The Hugo Awards Kerfuffle...

[millymollymo]

They are regretting that now after seeing the backlash. This person told me that they aren't sure they'll ever know if they truly deserved the award, or, if the nomination happened solely because of the slate.

In my opinion, this whole thing is going to damage the writers and artists nominated more than anyone else. I wouldn't want to be on the ballot this year.

I'm sorry to hear that ZombieWife. I did wonder how it would reflect on nominees work. I also wonder how many Hugos will be rejected when the awards are given out.

I'm witnessing political meltdowns on all sides at the moment. I've long since learned that you can't make people things the way you think, believe what you believe. Diversity is a thing not to be ignored, but everyone has an opinion on how it should be embraced.
I was brought up in port town in an industrial region. I now live in a town that was home to the money made from the industry of the area. The approach to life alters completely within 5 miles. Like springs has mentioned, cultural differences are intensified through fear of the unknown, threat of social position all segregated by streets, not by postcode/zipcode/url.

As writers, mostly we write stories. It's about the 'story'. While I suspect some sit down to write a Hugo winner, while I am sure there are plenty who would like a Nebula or what ever other award, I believe for most authors it's just a matter of "gotta get this out my head."
We use politics in those stories, we use races, we use continents and worlds, we use extremes. World building is a part of the job description so on some level writer - or reader we all have a concept and grasp of consequences.


Do we read/watch/play a game because of the political message? Because of why it was written? Because it was recommended? Is that what makes the story good/enjoyable/memorable and award worthy?
Does an author's story belong to the reader? The publisher? The fandom? The author?

GRRM's "What Now" Blog covers some thoughts on the where do we go from here.


As we all react to our world individually, how we survive is personal. We all digest our books/films/comics uniquely. One person's Ancillary Justice is another person's Twilight.

Rather aptly in the UK at the moment, remember your vote counts

 

[Jo Zebedee]

@ZombieWife - I sympathize with your friend but, if it were me, I'd ask for my nomination to be removed. I'd hate to never know if it was merited - it would make the trophy meaningless.

Which actually brings me to another point. This isn't about winning an award, surely. Anyone who wins will know it's rigged (legally, but still rigged in my book), so will everyone else. And we always feel it, somewhere inside is, when we cheat. Let them have their awards - the value is gone.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

And just to screw with his fans, GRRM has posted two more:

6. Stay on Topic!
7. What Now?

And for those as morbidly fascinated by GRRM's flurry of responses, he's posted ~11,500 words of blog posts about Puppygate in the last 34 hours and responded dozens of times to comments on his blog. Yet it's taken him how long to finish the latest book?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

today, conservatism is weak and in relentless decline.

Maybe it is where you live. Not the case anywhere in the US.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Yet it's taken him how long to finish the latest book?

I can't come to bed yet, someone is wrong on the Internet.

 

[J-Sun]

If you had followed the link, you would have seen Matthew David Surridge (a nominee on the slate that declined the nomination) post his say, then Torgersen essentially clucking his tongue and giving him the, "Well, that's too bad. I put you on that list. Too bad you're not thankful for what I did." (without Surridge's knowledge or consent to be on the slate.)

I don't see Torgersen anywhere on that page you link to, though. Is there a second page of comments I can't find or something?

As for Martin, wouldn't you be extremely annoyed if an award like the Hugos (that Martin admires and cherishes) was completely lambasted by those who had the equivalent of a political tantrum?

I don't agree with the characterization of the event but I have no problem with Martin. I just didn't find the "beef" entry persuasive. The vast bulk of the rest have been great.

GRRM's "What Now" Blog covers some thoughts on the where do we go from here.

Case in point - this one is great, too.

Not as great, but still eminently worth reading (but looong) is Correia's response. Given the length, I actually find the first part of his personal experiences and attitudes to be dispensable (but not without interest). The meat begins where he quotes Martin saying, "The Hugos belong to Worldcon" and Correia saying, "I'm glad we're on the same page now." (Ctrl-F for it.)

On the other hand, Torgersen seems to just be getting testier and testier.

Incidentally, @Nerds_feather - I mean this as an honest curiosity, not as a baiting or anything - if Martin told you to jump off a bridge I of course wouldn't expect you or anyone to do it but do his "No Award" and "read it all" arguments persuade you at all?

Edit: Well, and actually, @ZombieWife - does his lack of concern over the supposed obligation to inform nominees of the horrors of being nominated impress you?

