Science Fiction Aficionados discussion

Ex Machina had better win for long-form dramatic.

Slow Bullets wasn't that great.

I think they are really reaching for material in a lot of cases. My Little Pony? Maybe they should consider trimming some categories.

Sara wrote: "the "recent" controversy surrounding the hugo.... Also IDK if your a rabid puppie or a sad puppy or a SJW or whatever and the Hugos may mean a lot to you but please keep it classy...."

I don't really track awards that closely... but I hate that when I think of the Hugo nowadays, people like Vox Day and Brad Torgersen come to mind. they have certainly done a lot to tarnish this award with their toxic shenanigans.

I thought it odd that a YA novel made it to the finals....or is that normal?

Yeah Vox Day, how annoying!

Nothing about the Hugo's is normal anymore. Apparently there are one or two groups that decide among themselves what novels to nominate and then (because they have the numbers to do it) manage to get their choices on the ballot. Apparently last year they were so outrageous there were no Hugo's awarded in 2015. One group is called the Sad Puppies. Was just reading this yesterday.

Okay here is the article. Hope posting this doesn't break any rules.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...

no rules broken! thanks for posting.

Was that supposed to be rabbit or rabid. Either works to describe them so not sure which you meant. I generally don't pay attention to any awards. I know what I like and I read that and awards be damned. I admit I am likely to stay away from the social justice warrior stuff mainly because I do not like being preached to by the fiction I am reading. If I want that I will grab some non-fiction in that vein which probably does a better job anyway.

Hate SJWs but agree that ruining the award with silly noms is very childish.

Sara wrote: " was basically a social justice warrior vote..."

I've seen that position before, from both camps of puppies. it is a mystifying position to me because it seems linked to the idea that science fiction is more about adventure than it is about speculation. as if you can't have one without the other! science fiction has always been about expanding horizons and wondering about what the future may hold, and not just about putting together an exciting roller coaster. and yet both of the puppy camps seem upset at authors and books that challenge "norms" - when challenging norms and looking at things in new ways has always been what science fiction is about.

Scott wrote: "Hate SJWs but agree that ruining the award with silly noms is very childish."

you don't hate me, do you Scott? we're friends! my perspective has a lot in common with what is generalized as the SJW agenda.

SJW?

Social Justice Warrior, i.e. using progressive ideals as a platform

No, that's not what an SJW is. An SJW is a person who obsessively microanalyzes everything, determined to find some kind of -ism. It's the subculture of the perpetually offended. See the recent Gap ad controversy.

It has nothing to do with genuine social justice.

ah!

From the perspective of someone not from the US looking in (and remember that anyone, anywhere in the world, can vote/nominate on the Hugos as long they have the right membership) the whole sad/rabid puppy thing seems completely bizarre, and very much related to US politics and cultural biases.

I can nominate. If I like a book I will nominate it. (I did.) And I will vote - after reading the finalists. If it's good enough (in my opinion) it will get my vote. If it isn't, then again, I vote accordingly.

Why is this so hard? Why do people have to divide into factions and promote an agenda?

It seemed to me the whole thing started with Larry Correia thinking it wasn't fair that he hadn't received a Hugo despite his books being popular. His books may be fun in a shoot 'em up sort of way, but fun doesn't make one think of voting them for a literary award!

Scott wrote: "No, that's not what an SJW is. An SJW is a person who obsessively microanalyzes everything, determined to find some kind of -ism. It's the subculture of the perpetually offended. See the recent Gap..."

Then what does it stand for?

I am not a big fan of the Social Justice Warriors but 1) not everyone writing diverse scifi is a SJW and 2) opposing them by behaving like a vulgar, foul-mouthed, misogynistic, spoilt-brat bigot does not impress me at all and is more likely to encourage me to read the books just to see what all the fuss is about.

I thought the issue was a bunch of libertarians fighting against so-called liberal thoughts in science fiction.

Leonie wrote: "From the perspective of someone not from the US looking in (and remember that anyone, anywhere in the world, can vote/nominate on the Hugos as long they have the right membership) the whole sad/rab..."

Yeah, I don't understand why they didn't just vote for proper (actual SF) books that they thought would be worthy.

mark wrote: science fiction has always been about expanding horizons and wondering about what the future may hold, and not just about putting together an exciting roller coaster. and yet both of the puppy camps seem upset at authors and books that challenge "norms" - when challenging norms and looking at things in new ways has always been what science fiction is about..."

Hear, hear!

