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

[livejournal]

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

[catsittingstill]

Um. Yes, that comment was me (wish I'd realized what havoc slates would wreak and also cautioned specifically against those--but hindsight is perfect as they say.) I'd rather not attach a last name beyond Sittingstill to it if you don't mind. Given the Pups tendency to (hopefully empty) threats.

[nwhyte]

Yeah, noted.

[raycun]

I don't want them to be smart.

if they were smart, they'd run a primary campaign for the Sad Puppy nominations. Get 100/200 people to send in their recommendations, count up the votes, and make that the list. Odds are you'd get some things on that list that were actually good. And they could say, "you complained last year it wasn't democratic - but now it is so you can't complain!"

It would still have the problem that by agreeing that list and voting as a block to get it nominated, they'd be gaming the system. But this year's campaign was wrong on many levels, and that would be wrong on only one, so harder to argue against.

But I don't expect them to be smart. I expect them to continue the cronyism, to continue picking things calculated to annoy, to continue the paranoia, to continue having a bunch of leaders at the top running the show...

[scottakennedy]

One element that particularly killed any sympathy I could have had with the pups was the way they hemmed and hawed around the VoxDay/Gamergate connection. That connection was more than clear to me on hugo night when (due to low bandwidth) I tried to follow the awards on twitter #HugoAward and had to keep blocking gamergaters who were posting explicit anime porn to the hashtag.

I had voted a for few items on the Puppy slates (editors) but after that experience trying to follow the ceremony felt no sadness at the Puppy drubbing.

And the quality argument is key. I mean, really, Wisdom of my Internet rather than Volume 2 of the Heinlein bio? HUH???