Puppy Post-Mortem

[swan_tower]

So the Hugo Awards have been handed out, and the result is: fandom as a whole said in almost every instance that it would rather see No Award than a Puppy candidate win. I’ve heard the factoid bandied about that No Award has been given five times in the previous history of the Hugos; this Worldcon added five more to that total, in Novella, Short Story, Related Work, and both Editor categories, all of which contained no candidates not from one or both slates.

I’m okay with this, and in fact I’m one of the people who voted No Award with a liberal hand. I did this primarily as a way of registering my opposition to slate tactics (regardless of who uses them); in most cases, though, it was also an accurate reflection of my feelings on the nominees. In the work categories (as opposed to the personal categories) in particular, the items on offer were just . . . not that good. The best of them was moderately entertaining, but not, in my opinion, Hugo-worthy. Did the fact that they came from slates incline me to look more critically than I might have otherwise? Perhaps. But I’ll note that I also voted No Award in a category that wasn’t all Puppies, because I honestly didn’t think there was anything on the ballot, Puppy or otherwise, that really deserved the rocket.

Of course some of the Puppies are declaring victory, because they set this up as a situation where any outcome could be spun as a win. Their candidates win? Victory! Proof that there’s a cabal that has been unfairly locking Their People out, and the voters really just want good old fashioned fun! Their candidates don’t win? Victory! Proof that there’s a cabal which is unfairly locking Their People out, just like the Puppies have claimed!

Quite apart from the risibility of the entire “cabal” notion in the first place, I think there are two key items which undercut that narrative. The first is the success of Guardians of the Galaxy, which (if you look at the raw numbers) almost certainly would have gotten on the ballot anyway without Puppy support, and which held a commanding lead over all of its competitors through all passes of voting. In other words: people are happy to vote for good old fashioned fun, when they think it’s good. The second is the success of The Three-Body Problem, which several Puppy standard-bearers said they would totally have put on the slate if they’d thought of it in time. Again: evidence that people are not a priori conspiring against the kind of books Puppies like, just because of politics. Good books will win out, where “good” is defined as “sufficiently pleasing to a sufficiently large percentage of Hugo voters, according to whatever complicated set of criteria each voter uses to judge whether they are pleased.”

I want to make special note of three people: Larry Correia, Marko Kloos, and Matthew David Surridge. All of them were on the slates; all of them withdrew from the ballot early enough that the next item up could be added in their place. Correia’s withdrawal added The Goblin Emperor, which ran a close second to The Three-Body Problem in the voting stages. Kloos’ withdrawal added The Three-Body Problem itself — the book that ultimately won. The same goes for Matthew David Surridge and Best Fan Writer, putting Mixon (the eventual victor) on the ballot. I think it says quite a bit about the effect of the slates on nominations that the works they initially crowded out did so well when it came time to actually vote, and I want to thank all three of those men for withdrawing.

Going forward? Well, I haven’t heard yet whether the “E Pluribus Hugo” proposal fared well during the business meeting; I hope it did. I have heard rumors that next year’s Official Puppy Organizer intends to approach it more as a recommended reading list than a slate; I hope that pans out as described. In the meanwhile, I’m trying to keep track of things (and read more widely) for nominations next time around. I will be paying particular attention to those individuals from the slates whose work struck me as worthy in its own right, and nominating them for 2016 if they keep it up. It’s my way of compensating for all my No Award rankings this year: a small thing, maybe, but better than nothing.

Originally published at Swan Tower. You can comment here or there.

Comments

[forestofglory]

“E Pluribus Hugo” was passed at this years business meeting. To got into effect it will need to be ratified next year. (Also a sunset clause was added so it would need to be re-ratified in 2022 if it passes next year.) WSFS changes are slow.

[swan_tower]

Oh, I know they're slow. But they can't get anywhere if they don't clear the first hurdle. :-)

I wonder why the sunset clause got added?

[forestofglory]

I think it is fairly common that they add sunset clauses to big changes. The idea being to try things out for few years and see how they work.

I know the Popular Ratification amendment (which didn't pass) had one. They also sometimes add them to new Hugo categories.

[rosefox]

EPH passed overwhelmingly, hurrah.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

Hurrah indeed! It'll have to pass a second time next year, as I understand it, but hopefully it can keep its support.

[calico-reaction.livejournal.com]

What exactly was the EPH proposal? Is that detailed online anywhere?

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

I discussed it before in the latter half of this post (http://swan-tower.livejournal.com/737333.html); there's a link to the full version there.

[calico-reaction.livejournal.com]

Thank you! I remember reading your post, now. :)

[davidgoldfarb.livejournal.com]

You can see the PDF version here (http://www.keithwatt.org/Hugos/E_PLURIBUS_HUGO.pdf) of a PowerPoint presentation that one of the presenters gave. I think it does a great job of explaining and demonstrating EPH.

[calico-reaction.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[calico-reaction.livejournal.com]

I want to make special note of three people: Larry Correia, Marko Kloos, and Matthew David Surridge. All of them were on the slates; all of them withdrew from the ballot early enough that the next item up could be added in their place. Correia’s withdrawal added The Goblin Emperor, which ran a close second to The Three-Body Problem in the voting stages. Kloos’ withdrawal added The Three-Body Problem itself — the book that ultimately won. The same goes for Matthew David Surridge and Best Fan Writer, putting Mixon (the eventual victor) on the ballot. I think it says quite a bit about the effect of the slates on nominations that the works they initially crowded out did so well when it came time to actually vote, and I want to thank all three of those men for withdrawing.

Going forward? Well, I haven’t heard yet whether the “E Pluribus Hugo” proposal fared well during the business meeting; I hope it did. I have heard rumors that next year’s Official Puppy Organizer intends to approach it more as a recommended reading list than a slate; I hope that pans out as described. In the meanwhile, I’m trying to keep track of things (and read more widely) for nominations next time around. I will be paying particular attention to those individuals from the slates whose work struck me as worthy in its own right, and nominating them for 2016 if they keep it up. It’s my way of compensating for all my No Award rankings this year: a small thing, maybe, but better than nothing.

Yes to ALL of this.

[amysisson.livejournal.com]

I went to the business meeting and voted in favor of EPH. During discussion, a person who I believe to be one of the official Sad Puppy organizers for next year spoke in favor of EPH, which boosts my confidence that next year's sad puppy actions really may just be the issuance of a recommended reading list. Rabids are another story, of course, but we may be moving towards more common ground with the sad puppies.

I still want EPH to be ratified, though. It strikes me as pretty darn inspired.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

Rabid dogs will bite. It's what they do. But we can put measures in place that will limit their range.

EPH is great because it doesn't only limit the power of slates, it makes nominations themselves more flexible. If I read seven great novels in a given year, or only three, I can nominate whatever number seems suitable, without being limited or worrying that I'm "wasting" nomination slots.

[amysisson.livejournal.com]

I will admit, I'm beyond impressed at what they've put into this proposal. I truly can't see a down side to it.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

The only downside I see is that it makes the nominations counting process more complicated. But once you write the software to run it for you, that problem is more or less solved.

[calico-reaction.livejournal.com]

Don't forget to send kudos to Annie Bellet too. She withdrew her story because of the controversy, and after hearing her take on this, I have so much sympathy for her and want to give her ALL THE HUGS.

http://www.wired.com/2015/08/won-science-fictions-hugo-awards-matters/