So what now, Hugo?



As the International Lord of Hate said after the Hugo Awards results were announced... "I told you so".

The detailed statistics behind the awards results showed very clearly that the voters at WorldCon and Sasquan were perfectly willing to undermine the legitimacy of their own award process in order to keep out those that they don't like. LTC Tom Kratman, John C. Wright, Steve Rsaza, a number of Baen authors, and Toni Weisskopf herself, were all denied awards that they richly deserved and should have won for their respective categories.

Yet, instead of even bothering to consider the alternatives, five different categories were given "No Award". The Hugo and Nebula Awards were, essentially, reduced to a farce. And all because politics overruled etiquette, courtesy, wisdom, and good judgement.

The SJWs who currently control the nomination and award process have made it perfectly clear that they intend to amend the (already incomprehensible) rules for next year's ballot in order to prevent a similar uprising from happening again. Good luck with that; I have every reason to think that the Sad Puppies leaders for next year, Amanda Green, Kate Paulk, and Sarah A. Hoyt, will simply adapt, react, and overcome in order to get works by actual skilled authors that fans actually might want to read up for nominations.

The cronyism and corruption within the awards has become so rampant, in fact, that even the liberal media is having a hard time explaining it away:
Is this, as the Puppies’ detractors suggest, all about straight white males trying to protect their turf from interlopers like the women who snagged nearly two-thirds of the Hugo nominations for fiction in 2012? The Puppies’ fiction picks were indisputably male-dominated, with only three female authors out of 17; yet some of the group’s most dedicated members are women such as writers Sarah Hoyt, Amanda Green, and Cedar Sanderson. (The latter two were Puppy nominees for Best Fan Writer, which recognizes sci-fi related nonfiction work for nonpaying or low-paying magazines or websites.) And Hoyt told me in our email interview last spring that her personal worst example of the Hugos’ political corruption was a 2013 win for a white male: the Best Novel award to “Redshirts” by John Scalzi, a satirical riff on “Star Trek.” Hoyt, who dismisses the novel as “bad fanfic,” thought the award was blatant cronyism on behalf of Scalzi, a recent president of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America and one of the fandom’s high priests of “social justice” ideology. 
Then there are the politicized “message” stories. Thus, last year’s Best Novel Hugo went to “Ancillary Justice” by Ann Leckie, whose protagonist belongs to a futuristic human civilization with no concept of gender distinctions and with “she” as the universal pronoun. The Best Story winner, “The Water That Falls on You from Nowhere” by John Chu, dealt with a Chinese-American man’s struggles with coming out as gay. (The “fantasy” part was a clunky plot device: a mysterious phenomenon that causes anyone telling a lie to be instantly doused in water.) Also high on the gripe list is last year’s nomination for “If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love” by Rachel Swirsky, a short story that even some of its fans concede is not really science fiction or fantasy. It is the internal monologue of a woman who daydreams about her comatose fiancĂ©—the victim of a hate crime by men who apparently thought he was gay or transgendered—becoming a human-sized dinosaur. 
Of course, quality is a somewhat subjective thing. Two of my friends who are avid readers of sci-fi and fantasy, disagreed sharply on “Dinosaur”: one thought it was an piece of pretentious dreck whose nomination could only be explained by political correctness; another, who has little patience for PC, wasn’t crazy about it but thought it was well-written and could be appreciated on merit. Yet another friend thought the Puppies had a legitimate complaint about the Hugos’ cliquishness but undercut it with their own mediocre nominations. 
Perhaps the real issue isn’t the quality of any specific work, or even the prevalence of “message fiction” in the genre; it’s that, as cautiously Puppy-sympathetic nonfiction writer and data scientist Nathaniel Givens has argued on his blog, “the message has never been so dogmatically uniform.” What’s more, Givens argues, the current crop of pro-“social justice” authors who dominate the field not only use their fiction as a vehicle for ideology but seek to enforce conformity throughout the fandom, posing a genuine threat to intellectual diversity. He points out that, by contrast, the Sad Puppies “went out of their way to put some authors on the slate who are liberal rather than conservative.”
That "threat to diversity" has become perfectly clear. The point of the Hugo Awards is that they are supposed to go to works of great sci-fi that people who actually read the genre enjoy and care about. But for a long while now, they have gone to books that the SJWs want to promote, to people that the SFWA wants to win, and not to truly great and deserving authors.

