On why George R.R. Martin is wrong: No Awarding the slate

[nwhyte]

When I saw the domination of this year's Hugo finalists by a slate of works nominated by a misogynist racist and his colluders, my immediate reaction was that I should vote "No Award" ahead of every one of their nominations, no questions asked or quarter given. (I was not alone.)

There has been some debate about this in the last week. Notably,

Comments

[sbisson]

I've worked out how I am doing things.

I am going to vote on what I think of as qualified merit: but I will leave off items that are not worthy of a Hugo, and I will rank No Award above slate titles. That way I think the ASIMs of the world get recognition, but the tainted nature of their nomination is recognised at the same time. Kind of like the (*) in the Baseball Hall Of Fame...

[martin_wisse]

I don't believe anybody has sent death threats to the Puppies; they've lied about everything else, so I don't trust them to not lie about this.

Meanwhile, personally I am starting to lean towards No Awarding everything and sorting it out in the retro Hugos because of the Puppy taint. How can I vote for best novel when only two out of five candidates are there on merit?

[nwhyte]

How can I vote for best novel when only two out of five candidates are there on merit?

That is indeed a fair point.

I'm sorry, by the way, that we did not get to talk at Eastercon. We were obviously in the same room at the same time at least once - thanks for tweeting my soundbite on Sunday night! - but I failed to identify you and introduce myself.

[drplokta]

You can vote for one of those two nominees if you think it was the best novel of the year, and vote No Award if you don't think either of them is the best novel of the year. The same as in any other year, except with two instead of five.

[catsittingstill]

Do be aware that since Hugo nominations were run this year, we do not get a do-over unless enough people at two consecutive business meetings agree to change the rules to make that possible.

I am planning to No Award all slate nominees. But I don't expect to get a do-over that way; I think we're just giving up on this year.

I don't plan to No Award anything that made the ballot fairly unless the work is really Just That Bad.

I do see your point about the works not having fair competition--this just how I intend to thread that needle but I understand other people will take different approaches.

[la_marquise_de_]

My editor at DAW, Sheila Gilbert, is another one who the puppies listed without her knowledge or consent. They seem to have picked her name up from previous Hugo shortlists -- she was a nominee for Best Editor (Long Form) in 2013 and 2014, too. She's liberal, feminist and supportive of writers of all backgrounds, genders, sexualities, beliefs and political views.
She's not happy.

[druidsass]

Can you link me to somewhere she's said that? I'm planning to treat slate candidates who have publicly distanced themselves from the Puppy project the same as the non-slate nominees, but to rank No Award above all the remaining slate nominees.

[la_marquise_de_]

She can't say it in public: she's in a very awkward position with this. But she has said it in emails to a number of writers on her list, including me.

[druidsass]

I believe you, of course - but I'm specifically looking for slate nominees to speak out in public, because that's the only way I think a win for a Puppy will not further damage fandom. So I'll be placing her below No Award, but above those who have been actively engaging in hate speech, because obviously giving a win to one of them is the worst possible outcome.

[minnesattva]

I admire all the effort I'm seeing people put into sorting out their voting strategies for this year's Hugos, when it seems like if previous Sad Puppies offerings are anything to go by, the two tactics of voting-on-merit and deliberately-No-Awarding the slate. Because it seems when people try to fairly judge the Sad Puppies' work, it's lacking on merit as much as it is on morality.

[nwhyte]

secritcrush has been heroically reading the nominees and writing them up!

[newandrewhickey]

Yeah, there are three separate, equally-good reasons why people might give a No Award:
Because they refuse to help a campaign that is organised by people as close to pure evil as it's possible to get.
Because they refuse to support anyone who uses bloc voting and slates to distort the awards.
And because everything put forward by either racist slate has actual negative literary merit.

Happily, at this stage, all three of those motives produce the same result. The problem will come in the nomination process next year, when people's priorities might make some people try to create an anti-Puppy slate while other people campaign against either slate. I have no idea what we do to stop that...

[livejournal]

Hello! Your entry got to top-25 of the most popular entries in LiveJournal!
Learn more about LiveJournal Ratings in FAQ.

[nwhyte]

That is also slightly sad news!