Sometimes, life suddenly makes sense.
Earlier this week, I mentioned a blog post by Sad Puppies 3 instigator Brad Torgersen, in which he waxes eloquently about tribalism as the socio-psychological mechanism behind a lot of what we call other -isms (racism, sexism etc). I perceived a fallacy in his use of this well-worded and convincing theory to support Sad Puppies, and recklessly entered the Comments fray.
In my stumbling attempts to argue from reason and reasonability, I was met halfway by fellow commenter Keranih, who is more of a Puppies supporter, while it can plausibly—though not entirely accurately—be said of me that I’m originally in the WorldCon tribe.
While strong language flew around us, we quickly established common ground, and at Keranih’s prompting left debating the past events behind pretty rapidly to focus on what might be done to fix the future—of WorldCon, the Hugos, and whatever warring Tribes are involved in the fray.
Now admittedly I’m not in a position of any power, and Keranih assures me she isn’t either, so all this may just be Utopian theorizing. But leaving aside the practical implementation, it was immensely gratifying to stand in the middle of a battlefield, watch someone approach in enemy colors, and quickly take off our remaining armor to sit down and parlay.
Here, then, as a co-production between two moderates from opposing camps, is our jointly conceived view on…
What to do next?
Keranih: I think that we need to get the hell past the assignment of blame and start working on fixes. Today would be good. Yesterday would have been better. I’ll settle for this afternoon, for getting started.
(1) Voting on merit on this ballot
Floris: For this year, I think it’s essential that every fan owning the right to vote does so in agreement with his or her own conscience. But to me, the most reasonable and fair way to go about that is to accept the final ballot as valid and legitimate–as it in fact is in the letter of the rules–and judge the nominated works on merit only.
Keranih: I entirely agree. In particular, I hold that outside outright rule breaking that attempts to invalidate nominees based on fannish disgruntlement is setting a very bad prescient such that any vote with which a vocal group disagrees is subject to being over ruled. Not good.
(2) Using the current exposure for good
Floris: Also, I think it’s a very good idea if the exposure the Hugos are currently getting is turned into something positive, in the sense that it’s getting more fans involved or at least interested in the Hugos and the voting. It would be optimal if all involved Tribes would switch their rhetorical tactics into pointing out that yes, this is the final ballot, and yes, anyone who wants to spend $40 gets to vote, so yes, let’s quit this pointless bickering and start voting. Individually.
Keranih: More voting = good. Again, agree entirely.
(3) Taking it down a notch and reaching across the divide
Floris: To get to that point, I think it’s essential that all Tribes acknowledge their own responsibility for the whole fracas, tone down their rhetoric, and enter a dialogue about the things that they do see as positive in the other. Find common ground, explore the similarities in their opinions and objectives, and work from there. A bit like you and I are doing, assuming for the sake of argument that you’re more of a Puppies fan, and simplifying matters by sticking myself in the WorldCon tribe (both of which are probably major simplifications, if not errors). There are clearly Tribes in specfic fandom that reflect the socio-political Tribes in the world at large, but I expect that bottom-line, fans have more in common than these bickering sub-Tribes think, and that the tribe of specfic fans has more to unite than to divide them.
Keranih: Yes, yes, yes, this – Fans are My People. I reserve the right to be very cranky at other Fans, but still. Team Fandom!
Floris: LOL!
(4.1) Taking the Hugos into the broader fandom
Floris: And looking further into the future, I think two changes are needed: one, that knowledge about the Hugo voting system is disseminated much more widely, and encouraging all fans to vote becomes the default in all Tribes.
Keranih: Agreed – but I note this is going to be a major hurdle for some people. There are some people who feel the Hugos represent that section of fandom that “goes to cons” and even more specifically “goes to book cons/Worldcon.” I don’t agree this holds with the PR that WC/WSFS puts out re: the Hugos…but that doesn’t mean people who have been involved in and voting for the Hugos for years don’t feel this way. Their concerns need to be addressed.
(4.2) Bringing down the price of a vote
Floris: And two, that the price of a Supporting Membership is brought down to a level that is affordable for all but the most derelict fans. Forty bucks is a real amount of money, that some people have to live on for a week; $5 can be taken out of even the most tight budget once a year.
Keranih: I would like to point out that Sad Puppy Mad Mike Williamson was probably the first to promote this idea. 🙂 (No, not all the good ideas are ours, but we do have some.) OTOH, I have seen some pushback that there is a non-negliable cost associated with setting up the distance website, prepping the nomination packet, etc. I agree with the sentiment, but hold that the economics of it would have to drive whether or not we do this.*
(4.3) Partnerships with other Cons
Floris: Additionally, I expect the Hugos would benefit from extending voting rights to other specfic Cons. (Suggestion stolen from the Hugo thread at my online writers group Codex.)
Keranih: I myself see no downsides to this (aside from 4.1 above) and would appreciate it, because to the extent I have one, my “hometown” con is Dragon*con, and I’m not likely to give up on that in order to haul all the way to whereever Worldcon is. But others would likely have better, more informed opinions.
(3, revisited) Play the long game
Floris: To get to this point, I think it’s essential that all Tribes acknowledge their own responsibility for the whole fracas, tone down their rhetoric, and enter a dialogue about the things that they do see as positive in the other.
Keranih: Yes. And I say again – we didn’t get to this level of vitriol overnight. We’re not going to fix it tonight. But we do need to start, and we need to acknowledge up front that it is going to be a long process with compromise, hurt feelings, and stop, I am too pissed off to talk to you any more right now from both (all? yes, ALL) sides. We need to be willing to invest the time and be willing to accept temporary deadlocks in order to get to the best solution.
Note: The only reason this seems purely a matter of me proposing and Keranih agreeing is that she had the wherewithall to ask the question “what next” in the first place, bringing me into position to start off.
* Post-discussion note: I’m sure that there is a non-negligible cost involved, but I expect the decrease in price will be offset by the increase in quantity, and given that a lot of the process is automated, a lot of the cost is independent of the actual tally.
One further note: MZW’s blog entry on lowering costs can be found here:
Thanks! Couldn’t find the post, but now that you’ve supplied it, I’ve put a link in our discussion.
my proposal was here. As most of the supporting documents can be .pdfs rather than paper, the price could be quite reasonable. It could also be pro-rated for some regions–East Asia other than Japan and Korea, Africa, South America other than Brazil, forex.
Or there could be a voting only membership.
Thanks, Michael! We even agree on the price… 🙂 I’ve put in a deeplink to your post.
one possible problem with extending voting rights to other cons is that there isn’t a good way to eliminate duplicates. You don’t have to show any ID to register (especially for supporting membership) so someone may be registered with one name/e-mail at one con and a different one at another. Plus, there are multiple people with the same name, and many families share one e-mail, so just weeding out duplicates that way eliminates legitimate voters.
I would really like to see things calm down, but i don’t see the two sides as equally abrasive. The fact that several people (up to 4 so far by my count, not counting Larry) have withdrawn because of the abuse they received from one side is significant. the puppies side includes some people who are abrasive, but as bad as they are, when was the last time they harassed someone to the point of withdrawing or refusing a nomination? When did they get someone barred from a con based on what they may do? (ejecting someone for something they did do is a different category)
David, making peace requires abandoning the keeping of tallies on who did what terrible thing. Either tribe gets mostly reports of the awful things the other tribe did, so members of both the Puppies and the WorldCon tribes will probably have skewed statistics on abrasiveness, death threats, and other horrible behavior. That in itself is an obstacle to leaving the conflict behind.
