Release the kraken: on awards, puppies and politics
So, all those who care know that the Hugo Awards nominees list for this year was released yesterday at noon Pacific time. Like the kraken, it has unleashed its power upon the fannish waves. I heard about the Sad Puppies campaign last year but didn't pay much attention as I wasn't registered for WorldCon and therefore couldn't vote. This year, I paid more attention since I'll be attending Sasquan and am eligible to vote. I surveyed a number of recommendation lists. I did not review the Sad or Rabid Puppies recommendation lists because, honestly, when I did searches online for rec lists, they never came up. I read a bunch of stuff. I got my Hugo ballot in to the concom at almost the last minute. As it turned out, almost none of the works I chose for my ballot aligned with those on the Sad or Rabid Puppies lists. (The single exception is the long-form dramatic presentation ballot, which I suspect is true for most of fandom. The pickins is what Hollywood gives us and the choice is much narrower than it is for fiction.) That had nothing to do with politics. It had to do with which works I thought merited recognition in the field.
I spent yesterday ghosting Norwescon and didn't get to see the list of nominees until I got home late last night. And then I went to bed. And I slept badly. I woke up every hour or two. It might have been that the cats were traversing the bed in pretty adamant bids for attention. It might have been my cold plaguing me for yet another night. One thing I'm sure of: a lot of it was because of what I recognized in the Hugo balloting.
I send my congratulations to the nominees. My plan was to do pretty much what Scalzi recommends, well before I read his post, which is to try to read the nominees and vote according to my evaluation of the quality of same, including casting a "No Award" vote if I don't think any of the works rises to Hugo caliber. That's what every good Hugo voter should do. My vote is my own and it's private.
I will also say that I know that people have campaigned for Hugo Awards over the decades, some shamelessly, others quietly. The Sad and Rabid Puppies have taken Hugo campaigning to a whole new level. Does that bother me? Yeah.
I think what really bothers me about this whole thing is two-fold.
First, the Sad and Rabid Puppies campaigns have taken the evaluation of art and turned it into the evaluation of political alignment. They've made it into a conservative versus progressive contest, rather than a quality-and-popularity race to the top. Part of their argument is that authors who represent their values have not been adequately represented in the Hugo lists. This sounds uncomfortably like the "Christians are being persecuted" argument that we hear in mainstream politics so much, and that rings hollow to people of color, LGTB people, Jews and people of other faiths, lower-income populations and so on.
Second, presenting and blindly voting for a curated slate of candidates removes the personal, peculiar nature of Hugo voting. Abi Sutherland wrote a really good post about this over on Making Light, and I tend to agree. There's a group-think element to the idea of a curated slate of Hugo nominees that, while I can't speak for other fans and pros, really rubs me the wrong way and feels antithetical to what the science fiction and fantasy community as a whole tends to strive for.
As I consider it, the Hugos are a reflection of the core of science fiction and fantasy fannish culture and community. It has always represented what we're thinking about, talking about, wrestling with. As such, it's also always been representative of what the larger culture in which we function is wrestling with as well. Given the Conservative backlash against things like the Affordable Care Act, the legalization of same-sex marriage, and efforts to raise the minimum wage, the manifestation of a backlash against a more diverse Hugo ballot is not surprising. From my perspective, the explicitly-stated backlash against a more literary approach in the genre is representative of a resistance to more nuanced political thinking. And so the mundane invades the fannish with all the tentacles associated with a kraken.
As I said above, I'll do my best to read the nominees (I can't promise I'll finish them all; time is limited) and vote based on my evaluation of the works in question, including retaining the option to vote "No Award" if that seems appropriate. (I suspect there will be a lot of that, truth to tell.) And I'll hope that next year, I won't lose sleep over the Hugo nomination process. The trouble with tentacles is that they are many and have suckers that are hard to get free of. We'll see how it goes.
