The Hugo Awards Kerfuffle...

[Nerds_feather]

I've removed some posts. I'll send messages to the posters explaining why I did. If I removed one of yours, please have patience -- I will explain why.

Good, and thanks for removing them.

 

[Coolhand]

First, I'm not on board with the term "PC crowd," as I think "PC" is an overly emotive term that tends to obscure more than it illuminates. But of course I'm not blaming you or anyone else in the thread for that--I'm just saying why I think it's the wrong term to use.

Fair point. It was a casual term used to quick-sketch an idea, but I take your point that it tends to carry unfortunate baggage that obscures discussion. I'll take a little more care in future

Since we're sort of assuming that the current "culture war" being forced on SF/F has American roots, I'm going to make some observations with regards political movements in the US.

But regardless, historically speaking, movements on the hard end of the political left in the US (and in many other societies as well) tend to have "mobilization problems." They are, almost by default, riven by factionalism, doctrinal disputes and petty rivalries. The sharpest knives, it seems, often face inward.

The hard right doesn't have that problem--it's knives, as a general rule, face outward. Rather, the hard right's problem is that its views tend to be seriously unpalatable, even in the US, where the center is somewhat to the right of where it is in other industrialized societies. Hard right movements are a historical constant in US history, but they cluster regionally (in the South and "mountain West," as well as in small pockets elsewhere) and routinely struggle to expand beyond a 20% threshold. But they have sufficient mobilization capacity to dominate the news cycle and threaten to "take over." The hard left in the US simply does not.

I think that dynamic is reflected in the US side of SF/F fandom. I believe, from observation, that most SF/F fans are either casually supportive of left causes (like greater visibility for women writers), don't really care one way or the other, or are unaware of the politics. But very few are committed to the causes. A larger proportion, I suspect, are committed to hard right causes, or to opposing the pursuit of causes by the committed left of fandom, but it's still a relatively small proportion of the overall field (say, 20% to the hard left's 10%). So if we are talking mobilizing the hardcore, the hard right has big advantages over the hard left--not just in numbers, but also in mobilization capacity. However, if we are talking about the entire field, as it stands, then I see the left having some big advantages there, in the sense that the casual version of their causes do resonate more broadly. And so, when casual versions of left causes take root, they can garner more support than hard right opposition can (and still, I'll note, among a minority, given the large chunks of fans who either don't care about or are unaware of the issues). But that's soft rather than hard left.

Notable, in US fandom as well as US politics on a larger scale, it often seems as if the hard left and hard right ultimately aim the sharpest knives at the soft left.

But...and I honestly mean this with the greatest respect...that changes nothing.

The Hugo award is open to anyone who is prepared to pay the low fee: essentially a popular vote.

The basic principle of any popular vote is "the side that gets the most support wins."

If one side/book/author/viewpoint can't marshal enough of a popular vote to defeat the other side/book/author/viewpoint, for whatever reasons, be they better organising skills by their opponents, poor organising skills and infighting from their own side, poor mobilisation of their core supporters, their own cause and viewpoint not resonating with those who are entitled to cast their vote...

...that's not a reason to change the rules to stop the other side voting. That's simply called "losing." It's on each side to marshal their support better and get more votes. And if they can't get that, they'll lose again, as they should. To take the thing into the political arena, if you lose an election because the other side got more votes and broke no rules, you don't get to demand the right to vote be removed from your opponent because it's the only way you'll be able to win next time. You simply keep losing until you get more votes.

I think that's what has me scratching my head about this whole thing. The basic complaint about the Hugo this year appears to be:

"People whose politics are not mine are voting for books they like, in an award in which they are entitled by the rules to vote. We must stop this."

And that confuses me.

Nice Ralph Wiggum reference!

Thanks

 

[Coolhand]

Thank you Mods. The Chrons has a long and honourable tradition of playing the ball and not the man in these sensitive discussions, and long may it continue.

 

[JaimeRetief]

Since we're sort of assuming that the current "culture war" being forced on SF/F has American roots, I'm going to make some observations with regards political movements in the US.

