2015 Hugo Award winners

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Laine

I didn't nominate, I just read and voted. I couldn't choose between The Dark Between The Stars and The Goblin Emperor. I read each straight through. Both engaging in totally different ways. Skin Game was a problem because of being part of a series I hadn't read. I don't enjoy Ann Leckie's style or themes. The Three-Body Problem I hated. Couldn't even get 1/4 of the way through. I find it hard to believe it would have a wide audience to love it.

I liked The Three-Body Problem (Didn't like the start but by the end I liked it enough that I will get the sequel). On the other hand I couldn't stand The Goblin Emperor and wasn't thrilled with The Dark Between The Stars (Possibly because I hadn't read the saga of seven suns). Also liked Skin Game and Ancillary Sword so I suspect our voting was virtually opposite and we really don't want to give each other book recommendations

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

I No Awarded both of them last year on the basis of not being sci-fi.
The fact that they were even nominated for a Hugo pretty much convinced me that the puppies had a point.

I thought there was a very slight argument that Wakulla Springs could be considered genre. At least, that's what I told myself when I voted for it.

Besides, neither of them won because the voters largely agreed with you. If the puppies point was that some works with dubious genre credentials can make the ballot occasionally, well they've definitely proven that.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

IIf the puppies point was that some works with dubious genre credentials can make the ballot occasionally, well they've definitely proven that.

Why would they feel they need to prove that point, though? It's not like most people didn't already know that. There's been noms with dubious credentials since year one ... genre, quality, or otherwise.

If their (the rabid camp) campaign was truly about "We think the Hugos are overlooking these gems," then I don't think I--or very many people, really--would have had trouble with it. But their approach was, "We don't like the things you're nominating, so here's some crap that we didn't put much thought into instead to replace it."

It wasn't about loving something so much you couldn't stand to see it slighted; it was about hating something so much you'd do anything to tear it down.

But whatever. I pretty-much wrote the Hugo's off last year. I read The Goblin Emperor and really enjoyed it before it was nominated, but otherwise, I didn't seek out any of the titles bandied about. In fact, I tried pretty hard to ignore Hugo conversations after this year's hooha (escalated from last year's hooha). I'll probably go back to doing that.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

....

It wasn't about loving something so much you couldn't stand to see it slighted; it was about hating something so much you'd do anything to tear it down.

But whatever. I pretty-much wrote the Hugo's off last year. ......

Yep! Exactly.

[DiapDealer]

The fact that many of the Puppy-nominated authors (some who may have actually deserved to be nominated) withdrew/declined their nominations tells me everything I need to know about about the "merits" of those campaigns. You nominate books for awards, not types of books.

Okay, NOW I'm done with the Hugos.

[Doonge]

I'm not at all a big sci-fi reader, so my opinion is just an uneducated one.

In the previous post related to the Hugos, people were saying almost nobody reads all the books, and usually vote for the few books they have read and enjoyed. That was presented as the usual behavior. Maybe a bit disappointing if you are an idealist that thinks you should read all the books before voting, but not particulary uncommon nor bad.

I think a "No Awards" epidemic has to be the result of political infighting amongst sci-fi readers. Probably because of the recent emotional turmoil around it, because of the advertisement made around it from the puppies.
So, I think those who explain away this event as a rationale move against the "bad quality" of the books presented are doing to in bad faith.
(I have read none of them books).

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by Doonge

I'm not at all a big sci-fi reader, so my opinion is just an uneducated one.

In the previous post related to the Hugos, people were saying almost nobody reads all the books, and usually vote for the few books they have read and enjoyed. That was presented as the usual behavior. Maybe a bit disappointing if you are an idealist that thinks you should read all the books before voting, but not particulary uncommon nor bad.

I think a "No Awards" epidemic has to be the result of political infighting amongst sci-fi readers. Probably because of the recent emotional turmoil around it, because of the advertisement made around it from the puppies.
So, I think those who explain away this event as a rationale move against the "bad quality" of the books presented are doing to in bad faith.
(I have read none of them books).

Speaking as someone who has tried to read the Puppy authors, voting 'No Award' when presented with a slate of them is the most rational response.

It's great that many different kinds of authors can make a living writing many different kinds of things. But are all of them Hugo worthy? No. The authors that were nominated from a politically-driven slate were of a lower quality and it showed. If you look around, most of the people who attempted honest reviews are saying similar things.

Just because someone loves a book doesn't mean it's the greatest thing in sci-fi for that year. Some people obviously have trouble dealing with the idea that not everyone likes what they like (see also: GamersGate) and occasionally those people get together and throw a fit.

The genuine concerns about Hugo legitimacy - which come up every so often and have been addressed repeatedly - were totally drowned out by a bunch of whining. The whining got a bunch of bad writing nominated, and Hugo voters soundly rejected both the bad writing and the rationale behind nominating it. It would be great to have an actual adult conversation about the nature of popularity contests, but that's not what the Puppies want and it's not what they pushed for.

[ST-One]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

Speaking as someone who has tried to read the Puppy authors, voting 'No Award' when presented with a slate of them is the most rational response.

You are not supposed to read the authors, you are supposed to read the books or the stories they write. And going by the reviews (Amazon or GoodReads) for the Puppies-suggested best novel and novella alone, those who read them rated them favourably.

