the Hugo awards and sad puppies.

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
The_Kodu said:
Yes which is what the film is based on. Surely if it were some great showing of how it's still mass appeal it wouldn't merely have one the film section.
Which makes it so much more strange it was the film not the source material which got the Hugo award first.
Huh?

The comic was never all that popular or successful. The film was very popular and successful. And you're somehow surprised that the film won an award but the comic did not?

Honestly, you're making very little sense at this point.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Windknight said:
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.
Yeah, CHORF sounds like a noise my cat would make when she had a hairball. It's also less catchy and harder to push, though.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Adeptus Aspartem said:
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, you're missing the basis on which they rallied people. They claimed the awards had been politicised, but offered precious little evidence aside from their own dislike of past winners; they then used explicitly political arguments to convince others to vote.

That's what's riling people up. The awards have become another avenue for petty culture warring, and it's because of the Puppies.
 

Adeptus Aspartem

New member
Jul 25, 2011
843
0
0
Silvanus said:
Well, you're missing the basis on which they rallied people. They claimed the awards had been politicised, but offered precious little evidence aside from their own dislike of past winners; they then used explicitly political arguments to convince others to vote.

That's what's riling people up. The awards have become another avenue for petty culture warring, and it's because of the Puppies.
So it comes down to a "don't hate the player, hate the game" thing. Those awards were always petty to begin with. You can never be sure that "quality" succeeds anyway, there is always popularity and politics involved, maybe even financial reasons.
The puppies apparently played the game better this time - and the others got mad. Mkay, i can see why people can get pissed about the incident but from an outsiders perspective it seems to be a zero sum game.
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
Charcharo said:
Fox12 said:
Charcharo said:
Fox12 said:
Charcharo said:
Fox12 said:
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.
I have no notion of the sad puppies, but "objectively good writing" as a term really grinds my gears.

I can get there being a divide between what is the classics and cult hits, the good ones, the mediocre and the shit tier. To a certain extent that is.

But I cant really go and compare works I deem in the same category all that well. Especially since, I have talked to several different people (3 of whom say they actually have literary education and the 1 of whom is ACTUALLY a writer) and their opinion on what is good and what makes something GREAT... is not the same.
For the record, I have a background in literature, and intend to publish a novel. That's not a big deal in itself, of course, but I do have an understanding of the process of writing and analyzing literature.

Look, there are a lot of different groups with different views on literature. Medievalists, modernists, post modernists, ect. Respecting that, I keep a pretty loose definition of good literature. But objectively, there are certain things you can look for as far as literary criticism goes. Psychological realism, fluid dialogue, lack of adverbs, solid pacing, use if narrative voice, lyrical prose and sound, understatement vs overstatement, ect. Different writers have different strengths and weaknesses, and critics tend to emphasize the aspects of literature they like best. That's why literary critics can never agree on "fine literature." Medievalists and linguists love Tolkien, while modernists lose their shit over Ulysses. That's all well and good, and I'm open minded enough to love all of literature. But if a writer tends to be poor and clumsy in all areas of literature, then there can be a general consensus on the quality of a work.

So, I can say that something is objectively good, even if I don't like it, because I can recognize the skill, passion, and work that went into something. I can also recognize something as bad, if it has poor prose, is filled with logical inconsistencies, plot holes, conveniences, simple characters, ect. In that sense I think some things are somewhat objective.
 

Chris Mosher

New member
Nov 28, 2011
144
0
0
TwistednMean said:
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.
I know Wheel of time dragged on, I gave up around book six, but I thought I heard the three Sanderson wrote were an improvement. I am aslo not going to lie here but the wheel of time ended up as such a slog that i have sworn off reading fantasy series that have not already ended. The same goes for GRRM. I can't say I am 100% impressed with either the nominees from the puppies or the traditional voting block.
I would give the puppies alot more credit if i was blown away by their slate but i just really wasn't

I think I just a cranky old guy and everyone needs to get off my sf/f lawn whether its Correia or Scalzi.
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
Charcharo said:
One of the smartasses I was talking with has this obscene idea that ALL "fluff" has to be cut out of a story. And when pointed to LOTR, he said it is shit due to that very reason and was objectively bad literature...
Ugh. By that logic you'd have to throw out 90% of the stuff from the 1800's : P

But yeah, I think we got a little off topic. I just want people to write for the love of literature, and not because of politics. I probably sound a little pretentious when I talk about this stuff, but for me it all goes back to late nights in fourth grade, where I'd sit up reading Harry Potter and The Hobbit until I fell asleep with the book on my chest.
 

