The Hugo Awards Kerfuffle...

[Jo Zebedee]

Let me guess, this is where the thread veers off into the stupidity of the "If you don't tolerate my intolerance, then you're not really tolerant," argument, right? That didn't take long.

A little preemptive, maybe? Since no one actually has....

 

[DrMclony]

Perhaps Chrons should have its own official awards. "This book was worth reading", "This game was fun to play", "This author upset the most forumites because they didn't release a book this year.", "This film confused the most viewers." And..."This SFF award caused the most fuss this year."

Make one "This book sold less copies than anything else" - I might have a chance at winning that one!

 

[Toby Frost]

I think the "left" consistently shoots itself in the foot. First, by using language comprehensible only to other activists. Sooner or later, if you want to change the world, you have to start talking to its citizens in language that they understand. And then there's that sense of ghastly joyless earnestness which has made the left such a good target for parody since about 1920. Whenever right-wingers say "Can't take a joke, eh luv?" they're wrong, but they look right.

Secondly, this feeds into the sense of being a club: you're either a paid-up member or you're a villain. There are no half-measures, and if you're not in a continual state of righteous fury, busily denouncing the witches of the hegemony, you're a bigendering normshamer or whatever. Being a reasonable human being isn't an option: you must be an angry activist, or you're Hitler. I also think that some of the discussion misses the real target: what happens to a character like Brienne in ASOIAF is probably more important in changing people's opinions than half a dozen more "worthy" novels. Sad, I think, but true.

But I do think that the "left" view is ultimately better than the "right" view, both morally and in terms of improving the genre (and Gamergate is a disgrace). SF can be about issues and entertaining, without loudly shoving those issues in your face or rehearsing some crude plot that has been done many times before. It seems that the "right" want to freeze the genre into a sort of "fun" pulp pastiche, or, worse, to turn it into "Ayn Heinlein Freedom Force v the space commies" - in other words, to make it dumb. And I don't want to read dumb books.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Let me guess, this is where the thread veers off into the stupidity of the "If you don't tolerate my intolerance, then you're not really tolerant," argument, right? That didn't take long.

I recognise that trope - it's called "trolling". Stick with the discussion and quit with your denunciations of our community, please. You are tilting at windmills.

 

[Zoe Mackay]

A comment. On a personal ethics front, I think it is wrong to nominate something for an award that you haven't read/seen/listened to. I think it is wrong to nominate something for an award purely because it agrees with some political point you wish to make.

That isn't to say that politics never play a part in one's appreciation of a work, or one's desire to hold it up and say "this is an exemplar of what I think is good" (which is what nominating something for an award is, in my book). "It's a great story and it has a message I believe in" is a perfectly valid reason to nominate something. It's identical to "this is a great story and it says something profound".

 

[Brian G Turner]

And here's a statement from Correia, on why he started the Sad Puppy movement and the current kerfuffle at the Hugos:
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015...ters-from-the-author-who-started-sad-puppies/

 

[soulsinging]

Let me guess, this is where the thread veers off into the stupidity of the "If you don't tolerate my intolerance, then you're not really tolerant," argument, right? That didn't take long.

I didn't see any of that either. Between this and the other thread, it really seems like you're the one eagerly seeking and trying to provoke an argument. Your sweeping and condescending generalizations (as you do when you simplify the entire to debate to a George W Bush style "you're either with ME, or you're with the racists" mantra) are as self-righteous and combative as the right-wingers you claim to oppose.

Sure, diversity is great. But how do you define it? Nationality? Race? Age? Income? How do you effectively promote it? Is lack of diversity always and automatically a sign that all the white guys are involved in some conspiracy to keep everyone else down as you seem to feel?

 

[Nerds_feather]

Diversity is good. Promoting diversity is good. But promoting diversity by railing against "straight white males" (as many in these kerfuffles do) as if they're some homogenous group who must be defeated only serves to alienate straight white males who might actually want to read stuff by authors with different backgrounds.

If you want to promote diversity, include. Don't exclude.

A radical fringe does take an exclusionary position, but most people who are interested in expanding diversity do not want to exclude anyone. They just want a field that's more inclusive.

Of course, if there are a finite number of slots for something, say 5, and 4-5/5 annually went to group X, members of group X can feel threatened if suddenly 2/5 slots are given out to group Y. Even more so if, in one year, 4/5 go to group Y. This can be interpreted as exclusion by people who didn't necessarily think about it in those terms when 4-5/5 slots were going to their own group.

