2015 Hugo Award winners

[meeera]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid I strongly disagree with you. Campaigning for your favoured candidate is a standard - and entirely legitimate - part of any electoral process. It's not "dishonourable", "unethical", "shitty" or "childish". If you dislike the nominations that someone else is urging you to make, you are entirely free to ignore them or, even better, promote the nominees that you think should be considered for the award.

To change the democratic process when people - shock! horror! - actually start using it in an entirely legitimate way seems to me to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I do not agree with the aims of this particular group, but I 100% support their right to take the actions they took.

I have already said that they have the right to do it.

If you truly, honestly believe in your heart that every single slate nominantor truly loved and adored exactly those five things in every category, the most out of everything that year, in exactly the same order as all the other slate voters did? Well, I just plain don't believe you. Because no one is that gullible.

Yes, they had the right. It was legal. It was also wrong.

Because this is not an election campaign. It's not the Republican nominations. it's a fan award of things we love, and the honest way to take part is to nominate the things you love.

But there's nothing against the letter of the law about not nominating the things you love the most.

But you know what really gets my goat even more? People who support the Puppies slate nomination process because it's within the rules, then yelling at people who voted No Award.

No, I'm not going to campaign for a competing slate, and I've seen less than a handful of people supporting that. Splitting the community into two pitted, political nomination slates is exactly the worst possible outcome. The whole point is for a huge diversity of loved, amazing works to be nominated by the people who love them. Not for an Americanised, party-political process to take over because of the actions of a few foul* people with a grudge.

(* if you want to dispute whether or not TB is foul, we're off to P&R.)

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid I strongly disagree with you. Campaigning for your favoured candidate is a standard - and entirely legitimate - part of any electoral process. It's not "dishonourable", "unethical", "shitty" or "childish". If you dislike the nominations that someone else is urging you to make, you are entirely free to ignore them or, even better, promote the nominees that you think should be considered for the award.

To change the democratic process when people - shock! horror! - actually start using it in an entirely legitimate way seems to me to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I do not agree with the aims of this particular group, but I 100% support their right to take the actions they took.

It's legal, but it's something that has always been against the spirit of the award, and which the voters clearly will not reward.

I think it would be a huge shame if the award devolved into some kind of party system of competing blocs. I certainly wouldn't bother to take part or take much interest in the winners any more.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by meeera

If you truly, honestly believe in your heart that every single slate nominantor truly loved and adored exactly those five things in every category, the most out of everything that year, in exactly the same order as all the other slate voters did? Well, I just plain don't believe you. Because no one is that gullible.

Yes, they had the right. It was legal. It was also wrong.

Because this is not an election campaign. It's not the Republican nominations. it's a fan award of things we love, and the honest way to take part is to nominate the things you love.

I'm sorry, but it is an election campaign. It always has been. An election is simply "the selection of something by vote". The Hugos are a popularity contest, pure and simple. It's never been about "what's the best book?", but "which book do most people vote for?", which is entirely different. All that's happened here is that people with an agenda have started using social media for campaigning, just as happens in any election. It was inevitable that this was going to happen.

But you know what really gets my goat even more? People who support the Puppies slate nomination process because it's within the rules, then yelling at people who voted No Award.

If that was addressed at me, I haven't criticised the outcome at all .

[meeera]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry, but it is an election campaign. It always has been. An election is simply "the selection of something by vote". The Hugos are a popularity contest, pure and simple. It's never been about "what's the best book?", but "which book do most people vote for?", which is entirely different. All that's happened here is that people with an agenda have started using social media for campaigning, just as happens in any election. It was inevitable that this was going to happen.

[Just to check: you do understand the mathematics and mechanics of the nomination process, don't you? And they way in which a small number of people nominating an identical slate can overwhelm a much larger number of people voting for a wide diversity of beloved works? That the slate nominators in no way represented the majority?]

"It was inevitable"? Was it? I read a large number of SF blogs and take part in a lot of SF social media, and I've never seen a slate proposed and adopted like this before the Puppies. I see a lot of people talking about stuff they love, and saying "hey, what do you love and why? If I like the sound of it, I might read it too". None of that is campaigning or slate-nominating or encouraging slate-nominating. Neither are the simple eligibility statements some publishers/authors make; those are useful for figuring out which category a work should be nominated in so you don't have to do the word count or publication-year check yourself, if you're already a fan.

Maybe it was eventually statistically inevitable given enough time and enough monkeys (or maybe not), but if you think this is business as usual for the Hugos, you're wrong. It is a popularity contest in that the works/authors with the most votes win, but that doesn't mean that it is a "campaign" in the sense that party political election campaigns are campaigns. Most fans are honest folks who take the nomination process as an opportunity to vote for the stuff they loved, instead of playing simplistic culture-war games.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If that was addressed at me, I haven't criticised the outcome at all .

It wasn't. This isn't the only place this conversation is happening.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by meeera

[Just to check: you do understand the mathematics and mechanics of the nomination process, don't you? And they way in which a small number of people nominating an identical slate can overwhelm a much larger number of people voting for a wide diversity of beloved works? That the slate nominators in no way represented the majority?]

Yes, I understand the process.

Maybe it was eventually statistically inevitable given enough time and enough monkeys (or maybe not), but if you think this is business as usual for the Hugos, you're wrong.

I meant "inevitable" in the sense that social media campaigning happens for pretty much everything in life these days.

Most fans are honest folks who take the nomination process as an opportunity to vote for the stuff they loved, instead of playing simplistic culture-war games.

