605 thoughts on “2015 Hugo Awards”

1. Insulting the people who respond to you is hardly the most persuasive argument you can make.

   The puppies claimed they wanted a democratic process although, as far as I can tell, they did not have one when they made their slates. I am hoping that they give the numbers of votes for each nomination and explain how the decision was made. All that aside, the final votes will be democratic and, as you should know, many things influence individual votes and each person will vote as they will, not as you will.

   In other words, you can game the system only so far.

   Reply

   1. I guess you are responding to me. What I offered wasn’t an appeal to vote a certain way, nor an order to vote a certain way. It was an opinion and nothing more.

      Also, I wasn’t insulting, it is not an insult when you state that you believe someone is purposefully seeing things in my words that isn’t there, such as seeing an insult where there was none.

      Reply
2. Pingback: Hugos Reviews 2015: Skin Game, by Jim Butcher | Sociologist Novelist

3. You do not get to decide if another person is allowed to be insulted or not by your words.
   It is the person on the other end of the insult who gets to decide if they have been insulted and how they want to react. Telling people they should not be insulted if they feel you have insulted them? Good luck with that. 🙂

   Reply

   1. LMAO, well since I wasn’t talking to you in my response you have no reason to be insulted in the first place. If you want to be insulted by something that wasn’t said to you well then all I can say is that is up to you. However, please know that I have read your responses and given them the weight that they deserve.

      Reply

   2. @ Dot:

      Horesecrap! Some people go around looking for excuses to be “offended”.

      If the Special Snowflakes can’t handle a conversation w/o trashing someone who may simply not be agreeing with them, then they need to whisk back to their Special Snowflakeland Happy Place and leave the real world to the adults.

      I’m offended all the time, by atheists who hate God, by minority “activists” who hate white people, by gender activists who hate men, and gay activists who hate straight people. Every time I tell them they’ve said something offensive the answer is always : Get over yourself.

      Works both ways, Dot.

      Reply

      1. One might question your definition of “hate.”

         Reply

         1. Woolfhound: Indeed. Sounds more like an issue that Greg has, than anything else.

            Reply

4. I question your reading comprehension, I really do.

   Reply

5. John Syms wrote:
   “This is my first comment on this thread. As some of you may recognise by my name, I have been involved in SF Fandom since 1977, and have helped RUN worldcons. I DETEST the characterization of the Sick Puppies as Cheats or that their noiminations ammounted to corruption. They saw a loophole in the rules and capitalized on it. This is no differerent than a Min/Max Gamer. There is only one rule for those who nominate and vote for the Hugo Awards that Should be ABSOLUTE.”

   John – I started working on Worldcons in 1976, managing the award ceremony and banquet for the Hugo awards in 1977.

   I am completely at odds with your take. What the puppies did was game the system, pure and simple. It’s a form of cheating, pure and simple. Fans who cared about the system would not seek to gain personal or political advantage by exploiting a weakness or vulnerability, they would have brought to to everyone’s attention and worked out ways to fix it before it became a problem.

   I’ve helped RUN Worldcons. I DETEST the implication that what the puppies did is in ANY WAY reflective of the way we do things in fandom.

   It’s not, and anyone familiar with the true spirit of fandom and the traditions of worldcon ought to be able to easily see that.

   Reply

   1. Seeing as how it appears that “Noah Ward” ranked high in multiple catagories after the Insiders pushed for just that result it seems to me that the only thing to take away from this is that the Puppies were right all along. It’s about the politics, not the creative work.

      Reply
6. Pingback: The Hugos: Shenanigans & Unpopular Opinions | J. T. Glover
7. Pingback: 2015 Hugo Nominated Short Stories & Novelettes » Death Is Bad
8. Pingback: [Cultures de l’Imaginaire – Littérature] «Puppygate» : La polémique déchire écrivains et fans de science-fiction aux Etats-Unis | Jeunesse & Développement local, associatif et culturel
9. Pingback: The Sunday Evening Post: Vol. 1, Issue 7 - Cherie Reads
10. Pingback: Why The Hugo Nominees Matter | My Words
11. Pingback: Edmund R. Schubert Withdraws As Hugo Nominee | File 770
12. Pingback: Wouter's Blog » Blog Archive » Forget about the Hugo Awards
13. Pingback: » In Which Edmund Schubert Withdraws From the Hugos Pendragon Variety Network
14. Pingback: Shouting fire at the 2015 Hugos. | alisfranklin.com
15. Pingback: The Sad Puppy-Free Hugo Award Voter's Guide
16. Pingback: Hugo Award Voting Now Open · Deirdre Saoirse Moen
17. Pingback: 2015 Hugo Awards Maybe After All | Rebekah Golden

18. John Syms wrote:
    “This is my first comment on this thread. As some of you may recognise by my name, I have been involved in SF Fandom since 1977, and have helped RUN worldcons. I DETEST the characterization of the Sick Puppies as Cheats or that their noiminations ammounted to corruption. They saw a loophole in the rules and capitalized on it. This is no differerent than a Min/Max Gamer..”

    steve davidson commented on 2015 Hugo Awards.

    I am completely at odds with your take. What the puppies did was game the system, pure and simple. It’s a form of cheating, pure and simple. Fans who cared about the system would not seek to gain personal or political advantage by exploiting a weakness or vulnerability, they would have brought to to everyone’s attention and worked out ways to fix it before it became a problem.

    It seems that we have a difference in interpretation. I said that gaming the system is not cheating, but using the available rules to their own advantage. This is not cheating.

    You SEEM to be saying that because they are using the available rules to their own advantage that they ARE cheating, which by the very fact that the Hugo Award Administrators are allowing the process to procede negates that arguement, as they are the final arbiters of this point.

    Now as to violating the spirit of the rules, that is a totally different discussion.

    Reply

19. Here we go with a failure to read the words and accept what they are saying using commonly utilized definition and context.

