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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

One of the authors being a socialist isn't exactly a point in their favor when Sad puppies accuse the Hugos of having a strong liberal bias.

No. Stop. Just no. Words have meaning, and "liberal" and "socialist" are two different things.

Well this is America, and over here we tend to use those words to mean the same thing (yes it's stupid), though there is a certain silliness that the author being discussed is I believe from the UK were liberal does mean liberal and is something completely different from socialist

 MWHistorian wrote:
Because the Hugos have changed. They used to be good. Now they're fossils stuck in a cliquish mindset. I thought you understood what the Sad Puppies were arguing against?

You were asked to remove the vagueness from the complaint, and you respond with something about fossils stuck in a cliquish mindset. I think you really need to understand how hopelessly vague that complaint is.

And that's the issue with the Puppies. They complain that all the awards were given to heavy handed message books that are strongly left wing, but when you look at past winners there's a mix of serious and lighter stuff, with a mix of political messages. The complaint doesn't actually match with the reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Well this is America, and over here we tend to use those words to mean the same thing (yes it's stupid), though there is a certain silliness that the author being discussed is I believe from the UK were liberal does mean liberal and is something completely different from socialist

Sure, there's two uses of the word liberal, one in the US and one everywhere else. I don't think that's the issue (especially when liberal isn't much used outside of the US anymore).

It's more that the US meaning doesn't mean the same as socialist, it's more moderate, closer to 'progressive'. Socialist is used to describe someone who advocates strong levels of state control, up to and generally including nationalisation of some industry. But more often its used to make people think a liberal is much more fanatical than he really is.

 LordofHats wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

One of the authors being a socialist isn't exactly a point in their favor when Sad puppies accuse the Hugos of having a strong liberal bias.

No. Stop. Just no. Words have meaning, and "liberal" and "socialist" are two different things.

Well this is America, and over here we tend to use those words to mean the same thing (yes it's stupid), though there is a certain silliness that the author being discussed is I believe from the UK were liberal does mean liberal and is something completely different from socialist

The thing is that American liberals aren't socialists. They are one of the factions on the economic right. Socialists are one of the factions on the economic left. American political scene doesn't even have significant social-democrats, not to mention socialists.

Oh I know. The biggest irony is that our Republicans are the closest thing we have in the US to actual liberals (as in classical liberalism), but they throw the word around like it's cancer. Setting that aside, pretty much the entire spectrum of American mainstream politics is firmly in the realm of some kind of Liberalism (Social, Modern, Classical, Neo etc). But that's the sad state of American political discourse, and I can't really hold it against people when every media source we have over here treats 'liberal' and 'socialist' like they're the same thing, or at least fails to identify how they are different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
'progressive'..

Well the Republicans can't call their opponents that. Progress is a good thing!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, "the mob" implies people potentially rioting in the streets to get their nominations on the ticket.

What actually happens is that anyone who cares to, can buy a $40 membership and vote as they like in complete anonymity and safety from coercion.

There is no mob, in other words.

I mean mob as in a mass of people whose power is derived from their number.

 LordofHats wrote:
I mean Jesus The Forever War and Starship Troopers are Hugo Winners and both of those books are little more than the political thoughts and ramblings of their authors with a facade of narrative wrapped around them so that their genre is science fiction instead of Philosophy 101 Text Books.

You conveniently forget that they also have some interesting ideas on future warfare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 sebster wrote:
'progressive'..

Well the Republicans can't call their opponents that. Progress is a good thing!

Progress isn't an inherently good thing. And I'd argue that it's neocons who are progressing with their goals (destruction of middle class and the poor and enriching the richest) while democrats are feebly trying to stop them which makes them reactionaries, not progressives.

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
The thing is that American liberals aren't socialists. They are one of the factions on the economic right. Socialists are one of the factions on the economic left. American political scene doesn't even have significant social-democrats, not to mention socialists.

Poor Bernie...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Well the Republicans can't call their opponents that. Progress is a good thing!

When the term liberal got sufficiently poisoned, more or less about the time Bush won his second term, there was an actual effort by liberals to start rebranding themselves and their movement as 'progressive'. I think it tested well somewhere, or something.

Identity politics is weird.

The whole discussion is weird, though, right? Your political beliefs are based on how you think the world works, how you think people work. If you think people work a particular way and I disagree then your story may come across as weird and unnatural, whereas if we have similar political ideas then it'll seem to make a lot of sense and be really true to life.

