It looks like there’s a new player in the 2018 Dragon Awards. A leftist group calling themselves the Red Panda Faction posted recommendations for voting during the last few hours before it closed. Here’s the description of their mission: “We are leftist fans of SF/fantasy/horror lit & film, gamers, & comic book nerds…who discuss & promote leftist, LGBTQ+, and feminist cultural works in SF/fantasy/horror.”
The Dragon Awards guidelines don’t discourage slates or campaigning, but it’s a little unusual for SFF justice warrior groups to clearly state their mission in political terms this way. Apparently there was a Facebook page, too, but when I tried to find it, it seemed to be down. Here’s the slate the Pandas posted:
Best Science Fiction Novel
The Collapsing Empire by John Scalzi
Death’s End by Liu Cixin
Best Fantasy Novel
Blood of the Earth by Faith Hunter
Best Military Scifi/Fantasy novel
Allies & Enemies: Exiles by Amy J. Murphy
Best YA/Middle Grade Novel
A Court of Wings and Ruin by Sarah J. Maas
Best Alternate History Novel
The Last Days of New Paris by China Miéville
Best Apocalyptic Novel
American War by Omar El Akkad
Best Horror Novel
The Changeling by Victor LaValle
Best Comic Book
Monstress by Marjorie Liu
Best Graphic Novel
My Favorite Thing is Monsters by Emil Ferris
Best SF/Fantasy TV Series
Stranger Things, Netflix
Best Science Fiction or Fantasy Movie
Arrival by Denis Villeneuve
Best PC/Console game
Mass Effect: Andromeda by Bioware
Best SF/Fantasy Mobile Game
Monument Valley 2 by ustwo games
Best SF/Fantasy Board Game
Terraforming Mars by Stronghold Games
Best SF/Fantasy Miniatures/Collectible Card/RPG
Pulp Cthulhu by Chaosium
Lela E. Buis 
Sep 05, 2017 @ 23:55:20
Yeah, as I mentioned in a previous thread, they sound just about as dumb as the pups, although possibly less hateful. But we’ll have to see what they get up to next year.
LikeLike
Sep 05, 2017 @ 23:56:23
Oh, and speaking of dumbness, even their official name (at least the one their spokesman uses as a user name) is “fraction”, not “faction”. Sigh.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 00:01:57
Indication that at least some people think it’s a political battle.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 00:09:06
Well, duh. The puppies certainly do.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 00:56:03
Lela said: “Indication that at least some people think it’s a political battle.”
Everybody knows it a political battle, has been since the late 1960s at least. Some people find it convenient to claim this is all about “quality” though, and conceal their politics under pious platitudes about “tolerance” “diversity” and “inclusion.” Funny how their piety falls away so fast when they are put to the test.
This, by the way, is the proof of one of my previous wild claims, Lela. It’s never been about stories for these guys. They don’t care about that. Politics, all the way down.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 00:59:41
@phantasia —
“Everybody knows it a political battle”
Just because the pups insist it’s a political battle, that doesn’t actually mean that everyone is fighting a political battle.
“Some people find it convenient to claim this is all about “quality” though”
Well, it certainly isn’t about quality on the pups’ side — that’s for sure.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 01:22:36
I’ve pointed out in previous blogs that Vox Day uses his notoriety as a marketing tool. You know that some people say there is no bad publicity. 🙂
Still, the incidence of political message fiction among the Nebula and Hugo nominees sort of indicates the people who call the votes “organic” are either blind to the political content or else fooling themselves.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 01:31:31
@Lela —
“Still, the incidence of political message fiction among the Nebula and Hugo nominees sort of indicates the people who call the votes “organic” are either blind to the political content or else fooling themselves.”
No, it doesn’t.
There’s a difference between political writing and political voting.
Political writing: a book has some sort of discernible political slant.
