The Hugo Awards Kerfuffle...

[Brian G Turner]

Just for reference, Hugo award winners - male:female

2000-present - 10:6
1990-1999 - 6:5
1980-1989 - 7:3
1970-1979 - 6:3
1960:1969 10:0

 

[David Doherty-Jebb]

OK, so this is just my tuppence ha'penny but...

What I find so sad about all of this is the whole crap of 'Us' and 'Them', 'Sad Puppies vs SJW'.

Let's aaaaaaaall of us think back to when we discovered SFF. It opened our minds to new possibilities, new ideas and new ways of seeing the real world. But if we're honest, it felt like 'oh, here's a type of book/story that talks about me, about how I feel, about the things I think about'. It gave us an outlet (or perhaps an inlet into ourselves), it opened doors within us. That is even truer for many of us here on this site, as we all aspire to create worlds like those we read, give substance to the worlds those stories sparked within us.

So, this may sound like fluffy psycho-babble, but am I wrong?

Which leads to my question: why do some of us feel the primal need to plant a flag and say 'Ours' when it comes to SFF? Of any genre, ours is the one that has so much room for so many different ways of seeing the world. Why do those of us who have created monikers such as 'Sad Puppy' and 'Social Justice Warrior' push for such separation?

Until a few days ago I had no idea this kind of feud existed and I wish I'd never found out. I certainly wish I'd never found out who Vox Day/ Theodore Beale is (why did he give himself a drag queen name? Ideas? Suggestions?).

I love SFF, it gave me somewhere to go when my life sucked, somewhere to imagine when this reality hurt and gave me ideas on how to make my real life better. I'm going to remain a fan and an aspiring writer in this genre and I'm going to gravitate to those of us who share, motivate and empower with their kindness and generosity of spirit.

Who's with me?

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

Just for reference, Hugo award winners - male:female

2000-present - 10:6
1990-1999 - 6:5

This is the only number that could potentially be used as a potential source of discontent among women, but it might have easily simply been chance. Nothing there to claim any rigging in favour of women.
The 1990-1999 number seems very evened out to me though which works to balance the 10:6 number. Just for the sake of it, could you separate the 2000-present into 2000-2009 and 2010-present? I know I nitpick, but in stat, grades should always cover approximately same interval. XD

1980-1989 - 7:3
1970-1979 - 6:3
1960:1969 10:0

With that, there is no way that it should equate in quite a few years after participation evened out without it tilting heavily in favour of women in some artificial manner. I don't think that 75% number should cause such dissatisfaction for another few years.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I tend to think most barriers against women in SF/F are institutional rather than by conspiratorial design, so I doubt there was any specific attempt to roll back the growing influence of women in the Hugo Award nominating process during the years 2000-15. But also the 6:5 ratio in the 1990s may have been a fluke, to a degree, as 10:6 is closer to 7:3. That would suggest that the institutional barriers remain pretty strong, though growing weaker, and that the 1990s were an outlier (possibly driven by the immense popularity of Connie Willis and Lois McMaster Bujold among worldcon voters during that time).

 

[Brian G Turner]

2000-2009 - 7:3
2010-2014 - 3:3

 

[Brian G Turner]

With reference to the 1960's - winners included giants such as Robert Heinlein, Philip K Dick, Fritz Lieber, Roger Zelazny, and Frank Herbet.

There is a potential argument that in that period, science fiction was still primarily aimed at young males. The all-male list was broken by Ursula LeGuin. 1970's winners included Arthur C Clarke and Isaac Asimov, giants to compete against under any circumstances.

^ All the above are for best novel only.

According to Wikipedia, Connie Willis has won 11 Hugos and 7 Nebulas, more than any other SFF writer.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

I tend to think most barriers against women in SF/F are institutional rather than by conspiratorial design, so I doubt there was any specific attempt to roll back the growing influence of women in the Hugo Award nominating process during the years 2000-15. But also the 6:5 ratio in the 1990s may have been a fluke, to a degree, as 10:6 is closer to 7:3. That would suggest that the institutional barriers remain pretty strong, though growing weaker, and that the 1990s were an outlier (possibly driven by the immense popularity of Connie Willis and Lois McMaster Bujold among worldcon voters during that time).

