[Coco with marshmallows]

Bizarre.

I've read Ancilliary justice and never picked up on the female pronouns thing at all.

Likewise read Hundred thousand kingdoms and to me it just came across as a rather banal romance novel with some fantasy background - was very surprised to hear it went for awards as i found it distinctly average, and avoided the sequel.

Personally - don't read award winning books specifically. My dad is the opposite, he LOVES what he terms 'well written literature', so every year i buy half a dozen books off the Man Booker list for him for birthday/christmas and he's generally happy - great for him, and makes my life easier.

For me?

I couldn't tell you who won any hugos in the past thirty years i think. And even before that it would be guesswork on my part.

I assume Aasimov won some, presumably with stuff i've read.
I'd guess Clarke too.

Beyond that?
Don't give a damn if books win awards or not - hell, look at my favourite series (hint - this is the forum for it) - don't believe SE won any major awards for anything, yet i can rhyme off whole sections of his work that i found incredibly moving, so for me it SHOULD win an award. But it hasn't.

So ultimately? I don't care about the Hugos, don't care if someone gamed the system to win it (or not win it), to me it's a meaningless thing.

[QuickTidal]

The Hugo's are a flawed system of awards anyways.

[worry]

As opposed to what though? Flawless?

[Morgoth]

The Hugo award seems fairly reasonable as rewards go to me. Those whom participate at the .. umh.. Worldcon? Also get to vote for the Hugo awards.

[QuickTidal]

worry, on 26 August 2015 - 03:34 AM, said:

As opposed to what though? Flawless?

As opposed to awards chosen by the regular people in regular circumstances. The GoodReads awards are such for me. Scads of average readers, saying what they liked and even able to add stuff to the ballot that's not on it. Like the People's Choice award for movies...or the SAG awards by actors and industry...those are the types of awards that are impossible to game.

The Hugos were gamed. They weren't gamed successfully for a puppies win obviously...but "No Award" (though victorious over said puppies) is not exactly a damned win.

And you need look no futher than the awards GRRM held at his after party (The Alfie's) to see how it should be done.

I can't (for example) gather enough people together to even THINK about gaming the Good Reads Awards. It's simply not a possibility. That's my point.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 26 August 2015 - 10:53 AM

[Nevyn]

Huh, I mostly dont give a darn about this subject but it made me curious about who has been winning Hugos, so I looked through the history.

They apparently think Lois McMaster Bujold is the greatest writer of our time. Never tried any of her stuff, but never got the impression from other readers or other writers or really anyone that I really ought to. But she has won best novel several times, and been in the running several others.

[QuickTidal]

Nevyn, on 26 August 2015 - 02:33 PM, said:

Huh, I mostly dont give a darn about this subject but it made me curious about who has been winning Hugos, so I looked through the history.

They apparently think Lois McMaster Bujold is the greatest writer of our time. Never tried any of her stuff, but never got the impression from other readers or other writers or really anyone that I really ought to. But she has won best novel several times, and been in the running several others.

Over the years there has been a kind of theme to what authors frequently pop up in Hugo categories. It does seem to be that those who vote and nominate are an old club of the same people who always nominate the same stuff/authors.

GRRM has a long post where he talks about what's wrong with the Hugos.

[Gredfallan Ale]

I don't really care about awards and even less about the fairness or representativeness of awards.

The only time I care is if I know the jury or voters are usually like-minded and have generally awarded things I tend to like. However, as awards shows tend to be dominated by political games anyway, I find it much easier to just read reviews by like-minded critics. I don't mind a bias towards certain views, political, philosophical and what have you, as long as the bias matches my own preferences (or biases, if you will).

If the worldcon community wants to preserve some sort of ingroup, then they should take steps to ensure that. Create memberships, restrict nominating to members, restrict voting to visitors and let go all the pretence of an open election, of being anything more than an ingroup award. Such a thing works well, see the Oscars, and will make the awards less receptive of campaigning by persona from the outgroup. (Campaigning done by people actually part of the "true worldcon group" does not really seem to be perceived as a problem by GRRM.)

Just don't pretend to be some sort of general award.

[Gredfallan Ale]

QuickTidal, on 26 August 2015 - 02:46 PM, said:

It does seem to be that those who vote and nominate are an old club of the same people who always nominate the same stuff/authors.

Indeed and it seems they want to protect that, so protect it and let go the pretence of an open nomination process.

