Finalists: 2015 Hugo Award

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And here's what George R.R. Martin thinks per his blog:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/417125.html

http://grrm.livejournal.com/417521.html

and Charlie Stross:

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog...-publishe.html

And here is George R R Martin giving his own recommendations
http://grrm.livejournal.com/410394.html

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

And here is George R R Martin giving his own recommendations
http://grrm.livejournal.com/410394.html

He acknowledges right in the linked posts that he has made "for your consideration" recommendations. You've not "caught him out" at anything. If you read his posts, they're very fair and balanced. He's not taking a black and white stance on this issue.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

He acknowledges right in the linked posts that he has made "for your consideration" recommendations. You've not "caught him out" at anything. If you read his posts, they're very fair and balanced. He's not taking a black and white stance on this issue.

I wasn't trying to catch him out DD, just pointing out that it seems some people can give recommendations which is fine, but if others give recommendations they are accused of gaming the system

My point is that pretty much every author and publisher out there are recommending what to vote on but everyone seems to be up in arms about a bunch of Baen authors.

Ok, and Beale, who has given everyone plenty of reasons not to like him.

[DiapDealer]

"A bunch of Baen authors" is not a very accurate or honest description of what Sad Puppies is.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

I wasn't trying to catch him out DD, just pointing out that it seems some people can give recommendations which is fine, but if others give recommendations they are accused of gaming the system

My point is that pretty much every author and publisher out there are recommending what to vote on but everyone seems to be up in arms about a bunch of Baen authors.

Ok, and Beale, who has given everyone plenty of reasons not to like him.

Read the blog entries to see what the difference is.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

"A bunch of Baen authors" is not a very accurate or honest description of what Sad Puppies is.

It is really Rabid Puppies that is the biggest problem here. Only sad puppy 3 would probably not have had this effect.

[kennyc]

And Kameron Hurley says (in The Atlantic):

Hijacking the Hugo Awards Won't Stifle Diversity in Science Fiction
The prizes have been targeted by voting blocks opposed to the growing inclusion of women and writers of color. But trying to reverse progress in an increasingly diverse world is futile.....

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...ors_picks=true

[Laine]

I just want to vote for books which are entertaining and NOT dystopian. I used to read mainly scifi 10 years ago and now I read romance and crime and little scifi. I find it depressing. I couldn't care less about slates I want to live in an entertaining book for a few hours. I doubt I'll bother voting this year.

[DiapDealer]

I'm trying to think of the last best novel nominee that would be considered dystopian. I'm drawing a blank.

[ATDrake]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm trying to think of the last best novel nominee that would be considered dystopian. I'm drawing a blank.

Well, technically, Mira Grant's Newsflesh novels are set in a post-zombie-apocalypse world. But they were pretty optimistic about that, as was the next-most-recent-dystopian one I can immediately think of, which was Cherie Priest's Boneshaker (also a post-zombie-apocalypse world) in the 2010 Hugos.

Wikipedia does file another 2010 nominee listed on their page of all the Best Novel ones, Robert Charles Wilson's Julian Comstock as a dystopia, and admittedly GRRM's A Dance with Dragons does take place in what's probably best described as a crapsack world with a likely grimdark meathook forseeable future, but aside from that, much of the longer-length stuff that I've gotten in the Hugo Voter Packet since I started signing up to read and vote on these have seemed relatively upbeat, considering, though YMMV.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by ATDrake

Wikipedia does file another 2010 nominee listed on their page of all the Best Novel ones, Robert Charles Wilson's Julian Comstock as a dystopia,

Julian Comstock may have been a dystopia, but I thought it was a fun novel, with a naive, unreliable narrator who was writing as much about his own adventures as he was writing about his purported subject, Julian.

[jandrew]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm trying to think of the last best novel nominee that would be considered dystopian. I'm drawing a blank.

The Windup GIrl (Paolo Bacigalupi) tied for best novel in 2010 (deservedly so in my opinion).

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by jdege

Seems to me that if you disagree with the Sad Puppies, or with the Rabid Puppies, the solution is to offer your own suggestions, and to encourage more people to get involved.

In other words, to do exactly what the Sad Puppies are doing.

It may come to that, and then all of the nominations will be based on one or more slates with specific political agendas instead of literary merit (whatever that means). A thousand people nominating a hundred different items in each category will likely get no nominations if there are 150 people nominating in lock step. Sadly, now that the genie is out of the bottle, there may be no way to put it back in.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

I wasn't trying to catch him out DD, just pointing out that it seems some people can give recommendations which is fine, but if others give recommendations they are accused of gaming the system

My point is that pretty much every author and publisher out there are recommending what to vote on but everyone seems to be up in arms about a bunch of Baen authors.

There are big differences between an author or publisher listing all of their eligible titles, an author listing several works that she likes and why she likes them, and a slate that lists 4-5 works in every category with the message "if you agree with me, you'll nominate these works".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

There are big differences between an author or publisher listing all of their eligible titles, an author listing several works that she likes and why she likes them, and a slate that lists 4-5 works in every category with the message "if you agree with me, you'll nominate these works".

I see no difference; all are examples of entirely legitimate campaigning. That's why I've said before that I have no problem with any of this. If anyone doesn't like what someone else is trying to promote, then do your own promotion for what you do like.