Some quick thoughts on the Hugo nomination

[kjn]

1. Yes, we saw organised (for very small values of organised) campaigns that managed to put several works that caused controvery (either artistic or political) on the Hugo ballot this year.

2. Organised does not mean vote rigging or cheating. However, any organised group is infinitely more likely to accomplish something than an un-organised group.

3. The Sad Puppy Slate candidates are, based on what little I've read of them (basically the sample chapters of Warbound and A Few Good Men) and about them by the backers, all based on a political aesthetic.

4. From a literary standpoint, the quality of those I've sampled is very low: poor characterisation, railroaded plots, and lots of infodumps doubling as political pamphlets.

5. If those yearning for "the good old days" only can muster this as their flagship works, then they're clearly losing.

6. That said, I think we who wants a diverse fandom and sf must not push back too strongly - that way lies exclusionism, the very thing we want to eliminate. People like Vox Day we will never reach, but we should take care not to create allies for him.

7. Read, or read not, Larry Correia's, Vox Day's, et alis nominated works. But I think one should not put "No award" over any work before one has tried to read it oneself (at least enough to form an informed opinion of one's own on the work). Doing that proves their point.

8. Organise! Or in this case, if you want good Hugo nominated works, then talk about the works you'd like to see nominated, and ask others to nominate what they appreciate. Sf fandom started out with appreciating science fiction as literature, and we should show that.

Comments

[seawasp]

I can't quite bring myself to that level of campaigning. Larry and his cohort are willing to be very loud and active.

[kjn]

No, I'm not really talking campaigning here, though it will likely have to include other people doing it, that like doing it, or care enough about it.

But I think we should discuss literary sf to a higher degree. I think James Nicoll does a good job of it at times, simply saying that work X is worthy of nomination and why. Charles Stross did something similar, but after the nominations were announced.

Yes, there is a risk of opening something one can't control afterwards, but in a way the "Sad Puppy Slate" already think we are doing so, and are starting to organise and campaign in response. Yes, there is a risk that we can turn the Hugo nominations into campaigns, but I can easily believe that has been the case earlier, and hopefully we can keep the campaigning where it should be: as a discussion about literature that we enjoy, on its merits as literature and entertainment first and ideology last.

[seawasp]

The real problem will be if it becomes the norm for those willing to be loud to organize and have campaigns to get themselves nominated; if that's the norm, then those of us who aren't able to do that are disproportionately unlikely to get the nod. Not that I see myself as a Hugo-worthy author, but hey, you never know.

[kjn]

Yeah, but right now that bridge has been crossed already by Correia.

I hope we can avoid outright campaigning, and strive for better Hugo slates through discussing and having fun, not by mobilising fan bases.

[michiexile]

But I think one should not put "No award" over any work before one has tried to read it oneself (at least enough to form an informed opinion of one's own on the work). Doing that proves their point.


Scalzi drew a fair amount of criticism for this stance from people who - from a non-privileged standpoint - pointed out that «read their work» may be an unreasonable request to put on others.

[kjn]

Yeah, but I draw that line by placing something below "no award" when you haven't read the something, at least for myself. If you've read others of Vox Day's screeds or stories, then I can understand placing "no award" over it.

But if all you know about Vox Day is what others have said about him, then I cannot in good conscience recommend that "no award" should be placed above his story. Vote for those stories that you've read, omit the rest, including "no award".

Ie, one of the standards I think we should try to uphold (and strengthen) is that every voter should form their own opinion from the primary material (the nominated text first, direct knowledge of the nominated author second), if at all possible.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

I'm starting to suspect that Larry's never read Opera Vita Aeterna.

I doubt he'd let the opening to that slide. It's all PRETENTIOUS and WORDY where Larry's all about I SELL MILLIONS OF BOOKS AND SLEEP ON A PILE OF MONEY.

[kjn]

I have no idea what Correia was thinking of, or even if he was thinking, so prefer not to speculate.