the Hugo awards and sad puppies.

[Secondhand Revenant]

Every year, slate votes are pushed. This year, that slate was the unpopular (among Hugo attendees) Sad Puppies. They did nothing different, really, than anyone else wanting to have their favorite author put into the campaign, except to base their slate in part on politics.

The response from Hugo voters, including phrases like "politics is a part of quality", are damning statements.

In the end, the Hugos gave out as many "No Awards" this year as they ever have in the entire history of the awards show, and they did it because they didn't like the politics of the people involved. It wasn't about the quality of the work, or Science-Fiction in general; it was a value judgment on people based on their political opinions or how they got nominated. By some counts, close to a thousand votes were discarded as "inappropriate" based on who they voted for.

It is an act of sickening ideological puritanism only made worse by the fact that they are discussing adding 72 pages of rules to "prevent this sort of thing" in the future.

Whatever you think of the Sad Puppies, the moral of the story should have been to make sure to nominate the people you think best, and to participate in the awards from the beginning of nominations if you want to make sure your favorite creators are included.

The moral is, however, "only the right kind of people deserve our award."

This just in! It's okay to nominate people for their politics and it's wrong to object to people being nominated for it!

 

[Something Amyss]

And that's before we get the names the puppies coined for their opponents, SMOF (Secret Masters of Fandom) and CHORF (Cliquish Holier-than-thou Obnoxious Reactionary Fanatics)

Dammit, I want to be a SMOF now. That sounds cool. And the best they could come up with for themselves was "sad puppies?"

Really?

This is the original Star Treks take on racism in one of its most celebrated episodes 'let this be your last battlefield'

Star Trek, of course, was no stranger to people crying politics. When they had the first onscreen interracial kiss, they lost a ton of affiliates in the South. It's more or less the same argument, but the lines have shifted. I doubt many people today would complain about the obvious progressive politics of Star Trek, and might even hold it up as one of the cornerstones or examples of good, or message free sci-fi.

I mean, Trek was always super schlocky to me, but I watched it almost two decades after its original release. And people wax nostalgic for it like it was the last bastion of sci-fi. So I', just saying.

There was a time. One example: http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1960-hugo-awards/

One example, except you have a bunch of b-list examples from the 1960s as well. The idea that there was one year where people you liked (ugh, Heinlein, obviously pushing a political agenda!) got in doesn't mean the awards were about quality.

First your skeletons, than your aliens, and now you want to be called witches. I have had it with this monster fluid identity nonsense you just want people to think you some kind of special snowflake.

I'm curious. Did responding to a trans user by using thinly-veiled jabs at gender identity seem like a good idea to you? Was it supposed to be irony?

 

[zerragonoss]

I'm curious. Did responding to a trans user by using thinly-veiled jabs at gender identity seem like a good idea to you? Was it supposed to be irony?

Sorry for any confusion. It was supposed to be a jab at people not understanding gender identity.

 

[Chris Mosher]

My assertion is that nowadays they are a tiny minority, accounting for less than one nomination per year. Bank's Algebraist, Gaiman's Graveyard Book and, maybe, Skin Game by Butcher are the only decent nomination in Novel category in the last 15 years or so.

Does Butcher everyday better? I tried reading the first book and wasn't impressed. Correia complained that Butcher had only ever been nominated for a graphic novel. I found Correia's complaints humorous because the first Dresden files book felt like a low rent Hellblazer story.

 

[Fox12]

I could maybe sympathize, if I thought Sad Puppies had a case.

The thing is, they claim that their trying to support talented writers that don't get any attention. And the creator himself lamented never getting a nomination, claiming that it was due to politics. So I read their stuff. It's utter garbage. None of them can write. If they don't get nominated, it has nothing to do with politics. I think they're just bitter, especially the creator.

It doesn't help that they're complaints are embarrassingly stupid. The creator just complained about how he'd rather have flash gordon style adventure serials, as opposed to anything high minded. He sounded like a simpleton. Meanwhile he formed a slate of writers, and tried to push through a block voting system to support certain writers based upon things other then writing merit. So whose obsessed with politics here? He's a bitter, failed writer that's taking his frustrations out on the establishment.