First, I'm not on board with the term "PC crowd," as I think "PC" is an overly emotive term that tends to obscure more than it illuminates. But of course I'm not blaming you or anyone else in the thread for that--I'm just saying why I think it's the wrong term to use.

But regardless, historically speaking, movements on the hard end of the political left in the US (and in many other societies as well) tend to have "mobilization problems." They are, almost by default, riven by factionalism, doctrinal disputes and petty rivalries. The sharpest knives, it seems, often face inward.

The hard right doesn't have that problem--it's knives, as a general rule, face outward. Rather, the hard right's problem is that its views tend to be seriously unpalatable, even in the US, where the center is somewhat to the right of where it is in other industrialized societies. Hard right movements are a historical constant in US history, but they cluster regionally (in the South and "mountain West," as well as in small pockets elsewhere) and routinely struggle to expand beyond a 20% threshold. But they have sufficient mobilization capacity to dominate the news cycle and threaten to "take over." The hard left in the US simply does not.

I think that dynamic is reflected in the US side of SF/F fandom. I believe, from observation, that most SF/F fans are either casually supportive of left causes (like greater visibility for women writers), don't really care one way or the other, or are unaware of the politics. But very few are committed to the causes. A larger proportion, I suspect, are committed to hard right causes, or to opposing the pursuit of causes by the committed left of fandom, but it's still a relatively small proportion of the overall field (say, 20% to the hard left's 10%). So if we are talking mobilizing the hardcore, the hard right has big advantages over the hard left--not just in numbers, but also in mobilization capacity. However, if we are talking about the entire field, as it stands, then I see the left having some big advantages there, in the sense that the casual version of their causes do resonate more broadly. And so, when casual versions of left causes take root, they can garner more support than hard right opposition can (and still, I'll note, among a minority, given the large chunks of fans who either don't care about or are unaware of the issues). But that's soft rather than hard left.

Notable, in US fandom as well as US politics on a larger scale, it often seems as if the hard left and hard right ultimately aim the sharpest knives at the soft left.

After reading halfway through a Nixon biography and considering the fact that the Republicans have a large number of candidates, while the Democrats only have Hillary I find that a bit hard to believe.

From what I have read the Republicans are split between big and small government conservatives and that there are large differences in income among individual members.
Furthermore there are the differences between paleo- and neocons, and the neocons themselves vary quite a bit, Fukuiama for example is quite a bit more moderate than some of his peers, Kissinger is quite a bit more moderate than quite a few of the Hawks, and libertarians.
Similarly I have read that the tea party is quite factionary.

Back on track, can we perhaps get rid of the US political fallout by moving Worldcon to Europe or Canada?

 

[Brian G Turner]

Back on track, can we perhaps get rid of the US political fallout by moving Worldcon to Europe or Canada?

Canada? I second that motion!

And if anyone wants to explicitly discuss US politics, there's a board for it here:
https://www.sffchronicles.com/forum/world-affairs/

 

[JaimeRetief]

Canada? I second that motion!

And if anyone wants to explicitly discuss US politics, there's a board for it here:
https://www.sffchronicles.com/forum/world-affairs/

On second thought maybe not Canada, it is still too close to the USA and has a very long porous border, and a pretty small population in comparison to the US and the EU.
The UK on the other hand has double the population and its membership of the EU will give access to many other fans from the continent.

Move Worldcon to Europe, permanently.

I'd wager that most US conservatives will be too scared of EU bureaucrats, socialists and muslims to go to the People's socialist republic of Eurabia

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

But...and I honestly mean this with the greatest respect...that changes nothing.

Well, it does because...

The Hugo award is open to anyone who is prepared to pay the low fee: essentially a popular vote.

The basic principle of any popular vote is "the side that gets the most support wins."

That isn't true.

It's not a strictly popular vote, it's a gated, fee-based tiered voting system, with generally poor rules that are open to abuse.

You're taking the specifics of the situation, generalizing almost beyond what's recognizable, then arguing against the generalization that's a rather poor reflection of the facts. That's probably what's causing your noted confusion.