Political voting:
1. The book gets a vote because and only because of its political slant.
2. The book gets a vote because its author is a member of the “right” political faction.
3. The book gets a vote because its author is a personal friend of the voter.
4. The book gets a vote because its author has a reputation that the voter likes.
Remember, all fiction has some sort of political content, even if it’s barely discernible — and sff as a genre has always had a relatively high amount of “political message fiction” as a whole. That doesn’t mean that, for instance, Ursula Le Guin’s many award wins were because of political voting. Le Guin writes genuinely wonderful literature, and her books should be awarded regardless of any concern for her particular politics.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 02:00:45
Calvin said: “Just because the pups insist it’s a political battle, that doesn’t actually mean that everyone is fighting a political battle.”
Wow. In a post about the Red Panda Faction, self declared Lefty political warriors, only the Rabid Puppies are political.
And you wonder why I’m calling you Calvin.
Calvin also said: “Their votes ARE more organic for the most part, so far as I can tell.”
This is where I demand facts and figures to back up your statement Calvin. Explain for the class how the Red Panda Faction, self declared Lefty political warriors, are organic votes. After all that crap you said to me on the Dragon thread, I expect to see some serious friggin’ charts and numbers.
How did you put it?
“Please present your evidence.
Be specific.
We’re still waiting.”
Calvin. Ball. 😡
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 02:16:57
@phantasist —
“Wow. In a post about the Red Panda Faction, self declared Lefty political warriors, only the Rabid Puppies are political.”
Fortunately, I never said any such thing. In fact, I specifically said that the Pandas are indeed fighting a political battle. Do try to keep up, phantasist.
“And you wonder why I’m calling you Calvin.”
On the contrary. You’re calling me Calvin because you have serious problems with the concepts of reality and facts, and you resent that I keep pointing out your failures to you. There is nothing for me to wonder about.
I said: “Their votes ARE more organic for the most part, so far as I can tell.””
You replied: “This is where I demand facts and figures to back up your statement Calvin. ”
First: it’s a statement of opinion, not fact — see that “so far as I can tell” phrase? Yeah, that’s a clue. And statements of opinion don’t need evidence to back them up, because they’re — guess what — opinions.
Second, sure, I’m happy to provide facts even though they are not required here. Because I — unlike you — am always happy to back up my positions.
Evidence #1: you yourself claimed that “Everybody knows it a political battle”. You and the pups admit that it’s political TO YOU — therefore, we know you an your ilk are voting politically, because you said yourself that politics is your motivating force.
Evidence #2: Declan Finn told us in very clear terms how puppy types vote, and it’s political. He said, specifically–
1. personal loyalty — “friendship’s sake”
2. author reputation — “Because Vox might have people, but have you MET John Ringo?”
3. random chance — “[Rolls 6-sided die].” “(coin toss)”
Evidence #3: the Year of VD. The only attempts to subvert and game the Hugo system — and similarly the Dragon system — have come from the pups and their affiliates.
Evidence #4 — ehhh, I’m sure I could come up with more, but it’s late and I need to go do stuff before I go to bed. Maybe more tomorrow.
See, phantasia? When a person who actually knows what they’re talking about gets asked for evidence, they **give it**. Big difference between me and you. 🙂
“Explain for the class how the Red Panda Faction, self declared Lefty political warriors, are organic votes.”
Straw man. I already very clearly stated that the Pandas are not.
Keep trying, phantasia, and do try to keep up.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 08:15:16
Contrarius, the Pups are the only group that have announced their intent to subvert the Hugo system, as far as I know. There have been attempts before to game the system, for L. Ron Hubbard, as one example.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 14:26:38
@Lela —
“Contrarius, the Pups are the only group that have announced their intent to subvert the Hugo system, as far as I know. There have been attempts before to game the system, for L. Ron Hubbard, as one example.”
Big difference between single-work campaigning and system-wide campaigning.
“Contrarius, what do you think about awarding transgressive fiction? If something is really well-written but challenges cultural norms, should it be considered the “best” in a year?”
