The Hugo Awards

[Breakdown]

There appears to be some kind of controversy with the Hugo awards this year. I don't really pay attention to awards, and looking at the wikipedia page I'm not really familiar with the authors nominated in the past couple of years. Except the Wheel of Time for best novel in 2014 - what?

So are the 2015 nominations really right wing?

 

[Vault101]

basically a bunch of people saw works that featured women/LBGT/others as an affront to them, got real pissy and decided to concentrate an effort to put works selected by them in the winning categories (hey remind you of anything?)

and hell if we aren't even going down the SJW route they said [I/]its too literary! I want fuuuuun!!![/I]

not to mention one of the proponents (goes by the pen name vox day) is a terrible terrible person

this proves two things

1. the hugo voting system is kind of flawed

2. there is a real backlash against a perceived "influx" of "stuff that's different therefore an affront to me" which causes a reactionary movement to get things back to "normal"

their "normal" being of the straight white male variety

EDIT: quote from one of the main players:

[quote/]A few decades ago, if you saw a lovely spaceship on a book cover, with a gorgeous planet in the background, you could be pretty sure you were going to get a rousing space adventure featuring starships and distant, amazing worlds. If you saw a barbarian swinging an axe? You were going to get a rousing fantasy epic with broad-chested heroes who slay monsters, and run off with beautiful women.

[But now] The book has a spaceship on the cover, but is it really going to be a story about space exploration and pioneering derring-do? Or is the story merely about racial prejudice and exploitation?A planet, framed by a galactic backdrop. Could it be an actual bona fide space opera? Heroes and princesses and laser blasters? No, wait. It?s about sexism and the oppression of women.Finally, a book with a painting of a person wearing a mechanized suit of armor! Holding a rifle! War story ahoy! Nope, wait. It?s actually about gay and transgender issues.
[/quote]

1. oh my god!!! the books are making me think about things! why can't I just have my pew pew space? poor me

2. its FALSE anyway, Sci Fi has ALWAYS had a shit-ton of "politics" in it, anyone who desies that is either being wilfully ignorant or is a pretty poor "sci fi fan" clearly somoen hasn't read enough sci fi

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Yes and no. Some of the categories lean a little further right. Novella especially. The Sad Puppies slate was fairly apolitical so far as nominee beliefs. The Rabid Puppies slate has a crapload of John C. Wright on it, and he got a few nominations.

All things considered though, the genuine problem with either voting slate is that it arguably gives certain books/films/etc unfair advantages. That's the real issue if you strip away the absurd anti-right-wing political prejudice coming from some quarters.

If these slates were created by left-leaning authors, you would not see such a stink. Any genuine concerns about how this affects the voting process were rapidly drowned out by people who DETEST right wingers, and resent that they can have any influence in THEIR sci-fi.

Naturally you get people wheeling out lies about how this was a bunch of white conservative men who dominated the nominations with other white conservative dudes. Utter lies. Looking at the slates, you find both men and women from a range of political stances.

I read a study demonstrating political prejudice is worse today than it was in the 60's, and that people are more prejudiced over politics than race. I think the hatred generated over the Hugos attests to that.

Interestingly, the man behind Sad Puppies declined his Hugo nomination this year, debunking the idea he resents not being voted for.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

basically a bunch of people saw works that featured women/LBGT/others as an affront to them, got real pissy and decided to concentrate an effort to put works selected by them in the winning categories (hey remind you of anything?)

...

their "normal" being of the straight white male variety

This is false. Sad Puppies has been going for a few years now, and you seem to be under the misconception that the works nominated were all by white dudes or something. They nominated men and women regardless of politics.

Let's not get started on the travesty that was Arthur Chu accusing the main guy behind Sad Puppies of being a racist, and then accusing him of using his wife and daughter as a shield when it was pointed out the guy's wife is black.

Vox Day is an arsehole. But I do find it a little odd how people insist on claiming he supports women having acid thrown in their faces and shit, when he never actually did. (He was instead arguing some point about how certain atheist celebs would likely be fine with such "utilitarian" measures. He's an arsehole. But not the monster people make him out to be.)

edit:
Sorry for double post.

 

[Vault101]

[snip.)

it was totally about politics

they didn't like the apparent "poltics" of previosu winners so they'd replace them with their own, some of which came from questionable authors (and some didn't)

 

[Ambient_Malice]

[snip.)

it was totally about politics

they didn't like the apparent "poltics" of previosu winners so they'd replace them with their own, some of which came from questionable authors (and some didn't)

It was more that they felt that poor quality work was being rewarded simply for being political, or because the author held the right views or belonged to the right group. Opinions differ about the validity of such an assertion.