If one side/book/author/viewpoint can't marshal enough of a popular vote to defeat the other side/book/author/viewpoint, for whatever reasons, be they better organising skills by their opponents, poor organising skills and infighting from their own side, poor mobilisation of their core supporters, their own cause and viewpoint not resonating with those who are entitled to cast their vote...

You're kind of missing the point. It's not supposed to be a political fight. It has become one because of Brad T. and VD. Changing the rules aren't meant to stop Brad T. or VD or any of their supporters from participating, the necessity of the rules changes are because they've politicised the process of a literary award. Further, you're still buying into the 'sides' argument, which is more than a bit out of place, and indicative of the problem. The Hugos shouldn't be political. There should be no notion of 'sides' here.

...that's not a reason to change the rules to stop the other side voting. That's simply called "losing."

Is anyone suggesting banning Brad T., VD, or any of their supporters from voting? No.

What they're suggesting is changing the rules so they're not as easily gamed. Which they were. They're suggesting that the system is open to relatively simple abuse and that is reason enough to change the rules to prevent abuse. They're suggesting that the Hugos are not supposed to be a political fight is reason enough to change the rules to prevent that from continuing. They're suggesting that such a small number as 250 people can utterly dominate the nomination process is reason enough to change the rules. None of which is based on "We're losing, so let's change the rules."

It's on each side to marshal their support better and get more votes. And if they can't get that, they'll lose again, as they should. To take the thing into the political arena, if you lose an election because the other side got more votes and broke no rules, you don't get to demand the right to vote be removed from your opponent because it's the only way you'll be able to win next time. You simply keep losing until you get more votes.

I think that's what has me scratching my head about this whole thing. The basic complaint about the Hugo this year appears to be:

"People whose politics are not mine are voting for books they like, in an award in which they are entitled by the rules to vote. We must stop this."

And that confuses me.

Frankly, it's confusing because your summation is simply not what's going on. People are upset because: 1. The system was gamed. 2. Political agendas should not be part of the Hugo process at all, much less the sole driving force. 3. Those who gamed the system have overtly political agendas explicitly attached to their votes. 4. Those who gamed the system as a group have rather dehumanizing politics (things like explicitly stating that non-whites are not fully human, that women are explicitly secondary to men, and unless you are attracted to the opposite gender you shouldn't have any rights at all, in some cases up to and including the right to live). So there's four of the separate but interconnected things that are going on, and you seem focused on something that's not actually happening ("We're losing, so let's change the rules").

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Back on track, can we perhaps get rid of the US political fallout by moving Worldcon to Europe or Canada?

You seem more focussed on US politics than most of the Americans I know. I am not sure how much influence they have on SFF conventions, but I suspect little—at least going by those I have attended. The politics behind the present "kerfuffle" do not seem to me to be exclusively American. I believe that for most of this discussion American politics are being presented as an analog for what is happening with the slate voting.

But how would you suggest that WorldCon go about moving conventions to Europe and Canada? (Certainly moving it to Canada would not reduce the number of Americans attending, since most of them travel equally long distances getting to conventions in the US.)

Do you suggest that Americans not be allowed to vote on the sites of future conventions?

Or that members be denied the opportunity to vote on American bids by eliminating them from consideration?

Perhaps both of the above?

I hope that you are not suggesting any of the above, because I would find anything like that dictatorial and political in the extreme. (And before you base a response on the fact that I am American: usually it doesn't matter a scrap to me where WorldCon is, because even in the US I can't afford to travel that far. Toronto, Boston, Tokyo, or Sofia, it would all be the same to me. )

Or are you suggesting that fans in other countries get themselves organized and start putting together more bids, and that the bids they present be more appealing?

This last seems to me to be the fairest way to go about it, but how would you suggest making that happen?

 

[JaimeRetief]

You seem more focussed on US politics than most of the Americans I know. I am not sure how much influence they have on SFF conventions, but I suspect little—at least going by those I have attended. The politics behind the present "kerfuffle" do not seem to me to be exclusively American. I believe that for most of this discussion American politics are being presented as an analog for what is happening with the slate voting.