It is always possible which is why I asked for a clarification to better judge it. I only stated that there is no evidence of rigging in favour of women. As for the possible prejudice against women, either could be true. And inclusion won't be very linear TBH. It takes time for it to happen. My only argument is that it should take time and that the 75% number shouldn't be a reason for discontent yet.

2000-2009 - 7:3
2010-2014 - 3:3

That seems about right. The data for which we have a certain percentage, meaning the most recent one divides it pretty down the middle. I'm not sure if this year should be counted in future statistics since the campaigning happened and thus doesn't represent the actual state of things.

With reference to the 1960's - winners included giants such as Robert Heinlein, Philip K Dick, Fritz Lieber, Roger Zelazny, and Frank Herbet.

There is a potential argument that in that period, science fiction was still primarily aimed at young males. The all-male list was broken by Ursula LeGuin.

That's obvious. xD I'm only saying that the number would tilt the global percentage in favour of men and delay the natural evening out for a while.

EDIT: What we'd also need for a proper statistics would be the nominations because they matter a lot too regarding the inclusion of any group. Actually, what we'd really need is a systematic research into all the relevant number before any affirmative claims could be made. The more we talk about this, the more I'm certain that all the actions done so far had been done very hastily and without proper research which makes it so much worse. Acting from not just misinformation or misinterpretation, but actual lack of systematic research and evidence is the worst possible action. It means that everything relies on demagogy. -.-

 

[Brian G Turner]

An observation - I seem to recall A publisher (Gollancz?) Stating that their submissions come in at around 60:40, and publish to the same ratio.

Interesting to note @Nerds_feather 's stats above for reading, which are very close to this.

And the past couple of decades of Hugo best novel winners also falls into the same approximate ratio for gender.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I disagree, and so does science. Both nature and nurture influence our characteristics and behaviour. That's why siblings are often very different from one another. I have twins, raised in as near to identical environments as is humanly possible, who even by 18 months were demonstrating dramatically different temperaments. By the age of five they were as different from one another as any two kids in their entire school.

But this is obviously a big subject which we shouldn't pursue in this thread. Maybe there are are there other places in this forum where this kind of discussion is appropriate?

We're talking about two different things. You're talking about nature vs nurture and their effects on the individual, I'm talking about the process of a individual newborn learning culture.

A newborn doesn't hate, it doesn't have prejudice or religion, or a favorite sports team, or a favorite writer. These are all products of the culture and the environment they are raised in (nurture). The examples you're talking about are not cultural byproducts or the result of being raised by different parents. You're talking about the innate temperment of your kids (nature).

Nature influences the person as they grow, granted, and that nature interacts with the preexisting culture they're born into, but the nature of that child does not effect the culture at large, rather the culture at large effects the child.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

An observation - I seem to recall A publisher (Gollancz?) Stating that their submissions come in at around 60:40, and publish to the same ratio.

Interesting to note @Nerds_feather 's stats above for reading, which are very close to this.

And the past couple of decades of Hugo best novel winners also falls into the same approximate ratio for gender.

If you mean to say that publishing for the SF writers is 60:40 in regards to gender, then the award ratio are completely justified and I don't see anything necessarily implying tampering with them. That just make the entire situation all the worse. If all this "amateur" research (using the quotation marks because we aren't exactly using proper stat methods and it is done rather hastily during an immediate discussion) is giving such results, I think this entire matter was just terribly premature and unfounded.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

Oh and many thanks @Brian Turner and @Nerds_feather for providing these numbers. You are helping me greatly in settling where I stand on the issue.

 

[MWagner]

With reference to the 1960's - winners included giants such as Robert Heinlein, Philip K Dick, Fritz Lieber, Roger Zelazny, and Frank Herbet.