What's notable is that pro-Sad Puppies people tend to fall into the "judge the work, not the creator" mindset, wheras their opponents have demonstrated a "I don't like your politics, therefore I'm not even reading your book" attitude - one that arguably undermines science fiction.

 

[Vault101]

It was more that they felt that poor quality work

subjective as that is I find that a very dubious claim...very few people would call something like saaayyy Ancillary justice/ its sequel poor quality

[quote/]was being rewarded simply for being political [/quote]

this is where I take issue, because to some people something as innocuous as a gay or women protagonist is now "political" and when we slap a big old "political" label on it becomes scary and something to be ignored

of coarse all works are political in some way or another, sometimes its really small and negledgable..sometimes its obvious

weather or not it affects our enjoyment or inclination to pick up said work is personal, I intend to read "The Abyss" even though Orson Scott Card is a Homophobic ass, I STILL read the Honor Harrington even though its becoming borderline painful how much David Weber keeps telling us how shitty the left is, but hey....whatever that's the world the author created and if it works within that space that's fine (probably helped by the fact that the right wing elements in the HH books seem to be purely economic and not social, which is more bearable)

but what I see here is a reaction to changing trends within sci fi and niche fiction in general, and I'm sorry but I can't NOT see the similar mentality that spawned GG (and all the pearl clutching beforehand)

 

[Ambient_Malice]

to some people something as innocuous as a gay or women protagonist is now "political" and when we slap a big old "political" label on it becomes scary and something to be ignored

I've seen nothing to suggest Sad Puppies would decline to nominate a book or film for having a gay or female protagonist. I would argue that such things are seen as political because certain people insist on making them political. Some people can't just write a book featuring a gay protagonist. Greater meaning is attached, and to some people, that thinking is inherently obnoxious. I myself have argued that Handmaid's Tale is a crappy novel that only gained fame and praise because it resonated with a left leaning political paranoia about the legality of abortion in America. This stuff always happens when you've got a work that seems to be terrible, yet beloved in certain circles. Was the film God's Not Dead successful because it's a good film or because it appeals to the so-called Christian Persecution Fetish?

Additionally, we have the concept of a "snob hit". A work of art that people don't ACTUALLY like - they may not have even seen or read it themselves. They merely join in the applause because they wish to appear cultured or right-thinking or some such.

The argument, right or wrong, is that science fiction and also parts of gaming (hence the idealogical overlap between GG and this Hugos business) have been infected by a snob hit mentality that favors "politically correct" works of art. It is unwise to view such a claim in absolutes, however - in the sense it is, if anything, more of an infection than any sort of domination.

For crying out loud, you get the exact same thing with Eurovision EVERY SINGLE YEAR. The accusation that shit acts are elevated and quality acts get nothing. I admit to being baffled that the excellent Dima Bilan lost the Russian slot to the terrible Russian grannies and their performance about... baking? And they came SECOND?

 

[Vault101]

I've seen nothing to suggest Sad Puppies would decline to nominate a book or film for having a gay or female protagonist.

yeeeeeaaaaaah you kind of lost me there

I'll belive that the day I belive GG was really about ethics in "what the fuck are you guys even doing?"


[quote/]I would argue that such things are seen as political because certain people insist on making them political. [/quote]
by.....existing?

 

[Zontar]

I've seen nothing to suggest Sad Puppies would decline to nominate a book or film for having a gay or female protagonist.

yeeeeeaaaaaah you kind of lost me there

I'll belive that the day I belive GG was really about ethics in "what the fuck are you guys even doing?"


[quote/]I would argue that such things are seen as political because certain people insist on making them political.

by.....existing?[/quote]

Just because you do not believe something to be true, does not have any bearing on weather or not it is.

Sad puppies was, at the end of the day, about getting works to be nominated based solely on the quality of the work, and has nothing to do with politics. Which is why there isn't any homogeneity in the political views of those nominated, unless Liberalism and Conservatism have finally merged into a single political view.

 

[Fox12]

I've seen nothing to suggest Sad Puppies would decline to nominate a book or film for having a gay or female protagonist.

yeeeeeaaaaaah you kind of lost me there

I'll belive that the day I belive GG was really about ethics in "what the fuck are you guys even doing?"


[quote/]I would argue that such things are seen as political because certain people insist on making them political.

by.....existing?

Just because you do not believe something to be true, does not have any bearing on weather or not it is.

Sad puppies was, at the end of the day, about getting works to be nominated based solely on the quality of the work, and has nothing to do with politics. Which is why there isn't any homogeneity in the political views of those nominated, unless Liberalism and Conservatism have finally merged into a single political view.[/quote]

I'm not so sure. Have you seen Vox's blog?
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2005/08/why-dont-women-have-to-vote.html

If it's political, then it's because they made it political. And what's wrong with a sci-fi story having a political message? Not everything has to be a rousing adventure story or escapist fantasy. I love those things too. Star Wars, for instance, was great. But there's nothing wrong with a sci-fi/fantasy series wanting to be more. I feel like it's somewhat blind for this group to throw a hissy fit because their brand of adventure story isn't dominating the market. There should be a good mixture.