 

[MWagner]

Sooner or later, if you want to change the world, you have to start talking to its citizens in language that they understand.

More than that, if you want to engage the rational you have to employ reason, and to tolerate others challenging your beliefs on rational grounds. I'm a inveterate skeptic who challenges unspoken assumptions and irrational arguments wherever I see them. In recent years, this has earned me far more vitriol from the left than from the right.

Secondly, this feeds into the sense of being a club: you're either a paid-up member or you're a villain. There are no half-measures, and if you're not in a continual state of righteous fury, busily denouncing the witches of the hegemony, you're a bigendering normshamer or whatever. Being a reasonable human being isn't an option: you must be an angry activist, or you're Hitler.

The radical left has embraced a kind of secular religion, where zeal and absolute certainty chase away logic and skepticism as hostile credos. It's irksome to be branded a bigot because you don't take up the flag of crusade with unwavering faith in a Manichean struggle against the forces of darkness. I won't set aside my independent thought and critical analysis for any cause or movement. I don't need to feel part of a team, and I think an us vs them outlook means shutting off half your brain to hold fire against 'your side' and regard every comment from 'their side' as hostile and in bad faith. It's sad that it's the left today - whose aims I largely agree with - who are the ones who cannot tolerate the cold light of reason.

I Is lack of diversity always and automatically a sign that all the white guys are involved in some conspiracy to keep everyone else down as you seem to feel?

If lack of diversity can only be attributed to deliberate exclusion, then the Romance genre, which is far more homogeneous than SFF, is maintained by an even more oppressive hegemony. Maybe that's where the champions of diversity should be calling their crusade.

A radical fringe does take an exclusionary position, but most people who are interested in expanding diversity do not want to exclude anyone

This is what troubles me perhaps most of all about this issue. Why aren't the radical fringe called out by their more moderate peers? Why do so many participants in these 'culture wars' set aside critical thinking for the solidarity of their team against the enemy? Is conformity really so alluring? Independent thinking so threatening?

Of course, if there are a finite number of slots for something, say 5, and 4-5/5 annually went to group X, members of group X can feel threatened if suddenly 2/5 slots are given out to group Y. Even more so if, in one year, 4/5 go to group Y. This can be interpreted as exclusion by people who didn't necessarily think about it in those terms when 4-5/5 slots were going to their own group.

It's the notion of 'own group' that some of us have difficulty with. Is my 'own group' Canadians? Gen X? Parents of young children? Atheists? Amateur military historians? Those who believe humans in a natural state are brutal and cruel? Readers who prefer that character attitudes and behavior should follow from environment? Beer lovers?

Or is this all just about race and gender? If so, I reject the notion that those are the paramount identities we all possess. And I can't see how anyone who subscribes to classical liberalism (or who is familiar with the Enlightenment at all) could get on-board with that paradigm either. If you judge each person by their own merits, there's no room for identity politics. And if you subscribe to identity politics, you're inviting people to regard a woman foremost as a woman, and an Asian foremost as an Asian. Isn't that the mindset we're trying to move away from?

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I recognise that trope - it's called "trolling". Stick with the discussion and quit with your denunciations of our community, please. You are tilting at windmills.

No, Brian, it's called experience. This conversation isn't just happening here. It's happening on every form of social media and most forums that have anything even remotely related to science fiction, fantasy, publishing, or are in any way geek-related. I am simply applying my knowledge of a fair few of those conversations to this one. These things tend to follow patterns. I may have jumped the gun, by a bit, granted, but at least now we can avoid that embarrassing conversational cul-de-sac.

My favorite link is the one from the bloke associated with the Sad Sacks when he claims the Hugos are nothing but an affirmative action award, here. Relevant bit here:

"In the last decade we’ve seen Hugo voting skew more and more toward literary (as opposed to entertainment) works. Some of these literary pieces barely have any science fictional or fantastic content in them. Likewise, we’ve seen the Hugo voting skew ideological, as Worldcon and fandom alike have tended to use the Hugos as an affirmative action award: giving Hugos because a writer or artist is (insert underrepresented minority or victim group here) or because a given work features (insert underrepresented minority or victim group here) characters."