One of the complaints of the Sad Puppies is that the authors who have been nominated in recent years are not anywhere near as popular as those names, and it's unlikely they ever will be, and that this is evidence of a votership that is out of touch with readers. However, I think that's a misguided complaint. While fantasy may be much more popular than it was 50 years ago, science fiction is much less popular, and both genres have fragmented audiences jtoday. While it's extremely unlikely Ancillary Justice will still be in print 15 years from now, let alone 50, that's probably the case for even the most popular SF published these days.

However, it does seem to me that the tastes of the Hugo voters are notably peculiar, with favourites showing up over and over again. Everything Charles Stross writes is nominated, while highly-successful writers like Peter F. Hamilton and Alastair Reynolds are ignored. Chums for voting for chums seems a likely explanation.

 

[Brian G Turner]

An observation about gender preferences in genre fiction - is it possible that males associate the romance genre as having weak and passive male characters, and females associate science fiction as having weak and passive female characters? As a generalisation that might colour reading choices? Just a thought.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

One of the complaints of the Sad Puppies is that the authors who have been nominated in recent years are not anywhere near as popular as those names, and it's unlikely they ever will be, and that this is evidence of a votership that is out of touch with readers. However, I think that's a misguided complaint. While fantasy may be much more popular than it was 50 years ago, science fiction is much less popular, and both genres have fragmented audiences. While it's extremely unlikely Ancillary Justice will still be in print 15 years from now, let alone 50, that's probably the case for even the most popular SF published these days.

It should also be noted that what is popular nowadays isn't exactly stuff necessarily deserving of a reward. Hugo award isn't an award for a bestseller and what is popular in population at general. It is more about what is popular among the sci-fi enthusiasts which doesn't have to overlap with general population especially due to very formulaic YA novels that reach huge levels of success thus drowning out awards material books.

An observation about gender preferences in genre fiction - is it possible that males associate the romance genre as having weak and passive male characters, and females associate science fiction as having weak and passive female characters? As a generalisation that might colour reading choices? Just a thought.

Possible. The main possible reasoning for this could stand in movies where women in popular sci-fi movies don't always have a most flattering portrayal which could create potential aversion to the genre on the whole since movies are what we are more exposed to nowadays.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

That seems about right. The data for which we have a certain percentage, meaning the most recent one divides it pretty down the middle.

I think it's worth noting that when this started to approach parity is right when the Sad Sacs started.

EDIT: What we'd also need for a proper statistics would be the nominations because they matter a lot too regarding the inclusion of any group. Actually, what we'd really need is a systematic research into all the relevant number before any affirmative claims could be made. The more we talk about this, the more I'm certain that all the actions done so far had been done very hastily and without proper research which makes it so much worse. Acting from not just misinformation or misinterpretation, but actual lack of systematic research and evidence is the worst possible action. It means that everything relies on demagogy. -.-

One of the big complaints against the SP folks is that they're seeing bogeymen under their beds. But facts don't tend to sway and are too easily dismissed. See the SP responses to GRRM's "Where's the Beef" post for examples.

One of the complaints of the Sad Puppies is that the authors who have been nominated in recent years are not anywhere near as popular as those names, and it's unlikely they ever will be, and that this is evidence of a votership that is out of touch with readers. However, I think that's a misguided complaint. While fantasy may be much more popular than it was 50 years ago, science fiction is much less popular, and both genres have fragmented audiences today. While it's extremely unlikely Ancillary Justice will still be in print 15 years from now, let alone 50, that's probably the case for even the most popular SF published these days.

I agree.

However, it does seem to me that the tastes of the Hugo voters are notably peculiar, with favourites showing up over and over again. Everything Charles Stross writes is nominated, while highly-successful writers like Peter F. Hamilton and Alastair Reynolds are ignored. Chums voting for chums seems a likely explanation.

I still don't get the mindset that it simply must be something nefarious. The idea that Stross is simply really popular is ignored. The idea that he's consistently high-quality is ignored. The idea that he's consistently higher quality than others is ignored. The idea that his stuff happens to land on the ticket with "lesser" works is ignored. That his stuff is simply cherished by the crowd that typically goes to WorldCon is ignored. Nope. Gotta be glad handing, back room deals, and a conspiracy. I'm not saying any of these are actually true, simply pointing out a few possibilities that are dismissed to reach the conclusion of an evil conspiracy.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

I think it's worth noting that when this started to approach parity is right when the Sad Sacs started.

