I love Chuck Tingle so much. I've never read a book and I'm a huge fan.
-
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 2016 - Revisiting "Ethics in SF Awards"
- Thread starter whatsinaname
- Start date
- Status
I love Chuck Tingle so much. I've never read a book and I'm a huge fan.
I want to get Pounded In The Butt.
Plasticine
Member
you sir are a scholar and a true gentlemen
excelsiorlef
Member
I love Chuck Tingle
How did he lose!? HOW!? HOW!? You had ONE job, Hugo voters...
excelsiorlef
Member
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
Chuck Tingle is a master and a terrific lover
I am in awe * ___ *
I am in awe * ___ *
Cat pictures wins over joke erotica.
FelixOrion
Poet Centuriate
Glad to be a true buckaroo
KonradLaw
Member
Looking at the final results it seems it calmed down this year. Good. Not surprising. With Sad Puppies bassicaly giving up this year was obvious Rabbid ones wouldn't manage to do anything in the end. Rabbid puppies are far louder, but you really need to be a nutjob to want to have anything to do with somebody like Vox Day. The numbers were with the lot milder Correia crowd. Once they gave up it was all over.
And with DragonCon starting to give out awards the way it does I doubt there's any fight left in Sad Puppies. Hope next year everybody just completely ignores Vox.
And with DragonCon starting to give out awards the way it does I doubt there's any fight left in Sad Puppies. Hope next year everybody just completely ignores Vox.
Intheflorsh
Banned
This all worked out pretty nicely. Chuck Tingle is a hero and no one will ever be able that Hugo nomination away.
Scalzi with a bit of summary and analysis: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/08/...ory-or-why-the-hugos-are-still-not-destroyed/
Good times, good times. Seems like these idiots had far less impact this year than last year any way you look at it.
So reading up a little, the impression I get is that people want to push this as a more democratic and open (and maybe less SJW-cabal-influenced) version of the Hugos. Which is fine, sure, go for it. Recognizing people is cool, voting on awards is fun, why the hell not. I think people are kidding themselves, though, if they think the Hugos will go away or stop mattering just because yet another con is giving out SFF awards.
Also I note that Wright is on the ballot for their first SF novel award, lols.
Good times, good times. Seems like these idiots had far less impact this year than last year any way you look at it.
So reading up a little, the impression I get is that people want to push this as a more democratic and open (and maybe less SJW-cabal-influenced) version of the Hugos. Which is fine, sure, go for it. Recognizing people is cool, voting on awards is fun, why the hell not. I think people are kidding themselves, though, if they think the Hugos will go away or stop mattering just because yet another con is giving out SFF awards.
Also I note that Wright is on the ballot for their first SF novel award, lols.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
great aftermath summary ^
am still super enamoured with chuck tingle <3
am still super enamoured with chuck tingle <3
FelixOrion
Poet Centuriate
chuck is an amazing man
KonradLaw
Member
True. I think something like DragonCon awards was heavily needed, because there simply wasn't any award that would represent the actual fandom. Hugo's pretended to be like this for some time, but it never rang true. Hugos always were more of inspirational award. Not so much a summary of what happened in specific year (which is what popular votes do), what was most popular and loved etc, but it always felt more like awarding things that push the genre forward. So instead of a list of books that would fit people's favorites of what they've aleady read each year it acts as a list of things people should read.
But that's what awards should be -- an indicator of the best, rather than the most popular. We already award the most popular with money. What DragonCon proposes is a simple popularity contest, which is likely to produce the broadest, least interesting winners imaginable. It thinks it's okay if you want to do that, but it's not going to mean very much to anyone.
That's what awards should be, but that's what awards never are. The Hugo Awards are no exception.
Well, you can certainly make that assertion. It's largely without evidence, which is okay because what's best is ultimately subjective, but it's clearly a more curated list than simply the most popular works.
KonradLaw
Member
Well.to be honest...I never thought Hugo necessarily awarded the best novels of the year. Sometimes they managed, but not consistently to me. Seems like they tended to award the most important novels, which isn't the same thing.
For pure quality I found Nebulas to be more reliable, since the way they're set up makes them even less of popularity contest than Hugos.
And people care a lot about popularity contests, especially when they're able to vote in it. And there definitely was a need for award like this in sf fiction. I don;t think anyone would care at all if it tried to do anything else, since Nebulas and Hugo's already had that covered.
People are excited for what a popular vote means and somehow ignore that it could easily get hijacked even easier than the Hugo's did by the Sad Puppies or similar group. Assholes abound everywhere and I doubt Dragoncon is going to be some bastion of sanity and good taste.
KonradLaw
Member
People are excited about DragonCon because it will be big award decided by fandom itself. That's all. I doubt anyone assumes it will be completely safe from assholery. It's just the idea for the type of award combined with Con's size that makes people excited.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Why did Chuck Tingle finish below no award
The Hugo's have generally been a mix of the good and the popular, making for a pretty good reading list, and sometimes awarding novels that had a much bigger historical impact than their Nebula cousins, which are more prone to reflecting editorial trends. It's the mixed nature of the award that I always found valuable.
I think it's fine if people want a simple popularity award, but as a reader it's unlikely to be useful to me because it's going to feature those books everyone already knows about, essentially a rendition of the top sales lists.
It just seems unlikely to me that anyone's going to care about the award in the long run, or that it's going to help writers much.
I don't know what one could reasonably consider evidence for that in theory, so it seems like a rather pointless thing to write. Curation is by itself pretty meaningless, as far as the question of quality is concerned. Popularity has the enormous advantage that it is not subjective, at least as far as votes or sales are concerned. That doesn't mean that all awards have to be popularity based, or that they are better.
Edit:
Not that it really matters much.
OniBarubary
Banned
Whoa whoa whoa wait.
Nnedi Okorafor won?!
Fucking awesome!
Nnedi Okorafor won?!
Fucking awesome!
The Dragon Awards are going to make people happy because, by the nature of their popular vote, the winners and nominees are *always* going to appease the largest possible number of voters. They'll provide validation for a lot of readers. It feels good when your favourite book wins a big award, because you got there first—and a lot of readers' favourite book (Sanderson fans, Rothfuss fans, Scalzi fans, Butcher fans, etc.) are going to appear on the list each year. With so many sub-categories, they're also positioned to please as many fan-bases as possible. Jemisin doesn't have to compete against Scalzi in a single novel category—instead they can each appear in Best SF, or Best Fantasy, or Best Apocalyptic Novel.
But, in my opinion, awards aren't for identifying popular work, they're for recognizing achievement within a field, regardless of commercial success.
Popularity-based awards are fine, they get people excited about reading SFF, but you're kidding yourself if you think they're any more objective than something like the Nebulas or Hugos. They're buoyed by the marketing departments of publishers and book sellers.
But, in my opinion, awards aren't for identifying popular work, they're for recognizing achievement within a field, regardless of commercial success.
Popularity-based awards are fine, they get people excited about reading SFF, but you're kidding yourself if you think they're any more objective than something like the Nebulas or Hugos. They're buoyed by the marketing departments of publishers and book sellers.
Thank goodness that Goodkind isn't very popular any more or else his crappy books would have been contenders for a Dragon Award. I think that that is sufficient to demonstrate how non-useful the Dragons are going to be in the long run.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked