Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
I very much fear that any electoral process in which only supporters of the extremists do any campaigning can have only one outcome: the candidates supported by the extremists will win, because they will be the ones that people will have heard of.
|
It's almost like we're speaking different languages.
I consider ALL campaigning for literary award nominations to be extremist.
While it's true that campaigning could never be entirely eliminated from an award like the Hugos, it's also true that some subtle tweaking to the rules/process could drastically reduce the influence any one particular extremist campaign could bring to bear on the nom process (by lowering the barrier to nominate, but not the final vote). Why would people fight that kind of change?
EDIT: I'm done. The fact that there's been more discussion
about the Hugo Awards themselves in recent years than there has been about the books that have been nominated is proof positive the award is becoming irrelevant. It should always be all about the books... and it's not. If the direction Sad Puppies wants to go is representative of fandom in general, then participation will only grow and the award and the Con will thrive and I will be wrong. So be it.