To give an example, I found the Maelstrom's Edge novels jarring because one of the authors' views is that human culture doesn't change significantly over time. If you agree with that then maybe you will find them to be a rollicking space adventure with plenty of shooting and explosions that is "free of politics". Personally, I found it made the setting unbelievable. And that's not a value judgment - if I'd written that story and its author had been reading it, maybe they would have found it unbelievable because my humans had too different a culture.

That's not to say you can't enjoy a story by someone who has different political views - I enjoyed the Maelstrom's Edge books - but it doesn't make sense to say that they "should be irrelevant," because they are at the heart of what makes your world believable to a reader.

I mean mob as in a mass of people whose power is derived from their number.

I would say that yeah, that's the silly thing about a people's/fan's choice awards. But at the same time, that's kind of why the Hugo is worthwhile. The only barrier to participation is membership in World Con, so in theory, basically anyone can participate. I don't really think that's an issue unless you're someone(s) trying to pretend the award carries more weight than what it is. It's a bunch of people who got together in some way and voted on what they thought were the best works of the year, no more no less.

Beyond that, we might as well ask what's the point in any award?

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:

You conveniently forget that they also have some interesting ideas on future warfare.

Most good books work on multiple levels. It's what makes them good

Though to be specific of these two novel's I'd argue that Starship Troopers, despite it's reputation, offers very little commentary on warfare beyond it's first few chapters and some bits in the middle. Ultimately the serial's main focus was a discussion of civics and the relationship between individuals, the state, and liberty. An intrepid reader might themselves find in Starship Troopers, a book that arguably borders of advocating Facism, the early seeds of how Heinlein would go on to later write Stranger in a Strange Land, a book operating on a completely different mindset

The Forever War of course, has long been seen as the antithesis to Starship Troopers and actually spent more time of warfare, but even then the bulk of the book was again about social issues more than it was about science. However to Handleman's credit, I'd argue that Heinlein's Starship Troopers was a philosophy text with a thin narrative, while the Forever War was a true novel but that's probably attributable to the nature of publication (Starship Troopers was first published as a serial series in a pulp magazine and then compiled into a book, while The Forever War was published as a full novel).


Automatically Appended Next Post:


I think you've hit the problem on the head HiveFleetPacific. When something has a message we agree with, it doesn't challenge our preconceptions and we might not notice it at all because we take our preconceptions for granted. Then when we read something that does challenge our preconceptions, or approach humanity and the world from a completely different view than we are accustomed, it's stands out because it's alien to us (alien, get it I'm horrible...). Indeed, maybe the reality is that 'fun' works don't belong at the Hugo Award. Something that's just fun and nothing else doesn't challenge us. It doesn't push new ground. It doesn't seek to be more than just a story. And if it's 'just a story' then why should we care enough to give it special recognition? However much we might enjoy it, being 'just a story' isn't much of an achievement, not when there are hundreds of them floating around.

So maybe we could view Sad Puppies as a reactionary movement. The politics of culture are shifting. Not just that, the dynamics of fandom is changing, and what is the Hugo Award but one of the longest standing institutions of organized fandom?

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The whole discussion is weird, though, right? Your political beliefs are based on how you think the world works, how you think people work. If you think people work a particular way and I disagree then your story may come across as weird and unnatural, whereas if we have similar political ideas then it'll seem to make a lot of sense and be really true to life.

To give an example, I found the Maelstrom's Edge novels jarring because one of the authors' views is that human culture doesn't change significantly over time. If you agree with that then maybe you will find them to be a rollicking space adventure with plenty of shooting and explosions that is "free of politics". Personally, I found it made the setting unbelievable. And that's not a value judgment - if I'd written that story and its author had been reading it, maybe they would have found it unbelievable because my humans had too different a culture.

That's not to say you can't enjoy a story by someone who has different political views - I enjoyed the Maelstrom's Edge books - but it doesn't make sense to say that they "should be irrelevant," because they are at the heart of what makes your world believable to a reader.

Yeah, well said. And I think it shows there's a bit of complexity to how we see political beliefs in any kind of text. On the one hand, we should be welcome to reading other ideas, and for the most part I think most of us are as long as it isn't too strident or dogmatic. The issue, I think, is that when the writer's beliefs are significantly different from our own we're likely to be more critical, if we welcome the idea we're more likely to see it as being explored, if we don't like it we're more likely to see it as unexplored or manipulative.

