The Hugo Awards Kerfuffle...

[J-Sun]

Apart from what is republished in Anthologies or like Foundation and some C.J. Cherryh, printed short fiction is almost inaccessible outside USA.

It ain't easy to find in the US either but I imagine you could find Interzone a lot easier than I could. And, for decades, most US magazines had UK editions and there were all kinds of UK mags like the hugely famous and influential New Worlds on down to weird little Nebulas (Scottish mag, not the award) and such. And I've long noticed that the UK (and non-US world) is far, far more supportive of short fiction collections from major publishing firms than the US. My Greg Egan Axiomatic and Neal Asher Engineer and Baxter Traces and all are mass market paperbacks I ordered in UK editions which don't exist here (even for 99% of American authors - I even had to order the great American cyberpunk John Shirley's seminal Heatseeker in a Grafton paperback as it only had a single small press hardcover printing here). And all the Solaris books and Mammoth books and all these things are UK. And all short fiction is eligible for the short fiction awards and the bulk of them these days are from non-mag markets - it's not just magazines, much less US ones.

Anyway - point is, I don't know why you haven't been able to find mags or even more short SF there for 60 years than we have here.

Edit: actually, I take that back - Engineer was a (mangled, new publisher's) US paperback (an amazing rarity). The Gabble was UK-only.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Careful - I assume your left credentials are impeccable but if you start talking reasonably like that, people will decide what you really mean is that you're against equality, too. The idea that you even can trade one set of equalities for another is code for being racist.

But I like your point, anyway, personally.

I don't know whether I have any left credentials whatsoever, though I am certainly very liberal on social issues (and especially on issues of equality vs. rights hoarding). Regardless, I always try to seek out the reasonable people including those who see the world through different lenses. I find the key to having a real dialogue is establishing the common ground that almost always exists but can get lost in the process of argument.

And I think a lot more people agree on this point than is sometimes evident: everyone should have equal opportunity to be published and gain recognition for their science fiction and fantasy writing, based on how compelling their work is, and regardless of their social circumstances.

The arguments, I think, are often more about:

1. Who is "really" privileged and who are the ones most likely to be locked out.
2. What are the best solutions for ensuring equal opportunity.

Liberals in US fandom tend to think that white men are most privileged and women and minorities are most likely to get locked out. Conservatives in US fandom tend to think liberals and minorities have recently gained privileges and conservatives/religious Christians are now most likely to get locked out. Liberals in US fandom often want publishers and readers to seek out women and minorities in order to "level the playing field." Conservatives in US fandom often want publishers and readers to stop considering gender/race/politics in order to "keep the playing field level."

While I strongly tilt to the liberal side of that equation, and am--as you know--a strong opponent of the S/RP campaign, I do think it's incumbent on everyone to actually consider whether the other side has more of a point than we care to admit. VD is beyond the pale, but if the less extreme SPs wanted to drop the shields and engage in that kind of discourse, I'm sure many who are to the left of center would be happy to do so as well. Though I'm not anyone of significance in fandom, I do think I personally already showed my willingness to be conciliatory by deciding not to dismiss the entire SP ballot out of hand, and only those directly associated with S/RP organization and advocacy, which I am dead set against. But I will read the conservative authors on that slate, just as I did last year, and with no undue prejudice.

(As far as last year goes, I found LC's novel, for example, to be fun enough as a diversion but neither to my tastes nor particularly notable in terms of quality. Others clearly like it a lot more than I do, which is fine, as tastes vary. I did, however, read it with an open mind, and I'll do the same this year with Anderson, Butcher, etc.)

Unfortunately, too much of this, from what I read in SP-related comment threads and on twitter, is viewed in zero-sum, "us or them" terms.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Apart from what is republished in Anthologies or like Foundation and some C.J. Cherryh, printed short fiction is almost inaccessible outside USA. Yes, there are loads of self published blogs and some online magazines today but signal to noise on those is horrifically poor.

Unless something is REALLY short it's too tiring to read on tablet or Laptop screen on a website. I have to go to the bother of converting it into an eBook for the kindle (before that, I'd print stuff). So many websites too seem to know ZERO about presentation.

The yearly "Best Of" editions are all available in the UK, and some of the major online magazines do end-of-the-year collections (for print or kindle). EG.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

I've mostly been following the whole affair since Martin started posting about it. I've also read few articles around the internet, David Sturridge's detailed explanation over at blackgate.com, and Brad R. Torgersen's original post. The way I see it, Sad Puppies acted on a premise that wasn't investigated enough for one and that hadn't been actually supported by evidence. Martin and Sturridge did nice debunking of the claims made by puppies by posting actual arguments and facts and I can't help but side with them in this whole kerfuffle.

