Linkages for Tuesday

No, a kid did NOT find an ancient Mayan city by comparing ruin locations to the stars.

Weapons of Math Instruction?

Ursula K. Le Guin writes about her cat.

Huh. Wizards of the Coast has some tournament judges suing them, claiming they were effectively employees and should have been compensated as such.

The Chronicles of Cisco continues for fans of The Flash tv show: Part One (in which Cisco tries to improve the Flash suit and falls asleep), Part Two (in which Cisco tries to find an intruder at 3:45 a.m.), Part Three (in which Cisco makes a mistake), and Part Four (in which we learn... well, watch and see).

Boing Boing has a list of disappearances that still make people scratch their heads. Some fascinating stories there.

More fascinating stories came out of Remote Year, a social experiment that didn't turn out perfect, but certainly makes for good reading.

Here's a brutal Fortean topic: The terror of albinism in parts of Africa. In short, if you are albino, you do not exist and are constantly at risk of death.

This piece from Popehat has to be read to be believed. This guy seriously wanted an amendment declaring only people descended from white Europeans to be allowed to be citizens? Now the guy is a Trump delegate... what a surprise.

Hugo Corner:

• Boing Boing on Chuck Tingle's epic troll of the rabid puppies.
• GRRM on other awards.
• Bujold on her Locus nomination.
• A review of one of the works I don't plan to bother reading, because it's from the rabid puppies' master's publishing house (It sounds about as worthless as I suspected it would, building strawmen based on scant facts). The reviewer then responds to the morons who support the original piece.
• And lastly, a painful piece on the current status of the comic book industry, which also mentions the Hugo mess.

And now, a four-minute video that will make you cry. Maybe.

The Present from Jacob Frey on Vimeo.

Some links and a rant

NASA is trying to grow potatoes on Mars. According to a Wall Street Journal article, scientists are trying to find a potato that will grow at cold and low-pressure conditions, and is also good for food. Of course, they can't grow in the open air on Mars:

the temperature averages minus 84 degrees Fahrenheit, with lows of minus 284 degrees, according to NASA. It has high levels of radiation and over 60% less gravity than Earth. Its atmosphere has 96% carbon dioxide, with only a tiny amount of oxygen. Then there are the dust storms and salty water.

Still, to test the soil conditions, scientists are planting crops in soil from the Pampas de La Joya Desert in southern Peru. If the tests are successful, then a simulator will be made that mimics the conditions the plants would endure in a dome on Mars.

When I first read this headline: Wolverines Are Now Being Trained to Find Avalanche Survivors, I thought it was some sort of Marvel Comics promotion. D'oh. No, it's an actual effort to use wolverines, the actual animals, to hunt for people in avalanches. Wolverines are small, smart, and work well in the snow. The trick is getting the wolverines to imprint on humans soon after birth, as well as breeding them in captivity.

My friend Michael Sensei went spelunking and took some photos and video of Yugen Cave. Makes me want to head up to Bellingham and visit that cave I went to with friends once.

Children have been doodling all throughout time. I love these scraps of art by a 7-year-old boy named Onfim living in 13th century Novgorod, Russia.

Optical illusions are not universal, which was a surprise to me. There's a couple of examples of how people perceive illusions differently in the article. Be sure to read the comments, lots of insight and some corrections there.

This documentary sounds fantastic. I wish I lived near enough to an IMAX theater to go see it.

George R. R. Martin has an epic response to a writer who thinks, for some bizarre reason, that because Martin once purchased a story from him that Martin must therefore love everything that writer has ever written. The reasoning is so twisted and wrong it hardly bears giving any thought to, but Martin calmly and completely demolishes it and the writer (who, incidentally called Martin a liar, to boot). Nicely done, Martin.

