Finalists: 2015 Hugo Award

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

To be slander, it must be untrue. I can't speak to VD's taste in footgear, but after reading his posts, the "neo-Nazi" part appears to be accurate. He literally considers minorities to be subhuman, and has explicitly said so on multiple occasions. How is acknowledging that slanderous?

Sigh. Of course, calling someone a nazi is the classic example of when someone has stepped over the line in an internet debate. Is he a neo-nazi, i.e. a member of a specific party? Unlikely and most certainly not openly. So, unless Stross has proof that VD really is a member of a neo-nazi party, then it most certainly is slander, even if one finds VD's views distasteful.

[doubleshuffle]

Of course. It walks like a duck and talks like a duck but if you call it a duck it's slander...

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

So we end up with the Hugos being awarded for books with the best organized campaigns. Somehow, I don't see that as a ringing endorsement for the quality of the books anymore. Perhaps the embossed gold medal on the front of the winning books should read "Hugo Award Winner. Totem of the Best Organized Tribe".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rkomar

So we end up with the Hugos being awarded for books with the best organized campaigns. Somehow, I don't see that as a ringing endorsement for the quality of the books anymore. Perhaps the embossed gold medal on the front of the winning books should read "Hugo Award Winner. Totem of the Best Organized Tribe".

The Hugo has always been a popularity contest; it's never been about literary merit.

[Doonge]

JUst stumbled upon this article while fetching latest news about Game of Thrones:
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/...d-sad-puppies/

Makes me care even less about the Hugo.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Doonge

JUst stumbled upon this article while fetching latest news about Game of Thrones:
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/...d-sad-puppies/

Makes me care even less about the Hugo.

Didn't bother reading more than the first couple of paragraphs, but the comments are to die for!

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by Doonge

JUst stumbled upon this article while fetching latest news about Game of Thrones:
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/...d-sad-puppies/

Yeah, about that...

You might want to check out this piece as well:

http://monsterhunternation.com/2011/...rldcon-report/

Compare Correia's 2011 report to his 2015 recollection, and you may see some interesting differences. I certainly did. For instance, in the 2015 piece, here's how Larry sums up his WorldCon experience:

I met many wonderful people at that WorldCon. I also had many people treat me like garbage. I was berated by other panelists. I had people get up and leave the room when I entered. I had belligerent drunks challenging me at room parties because “Oh, it’s that f---er”.

(Last word censored for this forum.)

Later, when he gets to the part about Brad taking over for SP3, Larry says:

I told my WorldCon experience above. I know Brad had a similar experience when he first got involved with WorldCon too.

It so happens that Larry mentioned Brad's experience in 2011:

Well, that and my roommate was very excited. Brad Torgersen had the best WorldCon EVAR! Not that I can say what all happened to him, but his star is certainly on the rise. It must be pretty cool to have David Brin single you out in an auditorium and introduce you as the FUTURE OF SCIENCE FICTION, and how that in a few years you will bury everyone.

Yeah, that sure sounds like a horrible experience. Hey, look, there's Brad himself in the 2011 post's comments!

Brad R. Torgersen, on August 25, 2011 at 3:05 pm said:
Great write-up Larry! And yes, it was definitely the best first WorldCon EVAAAARRRRR for me. The David Brin exclamation only being the tip of a (potentially) momentous iceberg. As for the Campbell, if I am on the short list, I should bring a kevlar in place of the tiara. Given how tough it is to break into the biz, a kevlar is far, far more practical — and emblematic. So if you’re doing Chicon 7, vote TORGERSEN and restore dignity to the Best New Writer award. (grin)

So much for Brad having an awful time. Don't take my word for it, though. You have the links. See for yourself.

Meanwhile, I'll keep reading GRRM's posts on the subject. I may not agree with everything he says, but he substantiates his assertions and speaks rationally. LC's behaving like a snake-oil salesman, hoping he can get you mad enough now that you won't go back and see what he said before. It's a con job, and it's high time someone called it that.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The Hugo has always been a popularity contest; it's never been about literary merit.

But it used to be about the most popular book. Now it's about the most popular faction.

Shari

[Doonge]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

Yeah, about that...

