The large mainstream awards like the Nobel and the Pulitzer try to identify important literary works. But in the smaller world of SFF, what should we expect the Nebula and Hugo awards to do? Because the Nebula is presented by industry professionals and the Hugo supposedly by fans, one would expect that the Nebula should elect an “important” work that has literary value for advancing the SFF genre. Alternately, the Hugo ought to represent fandom and elect a popular work. But then, whose taste in reading is it going to represent?
SFF fandom has diversified, and this is no longer a simple choice. As I understand the Puppies’ complaints, they think the results in recent years have not been representative of the genre as a whole. Additionally, some have alleged that industry professionals and/or special interest groups have gained control of the awards. Why do they think so?
Not so long ago, the Hugo was awarded by the small group of people who attended WorldCon or who went to the trouble to snail mail in a fee for a “supporting membership” and wait patiently for a ballot to arrive. We can assume this group included dedicated fans willing to fork over cash to participate, plus industry professionals expecting to sell books at the con. However, the advent of the Internet has changed all this.
When WorldCon started offering supporting memberships online, then it’s easy for anybody to buy supporting memberships so they can vote without the expense of attending. This has the nice advantage of making money for the Con; however, it’s also mainly what has led to the recent problems with control of the award. Supporting memberships mean that any special interest group can influence the direction of the awards through the simple method of buying memberships. This exposes the award to influence by vested interests and activists, for a couple of examples.
I gather the Puppies tried to point this out, and when WorldCon ignored the issue, Vox Day conducted a demonstration of how it works. WorldCon’s response has been to institute measures to reduce the influence of coordinated voting campaigns, but given the presence of porn in the list of finalists again this year, this effort has had limited success.
But should this really be WorldCon’s problem to solve? Why not just accept that special interest groups will try to influence the awards? If fans of traditional SFF want greater control of the Hugos, then shouldn’t they just be more active in the awards process?
Lela E. Buis 
Jun 27, 2017 @ 00:01:01
That’s a bit of revisionist history, though. The Puppies only came up with that rationalization after they got wiped out in the final vote at Sasquan. Up until that point, it was entirely about using the system to get awards for authors (not works) whom they favored.
Changes to the voting system, like EPH and 3SV, pretty much do represent acceptance of the fact that special-interest groups are going to try to influence the awards. EPH makes it harder for a group to sweep the awards, and 3SV makes it hard for a group to be too blatant about what it’s doing, but they both recognize that this is likely to be a fact of life from here on.
If you look at the second chart in my Fix the Slating Problem article, you’ll see that the impact of the slates was sharply lower in 2017 compared to 2016 and 2015. Part of that is just because the Rabid Puppies’ organizer make foolish choices, but much of it really is from EPH. Remember that in 2015 and 2016 Hugo voters had almost no serious candidates to choose from in most categories. In 2017, almost every category has at least two worthy candidates to decide between. Looking at RSR‘s Annotated Hugo List, I count 3 for novella, 4 for novelette, and 2 for short story, and that’s being very strict.
LikeLike
Jun 28, 2017 @ 03:16:58
Greg, thanks for the links. I’m leaving on vacation posthaste and don’t have time to read them right now, but I’ll have a look later on. Do you think the massive tie for finalist positions this year had to do with the new voting scheme?
Regardless of what the Puppies say about what they’ve been doing, it’s my opinion that Vox Day pretty clearly demonstrated how easy it is/was for special interest groups to influence the Hugo. The results actually look more diverse to me with a couple of white men in there.
LikeLike
Jun 28, 2017 @ 11:36:32
There wasn’t any massive tie in the Hugo’s. You’re thinking of the Nebulas. The EPH voting system makes ties almost impossible.
LikeLike
Jun 27, 2017 @ 18:53:47
“I gather the Puppies tried to point this out, and when WorldCon ignored the issue, Vox Day conducted a demonstration of how it works.”
If the spindly morality of the Puppies could only support such a grand and selfless motive!
LikeLike
Jun 28, 2017 @ 03:28:10
They may not have planned it that way, but the result exposed the weakness in the voting system pretty clearly. I was personally amazed at how easy it was to get a whole slate in as finalists. That means it was (and still is) exposed to not only activist groups, but also commercial interests.