Does anyone seriously think that Redshirts can hold a candle to Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy? Here's an excerpt from Redshirts to give you an idea of just how bad the writing is:
“Man, I owe you a blowjob,” Duvall said. 
“What?” Dahl said. 
“What?” Hester said. 
“Sorry,” Duvall said. “In ground forces, when someone does you a favor you tell them you owe them a sex act. If it’s a little thing, it’s a handjob. Medium, blowjob. Big favor, you owe them a fuck. Force of habit. It’s just an expression.”
“Got it,” Dahl said.
“No actual blowjob forthcoming,” Duvall said. “To be clear” 
“It’s the thought that counts,” Dahl said, and turned to Hester. “What about you? You want to owe me a blowjob, too?” 
“I’m thinking about it ,” Hester said.
John Scalzi was also nominated for a Hugo for Best Novel back when he released Old Man's War. I haven't read it. I'm given to understand that, as Heinlein knock-offs go, it's really not too bad. But does it really compare with the original works of Heinlein? Such as, say, Starship Troopers? My money is on "Not only No but F*CK NO!".

So, now that the CHORFs/SJWs/complete frickin idiots in charge of the Hugo Awards process have proven the basic point that the Puppies slates set out to demonstrate, what comes next?

The good news, from our perspective as fighters in a Fourth-Generation style of conflict, is that there really isn't any downside here.

Thanks to the bile and vituperation heaped upon us by the likes of John Scalzi, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Irene Gallo, George R. R. Martin, and others, more people than ever before are aware of just what lengths these people will go to in order to keep us fans of science fiction locked out of what was supposed to be a fan-driven award.

As to the charge that, if we want conservative authors to win awards, we should just setup our own award, well, we already have that. It's called the Prometheus Awards, which are awarded for libertarian sci-fi. Sarah A. Hoyt is a winner of it. But that is not, and never was, the point of the Puppies campaigns.

The point was to get good works that fans of the genre actually like up for awards, to recognise their worth and to give recognition and credit where it's due. And the Hugo Awards committee crapped all over that idea in 2015.

In fact, one of the key lessons learned from 2015 is that conciliation with these characters is impossible. The Rabid Puppies slate did objectively better than the Sad Puppies slate did. More of the Rabid nominees were selected, and more of Vox Day's picks actually won awards. This, despite the fact that the Rabid Puppies slate was specifically designed to give the SJWs heart attacks, aneurysms, and indigestion- simultaneously.

All they've managed to do is attempt to get the attention of those, like me, who in previous years would never have gotten involved in the Hugo Awards and would never have bothered wading into what, on the surface, seems to be a supremely silly and childish squabble.

Well, they've got our attention now. And they're really not going to like it.

Looking ahead to 2016, as I wrote above, there really is no losing proposition for us. Vox Day called it his "Xanatos Gambit". And he was right.

If the works that we Rabid Puppies nominate in 2016 win awards, great- people who actually deserve to win awards will, in fact, win them, based purely on whether or not they are good writers and not on whether they write about the "correct" topics in the "approved" way. I, for one, would love to see John C. Wright, Tom Kratman, or John Ringo win a Hugo Award- Lord only knows, they deserve it. These are men who know how to write great works of science fiction, works that will leave you amazed, delighted, and enthralled at their creativity and skill with words.

If, however, we nominate works in all of the categories, and then all of those categories get handed No Award, well, the Hugo Awards will have essentially nuked themselves. They will, in one stroke, cease to matter. We will have forced the SJWs to burn down their own house- after they barricade themselves inside- in order to stop us from getting in.

"Night of the Living Fans", indeed.

Even if the results are only halfway between these two eventualities, as they were this year, we still win. The prestige of the Hugo Awards took a severe body blow this year, and I have no doubt that another one is coming next year.

I have no idea what His Unspeakable Evilness, Vox Day, plans to do for next year's awards. Nor, for that matter, do I particularly care. I am a Vile Faceless Minion, and you know what that means.

I do know that Vox will not stop until those who have done so much to antagonise, demonise, marginalise, and destroy him, have the tables turned upon them in spectacular and singularly brutal fashion. That is simply how he operates, as any longtime reader of his blog will be well aware.

