probably deride him as an SJW if they became aware of it.
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Nora on April 10, 2015, 01:16:04 AM
Wow.

I tried to get a hang of this controversy, even read that last GRRM link. Still can't get anything beyond "guys with stupid name lobby for this" vs "guys with stupider name lobby for this instead" lined by some "everybody forgot to read stuff".

Politics always get into stuff. I don't see the point of making such a fuss. Maybe those awards are just not designed to sustain such numbers and pressure. Maybe they'll collapse and we'll get a better award system. Hopefully.
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: JMack on April 10, 2015, 01:18:45 AM
I really liked the Marko Kloos books - I read them both through the Kindle Lending Library earlier this year. I didn't think the second one was as good as the first one, so it missed out on my nomination for best novel, but I did back Kloos for the Campbell.

The fact that they have backed some decent works doesn't really excuse the way they've gone about it, and might actually end up doing more harm than good to their favoured few.
And that is part of the problem. From what I know Kloos was unaware that he was on their slate. From what little I know about Marko, he's on the opposite side of the political spectrum from SP. They'd probably deride him as an SJW if they became aware of it.
Another vote for enjoying Mario Kloos. I went on a kick and red his two, the two Ancillary novels and the entire smiles Vorkosigan saga, plus the two most recent Expanse novels. Then discovered F-F and put aside SF for now.  ;D
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Elfy on April 10, 2015, 01:30:05 AM
I really liked the Marko Kloos books - I read them both through the Kindle Lending Library earlier this year. I didn't think the second one was as good as the first one, so it missed out on my nomination for best novel, but I did back Kloos for the Campbell.

The fact that they have backed some decent works doesn't really excuse the way they've gone about it, and might actually end up doing more harm than good to their favoured few.
And that is part of the problem. From what I know Kloos was unaware that he was on their slate. From what little I know about Marko, he's on the opposite side of the political spectrum from SP. They'd probably deride him as an SJW if they became aware of it.
Another vote for enjoying Mario Kloos. I went on a kick and red his two, the two Ancillary novels and the entire smiles Vorkosigan saga, plus the two most recent Expanse novels. Then discovered F-F and put aside SF for now.  ;D
You read the entire Vorkosigan saga? That's impressive. 3 of those have won Hugos, and Lois McMaster Bujold picked up a 4th rocketship for The Paladin of Souls, a fantasy novel, the sequel to The Curse of Chalion. 4 wins actually puts her equal with Heinlein.
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: cupiscent on April 11, 2015, 04:10:10 AM
From what I know Kloos was unaware that he was on their slate. From what little I know about Marko, he's on the opposite side of the political spectrum from SP. They'd probably deride him as an SJW if they became aware of it.

Which is interesting, because Torgersen was apparently claiming that everyone nominated - or at least everyone on the best novel category list - was contacted and explicitly agreed to be involved. (Note: I haven't found him actually saying this, but I've been reading comments on Scalzi's blog (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/04/04/a-note-about-the-hugo-nominations-this-year/#comment-780169) where what seem to be Puppy-involved or -related people attribute the claim to him and stand by it. So I'm just not sure.)
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: AzWingsFan on April 11, 2015, 10:15:55 AM
A good summary of awards controversy:
http://mark---lawrence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-gemmell-awards.html (http://mark---lawrence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-gemmell-awards.html)

Please don't quote Mark Lawrence! That guy has too much spare time on his hands. He probably worked out the email addresses of everyone who voted against him and personally emailed them to ask why they didn't vote for his books. (Probably accusing them of being in the political correctness brigade.)



Dafuq??? More often than not he makes entirely valid points.

On related note, opposite of the sad puppy morons it is ludicrous that Leckie among others got nominated and City of Stairs or The Emperors Blades didn't. Insane. That right there discounts that useless award.
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: JMack on April 11, 2015, 01:05:23 PM
Hi, @AzWingsFan (http://fantasy-faction.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=13302).
I'm not going to weigh in too much on this or that author's behavior etc.
But, since we're all here to discuss and debate  ;D

Have to agree that Ancillary Sword is not nearly as good as the first, which I think was pretty brilliant. Though I did find the gender stuff much less interesting than the clone mind stuff.

emperor's Blades? Really? I'm listening to it now, and it's got a lot of good qualities but a lot a lot a lot of writing problems. Plus, I guess I'm really tired of the whole "assassins are cool" shtick in SFF and any other genre.

So I'm not ready to torpedo a long standing award over inclusion of a flawed but fascinating book or the exclusion of a flawed but exciting book. It does make for great debate candy, though, doesn't it?  ;)
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Justan Henner on April 11, 2015, 05:53:39 PM
And this is why democracy doesn't work. Quick, let's tear it all down!

N... No? Just me? Fine, I'll go back to my corner.  :(
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Elfy on April 12, 2015, 12:44:27 AM
From what I know Kloos was unaware that he was on their slate. From what little I know about Marko, he's on the opposite side of the political spectrum from SP. They'd probably deride him as an SJW if they became aware of it.

Which is interesting, because Torgersen was apparently claiming that everyone nominated - or at least everyone on the best novel category list - was contacted and explicitly agreed to be involved. (Note: I haven't found him actually saying this, but I've been reading comments on Scalzi's blog (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/04/04/a-note-about-the-hugo-nominations-this-year/#comment-780169) where what seem to be Puppy-involved or -related people attribute the claim to him and stand by it. So I'm just not sure.)
Torgersen has said a lot of things in regards to that, that have been disputed later on.
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Steerpike on April 12, 2015, 04:19:33 PM
There has been a few reasonable voices on the topic, making some points on either side. Most of the commentary on the subject seems more to fan the flames than anything. I appreciate GRRM's thorough and reasonable approach to the issue.
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Rostum on April 12, 2015, 05:09:27 PM
I have read through this thread to hopefully get some understanding of the latest drama. There seems to be some every year. It is always caused by a vocal minority. The voice of reason is legion on the subject yet history will repeat itself. I have not read anything by a certain author since they made certain comments a couple of years ago. So all this angst can really cause damage albeit in tiny incriments.
In truth most of the Hugo and Nebula winners I read as a teenager were picked up in cut price bookshops a while after publication date. Probably because as soon as they won another print was run which didn't sell.

I feel very sad for the award and this years winners as everyone will be living under the question of whether they only won because or despite....[insert gender/race/sexuality and whatever else can be brought to play]
which has nothing to do with how good a writer or how wonderful their ideas are.
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Arry on April 21, 2015, 01:19:24 AM
And if you're not tired of it yet, Scalzi added his thoughts:

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/04/20/keeping-up-with-the-hugos-42015/
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: cupiscent on April 21, 2015, 03:50:41 AM
Probably also good to note that Kloos, who we were discussing, has withdrawn from the final ballot: http://file770.com/?p=21908

While I'm dropping links, Eric Flint (who I've never heard of, though he seems to have a healthy career; is he not published in the UK/Aust markets?) has some extensive but very interesting comments on the whole thing: http://www.ericflint.net/index.php/2015/04/16/some-comments-on-the-hugos-and-other-sf-awards/
(I particularly found interesting his notes on how much bigger the genre is now than it used to was.)
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Elfy on April 21, 2015, 03:55:16 AM
Probably also good to note that Kloos, who we were discussing, has withdrawn from the final ballot: http://file770.com/?p=21908

While I'm dropping links, Eric Flint (who I've never heard of, though he seems to have a healthy career; is he not published in the UK/Aust markets?) has some extensive but very interesting comments on the whole thing: http://www.ericflint.net/index.php/2015/04/16/some-comments-on-the-hugos-and-other-sf-awards/
(I particularly found interesting his notes on how much bigger the genre is now than it used to was.)
Eric Flint writes SF and fantasy with a military slant mostly, he collaborates a lot. Probably best known for his involvement with the 1632 series. That's published by Baen, and I think some of his other work is too. They don't have a huge presence down here, but you can find them on the shelves in bricks and mortar stores. Eric's a very straight talker. I quite enjoyed a panel he did at Worldcon a few years ago, he looks a bit like Danny De Vito, actually.
Title: Re: Hugo Awards 2015 Controversy & Sad Puppies
Post by: Rostum on April 21, 2015, 10:38:01 PM
Am I alone in not realising that Vox Day is Theodore Beale? I Probably would not have taken an interest without this thread. The criticism I have seen posted was along the lines of he is right wing, religious, conservative and homophobic.
This is not the case he is a rabid white and male supremacist of the vilest sort. Look him up.
How on earth do supposedly intelligent people validate this guys viewpoint?