    I wrote ” It’s a form of cheating, pure and simple.”

    Form of cheating. Not cheating in the strict definition of the word (a violation of the rules) – but a “form of”. In other words, against the spirit and intent, as opposed to the letter.

    Violating the spirit and intent of a tradition is often perceived (and in this case is) as being far worse than a mere transgression of the rules. What the puppies did went against TRADITION, CUSTOM and MORE, it didn’t merely violate some rule.

    Is this so hard to understand? Alternatively, are you so desperate to take odds with the argument that you’ve got to resort to deliberately ignoring or misinterpreting what was actually put into text in order to find something to argue with?

    BTW: neither your history with fandom nor my history with fandom confers any greater degree of authority to your words than they do to anyone else’s, including fans so newly minted that the shine hasn’t yet worn off the impression.

    Reply
20. Pingback: Podcast Pillowfort Ep12 – The Dream of the 90’s » Podcast Pillowfort

21. Now that we’ve had a few weeks to all calm down, could I moot an idea that might, just might, actually help bring the Hugos back to legitimacy and stop all the nastiness without infringing on the free speech rights of the right-wing factions (whatever they choose to call themselves right now) but also not further tarnish the reputation of one of the only really respectable fan-voted awards in the world?

    “Slate” voting, as it stands, doesn’t break any bylaws, like it or not. But it’s also stacking the ballot in ways that don’t reflect the preferences of the majority of readers (just compare with, say, the Nebula ballot, or the way most voters who don’t nominate plan to vote). Could there be just a little constitutional amendment stating that, while anyone may promote a work that he/she has actually written or otherwise produced for a Hugo, no one may promote someone else’s work in a public way? So in other words, individual authors could alert their readers to their eligible works on their blogs (and give helpful information like which length category they belong in), but no one can realistically assemble a Slate unless it’s such an obviously navel-gazing Slate (since it’s all the work of one author) that no one will take it seriously?

    Might this be a way to cut the Gordian knot? Doesn’t take away the right wing’s nomination privileges.

    Reply

    1. Any two members (supporting or attending) of the current Worldcon can submit proposals to change the Hugo Awards rules by amending the World Science Fiction Society Constitution. Only attending members may be at the Business Meeting at Worldcon where the proposals are debated and discussed. Anything that passes two consecutive Worldcons’ Business Meetings becomes part of the WSFS Constitution. Contact the 2015 Worldcon Business Meeting for more information and for help drafting proposals.

       Reply

    2. Incidentally, I have seen no realistic proposal to take away any individual’s nominating privileges other than some that propose removing the extension of such rights to the members of the previous and following Worldcons. Remember that inasmuch as WSFS membership is defined as the members of the current Worldcon, allowing members from other years to make nominations is a relaxation of the principle of allowing only members to participate in the process. Even if that happens, no individual would be prohibited from nominated based on that member’s ideology; everyone would still be allowed to join the current Worldcon.

       Reply

    3. how do you prevent folks from promoting someone just to get them kicked off the ballot?

       IF I have time, I intend to submit a proposal (as outlined by Kevin here) to the Sasquan BM along the following lines:

       Resolved that campaigning, organized voting, promoting slates or voting blocs and all such similar activity designed to advantage a work, a creator during the nomination and/or final ballot voting is considered to be unacceptable behavior by the members of WSFS.

       While it is impossible to write the rules for nominating and voting in a manner that prevents such activities without destroying the character and tradition of the awards, WSFS nevertheless wishes to express, in the strongest possible terms, that such actions are not within the spirit of the awards, nor within the intent of the rules.

       Reply

       1. The problem you face, Steve, is that any such wording will be seized upon and the practice of authors listing what they published last year and of groups like NESFA and BASFA creating their own rather chaotic recommendation lists is the same thing as a curated slate. You and I know the difference, and I suspect most of the people behind this year’s efforts do as well, but there may well be people who really can’t see any distinction between them.

          Reply

          1. well then, it would need to have some description of an “open” list versus a slate or some such.

             All I am really looking for is an institutional rehash of what has been “known” for the past 60 years – the general concept that we’re all in this together and don’t seekl undue advantage for ourselves – at least not without giving something back.

             The need for such is largely due to many voters not having had prior experience with this stuff before, not being able to soak it up through association.

             You’re certainly right in so far as those who want to “game” the system go. Even if a clear delineation of “recommended list” versus “slate” could be written (doubtful), those who want to play games would just use that definition to figure out a way around it.

             On another related item: members must submit ballots for two years prior to their nominations/votes actually being included. (You work thru the process but are a “provisional” voter), might deter a lot of gaming, as it would require holding the bloc together for three years (and treble the cost), but I think it too draconian to go over with the fans.

             Reply
22. Pingback: The SJWs Lose at the Hugo Awards - Bitchspot

23. steve davidson says:
    May 9, 2015 at 08:14

    Here we go with a failure to read the words and accept what they are saying using commonly utilized definition and context.

    I wrote ” It’s a form of cheating, pure and simple.”

    Form of cheating. Not cheating in the strict definition of the word (a violation of the rules) – but a “form of”. In other words, against the spirit and intent, as opposed to the letter.

    I guess I don’t understand words either. For me, a dory is a form of a boat; running is a form of locomotion. Does a dory go against the true spirit and intent of a boat? Does running go against the true spirit and intent of animal locomotion? Do SJWs always lie?

    Reply

24. Maybe this will help define the situation:

    When you have games at a family gathering, there are the game rules and there’s also the generally unspoken agreement that everyone is there to have fun. If someone runs over the 6 year olds during the sack race in order to “win”, most of us would agree that they didn’t “break any rules” – but that would’t be what we were talking about. What we’d be talking about is the asshole relative that won’t ever be invited back again.