Until Gamergate and the Puppies came along, I honestly didn't care much about the state of gaming journalism or science fiction. But both movements have shown us exactly how we can apply 4GW tactics and strategies to win the war for the culture, after more than forty years spent losing it. And for that, we should all be profoundly grateful.

If you thought this year was eventful in terms of pushing back the SJWs, just wait until next year. I have a feeling it's going to make 2015 look like a peaceful lazy boat trip down a placid stream by comparison.

Comments

  1. Seriously? The Puppies (both flavors, but more specifically the Rapids of JCW and Vox) decided to game the nomination process by abusing the rules as they were written; a time honored tradition among munchkin gamers...but pretty much despised by rational, thinking people. Then, once they'd done this, they started rubbing it in everyone else's face that they'd done it...and you're *surprised* when people react negatively to this?

    It's like if someone comes up and punches you in the nose a couple times, and then says, "If you go to the police because I punched you, I win...and it just proves that there's a conspiracy out there to prevent people like me from punching people in the face."

    Do you realize how stupid that makes you look?

    You can tell me, with a straight face, that JCW wrote 5 of the top pieces of SF/F last year? Really? I read his stuff that was nominated, and most of it was floridly written prose that was poorly done at that. He desperately needs Vox to actually BE an editor and do his job of pulling him back.

    You're right, the noxious element will be back this year, because they gamed the system, and weren't rewarded when they did so. How dare the vast majority of people look at their behavior, disapprove, and vote it down?

    Fact is, the Sad/Rapid complaints have no basis in reality, and all of this post-Hugo spin/rationalization is just that...spin.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The Hugo and Nebula Awards were, essentially, reduced to a farce."
    Wait, what? How did the Nebulas get in here? The Nebulas are a completely separate award, handled by a completely separate organization. That's a basic thing. Did you think they were the same award?

    "And the Hugo Awards committee crapped all over that idea in 2015." Are you thinking the Hugo Awards are decided by committee? Because it's a popular-vote award by all attending and supporting members of Worldcon. If you were under the impression that it was decided by committee, then you may may want to use strikethrough and revise and edit this.

    I am perfectly willing to concede that Redshirts is not as good as Starship Troopers. The question is, did the voters of the 2013 Worldcon think it was one of the five best SFF novels of 2012? The only applicable points of comparison are other 2012 SFF novels. What 2012 novel should have been nominated in its place?

    Red Shirts was a popular, bestselling comedic SF novel riffing on a very popular TV show. Why would you think there's any "corruption" with voters in 2012 liking it?

    Same deal with Old Man's War. It's not bad, but it's not as good as Spin, which is why it didn't win. Red Mars is not a valid point of comparison for the Hugos; the only relevant question is, should something else in 2006 have been nominated instead, and, if so, what?

    One of the reasons the Puppies didn't make very much headway was because they didn't talk about the nominated work itself and its merits. You could do a follow-up post on that--which John C. Wright story/novella did you think deserved to win, and why? I read all of them. "One Bright Star" was decent; "Pale Realms of Shade," however, made little to no sense and had one of worst-written sex scenes I've ever read.

    "A Single Samurai"--not a bad story, but I ranked "Totaled" first on my ballot. You're actually the first person I've seen to name-check that story as Hugo-worthy. What, specifically, made "A Single Samurai" the best SF story of 2014?

    "Big Boys Don't Cry": Kind of a boring story, which is a problem if you're doing MilSF. David Levine covered the same ground in a much more interesting way in "Damage" (eligible this year).

    Toni Weisskopf is, in fact, a deserving editor and got George R. R. Martin's endorsement, but what is it about her editing that made her more deserving than Sheila Gilbert (my top pick?)

    A majority of thousands of Worldcon voters--not a committee--made a judgment call. If you actually want your choices to win next year, you've got to start with the work and what makes it awesome. And be specific. It's not enough to say "X deserves a Hugo!" Lots of cool writers deserve Hugos and don't have them. I'd be very interested to read a post about your picks, and the qualities of the stories that made them award-worthy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I take it the Nebula Awards are still mostly shielded from this sort of Crap? I noticed Last year's grandmaster went to Larry Niven, which seems like a solid choice.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So when 15% of the members pick works that the other 85% of the members think were awful, that's democracy in action and must be held holy and sacred, but when two-thirds of the members come back and say, "Hey, 15%, those works you picked? We hated them all" that's unfair?