The best that can be said is that they aren't actively sexist/racist/insane like the Rabid Puppies and Vox Populi.

Truth be told, I havent read anything of theirs.

But on this very site I have seen someone think the Witcher novels were bad... and on FB I also encountered someone that considered most of the tried and tested literature of any genre as shit... Tolkin, GRRM, Sapkowski and even effin Cervantes...

I did not even...
So yeah, basically... I dont know. It is not that I discard the possibility they are bad authors, but I have seen supposedly erudite people trash classics, cult hits or generally awesome literature... and it made me sad.

This is fair. Quality is at least somewhat subjective. I'm not crazy for the Witcher books myself, for instance, and GRRM is a mixed bag.

They're all Shakespeare compared to Larry Correia, though. Yeesh. His writing is, like, Resident Evil 1 bad. Which is fine until he tries blaming other people for his problems. I just despise their view on literature.

My issue is that, if the Hugo's weren't political before the Sad Puppies got involved, they certainly were after.

Exactly. Your opinion really.

You can say something YOU love or like and there is a real chance I might not like it as much (or at all).

Of course, this defense works when you are a person that reads a lot... I can take your opinion as different but equal only if it is informed as mine and respectful.

More or less. But I think it's possible to respect something as objectively well written, even if you don't like it. I don't care for James Joyce, for instance, but I concede he's a talented author, and I think literature has benefited from his work. I can also enjoy something like Toradora while understanding that it's not some kind of great masterpiece. It's just a good piece of entertainment.

Objectively, I don't think the sad puppies presented great writers, and I can safely say that Larry Correia was terrible. It is my opinion, but I think there's a difference between an empty opinion and an educated opinion with reasoning behind it. Objectively, the work they seem to support would represent a regress in quality.

 

[Chris Mosher]

I'm presently on book 3 of the Dresden files.

So far I'm going to say nope

You know the ok bits in the first book. That's the 2nd book in a nute shell so unless the 3rd is better then I can't say it's great (I think I can even say the Dresden files TV show might have been more enjoyable)

But hey it's a trashy coffee shop book so I'm not going to say it shouldn't exist but I really wouldn't call what I've read so far to be anything special.

It was watching the tv show that kept me from reading the books, it really wasn't my bag. That being said, I read the first book beacuse of the sad puppies slate and is had not read many recent books. I wasn't impressed overall and though well i did get completely behind Redshirts and Ready Player One, i enjoyed them more then a few of the slate books. I can't say i hated Butcher, it killed time and i wasn't bored, I just want more out of a book presented as one of the best novels of the year.

 

[Zhukov]

Eh, fuck those guys.

Another bunch of miserable bastards screeching in terror at the thought of stories being written that don't cater to their specific and oddly exclusionary tastes.

I think you've been given the wrong impression about what this is all about.

Yeeaaah. No. No I really fucking haven't.

I got my impressions from reading the Puppies' various blog posts, tweets and such and, even more illuminating, the comments from supporters that accompany them. It's the same old story. A quick bit of lip service about corruption and integrity before getting down to the real bitterness of there being just too much gosh darn diversity and political correctness. I mean, I could only find five straight white male protagonists in the whole line up! The horror! Sci-fi is dying! The comments of course will often skip the lip service and go straight into the bawling bitterness.

And then we come to their willingness to ally with people who cross the line from comical screeching bitterness to outright hatefulness. Once you've done that then I know everything about you that I need to.

Wrong impressions my arse.

It isn't about things catering or not catering to one specific case, it's about the fact that there is a group within the voter base who would practically give people the award based on who they knew...

Ummm... yeah, sadly, that's how open voting works. You can vote for whoever you like for whatever reason you like. Even "political" or petty reason. Hell, you can flip a fucking coin.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that people vote for certain stories just because they, I don't know, portray a transgender character in a positive light or something. Some people like that stuff. It's a vote. And the opposite applies, the Puppies are allowed to vote for something because it doesn't have too many gays in it and has a nice comforting picture on the front of a white guy cradling a fainting damsel.