And the better the work, the harder that subjective assessment likely is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I think you've hit the problem on the head HiveFleetPacific. When something has a message we agree with, it doesn't challenge our preconceptions and we might not notice it at all because we take our preconceptions for granted. Then when we read something that does challenge our preconceptions, or approach humanity and the world from a completely different view than we are accustomed, it's stands out because it's alien to us (alien, get it I'm horrible...). Indeed, maybe the reality is that 'fun' works don't belong at the Hugo Award. Something that's just fun and nothing else doesn't challenge us. It doesn't push new ground. It doesn't seek to be more than just a story. And if it's 'just a story' then why should we care enough to give it special recognition? However much we might enjoy it, being 'just a story' isn't much of an achievement, not when there are hundreds of them floating around.

If it is the book most people enjoyed the most it should win. And even if it doesn't heavily delve in to anything deep, that doesn't mean it isn't about anything or can't make us think. The Hitchhiker's Guide isn't directly exploring anything deep, but the imagination and creativity in the book has allowed us to apply it's odd situations to all kinds of real world issues. I think one of the most interesting thing about great books is how they open us op to lessons the author didn't intend or couldn't even have conceived of.

So maybe we could view Sad Puppies as a reactionary movement. The politics of culture are shifting. Not just that, the dynamics of fandom is changing, and what is the Hugo Award but one of the longest standing institutions of organized fandom?

They're certainly a reactionary movement. Whether they're reacting to a real movement among the sci-fi base, or just their own perception of that base is the bigger question.

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, "the mob" implies people potentially rioting in the streets to get their nominations on the ticket.

What actually happens is that anyone who cares to, can buy a $40 membership and vote as they like in complete anonymity and safety from coercion.

There is no mob, in other words.

I mean mob as in a mass of people whose power is derived from their number.

...

Then democracy is mob rule.

Sad Puppies tried to revolutionise their supporters to flood the awards with votes for their preferred books. Happy Kittens voted against this in larger numbers than the Sad Puppies could muster, and Sad Puppies essentially lost.

This simply shows that the Sad Puppies agenda does not have popular support.

 sebster wrote:
They're certainly a reactionary movement. Whether they're reacting to a real movement among the sci-fi base, or just their own perception of that base is the bigger question.

I've argue there has been a movement, but it's not the one Sad Puppies claims. Science Fiction has changed since the 80's and 70's (which as far as I can tell is the 'golden age' to Sad Puppies), but that change is stylistic more than political. S

Science Fiction has become less far future and more contemporary in setting, with less focus of 'space ships and space lasers' and a closer focus on 'close to contemporary' kind of stories. Maybe in the past, people could write off themes or messages they didn't like as 'they're aliens and they're different from us' it's a lot harder to dismiss those things as 'just part of the story' when the story is set in some otherworldly version of NYC or the world but a few years from now kinds of settings.

A lot of those kinds of books have been getting the Hugo Award in the past decade or so. We see much fewer books like Foundation or Dune make it to the top rungs of the award anymore. Ancillary Justice is the last novel of that style to really win in the past few years and that was in 2014. Among Others is set on Wales in modern times. The Three Body Problem takes place in just after tomorrow China. Blackout/All Clear not only takes place in the near future, but involves traveling back in time to WWII. Neil Gaiman has won the award several times and most of his works are contemporary in setting.

Is that politics? Or is it that the genre has stylistically altered and the stories that the Sad Puppies seem to consider 'fun' are simply not 'in' anymore? It's not like nobody writes those kinds of stories. They get written all the time, but they're certainly less common since the end of the New Wave in the 80's. I guess I'd call this new generation of writers and their works the second new wave, or post new wave (w/e) but there is a distinctive stylistic change in the kinds of stories their writing, and my thought would be that Sad Puppies is reacting to that but what their attributing the change not to a changing face in the genre itself but rather to politics simply because when we're looking at contemporary settings it's a lot harder to write off any theme or message a reader finds personal disagreement with.

If any of that made sense

 sebster wrote:
I think one of the most interesting thing about great books is how they open us op to lessons the author didn't intend or couldn't even have conceived of.

I was reading a book a while ago with some kids in it, two of the male characters seemed really close, and homosexual in that ancient Greek sort of sense, and I got a real 'and if that's what they want then its fine' sort of thing.

