ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, July 25, 2015

It's not a new problem

Politics took the prize a long time ago and the Puppies are a response to the politicization of science fiction. Compare and contrast the latest Hugo mewling by The Guardian with Mike Glyer's count of conservative Hugo-winners:
The Hugo awards will be the losers if politics takes the prize

The controversy stirred up by science fiction’s ‘Sad Puppies’ means there will be no winners at this year’s Hugo awards

The latest furore to consume SF fandom will reach a conclusion on Friday, when voting for the Hugo awards – arguably one of the genre’s most prestigious accolades – closes. Spats around the awards are nothing new. The nominations are chosen by fans, and every year authors are accused of campaigning to get their names on the list. This year a gang of rightwing authors known as the “Sad Puppies” have taken campaigning to a whole new level. Calling on their fans to stack the nomination slate with candidates who share their political agenda, their main beef is that they believe too many genre awards go to lefty, ideological fiction, and not enough to more “swashbuckling” books. Authors and fans on both sides of the divide have written endless blogs about the controversy, big names including George RR Martin have weighed in against the Puppies, and the story has been picked up by the mainstream press.

It raises the question: who should nominate works for awards anyway? A select jury (a la the Man Booker or Clarke) or the fans who actually buy the books? Clearly there should be enough room – and integrity – for both. Yet this year’s Clarke award shortlist was almost universally praised, while, in contrast, the Hugo nominations were met with derision and incredulity (for example, so-called “rabid puppy” Vox Day, who has called women’s rights “a disease to be eradicated”, is up for two awards). You might say that this is democracy at work – the fans have spoken! – and that would be all well and good, but, tellingly, two authors recommended by the Sad Puppies have already pulled their work from the nominations, saying that they want their writing to be judged on merit and not on their assumed political affiliations. It goes without saying that all books, whatever their authors’ political stance, should be judged on whether they’re any good or not; but with some factions suggesting fans vote “No Award” on categories that they believe have been hijacked, and the Puppies urging their stormtroopers to stick to their guns, the whole thing has slipped into farce. And this is a great pity. The Hugos have always been a popularity contest, a showcase of SF fandoms’ favourite fiction, and skewing the lists for political point-scoring makes a mockery of them. Whether the Sad Puppies win the day or not, it’s the awards’ legacy that will suffer, along with the future work that would have benefited from their now damaged prestige. That’s what is truly sad.
19 of the 266 Hugo Awards that have been given out since 1996 have gone to political conservatives. And the legacy of the awards has already suffered, because they have been regularly given out to inferior work for at least the last 15 years. When Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Charles Stross, and John Scalzi have more Hugo nominations in far fewer years of professionally writing and editing than Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, and Arthur C. Clarke, it is patently obvious that something is seriously wrong.

Meanwhile, women have won 65.7 Hugos in the same time. And keep in mind that conservatives outnumber liberals by a factor of 1.6 in the USA, which means that conservatives are underrepresented by a factor of 11.3, versus women being underrepresented by a factor of 2.

Now, if the SJWs in SF are to be believed, this is evidence that sexism is a serious problem but there is absolutely no evidence of left wing ideological bias. They keep repeating this despite the fact that the anti-right wing bias in science fiction is observably 5.6 times worse than the purported sexism about which they so often complain.

Of course, SJWs always lie.

Labels: ,

44 Comments:

Blogger Nate July 25, 2015 8:23 AM  

"which means that conservatives are underrepresented by a factor of 11.3, versus women being underrepresented by a factor of 2."

Women are not underrepresented... as you well know.

Blogger S1AL July 25, 2015 8:27 AM  

@1 Nate, why are you interrupting Vox when he's soapboxing? Sheesh.

Anonymous Giuseppe July 25, 2015 8:28 AM  

This post should go viral.
Your stats at the end are damning. Maybe you should add links to your previous work showing the numbers. Just as a reference so that the "he just made the numbers up" lie is throttled in the crib at birth.
(not that this will stop them saying it, because rule 1 but still...)

Blogger Nate July 25, 2015 8:28 AM  

hey... I waited till he was finished.

Anonymous Giuseppe July 25, 2015 8:35 AM  

@1 Nate, shhh...maths and stuff. Have to keep it rabbit simple.

Blogger Salt July 25, 2015 8:35 AM  

19 of the 266 Hugo Awards that have been given out since 1996 have gone to political conservatives.

How many of those 19 works were centered on conservative message over story? My guess is, zero.

Anonymous IsMise July 25, 2015 8:42 AM  

I will not bathe in their tears, but I will wash out the cat's litter box with them.

Anonymous nrrl July 25, 2015 8:42 AM  

Nothing about keeping women and of colored people from winning awards. Progress.

