David Gerrold on the 2015 Hugo Awards

David Gerrold has a lengthy facebook post summing up his thoughts on the whole Hugo business. I don't agree with everything in it, but I thought he was mostly fair.

First, I appreciated the fact that her acknowledged that there was a kernel of truth underlying the claims of the puppies:

First, if we accept the original premise -- that certain branches of the genre have been overlooked, there is room for a serious discussion there. Harry Turtledove is the master of alternate timelines, nobody does it better. Yet, the genre has consistently failed to recognize his award-worthiness. Likewise, much military-themed SF gets overlooked. Steampunk as well. And you can make the case that too often the same names keep showing up on the ballot as well. (But it's a far stretch to say that any of this is related to the politics of the authors.)

The fundamental argument -- and it is one that should be considered -- is that good works are being overlooked.

As I posted recently, one of the most knowledgeable editors in the field has observed that the field has grown beyond the ability of anyone to keep up with the best. Doing a "Best Of The Year" becomes problematic. There's too much you just can't get to. So it's inevitable that things will get overlooked. The only way to avoid anonymity is promotion. Sometimes it comes from the publisher. Sometimes there are ads. Sometimes there are blogs. Sometimes the author establishes a presence at conventions. Sometimes, even, there are campaigns.

[Sidebar. Here's the only acceptable way to campaign for an award: "I have a story called Entanglements in the May/June issue of F&SF. I hope you'll find time to read it. Thank you." There. See how it's done.]

But if the original puppy argument was that good work has been overlooked, that's a justifiable assertion. I would have appreciated a discussion which would have pointed me to books I might otherwise have missed. I like spaceships and robots and aliens and exploration of other planets. I like the old-fashioned adventures. I even write those. But the other assertion connected to this -- that work was deliberately overlooked because of politics or because a secret cabal was controlling the award system -- that assertion was easily deconstructed.

I also do not disagree with his diagnosis that part of the problem is that the field has gotten too large. I wish he had taken it further to recognize that, combined with relative small numbers of nomination ballots, the situation left the nomination process open to abuse. There does not have to be a cabal or a clique at the center of things; with few nominations, a well organized publicity campaign could (and did) have a significant impact on the voting.

I also appreciate the fact that he accepts that it is not reasonable to tar every puppy with the same brush, and his recognition that members of both sides of the debate have behaved badly at times.:

Here's what confused the issue. Because some of the people who were speaking up as leaders of the movement kept insisting that they weren't leaders, that the movement was kind of leaderless -- like the Occupy movement -- the result was that anyone who identified as a supporter/defender/advocate could speak up as a representative of the movement -- and the result was a lot of stuff that tainted that side of the conversation.

Eric Flint wrote a marvelous blog essay pointing out that charges of misogyny and homophobia and racism directed at the puppies did not hold up on examination. Nevertheless, the remarks of a few tainted the whole. (That's also true of those who opposed the slate-mongering. The remarks of a few tainted the whole.)

Because some people descended to name-calling and personal attacks, other people responded with name-calling and personal attacks, and the whole thing devolved, with people on all sides stereotyping those who disagreed as one thing or another. At that point ... the train wreck was inevitable.

Pleas for civility were regarded as surrender. As in all previous fannish holy wars, this was now a debate to the death. Or at least until exhaustion.

I start to disagree with Gerrold when he talks about the fan community being welcoming. First he dismisses those fans who did not pay to vote or turn up.

Here's a piece of compelling evidence. Sasquan had over 11,600 members. More than 4500 of those attended the convention. 5,950 members voted on the Hugo awards. Most of those who attended said they had a great time. While many of those were "tradtional fans," a large number were first timers.

But if you examine the membership rolls, you find that a great many of those who identified as "puppies," people who were outspoken about the awards, were neither attendees nor supporting members. They weren't there. Their participation in the entire process was to function as the online commentariat, the illiterati, the 101st Fighting Chairborne, the Armchair Commandoes, and the internet mosquitoes who have opinions about everything, but won't spend the money to actually vote.

Some of the puppy-supporters have claimed as many as 900 people voted for their slates. Others have analyzed the nomination and voting data and put those numbers as low as 200 members. But regardless of the actual numbers, the real chasm here, the real polarization, is not the political one that some have argued and many have assumed -- the real gap is between those who attend or support and those who snipe from the sidelines of the internet.

It is a profound difference, not only in attitude, but in the experience of the Worldcon.

He is also a little dismissive of the offense taken with respect to the "Hugo asterisks" and the cheering for No Award, even when good candidates were shot down:

Most of the con reports that I've seen have come from people who had a great time. The first timers were almost all surprised at the warmth and friendliness everywhere. Those who came with expectations of trouble were surprised that there was none.

Okay, to be fair, some of the puppy-supporters who attended felt the Hugo results were a rebuke. Some felt that the asterisks were an insult. And some found other things to be upset about. Well, yeah -- if you set yourself up for an upset, you can always find something. But if you go to have a good time, there are more opportunities for a good time than there are opportunities for an upset.

 But his proposal for moving forward seems reasonable:

For my part, I'm no longer going to use "sad puppy" or "rabid puppy" to discuss this squabble -- partly because there does not seem to be a specific ideology that can be ascribed to either of the self-identified puppy groups or their opponents, and partly because it's time to recontextualize this entire discussion. I'm not going to name any group per se, nor will I even acknowledge self-identified groups as such -- because the naming of names too often creates distinctions prone to misinterpretation and miscommunication. People on all sides create false characterizations that get in the way of rational discussion. We saw that all year long and it only created firestorms of ugliness.

I'll try it this way instead:

There are people who want greater recognition in the field for authors and works they feel are being overlooked. This is a valid position.

(There are many ways to get people talking about something. Starting a fight is the easy way. Doing something admirable, something worthy, is a lot harder, but it makes a bigger difference.)

Where an individual puts forth an assertion, any assertion, that I feel is worth discussing, I'll discuss it without identifying it as part of any group, I'll discuss it as the individual's own assertion. I will do so with civility and respect, I will not descend to personal attacks.

If anyone else wants to do the same, they are welcome to. I speak for no one but myself.

I just wish he had not ended his post by labeling some of his opponents as "immature":

But I'm through talking about immature canines in emotional distress. That discussion leads nowhere except to more emotional distress for everyone.