Here's the thing, the Puppies weren't trying to reform the system. They were just trying to use it to stuff the ballot in their favour. "Brigading" I believe is the term commonly used on the internet. Then they just got counter-brigaded on account of them being a sad, embittered little minority with nothing of value to say or contribute.

 

[Zhukov]

Did anyone tell the Makers of the Guardians of the Galaxy film before hand?

Apparently not. Because it won a Hugo. Alongside the gay Chinese dude with wet hair.

Gosh, it's almost as if these things aren't somehow mutually exclusive and people who aren't miserable bastards that start retching and wailing about political correctness can happily enjoy both.

 

[TwistednMean]

My assertion is that nowadays they are a tiny minority, accounting for less than one nomination per year. Bank's Algebraist, Gaiman's Graveyard Book and, maybe, Skin Game by Butcher are the only decent nomination in Novel category in the last 15 years or so.

Does Butcher everyday better? I tried reading the first book and wasn't impressed. Correia complained that Butcher had only ever been nominated for a graphic novel. I found Correia's complaints humorous because the first Dresden files book felt like a low rent Hellblazer story.

Dresden Files books are an entertaining series. Solid, captivating and despite their flaws they leave you wanting for more. But to each his own. If modern fantasy or gritty realism isn't your cup of tea, you will very likely be disappointed.

However, Butcher's books are way better than most contemporary Hugo nominees. Not Algebraist-level good, but close enough.

 

[Chris Mosher]

My assertion is that nowadays they are a tiny minority, accounting for less than one nomination per year. Bank's Algebraist, Gaiman's Graveyard Book and, maybe, Skin Game by Butcher are the only decent nomination in Novel category in the last 15 years or so.

Does Butcher everyday better? I tried reading the first book and wasn't impressed. Correia complained that Butcher had only ever been nominated for a graphic novel. I found Correia's complaints humorous because the first Dresden files book felt like a low rent Hellblazer story.

Dresden Files books are an entertaining series. Solid, captivating and despite their flaws they leave you wanting for more. But to each his own. If modern fantasy or gritty realism isn't your cup of tea, you will very likely be disappointed.

However, Butcher's books are way better than most contemporary Hugo nominees. Not Algebraist-level good, but close enough.

Do you need to read the previous Dresden Files books to enjoy Skin Game?

Also are there any particularly poor choices that you can point out as Hugo nominees from the novel category? My reading habits tend mor to what ever I can find at the local used bookstore so right now the most contemporary books on my bookshelf are 2312 and Warbound (I have even read 2312 yet). Looking at the novel Category I read Redshirts which I thought was better then fan fiction which is what Sandra Hoyt called in an interview. I then have to go back to 2011 for Feed and 2010 for Palimpsest and City and the City for books I have read and I really thought highly of all three.

 

[Zhukov]

Did anyone tell the Makers of the Guardians of the Galaxy film before hand?

Apparently not. Because it won a Hugo. Alongside the gay Chinese dude with wet hair.

Gosh, it's almost as if these things aren't somehow mutually exclusive and people who aren't miserable bastards that start retching and wailing about political correctness can happily enjoy both.

Actually technically it didn't at least not the comic work.

Comic? What? You said "Guardians of the Galaxy film."

Infact it's worth noting that Guardians of the Galaxy was on the Sad Puppy slate.
Man it's almost as though the puppies might have put it forward for a win.

So they slated a wildly popular, commercially and critically successful film from a wildly successful studio and it won. And that's a win for them?

What a long shot. Pro strats.

Sincere question: How much credit for that particular win do you think goes to the Puppies efforts?

 

[TwistednMean]

My assertion is that nowadays they are a tiny minority, accounting for less than one nomination per year. Bank's Algebraist, Gaiman's Graveyard Book and, maybe, Skin Game by Butcher are the only decent nomination in Novel category in the last 15 years or so.

Does Butcher everyday better? I tried reading the first book and wasn't impressed. Correia complained that Butcher had only ever been nominated for a graphic novel. I found Correia's complaints humorous because the first Dresden files book felt like a low rent Hellblazer story.