Blogger Nate July 25, 2015 9:12 AM  

women make up 51% of the population in the US... yet have never won a single NFL MVP award!!! SEXISM!!!

Anonymous Stephen J. July 25, 2015 9:13 AM  

"The Hugos have always been a popularity contest . . . and skewing the lists for political point-scoring makes a mockery of them."

For a group of people who explicitly assert that the personal is political, it continues to astound me how none of them seem to grasp that if this is true, then building and maintaining "popularity" IS "political point-scoring", by definition.

Blogger Joseph Dooley July 25, 2015 9:47 AM  

My opinion of Clarke is that he was a child molester who wrote one good book (Rama), and rode Kubrick's coattails to fame.

Anonymous Stilicho #0066 July 25, 2015 9:53 AM  

Wait a minute: Hugos were dominated by the left over that period, yet those leftist voters discriminated against women with their votes during the same period. Ipso facto, leftist Hugo voters discriminate against female authors. There is no place in fandom for those leftist voters. No place. How many more women would have won Hugos had Scalzi not campaigned for his awards? How many more women would have won Hugos if PNH and the Toad of Tor had not gamed the nominations and awards to promote Scalzi et al.?

So sad...

Anonymous REG July 25, 2015 9:59 AM  

I don't see anywhere that writing fiction has anything to do with 'women's rights' or swashbuckling.' I do see where 'message' verses 'good story' is important to politics which is the point of the issue of Glyer's side not ours, not the Conservative or Liberal beliefs of authors. Back to Eric Flint and Dave Freer. I wouldn't call Dave Freer a rabid Conservative but he isn't in Eric's Liberal to the max class either. Yet both have written good stories- both together and separately. And that is what I think is important to the field of writing. Glyer can put his opinion where the sun doesn't shine for all I care. punctuation marks to make sure points of contention are clear.

Anonymous Steve July 25, 2015 10:06 AM  

Stephen J. - an excellent point.

And... the people who cheer whenever the writers for Doctor Who shoehorn pro-gay marriage references into the scripts (and they do so frequently enough and gratuitously enough to annoy even some of their gay viewers); the people who thought Ancillary Justice was brilliant because gender politics; the people who champion Rachel Swirsky as a "science fiction" "writer"; the people who write articles declaring that "The Future of Science Fiction is Queer" and the people calling for a fatwa against books by white men... are now complaining about the politicisation of science fiction.

Because they're losing.

When the SJW's feel like they're on top, they're full of mockery and scorn and triumphalism.

When they're pushed back, they snivel like little bitches. It's n-not f-faaairrrr!

The salt from their tears tastes delicious on a margarita.

OpenID bc64a9f8-765e-11e3-8683-000bcdcb2996 July 25, 2015 10:16 AM  

"Vox Day, who has called women’s rights “a disease to be eradicated”, "
Wait...wait...I thought it was
Vox Day, who has called (special)"women’s" rights a disease to be eradicated,
CaptDMO

Anonymous zen0 July 25, 2015 10:20 AM  

but, tellingly, two authors recommended by the Sad Puppies have already pulled their work from the nominations, saying that they want their writing to be judged on merit and not on their assumed political affiliations.

And so, gestures to achieve non-political purity become cannon fodder for politicized leftist sympathizers.

Well done, purity seekers.

Blogger Steveo #238 July 25, 2015 10:20 AM  

Women are over represented in STEW.
Sniping, Tattling, Enabling & Whining.

the Hugos are my awards... I'm a Sci Fi fan from the way back machine & Kratman, Wright & the rest of the wrecking crew brought me back to the fold. They ain't gonna like my votes, but there hugo.

Blogger Allan Davis July 25, 2015 10:32 AM  

Do these people even look at the details? I mean, I'm sure the author of Three Body Problem is *widely* known in American right-wing political circles, and with a name like Toni Weiskopf, surely "he" loves being on the Puppies slate...?

-=ad=-

-=ad=-

Anonymous Jack Ward July 25, 2015 10:59 AM  

@16 Zen0

To be fair, Larry Correia dropped out due to starting the Puppy movement; for ethical reasons. Now, ethics is something most of the sjw crowd have to look up in a dictionary.
Then, too, Larry doesn't have room for the weight of a Hugo award in the wheelbarrows of cash he takes to the bank several times a day.

Anonymous zen0 July 25, 2015 11:30 AM  

@19 Jack Ward

Larry Correia was not one of the ones the article referred. I understand Mr. Correia's stance, being a Sad Puppy originator.

The two authors linked in the article are Marko Kloos and Annie Bellet.

Anonymous Godfrey July 25, 2015 11:42 AM  

At the heart of Leftism is the drive to politicalize absolutely EVERYTHING. That is the defining characteristic of an SJW (mainly because he lacks depth of character in anything else).

Did you ever talk to one of these people? They have nothing interesting to say. There is no depth at all. They just spout The Party line and then repeat.

