Quote:
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.