It was Alai and Ender from Ender's Game. Needless to say, when I learned more about OSC and his views on the subject I figured out that probably wasn't the intention ha. But it has always stuck with me that I really thought that was the intent, and honestly thought it was a really interesting approach to take.

 sebster wrote:
If it is the book most people enjoyed the most it should win. And even if it doesn't heavily delve in to anything deep, that doesn't mean it isn't about anything or can't make us think. The Hitchhiker's Guide isn't directly exploring anything deep, but the imagination and creativity in the book has allowed us to apply it's odd situations to all kinds of real world issues. I think one of the most interesting thing about great books is how they open us op to lessons the author didn't intend or couldn't even have conceived of.

I'm not necessarily advocating that a good story is deep, but a good story isn't 'just a story" nor am I strictly saying that message is the sole thing that helps a piece stand out. I'm saying that, if it doesn't stand out, why should it be worthy of any sort of special recogition when surrounded by so many others?

As to what makes a story stand out, there's lots of things. I'd argue the Hugo Award doesn't go to anyone for political reasons. Rather the award tends to go to works that are stylistically novel or unique. Not so novel/unique as to be avant garde, but not just your general James Patterson run of the mill either. It's something virtually all Hugo Award winners have in common. The works themselves take a novel approach to something. American Gods is what you get when you build a novel off a mountain of allusions. Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell has a unique prose style written purposely to emulate Victorian literature. Redshirts is an affectionate parody/surreal analysis of science fiction itself (arguably it was destined to win. It's just too much of a 'by a fan for fans' kind of book).

These books all stand out, not necessarily for any political message they or their authors might hold, but because they're not just typical sci-fi novels. And I don't really see what's wrong with that. To a degree, Sad Puppies seems to be arguing that we should be giving the award to lowest common denominator fiction and they certainly put more than a few works on their slate that I'd consider trash fiction. I mean seriously, The Maze Runner and the Lego Movie? Anything written by John C. Wright? The guy is the M. Night Shamalama of science fiction. I hear complaints about 'heavy handed message fic' and I can't help but feel like it's at least in part an argument that science fiction should never challenge anything or be intellectual in nature, which runs completely counter to how and why the Hugo Award came about in the first place.

Rewards by fans, not by people who live for finding and reading as much good fantasy/sci-fi as possible are redundant and uninformed.

 sebster wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
The thing is that American liberals aren't socialists. They are one of the factions on the economic right. Socialists are one of the factions on the economic left. American political scene doesn't even have significant social-democrats, not to mention socialists.

Poor Bernie...

He's a centrist centrist.

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Rewards by fans, not by people who live for finding and reading as much good fantasy/sci-fi as possible are redundant and uninformed.

I'd posit someone who spends $40 on a World Con membership (the value of which is pretty much limited to voting in the Hugo award) is someone sufficiently invested in reading fantasy and sci-fi that their opinion can be considered useful and informed. One does not need to be a professional at something to literate in it's subject matter.

Further, I'd argue the value of the Hugo and the quality of it's choices can be verified by cross referencing with the Nebula Award. The Nebula Award is given out by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, and to be a member you must be a published artist (professional). The Nebula Award nominees are voted on in house with a second round ballot determining the final winner.

As an example, the Nominees for Best Novel (Hugo Award) 2015;

Cixin Liu, The Three-Body Problem (Winner)
Katherine Addison, The Goblin Emperor
Kevin J. Anderson, The Dark Between the Stars < Sad Puppies Hugo 2015 Slate Nominee
Jim Butcher, Skin Game < Sad Puppies Hugo 2015 Slate Nominee
Ann Leckie, Ancillary Sword

*Trial By Fire by Charles Gannon would likely have been nominated if not for Sad Puppies

Nominees for Best Novel (Nebula Award) 2015;

Jeff VanderMeer, Annihilation (WInner)
Katherine Addison, The Goblin Emperor
Charles E. Gannon, Trial by Fire < Sad Puppies Hugo 2015 Slate Nominee
Ann Leckie, Ancillary Sword
Cixin Liu, The Three-Body Problem
Jack McDevitt, Coming Home

As you can see, both awards nominated several books in common (Ancillary Sword, The Three-Body Problem, and the Goblin Emperor). In fact there is a very large number of joint winners of the Nebula and Hugo Awards, the most recent being in 20014 when both awards for best novel went to Annie Leckie's Ancillary Justice. Among Others took both awards in 2012. Blackout/All Clear in 2011. The Windup Girl in 2011 (the 2011 Hugo for best novel was a tie between The Windup Girl and The City & the City which was also nominated by the Nebula Award).

