Hugo Awards 2015, and free advice to Kate Paulk

And the 2015 Hugo Award winners are in the books, including a lot of No Awarding.

The full ballot statistics are here.

The Puppies are already upset by all the No Awarding. Brad Torgersen comments on his own blog.

The numbers in the end suggest that out of 6000 voters, about 10% each were Rabid and Sad Puppies. Enough that with slates they were able to dominate the nomination slates, but got trounced in the general election, as it were.

Here’s my free advice to Kate Paulk:

Forget the Slating. Go ahead and have your community put up a 10-15 item list of books you like. Books that people should read, and if they like, nominate.
Join the discussion, don’t try to dictate the discussion by a short list that gets used as a political talking point and football and weapon.
Slating is a way to dominate, not join, the SFF discussion. You and the Sad Puppies can’t stop or modify what Super Genius Theodore Beale will do–but you can be better actors. You’ll find a far more receptive audience for the books you bring forward, and a lot less hostility.

25 thoughts on “Hugo Awards 2015, and free advice to Kate Paulk”

  1. If all they did was push more people to register to vote and nominate the stuff they like, I don’t think so many people would object. The ballot would have had a little of everything on there, and I suspect most of us would have been happy with it. More voters = more diversity in types of fiction. That’s not a bad thing.

    But slate voting is completely artificial. It ruins the lot by drowning out everything else. I don’t blame anyone for being super pissed about that.

  2. Not 10-15 books–throw your comments open and let your fans suggest their favorites in all the disorganized glory that is fandom. Don’t curate, don’t winnow down, don’t put your seal of approval on this or that, let your conservative fans talk to each other about the best of conservative fiction and then go their separate ways and nominate their individual favorites the way other fans do.

    1. Well, I suggest a longlist in the same spirit as the Locus Recommended reading list. It gives people who want to read fiction that the Puppies like a fair list to figure out “hey, what’s cool in THIS part of SFF?” without it being “nominate these 5 works to stick it to the libs”

    2. Cat, you’re around enough to recall that “throw your comments open” is exactly what has been done with Sad Puppies for three years now.

      I don’t know why it is you keep lying about stuff like that, pretending this is all some secret plot for evile manipulators to win an award that will most likely make their sales go -down-.

  3. First time Hugo voter. Did not nominate anyone.

    What the Hugo voting showed is that 4,500 voters out of a legion of SF readers decided to vote lockstep to no award anything nominated by people they dislike who voted in lockstep during nominations.

    The irony is hilarious! SJWs voted a slate to protest slate nominees! And then they pat themselves on the back for being “open-minded!” Awesome!

    Worldcon is a tiny, tiny con with a small number of voters. For the Hugos to regain any real meaning as a “fan award” the voting should be moved to a much bigger con – DragonCon or Comicon would do.

    I read everything. I “no awarded” several winners this year because I did not like the work. I guess that puts me ahead of the “slate voters” (both Puppies and SJWs) because I read and actually voted. The “no awards” I gave were based on my assessment of the work – not the political affiliation of the nominee.

    Goblin Emperor was my #2 vote behind the Jim Butcher work for novel.

    1. What’s actually ironic is the Puppies’ making noise about nominating worthy works and then using “No Award.” Michael Williamson apparently vote No Award in his own category and Mr. Beale championed No Award for a category he wanted to nuke.

    2. So, I suspect you’re aware of this, but I, like many non-Puppies, read *everything.* I read Wisdom from My Internet. I read Riding the Red Horse. I read “Big Boys Don’t Cry.” I read “Pale Realms of Shade.”

      They’re all quite bad, *particularly* when compared with past Hugo winners like “Why I Left Harry’s All-Night Hamburgers,” “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” and “I Have No Mouth Yet I Must Scream”–which I *also* read to compare and contrast. Point of fact, “The Day the World Turned Upside Down,” a non-slate item, was *also* not great, and *also* went below No Award.

      You know which conservative was knocked off of an award by the slate? Andy Weir. He would’ve been a Campbell nominee if not for Sad Puppies, and he could well have won, because “The Martian” is spectacular.

