So, the Hugo nominations
I've debated whether to blog about this weekend's Hugo nominations. Given the amount of ink that's been spilled already, adding more, especially at this stage, may be unwise. But as a Hugo nominator/voter, I am tangentially involved in this. So, here we go.
1. Others have noted this, but it deserves emphasis: most of what is on the ballot is not exactly the Sad Puppies slate, but the Rabid Puppies slate, which is not quite the same thing. (File 770 has the breakdown.) Additional mathematical evidence seems to suggest that the Sad Puppies did not always vote in lockstep, which agrees with what many of them have been claiming over the past couple of days. That same mathematical evidence suggests that the Rabid Puppies did.
2. Anecdotal data seems to confirm that of the nine Puppy nominations that did not make the list, at least six either declined the nomination (Larry Correia, Matthew Surridge) or were ruled ineligible by SASQUAN. (Megan Grey's story was published in 2015, a couple of the dramatic presentations came out in 2013, and it's unclear whether or not IGMS is a semiprozine.)
In addition, I have heard questions about one of the novella nominees from the Rabid Puppies slate, since it is apparently only somewhat expanded from material that appeared in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction in 2009. I am hoping that either SASQUAN or Gordon Van Gelder can comment on this further, since I have no access to the original 2009 zine.
3. And in some ways, that exemplifies the problem with this slate: it's a slate that did not bother to find out if some of their nominated works were even eligible. I can understand the confusion about IGMS, but Supernatural's original broadcast dates are clearly listed on IMDB, Wikipedia and (less clearly) on the CW's official website. The issues with the novella are listed on the work's copyright page. This should not have been difficult to figure out.
In the context of other concerns, I think it's notable that the two ineligible best dramatic works nominations were on the Rabid Puppies ballot, not the Sad Puppies ballot; the Sad Puppies nominated two Cartoon Network episodes that were eligible according to IMDB, but did not make the ballot. The Rabid Puppies also nominated the possibly ineligible novella. This in turn leads me to wonder just how serious the Rapid Puppies were about these nominations.
Possibly relevant sidenote, a number of us spent quite a bit of time on Twitter trying to figure out what works were actually eligible for Best Graphic Story. This discussion led me to withdraw my one nomination for this category since I figured that if I couldn't even figure out what was eligible, I had no right to nominate in a category that others take very seriously indeed.
Moving on.
3. Regarding the Rabid Puppies ballot, I can only echo the comment by Robert Reynolds, made on Kary English's blog:
"As to the whole “Sad Puppies” thing-I just looked at the Hugo final ballot and noticed some troubling things. Apparently, one writer’s work is so exceptional that he comprises fully one-third of the short fiction nominees, with fully three-fifths of one category. Three of the pieces are from one book of short pieces and all of them are from the same publishing house. A publishing house edited by the source for one of the lists being circulated and urging people to nominate works from their “slate” of suggested works. That editor also received nominations in both editor categories."
Yes.
It's all very well to characterize this and the resulting internet drama as just typical SF drama and politics. But even though the financial value of a Hugo is at best debatable, and we can all think of authors that are doing extremely well without one (Patricia Briggs, Charlene Harris, Diana Galbadon and Peter Brett all sprang to mind) I think it would be naive in the extreme to ignore the financial aspect of this.
Particularly when, as in this case, the results seem to favor a very specific publishing house. (Four of the novellas, one of the novelettes, one of the short stories, two of Best Related Work, editor in two categories.) That this publishing house was apparently founded in 2014 is all the more striking. That some of the nominations for this particular publisher came not from Sad Puppies, but Rabid Puppies, tells its own tale.
Long and short of it: Sad Puppies, it seems you got played. And as a result, your goal of broadening the awards field - a goal I'm in sympathy with, as my Twitter can attest (I nominated the AVClub, for instance) - and your goal of directing attention towards independent, self published authors such as Marco Kloos, resulted in favoring a single publishing house, instead of independent authors. It also seems to have created a Hugo ballot where, for the first time in my recollection, it seems possible that no Hugos will be awarded in some or even several categories.
That seems counterproductive.
4. For the record, I would also be side-eyeing this if the name of the publishing house in question happened to be "Twelfth Planet Press," "Small Beer Press," or "Aqueduct," three small presses also working to broaden the speculative fiction field. Granted, those presses are hardly new, and published works in 2014 that were nominated/long listed for other awards and/or recommended by Locus, but I still think it's safe to say that anything more than a couple of nominated works per each of those presses would have seriously raised eyebrows everywhere.
5. For those claiming that the Hugos could always be exploited, and have been exploited before this - well, yes. Both of these statements are true. But what is unusual is to have nearly the entire ballot (Fan Artists aside) exploited for the benefit of one group.