I don’t think a work should ever be considered best ONLY because it challenges cultural norms. OTOH, if I’m comparing two works that seem equally well-written, and one says something interesting about culture while the other one doesn’t, then I’m going to pick the one that has something interesting to say.
“Or should the most popular works be considered the “best”?”
Never. If we were only judging by popularity, then Fifty Shades of Gray would win the Pulitzer.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 08:32:04
Contrarius, what do you think about awarding transgressive fiction? If something is really well-written but challenges cultural norms, should it be considered the “best” in a year? Or should the most popular works be considered the “best”? LeGuin, for example, tended to write fairly transgressive works when she was starting out. She had some difficulty in finding a publisher, as I understand it.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 10:15:55
Calvin said: “—wall of text—”
Calvin, where are your numbers? Where are your charts? Where’s your irrefutable authorities ponderously declaiming the proof of your assertions?
My my. This simply won’t do. You will have to try harder.
Welcome to Phantom Ball, where nothing you do is up to standard, and everything you say is nonsense.
Annoying, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 14:35:34
@phantasia —
“Calvin, where are your numbers? Where are your charts? Where’s your irrefutable authorities ponderously declaiming the proof of your assertions?”
Wow, phantasia, you really don’t have a single clue about how grown-up people conduct debates, do you?
Why am I not surprised?
Let me walk you through your next step: first you try to debunk the evidence I’ve already given. IF you can successfully do that, THEN it will be my responsibility to produce more evidence. Not before then.
Of course, in this case I have no responsibility to provide any evidence at all — since I was making a statement of OPINION and not one of fact. But I’m happy to play along for now, if it will help to educate you about how these things are done outside of the nursery room.
So now it’s your turn. You get to try to debunk the evidence I’ve already presented.
Can you?
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 16:49:54
Calvin said: “Wow, phantasia, you really don’t have a single clue about how grown-up people conduct debates, do you?”
As it happens I do, and you, dear Calvin, would be ejected from any professional discussion group I’ve ever been a member of. You’ve already managed to be kicked off two blogs I know of that rarely ban people, doing exactly what you’re doing here.
You are not having a debate. You are being deliberately annoying. I think from here on you can do that without my help.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 18:35:52
@phantasia —
“As it happens I do”
Sorry, dear phantasia, but your repeated behavior on these boards tells us the exact opposite.
“You’ve already managed to be kicked off two blogs I know of that rarely ban people”
LOL.
Of course those two blogs blocked me. Both puppy-affiliated owners. Blocking was the only way for them to “win” their side of the debate, because I had all the facts on my side.
If you actually read those comment threads, you can easily see which side was throwing around the insults and which side was actually presenting the facts. 🙂
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 21:49:17
Contrarius, transgressive fiction generally says something unpopular about cultural views. Would you consider that to be appropriate in the awards, or should they affirm popular culture?
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 21:59:15
@Lela —
“Contrarius, transgressive fiction generally says something unpopular about cultural views. Would you consider that to be appropriate in the awards, or should they affirm popular culture?”
Of course it’s “appropriate”, if it’s well-done and says something interesting. There have been plenty of well-regarded sff books that include topics like cannibalism, incest, and such.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 00:16:28
People with more leftist views have seemed less willing to admit that. Their votes are supposed to be “organic.” 😉
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 00:20:18
Their votes ARE more organic for the most part, so far as I can tell.
The pups fight to get rightwing fiction nominated, the pandas are now gonna fight to get leftwing fiction nominated, and the rest of us are just fighting to get GOOD fiction nominated.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 00:27:13
Hey, incidentally — if you’re still on your magical realism kick, you might should check out this author:
“Katherine Vaz is best known for her fictional chronicling of the stories of the Portuguese in America, often with a magical-realism twist. Her novels include Saudade, a Barnes & Noble Discover Great New Writers selection, and Mariana, selected by the Library of Congress as one of the Top Thirty International Books of 1998. Her collections Fado & Other Stories and Our Lady of the Artichokes & Other Portuguese-American Stories have won, respectively, a Drue Heinz Literature Award and a Prairie Schooner Book Prize. She’s taught fiction as a Briggs-Copeland Fellow at Harvard and was a Fellow of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. She’s a frequent contributor to the anthologies of Ellen Datlow (and Terri Windling), plus a story in the upcoming Mad Hatters and March Hares.”
