I found it probably the most interesting thing I've read about the SF / Fantasy genre niche world in years. But I'm so out of it far as field gossip goes that I didn't even know some of this was going on.
Anybody know anything about it?
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
Hasn't crossed my radar, but I'm not surprised. Such champions of justice as described in the article are notoriously intolerant, even violently intolerant, of any views they don't personally condone.
Just don't ask them to identify themselves or their aims; they are peculiarly reticent when asked to do that.
Phil.
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
I've heard bits of this, but haven't been active in the SFF community for a few years, so I don't know all the details.
Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :
It's sad:
I knew of some of that but it's gone a lot further than the last time I read anything about it--which wasn't that far ago,
As the article stated this intolerance in the name of tolerance has already hit other fields. Certain people are so over sensitive that it's amazing. And they have become a stereotype of the worse religious dogmatist.
What is worse is that a couple writers I respect and admire and follow on Google+ are on that side--Or they were at the beginning. I didn't read one hundred percent of the article but at about ninety percent those two or three were not mentioned. One is from here long time ago.
Another thing is that they do have a couple of real points, that probably should be discussed but they go so over board that it hinders that discussion in more than one way.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Personality cult power squabbling is why I'm a nonbelonger. SFWA's squabbles began when Damon Knight founded the parent organization and continue unending to raise dissent about SFWA's writer advocacy -- political -- and award culture. Culture politics are static, in a state of unstable, buffered equilibrium state of being: Stasis. And static -- the white-noise hiss of a corrupted transmission signal.
The Hugo awards' squabbles began at inception, too, and also within the sponsoring organization: the World Science Fiction Society and its conference culture. Literary award culture, across culture and society overall, squabbles and uncompromising dissent and dirty smear campaign politicking are more common than mutual compromise in any and every social group, which is extremely rare, though squabbles are kept confidential as much as possible.
Most anyone who becomes civically involved imposes their insular views on others with little or no regard for others' likewise insular views. Many become active because they've become cognitively aware and because they've become involved, because a particular activity matters to them, because they've been negatively or positively influenced by an activity, and because they've come of an age where they feel socially responsible participation is important in insular areas that matter to them. Jealousy, pride, and vanity, other social vices as well, (envy, gluttony, greed, wrath, maybe lust indirectly), underlay a large portion of their true though veiled agendas.
With rare exceptions, they argue past each other -- tactically and strategically exactly like each other, label each other with identical negatively charged buzz words, like "fascist," and from the same accusation grounds they themselves argue and trespass against -- out of a need to self-promote their insular views and careers and narrowly construed values by any means to their ends.
The assertions of the article sensationally demote an opposition view for expressing considerations about social responsibility as a political platform and is also from a political platform that asserts social responsibility claims and considerations. The opposition faction had itself previously stooped to opposition demotion from political platforms. Hypocrites. How about a little civil compromise and cooperation toward a more civil society instead? When did the grudges and figurative blood feuds start? Who knows!? At inception.
The contentious, never-ending conversation is as old as chromosonal Adam and mitochrondial Eve after their departure from the proverbial Garden and as recent as tomorrow. The pendulum swings when one faction feels others are too far ahead of it and it is too far behind others. The pendulum swings.
[ February 14, 2015, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
The first casualty of war is truth; whether that war is on the battlefield or in the minds of men.
Regardless of your views, or whatever cows you all hold sacred, you and I are not above manipulating the truth to serve our own ends. The truth will set you free: if you can find it.
I think it is incumbent on all of us to find the truth of an argument before committing ourselves to one side or the other; and that is no easy task. But, for the most part, I think that all of us have the capacity to see through the hokum being masqueraded as truth is we apply ourselves.
If we all think for ourselves critically, then the peddlers of misinformation better beware.
Phil.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
I've many times read Damon Knight's signal short story "To Serve Man," Galaxy Press: November 1950, (PDF Perry Local Schools.org, Massillon, Ohio), Hugo 2001 retro award for 1951's "Best Short Story," from a literal approach. Figuratively interpreted as an extended metaphor and verbal irony, the narrative models the perils of masqueraded altruism and appeals to self-gratification as an ulterior predatory agenda.
[ February 14, 2015, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
One thing I can say about the Science Fiction Writers of America: do not mistake this social organization for a strong union. I was told this well before I eventually did become involved in union activity.
Posted by Reziac (Member # 9345) on :
Read what you want to read and write what you want to write, hoping that there are those out there who will want to read what you want to write.
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
There will always be people who will stamp their foot, waggle their finger and loudly moan that, "People just aughta (insert bizarre social attitude here)."
Just remember what your mother said, "It's rude to point and laugh at the afflicted."
Phil.
PS. In fact, ridicule is often the best response to such commentators. The problem is, they won't understand what you're doing and will take your comments at face value; which can be hilarious in its own way.
[ March 06, 2015, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: Grumpy old guy ]
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Really going political, all the stumps no matter the side. As ugly as electioneering is, which is dirty culture. The idea of nominating a slate of whatever makeup to tell others who they'd best side with for the argument and vote for Hugo awards, whatever, or else be numbered among the vile enemy is electioneering at its most distasteful.
Hidden self-involved agendas, other than politics, lay among the nonsense, too: self-promotion at the expense of others' feelings and status demotions by any feel good means to the end of crushing the opposition. This is petty-clique shunning, playground recess popularity pageantry. If the writers would just write and leave politics to feeble politicians, maybe their writing might earn the praise they can't by writing the same tired-out fiction they're stuck with and that is the crop anymore.
Personally, as far as I'm concerned, every one of the contributors to the contention no matter the position has lost much trust and respect in my eyes. Hard to win back.
[ April 07, 2015, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Being not a published writer and somewhat aloof from this sort of thing, it's difficult to sort out.
But if, say, I found out that my not being published had anything to do with my political opinions or positions...well, I'd set out to pull down the whole rotten structure around their ears.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
That's the position of the several factions and a red herring. Marginally successful writers debuted and then had career crises and cast about for someone to blame externally, because they didn't experience meteoric glory, fame, and wealth they expected. The whole culture has been in crisis at least since the introduction of the Internet.
The challenge as I see it is to transcend the factional rivalries and produce appealing writing. The squabbles are meaningless misdirections of efforts and blame.
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
extrinsic, I think you missed Robert's point. It's not that his expectations of fame and glory were denied by decree, it's that his opportunity to be fairly judged on merit was subsumed by 'others' political (whether classically political or philosophical) imperatives.
Judge me for the manner in which I write, not by some arbitrary moral standards you alone hold sway over.
Phil.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
The factions each want to "tear down the whole rotten structure" by political machinations because they reject political machinations of others not of the same mindset -- that everyone should believe she or he is a better writer than they do. Never mind they are all about equal and only a degree above vanity press par. Thus the common declined writer lament, "Why them, not me, published, Hugo winner, etc.?"
The literary status quo establishment oscillates from one fashion to another, and political machinations for any given status quo fashion supremacy goes back in time to at least the Attic Orators of ancient Greece. They competed in Olympics-like forums. Affiliates stumped for them and they stumped for themselves.
How much of a story's popular or critical acclaim is genuinely based on identifiable artistic merit, and how much on personal sentiment and intuition, and how much on political stumping? Figuring that out -- that way lays madness and anger and frustration and feelings of worthlessness. They all matter to more or less equal degrees and are objectively quantifiable and qualifiable. But human biases are intimately involved.
Literary prize culture is the next and top-tier screening tradition. The culture is naturally and necessarily the most competitive tier: fewest slots, though the awards are numerous and different enough that a variety of criteria promote a variety of standouts: meritorious, subjective, and political and mixtures.
The vices most involved at present are jealousy in the form of envy, pride, wrath, greed, gluttony, sloth, and, usually indirectly, lust. All of them. What about some kindness, humility, patience, charity, temperance, diligence, and chastity for a change? Ahh the moral human condition! Put it on the fiction page and leave it out of public laundering. The science fiction community is in enough disrepute without making matters worse by petty and unnecessary rivalry squabbling.
