entremet
Member
Who is Vox Day? Never heard of that writer?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Hugo Awards 2015 - It's about "Ethics in SF Awards"
- Thread starter whatsinaname
- Start date
- Status
Who is Vox Day? Never heard of that writer?
Many of the large genre awards are juried or voted on by a writer's group, like the World Fantasy Award, Nebula, Tiptree, Arthur Clarke, Edgar, BSFA, Bram Stoker, and Phillip K. Dick.
What makes the Hugos interesting, as well as the Locus awards, is the input of the public, i.e. fandom. It's too bad the awards were gamed in this manner.
Delta Assault
Member
Wait, wait, wait... lemme look at this best movie list...
..."Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" didn't get in? WTF? That is exactly what big screen intelligent science fiction is supposed to be. Yet it's not there, but some incoherent rambling mess like "Interstellar" gets on?
I feel like breaking something.
..."Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" didn't get in? WTF? That is exactly what big screen intelligent science fiction is supposed to be. Yet it's not there, but some incoherent rambling mess like "Interstellar" gets on?
I feel like breaking something.
What weird to me about the Gamergaters and these guys is how they seem to want to ghettoize their genre/medium so badly. Like, he's complaining that he can't pick up a book with a spaceship on the cover and be guaranteed that you'll get to read something dumb and pointless? Like oh boo hoo, people are ruining my fun with all their nuance and layers of meaning. Like, no one's taking away more frivolous fun works, but this weird sense that nothing else besides that should exist is just baffling.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Meh. I'd be mad too if my masterpiece (A Storm Of Swords) lost to fucking Harry Potter. Rowling didn't attend the event either, which also pissed Martin off.
Yeah, why not both? Hell we can even be heavy-handed with it and still be good.
Then again we are talking about the Hugo Awards.
Old Man's War won a Hugo Award.
Delta Assault
Member
Yeah, why not both? Hell we can even be heavy-handed with it and still be good.
Then again we are talking about the Hugo Awards.
Old Man's War won a Hugo Award.
Old Man's War is really good though. =\
And I don't think it won the Hugo:
A person so bizarre I sometimes have trouble believing he's not a troll creation.
Vox day
- is pro marital rape
- thinks women shouldn't be able to work or vote
- thinks acid attacks and genital mutilation are good ways to keep women in line
- think black people are half-savages, not capable of creating civilizations, that deserve to be shot when they threaten the white master race
- naturally hates atheists, homosexuals, muslims, liberals etc etc
- loves gamergate, because why not
Oh, yeah. It was just a nomination. I stand corrected.
Old Man's War is a really great concept. The idea is fantastic.
Hrm, I never read Spin. Added to the reading list.
Future Foundation
Member
When Goblet of Fire beat A Storm of Swords in 2001, George was kinda upset, and had quotes like:
Delta Assault
Member
Well, I'm a real enthusiast for stuff like Starship Troopers and Forever War, so Old Man's War was right up my alley. What I enjoyed so much was how Scalzi married that milieu to his very distinct internet blogger sense of humor, which felt refreshing.
The sequel he put out was a real disappointing, bewildering read though, so I haven't read the others in the series after that.
I'm sorry, but I'm not following your argument, if you even have one. The entire thread is about the context surrounding the list of nominees, not whether you like some of the things on those lists or not.
Furthermore, you seem quite ignorant about award shows in general and LotR in particular (hell, every single film got academy awards). Different award shows caters to different audiences, for instance there is very little overlap between something like the Cannes and the MTV film awards. And it is a bit weird to see how willing you are to decry the "dismissal" of Winter Soldier and in the same sentence dismiss entire award shows without even giving it a second thought. You allege that good nominees get dismissed because they're popular but fail to substantiate this claim in any acceptable fashion.
As for the bolded, that is exactly what this is. This has nothing to do with how good or popular a particular work of fiction is, this is an organised far right attack designed to promote their ideals.
