As a lifelong reader of science fiction, I feel somewhat conflicted about this. To me, a book that wins the Hugo is a book that goes on the reading list, no questions asked. I've read every novel that's ever won one, and as many of the winners in other categories as I can get my hands on. Looking back at some of the names and books that have won it, you can feel the weight of history associated with the title of "Hugo Winner". I also tend to consider myself a pretty apolitical reader - oftentimes when I read a book I won't even look to see who wrote it, and only really take note if I either really liked or really hated the book, so I know who to seek out more of and who to avoid. So when I'm reading something, I usually don't even really know who wrote it, let alone what their politics are.
So in that respect, the claims of the Puppies to be nominating works solely on quality ring a little hollow. Larry Correia writes popcorn flick gun-porn. It's not bad by any means, and it can entertain an audience, but that sort of fare lost any sense of newness for me after Robert Asprin wrote the Rolling Thunder belt-fed shotgun into the 'Phule's Company' books. I've only read one collection of Brad Torgersen's work, a short story collection called 'Lights in the Deep'. I found it utterly unremarkable. Not bottom-of-the-barrel bad, just... unremarkable. Nothing against either man personally, I just don't think their work to date has been Hugo-quality. I doubt if I've ever read anything by Vox Day. In fact, I'm quite certain I have not. Maybe I should sometime, just to see if all this fuss is really warranted.
Maybe the tastes of the Puppy voters differ from mine, and they really think all these things are the best works of the year in review. Lord knows it wouldn't be the first time I've disagreed with the Hugo voters. I've never understood the appeal of Joe Haldeman, and regard both his best novel winners ('Forever War' and 'Forever Peace') to be absolute rubbish. Great as Isaac Asimov was, I feel like his win for 'Foundation's Edge' was a bit like Al Pacino's Oscar for 'Scent of a Woman' - sort of a make-up award for past works overlooked, rather than a meaningful commentary on the work at hand. Hell, J.K. Rowling won the 2001 Hugo for 'Goblet of Fire' over a relatively weak slate of novels that didn't even manage to include the hands-down best novel that year, Tim Powers's breathtaking 'Declare'.
Heck, it may even be that the tastes of the non-Puppy Hugo voters are diverging from my own. I've been supremely disappointed with the last two Best Novel winners - I found 'Ancillary Justice' pretty underwhelming, and although I have no problem with giving 'Redshirts' a Hugo, the one it actually got was in the wrong bloody category! 'Redshirts' was a Best Related Work if there ever was one, but it's an embarrassment as a Best Novel. In fact, I don't think we've had a truly great Best Novel Hugo winner since 2007, when 'Rainbows End' took the prize.
All of which brings me, I suppose, to what is probably the controversial part of this post.
Knowing what I know now about his politics, and having seen the reaction to his nomination play out in real time, I've got to believe there's no way John Wright would ever have been on a Hugo shortlist without the Puppy slate.
Which is a shame, because he's one of the best SF writers I've ever read.
He writes like a cross between Gene Wolfe (Who, for my money, is the best living English-language writer. Not SF writer, just writer, period... come to think of it, how has Gene Wolfe never won a Hugo?) and E.E. Smith. He can adapt his style to reflect that of another author when writing in-universe better than anyone I've ever seen. His imitation of A.E. van Vogt in 'Null A Continuum' was spot-on, but his William Hope Hodgson pastiche, 'Awake in the Night Land' might have been better than the original. And Big Picture stories... no one does Big Picture stories like Wright. The sheer scale he's envisioned in 'Count to the Eschaton' is unlike anything I've seen in a very long time.
And yet, as far as I can tell, he's never even been considered for a major award before this year. Why? If it's because of his politics, that would make some sense. There was enormous enthusiasm for him when he first burst on to the scene, but since then, it seems like he's been quietly shunted off to the backroom somewhere, and Tor never really seems to promote or even really talk about him much. I stumbled on him basically by accident - it certainly wasn't through normal SF channels. And it isn't like his politics really come through in his work. Well, his SF work - I understand that 'Transhuman and Subhuman' is uncomfortably polemic in places, (I haven't read it) but it's a collection of essays, not a story.
Since this whole brouhaha has whipped up, I've looked into the politics of a couple of authors, something I almost never do. While I suspect Wright isn't as bad as he's being made out to be here and a lot of other places, I admit there's plenty there to find objectionable. But I'm also a pretty strong believer in separating the art from the artist, even in the super-icky cases, like Woody Allen... although I've never liked Woody Allen, so maybe it's easier for me than most. So, in the end, I'm mostly just left confused about how to feel about this whole thing. I'm not a fan of slate voting, but I've seen enough evidence to know that it's always been at least a little bit of a thing. I'm not a fan of nominating stories solely due to author politics, which it appears has probably happened. But I'm also against blackballing stories based on author politics, which the vehement anti-Puppy backlash has made clear to me probably also happens. I guess the best thing for me to do at this point is just wash my hands of the whole affair and wait and see what happens. In the meantime, I'll keep doing what I always do - read stuff without really caring who the author is.