    Reply

    1. Unfortunately, the analogy doesn’t fit. Everyone knows that you don’t run over a 6 year old, or at least they should.

       However, in this case not everyone can know what a bunch of petulant childish elitist snobs consider acceptable or unacceptable, nor should anyone actually care. Like I said the more appropriate analogy is the kid who is mad that he didn’t get to choose the game taking his ball home in a whiny stampy fit, I realize that you don’t see it Steve, but take a moment and consider that the kid throwing the whiny stampy fit usually doesn’t think he is the one in the wrong either.

       Reply

       1. Gremlin:

          Everyone knows that you don’t run over a 6 year old, or at least they should.

          No, you don’t get to evade it like that. You need to understand that from the point of view of people who have been members of Worldcon for a long time and understand the community of which they are a part, the behavior that says “Here, minions: vote in lockstep on this slate because I say so” looks just as bad as an adult running over the 6-year-old at the picnic. And it generates the same level of annoyance. And the people saying, “But I did nothing wrong” look very much like the adult saying, “You didn’t say I couldn’t do that! It’s all about winning, isn’t it? I did everything I could within the technical rules to win, and that’s all that matters!” They’re right, but they’re also wrong, and the very fact that they don’t understand why they are wrong is the root cause of this year’s controversy.

          The Hugo Awards have had organized bloc votes before, albeit rarely, and generally aimed at getting a single item onto the ballot. The members of WSFS as a whole have generally placed such works perceived as violating the norms of the community very low, often below No Award. We’ve even been told here at TheHugoAwards.org that works that place below No Award on the final ballot should be struck from the finalist list entirely, although we’ve not done this and do not plan to do so absent a specific request from WSFS, which makes the rules.

          Reply

          1. “Here, minions: vote in lockstep on this slate because I say so”

             See that is the problem, do you have any concept of how insulting you are being? Not to mention close minded to the fact that probably 90% of the people that voted for SP simply agreed that the works were worthy of receiving the award. It is your hate for the people who came up with the slate that is causing the problem, not the slate itself.

             “the very fact that they don’t understand why they are wrong is the root cause of this year’s controversy.”

             No the fact that they don’t understand why they are wrong is because they are not psychic. If you wan’t something to be unacceptable then you make it against the rules, period. You don’t piss and moan like petulant children when things don’t go your way.

             Also, I resent the implication that I do anything in my life to make a couple of authors that I have never met happy. I saw a suggestion for works that I thought worthy of recognition so I took the suggestion and nominated those works, which is what I presume 90% of the others that nominated did as well.

             The controversy came about when the elitist snobs who think that only what they deem worthy should be nominated got their panties in a bunch and decided to throw a hissy fit, when the best way to handle it would have been to just ignore it and let it go away. Instead they have chosen to alienate and abuse a huge number of people who actually might have started to support the award again.

             You can’t complain because someone followed the rules but didn’t follow your special unwritten rules.

             Regardless of how the SP slate came about you continue to lump together anyone who nominated SP works.

             All I did was nominate works I thought were deserving, regardless of where I got the idea from, and for doing that I have been called racist, bigot, and a host of other things, not to mention basically being called a mindless drone by you just now. But somehow I am the one who is wrong and the bigot.

             Ya, know thanks to you and Steve I have changed my mind about one thing, now I do hope the Hugo’s fail, I may not assist in it, but you have convinced me that Larry and Brad probably have a valid point.

             Reply

             1. Gremlin:

                do you have any concept of how insulting you are being?

                Pretty much as offensive as you were in describing the entire rest of the Hugo Award electorate as kids throwing a stampy fit.

                If you wan’t something to be unacceptable then you make it against the rules, period.

                Yep, just like running over the children in the sack race. It’s not against the rules. But that example was so obvious that you actually understood why something that wasn’t illegal was actually wrong.

                The controversy came about when the elitist snobs who think that only what they deem worthy should be nominated got their panties in a bunch and decided to throw a hissy fit,

                Ah, I see. People you like are just voting for what you think are deserving, but people who are angry at what they see as a violation of social norms of a community are “elitist snobs.”

                You love to go on and on about how “no rules were broken.” Well, if the members of WSFS vote all of the works that you nominated below No Award, are you going to say, “That’s fine, it’s within the rules.” I’m dead serious about that. Abuses of process in the past have been met by a solid wall of No Award. Are you going to throw a hissy fit of your own if the works you nominate are voted below No Award, as permitted by the rules of WSFS?

                Ya, know thanks to you and Steve I have changed my mind about one thing, now I do hope the Hugo’s fail, I may not assist in it, but you have convinced me that Larry and Brad probably have a valid point.

                I really, really want you and every other person convinced that the Hugos Are a Failure Because they Don’t do What I Tell Them To Do to form the Real Awards for Real Fans. Please, please, I honestly and sincerely urge you and everyone who thinks like you to set up the Real Awards for Real Fans Done Right and show all of us how it’s Really Supposed to Be Done. I know it sounds sarcastic, but I want you to do it.

             2. Kevin, can’t reply directly to your post so have to go here.

                “Pretty much as offensive as you were in describing the entire rest of the Hugo Award electorate as kids throwing a stampy fit.”

                Because that is what I see, what you are accusing people of is doing something to purposefully harm the awards, which was not my intent nor do I believe it was the intent of most of the SP’s, but I give up trying to convince you of that.

                “Yep, just like running over the children in the sack race. It’s not against the rules. But that example was so obvious that you actually understood why something that wasn’t illegal was actually wrong.”

                Huge difference between not harming children and not “violating” the unspoken “rule” of a group.

                “who are angry at what they see as a violation of social norms of a community are “elitist snobs.”

                Yep, because how in the name of Pete am I supposed to know that just being someone who wanted to nominate works I thought deserving? What do I call Mrs. Cleo? That’s the problem, instead of trying to explain or start a dialog, certain of the luminaries of World Con just started hurling insults like Bigot and racist. (HUGE NOTE: Kevin is not included in that and I am in no way implying that he should be.)