Besides, do you personally feel that the last batch of Hugo winners were bad?

 

[ZiggyE]

Just because you do not believe something to be true, does not have any bearing on weather or not it is.

Sad puppies was, at the end of the day, about getting works to be nominated based solely on the quality of the work, and has nothing to do with politics. Which is why there isn't any homogeneity in the political views of those nominated, unless Liberalism and Conservatism have finally merged into a single political view.

This was how John C. Wright put it.

Most of them said our slate was exclusively white, straight, and male (not true)

Most of them said that last year was a big win for diversity (I believe last years winners were all white and one Asian).

Most of them said our slate was exclusively right wing (not true, in fact the majority skew left, we have socialists, liberals, moderates, libertarians, conservatives, and question marks. To the best of my knowledge, I believe that last year?s ?diverse? winners all espoused the same social justice politics).

But there is no bias in this perfectly functioning system. My side said that political narrative trumped reality in this business. Believe me yet?

We?ve seen this behavior before, but never at a level so blatantly false.

I'm inclined to agree with him. All these people complaining about the Hugo's being "rigged" all of a sudden had no problem when it was rigged for the past 5 years, except now it's no longer being rigged in an ideology they favour, but instead in no ideology at all and only on the quality of the works involved.

 

[Zontar]

I've seen nothing to suggest Sad Puppies would decline to nominate a book or film for having a gay or female protagonist.

yeeeeeaaaaaah you kind of lost me there

I'll belive that the day I belive GG was really about ethics in "what the fuck are you guys even doing?"


[quote/]I would argue that such things are seen as political because certain people insist on making them political.

by.....existing?

Just because you do not believe something to be true, does not have any bearing on weather or not it is.

Sad puppies was, at the end of the day, about getting works to be nominated based solely on the quality of the work, and has nothing to do with politics. Which is why there isn't any homogeneity in the political views of those nominated, unless Liberalism and Conservatism have finally merged into a single political view.

I'm not so sure. Have you seen Vox's blog?
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2005/08/why-dont-women-have-to-vote.html

If it's political, then it's because they made it political. And what's wrong with a sci-fi story having a political message? Not everything has to be a rousing adventure story or escapist fantasy. I love those things too. Star Wars, for instance, was great. But there's nothing wrong with a sci-fi/fantasy series wanting to be more. I feel like it's somewhat blind for this group to throw a hissy fit because their brand of adventure story isn't dominating the market. There should be a good mixture.

Besides, do you personally feel that the last batch of Hugo winners were bad?[/quote]

The problem wasn't that the stories had a political message (some of the best sci-fi stories do), the problem is that their political message, as well as the views of the author, where what was being used to determine their worth, not the quality of the work. That's the problem people where having, because people like meritocracy.

 

[Saetha]

I've seen nothing to suggest Sad Puppies would decline to nominate a book or film for having a gay or female protagonist.

yeeeeeaaaaaah you kind of lost me there

Umm... why?

Like, you can't just bald-facedly go "Nah your argument's wrong." Present evidence. What proof do you have that this faction wouldn't accept a gay or female protagonist?

 

[Fox12]

I've seen nothing to suggest Sad Puppies would decline to nominate a book or film for having a gay or female protagonist.

yeeeeeaaaaaah you kind of lost me there

I'll belive that the day I belive GG was really about ethics in "what the fuck are you guys even doing?"


[quote/]I would argue that such things are seen as political because certain people insist on making them political.

by.....existing?

Just because you do not believe something to be true, does not have any bearing on weather or not it is.

Sad puppies was, at the end of the day, about getting works to be nominated based solely on the quality of the work, and has nothing to do with politics. Which is why there isn't any homogeneity in the political views of those nominated, unless Liberalism and Conservatism have finally merged into a single political view.

I'm not so sure. Have you seen Vox's blog?
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2005/08/why-dont-women-have-to-vote.html

If it's political, then it's because they made it political. And what's wrong with a sci-fi story having a political message? Not everything has to be a rousing adventure story or escapist fantasy. I love those things too. Star Wars, for instance, was great. But there's nothing wrong with a sci-fi/fantasy series wanting to be more. I feel like it's somewhat blind for this group to throw a hissy fit because their brand of adventure story isn't dominating the market. There should be a good mixture.

Besides, do you personally feel that the last batch of Hugo winners were bad?

The problem wasn't that the stories had a political message (some of the best sci-fi stories do), the problem is that their political message, as well as the views of the author, where what was being used to determine their worth, not the quality of the work. That's the problem people where having, because people like meritocracy.[/quote]

But that's precisely what the sad puppies (sigh) did. They decided they wanted to push a right wing agenda based entirely around politics. I consider that hypocritical.

