The Hugos are Broken…. and It's All My Fault!
OK, it's not entirely my fault, but I did, as it turned out, have a nominating membership, and could have nominated stuff had I been paying attention. Not that my own eccentric tastes (and feeble knowledge) would have made the ballot, but at least I could fee like I'd contributed.
But, as many of you are no doubt aware, there has been a kerfuffle involving nominations for the Hugos; a slate of candidates of certain political slant. If it had been a stylistic or commercial issue, that would have been one thing. But this is clearly is a socio-political agenda.
I and everyone else who could have nominated should have nominated. All those who can vote should vote, if we care. Because while the spirt of the awards may have been violated, the rules weren't violated. These groups took advantage of a usually small, disunited nominating process. But if there's a problem with democracy, the answer is more democracy, not curtailing democracy (believe me, I'm sure someone will propose it).
And the answer to free speech - especially free speech that you don't like - is more free speech. Remember the coda Ray Bradbury put into Fahrenheit 451, essentially chastising everyone who didn't like the way his stories were written and asked him to rewrite his stories, his response is that they should write their own. There should be more stories, not fewer, even - and perhaps especially - the ones you disagree with. "They" wish to be seen as persecuted martyrs; don’t give them that. If you adopt the ways of your enemy, you become no different than your enemy. While it is possible that this pooping-in-the-sandbox may bring forth exactly the sort of thing they are afraid already exists, I say don't give them the satisfaction; judge each thing on its merits as writing. As it should be.
And next year, spring for the $40 and nominate things that you liked.