The Hugo Awards and the Sad Puppies

[Feo Takahari]

This is going to be a very contentious topic, but it seems ridiculous to have a site about fantasy writing and not even discuss the massive argument going on among fantasy writers right now. Please, please, please don't flame and get this thread locked.

So basically, Brad Torgersen thinks the Hugo Awards are too "literary." Quote:

While the big consumer world is at the theater gobbling up the latest Avengers movie, “fandom” is giving “science fiction’s most prestigious award” to stories and books that bore the crap out of the people at the theater: books and stories long on “literary” elements (for all definitions of “literary” that entail: what college hairshirts are fawning over this decade) while being entirely too short on the very elements that made Science Fiction and Fantasy exciting and fun in the first place!

I’ll say it again: the Hugos (and the Nebulas too) have lost cachet, because at the same time SF/F has exploded popularly – with larger-than-life, exciting, entertaining franchises and products – the voting body of “fandom” have tended to go in the opposite direction: niche, academic, overtly to the Left in ideology and flavor, and ultimately lacking what might best be called visceral, gut-level, swashbuckling fun. The kind of child-like enjoyment that comes easily and naturally when you don’t have to crawl so far into your brain (or your navel) that you lose sight of the forest for the trees.

(Note the mention of Left with capital letters. This year, Torgersen is framing his complaints as mostly being about the quality of the fiction, but he has a long history of complaining that the Hugos nominate too much stuff by people with left politics and not enough stuff by people with right politics. And at least one person involved in all this, Jasyn Jones, pushed this as a chance to "humble SJWs.")

So for the third year in a row, he ran a campaign called the Sad Puppies to ballot-stuff the nominations, and this time he had way more success than the last two. Vox Day, who's even more contentious for his outspoken hatred of women and "colored" people, liked this so much he made a competing campaign called the Rabid Puppies that was even more successful. In six categories, every nominated person is someone supported by one of the two campaigns. (This is a good breakdown of who got nominated how.)

To give some context for the kinds of people who wound up on these lists, the new record for most nominations in one year was set by this guy. (Outing myself: I last posted about him here.)

John Scalzi notes that this is allowed according to the rules, but advocates voting No Award if nobody deserves it.

Deirdre Moon created a voting guide for avoiding everything Torgersen and Day support. (Which probably sucks for writers like Jim Butcher who were nominated by the Puppies but haven't supported them.)

Matthew Surridge turned down a nomination because the Puppies nominated him.

Dave Creek is also rejecting the Puppies' support.

And Abi Sutherland finds a deeper issue.

 

[acapes]

Sad Puppies seems to = poison in terms of credibility.

 

[Hainted]

I have several friends on both sides of Sad Puppies. I'm sitting out of it and telling anyone who asks I don't care about awards I just want readers.

 

[acapes]

I have several friends on both sides of Sad Puppies. I'm sitting out of it and telling anyone who asks I don't care about awards I just want readers.

Interesting - is it dead serious for them? Or have you stepped WAY back so you're not sure?

For me, I'd be the same. I don't care about awards, I'm looking for readers. They're a wee bit more valuable - and I'm looking for long-term readers really.

 

[Philip Overby]

I think the best thing SF/F is siphon the politics out of it as much as humanly possible. I know it's hard to do so, but most people just want to read fun books and enjoy the genre they love. While I think this is a valuable topic to discuss, I don't really know what I can say about it other than it sucks that politics have yet again ruined something I was interested in. Do we have to know every single author's stance on every single topic?

That said, I hope this gets cleaned up somehow and doesn't become a pissing match to "win" the genre. Spend more time writing books, please.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I'm getting a bit of a gamergate vibe from this. It feels like this is a group of people trying to protect what they consider to be "their" subculture.

That said, I hadn't heard anything about it before I read the OP and I didn't click the links.

 

[Hainted]

Interesting - is it dead serious for them? Or have you stepped WAY back so you're not sure?

For me, I'd be the same. I don't care about awards, I'm looking for readers. They're a wee bit more valuable - and I'm looking for long-term readers really.

It's Dead Serious. I'm to the point I don't even read posts. I just congratulated those who were nominated(from both camps) and slid back into my foxhole to wait out the shelling.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I'm getting a bit of a gamergate vibe from this. It feels like this is a group of people trying to protect what they consider to be "their" subculture.

That said, I hadn't heard anything about it before I read the OP and I didn't click the links.

Jasyn Jones actually tried to recruit Gamergaters to join the nomination process and vote the Sad Puppies bloc.