Here's what net happened: a number of militant advocates for self-ideology promotion blew away their fifteen minutes of fame. Fine, room now for a new, perhaps more artful and persuasive and respectful crop.
[ April 08, 2015, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Here's the timeline of the current cultural state:
General, factional, and perennial pushmi-pullya perceptions of pushmi-pullya social and cultural pressures set factions' nerves on edge. The pressure bases include sexual politics, social politics, economy politics, political politics, art politics, culture politics overall.
The general factional divide falls along perceived inequity of representation; that is, perceptions a faction's or individual's ideologies are underrepresented and other factions irresponsibly bogart the limelight.
The several factions believe the limelight bogarts are talentless hacks and are only in the limelight because of their popularity clique campaigns. In other words, not based on merit, based on an inverted idea everyone should be allotted a fair, fifteen minutes share of fame, so long as that means the faction's affiliates get their share first, foremost, and last. That is, based on participation in the competitions' contests everyone should win an equal prize. The warp comes from the factions' claims that winners should be genuinely competitive winners, not merely allotted an exceptional prize for also-ran participation.
The perceived inequities are also perceived as representing irresponsible social conduct: each faction believes that the others are imposing their irresponsible social values by force majeur of majority rules and minorities and dissenters can go fly a kite.
The current brouhaha's nominal pivot point erupted when the SFWA Bulletin, Winter 2013, Vol. 47, No. 200, published with a cover art of a suggestive female clad in a chain mail bikini, The Cover.
One faction objected to the perceived gratuitous use of the art, connected to a perceived biased article in the Bulletin contents.
One faction objected to the perceived, overt objectification of women on the Bulletin's face alone.
Another faction objected to the perceived objections.
Other factions made a few perceived disparaging comments against the several perceived objectors' factions.
Disparaging comments escalated in tone and quantity.
One faction determined to carry the argument forward across the culture; that is, to stifle perceived dissent by stumping on a so-called fairness campaign that, in actuality, is intended to promote its views to the exclusion of others'.
The fairness campaign lobby lobbied support among its rank and file to shut out other factions.
The current state of affairs is the fairness campaign faction is, for the moment, perceived ascendant and intends to substitute its regime for a previous regime's perceived supremacy.
And all will bow and swear fealty oath to the current regime or be put to the trial of the High Inquisitor's tortures.
Long may the current regime reign.
Never mind other factions are building and conducting their own alliances and fairness campaigns and strategies to stifle perceived opposition.
[ April 08, 2015, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
Ooohhh-kaaaaaay.
I think I'll just go fly a kite and ignore them all. They might not go away, but I won't be paying enough attention to notice one way or the other.
I'll just stick to puddling around writing bland and tiresome prose that's cliched and hackneyed.
I like it that way.
Phil.
Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :
This has been discussed over at the WotF forum and by various people on Google+. Mary being one of those.
There seems to be a bit of confusion since there are two groups who have made their presence known. One group I believe felt the need to respond to the all inclusive push not only because of what is going on in SF but also what is going on in the wider society. This debate is just one smaller "battle" going on through out this country.
The other group or slate seems to be just jerks who should be totally ignored.
I side with those who think the uninclusiveness problem isn't as big as those who started this debate say it is. Or I seem to be able to find the books by and about certain types of people they say aren't being represented.
Some writers evidently have been treated unfairly: called names and such, but I believe most readers don't really care who or what wrote the book they love. And I wonder if the few other writers who do negatively care really are that big of deal.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
One "slate" expresses and imposes an overt and ignoble political agenda, unseemly for a merit-based ideal. Another "slate" sarcastically mocks and ridicules the culture, perhaps ironically to intend a general satire of award rituals' vices and follies, though is overtly a superficial rant of a malcontent. Well, both.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Apparently there have been several changes in the slate of nominees plus a withdrawal by a trophy presenter.
Up above, I said something along the lines of "pulling the whole rotten structure down around their ears." It would seem others felt that way and are doing just that.
Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robert Nowall: Apparently there have been several changes in the slate of nominees plus a withdrawal by a trophy presenter.
Up above, I said something along the lines of "pulling the whole rotten structure down around their ears." It would seem others felt that way and are doing just that.
I wouldn't think that withdrawing and/or changing one slate would "pull the whole rotten structure down" but it might readjust closer to what it was suppose to be.
Unless that is what you meant and I didn't get it.
Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :
It just hit me that one slate--the Sad Puppies--may think there was pretty much a slate there already that they were responding to. That most of those nominated were along one certain line of social thinking.
If what I hear about the other slate is true and it came from a couple sources make me think it was, they should be just ignored. As hard as it, just pretend their slate weren't there.
Posted by Meredith (Member # 8368) on :
quote:Originally posted by LDWriter2: It just hit me that one slate--the Sad Puppies--may think there was pretty much a slate there already that they were responding to. That most of those nominated were along one certain line of social thinking.
If what I hear about the other slate is true and it came from a couple sources make me think it was, they should be just ignored. As hard as it, just pretend their slate weren't there.
Except that that other slate--Rabid Puppies--is the real problem. Sad Puppies is just that, as far as I'm concerned--sad. There's always got to be somebody who doesn't feel like their favorites got the attention they deserved. Most of us just grow up enough to take it in stride. Rabid Puppies, on the other hand . . . Well, I don't think I can say what I think about them on this forum. Except, as far as Sad Puppies are concerned, they should have remembered the old adage, "When you lie down with dogs, you rise with fleas."
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
It hasn't been said in any commentary on this issue about the Hugos that I've seen, but...it used to be said, back in the olden days of the 1960s and 1970s, that writers who attended the Milford Writers' Conference always had the edge in the SFWA's Nebula Awards. One could take this as "more of the same."
Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :
quote:Originally posted by Meredith:
quote:Originally posted by LDWriter2: It just hit me that one slate--the Sad Puppies--may think there was pretty much a slate there already that they were responding to. That most of those nominated were along one certain line of social thinking.
If what I hear about the other slate is true and it came from a couple sources make me think it was, they should be just ignored. As hard as it, just pretend their slate weren't there.
Except that that other slate--Rabid Puppies--is the real problem. Sad Puppies is just that, as far as I'm concerned--sad. There's always got to be somebody who doesn't feel like their favorites got the attention they deserved. Most of us just grow up enough to take it in stride. Rabid Puppies, on the other hand . . . Well, I don't think I can say what I think about them on this forum. Except, as far as Sad Puppies are concerned, they should have remembered the old adage, "When you lie down with dogs, you rise with fleas."
I meant the Sad Puppies as the ones who were reacting to what they saw and the Rabid Puppies as the ones to be ignored. I should clarify that I can't say for sure that is what the Sad ones are doing but it seems to fit what they have said and how other people are reacting in other types of similar situations in other areas of society. This debate-argument-fight is going on in many areas not just SF books.
Posted by Meredith (Member # 8368) on :
quote:Originally posted by LDWriter2:
quote:Originally posted by Meredith:
quote:Originally posted by LDWriter2: It just hit me that one slate--the Sad Puppies--may think there was pretty much a slate there already that they were responding to. That most of those nominated were along one certain line of social thinking.
If what I hear about the other slate is true and it came from a couple sources make me think it was, they should be just ignored. As hard as it, just pretend their slate weren't there.
Except that that other slate--Rabid Puppies--is the real problem. Sad Puppies is just that, as far as I'm concerned--sad. There's always got to be somebody who doesn't feel like their favorites got the attention they deserved. Most of us just grow up enough to take it in stride. Rabid Puppies, on the other hand . . . Well, I don't think I can say what I think about them on this forum. Except, as far as Sad Puppies are concerned, they should have remembered the old adage, "When you lie down with dogs, you rise with fleas."
I meant the Sad Puppies as the ones who were reacting to what they saw and the Rabid Puppies as the ones to be ignored. I should clarify that I can't say for sure that is what the Sad ones are doing but it seems to fit what they have said and how other people are reacting in other types of similar situations in other areas of society. This debate-argument-fight is going on in many areas not just SF books.
