The Hugo Awards Kerfuffle...

[Teresa Edgerton]

Europe is big but divided by languages.

I think that may just about sum up why so many WorldCons are in North America.

 

[alchemist]

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").

I've kinda held my tongue on this but I've seen it too many times now. They are not "a group" -- they are two groups, or possibly more. Vox Day should, IMO, as Brian suggested a while back, be treated as someone inciting others to hatred and prosecuted accordingly. But the SPs, while possibly having views we don't agree with, are not stating any of the things highlighted above.

It might be simpler to portray all of one side as sharing the characteristics of the most extreme members, but it isn't accurate

(caveat: I haven't read all the posts, all the links, or all the blogs. I need time to eat too)

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think that may just about sum up why so many WorldCons are in North America.

But the world fantasy convention manages it (or did I dream I went to Brighton.) and Eurocon. And lots of others. It's not a reason not to come to Europe at all...

 

[JaimeRetief]

I think that may just about sum up why so many WorldCons are in North America.

Please look at my previous post.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

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?

But you're framing it in a way that ignores the facts of the matter, which is part of the problem.

For example, "Nearly 1/2 of the world's population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty."

So yes, 'pretty much everyone in the world can have some sort of a sway in the nominations and votes if they send in $40', but that utterly ignores the fact that for a huge swathe of the population, that's literally an impossibly high barrier for entry. It's akin to saying that the Poll Tax in the US that barred so many poor people from voting for so many years was fair because all the people had to do was pay it and they could vote. Yes, it's true that all they had to do was pay the tax and theoretically they could vote, however, the mere fact of having to pay to vote was literally impossible for many people. In the case of the Poll Tax, that was largely the point. Yes, that's me intentionally going for a wild exaggeration to make a point. The more moderate version of that is: $40 may not seem like a lot to you, but that doesn't mean it's not a lot of money to others.

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?

Not quite.

First bullet, they felt the books they liked were not being recognized, but in reality, those books were being recognized with both regular nominations and actual awards (including Hugos). Three or four of the ringleaders of the Puppies movement themselves were nominated in years past. The whole Puppies thing started because they were angry about losing. So they started the Puppies movement to get back at the WorldCon crowd and the Hugos as a means to avenge themselves for being robbed of awards that were clearly theirs, awards that they think they deserved and should have won but were robbed because of the... insert acronym alphabet soup jumble of confusion here.

Second bullet, amend the line: "They did so without breaking any rules of the contest" to "They did so by violating the spirit of the rules though technically not the letter of the rules". Then add: "This is, in other people's opinion, a bad thing" to the end of that bullet point. I don't know about you, but for me, when you have to argue that technically isn't not a breach of the rules, you're on the losing side.

Third bullet, yeah, that's basically how all votes go, but again, it's not a popular vote. It's a fee-based, tiered voting system that includes 'No Award' if the majority does not feel the short listed nominees are worthy of recognition.

What people are objecting to is: the first bullet point on the grounds of actual reality and facts, the second bullet point because the system is too easily gamed, and in an ironic twist, the Puppies themselves are objecting to the possibility that 'No Award' could conceivably win over their slate candidates.

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)

Well, Chrons is pretty damned cool. So there's that. On the rest of it the best I could do is shrug and say welcome to the internet. But, the mere presence of uncouth and overly emotive yelling past each other should not prevent leveler heads from having a cool and collected discussion. Some people are being rational, some people aren't being rational, and some people are lumbering back and forth across that line like drunken sailors on leave.

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.

I'm not saying I or anyone else should dictate how anyone else should vote. I'm simply pointing out that: 1. The idea of literary merit is diametrically opposed to any form of vote, popular or no; and 2. That judging a given work of fiction on grounds other than those related to the fiction itself is, by definition, not judging the work on its own merits. So if this is an award for literature, then the criteria for judging said works should be based on the works themselves, rather than the politics of the voter. Important distinction being is/ought and can/should.

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.

Right. What I'm saying is these four things (and so many others) are being conflated into a single giant sh*t-storm of argument and discussion. I object to the Hugo rules being so easily gamed. By anyone. I just also happen to disagree with their politics, but I'm not saying they have no right to vote. The Hugos are bigger than this petty slap fight. They mean more to a lot of people than simple politics. The award is being used as a ball in a game of revenge by the Puppies, pure and simple. That the 'most prestigious' award in all of SFF could be so easily manipulated is more than a bit disconcerting. That the rules should be changed to prevent further manipulation shouldn't be seen as a sign that "We're losing, so let's change the rules" rather for what it actually is: "This award means more to a lot of people than to be used as a convenient political ball to be kicked around, so let's make the rules more robust".

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Anyone else bored of the whole thing and think it would be better to ignore it all and stop giving everyone so much attention...?

 

[Ray McCarthy]

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.

Very misleading.
Population of Europe is about 742 Million. Lots of grey areas of the map are more European than UK.
So less than 10% are native English speakers.
The EU is not Europe, bits of it are not even in Europe! It's 500 Million.