And it does not follow that the rest of us are in any way obligated to go along with this, by reading or taking a look at all entries on the ballot, no more than any of the Puppies, Sad or Rabid, are obligated to read or look at any of the 24 items that were not on the Puppy slates, or read or vote for anything they perceive as part of or furthering the SJW agenda. I absolutely believe that writers should read as widely as possible - one reason I did read the Correia book last year. But no one, writer or pure fan, is obligated to. Bluntly, life is too short.
5. Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine has released multiple statements in various locations noting that they were unaware that they were on the Sad Puppies/Rabid Puppies list. I am hearing secondhand reports from webcomics artists that the same thing is true for Carter Reid. Stella Gilbert was not informed that she was on a Puppy ballot and does not endorse them.
I feel it's also safe to say that none, or almost none, of the writers, producers or Hollywood studios nominated for Best Dramatic Presentation categories knew anything about this beforehand. With the nominations out, George RR Martin is now blogging about it (and has good things to say.) Joss Whedon and the producers for The Flash and Grimm are heavily involved in fandom, so it's a safe bet that they know now, and an equally safe bet that Disney, Time Warner and NBC Universal would prefer that they say very little on the subject, so we're probably not going to hear much from them either, and I don't think we can read much more into beyond Hollywood studios attempting to stay out of a controversy they didn't start.
Having said that, Marie Brennan argues:
" But voting for them says, “well, I don’t like slates, but I guess they’re okay so long as they pick things I agree with.” That encourages us to form competing slates in future years, which is precisely what many of us are trying to prevent. "
On the bright side, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, was not on either Puppy slate.
6. On the other hand, others were aware that they were on the Sad Puppy ballot. I think Grayson Bray Morris has some good stuff to say here.
7. Having said all this, I do want to own my own part in this: I did make a number of last minute recommendations for several down ballot categories (Fan Writer, Editor, Best Related Work, Best Semiprozine, Campbell) and one recommendation for Best Short Story (Eugie Foster's When it Ends, He Catches Her. I don't ordinarily make any fiction recommendations at all, but I loved the story, and I thought a Hugo nomination would be a nice tribute to a writer snatched from us way, way too young.) In most of these cases, I nominated people I've never met (in one case, I only know the Fan Writer's Tumblr handle). In some cases, particularly in the Editor, Campbell and Fan Writer categories, I recommended people I did know.
I will also cop to having an agenda here: I had no hopes that any of my recommendations would even get nominated (with the sole exception of Wesley Chu, which was less a nomination and more a recognition of inevitability) but I did hope to draw attention to work from last year that I enjoyed or thought was doing something pretty cool (not always the same thing.) But I can see that my recommendations helped encourage the idea that "everybody does this," and I'll own that.
For what it's worth, as several witnesses can attest, I'd already decided, well before the Hugo nominations were announced, that I would not be making Hugo recommendations in the future. (Not because of ethical concerns, but because it wasn't any fun.) A round-up of my own stuff to get a sense of what I did/didn't do, sure; recommendations, no.
8. Going forward, please, for the love of everything mysterious and great in the universe: No more death threats, lawsuits, or other related crap. Thanks. We are talking about a fan award here. Breathe.
9. I have some more thoughts, on the Worldcon financial situation that helped create the environment for this, but not quite organized ones, so that part of the post will have to wait a bit.
10. The entire situation saddens me, one of the reasons this post took so long to get up.
But yes, fandom will survive this. Fandom is deep, and broad, and passionate. It includes people arguing over the Hugos, but as I type, it also includes people mourning over The Vampire Diaries and happily urging other people to read Ken Liu's latest book and fighting over Westallen/Snowbarry and planning Avengers parties and marathons and doing fan art and jumping up and down because LEGOS and telling me what books I absolutely must read or learning Klingon or celebrating poetry.
Yay!
Because the real issue with this Hugo ballot is that it is obscuring not only worthy recommendations from everyone, but the amazing creativity and health of this field right now. We've got box office blockbusters. We've got television shows. Over on Comixology we have an almost terrifying number of graphic novels, and the web is bursting with incredible webcomics. Tumblr's been completely taken over by passionate fans willing to analyze everything and anything and make art and music and gifs and jokes and recaps and more (actually, Tumblr's kinda terrifying, but I admire the passion. From a distance.) We have multiple forums set up to discuss everything and anything in fandom. We have multiple routes to publication, several outstanding zines catering to all kinds of tastes, a speculative poetry field that amazes me more and more the more time I spend in it. We had all kinds of amazing novels in fantasy, science fiction and something in between. Novellas are making a comeback. And the art - wow.