Looks like she writes mostly short stories. She’s got at least one coming out this year, in the “Mad Hatters and March Hares” anthology.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 08:17:48
Thanks. Will have a look. It’s not just magical realism I’m looking for, but underrepresented authors writing about their own cultural view. The results from the Caribbean have been a couple of zombie tales, for example.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 14:41:57
@Lela —
“Thanks. Will have a look. I’t snot just magical realism I’m looking for, but underrepresented authors writing about their own cultural view. ”
Right. One of the reasons I thought you might be interested was that it said her stories are specifically about the experiences of Portuguese immigrants in the US.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 00:44:13
Lela said: “The Dragon Awards guidelines don’t discourage slates or campaigning, but it’s a little unusual for SFF justice warrior groups to clearly state their mission in political terms this way.”
Agreed. Normally they lie. Lotta that going around, lately.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 00:50:42
@phantasia —
“Lotta that going around, lately.”
One of the few true statements you’ve made recently!
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 02:09:27
If anyone’s interested, I interviewed the spokesperson of the Pandas while I was working on a report on the Dragon Awards. They forwarded me the group’s nomination slate, which I’m not sure has been made public yet:
1. Best apocalyptic novel: Akkad, American War
2. Best Horror Novel: LaValle, the Changeling
3. Best SF novel: Vandermeer, Borne
4. Best Comic book: Vaughn et al, Paper Girls
5. Best Graphic Novel: Ferris, My Favorite Thing is Monsters
6. Best YA: James, The Gilded Age (Dark Arts 1)
7. Best Military SF/Fantasy: Lee, the Raven Stratagem
8. Best Alternate History: Mieville, Last Days of New Paris
9. Best SF/Fantasy TV: Stranger Things
10. Best SF/ Fantasy movie: Rogue One
11. Best RPG: Chaosium, Pulp Call of Cthulhu
12. Best fantasy novel: Obelisk Gate – NK Jemisen
For my part, I’m not a fan of politicised slate voting… but if we must have politicised slate viting, then I guess the more factions, the merrier ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 02:32:46
@Doris —
Yup, Lela already posted most of those at the top.
It would have been hysterically funny if Jemisin had stayed in and won. In every category but 1, the winner came from the top 2 sellers as reflected in Amazon sales rankings — and since Jemisin is far outselling any of the fantasy nominees, she would have had a great chance at the award. We could’ve seen a lot of puppy heads exploding. 😉
Oh, well. Missed opportunity!
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 02:40:44
To clarify, this is the list they used during the nomination phase, as opposed to the final voting slate reposted by Lela – the two have a few differences 🙂
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 02:42:46
@Doris —
Noticed that after I posted. If only we had an “edit” option on these posts, I wouldn’t get caught hitting Send too soon!
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 07:54:30
What’s interesting about the final result in the Dragon Awards is that it shows that Puppy picks are unpopular in general. If they manage to expand their participation next year, the Dragons could end up looking a lot like the Hugos and the Nebulas in terms of the types of stories nominated.
At that point, perhaps they’ll finally see that they’re a small minority–not the majority they imagine themselves to be–and set up their own juried award to give prizes to their kind of people.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 14:20:29
@Greg —
“What’s interesting about the final result in the Dragon Awards is that it shows that Puppy picks are unpopular in general.”
Yup. It looks like they can’t get onto shortlists honestly, even in brand-new awards with lousy voter controls.
“If they manage to expand their participation next year, the Dragons could end up looking a lot like the Hugos and the Nebulas in terms of the types of stories nominated.”