    ReplyDelete
  5. That depends. When that 85% states beforehand "We don't care who you picked. We are going to shoot them down no matter who they are, what they wrote, for no other reason than that we know you care about them" And then proceed to do exactly that, Yes, it shows that the award is worth less than a truckload of dead rats in a tampon factory.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, I see. You appear to have defined democracy as "I always get what I want" and when you lose the election, you declare the process corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I define democracy as 'socialism that appeals only to unibrows, retarded ignorants, and the corrupt.' That's why i have always considered the nebula awards far more relevant.

      Then again, 'worldcon attendees' are not even a close approximation of science fiction fans. They are a very specific subset of fans that specifically exclude the vast majority of SF fandom, they are the ones with idle hands, idle money, and idle mouths.

      This specifically excludes almost the entire genre of milscifi, political scifi thrillers, and hard SF purists... Most of whom are self employed or full time workers or military personel, are successful, and have families to care for and cannot blow off a week to fly someplace to hang out with basement dwellers and hygiene-optional congoers.

      I for example am self employed and reasonably well off, but I will not take off a week to hang out with Obese slave Leias and rubber Iron Men. Yet, I am a voracious reader of authors like Vox, Ringo, Kratman, Niven, and the twin Davids, a 'democratically elected award' is absolutely irrelevant when only a specific social subset of a fan base is represented. Especially when that fanbase has bvery specifically mentioned that they are motivated less by genre excellence and more by political expediency.

      In short, the Hugo Awards at this point are more of a list to tell me which authors to avoid rather than pointing me towards new up and comers.

      Delete
    2. > I define democracy as 'socialism that appeals
      > only to unibrows, retarded ignorants, and
      > the corrupt.'

      Good luck setting up the Dictatorship with you as the Dictator, that being what sounds like the only thing that would satisfy you personally.

      > That's why i have always considered the
      > Nebula Awards far more relevant.

      The Nebula Awards are selected democratically by the members of SFWA. By your own definition, democracy is Bad. Can you reconcile these two statements?

      > Then again, 'Worldcon attendees' are not even a
      > close approximation of science fiction fans.

      Of course they are not. Nor has anyone that I take seriously said that they are. The members of Worldcon are the members of Worldcon. The members of Worldcon vote on the award given by the members of Worldcon. Not even the Hugo Awards web site claims that the Hugo Awards are selected by every single human being who has consumed any form of SF/F popular culture, which is presumably what you mean by all "science fiction fans." Your statement is a straw man. I agree with you completely that "Worldcon Attendees" <> "All Science Fiction Fans" So what? I also think that 2+2=4.

      > I for example am self employed and reasonably
      > well off, but I will not take off a week to hang
      > out with Obese slave Leias and rubber Iron Men.

      Well, I didn't see either set of people at this year's Worldcon, so what difference does that make. Have you looked at any of the actual pictures of people who were at Worldcon, instead of the straw men and women you have set up? If you're talking about people in costume, the Official Masquerade & Hugo Award photo album is an example of some of those.

      In any event, if you're using this as shorthand for, "I don't want to associate with anyone who doesn't share my opinions 100% and doesn't look and sound exactly like me," well, that's your right to do so. Nobody is forced to join Worldcon. It's a voluntary organization.

      > I am a voracious reader of authors like Vox, Ringo,
      > Kratman, Niven, and the twin Davids, a
      > 'democratically elected award' is absolutely
      > irrelevant when only a specific social subset
      > of a fan base is represented.

      Yes. I agree with you. You sound to me like want an award selected by you. Only you. And nobody else but you. Guess what? You have one. It's called "money" and "buying books you like." You have given them the Brigadon Award for Best SF/F pop culture entertainment. And in the long run, I expect most authors are much happier to get money than awards. So I'm not disagreeing with you.

      > In short, the Hugo Awards at this point are
      > more of a list to tell me which authors to
      > avoid rather than pointing me towards
      > new up and comers.

      Great! That's wonderful! Now you know what to avoid, and instead know who to give the Brigadon Award!

      If it's so important for someone to give out awards that validate your literary choices, then you really need to gang together with people who think exactly like you do and give out the Real Awards. And guess what? Nobody else is stopping you from doing so, any more than (as far as I know), nobody is stopping you from giving the Brigadon Award to any work you personally like. I think you should continue to keep giving Brigadon Awards to every work you personally like, and would be very displeased with anyone who acted to prevent you from giving out as many Brigadon Awards as you possibly can afford to bestow. Knock yourself out.