If that doesn't scream nutter from nutter-land, I can find more than a few VD quotes about Nora Jemisin and his notions of racial purity and science that I'm sure would shed some light on these folks. There's also quite a few rants and raves from John C. Wright (someone you've probably never heard of who was slate-nominated for 3 of the 5 novella slots) where he comes out as unabashedly hateful of gays and lesbians, even openly threatening violence against the creators of Legend of Korra.

There's some good articles from Charlie Stross on all this, and an article from Arthur Chu. There's also an incredibly detailed response on Black Gate as to why Matthew David Surridge bowed out.

The Hugo Award for Best Novel has had women nominated all of 57 times... out of a total 319 nominations. That's just under 18%. Women have won 17 of the 64 Hugo Awards given for Best Novel. That's just over 26%. Despite being more than half the population and utterly dominating book related fields, some people feel that's enough and it's time to return things to their "proper" place. If I'm the arsehole for disagreeing, fine, but I'd rather be on the right side of history.

More often than not, when people with privilege perceive the Others as getting some equality, they assume it's due to special treatment or somehow that the process is rigged, which gets us the magical paradox that is the Privileged But Persecuted phenomenon. This is also why so many Christians in America think their religion is under attack and there's so much backlash there. It's literally unthinkable that the person in any way deserves the rights the PBP has enjoyed for much of history, or the awards that have historically gone so overwhelmingly to whites or men. In reality, it's just their privilege slipping. But they perceive it as them "losing what's rightfully theirs" and "special treatment" of others, when it's really things becoming more equal and just.

So too with this thing. The Puppies saw that Not Us were getting "too many" awards and decided it must be because the system was rigged because of course it couldn't be possibly that the authors actually earned their awards (actually quoted above), so they decided to "strike back" and win some for "their side" by rigging the system. Turn about is fair play, of course, but no one was rigging the system before. The arc of history bends towards justice. After 60 some years of mostly whites and males and straights winning awards, new generations of writers and fans have grown up with more open minds and started awarding Hugos to non-whites, women, and LGBT folks. Which apparently for the Puppies was just too much.

EDIT: On the flip side, I was told that I'm a racist, sexist, misogynistic, men's rights activist the other day by a prominent African-American female SF writer. So it probably does come down to context and relative positioning.

 

[Brian G Turner]

The Hugo Award for Best Novel has had women nominated all of 57 times... out of a total 319 nominations.

It becomes more interesting if you look over the past 2-3 decades. Last time I looked - which wasn't long ago - I was given the impression that it was 60% male:40% female, with the Nebula's showing the reverse, and the World Fantasy Society showing general parity.

 

[Nerds_feather]

This is what troubles me perhaps most of all about this issue. Why aren't the radical fringe called out by their more moderate peers? Why do so many participants in these 'culture wars' set aside critical thinking for the solidarity of their team against the enemy? Is conformity really so alluring? Independent thinking so threatening?

You're just not attuned to the right conversations. There's a TON of pushback inside the political left against digital militancy and "call-out culture." For example here, here and here. [Note I don't consider myself a part of the political left, I'm just well-attuned to their discourses.]

But to your broader point, one of the reasons that committed militants (whether left, right or off the map) can dominate political discourses is that the are committed true believers, while "moderates" are by definition those whose views are complex and grey, those who just don't feel that strongly about a given issue, or those who do but (for any sort of reason) don't want to be activists. You see this dynamic all the time. The Bolsheviks could dominate the Mensheviks because they were more committed, more purposive and more zealous. The Tea Party and Christian Right can at times dominate the Republican Party because they are more committed, more purposive and more zealous. Etc. Etc. Etc.

[This isn't to say that militancy is always the wrong approach. I'd argue it's usually the wrong approach, but life is complicated and sometimes there are no other options.]

It's the notion of 'own group' that some of us have difficulty with. Is my 'own group' Canadians? Gen X? Parents of young children? Atheists? Amateur military historians? Those who believe humans in a natural state are brutal and cruel? Readers who prefer that character attitudes and behavior should follow from environment? Beer lovers?

Or is this all just about race and gender? If so, I reject the notion that those are the paramount identities we all possess. And I can't see how anyone who subscribes to classical liberalism (or who is familiar with the Enlightenment at all) could get on-board with that paradigm either. If you judge each person by their own merits, there's no room for identity politics. And if you subscribe to identity politics, you're inviting people to regard a woman foremost as a woman, and an Asian foremost as an Asian. Isn't that the mindset we're trying to move away from?