In fact both awards have consistently joint recognized many of the greats of Science Fiction; Dune. American Gods. Ring World. The Forever War. Neuromancer. Ender's Game (again, I list novels because I've read most of them ).

It would seem to suggest that your premise is false, as being a fan choice award doesn't automatically mean the fans would come to wildly different conclusions than the Professionals or that fans are somehow less capable than Professionals of recognizing a good book when they read it (it would even suggest Sad Puppies isn't completely without taste)

If you want a non-fan choice voted award there is the Times Best Seller list.

 LordofHats wrote:
I've argue there has been a movement, but it's not the one Sad Puppies claims. Science Fiction has changed since the 80's and 70's (which as far as I can tell is the 'golden age' to Sad Puppies), but that change is stylistic more than political. S

(snip)

If any of that made sense

It made good sense and seemed to me a good argument. I hadn't thought of it that way, thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
I was reading a book a while ago with some kids in it, two of the male characters seemed really close, and homosexual in that ancient Greek sort of sense, and I got a real 'and if that's what they want then its fine' sort of thing.

It was Alai and Ender from Ender's Game. Needless to say, when I learned more about OSC and his views on the subject I figured out that probably wasn't the intention ha. But it has always stuck with me that I really thought that was the intent, and honestly thought it was a really interesting approach to take.

Yup. Reading Ender's Game, and then reading OSC's later political views is kind of amazing. I wonder what is really going on in that head...

Surely it is a key skill of an author to be able to create fiction about things you would never personally do or condone in others in real life.

Back on topic, it is clear that there has been massive social change since the 80s, with wide acceptance of homosexuality, a much greater acceptance of female equality, reduction of racism and so on.

These social shifts have been reflected in politics by laws have been passed to help enforce them. Probably the laws and the social change have gone hand in hand, because laws influence behaviour and social change influences law making.

Ironically, a lot of real "Golden Age" SF featured strong female characters, such as Podkayne of Mars and Starship Troopers. It's not impossible to understand, SF being a forward looking genre.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's not impossible to understand, SF being a forward looking genre.

Agree. It's why I find claims of 'liberal bias' a little odd. Conservatism is about the status quo, fundamentally, being functional and mostly alright. Maybe it can be improved, but conservatism rejects the notion of sweeping change being necessary (except in the context of reversing some change that has already occurred to restore the original status quo). That entire concept is antithetical to science fiction, which from it's very beginning has been a genre prominently about "what would happen if _________". It's all about sweeping change and how that change might happen, effect our lives, or reflect our contemporary experiences.

Science fiction is 'liberal' by it's very nature. At least a little bit anyway.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you want a non-fan choice voted award there is the Times Best Seller list.

No, that's as fan-voted choice as it gets.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Rewards by fans, not by people who live for finding and reading as much good fantasy/sci-fi as possible are redundant and uninformed.

I'd posit someone who spends $40 on a World Con membership (the value of which is pretty much limited to voting in the Hugo award) is someone sufficiently invested in reading fantasy and sci-fi that their opinion can be considered useful and informed. One does not need to be a professional at something to literate in it's subject matter.

Further, I'd argue the value of the Hugo and the quality of it's choices can be verified by cross referencing with the Nebula Award. The Nebula Award is given out by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, and to be a member you must be a published artist (professional). The Nebula Award nominees are voted on in house with a second round ballot determining the final winner.

As an example, the Nominees for Best Novel (Hugo Award) 2015;

Cixin Liu, The Three-Body Problem (Winner)
Katherine Addison, The Goblin Emperor
Kevin J. Anderson, The Dark Between the Stars < Sad Puppies Hugo 2015 Slate Nominee
Jim Butcher, Skin Game < Sad Puppies Hugo 2015 Slate Nominee
Ann Leckie, Ancillary Sword

*Trial By Fire by Charles Gannon would likely have been nominated if not for Sad Puppies

Nominees for Best Novel (Nebula Award) 2015;

Jeff VanderMeer, Annihilation (WInner)
Katherine Addison, The Goblin Emperor
Charles E. Gannon, Trial by Fire < Sad Puppies Hugo 2015 Slate Nominee
Ann Leckie, Ancillary Sword
Cixin Liu, The Three-Body Problem
Jack McDevitt, Coming Home

As you can see, both awards nominated several books in common (Ancillary Sword, The Three-Body Problem, and the Goblin Emperor). In fact there is a very large number of joint winners of the Nebula and Hugo Awards, the most recent being in 20014 when both awards for best novel went to Annie Leckie's Ancillary Justice. Among Others took both awards in 2012. Blackout/All Clear in 2011. The Windup Girl in 2011 (the 2011 Hugo for best novel was a tie between The Windup Girl and The City & the City which was also nominated by the Nebula Award).