I’d think more straight-out action/adventure, though, and probably more UF/PNR. Which we’ve already seen in this year’s Dragons with stuff like Monster Hunters and Dresden.
“At that point, perhaps they’ll finally see that they’re a small minority–not the majority they imagine themselves to be”
Yeah, no. It would destroy their carefully constructed self-image fantasies, and they aren’t nearly self-aware or honest enough for that.
“and set up their own juried award to give prizes to their kind of people.”
Yup. This is the way for them to get the affirmation they so sincerely crave.
OTOH, I’m getting more and more interested in the idea of adding a “self-published” category to the Hugos. And perhaps the Dragons? There’s some really good self-pubbed stuff out there — Weir, Sullivan, Howey being just three authors that jump to mind. Nothing wrong with giving them some recognition!
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 17:53:06
Neither then Dragons nor the Hugos have any ban on self-published fiction. Bujold, for example, is self-publishing her Penric stories, which have made it onto the Hugo finalist list twice recently.
The problem is that the system currently discriminates against self-published works. The influential Locus List, for example, doesn’t accept self-published work for review. The Nebulas does a little better. Elitist as it tends to be, SFWA members can recommend books and stories for review on the Nebula Reading List. In 2015 the organization voted to allow small press and independent writers to join the organization. This means they have access to more promotion tools.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 18:38:19
@Lela —
“Neither then Dragons nor the Hugos have any ban on self-published fiction.”
Sure. But I think we can all agree that the self-pubbers are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to getting their works read.
“Bujold, for example, is self-publishing her Penric stories, which have made it onto the Hugo finalist list twice recently.”
Sure again. But she is mostly able to do that because she already has a huge fan base built up.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 21:46:17
Some independent writers have quite large fan bases. Annual sales is what the SFWA looks at when accepting them into the organization. However, these writers may not have any interest in writing the kind of fiction that has been winning the Nebula and Hugo awards. Butcher comes to mind.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 21:52:40
@Lela —
“Some independent writers have quite large fan bases. ”
Sure — see again Weir, Sullivan, Howey.
“Butcher comes to mind.”
Butcher isn’t independent. He’s published by Penguin.
But sure, lots of independents don’t write “award-type” fiction. The same can be said of lots of big five writers. That doesn’t mean an added opportunity for recognition would be a bad thing.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2017 @ 22:37:07
Really, Greg? You’re back after that white supremacist crack the other day?
Greg Hullender said: “What’s interesting about the final result in the Dragon Awards is that it shows that Puppy picks are unpopular in general.”
Ah yes, the unpopularity of the Sad Puppies led to John Ringo and Larry Correia not winning the Fantasy award… oh wait. They did win. Despite Correia telling everyone not to vote for Grunge this year, because he won last year and somebody else should have a turn.
Then, Greg Hullender said: “At that point, perhaps they’ll finally see that they’re a small minority…”
Yes, a small minority among 8000 some-odd voters who picked Monster Hunter Grunge over all others, because of all the campaigning Ringo and Correia didn’t do.
But then Greg Hullender said: “At that point, perhaps they’ll finally see that they’re a small minority–not the majority they imagine themselves to be–and set up their own juried award to give prizes to their kind of people.”
So, the Sad Puppies were not welcome at the Hugos, and were driven out into the wilderness by the flaming sword of Saint Noah, Ward of the Holy Worldcon. Then they rejoiced in the founding of the Dragon Awards, and won it all, twice… but now the poor Sad Puppies must not play at the Dragons anymore?
Say it ain’t so, Greg!
And by the way, what is “their kind” anyway? A feller might take that the wrong way, know what I mean?
LikeLike
Sep 07, 2017 @ 00:04:22
Actually, Scalzi ran afoul of this one on Twitter. He called the Dragon nominees a bunch of “middle-aged white guys,” and some of the minorities came back at him. The minority count was actually quite decent, if not structured like the Nebulas or Hugos.
Referring back to a past blog, it’s interesting how some minorities become invisible during minority counts. Asians, Jews, Arabs and Hispanics/Native Americans are often missed entirely, leaving blacks as the only “counted” minority.