Yet it's taken him how long to finish the latest book?

Now you know why!

I can't come to bed yet, someone is wrong on the Internet.

xkcd!

 

[soulsinging]

@Fishbowl Helmet - appreciate that the USA can look a place of strange extremes to people outside of it.

Don't paint us all with that brush, Fishbowl is a strange extreme even to me, and I live in the US and campaigned for Ralph Nader for president in 2000. I haven't seen this kind of evangelical fervor since some of my undergrad classes. On the one hand, I admire the kid's spirit. On the other hand, he's got me going "man, is that how I used to sound when I ranted about this sort of thing on the Pearl Jam message boards?"

That said, you're spot on about turning people off. I only wound up defending these SP guys because if this guy represents the opposition, I'm a little more worried about them setting fires.

 

[soulsinging]

I didn't know who the Sad Puppies were until two days ago.

This has been my point all along. I had no clue who they were and likely never would have known, if not for Fishbowl coming here to make a big to do about them... and that is what I've been saying. The outrage over these guys is totally impotent. There is talk of reforming the voting process, but other than that... what? What is the proposed response other than changing the voting rules? Are we all supposed to go to these guys' blogs and abuse them? The only thing this thread seems to have accomplished (other than giving some a forum to vent some rage with a firm denunciation none of the SP's will ever read) is to give these guys a lot more free press than they otherwise would have received, and the messenger has been so antagonistic that people like me that were unaware of the issue may just sit on the sidelines because while I detest racism, intolerance, etc, I don't want to associate with people as vitriolic and unpleasant as the ones that seem ready to kick down these authors' doors and tar and feather them in the streets. To me it's like saying the Saudi society stinks, so I'm going to hang out with North Korea.

 

[J-Sun]

mis-post

I didn't think it missed at all.

Don't paint us all with that brush, Fishbowl is a strange extreme even to me, and I live in the US and campaigned for Ralph Nader for president in 2000.

Aw, man. You're why we have global warming, Chad!

The only thing this thread seems to have accomplished (other than giving some a forum to vent some rage with a firm denunciation none of the SP's will ever read) is to give these guys a lot more free press than they otherwise would have received

I wouldn't say that, though. Not just that. I think this whole debate (and not just in this thread but all over teh intarwebz), while lamentably fraught with lots of Molotov Cocktail tossing, has at least shown that people give a flip about these social issues and hopefully at least just a little about the literary and specifically science fictional ones. This year's was a record ballot and hopefully that will continue to grow. Maybe people like Martin can turn the flame back down and things can simmer - until the actual Hugo winners are announced - won't that be fun no matter what? I mean, it has us taking a look at the field and how we represent ourselves. It's gotten larger media exposure than usual and either we're cool with that or we figure we look kinda a silly (yeah, I know, understatement) and clean up our acts. Etc. I mean, hell, it's just interesting stuff. I mean, not the character assassinations and general lunacy but the "what's a Hugo, what's fandom, what's SFF, who are we, what's the best way to be?" parts - it's life, the universe, and everything.

 

[soulsinging]

Aw, man. You're why we have global warming, Chad!

I know, Dubya was my fault. I lived in a swing state (Ohio) and campaigned heavily in a major city to turn the youth vote from Gore to Nader, so I very literally could have ruined that one for us all. My apologies to the entire world... I was too young to know any better! I learned the hard way that sometimes evangelical ideology can shoot itself in the foot, and you've got to pick your battles.

 

[Bick]

I didn't think it missed at all.

I'd had a wine (maybe two), and maybe I should have left it.

(I'm impressed by your patience in this thread btw)

 

[Brian G Turner]

the practical fact of the matter is that European far-right groups are active

I was simply responding to your point about the political far right in Europe, whom you linked to as winning seats across Europe. Their mainstays are to limit immigration, and prevent immigrants claiming full social security benefits (income replacement, housing benefits, tax breaks, etc). I doubt those would be regarded as extreme policies in the USA.

Don't paint us all with that brush,

I'm merely pointing out that the USA allows extremes that would be illegal in at least the UK, and probably much of Europe.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I was simply responding to your point about the political far right in Europe, whom you linked to as winning seats across Europe. Their mainstays are to limit immigration, and prevent immigrants claiming full social security benefits (income replacement, housing benefits, tax breaks, etc).

And street violence, which US rightist groups don't really engage in. So from our perspective, Europe's far-right seems like something out of a history book on the 1920s and 1930s. Does that align with your view of things in the place you live, or other places relatively close by? Probably not, right? And that's my general point.