In fact both awards have consistently joint recognized many of the greats of Science Fiction; Dune. American Gods. Ring World. The Forever War. Neuromancer. Ender's Game (again, I list novels because I've read most of them ).

It would seem to suggest that your premise is false, as being a fan choice award doesn't automatically mean the fans would come to wildly different conclusions than the Professionals or that fans are somehow less capable than Professionals of recognizing a good book when they read it (it would even suggest Sad Puppies isn't completely without taste)

 LordofHats wrote:
The Windup Girl

 LordofHats wrote:
The Windup Girl

 LordofHats wrote:
The Windup Girl

Hmm...
https://archive.is/jEI2z
https://archive.is/T1oDd

So, okay, stuff like that gets Hugo but a series of novels exploring realistic space combat (something that almost never happens in Sci-Fi!), limited interstellar warfare, role of agents in wars, with well written characters done by a war/political journalist doesn't get one?
Is it because he forgot to insert a pornographic rape scene?

A website dedicated to educating people (especially writers) about realism in space travel and space warfare also not worth rewarding?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's not impossible to understand, SF being a forward looking genre.

Agree. It's why I find claims of 'liberal bias' a little odd. Conservatism is about the status quo, fundamentally, being functional and mostly alright. Maybe it can be improved, but conservatism rejects the notion of sweeping change being necessary (except in the context of reversing some change that has already occurred to restore the original status quo). That entire concept is antithetical to science fiction, which from it's very beginning has been a genre prominently about "what would happen if _________". It's all about sweeping change and how that change might happen, effect our lives, or reflect our contemporary experiences.

Science fiction is 'liberal' by it's very nature. At least a little bit anyway.

I don't really see that. SF asks "what if?", but in a lot of SF works, the answer to that question is "curiosity, meddling or unchecked progress have bad consequences", which seems conservative in the sense of warning about the unintended consequences of those things, and disputing that they'll make the future better than the present.

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you want a non-fan choice voted award there is the Times Best Seller list.

No, that's as fan-voted choice as it gets.

...
...

No, it's just purchases. If a Russian oligarch wanted something to win top SF novel he could just buy 100,000 copies a week and bingo.

And for every sci-fi tale that claims that, there are several who instead say: "if this would change, things would be better" or "change is inevitable, and if you're not prepared, you'll be left behind", and so on and so forth.

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:

So, okay, stuff like that gets Hugo but a series of novels exploring realistic space combat (something that almost never happens in Sci-Fi!), limited interstellar warfare, role of agents in wars, with well written characters done by a war/political journalist doesn't get one?
Is it because he forgot to insert a pornographic rape scene?

Which just goes back to the question I keep asking; Is your issue that the people giving out the award have bias', or is your issue that their bias' are different from your bias'?

I've posted several times on the sort of unspoken 'criteria' that Hugo winners tend to share; A degree of stylistic novelty. A preference for works dealing with social issues/ramifications rather than hard science. Obviously books with large fan bases are prone to end up with more support at such award (though I'd posit you ca't get a large fan base if you aren't doing something right most of the time).

That isn't to say only works like that are good or worth reading, but they are the works that tend to be recognized at the Hugo Award (the Nebula is similar but tends to favor more, advanced works, the kind that often struggle to get mainstream attention). And it's a long trend going back all the way to the award's founding in the 50's, when it was founded specifically because Science Fiction and Fantasy works were snubbed by other literary awards and academics who all just assumed science fiction and fantasy couldn't possibly have intellectual merit. Normally, people with a strong interest in educating themselves about science will go and read a science book. Hard scifi has always been a much narrower market than soft scifi, so no one should really be surprised it doesn't get as much recognition.

A website dedicated to educating people (especially writers) about realism in space travel and space warfare also not worth rewarding?

