Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - whbacon

Pages: [1]
Writers' Cafe / Re: Hugo Awards and #Sadpuppies
« on: April 17, 2015, 07:38:14 AM »
And now you understand why slate voting is wrong. Right?

As opposed to the informal clique voting and logrolling that was happening before?

Writers' Cafe / Re: Hugo Awards and #Sadpuppies
« on: April 17, 2015, 07:36:31 AM »
I think this whole kerfuffle is turning off readers.

I doubt most readers are even aware of it. But, if they are, they're only hearing one side of it (the anti-SP side).  I suspect the real question ends up being "What difference will it make to most readers if there are no Hugos awarded this year?"

Writers' Cafe / Re: Hugo Awards and #Sadpuppies
« on: April 14, 2015, 09:15:44 AM »
I keep seeing this, but it's applied to everything. Literally no matter what happens, someone on the SP side of things seems to think it proves them right. If they win, it proves them right. If they lose, it proves them right. If they illegally nominate someone and they're caught, it proves them right. If they nominate an ineligible work and they're caught, it proves them right. [expletive], if Santa Claus shows up with a uzi, somehow it still proves them right. It's a great piece of rhetoric, but it kind of shows how warped their thinking is that no matter what happens, they'll still think it proves them right.

Maybe that's because they're right?   :D

And they'd rather have that 4/6th of a video game than poke someone in the eye.

Pretty much, yeah.  Which also puts quit on the idea that the Puppies brought GG into the Hugo mix (with very few exceptions) - If they had, the number of nominating voters would have been much much larger.

Writers' Cafe / Re: Hugo Awards and #Sadpuppies
« on: April 14, 2015, 07:18:55 AM »
LOL. Wow. Really? I just looked at VD's "publishing" company and saw that they have what... eight "authors" signed up, including VD himself. Don't make it sound like it's some big to do when it's just VD footing the bill for some of his ideological buddies. And those "better known self-publishers"... I don't recognize a single name up there for their actual fiction. I can spot the names of two people who are violently intolerant, but I don't see a name I recognize for being a well-known self-publisher.

Yes. Because the GG crowd are loud and rabid, but they're generally cheap and not readers.

Gamers (whether GG or not) may not generally be readers, but cheap?  Have you priced video games?

Writers' Cafe / Re: Hugo Awards and #Sadpuppies
« on: April 14, 2015, 07:16:13 AM »
The puppies artist nominee was disqualified from the ballot. Apparently the puppies nominated him not because of his politics, but because of the great art he put out during the year that impressed them. Unfortunately, the artist didn't actually put anything out in 2014 at all. But, of course, he wasn't nominated for his politics, but for his art. The art that he actually didn't do any of during the year.

They should cancel the entire ballot and either not award anything or hold a "town meeting" at the actual Worldcon with actual attendees to decide the winners.

Either of which would prove the puppies right: That the awards are blatantly political and rigged in favor of certain flavors of political opinions.

Writers' Cafe / Re: Hugo Awards and #Sadpuppies
« on: April 08, 2015, 07:25:36 AM »
Can anyone explain why voting is limited to specific people at WorldCon or those who pay? Why can't voting be an online process open to all members?

Members of what?  Voting is currently limited to those who purchase a membership at Worldcon - either attending or supporting.  Since Worldcon (as a floating institution) created the Hugos, it (and the umbrella organization that names a particular Con as Worldcon for that year) owns the Hugos and the World Science Fiction Society (the umbrella org) makes those rules.  Membership in WSFS is defined as the membership of the upcoming Worldcon.  So, in effect, voting is an online process open to all members.

Writers' Cafe / Re: Hugo Awards and #Sadpuppies
« on: April 08, 2015, 07:20:29 AM »
I agree that what has happened with the Hugos is disgraceful. As they say, ants at a picnic.

I believe the only reason that people care is because it's THE HUGOS, what has traditionally been the gold standard, hallmark award within sci-fi -- the Hugos carry value because they remind us of the golden age of scifi -- the days of Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, Heinlein and all the other legends, when the field was young and new and showing us a future beyond the Cold War mentality of "OMG, the Ruskies are going to nuke us in our sleep."  (And of course, nostalgia makes "remembering" that era a lot more gilded than it actually was, but that's human nature.)

And now we find out that, in some cases, a couple of dozen nominations and votes can get you a rocket ship trophy and it's become this whole tawdry political mudslinging fest between a couple of very small, very vocal, militant, extreme groups.

I think the Hugos are diminished because so few fans are involved in recent years. I find it hard to believe that something acquiring 1,000 votes represents the whole of spec fiction -- somebody earlier described this kerfluffle as a popularity contest, like voting for Prom Queen and King. They are right -- except most Prom Kings and Queens get more votes.