Spacefaring, Extradimensional Happy Kittens has a round-up of people's responses to being included on this year's rabid puppies slate. Many asked to be removed and were not. Some support the rabids. Because this year the rabids included "human shields" in their slate, the overall situation is much more complicated than last year, in which a near-total rejection of the slate was reasonable, as very few of the nominations were Hugo-worthy. This year the rabids included works that would certainly have made it to the final ballot... but other good works were still kicked off. Voters are going to have to decide if it's more important to them to punish the slate or more important that a good work get the Hugo. It will not be an easy choice.

One last Hugo rant after the fold. Feel free to skip it.

Linkdump

Hugo Recommendation Weeks are coming. Get your thoughts in gear for trying to post some great works.

Another cool Smokecane photo from Sasquan.

Never give fans an opening... A comment left open-ended on File 770 led to a hilarious thread of things fandom says while facing the Balrog. It continued for some time.

Some people are complaining about diversity in Science Fiction and Fantasy... they seem to forget. We've always been here. We just didn't get respect until recently.

Photos from Sasquan by Olav Rokne.

A very stupid book was published, and prompted a parody called "John Scalzi Is Not A Very Popular Author And I Myself Am Quite Popular: How SJWs Always Lie About Our Comparative Popularity Levels" by an author who is not John Scalzi. However, someone thought it would be really funny if Scalzi read the audiobook... and Scalzi agreed to do it if $2,500 was raised for a fan charity that helps people get to conventions. Fans contributed more then $10,000 and the audio is up.

Halloween is coming

A book that provides clean water. Literally. The pages are water filters. A single book can filter water for one person for four years.

The Birdwatching Narwhal by Ursula Vernon.

Hugo Post-mortem (part 2)

So, yesterday I posted a big long post about the rankings of the Hugo nominees. In the same document, we find out what else got more than a handful of nominees and therefore, we learn what the puppies pushed off the ballot.

More possible math, and possibly a long post, so after the cut it goes...

Hugo Post-mortem (part 1)

In case you didn't already figure it out, Eric and I watched the Hugo Awards live together Saturday night. We had only one technical glitch during the stream, when they announced the winner of the Best Dramatic Presentation Short Form, so I had to find out who won from comments on File 770.

The full results have been announced, including how the voting went. The first pages of the Hugo Final Report list how the actual voting went. The more disturbing information is later in the report, where we learn what the puppy slates pushed off the ballot (and also get an idea of how many puppies there actually were nominating).

The business meeting Sunday morning tackled the problem head-on with the elegant but poorly understood E Pluribus Hugo proposal. It passed the first vote 186-62 after much discussion, and will have to be voted on and pass again next year before taking effect in 2017. This makes me wish I could get to MidAmeriCon II even more, now, so I can vote for it in the business meeting (I'm listed in the Aug. 6 Member List as an Attending Adult, which is not the case. I bought a supporting membership. I'm going to have to contact them to correct it.). Another proposal aimed at reducing the effect of slates, 4/6, also passed. This proposal would ask nominees to list only four choices, then there would be six nominees on the final ballot.

Let's see... Ursula Vernon has been incredibly gracious about losing out a nomination to the slates. The excellent "Jackalope Wives" would have made the ballot if not for the slates. Many people, seeing the works the slates pushed off the ballot, are furious all over again at the slate-movement and the slate leadership's dubious tastes.

Next up, I'm going to do math and speculate and think about things that probably would be better off left alone. I'm putting it all after the cut so you don't have to slog through it.

A Very Lucky Puppy

Update on the Hugo mess after the cut...

Hugo Update - How to shoot yourself in the foot, puppy style

Lou Antonelli, an author who had two works nominated by both the sad and rabid puppies for the Hugos this year, managed to well and truly screw himself up. It remains to be seen whether or not he is really sorry for his actions, although his apology seems genuine enough. Details after the cut for people bored with the whole Hugo Mess.

Hugos: How Did I Do?

Let's work out for this week what puppy works there were in my reviewed categories and what I thought of them for the Hugo ballot.

The John W. Campbell Award (not a Hugo)

I was not surprised to discover that four of the five nominees for this award are on the puppy slates. Cordova, English and Raymond are all on both slates while Nelson is only on the Rabid slate.