Yes, LD. But it's dangerous to just ignore people like the Rabid Puppies. Somethings, it's necessary to stand up against. The leader of the Rabid Puppies is one of those things.
Posted by Meredith (Member # 8368) on :
When you have to resort to calling the other side names--especially names that reveal you own biases so clearly--it's time to admit you never had an argument in the first place.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
One of the things I've noticed about the Sads is that their leaders are actually pretty reticent about singling out authors for their scorn. I went through Torgerson's and Correia's websites looking for the authors they hate, and found that except for responding to attacks on their movement for the most part they themselves don't go after authors. Their beef is mainly with fans who like different kinds of stuff than what they write.
Personally, I don't think Correia or Torgerson need to answer for Vox Day; or for people who comment on their blog, any more than I think my gentle, generous, and sweet-tempered Muslim co-worker needs to answer for ISIS. Being responsible for yourself and the consequences of your own actions ought to be enough.
But the lack of self-awareness on the part of the Sad Puppies leadership can be painful to watch.
Everybody wants acceptance, recognition, and validation. The Sad leaders are in the grand scheme of things very successful as writers, but in their eyes they haven't got enough recognition, so they've declared holy war on fans who don't like the kind of stories they write.
What it amounts to is snobbery. You can call it "reverse snobbery" if you prefer, but it's really just the same thing: acting like a priggish busybody when people refuse to toe your line. The important thing to remember priggishness doesn't feel like priggishness on the inside. It feels like righteousness.
Posted by History (Member # 9213) on :
I believe there is naivite among the general public that awards like the Hugo are "readers' awards" and free of politics.
As Ms Kowal noted in her first blog post on the subject, the Hugo awards are not nominated by all fans but a subset: the select Worldcon fandom who have paid their $40 for the privilege to cast their vote.
The con organizers are unlikely to change this selective voting process for they require these funds to pay for the con and make the trophies, etc. I applaud Ms Kowal for volunteering to pay for a few Worldcon memberships for those who would like to cast their vote but do not have the finances to join as a voting member. However, this is but a token gesture that does not address the misperception that the Hugo is truly an award selected by the general sf/f readership. This plays well in Peoria, and on publisher's advertising: "Voted best science fiction novel in 2014!", but it is a partial truth.
There are many great books and stories published each year, and which is the "fan favorite" is a matter of taste. The Hugo reflects only the "taste" of that majority of fans who paid their $40 to Worldcon.
In the last few years, those who admire works by authors they feel are "under-represented" because of their gender, gender preference, nationality, ethnicity, or those who wish to promote stories whose characters represent similar diversity, or those who prefer more literary sf, etc. constituted the larger percentage Worldcon voting membership. This year, fans of more classical action and story-based sf and fantasy constituted the greater percent of Worldcon voting members.
Unless there is a change in Worldcon rules to have more open-voting by general fandom or to now include criteria for number of copies sold as a means to judge "fan favorites", next year will see another "get the vote out campaign" by those with various agendas or counter agendas. Not that this is terrible, it is democracy in action. I would prefer not have any politics in the process, but I am old (and wise) enough to know that this wish is, well, fantasy.
When I was young and new to sf, I bought all the Hugo and Nebula winners naively believing these were "the best authors and works." They were good books, although some I enjoyed more than others. But I also noted other authors, whose story-telling I enjoyed and admired for their imagination, were ignored. Andre Norton never won a Hugo. Ray Bradbury never won a Hugo [he did finally receive a "retrospective" award in 2004 for Fahrenheit 451 a book published in 1953! but that was it. Unbelievable to me]. By the mid-1980's, I discovered my favorite novels and stories of the year were not Hugo or Nebula award nominees. I shrugged. At the end of "The Stainless Steel Rat" (1961) by Harry Harrison (who never won a Hugo), the hero is pissed off at his boss who then tells him he's passed probation and now was a full agent of the Special Corps: "He pulled out a little gold star made of paper. After licking it carefully and solemnly he reached out and stuck it to the front of my shirt." This captures my feeling in regard to these awards. The recognition is nice, but it is what you do that matters.
As Ms Woodbury aptly notes in an earlier post in this thread: "Read what you want to read and write what you want to write." Very true. In regard to the former, there certainly is plenty for me to read that I enjoy. For the latter, well, except for a few of you here and a few others I've met through WOTF, who like my scribblings, writing what you like to write instead of what sells means being mostly unpublished. For those of you desirous of a writing career, do be attentive to what editors publish and what the public is buying.
Winning an award may help a writer's career; but it may not. Many of the Hugo winners in the past decade remain unknowns to me. Then there are authors like Jim Butcher (who is nominated this year thanks to the Puppies' slate) who have done very well without Worldcon recognition.
Hugo nominee Ms Kary English is a writing forum friend whose short story Totaled is a fine tale [ Read it here if you wish: http://www.galaxysedge.com/Hugo/Totaled.htm ]. Before there ever was a Puppies' slate this year, I was aware that author Mr. Michael Resnick felt her story was worthy of nomination. Mr. Resnick has more Hugo nominations (37) and more Hugo awards (5) than any other author. I believe that this does give him credibility in voicing his opinion on her story's worthiness to be on the ballot. I'm sorry for what Kary has to endure amid all the mud-slinging during what should be one of the most exciting moments in her young career.
I'm disappointed in my fellow lovers of sf and fantasy, at least the impolite vocal subsegment with mud on their hands.
Of the many stories worthy for consideration as "Best of the Year" only a few can make the award ballot. This does not make the others unworthy and we can, and should, speak of them so our fellows can also enjoy them. But, simultaneously, we need politely congratulate this years' nominees even when put forward by others whose tastes are different than our own. And perhaps read these stories. Explore something different.
Isn't that what drew us to sf and fantasy in the first place?
Respectfully, Dr. Bob
Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :
First of all Hello Dr. Bob. How are you and your writing?
Second I must say that I pretty much agree with you--not about your personal experiences however since I can't say I have had them.
Anyway, As Mary says you should read what you want and writing what you want and also with your second to last paragraph.
Even before this blow up I had heard about that in actuality only a minority of readers vote for the Hugos. Sometimes it didn't bother me because it still showed what these readers thought were more than good. However I was disappointed in that the voting wasn't more wide spread, yet at the same time, could anyone pay the money and vote?
Posted by Meredith (Member # 8368) on :
quote:Originally posted by LDWriter2: However I was disappointed in that the voting wasn't more wide spread, yet at the same time, could anyone pay the money and vote?
Yes. That's how Rabid Puppies succeeded.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Meredith:
quote:Originally posted by LDWriter2: However I was disappointed in that the voting wasn't more wide spread, yet at the same time, could anyone pay the money and vote?
Yes. That's how Rabid Puppies succeeded.
Somebody figured out that based on past data you'd need just 200 supporters for a slate to occupy all the available Hugo nomination slots.
That seems to support the Sad's contention that the voter base for the Hugos is very small. On the other hand, the nominations come from that tiny subset of fans who make a point of being familiar with a wide selection of work that has come out in just the past year. Given that the opinions of such people tend to be wildly divided, the 200 nomination benchmark actually sounds pretty healthy. But it's easy enough for anyone with an axe to grind to beat. We could probably do it if we wanted to if we put our minds to it. Anyone fancy a rocket ship for their mantle?
As Dr. Bob said, the Hugos don't really represent the best of sci-fi. How could they? There is no consistently reliable way to even define such as thing as "best". Take "Ancillary Justice", the 2014 Best Novel (book report coming!). Contrary to the Puppies' claims it doesn't have some kind nefarious feminist agenda; the gender pronoun thing is just “calling a rabbit a smeerp." What makes this a standout novel is its ambitious structure. Leckie's very daring about denying the reader information he wants, and that makes this novel a hate-it-or-love-it thing. I think it's a great novel, but I can see why others might not care for it.
