A few thoughts about the Hugos this year.

[xiphias]

I think there are three reasonable ways to vote for the Hugos this year. The first is to vote as usual, ignoring whether a work was on the Sad Puppy slate or not. There are a handful of actually competent awards and people on the Sad Puppy Slate, who, judging by skill alone, could deserve a Hugo. I mean, I wouldn't expect every voter to force themselves to read more than a sentence or two of works which they find they actually hate, but there are a couple works and people who aren't offensive, and may even be competent. For instance, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY is a perfectly reasonable choice for Best Dramatic Long Form, and might have won the Hugo without any campaigning for it. Were I a voter, and absent any other considerations, it would probably be my choice.

In a completely related question, how the HELL did Jennifer Brozek end up on the Sad Puppy slate? This is not a rhetorical question. She is a member of Broad Universe, which makes her an SJW and the enemy by the Sad Puppy definition. What the hell?

The second option is to ignore anything on the Sad Puppy slate and only consider the remainder of the choices. As I suggested two paragraphs ago, this might cut out actually decent choices, but one could reasonably argue, and smart people I know have been reasonably argued, that voting for anything on a slate has a tendency to legitimize the very concept of a slate.

And the third option is to vote No Award on EVERYTHING, or at least everything that has at least one Sad Puppy on it, on the argument that the award is tainted. Because the slate voting pushed something ELSE out of consideration. It might be that the actual best work WOULD have been nominated absent the slate, but the slate broke the process irredeemably.

Like I said, I can see, have seen, and continue to see, good arguments for all of them.

And I hate ALL of the choices. They ALL either legitimize the Sad Puppies, or allow them to destroy the Hugos outright.

I don't have any solutions. Maybe require a short essay with each nomination explaining why you think it's worthy? With punishments for plagiarism, like revoking of membership, because, well, plagiarists suck?

That's a joke, of course. Unless you think it might work.

Comments

[ron_newman]

For those of us looking on puzzled from outside ...

where did the name "Sad Puppy" come from? And for that matter, the opposing party name "SJW" ? Are these both from some book, short story, comic, or movie?

[quietann.livejournal.com]

Not sure of the origin of "sad puppies" but it's basically a group of mostly-male, mostly-libertarian or conservative SF fans, headed by a guy who got kicked out of the SFWA over his very offensive (to me) attitudes toward women ... who got onto the Hugo ballots a "slate" of SF/F works that do not threaten their belief that they are superior to the rest of us out here. Or something like that.

SJW stands for "Social Justice Warriors" and are what the SP's call those opposed to their "slate." If you have noticed that this is what the GamerGate trolls call their "foes", well there is a reason.

I am actually motivated to vote in the Hugos for the first time in years. I've been eligible to vote many times because of my Worldcon memberships, but I do not actually consume a lot of SF/F media. Tthere are two works this year I want to support. Neither are "slate" candidates, which is icing on the cake as far as I am concerned. For the rest of the categories, if I am feeling ethical I will leave them blank, since I have no knowledge of the works. If I'm still as PO'd at the "slate" as I am now, it will be "No Award" straight down the ballot.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I have seen solid arguments that "No Award" right down the slate without reading is an ethical and honorable choice. I haven't decided whether I agree or not, but I definitely put it in the "This is an area in which I am willing to agree to disagree, because I believe that there are solid ethical and honorable arguments on all sides."

[sinanju.livejournal.com]

I've also seen the argument that voting No Award for everything is simply proving the Sad Puppies' alleged point--that the voting is all about politics and cliques instead of actual quality. "Because the Sad Puppies have gamed the system, I will vote No Award on everything and if you're a good writer who might have won a Hugo for your work save for this tempest in fandom's teapot, well, sucks to be you, I guess."

[kinfae.livejournal.com]

Yeah. If No Award sweeps everything, the Sad Puppies have actually completely proven their point - that it's not about which works are best anymore.

