This year's Hugo awards nominees were announced earlier today. As is the case basically every single year, the annual Hugo kerfluffle was quick to ensue. Now, if you are like 99% of speculative fiction readers, you likely don't give a shit about this or any other award, and you probably don't keep track of the back-and-forth between the two most vocal factions that came to dominate the voting process in 2015.
Which is why so many people have been surprised -- and a little shocked -- by the amount of hate and mudslinging which have swamped our Facebook and Twitter feeds today. Personally, I find the whole mess hilarious. I never would have thought that the Sad Puppies movement organized by Brad R. Torgersen and Larry Correia would manage to place so many of their "contenders" on the ballot by going against the SJW clique.
If this tempest in a teacup has piqued your curiosity and you have a few minutes to kill, io9.com have just posted a good summary of the events which led to this year's ballot, with relevant links and stuff.
I've been expecting some sort of backlash for a number of years, ever since the start of the Scalzi/Robinette Kowal era of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. But I never in my life expected things to go this far. This undermines the credibility of the Hugo Awards, but that's nothing new.
Expect way more shit to hit the proverbial fan until the votes are tallied, with worst to come when the winners are announced next summer. . . :/
Follow this link to read the full story.
8 commentaires:
The Hugos are like most "fan" nominated awards, although in this case, they are "fan" nominated via a monetary requirement. Thusly, they're essentially a popularity contest for people who have at least $50 to spend. Meaning that they have just a little less credibility than the People's Choice awards, because they have a built-in barrier to participation.
In the end, if I read a Hugo winner, it was more than likely already on my reading list. Same with the Nebulas, although the Nebulas can get me interested if I wasn't already, some times.
I don't think you're right when you claim that "99% of speculative fiction readers [...] don't give a shit about this or any other award"...
Dumb controversy. If people want to spend $50 to vote then they should be able to vote for whomever they would like. This is obviously not the case.
People should keep quiet and read the nominee stories. Maybe they have a point, and the stories are really good.
I don't see anything wrong with what Larry Correia has done. If anything it has brought more attention to these awards, and more attention to the stories attached to them, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Dumb response to a dumb controversy. Block voting has brought less attention to deserving authors and stories (seriously, 3 of the top 5 nominated short stories by the same author?), not more attention. Do you honestly believe that without slate voting, out of the hundreds of eligible stories, a majority of nominators would have selected three from the same author?
Not to say John C. Wright isn't a good author, only that slate voting necessarily pushes out other preferences.
You also say it "is obviously not the case" that people are able to vote for whomever they like--but that is exactly the case. The problem isn't voting, it's turning fan-based appreciation into a political battleground. And that's the kind of behavior Pat is referring to when he says 99% of fans don't give a shit. Most of us just want to read good writing, not be forced to participate in yet another intrusion of the culture wars into our personal lives.
First gamergate and now this? Holy shit, these straight white boys sure are terrified of LGBT folks, women and people of colour invading their little club huh? Pathetic. The io9 article writer is absolutely on point.
Actually, Morrigan if you read beyond io9's biased blog you would know that Sad Puppy had nothing to do with "...straight white boys sure are terrified of LGBT folks, women and people of colour..."
Khale, can you provide a source for a non biased account of what the Sad Puppy group is all about? (Not meant to be snarky. Genuinely asking.)
The background for Sad Puppies is set out on Larry Correia's blog (he's the one who started it). Whether you agree with Mr. Correia's politics or his beliefs over the Hugo's, I just don't think he started Sad Puppies because he is a racist misogynist. Here is the link to his description:
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/06/a-letter-to-the-smofs-moderates-and-fence-sitters-from-the-author-who-started-sad-puppies/
It's just too easy for people to cry racism etc. when they don't agree with what some people say or do.
Post a Comment