But how would you suggest that WorldCon go about moving conventions to Europe and Canada? (Certainly moving it to Canada would not reduce the number of Americans attending, since most of them travel equally long distances getting to conventions in the US.)

Do you suggest that Americans not be allowed to vote on the sites of future conventions?

Or that members be denied the opportunity to vote on American bids by eliminating them from consideration?

Perhaps both of the above?

I hope that you are not suggesting any of the above, because I would find anything like that dictatorial and political in the extreme. (And before you base a response on the fact that I am American: usually it doesn't matter a scrap to me where WorldCon is, because even in the US I can't afford to travel that far. Toronto, Boston, Tokyo, or Sofia, it would all be the same to me. )

Or are you suggesting that fans in other countries get themselves organized and start putting together more bids, and that the bids they present be more appealing?

This last seems to me to be the fairest way to go about it, but how would you suggest making that happen?

My interest in American politics stems from three things.
One, as an EU functionary so aptly put it, when the USA sneezes the EU catches cancer, the USA is the one power in an unipolar world, I just wish to know how that world functions and how it impacts it.
The second is that I am quite interested in the past as well as the future, I love history, and have a small but growing interest in sociology and anthropology, and I am also interested in economics.
And there is no denying the fact that I like a number of US writers, and I wish to know more about the society that produced them.
Science fiction fandom is a lot larger than the US part of that fandom, I migght not care about the Hugo all that much, but I think that it would not hurt if Worldcon and the Hugo awards became more global in scope and more accessible to people who are not residents of North America.

As to my posts regarding US politics, I do believe that they were all replies to other posts, and that I have more posts with propositions how to fix the Hugos than ones that deal with US politics.

 

[Coolhand]

That isn't true.
It's not a strictly popular vote, it's a gated, fee-based tiered voting system, with generally poor rules that are open to abuse.

Yes, but when you boil it down to the nub of the matter, pretty much everyone in the world can have some sort of a sway in the nominations and votes if they send in $40, right?
And everyone who is nominating and voting this year is entitled to vote under the rules, right? Do I have any of that wrong, in essence?

You're taking the specifics of the situation, generalizing almost beyond what's recognizable, then arguing against the generalization that's a rather poor reflection of the facts. That's probably what's causing your noted confusion.

I'm sorry if that's the way my posts are coming across. What I'm trying to do, rather than generalise the issue, is boil the issue down to the basic nuts and bolts, because most of the blog posts and opinion pieces I've read seem to obscure those nuts and bolts with a lot of political and personal attacks and diatribes about things that honestly don't appear to me to be relevant in the nuts and bolts workings of a popular (okay, a pay-to-vote) award. But my apologies if that's no how I'm coming across, it isn't my intent and I'll try to be more specific.

You're kind of missing the point. It's not supposed to be a political fight. It has become one because of Brad T. and VD. Changing the rules aren't meant to stop Brad T. or VD or any of their supporters from participating, the necessity of the rules changes are because they've politicised the process of a literary award. Further, you're still buying into the 'sides' argument, which is more than a bit out of place, and indicative of the problem. The Hugos shouldn't be political. There should be no notion of 'sides' here.

Okay, again let me boil this down to the basic nuts and bolts. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

• The various Puppies were upset because the type of science fiction they enjoyed wasn't winning Hugo awards. Whatever their reasons, be they social/political/religious/mouth-frothing bat-poop crazy, they felt the books they read were not the books getting awards. This was, in their opinion, a bad thing. (In my opinion, that's just what happens in a popular vote)
• They therefore became eligible to vote, mobilised their support base who also registered to vote, co-ordinated their votes and got their preferred works of fiction into the running. They did so without breaking any rules of the contest.
• This means that, this year, the books that win will be books they like, but not books other people like. This is, in other people's opinion, a bad thing. (In my opinion, that's just what happens in a popular vote)

I mean, when you boil it down to basics, that's what happened, right?

