the Hugo awards and sad puppies.

[Fox12]

SNIP

You saw Eva, and the only thing you got out of it was that crazy people are crazy? You read Berserk, and the only thing you got out of it was that it's bad too betray people? You either didn't understand the source material at all, or you're being deliberately obtuse. Which is more or less the issue I have with the various groups involved.

All fiction is message fiction to some degree. Most great storytellers don't have an agenda, the themes of their stories just evolve naturally. The religious themes of Lord of the rings came from Tolkien's Catholicism. The fantasy came from his love of fairy tales and ancient legends. The language from his love of linguistics and poetry. I don't think any of the stories I listed had an agenda, but they are just as thematic as the so called "message fiction" you keep mentioning, so what does it matter? And the proper term is theme, not message fiction.

But lets take the argument further, and talk about stories that are pushing an agenda. Why is that bad? George Orwell was pushing an agenda with 1984. Charles Dickens was pushing a political and social agenda with every single novel he ever wrote. Victor Hugo used his literature, including Les Mis, to push his social views. So did John Steinbeck with The Grapes of Wrath. These men were all universally acclaimed writers who wrote with specific agendas in mind. Their work still had heart. Would you criticize their work for being agenda based? The only real difference between their work and If you were a dinosaur, my love is that they are incredibly talented writers, and the Hugo writers mentioned are not. So the problem was never about theme, but talent.

I might actually print and frame, "Or the Metal Gear Solid series? Those are definitely thought-provoking, but they're not preachy or moralizing."

Metal Gear Solid isn't preachy? There's about 3 hours of cutscenes in MGS2-4 that beg to differ, as they literally PREACH at us.

I still remember the themes from 2 especially, since it wasn't exactly subtle. "THE FUTURE IS IN OUR GENES. THE CHILDREN ARE THE FUTURE. INVEST IN THE FUTURE. REJECT WAR."

Arguably Kojima is defined by his skill in creating games, and his clunky preaching.

Some people can only find a story thought provoking if the story is literally spelled out for them on camera. Metal Gear is a lot of things, but it's not exactly a masterpiece of fiction.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, they're well constructed games, and Kojima seems like a likable guy. I like it for its silly anime nonsense. I mean, this is the series with bee ninjas in it. Lets just not call it All Quiet on the Western Front.

 

[Something Amyss]

So you took my one example of the early years of the Hugo awards as the ONLY year I meant they had integrity?

No, but then, the early Hugos didn't have integrity either. It looked like you cherry picked what you thought was a good year, but to call the early awards or the 60s as a whole a symptom of integrity is just unrealistic.

Doing what you asked next, poring over the awards to pick out ones "with integrity" and ones "without" would only further serve to cherry pick. There was a lot of crap and filler in pretty much every Hugo I've looked at. That makes my point, not harms it.

Or do you just argue on gaming forums so much that mis-stating other people's points in order to dismiss them is second nature to you now?

Did you seriously just come to that conclusion based on a series of assumptions you made with no basis?

 

[w00tage]

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.

So you took my one example of the early years of the Hugo awards as the ONLY year I meant they had integrity?

Did you expect me to comb through all of the Hugo award years, list all of the years in which I thought they had integrity, weed out all the stories you think are B-list and highlight the non-controversial stories as well, all in order to pass your rigorous standards for countering your indefensible blanket statement?

Or do you just argue on gaming forums so much that mis-stating other people's points in order to dismiss them is second nature to you now?

I can't be sure, but I think that in the time it took you to rant for a paragraph, you could have found a couple of examples to strengthen your case and have taken the high road.

I can be sure you think I should be building a case against your indefensible blanket statement that the Hugos were never about quality. Which is not going to happen because my time is not yours to waste.