Not being a reliable guarantee of greatness doesn't mean the Hugos don't play an important role. Some of the Sad supporters like to point out that Ancillary Justice didn't sell that many copies until it was nominated for the Hugo. That misses the point. A runaway bestseller doesn't require any kind of award other than its own success. At its best the Hugo brings stories the hard core fans are excited about to a wider audience.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
I'm unsettled by social and political politics entering the art world; that is, behavior governance politics that are at the forefront of the public policy debate. One faction would turn the clock back to a simpler time, simpler for the faction anyway, from what is essentially the distinction of a republican government ideal -- republican government represents and respects minorities and dissenters' right and responsibility to socially, responsibly, cooperatively contribute to and participate in the common good. A true democracy, though, favors the majority, which intentionally or indifferently abuses minorities and dissenters' rights and responsibilities. Peculiar how U.S. party and similar governments' politics have inverted the classic republican and democratic governance ideologies.
The Hugo and fantastical fiction faction war at present reflects the same ideology inversion: WEIRD PC anti-political correctness, generally politically and socially conservative and favoring capitalist majority rules dominance; pro-social responsibility -- so-labeled socialist ideals, though a moderate position of proportioned capitalist conservative values and liberal social responsibility values -- sits astraddle the fence and is the silent majority; and the radical socialist extreme, which has an in-your-face we're here, we're peers, get used to it attitude.
I'm amused that the outspoken factions' folk play at politics they're inept at, instead of writing it out on the fiction page. The politics are at the forefront throughout the public conversation; however, the prose is the media for fiction writers, not the political campaigning, not what's going on by genuine multi-faced politicians bent on imposing their ideologies upon the cosmos.
The Hugos, I don't know why that's the target. That's a pea-shooter war at recess and the targets are easy-peasy noncombatants. The Hugos are and always have been a popularity pageant parade, normally reflective of fantastical fiction convention fans' popularity appeals. The Hugos are a flagship of that convention culture, without which WorldCon would be ineligible for non-profit status. That's it, period, besides Hugos are a career-maker of at least sales performance metrics. Frankly, I believe the WorldCon culture is a fringe element, as are the other factions of the contentions. The big dogs stump from the political governance porch that is public policy debate.
Also frankly, the only substantive difference between the factions' writing is individual factions' political ideologies, as categorized above. The writing caliber overall is generally only a smidgeon above self-publication and vanity publication par and has generally been since the Hugos' inception, a few noteworthy standouts here and there notwithstanding. They are outliers, though, of a Bell curve's mediocrity majority bump.
My sense is change is a challenge for the factions, not change as in different ideologies, change as in improved writing caliber. The factions' assorted individual writers jumped the shark when they had their initial breakouts, their one stellar standout a fluke consequence of being a midge more appealing than a copious mediocrity. Someone has to place first, second, or third among many mediocre also-rans.
The placers, though, they plateaued, stuck where they placed above the fray writing-wise. The meteoric rise a sputter in the dark and career decline afterward. They no longer struggle for new heights, and audiences move on to the next up-and-coming mediocre writer, who is at least a fresh to-a-degree voice.
So forget the politics. Put it on the fiction page, and work to improve writing skills to stay abreast of a hard-won audience's popular approval and appeals.
Now how about a narrative that artfully packages this culture war? Ms. Emily Dickenson says Tell It Slant. Science fiction, say, reader factions as foragers, writers as hunters, and battle lines drawn like troupe contests for resources on the Anatolian plain. Fantasy, say, rival spellcasters and consumers at odds at a middle ages abbey's outlying village, or similar. And the tangible and intangible action about a moral human condition of Pride-Humility clash, with consequent wrath-patience, envy-kindness, greed-charity, gluttony-temperance, sloth-diligence, and lust-chastity clashes, external and internal, that reflect the culture and larger-society war which the Hugos' clash represents in its little niche. This culture war is global and, tragically, coming to a head.
And for Providence's sake, enough with the overbearing tell lectures -- summary and explanation narratives' rushed, condensed action -- static voice, and daydream and writer surrogate pageantries.
[ May 12, 2015, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by kmsf (Member # 9905) on :
quote:Originally posted by extrinsic: So forget the politics. Put it on the fiction page, and work to improve writing skills to stay abreast of a hard-won audience's popular approval and appeals.
Amen.
Alright then, you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here...
- click -
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Near as I can work out...that was the issue behind the "Sad Puppies" end of it---that the awards were being given out, not for merit, or even popularity, or sales, but because they fit a certain set of political beliefs---and that others were being shut out of the awards because the works (and the writers) didn't share these beliefs.
I think this point has been proved.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
I think we can all agree that literary awards are not of paramount importance.
I think the idea that you can so easily divine a political agenda in a piece of writing is hogwash -- at least if the writing is any good. Authors write to provoke a reader response, and politics not merely an end, but means as well.
For example I'm working on a bildungsroman where one of the influential characters is a spaceship captain who's a political anarchist. Why? Because I think the idea is funny. Now I could spin this a number of ways. I could make the character too stupid to realize the irony of his position. I could make him hopelessly dysfunctional. I could make him a hypocrite. Instead, I chose to try to make him sound reasonable and persuasive.
If I do this right, simple-minded people will jump to the conclusion that I'm an anarchist myself. I'm not. I just want to create an interesting character.
Some people just can't picture an author imagining himself into viewpoint of a different human being. You don't have to be female to write female characters, nor need you be an anarchist to write anarchist characters -- any more than you need to be a cannibal to write about cannibalism.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
quote:Some people just can't picture an author imagining himself into viewpoint of a different human being. You don't have to be female to write female characters, nor need you be an anarchist to write anarchist characters -- any more than you need to be a cannibal to write about cannibalism.
...write what you know.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robert Nowall: ...write what you know.
Use what you know.
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
And, if you're too stupid to know stuff, make it up.
Oh, damn! That's fiction, isn't it?
Phil.
Posted by telflonmail (Member # 9501) on :
It's a sad day on Planet Cotton Candy. The puppies are playing with chocolate and coughing up little spicy snails.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumpy old guy: And, if you're too stupid to know stuff, make it up..
It's not stupid if you don't get caught. And the best way to avoid being caught is for people to want to believe what you are saying.
This might even be the origin of the "alcoholic writer" stereotype, because it's not that different from what a high-functioning substance abuser does. You cobble together a story that the audience wants to believe and count on that that desire covering over any oversights.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Addendum: I was comparing the reported final Hugo ballot with the reported table of contents for The Best Science Fiction and Fantasy of the Year Volume Nine, Jonathan Strahan, ed...and I can't find a single story that's on both. (I yield to the possibility of error in the lists, or my scanning of these printouts. Double-check me, someone, please.)
So you can cut this a few different ways. Maybe this editor's tastes are different than that of the Hugo voters, and these are just high quality stories. Or maybe the block-voting scandal did produce a lower-quality nominees. Or maybe the gatekeepers of SF, the editors, really can't be trusted to be honest about quality stories and did exclude them as the block-voters have said.
Either way...any way...just wait till next year.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robert Nowall: Addendum: I was comparing the reported final Hugo ballot with the reported table of contents for The Best Science Fiction and Fantasy of the Year Volume Nine, Jonathan Strahan, ed...and I can't find a single story that's on both.
Well that shouldn't happen most years, but it's not a particularly shocking result. I did a few quick back of the envelope calculations using the hypergeometric distribution and mark-and-capture math, and I come up with an expected overlap between a 30 story best-of anthology and a 5 slot Hugo ballot of between one and two. The variance suggests that overlaps of three or zero should be commonplace too. You can tweak the assumptions to yield somewhat higher or lower expected overlaps, but you have to give them the Hanoi Hilton treatment to transform this into a highly suspicious event.
The math is a kind of a pain to reproduce here, so I'll cut to the chase; either there are many, many more stories that could reasonably have been included in the anthology but which weren't, OR the criteria by which the editor makes his selections is different from the criteria which WorldCon members make theirs. Common sense says both. A story that stands out so much that it's a no-brainer to win the Hugo is not an every year event. That leaves you with a very large pool of good stories.
If there are, say, a hundred really good stories published in a year and none of them are obvious landmarks, there are over 75 million ways to select a defensible five slot ballot. So unless there are one or two stories so powerful they unite fandom behind them, the ballot is bound to be a highly arbitrary selection.
