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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.