Very few of the non-native English speakers read English SF&F.

USA is 319 Million, most speak English. More of the Spanish speakers in USA would be comfortable reading English than Europeans with English as 2nd language.
Canada is only 35 million. I don't know how many are happy to read in English.

Russian may be the most commonly spoken Language in Europe, followed by German
Certainly more have German as first Language than English. Germany, Austria, parts of Switzerland, France and Belgium.
I've done administration / Help desk on an International Web Site. USA massively outweighs other English emails, maybe 10:1 or more but USA is a minority on the site. French, German, Italian & Spanish are popular.

On basis of English as 2nd Language, India and China (separately) may beat Europe. Worldcon in Asia?

My Daughter-in-law is German. Her English is perfectly good. Till recently most of her reading was in German. She does read English SF&F now only because she is in Ireland.

 

[JaimeRetief]

But you're framing it in a way that ignores the facts of the matter, which is part of the problem.

For example, "Nearly 1/2 of the world's population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty."

First of all, that link is to an anti-poverty campaign, I doubt it is an unbiased source.

Second, I doubt that a very large portion of that 1.3 billion has the ability to read science fiction, or cares about the goings on in the science fiction world.
I hate to sound like a prick, and I do hope that things will improve, but subsistance farmers in sub-Saharan Africa or Chhattisgarh are not very relevant to the sicnece fiction fandom.

 

[JaimeRetief]

On basis of English as 2nd Language, India and China (separately) may beat Europe. Worldcon in Asia?

Um, English is one of the officially recognised languages in India, it is used extensively by the Indian government and was at one point the official language.

See my previous post about the economics of the thing.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

But the world fantasy convention manages it (or did I dream I went to Brighton.) and Eurocon. And lots of others. It's not a reason not to come to Europe at all...

WorldCon manages it, too, sometimes. It's not that there is no reason to come to Europe. It's whether enough credible invitations are being offered. Obviously American SFF fans don't mind a reason to travel, or WorldCon and the World Fantasy Convention would never be held outside North America. Even if they were all in North America, WorldCons would not be as large as they are if there weren't plenty of American fans willing to travel large distances. The distance from California to the East Coast is about 3000 miles. You could go from London to anywhere in Europe and you wouldn't travel nearly that far, not even close.

World Fantasy Con is different, though, because it has a fixed membership which isn't very large. They don't need as many people to be willing to attend at a given location in order to hold a successful convention.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I hate to sound like a prick, and I do hope that things will improve, but subsistance farmers in sub-Saharan Africa or Chhattisgarh are not very relevant to the sicnece fiction fandom.

That is part of the point.
Worldcon is misnamed. Like US "World Series".
It's
a) Western
b) English speaking
c) American

Maybe the Hugos can be sorted, but really if they aren't, they will be come irrelevant anyway, so problem solved. English Language, especially TV and Cinema is increasingly American dominated.
So I'm not sure I care for Worldcon to come to Europe, or very much any more about the Hugos.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

English is one of the officially recognised languages in India

I think you're missing my point.

 

[JaimeRetief]

That is part of the point.
Worldcon is misnamed. Like US "World Series".
It's
a) Western
b) English speaking
c) American

Maybe the Hugos can be sorted, but really if they aren't they are irrelevant anyway. English Language, especially TV and Cinema is increasingly American dominated.
So I'm not sure I care for Worldcon to come to Europe, or very much any more about the Hugos.

My interest is limited in either case.

But it will be nice if the science fiction award that aspires to global significance has truly global participation.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I've kinda held my tongue on this but I've seen it too many times now. They are not "a group" -- they are two groups, or possibly more. Vox Day should, IMO, as Brian suggested a while back, be treated as someone inciting others to hatred and prosecuted accordingly. But the SPs, while possibly having views we don't agree with, are not stating any of the things highlighted above.

It might be simpler to portray all of one side as sharing the characteristics of the most extreme members, but it isn't accurate

(caveat: I haven't read all the posts, all the links, or all the blogs. I need time to eat too)

Go look at Twitter. Read the posts to the hash tags associated with the Puppies. If they're still two distinct tags, I doubt you'll see a substantive difference between them.

The only distinction I've seen between Brad T. and VD in those highlighted things is that VD made death threads aimed at the creators of Avatar: The Last Airbender and Legend of Korra. Brad T. has posted frequently about all of the things you highlighted and objected to, except he hasn't made any death threats that I've seen. I didn't have the stomach to dig very deep, admittedly, so I could be wrong.

If they are two distinct groups, they have done an exceptionally poor job of making that distinction clear, even for themselves. They seem to be all rather buddy-buddy, freely post and blog about each other, agree on just about everything I've had the stomach to read coming from them. With the exception of Brad T. trying to distance himself from VD (when their association becomes inconvenient that is). None of the Puppies on either "side" seem to be worried about drawing a clear and distinct line between the "two" groups. If they themselves are happy co-mingling with impunity, I see no reason I should be more discerning on their behalf than they are for themselves.