In fact, in the Hugo nominating process it's potentially more advantageous for a story to polarize fans than to unite them in a consensus. The controversy crystalizes support among the minority of fans that like a story. The majority that dislike the story spread their support over many alternative candidates with broad consensus appeal. This effect can get an irritating story on to the ballot and possibly carry it on to a win, and that's more likely to happen in these days of social media teapot tempests.
So in a nutshell awards were always bound to make you mad if you have your own opinions, but today it's bound to happen more than ever.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
And, since the Hugo Awards have been awarded---and, I gather, five categories got "No Award"---I believe the point has been proven.
The Breit Bart article favors the Slate position. Other articles use identical rhetoric to favor other positions. Not one particular position does more than exclude a bunch and include another bunch of dubious whichever is the least subjectively odious. Petty jealousy and uncompromising obstinacy and weak writing skills are the order of the day. More fallout to rain down in the foreseeable and knowable future. This is what happens when ideologies clash -- schisms spin off and go make a mess elsewhere. Except the world and all livable niches are full and overflown. Mitosis (reproduction from cell division) and miosis (excessive contraction of an eye's pupil).
Is no compromise possible? Better yet, a partnership of mutual efforts and outcomes? Frankly, none of the Slate or counter-Slate or alternatives tickle my hackles. And that is entirely due to a shortfall of imaginative writing. Publication culture has turned into habitual retreads and tired language, not to mention grammar, rhetoric, craft, and expression skills fitting for a fourth grade passes expectations satisfactorily assessment -- about as imaginative as warning labels on prescription medicines.
The partnership to seek is stronger writing that actually evinces artistic expression merit and popular appeal, period, and distributes broadly.
The time is nigh.
[ August 24, 2015, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
Really, who cares? I've never purchased a book because the writer has 12 Nebula's and 16 Hugo's, nor do I care if the author is a member of the SFWA etc.
Such 'badges of honour' are, to me, passe these days. Just give me a good story by someone who knows where the semi-colon goes and I'll be happy. As for the rest, who cares? Only those with a vested interest, so just follow the money.
Phil.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
It did used to mean something to me...but that was long ago, and I've read too many widely-praised award-winners that I thought were just awful. Might attract my attention...and, I've also got to say, the writers I liked to read are either (a) dead or (b) inactive.
Don't know if any of those "awful" stories sold well, either on the strength of their award winning or the praise they received. One of the positions taken is that the nominees from one side weren't selling well. Do sales equal merit? Might be an indicator but I can't say it as absolute.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
What matters is culture awards are a perceived career marker and springboard. Award winners are more sought for by publishers because award winners are recognized as proven revenue performers.
A consideration for award culture influence is whether readers, writers, editors, and publishers are as blissfully oblivious about composition merits as each other. Uh-huh. Film theaters then television, then VHS followed by Internet -- assembly line immediate, effortless self-gratification access destroys culture, per Ray Bradbury. Here comes the incendiary Beast of mass culture majority rules force majeure censorship, per Bradbury, too. I memorized a favorite poem today.
Posted by Disgruntled Peony (Member # 10416) on :
God, I need to read more Bradbury. I've read Farenheit 451 and a couple collections of short stories, all of them a very long time ago. I loved them so...[/tangent]
Posted by wetwilly (Member # 1818) on :
quote: God, I need to read more Bradbury
This is true of every person ever. However much Bradbury you read, you should read more.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
I think people are too optimistic about what an award like the Hugo can achieve. My expectations are low, therefore I tend to see the glass as half full.
Take a look at the list of Best Novel winners. Now if you have a certain mentality you can look at this list and see it as splattered with inexplicable choices, which of course it is. But what's more remarkable to me is how many of the choices seem pretty reasonable, or in some cases unquestionable landmarks.
The Hugos are not a literary award, although given the constraints of nomination it's not a popular award either; the only people who have reason to participate (unless they're recruited to support slate) are people who keep up with the latest book releases and subscribe to several magazines, enough to have an opinion about *last year's* stories. That's a vanishingly small segment sci-fi fandom.
So the Hugos are an award for giving pleasure to the hardest of hard-core fans, nothing more nor less. They're not a imprimatur of literary merit, nor a prize for general popularity. They're not the *people's* Hugo , nor are they the *fans'* Hugo. They belong to the people who regularly attend Worldcon.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Point of order: this year, they failed to award five Hugos to anybody. MattLeo: your statement implies that, in these categories, nobody got any pleasure from anything in them at all.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robert Nowall: MattLeo: your statement implies that, in these categories, nobody got any pleasure from anything in them at all.
No, in this case it implies a reaction to outsiders trying to take over the process. But, yes, normally when an individual fan votes "no award" it means none of nominees gave him enough pleasure to warrant a prize. If nominations reflect the normal voters then "no award" should very seldom win.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Or, to put it another way, "in order to save the Hugo Awards they had to destroy them."
Posted by Meredith (Member # 8368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robert Nowall: Or, to put it another way, "in order to save the Hugo Awards they had to destroy them."
No, I think it's more accurate to say that the Hugo's voting base (which doesn't include me) was so put off by the puppies' tactics this year--and the company they chose to bring into it (Vox Day) that they reacted strongly. In the case of the rabid puppies, I can't say the voters over-reacted. And in the case of the sad puppies, well, they chose to lie down with the rabid ones, they shouldn't be surprised that they got up with fleas.
Mary Robinette Kowal pretty clearly voiced my take on the whole thing here. Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robert Nowall: Or, to put it another way, "in order to save the Hugo Awards they had to destroy them."
I respectfully disagree.
As far as I can see it's only the outsiders' uninformed notions of what the Hugos are supposed to be that was destroyed. The Hugos aren't proof that a particular story is "really the best one this year"; nobody who's been paying attention could possibly believe that. It's a token of appreciation from the hardest of the hard core fans.
That's why FOUNDATION'S EDGE won in 1983. It was a good, but not particularly great novel by a fan-favorite author who after a thirty year wait gave them another book in a beloved series. It was a great big sloppy "thank you" kiss, not a carefully calculated assessment of literary merit.
I think REDSHIRTS won, not because of ideology, and certainly not because it's a landmark novel, but because Scalzi goes to Worldcon every year and makes himself available to fans. People like him and whatever they think of his politics they think he's a mensch. After he'd been asked to the dance three times, enough of them thought it was Scalzi's turn that he got the nod on the fourth. That may offend people who want the Hugo to be some kind of quality seal-of-approval, but it's the fan's award and they can give it for whatever darn reason they want. And if they decline to give it this year they can give it again next year and it'll mean just as much (or as little) as it ever has.
I'll reiterate: the Hugos don't belong to science fiction writers, or readers, or even casual fans. They belong to people who make participating in sci-fi fandom a big part of their lives -- maybe two or three thousand people out of seven billion souls on the Earth.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
WorldCon and the Hugos' culture indeed revolve around fantastical fiction fan participation, more so the social network occasions fan conventions afford. Social networks are the culture; the Hugos are the flagship of the culture -- flagship, the Raison d'ętre (reason for being) of fan culture networks, including WorldCon. Otherwise, fan conventions are only make-believe and play.
Though the Slates' superficially politically motivated and intangibly though really personally motivated maneuvers drew objections, and none were substantively supported or rebutted, nor were any factions positions or objections substantively supported or rebutted, the Slates and all other factions raised one codetermined and valid point -- though few, if any, appreciate the point.
Yes, the Slates' overt political point is valid -- persons of or aligned with Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic Patriarchal Christian (WEIRD PC) identity are under siege and the besieger is "Political Correctness" "Social Justice Warriors" Thus WEIRD PC's anti-PC rhetoric. Contention interaction at least, if not confliction, confrontation, and conflagration. Some of the vitriol from the assorted factions rises to the conflagration level, surely, or falls, actually.
No less do other assorted self-interest identity groups know they too are under siege. Dissent at least is the order of the day.
What all share in common, Slate, pro-feminist, pro-gay (LGBTA), pro-anti-PC, pro-ethnic minority, pro-FanCon harmony, pro-Christian, pro-secularism, pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist, pro-socialist, pro-humanist, etc., is each asserts rights, entitlements, and privileges of natural and political, social, intellectual, spiritual, etc., empowerment.