Any person is part of any number of groups at any given time. Relevance is contextual. Example: if all the, say, book award nominees are white and male--and suddenly over time most nominees seem to be not white or female, the chances that someone is going to cry "exclusion" will approach 100%--even if there's no attempt to cut anyone out and instead it's just a result of more books being published by non-white, non-male writers. The likelihood that they will grumble about the exclusion of beer-drinkers is null.

Similarly, if there's an award for "Malted Beverage of the Year," and it historically went to beer--yet all of a sudden craft ciders start winning year in year out, then the chances that a beer lover is going to cry foul will approach 100%. (And this actually happened in the world of wine, when Californian and later other New World wineries began beating French wines in contest after contest.) The likelihood that they will grumble about the exclusion of white males is null.

 

[Zoe Mackay]

I don't know how useful statistics are, but I went back and counted Best Novel nominees to 1959. Last 2 decades, 72.2% Male. Last 3 decades, 72.5% Male.

By decade:

50s (59 only) 100% Male
60s 96% Male.
70s 83% Male.
80s 80% Male.
90s 68% Male. (Hey! This is starting to get better! Progress!)
2000s 82% Male. (Oh.)
2010s (so far) 54% Male.

I'm not going to bother to do percentages for non-white nominees, there are about 6. Not percent. 6 in total. (Samuel Delany x3, Nalo Hopkinson, NK Jemisin, Saladin Ahmed)

 

[Nerds_feather]

I don't know how useful statistics are, but I went back and counted Best Novel nominees to 1959. Last 2 decades, 72.2% Male. Last 3 decades, 72.5% Male.

By decade:

50s (59 only) 100% Male
60s 96% Male.
70s 83% Male.
80s 80% Male.
90s 68% Male. (Hey! This is starting to get better! Progress!)
2000s 82% Male. (Oh.)
2010s (so far) 54% Male.

I'm not going to bother to do percentages for non-white nominees, there are about 6. Not percent. 6 in total. (Samuel Delany x3, Nalo Hopkinson, NK Jemisin, Saladin Ahmed)

Wow. Just...wow.

CONSPIRACY AGAINST TEH MENS!

 

[Nerds_feather]

Btw, I'm a voting member of World Con, and I've been chewing over how I'm going to vote this year--given that I'm morally opposed to slate voting. At the same time, I just don't feel right about excluding works or people *just* because they were put on a list without being consulted. So here's my personal solution--imperfect as it inevitably is.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Thanks for crunching more numbers.

 

[Nerds_feather]

EDIT: On the flip side, I was told that I'm a racist, sexist, misogynistic, men's rights activist the other day by a prominent African-American female SF writer. So it probably does come down to context and relative positioning.

Uh...what?

 

[Bick]

I don't know how useful statistics are, but I went back and counted Best Novel nominees to 1959. Last 2 decades, 72.2% Male. Last 3 decades, 72.5% Male.

By decade:

50s (59 only) 100% Male
60s 96% Male.
70s 83% Male.
80s 80% Male.
90s 68% Male. (Hey! This is starting to get better! Progress!)
2000s 82% Male. (Oh.)
2010s (so far) 54% Male.

I'm not going to bother to do percentages for non-white nominees, there are about 6. Not percent. 6 in total. (Samuel Delany x3, Nalo Hopkinson, NK Jemisin, Saladin Ahmed)

I don't see why those numbers indicate anything of note at all, except that male authors have written more SFF than female over the years. Why is the drop in the 90's considered "better" and "progress". it may just indicate more quality books were written by women that decade than in the following decade. it might not, but you cannot conclude one way or the other simply from the numbers. And why is it remotely concerning that more non-white authors have not been nominated unless screeds of wonderful books have been written by non-whites and ignored? Perhaps they have been and your shocked dismay is supported by your knowledge of many overlooked books by minorities. But the statistics themselves tell only a small part of the story and are effectively meaningless on their own. To draw conclusions and ire from them on their own is usually a mistake.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I don't see why those numbers indicate anything of note at all, except that male authors have written more SFF than female over the years.

Was probably true at one point, but not anymore. See: this report, which shows how underreviewed female-authored SF/F books are--even today. Reviews are, one should note, instrumental in both sales and award visibility--especially when those reviews are in widely-read outlets. I think it's pretty clear that female SF/F authors suffer from some pretty well-ingrained institutional disadvantages. I suspect a lot of those track back to the way publishers market books.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Uh...what?

I laughed too. It just shows that it's all about context and perspective.