2015 Hugo Award winners

[DrNefario]

Annoyingly, it's the only one of the three non-puppy novel nominees I haven't read. I was intending to read it last month, but other things got in the way. I will attempt to start it soon.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by meeera

Nope. Bye.

While I don't believe that is terribly likely to be true, you do realize that re: the points made further along... you kind of walked right into that?

And for the record, I don't believe @Doonge seriously believed it either.


...


I don't believe I have seen a particular dominance of male characters over female characters.

Disabled characters require a specific kind of story which likewise I see often enough -- granted that the majority of stories simply wouldn't be as interesting, if authors randomly disabled characters in a forced manner in order to hit the reader over the head with the diversity hammer (thanks @ST-One).
And that is *my* turn-off.

As for gay and trans people... I don't know that trans people are a sufficient presence in the general populace that they should be a significant presence in literature as well?
Neither are wholly particularly relevant except insomuch as it relates to the plot, i.e. romance -- and that's usually either another genre or else a minor (sometimes very minor) subplot.
Maybe you should campaign to have the authors publicly despised, similar to Marion Zimmer Bradley, but I fail to see why that should mar your enjoying the story, any more than I (fail to) understand why people want to retroactively unenjoy Bradley's works.



Of your four criteria for demanding that readers be hit over the head with the diversity hammer, three are IMHO absolutely ridiculous.
And I still don't care, since I value a good story far more than the diversity therein.

[HarryT]

Authors can take the diversity thing too far, though. Mercedes Lackey in particular seems intent on having gay characters in every book she writes and rams their sexual orientation down the reader's throat even when it's totally irrelevant to the plot, which becomes somewhat tedious after a while.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Authors can take the diversity thing too far, though. Mercedes Lackey in particular seems intent on having gay characters in every book she writes and rams their sexual orientation down the reader's throat even when it's totally irrelevant to the plot, which becomes somewhat tedious after a while.

But there's lots of tedious character traits, habits, descriptions, and flowery infodumps which are totally irrelevant to the plot that get rammed down readers' throats in most stories/novels--always has been. So why on earth should "diversity" be held to such a high "must be plot relevant or leave it out" standard when little else is?

Not wanting to read books with irrelevantly gay characters is fine and dandy (in the sense that everyone is free to dislike what they dislike). Just don't try to fool yourself into believing that it's for reasons other than your own personal hangups/dogma/preferences (which we all have). The whole "not plot relevant" thing simply doesn't wash. As readers of novels, we gobble up things that aren't plot-relevant in bulk. Often times without decrying it to the world.

I also think people make the mistake of believing there has to be some sort of agenda behind "diversity." As if it couldn't possibly be that diverse authors are just writing what's near and dear to them and it's resonating with diverse readers.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But there's lots of tedious character traits, habits, descriptions, and flowery infodumps which are totally irrelevant to the plot that get rammed down readers' throats in most stories/novels--always has been. So why on earth should "diversity" be held to such a high "must be plot relevant or leave it out" standard when little else is?

Oh, I don't think that. It's simply that Lackey's gay characters are, generally speaking, intensely irritating angst-filled people who let down what would otherwise be good books. But perhaps that's just me.

[Critteranne]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Oh, I don't think that. It's simply that Lackey's gay characters are, generally speaking, intensely irritating angst-filled people who let down what would otherwise be good books. But perhaps that's just me.

That sounds like many of her straight characters as well, at least in her most recent Valdemar books. (Then again, that's what I'm hoping for when I open up on of her Valdemar books...)

I've often read reviews that ask "Why was this character ____? It has no relevance to the plot." (Fill in the blank with a creed or orientation or ethnicity or whatever.) It doesn't have to be relevant to the plot. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Authors can take the diversity thing too far, though. Mercedes Lackey in particular seems intent on having gay characters in every book she writes and rams their sexual orientation down the reader's throat even when it's totally irrelevant to the plot, which becomes somewhat tedious after a while.