As for how to prevent that and similar actions in the future, I'm not sure. I think awards shouldn't have been messed around with in the first place and any changes made as a result of that don't seem like something desirable. The best solution would be to just have them drop this, but that doesn't seem possible and other groups will likely arise as a consequence of this. Maybe they should simply increase the voting base which could then work towards neutralizing the influence of such organized campaigning.

 

[J-Sun]

Maybe they should simply increase the voting base which could then work towards neutralizing the influence of such organized campaigning.

Exactly. That's one of the points Correia makes - it's such a tiny award (with such great inertial historical prestige) that (according to his thesis) it was easily quietly controlled before and (according to the SP detractors) was so easy to "ruin" this year. So, as usual, many of the initial "inclusive" ideas "for diversity" are all about rules changes for restrictions when the most obvious and good thing to do is for everyone to get everybody involved that they possibly can.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Exactly. That's one of the points Correia makes - it's such a tiny award (with such great inertial historical prestige) that (according to his thesis) it was easily quietly controlled before and (according to the SP detractors) was so easy to "ruin" this year. So, as usual, many of the initial "inclusive" ideas "for diversity" are all about rules changes for restrictions when the most obvious and good thing to do is for everyone to get everybody involved that they possibly can.

Actually the rule change most likely to be adopted is the so-called "4/6," which is not restrictive at all but probably also won't solve the problem of slate voting. (This info is from the SMOFiest of all worldcon SMOFs, so it's trustworthy.)

Basically instead of the current set up, where a nominee needs 5% of all ballots to make the shortlist, starting in 2017 (pending approving at Sasquan) there would be 6 shortlisted nominees in every category. Individual ballots, however, would only allow for 4 nominees per category. So if you had a slate of 4 nominees/category, there would theoretically still be 2 slots open to non-slate choices in every category.

(This is, however, predicated on the existence of only one slate. This year there were two, albeit highly correlated slates. Next year there may be more. 4/6 is thus just a bandaid on a festering wound.)

Also, many more people are suggesting opening voting that you may realize. That's Justin Landon's conclusion, set within a very interesting (and personal) essay on the Hugos and his own personal politics.

Much the same, the World Science Fiction Society, the organization responsible for making the Hugo Award rules, must abandon their current exclusionary policies. They must decrease the cost of a voting memberships. They must prune arcane categories, and asinine rules, and early morning committee meetings. They must stop fostering an environment that rewards suppressing the vote of thousands of science fiction and fantasy fans who want to be heard, but feel unwelcome by institutionalized cronyism.
...
To that end, I implore the World Science Fiction Society to immediately convene a committee to conduct a thorough constitutional review. The internet, modern fandom, and the tenor of debate created by them, has fundamentally changed how an institution like the Hugo Award functions. There is no Band Aid solution. Because the truth is, like it or not, the Rabid/Sad Puppies are right. The Hugo Awards as they exist today are broken - and have been broken for years. The right response isn't to tighten the controls. The right response is to open the border. The right response is to show the fringe voices that they are not the majority, and that moderates can still exist.

Change is scary, but it is also necessary.

But, to be honest, not changing is even scarier.

...and it is also the consensus solution of most people I know who oppose slate voting.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

Exactly. That's one of the points Correia makes - it's such a tiny award (with such great inertial historical prestige) that (according to his thesis) it was easily quietly controlled before and (according to the SP detractors) was so easy to "ruin" this year. So, as usual, many of the initial "inclusive" ideas "for diversity" are all about rules changes for restrictions when the most obvious and good thing to do is for everyone to get everybody involved that they possibly can.

That really seems like the best idea. Include more people from different branches, backgrounds, and interests, and group campaigns will ideally get neutralized. I never like adding restrictions for voting. It only serves to force something that wouldn't happen without it which is pretty much the same thing Sad Puppies did and I think that what they did was too much and without a solid basis because it was so easily debunked. They really went about this the wrong way. Subject should have been properly explored and arguments supported by hard facts that should have warned the voting body of possible existing bias. Instead, they went to campaigns which only served to make it all worse. What they did, definitely doesn't help the balance they claim to be supporting.

 

[J-Sun]

...and it is also the consensus solution of most people I know who oppose slate voting.

There are a couple of irrelevant things in his piece that I disagree with quite a bit but, on most of the details and the general tenor that, again, was a reasonable piece. But I'd say two things against the main point: first, changing the rules when you don't like the outcome really does look like everything the SP says is right and that the ASPs are trying to restore the system to its previously gamed level, no matter what the changes are. Again, I side with Martin here about not changing things, at least for another cycle or more. Maybe the SP slate doesn't work next time of its own. Maybe the ASP slate counters it fairly. Just wait and see - don't set into motion a cycle of rule changes designed to engineer the "right" results. That really would destroy the awards.

