Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Books Sci-Fi

Hugo Awards Turn (Even More) Political 587

An anonymous reader writes Last year, the Hugo Awards went to mostly minorities and women. In response, a fan group decided to fight back against what they saw as a liberal attack on their medium. It appears that they have succeeded, as the 2015 nominees are predominantly chosen by a group called "Sad Puppies. Now a counter-counter group is trying to ensure that no one wins any Hugo awards in any category except Best Novel.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hugo Awards Turn (Even More) Political

Comments Filter:
  • by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <mashikiNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday April 06, 2015 @08:50AM (#49413683) Homepage

    Seems like the vocal minority is finally running up against people who've had enough...they're using their own tactics against them, and whining when people beat them at their own game. Oh and it wasn't liberals(tip it was mainly liberals that started the campaign) it was that lovely 'social justice warrior' crowd, that loves to call anyone who disagrees with them 'bigots, misogynists, racists, etc, etc, etc.'

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by sycodon ( 149926 )

      Social Justice = Give me you shit, Now!

    • by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Monday April 06, 2015 @09:09AM (#49413835) Homepage Journal

      THe problem is that they really missed the target.
      The goal is not to have more people of color, women, or one eye gay Episcopalian kangaroos to win awards,
      The point is for everyone have an equal chance to win the awards based on the quality of their work.
      AKA the issue should never have been one of inclusion. It needs to be one of ending exclusion.

      • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Monday April 06, 2015 @09:47AM (#49414181) Journal
        Was that really the goal of the "SJW" group? This quote from TFA is spot-on:

        Wherever they emerge, social-justice warriors claim to be champions of diversity. But they always reveal themselves to be relentlessly hostile to it: they applaud people of different genders, races, and cultures just so long as those people all think the same way. Theirs is a diversity of the trivial; a diversity of skin-deep, ephemeral affiliations.

        SJW of all stripes have one thing in common: a relentless drive for conformist groupthink on the issues they fight for. Few people are as scary and dangerous as the ones who are convinced that theirs is a righteous battle, and are prepared to fight it, whether their belief flows from religion or from ideals. And what appears to make the SJW crowd more belligerent is the fact that often they are right, in that there are still plenty of inequities and social injustices. Compared to other "noisy" groups like extreme right wingers, these are the noisiest, most exclusionary, and indeed most violent. And the really scary part is that because the issues they attack are real, this mindset is percolating into the mainstream. Writers being excluded from an association or from an award because they have the wrong ideas. Or in my home country, where no one so much as blinked when a school official stated that "if you have the wrong ideas or are a member of the wrong political party, perhaps you shouldn't be a student or a teacher here". Remember Churchill: "The fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists".

        • by Livius ( 318358 ) on Monday April 06, 2015 @10:25AM (#49414483)

          SJW of all stripes have one thing in common: a relentless drive for conformist groupthink on the issues they fight for.

          I would say it's not so much groupthink, rather it's that once you define yourself as a social justice warrior, your very identity is threatened unless you are crusading against a social injustice. Thus many will crusade against an imagined injustice, or a former injustice that is resolved or very nearly resolved, rather than search for less glamorous injustices or accept that they might have achieved victory.

          Systemic biases do exist, of course, but more and more they are so minor that it's difficult to find a response that isn't disproportionate.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            The thing is, people rarely identify themselves as SJWs. As a rule, it's a term used to define others as a way to shut down debate. You see this on ./ all the time - someone takes offence at some group of other that's trying to change the status quo, so they label them a SJW, implying negative connotations, and effectively shutting down debate. It's a shitty tactic.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Salgak1 ( 20136 )
              I'm going to differ on that point: there is a significant difference between working and fighting for social justice, and those who fit into the archetype of "social justice warrior". The former are working to achieve positive results: the latter have zeroed in on their cause so recursively, that their stated goals have little, if any congruence to observed reality, and are more like a process that has ballooned to 100% CPU, preventing any actual work by the system. . .
      • by PapayaSF ( 721268 ) on Monday April 06, 2015 @01:51PM (#49416385) Journal

        AKA the issue should never have been one of inclusion. It needs to be one of ending exclusion.

