One Hugo Awards Voter’s Perspective:
If you follow the Hugo Awards, you will, of course, know by now that the Sad Puppy slate dominated every category of voting, with the exception of the Best Novel category. Result? The internet is afire with a storm of comments supporting one side or another. I am a pretty non-political guy, so I am not going to go into the dispute in much detail (see links at the end of the post for specifics on the Sad Puppy campaign). Suffice it to say that the Sad Puppy slate of “recommendations” swept the nomination process. This is not against the rules of the Hugo nomination process. Indeed, the authors John Scalzi and Charles Stross have in the past hosted threads where fans posted their recommendations for Hugo Award nominees. This was, however, a far cry from the slate the Sad Puppy movement requested its members to nominate.
Wow – what a year to pick to attend Worldcon and vote for the first time in the Hugo Awards process! Timing I tell ya – it’s all about timing.
So how do I feel about all this? Sad in a way I guess. For the first time, I decide to attend Worldcon and vote for the Hugos. After the list of nominees were announced, and before I was aware of the sweep of the nomination process by the Sad Puppies, I compared my ballot against the announced nominees. I am thinking – man, I must have wildly different tastes. Then I got wind of what had happened and my first thought was: My vote in the nomination process did not count.
But how could this happen you ask? Very easily I discovered after reading an article titled “How the ‘Sad Puppies’ Internet campaign gamed the Hugo Awards,” on The Daily Dot, by Gavia Baker-Whitelaw:
“The Sad Puppies claim to represent a silent majority of SF/F fans, but the truth is that it’s very easy to game the Hugos. Only 2,122 ballots were received from a potential pool of about 10,000 Worldcon members, meaning that a few hundred voters could easily gain control of the nominee shortlists. In the more obscure categories like Best Editor or Fanzine, the ballot hinges on less than 1 percent of the 10,000-odd people who are eligible to nominate.”
Gavia then goes on to say:
“This system is so fragile that popular authors are often criticized simply for campaigning on their own behalf, never mind organizing an overt attempt to skew the vote. The only reason the Sad Puppies achieved such an impressive result is because most other fans nominate based on personal taste, splitting the non-SP vote between a wider range of options.”
This last describes my plight to a tee. I voted with my heart and picked the works that I honestly believed deserved to win an award in a specific category. I think the best work of art should win, regardless of the political, racial, sexual orientation, gender, or whatever is attached to a particular author. The best work in any given Hugo category should win, period.
Oh well, at least I picked an exciting time to get involved!
Background Articles:
Did you miss all this political brouhaha? Check these articles for more detail on the subject:
“Puppies Fetch Hugo Nominations and the Neighbors Have Plenty To Say,” File 770, by Mike Glyer (This post is particularily good because it contains reactions from a wide variety of sources. A good place to start if new to the topic)
“The Hugo Awards Were Always Political. But Now They’re Only Political,” io9, by Charlie Jane Anders
“How the ‘Sad Puppies’ Internet campaign gamed the Hugo Awards,” The Daily Dot, by Gavia Baker-Whitelaw
“Hugo Awards Nominations Swept By Anti-Sjw, Anti-Authoritarian Authors,” Breitbart, by Allum Bokhari
“A Note About the Hugo Nominations This Year,” Whatever: All Cake and Hand Grenades, by John Scalzi
“Human Shields, Cabals and Poster Boys,” Whatever: All Cake and Hand Grenades, by John Scalzi