I see your point about the problem with multiple cons. Even e-mail addresses wouldn’t serve, like you say, also because people can easily use more; in fact, I have a habit of inventing a new address for every new purpose 🙂 And asking for ID is indeed overkill…
I like mike’s suggestion for a voting-only membership
$200 (or whatever it is these days) to attend, $40 to nominate, $5 to vote
I would really like 5$ to vote. 40$ (50$ for me because I’m not in the US) is real money for me. I can afford it, but I find it difficult to justify just to vote in an award. I would still like to take part in it. I think the way to make the Hugos remain relevant is to have them belong to fandom, and not only to the small subset of fandom that is directly involved with WorldCon. That will not happen with the current price tag.
Anyway, I want to thank you for the constructive way you are talking about this. If everybody had this tolerant attitude this conflict would never have happened. That does not mean that we all have to think alike in everything, just that it’s OK for people to see things differently than ourselves. Diversity of all kinds is good, and ideological diversity is a good thing too.The mere existence of a person who does not share our opinions is not an insult.That is way more important than the Hugos. I sympathize with the Sad Puppies not because it’s that important to me who wins the Hugos, but because I feel that we were reaching a point were those who do not agree with a certain political discourse had to shut up or be shunned.
Thanks for your $0.02, AG!
Floris,
I read the comment by David and your said in order to get peace then we have to forget the transgressions by the two sides. I disagree. The poor civility on Ms Hayden’s posts and the coordinated effort to get mainstream publications to call Larry and Brad racists, sexist and homophobic was beyond the pale.That was an attempt to destroy them not only for credibility but also their ability to earn money.
The simple fact is the SP and RP slate won more nominations was perfectly allowable and those “trufans” should have accepted that with grace even with bad grace. They did not. The said they would Noah Ward the nominations.
I know you are wishing this whole thing would go away. However your offer is not sufficient. Because you do not command the opinions and deeds of others. Just as Larry and Brad do not control the actions of VD.
Those that behaved badly have to apologize . This can not be papered over. Since those that behaved badly on either side do not think they behaved badly , there will be no apologies. So really peace can not come from compromise. Only by surrender of either side . Remember it was not the SP or RP that said they would No award. Only if the trufans did that. Then turn about is fair play in 2016.
The rules of civility were broken when the trufans screamed how awful it was the SP slate won. They refused to accept that others won based on the rules. They refused to think that the voters may have chosen because they agree the works are worthy.
We all can be civil and polite and disagree. But I have seen so many assert as fact the VD is racist, homohobic and sexist. Yet seen no evidence. I have done some research.
I think that for a publishing house that just started a year ago he now has 7 Hugo nominations and just signed on Dr Pournelle. That is doing pretty good for a house I just heard about 5 days ago.
Lynn,
I’m sorry, but I said no such thing.
I said that “making peace requires abandoning the keeping of tallies on who did what terrible thing.” It’s childishly easy> to hold on to a grudge; it takes character to abandon one. Not forgetting, for that is neither possible nor useful, but letting go.
I also said, more briefly than I am about to: the perceived wrongs perpetrated by the enemy always seem more numerous, more severe, and more unforgiveable than those of one’s own tribe. More numerous, because one is by definition in the tribe keenest on reporting enemy misdeeds. More severe, because the enemy’s reasons, context, and justifications are less visible, and seem less valid. More unforgiveable, because forgiving one’s friend is orders of magnitude easier than forgiving one’s enemy.
Hence, I’m sure that all people who feel they have anything at stake in this conflict believe that the other side did worse. The truth of that tally is impossible to determine without an exhaustive and objective analysis by an independent observer. Attaching meaning to the perceived balance of wrongs is therefore useless.
As for apologies…
A statement like that works as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rejecting even the possibility of an apology ensures that none will be forthcoming. How apologies work is that whoever feels they have committed a wrong, apologizes. You cannot claim apologies; you can only present them. (And even if you could claim them, this Comments thread is hardly the place to point out to Ms Hayden that such an apology might be in order.) It’s up to individuals to soul-search, decide if they feel they have transgressed, and if so, apologize. Every apology produced that way can be interpreted as a step towards reconciliation and, ultimately, peace, if you choose that interpretation.
For make no mistake. All of this is choice. It was the choice of the people involved—all people involved—to create this conflict; it needs to be your choice, my choice, Keranih’s choice, Ms Hayden’s choice, Mr Torgersen’s choice, everyone’s choice to abandon conflict and move towards peace. Anyone who insists on conflict over peace, anyone who withholds forgivenes in favor of grudges, does so by choice, not because they’re morally in the right, but because the conflict and the grudges hold more value for them.
You can either move towards reconciliation, or admit that your self-righteous outrage is dear to you.
Personally I have nothing to reconcile and am just an interested observer. It may be that I have not that touching faith that the parties will reconcile until the awards are done. I expect that the interest will die down. However lots of people have bought memberships and the campaign for votes is probably on. That probably upsets you as it does a lot of people. Most of us would rather not mirror the polarization in political life to our entertainment life.
I do not have a position on that at this time.
I have thought maybe the voting should be done by editors. Now it is set up so any person reader, writer, editor, publisher can vote. That does not seem a bad method.
Never knew that as little as 43 people decide whether a piece of work is nominated to the award. That does seem to be too small of a set.
Personally i see the upset as a needed wake up call to all people that love Sf &F. More interest and more voters I think is good thing. I found it interesting that Worldcon size was not actively expanded in 15 years and that was the way people wanted that. Without new generations Worldcon will die.
To me this seems to be generational rite. Younger generation claiming their place and pushing out the older generation.
PS: I’ve very little knowledge about the players in this wargame, but I did have a look at some of Vox Day’s blog posts, and unless he’s so good at satire that no one understands him (which is a possibility I can’t reject out of hand), he seems a rather extreme misogynist at the least. Which, admittedly, says absolutely nothing about the quality of of his editing, or of the writers in his publishing house.
Personally I lean to the satire idea. He seems to like provoking people.
FWIW – My read is that VD is hostile, acerbic, and not inclined to charity in attempting to make his point. His various stances seem to me to be less wrong than simply put in the least appealing manner, and so quite toxic to those inclined to value warm feelings in communication over absolute factual accuracy. (That said, he puts quite a bit of emphasis on science that I think is rather less settled than he thinks, but unfortunately, that’s something that will ultimately rest on more data, and not either of our attachment to our relative povs.)
In misogyny, for example – if one takes the pov that there is no material difference between men and women, then, no, VD doesn’t agree with that. However, if there were no difference between men and women, then there would be no need for women’s voices in fiction, because anything a woman might say would have already been included in the voices of men.
However, there are a number of people who find the mere mention of his name so disruptive to their mood and rationality that peace attempts must, imo, start by putting that topic off limits. We will make worse compromises as this goes on.
I think I see what you’re saying: in uncompromising honesty and truthfulness in accordance with science, but at the expense of any semblance of pleasantry, Vox is the Gregory House of the SFF world…
It’s a bit worse than that – I don’t think he’s as awesome a writer/editor as House is a doc. 😉
House is (almost) always right in the end, because he’s got the writers on his side. But real life isn’t like that.
The truth is, House sometimes gets the science badly wrong, or treats unproven speculation as if it were settled fact. The same is true of Vox.
@ Amp –
he’s got the writers on his side. But real life isn’t like that.
OMG, there are a MILLION things to be talked about in this topic. The Walking Dead fandom is in perpetual uproar (well, for a number of reasons) in part over this – the conflict between traditional Western modes of storytelling, where everything has purpose and meaning, and the realities of real life, where things just happen, and the bystanders have to learn to move on and muddle through somehow.
(This goes back so far in our storytelling tradition – back well past ol’ Bill Shakespeare and the opening lines of Much Ado About Nothing:
LEONATO: How many gentlemen have you lost in this action?
Messenger: But few of any sort, and none of name.