                “That’s fine, it’s within the rules.”

                Yep, I fully support any members right to vote the way they see fit, just like I support anyone’s right to vote for nominations as they see fit. As I have said on multiple occasions if someone really feels that the work was not deserving of the award based on the work itself then I fully support that. However, if you put the work under no award just because it was on some slate that is just being petulant and childish, but I support their right to do so.

                As far as your last paragraph, I had hoped to be made to feel included and valued by the community, unfortunately that has not been the case.

                I do owe you an apology, I should not have included you in “now thanks to you and Steve”. I let my frustration get the better of me. You have been willing to discuss and try to explain and that needs to be recognized, my sincere apologies.

                However, people like Steve and certain members of the community have alienated a huge group that could have been a valued part of the community if just approached with a more open mind and in my opinion they have done more to harm the award than any of the SP’s.

             3. Gremlin:

                Because that is what I see, what you are accusing people of is doing something to purposefully harm the awards, which was not my intent nor do I believe it was the intent of most of the SP’s, but I give up trying to convince you of that.

                I can accept that you believe this. What you don’t seem to understand is that you’ve been taken advantage of by people (one person in particular), who does want to purposefully harm the awards. In my personal opinion, you’ve been hornswoggled by bad actors. And it doesn’t matter if you had good intentions; you’ve managed to be bamboozled by people who did want to harm things and who delight in destruction.

                Huge difference between not harming children and not “violating” the unspoken “rule” of a group.

                Sheesh, you’re so wrapped up in the literal words that you can’t actually see the analogy. Instead of “running over,” try this: “Because you’re a big adult, you can obviously run much faster than the kids, and therefore you outrun them in every race, even though all of the other people who attend your annual family reunion have always let the children win. It’s not like they published a set of rules that said that; it was just understood, and they’ve been holding the reunion every year for half a century. But you showed up for the first time and said, ‘It’s not against the rules! And Winning Is All That Matters!’ Well, yes, and everyone agrees that nobody actually put up a big sign saying that for your benefit. But for some reason, none of your relatives are wiling to speak to you. Your feelings are hurt because you didn’t break any rules and You Won.”

                As I have said on multiple occasions if someone really feels that the work was not deserving of the award based on the work itself then I fully support that. However, if you put the work under no award just because it was on some slate that is just being petulant and childish, but I support their right to do so.

                What if you were given the choice of looking at the top 15 nominees (without knowing how many nominations they got) and were allowed to vote on the question, “Does this work deserve to be a Hugo Award Finalist?” How would you react if every work you nominated (remember, it’s unlikely that any work was supported by more than about 20% of the electorate) had a majority of the members voting “No, this doesn’t deserve to be a finalist.” Would you consider that to be fair?

                WSFS rules don’t give members a way to individually say, “This work didn’t deserve to be on the ballot.” The only way they can do so — the only way they have ever been able to do so — has been to vote it below No Award. That’s intentional. It’s not a new feature. It has always been there. And the members of WSFS have done so in the past. Why is the fact that this is a well-known feature, not something deployed personally against you this year, such a difficult thing to understand?

                As far as your last paragraph, I had hoped to be made to feel included and valued by the community, unfortunately that has not been the case.

                Per my analogy above, you really have come to a long-standing family reunion for the first time, read only the technical rules, never really spoken to any other member of the family, taken advice from someone who hates the family, doesn’t want to be part of it, and in fact deliberately schemes to damage it, and done what he told you to do “to win” because Winning Is All That Matters. Now you’re mystified because nobody who actually cared about the family will speak to you civilly.

25. Kevin,
    Your comment made me realize that, like your potluck dinner analogy (and the town that runs on fandom analogy) the family gathering analogy has at least one other point of congruence.
    What do ‘most’ people do when attending a (long-running) family gathering for the first time? In my experience, they don’t arrive and start arranging everything, telling everyone else what and how to do things. Rather, they meet and greet and observe and learn how things are done. They’ve probably (out of a sense of decorum) asked the relative that invited them about the process and general outline of whatever ‘rules’ and traditions there may be (yes, bring some food, no, beer only, things will run from ten till whenever; bring bug spray, yes, there’s a place to change for swimming, yes, that distant uncle will be there, bring a glove if you want in on the softball game). They’ll probably hang close to that same relative until they get comfortable and familiar with a few other relatives, and they will undoubtedly leave with opinions of more relatives (what a gossip Sadie is; Uncle Jack is a pain, but funny; Bill and Sarah’s kids are real brats), and an appreciation for what the rules/culture is. The following year, their comfort level will be higher, they’ll be familiar participants. Know the ropes.

    Reply

    1. Yes, and in the complicated world of family dynamic’s you would be correct. However, we are referring to a popularity contest with a simple voting structure, not complicated family interactions.

       But to take your example a bit further, does the family usually ostracize someone for making what is really a minor error that only an insider could know? Do they imply that they are just bigots and racist or even outright call them such? Because that is exactly what has happened here. Thank you for giving me a way to explain it. BTW, in your example you are that nasty relative that always brings up minor indiscretions from the past in order to embarrass and ridicule.

       Sure there may have been some who were trying to “damage” or “hurt” the awards, but that wasn’t the majority of us. But because I like the same books as Larry or Brad I must be evil as well?

       Reply

       1. Your reply shows that as far as I can tell, you don’t really know how Worldcon and the Hugo Awards work, nor are you aware of the complex community that has grown up around them over the past seventy years. And as far as I can tell, you don’t want to be aware of it.

          Reply

          1. With the way people have been treated over something so silly, you might be right.

             Reply

             1. You call it silly. Have you considered that there are people who have been continuously attending Worldcon since 1953? (That’s the currently longest-attendance string of which I’m aware: Robert Silverberg. My own continuous-attendance string goes back to 1989, and I’ve had a membership back to 1984.) That this is a community, not just someone who consumes SF/F pop culture and wants to buy a ticket to be entertained at a gate show?