No surprise, Chu, who was far and away the absolute best choice in the category, was not a slate nominee. I wish he'd had worthy competition.

Professional Editor (Short Form)

I knew that VD was a slate nominee, but I was surprised to find out that all the nominees were on slates. That just makes me wonder how much better/different the nominees would have been if the puppies hadn't dishonestly gamed the nomination system. In any case, VD was only on the Rabid slate while all the others were on both slates.

Brozek was my top pick and Resnick second, though I could have just as easily gone the other way with them.

Professional Editor (Long Form)

This was another category that only had slate nominees. Again, VD was only on the Rabid slate and all the others were on both slates. Again, I wonder how different the slate would have been without scumbags gaming the system. Honestly, it makes me want to go and put "No Award" at the top for both editor categories and list my picks below, especially after having read the so-called Related Works category.

Anyway, Gilbert took the top spot in part due to her absolutely brilliant contribution to the packet that I hope and fear every long form editor in the future will follow, while Sowards got the second spot.

Dramatic Presentation (Long Form)

The Lego Movie, Interstellar and Guardians of the Galaxy were all slate nominees on both slates. Edge of Tomorrow and Captain America were not on slates. Edge of Tomorrow is one of my top choices while Captain America is at the bottom. I'm still not sure which movie will get the top spot on my ballot, Edge of Tomorrow or The Lego Movie. That's going to be a tough choice for me.

Summary

I almost wish I hadn't bothered with the editor categories. Almost. If I'd known/remembered that they were all puppies, I probably wouldn't have bothered. They were really tough to decide, and would be in any year. Knowing that both categories were entirely tainted makes all that effort seem pointless.

I'm very glad I watched Edge of Tomorrow, and it was nice to have some extra movie nights with my hubby. I really did enjoy Guardians of the Galaxy and Interstellar, though I'm really glad I had the ability to pause Interstellar and take a break. The movie watching was probably the easiest and the most stressful of the categories, but the library came through for me and I ended up watching pretty much all the movies without any problems.

Lastly, I've set up a page on the blog that lists all my Hugo posts and has some useful links to other resources. I'll try to keep it updated, but no promises.

Hugos: How Did I Do?

So, let's work out for this week what puppy works there were in my reviewed categories and what I thought of them for the Hugo ballot.

Related Work

All five nominees were on both slates, and it showed. Not one of these entries was good enough for any award, and one of them was clearly meant as an insult to any fan of science fiction and fantasy. I gave the entire category "No Award" and frankly, if I could have given some of these works an anti-Hugo I would do it.

Dramatic Presentation (Short Form)

It's almost immaterial what the puppies nominated in this, except that they may have managed to push better works off the list. There were three slate nominees, as it turned out. The Flash and Grimm were on both slates while Game of Thrones was only on the Rabid Puppy slate.

I ranked Doctor Who, a non-slate nominee, at the top of my ballot. I followed it with The Flash, Grimm, Game of Thrones, then Orphan Black (the other non-slate entry) at the bottom. The order of the middle three may change before the voting period is done: I am still considering. I'm not really sure what impact the puppies had on this category, but I didn't hate any of the entries. The only reason Orphan Black is at the bottom is because it's not really accessible to new viewers.

Semiprozine

There were two slate nominees in this category, Abyss & Apex and Andromeda Spaceways, both nominated by the sad puppies only. The other three entries were non-slate and, surprise surprise, those three actually were at the top of my ballot.

Lightspeed took the top spot, with Beneath Ceaseless Skies and Strange Horizons just below it. Then I ranked the other two, which turned out to be slate candidates, just below them. The exact order may change, in that I might switch SH and BCS around or switch A&A and AS around, but the general order is going to be the same on my final ballot. The slate entries came in at the bottom because I didn't think they were quite as good as the others... but they were still good.

Fanzine

I figured out that one of the entries was slate, it was that obvious. As it turned out, three of the four were nominated on both puppy slates. The only non-slate entry was Journey Planet, and Journey Planet also happened to be my highest ranked nominee. So the pattern holds true yet again. While I don't always rank all the non-slates the highest, if I have a preference, it's always been a non-slate nominee.

