While we are waiting for the full stats, a thought on how the #SadPuppies failed

[nwhyte]

It all could have been more difficult. The campaign to No Award the Puppy slates this year was made much easier by two factors, both of which were eerily predicted by Cat (I think catsittingstill) in a comment on Brad Torgersen's blog after last year:
Next time, bring your best game. Read a lot, talk among each other, pick your *best* stories. No bland

Comments

[nancylebov]

I think the puppies are going to have to do some writing as well as looking for good fiction. As far as I can tell, there's very little being written now which shares the specific good features of classic sf.

[peadarog]

This is pretty much my position too. I have some sympathy for what they claim to be saying -- i.e. there's a lot of shite on the list the last few years that seems to get there because of popularity or political box-ticking. Fair enough. But then, they come along with material that is utterly unreadable.

The end result of their efforts is that brilliant books like City of Stairs -- with great pulpy elements -- don't even make it onto the ballot. It's sickening.

Yes, they should bring their A-game or sod off entirely.

[nwhyte]

Peadar,

I'm afraid it is total nonsense to say that "theres a lot of shite on the list the last few years that seems to get there because of popularity or political box-ticking". First off, there's always been a certain amount of shite on the Hugo lists. I don't think there is any change in that over the last few years.Second, if anything gets on the list because of popularity, that actually is the point of an award made by popular vote! Third, I completely reject the notion that "political box-ticking" has much more to do with the process now than it did forty years ago, and I'd be interested to hear which stories you have in mind. The fact is that fans in general have put the stories they like on the lists; and when the puppies decided that they knew better, fondom in general replied that no, they did not.

[peadarog]

What you have written above makes it look like you think I support the puppies or their aims. Let me be very clear: I despise their politics. I despise their ballot stuffing.

I'm afraid it is total nonsense to say that "theres a lot of shite on the list the last few years that seems to get there because of popularity or political box-ticking".

As you say yourself "if anything gets on the list because of popularity, that actually is the point of an award made by popular vote!" So, it's hardly "nonsense" to say so. It's only nonsense to react as if it's some kind of outrage.

I agree that it's a popularity contest. You agree that it's a popularity contest. When the puppies notice it's a popularity contest, they are correct. That's all I was saying above.

Third, I completely reject the notion that "political box-ticking" has much more to do with the process now than it did forty years ago, and I'd be interested to hear which stories you have in mind. The fact is that fans in general have put the stories they like on the lists; and

[nwhyte]

Thanks for clarifying your position. To clarify my position, I'm describing as "nonsense" any claim that the Hugos (up to this year) were tending more towards a popularity contest, or featured any more box-ticking, than they had in the past, which is what I took from your "the last few years".

[peadarog]

Ah, OK. "The last few years" was very sloppy of me there. It does represent the window in which my own interest in the short categories has taken a dive, but nothing else.