I've just read the 2011 report, since you made me, but I don't see the problem?
I might have comprehension handicap, since it's not my world at all, but it reads consistent with his 2015 recollection (sorry to say).

You see, I'm not exactly on Correia's side. I think everybody that goes public will get a share of hate and bigotry, and I think it's best not to dwelve on it (if possible). Would Correia openly bash the WorldCon after his first visit? Well, he kinda mentionned commercial vs academic writers in his 2011 (I don't know precisely what this means, but I have an idea), and he mentionned that he wasn't the kind of author people from the WorldCon liked too. That's consistent.
Should he have then mentionned the (maybe non existing) people that berated him at his FIRST WorldCon? I don't think I would have, but I'm no writer. Would you?

You see, even if he was really berated and badly treated by some (it is not actually one of his claims that has my interest, maybe yours, but not mine), it would not necessarily make his overall experience a bad one. He mentionned he met awesome people, and awesome people do turn the tides. They bring hope, motivation and comfort.

I am a GRRM reader. I don't know Correia nor did I ever read one of his books (until now, and I'm sad to say that I shall give it a try just because of this controversy). I don't think it's a Correia vs GRRM issue, as they do seem to converge.

Do you have something more substantial? I will read it if you think it matters to set some important things straight.
For me, the important get away is that the Hugo are a popularity contest, and that those are to be gamed by cliques. I don't think the Sad Puppies thing is a good thing per se, but it does seem honest to me (it's a straightforward clique).

Best regards.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by Doonge

I've just read the 2011 report, since you made me, but I don't see the problem?
I might have comprehension handicap, since it's not my world at all, but it reads consistent with his 2015 recollection (sorry to say).

Let's see. Right after the event, he raved about how much fun he and Brad had there, and Brad chimed in to agree. Four years later, somehow that same event - the Reno WorldCon in 2011 - was a nightmarish hellscape for both of them.

Either they both lied about their experiences in 2011, or Larry's doing so now. Difference is, Larry's playing to a rabid audience now, trying to motivate them to Get Out The Vote and Destroy All Hugos. Horror stories about Poor Widdle Larry's Horrible Experience do that quite nicely. The 2015 post is red meat for his base.

Originally Posted by Doonge

Would Correia openly bash the WorldCon after his first visit?

If his 2015 version of events is correct, why WOULDN'T he? Remember, in 2015 he says that was when he decided to go all outspoken. If that was such a critical moment, why give such a good review?

Originally Posted by Doonge

Should he have then mentionned the (maybe non existing) people that berated him at his FIRST WorldCon? I don't think I would have, but I'm no writer. Would you?

If I'd had that bad a time, I would've either said so or kept my mouth shut on the whole subject. I damn sure wouldn't have written a glowing review of the experience, complete with happy photos.

Originally Posted by Doonge

You see, even if he was really berated and badly treated by some (it is not actually one of his claims that has my interest, maybe yours, but not mine), it would not necessarily make his overall experience a bad one. He mentionned he met awesome people, and awesome people do turn the tides. They bring hope, motivation and comfort.

Except you can't have it both ways. Either the overall experience was cool, like he said at the time, or it was a nightmare, like he says now. At least one of the posts is false. Larry's lying.

Originally Posted by Doonge

For me, the important get away is that the Hugo are a popularity contest, and that those are to be gamed by cliques. I don't think the Sad Puppies thing is a good thing per se, but it does seem honest to me (it's a straightforward clique).

Whereas for me, the important thing is that Larry started Sad Puppies based on his unsubstantiated allegation that there's a Seekrit Librul Cabal rigging the most prestigious award in science fiction, and not only is he willing to burn the village to "save" it, but he's willing to do anything and partner with anyone to trash the award.

Please understand, when I first met him, I thought he was a decent guy. We got along, he sent me galleys of his next book, things were great. It took a lot of work to destroy all of that good will, but he got it done. I mean, when someone tells me to my face that they didn't bother responding to my actual point because they "knew" what I really meant, I start to lose faith in their integrity. When they proceed to jump straight to Glenn Beck-style conspiracy theories about shadowy cabals pulling strings, I start to lose confidence in their ability to reason.

At this point, I'd double-check if he told me the sky was blue. He's gone all the way from "cool guy" to "I think I'll skip my regular January con because he's going to be there and I don't want to chance running into him." (And that's out of disgust, not fear. Just to be clear.)

[DiapDealer]

I'll be honest: I think Larry just knows that there's monetary value in notoriety--good and bad. And that the "loud A-hole" technique would gain him the notoriety he craved more quickly than any other method.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'll be honest: I think Larry just knows that there's monetary value in notoriety--good and bad. And that the "loud A-hole" technique would gain him the notoriety he craved more quickly than any other method.

yep. No such thing as bad publicity....maybe....

[Doonge]

Your position is of someone's who knows the guy, and analyzes all what he says because of past experience.
Your experience is valuable, of course, but such is not my angle.

If I met awful people in a convention, alongside wonderful ones, I think I'd be able to focus on the awesome ones and write a glee review.
But I'm ready to admit you're right about that, I think it's secondary.

I understand that what's important to you is the bad treatment Sad Puppies inflicts on this award. You call the treatment unsusbstantiated, and you call the award the most prestigious.
Here's my angle: saying that popularity awards are cliques' games doesn't need substantiation for me, it's a default assumption. Furthermore, trashing a prestigious award is not a bad thing in itself, because it will either kill the award (showing that despite being "the most prestigious", the award was weak) or strengthen it in the long run. If there is some value to the Hugo, it will be kept.

It is a possibility that this guy is just a conspirationist, as you put it. But it seems to me that, facts asides, all he wanted was that the Hugo award to be self-recognized as a regular "biased" (not a bad connotation here) award and not an all-inclusive unbiased one; and then proceeded to demonstrate it with an autistic accountant efficiency level.
It is desirable to nicely paint the Hugo award brand, but it shouldn't be a lie. If the Hugo award is valuable, then value must be there to back it up.
Another way to put it is that fighting bias is a scientific-level task. It is not easy. Does the Hugo award voting process contain inherent bias? I don't know, but by default my assumption is yes. I know how hard it is to remove bias, and I also know it's not even always desirable anyway.
To me, saying that there is probably bias in the Hugo award is totally non-controversial, and problems arise only when people want to assert it is unbiased (whether it is true or not, I do not know if the Hugos are actually good or bad, I don't care personally).

Per assumption, it seems to me that at worse, this Correia is an honest autistic guy that is trashing a weak award just to make a point. Not exactly praiseworthy, but not conspirationist either.


I've now read the whole thread, and I appreciate your contribution. Especially the straw explanation ^^

Regarding your analogy to hacking, white and black hats; consider that this Corroeia maybe couldn't take the white route. In my opinion, the worst route is doing nothing (well, it could be black hat too, it is in fact situational : it depends if your own black hat actions are the most damaging thing to do or not, because doing nothing lets another one the opportunity to do black hat things). Doing nothing is similar to letting worse people than you the opportunity to do black hat stuff themselves, in the future.

Corroeia claims to have gone the white hat route first, then opted for the black hat route after being met with incredulity of some sort.
Depending on the long term real damage done on the Hugo, going black hat might have been a good option. Because if Corroeia is right, the Hugo would have rotten into irrelevance and died without his feat. Acting forces them to react.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'll be honest: I think Larry just knows that there's monetary value in notoriety--good and bad. And that the "loud A-hole" technique would gain him the notoriety he craved more quickly than any other method.

Given that he's already a best selling author, I'm thinking that this isn't about publicity or notoriety. I tend to take people at their word unless they give me reason not to. It seems likely that Corriea is involved in all this for the reasons that he gives.

[mgbino]

I'm still like 30% sure that "Vox Day" is performance art of some kind. I met the guy before his Vox persona caught on, and what I see from online just doesn't jive with the guy I met.

In more on topic thoughts, I'm not really sure what I'll vote for this year for best novel. I liked Ancillary Justice, but not enough to bother continuing with the series. I REFUSE to read Goblin Emperor, I still have PTSD from one of her earlier books (A Companion to Wolves). I don't really enjoy urban fantasy, so no Jim Butcher for me. That leaves me between Kloos (which I liked, but wasn't crazy about) and Anderson (which I still need to read).

And I'm not doing the whole "no award" thing unless a category really deserves it.