The Hugo Awards Kerfuffle...

Fishbowl Helmet said:
And yet, the Puppies only purpose was negativity and spite from the very beginning, which is not at all in keeping with the celebratory purpose of the awards.
Click to expand...
I think you mistook what we are arguing about. We are talking about the existence of No Award in itself and not the campaigning for it.
 
J-Sun said:
If you (generic "you" - I don't like "one doesn't") don't like anything in a category, then simply don't vote. Voting "No Award" is malicious.

If nothing appeals to you, it doesn't mean it can't appeal to anyone and, really, you're saying, "I'd rather deprive someone and their fans of a Hugo award based on my taste than simply stand aside and let those who do like something decide it amongst themselves." It's nothing but spite. I don't know why the option ever existed (unless exactly for this when the fannish wars were about those commie weirdo Futurians or whatever) and, while I believe No Award has finished higher than some nominees, I don't think it's EVER been the top (non-)choice. Maybe once in the Nebulas, I can't remember; I doubt it. That might happen if there's an orchestrated campaign for it.

Really, there have been sub-par Hugo winners before (the Clifton/Riley novel is the standard example) but I doubt it much matters. On the other hand, can you imagine the "mainstream" lit snobs twisting it and making fun of a field that is so bad it can't even give awards to itself? Those NO AWARDs in the Hugo lists would be a far more obvious and permanent blight than just giving it to the best of your options on this slate, however non-optimal they may be. It would take "Hey, that was a weird year, they weren't very good" (except in Novel and Dramatic Short and several other categories where they may be as good or better than usual) and turn it into a "this was the year SF imploded" permanent scar.
Click to expand...

I do not support a campaign of "no award," for reasons I've laid out on my blog. But I also see no reason why I should reward:

(1) the efforts of two men to use a slate-voting mobilization scheme (which I already oppose on moral grounds) as a means of promoting themselves (to the tune of 11 nominations for person A's small press, 2 personal nominations for person A himself, and 6 (6!) nominations for person B.

From an ethical standpoint, that's obscene--even if you shelve, for the moment, any consideration of slate voting qua slate voting OR the public statements of either individual, which are frequently (and dare I say deliberately) noxious.

[FTR I see this as completely different from some author saying "hey, here are the works I've produced this year that are eligible." In this case, persons A and B mobilized voters to make whatever political point they said they were making, but which just so happened to also promote the interests of A and B.]

(2) works that are, simply put, not award-worthy.

Every year I use "no award" to separate those works I think would make worthy winners from those I think would not. And yes, sometimes I've voted "no award" above the actual winner.

Others are free to disagree and vote accordingly. But this is what "no award" exists for.
 
Last edited:
Fishbowl Helmet said:
Another piece on this whole thing.
Click to expand...

Imagine if people put one-quarter of that kind of passion and effort into making their community - I mean their physical, real-world community - a better place as they put into these hysterical feuds over depictions of characters in fantasy novels and video games.

This kerfuffle has inspired some ideas for a SF novel I've been playing around with. It's a dystopia where most people live suspended in networked isolation tanks, virtually acting out endless wars under the banners of an ever-changing pantheon of god-heroes. Outside the concrete hives where the tanks are located, packs of feral humans roam a blasted wasteland, scavenging for survival and sometimes breaking into the hives to devour the tankers. Too obvious?
 
Ah, but would I vote for your novel? All your talk about the "real world", a reality outside squabbling over SFF, makes me suspect that you're either:

a) a freedom-hating, weirdo-loving commie who can't stand the sight of Old Glory flying over a few dead foreigners OR
b) a difference-shaming patriarchal monothinking hegemononormalist who tolerates nobody's pronouns.

Whatever it is, you're not it enough, or you're it too much.

I've got to admit, I do keep thinking: "All these angry people could just give to charity, you know..." Perhaps I'm getting just a tad cynical about it all!
 
MWagner said:
This kerfuffle has inspired some ideas for a SF novel I've been playing around with. It's a dystopia where most people live suspended in networked isolation tanks, virtually acting out endless wars under the banners of an ever-changing pantheon of god-heroes. Outside the concrete hives where the tanks are located, packs of feral humans roam a blasted wasteland, scavenging for survival and sometimes breaking into the hives to devour the tankers. Too obvious?
Click to expand...

I'd read that novel.
 
MWagner said:
Outside the concrete hives where the tanks are located, packs of feral humans roam a blasted wasteland, scavenging for survival and sometimes breaking into the hives to devour the tankers. Too obvious?
Click to expand...
Slightly reminds me of Tad Williams series, but I've not read it all yet.
 
@MWagner, nice. I'd read that. This whole thing also sparked an idea for a short or something in my head. People's minds are uploaded and whilst purely digital secretly edited for conformity and consensus. The minds are then resleeved when needed. Sounds too familiar. Maybe I read that somewhere. Hmm.
 
I'm getting a security alert with your link to Scalzi's blog, FH, so in the meantime, here's the same link (which, at least, works for me), albeit directed at the article rather than pointing straight to the comments section.
 
MWagner said:
Imagine if people put one-quarter of that kind of passion and effort into making their community
Click to expand...

Imagine if they put it into their writing? I see quite a few authors always have something to say when it comes to online controversies - but barely have anything to say in their books, if at all.

And that Blogspot post - 16,000 words long, and another 21,000 of comments!

Ursa major said:
I'm getting a security alert with your link to Scalzi's blog,
Click to expand...

It's just because his web designer hasn't properly implemented the https secure certificate.
 
Speaking of security stuff, with Chrons I get the padlock with a yellow triangle in front of it. Not a problem, I take it? [I'm about as tech literate as Ug the Caveman, so apologies if that's a daft question].
 
thaddeus6th said:
Speaking of security stuff, with Chrons I get the padlock with a yellow triangle in front of it. Not a problem, I take it? [I'm about as tech literate as Ug the Caveman, so apologies if that's a daft question].
Click to expand...

If you click on it, it tells you (are you on Chrome?) My browser tells me that: my connection to Chrons is encrypted with modern cryptography but has this page includes other resources which are not secure. What the other resources are I'm sure Brian can tell us :)
 
Aye, that's the fellow, Venusian.
 
I'd guess, but I'm just on the level above luddite when it comes to detailed web stuff, that this site allows quite a few third-party things to work on it. Like youtube media connections and other mixed media things (???) <He says hurriedly reading up the Chrome help page on all the warning symbols :D>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Parzival Hugo Awards 2019 Livestream SFF Lounge 0
Al Jackson The Expanse - Why No Hugo Awards for Second Season? The Expanse 10
Azzagorn Hugo Awards 2016 Book Discussion 4
Brian G Turner Hugo Awards 2016 - Nominations SFF Lounge 12
chopper Hugo Awards, 2015 Book Discussion 6

Similar threads


Back
Top