                Possibly you’ve heard of Burning Man? That’s a community too; a community that forms one of the largest cities in Nevada for a few days each year. Worldcon is like that, too; a community that forms once a year in a different city somewhere different. (Oh, and we have running water and air conditioning, but it’s not a perfect analogy.)

                The funny thing to me is that when I went to my first SF convention (the 1984 Worldcon in Anaheim), I got that almost immediately. I realized that I’d found my tribe. But I also realized that I didn’t know everything. I knew technical rules because I could read, and in fact I actually participated in the Business Meeting that year (I moved the adjournment of the first day’s meeting). But I didn’t show up and demand to have everything adjust to me the moment I arrived. It took a while to figure out where everything was and what the unstated assumptions were. That’s the way a community works, you know. It takes time, but not an infinite amount of time. Eleven years after riding a bus all night the length of California to attend that first convention, I chaired the WSFS Business Meeting. Seven years after that, I co-chaired a Worldcon. But along the way, a bunch of people in that ongoing community, that small town of between five and ten thousand people that appears in a different city each year, thought I was some sort of crackpot.

                Respect cannot be demanded; it has to be earned.

             2. No one demanded respect, just basic civility, which with notable exceptions (You foremost in those) was not forthcoming.

                I salute your service to World Con, but you just pointed out the problem. Your “tribe” isn’t very accepting of others at least from my point of view.

                It really doesn’t matter anymore anyway, the main author I nominated decided to slap his fans in the face and withdraw. So that nomination will never be forthcoming again from me.

             3. Your “tribe” isn’t very accepting of others at least from my point of view.

                Not when others come in and demand that we turn over the entire store and 60 years of accumulated goodwill to them, because they said so. No community is going to welcome people who arrive en masse and demand that everything be run their way, immediately, because they said so.

             4. Who demanded that? I didn’t. Like I said you are letting your hatred of certain people justify judging many others who are not deserving of it.

26. “However, people like Steve and certain members of the community have alienated a huge group that could have been a valued part of the community if just approached with a more open mind and in my opinion they have done more to harm the award than any of the SP’s.”

    Wow.
    I’m curious as to what your definition of “huge” is.
    I’m also curious as to how I’ve managed to alienate that group?
    By voicing my dissatisfaction with the actions of a handful of authors and other individuals who have chosen to, at the very least, violate the ethics of a nearly century old institution?
    By endorsing a method of protest against those actions that has been built into the awards almost from the beginning?
    By offering up an analogy that’s pretty darned close to the mark?

    Gremlin – I want every interested person to become a part of SF fandom. I would like them to do so in a manner that is consistent with the way such things have been done, across the board, for centuries, by anyone who has joined a new society/culture: by figuring out what the culture, mores, rules, forms of acceptable behavior are, largely through participation and observation and then fitting themselves in, customizing their experience to match their own needs.
    Respect, or rejection, of cultural institutions can only occur (effectively) after one has learned what they are (and if one wants to really offer up cogent, effective arguments, only after learning the additional whys and wherefores as well).
    You can’t step into a new culture and not step on toes if the first thing you do is start demanding change, attacking its institutions and violate the unspoken ways of going about things.
    One learns these things because THEY WANT TO BE A PART of it.
    I ran the second-to-last banquet style Hugo Awards ceremony. I helped with the last one. Both I and the person who ran the last one share ideas on how to effectively bring back the banquet/dinner party from time to time, because we enjoy that form and would like to see them happen again.
    Neither of us has attacked Worldcon, or the awards, or the people who decided to drop the banquet over the years because we don’t like the way things are being done these days.
    In many ways, your protests (and certainly those of the primary agitators) remind me of the picture the rest of the world has of the “Ugly American” – the American tourist who visits a foreign country and pitches a fit because “no one speaks english”, and then concludes that everyone in that country is an idiot because they obviously can’t learn to speak english, and why the hell doesn’t everyone drive on the right side of the road?
    They’ve lost sight of the fact that they’re in a foreign land and are temporary guests and have run up against the fact that rules they thought universal aren’t. Instead of appreciating the fact that people have chosen to do things in a different way (probably for good reason), they want to make everyone conform to what their experience of “proper” is.
    It just doesn’t work that way (and it never has). If you are joining a new culture, you start by asking how THEY do things, not by demanding that they adopt YOUR culture.

    Reply

    1. “I want every interested person to become a part of SF fandom.”

       Complete arrogance, “SF fandom” does not consist solely of the attendees of World Con or this organization. In fact most likely they are a distinct minority considering how they treat new comers.

       Frankly, I love the argument that we are “stepping on the ethics”. How laughable, considering that I was planning on attending World Con for the first time this year, plans which I have now changed and convinced others to change. So when exactly would I have even had a chance to find out those social moors? Yet, you and others have lumped everyone who voted for authors who were on the SP slate into the same group.

       Yes, I nominated authors from the SP slate. Afterwards I found out that that there was some sort of problem with slates and ya know what I didn’t and still don’t give a tinkers damn, because I nominated authors I thought deserving of recognition and if that is a problem for certain members of this organization then I would suggest that the problem isn’t with me, but perhaps a problem within the organization itself.

       Also, just because that is the way it has always been done, isn’t a sufficient reason to be resistant to change. If it were we would still be a nation that embraced slavery.

       I also wonder if there would have been such a push back if the SP slate had been conceived by authors you deem more acceptable?

       Reply

       1. Gremlin:

          While it is manifestly true and always has been that by the definition of “SF fandom” that means “consumers of SF/F popular culture,” the attendees of the World Science Fiction Convention never have been the sole members of fandom, what I don’t think you understand is that “Fandom,” a distinct community of dedicated fans of SF and Fantasy, is a community with roots that stretch back to the conventions, fanzines, and letter columns of SF/F magazines of the early twentieth century, and the conventions and other public manifestations of SF/F enthusiasts with which you are personally aware can trace their ancestry back to this community.