        Except that science fiction and science fiction fandom has never been exclusionary of women or racial minorities or gays! That's what makes the SJW crusade in fandom so bizarre. They come up with bogus issues like "#racefail," which was the supposed scandal that most WorldCon committees consist of white people. Well, such committees are all entirely voluntary, and AFAIK there's never been a single instance of anyone ever been turned down as a volunteer because they're black or gay or whatever.

        I've also read that fandom needs more minorities because some minorities feel uncomfortable at conventions because "there aren't enough people who look like them." Well, whose fault is that? Fans are there because of a love of the genre. Why make a big deal about your race? I've also read complaints about fans asking well-meaning but awkward questions about race, e.g. "What's it like to be black and into science fiction?" Stop the presses! A nerd asks a friendly but awkward question?!? That's never happened before!! And, of course, we have the contradiction that white fans are "supposed to" be more aware of race, but heaven help them if they say something in the wrong way, whatever their intentions.

  • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Monday April 06, 2015 @08:56AM (#49413735) Journal

    Choosing someone for 'best author' because they're white and male is ridiculous.
    What doesn't ever seem to sink into the discussion is that choosing a 'best author' because they're NOT white and male is equally ridiculous.

    Then again, to accept that latter proposition would then logically bankrupt the entire concept of 'retributive' racism - ie preferentially picking brown or ovaried-people today, to correct the mistakes of previous generations - so I guess I understand that there's a whole dogma there that would have to be disassembled first.

    • *retributive racism OR retributive sexism.
      Someday /. will develop an 'edit post' feature....

    • Hugo Award for Best Black?
      • by TWX ( 665546 )
        "It's like, how much more black could this be? and the answer is none. None more black." -Nigel Tufnel, This Is Spinal Tap
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Then again, to accept that latter proposition would then logically bankrupt the entire concept of 'retributive' racism - ie preferentially picking brown or ovaried-people today, to correct the mistakes of previous generations - so I guess I understand that there's a whole dogma there that would have to be disassembled first.

      I like how you blame "previous generations" while implying that today's society is so much more advanced and fair. Yet, there are these curious statistics where females routinely make ~75% of what an equivalent male would make. And "brown people" (as you so elegantly put it) are stopped, searched and incarcerated statistically higher on average and for longer durations for the many of the same crimes that white people commit.

      Such a pure society we live in today where we can maintain the high ground,

      • by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Monday April 06, 2015 @09:57AM (#49414253)

        You don't mention that Stop And Frisk [nyclu.org]was invented in a deep Blue city and that Hilliary Clinton pays her women staffers even less than 75% [ijreview.com]

      • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Monday April 06, 2015 @12:55PM (#49415879) Journal

        Genuine question:
        If you are truly about "equality" of treatment, then what's your endpoint?

        When have we "won" the civil rights movement? I truly want to know, because as far as I can tell, the 'movement' is a self-perpetuating game of shift-the-goalposts. If there's never a victory condition, then people can just keep complaining forever.

        Do we feel women have gotten "enough" help educationally, because the majority of college students are now female? Can we stop with women-preferential programs?

        Or what about that black president? Anyone notice that?

      • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Monday April 06, 2015 @01:03PM (#49415937) Journal

        " And "brown people" (as you so elegantly put it) are stopped, searched and incarcerated statistically higher on average and for longer durations for the many of the same crimes that white people commit. "

        Are you therefore just as outraged by the sexism which is even MORE egregious in the criminal justice system?

        If you believe that black incarceration rates (being so much higher than their population) as "proof" of an injustice, then the fact that incarcerated felons are 92% male must be taken as equal "proof" of gross sexism, right? I mean, shouldn't prison populations be more like 50/50 men/women?

        Unless you're ok with asserting that men are "just naturally more likely to be criminals than women"?*

        *and doesn't that then just put you in the same place as sexists and racists, claiming that gender or skin color predisposes people to/away from criminality?

    • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Monday April 06, 2015 @10:01AM (#49414287) Journal
      Have the Hugos of the past been awarded to white males because they were white and male? Or was it simple statistics? If 80% of all SF writers are white males, then you can expect around that same fraction of the nominees to be white and male. And even if the percentage is much higher, that can be due to cultural bias: if the other 20% is relatively unknown, less successful with a smaller fan base for whatever reason, then they are even less likely to be nominated. The reason doesn't have to be anything as bad as racism or misogyny.
    • by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater.gmail@com> on Monday April 06, 2015 @12:01PM (#49415425) Homepage

      Choosing someone for 'best author' because they're white and male is ridiculous.
      What doesn't ever seem to sink into the discussion is that choosing a 'best author' because they're NOT white and male is equally ridiculous.

      True, on both counts.

      What's not true is the summary, or the article linked. (It's essential the Faux News version of events.) The Sad Puppies movement isn't really about choosing authors or works based on their color, sex, or creed. The Sad Puppies movement is about two things; First, breaking the "monopoly" of a small group of tastemakers in the nomination process. Second, breaking the "monopoly" of the same small group in determining the winners of the poll. Or, to sum up both in another way, the movement is about overcoming voter apathy and broadening the base of nominated works and voters to include a larger and more representative slice of works and fandom.

      Seriously, only a few thousand voters in total currently determine the nominees and the ultimate winners - out of a worldwide fanbase numbering in the millions. Those relative few that have dominated the nomination and selection process for decades (and the idiots who parrot their propaganda) are responding in the typical fashion of the "elites" - by demonizing those who would dare to challenge the self assumed predominance that is theirs by right. They, and the idiots who spout their propaganda, are the ones that invented the idea that Sad Puppies is all about skin color and the presence or absence of ovaries.

      On top of that, there's the whole "Johnny come lately" attitude typical of any fandom that faces a sudden influx of "new" fans. The tastemaker elite loathes the "new fan". (Not that the issue is actually new, the roots of the issue (and "political" battles over the Hugos) stretch back to the sudden breakdown of the SF ghetto walls in the late 70's and early 80's when Star Wars and Dungeons & Dragons broke out into popular culture.) But what they feel about the "new fan" is positively puppies and kittens and sunshine compared compared to the antipathy and loathing they feel towards pop culture - their slogan is (or at least should be) "Nerdom for Nerds!".

  • by danheskett ( 178529 ) <[danheskett] [at] [gmail.com]> on Monday April 06, 2015 @08:57AM (#49413747)

    It does seem like a big deal. I mean, last year there nominations titled "If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love", which was an unusual choice for both a Nebula (a different SF/F award, chosen by a jury) and a Hugo nomination. The genre is floundering fairly hard.

    • by bulled ( 956533 )

      It does seem like a big deal. I mean, last year there nominations titled "If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love", which was an unusual choice for both a Nebula (a different SF/F award, chosen by a jury) and a Hugo nomination. The genre is floundering fairly hard.

      I agree that the awards are floundering hard, but I disagree about the genre. There is a large body of good SciFi out there, you just have to look a bit harder to find it through the noise.

    • by BigT ( 70780 )

      I heard that story on EscapePod http://escapepod.org/ [escapepod.org] and couldn't figure out what it had to do with SciFi, but that was true of most of the stories during their 'Hugo Month'. In fact, the hosts noted that the only reason some of those stories were on the show was because they were Hugo nominated.

      I find including or excluding anybody or their work because of race/gender/orientation pretty disgusting.

      • That's also where I heard it. It might be a fine story, it's just sort of an odd choice for SF/F. I think the Sad Puppies campaign is a backlash against this, among other problems they see with the genre.

        What just makes it that much more odd is that the Nebula is a jury award, and is arguably (with the Hugo) the pinnacle of the industry. The author is pedigreed and connected well enough that she was a quite an industry star, and that may have helped her otherwise not SF/F work - Iowa Writers Workshop, UC

    • Re:Honestly (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06, 2015 @10:08AM (#49414331)

      It's not due to recent SJW politics though. SF has always been transgressive ever since the New Wave, and possibly even before. There's also been conservative writers, but ever since Dangerous Visions hit the market in the 70's, SF and Fantasy has trended leftward. This isn't a bad thing, even if you are conservative, so long as the story is fair and not used as a soapbox.

      The problem is science.

