Now, the Hugo award is still, despite the graying of Worldcon and various other things, more or less the most prestigious award in our genre, so it’s not all that surprising that people who are nominated for one will squee a bit on their blogs.
There is, however, a right way and a wrong way to do this. One of the nominees has provided a magnificent example of the wrong way.
It starts well enough with the nominee stating how gratified and stunned they are, and offering links to the nominated work (which, I might add, is well worthy of the nomination despite certain flaws in the assumptions behind the work. I recommend reading it).
So far, so good, right?
The next paragraph brings out the warning signs. First comes what looks on the surface like expressing the desire that the sequence of events – which lead to the piece that generated the nomination – had never occurred. The next paragraph is unremarkable, but then the real fail begins.
Yes, our oh-so-enlightened nominee explicitly links Sad Puppies to Requires Hate, and calls the Sad Puppies campaign “bigotry-driven”. I don’t know about you, but the last time I heard the definition of “bigotry” did not include “wants to see good stories regardless of who wrote them”. Just saying.
Her enlightened self also manages a snide linkage to GamerGate via “it’s all about ethics in Hugo voting”, and – of course – suffers from the delusion that everyone with any kind of connection to Sad Puppies is “extreme right”. I don’t know about you, but I’m certainly not unless you’re looking from a perspective that regards Lenin and Mao as uncomfortably right-wing.
I won’t even dignify the idea that Sad Puppies represents an “attack” on the SF and F community. Let’s see now…
- 2015 (Sad Puppies 3) – 2, 125 nomination ballots cast.
- 2014 (Sad Puppies 2) – 1, 923 nomination ballots cast
- 2013 (Sad Puppies 1) – 1, 343 nomination ballots cast
- 2012 – 1, 101 nomination ballots cast
- 2011 – 1, 006 nomination ballots cast
- 2010 – 864 nomination ballots cast
- 2009 – 639 nomination ballots cast
- 2008 – 483 nomination ballots cast
Prior to 2008 the number of nomination ballots cast hasn’t been kept, and I’ve seen numbers tossed around that use the number of votes cast instead of the number of ballots. Functionally speaking the number of ballots represents the number of people who cast any kind of vote. Most voted multiple times because they voted for more than one item in a category and for multiple categories.
That said, look at the numbers. The initial Sad Puppies was largely a joke. Sad Puppies 2 was the first actual campaign, and the number of people casting ballots jumps by more than five hundred people. That’s 500+ memberships, either supporting or attending, that went to the WSFS. Sad Puppies 3 added another 200-some, which is about in line with the increases year over year in the past – not spectacular, but good, solid membership increases.
Precisely how does “more money for WSFS” translate to “hurting the Hugos”? Oh, yeah. It’s because the wrong people are shelling out their $$ and voting. I might add that the number of people who’ve said, “Wait, I can vote in this? It’s not just for industry insiders?” is bloody amazing.
About the only honest phrase (although the author missed a capitalization) in the second, longer part of the original piece is the comment that with Vox Day and his Ilk you know exactly where they stand. You do. They stand for actual justice, honest communication, and against the name-and-shame-and-peddle-lies bullying of the rabid social justice warriors.
I’m not going to touch the incredibly long set of acknowledgments. The postscripts, however, are worth a giggle. I so love the assumption that Sad Puppy people (which, incidentally, had nothing to do with Vox Day – he ran Rabid Puppies independently of Sad Puppies) will be responsible for the kind of vile behavior Requires Hate engaged/engages in (we won’t even mention that TOR, that bastion of honor – (brief intermission while I cough and spit. Apparently even my sarcasm levels fail sometimes – is dancing around buying Requires Hate again, or so I’ve heard. I’m not sure on that one, so don’t take it as gospel) and will be the architects of the bad behavior she’s giving tips on how to protect oneself against.
Do read them and amuse yourselves however you please. The author’s work on exposing and tracking down RH really is good, despite the flaw in her thinking that sees no issue with RH’s behavior until she started targeting the SJW side of the fence.
And remember, read the nominated works, then vote. Make sure you rank your preferences to make the most of the voting system.
Also, for anyone who would like a truly balanced analysis of the whole matter, Edward Willett has just the thing. Thank you, sir, for the courtesy of actually paying attention to what is being said and giving it an objective review.