T
Transhuman
Unconfirmed Member
That quote is incredibly tame and cutesy.
chaostrophy
Member
I think in general when people say they want SF to be less "literary", they don't necessarily want easy-reading pulp stuff, but they want the required thought to be about hard science: astronomy, physics, engineering, etc. rather than soft science like sociology, psychology, etc., or too much focus on the emotional states of characters.
Awards like this have always been gamed, and have never tracked with some "real" appraisal of works—generally authors with dedicated fans get their stuff nominated and awarded constantly.
The amusing thing is, of course, people are getting upset that things are turning politically conservative—and then say that those conservative voices aren't deserving of a voice or an award for the same nonsensical, non-qualitative reasons. From the comments on i09:
People voting for X book because "it has gay people in it!" or "It doesn't have gay people in it!" or "I'm an X fanboy/girl" are all polluting awards like these in the same way. There's really not any way to fix it.
The tension between what's high-minded and what's pretentious, what's elegant or beautiful prose and what's just overwrought, is always going to be a tense one. Ideally, people would recognize that your genre doesn't demand adherence to any side, and that quality is divorced from the mechanics and themes you use. Personally, I'll take something simplistic that feels honest over something that sounds like "award bait", but it's a very different equation for every reader.
I find the Incomparable's rankings of the Hugo nominees and see if any of them appeal to me an effective way of gauging which ones are good and which ones are just the will of the votes, because they tend to like sci-fi even more than me and devour a more varied selection.
The amusing thing is, of course, people are getting upset that things are turning politically conservative—and then say that those conservative voices aren't deserving of a voice or an award for the same nonsensical, non-qualitative reasons. From the comments on i09:
People voting for X book because "it has gay people in it!" or "It doesn't have gay people in it!" or "I'm an X fanboy/girl" are all polluting awards like these in the same way. There's really not any way to fix it.
The tension between what's high-minded and what's pretentious, what's elegant or beautiful prose and what's just overwrought, is always going to be a tense one. Ideally, people would recognize that your genre doesn't demand adherence to any side, and that quality is divorced from the mechanics and themes you use. Personally, I'll take something simplistic that feels honest over something that sounds like "award bait", but it's a very different equation for every reader.
I find the Incomparable's rankings of the Hugo nominees and see if any of them appeal to me an effective way of gauging which ones are good and which ones are just the will of the votes, because they tend to like sci-fi even more than me and devour a more varied selection.
call_kotaku
Member
I guess it's good that Gamergate graduated to actual right wing advocacy and hate group instead of merely being endorsed by people affiliated with right wing advocacy and hate groups
It's like watching kids grow up to be full-fledged bigots in real time
But hard Sci-Fi should be dedicated in exploring the potential impacts of disruptive technologies, and it would be hard to completely bypass their social and political consequences
It's like watching kids grow up to be full-fledged bigots in real time
But hard Sci-Fi should be dedicated in exploring the potential impacts of disruptive technologies, and it would be hard to completely bypass their social and political consequences
Simply Sarah
Member
Uh, a big part of the issue is that many of the votes for the puppy slates were likely by people that almost certainly have not read/watched/are not familiar with what they nominated. They have no interest in the Hugo awards except to fuck with them.
I'm trying to think of classic or popular scifi that focuses on the hard sciences and bypasses the other stuff. Maybe I'm too entrenched in the other part of the genre, but what are some titles that focus on this?
Delta Assault
Member
This is generally what the Nebula awards are for. The Nebula candidates are chosen and voted upon only by science fiction writers who are a part of the SFWA (Science Fiction Writers of America). The Hugos by contrast are open to nominations and voting from members of the WSFC, but their policies aren't anywhere as strict, so practically anyone who pays at varying "tiers" can have a say in the process. The SadPuppies group have considerable cache partly because of the amount of "supporting" funds they can feed in Hugo coffers.