 

[ZombieWife]

I don't see Torgersen anywhere on that page you link to, though. Is there a second page of comments I can't find or something?

He uses another name. I can't remember which one (and I'm unable to find it now--wonder if it was deleted). Hmmm. It was definitely a finger wagging type of thing. And other responses are out there on other sites. I will say that at least Torgersen has the capacity to be more diplomatic in some of his replies. Even if there is a tone of, "Wuut? We didn't do anything wrong." (insert justification or excuse)

I don't know what you would call hijacking the Hugos because of girls, gays, and people of color. The "quality trumps all" argument is pretty much the same thing as the "integrity in journalism" GamerGate argument, which given the insidiousness of GG's creation and the way many of its members have acted (bomb threats, rape threats, death threats upon women and their families), is still a bunch of BS.

"Lack of quality" is a very common approach in arguments against nonwhite people, homosexuals and women. It's not okay to speak out against these groups anymore in an overt way--in most places. So, what do you do? You make it about "quality." It's an argument used a lot by the far right here in the U.S.. The only reason women, PoC, LGBT individuals could possibly represent in droves is by "reverse discrimination," according to these folks. And obviously that means that straight white men get the shaft. Because men's rights. Because the mean SJWs take away all their nice things.

It's pretty obvious to folks who know anything about civil discourse. It's uncomfortable for members of the normative group to be told, "You're privileged." It should be uncomfortable because it means that there's a disparity. But, some people can't handle that feeling. "OMG no, not me. I'm not privileged. I have gay friends. I married a non-white woman. I love my mom." (The typical knee-jerk reaction.) They don't realize that whenever someone in the US, for example, picks up a brand new novel and begins to read, that the main male character is by default white, heterosexual and able-bodied. Until TOLD otherwise by the author. That's what being part of a privileged group means.

When someone does decide to look inwardly at these social issues, they might realize that diversity INCLUDES the normative group in that mix and that nobody is asking for a share they didn't earn--only to be given the same opportunities. And that instead of stomping one's feet about that discomfort one might feel at being in the privileged group, that it's OKAY to say, "Well, yep, I'm white. I'm part of that group." That recognition alone is a huge step in beginning to understand these issues. And that you can help to enact change. To be aware of your own privilege (I'm white, for example, though female) means that you can begin to see these inequalities a bit clearer. And, at the very least, refuse to engage in strengthening that imbalance.

I have no confidence that the SP group is capable of considering diversity when they've really outed themselves as the types who speak out against things like same-sex marriage for example. They're not MY representatives. They might get overlap with some of what I do consider "Quality" and "worthy," but it's extremely shitty and entitled for them to think they have their finger on MY pulse and the pulse of SFF community. In short--it might be within the rules, but it's a dick thing to do. And nobody in their camp seems to be acknowledging that.

All I hear is the same thing over and over again: "We just want quality."

That's nice. I want quality, too. But I also believe that the more (fairly) diverse the pool, the more it enriches competition.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Don't paint us all with that brush, Fishbowl is a strange extreme even to me, and I live in the US and campaigned for Ralph Nader for president in 2000. I haven't seen this kind of evangelical fervor since some of my undergrad classes. On the one hand, I admire the kid's spirit. On the other hand, he's got me going "man, is that how I used to sound when I ranted about this sort of thing on the Pearl Jam message boards?"

That said, you're spot on about turning people off. I only wound up defending these SP guys because if this guy represents the opposition, I'm a little more worried about them setting fires.

Fishbowl's views aren't extreme--he's just saying that "working for diversity" = good; "working against diversity" = bad. I think this is a relatively unproblematic juxtaposition. He's a bit militant in delivery, but I haven't seen him forward any radical or extreme views in this thread.

However, I'd hope everyone, Fishbowl included, would recognize that "working for diversity" can mean a lot of things. For most, I think, it just means trying to widen the pool to be more inclusive of those who usually or historically haven't had access, and to be more sensitive toward biases that can be dehumanizing yet which are often not intentional (and are, rather internalized reproduced without thought about how it might feel to encounter them if one came from different social circumstances). However, for some, it means preserving a world divided into hermetically sealed categories, only with the proper nouns rearranged. Put another way, rather than trying to eliminate hierarchies based on social categorization, instead--whether intentionally or accidentally--this kind of thing just ends up just inverting the hierarchy (e.g. "POC good"/"white bad"; "non-binary good/CIS bad", etc.). While "colorblindness" and related concepts are pipe dreams, I'm frustrated by those advocating (again, by design or accident) the trading of one set of inequalities for another. The goal IMO--and I believe this is the goal of most pro-diversity advocates--is equality of opportunity and a field that is as broadly accepting of individuals with non-normative social circumstances as it is of the majority, however defined.

