The Hugos - Voting For and Against
So last year I read all the terrible pathetic puppy entries. They were not very good. Several had a lot in common with Twilight. Only instead of the sparkly vampires and werewolves, there's "manliness" and American exceptionalism. (Or in the case of Beale, Sorcerer elves and cod philosophy.) It's all still just wish fulfillment fiction and about the same quality.
I haven't the slightest idea what the quality of the works are for this year's Pathetic Puppy entries. I may read them because I am a glutton for punishment. I won't be voting for them.
These are not the reasons I won't vote for the Pathetic Puppy nominees:
Because they are Christians (or not)
Because they are conservatives (or not)
Because they are libertarians (or not)
Because they are white (or not)
Because they are straight (or not)
Because they are male (or not)
Because they are cis-gendered (or not)
Some of the Pathetic Puppies I consider to be racists, homophobes, bigots, and/or misogynists and I would never vote for them. But honestly, I don't actually know a lot about most of the people on their slate.
There may be people who made the ballot who were unaware that they were benefitting from the puppy alliance. And I feel bad for anyone in that situation - it must be heartbreaking to wonder if your work was nominated because people thought it was one of the best of the year or if people only voted because it was on the "approved" list.
I'm not a fan of nomination posts and generally make it a policy not to nominate people who have gone down that route, though I will usually vote for them in the final ballot if they make it through.
The Pathetic Puppies have taken that to a whole new level with their concerted effort to fill the ballot with members of their slate. Which is why I won't be voting for any of them, regardless of how good their work is or what their politics might be. I don't want this sort of bloc voting to happen again. Not by anyone. I'm voting for the health of the Hugos.
I haven't the slightest idea what the quality of the works are for this year's Pathetic Puppy entries. I may read them because I am a glutton for punishment. I won't be voting for them.
These are not the reasons I won't vote for the Pathetic Puppy nominees:
Because they are Christians (or not)
Because they are conservatives (or not)
Because they are libertarians (or not)
Because they are white (or not)
Because they are straight (or not)
Because they are male (or not)
Because they are cis-gendered (or not)
Some of the Pathetic Puppies I consider to be racists, homophobes, bigots, and/or misogynists and I would never vote for them. But honestly, I don't actually know a lot about most of the people on their slate.
There may be people who made the ballot who were unaware that they were benefitting from the puppy alliance. And I feel bad for anyone in that situation - it must be heartbreaking to wonder if your work was nominated because people thought it was one of the best of the year or if people only voted because it was on the "approved" list.
I'm not a fan of nomination posts and generally make it a policy not to nominate people who have gone down that route, though I will usually vote for them in the final ballot if they make it through.
The Pathetic Puppies have taken that to a whole new level with their concerted effort to fill the ballot with members of their slate. Which is why I won't be voting for any of them, regardless of how good their work is or what their politics might be. I don't want this sort of bloc voting to happen again. Not by anyone. I'm voting for the health of the Hugos.