Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Spinning the Hugo Awards Results

In the pat couple of days, the competing narratives about the Hugo Awards results have solidified into two main strands. On one side, the anti-puppies/puppy kickers/happy kittens/SJWs are arguing that fandom critically evaluated all of the puppy nominations and found them wanting, thus voting "No Award" to victory in five categories:
On the other side, the sad/rabid puppies and their supporters are arguing that their opponents voted "No Award" out of spite and independently of the merit of the works and people nominated:
As tastes are inherently subjective, it is impossible to know for sure where the truth lies. But I believe that, as is typically the case in such matters, the truth probably lies somewhere between these two extremes.

On the one hand, I personally was less than impressed by a significant number of the nominated short fiction works. I did not use the No Award option but I could see how other people, evaluating on the merits, might have chosen to do so in some of these categories.

On the other hand, we know that a large number of people claimed that they had voted No Award without even looking at the puppy nominated works. In fact, many refused to read these works on principle. Of those voters who posted critical evaluations of the puppy nominated work, and who we can be reasonably certain actually read some of the work, I often felt that their evaluations were prejudiced against the work from the beginning (I'll post some examples one of these days).

Perhaps the most persuasive evidence that spite and/or politics played a major role in the voting comes from the results in the Best Editor categories. In both cases, there were multiple deserving candidates. Don't take my word for it; here is the opinion of happy kitten George R. R. Martin:
BEST EDITOR, LONG FORM. The first All Puppy category. If Vox Day wins, the end time is surely nigh for both worldcon and the Hugo Awards. VD is not the best editor in the field, or one of the best five, or one of the best fifty. His presence here is no more than a "fuck you" from his followers to those dreaded SJWs. I think... hope... he will finish last. The other four finalists are legitimate editors, however, and deserving of their nominations. I think the contest is between Sheila Gilbert of DAW and Toni Weisskopf of Baen. Jim Minz is a good guy and a good editor, but he's at Baen, and the Baen voters are going to go for Toni, who is the senior presence there. Anne Sowards of Ace and Roc is a worthy choice too, and it's nice to see her getting some recognition, but I think she's a long shot this year. Weisskopf and Gilbert were both nominees last year at Loncon, and Weisskopf was the last one eliminated in the first round of voting, losing out to the eventual winner Ginjer Buchanan. And she had more nominations even than Ginjer last time around. I think this may be her year. The Puppies love Baen the best of all the publishers in the field and will rally around her, but Toni is a solid professional with a lot of friends in fandom and prodom as well, and she's done a commendable job with Baen Books since succeeding the late Jim Baen. The Nukes and the Moens will be No Awarding this category, since it is all slate, but I think (hope) there are not enough of them to matter. It would be a tragedy if we threw out four good editors just because the Puppies like them too. So my prediction here is TONI WEISSKOPF. The first nominee from the slates to take a Hugo.

BEST EDITOR, SHORT FORM. All Puppies again. VD again. Last place again. Edmund Schubert of ORSON SCOTT CARD'S INTERGALACTIC MEDICINE SHOW withdrew, but too late to be removed from the ballot. That leaves Jennifer Brozek, anthologist Bryan Thomas Schmidt, and Mike Resnick. I think the Hugo goes to MIKE RESNICK. And yes, he's a deserving winner. He's founded an interesting new magazine, GALAXY'S EDGE, at a time when the old magazines are dying. He's a former worldcon GOH, a mainstay of midwestern fandom for decades, well known and much beloved. He's edited lots of good anthologies. Oh, and the Puppies love him... albeit for the wrong reason (losing the column he and Barry Malzberg did for SFWA BULLETIN in a kerfuffle over sexism). More important than any of that, Mike has been a mentor to uncounted number of new young writers over the years, some of whom have gone on to become Hugo and Nebula nominees themselves. Discovering and nurturing new talent is one of the most important things an editor does. Resnick has won numerous Hugos (and lost more), but all for his writing; this would be his first win as editor. All that being said, I do think the slates seriously fucked up this category. A win here, whether for Resnick or one of the other nominees, would be far more meaningful if it came against stronger competition, against Sheila Williams and Ellen Datlow and Gordon van Gelder and Gardner Dozois and the other great editors who have long dominated this category. To be the champ, you need to beat the champ, I always heard; this year, the Puppies kept all the champs off the ballot.
Larry Correia puts the case for Toni Weisskopf well in a strongly worded post:
Editor Toni Weisskopf is a professional’s professional. She has run one of the main sci-fi publishing houses for a decade. She has edited hundreds of books. She has discovered, taught, and nurtured a huge stable of authors, many of whom are extremely popular bestsellers. You will often hear authors complain about their editors and their publishers, but you’re pretty hard pressed to find anyone who has written for her who has anything but glowing praise for Toni.