          SF/F conventions whose ancestry traces back to the Worldcons (which is merely the oldest and longest continuously held such event) are not “shows” where you purchase a “ticket” for a pre-packaged “entertainment experience” to be served up to you the way you might buy a ticket to a concert, sporting event, or theme park. They are communities of people who have purchased a membership to a club. Like joining any club or community, it is unwise to come barging in insisting that everything be arranged for your own personal convenience. Fandom is not a restaurant, where you’re paying servants to feed you. It’s more like a pot-luck dinner where every guest is expected to bring something and to also kick in toward the cost of renting the community hall in in which the dinner is being held.

          Because you choose to hide behind a pseudonym (unlike me and unlike Steve — I know him and have met him personally), we have no idea who you are or what sort of experience, if any, you have interacting with the larger community of science fiction and fantasy enthusiast communities broadly described as “SF/F Fandom.” From the way you behave, however, you certainly do not appear to have had much, if any, contact with that community. Perhaps you can clarify what, if anything, you know about the history and community you are so quick to dismiss?

          Regarding the “push back” comments: It’s difficult to tell, because despite the repeated false claims by others (remember, I’ve been an Administrator for the Awards and have seen the ballots at times in the past), there has never been the widespread push to completely dominate the Awards across the board as there was this year. You should note, however, that every other obvious slate-voting attempt in the history of the Awards has been met with disdain and criticism, and works that have been obviously pushed onto the ballot by narrow interest groups whose views are out of alignment with the majority (not just a loud plurality) of the members have generally met an ignominious fate. So I would think that if a group of any ideological bent started an obvious campaign to stifle 80% of the electorate by concentrating their votes onto a small slate of works, the rest of the members would react just as loudly and just as angrily as they have this year.

          I’ve been a part of this community since 1984. Every year we generally see a few works that leave members wondering what their fellow fans were thinking. This year is different. We have never in the history of the Hugo Awards to the best of my knowledge seen the level of widespread outrage that has been in evidence this year.

          Reply

          1. I understand the feeling of community that is shared in a group. I also don’t intend to discount nor discredit those, like you, who have worked to make World Cons happen, you should be saluted and proud of the accomplishment.

             As far as my name, even having it wouldn’t do you any good as I am not “known” in the SF community I am just a fan. But if it matters my name is Michael and I am a School Nurse in Arkansas. No I am not a regular attendee to any Con, though I have been to several over the years.

             I can understand the frustration that is what usually comes with changing times. I truly believe that is what you are looking at here.

             At this point I think we are just kicking a dead horse. Kevin thank you for explaining and thank you for all of your hard work.

             Reply

27. The Cultural Revolution has begun. The Peoples Revolutionary Council on Speculative Fiction denounces counter-revolutionary, reactionary thought criminals. Sad and Rabid Puppies ordered to report to Spokane Reeducation Center.

    Reply

28. I just want you to know that I’ve been reading Hugo award winners for 40 years. Not anymore. I’m boycotting the Hugos if the Sad Puppy slate is not thrown out. Furthermore, I’m boycotting every author on their slate and adding the list to my social media so my friends can boycott them too. Cheaters should never be encouraged.

    Reply

    1. Just when I think that civil discourse is about to break out, someone goes and throws napalm into the smoldering embers.

       BTW, if that wasn’t a line in the sand, then I’ve never seen a line in the sand. I guess, for some, discussion and the examination of facts and listening to other’s opinions is right out the question.

       As one who isn’t aligned with the Old Guard or the Saddest Puppies, I have no pony in this rodeo — but none of y’all are bringing much credit to yourselves.

       Reply

    2. Nobody cheated. Calm down and read a good book.

       Reply

       1. They put out a slate that was not based on the quality of the product. It was based whether or not it passed the test of conservatism. I would define that as requiring the product to be politically correct, by conservative standards.

          I like to read Hugo winners because I expect that they have passed a quality bar. I read a lot of stuff other than science fiction. I only want to read the science fiction that’s highly rated. In my mind, the quality bar has been thrown out.

          Reply

          1. Your comment is nothing more than either a bald faced lie, complete ignorance, or possibly a combination of both. There were authors from across the political spectrum on the SP slate, I doubt anyone would consider Jim Butcher your typical conservative, lol.

             Reply

          2. Also, if you actually knew anything about the SP you would know that one of the core principles behind sad puppies was;

             “that sci-fi and fantasy publishers should neither promote nor exclude any particular political worldview.”

             A view that was confirmed by Mr. Tim Dohety, the founder and president of Tor books, on the Tor Blog.

             Reply

             1. the “core principal” behind the sad puppy slate was to stick it to the SJWs.

                From Torgerson “The cannon have been fired. There’s no doubting it now. Decades of simmering tension are being unleashed in an emotional struggle for the future of the field. The Hugo award is just a thing; a mere football. These divisions go far beyond a silver rocketship. They are drawn along political lines — liberal, and conservative; progressive, and libertarian — as well as along artistic lines — taste, expression, and the desire for meaning. ”

                It always was nothing but a political fight so far as they were concerned and had nothing to do with any of the other issues they claim to be supporting.

                Further, those of us voting No Award for items that appeared on slates are not rejecting the fiction or the individual authors out of hand. Rather I am – and believe that many others – are using the Hugo Award voting process – AS IT WAS INTENDED to be used (unlike others who broke a social compact and gamed those rules – legal in word but not in intent) to register our distaste and non-acceptance of slates and block voting.
                We are rejecting the process, not the works, not the individuals. (Rejection of the works and the individuals is a separate issue that each person will have to determine on their own.)