      No space station? Well that's because people wrote those books, and books on moon colonies or terraforming Mars when they weren't really aware of how much effort it took just to get rockets off the ground. People thought going to Mars would be as easy as driving your car to Vegas, and over time people slowly became aware that it wasn't, and science wouldn't create any magical thing that would make it so. Sf really depends too much on magic or extrapolating current ideas into the future: this is why Neuromancer is so laughable to read today in the wake of a non-VRML net and Japan slowly becoming an extinct nation. Or most old SF books on AI seem even less plausible than Pinnocchio; an algorithm is a process, not a consciousness.

      You could call this the Venus problem. Remember when 50's SF used to set plots on Venus? Notice how no one does that any more? It's because we found out how harsh it really was, and that our scientific progress can't always magically overcome this harshness. We started hitting hard limits about our ability to expand into the cosmos, and a lot of SF from the old days seems quaint because of it.

      So there really isn't much to write on save for some fields where the layman can't even understand the mathematics to make a plausible story in the first place, or the "magical science as commentary on social mores" genre. Ironically for all its atheism, SF was even more religious than most Christians; it's religion was in science, and limitless human possibility. Now that reality has snuck in about the limits of possibility and the costs associated with expanding beyond our planet, is it any wonder its dying a slow death in favor of social realist SF and fantasy?

    • Re:Honestly (Score:4, Interesting)

      by timholman ( 71886 ) on Monday April 06, 2015 @10:41AM (#49414597)

      It does seem like a big deal. I mean, last year there nominations titled "If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love", which was an unusual choice for both a Nebula (a different SF/F award, chosen by a jury) and a Hugo nomination. The genre is floundering fairly hard.

      How about the actual Hugo short story winner, "The Water That Falls on You from Nowhere"? John Chu may be a talented writer, but that story was NOT a science fiction story. It was a cliched story about a guy bringing home a partner that his family didn't approve of, with a silly "you get wet when you lie" bit tossed in at the beginning to somehow qualify it for the Hugo with a mild fantasy element.

      It was another "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" plot retread, only this time the "Who" was gay. So what? It was still a story we've all heard or seen a hundred times in the past 30 years - just substitute your race / religion / ethnicity of choice. What makes this one memorable, besides the sexuality of the main characters?

      I cannot believe there wasn't a better science fiction short story published in 2013 than Chu's story. It's not the genre that's floundering, it's what the people who are running the Hugo consider to be "worthy" that has plummeted.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Politicizing awards like this seems a bit, dare I say it, dick-ish.

    The Hugo is shaped like it is to remind us of what we are celebrating - imagining a future, hopefully better than our present.

    The fact that a 1950s/60s rocket ship is shaped like a part of the male anatomy is purely coincidental and it is not a license to encourage us to play petty political games that we should have left behind in adolescence. We are better that this.

  • I'm trying to recall the last time I read a book because it won an award... but I'm coming up blank.

    • I agree that using the list of Hugo or Nebula winners as a way to choose reading material is unreliable at best. But if you look at the books that won a Hugo as well as a Nebula, then that makes a solid list of reading recommendations.
    • by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      It's was right after you read a book because of the color of the author's skin.

    • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

      Yeah, I've actually read books based on what I have found out about them. Later, as a point of interest, I sometimes try and figure out if they won an award. Sometimes, they do. Other times, they don't.

      It's like the Oscars. There are fabulous movies that have rightfully won them. And great movies that haven't. And then there are the movies that sort of suck, but you realize that they won because they were "okay" but hit some sort of theme the Academy liked.

      At that point, you remember that it is a bunc

  • From that article, it seems people were being excluded for having certain opinions (ostensibly right-leaning ones) by others who thought of themselves as "liberal". But I don't see how anyone willing to enact such a policy of judging the messenger could be considered "liberal" by any measure.

    Is there a word for the illiberal who nonetheless see themselves as liberal?

    • No. That was the delusional fantasy that they use for an excuse. Works were being excluded because not enough people enjoyed that. Corriea is fine and he's really just another urban fantasy hack, except with gun porn. John C. Wright is a raving lunatic and noted pervert. And Vox Day shouldn't even be allowed in civilized company.
  • by ageoffri ( 723674 ) on Monday April 06, 2015 @09:26AM (#49413969)
    I don't think I've ever seen a /. summary that is so utterly wrong and biased. I've now started following the Hugo's and when I get home tonight I'm buying a supporting membership.

    First off this is Sad Puppies campaign #3, so it wasn't a sudden reaction to the winners of last year's Hugo's. The first two campaigns worked on verifying the integrity of the awards with Larry Correia, a former accountant, leading the verification. The conclusion was an unqualified opinion that the awards are indeed fairly voted on.

    This year the Sad Puppies campaign chose to publish a list of their nominations and encourage fans who had never been part of the Hugo process to nominate works, the Sad Puppies encouraged critical thinking and said nominate books you think are worthy. This is very much like what John Scalzi and other authors have done in the past.

    Well with the introduction of new blood into the process the Sad Puppies slate pretty much swept the nomination process. Larry Correia even turned down a nomination because of his involvement with running the Sad Puppies campaigns.

    Now we see the backlash from the so called progressives who are willing to burn the awards to the ground by telling everyone to vote No Award for the majority of categories. The sure hatred and virulence since the nominations have been announced are shocking.

    I'm now proud to carry the label "Wrong Fan", I've been reading Science Fiction since elementary with some of the earliest books I remember being a bunch of the Tom Swift novels. Yet because I like the works by authors such as Tom Kratman (even if he is very heavy handed with the politics), Larry Correia, David Weber, and pretty much anything published by Baen, I'm not worthy of being involved with the Hugo process.

    The main people behind Tor publishing are some of the most reprehensibly in the whole process. The sheer hatred amazes me, for them it is also ego since Tor has dominated the Hugo's for 20+ years.

    Several reviewers and authors I've never heard of have gone so far as to state that they will either not read the Sad Puppies related works, or if they do read them won't consider them on their worth. I've seen one blog that some author stated she will rank every Sad Puppies related work below No Award just because it was nominated and on the Sad Puppies recommended list.

    Where is the progressive ideas of tolerance here? This is blacklisting in the worst way and I can tell you it is firing up fans who have never cared about the Hugo's in the past.

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      So the Sad Puppies organized to support their own slate of nominees. Good for them, I suppose, but there's something pathetic about the whole affair -- engineering a win for yourself in what's supposed to be a fan popularity contest. I say this as someone who's been reading sci-fi for over 40 years: if you want *my* respect, get people who *disagree* with you politically to vote for you.

      • Sad Puppies is different because it used the slate to effectively take over a category. In the past, there most definitely has been bloc voting, any look at the nominations clearly shows that the nominated blocks haven't changed much at all. A very small number of nominations has been enough to get you on the ballot.

        The slate providing 4-5 nominations per category pushes out other works, which is new. So in the past, a bloc or voting campaign would get the target work on the ballot, which was seen as fine

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          Right, so they took advantage of the nomination process to avoid competing with works that would probably beat them.

          Back in the early 70s there was a character who called himself "Count Dante" who used to advertise himself in the back of comic books as "'The Deadliest Man Alive'" (in quotes) based on his victory at an international death-match martial arts tournament he'd organized. What he neglected to mention is that he won this tournament by default, being the sole entrant.

          That's exactly what the Sad Pu

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by west ( 39918 )

      The backlash comes from a number of avenues, but a strong reason for this anger is that by the introduction of "slates", the Sad Puppy movement may have irretrievably damaged the Hugos. It is akin to introducing party politics into elections that were previously sets of independents. Once introduced, you can never go back, because that just lets another slate win.

      What are the odds that everyone abandons parties and goes back to independents, when parties so evidently work?

      Likewise, voting on what you feel

      • by Banner ( 17158 ) on Monday April 06, 2015 @11:37AM (#49415165) Journal

        TOR has been running a slate for decades. They just did it behind the scenes where no one knew about it.
        The voting results (which were posted by Vox Day) made that very clear.
        Also, emails were circulated in private (not unlike journolist) to coordinate voting. Some of those emails were accidentally sent to the wrong people.

        Sad Puppies is doing nothing wrong, nothing illegal. That can not be said however for the people who are complaining the loudest about all of this.

    • by T.E.D. ( 34228 )

      Another mostly Baen reader here.

      IMHO, honestly I don't give a crap. Really. I have my favorite authors, as does every other fan. Hugo's don't factor into my buying decisions at all. If they do, its to show me books to avoid (based on my past history with Hugo winners).

      My wife (a much bigger fan than I) buys mostly female authors. I buy (barely) mostly men. I find female authors have trouble making believable (to me as a lifetime male) male characters, and that can be distracting. I'm sure my wife finds

  • by Rambo Tribble ( 1273454 ) on Monday April 06, 2015 @09:38AM (#49414079) Homepage
    ... that polarized, no-compromise, take-no-prisoners politics will be the downfall of Western Civilization?
  • by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Monday April 06, 2015 @09:45AM (#49414151) Homepage

    From what I've read, the Hugos, the SFWA, etc. have all been slowly taken over by SJWs in the past 10-15 years. Certainly, I once used the Hugos as a way of finding interesting new authors - but this hasn't been possible for several years, unless you are looking for a social-justice tract. Certainly "hard" SF has been scarce for a long time.

    The "sad puppies" group is drumming up support for good writing that wouldn't otherwise get nominated, because it doesn't meet the SJW criteria. If the "sad puppies" have a political center, then it will obviously be a bit on the right, just because they by definition disagree with the SJW crowd. However, politics isn't supposed to be the point - if anything, it is (hopefully!) about removing, or at least counteracting the political filtering from the works nominated for the Hugo awards.

    Some of the authors supporting the sad-puppy movement include:

    • Larry Correia
    • Vox Day
    • Peter Grant
    • Sarah Hoyt
    • Brad Torgerson
    • Michael Z. Williamson
    • John C. Wright
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06, 2015 @10:35AM (#49414561)

    The Sad Puppies campaign has nothing to do with "minorities and women" winning awards, it had everything to do with Social Justice Warriors taking down and doxxing people [blogspot.com] for disagreeing with them and trying to impose censorship and speech controls on organizations like SFWA.

    In fact this entire, "if you oppose the Social Justice Warrior agenda you hate women and minorities" slight of hand bullshit is one of the very things the sad puppies are fighting against. Thanks for proving the necessity of that fight yet again.

  • by ComputerGeek01 ( 1182793 ) on Monday April 06, 2015 @10:52AM (#49414717)

    On one hand, we have this SJW BS flaring up all over the place, attacking people online and making their lives marginally more difficult. On the other we have this dogmatic crusade against cyber-bullying picking up speed and momentum at a rather interesting pace. Both sides are making the same types of ad passiones arguments and neither side seeing the inevitable conflict.

    As an impartial observer and someone who views both sides as a bunch of crackpots and assholes with too much time on their hands, I can not wait to see these two trains collide.

  • the post is a lie (Score:5, Informative)

    by Banner ( 17158 ) on Monday April 06, 2015 @11:32AM (#49415109) Journal

    Wow, this post contains epic amounts of FUD and just pure lying.
    First of all, the Sad Puppies group started over two years ago.
    Second of all, the response was due to stories being subjected to an ideological purity test before being allowed to win.
    Third of all, the stories were no longer about telling a story, but were all about 'sending the right (approved) political message' which was killing the medium.
    Fourth of all, several of the awards went to things that not only had nothing to do with Science Fiction or Fantasy, but they sucked ('If you were a dinosaur my love'?? Really?)

    Go read all the official Sad Puppies posts, make your own decision. Also I'm pretty sure there are more women nominated this year, than there were last year, and that's from the SP Slate. Don't forget as well, that the SP project was started by a minority.

    Last note: The Hugo's have been gamed for a very long time now, look at how many were won by only one publisher. The author of 'Red Shirts' heavily gamed the system the year he won, but no one said a word about that. The promotion of 'message fiction' has seriously hurt the genre, and sales have been going down for years, because most of what's been winning the Hugo's the last five or so years has been crap. Heck, Terry Pratchet couldn't even win a Hugo!!
    The awards should be about GOOD stories, not about Politically Correct stories written by the 'RIGHT' person! The very fact that the person writing this story had to LIE about the reason for Sad Puppies, and is more focused on the sex and race of writers should make that pretty clear right off the top.

"I have more information in one place than anybody in the world." -- Jerry Pournelle, an absurd notion, apparently about the BIX BBS

Working...