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

The Puppy folks are going to declare victory no matter what, so I basically think people shouldn't consider the possible Puppy response in making their own (ethical and responsible) decisions to it all.

As long as they are in fact both ethical and responsible.

(On a side note, I was under the impression you were a Puppy supporter yourself? I don't ask antagonistically, I'm just confused.)

[redbird]

The sad puppies are self-named; apparently they are oh so unhappy that others of the people who have been nominating and voting for awards have chosen things they wouldn't have. Or something. "SJW" is "social justice warrior"; the sad puppies are among those who unironically use that as an insult, and not because they think we should be social justice paladins or social justice architects instead. (If you run across references to the related "rabid puppies" slate, that is also self-named.)

[ron_newman]

"Social Justice Warriors" sounds like it should be the name of a DC Comics superhero ensemble. Where did this originate?

[yendi]

Particularly in the case of Dramatic long/short form, I find the notion that people could have pulled out of the slate to be silly, since there's no reason to believe this registered on the radar of Marvel Studios or the producers of The Flash.

As to Brozek, I get the impression that there was a deliberate attempt to keep the SP slate a little more diverse than expected (so that the MonsterBaiter could make his claims about there being "liberals" in the mix, and that this isn't about "politics," but "quality.")

Of course, since I don't go to WorldCons, it's also entirely hypothetical to me, anyway.

... and here's a user icon I hoped not to have to use again

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

My tentative plan so far goes something like this:

1) Read as much of each nomination as I can bear
2) Research which Puppy nominees have publicly distanced themselves from the views behind the slate (thus trying to distinguish between those who were on the slate against their will, and those who wanted to be/don't care enough to protest/aren't engaged enough in fandom to notice) and which have actively and publicly participated in hate speech
3) Vote for non-Puppies, and Puppies who have distanced themselves, in order of merit as I perceive it
4) Put No Award ahead of all other Puppies
5) Rank non-hate-speaking Puppies in order of merit as I perceive it, in the hope that if we must have a Puppy as a category winner, we at least get one that is passively rather than actively vile
6) Leave hate-speaking Puppies off my ballot entirely

Hm, I may write that up as a post on my own LJ at some point.

Re: ... and here's a user icon I hoped not to have to use again

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Distinguishing between active and passive Puppies is a fourth reasonable choice that I hadn't considered.

Re: ... and here's a user icon I hoped not to have to use again

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

It occurred to me because there is at least one Puppy nominee that I might have considered nominating myself had I bought my membership earlier (GoT; I watch it avidly, so it would have been an obvious choice, although I haven't really thought about which individual episode(s) I would have picked). I will be interested to see whether the showrunners are sufficiently engaged with fandom to notice and comment on what's happened.

Re: ... and here's a user icon I hoped not to have to use again

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

GRRM probably is; everybody else might be too busy running around four different countries filming everything to be able to deal with anything else.

Re: ... and here's a user icon I hoped not to have to use again

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

Maybe, but the BBC monitors at least some of their shows' fan communities (it was very obvious in Top Gear fandom for a while), so I wouldn't be surprised if HBO does the same.

Re: ... and here's a user icon I hoped not to have to use again

[querldox.livejournal.com]

GRRM has started to address this year's Hugos on his LiveJournal. Currently just an intro; I expect the serious invective will start by the weekend.

[redbird]

Possible approach the fourth or fifth (also not my idea): treat each category separately. On that, you might vote "No Award" for novella (I cannot believe that even John C. Wright thinks he wrote three of the five best sf novellas of 2014); possibly vote for the two non-puppy choices for best novel and then "No Award"; and look at four of the five choices for Graphic Novel, and maybe eliminating the fifth on the grounds of not wanting to vote for anything on a slate.

ETA: I see this is similar but not identical to your option 2.