What each and all overlook about empowerment, and the intangible though actual point the gamut raises, is empowerment is as much responsibility, accountability, obligation, and duty as right, entitlement, and privilege. Actually, responsibility, etc., is more pertinent, partly because the social responsibility gamut is broadly overlooked, partly because individuals individually and group bodies collectively owe to each and another mutual efforts and contributions and participation to common good, predominately because no individual is an island.
No individual nor faction body can provide all an individual and individuals need to healthily thrive and prosper and contribute to common good, let alone a "greater good's" factional prosperity. Humans are social beings in more than entertainment social networks and occasions, again, let alone provide for wealth and power concentration. Humans are social beings in how we each individually and collectively provide for the common good.
Someone grows the grain, someone grinds the grain, someone makes the bread, someone distributes the bread, someone consumes our daily bread. The common good for a simple example -- each contributes and participates according to an individual's interest, aptitude, and ability. The age of presupposed independent existence never existed and is long gone in the mists of the past if it ever existed. Not, as the Slate would have their way, WEIRD PC capitalism, nor as other factions would have it, social justice socialism; rather capitalism and socialism partnership for the common good.
The way most would have it, though, is one faction's dominance and other factions' subservience to a presupposed "greater good." That is a zero-sum scenario: one entity gains at the proportionate expense of one or more other entities' loss. The net of which is loss, at least because such transactions superficially appear to balance on a ledger; losses come from transactional waste, like middle persons and power and wealth mongers rake off a share and add no value. More so, due to closed-circuit transactions rob Paula to pay Peter. A pyramid scheme, a hierarchical progress trap. Real gain, real progress is when all individuals, the common good, gain and none lose.
Did the Hugo controversy net gain for a common good? Net loss for all parties and factions, except WorldCon. WorldCon membership doubled, membership dues revenue jumped, and WorldCon and the Hugos attracted public attention heretofore unprecedented. Ideally now, WorldCon will continue to garner lively participation and enhance the social society's contribution to common good. Not, though, a scheme that WorldCon arranged to happen, though the social association I expect appreciates what happened. Nothing like controversy and scandal to generate word-of-mouth buzz.
The contentious factions do not appreciate they were partners who exerted mutual efforts, though contentious, and accomplished a mutual outcome; that is, fan social culture increased in popularity. Now only if the mass appeal surge takes persistent hold. Fan conventions mass appeal can only grow popularity!?
[ August 28, 2015, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Another point of order: the right to vote for the Hugo Awards is dependent on paying a price for doing so. I've never indulged myself to do so.
Does anybody really think the Hugos can be taken seriously after this year's fiasco? It's reported there were only five "no awards" in the entire history of the Hugos before this year---which equaled that.
Since, I gather, the WorldCon committee members are planning some substantial rule changes and a more Byzantine nomination procedure, and the factions are planning ways to defeat this plan, I see a serious decline in interest in the awards.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
By the way, here's a link to what one side really thinks of nominating and selecting Hugo winners:
Really, it's time we all put this one behind us. Most of us learned in high school, if not earlier, that awards frequently go to those we, personally, don't consider the best. And the world continues to turn anyway. Just wish the puppies had been that grown up.
Posted by Meredith (Member # 8368) on :
I think it's an open ended question as to which side is "grown up." As I recall---what I've gleaned over the years from reading this and that---the Hugo Losers parties usually involve the losing nominees, and that "who should have won" also includes them and does not involve handing out bogus awards to non-nominees.
I'm also sure both sides won't "put it behind them." This will go on next year.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robert Nowall: [QB] the Hugo Losers parties usually involve the losing nominees, and that "who should have won" also includes them and does not involve handing out bogus awards to non-nominees./QB]
I think people have lost sight of something important. Cons are about fun and celebration. If it's fun, it's legitimate. If it's celebration, it's legitimate. That's the source of the Hugo Award's mana.
All awards are on a fundamental level bogus; it's the feeling we imbue it with the makes it meaningful. If George R. R. Martin ever hands me a "bogus" trophy, I'll display it on my mantlepiece with pride.
I absolutely agree the Sads will be back next year, because they won't stop until someone hands them a Hugo. But that will never happen because the hardcore fans control the ground rules and they'll never forgive the Sads for messing with their party.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Fame is a bee. It has a song — It has a sting — Ah, too, it has a wing. ——— Emily Dickenson
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
There is one thing I'd like to see---I don't think I'm likely to see it, though---I would really like to see some hard numbers on the total votes for each nominee.
I know rough numbers for how many eligible voters (voters who purchased the right to vote in this contest) there were---up considerably from the usual, I believe---but I'd like to see precise numbers on all of it, nominees and "no award" categories.
Right now one group is claiming victory for getting so many "no awards"---but the other group is claiming victory in proving the first group would rather see "no award" than an award to someone from their group.
But, far as I know, they aren't releasing totals. Nothing I've seen so far reported any. I may be wrong about this---anybody got a link?
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
2015 Hugo tally PDF, from the Hugo site.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Thanks, extrinsic---that is the most interesting data sheet I've seen on it. I haven't time to thoroughly digest it---but I'll note in passing that the actual voters are about half the numbers reported for potential voters.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robert Nowall: I'll note in passing that the actual voters are about half the numbers reported for potential voters.
Numbers reported by who and who are the potential voters? The latter, paid dues members?
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robert Nowall: but the other group is claiming victory in proving the first group would rather see "no award" than an award to someone from their group.
This persecution narrative is ridiculous. If you actually knew many of the kind of hardcore fans that attend cons you'd know they don't care about a writer's politics when it comes to what they read. That's how they awarded (communist) Fred Pohl an Best Novel in 78 and in the same year give (not very communist) OSC the John W. Campbell award. In fact I believe the first year an openly gay writer won a major award (Melissa Scott's 1986 Campbell) was the same year OSC won for his novelization of ENDER'S GAME. How much more politically eclectic do you need fans to be?
I expect Vox Day is beyond the pale for most fans, but I don't think the fans had any pre-existing animus toward Larry Correia and Brad Torgersen; they just liked ANCILLARY JUSTICE more than they liked WARBOUND, and Mary Robinette Kowal's LADY ASTRONAUT OF MARS better than THE EXCHANGE OFFICERS. Getting nominated twice without a win is hardly a sign the fans were against you; it took Scalzi four nominations to win his first Hugo.
But if the fans didn't have it in for Sads before, they certainly do now. The numbers show a clear and overwhelming rejection of the puppies. With the exception of the movie Hugo, every other award's ranking goes like this: everyone not on a puppy slate > no award > anyone on a puppy slate.
The Rabids of course wlll twist this into some kind of moral victory. Maybe the Sads too. It's the same kind of logic that sees your ex-girlfriend get a restratining order as a win because it means she's still thinking about you.
Posted by Disgruntled Peony (Member # 10416) on :
Honestly, the whole thing just seems silly to me... I get why people feel like it's a big deal, but I've never had a fondness for politics. They could always just start a new award instead of terrorizing the Hugos. In my experience, it's generally better to lead by example than to force others to have the same opinion.
[ August 27, 2015, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Disgruntled Peony ]
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Didn't think they published the totals---back in my heyday, they generally didn't.
I see voting is done by the Australian Ballot, I think it's called. Never been a particular fan of that format...but it is an established form. I can't see if it had any particular impact.
I did add up vote totals in the first round for the "no award" prizes. Wanted to see how close they were---after all, a group voting for the single category of "no award" might have an advantage over splitting votes five ways.
Didn't work out that way: "no award" had the majority in all five categories. Seems "no award" was running nearly two to one in the fiction categories...but the best editor categories were considerably closer, one by only a few dozen votes.
*****
For what it's worth...I don't think I'd ever heard of Vox Day before this whole thing blew up. I certainly have heard of Larry Correia and Brad Torgerson---I've corresponded with the latter; he used to hang out 'round here.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robert Nowall: For what it's worth...I don't think I'd ever heard of Vox Day before this whole thing blew up. I certainly have heard of Larry Correia and Brad Torgerson---I've corresponded with the latter; he used to hang out 'round here.