[QuickTidal]

Gredfallan Ale, on 26 August 2015 - 02:55 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 26 August 2015 - 02:46 PM, said:

It does seem to be that those who vote and nominate are an old club of the same people who always nominate the same stuff/authors.

Indeed and it seems they want to protect that, so protect it and let go the pretence of an open nomination process.

Absolutely I agree.

[Morgoth]

Gredfallan Ale, on 26 August 2015 - 02:55 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 26 August 2015 - 02:46 PM, said:

It does seem to be that those who vote and nominate are an old club of the same people who always nominate the same stuff/authors.

Indeed and it seems they want to protect that, so protect it and let go the pretence of an open nomination process.

When have they ever claimed it to be something other than what it is? It's an award handed out by the participants of a convention. That's never been a secret, or something they have tried to obfuscate.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by letting go of the pretence of an open nomination process? What pretence?

At any rate, I disagree with the Hugo awards regularly, but that doesn't mean there is something inherently flawed in how they operate. Well, there was a flaw in the nomination process as the Sad Puppies (jesus christ what a moronic name) discovered. It was vulnerable to block voting. From what I've understood that has now been rectified, or at least there's been a change that makes block voting less efficient. Apart from that though. I don't see anything wrong in a convention keeping voting for their award limited to the people participating in that convention.

[QuickTidal]

As far as I know the block voting hasn't been rectified though...it's not something they can fix without changing how the noms and voting work fundamentally. I'd not heard they changed that, yet.

As to what Gredfallen was saying I think what Nevyn says further upthread puts it into stark relief...Lois McMaster Bujold is someone who has won or been nominated Hugo after Hugo after Hugo. The reason behind that can't be that everyone just thinks she's the best every year with every book...it's that those who are actually nominating and voting at the convention always put up their favourite writer. You see the same authors time and time again on the slate because the group that's actually nomming and voting are the same people with the same authors they like. There are apparently a whole slew of Worldcon attendee's who don't bother to vote or nominate...which is I hear part of the issue.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 26 August 2015 - 03:40 PM

[Gredfallan Ale]

Morgoth, on 26 August 2015 - 03:30 PM, said:

When have they ever claimed it to be something other than what it is? It's an award handed out by the participants of a convention. That's never been a secret, or something they have tried to obfuscate.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by letting go of the pretence of an open nomination process? What pretence?

Okay, I thought that there was some pretence of being an open award or at least more general, but really, that was an assumption, as I don't know much about the award. I don't mind if they take steps to ensure the rewards remains some sort of ingroup thing. As you can see in my post prior to the one you're replying to, I would actually advice them to do just that, taking steps to secure the nature of the award, if that is what they want:

Gredfallan Ale, on 26 August 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

I don't really care about awards and even less about the fairness or representativeness of awards.

(...)

If the worldcon community wants to preserve some sort of ingroup, then they should take steps to ensure that. Create memberships, restrict nominating to members, restrict voting to visitors and let go all the pretence of an open election, of being anything more than an ingroup award. Such a thing works well, see the Oscars, and will make the awards less receptive of campaigning by persona from the outgroup. (Campaigning done by people actually part of the "true worldcon group" does not really seem to be perceived as a problem by GRRM.)

So if there's no pretence of being an open or general award, well, then it's their party. The should just take the steps to make sure it stays their ingroup party.

This post has been edited by Gredfallan Ale: 26 August 2015 - 03:41 PM

[Morgoth]

QuickTidal, on 26 August 2015 - 03:37 PM, said:

As far as I know the block voting hasn't been rectified though...it's not something they can fix without changing how the noms and voting work fundamentally. I'd not heard they changed that, yet.

As to what Gredfallen was saying I think what Nevyn says further upthread puts it into stark relief...Lois McMaster Bujold is someone who has won or been nominated Hugo after Hugo after Hugo. The reason behind that can't be that everyone just thinks she's the best every year with every book...it's that those who are actually nominating and voting at the convention always put up their favourite writer. You see the same authors time and time again on the slate because the group that's actually nomming and voting are the same people with the same authors they like. There are apparently a whole slew of Worldcon attendee's who don't bother to vote or nominate...which is I hear part of the issue.

True, which is a natural expression of the participants being much the same people from year to year. I mean, I don't in any way disagree that it's not the best system for an award aimed to find the absolute best work produced every year. However, it's a system perfectly designed to highlight the favourite books of those whom participate at the convention.