      Delete
    3. "The Nebula Awards are selected democratically by the members of SFWA. By your own definition, democracy is Bad. Can you reconcile these two statements?"
      The science fiction writers of America are not forced to stop their work, pack up for a week and waste time and money attending a con. apples and oranges. Most awards are a farce (even hitting the new york times bestseller list can be gamed http://www.jmarkpowell.com/the-bestseller-book-that-didnt-exist-how-the-author-of-a-beloved-christmas-classic-pulled-off-the-hoax-of-the-century/) but it gives readers a place to start. And apparently, at this point, the 'No award' has only been applied twice in the entire history of the award.

      "In any event, if you're using this as shorthand for, "I don't want to associate with anyone who doesn't share my opinions 100% and doesn't look and sound exactly like me,"
      When you consider the Hugo is a representative Award, then yes... I am not represented. How can a vote be legitimate when it doesn't actually represent the preferences of the Genre Base? What, exactly, do looks, or opinions OTHER than the ones about science fiction have to do with this conversation or thread?

      " You sound to me like want an award selected by you. Only you. And nobody else but you."
      Nice Straw man. Your opinion on my motivations is irrelevant. I have explained my motivations. If you choose not to accept that explanation, then feel free not to reply. I question the validity of the award when it becomes politically motivated. Thus, the Hugo awards are now as invalid as the Nobel peace prize became when they awarded it to Obama for 'Not being George Bush'.

      "Well, I didn't see either set of people at this year's Worldcon, so what difference does that make."
      I could care less what you see or do not see at worldcon. Unless you happen to be working in the security offices and perusing the security cameras. Your anecdotes have no more validity than mine.

      Apparently you fail to realize the Flaw with the Hugo Award. That was embraced by a commentor two or three articles back. "I only read Hugo-award wining authors."

      The Hugo award represents MONEY to an author. It is free advertising, and a pass to a much greater audience. Thus, when it has no bearing on the actual abilities of the author, or when it is subverted by political action groups, That means that SJW's are literally picking the pockets of decent writers in order to make a political statement.

      It's cute that you somehow think that this version of a 'democratic process to determine excellence in writing' is anything other than an absolute farce.

      As for the last paragraph? On skimming I realized it was nothing more than a personal attack and not worth reading. If you wish to attack my person, we can work out a time and place to meet... but internet badassery and e-peen measurement is irrelevant to the article or conversation at hand.

      But yes, we do need a new award. I don't suggest the 'Brigadon Award', and the 'readers choice' at Amazon is flooded with books outside of Genre, but something needs to replace the now crashed-and-burned Hugo awards, and people need to recognize that the Hugos no longer demonstrate a book's quality, creativity, or any of the Hugo categories... It only demonstrates which authors are the most politically correct.

      Delete
    4. > The science fiction writers of America
      > are not forced to stop their work

      Would you please cite who is "forcing" you to do any of these things? I know of nobody forcing you do to anything at all. Who or what is compelling you to do these things?

      In case you didn't read the instructions, WSFS is a voluntary organization. Nobody is making you join it. (For that matter, SFWA is also a voluntary organization. Nobody is required to join it, either.)

      > And apparently, at this point, the 'No award'
      > has only been applied twice in the entire
      > history of the award.

      Do you mean the Nebula Awards have applied No Award twice over the Awards' lifetime? I haven't really been paying much attention to them.

      > When you consider the Hugo is a representative
      > Award, then yes... I am not represented.

      Not so. The Hugo Award is a representative award of the members of the World Science Fiction Society just like the Nebula Award is a representative award of the members of the SF & F Writers of America.

      > How can a vote be legitimate when it doesn't
      > actually represent the preferences of the
      > Genre Base?

      Okay, do you somehow think that the Hugo Awards is supposed to represent the opinions of every single human being, anywhere in the world, who consumed any form of SF/F-related popular culture entertainment of any sort, any kind, in any language, anywhere? If so, then you seem to have misunderstood the description. Read what I wrote above. The Hugo Awards represent the members of WSFS, just like the Nebula Awards represent the members of SFWA.

      To extend your argument about the Hugo Awards not being representative: What would you think if I started complaining that the Nebula Awards were not "representative" because they don't reflect the opinions of every single person in the world who wrote any works of SF & Fantasy of any sort?