I think the best thing SF/F is siphon the politics out of it as much as humanly possible. I know it's hard to do so, but most people just want to read fun books and enjoy the genre they love. While I think this is a valuable topic to discuss, I don't really know what I can say about it other than it sucks that politics have yet again ruined something I was interested in. Do we have to know every single author's stance on every single topic?

I'd like to quibble with this a bit. Science fiction in particular has a long history of extrapolating current issues into new times and new worlds. I do think there's value in looking at the present through the lens of a possible future, and some insightful fiction can potentially result (e.g. The Forever War.) I just don't like seeing the political climate surrounding the work, or the race or gender of the author, become more important than the work itself.

Edit: I just found another response that feels relevant to your point:

The whole purported purpose behind Sad Puppies was that the “insiders” controlled the Hugos, which would mean that there is already an organized cabal willing and able to put its own stamp on the awards. And now that syndicate is challenged. I foresee next year’s awards as a battle between two or more slates. Sad Puppies 4 v. Soft Kitties v. Blue Meanies?

Most f/sf fans, however, will stand by and ignore/watch with horrified awe the train wreck that the Hugos will have become. Very soon, the awards will cease to have any marketing or promotional or even personal value, because it the award will no longer even pretend to honor literary excellence, but merely which side can buy the most votes by assembling the most voters.

This year it was the Sad Puppies who bought the most votes. Next year it may be the Soft Kitties. The year after that—the year after that it won’t matter because fandom will be divided into armed camps that don’t speak, don’t read the same books, and refuse to attend the same conventions.

Which will make the Puppies and the Kitties very sad.

 

[stephenspower]

While I am all for casting as wide a net as possible for possible nominees, how does this ballot then end up with a Pence-level homophobe like John Wright nominated for everything? No one's that good. Whatever the stated aims of Sad Puppies are, it comes down, for me, to a deliberate provocation. Scientologists might as well have come in and nominated L. Ron Hubbard for everything.

The Surridge article linked to above is a great, point by point takedown of the SP arguments.

 

[Philip Overby]

I'd like to quibble with this a bit. Science fiction in particular has a long history of extrapolating current issues into new times and new worlds. I do think there's value in looking at the present through the lens of a possible future, and some insightful fiction can potentially result (e.g. The Forever War.) I just don't like seeing the political climate surrounding the work, or the race or gender of the author, become more important than the work itself.

In fiction, yes, I love it. It's fine to write about and discuss at length. Just like I enjoy fiction with a ton of violence. Not sure why, but that's just something I like. Like politics though, I dislike violence in real life and want nothing to do with it. So as it goes with politics in fiction, good. In real life, bad.

And yeah, I agree that this will be one of those trainwrecks that most will just stand-by and watch.

 

[Steerpike]

It's not good for the awards if political activism from either side is stuffing the ballot and the award is no longer about the merits of the works in question. I made my nominations solely on the merits of the works, and I intend to vote accordingly.

 

[Mythopoet]

I used to read John C. Wright's blog regularly. He's always been pretty up front about his political and religious opinions but he used to be much more rational and respectful about it. I stopped reading his blog about a year ago when he publicly quit the SFWA for being too political and promptly started joining in on this stupid Sad Puppies bandwagon. He once wrote a lengthy article about how you should show love to people who live according to a worldview which is diametrically opposed to yours because that is all you can do but not long afterward his articles started incorporating shocking amounts of vitriol toward anyone with different political and religious views. I actually tend to agree with a lot of his basic beliefs (he is Catholic as am I) but he tends to use very extreme rhetoric that I cannot support. He really lost me on those "saving SFF from strong female characters" posts. It's not that I disagree with him... I really hate what has become the stereotypical "strong only technically female character"... but, man, the way he expressed everything in those articles was just off. My observation of him over the course of many, many blog posts has led me to believe that he has an absolutely giant ego (he acknowledges this, but seems to view it more as a character trait than something he should try to curb), he takes himself way too seriously, and tend to approach everything in the most extreme way possible.

What I have seen of the other Sad Puppies seems to indicate they all have basically the same problem. They just don't even seem to be conscious of the fact that every thing they say is opposed to everything they do. It's almost funny. I don't even disagree with most of what they claim they stand for. If the Hugos really are representing the tastes of only a small elite, that's a problem. But first of all I don't think there's evidence that they are correct in their assumptions and second, seriously? This is how you think you're solving the problem? Just... no.

 

[cupiscent]

My two starting viewpoints: 1) I think one of the great things about speculative fiction is the wide variety of material it encompasses, and the fact that there is something for everyone. 2) I have no time for anyone who dehumanises another person and suggests that they should not - for reasons of gender, race, sexuality or other personal attribute - speak or have stories told about them.