Blogger Cataline Sergius July 25, 2015 12:01 PM  

Whether the Sad Puppies win the day or not, it’s the awards’ legacy that will suffer, along with the future work that would have benefited from their now damaged prestige.

They can't go back to business as normal and they can't continue claim the Hugos represent the best of an inclusive genre. Which is what he means by "damaged prestige."

As I've said before. We've already won.

A victory lap would be nice but it wouldn't change anything for us.

That said I am quite curious about what the final voting numbers will be. The number of voters is so out of the box I really don't any kind of a feel for how this will play out.

Anyway my ballot is completed and launched. What about yours?

Blogger Rantor July 25, 2015 12:18 PM  

I'd you search Hugo Award 2015 on Bing, Heinlein, Asimov and some guy named Beale show up in the right column. Bing's AI is on to something...

Anonymous Bz July 25, 2015 12:26 PM  

These are presumably the same nonpolitical people who crowed about women taking home all the writing Nebulas in 2014.

Anonymous td July 25, 2015 1:33 PM  

Did that article just conclude that the Hugos are diminished by nominating Jim Butcher? His Dresden Files, Correia's MHI, Flint's 1632, and "Throne of Bones" kept me reading fantasy. I would say that the Hugos were becoming irrelevant for continually passing over Butcher.

Anonymous Donn #0114 July 25, 2015 1:43 PM  

The Hoblets story was my favorite, sly, funny, suspenseful, and mysterious. Who were the little blighters and why did the Orcs have such a hard-on for killing them?

But it gave me hope that the fantasy short story in the traditional form wasn't dead either. Guys who liked normal fantasy short stories as a tasty bite now and then didn't have to wade through wereseals and sparkly vampires or women paladins. It wasn't Wright or Tolkien but it was good and that's what matters.

Anonymous Clint #47/#73 July 25, 2015 2:25 PM  

@25 - the fact is that those of us who love SF/F have had a long dry spell. For too long the SJW ruled the roost, and produced not only sub-par material, for the most part, but even the well written works were thematically garbage. I can't remember how many times I would start reading a book, enjoying it, and then suddenly find myself reading about some homo-love affair. It turned me off. I stopped reading it. I have read non-fiction and spy stuff almost exclusively for the past 15 years.

Until recently, that is. The resurgent of the traditional is welcome. It is so welcome that it has prompted hundreds (maybe thousands, I don't know) to get involved. For the first time, we can do more than just vote with out pocketbooks. We can take back our genre.

We now have books that are fun to read again. I don't have to find my old copy of Tolkien or Heinlein. I can read new works and know that not only am I getting a ripping good story, it is not going to insult me beliefs or shove SJW crap down my throat.

In addition, beyond just spending money of this stuff, which is important, I can also fork over $40 to directly give a vote. Hey, I didn't make the voting rules. I am just taking advantage of them.

It is a fine day.

Blogger ray July 25, 2015 2:30 PM  

I am not 'right wing' and I have no 'political agenda'. I hate politics and its agendas.

But Mike Glyer (and every other Korrectoid I've met) has to see the world as a reflection of himself. If you're not on His Side and you oppose the thug-politicization of American literature, well then you must be a right-winger with an agenda! Because everybody is a political chump like himself. Funny how people who cannot think for themselves -- and live by Agendas -- are stuck in the Eternal Binary Bozoland of the Spotified Mind.

The Mob pretending to be a person.

Blogger ray July 25, 2015 2:33 PM  

'(for example, so-called “rabid puppy” Vox Day, who has called women’s rights “a disease to be eradicated”'


Really? + 1.


Blogger Groot July 25, 2015 3:18 PM  

10. Stephen J., 14. Steve, and 17. Steveo #238:
I agree, and my name isn't even Steve.

28. ray:
Your stance that you just want to be allowed your own stance is a political stance: you're a libertarian. Now change your name to Steve and get in line.

Blogger #0006 Hammer July 25, 2015 3:21 PM  

MSM crying like this over Hugos gives me endless pleasure. Burn baby burn.
Gawker burning.
Planned parenthood burning.
Which progressive bastion is next?

Blogger ray July 25, 2015 3:51 PM  

No, it is not a 'political stance'. Libertarianism is Teflon Politics. And I don't want to be allowed to have a stance. I take it and this skank of a planet won't stop me.

Blogger Groot July 25, 2015 4:07 PM  

Dabu? Teflon Politics? Reagan was called the Teflon president. Impervious to criticism, opponents cannot touch. Seems a feature, not a bug.