Dresden Files books are an entertaining series. Solid, captivating and despite their flaws they leave you wanting for more. But to each his own. If modern fantasy or gritty realism isn't your cup of tea, you will very likely be disappointed.

However, Butcher's books are way better than most contemporary Hugo nominees. Not Algebraist-level good, but close enough.

Do you need to read the previous Dresden Files books to enjoy Skin Game?

Also are there any particularly poor choices that you can point out as Hugo nominees from the novel category? My reading habits tend mor to what ever I can find at the local used bookstore so right now the most contemporary books on my bookshelf are 2312 and Warbound (I have even read 2312 yet). Looking at the novel Category I read Redshirts which I thought was better then fan fiction which is what Sandra Hoyt called in an interview. I then have to go back to 2011 for Feed and 2010 for Palimpsest and City and the City for books I have read and I really thought highly of all three.

All the books in Dresden Files have an overarching story, so there are things that wouldn't make sense to you if you skip all the previous books. A lot of things are referenced off-handedly, in a matter-of-fact fashion, so you won't get that much of emotional impact from twists and story arcs that rely on stuff from previous books.

I don't know many extremely bad nominees for that very reason. I don't like spending time reading bad fiction. But a lot of them have been mediocre stories from renowned authors like Wheel of Time and Dance With Dragons. Others like Parasite or the Goblin Emperor or 2312 are just bad.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Okay, i've seen similar arguments come up at the "Jugendwort des Jahres" (Youth Word of the Year) 2014 and '15. There were online votes and some communities thought the words that were on the list are completly stupid and that they've never heared them, so they went and voted on words they thought were more fitting.

Result? The online vote got shut down by the jury because they claimed people "rigged" it by... voting online for words they (the jury) didn't like.

And it seems to be the same case here. They rallied some people to vote for stuff and apparently the results do not please everybody and now there's a drama going on? Do i understand this correct?
Well, it's an award. If you make them open for votes, what happened is fair and square. And if you don't it'll be a circlejerk anyway, like with most awards handed out nowadays. So i don't really see why people are so riled up about it, when the expected happens?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Okay, i've seen similar arguments come up at the "Jugendwort des Jahres" (Youth Word of the Year) 2014 and '15. There were online votes and some communities thought the words that were on the list are completly stupid and that they've never heared them, so they went and voted on words they thought were more fitting.

Result? The online vote got shut down by the jury because they claimed people "rigged" it by... voting online for words they (the jury) didn't like.

And it seems to be the same case here. They rallied some people to vote for stuff and apparently the results do not please everybody and now there's a drama going on? Do i understand this correct?
Well, it's an award. If you make them open for votes, what happened is fair and square. And if you don't it'll be a circlejerk anyway, like with most awards handed out nowadays. So i don't really see why people are so riled up about it, when the expected happens?

More like they rallied people on the basis that others were biased against them and that's why they didn't win prior. Essentially trying to rally people on politics. Others didn't appreciate that.

They rallied people in the nomination process that less people bother to vote for. Then in the actual votes people pushed back and gave 'no award's instead

 

[WindKnight]

And that's before we get the names the puppies coined for their opponents, SMOF (Secret Masters of Fandom) and CHORF (Cliquish Holier-than-thou Obnoxious Reactionary Fanatics)

Dammit, I want to be a SMOF now. That sounds cool. And the best they could come up with for themselves was "sad puppies?"

Well, the primary reason they came up with CHORF was they suddenly found out SMOF had positive connotations with regards to it being used to refer to people who quietly ensure the smooth running of Cons and similar events without making a big fuss out of what they do. They put a lot of effort into making CHORF sound as bad as possible to prevent a similar backfire.

Snip

More like they rallied people on the basis that others were biased against them and that's why they didn't win prior. Essentially trying to rally people on politics. Others didn't appreciate that.

They rallied people in the nomination process that less people bother to vote for. Then in the actual votes people pushed back and gave 'no award's instead

Also, the fact that ultimately the Sads had no actual pull, and made no impact until Vox day came along with his intention to destroy the Hugo's, and used the SJW boogieman as a way to get people with no actual interest in Sci-Fi beyond using it to strike at the SJW Menace.