LikeLike
Sep 07, 2017 @ 09:24:10
Is Larry Correia a popular author? Sure. And that’s what separates him from authors like Finn, Del Arroz and Niemeier, who lack substantial followings outside of the Puppy circles.
So when Correia wins but the others don’t, that’s proof that the Dragon Awards voting base isn’t seeing *entirely* eye-to-eye with the Puppies. There’s some common ground (Correia, Ringo, Butcher) but the differences in taste outweigh the similarities.
Look at it this way: Declan Finn point-blank stated on his blog that he’d win Best Horror. Instead, that award went to Victor LaValle, an author who received no noticeable support from the Puppies.
Brian Niemeier claimed on Twitter that he was “the only non-Tor, non-SJW author” who could beat out Scalzi in Best Science Fiction. In the end, that award went to a book published by Orbit. A book which, again, the Puppies showed little or no prior enthusiasm towards.
That said, I’ll give the Puppies credit for sticking to their guns on the whole “Dragon Awards represent the true tastes of fandom” narrative even when it’s not entirely suiting their purposes right now. Last year, their discussions about the Dragons had a smug self-assurance that the Puppies were pretty much the only nominees worth a hoot; but this year they’re open to allowing James S. A. Corey, Victor LaValle, Cory Doctorow, Rick Riordan and Harry Turtledove some time in the sun.
Although I did notice one Rabid Puppy blogger who was pretty upset that Best Board Game went to a title whose creative team included Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn. I doubt we’ll be seeing much willingness from the Puppies to acknowledge those two in the ranks of Dragon Award-winning creators, but hey, I could be wrong 🙂
LikeLike
Sep 07, 2017 @ 09:26:24
@phantasia —
“Really, Greg? You’re back after that white supremacist crack the other day?”
You keep coming back time after time despite making many dumb claims with no evidence behind them. Why would you object to Greg doing the same thing a single time?
For the record, I disagree with Greg’s earlier claim. No, I do not believe at all that the Dragons were created as a vehicle for white supremacists. Nor do I believe that all pups are white supremacists — though it’s very clear that a fair number of Rabids are, at the very least.
“Ah yes, the unpopularity of the Sad Puppies led to John Ringo and Larry Correia not winning the Fantasy award… oh wait.”
Wow, one out of seven! How… impressive. Really!
Correia is an interesting case. The novel fantasy category is the only novel category in which the winner was NOT one of the current top two sellers as determined by Amazon rankings. Is that significant? I dunno. But Correia has not been an active puppy participant in the last few years, and he’s at least a middling popular seller in general — and the rabids were pushing Vox — so, given the other works on the shortlist, I have no trouble with seeing Correia’s win once he made it onto that shortlist as an organic one. Getting **onto** the shortlist was an entirely different thing, of course, but we’ll never know how the shortlist was actually picked because of the award’s utter lack of accountability.
“Then they rejoiced in the founding of the Dragon Awards, and won it all, twice…”
Won it all? Seriously? How do you make the giant leap from 1/7 to “won it all”??
LikeLike
Sep 07, 2017 @ 09:29:42
You know who becomes invisible in minority counts? Sikhs and Hindus. Even the darkest South Indian gets counted as white. I think this may be because they don’t run around killing people and burning shit. Just a notion I had.
Little Mr. Scalzi has been running his mile the last couple of years. If I ever read anything more from him, I’ll buy it used to make sure he doesn’t get a royalty. His latest appears to be an effort at Grey Goo, going by the cover blurb. I’ll pass.
I was saying at the Mad Genius Club this morning that I am heartened by the Dragon Award results. The voters seem to have roundly ignored all the factions and picked books worth reading. That’s a very good thing, in my estimation. I hope to see more of it.
LikeLike
Sep 07, 2017 @ 09:36:25
Is your name suddenly Greg Hullender, Calvin? Why are you talking to me?