             2. “It always was nothing but a political fight so far as they were concerned and had nothing to do with any of the other issues they claim to be supporting.”

                No that is not an indication that “they” were concerned, that is an indication that is was as “he” is concerned. You can’t attribute Brads attitude to everyone that happened to agree with the SP “slate”. Once again you are letting your obvious hatred of an individual cloud reason.

                I had no clue about Brads feelings, especially since I had no clue who he was when I found the slate, what I found is a slate of books that were recommended for an award, several of which I had read and loved. Which is what I believe most people who voted for SP’s did, as any reasonable person would conclude.

             3. “those of us voting No Award for items that appeared on slates are not rejecting the fiction or the individual authors out of hand.”

                No, you will be rejecting them because of your hatred of the person who made the slate.

                “Rather I am – and believe that many others – are using the Hugo Award voting process – AS IT WAS INTENDED to be used (unlike others who broke a social compact and gamed those rules – legal in word but not in intent) to register our distaste and non-acceptance of slates and block voting.”

                First of all your illusion to a “social compact” is basically pointing to empty are a insisting that something is there. I have not voted for more than 15 years nor have I ever been to World Con and the behavior of the membership surrounding this issue has has pretty much assured that I never will.

                “We are rejecting the process, not the works, not the individuals. (Rejection of the works and the individuals is a separate issue that each person will have to determine on their own.)”

                Ahh, so it is Ok, for you to “game the rules” and try to convince others to vote a certain way is fine, but when someone else does it, its wrong, gotcha.

          3. You may not agree with the quality of the writing. That is opinion, not cheating. Your response is full of feeling and wants, and that is great, but your feelings and wants do not equate to cheating. If you want to be taken rationally, then please use the right terms. No one cheated. Everyone has been following the rules. You are just unhappy at HOW people are following the rules. For that, I wish you well.

             Reply

          4. So, your argument is that political POV is the sine qua non to be on the SP slate. And that quality has no bearing on the matter. That is what you said.

             Strangely enough, the SPs indicate that political POV has been the sine qua non of the Hugo process. And that quality has no bearing on the matter. I exaggerate their position a bit.

             Both can’t be correct. Or can they? As stated, I have no dog in this fight. However, my perception is that SF&F, in terms of quality, has been deteriorating over the last two decades. With some notable exceptions, the average story has become pedestrian, self-consciously “literary”, and (for want of a better term) revisionist — reflecting the disaster that Western education has become. But that doesn’t mean that I side with the SPs — merely that I am empathetic to several of their observations. With the personal result being that I read about 10% of the genre that I have been reading over my lifetime.

             However, self-righteously taking your ball and going home merely plays into the stereotype of the reaction of one entitled who doesn’t receive whatever it is that they feel entitled to. You can do better than that.

             Reply

29. Instead of trying to fight the idea of slates, I think a better approach would be to go the other direction: set up an online system to make it as easy as possible for everyone to suggest their own slate. Create an online community (or use an existing one like Goodreads) to let people promote books, friend other readers, and share comments. Most important, make it easy for members to get the text of the stories being discussed.

    My theory is that the real problem here was that the puppies were the only ones making a serious pitch for a slate of books. But if it were something that everyone did, then it wouldn’t be possible to game, short of buying lots of fake memberships.

    Obviously there would be a lot of details to work out (I have a 35-year career as a programmer/manager, so I’m not naïve here), but I think it could work and might even build a stronger community in the process.

    Reply

    1. Steve,

       Bravo! Excellent idea. It also has the added advantage of giving everyone a way to feel that they have been heard.

       Reply

       1. This sounds like you’re saying that instead of an open nominating process, we should have a couple of political parties, and the only way to make the final ballot is to be on one or the other party’s slate.

          This sort of solution is doubtless very comforting to Americans and the American political system, which is geared around there being only two possible choices on any question at most.

          Reply

          1. No, the idea would be to let everyone have their own personal slate, if they wanted to, to share with their friends and relatives. “These are stories I read and liked.” It lets you invite anyone (or everyone) to read the same tales and to talk with them about it.

             I think a big part of the reason why so few people vote to nominate is that few people feel they’ve really read a representative set of stories in different lengths. The goal would be to hugely increase involvement. The only reason the puppies were successful was because involvement has been so low that a determined minority could swamp the voting. That’s the real problem to fix–lack of involvement. Address that and there’s no need to worry about how to make (and enforce) rules about promotion.

             Reply

             1. You do know that there are lots and lots of things exactly what you’re talking about, right? Anyone can post on their individual web sites, FB pages, etc. things that they like? Dozens if not hundreds of people seem to be trying to set up Google Docs, Wikis, blogs, Tumblrs, etc. etc. etc. with this sort of thing. There’s a LJ community for Hugo Recommendations. There are web sites galore. Trying to actually manage such activity and say, “There can only be one official way of doing this” is a fools errand, I think.”

                There are also well-meaning people who think that TheHugoAwards.org should maintain a web site of “everything in the world that has been published that is eligible this year,” which is an utterly impossible task, as anyone who has ever considered the prospect realistically will understand.

30. Pingback: Hugos and Puppies, the 2015 Short Fiction Nominees | The Geekiary
31. Pingback: Review – Rat Queens Volume Two: The Far Reaching Tentacles of N’Rygoth | The Dinglehopper
32. Pingback: On the Quest to Find the Best Science Fiction & Fantasy of 2014: The Locus Awards | ConvergenceBookReviews
33. Pingback: Skin Game: A Novel of the Dresden Files, Book 15 by Jim Butcher | Mabrick's Mumblings

34. Greg Hulander,

    I think the “problem” with your suggestion is in referring to your suggestion as a “slate”.

    If, instead, you refer to it as a “list of recommendations”, well then, that’s what Kevin is referring to.