The Hugo awards are more visible than the Nebulas, and as much as I want to say that I prefer the way the Nebulas handle nominations and voting, I realize that no system is perfect (For one, the Nebulas don't grant awards to non-US published works) and that at the end of the day it's really just two different societies giving out awards, one open one closed, and either is susceptible to political influence.
chaostrophy
Member
The classic SF that I'm familiar with (Clarke, Heinlein, Asimov, etc.) didn't bypass politics, sociology, etc. at all. It tended to strike a balance within a spectrum: those authors brought thoughts about society and strong backgrounds in hard science to their work. While literary writing doesn't require a hard science education or background.
Personally I oppose the Sad Puppies because I think literary writers should be welcome in SF: I've enjoyed plenty of SF stories by writers who aren't qualified to be scientists.
Hari Seldon
Member
I agree. The best sci-fi is about sci-fi, with social commentary secondary. Too much social commentary, even stuff that I agree with, will cause me to dislike it.
I dunno, those still have quite a lot of focus on social stuff and while they sometimes have a rigorous understanding of the science (at the time), it doesn't feel like the story is a vehicle for the science, but the other way around.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the desire.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
A friend of mine says that she came across some weirdly uncomfortable homophobic commentary in the later Dresden books, did anyone else feel the same way?
Sir Garbageman
Member
I am on book 12 or 13 and nothing jumps out me, but then again I pretty much breeze threw them.
Hopefully this leads to people never giving a shit about the Hugos again. Was always a flawed award, and yet one with such prestige.
There's one - the protag gets confused for a gay guy because he's tall, dark and handsome, and he plays out the stereotype because hur hur lisps are so funny.
There's one - the protag gets confused for a gay guy because he's tall, dark and handsome, and he plays out the stereotype because hur hur lisps are so funny.
Incredibly dumb and misguided campaign. Even trying to be fair, their points are stupid and their crusade idiotic.
Basically their argument is (again, at least trying to be fair here):
-the Hugos go too much to leftists with politically progressive messages in their fiction
-this happens because of a small, secret cabal of people who vote on each other's work
-aside from this, the Hugos are too focused on quality writing rather than fun stories
-we will solve this by voting for a slate of people we like, which is within the rules and also what other people have done in the past
On point one, yes, it does seem like there've been some politically progressive winners recently. Coinciding with the rise of political progressiveness in society generally. On the other hand, it doesn't seem out of line with the historical norm in this regard. Political fiction, message fiction, has been showing up on Hugo ballots for a long time. See also: Heinlein, Le Guin, etc etc.
On point two, no. This is stupid. Obviously, as happens with any award, there are going to be a few darlings that people talk about and think are great and that wind up on the award ballots. Last year, Leckie's Ancillary Justice was one of those. This year, The Goblin Emperor (yay!). That people tend to have their favorites and that those then show up on award ballots is neither surprising nor indicative of secret cabals.
On point three, *sigh*. The Hugos have always been an odd sort of mix between voting for more literary fiction and voting for popular stuff. Some years The Yiddish Policeman's Union wins. Some years Harry Potter wins. So it goes. Personally, I feel to be meaningful it ought to be more focused on quality writing. Being popular and everyone reading your books is its own reward. If it's just about what's the most popular fun scifi out there, how is it any different from the MTV movie awards or the VGAs? Start a new scifi award for popular fiction if that's what you really want.
And finally, point four. Obvious bullshit in that if it were true that other people were running slates, the sad and rabid puppies wouldn't have had such a clean sweep. And the stuff they continually point to is, like, John Scalzi's annual post where he says "here is my stuff that is eligible this year, feel free to post what you have eligible this year in the comments." In other words a free-for-all, the exact opposite of the top-down slate voting done here. They're right that it was within the rules. They're wrong that it was in the spirit of the rules, or that it was similar to what other people have done. The slate's effectiveness is proof enough of that.