Novel

To my surprise, there were only two slate nominees in this category, both nominated by both slates. They were The Dark Between the Stars and Skin Game. As it turned out, those were the two I ranked lowest. Dark because it was incredibly boring and Skin because it was very much light reading that just didn't strike me as the best of the year.

The other three books were non-slate and they were the top of my ballot, with The Goblin Emperor my clear favorite followed closely by Ancillary Sword. The Three Body Problem had some problems with overlong technical bits and a story that bogged down heavily in the middle. Otherwise it would be a very close third... instead it's a distant third.

Summary

So far I've continued the trend of having non-slate nominees ranked at the top, even in the dramatic category. I don't expect that to continue into the movie category. The one movie that I know I love in that category is a slate nominee (I looked it up before I was voting and was saddened). But it's been interesting to see how the trend has held true so far.

I have finished reading for the Campbell Awards and made my decision, I'm just working on my post about it. I have one more movie (Interstellar) to watch for the Dramatic Long Form. I'm working my way through the editor nominees as well. I'm not sure how long it'll take me to get through them all, but I'm making excellent progress. There's a tiny chance I'll be done by the end of the week. Then I can take more time with the 'zine and editor entries to make sure I've made the right choices.

Edited to add: Tom Smith has filked the puppies. Go, read, listen.

Hugos Round-Up

Multiple topics for this post. First up is my "How did I do?" on whether or not I found the slate works to be worse than the non-slate stuff and to answer Denise's standard question (Any of the nominees on the Puppy's slate?). Then up is my overview of the E Pluribus Hugo proposal to depower slates in the Hugo Award Nominations with a lame story/example provided.

I also thought I'd mention that I'm finally listed as a supporting member on the Sasquan membership list, which makes me very happy. I wish I could attend, but life being what it is, I'm just glad I was able to become a supporting member.

Just as a reminder, you can go to Renay's 2016 Hugo Spreadsheet of Doom or the Hugo Nominees 2016 Wikia to look for works that will eligible for a Hugo in 2016 so you can read them for possible nomination. Both the spreadsheet and wiki allow submissions, as well, so add your own favorites to get them a little more widespread attention.

The main content is after the cut for those of you viewing this on my main page (I'm trying to spare my usual 30 or so readers, who may not be all that interested).

How did I do?

So, I've been asked on Facebook each time I've posted a Hugo review which of the nominees were on slates (Hi, Denise). I have been answering as I go, and sometimes the results have startled me a little.

I'm going to round up the four categories I've reviewed and figure out which ones have slate nominees and what I thought of those nominees.

Short Stories

I started with Short Stories. All five of the nominees were on slates. Two of them, "On A Spiritual Plain" and "Totaled" were on both slates. "A Single Samurai" was only on the Sad Puppies slate. "Turncoat" and "Parliament" were only on the Rapid Puppies slate.

I found "Totaled" to be the only one worthy of an award. It is on my ballot, but I left the other four off. Yes, "No Award" is also on my ballot... right above "Totaled". While it's a good story, I'm not convinced it's Hugo-worthy and could not bring myself to rank it first.

Fan Artist

My second category was Fan Artist. None of the nominees were on the slates. I'm not sure why, but that's what happened. I haven't filled out the ballot for this category yet, but I was inclined to put all five on it.

Professional Artist

Four of the five nominees in Professional Artist were on the slates. Kirk DouPounce is only on the Rapid Puppies while Nick Greenwood, Alan Pollack and Carter Reid all are on both slates. Julie Dillon is not on a slate.

I loved Dillon's work. It spoke to me and I enjoyed it immensely. The others were kind of "meh" for me. I had intended to put Dillon first and "No Award" second, then rank the others below. I will probably still do that.