      The only Puppy piece of writing that was good enough to go above no award was Kary English’s “Totalled,” a darn good short story and worthy.

      (notice I haven’t mentioned editors–Mike Resnick is awesome, as is Sheila Gilbert; there’s another Puppy nominee who actually wanted to get off the slate but was legitimately afraid of the consequences from the Puppies if they withdrew.)

      I don’t know why so much of the stuff the Sad Puppies nominated was poor quality; if you’d nominated good quality stuff it probably would’ve gotten significantly more votes, but by nominating bad stuff (I repeat: WISDOM FROM MY INTERNET) you made it remarkably easy to vote stuff down.

      There are two solutions here: nominate genuinely excellent work, and don’t exploit a rules loophole to essentially cheat, or you’re going to make a large majority of voters pissed enough to vote you down regardless of your politics.

  4. This comment by @airboy is so bizarre! Why is it so hard for you to understand that people would be pissed off when two groups of people decide to target the SF community’s most beloved award? One group (Rabids) are led by someone who explicitly says he loves chaos and wants to destroy the Hugos. The other group (Sads) claim they only want to nominate “good work” that fits a particular criteria but they used a slate to make their point.

    Of COURSE the SF community would respond with numerous people just voting to No Award the categories where people were nominated because of a slate, not by quality (3 nominations for a rabidly homophobic, religious nut job in one category? Really??).

    The interesting part is that both sides could agree that “The Three-Body Problem” was the best Novel of the year (although it would have been interesting to see what would happen if “Lock in” and “City of Stairs” had made the shortlist).

  5. @airboy – oh wow, you’re a telepath? That’s so cool! Tell me, what color is my shirt?

    If you’re *not* a telepath, how can you tell the difference between “voted NO AWARD because they didn’t like slates” and “voted NO AWARD because the nominated work was unutterable shit” ? It’s probably really obvious, but I’m just not seeing it.

    1. “If you’re *not* a telepath, how can you tell the difference between “voted NO AWARD because they didn’t like slates” and “voted NO AWARD because the nominated work was unutterable shit” ?”

      Its called statistics. You can certainly figure things like that out easily enough. Also, you cannot argue that no-award was not a slate this year. Everyone knows it was, it was widely touted in fact. Even in the larger media, never mind on blogs. Which was an interesting piece of connectivity, I do believe. Suddenly large mainstream media outlets are raging on at what, 500 people for showing up and voting in a book award nobody ever heard of? Fascinating synchronicity.

      As for unutterable shit, “The Day The World Turned Upside Down” was from any perspective deserving of that appellation. The sole reason it got a win is because it wasn’t a Puppy pick. Almost anything in that category was better than “World”, if only because they were actual science fiction.

      See you in Kansas, kiddies. I’ll be the one laughing my ass off when Noah Ward sweeps it again.

  6. This year’s Hugo mess taught me a few things.

    I’m more invested in this community than I’d realized., even if huge portions of the community aren’t invested in me.

    Invested enough to spend grocery money to buy a supporting membership so I could nominate and vote. No one told me what to nominate or what to vote for, no secret cabal led me down the garden path toward SJW nirvana. Shocking as it may seem to some puppies, I can make up my own mind.

    My grandmother was fond of saying “Reap what you may sow.” In that sense there was a lot of justice in last night’s results.

  7. @SMD

    That’s what Larry did with SP2. It was not met how you suggest such an effort would be met.

    SP3 was not expected to do as well as it did in garnering noms for it’s list. It was a huge surprise to everyone. Except perhaps Vox.

    1. You mean when Larry said he specifically campaigned for Vox Day to get on the ballot “out of spite,” not out of any genuine belief that Vox wrote one of the 5 best items in that category that year? Don’t forget, Correia was blessed with a Campbell nomination very shortly before Sad Puppies 2 (2010 or 2011), and named one of the five best new SF writers in the field. It’s a huge honor. You come along 4 years later and say the people who gave you that honor are corrupt, they’re not gonna be thrilled with you.

  8. Thank you for your free advice. I’m certain that Kate and the rest of the team will give it the full consideration it deserves.