It's an awesome, amazing, breathtaking time to be a fan.
Let's make the most of that.
1. Others have noted this, but it deserves emphasis: most of what is on the ballot is not exactly the Sad Puppies slate, but the Rabid Puppies slate, which is not quite the same thing. (File 770 has the breakdown.) Additional mathematical evidence seems to suggest that the Sad Puppies did not always vote in lockstep, which agrees with what many of them have been claiming over the past couple of days. That same mathematical evidence suggests that the Rabid Puppies did.
2. Anecdotal data seems to confirm that of the nine Puppy nominations that did not make the list, at least six either declined the nomination (Larry Correia, Matthew Surridge) or were ruled ineligible by SASQUAN. (Megan Grey's story was published in 2015, a couple of the dramatic presentations came out in 2013, and it's unclear whether or not IGMS is a semiprozine.)
In addition, I have heard questions about one of the novella nominees from the Rabid Puppies slate, since it is apparently only somewhat expanded from material that appeared in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction in 2009. I am hoping that either SASQUAN or Gordon Van Gelder can comment on this further, since I have no access to the original 2009 zine.
3. And in some ways, that exemplifies the problem with this slate: it's a slate that did not bother to find out if some of their nominated works were even eligible. I can understand the confusion about IGMS, but Supernatural's original broadcast dates are clearly listed on IMDB, Wikipedia and (less clearly) on the CW's official website. The issues with the novella are listed on the work's copyright page. This should not have been difficult to figure out.
In the context of other concerns, I think it's notable that the two ineligible best dramatic works nominations were on the Rabid Puppies ballot, not the Sad Puppies ballot; the Sad Puppies nominated two Cartoon Network episodes that were eligible according to IMDB, but did not make the ballot. The Rabid Puppies also nominated the possibly ineligible novella. This in turn leads me to wonder just how serious the Rapid Puppies were about these nominations.
Possibly relevant sidenote, a number of us spent quite a bit of time on Twitter trying to figure out what works were actually eligible for Best Graphic Story. This discussion led me to withdraw my one nomination for this category since I figured that if I couldn't even figure out what was eligible, I had no right to nominate in a category that others take very seriously indeed.
Moving on.
3. Regarding the Rabid Puppies ballot, I can only echo the comment by Robert Reynolds, made on Kary English's blog:
"As to the whole “Sad Puppies” thing-I just looked at the Hugo final ballot and noticed some troubling things. Apparently, one writer’s work is so exceptional that he comprises fully one-third of the short fiction nominees, with fully three-fifths of one category. Three of the pieces are from one book of short pieces and all of them are from the same publishing house. A publishing house edited by the source for one of the lists being circulated and urging people to nominate works from their “slate” of suggested works. That editor also received nominations in both editor categories."
Yes.
It's all very well to characterize this and the resulting internet drama as just typical SF drama and politics. But even though the financial value of a Hugo is at best debatable, and we can all think of authors that are doing extremely well without one (Patricia Briggs, Charlene Harris, Diana Galbadon and Peter Brett all sprang to mind) I think it would be naive in the extreme to ignore the financial aspect of this.
Particularly when, as in this case, the results seem to favor a very specific publishing house. (Four of the novellas, one of the novelettes, one of the short stories, two of Best Related Work, editor in two categories.) That this publishing house was apparently founded in 2014 is all the more striking. That some of the nominations for this particular publisher came not from Sad Puppies, but Rabid Puppies, tells its own tale.
Long and short of it: Sad Puppies, it seems you got played. And as a result, your goal of broadening the awards field - a goal I'm in sympathy with, as my Twitter can attest (I nominated the AVClub, for instance) - and your goal of directing attention towards independent, self published authors such as Marco Kloos, resulted in favoring a single publishing house, instead of independent authors. It also seems to have created a Hugo ballot where, for the first time in my recollection, it seems possible that no Hugos will be awarded in some or even several categories.
That seems counterproductive.
4. For the record, I would also be side-eyeing this if the name of the publishing house in question happened to be "Twelfth Planet Press," "Small Beer Press," or "Aqueduct," three small presses also working to broaden the speculative fiction field. Granted, those presses are hardly new, and published works in 2014 that were nominated/long listed for other awards and/or recommended by Locus, but I still think it's safe to say that anything more than a couple of nominated works per each of those presses would have seriously raised eyebrows everywhere.
5. For those claiming that the Hugos could always be exploited, and have been exploited before this - well, yes. Both of these statements are true. But what is unusual is to have nearly the entire ballot (Fan Artists aside) exploited for the benefit of one group.
And it does not follow that the rest of us are in any way obligated to go along with this, by reading or taking a look at all entries on the ballot, no more than any of the Puppies, Sad or Rabid, are obligated to read or look at any of the 24 items that were not on the Puppy slates, or read or vote for anything they perceive as part of or furthering the SJW agenda. I absolutely believe that writers should read as widely as possible - one reason I did read the Correia book last year. But no one, writer or pure fan, is obligated to. Bluntly, life is too short.
5. Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine has released multiple statements in various locations noting that they were unaware that they were on the Sad Puppies/Rabid Puppies list. I am hearing secondhand reports from webcomics artists that the same thing is true for Carter Reid. Stella Gilbert was not informed that she was on a Puppy ballot and does not endorse them.
I feel it's also safe to say that none, or almost none, of the writers, producers or Hollywood studios nominated for Best Dramatic Presentation categories knew anything about this beforehand. With the nominations out, George RR Martin is now blogging about it (and has good things to say.) Joss Whedon and the producers for The Flash and Grimm are heavily involved in fandom, so it's a safe bet that they know now, and an equally safe bet that Disney, Time Warner and NBC Universal would prefer that they say very little on the subject, so we're probably not going to hear much from them either, and I don't think we can read much more into beyond Hollywood studios attempting to stay out of a controversy they didn't start.
Having said that, Marie Brennan argues:
" But voting for them says, “well, I don’t like slates, but I guess they’re okay so long as they pick things I agree with.” That encourages us to form competing slates in future years, which is precisely what many of us are trying to prevent. "
On the bright side, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, was not on either Puppy slate.
6. On the other hand, others were aware that they were on the Sad Puppy ballot. I think Grayson Bray Morris has some good stuff to say here.
7. Having said all this, I do want to own my own part in this: I did make a number of last minute recommendations for several down ballot categories (Fan Writer, Editor, Best Related Work, Best Semiprozine, Campbell) and one recommendation for Best Short Story (Eugie Foster's When it Ends, He Catches Her. I don't ordinarily make any fiction recommendations at all, but I loved the story, and I thought a Hugo nomination would be a nice tribute to a writer snatched from us way, way too young.) In most of these cases, I nominated people I've never met (in one case, I only know the Fan Writer's Tumblr handle). In some cases, particularly in the Editor, Campbell and Fan Writer categories, I recommended people I did know.
I will also cop to having an agenda here: I had no hopes that any of my recommendations would even get nominated (with the sole exception of Wesley Chu, which was less a nomination and more a recognition of inevitability) but I did hope to draw attention to work from last year that I enjoyed or thought was doing something pretty cool (not always the same thing.) But I can see that my recommendations helped encourage the idea that "everybody does this," and I'll own that.
For what it's worth, as several witnesses can attest, I'd already decided, well before the Hugo nominations were announced, that I would not be making Hugo recommendations in the future. (Not because of ethical concerns, but because it wasn't any fun.) A round-up of my own stuff to get a sense of what I did/didn't do, sure; recommendations, no.
8. Going forward, please, for the love of everything mysterious and great in the universe: No more death threats, lawsuits, or other related crap. Thanks. We are talking about a fan award here. Breathe.
9. I have some more thoughts, on the Worldcon financial situation that helped create the environment for this, but not quite organized ones, so that part of the post will have to wait a bit.
10. The entire situation saddens me, one of the reasons this post took so long to get up.
But yes, fandom will survive this. Fandom is deep, and broad, and passionate. It includes people arguing over the Hugos, but as I type, it also includes people mourning over The Vampire Diaries and happily urging other people to read Ken Liu's latest book and fighting over Westallen/Snowbarry and planning Avengers parties and marathons and doing fan art and jumping up and down because LEGOS and telling me what books I absolutely must read or learning Klingon or celebrating poetry.
Yay!
Because the real issue with this Hugo ballot is that it is obscuring not only worthy recommendations from everyone, but the amazing creativity and health of this field right now. We've got box office blockbusters. We've got television shows. Over on Comixology we have an almost terrifying number of graphic novels, and the web is bursting with incredible webcomics. Tumblr's been completely taken over by passionate fans willing to analyze everything and anything and make art and music and gifs and jokes and recaps and more (actually, Tumblr's kinda terrifying, but I admire the passion. From a distance.) We have multiple forums set up to discuss everything and anything in fandom. We have multiple routes to publication, several outstanding zines catering to all kinds of tastes, a speculative poetry field that amazes me more and more the more time I spend in it. We had all kinds of amazing novels in fantasy, science fiction and something in between. Novellas are making a comeback. And the art - wow.
It's an awesome, amazing, breathtaking time to be a fan.
Let's make the most of that.