Hugo Awards Are In; Puppies Lose Big; The Alternative Nominees; E Pluribus Hugo Proposal Passes Its First Vote

Best NovelThe Three Body Problem by Cixin Liu, translated by Ken Liu (Tor Books)
Best Novella – No Award
Best Novelette – “The Day the World Turned Upside Down” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Lightspeed, April 2014)
Best Short Story – No Award
Best Related Work – No Award
Best Graphic StoryMs. Marvel Volume 1: No Normal (Marvel Comics)
Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form)Guardians of the Galaxy
Best Dramatic Presentation (Short Form)Orphan Black: “By Means Which Have Never Yet Been Tried”

Best Professional Editor (Short Form) – No Award
Best Professional Editor (Long Form) – No Award
Best Professional Artist – Julie Dillon
Best SemiprozineLightspeed Magazine, edited by John Joseph Adams
Best FanzineJourney Planet, edited by James Bacon, Christopher J Garcia, Colin Harris, Alissa McKersie, and Helen J. Montgomery
Best FancastGalactic Suburbia Podcast
Best Fan Writer – Laura J. Mixon
Best Fan Artist – Elizabeth Leggett
The John W. Campbell Award – Wesley Chu

This is about as good a result as we could have hoped for, after the Rabid Puppies (and their sidekick the Sad Puppies) successfully gamed the nominations. Apart from Guardians of the Galaxy – which, looking at the numbers, could have been nominated and won without any Puppy help – not a single Puppy-nominated work won.

Because Worldcon has released voting numbers, we now know who would have been nominated if the puppies hadn’t gamed the system. Tobias Buckell has compiled the results in the fiction categories:

Best Novel

Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie
The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison
The Three Body Problem by Liu Cixin
Lock In by John Scalzi
City of Stairs by Robert Jackson Bennet

Best Novella

The Slow Regard of Silent Things by Pat Rothfuss
The Regular by Ken Liu
Yesterday’s Kin by Nancy Kress
Grand Jete by Rachel Swirsky
The Mothers of Voorhisville by Mary Rickert

Best Novelette

The Day the World Turned Upside Down by Thomas Olde Heuvelt
Each to Each by Seanan McGuire
The Devil in America by Kai Ashante Wilson
The Litany of Earth by Ruthann Emrys
The Magician and Laplace’s Demon by Tom Crosshill

Best Short Story

Goodnight Stars by Annie Bellet
The Jackalope Wives by Ursula Vernon
The Breath of War by Aliette de Bodard
The Truth About Owls by Amal El-Mohtar
When It Ends, He Catches Her by Eugie Foster*

JWC Award for Best New Writer
Wesley Chu
Andy Weir
Alyssa Wong
Carmen Marchado
Django Wexler

Note that Mandolin’s wonderful novella “Grand Jete” would have been nominated for a Hugo (as it was nominated for both the Nebula and for the World Fantasy Award). Congratulations to Mandolin, and to all the other alternative Hugo nominees.

I did modify this list in one way. Tobias left Annie Bellet’s “Goodnight Stars” off the list of short-story nominations. Bellet’s story was on the Puppy slate, and was nominated, but Bellet withdrew her nomination, for entirely admirable reasons.

However, the statistics Worldcon has released (pdf link) the nomination numbers, we know that “Goodnight Stars” got the most nominating votes of any nominee, with 230. In a puppy-free vote, “Goodnight Stars” would have needed 42 nominating votes to make the ballot (to beat Max Gladstone’s “A Kiss With Teeth”), giving Bellet a margin of 188 votes. Puppy favorite story “On A Spiritual Plain,” by Lou Antonelli, received 184 nominating votes; another Puppy favorite, “The Parliament of Birds and Bees,” received 151. It thus seems certain that even if the Puppies hadn’t gamed the system, “Goodnight Stars” would have been nominated for best short story. And without Puppies, Bellet would not have withdrawn her nomination.

I’ve got guests coming over soon, so even though I have lots more to say, that’ll have to wait until later.

A couple of recommended links:

Who Won Science Fiction’s Hugo Awards, and Why It Matters | WIRED

Even if you don’t read the whole thing, scroll down to the end and read about George Martin’s loser party, featuring the Alfie Awards.

2015 Hugo Stats: Initial Analysis | Chaos Horizon
Chaos Horizon attempts to estimate how many Rabid and Sad voters there were.

UPDATE: Folks at File 770 are reporting that E Pluribus Hugo has passed by a margin of 186 to 62. Under Worldcon rules, a change to the rules like that needs to pass two years in a row before it can be implemented, but that healthy margin of passage speaks well for E Pluribus Hugo’s chances next year.

In an earlier post, here’s how I described the E Pluribus Hugo proposal:

The proposal I favor is “Least Popular Elimination,” in which voters could still nominate up to five works per category, but the votes are counted in a way that mathematically favors works that appear on the broadest number of voters’ ballots while diluting (but not completely eliminating) the power of slate voting. A detailed explanation of “Least Popular Elimination” voting is available here. While LPE voting is not as intuitive as the other two proposals, I believe it would be more effective.

If E Pluribus Hugo passes next year, then the year after that Puppies can return to being what they always were – a bunch of grumpy SF/F fans who have no power out of proportion to their numbers, and who most people will happily ignore.

UPDATE 2: After reading Kevin P’s comment, I’m not sure if “Goodnight Stars” would have made it sans pups; maybe the fifth nominee would have been Max Gladstone’s “A Kiss With Teeth” after all. Maybe a week of smarter people than me crunching the numbers will bring more clarity to this.

This entry posted in Hugo Awards, In the news. Bookmark the permalink. 

60 Responses to Hugo Awards Are In; Puppies Lose Big; The Alternative Nominees; E Pluribus Hugo Proposal Passes Its First Vote

  1. 1
    Jake Squid says:

    Hurray! This was the correct outcome, I think.

  2. 2
    Harlequin says:

    If the summary at Making Light is correct, it’s not just that no Puppy nominee won–no Puppy nominee ranked above No Award at all, even in categories where non-Puppy nominees were available. (Excepting the drama categories.)

  3. 3
    Kevin P says:

    Re Annie Bellet, it’s not clear whether or not she got enough non-Puppy nominations to be on the ballot. There were two separate Puppy slates and Bellet was on both, compared to Wright’s Parliament of Beasts and Birds which was only on the Rabid Puppies slate. Also not all Puppies nominated in lockstep. Bellet and Kary English both got more votes than the other Puppy nominees, but it’s not obvious whether these would have been enough to get nominated.