Battles between factions are a way of life in the SF community I am beginning to think. I lived through the Science Fiction vs. Speculative Fiction battles of the 70s. That is probably why I have a distaste for the latter term and will never use it I also recall the competing ads that appeared on opposite pages of an issue of Galaxy and the second issue of International Science Fiction. I wish I still had that one to know who exactly was on which side. Even back in the 30s a group called The Futurians tried to get the SF community to embrace a movement called Michelism (after Jon B. Michel, one of their members). Basically they wanted everyone to embrace socialism at the least if not outright communism (the group was totally opposed to any idea of US involvement in WWII, until Hitler invaded Russia when they totally changed their tune). So the latest brouhaha is just the most recent in a long line of such things.

Addendum to the above. I recall that Gordon R. Dickson refused to sign either letter as according to him he had friends on both sides. I think he may have been one of the few major names not to sign.

These things start when one group of SF fans decides that they are the determiners of what is good SF and that anything that doesn't fit their standards isn't "worthy". I recall a certain writer (and I will not mention her name) who felt that anyone who like the works of E.E. "Doc" Smith had a problem. This was the same writer who when she was hosting Doctor Who on TVO in Ontario refused to allow the serial "The Talons of Weng-Chiang" to be aired. We fans had to wait until the Buffalo PBS station got to that season (they were behind TVO) to see it. She had her perception of what was proper for SF and she did not want to seen anything that didn't fit those perceptions enjoyed.

how come theres no SJW list?

Najaf I am not sure such a list can be composed. Mind you I am not even sure how you can tell who a SJW is. Anyone want to try and define it for the rest of us.

John wrote: "Najaf I am not sure such a list can be composed. Mind you I am not even sure how you can tell who a SJW is. Anyone want to try and define it for the rest of us."

I think you gave a good example of one right there. Censorship is a big thing with them. Instead of saying "'The Talons of Weng-Chiang' is a great Doctor Who story although it does contain some racial stereotypes," they say "NO ONE MUST SEE THIS."

(I'm not familiar with the works of Smith but I'm guessing it was something similar. This sort of person would probably not want anyone reading Lovecraft either.)

"Doc" Smith is to many the father of Space Opera. Most of his works appeared in the thirties and forties. A few shorter pieces did appear in the fifties and the last of the Skylark novels was written in the sixties. Most of the stuff written in this period (unless it was written by someone associated or sympathetic to the Futurians) was anathema to her I suspect. They remind of me of those critics who believe that books written in the Victorian age should reflect the social mores of 2016.

John wrote: ""They remind of me of those critics who believe that books written in the Victorian age should reflect the social mores of 2016."

Yes, exactly!

Najaf wrote: "how come theres no SJW list?"

because the people who are considered SJWs rarely define themselves as such.

John wrote: "Najaf I am not sure such a list can be composed. Mind you I am not even sure how you can tell who a SJW is. Anyone want to try and define it for the rest of us."

you have contrasting definitions in messages 17 and 18. choose whichever definition that you prefer!

and here is wikipedia's definition:

"Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated "SJW") is a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views, including advocacy for women's rights, identity politics, multiculturalism and civil rights.

I don't like the use of 'pejorative'. Maybe I'm being pedantic but these three words together seem to be simply stating that someone is taking an aggressive stance towards issues.

There are extremes in both camps and those that lean towards either extreme do no one favours. The moment I base what I think on the opinions of people with extreme agendas - to silence others or to aggressively promote dubious views - I'll give up reading.

At the moment I'll stick to my long held plan of ignoring any awards, societies, groups, advocates and self appointed judges and read what I like.

Not a bad philosophy to have

Craig wrote: "I don't like the use of 'pejorative'...."

But...if the person saying it means it as a critical description, and the person so labeled feels belittled, isn't it then pejorative?

"Advocacy for women's rights, identity politics, multiculturalism and civil rights," damn, we all need to watch out for those sorts of "dubious views," who knows what they may do to the fabric of our society.

Alexa the issues themselves are not a problem. The problem is with those who say all sci-fi must deal with those issues. If it doesn't then out come the cudgels and machetes and the attack is on.

Except that I didn't see anybody marching around saying that all sci-fi must deal with those issues. I saw a handful of writers choosing to deal with those issues, and some other people excited by what they had done, and then a bunch of puppies getting all upset because those works were getting critical and popular attention. The attacks were coming from the puppies.

What happens is that the critics only pay attention to those types of works and ignore all others. Then the general populace reads those critics and decides that is what real Sci-Fi must be. Thus those end up being the only works being talked about. This means that those who like a different type of SF are forced to use other means to get the stuff they like attention.

Right - like deliberately trying to destroy the Hugos. Great way to insure that all that "other" stuff doesn't get overlooked by the vast conspiracy of "social justice warriors."