Graphic Story

There was only one slate nominee in the Graphic Story category, and that was Carter Reid's zombie book. That was also one of the two nominees I was considering leaving off the ballot. The other was Ms. Marvel. I'm still dithering about that. I may just rank them both below "No Award" instead.

So, to sum up, trying very hard to judge these works entirely on their own merits, not by whether or not they showed up on a slate, I still managed to pretty much pick the non-slate stuff for higher on the ballot. Granted, this is only four categories out of 16, not including the Campbell. So I'm only a quarter of the way through and there's a lot more to decide.

Hugo Award Recommendations

Oh bliss! In the comment section at File 770, Ultragotha pointed me to this lovely spreadsheet of recommendations for the 2016 Hugo award. These are works that came out this year and will be eligible for next year's Hugo.

The spreadsheet asks for submissions, which is basically what I've been asking for here, so if you've got anything that might be eligible and you think people ought to read, send it in!

I've read one of the Novel suggestions, Shadow Scale by Rachel Hartman. And yes, it's excellent. So yes, I'll probably nominate it. Amazingly, I haven't read any of the graphic novel suggestions, but I'll be making my own suggestions soon. I've seen the two Flash episodes in the dramatic, short form category, although I'd have to look them up to remember which ones they are. My husband is a huge fan of the Verity! podcast and would be delighted to see it nominated for a Hugo... I'll have to listen to a couple of episodes and see if I agree with him.

For fanzine, I'm already seriously considering nominating File 770... Mike's been doing an incredible job not only keeping up with the current Hugo mess, he's also posted things like this list of recommended short stories that came from the comment sections of the Hugo posts. And the non-Hugo posts are usually of interest to me as well.

The rest are going to be stuff I'll be looking for after I finish dealing with this year's nominees, which have gotten particularly problematic in some spots. I'm nearly banging my head against the wall reading some of these... pieces. I suppose some people's definition of "best" differs dramatically from mine. I've been trying to intersperse reading from one section with reading from another, but that can be difficult. There are some pieces that just make me want to chuck the whole effort and reread Bujold books until I don't feel icky anymore (I can hardly wait for the new Chalion novella, that might be a nominee next year, too).

That said, I'm mostly enjoying myself. I would pitch in the money for next year in an instant if I had it to spare right now. Same with the supporting membership for 2017. I'd buy it and vote on the best pitch for location if I had the cash, knowing I'd be getting the perks of doing this again next year and the year after at a more leisurely pace.

...

One last thing... I'm not a social justice warrior, but I am anti-slate. If someone wants to refer to "my type" of people, then "Anti-Slate" is the name I have selected for myself. Any other label will be considered name-calling. I don't mind descriptive adjectives applied to me... I've used adjectives to described the self-proclaimed puppies many times and I no doubt will in the future. But my "group" is Anti-Slate. That's why I started to pay attention, and that's why I got a Hugo membership. That's why I'm reading the nominations and that's why I plan to nominate next year. I oppose slates.

Hugos, another angle...

I'm mostly a pop culture movie/TV watcher, and heavily into the comic book world. So I don't actually have a great idea of what is happening in the rest of the science fiction/fantasy world. I tend to pick up books and short stories years after they've been published, instead of keeping up with the current works. So, rather than stare some more at the train wreck around the Hugos this year, I'd like people to tell me about some works they've seen lately that will qualify for next year's Hugo awards. If it's not obvious, tell me where it was published/how to get it.

I just want to hear about stuff you enjoyed, not every single work. It doesn't have to be Hugo-worthy, but if it was fun and interesting, I want to hear about it. For instance, I enjoyed Galaxy Quest:The Journey Continues, which was published as a four-issue mini by IDW Comics. I am not certain it is Hugo-worthy, but I did like it.

I've also enjoyed the recent Aquaman series by Jeff Parker. I'm not sure any of it qualifies for the Hugo ballot (I'm not really clear on the rules with graphic stories, honestly), but I would probably nominate some of Parker's work, Aquaman or Batman '66... and for that matter, I probably will.