    Re EPH, I think your description above is a little oversimplified. Least Popular Elimination (aka Instant Runoff Voting) is combined with Single Divisible Vote (i.e. if I vote for 5 titles each gets 1/5 of a point, if I vote for 4 titles each gets 1/4 etc), with voting weights re-calculated after each round. It’s an elegant solution to the problem, but also gives more weight to voters who don’t nominate the front-runners which could cause unintended consequences if people start voting tactically. It could also have unintuitive behaviour when someone declines a nomination (ABCDE are nominated, E declines, as a result the final nominees are ABCFG), although I’m not sure how likely this is in practice.

  4. 4
    Ampersand says:

    Thanks, Kevin. I’ve added an update to the post pointing out your comment.

    Regarding oversimplification, I definitely did oversimplify. Thanks for the fuller explanation.

  5. 5
    Ampersand says:

    Hit “reply” too early. :-)

    I’m not at all persuaded that the “unintended consequences if people start voting tactically” seems likely to become a widespread problem. Outside of people acting as organized blocks, I don’t think many people vote tactically, as opposed for just voting for what they’d like to see win. Nor can I see any clear way any “unintended consequences,” should they emerge, will be anywhere near as dire as the status quo is.

    Also, they did include a five-year sunset clause. So if some unintended disaster does emerge, it won’t last all that long. :-)

    * * *

    In other news:

    Interestingly, the 4/6 proposal also passed (although by a narrow margin). That could be interesting, if both proposals end up passing. I saw one person in the Making Light comments say that the E Pluribus Hugo folks are going to argue at next year’s meeting for modifying the 4/6 to a 5/6 proposal, which for reasons I don’t understand might work better in conjunction with the EPH system.

  6. 6
    Ampersand says:

    Harlequin: Yes, that’s my understanding, as well. The puppies really did as bad as they possibly could have, in the vote.

    Of course, the puppies are now declaring that this is a victory. Which is what they would have said regardless of outcome.

  7. 7
    Ben says:

    I’m not sure I share your optimism about tactical voting going away. During the big *Puppies blow up after the nominations there was a lot of conflation between the arguments “this is bad because the people who are doing it are bad” and “this is bad because slate voting is a threat to this system.” Both of these are entirely valid arguments but it isn’t at all clear to me if many of the objection to slate voting, and tactical voting more broadly, are in fact principled arguments against slate voting or objections of convenience.

    You can’t unring a bell. If tactical voting works, and its pretty clear it does, then I suspect it will become more common. Perhaps quietly at first but I think in 5-10 years competing slates and other tactical voting schemes will be the norm.

  8. 8
    Ampersand says:

    Tactical voting is clearly effective under the current set of rules. It’s not at all clear that tactical voting will be nearly as effective under the new rules that seem likely to be in place in 2017.

  9. 9
    Jake Squid says:

    Of course, the puppies are now declaring that this is a victory. Which is what they would have said regardless of outcome.

    Which makes the puppies’ motives crystal clear for those of us who were not all that familiar with them. If No Award winning a significant number of awards is a win for them, then they’re just trying to ruin the Hugos rather than win awards.

  10. 10
    Myca says:

    And though they’ve vowed to continue their doomed crusade to find out what lies beneath the bottom of the barrel next year as well, it’s rather unclear how they’ll find authors willing to go along with it.

    Right now, being associated with the Sad/Rabid Puppy slates is a surefire way to not just ‘not win a Hugo’ but also ‘damage your reputation as an author, perhaps irreparably.’

    At least this year there was the thought that it might have worked … that at the end of the day, if you allowed them to use your name and work for political purposes, you might end up with a Hugo. It’s clear now that that’s just not the case.

    —Myca

  11. 11
    Patrick says:

    If being associated with Vox Day was a career killer, we wouldn’t have a Vox Day.

  12. 12
    Pete Patriot says:

    So prior to the awards pretty much every significant commentator here went on record to say there’s no anti-conservative politicisation and the example you chose to demonstrate this was Mike Resnick. Apparently he’s a great example of a talented and popular conservative author welcomed in the SF community. Ampersand for instance said this:

    ETA: And, anyway, “conservatives” and “sad puppies” are not interchangable terms. It’s quite possible to think that the Sad Puppies (and the Rabids) have been horrible jerks who have acted in disgusting ways, and to still think that the thousands of conservative SF fans who aren’t Puppies are totally cool and essential members of the SF community.

    To give a concrete example, Mike Resnick and Gene Wolfe are both extremely respected authors – Resnick has been nominated for more fiction Hugos more than any other author – and conservatives.

    So this year Resnick got his first nomination since 2012 and the chainmail bikini incident in the Best Professional Editor (Short Form) category, and the “extremely respected” and “cool and essential” member of the SF community got No Awarded. Do any of you want to revise your opinion?

    Here are the threads:
    https://amptoons.com/blog/2015/06/10/i-stand-by-irene-gallo/
    https://amptoons.com/blog/2015/04/21/open-thread-and-link-farm-18-levels-deep-edition/

  13. 13
    Pete Patriot says:

    So Patrick, previously you commented:

    So any claim that Resnick related drama is torpedoing his Hugo chances is going to have to involve a much more robust causal element than “feminists got mad at him.”

    Does 2672 people no awarding him change your mind?

  14. 14
    Ampersand says:

    And though they’ve vowed to continue their doomed crusade to find out what lies beneath the bottom of the barrel next year as well, it’s rather unclear how they’ll find authors willing to go along with it.

    They have a solution for that problem. Some puppies – including fairly well-known puppies, like TL Knighton and Sarah Hoyt – have said that they don’t intend to respect authors’ preferences for future Sad Puppies slates. Hoyt says she thinks “Kate” will agree – apparently a reference to Kate Paulk, who will be the person running the next Sad Puppy slate.

  15. 15
    Pesho says:

    First, I’ll say that most of the authors worshiped by the Puppies disgust me. I don’t just dislike what they write, I actually think less of them for writing it.

    Second, I think that the leaders of the Puppies are despicable, with despicable tactics. Their support for any oeuvre makes me look at it with suspicion. Yeah, that’s dumb, but it is far from the dumbest thing I do.

    All of this said, I still think that they actually proved their claimed point, and that they certainly are right to declare a victory. Some of their nominations were not utter shit. Very few, but some. The fact that they all ranked below No Award proves that voting is politicized, and that liberal/progressive/whatever that means fans have a strong presence, and are ready to come down on perceived ‘enemies’.

    I am not sure that it is a bad thing. I have never had respect for the Hugos, and if I dislike Ringo, Kratman, etc… a lot more than, for example, McIntyre. I’m OK with them having no chance to get an award. I’m less OK with not seeing anything I like among the winners, but that did not happen this year, and even if it had, I’m OK with knowing that what I like is niche.

    —————

    By the way, almost off topic, I can’t believe the “Upside down” story won. That story was so soft, in the sense that even once you assume the premise, the physics and details were completely wrong… The author is one of the new crop of SciFi writers who, if you were to judge by their output, have never held a wrench or a weapon, taken a physics class, talked to a person from a different background, or ever even gotten up from their chair.

  16. 16
    Ampersand says:

    Pete Patriot:

    So this year Resnick got his first nomination since 2012 and the chainmail bikini incident in the Best Professional Editor (Short Form) category, and the “extremely respected” and “cool and essential” member of the SF community got No Awarded. Do any of you want to revise your opinion?

    Nope, not even slightly.

    Many who voted “no award” this year – including me – have said over and over that what we’re objecting to is the use of slate voting to dominate the Hugo nominations. Here’s two posts in which I’ve discussed this, for example:

    On Hugos and the No-Award Option | Alas, a Blog

    A Quick Primer For Those Who Wonder What The Issue With Slate Voting And The Hugo Awards Is | Alas, a Blog

    Resnick got no awarded this year – like every other slate nominee outside of the movies category – because he was included on a couple of slates. I voted no-award for Resnick, but would not hesitate to vote for him in the future, when he gets nominated without a slate, and if the work he’s nominated for is my favorite of the nominated works. Nor would I hesitate to vote for him in the nomination rounds, if he writes a story that knocks my socks off.

    By the way, given the numbers, it’s likely that if there had been no slates this year, Resnick would have been nominated. And he might well have won. But we’ll never know for sure.

  17. 17
    Ampersand says:

    All of this said, I still think that they actually proved their claimed point, and that they certainly are right to declare a victory. Some of their nominations were not utter shit. Very few, but some. The fact that they all ranked below No Award proves that voting is politicized, and that liberal/progressive/whatever that means fans have a strong presence, and are ready to come down on perceived ‘enemies’.

    It proves that people voted against slates, just as they said they would. And that’s all it proves.

  18. 18
    Ampersand says:

    A random note:

    One of the concerns I stated earlier (too lazy to find the link, sorry) is that by nominating “Zombie Nation,” a webcomic by a friend of Brad Torgersen’s that isn’t in the same league as the other nominees, some other cartoonists who were more deserving had been pushed out of being nominated.

    It turns out that I was wrong; if “Zombie Nation” hadn’t been nominated, the fifth nominee would have been the fourth “Saga” graphic novel. Since the third “Saga” book was also a nominee this year, it actually made no difference that “Zombie Nation” was nominated.

  19. 19
    Ampersand says:

    Right now, being associated with the Sad/Rabid Puppy slates is a surefire way to not just ‘not win a Hugo’ but also ‘damage your reputation as an author, perhaps irreparably.’

    I actually don’t think this is true, at least if by “associated” you mean “being a nominee.”

    I doubt many people will hold what happened this year against Rajnar Vajra or Steven Diamond, for instance – certainly not in a career-threatening way. I’ve been reading File 770 pretty regularly, and their names just don’t come up. In a few years, only the very most attentive people will even remember they were on the Puppy slates. And for Kary English, many people have said that they’ll seek out her stories in the future and they hope she gets nominated again (but without a slate).

    The people who have trashed their reps, among some SF fans, are people like Lou Antonelli and John Wright – people who not only associated themselves with the Puppy slates, but who publicly flaunted that they are genuinely nasty human beings.

    (And by “genuinely nasty” I don’t mean “politically conservative,” for the record.)

    However – because things are so politicized – even that may rebound to their favor, as far as their careers go. Yes, they’ve alienated a bunch of fans – but they’ve also made a different bunch of fans extra-loyal to their work.

  20. 20
    Jake Squid says:

    Just out of curiosity, which Mike Resnick books do people recommend? I ask because I read a fair amount of Resnick novels in the late 80’s to mid 90s when they were among the best things to be found on drugstore book racks when you needed something to read on your imminent business trip. I always though of his work as… readable. The stories were interesting enough and the writing was professional quality, but there was nothing exciting there. I certainly never recommended a single book of his to anybody. Did I just read his worst stuff? I don’t know, but I’d like to find out.

  21. 21
    Patrick says:

    Pete Patriot- No. The original discussion was about whether there was an anti conservative animus in Hugo voting. While someone else originally mentioned Resnick, YOU were the one to argue that some event from 2013 was torching his chances, on the ludicrous theory that Mike Resnick is such an amazing author that two consecutive years without a Hugo nomination can best be explained by liberal conspiracy rather than literally anything else. I pointed out, with numbers, that Resnick’s Hugo votes have barely changed. And while that has dropped him beneath the threshold for getting a nomination, the incredible smallness of the change, AND the fact that by the nature of the voting process that change was centralized among his fans rather than detractors, left your “theory” utterly implausible.

    So now you’re pointing out that Resnick got no-awarded. But we all know exactly why that happened. He was on the Puppies slate. If he had been nominated separately, without being on the Puppies slate, then no-awarded anyways along with the Puppies, I’d retract what I said. But that’s not what happened.

    And this? This is hysterical.

    “All of this said, I still think that they actually proved their claimed point, and that they certainly are right to declare a victory. Some of their nominations were not utter shit. Very few, but some. The fact that they all ranked below No Award proves that voting is politicized, and that liberal/progressive/whatever that means fans have a strong presence, and are ready to come down on perceived ‘enemies’.”

    Alternate explanation- the Puppies threw a chair in a bar without provocation, and then they and their entire posse got thrown through a plate glass window in response. Now they’ve dusted themselves off in the street and are telling everyone else how the fact that the big guy over there hit them goes to show how vicious he is, never you mind the chair thing.

  22. 22
    nm says:

    Yeah, I don’t get the Resnick love. Though I also don’t get the John Scalzi love (as a novelist, I mean; I enjoy some of his blogging). But I read more for character and for fun science (or convincing magic, depending on genre) than for plot, and I think plotting is maybe the main strength for them both?

  23. 23
    Mandolin says:

    Jake, I’ve mentioned it on other threads, but I recommend the story of his I published on PodCastle: http://podcastle.org/2008/12/01/pc035-winter-solstice/

    FWIW, I also would nominate Resnick if he hits my top five some year. He hasn’t yet, but it’s totally possible. He’s a very prolific writer, and, for me as a reader, his quality varies a lot. (So does the quality of most very prolific writers like Ken Liu or Tim Pratt or John Scalzi or Carrie Vaughn or Terry Pratchett.) My taste also tends to be askew from the Hugo voters’ (I never get invited to secret cabals), so the stories that end up on the ballots by prolific writers are often not the ones I really adore. Tim Pratt’s Hugo-winning “Impossible Dreams” is fine, but nothing to some of his drop dead work like “Cup and Table” or “Hart and Boot.” I’ve found some of the same principles applying to Resnick the times he’s been on my ballot, that they’re not the stories by him I find most interesting. (Though the one I linked to as a recommendation is an award nominee, so it’s obviously not 100% true.)

  24. 24
    Patrick says:

    As for Mike Resnick stories- Kirinyaga. It’s a short story, and then was collected with other short stories in the same universe to make a novel.

    It’s essentially about a sub culture’s efforts to live their own way, while living alongside a larger, richer culture that could not only crush them anytime it wants, but could also just sort of seduce away it’s young people with the bright lights of the city. Keeping the young people is necessary for the culture to keep it’s way of life, but since they can’t literally imprison them, they have to prevent the young people from truly understanding that leaving is an option. The main character essentially sequesters his society, while retaining his own access to the outside world, in order to do so. The stories shift perspectives on right and wrong rapidly, and maintain a constant sense of moral ambivalence. At least by my read.

  25. 25
    Myca says:

    I’m not amazingly familiar with Resnick’s longer stuff – I’ve mostly encountered whatever ran on Escape Pod, Pseudopod, and Podcastle – but I’ll tell you right now that Barnaby in Exile had me blubbering like a baby.

    That having been said, when I listened to some of his later stories (er … sories that ran later. They may have been written earlier. Man. I dunno.), I found that they didn’t have the same effect on me, though I could tell that it’s what he was going for. It was like I could see the emotional manipulation strings.

    Or like reading Eddings’ The Malloreon immediately after reading The Belgariad: “Wait a damn minute … didn’t I just read this?”

    Now, of course YMMV, but I have been affected deeply by some of his stuff and others fell flat.

    —Myca

  26. 26
    Mandolin says:

    I found that they didn’t have the same effect on me, though I could tell that it’s what he was going for. It was like I could see the emotional manipulation strings.

    Well, people who’ve taken classes or mentorship from Resnick have told me he talks about the kinds of formula elements he uses to create emotional effects?

    I feel like, as readers, we sometimes end up becoming familiar with an author’s formulas and then rubbed thin on them. This happens to me particularly when I binge on a lot of work by a writer. I can see Pahlaniuk’s formulaic elements pretty well because I read like 5 novels by him in a week.

    I’m not knocking formulas per se. When Pahlaniuk strikes, I feel like he strikes hot. But oversaturation is a potential weakness of the format. (Similarly, a lot of readers aren’t novelty-seekers, because they are seeking other kinds of qualities, and for them a formula they can spot may be an asset rather than a diminishment.)

  27. 27
    Jake Squid says:

    But oversaturation is a potential weakness of the format. (Similarly, a lot of readers aren’t novelty-seekers, because they are seeking other kinds of qualities, and for them a formula they can spot may be an asset rather than a diminishment.)

    For me, it depends on the formula. Blaylock, for instance, writes the same characters over and over again. I never get tired of it, but it does get fascinating when he mixes character traits around. Koontz, otoh, for me is, “If you’ve read one Koontz novel, you’ve read them all.” It’s a good novel, but I don’t want to read it 27 times. And on the other other hand, Powers writes the same novel over and over (with a couple of exceptions) and I like it better each time he writes it.

    Some formulas strike a chord with me, some don’t. I’ll try to make a point of reading the Resnick works you guys have named and see if I feel differently about him. But I wouldn’t vote against him because of his politics. I think Wolfe is one of the great writers and, from what I hear, his politics are to the right of center. If I were voting and he had an eligible work, chances are good I’d vote for him.

  28. 28
    Myca says:

    I feel like, as readers, we sometimes end up becoming familiar with an author’s formulas and then rubbed thin on them. This happens to me particularly when I binge on a lot of work by a writer.

    Bingo. Yes. That’s it exactly.

    More to the point, whether Mike Resnick is the bestest author evar or a talentless hack (I think he’s neither), nobody is entitled to a Hugo. You win, or you don’t, based on how well people like your work. There are only a few possible interpretations of the *Puppies’ complaints that make a lick of sense.

    The first is “people like the wrong stuff!” I’m somewhat sympathetic to this, because the majority of people don’t share my taste either … but suck it up, buttercup. It’s just how things are. Veronica Mars got cancelled and Pretty Little Liars is 6 seasons and counting. Thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.

    The second is “they’re all dirty low down cheats! The people DO like the right stuff, the leftists just manipulate the votes secretly to make sure nothing good wins.” This is horrible and damning, saved only by dint of being delusional and supported by zero fucking evidence.

    Pete Patriot’s issue seems to be that since there’ no possible way fans could have possibly independently decided not to give Mike Resnick further Hugos after having given him so many in the past (option 1 is impossible), that must be evidence for option 2.

    —Myca

  29. 29
    Pete Patriot says:

    Resnick’s Hugo votes have barely changed. And while that has dropped him beneath the threshold for getting a nomination, … So now you’re pointing out that Resnick got no-awarded. But we all know exactly why that happened. He was on the Puppies slate.

    Great to see it put that bluntly. It’s okay to knock works off the ballot by imposing a 5% nomination threshold in the voting system to force broad agreement, but if voters dare co-ordinate to clear a barrier explicitly put in place to get them to agree they’re cheats and their nominations are illegitimate.

  30. 30
    Kevin P says:

    There are only a few possible interpretations of the *Puppies’ complaints that make a lick of sense.

    The first is “people like the wrong stuff!” I’m somewhat sympathetic to this, because the majority of people don’t share my taste either … but suck it up, buttercup. It’s just how things are. Veronica Mars got cancelled and Pretty Little Liars is 6 seasons and counting. Thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.

    The second is “they’re all dirty low down cheats! The people DO like the right stuff, the leftists just manipulate the votes secretly to make sure nothing good wins.” This is horrible and damning, saved only by dint of being delusional and supported by zero fucking evidence.

    Option 1 is less “people don’t like what I like” than “Hugo Award voters don’t like what most SF fans like”, and to be honest they’ve got a decent case there based on sales figures. On the other hand their solution was to (try to) flood the voter pool with another group of fans who are also non-typical, which doesn’t solve the problem.

  31. 31
    Ampersand says:

    Option 1 is less “people don’t like what I like” than “Hugo Award voters don’t like what most SF fans like”, and to be honest they’ve got a decent case there based on sales figures. On the other hand their solution was to (try to) flood the voter pool with another group of fans who are also non-typical, which doesn’t solve the problem.

    The point about the non-typical fans on both sides is a good point.

    But – and I don’t know if you were speaking for yourself, or channeling how you think puppies look at it – I’d question calling it “a problem” at all. Why is it a problem if the Hugo Award voters’ tastes aren’t representative of fandom as a whole?

    Also, I think it’s dubious to assume that sales figures represent what most fans think deserves a Hugo. It’s possible that many book readers will read a fluffy paperback, and think it’s a lot of fun, but not necessarily believe that fluffy paperback deserves a Hugo for best novel.

    Certainly, I do that.

    As George Martin and Eric Flint (who would know) have said, there’s already an award for writing the best-selling novel of the year: A truckload of money. I’m not sure there’s any reason we should consider an award corrupt or broken if it fails to honor best-sellers. If we take that perspective, shouldn’t we just skip having votes for awards altogether, and just give the awards out based on sales figures?

  32. Pingback: The Stories That Should Have Been 2015 Hugo Nominees, With Links | Alas, a Blog

  33. 32
    Patrick says:

    Great to see it put that bluntly. It’s okay to knock works off the ballot by imposing a 5% nomination threshold in the voting system to force broad agreement, but if voters dare co-ordinate to clear a barrier explicitly put in place to get them to agree they’re cheats and their nominations are illegitimate.

    You know full well that the popular approval system only worked because people don’t work together. You’re sliding between “agree” and “collude” intentionally. You are aware that many of us see a difference, and are characterizing my quote to remove that distinction out of bad faith.

  34. 33
    Ampersand says:

    What Patrick said.

    By the way, someone on File 770 says that the 5% rule was removed at this year’s business meeting. Like other Hugo voting changes, it needs to pass two years in a row, but if it passes next year, then the 5% rule will no longer be applicable in 2017.

  35. 34
    Kevin P says:

    But – and I don’t know if you were speaking for yourself, or channeling how you think puppies look at it – I’d question calling it “a problem” at all. Why is it a problem if the Hugo Award voters’ tastes aren’t representative of fandom as a whole?

    A bit of both really. I don’t agree that it’s a serious problem that urgently needs solving, and I also accept what you said about the difference between books that sell well, books people enjoy, and books people think are award-worthy. But I do think that the Hugos should at least roughly reflect SF fans’ tastes. The Hugos are (and have been for decades) the most prestigious award in SF, and it’s natural for fans to care about who wins them. I’ve never been to a Worldcon, but the Hugos still mean a lot to me. This is also the reason why so many people who had never attended Worldcon before signed up for supporting memberships to No Award the Puppy slate – if it was just about people rigging the awards for some con in Spokane Washington, this post probably wouldn’t exist.

  36. 35
    Mandolin says:

    Kevin — Virtually no award represents fandom as a whole. Can any award? They all represent certain tastes based on the way they are constructed. I know the Oscars are sometimes criticized for the same reason; actually, someone gave SFWA a shout out this year because the Nebulas recognized works “that someone actually wants to watch.”

    Anyway, for what it’s worth, I find the Hugos significantly out of synch with my tastes. I feel like there’s this … assumption that those of us who are easily called SJWs agree with recent wins? I very rarely vote for something that wins. Ancillary Justice was the first novel I ever ranked first that won. I don’t believe the Campbell has ever gone to my first choice. The closest was Lily Yu, who I consider a formiddable talent– and I voted Karen Lord ahead of her. She knows that, so I don’t mind saying it here, but I hesitate to use too many examples… people’s feelings get hurt. But I don’t usually vote for at least half of the people listed as part of the “cabal,” and have been known to no award them.

    Anyway, the relevance there is I’m not sure there was ever a consensus group that had control of the Hugos. And it’s certainly not literary ambition that rules them, or we’d see 2312 winning (based on the ballot that was there). From a literary aesthetics perspective (which is not identical to my POV, for the record), Cat V and Ellen/Andy were the stand-outs in last year’s novella category; the win went to a much less ambitious, much more commercial Stross piece. Which (oh hell, I wouldn’t say this, but I have this fragile hope that examples will help; I’m sorry, Charlie, if you run into this), to be honest, I no awarded. (I didn’t no award his novel on the ballot that year; I like his SF; his horror just isn’t for me.)

    Stross and Scalzi are… not the same writers are Cat Valente or Aliette de Bodard. They have really different styles, and in general, I think fairly different fan bases. I think we/they are all genial with each other–I certainly like all four of them–but casting an aesthetic “these are a meaningful category” over all four is… weird.

  37. 36
    Mandolin says:

    Hi nm:

    Yeah, I don’t get the Resnick love. Though I also don’t get the John Scalzi love (as a novelist, I mean; I enjoy some of his blogging). But I read more for character and for fun science (or convincing magic, depending on genre) than for plot, and I think plotting is maybe the main strength for them both?

    So, I don’t think this is the case, actually. I haven’t spent as much time with Resnick’s work, but based on my experience/talking to people about his short fiction, it seems like his signature appeal is evoking certain kinds of emotions. If you don’t like those emotions, or the ways he uses to evoke them, or simply become accustomed to the way he does it in a way that’s unpleasant for you, then I think that’s an easy point for people to fall out with his work. That’s not to say all his short stories operate on that basis, but I think it’s his coup de grace for most of them. His novels may be super different; I don’t know.

    Scalzi, though, I think is more like Gaiman actually. (Well, maybe Gaiman straddles the two? He uses some of the emotional evocation techniques that Resnick does.) Scalzi — and Gaiman — is entertaining to listen to. Its the strength of his voice and cleverness that makes a Scalzi novel work. Gaiman’s not as focused on humor, but I think it’s his inviting cozy storyteller voice that helps seduce readers. If you aren’t interested in that voice, or want aspects from a novel the voice doesn’t provide, or get worn out from listening to the same voice, then I think that’s a big barrier to getting into his work.

  38. 37
    Patrick says:

    I loved The Orphan’s Tales, and bought copies for more than one person as a gift. I don’t really do the whole “my favorite book of all time” thing, but it would be on the short list if I had to.

    But every other Valente book I’ve read, I’ve put down halfway through.

    Stross, by contrast, always clocks in on time and writes an enjoyable book. 100% of the time, without fail.

    Although there is some amusement value in someone writing that they don’t like things that are stereotyped as “social justice warrior” material, and then explaining that instead they prefer Catherynne Valente. :-)

  39. 38
    Pete Patriot says:

    You know full well that the popular approval system only worked because people don’t work together.

    No I don’t. Approval clearly didn’t work, until the Puppies came along and got a mass of people involved. Take the short story category:

    2013. 3 finalists. votes 107 / 38 / 34. 662 ballots.
    2014. 4 finalists. votes 79 / 73 / 66 / 43. 865 ballots.
    2015. 5 finalists. votes 230 / 226 / 184 / 162 / 151. 1174 ballots.

    Do you think 2013/14 worked? You didn’t ever have a full suite of nominations. You had works on the list which only just cleared the 5% threshold. Works got on with only few dozen votes. Nominations are clearly dis-functional and represents the opinions of very few people.

    2015 was the first healthy year. People got 5 choices. The least popular finalist was on 13% of ballots. Works needed more than a hundred people backing them to get nominated. For all the nonsense about slate voting allowing a small number of people to control the nominations, (1) the most popular nomination in 2015 got roughly the same votes as all of the 2013 or 2014 finalists combined, (2) even the least popular 2015 finalist got more votes than any other work in the previous 2 years. It’s obviously a massive improvement.

  40. 39
    Myca says:

    Although there is some amusement value in someone writing that they don’t like things that are stereotyped as “social justice warrior” material, and then explaining that instead they prefer Catherynne Valente. :-)

    Or in complaining that the Hugos ought to be reflective of sales figures, and that’s why they’re mad that Scalzi keeps winning.

    —Myca

  41. 40
    nobody.really says:

    In the Great Debate of Slate vs. Non-slate, let me declare myself pro-Slate. I note, for example, that Slate has a story about the files the FBI kept on various science fiction writers during the Cold War while looking for Commies.It then quotes a Max Sparber on a Metafilter thread saying,

    “Thank goodness weirdo conservatives with a distrust for leftist writers are no longer trying to destroy science fiction.” [But] Sparber is alluding to the failed co-optation of the Hugo awards—one of SF’s highest honors—by groups calling themselves the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies.

    [T]he Puppies’ leaders claim they’re trying to bring SF back to simpler times. Pushing back against what they perceive as an elitist wave of liberal propaganda, they claim they “want sci-fi to be less preachy and more fun.” The Puppies’ brand of “less preachy and more fun” conservatism includes reactionary misogyny, homophobia, and racism, as Wallace and others have documented. At core, however, the Puppy movement was a call for a return to an imagined childhood—perhaps that of the genre, perhaps that of its readers.

    [Ray] Bradbury’s FBI file contradicts the still-yipping proponents of Puppygate. It serves as a pointed reminder that science fiction, even popular science fiction, was never just about entertaining. Much as they might whine to the contrary, the Puppies aren’t angry about what science fiction has become—they’re uncomfortable with what it has always been.

  42. 41
    Mandolin says:

    Patrick, I don’t think you’re responding to the points I made, per se.

    Yeah, I like Cat Valente’s writing better than Stross’. That’s my point. Stross and Valente *are not the same kind of writer.* To put them under the same umbrella as social justice picks is essentially incoherent. If someone wanted to argue that I’m partially responsible for putting CV on the ballot — sure, I have often nominated her. If they want to simultaneoysly argue that I’m responsible for Stross’ wins — and this is the argument that’s made with the whole “secret slate/cabal/social justice warriors colluding in secret to create the ballots” thing–then that’s inaccurate.

    If they want to say literary ambition is what determinses teh awards, becasue that’s the taste of people they dislike (like me) then that is something you can say Cat V has. But if, on the contrary, they want to pin Stross as being ambitious *through the gaze of a literary aesthetic* (and again that’s an argument that’s been made since he’s a putative social justice pick) then that’s not accurate.

    You can draw a line that maps literary connections that connects Cat V and Kelly Link and Kij Johnson. You can draw a similar connective map connecting Scalzi and Stross and Maguire. But to say the two both reflect an undue value on *literary aesthetics* is inaccurate, and doesn’t hold up the puppy argument that Hugo awards always go to works with literary aesthetics, since both groups of writers have nominations and wins. Further, if I’m supposed to be a cabal member, then I should theoretically be nominating and voting for both groups as they are both supposed to be exemplative of liberal control, but I can demonstrate that I don’t.

  43. 42
    Ampersand says:

    Although there is some amusement value in someone writing that they don’t like things that are stereotyped as “social justice warrior” material, and then explaining that instead they prefer Catherynne Valente. :-)

    I know Mandolin already responded to this, but I’ve gotta say, this seems like an incredibly inaccurate reading of what Mandolin wrote.

  44. 43
    nm says:

    Mandolin, I very much appreciate your response to my comment above. I have a lot of trouble figuring out (let alone articulating) why I dislike certain works of fiction; it’s much easier for me to understand why I like something I’ve read. Mulling over your takes on Resnick and Scalzi, I think you’ve put your finger on something that explains why I’m not wild about Scalzi: yes, you’re right, his voice and cleverness engage, but (for me) there’s no traction to his writing once I’ve put it down. I can’t, for instance, remember how Redshirts came out, even though I enjoyed it a lot while I was reading: I remember the setup, and then there was a coda (or a few?), but I forget what was in it. And that’s because once I finished the book I wasn’t tempted to take any time thinking about it. So that’s probably why his works aren’t my favorites. Resnick, I just don’t know.

  45. 44
    Jameson Quinn says:

    A belated response to KevinP@3:

    According to the EPH proposal that passed, if ABCDE minus E equals ABCFG, then the finalists that year after E withdrew would be ABCDFG.

  46. 45
    SWA says:

    If I correctly understand this (and I probably don’t), it comes down to one group who wants to distribute awards partially on the basis of merit but also on the basis of whatever group someone belongs to (and the worthy groups are, of course, determined by the award committee). Then you have the sad group or groups that want to present awards based on merit.

    For the “open borders” group, why not just give every nominee an award? Seriously, why not?

    You get an award, and you get an award, and you get an award, EVERONE GETS AN AWARD!!

    The only problem is that I will have to go over to some more reliable distinction (I already have to with the Hugo Awards and the Nobel Peace Prize).

  47. 46
    Ampersand says:

    If I correctly understand this (and I probably don’t),

    Literally the only true thing you say in your entire comment.

  48. 47
    Patrick says:

    I feel weird saying this, but I think you might be straw manning the Puppies. Have they literally said that 100% of Hugo winners fall into the categories you’re describing? Or that Stross, specifically, does?

    My understanding of their complaints was that it was based on their belief that mass market “fun” and “popular” sci fi was getting pushed out in favor of artsy fartsy stuff and stuff that panders to current progressive morality panics. Not that literally 100% of Hugo winners are those things. To use the examples we’ve been discussing, I’ve always assumed they were mad at the inclusion of authors like Valente, not the ongoing presence of authors like Stross.

    I mean, I don’t actually read their blogs or anything. I can’t see the need to. Prior to the Puppies, the voting system, including relevant social and professional norms against self promotion and political parties, were being followed. And that’s all I need to know to dismiss the Puppies complaints. If your problem reduces to “voters don’t agree with me so I keep losing elections,” then suck it up. I haven’t read their complaining for the same reason I haven’t read the Zoe Post of gamergate legend. It isn’t morally relevant, so I’ve “motion in limine’d” it right out of my brain.

    Of course, the super secret fact of science fiction fandom is that a huge percentage of Hugo nominees and winners suck, and have since the dawn of time. Sci fi is just like that. Someone comes up with a cool idea that really captures everyone’s imagination; they gets on the Hugo list. Twenty years later you reread their book and realize that the book sucked the whole time, you just ran with the idea in your mind and created this incredible personal canon for it that was way better than the original. That’s like… Larry Niven’s entire career.

  49. 48
    Ampersand says:

    From Ozy:

    average amazon rank of the novels that would have been nominated if not for Sad Puppies: #23,027

    average amazon rank of the sad puppies novel slate: #239,702

    I don’t agree that the Hugo Awards legitimacy is dependent on them choosing to nominate and give awards to popular books. But if that is something that matters, as many Sad Puppies supporters have said, then…

  50. 49
    Patrick says:

    If that was to me, I don’t think their legitimacy depends on supporting popular works. I think they think that. For me, that’s like defending electoral fraud because you believe you’re supporting candidates that would have won if voter turnout were higher. It doesn’t follow. If your stuff is losing a fair election you don’t blow up the electoral system. You work on the electorate.

  51. 50
    Ampersand says:

    That wasn’t to you; it was to people (mostly puppies, but also folks like Eric Flint) I’ve seen on the web saying that the puppies do have a legitimate point about the separation between Hugo voters and popular taste.

  52. 51
    Vilfredo says:

    I’m interested in what you think of this:

    http://madgeniusclub.com/2015/08/30/guest-post-by-ken-burnside/

    Obviously Burnside wants to paint his own involvement in the best possible light (as most people do), and I don’t agree at all that the SPs and RPs were as distinct as he claimed. But even a critical reading of his account makes it sound like No Award wasn’t just about opposing slate voting, but about defeating and humiliating an enemy side. I’m also interested in what you think of his accounts of things like threats, abuse, etc. – it’s that something he and others should just shut up and accept, since their “side” does it too?

  53. 52
    Ampersand says:

    Hi, Vilfredo.

    1) I agree that Burnside’s piece was a bit self-serving, and I also agree that’s normal and human.

    2) I’m a bit biased against Burnside, because when the puppies were piling-on on “If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love,” Burnside was an eager participant in the pile-on, and his comments were not merely critical but actually kind of contemptuous. (Criticism is fair – when someone writes a mega-popular story, there are bound to be detractors – but it was, imo, unprofessional of Burnside to be so sneery about it. And I should note, I don’t have links, I’m just going by my memory.)

    But reading that piece did a lot to make me think much, much better of Burnside than I previously had. (I read it a few days ago, when he posted it on his Facebook page.)

    But even a critical reading of his account makes it sound like No Award wasn’t just about opposing slate voting, but about defeating and humiliating an enemy side.

    Can you be specific what you’re referring to here? I have a guess, but I don’t like guessing. :-) Feel free to quote directly from Burnside.

    I’m also interested in what you think of his accounts of things like threats, abuse, etc. – it’s that something he and others should just shut up and accept, since their “side” does it too?

    Burnside’s post is very very long. So I’m not going to specifically respond to what you’re asking me about here, because I don’t have time to reread his post and figure out what you’re referring to. But, again, I invite you to let me know the specific thing(s) you’re talking about, preferably with a quote, and then I’ll comment on it.

    Thanks.

  54. 53
    Vilfredo says:

    Fair enough, it’s a long post.

    1. The response that Burnside says was received at the awards ceremony is best exemplified here:

    Then Best Editor, Long Form went to No Award, and the cheering made the floor tremble. Several people (myself included) started booing. David said “booing is not appropriate” and I came about a half-second away from standing up and jumping on the stage to grab the mic. Bryan Thomas Schmidt DID get up and curse loudly. Toni Weisskopf apparently never went to the ceremony at all; per Bryan the two of them commiserated for a few hours after the ceremony.

    For a ceremony that promised to be about inclusion and “we’re all fandom,” having the master of ceremonies feed off the cheering for No Award? That’s very easy to take as hypocrisy of the first order. I’ve also been told, multiple times that SF readers are NOT FANDOM…and that’s part of the problem.

    Seeing “No Award” blow out candidates who were clearly meritorious, like Mike Resnick and Toni Weisskopf? With cheers that rattled the rafters and made the floor rumble?

    I felt so very included in Fandom then. Really.

    He also describes some frank hostility from the organizers. The long and short of what Burnside is saying seems to be that this was driven by a lot more political and personal animus than simple opposition to slate voting. And really I get the reason behind that in some cases (John C. Wright being a particularly good one). But the way you’re casting the decision to vote No Award, it’s a regrettable but principled stand against slate voting. And that really does not seem to be what’s going on here, unless Burnside is wildly exaggerating.

    As for 2, Burnside writes that he received threats of physical assault if he turned up at Worldcon. He also says, without providing any specific links, that a lot of deliberately misleading and malicious stuff was put up on the internet about the Puppies, both as groups and as individuals. Again, he might be exaggerating, and he certainly whitewashes his allies’ behavior, but I’d be surprised if anyone in the anti-puppy camp took anything he writes there seriously at all.

  55. 54
    Patrick says:

    The only point that needs to be made about the separation between the Hugos and popular taste is that the status quo voting system splits votes pretty hardcore in direct proportion to how well served a given set of tastes are by popular science fiction and fantasy. Ironically, political parties are the natural way that voting systems of this nature address this issue. That’s why existing Hugo norms of professionalism, non promotion, and non log rolling, were such a big deal. The voting system is maintaining a sort of political potential energy, held up by a system of norms.

    The real story of the Puppies is the way that culture war issues became the catalyst for the breakdown of the professionalism norms (which rely on a mutual respect that is not in evidence between Beale, Wright, and co. versus everyone else), which in turn led to the side that perceived itself as outsiders engaging in technically-not-illegal-but-norm-violating political action in exactly the most logical fashion given the incentives in play.

    Basically, Hari Seldon could have predicted every move in this little dance.

  56. 55
    Ampersand says:

    Vilfredo:

    A lot of Burnside’s most damning comments aren’t about what he saw, but about what he assumes others intended. But Burnside isn’t a witness to what other people are thinking; he has no idea what others are thinking.

    He also had what sounds like some very pleasant encounters with well known anti-slate people, like Kurt Busiek.

    And some of Ken’s claims have been denied – for example, George Martin denies he ever said that “all puppies are rabid.” In reply, Ken said Martin “went very much out of [his] way to be kind to me,” which sure isn’t the impression Ken gave in his post, is it? Ken also got to be a speaker at multiple Worldcon panels. He seems hyper-sensitive to slights – and there were many slights, I don’t doubt that for a moment – but in his post he fails to acknowledge the many ways Worldcon, and some anti-slate people, treated him decently or went out of their way to include him. The picture he paints, as a result, is incredibly one-sided.

    (BTW, Cat Valente, who was also at party and heard Martin’s remarks, says that Ken’s account is completely off-base.)

    The complaint about the applause is, to me, is the least interesting part of what Burnside wrote; it’s so obviously coming from a place of bruised feelings, and I assume that given time Burnside will no longer see the fact that people applauded as a crucial moral issue. Ken wrote:

    Then Best Editor, Long Form went to No Award, and the cheering made the floor tremble. Several people (myself included) started booing. David said “booing is not appropriate” and I came about a half-second away from standing up and jumping on the stage to grab the mic.

    I don’t have links for this, but I’ve seen a couple of people who were there report that David asked for no booing right at the start of the ceremony. My guess is that he didn’t want people booing when Vox Day or John Wright’s names were read out. And it’s in no way an unreasonable rule, nor is it unreasonable to enforce a no-booing rule.

    As for the applause itself – yes, they applauded. I would have, too. This is the climax of a pitched fight over the future of the Hugos which has been going on for months and consumed ungodly amounts of everyone’s time and spoons. Emotions are high-pitched. These votes were in effect a referendum on the future of the Hugos. At stake: if the Puppies – and with them, the idea of slate voting to control nominations, and the Hugos being taken over by competing slates, aka party politics[*] – will take over the Hugos forever, or if the longtime Worldcon voters and volunteers,[***] who the puppies have slandered and treated with contempt for months[**], will be able to retain their traditions.

    Sure, most of the anti-slate folks believed that the huge influx of new voters were mostly on their (our) side, and we’d win. But we didn’t know that for sure. And there were many puppies confidently predicting their victory.

    So hell yes, they applauded. I applauded, sitting alone in front of my computer, when I heard. Not out of malice, and not because I’m happy Ken Burnside or anyone else is hurting. But because I was very invested in the outcome of this vote, and my side won.

    You might as well demand that the fans of the winning team at the World Series not applaud, because applause could hurt the feelings of the losing players. Under the circumstances, “no applause” is a completely unreasonable demand. Ken Burnside is basically saying that anti-slate folks should be, not ordinary humans with ordinary human reactions to the end of a long fight, but superhuman saints.

    Plus – just like the losing players of a World Series – losing an award is part of the job for any writer or cartoonist lucky enough to be nominated. I speak from experience. Losing an award is not fun. When it happened to me, I was taken entirely by surprise by how bad it felt (even though I knew, rationally, I had zero chance of winning). For me, it felt like a kick in the stomach. With iron-toed boots.

    But that’s part of the job. And if I’m not willing to deal with that, then I should either decline nominations, or not attend the ceremony.

    (BTW, I think it gets easier after you’ve been the loser or winner at more ceremonies.)

    The long and short of what Burnside is saying seems to be that this was driven by a lot more political and personal animus than simple opposition to slate voting.

    Burnside is not a mind reader. He has no idea what other people are thinking, and he’s not giving people he disagrees with a reasonable benefit of the doubt. Plenty of people have said that they weren’t applauding out of malice or hatred, but for the reasons I outlined above; I think they, not Ken Burnside, are the authorities on what they were thinking.

    It’s true that for some people this did become personal (on both sides). That’s inevitable, when a dispute goes on long enough. But there’s a real underlying dispute here, and that dispute is about a small group of fans gaming the Hugo nominations and kicking everyone else out of the party. The idea that I or any other people voted “no award” out of personal enmity to Ken Burnside or to is, frankly, ridiculous.

    As for 2, Burnside writes that he received threats of physical assault if he turned up at Worldcon.

    If that’s true, then that’s terrible. I don’t think I read that line when I read his essay a few days ago. I hope that he contacted the police. I hope that the people who made the threats are arrested. There’s no excuse; none.

    But I also think it’s unfair to attribute (anonymous) threats to anti-slate people generally, or to suggest that I should have to address that, or that I think people who receive threats should just shut up about it, as you suggested upthread.

    You refer to this:

    In the four month span between the ballot being made public and the end of voting on July 31st, I got threats of assault if I showed up at WorldCon (none materialized), I got called a racist, homophobic sexist neo-Nazi, and I watched lies and fabrications show up in national media.

    I’m 90% certain that he’s referring to something Irene Gallo said on her personal facebook page. But he’s bending over backwards to take insult, imo; Irene Gallo wasn’t referring to him in particular.

    At some point, shouldn’t people stop nursing these grudges?

    People applaud when their side wins in a pitched and highly emotional fight.

    People say mean things in internet arguments. (Including Ken, by the way.)

    If we don’t intend to hold grudges forever, then I think we should let things like that go.

    (But not the threats. I think hating those people forever is totally reasonable.)

    [*] Even if you don’t agree that these were the stakes, please take my word for it that me, and many other anti-slate voters I’ve talked to and read, sincerely believe that these were the stakes.

    [**] I’m not denying that there were also some very nasty messages fired at the Puppies.

    [***] I want to make it clear that although I am a Hugo voter, I’m not a longtime Worldcon volunteer or voter, and I can’t speak for them. But I am, as best as I can be, on their side.

  57. 56
    Ampersand says:

    The only point that needs to be made about the separation between the Hugos and popular taste is that the status quo voting system splits votes pretty hardcore in direct proportion to how well served a given set of tastes are by popular science fiction and fantasy.

    This sounds interesting, but I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Could you expand on this a little?

  58. 57
    Patrick says:

    Imagine that you have a thousand voters and a hundred candidates, using the following voting system: every individual nominates whoever they like most, and the top six go into a full election.

    100 voters always vote for candidates who’s names begin with A. There’s only one such eligible candidate.

    100 voters do the same for B, of which there’s just one.

    Same for C, D, E, and F.

    The other 400 other voters. They like candidates with names starting with G. There are 94 such candidates.

    A through F just have to show up to get a hundred nomination votes. Any given G has to stand out so well that it convinces a quarter of those who might nominate him or her to favor him or her over the other Gs. This may be impossible- the G vote could easily split so granularly that no G passes the 100 vote threshold.

    And this could occur even if a plurality of voters (400, to be exact) prefer any given G to all winning nominees.

    This is an exaggerated example, but it illustrates a principle. It’s the same as vote splitting when third party candidates run in US presidential elections. The more choices voters of a particular type have, the less momentum each individual option can collect. The fewer choices, and the more attention will focus in one place.

    This may not be solvable. Or rather, all voting systems have positives and negatives. So if you solve this you will have to choose what other issue you’ll deal with instead.

    The natural “solution” to this issue, from the candidates and voters perspective, is a political party. If all G voters agree up front to vote for the same guy, their guy gets on the ballot guaranteed.

    Working out the ideal strategy here is impossible because we haven’t set out the actual vote structure, the numbers are too even versus a more natural set of approximate and shifting figures, and we haven’t discussed relative preference ranking of non first choice candidates. But the ideal strategy probably looks something like two G factions facing off against the other groups, who try to ally and log roll votes.

    The above can be mitigated if actual preferences are less clear cut, etc, but it’s a background game theory issue that’s always going exert some pressure.

  59. 58
    Jake Squid says:

    Link to a post about the Hugos at LGM.

  60. 59
    Ampersand says:

    Thanks, Patrick!

    I agree with you, but I also think you’re right to say that with the Hugos, it’s very hard to say what the preferences are, because the “candidates” (the books and stories) are for the most part diffuse and undefined.