If it becomes sufficiently noticeable as to mess up an otherwise-would-have-been-good plot, then of course that becomes a bad story, which many authors are capable of even without excessive use of the diversity hammer.

Bad stories need no reason for my disapproval other than "it was a bad story full of irrelevancies that ultimately ended up obscuring the actual plot".

Sometimes that is extraordinarily-hyped-up gay characters. Usually it has nothing to do with anyone's preferences.
(Funnily enough, I cannot think of anyone who has ever ruined a story by excessively pushing heterosexuality down the reader's throat...)

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But there's lots of tedious character traits, habits, descriptions, and flowery infodumps which are totally irrelevant to the plot that get rammed down readers' throats in most stories/novels--always has been. So why on earth should "diversity" be held to such a high "must be plot relevant or leave it out" standard when little else is?

Not wanting to read books with irrelevantly gay characters is fine and dandy (in the sense that everyone is free to dislike what they dislike). Just don't try to fool yourself into believing that it's for reasons other than your own personal hangups/dogma/preferences (which we all have). The whole "not plot relevant" thing simply doesn't wash. As readers of novels, we gobble up things that aren't plot-relevant in bulk. Often times without decrying it to the world.

I also think people make the mistake of believing there has to be some sort of agenda behind "diversity." As if it couldn't possibly be that diverse authors are just writing what's near and dear to them and it's resonating with diverse readers.

No, no, no, you have it all backward.
There is a non-diversity plot, amongst straight, white, non-disabled, male cis authors. Apparently.


Between the Sad Puppies who are positive there is an evil quote-unquote "diversity" plot, and the people who react by claiming there is an evil "non-diversity" plot, I am surprised we have any books at all that aren't just shallow, thinly disguised propaganda in the diversity wars. Oh, what will we ever read?!?!?!

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

If it becomes sufficiently noticeable as to mess up an otherwise-would-have-been-good plot, then of course that becomes a bad story, which many authors are capable of even without excessive use of the diversity hammer.

Bad stories need no reason for my disapproval other than "it was a bad story full of irrelevancies that ultimately ended up obscuring the actual plot".

Sometimes that is extraordinarily-hyped-up gay characters. Usually it has nothing to do with anyone's preferences.
(Funnily enough, I cannot think of anyone who has ever ruined a story by excessively pushing heterosexuality down the reader's throat...)
:

I've certainly read books where the heterosexual protagonist's 'love' life is pushing the plot out of the way. Sometimes there's even the excessive angst over desiring someone(s) that *shouldn't* be desired for whatever reason. But it's true that I've not thought to call it pushing heterosexuality (pushing sex on the other hand)

[hildea]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

(Funnily enough, I cannot think of anyone who has ever ruined a story by excessively pushing heterosexuality down the reader's throat...)

I can think of one example. The protagonist was an elite guard, very lojal to the king (lots of angst when the king didn't deserve that lojalty), and spent most of the book doing heroic stuff together with his brothers in arms.

He met a woman at court, they fell in love and married, and he went back to heroing. Occasionally we'd see him thinking about how much he loved her and their children, but we never saw any other signs of that love, and the book didn't spend any time on anything they did together.

At the time I just thought of it as a weird, tacked-on part of the story that didn't ring true. But now I'm beginning to suspect that it was stuffed in there to reassure the readers that this man, who had most of his intense, meaningful relationships with other men, was straigth.

Since all of society pushes straightness as the norm, we wouldn't notice it if a book did the same. I'm absolutely sure that you could write two versions of a book, identical except some minor characters were gay in one version and straight in the other, and some readers would complain that "sexual orientation was being rammed down their throat" in the first version, but noone would think about it in the second version.

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Use Urban Fantasy instead then, probably a similar mix to sci-fi slanting more towards the female side for readers and virtually dominated by white female protagonists.

I think I lost sight of how this is related to the Hugo discussion, but Harry Potter, Harry Dresden, and a lot of Gaiman's books spring to mind. Virtually dominated by white protagonists, I agree with. (Though I strongly recomment Ben Aaronovitch's series about a London cop, with a black male protagonist.)