So, well done, Torgersen and Beale. You managed to wreck this year's Hugos and probably next year's as well. Hopefully some rule changes will go through to fix things, even if I can't see what those rule changes might be.
Basically their argument is (again, at least trying to be fair here):
-the Hugos go too much to leftists with politically progressive messages in their fiction
-this happens because of a small, secret cabal of people who vote on each other's work
-aside from this, the Hugos are too focused on quality writing rather than fun stories
-we will solve this by voting for a slate of people we like, which is within the rules and also what other people have done in the past
On point one, yes, it does seem like there've been some politically progressive winners recently. Coinciding with the rise of political progressiveness in society generally. On the other hand, it doesn't seem out of line with the historical norm in this regard. Political fiction, message fiction, has been showing up on Hugo ballots for a long time. See also: Heinlein, Le Guin, etc etc.
On point two, no. This is stupid. Obviously, as happens with any award, there are going to be a few darlings that people talk about and think are great and that wind up on the award ballots. Last year, Leckie's Ancillary Justice was one of those. This year, The Goblin Emperor (yay!). That people tend to have their favorites and that those then show up on award ballots is neither surprising nor indicative of secret cabals.
On point three, *sigh*. The Hugos have always been an odd sort of mix between voting for more literary fiction and voting for popular stuff. Some years The Yiddish Policeman's Union wins. Some years Harry Potter wins. So it goes. Personally, I feel to be meaningful it ought to be more focused on quality writing. Being popular and everyone reading your books is its own reward. If it's just about what's the most popular fun scifi out there, how is it any different from the MTV movie awards or the VGAs? Start a new scifi award for popular fiction if that's what you really want.
And finally, point four. Obvious bullshit in that if it were true that other people were running slates, the sad and rabid puppies wouldn't have had such a clean sweep. And the stuff they continually point to is, like, John Scalzi's annual post where he says "here is my stuff that is eligible this year, feel free to post what you have eligible this year in the comments." In other words a free-for-all, the exact opposite of the top-down slate voting done here. They're right that it was within the rules. They're wrong that it was in the spirit of the rules, or that it was similar to what other people have done. The slate's effectiveness is proof enough of that.
So, well done, Torgersen and Beale. You managed to wreck this year's Hugos and probably next year's as well. Hopefully some rule changes will go through to fix things, even if I can't see what those rule changes might be.
Yeah, those are the authors that came to mind.
What are some examples of sci-fi about sci-fi?
entremet
Member
The Vox Day seems to be in his 40s. And it looks like most of these voters are much older.
edit: He's a PUA too. LULZ.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Hari Seldon
Member
The two posts weren't intended to be connected (my apologies for that) - first one was just looking at the Hugo nominees - based on the discussion surrounding the nomination process, I was expecting far more overtly conservative political nominees, and was somewhat surprised at several of the categories just basically being "the stuff that's super popular".
Grabbing a random link that roughly talks about the topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/m...-gap-between-moviegoers-and-academy.html?_r=0
There's been a lot of words / analysis done on the idea of "popular vs artistry" - and while different awards definitely cater to different groups (see your Cannes vs MTV Movie Awards) - I guess I think of the Emmy / Oscars / Grammy as the three "mainstream" awards - the awards ceremonies that aren't tagged to just popular culture (ala MTV) or just a given festival (Cannes) or even just pure artistry; I've thought those three have been considered to take all of those into account. In those mainstream awards; I wouldn't want a movie to be inherently discounted because it was popular or because no one saw it.
Aside: The LotR one is a bit more personal because a roommate's (when I was in college) mother happened to be a voter at the time, and she had given us some inside scoops on the politics involved for LotR and Best Picture. (On top of it, one of the girls on our floor happened to be dating one of the main LotR actors at the time, so we got to listen to a hilariously drunk celebratory phone call / party when RotK got 11 awards. Small world.)