Every single one of those men of no name was someone’s child, and likely someone’s love, someone’s brother, someone’s best friend. Yet the story is framed so that we don’t care.)
And I think that this is also part of the great Hugo debate – is a story that ignores that tension and goes on tell a story in the tradition of Homer and Shakespeare and all the rest lesser than, oh, Catch 22 or Slaughterhouse-5? Maybe greater? Maybe just different?
@ Lynn –
…the coordinated effort to get mainstream publications to call Larry and Brad racists, sexist and homophobic was beyond the pale.That was an attempt to destroy them not only for credibility but also their ability to earn money.
I am still so furious over this that I can hardly think of it without the tension cramping my fingers. This was the actions of people who are betraying their calling as wordsmiths.
And yet…I agree with Floris. We have to find our way to common ground. Just as I will not entertain calls to denounce VD, I think we need to let go of holding on to that anger against the scalawags and cowardly shits who went running to the press to smear good men and ruin young journalists in the same motion.
(As you can see, I am not doing well with the whole “letting go” thing. It gives me perspective on the people with a burning hatred for VD, it does.)
Focus on things we can agree on. Once we have built trust and accord, we can tackle things which still divide us.
I understand but disagree. Common ground will come when the awards are made and either the nominees win or are placed below No Award. If so the battle goes to next year.
This plea for peace seems false. SP and RP slates got the nominees they wanted placed on the ballot. They won. The trufans started the war. of words . Now they want peace. All they have to do is accept the ballot and vote as they want
.I have read many apparently trufans that are so upset they advocate No Award VD said if that is done expect then same in return.
I’d say it could only be false if Keranih and I were, or presented ourselves as, spokespeople for either tribe. Given that we’re individuals speaking for ourselves only, I’d say you can safely trust the honesty of our plea.
Hear, hear!
And thank you. 🙂
Floris ,
I appreciate the courtesy of your replies. I am not used to that when commented on an article. I am not sure if that is the suggested etiquette for author blogs. However don;t feel you have to . If you ever get a lot of attention it will be to much to do.
One of the side benefits of this controversy is the unknown author blogs I have been linked to and get to check out their work. Good luck on seeing your work. Since this last week has been expensive buying ebooks to check out the nominees I can not afford to buy one of your. at this time.
Thanks for allowing me to comment.
Lynn
I know nothing of etiquette, but as long as I can keep it up, I will. Particularly in this case, where the topic requires reason and courtesy. And let’s face it: I’m Mo GRRM or Torgersen (yet), so can afford the time to respond to the amount of comments.
Let me recommend the e-book or Kindle version of “Meeting the Sculptor” if at some point you do want to read something of mine. And both “Mashup” and “A matter of Mass” are available for free online, at Daily SF and SF Comet, respectively.
And thank you for joining the conversation!
I don’t think I could agree to this plan (not that my agreement is needed, of course, but I’m offering this for the sake of discussion), because the thing I care most about going forward – changing the Hugo nomination system to massively reduce the power of slate voting (and without regard to who organizes the slate or slates) – doesn’t even appear to be part of your agenda for how we move forward.
I’m happy to be cordial to the Puppies I talk to (although it would be easier to do so if they’re cordial to me, of course). I like being cordial. If someone wants to talk about how awesome “Sex Criminals” (one of this year’s Hugo nominees) is, then I’d be happy to yak about that, and I couldn’t care less what their view on Hugo nominee voting is.
But it would be a strategic mistake for anti-slate-voting folks to stop working against slate voting. Because if we drop that subject, then the Hugos are doomed to a future of competing slates rather than more representative voting. I hope this concern doesn’t seem to you to be mere grudge-holding.
As for changing the Worldcon rules – can I ask you, have you (Floris or keranih) been involved in organizing or running or volunteering at Worldcon? While you have a right to your opinions in any case – full disclosure, I’ve never even attended a Worldcon – the moral legitimacy of any suggested changes (including those that I support) depends partly on a buy-in from those who have put “sweat equity” into Worldcon, and into administrating the Hugos. Fandom runs, and has always run, on sweat equity.
What you’re proposing is that a decades-long tradition be tossed away and replaced with something else. I don’t understand why that’s necessary. If you want an award that is voted on by dozens of large comic-cons, that’s cool, but why does that award need to be the Hugos? Couldn’t you let worldcon be worldcon and make a new award?
Thanks for your thoughts, Barry! It is not our intention to forget about slate-voting; in fact, the whole decrease-the-price, involve-more-fans strategy serves a dual purpose: to involve more fans and to dilute future slates. However, after we posted this, I’ve heard smarter people than myself suggest that changing the ratio of final ballot slots to nomination slots from 1:1 in either direction may work much better.
As for your other point: I myself have never been involved in WorldCon—in fact, I attended WorldCon (or any Con, for that matter) for the first time in my life last year, in London. That is not very relevant though. We’re just tossing up ideas, to add to the growing mix of ideas, thoughts, and suggestions that may ultimatly lead to changes. Those changes, of course, will be prepared by WSFS and decided at WorldCon (two consecutive WorldCons, I believe).
And of course, I’m not suggesting that decades of tradition be tossed. I am merely suggesting a very critical look at what’s there. Because of those decades, it would be a shame to start a new, more broadly supported award, if there’s still a possibility to broaden the scope and appeal of the Hugos. It would be optimal, IMHO, if the status of the Hugos as the highest honor in SFF can be retained (or restored, depending on your viewpoint). The time of the Hugos as both the ultimate accolade and an award voted on by a small minority of fans is probably irretrievably lost.
1) With all due respect, you are indeed suggesting that decades of tradition be tossed. You want to end what the Hugos have been, and replace them with something voted on by a radically different audience, an audience that is NOT based on votes from fans who are specifically focused on their love of prose.
If you don’t see how that’s a game-changing idea, then I don’t think you truly understand what you’re proposing, or giving sufficient weight to how those with the greatest investment in the Hugos, those who have put in the most work and been involved for the most years, will likely view your suggestion.
2) As for your last paragraph, why would it be a shame if the Hugos lost their prestige because another award is able to build an audience and build acclaim? If a new award becomes the most prestigious award based on merit, then it deserves to become the most prestigious award, and that’s fine. Plus, there is room for more than one prestigious award in the world; there’s no reason a new award can’t be prestigious side-by-side with the Hugos.
Also, only a minority of fans are even aware of the Puppy controversy. Of that minority, only a minority thinks that those who support Worldcon are wrong and Puppies are right.As far as I can tell, most of the major institutions of prestige – the publishers, the critics, the authors – will continue seeing the Hugos as prestigious.
I just don’t see any danger of the Hugos losing their prestige – unless, of course, no action is taken that effectively prevents slate voting in the future (although it’s too late to rescue next year, alas).
3) Finally, for reasons of math, increasing worldcon membership – while worthwhlie for its own reasons – will do nothing to reduce the effectiveness of slate voting, because the Puppies will only have to recruit 1 new voter for every 9 ordinary voters in order to retain their advantage.
The proposal I like best, so far, is “Single Divisible Vote with Pairwise Elimination.” It counts every voter equally, removes the advantages of slate voting[*], and from the perspective of the voter, nothing will change (they still just list five nominees in each category, same as they’ve done for decades). There are other proposals as well.
[*] Slate voters would still be able to get a nominee on the ballot – and that’s absolutely the way it should be, because their votes matter. But they would no longer be able to vote in unison in order to prevent anyone else’s choices from having a shot at the ballot.
4) I think Connie Willis was right: To vote for a Puppy nominee, even a worthy one, is to acknowledge that slate voting has moral legitimacy and deserves to be rewarded. I won’t do that. I will place each and every Slate nominee below “No Award” on my ballot, and I’m encouraging others to do the same.