(Added) Oh, and Katniss in the Hunger Games wasn't white in the books. Her mother, sister, Peeta's family, and most of the upper class in the district are pale and tend to be blond, but most of the miners, including her father and Katniss, have darker skin and hair. I'm disappointed that they chose to whitewash her in the films.

[eschwartz]

It is kinda-sorta related to the Hugos since apparently the Sad Puppies are all hot and bothered that an evil cult of agenda-ist authors is conspiring to ram homosexuality down our throats.
And at least according to one MR member, it appears the solution is to complain about the evil cult of agenda-ist authors conspiring to ram heterosexuality down our throats.

This is apparently the big issue facing literature today.

[bgalbrecht]

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.

Many Worldcon members, myself included, were unhappy that Beale's slate in many categories was stacking the deck in favor of his publishing house, and would have been just as upset if Tor or Ace had created a slate favoring their own works. When the Scientologists tried to do the same with one of Hubbard's works, the voters rejected it soundly also.

[ST-One]

Originally Posted by hildea

Since all of society pushes straightness as the norm, we wouldn't notice it if a book did the same. I'm absolutely sure that you could write two versions of a book, identical except some minor characters were gay in one version and straight in the other, and some readers would complain that "sexual orientation was being rammed down their throat" in the first version, but noone would think about it in the second version.

And I'm absolutely sure that, in this day and age, no one would give a damn. And frankly, my dear, neither would I, nor do I.

I am gay, and as such have "held on to quite a few 'fallacies' in my life" (to quote Stephen Fry), and I don't see the issue with 'straightness' being seen as the norm; it IS the norm and it will never be not the norm.

[murg]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It is kinda-sorta related to the Hugos since apparently the Sad Puppies are all hot and bothered that an evil cult of agenda-ist authors is conspiring to ram homosexuality down our throats.
And at least according to one MR member, it appears the solution is to complain about the evil cult of agenda-ist authors conspiring to ram heterosexuality down our throats.

This is apparently the big issue facing literature today.

I'm sure that ultimately it's all Amazon's fault.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by murg

I'm sure that ultimately it's all Amazon's fault.

What, both sides?

[murg]

Originally Posted by murg

I'm sure that ultimately it's all Amazon's fault.

Apparently, the moderation team thinks that this is a nonsensical post.

In fact, it is a very serious comment on the whole fiasco that the Hugos have become.

We are all pretty much agreed that Amazon has changed the publishing landscape. Before Amazon, Science Fiction was written, was submitted to publishers and for the most part, middle-aged white guys pondered on these and bought what they thought they could sell to the SF audience (primary white straight males). What they could sell in those four bays of shelves that B&N or Borders allocated to SF. So, pretty much established authors and relatively benign newcomers were getting contracts, and frankly boring stuff was happening.

Then along came Amazon, and two things happened. Firstly, any published book could be bought, anywhere. So, a small press that was willing to take a risk on a non-benign author found that they could actually sell their product globally, far beyond the reach of the bookstores that would carry their offerings. And without the dreaded returns to deal with! Oh, joy!

Secondly, anyone could publish anything. Well, pretty much anything.

What this lead to was a flood of alternative SF. Well, a flood of alternative everything for that matter. With the flood, the visibility of this alternative SF increased, and as the visibility increased, so did the nominations for awards, such as the Hugos.

These nominations of alternative stories lead to what always happens when the middle-ages white guys feel threatened, it lead to a push-back. In this case, the rabid puppies.

So there you have it. The current Hugos fiasco is all Amazon's fault.

As I wrote this post, I found an example of this in my notes file. From a previous thread on MR, I started building a ridiculous genre title. With the new publishing landscape now that that Amazon has changed things, it is now possible to publish a book in the Gay Christian Post-Apocalyptic Science Fiction Military Prison Time-Traveling Romance genre. Not only publish a book, but to get enough books published in this genre to constitute a genre.