Where I'm afraid I take issue is the idea that it's "dishonest" to push an agenda. It's not. You don't have to like it (and I personally don't like it), but it's in no way dishonest.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Where I'm afraid I take issue is the idea that it's "dishonest" to push an agenda. It's not. You don't have to like it (and I personally don't like it), but it's in no way dishonest.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. The ballot paper itself says that it's an award for "excellence" - to me, that means that you should nominate and vote for the words you found most excellent. The paper continues in that vein, talking about you voting for the works you "prefer", works your "heart is set on". The category names are all headed "Best", which to me says that you should put in them works you believe are the best. And so on. I think that to claim to interpret it otherwise is straight-out disingenuous.

People can tie themselves up into knots all they like to justify their own prejudices ("Oh, but I think this one is the "best" in the sense that it's "best for Theodore Beale's publishing career, such as it is!"). But I doubt there are many people who truly think the slate voters voted for what they thought were the most excellent/best works.

[DrNefario]

I'd be happy if the Puppies found a book they really liked, got behind it, and tried to convince me of its excellence. Let it compete against the books other people like, and try not to turn everybody who's not with you against you.

I'm not so happy if they find five works that represent some point they want to score, and then deny anyone else a voice, except to say "no".*

But I'm not in charge. I'm just a guy who likes to read SF and F of many different flavours. The award can go on with or without my participation or recognition.

[kennyc]

from io9:

This Is What The 2015 Hugo Ballot Should Have Been

Last night, the Hugo Awards were handed out. And the fans rejected the attempt of a small minority to impose its ideology on the nominations via slate-voting. But last night, we also learned which works would have been on the ballot, if the nominations hadn’t been rigged.

As we covered in last night’s liveblog, the Hugo voters chose “No Award” over any candidates pushed by the slates. And where there were non-slate candidates, they overwhelmingly won the vote. You can read the full results here. If you’re new to the entire kerfuffle over the Hugo Awards, here’s a primer.

But as is traditional after the Hugo Awards, the organizers also released detailed statistics on the nominations and voting process, including the list of works that were kept off the ballot by the organized backlash of the “Sad Puppies” and “Rabid Puppies.”

And last night, after the ceremony, George R.R. Martin held a special afterparty, where the A Song of Ice and Fire author staged his own awards ceremony. Martin created the brand new “Alfie” awards, named after Alfred Bester, and created them out of genuine 1950s car hood ornaments (which is what the original Hugo Awards looked like.) Martin gave Alfie awards to Patrick Rothfuss, Ursula Vernon, Jo Walton, John Joseph Adams and Liz Gorinsky, the people who should have been on the ballot (and who had received the most nominations.) He also gave special Alfie awards to Marko Kloos and Annie Bellet, who had been nominated thanks to the slates but had withdrawn from consideration, and Eric Flint, who has been a voice of moderation in this dispute.
....

http://io9.com/this-is-what-the-2015...ium=socialflow

[ST-One]

Originally Posted by meeera

If you truly, honestly believe in your heart that every single slate nominantor truly loved and adored exactly those five things in every category, the most out of everything that year, in exactly the same order as all the other slate voters did? Well, I just plain don't believe you. Because no one is that gullible.

Or, they just took the easy road and made good use of that ballot of works they've already read instead of coming up with their own nominations?

BTW: What's that forced-outing story that's won last year got to do with SciFi?

[darryl]

Originally Posted by meeera

But I doubt there are many people who truly think the slate voters voted for what they thought were the most excellent/best works.

Probably about the same number who think the no award voters actually read all of the stories concerned with an open mindand genuinely and independently decided that not a single one deserved an award. I'm not taking sides. Just pointing out that political manipulation goes both ways.

I also wasn't impressed with the Puppies slate, but I have not read the alternatives so I don't know if I consider them any more deserving. I do intend to read The Three Body Problem in the near future.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

The awards weren't cancelled, No Award is always on the ballot. It's a preferential ballot, and it's always likely that there are some nominees you don't like, so you can put "no award" above them. Since most of the shortlists were rigged by trolls this year, a lot of people didn't want any of the entries to win.

Some people are treating it as a victory over the idiot Puppy campaigns*, but it still looks like everyone loses to me.

*If you think SF fandom has "gone wrong", somehow, then maybe try picking a great book and getting behind it, instead of flooding the ballot with mediocrities and insulting and alienating the neutrals whose votes you need.

If one really wants to understand the Science Fiction Awards, Fans, World Conventions and socially inept adults, then all you have to do is read BARRY MALZBERG:

"Gather in the Hall of the Planets"

He'll set you straight.

[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.
Perhaps is this is why I am reading more Mystery these days. I used to read mostly SciFi and now don't enjoy it so much. Went to Romance and now after the success of 50 Shades so many romances have needless, gratuitous sex scenes that I find myself flicking through whole chunks.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by ST-One

BTW: What's that forced-outing story that's won last year got to do with SciFi?

"The Water that Falls on You from Nowhere"? Well, it's probably the water falling on you from nowhere part that makes it fantastical.

Wakulla Springs and "If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love" were the ones I had my doubts about, last year. I tell myself that the reason I voted against the latter was because it wasn't genre, but the truth is I just didn't like it as a story. I was happy enough to vote for Wakulla Springs because I did like it.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

"The Water that Falls on You from Nowhere"? Well, it's probably the water falling on you from nowhere part that makes it fantastical.

Wakulla Springs and "If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love" were the ones I had my doubts about, last year. I tell myself that the reason I voted against the latter was because it wasn't genre, but the truth is I just didn't like it as a story. I was happy enough to vote for Wakulla Springs because I did like it.

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.