As of ten minutes ago, I have become a supporting member of Sasquan... not to vote in this year's Hugos, but to be part of the nominating process for next year. If I read/watch all the entrants in any particular category this year, I will consider voting in that category. But I suspect I won't have the time to go through all of them. We'll just have to see.

Because I plan on nominating for next year, this post and any that follow it with the "Hugo Suggestions" tag, will be my ongoing journal of what I'm looking at and what I like. I encourage you to post a comment with ANYTHING you think is eligible that you enjoyed, whether you think it's Hugo-worthy or not. In the meantime, I'm going to go read up on the Hugo categories and try to work out what I've already read this year that both qualifies and deserves a Hugo.

So, c'mon people... give me some suggestions.

note: My comments are moderated. I check them about three times a day, once in the morning, once at lunchtime and also in the evening. Please don't submit multiple times. I get an email each time and it fills up my box when I'm away.

Hugo mess... it's still going on

This is mostly a quotes post, and again I'm putting it behind the cut for folks who just aren't interested.

The ongoing Hugo mess comes to haunt me again...

I know that a handful of my regular 30 or so readers are not at all interested in this topic, so once again, I'm putting the majority of it behind a nice cut so you can skip past it. If you are reading it in an RSS feed, just move on to the next post... sorry to take up your time.

...

Are they gone yet? Ok, for the rest of you, I've got a post with three parts up ahead. I kind of hope this will be the last for awhile, but I can't really say for sure. I write what my brain tells me to write, and I've been thinking a lot about certain aspects of this whole mess. I keep getting inspired, for lack of a more precise term, to write.

I will be at Anglicon in Seattle this weekend. I've apparently been tapped to wrangle guests, so we'll see how that goes. I don't expect to do too much writing while at the con. Again, we'll see...

Hugos and Puppies and Rants, Oh My!

I'm going to rant about the Hugo thing again. Please feel free to ignore this post...

Oh dear, not the freaking Hugos again...

On Facebook, David Gerrold nails the problem with the slate nominations in the Hugo awards. Namely, the people who participated have developed a narrative of "evil liberals" rather than "good works worthy of nomination for the Hugo Award." Part of the post was also quoted at File770. Of note is the fact that Gerrold has asked these questions repeatedly, and he describes the "answers" he gets from slate-voting puppy-supporters.

Okay, so now that I've laid some groundwork -- see my two previous essays about communication forensics and compelling questions -- I'm going to ask some compelling questions.
In the past, I've asked these questions about the sad-puppy slate and the rabid-puppy slate:
1) Who are the horrible, no-good, terrible people who have conspired against the science fiction that has been "overlooked?" How have they conspired?
2) What are the qualities of storytelling that define excellence? How are these qualities recognized by the reader?
3) The stories on the sad-puppy slate and the stories on the rabid-puppy slate? How do they demonstrate the qualities of excellence that would make a reader consider them award-worthy?
Let me add a few more questions here:
4) If you are a supporter of either or both slates, then did you read the stories on the slate you support before the ballot was announced? Did you nominate any or all of the stories on either slate? Did you nominate any story you had not read? Why?
5) Have you now read any or all of the stories on the final Hugo ballot? If so, can you please tell us which stories you feel are award-worthy? Why? (Let me rephrase that.) Without considering the author or the politics of the author, can you explain why any of the stories from either slate are award-worthy?
6) Which do you feel is more important in the award process -- the excellence of the story or the political views of the author?
I'm not the only one posing these questions.
So far, in most of the discussions I've seen where these questions have been asked of the defenders of the slates, the response has been insufficient and disappointing.
Sometimes the subject is changed. Sometimes the questions are simply ignored. Sometimes the response is hostility -- or whining about how awful some people are. Sometimes there is even a pretense of manners, a call for polite rational discussion -- and then the questions are ignored again.
Whenever and wherever these questions are asked, the failure to answer by those defending the slates can illuminate the real issue -- but those are the questions and anyone who wants to step up to the plate and answer them is welcome to do so.
See what I mean about compelling questions illuminating a narrative?