It sounds like the Hugos are the Sci-Fi literary equivalent of the Academy Awards / Emmy / Grammy; which is where I was going with it. If the Hugos truly were just becoming a self-serving echo chamber (which people have accused the Oscars of being, especially w/r/t Selma and American Sniper); then I can get the argument of "hey, we need to shake things up". But, as it is being confirmed by posts, that argument seems to be a shell for the true motivation to push what books "should" be.
TL;DR - I can see an argument for making sure what purportedly is the "mainstream" set of awards aren't becoming insular and self-serving - but it sounds like that is purely an excuse being used to cover real motivations in this scenario.
I think one of the more fascinating subplots of this is that we may have to re-evaluate the entire idea of representative subsets of data when it comes to fandom. I imagine in the past, a network might get, say, 50 letters for a given show, and they could generally assume it was at least somewhat representative of overall fan reaction (knowing that they're getting those who are passionate enough to write letters one way or the other). But with the power of modern communication & social media; I believe it's really easy to tilt something disproportionately - such that those representative samples aren't really indicative of overall sentiment. I feel like Gamergate more or less abused those older notions when they first started; sending a thousand emails to a company complaining about XYZ thing may have initially panicked the company into thinking there was a mass disenchantment towards XYZ thing, as opposed to just a thousand coordinated folks. I think they did some twitter analysis and found that there weren't actually that many people involved in Gamergate, it was just a lot of the same people talking over and over, or making shell accounts. Could be wrong though.
EDIT: Oo, found an article on salon that talks about this: http://www.salon.com/2015/04/06/sci...rolls_can_ruin_anything_even_the_hugo_awards/
chaostrophy
Member
And weirdly enough, he was in a techno-industrial band called Psykosonik in the 90s, which was signed to WaxTrax, a label run by an openly gay couple. So maybe he's one of those people who wasn't always batshit insane but went crazy with age.
I'm not remotely interested in the category, but I have to say that "Semiprozine" is now one of my favorite portmanteaus. Sounds like a pharmaceutical drug.
entremet
Member
Really? I remember Psykosonik lol.
Hari Seldon
Member
What is hilarious? I have never read any of these books nominated, so perhaps I don't really know what I'm talking about. I have read The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin, which I consider the gold standard of not-really-sci-fi books. It is a great literary book that happens to use a tiny bit of sci-fi just to keep the plot going.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I just find it funny that you're using the name Hari Seldon considering how politically focused the first few Foundation books are, especially the first. Although I understand that their specific focus on political systems might not be the same thing as "social commentary" in the way you mean
whatsinaname
Member
I think he was referring to the fact that Asimov coined the phrase/sub-genre "social science fiction".
Hari Seldon vs scifi that doesn't talk about issues, maybe?
I've read a boatload of Hugo nominees and winners and I can't really even see these books in there that are not literarary or ideological even if you look decades back. I mean... Canticle for Leibowitz? Moon Is A Harsh Mistress? Dune? To Your Scattered Bodies Go? Rendezvouz with Rama? I'm not seeing any recent SJW takeover unless these puppies want to return to a past that never was, at least outside of Weird Tales.
call_kotaku
Member
That's like conservative politics in a nutshell
Baron von Loathsome
Member
They've tried to infest everything.
I recall that they tried (and failed) to make MetalGate a thing.
Jesus Christ, they voted for Kevin J Anderson?
And they call themselves science fiction fans?
Sad Puppies was a thing prior to Gamergate. They definitely tried to invite GGers along ("hey #Gamergate wanna piss off some SJWs?"), but this wasn't started by gators.
Hari Seldon
Member
I don't mind social commentary, but if you are going to call it sci-fi then the sci-fi part should be central and not secondary. Asimov was the master at taking a sci-fi premise, and then extrapolating it to weird boundary conditions that often involved social commentary. But at the heart of it was a sci-fi core: 3 laws of robotics, some mathematician who could predict the future, etc. That is why he was a true Master.
- Status