I actually feel sorry for Correia and Torgersen ; I think they genuinely believe their not winning a Hugo was some kind of miscarriage of justice. It's a bit like the time a friend of mine had an affair with a married man who talked his reluctant wife into opening their marriage for that purpose. I knew everyone involved and knew it would end badly, but sometimes you have to let people find out for themselves.
I don't feel sorry for Vox Day because he's got everything he wanted out of this. He's a troll and a griefer, and this will probably prove to be a big marketing boost for Castalia House.
As an interesting side note, it's worth reading the blog entries that won Laura Mixon the "Best Fan Writer". In them she exposes the activities of left-wing troll and cyberstalker Benjanun Sriduangkaew (aka Requires Hate). That right there should prove the rejection of the Puppy slate was because the awards were subverted by some kind of queer cabal.
The fans repudiated, not right wing politics, nor left wing politics, nor even politics per se. They repudiated letting politics spoil their fun.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
Honestly, that's the most interesting piece I've read about this whole thing so far. Thank you for sharing.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Within and without sociology is a phenomena known as child bodies. An individual or group assumes its rights, etc., and opinions are objective and must be obeyed, subject to first-resort punishment for infractions. The position treats any perceived individuals who are not the group's identity matrix as children to be subjugated, scolded, ridiculed, mocked, and subjected to castigation. Castigation ranges from verbal to physical abuse and beyond to the ultimate social being punishment -- shunning, short of the penultimate shunning -- capital punishment. In essence, treating adult persons as child bodies, a violence of demotion, at least, if not oppression, if not murder.
A progression of somewhat enlightened social regard for others who misapprehend an implied human social contract of or not of an individual's identity matrix starts with information: For your information, we don't eat with our elbows rested on the table. Caution is next, then adjustment, correction, castigation, punishment, and, overall, social behavior control.
However, the order of the day is punishment first, last, and always for any and all, even imagined, social slights. Bodies' presence themselves, in person or virtual, is slight enough, generally, to provoke punishment.
The latter is the basis of civil protests. A group "gets in the face" or "on the news" of another group or individual to assert the protest group's rights, entitlements, privileges, and opinions. Confrontation, even if passive-aggressive, tu quo-que argumentation, (you do it too); that is, the protested individual or group asserts self-interest rights, etc. The punishment for the protest group is the heavy and eager hand of force majeure law enforcement and legislation that favors whichever group is hegemonic for the situation, each treats the other and all contention as child bodies. Not to mention, the protest group treats and acts itself as a child body, bodies, from asserting self-interested rights, etc.; in other words, selfish, childish assertions, if not demands. Temper tantrum.
Civil disobedience is a noble and honored tradition for information, caution, adjustment, maybe correction, no more, of social injustice, and natural human right of free speech. However, immature civil disobedience and immature response thereto are selfish and irresponsible, are antisocial.
What's the "real deal?" Simple -- available resources are inadequately abundant to fulfill all interested individuals' needs and desires, across cultures and across the globe, in enclaves, and in the smallest social units. The population and resource availability quotient is heavily weighted to scarcity of supply and enormous demand for inclusion. Such is publication culture. Grown up -- publication culture expects quality over quantity.
Again, I don't see quality in the culture, which would be an adult response to rejection and exclusion; I see a general culture of mediocrity one iota above a wasteland of vanity mediocrity.
To understand more clearly, note that mature quality is a matter of responsibility, accountability, obligation, and duty to self as much as duty, etc., to society. In other words, quality of character responsibly, maturely serves the common good's overall gain; in other words, makes a self indispensable to the common good; in other words, contributes to and participates in the betterment of all.
Wanna get rich and famous from writing? Write more appealingly, accessibly, comprehensibly, and responsibly than the fray.
Yet how does a writer write in support of a controversial social-political position without lecturing and preaching? Simple answer; complex application: Mature dissimulation. Popular and critical acclaim derive from:
Tell all the truth but tell it slant — Success in Circuit lies Too bright for our infirm Delight The Truth's superb surprise As Lightning to the Children eased With explanation kind The Truth must dazzle gradually Or every man be blind — Emily Dickenson
Modalities of mature dissimulation revolve around adult learning, not pedagogy (child learning), even for actual children. The point, if a misnomer, of pedagogy is adult learning, learning to be an adult. Childhood is a time of pretend, make believe, play, imitation, emulation, at being an adult, with, hopefully for children, child consequences for social contract infractions: tolerance and forgiveness, though with information, caution, adjustment, "as lightning to the children eased".
"Information" is the art of dissimulation, what Connop Thirlwall labels practical irony. A mature narrative ironically portrays options and ramifications of social and antisocial behavior, not commands, corrects, castigates, or punishes, not directly confrontational -- informs, perhaps cautions.
If only the first salvo in the Hugo conflagration had been mature instead of childish selfishness and treating others as child bodies. However, that microcosm is the state of being currently of the macrocosm and is very much in the public debate that is current events.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: When I became an adult, I put away childish things. 1 Corinthians 13:11, (though most any culture's mature spiritual and public sayings, proverbs, informations express similar meanings.)
[ August 28, 2015, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
I think Frederik Pohl's GATEWAY is a great example of how to do political commentary in a story. It's very subtle and personal in focus rather than baldly polemical.
I think I mentioned elsewhere that I'm working my way through H. Beam Piper's entire oeuvre. His stories often contain extraneous bits of crude anti-leftist polemic, but I think some of this was publisher-bait. I wonder whether John Campbell realized he paid twice for virtually the same scene, once in the Paratime stories and another time in the Future History series. But fundamentally Piper was a history-buff. That gives his stories' political context enough complexity that readers can construe them different ways if they so wish.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
quote:Honestly, that's the most interesting piece I've read about this whole thing so far. Thank you for sharing.
Yeah, me too.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
I think Burnside's depiction of the Sad Puppy program as a "recommended reading list" rather than a slate is a bit problematic, in that the Puppies actually *called* their recommendations a "slate".
However, I think Burnside's inside story of what it was like to be a Sad Puppy nominee at the con shows that Gerrold's discouraging of booing for "No Award" was a mistake. Normally booing a winner is rude, but since there was no winner to be rude to it would have been healthier to let people feel like they can express themselves.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Though of less quantity and less qualitative vitriol, Burnside uses similar name-calling division and exclusion and inclusion assertion tactics as the other factions, no matter which ones. Burnside is somewhat more mature than the fray though no less self-interested. At least he's bitter the Slates spoiled his candidacy potentials.
George Washington bemoaned party politics for their polarizing effect and bandwagon effect. True liberty, true freedom, true empowerment derive from individual, responsible, privileged care given as much to the self as care given to common good. Vonnegut's notorious asterisk marks his self-aware hypocrisy; that is, he knew he was biased and selfish and strove to appreciate his otherwise responsibilities to common good. Breakfast of Champions' centrally is really about consciously, responsibly, critically thinking for the self -- a moral duty -- or others will, to theirs and the self's detriment. ***wheels.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
quote:Originally posted by extrinsic: Though of less quantity and less qualitative vitriol, Burnside uses similar name-calling division and exclusion and inclusion assertion tactics as the other factions, no matter which ones.
Because he feels hurt. That's what I think's the really interesting thing about this piece is that he's totally honest about that. That's something you can work with. When Torgersen claims he doesn't really care about the Hugos, it makes you want to throw your hands up in despair. He's rather be thought an interfering busybody than someone whose feelings can get hurt.
I was thinking today about the process of learning to take a punch. Getting punched hurts; knowing it's coming is scary. It can feel humiliating at first. But eventually you learn to shrug it off. It's not because you're really any tougher, it's because experience has taught you to distinguish between pain and injury.
How much trouble we cause ourselves by not understanding that distinction.
The Rabids want to destroy the awards. The Sads want to be included. So reprehensible as the Rabids may be, their tactics are rational, but the Sads' tactics are not. It doesn't make sense to call people names like CHORF if you want to be included; that's burning your bridges.
