Thoughts on the Hugo nominations and Sad Puppies

[the_corbie]

So I do have several thoughts about all this, and I'm trying to organise them into some sort of sense. This is way longer than a message board comment or post so I'm putting it here. ETA - in fact it turned out to be longer than just about anything I've posted here, but I kind of like it, so it stays

Comments

[peadarog]

I see nothing on the novels list this year I would want to vote for, slate or no slate. My biggest gripe with what they did is that they kept something like "City of Stairs" off the ballot so I'm left with nothing to vote for :(

There was a good post by somebody about actually expanding the list of nominees to fix the problem. Can't remember who it was, though...

[the_corbie]

I can't vote this year but intend to read 'Ancillary Sword' and might read 'Goblin Emperor' at some point too. On the other hand, I am annoyed that Elizabeth Bear's 'Steles of the Sky' is missing: I suspect it missed out, either as a single or a series, because of the Puppies. But it is one of the best final books in a trilogy I've read for some time.

Expanding the list of nominees couldn't hurt. Indeed, it would be beneficial in ways beyond tackling the particular problem of slate voting. But it would need to go along with a reduction in the 5% threshold in the 'short story' category in particular, since even with 5 nominees there have been times when not enough nominees made it past that threshold.

[peadarog]

Have't read "Steles", but there's a lot of love for it out there and it should have been given a chance. Ancillary Sword, for me, was a big step down from Justice. It's decent, it's readable with a few minor high points. Not something you'd be pushing on all your friends. GE, again, this is purely personal, was poor. Started well, with danger coming in from every direction, but all were paper tigers.

[the_corbie]

My to-read list is very long, so GE is not pushing its way to the top... Ancillary Sword, well, I'll get round to it but it's not a priority. I think Ancillary Justice was a worthy Hugo winner but it wasn't a book that blew me away. (I do distinguish between the two.)

'Steles' is very good but I wonder if it suffered in the nominations because the vote split between nominating it alone, and nominating the entire series (as I know many people were going to do)? Guess we'll find out when they release the data...

[regina_of_york]

From what I have been able to parse from this mess, this pretty much sums it all up.

*sighs tiredly*

[xraytheenforcer]

The only slate entries I will read are those who were put on the slate without their knowledge or permission. Everyone else can go fuck themselves and the racist, misogynist, homophobic puppy they rode in on.

[the_corbie]

Fair enough. My previous experience of reading Puppies nominees is that you're unlikely to miss much, at least in the short fic categories. Which is, let's face it, what the Puppies are actually interested in. The idea that there is any sort of anti-populist, artsy bias in the Dramatic Presentation categories is transparently silly.

But then, the idea that the way to counter anti-populist, artsy bias in the short fic categories is to put forward a slate of obscure authors, many published by a small press outfit few have heard of, is also transparently silly. The Puppies can't even get their alleged motives straight, as I already said. They should just admit that this is really about getting right-wingers onto the short fic ballot and just leave it at that.

[xraytheenforcer]

You're absolutely correct that the slate is intellectually bankrupt, and that any stated purpose can be easily debunked.

I would be pissed if someone had successfully created a slate of progressive writers, or writers of color, or women, or (insert group here). The whole idea of a slate is antithetical to the spirit of the Hugos, even if it isn't technically against the rules. And I would similarly ignore any writer who purposefully joined any slate, no matter what their politics. I don't expect everyone to take that stance, although I see that many in fandom are, and I applaud them. I applaud Black Gate for publicly saying "Don't vote for us."

That a bunch of writers are willing to ally themselves with the likes of Vox Day, though? I have a special reserve of antipathy for assholes like that.

[the_corbie]

Day is a special kind of asshole. And a terrible writer, judging by the effort that got nominated last year. I mean, that was first-teenage-efforts bad. Trite theological nonsense with cliche fantasy elves for no particular reason. (I quite like cliche fantasy elves. But not superfluous ones.)

But yeah, the whole idea of running a slate for the Hugo is a bad one. But, and I speak as someone who administrates elections and has therefore seen a few slates, even as a slate this is a pretty poor example. There's no identity to it, no unity.

The oft-repeated argument by Puppies supporters that, say, Scalzi's annual recommendations amount to a slate is a dreadful example of 'whataboutery' and a fundamentally flawed argument, but there's a sense in which Torgersen has actually done nothing more than produce a rec list. If he'd left it there, rather than trying to turn his rec list into a cause, I'd have more respect for him.

[maltaran]

I do intend to at least attempt reading whatever comes out in the voter packet, but I suspect I won't finish a number of them

[the_corbie]

Now, there's another aspect to this whole shebang I hadn't thought of. Presumably the Puppies will be pimping their stuff in the pack. What if other nominees opt out?

[maltaran]

There's a worrying thought - I tend to only vote for things I've read, so if the non-puppy stuff isn't in the packet...