Dang, my little traffic counter is tired—Vox Day linked to my last blog. I normally get an uptick when File770 links, but now we see who the real powerhouse is. Thanks to all who stopped by. It’s good to have discussion, although this one got a little off-track.
I read all the comments, here and also on these two respective sites. There are interesting responses. First, I gather that some people have a quite a personal investment in the Hugo Awards. The suggestion I made in the blog that DragonCon had looked at the Hugo controversy and would be in competition turned out more than one knight-errant to defend the Hugo Awards. Steve Davidson wrote a response supporting my position that the Dragon Awards are likely to change the flow of both money and promotion in ways that will undermine the Hugos.
The big question was about what I meant by “the Hugo process where works are winnowed through a narrow review and recommendation system and onto the ballot.” Although the Sad/Rabid Puppies have been severely trashed for their viewpoints, a faction of fandom has looked at their complaints critically and moved to analyze the awards process in response. If you’ve been following the blog, you’ll recall that I’ve featured statistical studies of the awards process for both the Hugos and the Nebulas during the last year. These show that prominent recommendation lists can be used to predict the nominees pretty accurately, and that the awards process is subject to bias. Other studies have shown the lists have limited sources, low diversity and a tendency for repeat appearances. The award winners for both the Hugos and the Nebulas are typically chosen by relatively small groups of individuals that lean to professional writers, editors and publishers. This is what I’m calling a “narrow” process.
I don’t know that you can ever eliminate these problems. People will always need a system to sift through what’s available. One of the main issues is how to work through the sheer number of SFF works published during the year, and another is the fierce competition to use the awards for their promotional value. I expect the Dragon Awards will have similar fairness issues. Plus, you can bet some people are already looking for ways to manipulate the results.
Lela E. Buis 
Apr 09, 2016 @ 04:42:49
You can’t eliminate disagreement but you can eliminate institutionalizing controversy. People like arguing over whether Ender’s Game is better than Dune, but such disagreements wouldn’t result in a 7 plus year flamewar. And yet here we are into the 8th year of a flamewar that shows no signs of ending. One side is dedicated to discriminating and even no-platforming people based on their biological characteristics associated with imaginary grievances in the history of SFF which never happened. The other side wants skill, fun and entertainment to take precedent. When there are no agreed upon rules, there is no game.
If we would go back to what has driven this genre for almost the entirety of its 100 yr. history, which is merit, there would be disagreement, but results that would be hard to argue with. How does one argue with a system which produced a culture which featured such great writers? How does one argue for a system which is producing nothing of the sort and perhaps even driving talent away? Am I the only one who’s noticed Peter Hamilton pretends this culture doesn’t even exist? Why would he treat what would otherwise would be and once was his base of fans? And he’s far from the only one. There are scores of people like that, and they are doing just fine, and apparently in direct relation to how far away they stay from the old core of fandom. That’s probably going to be the answer: a de facto split and parting of the ways.
I’d feel differently if this culture was producing good art. But in all my life I’ve never put down so many books, never to finish them. The most telling part of that is you are even seeing signs of that among the people pushing their ideological literature. When have we seen people reviewing work they don’t even finish? When have we ever seen a list of Hugo recommendations where the person recommending the books flat out states they couldn’t finish half of them? When have we ever seen people state “Just read Afrofuturism… Not sure it’s a good book but it is an important one. On my #HugoList it goes,” or “I need a manifesto for it to be clear that I want women, PoCs and progressive themes on the ballot?”
That’s not a dedication to literature with some agreed upon rules but fighting words, and people are going to fight. I predict the Hugo and Nebula are going to turn into empty ruins, and the contents of the museum that was thrown into the trash will be picked up and put elsewhere. I wouldn’t count on trying the same tricks to follow us this time. We are more than well aware of the signs and buzzwords by now. Enjoy your ProgLit.
LikeLike
Apr 09, 2016 @ 10:46:13
Hi, James. I’m happy to have diverse opinions in my comments–I’d just rather not have a flame war develop here.
LikeLike
Apr 14, 2016 @ 00:38:45
People need to accept the somple notion that not everyone likes the same thing. I find Baen, Analog, the Puppy slates, etc. to be boring (been there done that 30 years ago) but that doesn’t mean they aren’t well written or that people who like them are inferior. It means we have different tastes. Time for people to grow up and realize that that is OK and the genre is more than big enough for everyone.
LikeLike
Apr 14, 2016 @ 01:04:54
I agree. However, James comments sort of outline where he thinks the conflict lies. After reviewing some of the Hugo potentials this year, I’m tempted to agree there’s something going on. At least two of the novels came across as sexist to me. I’ll reserve judgement, but if one of these gets on the ballot, then I’ll wonder about slates even more. Sexism has no place on an awards ballot.
LikeLike