Honestly, I cannot tell one group from the other. And no, not for lack of trying. When this started I made the effort to look for two distinct groups, but I simply could not find that distinction. They cross post, hit many of the same talking points, frequently make the same arguments, and post blog articles on basically the same political topics. The only distinction I have been able to make is the Sad crowd are a bit less in-your-face about things, whilst the Rabid crowd are no-holds-barred. But as for actual, clear, political distinctions between the groups... I haven't found any. And again, not for lack of trying.

First of all, that link is to an anti-poverty campaign, I doubt it is an unbiased source.

Second, I doubt that a very large portion of that 1.3 billion has the ability to read science fiction, or cares about the goings on in the science fiction world.
I hate to sound like a prick, and I do hope that things will improve, but subsistance farmers in sub-Saharan Africa or Chhattisgarh are not very relevant to the sicnece fiction fandom.

That is troubling on many levels.

 

[JaimeRetief]

That is troubling on many levels.

I know, but economic facts of life are economic facts of life.
Unless you can whip up a few industrial replicators that can make more replicators, and cheap, portable fusion reactors that can use standard hydrogen, and somehow clean up all of the corrupt officials and politicians and dangerous ideologues, and somehow establish a legitimate rule of law and functional institutions the situation in the developing world will not significantly improve in the next few decades.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

few industrial replicators that can make more replicators, and cheap, portable fusion reactors that can use standard hydrogen

Make no difference.
It's not about resources and technology. It's a lot more complicated.

somehow clean up all of the corrupt officials and politicians and dangerous ideologues,

That's a problem
Not just in the "Developing world" but many Western countries, South America, Russia, China, USA.

 

[JaimeRetief]

Make no difference.
It's not about resources and technology. It's a lot more complicated.

Not exactly, there is the so called resource curse and political rent seeking, and I do believe that I mentioned the removal of corruption and dangerous ideologies and establishment of decent institutions as well

That's a problem
Not just in the "Developing world" but many Western countries, South America, Russia, China, USA.

See resource curse, China does not deserve to be in the list, it has managed to improve its economic situation considerably.Very soon it will quite probably have the biggest middle class on the planet.
Russia is still dealing with the leftovers of the USSR and the shark feeding frenzy known as privatization.it also suffers from a milder case of the resource curse, not as massive as McCain would have you believe, but about 16% of its economy is related to oil and gas, and there are other extraction industreis as well.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I've kinda held my tongue on this but I've seen it too many times now. They are not "a group" -- they are two groups, or possibly more. Vox Day should, IMO, as Brian suggested a while back, be treated as someone inciting others to hatred and prosecuted accordingly. But the SPs, while possibly having views we don't agree with, are not stating any of the things highlighted above.

It might be simpler to portray all of one side as sharing the characteristics of the most extreme members, but it isn't accurate

(caveat: I haven't read all the posts, all the links, or all the blogs. I need time to eat too)

I mentioned a few times earlier in this thread that I also see them as distinct--there's overlap, to be sure, but I don't think they are reducible to one another.

And it's RP that has been more successful this year, as it happens.

 

[Bick]

If they are two distinct groups, they have done an exceptionally poor job of making that distinction clear, even for themselves. They seem to be all rather buddy-buddy, freely post and blog about each other, agree on just about everything I've had the stomach to read coming from them. With the exception of Brad T. trying to distance himself from VD (when their association becomes inconvenient that is). None of the Puppies on either "side" seem to be worried about drawing a clear and distinct line between the "two" groups.

I'm so over this whole topic like many others on here, but I just felt the need to suggest that this, above, is complete rubbish. They are clearly two groups with quite different agendas and standpoints, and as someone who's hardly interested in the whole kerfuffle anyway, its nevertheless been clear to me that they are distinct for some time. If I can tell, and I struggle to care much or look into it, how come its not clear to someone who spends so much time worrying about it?

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I'm so over this whole topic like many others on here, but I just felt the need to suggest that this, above, is complete rubbish. They are clearly two groups with quite different agendas and standpoints, and as someone who's hardly interested in the whole kerfuffle anyway, its nevertheless been clear to me that they are distinct for some time. If I can tell, and I struggle to care much or look into it, how come its not clear to someone who spends so much time worrying about it?

I know these "two groups" have different slates, different leaders, and the RP "group" is more vitriolic than the SP "group", but that's not enough of a distinction to me when they are basically the same beyond those minor differences. My contention is they are basically the same and fundamentally agree, both in principle and in practice. If I'm wrong, fine... but show me. Give me some links to distinctly pro-Sad Puppy blogs, articles, and/or Tweets that also denounce or utterly disagree with the Rabid Puppies. And no, not just a post by Brad T. denouncing VD after the fit hit the shan.