    Many SF clubs offer up “recommended reading lists” (these are NOT just for the Hugo, but are, primarily, for their own members; and second, for readers who may be looking for suggestions. Frequently, such lists can be used to research potential nominees for many different awards); many review blog sites do as well, as do a lot of individuals who simply read a lot.

    In point of fact, a positive review (of a current work that would possibly be eligible for one of several different awards) is a “recommendation”.

    The step that violates sensibilities is comprised of two parts: 1. Putting together an entire list of works that ought to be nominated 2. exerting pressure of some kind to encourage a group of voters (minority or majority) to nominate the items on the “slate”.

    I know that SP have said that they have not told anyone “how” to vote (“but we only put together a list of recommendations), but when you couple that list with continuous blog posts describing how bad, awful people have been hurting them and offer up the voting slate as the solution to that problem, you really don’t need to “tell” people “how” to vote. The message is pretty clear even if the manner in which it is delivered allows them to deny responsibility.

    Recommended reading – fine, yes. Slates – absolutely not.

    Reply
35. Pingback: Meet the ‘Toon: Larry the Bear. Thing. | Tempest in a Teardrop
36. Pingback: 2015 Hugo Nominee: Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie - Attack of the Books!
37. Pingback: Hugobevakning 2015 – Inledning | Drömmarnas berg -SF, Fantasy och Skräck
38. Pingback: Little Libraries, George R.R. Martin Goes Retro For HBO, Top 11 Children’s Books & More! | Forces of Geek

39. Actually there were authors from all across the political spectrum, your comment is nothing more than an bald face lie.

    Reply

    1. This comment was meant to be a reply to another comment above, site doesn’t do well when hitting reply from an e-mail.

       Reply
40. Pingback: The Scarlet Litter 6/21 | File 770
41. Pingback: Gernsback SF Short Story Writing Contest 2015 - The Earthian Hivemind
42. Pingback: Best Graphic Story Nominees for 2015 Hugo Awards | LFPL Reader's Corner
43. Pingback: Art helps, but it can’t shine up the tarnished 2015 Hugo Awards | Imagined Worlds | L.A. Barnitz
44. Pingback: Drawing a Line in the Sand | Brian K. Lowe
45. Pingback: Reading the Rockets – Best Graphic Story | Futures Less Travelled
46. Pingback: Staff Picks #10
47. Pingback: 2015 Campbell Nominee: Murder World: Kaiju Dawn by Jason Cordova - Attack of the Books!
48. Pingback: 2015 Hugo Awards | westfargomusings

49. From what I can tell (as a casual fan of SF) all the Sad Puppies did was expose what was previously an open secret: that the Hugo awards are determined by a cliquish group who conflated “good” politics with good writing and who (consciously or not) occasionally elevated poor writing and ignored quality writing because its philosophical underpinnings – or even just the personal politics of the authors – were distasteful. Some people found this elevation of the politically correct and esoteric above the offensive but popular to be aggravating – particularly as many felt that the politically correct themes of previous slates merely covered for poor writing.
    When the Sad Puppies utilized the very same tactics that others had previously used (ie. campaign slates) they became a heavy handed attack by “not true SF fans” precisely because they involved a wider swath of readers. That’s not to say that this is an entirely *unfair* categorization, but merely to pint out that the Sad Puppies use similar mechanisms as were previously used, but the process has been democratized, commercialized and popularized.
    I’m trying not to make value judgments, though I suppose its obvious were my sympathies lie. I would say that democracy, even over awards voting (perhaps particularly over an awards vote) is a messy thing. On the one hand it allows the common man a voice in the issue at question, on the other hand it allows the common man a voice in the issue at question.

    Reply

    1. Joseph:

       You appear to have a different definition of “voting slates” than most people who have participated in the process in the past. For example, a suggested reading list consisting of twenty or so different works that members of a club have read or enjoyed in the past year and thought Hugo-worthy versus a list of exactly five works with instructions to vote this way for specific ideological reasons. As I understand your comment, these two things are identical. Not everyone agrees with that.

       Do note, however, that the final ballot is voted on by all of the members of the current Worldcon, not just those who nominated the finalists, and the rules for voting are open to public view and are not secret, nor have any voting eligibility rules been changed on the fly, nor has any person willing to pay the WSFS membership dues under the rules of the Society been denied the right to vote under the rules. Furthermore, the process for changing WSFS rules is very deliberate, very well-documented, and every attending member of WSFS — and there are thousands of them — can vote on those changes. On top of that, no changes can be made quickly; it takes at least two years, so that no changes are made hastily or due to emotionally-charged issues, but in the cold light of reflection over two Worldcons held in geographically disparate locations. And furthermore, even non-attending members can propose changes, although only the members who actually attend have the right to vote on those changes. There are no Cabals, no Shadowy Board of Directors, no Secret Masters of Fandom deciding the results. In fact, the result is in many respects a pretty pure direct democracy, of one member, one vote. On top of all that, the process used for the final Hugo Award ballot (Instant Runoff Voting) pretty much ensures that the candidate selected is the one backed by a majority of the electorate, not just a dedicated plurality in the way that the nominating ballot’s “first five candidates past the post” system works. So we know with a reasonable degree of certainty that the final Hugo results reflect the majority opinion of the members of WSFS, whether it is one of the nominated finalists or No Award, which the members always have the right to select and in fact have selected several times in past years when they decided that none of the candidates on the ballot deserved to be called a Hugo Award Winner.

       Reply

50. Joseph B: an “open secret” isn’t secret, but to use your terminology, what the puppies did was not to EXPOSE an open secret. They EXPLOITED an open secret.

    An open secret lying around, known to everyone and – with only two exceptions that I can think of – NEVER exploited by the tens of thousands of fans that have participated in the awards since the mid-fifties.

    The action alone says a lot about the people who did this. The action alone strongly suggests that they aren’t fans, because, demonstrably, what they did is something that fans do not do.

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.