I don't think anyone anywhere has ever suggested that.

I don't really see that. SF asks "what if?", but in a lot of SF works, the answer to that question is "curiosity, meddling or unchecked progress have bad consequences", which seems conservative in the sense of warning about the unintended consequences of those things, and disputing that they'll make the future better than the present.

I'm not saying there's no such thing as conservative scifi (okay I suppose I kind of did so I'll take that back, maybe got a bit carried away ). Frankenstein is often cited as the very first Science Fiction novel, and arguably the main them of the book is "science gone mad."

But I think there is a point that at least to a degree, there's an identifiable preference in the genre to lean towards things we would consider to be liberal here in the US. Most post-apocalyptic tales involve the world/humanity on the brink of ruin because of nuclear power back during the Cold War. Now those same kinds of stories have shifted to climate change. Since Neuromancer, mega corporations as shadow villains in secret conspiracies are so common to be cliche. Lovable rogues who abscond social norms and expectations are archetypal science fiction heroes (Star Lord anyone?). Being critical of religion tends to be a trend in every genre of fiction, science fiction and fantasy included, where evil churchs/cults are often villains (Just look at Maelstrom's Edge ).

I guess what I'm really trying to get at is that, you don't have to look very far in science fiction to find things that some people who just want to be angry about stuff, will decry as 'liberal bias.' Except I would consider that to be inherent, to a degree, to the nature of asking the question "what if ______." You're either concerned the world is going to be destroyed, or curious how it can get better. Both mindsets I'd posit have a tendency to send one down certain roads that most often fall on the liberal side of things.

Right - I've done some data analysis, quick and dirty because I'm not being paid for it.

My assumption, taken from John C. Wright, is that "the Hugo Award became the Tor Award"

To test this, I got all of the nominees and winners from 1985 to today from the Hugo website, and filtered them into categories by publisher (if the category had a publisher, so not Best Web site for example)

I limited to the following awards: Best Novel, Best Novella, Best Novelette, Best Related Work, Best Short Story, and Best Editor (all forms)

Going by five year blocks, the nomination results are as follows:
1985-1989: 9 Tor nominations
1990-1994: 17 Tor nominations
1995-1999: 15 Tor nominations
2000-2004: 19 Tor nominations
2005-2009: 24 Tor nominations
2010-2014: 33 Tor nominations

The winning results are:
1985-1989: 2 Tor wins
1990-1994: 1 Tor win
1995-1999: 0 Tor wins
2000-2004: 4 Tor wins
2005-2009: 8 Tor wins
2010-2014: 11 Tor wins

While this indicates that Tor have been getting more nominations and wins in general over the last decade, the data does not and cannot say why. Could be because of slate voting, could be because of merit, who knows? I just thought it'd be interesting to crunch the numbers.

The obvious question is how many other publishers are there, how many works doe they publish per year, and how many of them have been nominated and won?

Just for a start without knowing the size and growth of the markets covered by the awards, it's impossible even to say if Tor nominations actually have increased in a meaningful sense.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The obvious question is how many other publishers are there, how many works doe they publish per year, and how many of them have been nominated and won?

243 publishers for the categories I limited to. I can compare them to Analog, Asimov's and F&SF as the other 'bulk' award winners if you want. Any further than that and I'd need you to pay me

Just for a start without knowing the size and growth of the markets covered by the awards, it's impossible even to say if Tor nominations actually have increased in a meaningful sense.

I. . . just proved that Tor nominations have increased? Not sure why the size and growth of the market should matter, and considering this these are awards this is a zero sum game - any nomination Tor gets is one someone else doesn't get.

As per above - results for Analog, Asimov's and F&SF

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The obvious question is how many other publishers are there, how many works doe they publish per year, and how many of them have been nominated and won?

243 publishers for the categories I limited to. I can compare them to Analog, Asimov's and F&SF as the other 'bulk' award winners if you want. Any further than that and I'd need you to pay me

Just for a start without knowing the size and growth of the markets covered by the awards, it's impossible even to say if Tor nominations actually have increased in a meaningful sense.

I. . . just proved that Tor nominations have increased? Not sure why the size and growth of the market should matter, and considering this these are awards this is a zero sum game - any nomination Tor gets is one someone else doesn't get.