There's also an obvious push against diversity here. White men have typically dominated the Hugo awards, so the idea that there's some diversity quota set in place against them is silly. Made even worse by the fact that there's no panel of judges, so the stories they hate so much are popularly elected. Worse still, many of their members are blatant sexists and homophobes. I just read that one of the authors supported by the movement called the Legend of Kora writers filth because they had lesbians in their show. Another prominent leader is questioning the voting rights of women. Even if you support GG, this sci-fi movement is filthy.

This culture was is disturbing, it's bringing out the ugliest aspects of Geek culture.

 

[Zontar]

But that's precisely what the sad puppies (sigh) did. They decided they wanted to push a right wing agenda based entirely around politics. I consider that hypocritical.

See, here's the problem, that it not what happened. That it literally the opposite of what happened, with the only way for that to be true is if most political ideologies have suddenyl merged with conservatism. As ZiggiE mentioned above in his quote from Wright, the Sad Puppies had "socialists, liberals, moderates, libertarians, conservatives, and question marks", and it was in direct opposition to the purely "what is your personal politics" crew that this whole thing happened.

There's also an obvious push against diversity here. White men have typically dominated the Hugo awards, so the idea that there's some diversity quota set in place against them is silly. Made even worse by the fact that there's no panel of judges, so the stories they hate so much are popularly elected. Worse still, many of their members are blatant sexists and homophobes. I just read that one of the authors supported by the movement called the Legend of Kora writers filth because they had lesbians in their show. Another prominent leader is questioning the voting rights of women. Even if you support GG, this sci-fi movement is filthy.

Last year, a year heralded as a milestone in diversity for the Hugo awards, there was only one visible minority who won. There is quite literally no way to argue this years awards where somehow less diverse then of recent years dominated by the click which Sad Puppies was in opposition to.

I'd also like links to your two claims, since this is the internet so it's almost assured someone took "the ending of Korra was poorly written drivel that used 'suddenly gay syndrome' to escape its deserved criticism" and twisted it to be homophobic, and I find it very unlikely that the second claim to be the case in any way. Basically citation needed.

This culture was is disturbing, it's bringing out the ugliest aspects of Geek culture.

I'll say it again: citation needed.

 

[Vault101]

Umm... why?

Like, you can't just bald-facedly go "Nah your argument's wrong." Present evidence. What proof do you have that this faction wouldn't accept a gay or female protagonist?

I have to know when Im bashing my head against a wall

as fox said its CLEAR to anyone that there is a "backlash" against perceived progressiveness, and the logical gymnastics people are pulling to give sad puppies or whoever any legitimacy is....well I want to say its surprising but it isn't

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Wanting to bring back fantasy that is just fantasy, or sci-if that is just sci-fi? Sure, whatever, that's okay. I mean, the first work of science fiction was more a collection of Romantic ideology than science and C.S. Lewis and Tolkein can hardly be called simple adventure writers, but sure, plain fun adventure is ok. Wanting to help push their rabidly right-wing ideology to the forefront by piggybacking on the efforts of Internet reactionaries in other realms? Horrible. A line was crossed by these guys. There is a core idea that is fine, but the broad sweep is wrong.

 

[Saetha]

I have to know when Im bashing my head against a wall

Or when you have no evidence with which to justify your biases.

as fox said its CLEAR to anyone that there is a "backlash" against perceived progressiveness, and the logical gymnastics people are pulling to give sad puppies or whoever any legitimacy is....well I want to say its surprising but it isn't

I'd believe that with these "Rabid puppies," certainly. They seem precisely like the sort that are throwing a hissy fit over non-straight white men having the audacity to be interested in genre fiction, too.

But as has been pointed out in this very thread, the "sad puppy" slate pulled from a variety of people and view points. So basically, there are two factions opposing yours, and you're dismissing both because of the flaws of one. It's dishonest.

 

[Zontar]

Wanting to bring back fantasy that is just fantasy, or sci-if that is just sci-fi? Sure, whatever, that's okay. I mean, the first work of science fiction was more a collection of Romantic ideology than science and C.S. Lewis and Tolkein can hardly be called simple adventure writers, but sure, plain fun adventure is ok. Wanting to help push their rabidly right-wing ideology to the forefront pay piggybacking on the efforts of Internet reactionaries in other realms? Horrible. A line was crossed by these guys. There is a core idea that is fine, but the broad sweep is wrong.

The problem with your assessment is that no ideology was pushed by Sad Puppies. Like, at all. Not a single one. Right wing or otherwise. The only thing that got pushed was a part off the radical left, and the only pushing it got was out.