If someone wants an award, earn it on merit. I’ve been nominated and occasionally won awards, none of which were given to me because of gaming the system. I don’t see why anyone else should get an award on that basis.
That said, obviously I can understand and respect other people’s choice to act as if the slate voting hadn’t happened when they vote.
5) Your suggestions ask for a major concession from the Worldcon Tribe, which is that they radically change who can vote for a Hugo. But – unless being polite to those who disagree is considered a concession – it asks for no real concessions from Puppies. I don’t know if that’s a problem or not, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
6) Question: Is criticizing the racism, misogyny and homophobia in the writings of (say) Vox Day and John Wright compatible with what you call “toning down the rhetoric”? Or does toning down rhetoric require not criticizing those things?
@Ampersand
I’m happy to be cordial to the Puppies I talk to
Awesome! Cordial is greatness. As a move toward cordiality – please to refrain from implying that SP voted straight ticket anything – this is not supported by the facts, and it is not supported by the voices of the SPs. The cat herd finds this statement both annoying and laughable, and so it fails to help your argument on multiple levels.
It appears that at least a small part of your hostility to slates is the idea that the voting was lockstep. If you imagine that the slate more operated as a common reference point such as the Locus lists, would that help modify your dislike of the idea?
I have not ever been to a WorldCon. As I said above, Dragon*con is that weekend. I have been a part of fan-run (an non-fan volunteer) events, and I absolutely agree that the place is run by them what show up. I absolutely disagree with the idea that anything we’ve suggest here equals throwing tradition away.
(Let us pause here for a moment and stand, bareheaded and barefoot, in this sacred moment when the sorta-progressive side is going on about “up holding decades of tradition” and the sorta-conservative side is going on about “shaking things up.” Okay, enough pausing, back to the convo.)
As to your points here:
1) an audience that is NOT based on votes from fans who are specifically focused on their love of prose.
I would hold that this not how WC nor the WSFS have billed themselves, nor was it how the first SFF fans and writers saw themselves, nor was it how they conducted themselves in relation to Star Wars in 1977, or is it how they have presented the Hugos ever since. If WC is truly intent on retroconning themselves into a fandom of prose, then, okay, that’s their deal. But that decision alone would be remaking the Hugos, and not anything that the Puppies did.
2) I agree that the fandom is big enough for more than one award. I suggest that when one award is voted on by 80-90K fans, and reliably picks top grossing works, while the other remains the choice of a small number of fans of literary works, that publishers, et al, may well find the prestige of the second somewhat lessened, no matter how many fine heroes and wealthy adventurers it may have in its family tree.
3) If you can explain how the vote works in less than a paragraph, it might have a chance of working. Thus far, all the new proposals fail at both keeping out overt slates and being easily understood. OTOH, the simplest version – getting more people involved – keeps getting rejected. As a long time fan of democracy, despite all its warts, I find this puzzling.
Oh, and I like the 4/6 idea. I think it does more than anything I’ve see so far in getting more works nominated and getting more people involved.
4) Ms Willis is wrong. So are you. Voting No Award on this litmus test is wrong firstly because it is a litmus test, and secondly because punishing open slates/reference lists only pushes the lists out of sight. It will not make them go away. I respect your right to have this opinion and to exercise it, but it is as wrong as nominating a pizza box as best related work because I was watching Edge of Tomorrow (again) when the delivery guy came.
5) I am confused about this radical change to who can vote for the Hugo – is this in reference to partnershiping with other cons?
As for what concession the SPs should make…okay. I can see where you’re coming from (I think) and so I think that recommendations for what concessions should be ought to come from the WC/WSFS side. I don’t promise to agree to them – heck I don’t even promise to be amused by them – and I can speak for no one else. However, in fairness I think they have to come from “the other side” and not SPs.
6) Stop discussing them. Firstly, because I think everyone would like specific people to be irrelevant to the process. Secondly, because yelling about specific people (and it’s their opinions we’re talking about, not their nominated works) makes everyone else’s brains shut down. Thirdly, because they ain’t here. Take it up with them. Neither of them owns me, and I don’t own them. If you want to own them, take it up with their wives, I’m not getting involved.
That is what I think.
Keranih, thanks for your response. I appreciate you being polite.
On slate voting:
You write, “It appears that at least a small part of your hostility to slates is the idea that the voting was lockstep.” You are mistaken – although I did use the word “unison” once, so your misapprehension may be a result of my careless word choice. Sorry about that!
Obviously, not every single puppy voted 100% the same way. However, the power of slate voting – although it is enhanced if the slate voters are in absolute lockstep – can still overwhelm majorities even when the slate voters don’t vote in perfect lockstep.
A vastly simplified example: Let’s vote on the best letters of the alphabet!
Here are the rules: Each voter can list three nominations for best letter, and the final ballot will contain the three top vote-getters.
asd msg ert
itk jug erg
plo wat ert
rtm mwp brd
cqy top ect
What happened here is that Slateman told his four followers to vote for “ERT” (and Slateman himself voted for ERT). Far from voting in lockstep, only 25% of Slateman’s followers voted for his entire slate. Even so, the letters E R T received more votes than any other letter, and no other letter got on the ballot.
This demonstrates how, in a first-past-the-post voting system, organized voters have an enormous advantage over unorganized majorities, without requiring perfect lockstep voting.
These results aren’t democratic in any substantive sense. The whole purpose of slate voting, in a context like the Hugos, is for a minority to overwhelm the preferences of the majority of voters.
I would be shocked if the number of puppy voters who voted for the full slate in multiple categories was less than 25%.
* * *
Regarding the Locus list, it’s a recommended reading list, not a slate. The Locus list contains 268 recommendations, in categories that don’t always correspond to Hugo categories. So no, that doesn’t look at all like a slate designed to dominate the Hugos.
* * *
Note that when Brad T. announced the puppy slate, he explicitly called it a slate (the title of the post was “SAD PUPPIES 3: the 2015 Hugo slate“). Furthermore, although he did say the slate was just “recommendations,” he also said “If you agree with our slate below — and we suspect you might — this is YOUR chance to make sure YOUR voice is heard. This is YOUR award (as SF/F’s self-proclaimed “most prestigious award”) and YOU get to have a say in who is acknowledged.”
You can disagree, but many readers would reasonably take that as Brad exhorting his readers to vote the slate. You will find no equivalent statements on the Locus list.
And of course, Vox explicitly asked his readers to vote for his slate. Again, no equivalent on the Locus list.
* * *
I think this is getting too long for a single comment. I’ll post this, and continue in a new comment.
1) I trust the people who have been attending Worldcon regularly for years, and the folks I’ve read and spoken to say the Worldcon community is relatively prose-focused. GRRM, for example, has described Worldcon as being distinct from mega-cons like SDCC because of the greater focus on prose fiction. (“Greater” doesn’t mean “exclusive,” of course.)
But even if you don’t buy that, it doesn’t matter to my argument. My central point is that – no matter how you define the difference – the community defined by “members of Worldcon” is enormously different from the community defined by “attendees of any one of SDCC, NYCC, Dragon*Con, GenCon, ECCC, PAX, Fanime, and Worldcon.” (Also, I don’t see how you’d prevent people who attend multiple cons from voting multiple times.)
Later in your comment, you wrote “I am confused about this radical change to who can vote for the Hugo – is this in reference to partnershiping with other cons?”
Yes. You want to end what the Hugos have been, and replace them with something voted on by a radically different audience. How is that not a radical change?
2) I think you’re wrong, but if you’re right, prove it by organizing your own awards that will gather more prestige than the Hugos. I wish you luck.
DragonCon is a much larger con than Worldcon. Why not start with having an award voted on by all DragonCon attendees, to be given out alongside the Julies?
3) ) “If you can explain how the vote works in less than a paragraph, it might have a chance of working.”