There are plenty of awards that do things differently, like the Lotus or the GoodReads as you mentioned. The Hugos have their own biases (sci fi seems to do much better than fantasy overall) which I guess is a simple representation of the taste of that convention. Though when that is said, arguing that they exclude conservative writers (as the puppies do, I know you dont) seems a bit of a stretch.

As for the nomination process. I read somwhere, umh, the Guardian? I dunno. I read that they've altered the nomination process to make block voting less dominant. You can still get several authors in through a block vote, but there should not be a possibility to take up all the nomination spots as a single block.

This post has been edited by Morgoth: 26 August 2015 - 03:47 PM

[Nevyn]

I think the puppies approach is ridiculous in two ways. First, in their attempt to push forward a particular ideology in the awards, and second in their use of slates to undermine the process.

Seems to me if you had an issue with the Hugos the solution is to press your fans to join and then vote however they like. If you think someone else is overlooked, recommend to your audience that they give them a read. And if you are willing to wade into internet battles anyway, if you think a book that is getting buzz is not good at all and just getting recognition for political correctness, then slam that book and start a conversation about it.

The way to 'fix' any of this stuff is simply to get more people involved. The approach the puppies took was very clearly more about trying to piss off the people they felt isolated/looked down upon by than it was an attempt to get other works appreciated.

[QuickTidal]

Nevyn, on 26 August 2015 - 04:00 PM, said:

I think the puppies approach is ridiculous in two ways. First, in their attempt to push forward a particular ideology in the awards, and second in their use of slates to undermine the process.

Seems to me if you had an issue with the Hugos the solution is to press your fans to join and then vote however they like. If you think someone else is overlooked, recommend to your audience that they give them a read. And if you are willing to wade into internet battles anyway, if you think a book that is getting buzz is not good at all and just getting recognition for political correctness, then slam that book and start a conversation about it.

The way to 'fix' any of this stuff is simply to get more people involved. The approach the puppies took was very clearly more about trying to piss off the people they felt isolated/looked down upon by than it was an attempt to get other works appreciated.

The full extent of what the puppies achieved in their misguided attempts at derailing the Hugos was only to showcase the flaw in the voting and Nom system. That as long as the same small group of people always voted and nommed and no one else bothered...as long as people are willing to rally large groups of people to their cause who attend the convention and are allowed to vote...they can run the ballots (heading off the normal small group who nom and vote every year with superior numbers). That's totally true and largely what happened, resulting in a lot of "No Awards" being handed out when time to vote came. Anything else they wished to achieve was pointless blather of conservative right wingers that we can ignore.

I've bolded the bit of your statement I think is most important. If ALL the attendees at the Hugo's voted and nommed...then this would not be an issue. You'd have a much wider selection of work and a much different slate every year.

[Illuyankas]

The thing I've taken from this the most is that there are many people, who view themselves as rational sensible folks, willing to ally themselves with a person who, no joke, literally opposes woman's suffrage. Not just preventing voting on sci fi books, but voting in general. Thanks for helping highlight the truly awful among us, Vox Day. Thanks a million.

[QuickTidal]

A nice little roundup post on the fallout and lessons over at io9.

[Gorefest]

QuickTidal, on 26 August 2015 - 10:52 AM, said:

And you need look no futher than the awards GRRM held at his after party (The Alfie's) to see how it should be done.

Weren't the Alfie's his personal preferences? In that case, surely there is not much general public nature to those, it's a one-man (or select group) preference. They're nice and cozy and cute because everyone knows that at the moment they don't actually mean anything. It's a bit of fun for the in-crowd. As a voting system, it would never work because there is (afaik) no voting system.

GoodReads is probably more the way forward as far as general reader prizes are concerned. Instead of requiring memberships or conference attendences, just open the vote up to the internet base.

[Gorefest]

Illuyankas, on 26 August 2015 - 05:59 PM, said:

The thing I've taken from this the most is that there are many people, who view themselves as rational sensible folks, willing to ally themselves with a person who, no joke, literally opposes woman's suffrage. Not just preventing voting on sci fi books, but voting in general. Thanks for helping highlight the truly awful among us, Vox Day. Thanks a million.

I think that's the wrong way around, isn't it? I thought it started off with the "rational sensible folks", but then got hijacked by extremists, for a lack of a better word. Just because someone you generally do not agree with happens to share your view on a specific topic surely doesn't straight away disqualify the validity of the topic itself? Russia and the USA/UK were fighting on the same side in WW2.