      Delete
    5. > I have explained my motivations.

      No, you haven't, or at least you've done a poor job of it. You've complained bitterly when You Don't Win. Therefore, you think the award is only fair when You Win. By all means, set up awards where You Always Win. Don't let me or anyone else stop you from doing this. Why are you unhappy with people who are Not You freely associating and making their own decisions. Do you somehow think that your should have the right to impose your decisions on other people just because you don't like their decisions?

      > Your anecdotes have no more validity than mine.

      Were you at Worldcon? I was. I have pictures to prove it.


      > The Hugo award represents MONEY to an author.

      Oh, now we get to it. You think that fans are required to give authors awards so that they can make more money. You demand that other people reward things they don't like so that the people they don't like can make money. Do you realize how selfish this makes you look?

      Fandom is not required to give you or any other author anything at all. If I don't like your work, I will not vote for it. The Hugo Award is not an entitlment program for SF/F authors. It's a gift bestowed upon people by like-minded fans. If you really think that authors are somehow entitled to awards, you are an amazingly selfish person.


      > It's cute that you somehow think that
      > this version of a 'democratic process
      > to determine excellence in writing' is
      > anything other than an absolute farce.

      If the winner had been something that you personally liked, I expect that you would have crowing from the skies about what a wonderful thing it was that the democratic process produced a fantastic choice and how amazing and wonderful democracy was. I stand by my assertion that to you, democracy is only valid if you personally win.

      I, however, recognize that democracy doesn't always mean "I win." I've been participating in WSFS affairs since 1984. Sometimes I get what I want; sometimes I do not. I invested quite a bit of effort into a proposal that got first passage before WSFS last year but failed of ratification this year. I'm disappointed, but I don't go around complaining that the entire process is invalid just becuase I didn't get my way.

      Delete
    6. > I realized it was nothing more than a
      > personal attack and not worth reading.
      > If you wish to attack my person, we
      > can work out a time and place to meet...

      This sounds very much like you would like to physically attack me. Was this your intention?

      > but internet badassery and e-peen
      > measurement is irrelevant to the
      > article or conversation at hand.

      Yep, and unlike you, I'm not some pseudonym hiding on the internet. I actually show up at events and don't hide. But you probably could beat me up. I'm 50 years old, overweight, and not in top physical health. Does physically assaulting people and hurting them make you somehow right magically? I could have sworn that trial by combat isn't considered a particularly valid form of proof anymore.

      > But yes, we do need a new award.

      Good, we agree. Please, go make that award. Group together with people who always agree with your choices, and give awards that reflect your personal opinions. Please do this. I sincerely and honestly want you and people like you who are convinced that the SF/F genre's oldest award is completely wrong becuase it doesn't reflect your personal choices will set up an award that makes you happy.

      Delete
    7. "No, you haven't, or at least you've done a poor job of it. You've complained bitterly when You Don't Win. Therefore, you think the award is only fair when You Win."

      Lies. Re read my original comment. My argument is with manipulating the 'no award'. I could give a crap who the actual authors were. I have nothing invested there, as I don't have any opinion on the editing awards, and most of the authors I haven't read.

      "Were you at Worldcon? I was. I have pictures to prove it."
      Absolutely not. I have a real life and job. The only con I hit is SDCC, and that is because it is in walking distance of my home.

      "Okay, do you somehow think that the Hugo Awards is supposed to represent the opinions of every single human being, anywhere in the world, who consumed any form of SF/F-related popular culture entertainment of any sort, any kind, in any language, anywhere?"

      No, it is advertised, however, as representing the 'best of' scifi and fantasy', and has been so since the eighties. It is broadly touted as the definitive authority on what is good and what is not, and is used in many management decision by one of the largest publishers, tor books.

      "Would you please cite who is "forcing" you to do any of these things?"
      If you do not stop your life for a week or more to attend worldcon, you are excluded from the Hugo awards process. Thus, the only people who vote are those that have a lifestyle that supports wasting a week or more at a convention. Duh.

      "Do you mean the Nebula Awards have applied No Award twice over the Awards' lifetime? I haven't really been paying much attention to them."

      Then why do you feel you are qualified to reply to my initial assertion?

      "You think that fans are required to give authors awards so that they can make more money."