Possible, but they have been campaigning for a few years and had been rather unsuccessful in dampening the progress until this year. Which really makes me wonder, what changed this year?

One of the big complaints against the SP folks is that they're seeing bogeymen under their beds. But facts don't tend to sway and are too easily dismissed. See the SP responses to GRRM's "Where's the Beef" post for examples.

I've read that argument. Like I said, I was already disposed to side against the SP initiative upon my introduction to the topic. I just wanted to explore the possibility and strengthen the argument before settling on where I stand and I tend to have issues with any hasty use of percentages. XD

This is really the biggest issue with SPs. It is all demagogy and facts are just being ignored. That doesn't mean facts should be given up on. If anything, they should be more insisted on. The only way to fight demagogy is by refining your own argument to bring it to a level where it can't be very easily refuted by obvious flaws in it. Without that, one will just fall to the same level and then it will just be about who is a better demagog.

 

[Nerds_feather]

This is really the biggest issue with SPs. It is all demagogy and facts are just being ignored. That doesn't mean facts should be given up on. If anything, they should be more insisted on. The only way to fight demagogy is by refining your own argument to bring it to a level where it can't be very easily refuted by obvious flaws in it. Without that, one will just fall to the same level and then it will just be about who is a better demagog.

Agreed. I see all these references to shadowy conspiracies as if they established fact, but the actual facts appear to say otherwise.

And of course the "reason" for S/RP seems to shift with the wind--sometimes it's to "prove" that voters campaigns can be conducted (and then this is sloppily substituted as proof that they have actually happened); sometimes it's to score one for good old fashioned fun; and sometimes it's to "stick it to the SJWs."

 

[J-Sun]

Non-literary section (vegetables)

Our culture just happens to be a patriarchy, filled with indifference and oppression.

I see that indifference on this thread and everywhere else. And, no, our culture does not happen to be a patriarchy. Women vote, inherit property, are eligible for all offices public and private. A husband can be charged by his wife with rape, etc., etc., etc. Modern Islamic cultures (probably not even many of those) and ancient Greco-Roman cultures might profitably and reasonably be called patriarchies but the concept is important and shouldn't be misused to mean "a woman has only been Secretary of State and Speaker of the House and not yet President." (And even that qualifier theoretically might not apply within a couple years - probably will, but might not). (And she has been Prime Minister for some or all of our cousins.)

Vox Day/ Theodore Beale is (why did he give himself a drag queen name?

You sexist anti-LGBT jerk. I don't want to hear anything more from you! Your viewpoint is discredited!



Seriously, if you're asking why he used a pseudonym, I have no idea beyond that it's a twist on vox dei and he seems to have more that kind of identity crisis.

I think it's worth noting that when this started to approach parity is right when the Sad Sacs started.

You don't sound any better than the anti-"SJW" folks with that "Sad Sacs" thing. Like "sad puppies" is too ennobling?

Then consider that 75% of Hugo for Best Novel have been awarded to men and you might get an idea why people (women and PoC) feel excluded.

Srylanna does a great job debunking the appalling ahistoricity of that charge and Brian provides some numbers but we're still missing one of the pitfalls of numbers.

2000-present - 10:6

2000-2009 - 7:3
2010-2014 - 3:3

it would imply that the current ratio is much greater than 50:50 in favour of women which doesn't seem right to me.

Exactly. In the last four years, 75% of Hugo novel winners have been women, exactly the opposite of what Fishbowl said. (And if you look at Nebula slates such as 2014 - something like 2:1 - or add up all the fiction categories for the last several years (probably still 60/40) you see some statistical improbabilities. In the last 12 years, it's 5 women to 7 men (there was a tie) which is a mere one award off. But if you stop counting at any given point you can make any given point. All you can say is that Hugo novels have historically been dominated by men, are lately dominated by women, and have long been in the ballpark of statistical reasonability. And that raises the very issue of quotas again. What would unchanging precision indicate but quotas vs. quality? There are 32 teams in the NFL and there have been 49 Superbowls which means each team should have received 1.5 trophies. Dallas, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, New England, etc., need to give an awful lot of theirs back.

According to Wikipedia, Connie Willis has won 11 Hugos and 7 Nebulas, more than any other SFF writer.

Exactly. We live in a Willisarchy and she needs to give those back.

Everything Charles Stross writes is nominated, while highly-successful writers like Peter F. Hamilton and Alastair Reynolds are ignored. Chums for voting for chums seems a likely explanation.

Agreed. And this is where I think the SP idea that this is exactly a "leftist" thing falls down. It took eons for Sterling and Cadigan to get what are almost token awards (richly deserved but if those, why don't they have a case full of rockets like they should for all the other fantastic things?). There is a sort of cabal and is sort of left-oriented but obviously "being a spectacularly good writer of somewhat left-persuasion" is not the sole magic qualifier. Sterling and Cadigan published mostly under Ace and Spectra rather than Tor, perhaps? I have no idea what the "house" numbers are - it's likely something much subtler than that.

I still don't get the mindset that it simply must be something nefarious. The idea that Stross is simply really popular is ignored. The idea that he's consistently high-quality is ignored.

Are you saying Reynolds isn't popular and of high quality?

Literary section (dessert)

The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale by Rajnar Vajra. Mildly entertaining stuff, but there wasn't even an attempt of anything new.

Yeah, as I said in the thing I linked to in my first post on this thread - a post on the F&SF forum - that ain't the best Analog has to offer and, at the bottom of that post is my recommended Analog list.

One award for best novel.

I had another thought about this or remembered an old one:

On a statistical angle: IIRC, the most recent SFWA definitions were that a short story was anything up to 7,500 words. A novelette was capped at 17,500, and novellas were capped at 40,000 (approximately 100pp in some arrangements). This follows approximately a 230% increase at each category. So, at that rate, after a proper "novel", we'd need a new word for something longer than 92,000 words, or about 230pp. And something else beyond 212,000 words or about 530pp. Now, these are just word counts and not structural conditions or qualitative considerations but seem like reasonable grouping for how I tend to feel about them: "novels" tend to be as good as their fulfillment of the form. Novel-novels have to overcome their almost inevitable padding and formlessness and my boredom with parts of them. And it's very hard for novel-novel-novels to overcome the crushing burden of their length.

The term for one of those categories books of great length could be novellong, with the next larger having an added 2 to make novel2long.

(Ursa just got an extremely belated "like" because we didn't have those then. )

This would dovetail with your "more novels" idea (though I'll never support "less short fiction"). "All" we have to do is create more categories of novel.

 

[MWagner]

I still don't get the mindset that it simply must be something nefarious. The idea that Stross is simply really popular is ignored. The idea that he's consistently high-quality is ignored. The idea that he's consistently higher quality than others is ignored. The idea that his stuff happens to land on the ticket with "lesser" works is ignored. That his stuff is simply cherished by the crowd that typically goes to WorldCon is ignored. Nope. Gotta be glad handing, back room deals, and a conspiracy. I'm not saying any of these are actually true, simply pointing out a few possibilities that are dismissed to reach the conclusion of an evil conspiracy.

I'm saying if you have 10 or so top-notch authors in their genre, and one gets nominated for the Hugo for everything he writes, and several are never nominated, despite dozens of critical and market successes, then we probably have a group of voters with quite specific tastes, and/or a social clique element at play. And since GRRM himself, who has been a Hugo nominee and a voter for almost 35 years, says that yes, people vote for writers they know and like socially, I think the latter is at least partially responsible. It's not nefarious. It's just a reality of social networks and subjective voting.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

An observation about gender preferences in genre fiction - is it possible that males associate the romance genre as having weak and passive male characters, and females associate science fiction as having weak and passive female characters? As a generalisation that might colour reading choices? Just a thought.

I think this may be true for a lot of readers. Although as far as romance goes, the men who thought that way would be quite wrong, since the vast majority of heroes in romance novels are alpha males ... actually some of those heroes make real-life alpha males look like sissies by comparison.