I do think criticism of the "invert the hierarchies" perspective is 100% valid, and is not tantamount to criticizing "working for diversity" in general. At the same time, I think we all need to recognize that this is a fringe attitude, and too often (not from you, of course--I'm just ranting here) I've seen people point to these kinds of views as a way to rationalize broadly regressive attitudes, or to delegitimize any work for diversity. And that, to me, is deeply, deeply frustrating.

 

[soulsinging]

Fishbowl's views aren't extreme--he's just saying that "working for diversity" = good; "working against diversity" = bad. I think this is a relatively unproblematic juxtaposition. He's a bit militant in delivery, but I haven't seen him forward any radical or extreme views in this thread.

However, I'd hope everyone, Fishbowl included, would recognize that "working for diversity" can mean a lot of things.

He has demonstrated multiple times that he does NOT recognize this. There is his view of working for diversity = good, and anything else = being a fervent racist/sexist/etc. That is why his views are extreme.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Change of tack here, but I just saw this posted--it's by Rose Lemberg, who was raised in the USSR, on the dangerousness of extreme metaphors--in particular, the alleged use of GULAG metaphors by some S/RP supporters (and Torgerson in particular) in the course of conversation on the Hugos. Food for thought, and an important perspective to engage with. A warning, though: it's disturbing at times.

 

[MWagner]

The goal IMO--and I believe this is the goal of most pro-diversity advocates--is equality of opportunity and a field that is as broadly accepting of individuals with non-normative social circumstances as it is of the majority, however defined.

Two things here.

Where I can't get on-board with modern leftist ideology is their belief that race and gender are the paramount qualities of identity. That the most important thing to note in someone who is: a woman, a writer, a mother of two boys, an amateur historian, a potter, someone with a dry sense of humor, an analytic thinker, alienated by modern technology, a lapsed Catholic is... a woman. Why, when we look at five people, should we see: a white hetero male, a white lesbian woman, a black heterosexual woman, an Asian heterosexual male, a white hetero female? Why can't we see: a humorous gadfly, a poetic nurturer, a skeptical scientist, a stubborn pedant, a brilliant recluse? I know I'm repeating myself, but when people champion the fact that a successful writer is an Asian woman, they are inviting people to regard her foremost as an Asian woman. Is that really what we want?

Second, when I look at where lack of diversity draws criticism and where it's ignored, I have my doubts that diversity itself is really the goal of many of its purported advocates. Why does the 60/40 gender split (I have not idea if this is the real number) in SFF authors spark such passion and activism, while the 95/5 gender split in Romance remains wholly unchallenged? Or let's pull back the curtain all the way: Why do I hear almost nothing in social media acknowledging the fact women outnumber men as readers of fiction by two one. Two to one. If those figures were reversed, I'm confident that it would be attributed to the smothering oppression of the patriarchy, and be met with passionate and popular efforts to reform book publishing to be inclusive of women. Yet there is very little movement to address the very real and massive shortfall in male readers. Where are the activists striving to make reading more appealing to boys, or trying to change genres that traditionally cater to girls into something more appealing to boys? Not their problem, I guess.

 

[HareBrain]

I must be mad to set foot in this thread, but here goes ...

Where I can't get on-board with modern leftist ideology is their belief that race and gender are the paramount qualities of identity.

I wouldn't call myself modern, let alone a leftist, but this seems pretty clear to me. An aspect of someone's identity becomes paramount (especially in the context of promoting diversity) if it's what means they tend to get treated unequally.

I know I'm repeating myself, but when people champion the fact that a successful writer is an Asian woman, they are inviting people to regard her foremost as an Asian woman. Is that really what we want?

Ultimately, no, I'm sure. But first we have to get to a place where her being Asian or a woman isn't the least remarkable.

 

[soulsinging]

Ultimately, no, I'm sure. But first we have to get to a place where her being Asian or a woman isn't the least remarkable.

Makes me think of a quote from Joss Whedon. He was asked why he wrote so many strong female characters. His response was "because you keep asking me that question."