I am not a slate nominator or voter, thus I wouldn't be able to answer these questions if I wanted to, but I can make some educated guesses about what's really driving the agenda here.

The answer to #1 is simply "people who attend Worldcon regularly" and did most of the nominating and voting for the awards. The fact that the group of people is most likely fairly like-minded and most likely know one another is ascertainable from the fact that they are more likely to be the folks who usually attend conventions. There are a lot of fans that I have only met at conventions and don't "hang out" with online or in real life. Are they a cabal? I doubt it. But people who are jealous of folks who have the time and money to regularly attend conventions no doubt see them that way.

For me, #2 is complicated and beautiful. A good story is readable and keeps my attention for the length of the tale. An excellent story keeps my mind on it long after I've read it. There are books by Lois McMaster Bujold that I find myself thinking of in idle moments and remembering a scene vividly enough to laugh aloud. There are angles to her books that I see differently every time I reread one. For me, that is excellence. If the experience of reading/seeing/listening sticks with me long after the initial time.

Questions #3 and #4 are the ones I really want to see answered. I've yet to see anyone from the self-proclaimed puppies side of the argument actually give anything resembling an answer to these. And I've said before, if anyone nominated a work without reading it, they basically lied on their nomination form. You cannot know if a work is deserving of a Hugo Award if you haven't even read it.

I haven't read any of the stories on the ballot, though I've been reading a lot of reviews and am considering seeking a couple of the works out. I've seen some of the works in some categories, but the reading categories I'm mostly ignorant of. So question #5 is another I'm interested in seeing anyone answer. I've been seeing a lot of non-puppy explanations of why people are voting a certain way, but I don't know that I've seen the same effort from the puppies.

The last question, #6, is a no-brainer. The excellence of the story is the only thing that truly matters. There have been some fantastic works by authors that I wouldn't want to sit at the same dinner table with. And I'm sure there are awful works by people who completely agree with me on every major political point. Politics are utterly irrelevant to the conversation. Or, at least, they should be.

...

Whew. I'm not really adding much to the conversation. I've got a tiny blog that usually gets about 30 hits a day on new posts. I don't expect traffic, nor do I particularly want a lot of attention. I have always considered my writing on this blog to be for my own edification, and it has helped me immensely over the last decade plus in that capacity.

That said, I was shocked to discover that my previous post about the Hugos this week had more than 1,500 hits... up from my average of 30... Turns out I was linked to from File 770 during a Hugo round-up post. I honestly think it was a little honor I didn't much deserve, but thank you, Mike, for the signal boost.

The photo on the post, by the way, was Torvald the Troll with the Foglio's Hugo for Girl Genius, taken at Emerald City Comicon in 2010. Torvald really gets around.

The Hugos again

The Hugos continue to inspire dialogue among fans, along with reviews that range from my type of capsule nothingness to really clever analysis. There's been a massive upsurge of fans actually opening dialogues and discussing attitudes and events with people they've never met, rather than staying in their own little circles of fandom. In some ways, the puppy nonsense may end up having a massively positive impact on the nature of fandom and the level of involvement people have in fandom. Whether or not the Hugos will survive as a prestigious award is still up in the air.

Of particular interest to me is this notion of giving people who you don't like bad reviews on books you haven't read. Let me make this absolutely clear: This is bad behavior. It is wrong.

If you have read a book and don't like it, then it's fine to give it a bad review. If you attempted to read a book and found you couldn't finish it because it was so bad, then yeah, give it a bad review.

But if you simply don't like the author? Giving their book a bad review without reading it or trying to read it (in good faith) is every bit as bad as, say, nominating a bunch of works for the Hugo awards without reading them first because somebody put together a slate. Yeah, I'm comparing people who give bad reviews based on how they feel about the authors to the self-called "sad puppies" and "rabid puppies". Both actions are bad faith. Both actions are wrong. Both actions are not worthy of intelligent people.

As David Gerrold says, "If you're claiming to be one of the good guys, you gotta act like it."