    A bit of free advice for you, in return. Referring to us as ‘your community’ is a dead giveaway. In your eyes, we aren’t fans, aren’t part of true fandom, and will probably never be, which, of course, was the point of the SP3 campaign.

    Thank you for proving our point so eloquently.

    Finally, don’t be so quick to dismiss the effectiveness of slating. The voting numbers show that the slate proposed by the anti puppy voters won all but one category.

    You followed your orders well.

    1. Richard
      There are subcommunities within the main community of fandom. There always has been. To say that the community at the Puppy blogs isn’t a discrete thing within the larger SF fandom would be untruthful.

      We are all SF fans but we are not uniformly distributed. We have sub-interest groups.

      “The voting numbers show that the slate proposed by the anti puppy voters won all but one category. You followed your orders well.”

      What slate is this? Whose orders did I follow? I voted based on my reading.

      1. There wasn’t a slate. It never ceases to amaze me that defenders of the Puppy side cannot fathom that a lot of people would be pissed off by what is for most of us a manipulation of the awards in the service of a political message or to ruin the experience for everyone. They must have an enemy to point at and say “see, you just proved our point,” rather than doing the mature thing and admitting that they poked a bear and didn’t think they should get bit back.

        There was no slate. There was a concerted effort (for a number of reasons) to flat out reject slate voting and people who would love to see the sf/f world and the Hugos burn to the ground.

        If you want people to vote for the work you love, you can’t convince them by jamming it down their throats, by manipulating a thing they consider to be sacred, or by politicizing an award with little to no evidence to justify it.

        Don’t blame the people who No Awarded your slate for taking principled stance against slate voting. You did this to yourselves. You only have you to blame. And now you’ve put a giant piss stain on so many authors who very well should have deserved a nomination. There’s a reason so many people withdrew their nominations. It wasn’t fear of retribution from the imaginary SJWs; it was fear that they would be forever tarnished by such a clear violation of the spirit of the Hugo Awards.

      2. Look at the numbers. Look at the Anti Puppy voting guide. They match all the way down the line with a single exception.

        Statistics do not lie. There was a deliberate anti puppy voting program. Otherwise, how do you explain No Awarding Best Editor Long form? Both Toni Weisskopf and Sheila Gilbert received more votes than any other long form candidate in the history of the Hugo. And both came in ahead of No Award last year. What happened to make them worthy of No Award this year?

        Nothing. There work was still excellent and still award worthy, but both lost to No Award this year. 2500 people voted for No Award.

        That’s slate voting in action, and no amount of protesting otherwise can change that. You might have been one of the 2400 that voted your conscience; that doesn’t change the fact that 2500 voted for a slate.

        And the slate won.

        1. Again, Richard.

          Where was this “No Award” Slate? Where was it published?

          Has it occurred to you that the voting fandom, by and large, took a look at the nominees that the Puppies slated onto the ballot and decided to reject it?

  9. The straight slate vote was 2,500 votes that was the vote total against the two editorial slots in favor of “no award.” The 4,500 was my initial glance at the data estimate. I refined it later the next day.

    BTW – another individual arrived at the same results. See
    This guy analyses Hugo voting annually and is part of the “truefan” community. That individual actually understands statistics – as do I.

    Its just math. There was a very hard 2,500 vote that was lockstep against anything nominated by the “wrong people.” Others interpret this as voting in lockstep against those who followed the written rules – but did not follow the unwritten rules. It clearly was not a vote on “quality” since Mike Resnik has won multiple past Hugos. It was just a lockstep message vote.

    1. Airboy,

      I saw the same statistics. Agreed, 2500 votes voted No Award for every Puppy candidate.

      But how is it a slate? Where were the marching orders? Isn’t it more likely that 2500 voters decided the Puppy slating was wrong and acted accordingly?

      Brad and Beale published slates and nominated accordingly. Where is the corresponding evidence of this No award slate?

    2. Airboy,

      2500 people did vote for No Award.

      However, where was the slate that directed those people to do this? As far as I can tell, this population decided that the slating tactics of the Puppies was
      to be opposed with No Award, and they set out to do it.

Comments are closed.