Raesvelg

New member
Oct 22, 2008
486
0
0
Windknight said:
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)
SMOF is something waaaaaay older than the Sad Puppies, actually. That one's been kicking around for at least 40 years.
 

Raesvelg

New member
Oct 22, 2008
486
0
0
Fox12 said:
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.
Actually, Larry Correia did get nominated for Best New Author back in 2011. He claims it was his experience as the target of abuse and a whisper campaign against him (solely on the grounds of his personal politics) that pushed him to create the Sad Puppies campaign (on the grounds that boring message fiction is the leading cause of sadness among puppies, to paraphrase the humorous pseudo-motivation).

He also declined his nomination for the 2015 Hugos.

I suppose the best way to illustrate the point that Larry Correia was trying to make with the Sad Puppies campaign, originally at least, would be to ask a question:

Would Ender's Game win a Hugo today?
 

Frankster

Space Ace
Mar 13, 2009
2,507
0
0
Zontar said:
I mean for god sake, in one category Sarkeesian got 6% of the vote for her work, despite having contributed literally nothing to either of the genre which explicitly are what the Hugos cover.
o0

...

Ok I was initially leaning towards the "other side" from the sad puppies group since I tend to be against those who "start it" but if what Zontar says here is true..
Then there really is something fucked up going in the hugos after all and maybe the sad puppies actually have a point, you can't tell me Sarkeesian got even 1% of a vote in this kind of event for her literary genius.

Think I'll just chalk this up as something else that got completely ruined by them gender politics BS (for lack of a better term..)

Lol at some of the twitter drama though, particularly loved this response from the sad puppy maker to one of his detractors:
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Frankster said:
Zontar said:
I mean for god sake, in one category Sarkeesian got 6% of the vote for her work, despite having contributed literally nothing to either of the genre which explicitly are what the Hugos cover.
o0

...

Ok I was initially leaning towards the "other side" from the sad puppies group since I tend to be against those who "start it" but if what Zontar says here is true..
Then there really is something fucked up going in the hugos after all and maybe the sad puppies actually have a point, you can't tell me Sarkeesian got even 1% of a vote in this kind of event for her literary genius.

Think I'll just chalk this up as something else that got completely ruined by them gender politics BS (for lack of a better term..)
Here's the source: http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2015HugoStatistics.pdf

Best Related Work (page 20) has her in 10th place with 77 votes, or 6.7% of the vote for "Tropes vs Women: Women as Background Decoration"
 

Frankster

Space Ace
Mar 13, 2009
2,507
0
0
Zontar said:
Here's the source: http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2015HugoStatistics.pdf
Thanks, I'm now suitably horrified D:
Jeezus.. And Women as background decoration of all the episodes too? Her videos tend to have BS examples and questionable interpretations in all of them but I thought that one was particularly bad. For gawds sake people...

Welp, guess sign me up on team sad puppy.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
Frankster said:
Zontar said:
I mean for god sake, in one category Sarkeesian got 6% of the vote for her work, despite having contributed literally nothing to either of the genre which explicitly are what the Hugos cover.
o0

...

Ok I was initially leaning towards the "other side" from the sad puppies group since I tend to be against those who "start it" but if what Zontar says here is true..
Then there really is something fucked up going in the hugos after all and maybe the sad puppies actually have a point, you can't tell me Sarkeesian got even 1% of a vote in this kind of event for her literary genius.