Blogger bob k. mando July 25, 2015 5:43 PM  

33. Groot July 25, 2015 4:07 PM
Reagan was called the Teflon president. Impervious to criticism



no, impervious to slander.

there's a difference.

for instance, if you want to criticize Trump talk about how his repeated bankruptcies and casino failures demonstrate that he doesn't actually have that much business acumen.

if you want to slander Trump, accuse him of racism for wanting to enforce immigration laws.


that's what Reagan was facing, back in the day.

Blogger MendoScot July 25, 2015 6:26 PM  

Nate @1, Reminds me of the definition of unsurmountable - a woman who still remembers transition.

OpenID crash July 25, 2015 6:57 PM  

Anyone familiar with how the ballot counting works ? It wouldn't be the first time the left decided election results are whatever they want them to be.

Blogger Allan Davis July 25, 2015 7:07 PM  

Crash, one of the things that Larry Correia was interested in at the start of Sad Puppies was whether or not the votes were counted properly, and based on his analysis and what he heard from fans, he was fully satisfied that the Hugo vote counters were honest and honorable.

-=ad=-

Blogger MidKnight (#138) July 25, 2015 8:26 PM  

Calling on their fans to stack the nomination slate with candidates who share their political agenda,...

SJW's always lie


their main beef is that they believe too many genre awards go to lefty, ideological fiction, and not enough to more “swashbuckling” books.

...blown out of the water by the conclusion of the very same sentence....


Yet this year’s Clarke award shortlist was almost universally praised,...

Hmmm... see the "puppy beef" above

while, in contrast, the Hugo nominations were met with derision and incredulity (for example, so-called “rabid puppy” Vox Day, who has called women’s rights “a disease to be eradicated”, is up for two awards).

SJW's always lie. Despite trying to make it about "Vooxxxxx Daaaaayyyyyyyyy" it's important to note that ALL the works were met with derision and incredulity, with people questioning if author's they had liked secretly had "bad" thoughts.



You might say that this is democracy at work – the fans have spoken! – and that would be all well and good, but, tellingly, two authors recommended by the Sad Puppies have already pulled their work from the nominations, saying that they want their writing to be judged on merit and not on their assumed political affiliations.

SJw's... ahhh, fuck it. Further proof that the line about "stack the nomination slate with candidates who share their political agenda" earlier on was a flat out lie.

and the Puppies urging their stormtroopers to stick to their guns...

Oh look - a clever "neo nazi" reference.

and skewing the lists for political point-scoring makes a mockery of them.

I agree, but I think he sees entirely different parties than the puppies do as skewing the list for political point-scoring

Anonymous Stephen J. July 25, 2015 8:50 PM  

Groot: "I agree, and my name isn't even Steve."

Well, nobody's perfect. ;)

Anonymous BGS July 25, 2015 9:38 PM  

And keep in mind that conservatives outnumber liberals by a factor of 1.6 in the USA,

When people die they vote the STR8 leftist ticket. Illegal aliens also vote for MOAR FREE STUFF

women make up 51% of the population in the US... yet have never won a single NFL MVP award!!! SEXISM!!!

If Serena Williams keeps steroiding she might be forced to change sports.

see anywhere that writing fiction has anything to do with 'women's rights' or swashbuckling.' I do see where 'message' verses 'good story'
Even I don't want to read a boys coming of age story written by a woman.

whenever the writers for Doctor Who shoehorn pro-gay marriage references into the scripts

They put in gender bending regeneration even before the newest master. There was the one who the Dr recognized by its tattoo. The 2 white people (Pond & Rory) produce a nigglet. The first human time traveler supposedly a black woman that 1960's English couple are proud to have as a descendent. It turns out Bobby Kenedy actually wanted I n1gger to be the first to walk on the moon but couldn't find one good enough. http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2014/05/chuck-yeager-bombed.html

Women are over represented in STEW. Sniping, Tattling, Enabling & Whining.

Gay men are trying their best to compete.

along with the future work that would have benefited from their now damaged prestige.

I wish I had known it only took buying 40 votes before SP/RP to win an award. You could have written utter trash in each category and won them all. If You Where A Pallet of Doritos My Love"

Anonymous VFM 0264 July 25, 2015 9:55 PM  

That's funny. I found that I started avoiding books that had "Hugo Award Winner" on the cover while I was in college. It became a warning that the book was boring. But the "damaged prestige" is from THIS year? I know it's anecdotal, but I'm surely not the only one who used "award winning" as a warning, not an endorsement.

Blogger bob k. mando July 26, 2015 12:25 AM  

social justice kittens
http://40.media.tumblr.com/d1280b2e98b8d350d733182abb0821cc/tumblr_ndlz5yqLvP1s71q1zo1_1280.png

Anonymous Steve July 26, 2015 3:44 AM  

Groot - I am Steve.

I agree, and my name isn't even Steve.

We are the Evil Legion of Stevil.

Join us.

Blogger Groot July 26, 2015 4:25 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts