Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If they do, it will show there isn't a left wing ideology agenda in SF and their campaign will have been rendered pointless by its own success.

 Manchu wrote:
Actually, it is abundantly clear that the Sad Puppies people believe that this is already the state of things and have organized because they would also like their politics to have influence, or to use one of their opponents' buzzwords, they also want a "voice."

Yes, but that's how fringe politics works - they always believe the reason they've not been placed front and centre in the most powerful and prestigious positions is because the other side is organising and scheming against them. In almost all cases, and in this one, it's just a silly fantasy. There is no organisation, no other group either literary or political, that was organizing block voting to keep out these people. They just weren't getting as represented as they liked because their kind of writing wasn't as dominant as it used to be.

Anyhow, GRR Martin has weighed in...
http://grrm.livejournal.com/417125.html

"And for those who do not have the appetite to wage through thousands of posts, well, the basics are simple. A group of writers and fans, many of them of a conservative political and/or literary bent, felt that they were not being adequately represented in the Hugo Awards, and put together their own slate of stories and writers they wanted on the ballot. They blogged, they organized, they got out their voters, and they were wildly successful... to the extent that this year's Hugo ballot is dominated by their choices.

Call it block voting. Call it ballot stuffing. Call it gaming the system. There's truth to all of those characterizations.

You can't call it cheating, though. It was all within the rules.

But many things can be legal, and still bad... and this is one of those, from where I sit.

I think the Sad Puppies have broken the Hugo Awards, and I am not sure they can ever be repaired."


There's more there, mostly about how nasty this is and that he doesn't want to be part of it but as a fan feels he has to comment, and that he'll be writing posts expanding on individual parts of the issue in future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sining wrote:
Kind of like if Sad Puppies sweep the nominations this year, it's because that's what people like. I agree with that.

Sigh. Once again, there is a difference between people voting for who they like best, and people organising behind the scenes to all vote for a select group that suit their overall preferences/politics. That's the whole fething point of the conversation.

I think you guys honestly think the people who followed sad puppies aren't capable of making up their own minds. It's hilarious really. That's like believing a republican would only vote republican on all possible ballots just because they were told so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meanwhile, Scalzi was doing this by himself for many years. I guess this means 2x the people means its 2x as effective.

Also, I expect all of you to go buy a 40usd membership to vote next year since this is apparently so important to you

If people had made up their own minds in previous years, they would already have been voting for right wing novels, and so Sad Puppies would not have needed to set up this campaign.

You do realise there are different people as well right? I don't think most people even realised you could buy a 40usd membership and vote for the Hugos.

I think I kerfuffled once...wouldn't recommend it.

 Manchu wrote:
That strikes me as a fair and accurate description of their tactics. But I don't find them objectionable or even remarkable. Whatever the truth of the matter, the Sad Puppies see themselves as arguing from the weaker position in terms of power. So they are using asymmetric tactics.

So if we agree that they decided to do this an an aggression using asymmetric tactics, then it is perfectly legitimate to try to find a counter for this aggression that is working against the goal of the Hugo awards.

Yes. It's called voting next year -_-

Sad Puppies obviously found the "voting next year" option was inadequate.

Sining wrote:
Yes. It's called voting next year -_-

Apparently some people think this is not the correct answer. For instance, George R.R. Martin, if I understood correctly.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If Sci Fi is dominated by left wing ideology that is because it is what people want to read.

I meant "sci fi" as a 'professional' community of writers and all manner of hangers-on who dole out awards like the Hugos. Sci fi in terms of sales is certainly not the exclusive purview of the left wing. That seems to be a major point of Sad Puppies.

Manchu has the way of it. ALthough sci fi often explores some serious philospohipcal stuff (often this is when sci fi is at its best), lets not kid ourselves about the amount of KILL SPACE ALIENS that is out there and has a place too.

Since we're on that may I suggest two hard sci fi:
*Lucifer's Hammer: what happens when a comet hits the earth.

*Footfall: what happens when aliens really do come. (plus the old US USSR politics are a nice window into the past).

I have read and enjoyed them both. I believe they won awards, and also have been criticised for certain supposedly right wing depictions.

One might ask how a substantial left leaning SF professional community could grow up to the position of supposedly controlling the awards if they were not successful at writing popular books.

As I understand it, though, the Hugos are not a kind of politically correct affirmative action campaign designed to ensure that minority white male right wing slanted fiction gets its fair place in the sun.

Going back to this year's nominations, it seems to me that there are various possible results. One is that the backlash might result in lots of the Sad Puppy promoted books being ruled out through the "None of the above" ballot mechanism. Another one is that next year, the left-wing vote will simply organise itself better and prevent any Sad Puppy books from being nominated at all.

In other words, the awards would have been politically polarised either way. I cannot think this would be a good thing.

Again, you seem to be assuming there was no previous political polarization.

 Haemonculus wrote:
Regarding the OP, that's just one article you've decided to agree with. Even the Telegraph amended the errors that the quoted article made in the OP.

Did I give my opinion anywhere in the OP? I merely presented an article I found and asked members of Dakka for their opinion. Please do not attribute commentary to me that I did not make.

There is a lot of misinformation flying around about Sad Puppies.
I know Larry Correia and Brad Torgerson personally and have followed this from the beginning.
Here's a run down.
The Hugos, the highest award in sci-fi, was run by a small group of elitists that all had the same political agenda. The books that would get nominations and thus win, were chosen because of their political message, not quality of work. (And usually by TOR publishing to boot.) Some authors, such as John Scalzi would game the system and campaign for votes so he would win. Which he did. A lot.
Larry tried to bring these problems to the Hugo's attention but they ignored him and when he pushed, said he wasn't the kind of person they wanted in science fiction.

So, Larry started sad puppies. (Boring literary message fiction is the leading cause of puppy sadness.) He wanted the Hugos to be about what's good, not what fits the political narrative of the people in charge. Others agreed. They even had to campaign to get the Wheel of Time series nominated. That should have gotten several Hugo's already. There are authors of different colors, gender and even politics associated with Sad Puppies. It's not about getting Conservative authors on the ballet, it's about getting good authors on the ballet.

So they adopted Scalzi's model and gamed the system in order to break it to show how broken and pointless the Hugos already were.
They're not misogynists. Many of the authors on the ballet are women.
They're not racists. Some of the authors are minorities. Brad has been married to a black woman for twenty years.
They're not all conservatives. Some are libertarians and some are even (gasp) liberals.

Edit: And Footfall was awesome!

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Left-leaning authors made no effort to hide their politics in either their writing or their personal lives, but they didn't go beyond "this book is awesome" in trying to lobby for votes.

Do you have a source for that?

Several times in this thread you have implied a liberal conspiracy and domination of the Hugo Awards. You have yet to supply a shred of proof. Considering how many winners have had strong Libertarian or Authoritarian undertones over the years, I think you are full of it. post some evidence of your extraordinary claims.

Please quote me claiming there is a liberal conspiracy, InquisitorBob.

And if anyone wants proof that conservative authors are blacklisted, just look at what was winning Hugos before, what the Hugo supporting authors are saying now. They're vomiting out insults, saying that they're not true fans, and even death threats.
Edit: Example, one blogger keeps insulting Brad and calling him a racist, that he only is married to a black woman as a shield. That, is what I think is racist, that a white man wouldn't want to marry a black woman except to be a "shield" for a kerfuffle twenty years down the road....okay.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If Sci Fi is dominated by left wing ideology that is because it is what people want to read.

Or else the Secret Elders of Zion or the Bavarian Illuminati control the publishing industry.

Sci fi is not dominated by the Left. On TV, sure, but Jesus, read some of it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If Sci Fi is dominated by left wing ideology that is because it is what people want to read.

Or else the Secret Elders of Zion or the Bavarian Illuminati control the publishing industry.

Sci fi is not dominated by the Left. On TV, sure, but Jesus, read some of it.

Tor books actively pushes away right leaning authors.
BAEN is accused of being right wing because they publish based on quality of story, not politics of author. They have liberals, conservatives, socialists and even a card carrying member of the communist party, yet because they publish right wing authors as well, they get accused of being right wing.

It's not that left wing books is what people want to read, it's what the people in control of publishing want people to read.
People just want to read good stories.

 Manchu wrote:
Again, you seem to be assuming there was no previous political polarization.

Are you saying posts like this, and you have many of them, are not implying the Hugo Awards had a powerful, left-leaning concern? Essentially, a conspiracy to promote a Leftish agenda?

Because that is seriously how it comes across.

 MWHistorian wrote:
They even had to campaign to get the Wheel of Time series nominated. That should have gotten several Hugo's already.

You what Mate?
seriously?
Wheel of the time is awsome, cant believe it wouldnt get an award without pushing it

 MWHistorian wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If Sci Fi is dominated by left wing ideology that is because it is what people want to read.

Or else the Secret Elders of Zion or the Bavarian Illuminati control the publishing industry.

Sci fi is not dominated by the Left. On TV, sure, but Jesus, read some of it.

Tor books actively pushes away right leaning authors.
BAEN is accused of being right wing because they publish based on quality of story, not politics of author. They have liberals, conservatives, socialists and even a card carrying member of the communist party, yet because they publish right wing authors as well, they get accused of being right wing.

It's not that left wing books is what people want to read, it's what the people in control of publishing want people to read.
People just want to read good stories.

Wouldn't the market reward Baen with more sales then?

BAEN is doing quite well actually and continues to grow.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Are you saying posts like this, and you have many of them, are not implying the Hugo Awards had a powerful, left-leaning concern? Essentially, a conspiracy to promote a Leftish agenda?

Because that is seriously how it comes across.

My posts mean exactly what they say (rather than what you say they mean, go figure) but I don't mind spelling it out once again for you:

One of the main points the Sad Puppies and their allies have made is that the Hugo awards are already politicized. They say they organized to resist this existing state of affairs rather than to simply wrest control away from leftists.

So -- again to be clear -- there are basically two narratives at play:

(1) The Hugos are non-political and recognize works purely on the basis of merit. Sad Puppies wants to transform the Hugos to promote conservative politics.

(2) The Hugos are currently controlled by publishing interests with left-leaning political sympathies. Sad Puppies wants to confront these interests by legally bloc voting for works on the basis of merit.

Nothing I have posted ITT claims that one narrative is more accurate than the other. What I have attempted to do is show how posters who assume the first narrative is correct have merely assumed it without making a case based on evidence.

 MWHistorian wrote:
And if anyone wants proof that conservative authors are blacklisted, just look at what was winning Hugos before, what the Hugo supporting authors are saying now. They're vomiting out insults, saying that they're not true fans, and even death threats.
Edit: Example, one blogger keeps insulting Brad and calling him a racist, that he only is married to a black woman as a shield. That, is what I think is racist, that a white man wouldn't want to marry a black woman except to be a "shield" for a kerfuffle twenty years down the road....okay.

That would be Arthur Chu, mentioned earlier in the thread.

https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/585635584070262784

There is a lot of misinformation flying around about Sad Puppies.
I know Larry Correia and Brad Torgerson personally and have followed this from the beginning.
Here's a run down.
The Hugos, the highest award in sci-fi, was run by a small group of elitists that all had the same political agenda. The books that would get nominations and thus win, were chosen because of their political message, not quality of work. (And usually by TOR publishing to boot.) Some authors, such as John Scalzi would game the system and campaign for votes so he would win. Which he did. A lot.
Larry tried to bring these problems to the Hugo's attention but they ignored him and when he pushed, said he wasn't the kind of person they wanted in science fiction.

So, Larry started sad puppies. (Boring literary message fiction is the leading cause of puppy sadness.) He wanted the Hugos to be about what's good, not what fits the political narrative of the people in charge. Others agreed. They even had to campaign to get the Wheel of Time series nominated. That should have gotten several Hugo's already. There are authors of different colors, gender and even politics associated with Sad Puppies. It's not about getting Conservative authors on the ballet, it's about getting good authors on the ballet.

So they adopted Scalzi's model and gamed the system in order to break it to show how broken and pointless the Hugos already were.
They're not misogynists. Many of the authors on the ballet are women.
They're not racists. Some of the authors are minorities. Brad has been married to a black woman for twenty years.
They're not all conservatives. Some are libertarians and some are even (gasp) liberals.

Interesting, but typical of some small organizations.

Though I'm curious as to what has been awarded overtime.

 Manchu wrote:
Again, you seem to be assuming there was no previous political polarization.

And, unless convincing arguments are being pushed to show it was not the case, we will likely all continue doing. Because, as was said above, showing that some polarization existed is just that much easier than proving it did not exist.

I'm sorry, arthur chu is claiming this man married his wife to deflect accusations of racism? That is insane, and also deeply fethed up. I'm as liberal as they come but I gotta say this is going way too far. For all the complaining about harassment and online bullying, this takes the cake for me.

https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/585635584070262784

 Crablezworth wrote:
I'm sorry, arthur chu is claiming this man married his wife to deflect accusations of racism? That is insane, and also deeply fethed up.

It would seem so, yes.