-----------------
Post-script: Adam-Troy Castro's comment on the whole thing is instructive in its way. Over on Facebook, he says "In 1970, the Best novel Hugo was lost, lost, by Kurt Vonnegut's SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE. That was the year BUG JACK BARRON by Norman Spinrad was nominated. Which didn't win because Ursula le Guin won for LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS. I can offer no further commentary at this time." He links to Charlie Jane Anders' piece on i09 commenting on the Hugo balloting, which offers some history and context as well as her own, inimitable analysis.
Post post-script: It turns out that one of the nominees for Best Fan Writer has declined his nomination. He has written a surgically thorough explanation of his choice and an excruciatingly detailed analysis of the Hugos. It's long but it's fascinating reading.
I spent yesterday ghosting Norwescon and didn't get to see the list of nominees until I got home late last night. And then I went to bed. And I slept badly. I woke up every hour or two. It might have been that the cats were traversing the bed in pretty adamant bids for attention. It might have been my cold plaguing me for yet another night. One thing I'm sure of: a lot of it was because of what I recognized in the Hugo balloting.
I send my congratulations to the nominees. My plan was to do pretty much what Scalzi recommends, well before I read his post, which is to try to read the nominees and vote according to my evaluation of the quality of same, including casting a "No Award" vote if I don't think any of the works rises to Hugo caliber. That's what every good Hugo voter should do. My vote is my own and it's private.
I will also say that I know that people have campaigned for Hugo Awards over the decades, some shamelessly, others quietly. The Sad and Rabid Puppies have taken Hugo campaigning to a whole new level. Does that bother me? Yeah.
I think what really bothers me about this whole thing is two-fold.
First, the Sad and Rabid Puppies campaigns have taken the evaluation of art and turned it into the evaluation of political alignment. They've made it into a conservative versus progressive contest, rather than a quality-and-popularity race to the top. Part of their argument is that authors who represent their values have not been adequately represented in the Hugo lists. This sounds uncomfortably like the "Christians are being persecuted" argument that we hear in mainstream politics so much, and that rings hollow to people of color, LGTB people, Jews and people of other faiths, lower-income populations and so on.
Second, presenting and blindly voting for a curated slate of candidates removes the personal, peculiar nature of Hugo voting. Abi Sutherland wrote a really good post about this over on Making Light, and I tend to agree. There's a group-think element to the idea of a curated slate of Hugo nominees that, while I can't speak for other fans and pros, really rubs me the wrong way and feels antithetical to what the science fiction and fantasy community as a whole tends to strive for.
As I consider it, the Hugos are a reflection of the core of science fiction and fantasy fannish culture and community. It has always represented what we're thinking about, talking about, wrestling with. As such, it's also always been representative of what the larger culture in which we function is wrestling with as well. Given the Conservative backlash against things like the Affordable Care Act, the legalization of same-sex marriage, and efforts to raise the minimum wage, the manifestation of a backlash against a more diverse Hugo ballot is not surprising. From my perspective, the explicitly-stated backlash against a more literary approach in the genre is representative of a resistance to more nuanced political thinking. And so the mundane invades the fannish with all the tentacles associated with a kraken.
As I said above, I'll do my best to read the nominees (I can't promise I'll finish them all; time is limited) and vote based on my evaluation of the works in question, including retaining the option to vote "No Award" if that seems appropriate. (I suspect there will be a lot of that, truth to tell.) And I'll hope that next year, I won't lose sleep over the Hugo nomination process. The trouble with tentacles is that they are many and have suckers that are hard to get free of. We'll see how it goes.
-----------------
Post-script: Adam-Troy Castro's comment on the whole thing is instructive in its way. Over on Facebook, he says "In 1970, the Best novel Hugo was lost, lost, by Kurt Vonnegut's SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE. That was the year BUG JACK BARRON by Norman Spinrad was nominated. Which didn't win because Ursula le Guin won for LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS. I can offer no further commentary at this time." He links to Charlie Jane Anders' piece on i09 commenting on the Hugo balloting, which offers some history and context as well as her own, inimitable analysis.
Post post-script: It turns out that one of the nominees for Best Fan Writer has declined his nomination. He has written a surgically thorough explanation of his choice and an excruciatingly detailed analysis of the Hugos. It's long but it's fascinating reading.