I don’t want to “keep out” slate voters – they have a right to vote, if they’re Worldcon members. What’s needed is a voting system that treats every voter identically while eliminating the ability of a minority of slate voters to in effect disenfranchise the majority.
Contrary to what you say, there are several proposed voting systems that would do this. I don’t know on what basis you claim otherwise. If you think I’m wrong, could you link to your sources?
With all respect, I’m not the one who favors gaming the system so that a minority of voters can lock out the preferences of the majority.
Second of all, as I already wrote, “increasing worldcon membership – while worthwhile for its own reasons – will do nothing to reduce the effectiveness of slate voting, because the Puppies will only have to recruit 1 new voter for every 9 ordinary voters in order to retain their advantage.”
4) It’s ludicrous to game the first half of the vote and then – once you’ve won your unearned nominations – say “let’s all vote on merit and nothing else, starting… now!”
A Hugo winning story (or whatever) in each category should succeed in both rounds of voting based on merit. A work that could not have been nominated without slate voting, hasn’t won it’s nomination based on merit, and thus does not deserve a Hugo.
5) Obviously, I speak for no one but myself. But for the sake of discussion, here’s the concession I’d ask for from Puppies:
* Acknowledge that what the puppies engaged in was slate voting. Acknowledge that this isn’t the same thing as the Locus list, or Scalzi’s “my qualified stories this year” posts.
* And support a real proposal to reform the voting system so that slate voting cannot again be used by a minority of voters to dominate the nominations.
(By “real,” I mean a proposal that can be proven, by using the voting models that polisci nerds have created, to largely eliminate the ability of a slate-voting minority to have a disproportionate effect on the vote.)
6) I’m certainly not going to hold Vox’s or Larry’s views against you! As you say, you are not them.
But you also seem to think that it’s unfair for news articles to mention the over-the-top bigotry of Vox and Larry. That’s not reasonable; they are a major part of this story, and reporting on their published views is fair.
Ampersand –
(I knew of an ampersand a long while back, but I don’t think it was you, unless you’ve gone through some extreme life changes. However, there is a residual affection/respect that I find is still bleeding over on to you, despite my knowing better. Odd, that.)
I will also break this into two parts, with what I consider the meat of it in the second part (probably as a new toplevel comment.)
You put forth the following as a proposed “concession” from the SP side: (and you’re not the only person who has said something of the sort)
Acknowledge that what the puppies engaged in was slate voting. Acknowledge that this isn’t the same thing as the Locus list, or Scalzi’s “my qualified stories this year” posts.
…Talk to me a little bit about this, about why it is so important for the SP actions this year to be completely separated out from everything else that went before. Also, please talk to me about how to clearly separate out the sort of recommendations you allow, and the sort you loathe.
(A note: I’ll talk more on the other Cons in the second post, but I do want to hear more about your concerns here on this.)
I’d like to encourage you to make a toplevel comment on this slate discussion, if you could.
Now, on to the part that made me cranky:
I’m certainly not going to hold Vox’s or Larry’s views against you! As you say, you are not them.
But you also seem to think that it’s unfair for news articles to mention the over-the-top bigotry of Vox and Larry. That’s not reasonable; they are a major part of this story, and reporting on their published views is fair.
Ummm. Last comment, you referenced VD and John C Wright. This comment you’re talking about VD and Larry. The mixing and mashing of alleged biases attributed to various members of the Evil League of Evil is part of what is so deeply infuriating about this part of the whole mess.
People are repeatedly reposting talking points about writers that are not correct. Go read what Corriea said about the first Sad Puppies – his wife’s old high school buddies were calling her up, to make sure she was okay, because her husband had turned out to be a misogynist wifebeater. And it’s only gotten *worse*. Did you *see* the first EW article? https://archive.is/g5VaT
And even if the writing about it was accurate – (I have cut out so much ranting here, because I am so angry still about this), I don’t think it’s relevant.
I hold that just as a piece of writing should not be judged on the gender of the author or the color of their skin, that a story or novel should not be judged on the particular set of human failings which are wrapt up in that writer. That a person is a warm wonderful person doesn’t mean they can write worth spit.
We should not refuse to acknowledge spectacular art or writing on the grounds that the creator of that art is an asshole. This is ready step onto the very slippery slope of “sanctioned” art which only includes approved treatment of approved subjects.
On to your other thoughts…(this may be a bit. I need to thunk.)
Keranih, Ampersand, I’m keeping out of your debate, because I find that keeping myself involved in these various discussions takes a lot out of me in terms of time, energy, and emotional investment. (And, of course, because you’re doing fine without me… :-D)
This is directed to Ampersand . Did you say that you will vote No Award on all categories? If this is the advice suggested on various blogs and comments, how it it different from block voting?
Lynn:
This is directed to Ampersand . Did you say that you will vote No Award on all categories?
No, I didn’t. I said that I intend to vote for “no award” above all slate-nominated candidates. Since there are a number of categories in which there are non-slate candidates, however, I will not “no award” them (unless all the work I read is too substandard to vote for, which is unlikely).
(I do intend to read or view EVERY nominee, including the slate-nominated ones. If there is some slate-nominated work which is so astoundingly wonderful that I think it would be an absolute crime for it not to win, I will reconsider my policy. But, given the quality of the slate works I’ve read so far, I don’t expect that to happen.)
If this is the advice suggested on various blogs and comments, how it it different from block voting?
So in your view, anytime I vote in accord with ” the advice suggested on various blogs and comments,” that’s no different from block voting?
That means that – because the field of nominees has now been drastically narrowed, to the point that it’s possible to discuss them all – that it’s basically impossible for me to vote in way that doesn’t meet your definition of block voting.
For example, in the past week, I’ve read arguments for “no award”ing all the slate candidates. I’ve read arguments saying that I absolutely must not use “no award” that way. I’ve read an argument that “Ms Marvel” deserves to win the graphic novel category. I’ve read an argument that “Sex Criminal” deserves to win that category. I’ve read arguments for four different novels to win the “best novel” category.
And the Hugo discussion has just begun! By the time to vote, I will have read multiple arguments in favor of nearly every candidate in nearly every category.
Just because someone tries to persuade people that “none of the slate candidates have earned a Hugo win,” or “it would be wrong to no award the slate works,” or “The Goblin Emperor is clearly the best novel nominated,” that’s not block voting. Block voting requires organizing a block of voters to vote as a block.[*] Just saying “I think Winter Soldier deserves to win” is not the same as organizing a block vote.
[*] Note: “As a block” does not mean “in absolute 100% lockstep, with no variance whatsoever.”
P.S. (This wasn’t your question, but I feel I should note that block voting is less of a danger at this stage of the process, because of the technical differences between the voting process for nominations versus the voting process for winning. I could go into this, if you’d like.)
@ Ampersand –
This is the second part of my response, dealing more with ways forward…
This demonstrates how, in a first-past-the-post voting system, organized voters have an enormous advantage over unorganized majorities, without requiring perfect lockstep voting.
Check out my post here: http://kerani-in-the-world.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-hand-weve-been-dealt.html in which I talk about how crazy it is that ANY substantial group of fandom looks up from their Holy Saturday lunch and finds that their choices for the Hugos match the Hugo finalist ballot, unless there has been concentrated selection from a pre-specified group.
This has been going on for a very long time, it’s just been invisible to the people who’ve been drawing from the same fraction of the deck as the Hugo voters. These people have had their preferences – and there is nothing wrong with that – but they’ve assumed that their preferences were all of fandom, and there is a great deal wrong with that assumption.
The idea that some how the previous nominations represented the choices of the “majority” of the WorldCon voters assumes a crazy amount of lockstep in the voters, as well as ignoring the results of the votes over the last few years. The percentages of the votes for the different nominees do not support this assertion.