[aprivatefox.livejournal.com]

Eliminating the fifth choice for Graphic Story is easy for other reasons. I was curious and looked it up: http://smile.amazon.com/Reduce-Reuse-Reanimate-Carter-Micheal/dp/149929025X/

First, it's a little telling when a purportedly best-of-the-year work has not garnered a single review on Amazon. I'm not saying that they're the arbiter of culture or anything, but you'd think at least one reader would care enough to say how awesome it is on one of the most popular bookseller's sites.

Then I did the "Look inside the book" thing on Amazon and read a couple of pages. It's just laughably mismatched in terms of art and pacing and writing when compared with everything else on the ballot. Slate notwithstanding, it's really hard for me to rank that above "No Award."

[stitchwhich.livejournal.com]

I'd have to say I had no opinion on the slate at all - except for three movies, I hadn't heard of (nor read) any of the works nominated.

[undauntra.livejournal.com]

The Hugos are not awarded for the best or most popular works in general; they are awarded for the works best liked among people who pay for Worldcon memberships. In a political voting process, the idea that one must pay for votes would be considered corruption.

That said, it seems more realistic to consider the Hugos not as an award for artistic merit, but as a fund-raising opportunity for Worldcon. By that measure, the Sad Puppies have been *amazing* at drumming up interest! It would be an even more effective fund-raiser if there were multiple competing movements to buy Worldcon memberships in order to stuff the ballot box.

[querldox.livejournal.com]

Not really. Estimates for how much money it would've cost the Puppy supporters to buy supporing memberships to pull this off range from $8000 minimum to $10,000 (with one outlier thinking $16,000). At any rate, that's around 1% of a Worldcon budget.

[gaaneden.livejournal.com]

My friend, Mary mactavish, pointed me at this. My best guess is two-fold:

1. The Shattered Shields anthology. I co-edited it with Bryan Thomas Schmidt. I am a liberal while Bryan is conservative. It's one of the contrasts that makes us a good editing team. The anthology has received rave reviews.

2. Brad and I have a good working relationship. Our politics never comes into it. We rejected his story for Shattered Shields and he was a consummate professional about it.

Here is my own post about my Hugo nomination. http://www.jenniferbrozek.com/blog/post/My-Hugo-Nomination-for-Best-Short-Form-Editor.aspx

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

It's got to have to do with Shattered Shields, because it's a Baen publication. I just don't see the Sad Puppies going for Chicks Dig Gaming...

There's also the argument that you are there in order to "provide cover" for the Sad Puppies, so that they can claim that "no, really, we're not biased, we nominated an entire liberal female!" Actually, of course, there are several women on the slate, but you're the only one that I'd consider to be on the lefterly side of things.

Be prepared to finish below No Award, for no fault of your own. You're in the deeply unenviable position of being nominated for reasons other than the quality of your work, by people who are generally unpleasant.

I really, really hope that this raises your profile, though, so that next year, people know enough about you to nominate you on your own merits, rather than because a slate put you on it as cover. You don't deserve to be tarred with their brush, but I can't see any way that it won't happen this year.

You're one of the handful of people/works on the Sad Puppies slate who actually deserve to be on the Hugo ballot, but the process has been so corrupted this year that you're either going to finish below No Award due to no fault of your own, or you're going to do well, but people won't respect it the way they should.

You have my sympathies for the tough position you're in. You've got the further problem that, if you chose to distance yourself from the Sad Puppies slate, as some folks have, you'd be harming your own professional working relationships, too.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

I think it's also safe to assume that where the puppies had no specific horse they wanted to run, they chose someone they liked who has genuine talent.

[kinfae.livejournal.com]

It does look like it's for Shattered Shields - I think one of the slates actually did list that alongside your name.

[kiya]

I would consider the Rabid Puppy slate much more important to pay attention to in context - not only is it V*x D*y's, not only is it packed with a different flavor of vile, it was more effective.

The Sads at least polled the readership and collected nominations, apparently. The Rabids are explicitly ideological, and the ideology is, y'know, horrifying.