As per above - results for Analog, Asimov's and F&SF

Spoiler:

The nomination results:
1985-1989: 18 Analog nominations
1990-1994: 12 Analog nominations
1995-1999: 15 Analog nominations
2000-2004: 21 Analog nominations
2005-2009: 11 Analog nominations
2010-2014: 9 Analog nominations

1985-1989: 40 Asimov's nominations
1990-1994: 49 Asimov's nominations
1995-1999: 54 Asimov's nominations
2000-2004: 45 Asimov's nominations
2005-2009: 35 Asimov's nominations
2010-2014: 19 Asimov's nominations

1985-1989: 19 F&SF nominations
1990-1994: 11 F&SF nominations
1995-1999: 12 F&SF nominations
2000-2004: 15 F&SF nominations
2005-2009: 15 F&SF nominations
2010-2014: 5 F&SF nominations

The winning results:
1985-1989: 1 Analog win
1990-1994: 4 Analog wins
1995-1999: 0 Analog wins
2000-2004: 4 Analog wins
2005-2009: 0 Analog wins
2010-2014: 1 Analog wins

1985-1989: 10 Asimov's wins
1990-1994: 13 Asimov's wins
1995-1999: 16 Asimov's wins
2000-2004: 10 Asimov's wins
2005-2009: 9 Asimov's wins
2010-2014: 6 Asimov's wins

1985-1989: 2 F&SF wins
1990-1994: 0 F&SF wins
1995-1999: 3 F&SF wins
2000-2004: 1 F&SF wins
2005-2009: 3 F&SF wins
2010-2014: 1 F&SF wins

What I mean is that if 30 years ago there were 10 awards and now there are 20 (for example, due to animation being added, or blogs, or whatever), then clearly Tor's number of awards could go up by 50% while actually losing some of their dominant position.

This is without mentioning that if Tor is a huge publisher that puts out 90% of the SF stuff in the USA, you would expect them to win a substantial proportion of awards, because they would have such a stable of authors. Also consider that publishing actually involves selection, editing and talent management, meaning that Tor may be just plain better than tiny rivals at publishing stuff that is going to do well. On the reverse angle, Tor may put out 2,000 books a year and only get 20 awards, while some smaller rivals might 20 books a year and get 2 awards.

Conversely, perhaps Tor uses their size to buy memberships for all their employees and make them vote for Tor books.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This is without mentioning that if Tor is a huge publisher that puts out 90% of the SF stuff in the USA,

While I do not know if the number is accurate, it is true that Tor is far and away the largest publisher of Science Fiction and Fantasy works in North America (the scifi isle at your local bookstore might as well be the Tor isle for how many works Tor puts out each year). A quick google search had this website though I am honestly too lazy to verify it's accuracy. Assuming it's accurate, Tor is far ahead of other publishers in number of authors and books nominated for/winning awards (the website covers 10 awards including the Nebula and Hugo Awards). Of those listed, Del Ray, Tor, and Ace are the publisher's I'm most familiar with as far as books I've read are concerned.

Conversely, perhaps Tor uses their size to buy memberships for all their employees and make them vote for Tor books.

While I find that unlikely, Tor probably does organize campaigns each year to try and lobby their published works for numerous awards (including the Hugo) but that's a pretty standard practice in numerous mediums including film and music. It is entirely possible Tor dedicates more resources to marketing and campaigning to get their books noticed, and that this is reflected come award season with a much wider audience having read them as well as even knowing they exist.

EDIT: Oh, here's why; Tor is a subsidiary of MacMillan, aka one of the Big Five publishing houses. Ace and Del Ray I think are the only other science fiction publishers associated with one of the Big Five (Penguin Random House), and Penguin has been treading water the last decade, around the same time Tor really started sweeping the nominations. My theory; Tor has been putting more money into marketing their authors and books, while other publishers in the genre have either been unable to match their marketing, or forced to cut back because their parent is struggling. Not to mention just having more money and access to authors in general.

 LordofHats wrote:


I'm not saying there's no such thing as conservative scifi (okay I suppose I kind of did so I'll take that back, maybe got a bit carried away ). Frankenstein is often cited as the very first Science Fiction novel, and arguably the main them of the book is "science gone mad."

I'd argue that the main theme of Frankenstein is that humanity creates its own monsters. The Monster was driven to its crimes by the hostility it encountered from those it met, even from its own creator. The Monster was not inherently evil, it was effectively abused from the very moment of its creation and so had no chance to learn to be "good".