I believe the Hugos have been leaning more left in recent years is because the people most involved in the process tend to be industry insiders and writers and the most hard-core fans, who at this time, tend to be more left leaning. (It wasn't that long ago that sci-fi was the "manly men with sliderules" brigade...sci-fi has changed a lot, as has socciety.)

I disagree with Sad Puppies' political positions in almost every respect, but I do think that the Hugo award winners tend to not well represent what most sci-fi and fantasy fans are reading. But that is no different than the Academy Awards recognizing art house films year after year while people flock to see Avengers movies -- me, I'm an Avengers guy.

To me, I shrug and say, "Hey, the Hugos is just not my dance." I'm going to write the stories I love, read the kinds of stories I like, praise them to my friends and online and go on with my business. Sure, I'd like to see the Hugos be more representative of the best of sci-fi and fantasy (there's my bias coming out) -- what I enjoy most in sci fi and fantasy -- but if they are not, that is the Hugos' problem, not mine.

Now, just for fun...can you imagine the collective head exploding that would happen if a bunch of Indie authors joined and voted an entirely indie author slate for next year? :)

Not saying I think it should be done, not advocating it ...just saying it would be immensely entertaining as both groups, engaged in a fight to the death, would immediately unite to say, "Shoo, you dirty, filthy mudblood-indies, this is our tea and crumpets party."

The Hugos has always been about and for trad publishing and both sides of this particular mud-sling fest tend to be heavily invested in traditional publishing -- that's part of why the fight is so vehement, both sides are trying to get through the small gate into the "magic kingdom" of awards and contracts and literary approval.

With indie publishing, we don't need the approval of some editor in New York or wherever -- just do your own thing, write great stories, find your audience.

Speculative Fiction has room for everyone and every voice, let the readers decide.

Agree with almost everything here. 

Its interesting because there is certainly a possibility that the tradpub SFF world is starting to take exactly that attitude toward the "mudblood-Indys."  A good number of the writers involved with SP are hybrid indy/tradpub authors - usually published by Baen.  If you look at the publishing houses impacted most by the SP success you'd find it was mainly Tor, whose employees and former employees are very vocal about which "sort" of fans the Hugos "belong" to (and it isn't fans of those mudbloods).

To me (and this is an essay I've been working on all week), its amazing how often people who make a fetish of democracy in some areas are highly disturbed by it in others.

Personal note:  I've been lurking here for some time.  I'm surprised (and somewhat amazed) that its taken this issue to make me actually post and not the occasion of finishing my first novel (still in the near future).  I'm even more surprised that this issue (and not this discussion) has made me go and put down $40 for a Worldcon supporting membership so I can vote.

Writers' Cafe / Re: Hugo Awards and #Sadpuppies
« on: April 08, 2015, 07:09:26 AM »
Torgersen has basically said (in his Nutty Nuggets post) that he wants to exclude everybody who doesn't write the sort of SFF he personally likes from the genre. It's not just that he doesn't like some works and doesn't want to read them (which is perfectly acceptable, since not everybody likes everything), but that he doesn't want these works to exist or at least doesn't want them labeled as SF. How is this not bad?

That's not at all what Torgersen said in that post.  He decried authors using the symbols of more classic SFF in what he thought of as a misleading fashion - using space operatic cover images on a work that doesn't follow the normal tropes of space opera.  He suggested (albeit strongly) that those "switcheroos" are a significant factor in the decline of SFF sales.  Exclusion wasn't even mentioned. Instead, Torgersen said that the genre may not be able to hold as a genre with this sort of "unreliable packaging."  Its a market warning, even a prediction, not a call for action.

Writers' Cafe / Re: Hugo Awards and #Sadpuppies
« on: April 07, 2015, 02:15:51 PM »
I hope the works that deserve to win do win based on their own merits rather than because a bunch of voters voted a blind slate because sad puppies.
More importantly (IMO) is that those works that deserve to win do win, rather than "No Award" because those opposed to Sad Puppies and the figures behind them choose to vote "No Award" only because those works were on the Sad Puppies slate, rather than based on the quality of the work.

Writers' Cafe / Re: Hugo Awards and #Sadpuppies
« on: April 07, 2015, 02:12:22 PM »
"It might be that the tastes of people like Vox Day are no longer mainstream." 

No, it certainly doesn't, but the whole idea of "mainstream" when prior Worldcon voting populations numbered in the hundreds (not the thousands or millions of SF readers) puts the whole idea of "mainstream" into serious question.

Pages: [1]