LikeLike
Sep 07, 2017 @ 09:36:49
@Lela —
“Actually, Scalzi ran afoul of this one on Twitter. He called the Dragon nominees a bunch of “middle-aged white guys,””
Yeah, that was dumb. He could easily have said something like “there’s a bunch of middle-aged white guys”, but no — he had to go and make an absolute claim (I specifically remember the word “all” in there).
OTOH, I haven’t seen the context for that tweet, so who knows what he was actually referring to? He didn’t specify Dragons — the quote is actually “ironically all the wannabe contenders are middle-aged white dudes” — but I don’t know if he was referring to guys campaigning, or actual nominees, or what.
But in any case, it was a dumb thing to say.
LikeLike
Sep 07, 2017 @ 09:38:10
@phantasia —
“Is your name suddenly Greg Hullender, Calvin? Why are you talking to me?”
Phantasia, phantasia, how short your memory is!
Yet again — this is a PUBLIC comment thread. If you wish to hold private conversations with someone, then you are free to contact them privately.
Please try to keep up.
LikeLike
Sep 07, 2017 @ 10:28:12
Please try to keep the discussion respectful of all. A snide tone doesn’t contribute to that.
LikeLike
Sep 07, 2017 @ 10:59:14
@Lela —
“Please try to keep the discussion respectful of all. A snide tone doesn’t contribute to that.”
I agree! Starting with what I believe was the second comment on this blog entry — “Agreed. Normally they lie. Lotta that going around, lately” — a single snide post can set an unfortunate tone for an entire thread.
LikeLike
Sep 07, 2017 @ 12:07:18
Doris V. Sutherland said: “That said, I’ll give the Puppies credit for sticking to their guns on the whole “Dragon Awards represent the true tastes of fandom” narrative even when it’s not entirely suiting their purposes right now.”
Sad Puppies is shaking down as an alignment of taste, in my estimation, rather than a list of authors belonging to a club. The people who make Sad Puppies a thing are not the ones blasting out blog posts excoriating this subject or that person. They’re the ones buying books and reading them.
For those people, the vast herd of cats that don’t take direction from anybody, Rick Riordan and Harry Turtledove are totally Sad Puppy authors. Maybe even Cory Doctorow, even though he’d scream bloody murder.
A herd of cats doesn’t have leaders or purposes. Each is a prickly individual. They all happen to be going toward the same waterhole, is what’s going on. They like -that- waterhole.
LikeLike
Sep 07, 2017 @ 20:38:38
@Contrarius
Strictly speaking, I was presenting that as an argument for why someone from a minority group would want to withdraw. “If you think of it as a fake award . . .” I didn’t actually say that that was my personal opinion.
However, that’s pretty much what I did think last year, but George R.R. Martin convinced me otherwise. Most of the problems (this year, at least) can be attributed to Eric Flint’s untimely illness. As we saw with the final vote, the mass of people at DragonCon don’t have tastes that are very far out of the mainstream. If the award were properly publicized, there might not be a lot to complain about. (Although nominating and voting stats would be nice.)
LikeLike
Sep 07, 2017 @ 21:29:59
Publicity or no, they did fairly well in the final ballot with 8000 votes in the second year. One thing they do need to do is allow more time for people to read the works.
LikeLike
Sep 08, 2017 @ 09:22:35
Lela said: “One thing they do need to do is allow more time for people to read the works.”
I think the assumption is that you nominate and vote for things you already read. It’s a different crowd, they’re not trying to assume the mantle of Acme of Good Taste.
LikeLike
Sep 08, 2017 @ 11:52:27
There’s actually a serious issue here. If you didn’t nominate all the works, then you probably haven’t read them, so for the final ballot, you’re stuck with choosing some kind of scheme to vote with.
This is what Declan is doing in voting for his friends, right? Looking for a scheme? You could also vote for people who’s prior work you like, vote for all the minorities, etc. My fallback would be to read reviews for all of them in order to make an informed choice.