Yet before Sad Puppies came along, Toni had never received a Hugo nomination. Zero. The above mentioned Patrick Nielsen Hayden has 8. Toni’s problem was that she just didn’t care and she didn’t play the WorldCon politics. Her only concern was making the fans happy. She publishes any author who can do that, regardless of their politics. She’s always felt that the real awards were in the royalty checks. Watching her get ignored was one of the things that spurred me into starting Sad Puppies. If anybody deserved the Hugo, it was her.

This year Toni got a whopping 1,216 first place votes for Best Editor. That isn’t just a record. That is FOUR TIMES higher than the previous record. Shelia Gilbert came in next with an amazing 754. I believe that Toni is such a class act that beforehand she even said she thought Shelia Gilbert deserved to win. Fans love Toni.

Logically you would think that she would be award worthy, since the only Baen books to be nominated for a Hugo prior to Sad Puppies were edited by her (Bujold) and none of those were No Awarded. Last year she had the most first place votes, and came in second only after the weird Australian Rules voting kicked in (don’t worry everybody, they just voted to make the system even more complicated), so she was apparently award worthy last year.

Toni Weisskopf has been part of organized Fandom (capital F) since she was a little kid, so all that bloviating about how Fandom is precious, and sacred, and your special home since the ‘70s which you need to keep as a safe space free of barbarians, blah, blah, blah, yeah, that applies to Toni just as much as it does to you CHORFs.  You know how you guys paid back her lifetime of involvement in Fandom?

By giving 2,496 votes to No Award.

So what changed, WorldCon? We both know the answer. It was more important that you send a message to the outsiders than it was to honor someone who was truly deserving, and that message was This is ours, keep out. That’s why I’m disappointed. I wanted the mask to come off and for the world to see how the sausage was really made, but even I was a little surprised by just how vile you are.
Correia makes a similarly strong case for Mike Resnick:
Same thing with Editor, short form. Mike Resnick has the wrong politics, but he makes up for it by being a living legend, and a major part of fandom for decades. He’s super involved and has helped launch more careers than anyone can count. When they went through and broke down Hugo winners by politics over the last couple of decades, he was one of the few who was good enough and famous to still win. He should’ve won this year, big time. But nope. Brad Torgersen endorsed him. Send the message. Same category, Jennifer Brozek, have zero idea what she believes about anything, despite working on stuff that was worthy before, No Award, because Larry Correia endorsed due to her quality work on Shattered Shields. Send the message.
At least some of the happy kittens seem to agree that No Award-ing Weisskopf was a mistake:
Brad Torgersen and Larry also seem to have a point when they say that the puppy-kickers were doing little to favor diversity this year; the No Award strategy prevented several deserving female nominees---Kary English, Toni Weisskopf, Sheila Gilbert---from having a chance to win an award. And looking at the nominating totals shows that some of the chief losers from the puppy nominating strategy were perennial (white male) award winners Patrick Nielsen Hayden and Mike Glyer.

Correia ends with a little thought experiment about what would have happened had Vox Day read Three Body Problem earlier:
Oh, but now you’re going to say that Three Body Problem won, and that’s a victory for diversity! You poor deluded fools… That was Vox’s pick for best novel. That’s the one most of the Rabid Puppies voted for too.

Here’s something for you crowing imbeciles to think through, the only reason Vox didn’t have Three Body Problem on his nomination slate was that he read it a month too late. If he’d read it sooner, it would have been an RP nomination… AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE NO AWARDED IT.

And if that doesn’t prove my original point about this fucked up system being more about politics than the quality of the work, I don’t know what will. One of the only two fiction works that actually received an award this year would have been a Rabid Puppy nominee except for timing, and you would’ve No Awarded the winner just to send your little message.
I suspect Correia is correct.

(Twitter is arguing that this is all spin by Vox Day; that he is retroactively claiming victory for Three Body Problem winning:

but to be fair Vox was on record as early as April 16th stating he would have put Three Body Problem on his nomination list had he read it earlier, and listed it on top of his voting recommendations on July 24th).
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)