Think I'll just chalk this up as something else that got completely ruined by them gender politics BS (for lack of a better term..)
Well, she was nominated in the "best related work" category, which seems to be the meta category. Alongside Sarkeesian was What Makes This Book so Great, Chicks Dig Gaming, Shadows Beneath: The Writing Excuses Anthology, and Invisible: Personal Essays on Representation in SF. It's literally a category for things like Sarkeesian's big, internet-destroying youtube series of game-castrating scam-lies. But acknowledging that gets in the way of people's outrage, so it's understandable why that little fact wasn't mentioned in the post you quoted.
I think it's more telling that the category had so many works not related to either genre the Hugos relate to having so many nominations in that category then less so about the issue of "voted because of the person, not the content". Sarkessian was name-dropped because her work is well known both for its content and unresearched, low quality. Even if it was a category for the type of work she does (it's not) that would still beg the question of how she got nominated given how low quality her work is.
 

Frankster

Space Ace
Mar 13, 2009
2,507
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
Well, she was nominated in the "best related work" category, which seems to be the meta category.
Was gonna edit an answer in my previous post but screw it, making another new post:

Aye, Zontar linked some stats and specified that. And I still think it's a farce that that anita got nominated and reached 10th place. I ain't gonna judge the other nominations because I don't know them, for all I know they are totally quality pieces of work.

But anita's women vs tropes series? It's my honest opinion her series are more propaganda then they are educational, and frightfully inaccurate and dishonest at times to boot. I can't believe she would be nominated based on quality alone, there HAS to be some degree of bias at work here, which as I understand it, is exactly what the sad puppies were saying all along.
 

Raesvelg

New member
Oct 22, 2008
486
0
0
Zontar said:
I think it's more telling that the category had so many works not related to either genre the Hugos relate to having so many nominations in that category then less so about the issue of "voted because of the person, not the content". Sarkessian was name-dropped because her work is well known both for its content and unresearched, low quality. Even if it was a category for the type of work she does (it's not) that would still beg the question of how she got nominated given how low quality her work is.
Best Related Work has often been a bit sketchy, aye, but Sarkeesian's inclusion was sketchier than most. I'd blame the Sad Puppies opposition linking them with Gamergate and put her inclusion on the slate as some sort of spite vote, but the fact of the matter is that there wasn't any real opposition to the Puppies until after they swept the nominations.

So basically, without the Sad Puppies, Sarkeesian would have been up for a Hugo this year.

I'm just entertained at the idea of what the slate is gonna be like in 2017, after they discover that if you limit the slate-makers to just one choice that they can pimp really hard (which is the intent of the rules changes they penned after this year's debacle), the 5% rule is gonna kick in on the nominations, so I have the sneaking suspicion that there will be a dearth of nominees in the lesser categories for a couple years after the new nomination system kicks in.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Frankster said:
LifeCharacter said:
Well, she was nominated in the "best related work" category, which seems to be the meta category.
Was gonna edit an answer in my previous post but screw it, making another new post:

Aye, Zontar linked some stats and specified that. And I still think it's a farce that that anita got nominated and reached 10th place. I ain't gonna judge the other nominations because I don't know them, for all I know they are totally quality pieces of work.

But anita's tv vs tropes series? It's my honest opinion her series are more propaganda then they are educational, and frightfully inaccurate and dishonest at times to boot. I can't believe she would be nominated based on quality alone, there HAS to be some degree of bias at work here, which as I understand it, is exactly what the sad puppies were saying all along.
*laughs*
Oh wow. Someone was actually deranged enough to give the Fem Freq hacks a Hugo nomination?

I know if I were offered a nomination in light of that, I'd turn it down, since running a nomination against Sarkeesian in any category would be like running against Adam Sandler for "Best Original Script".
 

Raesvelg

New member
Oct 22, 2008
486
0
0
Atmos Duality said:
*laughs*
Oh wow. Someone was actually deranged enough to give the Fem Freq hacks a Hugo nomination?

I know if I were offered a nomination in light of that, I'd turn it down, since running a nomination against Sarkeesian in any category would be like running against Adam Sandler for "Best Original Script".
77 someones, in fact. Which should give you an idea of why a few hundred Sad Puppies enthusiasts were able to dominate the Hugo nominations this year.

I'm genuinely interested to see what comes up this time around, not so much in the sense that I think greater participation will yield a better selection of works, but rather that it's gonna be entertaining as hell to watch the vote shilling start in the early spring as people rally behind their chosen slates. We'll only get one year to do it, after all. It'll be like Halley's Comet.