![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A few thoughts about the Hugos this year.
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.
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.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
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.)