My central point is that – no matter how you define the difference – the community defined by “members of Worldcon” is enormously different from the community defined by “attendees of any one of SDCC, NYCC, Dragon*Con, GenCon, ECCC, PAX, Fanime, and Worldcon.”
Yes. And my point is that “members who attend any of those” is a far better representation of SFF fandom than “members who attend WorldCon.” The Hugos have been billed as the voice of SFF fans – of which WorldCon is a part, not the whole. At a bare minimum, the idea of “prose focused” fans voting on dramatic presentations and webzines is a bit…off.
I agree that security of the vote is a concern, and that multicon voting is a no-go next year, and might not ever become a viable option. I would settle for WorldCon/Hugo signup tables and displays at every major and regional con, and a hotlink to the upcoming WorldCon at the webpage for every little con around the world.
A Hugo winning story (or whatever) in each category should succeed in both rounds of voting based on merit. A work that could not have been nominated without slate voting, hasn’t won it’s nomination based on merit, and thus does not deserve a Hugo.
In a world where “If You Were A Dinosaur” and “Parasite” (among others) didn’t make the final ballot, and “Redshirts” didn’t win, your argument would hold weight. As it is, people have been advocating for different works based on things other than the quality of the story in question for years. I will buy the assertion that some people voted for the SP noms in the hopes of getting something they liked at least a little on the final slate (as opposed to nothing, as it had been for years) – and I’ll agree that this is suboptimal.
The second of your proposed concessions for the SPs is: And support a real proposal to reform the voting system so that slate voting cannot again be used by a minority of voters to dominate the nominations.
Given the way that I think that small groups of voters have been able to tweek results in the past, I’m not actually against this. I think there is broad support for the so-called 4/6 solution. I think that adding lots and lots more voters, and encouraging lots and lots more “slates” or “recs lists” would allow the system to work itself out in a way that allowed the people running the con to explain the voting system. (Your proposed paragraph tells me nothing other than “trust me, it’s fair and you’ll like it.”)
This is what I would love to see: I would love to see *multiple* lists hitting the interwebs in January (perhaps a short list each quarter?) from the major players (Tor, Baen, Locus, Asimov, ect) of 6-10 “top picks” in each category. The editors of each could run readers polls to help them shape their lists. Meanwhile, fans of epic fantasy and of urban fantasy and milsf and feminist sf and translations and elves and dragons and internet gremlins are all posting lists of what they think is notable, and people can bounce from list to list, looking for things they could like. Lots of voices giving lots of different answers to the question “what is best”? Get the comics guys in on it as well, and the tv folks. (Now that amazon and netflicks (among others) offer individual episodes, this gives a chance for them to pimp their best stuff to an audience that would actually buy it.)
I think the best response to SP is to embrace the idea that there is too much out there for any one person to read, and that the days of professional gatekeepers on the stuff of SFF are pretty much over. We need to invent new ways of pointing each other at the good stuff. Demanding that we stop that is…well. That pony is out of the barn already, and down the road flirting with Pegasus.
1) One of the works you named is written by one of my best friends.
2) My friend is extremely talented and has worked incredibly hard for years and years, and no way deserves the firehose of hatred that has been directed at their work this past month (and longer) by literally thousands of Puppies.
My friend isn’t like Brad, or Vox, or the other puppy leaders – people who have CHOSEN to involve themselves in a huge controversy. My friend has been put through this against their will, for the horrible crime of writing work that Puppies don’t enjoy, and HATES that their work has been turned into ammunition for your war.
3) It’s fine that you don’t like my friend’s work. But do you really not understand that other people can genuinely and sincerely love and admire a work that you don’t like?
4) For God’s sake, PLEASE don’t say “well, lots of people have been mean to Brad, so that makes what we’ve done to your friend okay.”
5) I’m a professional cartoonist. I have NEVER publicly trashed another cartoonist’s work, let alone joined in a group trashing of another cartoonist’s work. I would never do that. It’s called “professionalism.”
You’re a writer, right? I genuinely hope you are never put through what Puppies are putting my friend through.
6) My friend did not cheat, in any way. My friend did not benefit from a slate vote. If you make an accusation like that, then you should be able to prove it, but we both know you can’t. You’re a false accuser.
(DON’T say it’s the same thing as me saying the Puppies practice slate voting. That the Puppies used a slate vote has been admitted proudly by the puppy leaders.)
I’m far too pissed to go on now. I may or may not come back later.
I followed the link to your website, and see that I had confused you with someone else; you’re not a professional novelist (or if you are, it’s not something you mention on your front page). My bad. I withdraw my point about professionalism, and also the paragraph beginning “you’re a writer, right?”
(You can take it as a compliment, if you like – your writing is far better in quality than that of the average internet comment-writer, so that probably had something to do with my mistake).
The rest of my comment, I stand by.
I didn’t see this before I posted the reply below.
No, not a professional novelist. (Fic, yes – and so, yes, absolutely I know what having work and my personal morality confused with each other, and both slandered on accounta that confusion – but that’s not the same as having it happen when you’re trying to pay the rent and feed the kids with that income.)
I do take it as a complement – thank you kindly, it was good of you to say.
@ Ampersand –
When you calm down and come back, I invite you to re-read what I said – I didn’t say SQUAT about your friend.
I talked about THE WORK. I’ve read all those works, and I thank you for allowing me to have an opinion about those stories.
If you – or anyone else – can’t draw a distinction between an author and the work they write – especially in terms of people they are friends with, and in terms of awards, then you’ve got no business judging the quality of the work.
And if that’s so, you’ve got zero call to be going on about how those awards are for quality prose and “just on merit”. You’re only re-enforcing the idea that people vote in works for the Hugos for reasons completely different from quality and merit.
No matter how defensive you feel about your friend, or how badly her feelings have been scuffed, you need to be able to talk about different people’s judgement of works can be expressed without making it into a callout for a duel.
We need to settle that first.
Then we can start talking about how badly each other (and our friends) have been hurt by each other (and each other’s friends) in the past.
(Or maybe we can run with my first suggestion, which is moving past blame and forward into what we do in the future, in terms of recognizing quality work and leaving the judging of each other’s souls to God.)
I am not saying that you have to like the work I like. As I said in the post you’re responding to, ” It’s fine that you don’t like my friend’s work.”
Let’s review the actual discussion. I said that to legitimately win a Hugo, a work has to win two votes based on merit: A first vote to be nominated, and then a second vote to win. Works that “won” the first stage though gaming the vote cannot be said to have won based on merit.
You replied:
So according to you, the mere fact that these works were nominated/won is evidence that people advocate for these works “based on things other than the quality of the story.” You’re saying they won based on something other than merit.
In context, you were clearly insinuating that they had not won a fair vote, in a way comparable to how the Puppies unfairly gamed the vote.
You have no basis for assuming that if people vote for a work you don’t like, that means they voted on anything other than their sincere assessment of quality. Just because someone likes a work you didn’t doesn’t make them insincere, or mean they voted on something other than quality.
On further reflection, let me add:
1) I lost my temper before and used an angry tone. I apologize to you, keranih. I did overreact.
2) Nonetheless, your claim that I objected to you not liking my friend’s work is simply, flatly untrue. I said no such thing – in fact, I explicitly said the exact opposite. I’d really appreciate it if you’d acknowledge that.
3) What I objected to was you saying that because those works were nominated / won, that indicates that Hugo voters voted “based on things other than the quality of the story.” That’s nonsense.
Apology accepted, no sweat. I completely understand loyalty to a friend, and while I don’t fancy being yelled at, under the circumstances, it’s not entirely what I would call a fault.
I will go back and review what we’ve been talking about, and will respond in a bit.
I am glad we’re still taking about it.