In addition, don't take out frustrations on the Hugo nominees. In my opinion, there are only two legitimate ways to vote in the Hugos this year:

The first, the one I don't agree with, is to reject all slate nominees and leave them off the ballot while putting No Award at the bottom - a complete rejection of the notion of slate nominating.

The second is to read all the works and put any Hugo-worthy works, regardless of how they were nominated, above No Award and leave the rest off.

What people shouldn't do is talk crap about nominees that had nothing to do with being on the slates. If the works are bad, feel free to dissect the works, but stop attacking the people unless they are actively being obnoxious about the whole thing.

And lastly, counter-slates are dumb. Suggested reading lists are fine, but people should not nominate any work they have not read or seen. Period. End of story.

If you haven't read it, it should not be on your nomination form. To nominate a work you have not read makes you a liar. I suspect there are quite a few self-proclaimed "puppies" who are essentially liars, because they nominated without reading. Emulating them is not something good people should do. So don't do it.

And in the end, it's the fact that people used a slate to nominate works that they most likely didn't read that bothers me, not the political leanings of the works... or even the quality of the works (which is why I urge people to judge the nominations on their own merits despite the slate). The nomination process is one that only is successful if people nominate what they have read and (most importantly) enjoyed. To create a slate and have people stuff the ballot is simply wrong. That is what I object to in this whole fiasco. Again, reading lists aren't a problem as long as people actually read what's on the list, pick only what they like from it and don't blindly go along with whatever is suggested.

What the puppies did was stuff the ballot box during the nomination process. Their pathetic and boring whines about "social justice warriors" and the evils of diversity aside, it's the act of stuffing the box that makes them the villains, not their beliefs. I have yet to see puppy supporters step up and say "I nominated this slate work because I enjoyed this (aspect of story)." No, what they say is, "I joined the slate to stick it to the SJWs." They are acting out of hate for science fiction and fantasy they don't like, not out of love for what they do enjoy.

Hugo Update

So, the Hugo packet has been released, and people are starting to really consider their voting. File 770 has been keeping track of all the nonsense being spewed by the people who tried to take over the awards this year, along with comments from the other side (yep, I'm biased against the misogynistic twits who call themselves "puppies" and whine about how men are underrepresented in the Hugo Awards, ug.). I will tell you right now that if you use the term "Social Justice Warriors" or SJW in any way that isn't ironically mocking the "puppies" movement, then I don't want to associate with you.

The most interesting writing about the whole mess has come from David Gerrold and George R.R. Martin, both of whom continually give the "puppies" chances to prove that their movement isn't a backlash against women slowly gaining equality, and both of whom have so far been disappointed by the "puppies" refusal to actually say anything of any substance about the works they nominated. Instead of saying why the works they listing on the slate deserve Hugos, the defenders of the slates continue to attack the "SJW"s they hate so much.

All-in-all, it's a pretty big mess. I have considered, multiple times, jumping into the fray and becoming a supporting member so I could vote. But I don't have time or energy to read all the nominees, and I would feel honor-bound to at least give each entry a try. Just as I would feel absolutely honor-bound to read anything I nominated for an award. So I'll skip it this year and instead watch from the sidelines to see if the Hugos survive this nonsense.

Hugo update

Ug.

Well, another nominee has withdrawn from consideration, but they did not make the deadline before the ballots were locked. There's a regular round-up of comments about the gaming of the Hugo nominations over on file770.com.

I'm still in favor of people who vote on the Hugos going forward by picking the best of the nominees... and putting "No Award" at the bottom of the ballot while leaving off anything not worthy of a Hugo. I see the reasoning in people voting "No Award" in all categories dominated by the slate nominees, but I disagree with that. I'd be more inclined to give people who definitely didn't have any part in the slate nominations, except to be unfortunate enough to be nominated by the slaters, a chance. And I think gaming the voting is every bit as bad as gaming the nominations.

That said, I'm interested in seeing the final results. Those will indicate how Worldcon fandom and the Hugos will go in the future.