tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3304302673132222419.post7967125916033261213..comments2023-11-09T22:51:59.986-05:00Comments on Dreaming About Other Worlds: Biased Opinion - 2016 Hugo Awards Post MortemAaron Poundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11747596648152141394noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3304302673132222419.post-78007468606218918582016-09-15T09:25:55.420-04:002016-09-15T09:25:55.420-04:00@Karl-Johan Norén: While I had the impression that...@Karl-Johan Norén: <i>While I had the impression that the rhetoric of the Sad Puppy leaders (both past and present) became more radical and strident during the year, this only went as far as their rhetoric.</i><br /><br />To a certain extent, that is true, which is why I mostly focused on the Sad Puppy rhetoric when talking about them in this post, and for the most part, their rhetoric <i>after</i> the Hugo results were announced.<br /><br /><i>As for their actual actions, in how they solicited suggestions for their recommendations lists and then publicized it, I have no objections at all. There were several examples of counter-trolling or testing (take your pick) of their convictions, and I believe that is how works like "Binti", "Cat Pictures, Please", or "Mad Max: Fury Road" ended up on their recommendation list.</i><br /><br />Yes, this is why I called the Sad Puppy list a "recommendation list" and not a slate. Given that the Sad Puppies trumpeted the "open and democratic" nature of the list this year, and before the Hugo results came out extolled the virtues of this approach, their rhetoric following the announcements of the results is even more interesting. They are, it seems, happy to claim the moral virtue of being "democratic", but far less than happy living with the outcome.<br /><br />As far as works appearing on the Sad Puppy list, I don't think you can really call it trolling when someone shows up to an "open and democratic" process and participates. If the Pups were actually committed to their rhetoric of backing "popular" works, then the source of the popularity wouldn't matter, and the works that got votes in their process would be the ones they were pushing to win. The divergence between their rhetoric about democracy and their reactions after the fact shows that their high-minded claims about loving democracy to have been rather hollow.<br /><br /><i>Also, last year the Sad Puppies ended up with far less influence on the final ballot than the Rabid Puppies, and from all that I can tell the "foot soldiers" of the Sad Puppy movement are fewer, less disciplined, and probably more knowledgeable on literary sf than those of the Rabid Puppy movement.</i><br /><br />I agree on this point. The real driving force of the "Puppy" movement in 2016 was the Rabid Puppies. I said as much <a href="http://dreamingaboutotherworlds.blogspot.com/2016/04/2016-hugo-award-finalists.html" rel="nofollow">in my post about the Award that discussed the finalists when they were initially announced</a>. Of course, this makes the willingness of guys like Correia and Torgersen to throw themselves into denouncing those who didn't vote for Rabid Puppy candidates all the more interesting. Their willingness to jump on a grenade for Beale is kind of hard to reconcile with the notion that are actually two distinct sets of Puppies.<br /><br />I have a post that is probably going to be posted tonight where I talk about (among other things) the relative weakness of the Sad Puppies as a group when compared to the Rabid Puppies.Aaron Poundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11747596648152141394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3304302673132222419.post-72259985409678375592016-09-15T06:10:22.149-04:002016-09-15T06:10:22.149-04:00Nice and thorough analysis, but I disagree with so...Nice and thorough analysis, but I disagree with some of your assumptions and assessment on the Sad Puppies this year.<br /><br />While I had the impression that the rhetoric of the Sad Puppy leaders (both past and present) became more radical and strident during the year, this only went as far as their rhetoric.<br /><br />As for their actual actions, in how they solicited suggestions for their recommendations lists and then publicised it, I have no objections at all. There were several examples of counter-trolling or testing (take your pick) of their convictions, and I believe that is how works like "Binti", "Cat Pictures, Please", or "Mad Max: Fury Road" ended up on their recommendation list.<br /><br />Also, last year the Sad Puppies ended up with far less influence on the final ballot than the Rabid Puppies, and from all that I can tell the "foot soldiers" of the Sad Puppy movement are fewer, less disciplined, and probably more knowledgable on literary sf than those of the Rabid Puppy movement. This can also be seen in that "Cat Pictures, Please" ended up in sixth place, and only made the final ballot after one of the Rabid picks had declined nomination. The pure Sad Puppy picks (ie those not on the Rabid list) also vary wildly in their nomination totals.<br /><br />Those points taken together makes me believe that any analysis of this year's Hugos can pretty much disregard the Sad Puppies.Karl-Johan Norénhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13013029444008382157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3304302673132222419.post-11486764401254807392016-09-14T10:04:15.650-04:002016-09-14T10:04:15.650-04:00@Lee Billings: Sure, which is why I said modest. I...@Lee Billings: Sure, which is why I said modest. I would also think that the circle of con-going fans who pay attention to the Art Show is a fairly small group as well. Correia's claim was that Elmore "dominated" a decade, and even if one is fairly generous about Elmore's reach in the 1980s (or even the 1980s and into the 1990s), that's just not supported by the record.Aaron Poundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11747596648152141394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3304302673132222419.post-61195290607720541862016-09-14T04:13:25.641-04:002016-09-14T04:13:25.641-04:00But any reasonable assessment of [Elmore's] pl...<i>But any reasonable assessment of [Elmore's] place in the world of fantasy art has to recognize that his reach beyond the subgenre of gaming and gaming-related fantasy was fairly modest. He was very popular within his niche, but he was working in a niche market.</i> <br /><br />Modest, but not nonexistent. There's one other category of fans who would recognize Elmore, and it's the one into which I fall -- con-going fans who pay attention to the Art Show. Elmore was a consistent exhibitor at convention art shows for a very long time, and I was familiar with him in that context. In fact, I have two art books of his work. But the Hugo is for work produced during the year of eligibility, and on that criterion Elmore fell short. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07997148378579892889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3304302673132222419.post-61359975288103460132016-09-13T21:41:52.734-04:002016-09-13T21:41:52.734-04:00@Naomi: You are correct. I will make modifications...@Naomi: You are correct. I will make modifications accordingly.Aaron Poundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11747596648152141394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3304302673132222419.post-63789519194350875142016-09-13T21:38:11.613-04:002016-09-13T21:38:11.613-04:00Two quick corrections -- I'm pretty sure Brook...Two quick corrections -- I'm pretty sure Brooke Bolander was on the SP recommended list but not the RP slate.<br /><br />And, "Cat Pictures Please" was in fact on the SP recommended list. So John C. Wright mentioned it favorably on his blog with the rest of the list -- I'm going to hazard a guess that he had NOT read it, at that point! But that makes his later pearl-clutching over the story that much funnier. <br />Naomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16235581646855322094noreply@blogger.com