1. The system was gamed. 2. Political agendas should not be part of the Hugo process at all, much less the sole driving force. 3. Those who gamed the system have overtly political agendas explicitly attached to their votes. 4. Those who gamed the system as a group have rather dehumanizing politics (things like explicitly stating that non-whites are not fully human, that women are explicitly secondary to men, and unless you are attracted to the opposite gender you shouldn't have any rights at all, in some cases up to and including the right to live). So there's four of the separate but interconnected things that are going on, and you seem focused on something that's not actually happening ("We're losing, so let's change the rules").

Point 1 - In all honesty, I can understand a cool and collected technical discussion of how to alter rules if slate voting is considered something undesirable in the context of the Hugo awards. But that doesn't seem to be what's going on here, as this very thread and the countless others on the net and in the media seem to affirm. (actually, let me append that, the thread here is pretty calm and collected for the most part, in the fine tradition of this website)

Point 2 - With the greatest respect, you can't tell the people eligible to vote for the "best" book" the criteria on which they must base that choice. Art is too subjective for that. If they decide their love of prose shall lead their choice, so be it. If they decide gripping plot or world building, so be it. And if they decide their political beliefs lead them to that choice they are entitled to do so. As are you, and I.

Point 3 - See above.

Point 4- They might well be jerks, (in my subjective opinion Vox Dei certainly appears to be someone I would have "profound philosophical disagreements with" to say the least (what I'd actually say about him isn't repeatable here because I'm trying very hard to play the ball and not the man), some of the other puppies seem to populate various degrees on the political right of the spectrum but if they qualify to vote they qualify to vote.

Ultimately, I think you hit the nail on the head in a previous post when you gave the opinion that Worldcon had to decide if the Hugo really was a popular vote with votes accessible to the public or something voted by a committee. Because part of letting the public in and placing yourself as a popular award means bracing yourself for the fact that the public don't always do the thing you expect them to. And that some of the public are a bit smelly, and some are jerks, and that some just think differently to you.

 

[Nerds_feather]

But...and I honestly mean this with the greatest respect...that changes nothing.

The Hugo award is open to anyone who is prepared to pay the low fee: essentially a popular vote.

The basic principle of any popular vote is "the side that gets the most support wins."

If one side/book/author/viewpoint can't marshal enough of a popular vote to defeat the other side/book/author/viewpoint, for whatever reasons, be they better organising skills by their opponents, poor organising skills and infighting from their own side, poor mobilisation of their core supporters, their own cause and viewpoint not resonating with those who are entitled to cast their vote...

...that's not a reason to change the rules to stop the other side voting. That's simply called "losing." It's on each side to marshal their support better and get more votes. And if they can't get that, they'll lose again, as they should. To take the thing into the political arena, if you lose an election because the other side got more votes and broke no rules, you don't get to demand the right to vote be removed from your opponent because it's the only way you'll be able to win next time. You simply keep losing until you get more votes.

I think that's what has me scratching my head about this whole thing. The basic complaint about the Hugo this year appears to be:

"People whose politics are not mine are voting for books they like, in an award in which they are entitled by the rules to vote. We must stop this."

And that confuses me.


Thanks

FTR I was just adding thoughts on whether and under what conditions the hard left or hard right could mobilize effectively.

But with regards your question on changing the voting, that has less to do with a particular type of slate (i.e. hard right or hard left) winning, as the fact that a slate (backed by an organized but small minority of voters) has won, and that ballot stuffing is (rightly) seen as contra the values of the WSFS, WorldCon and Hugo Awards. It's probably obvious that, while I'm not hard left or hard right, I find the hard right rather more alarming--both within SF/F and beyond. But as I've stated, I'd oppose any slate--even a "mostly classical liberal but updated for the modern age and with a bigger emphasis on fostering equality of opportunity"-oriented slate of literary science fiction and gritty fantasy, which would be closest to my own predilections and tastes.

I don't want to lock out anyone. But I also don't want the Hugos to transform into yet another tiresome iteration of the American culture wars, which is what's happening. So a solution that limits the ability of any slate to outright dominate, as happened this year, would be good with me.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

My interest in American politics stems from three things.
One, as an EU functionary so aptly put it, when the USA sneezes the EU catches cancer, the USA is the one power in an unipolar world, I just wish to know how that world functions and how it impacts it.