Using the works mention above as evidence of a deterioration of the nominated works, I have to agree that they were not worthy. This is a personal value judgement and valid as any other.
I agree about that a vote for a work I consider not worthy does not mean that the other voted based on any other consideration other than quality. However that also applies to those that voted on the SP slate that they also agreed those works were worthy of a nomination.
So what you said also applies to the SP works. Hence they should be judge on your consideration of quality and whether you liked them rather than how the ended on the ballot.
Lynn:
Thank you for acknowledging that just because works you consider low-quality are nominated, that doesn’t mean people didn’t vote based on a consideration of quality. (I’d assume you’d also agree that books you don’t like getting nominated isn’t evidence of anyone secretly cheating or gaming the nomination vote).
1) Obviously some people do honestly love each work the Puppies collectively nominated, based on quality. I don’t doubt that for a moment.
Nonetheless, it’s not believable that the Puppy voters – ALL the puppies, not just the SPs – nominated (in each category) the five works they felt were most deserving of all 2014 works.
An analogy: I and my my best friend are both cartoonists, are both excited by comic books that push against boundaries and advance the form, but we both also love a solid story with great characters.
But despite all our similarities, if you asked us to list what we think are the five best comics published last year, it’s very unlikely we’d come up with the same list, or even lists that were 80% the same. There might be overlap – maybe we both selected the wonderful “This One Summer” – but there’d also be differences – maybe I’d select “As The Crow Flies” and she’d select “Finder.”
Because there are hundreds or thousands of good comics created every year. Even with similar tastes going in, the odds against us selecting the same (or almost the same) five works are astronomical.
And that’s with just two people. How much less likely is it with hundreds of people?
It’s not credible to claim that hundreds of sad puppies all independently chose the same (or nearly the same) 21 prose works to nominate as the very best works of 2014, chosen from among the hundred or thousands of possible works they might have nominated.
2) Winning the Hugo requires winning a two-stage process of voting. First you are one of five winners of the nomination round, and then you win the final vote; otherwise you have no legitimately won a Hugo.
The Puppy-nominated works did not legitimately win the first round of voting; therefore it is impossible for them to legitimately win the Hugos.
Imagine a race that’s in two stages. In stage one, the athletes run an obstacle course, each in their own lane leaping over hurdles. The athletes who make it through the obstacle course the fastest then compete in the final footrace to determine the winner.
The Puppies noticed that there’s no rule explicitly forbidding spectators knocking down hurdles, and so they knocked down the hurdles in their favorite athlete’s lanes. And of course, those athletes ran the obstacle course the fastest.
Now we’re at the start line of the second stage. And you’re telling me that how these athletes ended up reaching the second stage of the race doesn’t matter.
With all due respect, ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?
Oh I agree the is an amount of collective group think and the lists help in that. Many writers, bloggers have lists of suggested works. I also believe there is a bit of group think on the so called trufans. Otherwise no work would get enough votes to be nominated. There are so many. It was very surprising that the amount to get a work nominated is 70 votes. So little participation for such an award
Ampersand –
Firstly, I deeply apologize for leaving you hanging here for so long. I had a sudden shift in my job-related workload, and then about 10 days ago my household had a pet-car interaction that is (thankfully) not yet resolved – I have not had the emotional space to deal civilly with much of anything. (And I might drop out of the convo abruptly again – I did say at the outset that this was going to take time.)
If you’re done here, that’s okay, no sweat. I’ll see you around.
However, if you’re still engaging…
Regarding your friend’s work:
While it was not my intent, it appears that I phrased things so poorly as to give the impression that I thought your friend had gotten her work on the final ballot by vote-buying, bribery, or some other sort of nefarious activity. I have no reason to think that she engaged in this kind of action. For this slur on her character, I deeply apologize, and resolve to mind my words better in the future.
Regarding what you said about your friend’s work –
You didn’t start out talking about the work. You spent the most of your comment talking about your friend and what a nice person they are and how badly they feel because their work has been flamed publicly. (And then you refuse to consider that being called a racist in global media is perhaps *more significant* than having lots of people not like one’s writing.)
I do understand that for every piece of writing I love, someone else loathes it – and even more just don’t care. And odds are that the worst piece ever will, at some point, touch a reader deeply and profoundly like nothing has before. It happens. I get this.
However, to go back to what you said originally – you said that “the Hugo voters choose the finalist ballot based on the quality of the writing” – and I called bs on that, giving the listed works as items of subpar quality that should not have been on the ballot, no matter how nice a person the author was.
There was nothing in what I read of your reply that attempted to defend those works on the basis of quality – and so I stand by my assertion that the presence of those works were on the finalist ballot was an indication that the Hugo voters do NOT judge only (or even primarily) quality of the story when making their choices.
Regarding the finalist ballot as a whole and how it gets chosen – I reject your position that the “slate” that was proposed by the Sad Puppies differed significantly from the previous years. We aren’t going to be able to continue talking productively about this if you keep referring to the slate as somehow cheating.
To expand on this – the post I pointed you to earlier laid out (fairly clearly, IMO) just how broad the options for the finalist ballot should be – and in contrast, how narrow that field has become, in practical terms.
This is because, imo, the people picking the finalists aren’t considering the whole spectrum of available works – they are narrowing their options to a relatively small group. Specific attention is paid to works which are of a literary style instead of a more genre-typical adventure tale. Works by women, minorities, and openly non-straight-sexually-oriented people are given preference – as as works that feature such types of people as sympathetic pov characters. Works which celebrate Christian religious themes or pov characters – or authors – who are conservatively Christian are also struggling uphill. Works which “push back against Western oppression” get bonus points. Humor tends to get negative points. All of this is sideways of the quality of the story.
The result is a deeply slanted bias towards specific works – and general disregard of others.
In effect and practice, it’s not different at all from the Sad Puppies promoting the works they wanted to see more of. And the efforts of the SPs this year were not that much different than the two years before – the level of success was greater, true, but I would put that at promoting a broader group of stories.
In terms of what was going on with trufans and the Hugo Establishment – I think there is *some* collusion going on – or has been – in some places. I think most of the cause of the bias is the narrow selection pool – and that the self-selection process of being a WorldCon type of fan is part of it.
But – the Hugos aren’t supposed to be a small subset of fans – they’re supposed to represent the broader whole fandom. Hugos ESPECIALLY aren’t supposed to represent the taste of the authors and editors – that’s the Nebulas.
Tenth and finally – yes, I hold that we can NOT do a “do over”, that we MUST NOT promote “no award” voting as a way to “fix” this year – and that to suggest other wise is playing to the hands of future WorldCon members who want to cast a heckler’s veto on the process, when things get nominated that they don’t like.
Not a good look for any process.
Keranih-
First of all, I’m so sorry to hear about your pet’s injury. That’s truly awful. I hope your pet makes a full recovery.
And of course, if you decide not to respond (or to delay responding), that’s completely fine and understandable.
Second, since you haven’t made any actual critiques of the works you mentioned, you haven’t really given me anything to respond to in that area. I agree that (for my tastes) “Redshirts” wasn’t a book that should have won – it was a fun lark, but not an outstanding novel – but that’s just my opinion. Scalzi is a popular writer with a lot of fans; I don’t agree with their taste, but I don’t think there’s any reason to think they didn’t vote honestly for their favorite work.
“Dinosaurs,” the short story my friend wrote, is a story that is genuinely loved by a lot of readers. Why do you think it’s subpar? (I won’t get mad at any assessment of the story’s quality, I promise). More importantly, why don’t you think it’s possible that a significant proportion of Worldcon voters – enough for a nomination (which isn’t all that many, really) – honestly believe that it was one of the most outstanding sf/f stories they had read that year?