LikeLike
Jun 28, 2017 @ 11:38:16
Indeed it did. The silver lining inside the puppy cloud is that it forced WorldCon to make changes it should have made a long time ago.
LikeLike
Jun 27, 2017 @ 18:59:01
It’s of some interest that the various flavors of puppies seem to be fighting with each other this week. Camestros Felapton writes about it in Sad Popcorn, which is full of links to all sorts of people, but the central issue is that the Sad Puppies are clearly dead, and yet the people who ran it last year are refusing to let go of it.
LikeLike
Jun 27, 2017 @ 19:14:24
I think the Sad (and other) Puppies will only ever be Monty Python dead.
LikeLike
Jun 28, 2017 @ 03:04:29
Arguable, you mean?
LikeLike
Jun 28, 2017 @ 11:26:49
Yep. As in, refusing to accept the inevitable and claiming to still be alive despite the arrow in your chest ‘dead.’ As in the limbless Black Knight defeated but still yapping ‘dead’. As in outplayed at every turn in reality and still claiming victory ‘dead.’
Monty Python and the Holy Grail really enriched the definition of that word.
LikeLike
Jun 28, 2017 @ 11:34:20
Well, I think they need to keep the activism going. If nobody from traditional SF/fantasy shows up for the awards nominations, then everyone considers their point of view dead, too. Though I’m not really into mil-fic, I like space opera and I really like the kind of adventure fiction that Burroughs and Howard wrote. Nobody should assume those are dead sub-genres. It’s troubling to see the same names and the same themes appear over and over in the awards. It means there’s no intellectual diversity.
LikeLike
Jun 28, 2017 @ 11:40:38
So what novels in those genres were written in 2016 that you think should have been considered for awards? “Ninefox Gambit” has a strong space-opera feel to it, and it’s on the list.
LikeLike
Jun 28, 2017 @ 11:35:21
In her article About Those Lost Puppies, Sarah Hoyt says that the Sad Puppies are “only sleeping,” and that their next project will be a recommendation site.
Someone at The Injustice Gamer said, “You haven’t convinced me they aren’t ‘sleeping’ at the vet’s.”
At File770, rcade suggested the new project should be called “The Last Dangerous Puppies.”
LikeLike
Jun 28, 2017 @ 12:09:12
I agree about the silver lining that prompted changes in the Hugo rules. Instead of continuing with the snide attitudes, the WorldCon community should, at this point, acknowledge there was a problem and thank the Puppies for their input. Of course, the Puppies may not have advanced their agenda in the most socially acceptable way, but sometimes it takes a bit of agitation to get attention focused on a problem. The Puppies were right about the lack of genre diversity on recent ballots and I think the SFWA, at least, has taken note. The Nebula actually did much better this year in providing a broader definition of diversity.
I personally think the Puppies should continue with their activism, as this will maintain diversity on the awards ballots. It’s a lot of work for writers to take up this kind of thing, so I hope they come up with a method of picking good works that’s not heavily labor intensive–something like the Nebula reading list, maybe.
There are 24 finalists for the main Hugo fiction awards this year. Isn’t that a tie in every category? It seems unusual, and I was wondering if the new voting system had something to do with it.
Last, I’m not really well read these days so I don’t have any suggestions about what should win. I’m spending most of my time reading what’s on the awards lists so I can write reviews. I am thinking of having a look at the Clarke Award when I get done with the Hugo entries. It’s a juried award and aims to pick the best from the UK.
LikeLike
Jun 28, 2017 @ 12:15:23
In Les Misérables, there is a scene where Marius lies buried under a pile of bodies in the aftermath of Waterloo. Thénardier, trying to loot Marius’s body, pulls him from the pile and inadvertently saves his life. Hugo remarks that although Marius owed Thénardier his life, he did not owe him any gratitude.
LikeLike
Jul 04, 2017 @ 01:04:17
No ties: the number of finalists per category was increased to six. (Another reaction to slating.)
LikeLike
Jun 28, 2017 @ 12:53:21
Heh, heh. Good analogy.
LikeLike
Jun 28, 2017 @ 13:05:04
Grin. Enjoy your trip!
LikeLike