But I wasn't challenging your interest in American politics or suggesting that you shouldn't be interested.

What I was questioning was how much American politics actually impact the Hugo and to what extent they are even relevant to this discussion. I realize that you may not have been the one who first brought them into this discussion. Those who did so might have found another way to make their point, and I wish they had, because it is a digression that adds nothing of value to the dialogue. (And allows people too many opportunities to air their prejudices.)

Actually, I think this whole debate has reached the point where it is going around in circles. Too much posturing, too much provocation, by too many people. There are some voices of reason here, and people who are engaged in an honest debate of the real issues involved, but occasionally they are being drowned out by people with an agenda.

I think that it would not hurt if Worldcon and the Hugo awards became more global in scope and more accessible to people who are not residents of North America.

I agree. But unless more fans outside North America offer alternatives, I don't see it happening.

 

[JaimeRetief]

Yes, but when you boil it down to the nub of the matter, pretty much everyone in the world can have some sort of a sway in the nominations and votes if they send in $40, right?
And everyone who is nominating and voting this year is entitled to vote under the rules, right? Do I have any of that wrong, in essence?


I'm sorry if that's the way my posts are coming across. What I'm trying to do, rather than generalise the issue, is boil the issue down to the basic nuts and bolts, because most of the blog posts and opinion pieces I've read seem to obscure those nuts and bolts with a lot of political and personal attacks and diatribes about things that honestly don't appear to me to be relevant in the nuts and bolts workings of a popular (okay, a pay-to-vote) award. But my apologies if that's no how I'm coming across, it isn't my intent and I'll try to be more specific.

Okay, again let me boil this down to the basic nuts and bolts. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

• The various Puppies were upset because the type of science fiction they enjoyed wasn't winning Hugo awards. Whatever their reasons, be they social/political/religious/mouth-frothing bat-poop crazy, they felt the books they read were not the books getting awards. This was, in their opinion, a bad thing. (In my opinion, that's just what happens in a popular vote)
• They therefore became eligible to vote, mobilised their support base who also registered to vote, co-ordinated their votes and got their preferred works of fiction into the running. They did so without breaking any rules of the contest.
• This means that, this year, the books that win will be books they like, but not books other people like. This is, in other people's opinion, a bad thing. (In my opinion, that's just what happens in a popular vote)

I mean, when you boil it down to basics, that's what happened, right?



Point 1 - In all honesty, I can understand a cool and collected technical discussion of how to alter rules if slate voting is considered something undesirable in the context of the Hugo awards. But that doesn't seem to be what's going on here, as this very thread and the countless others on the net and in the media seem to affirm. (actually, let me append that, the thread here is pretty calm and collected for the most part, in the fine tradition of this website)

Point 2 - With the greatest respect, you can't tell the people eligible to vote for the "best" book" the criteria on which they must base that choice. Art is too subjective for that. If they decide their love of prose shall lead their choice, so be it. If they decide gripping plot or world building, so be it. And if they decide their political beliefs lead them to that choice they are entitled to do so. As are you, and I.

Point 3 - See above.

Point 4- They might well be jerks, (in my subjective opinion Vox Dei certainly appears to be someone I would have "profound philosophical disagreements with" to say the least (what I'd actually say about him isn't repeatable here because I'm trying very hard to play the man and not the ball), some of the other puppies seem to populate various degrees on the political right of the spectrum but if they qualify to vote they qualify to vote.

Ultimately, I think you hit the nail on the head in a previous post when you gave the opinion that Worldcon had to decide if the Hugo really was a popular vote with votes accessible to the public or something voted by a committee. Because part of letting the public in and placing yourself as a popular award means bracing yourself for the fact that the public don't always do the thing you expect them to. And that some of the public are a bit smelly, and some are jerks, and that some just think differently to you.

Yes. but then it became political.
I dislike Scalzi, I consider most of the books nominated in the past decade or more sub par, ande I have a very low opinion of science fiction awards in general.
But that is because the genre as a whole is not in good shape, the so called SJWs are annoying and partisan, but I find the proposition that there is a secret cabal somewhere somewhat implausible, and I doubt that politics had that much to do with it.