But let me ask you – in the graphic stories category, there are five nominees this year. Four were chosen without puppy support; those four comics are more mainstream than I’d prefer, but they’re enormously popular works, show a great deal of mastery of the medium, and they are very credible choices. All of them have won major comics industry awards or are expected to be nominated this year (or both).
Then there’s the puppy choice, a decent enough bit of fun about wacky zombies, but no professional cartoonist I know – not even the cartoonist who creates this strip – thinks its one of the five most outstanding sf/f comics of the year.
And what a coincidence – the author of this strip (who is a nice guy I have nothing against) just happens to be a personal friend of Brad T.
Now, do you think I’m being unreasonable in suspecting that what’s going on here is nepotism by Brad, rather than hundreds of fans independently deciding that this one obscure webcomic, out of all the thousands of possible choices, is the best comic of the year?
I don’t know which comic book was knocked off the list by the puppies. it might have been Fables, written by an open libertarian, which has been Hugo nominated a bunch of times; it might have been some other work. But whatever it was – we’ll find out after the Hugo awards are announced, when they release the full stats – I’d bet a hundred bucks that it was a comic that was more accomplished and popular than the Puppy choice. But the creator(s) isn’t Brad’s pal, and therefore their comic lost out to a much less popular and accomplished work.
Do you really not understand why that’s unfair?
Third, I’ve never said the puppies “cheated.” They did nothing that was technically against the rules. Technically, there was no cheating.
Rather, I’ve said that they gamed the system with bloc voting, and thus unfairly locked the majority of Hugo voters out of having ANY of their choices reflected in the nominations.
I’m not going to stop saying that, because it’s objectively true.
Fourth, I read the post on your blog. I agree that the argument you were responding to was not a good argument, but it also wasn’t an argument I’ve made, therefore I have no responsibility to defend it.
My argument is about slate voting, not about which works are nominated; I’m against all slates, not just puppy slates. Which is why the reform proposals I favor would reduce the power of all slate voting schemes, public or secret, right or left.
It’s probably true that Hugo voters aren’t representative of all sf/f readers, or all fans. So what? It’s a poll of Worldcon members who choose to vote, not a representative poll of all of fandom.
No one has been kept out (except those kept out by poverty, an issue which we can get into if you want, but for now I’ll skip over it). Absolutely anyone with $40 can join Worldcon and vote for Hugo nominees and winners.
Contrary to what you seem to think, in recent years, Hugo winners and nominees have included white men, apparent heterosexuals, publicly committed Christians, publicly outspoken Republicans, and works with few or no literary pretensions. Works with white male protagonists have been nominated and won. No group of authors or types of protagonists have been locked out from being nominated or winning, and we know that because they have been nominated, and in some cases they have won.
Mike Resnick (outspoken Republican) and Connie Willis (church-going Christian who includes Christian themes in some of her fiction) have both been nominated and won with works that had white, male, hetero protagonists. And they have been nominated for and won more Hugos than ANY other fiction writers in Hugo history. How did that happen, if you’re correct about such works being locked out?
And how did both Brad and (iirc) Larry get nominated, if there’s some shadowy conspiracy keeping authors like them out?
Thanks for your response. I really hope everything turns out well for you and your pet.
I wrote: “Rather, I’ve said that they gamed the system with bloc voting, and thus unfairly locked the majority of Hugo voters out of having ANY of their choices reflected in the nominations.”
I should have said “in some categories.” :-p
The ballot is fixed now and we all have choice to vote honestly based on the stories or we can choose because somehow the other side “gamed the system”.
Ampersand vote what you like and I will do the same . How they got on the ballot is irrelevant at this point.
No, it’s not “irrelevant,” Lynn. You can’t game the system to lock out competition in the first half of a race, and then say “let’s play fair starting… now!” in the second half of the race.
My point is that the nominations are made. The method is still people voting how they wanted. Whether it was because an author suggested and made a slate or recommended voting list seems the same to me. Just more did what Brad and VD wanted. Personally the fuss about “gaming” seems overdone to me. The whole idea was to get 5 nominations which obviously locks out any others. That is the way it was set up.
However the nominations were made . Now it your choice how to vote. Vote for whatever you like and I will do the same.
I will vote for whatever I like, of those nominees who were nominated fairly, without slate voting. Those that were nominated only because of slate voting have not earned their place on the ballot, and voting for them would imply that they have earned an honor when they have not.
Maybe you don’t see a difference between a work being honored for bloc voting and gaming the system, versus a work being honored for being a great story. But I sure do.
The whole idea was to get 5 nominations which obviously locks out any others.
The idea of Hugo nominations is to nominate works that the largest possible number of Hugo voters agreed deserve to be honored. Gaming the vote so that a minority locks out the majority from having any say subverts that ideal.
Making Light: Discussing Specific Changes to the Hugo Nomination Election: A Post Not By Bruce Schneier
This is a specific proposal to alter the Hugo nomination voting system so that voting slates – no matter WHO proposes them – can no longer dominate the Hugo nominations process. I think it’s a really good idea.
Not only would it prevent the puppies (sad or rabid), or any similar groups, from gaming the Hugos in this way again, it would also prevent any covert SJW slates from gaming the Hugos (I don’t believe that such slates exist in any significant form, but it seems that some puppies believe that such slates have existed). So this proposal addresses complaints that people on both sides of puppygate have made.
Not to get into the nitty gritty of how the votes are counted or how the nominations are counted, Not sure is understand how these methods will work. I did read the Dinosaur story. My opinion it was a love story and not science fiction. My opinion it should not have been nominated. I read the author is a friend so that is just my 2 cents
Then don’t vote for “If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love”! (Or, don’t vote for it if you have a time machine which allowed you to go back in time to when it’s not moot and then vote for it or not. :-p ) That’s fine. You don’t have to like the story.
But here’s the truth: “If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love” was nominated based on merit. By which I mean, it won a Hugo nomination fairly, because a lot of Hugo voters, voting as individuals, thought it deserved a Hugo.
Not a single puppy-nominated work can make that claim.
By the way, if “If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love” isn’t sf/f, then neither is The Odyssey, or Alice in Wonderland, or The Princess Bride, or the movie The Wizard of Oz. All of those works use the same technique of having the sf/f elements turn out to be a story or dream told within the narrative.
I did not vote for the nominations either SP or any other recommendation list. I think it is very hard to come up with good nominations. I rarely am aware what the publication date is whether the work qualifies for which category.
I am well aware that your friend’s Dinosaur love story was not this year.. But as an example as work that I do not think it qualifies . By the way I also agree that Wizard of OZ, Alice in Wonderland, Princess Bride are not SF either. Odd, but i never thought of those stories as SF. Just fantasy stories, I also do not consider the Dinosaur story to be equal of those classic stories. I doubt you do either.
Yes, I do know fantasy is part of SF &F. but those examples are just not part of SF . At least I never thought of them that way. Of course they do not qualify since they predate the Hugos mostly.
As to how people nominate. I think they really do read what others recommend. Either by an author they trust and if they are reminded the work can qualify, Then it gets nominated by people talking or commenting on blogs. Similar to the more organized SP effort.
I have not read all the nominations. I am hoping to get some for free. I don’t have the cash to spend on Goblin Emperor or Ancillary Justice. I have not read Butchers work either.. I have read his earlier works.
I hope your friend continues writing, Her writing is nice ,Just I am not into love stories.
I don’t think I have read a Hugo winner since Bujold. So the recent winners never excited me enough to spend money or I just unaware of them. I am hoping Goblin Emperor is good. By the sounds of 3 Body Problem I don’t think I would like that either , but I am willing to read it to decide.
I would have thought Weber would have qualified in years past. His current work may not be the right length or since they are often collaborations may not qualify . I think Eric Flint is correct that many new popular works don’t fit the categories.