And I'm still wondering how something like "The Water that Falls on You from Nowhere" even made it on the final ballot for a Sci-Fi award.

[Doonge]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

Speaking as someone who has tried to read the Puppy authors, voting 'No Award' when presented with a slate of them is the most rational response.

It's great that many different kinds of authors can make a living writing many different kinds of things. But are all of them Hugo worthy? No. The authors that were nominated from a politically-driven slate were of a lower quality and it showed. If you look around, most of the people who attempted honest reviews are saying similar things.

Just because someone loves a book doesn't mean it's the greatest thing in sci-fi for that year. Some people obviously have trouble dealing with the idea that not everyone likes what they like (see also: GamersGate) and occasionally those people get together and throw a fit.

The genuine concerns about Hugo legitimacy - which come up every so often and have been addressed repeatedly - were totally drowned out by a bunch of whining. The whining got a bunch of bad writing nominated, and Hugo voters soundly rejected both the bad writing and the rationale behind nominating it. It would be great to have an actual adult conversation about the nature of popularity contests, but that's not what the Puppies want and it's not what they pushed for.

I'm a little bit surprised by your post, because you eluded my point and you made me have a look at GamersGate for no apparent reason. I wasn't able to draw any link whatsoever, so what are you talking about?
Keywords I found were: "journalism", "misogyny", "anti-feminism". I even stumbled upon a Volokh article (interesting read).

In the best of light, I am supposing "Some people obviously have trouble dealing with the idea that not everyone likes what they like" means that ugly fights oppose extremist people who all wrongly think their views are popular, but that goes against your description of both camps: bunch of whinings vs adult rational Hugo voters. You seem slanted against the puppies, so am I to deduce you are slanted aswell in regards to GamersGate?
That would be ironic because I am unable to deduce it, as if you were expecting your slant to be mine aswell.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by ST-One

And I'm still wondering how something like "The Water that Falls on You from Nowhere" even made it on the final ballot for a Sci-Fi award.

It's a fantasy and science fiction award. As the Puppies well know, having nominated a fair bit of fantasy themselves.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I thought there was a very slight argument that Wakulla Springs could be considered genre. At least, that's what I told myself when I voted for it.

Nah, a quick throwaway line at the end doesn't make it sci-fi, that's like adding the line "Computer, End Simulation" to the end of War and Peace and calling it sci-fi.

Originally Posted by DrNefario

Besides, neither of them won because the voters largely agreed with you. If the puppies point was that some works with dubious genre credentials can make the ballot occasionally, well they've definitely proven that.

I thought their point was the Hugo was becoming overwhelmingly more about message and repressed minority of the day fiction than about good science fiction stories.

BTW, talking about Sad Puppies here (Rabid Puppies is Beale trying to break stuff and has nothing anyone wants)

[meeera]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

I thought their point was the Hugo was becoming overwhelmingly more about message and repressed minority of the day fiction than about good science fiction stories.

BTW, talking about Sad Puppies here (Rabid Puppies is Beale trying to break stuff and has nothing anyone wants)

The Sad Puppies achieved little when it came to the nominations, so they're not particularly relevant to post-Hugo discussions IMO. It was the Rabid Puppies who swept the nominations.

And F/SF has always contained politics and political messages, of a wide variety of types. People who claim otherwise are betraying their ignorance of the history of the field. I also can do nothing but laugh and shake my head when people whine about 'messages' in fiction, then nominate John C. Wright's stories!

As for "repressed minorities of the day" and wranglings about representation: to me it's pretty simple. Humans consist of a huge variety of different people. Straight nondisabled white cis men are a pretty small minority of our planet's population, so when they make up a majority of fictional heroes, I get bored and turn off. A fiction of ideas and what-ifs is uninteresting to me when it's stuck in one particularly dull version of the past, ignoring the majority of the population almost completely. Unimaginative and backwards-looking is not what I'm looking for in F/SF.

[Doonge]

Originally Posted by meeera

As for "repressed minorities of the day" and wranglings about representation: to me it's pretty simple. Humans consist of a huge variety of different people. Straight nondisabled white cis men are a pretty small minority of our planet's population, so when they make up a majority of fictional heroes, I get bored and turn off. A fiction of ideas and what-ifs is uninteresting to me when it's stuck in one particularly dull version of the past, ignoring the majority of the population almost completely. Unimaginative and backwards-looking is not what I'm looking for in F/SF.

I can understand you hate straight nondisabled white cis men, and I won't be discussing your tastes since I have mines, but your rationalization of them is curious?
Are you being serious here?

"Straight nondisabled white cis men are a pretty small minority of our planet's population" compared to what??
There's more straight people than homosexuals.
There's more nondisabled people than disabled.
There's more cis than trans people.
There's more or less similar amount of men and women.
I don't have numbers about the skin color, but I would assume the whites aren't a "pretty small minority" anywhere in the first world west??
Any other combination of your factors would be very likely to be smaller than the already "pretty small minority" you described, making the latter the biggest of the "pretty small minorities"?

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Doonge

I can understand you hate straight nondisabled white cis men, [snip]

Nope. Bye.

[HarryT]

Doonge raises a valid point, meera. For a book written for the western English-speaking market, "straight white men" represent a significant fraction of the readership, and SF has traditionally been read by more men than women, just as women represent the majority of romance readers, and the majority of romance books have straight white women as protagonists.