John wrote: "What happens is that the critics only pay attention to those types of works and ignore all others. Then the general populace reads those critics and decides that is what real Sci-Fi must be. Thus t..."

But the Hugos are an award decided by fans - who then vote. Not by critics, or nebulous others. As long as people vote for the stories they like, (which is the whole point) then the 'right' people win. It's a popular vote.

If tastes change over years, those stories that win should probably reflect the changing likes of the greater majority of those who read and vote, not some person's predetermined ideological point of view of what 'should' win.

And again, I'd reiterate - that voters for the Hugos come from all over the world, not just the US. And from some of our perspectives, some of this stuff seems really self evident, and not new, different or weird, just stuff that reflects the world we already live in.

1I think it is stretching things to say it is voted by the fans. I recently voted for MLB's All-Star game. All it cost me was time. If I wanted to vote for the Hugos I would have to shell out at least $40 for a non-attending membership in the World Con. If you truly want the fans vote then do what MLB does and allow anyone to vote online.
Oh and if a story simply reflects the world we already live in is it really science fiction?

John wrote: "1I think it is stretching things to say it is voted by the fans."

It is voted by members of the World Science Fiction Convention, which is made up of a segment of fandom, including writers, publishers, etc.

That's the way it's always been.

In large part the puppies are upset that the Hugo isn't the award they want it to be. But I think it speaks volumes that (at least last year), most of what they got voted into the awards were works associated with a publishing company owned and operated by the people running the puppy slates.

Their slate was mostly a move of self-interest, promoted on politically charged web sites as being a move against the perceived (but never proven) SJW's opposing slate.

Only reviews of the nomination data showed there had been no unified anti-puppy slate. The whole thing was a giant strawman marketing campaign designed to force their own works into the awards, and thus increase their sales.

John wrote: "What happens is that the critics only pay attention to those types of works and ignore all others. Then the general populace reads those critics and decides that is what real Sci-Fi must be. Thus those end up being the only works being talked about..."

Only the puppies' also argued that the works on their slate were commercially successful. Which contradicts the idea that critics pushing a social agenda are successfully focusing fandom's attention to lesser deserving works.

The very commercial success claimed by the puppies shows that a lot of people were actually familiar with and paying attention to their publications. So why did they have to put together their slate and promote it so vehemently?

What they did wasn't against Hugo rules, but the tone of their actions was vitriolic and counterproductive. I did not see anything equivalent to that from supposed SJWs, except in their reaction against the rhetoric and tactics of the puppies.

Micah wrote: "Their slate was mostly a move of self-interest, promoted on politically charged web sites as being a move against the perceived (but never proven) SJW's opposing slate...."

this is my perspective as well.

Micah wrote: "John wrote: "1I think it is stretching things to say it is voted by the fans."

It is voted by members of the World Science Fiction Convention, which is made up of a segment of fandom, including wr..."

As far as I am concerned it is not open to SF fandom in general. Only to those who either want to or can afford to (and I for one cannot) pay money for one level of membership or another. If you truly want the fans to vote than follow MLB's as well as other groups lead and put the ballot online for all to vote on. That would be true democracy in action, something no one could disagree with.

John wrote: "If you truly want the fans to vote than follow MLB's as well as other groups lead and put the ballot online for all to vote on. That would be true democracy in action, something no one could disagree with..."

You're basically arguing that it's not the award you want it to be and ignoring what it actually is.

Anyway, an open-to-all-the-world award would also be even more subject to punking by politically motivated non-fans.

That's probably part of why the Hugo charges a nominal fee to be involved. That and the fact that the award and convention takes a hell of a lot of money to organize each year. It's all done on a volunteer basis, too. No one gets paid to organize, promote, or participate, even the presenters at the con; big name authors pay full membership fees.

The question is how do you define malicious.

I know this is a big deal, but it amazes me to what lengths people get worked up about it.

Been a part of SF fandom since the beginning. The early period is often referred to as the fighting or feuding years. Tailored off somewhat in the 50s but it is still there.

John wrote: "Micah wrote: "John wrote: "1I think it is stretching things to say it is voted by the fans."

It is voted by members of the World Science Fiction Convention, which is made up of a segment of fandom..."

Yes, you do have to be a member of the relevant WorldCon, but you can simply be a supporting member, not actually attend the Con. This year it's $50 US. It includes the Hugo Packet - which is pretty good value when you think about it - lots of books :)

As another poster has said, the Hugos are run by volunteers, but they do cost money to run, so a small fee to be able to nominate and vote isn't really a big ask.