Second, I'm in the bizarre position of being an 18th century English gentleman decrying giving the unpropertied the vote. But when I say to get as many people involved, I mean "who are SF fans". This isn't literally democracy which affects everyone, but an SF award. There's no litmus test to decide who's "really" an SF "fan" but the 40 buck barrier is very high (perhaps too high) but not insurmountable for a lot of people. (I don't know where precisely it should be set or if there's a better way but, as I said, any of that would involve rule changes and I'm not in favor of that at this point.) What dropping any sort of entry barrier does is truly open the floodgates to madness. I don't even know what "gamergate" is (that seemed out of the way enough that I didn't bother to track down those links) but if Worldcon changes the rules to drop any sort of barrier, you might as well open the floodgates to every looney and just hold an internet poll. A lot of people love to make the casual troll but it takes a pretty dedicated troll to spend 40 bucks for it. More participation is good but we're still talking on the scale of "SF fans".

I think that what they did was too much and without a solid basis because it was so easily debunked. They really went about this the wrong way. Subject should have been properly explored and arguments supported by hard facts that should have warned the voting body of possible existing bias. Instead, they went to campaigns which only served to make it all worse. What they did, definitely doesn't help the balance they claim to be supporting.

As I mentioned regarding Martin's "beef" post, I don't think it's quite so easily debunked. But, leaving that aside, Correia is, of course, not a disinterested party, but this is SP3 and SP1 seems to be almost a retroactively characterized thing where it was basically talk, just like you're saying and he was pre-emptively villified. So that begat SP2, where a single nominee was put on each category and I think they all lost and he was villified and the ASPs declared victory in gloating and unseemly terms. (I was unaware of SP1 but I saw this with SP2.) And that begat SP3 in which the SPs said, "We were only pointing out a problem, which was ignored. Then we were making a point, which was ignored. So now we're going to win. Ignore that if you can." So this SP3 thing didn't just burst out of thin air a couple of days ago (though it seems like it did to many here as they've said) but they did go about it by initially arguing and weren't "debunked" by hard facts but attacked with innuendo and outright fabrication. Now, I'll say they went about it the wrong way by letting themselves touch, e.g., Day with a ten-foot pole, for instance, but they're kind of stuck with him by the principle of free speech and competition being decided in the marketplace and not giving in to "SJW"s and so on. The ACLU supports the rights of Communists, Nazis, Green Peace activists and the KKK to march and assemble and so on. Ironically, the ACLU is usually regarded as a bastion of liberality and villified by many conservatives, but the principles are the same. Be all that as it may, the SP thing didn't just start like this yesterday, but is part of an ongoing process.

And, to wind back to what I was saying about rule changes and hasty action: the ongoing process may result in disaster or improvement. Let's give it at least another year or two and see.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

@J-Sun Not talking just about Martin's "beef" post though he had quite a few posts on the topic. I was more referring to David Sturridge's detailed explanation. My conclusion is more or less a summary of what I read on all those and Torgersen's original post with a few articles and arguments read in between. They offered me concrete argumentation and facts. Torgersen hadn't.

I am aware that SPs have done this more than once, but if they are capable of moving enough people with a campaign this year to do this, couldn't they have used that momentum for the people to spread the word about the problem without "stuffing the ballot"? I can't condone such extreme that goes against what they are propagating as means to an end. It defeated the purpose.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

The yearly "Best Of" editions are all available in the UK,

a) Never seen them
b) I'm in UK in sense that Canada is in USA (!)
c) There is another aspect, but we won't go there.

 

[dask]

I even had to order the great American cyberpunk John Shirley's seminal Heatseeker in a Grafton paperback as it only had a single small press hardcover printing here).

I saw this at a library book sale a few years ago, in paperback if I remember correctly, and decided against it because I didn't want to mess around with what looked like a political thriller.

 

[svalbard]

a) Never seen them
b) I'm in UK in sense that Canada is in USA (!)
c) There is another aspect, but we won't go there.

Try Other Realms in Cork. If they do not have any they can order them. You could also check out Forbidden Planet in Dublin, although I have little experiance of this store.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Other Realms in Cork. If they do not have any they can order them. You could also check out Forbidden Planet in Dublin

Like asking people in San Francisco to check Stores in New York or Miami. Costs me a fortune to visit either of those.
We do have three, maybe four major book stores here. Also loads of Charity shops with books and maybe five good second hand bookshops. There used to be a Forbidden Planet here in Limerick.

Even when I lived in UK, printed "shorts" outside of Reader's Digest was pretty inaccessible. You had to know it existed and search for it. I think outside of USA that is still pretty much the case.

My daughter-in-law is German and has read lots of translations, again it's mostly novels that get translated (sadly a MUCH smaller fraction from all other languages put together TO English, than English to German alone.). Now living in Ireland, she reads much more in English.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Even when I lived in UK, printed "shorts" outside of Reader's Digest was pretty inaccessible. You had to know it existed and search for it. I think outside of USA that is still pretty much the case.

My daughter-in-law is German and has read lots of translations, again it's mostly novels that get translated (sadly a MUCH smaller fraction from all other languages put together, than English to German alone.). Now living in Ireland, she reads much more in English.

Hey Ray,

You are probably going to shoot me down, but I've been getting short story magazines (in fact all magazines that I read) for the past three decades via ordering them off the internet or mail order - delivered straight to my door. I've never seen them in the shops. But some how by osmosis I've managed to be made aware of them, despite the fact I'm more of a novel reading sort of person (I think I saw a lot of their adverts in the backs of novels actually). So yes you have to know that there is, for example, a magazine called Interzone to find the website to order it. My guess is that their circulations are so low it won't make any sense for shops to really stock them.

Pre internet it probably was completely different, but I can't remember such times very well.

Anyway just saying, Europe is not the short story desert you're making it out to be (not my experience anyway!)

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I buy mine from the main newsagents in Belfast. If I wanted them each month my local newsagent could order them. In RoI it wouldn't be as easy (although any Easons has the supply chain to order them in) but in the UK getting eg .interzone, analog, black static etc should be straightforward - the magazine supply chain is a simple one and any newsagent who takes orders - and most so - can get it.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I buy mine from the main newsagents in Belfast. If I wanted them each month my local newsagent could order them. In RoI it wouldn't be as easy (although any Easons has the supply chain to order them in) but in the UK getting eg .interzone, analog, black static etc should be straightforward - the magazine supply chain is a simple one and any newsagent who takes orders - and most so - can get it.

Ordering from newsagents - wow that took me back , I have vague memories of doing that for comics when I was young

Actually thinking about it - I've not had a local big newsagent near me since the early nineties in Cambridge. After then I probably hastened their demise and got everything via big supermarket chains...and then the internet. Sorry independent newsagents!

 

[Ray McCarthy]

a ordering them off the internet or mail order - delivered straight to my door. I've never seen them in the shops.

If I wanted them each month my local newsagent could order them.

This is the point. Yes, I could get them. But never as an impulse purchase, or when I need something when travelling. I bought "The Girl with all the gifts" almost on "impulse", after leafing through it. Actually a week later at next weekly shop.

A subscription magazine is financial commitment and might be poor value. If the issues were regularly stocked I could pick up one that's interesting.

I'm NOT saying shorts are totally inaccessible. But they are certainly NOT as accessible as SF&F novels (Plenty locally). The Hugos are US centric and perhaps 60+ years outmoded in terms of how most SF is obtained.

The newsagents have closed at two shopping centres here and have been replace by book & magazine counters in Tesco.
The other big shopping centre does have a bookshop, but Tesco's "Four seasons" non-food store has all the "best selling" Books, CDs, DVDs, Games and Bluray.

 

[David Selig]

Hey Ray,

You are probably going to shoot me down, but I've been getting short story magazines (in fact all magazines that I read) for the past three decades via ordering them off the internet or mail order - delivered straight to my door. I've never seen them in the shops. But some how by osmosis I've managed to be made aware of them, despite the fact I'm more of a novel reading sort of person (I think I saw a lot of their adverts in the backs of novels actually). So yes you have to know that there is, for example, a magazine called Interzone to find the website to order it. My guess is that their circulations are so low it won't make any sense for shops to really stock them.

Pre internet it probably was completely different, but I can't remember such times very well.

Anyway just saying, Europe is not the short story desert you're making it out to be (not my experience anyway!)

Nowadays you can subscribe to pretty much every English language SFF magazine (or buy their individiual issues) and get it on your ebook reader even when living in a tiny Eastern country like mine. Which is awesome.

 

[MWagner]

In 2015, any content relying on printed magazines for distribution may as well be relying on carrier pigeons.

Edit: Looks like the SFF magazines are available in digital format.

 

[Venusian Broon]

In 2015, any content relying on printed magazines for distribution may as well be relying on carrier pigeons.

Edit: Looks like the SFF magazines are available in digital format.

This is getting way OT, but I'm old fashioned. Don't have an e-book reader and don't read fiction sitting at my PC nor on my laptop. So for the moment I still prefer paper being brought to me by carrier pigeons.