If it wasn’t such a long list and a short month, I would have tried to review some of them here. There’s also a cost involved in buying that many books to review. They didn’t send out a packet of books like the Hugos do for registered voters.
LikeLike
Sep 08, 2017 @ 12:29:48
Lela said: “There’s actually a serious issue here. If you didn’t nominate all the works, then you probably haven’t read them, so for the final ballot, you’re stuck with choosing some kind of scheme to vote with.”
I handled the issue by voting for what I’d read. I didn’t vote in categories I hadn’t read anything. What would be the point of that, other than politics? I hate politics.
This is (imho of course) not supposed to be this big serious thing where Great Works are being soberly considered for their literary contribution to Humanity and all kindsa heavy thinking goes into it. It is a marketing gig for the Dragon Con. They want more people to come, this gets attention, that means more people. People nominate what they liked, lots of buzz gets created, everybody votes on what they already read.
The nice thing is, if one is of the mood to read science fiction, the Dragon winners will probably be enjoyable. The con runners have said they intend it as a “to be read” list, unlike the other awards, which for a lot of us function as a “to be avoided” list. They want accessible, enjoyable, fun stuff to be nominated and to win, because that grows the genre, and a growing genre makes DragonCon grow along with it.
LikeLike
Sep 08, 2017 @ 12:34:21
@Lela —
“Publicity or no, they did fairly well in the final ballot with 8000 votes in the second year. One thing they do need to do is allow more time for people to read the works.”
Yup. More time, more voting controls, more explicit rules about how winners are decided, more advertisement to Dragon Con members, more transparency about the process.
It was pointed out to me the other day that the Dragon Awards rules never even state that the winner will be decided by getting the most votes. There is literally NOTHING anywhere in there about how the winners are picked except for “at our sole discretion”.
LikeLike
Sep 08, 2017 @ 14:13:23
Contrarious, that’s really reaching. If Henry mentioned the number of votes, the implication is that they counted them. What’s the advantage of choosing a winner at “our sole discretion”? My expectation is that the phrase is there to handle any squabbles that come up, legal or no.
LikeLike
Sep 08, 2017 @ 18:17:19
@Lela —
“Contrarious, that’s really reaching. ”
Not reaching — pointing out simple facts. I haven’t said that the admins DID pick their own winners — only that the “rules” and lack of rules very clearly allow them to do so if they wish.
“If Henry mentioned the number of votes, the implication is that they counted them.”
Bad assumption. And even if they “counted” the votes, that doesn’t mean they gave out the awards based on the votes.
“What’s the advantage of choosing a winner at “our sole discretion”?”
Lots of advantages — for instance, not repeating the humiliations of last year’s results. Remember how hard they begged to get Scalzi to not back out this year? They want to increase the profile of the awards, and they can’t do that if authors who don’t actually sell any books keep winning.
LikeLike
Sep 08, 2017 @ 14:21:14
Phantom, I hadn’t read any of the books on the finalist list except Paolinelli’s who sent me a copy for review. I’ve been busy reading the Nebula and Hugo finalists, so it would have been a problem for me to buy and read all those in a month. I did vote, but I had to do it on the basis of reviews and a quick look at Amazon where I tried to pick out things that I would most likely enjoy.
The Dragon’s as a “reading list” is an interesting idea. Possibly they mean to rival the Locus Awards, just for a different sub-genre. Paolinelli’s book had some faults, but I was pleased with the scope of it. I’m reminded of when I used to find that kind of upbeat SF in most magazines. I may have a look at some of the other authors there, too.
LikeLike
Sep 08, 2017 @ 18:38:12
Lela said: “I did vote, but I had to do it on the basis of reviews and a quick look at Amazon where I tried to pick out things that I would most likely enjoy.”
Naughty! ~:D
I read Grunge, you’ll most likely enjoy that. Ringo, turned loose on the undead. Rick Riordan is always good for a laugh too. Juvenile in name only.
LikeLike