I would have more time for the various Puppy campaigns if they were providing lists of eligible work that they suggest people consider, as opposed to precisely the number of works that are allowed in a category. The fact that they could find replacements for those authors who requested to be removed from the slate points to the fact that they have far more "acceptable" works than is on the list, which really does suggest that the point is not "improving awareness of certain aspects of spec fic", but rather "sticking it to the social justice warriors".

Which is not what this should be about.

I've never seen any hint of a leftist/progressive/counter campaign slate of nominations. And to be honest, if said campaign exists and can't even get Robert Jackson Bennett's City of Stairs or Cixin Liu's Three Body Problem (novels everyone has been talking about this year) on the ballot, I can't see how it can possibly be the gargantuan genre-destroying threat that the Puppies seem to live in terror of.

I can vote for the Hugos. I will be investigating the nominations thoroughly, but at this point, I foresee a strong performance by No-Award on my ballot. Because this is not an appropriate list of nominations.

 

[ThinkerX]

Hmmm...

I have read a fair bit of SF that was essentially disguised libertarian propaganda. The libertarian bias kept getting in the way of the story, and was used to justify doing some pretty horrible things to those of a more liberal bent (kinetic strikes against earth at one point with casualties in the ten digit range). More, the non-libertarians were uniformly portrayed as corrupt, wimpy incompetents...unless they 'saw the light.'

On the other hand, I read a short story recently in F&SF about a 'at sea' libertarian colony (group of ships bound together) that had collapsed into anarchy because the individual members of this society could not cooperate against common problems (like disease and water contamination). Plus, some were running what amounted to mini slave states.

Now, using fantasy to explore alternate political systems is one thing. Several recent YA books have done this well enough to get made into movies. I see no problem with this, at least as long as the worldbuilding is credible and the story is good.

But pushing political philosophy at the expense of the story, and not honestly grappling with the issues inherit in that philosophy, is another matter. At best, this is like the pamphlet authors of four hundred years ago promoting one ideal society after another. Much of the time, though, its taking what might have been a fairly good story and making it worse.

 

[acapes]

It's Dead Serious. I'm to the point I don't even read posts. I just congratulated those who were nominated(from both camps) and slid back into my foxhole to wait out the shelling.

Sounds like the right thing to do. Shame the Hugos are now tainted.

 

[buyjupiter]

Well that didn't take long. Ah, the perils of sharing an opinion when you can't do anything about it (i.e. can't vote but still have opinions).

And then I got to be told that I was complaining after I didn't vote, as if having an opinion is only something that people who voted/are able to vote can do.

I've been quoted out of context, mansplained to, and now I'm gonna have to moderate my comments thread on the blog oh so carefully...I've made it on the internet!!!!

Oh, wait. That's not a good thing, is it?

Now, how do I delete the ******* pingback to my blog?

 

[Steerpike]

Probably one of the more balanced takes on the subject:

Justin Landon on "The Hugo Awards: An Entity at War With Itself" - Pornokitsch

 

[Ophiucha]

I'm on the other side of the political spectrum from Justin London, but I tend to agree with him. The Hugo's have always been gamed (though never to this extent), people have always campaigned for certain authors or certain works, and they've been political since their inception.

My main problem with the Puppies is that it's just... cronyism. Vox Day is the editor and, I believe, owner of Castalia House. Which is where John C. Wright, Steve Rzasa, Ken Burnside, and Tom Kratman are all published by Castalia. Between them and Vox Day, that's 11 of the nominations. A few nominations come from Baen Books, which is where a lot of Vox Day's friends are from -- Larry Correia (who was the original 'leader' of the Sad Puppies) and Tom Kratman (again) among them. Lou Antonelli is, at least, friends with some authors that Vox Day as co-authored novels with. Michael Z. Williamson, who is a Baen-published author, has definitely commiserated with Day online over conflicts with the SFWA -- which is pretty much the reason for the Puppies existing. He's not the only one.

There are some fantastic wordsmiths and storytellers who are conservative, even explicitly homophobic, racist, and/or sexist. Need I go further than Orson Scott Card? Those aren't the authors who were slated for nomination -- this is just 'hey, I'm popular, #gamergate is a big thing this year, I bet I can get all of my friends Hugo noms and make a statement too!'. And he did.

 

[Feo Takahari]

As a brief update, Vox Day has graduated to threats:

"If No Award takes a fiction category, you will likely never see another award given in that category again. The sword cuts both ways, Lois. We are prepared for all eventualities."

we’d better all be ready to go to the business meeting | Crime and the Blog of Evil

 

[stephenspower]

Actually, Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show was on the slate, but wasn't nominated. I understand he doesn't take a very active role in it editorially, though.