Hugo & Nebula Awards: Best Novels discussion

Because we are reading books, selected during Hugo Awards, I’m curious, what do you think about the whole Sad puppies/Rabid puppies campaigns of the past few years?

For those not in the loop, here are several sources of info re the issue:
Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sad_Pup...
Vox.com on 2018 Hugo: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/1776326...
Pro-puppies version (w/o extremists): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76xQ_...

interesting and thanks for the links, Oleksander

Hey, anybody, have you ever read anything by Larry Correia? I was wondering how his books were?

Kateblue wrote: "Hey, anybody, have you ever read anything by Larry Correia? I was wondering how his books were?"

I haven't read him, but once I got a short story collection edited by Rabid puppies' master Vox Day and the stories were so bad that I dropped the book after tasting like a third of it. In my view his gang are awful writers

Good to know that they are not the best writers. So good that the bloc voting idea backfired, then.

Our public library has quite a few by Correia, but nothing by Vox Day. That doesn't necessarily mean anything, but I still feel night be a hint.

Bryan wrote: "The only good thing about the sad puppies campaign is I would know what books not to read: if they support it, they it must be pretty bad. "

It is a bit harder than that: while it seems that most (I haven't read many and I don't plan to do it but still I assume there can e something worthy) of puppies works are junk, they claim that for example The Three-Body Problem and The Sandman Omnibus, Vol. 1 got their rewards after sad (but not rabid) puppies nominated them. It's their word, so should be taken with a grain of salt.

And definitely N.K. Jemisin trilogy got their rewards because they are very good fantasy novels and not because of her gender or skin color.

Oleksandr wrote: "It is a bit harder than that..."

Yea, I agree with you on that. I deleted that post you are referencing, I had hoped I deleted it before anyone read it. That was my initial reaction to what I was reading, but it doesn't seem so cut and dry on what they stood for and believed.

I will say, after a bit more research, I don't like the idea of anyone trying to influence the awards. I know it is naïve, but I didn't even think of people or groups of people out there trying to influence the winners based on anything other than the quality of the books.

It adds a bit of shadow to my otherwise sunny view of the Hugo's. Not that it will stop me from reading them or anything. I fear I'm going to wonder from time to time who had their finger's in the books we are reading and what their agenda was.

Bryan wrote: "I will say, after a bit more research, I don't like the idea of anyone trying to influence the awards. I know it is naïve, but I didn't even think of people or groups of people out there trying to influence the winners based on anything other than the quality of the books."

I fully agree. Alas, if there is 'chaotic' creation of voting lists than even a small group that sets all its members to supply the same list gets an advantage. I guess the initial selection should be modified as well as who votes. At least if the goal is to select the best work of the year

Oleksandr wrote: "...At least if the goal is to select the best work of the year"

It would be nice if our group...or similar groups as this...could put in their two cents on books we are interested in. Since we not only read a lot, as a group, but we also read Hugo books specifically. Maybe we could send that idea to someone.

Bryan wrote: "Maybe we could send that idea to someone. "

After/if we create a list of amendments, which should improve the process, we can start campaign here at GR

Bryan wrote: "It adds a bit of shadow to my otherwise sunny view of the Hugo's."

Democracy ain't pretty. But I don't know anything better.

Well, maybe representative democracy, where you elect representatives to make the final choices, is better for governing countries. Still not perfect. Don't think any awards are structured like that.

Steve wrote: "Writer's book sucks, whines on the Internet about it.
Sounds like a solid plan!"

Definitely true that I haven't met any solid work but any of puppies or their sympathizers. However, sometimes I also think that modern SFF goes to far into contemporary social issues.

For me SFF was primary an escapism literature, to forget about thing world and get to weird and wonderful other reality, including reality of ideas, for a lot of older SF took an idea and played with it. While I admit that injustice and discrimination by race, gender, sexual preferences exists, when a book focuses only on these themes it is not what I wanted.

And while there are some strong and great books with social themes, like the Broken Earth trilogy, there are also much weaker books, which IMHO try to exploit the theme.

I read Larry Correia's Hard Magic when it was nominated because I was voting that year and I'm a sucker for doing my duty. Then I read the whole trilogy because I'm a sucker for finishing a story once I've started!

I enjoyed Hard Magic. I don't remember much of what happened now, but it was a perfectly solid super-hero action fantasy. It's good pulpy fun - a great beach read. The rest of the trilogy went a little downhill.

I don't think it's award-winning though, and I feel almost sorry for Correia. He's convinced he didn't win because of liberal bias against conservatives, and honestly, from my perspective, it's because his book had no interesting or original SF ideas, which is what I like in SF.

As far as I can see that's the main point of dispute between Sad Puppies and Hugo fandom - what counts as good SF? Lots of Sad Puppies seem to like military SF, space cowboys, good pulpy adventures in space. I like that stuff - but I'll never vote for it to win an award unless it also has some interesting SFnal ideas. I like SF for the novum and the sensawunda.

The Rabid Puppies, as far as I can tell, really are straight up racists and sexists who think that only white guys are allowed to win. I wish I could be more charitable, but I can't see any other motive. :(

The stuff about bloc voting and whether it was justified is more difficult because you end up having long involved conversations about the history of Hugo voting and how that's been effected by the internet. I think the Puppies do have a point there - if you squint at it.

Thanks for you insights, Nick! I fully agree that Rabid puppies are racist trolls, who are just too narrow-minded to see beyond 'macho SF' - as I noted above, I tried Vox Day compilation and it was extremely weak and not even a lot of SF in it, just good guys beating shit out of everyone else with ease.

As for bloc vote - it works therefore it will be used, so it is nice to be aware about it

A little necroposting. I just found a great timeline with links re: Puppies scandal.

https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.c...

There was some new info for me, like the fact that Scalzi initially tried to allow a voice for Vox Day and even let him present his book on the blog