      No, I didn't say that, you did. If you want to assume that I 'implied' that the Hugos had become nothing more than a moneymaking scam for politically correct crap, Then I probably would not argue with that assumption, since I believe that sort of garbage is one of the main reasons so few writers are producing quality fiction today.


      "To extend your argument..." Don't. You cannot presume to speak for me, you don't know, me, you don't drink with me, and clearly you don't even read the same books I do.

      "I, however, recognize that democracy doesn't always mean "I win."" No, it means nobody ever wins. it means that 51% always have the right to decide how 49% live, no matter how intrusive, inappropriate, or oppressive it is.

      That's why I state that the nebulas 'appear' more effective as an award, because it relies exclusively on the opinions of established writers, rather than giving every loudmouth the right to decide who gets promoted.

      BTW, since you apparently are arguing with what you THINK I am saying rather than my actual statements, this discussion is over. Feel free to get in the last word, however, I simply don't enjoy debates with people who argue like a woman.











      Delete
    8. Well, I can't speak for others but I did read all the fiction and had very little trouble putting all of it below No Award, except Kary English, and even there while her story wasn't bad, it wasn't remotely original, not given that Roald Dalh had done pretty much the same story before I was born, and I'm pushing 50...

      Seriously, find another hobby horse, or set up your own Real Convention for Real Fans or something and offer Real Awards.

      Delete
  7. "Real Clear Politics" is by absolutely no means an example of "liberal media." And that one deliberate misstatement casts doubt on everything else in this piece.

    ReplyDelete
  8. > My argument is with manipulating the 'no award'

    No Award is a candidate like any other. You are angry because it won. Therefore, you don't like democracy when you don't get your way.

    >> Were you at Worldcon? I was. I have
    >> pictures to prove it.

    > Absolutely not. I have a real life and
    > job.

    And you don't think that I do? I have a pretty good paying job as a computer programmer. It's how I pay for this hobby. I think you would be surprised at how many people who are regular Worldcon attendees are in fact pretty darn well off. Worldcons are expensive.

    > The only con I hit is SDCC, and that
    > is because it is in walking distance of my home.

    Then how in the world can you possibly know what the people at Worldcon looked like? The answer is you can't. You haven't a clue. It's like saying "I know all about how living conditions in India becuase I once ate at an Indian restaurant in Mission Valley."

    > If you do not stop your life for a week or
    > more to attend worldcon, you are excluded
    > from the Hugo awards process. Thus, the
    > only people who vote are those that have
    > a lifestyle that supports wasting a week
    > or more at a convention. Duh.

    Do you really think that the Hugo Awards are only voted upon by the people who travel to the convention? How ignorant are you? As a matter of fact, it's clear that more people voted on this year's Awards who were not at the convention. Voting closes several weeks before the convention, and there is nothing in the rules that requires you to personally attend the convention. For someone who seems to be deeply angry about the Hugo Awards, you display a remarkable lack of knowledge about them.

    > No, it means nobody ever wins. it means that
    > 51% always have the right to decide how 49%
    > live, no matter how intrusive, inappropriate,
    > or oppressive it is.

    Not really true. Make is sufficiently inappropriate and oppressive and you get a revolution. That's how America started, after all, isn't it? (Oh, and to admittedly nitpick, a majority is not 51%; it's "more than half." You probably don't think this makes a difference, but I've administered elections where it did.)

    > Feel free to get in the last word, however,
    > I simply don't enjoy debates with people
    > who argue like a woman.

    And you obviously think that "people who argue like a woman" is an insult, which says a tremendous amout about you and not very much about me. I pity any woman in your life.

    In summary: You hate any form of governance where you personally aren't the one who makes the decisions. You think that women are a lower form of life, so that calling a man a woman is a horrible insult. You think that Might Makes Right, so that if you don't like someone else's opinions, you should go beat them up, and that makes you right. You think that SF/F fans are required to give awards to authors so those authors can make more money, even if those fans don't like those authors' works. You are absurdly ill-informed about how the Hugo Awards actually work. You haven't a clue about how Worldcon works -- at most, you think it's a small version of Comic-Con. In your world, the only way you can possibly be happy is to take happiness away from other people. And you're much too lazy to actually go out and create Real Awards that work the way you personally think they should work.

    I said earlier that I pitied any woman in your life. Actually, I pity you. It must be very sad to be such an ignorant, angry person.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts