2015 Hugo Awards and the Sad Puppies Slate
It’s hard to explain how I’m feeling about the Hugos this year. The Sad Puppies slate (read more here) has undercut a lot of the discussion about the nominees in favor of talking about the nomination process itself. I do think a lot of that discussion is productive, but it’s disheartening that we can’t really talk about the works.
For those of you who are not familiar, the Hugo award nominees are chosen by fans (who have paid membership fees) is a large balloting process. Fans can nominate the works they think best exemplify SFF and the total nominations are tallied up, with the top six or so works being put on the ballot again, this time for the title of “Best [insert category here].”
The Sad Puppy slate has been present in the last three Hugo cycles. In an ideal world, the candidates in each category are chosen by each fan based on who they think did the best job. The Sad Puppy slate is a more politicized version of the process whereby a small group of people (largely associated with MRA groups and gamergate) advocated a pre-chosen list of works based, in part, on what they believe is most politically friendly to their viewpoints. The Sad Puppy Slate’s preferred works received a large portion of the nominations in this year’s Hugo cycle.
I’m going to talk about this in two portions because I think there are two different issues at hand: (1) the use of slates in the Hugo awards process, and (2) the actions and beliefs of the Sad Puppy group towards other fans and creators.
The use of slates in the Hugo Awards
It’s not against the Hugo voting rules to use slates.
It would be nearly impossible for the institution to identify slates, and the penalties for their use, considering that authors may or may not know they’ve been placed on a slate, would be hard to determine. Instead, the failsafe that the Hugos has in place for a large fan upset is a “No Award” option on every ballot.
What the problem with slates is, is the way that their use undercuts the ideals of the award.
The Hugos aim at a deliberative selection process, whereby voting acts as a simulated discussion (Granted real discussion happens, too). Each person tosses the best they can think of into the ring and voters then decide from among those which truly is the most deserving of an award intended to designate the work most meritorious and exemplary of the genre. The nearly four months between voting rounds allows the fans the opportunity to read the nominees they are unfamiliar with so that the truly best work can win.
Politicking has always gone on at the awards, to some degree or another. We’re not so naïve as to be unaware of that. Authors and publishing houses have always campaigned for works to be chosen. After all, the Hugos does provide a sales boost.
However, the dominance of a slate that advocates the blind nomination of works based on political ideology is fairly unprecedented.
Because the voting population for the Hugos is fairly small, approximately 2,000 voters for the most popular category and much fewer in less popular categories, it’s easy to skew the results of the nomination process. And, of course, when it’s derailed and by a large, but distinct minority of voters, the rest of the community is going to be upset.
Slates themselves are problematic. They reduce the number of potentially nominated works, undercut the deliberations that go into the nomination process, and potentially flood the awards with non-vetted works (read: works that have not actually been read). This means that the stories we are awarding may be extremely obscure, non-representative of the genre and its advances, or non-representative of the stories readers want to consume.
It should also be noted that slates are distinct from suggested nomination lists. Plenty of people put up lists of works they think work well in categories and suggest their readers, friends, fellow SFF lovers read the list when considering who to nominate. To me, this is a distinctly deliberative act. It allows for people to read and decide on their own without suggesting or advocating blind voting (to me the biggest problem with slates). They are often include far more lists of works than the voter can nominate and act as a substitute longlist for readers. This is especially important for readers who want to sample and become more involved in categories like short fiction which have a much smaller readership.
The creation of a slate for political reasons is objectionable. What I will say here, is that the use of politics in this case is a limiting factor and detracts from the inclusive and representative goals we have for the Hugo. Again, they are within their rights to limit based on this factor, but I think that it suffers from a lack of consideration for new types of stories, and increasingly popular stories in the genre.
We all have limitations in our reading. Time, length, interest are all factors we have to balance. I think it is inkeeping with the spirit of the award, however, to push ourselves to read what we may otherwise ignore or not prioritize. As readers, we should always be pushing ourselves to empathize and expose ourselves to stories that are not familiar to us or that show a part of humanity we may not often see.
Sad Puppies as a group
There’s a lot to be said about the Sad Puppy group’s attitudes towards women, people of color, and the LGBT community. The Sad Puppy leaders have been willingly, and proud to be, associated with gamergate, a fiasco hallmarked by the sending of threats of rape, murder, and physical harm to those who disagree with them.
I’m really dismayed and saddened to see that type of hostility being introduced to our community.
So what do we do now?
I’m going to be reading all of the novel and short fiction nominees. I don’t want to penalize authors who may not have chosen the Sad Puppy slate as their champion. And, for all I know, some of the work they nominated may be genuinely good.
For those who are turned off by the Sad Puppy slate, particularly those who have the option to vote, I’d suggest using the “No Award” option.
On a more positive note, I think we can use this as an opportunity to re-evaluate what we look for in the Hugos, how we want to interact as a community, and where we’re going in the future (other than the stars).
Review: Furies of Calderon (Codex Alera #1) by Jim Butcher
Title: The Furies of Calderon (Codex Alera #1)
Author: Jim Butcher
Publication Date: October 2004
Overview: Calderon is the only point in Alera where a land invasion is feasible and Bernardholt, a steadhold, lies in the middle of it. When the King’s messenger, Amara, finds out about a revolt that will lead a horde of Marat (animal-bonded warriors) through the valley, the King sends her to “protect his interests” in the valley. With the help of the steadholder, Bernard, his sister Isana, and their nephew Tavi, Amara will have to defeat the traitors and an army of savages.
For Fans Of: Jim Butcher, Brandon Sanderson, Ursula K. LeGuin
World-Building: Butcher does a good job of creating the Calderon Valley. The layout makes sense to persons familiar with stories about settling (Steadholds are pretty much just Homesteads). The furies are really the weakest point of this. There’s no clear distinction on what they can and cannot do, they have directly correlated powers–wood furies can bend and manipulate wood, for example– but they also have some emotional impacts on people and it’s not clear whether there’s a limit to how much they can manipulate people’s emotion. Also, earth and fire furies seem to have actual animal-ish embodiments, but it doesn’t seem to be the case for water, air, or metal, for no clear reason.
Character Development: I really enjoyed Bernard and Isana. Both were strong and very clearly identifiable personalities and voices. Butcher does a great job with having clear, emotionally complex, strong women. Isana, Odiana, and Amara are all clearly powerful, firm in convictions, and clever. I loved this. As a downside, I thought Tavi was overly praised (at least I expected him to be more important and interesting because of the amount of hype he gets on the back cover).
Plot: I thought the plot went well enough. Some of it was more believable than other parts. I thought Tavi and Fade were kind of just there to give Butcher a way out sometimes. Other than that, I was let down with the Isana Odiana side story. It was filled with a lot of near-death savings that didn’t really need to be there, or at least could have been a little less miraculous.
Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/Furies-Calderon-Codex-Alera-Book/dp/044101268X
Book Depository Link: http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Furies-Calderon-Jim-Butcher/9780441012688