Posted by Meredith (Member # 8368) on :
And Torgersen is a military man. You'd think he'd have been taught better strategy than that.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
CHORF used to be an acronym interjection, CHrist On a Rabbit Farm, circa 2003. Now a very adult crowd has reinvented the meaning to mean an ugly nasty mean name-calling name with as well ugly nasty mean connotations: "CHORF: It's a Word Now." Was an ugly word before, now even uglier yet. Name calling . . . At least WEIRD PC is a politer though demeaning euphemism acronym (not my invention) of a neutral phrase for much uglier offensive terms, not the other way around -- meany, mean, meaner, meanest. Time for a soap wash of mouth and ears.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
My sympathies here---as if you guys can't tell---lay with the Sad Puppies, and to a certain extent with the Rabid Puppies.
It's a matter of a familiar pattern repeating itself. An organization---really it could be anything, and it has been anything---starts out as apolitical. Then it comes to be dominated and controlled by a certain kind of group with a certain kind of mindview. They take things over, they control debate even when they participate in it...and claim the high moral ground because of their views. They preach things like tolerance but they aren't very tolerant in their activities and actions.
And when called on this, by those who don't necessarily share their views, or don't share all their views, this group reacts with anger and venom and goes on the attack.
I know we're not supposed to talk politics here on these boards, part of the agreement in signing up, but there's no way to avoid it under the circumstances. I don't think it's any great secret that these people are often called "liberals."
I've seen this process in action in a lot of things---in fact, I walked away from an Internet Fan Fiction community because of this process. It seems to be unavoidable---but one can fight one's fights with the hope of victory, however hopeless it might look at the moment.
Now if the Sad Puppies or Rabid Puppies, say, get tired of this and give up the fight---one might call it "moving on"---well, the other side wins. I can't see all of them doing that.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Putting in a separate post. A sidebar issue.
I note that for Best Novel, the novel that won held a plurality in the first count (though "No Award" came on strong in the runoff.)
I've heard, also, it being said in media reports that this is the first time a Chinese writer has won a writing Hugo Award.
I'm none too sure of that---I'm sure there's a list of winners on Wikipedia or somewhere else but I haven't the time to wade through and figure out the ethnicity of past winners.
But, given the great struggle for the soul of the Hugo Awards that went on...is it possible that this book really was the best novel of the year?...or were some of the voters tempted to vote for it just because the writer was Chinese and they never gave a writing award to a Chinese writer before?
Posted by Meredith (Member # 8368) on :
I haven't read THE THREE BODY PROBLEM, but I first heard of it on "Writing Excuses", where it received high praise.
Best of the year? That's always going to be a subjective answer. And that's the crux of this problem. I bet you and I would rarely, if ever, agree on that. And that's okay.
As my father would have said, "It's a difference of opinion that makes a horse race."
I just don't think it's very grown-up behavior to start calling people who don't agree with you names and try to blow up the awards if you don't like the winners.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
My sentiments lay with the creative arts, no particular faction otherwise. I feel no faction or outspoken individual showed their best creative expression or character for this ongoing and likely to escalate social war. The field is too crowded with mediocrity and jostlers for pride of place preeminence and, as in all hierarchies, limited available space at the apex.
Publication culture is an ever more crowded field and no less restrictive field. More writers; stable number points of access; fallen and disintegrated audience numbers; and a rat fight in a blighted and confined neighborhood cage for access to momma rat's dry teats.
On the other hand, generally, writers and readers don't know what they don't know about creative arts and won't learn, believing that good enough is what they have accomplished to date and suits the market, which no more knows than the producers and consumers; no more than a minimal effort is required.
An apt belief -- one, a best though mediocre effort competes with other best though mediocre efforts; two, the state of global literacy is at an average level comparable to seventh grade language arts and sciences instruction, not learning, which lags behind instruction; three, the fantastical fiction field generally resists, if not refuses, sophisticated narrative modalities, not sophisticated language arts and sciences, rather, overly experimental narrative sophistication: metafiction, abstract philosophical tableaus, overly moralistic law tableaus, archaic and obtuse culture references, etc.; in other words, literary fiction, which too entails anymore weak language skills.
That's three resistances of fantastical fiction culture, many more could be named; though they all orient around effort expended or shortfalls thereof. The fact of the matter is television and Internet entertainments foster immediate, effortless self-gratification -- that's the state of creative arts and their competitions.
However, the adult-in-the-room caveat is twofold, one, a more competitive field transcends social politics, res ipsa loquitor, the thing speaks for itself; in other words, an artwork appeals on its own merits, not its politics.
Two, that sophisticated language and creative arts are not overly complicated, overly complexified, overly obtuse in any regard, that simplicity can be complex if artfully managed and of a universal appeal. Language skills require only effectual transmission and reception.
However, the cream of the crop are prone to excesses of obtuseness caused by overly much summary and explanation, tell, static voice as like life is a state of stasis, missed content, weak organization, unsettled discourse modalities, misapprehended dramatic effects, and grammar misapprehension habits too numerous to iterate. Frankly, what acrobatics readers do is amazing, that they make sense of insensible content and organization.
The assorted categorical genre audiences waned since the 1950s heyday of pulp digests; each of the genre audiences numbered into half million eager followers then. Nowadays, they number about one hundred thousand per genre, including literary fiction, excluding western, which evaporated, despite a quadrupling of population since.
Publication culture bemoans and blames aural-visual media channels for attracting away consumers. Okay, yeah, so that's how life is. Wrong. How life is is publication culture does not compete, makes no effort to be competitive. The response is obvious: Make an effort and rejoin the creative arts competition that the human conversation is.
[ August 29, 2015, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
All I think I will say about all of this is that there appears to have been some confusion about how representative the SF/F fandom community is of the general SF/F readership.
SF/F "Fandom" is actually a very small percentage of the general SF/F readership, and most SF/F readers would be surprised to learn that there are any other SF/F conventions around besides the various "comic cons" which tend to receive huge publicity and attendance (and are not "true" SF/F conventions as SF/F "Fandom" recognizes them).
Therefore, the awards given at such SF/F conventions are completely unable to reflect the interests, tastes, preferences, etc of the general SF/F readership.
I remember hearing that when Lester del Rey was involved in book editing and publishing, he could not be bothered to send editors to any of the SF/F conventions because such attendance would have little or no effect on book sales and therefore wasn't worth the time, money, or effort.
It seems to me that those writers who sell well should laugh all the way to the bank, and forget about the awards given out by such a small percentage of their (or anyone's, for that matter) readership.
Also, I would like to thank MattLeo for providing the link to David Gerrold's reposting of Ken Burnside's post, and to thank David Gerrold for reposting it.
I think it may be the most balanced recounting of what has occurred of any that I have read.
Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robert Nowall: Putting in a separate post. A sidebar issue.
I note that for Best Novel, the novel that won held a plurality in the first count (though "No Award" came on strong in the runoff.)
I've heard, also, it being said in media reports that this is the first time a Chinese writer has won a writing Hugo Award.
I'm none too sure of that---I'm sure there's a list of winners on Wikipedia or somewhere else but I haven't the time to wade through and figure out the ethnicity of past winners.
But, given the great struggle for the soul of the Hugo Awards that went on...is it possible that this book really was the best novel of the year?...or were some of the voters tempted to vote for it just because the writer was Chinese and they never gave a writing award to a Chinese writer before?
Coming in late to this party but it could be both. The book could very well be Very well written with a great plot and world. But at the same time it could have been tied with others and it was the being written by a Chinese or maybe a nonWesterner? that placed it over the top. A lot of that going around lately and not just in SF awards.
At the same time these are subjective awards. Hugos have been around for a long time and many know of them. I know of one writer who has been here before who won one and was excited about it. They are looked on as a huge pat on the back from fellow writers.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
I do know that, when I looked for a copy of it in the local Barnes & Noble, there were none. Out of stock or not stocked? I don't know, but it wasn't there. (Forgot to check the local Books-a-Million when I visited today.)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)