The Hugos are something that is neither a literary award, nor a "people's choice" award, they are a fan award that assumes that no one outside of the cozy fan circle of Worldcon atttendeed will bother to vote.

It is not representative, and it exists at a time when the genre as a whole is in a lethargic period.

Furthermore, as publishing has become more cutthroat authors are forced to use every trick possible to gain extra readers and to get the word out, this might include the formtion of cliques of writers that vote for and endorse eachother's works and attempts to start social media shenanigans that might increase name recognition drive sales up.

 

[JaimeRetief]

I agree. But unless more fans outside North America offer alternatives, I don't see it happening.

Well there is always this[URL="http://
And from all the rage and all the attacks and counter attacks, I would say quite a bit.

The entire situation reminds me of this song
[media=youtube]aDSN1F72QU4[/media]"]
And from all the rage and all the attacks and counter attacks, I would say quite a bit.

The entire situation reminds me of this song

[/url]

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Yes, there is a lot of fan activity and there are many SFF conventions in Europe, but how many of the people organizing them would be willing and have the resources to take on something as big as a WorldCon?

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Europe is big but divided by languages.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I consider most of the books nominated in the past decade or more sub par, ande I have a very low opinion of science fiction awards in general.
But that is because the genre as a whole is not in good shape, the so called SJWs are annoying and partisan, but I find the proposition that there is a secret cabal somewhere somewhat implausible, and I doubt that politics had that much to do with it.

The Hugos are something that is neither a literary award, nor a "people's choice" award, they are a fan award that assumes that no one outside of the cozy fan circle of Worldcon atttendeed will bother to vote.

It is not representative, and it exists at a time when the genre as a whole is in a lethargic period.

Furthermore, as publishing has become more cutthroat authors are forced to use every trick possible to gain extra readers and to get the word out, this might include the formtion of cliques of writers that vote for and endorse eachother's works and attempts to start social media shenanigans that might increase name recognition drive sales up.

I tend to agree with these statements. Limiting discussion to the Best Novel category, I also don't think the Hugos get it right much. Occasionally, but not so often--most years the best novels I've found in the genre (or from outside, but written as genre) fail to get nominated, let alone win. The Hugos generally reward certain kinds of books. A friend once described the archetypal Hugo winner as a "quality 101-level text." For non-Americans, "101" is a code often given to introductory courses in universities--so she was arguing that the typical Hugo winner is a pretty good book, but very accessible and not that challenging. To that I'd add that Hugo voters tend to like "dramedies," snarky dialogue and fandom in-jokes, and they strongly prefer books that can be read as straight adventure but have some deeper resonance. In other words, Firefly type stuff.

I sometimes like stuff like that--I did really enjoy the Old Man's War series. It was a lot of fun. But more often I prefer literary SF and the versions of gritty fantasy where there is some possibility of redemption. And those kinds of books don't win all that often.

 

[JaimeRetief]

Yes, there is a lot of fan activity and there are many SFF conventions in Europe, but how many of the people organizing them would be willing and have the resources to take on something as big as a WorldCon?

The popultion of the EU alone stands at about half a billion, I think that one could find quite a few eager enthusiasts.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Yes, there is a lot of fan activity and there are many SFF conventions in Europe, but how many of the people organizing them would be willing and have the resources to take on something as big as a WorldCon?

WorldCon is more often in the US because it began as a US convention and most of its members are based in the US. However, there is a movement within WorldCon--and supported by a lot of American members as well--to have the con alternate years (1 year US/1 year outside US). Right now Helsinki is going against Washington, DC for the 2017 bid. If DC wins, WorldCon will have been in the US 3 years in a row, and a lot of people (myself included, and I do vote) don't think that's healthy.

 

[JaimeRetief]

Europe is big but divided by languages.

The UK and Ireland have approximately 70 million native speakers, and even though the EU has over 20 official languages English is the de facto lingua franca and the most popular foreign language to learn.