The news that Lois Tilton has resigned from reviewing for Locus reminds me to mention my personal theory about constructive criticism:
There's no such thing.
Criticism is criticism - it's always some kind of fault-finding, and it's always personal, because some person did or created what you are criticizing.
The fact it's so common doesn't mean its helpful or even useful.
I've always felt criticism should be an internal process; rather than just lazily blurt out the problem you see, analyze the problem, and then offer a solution.
That's called advice.
The criticism is implicit in the advice, but when you're at least trying to be helpful, the subject can skate past the fault-finding and go straight to improvement.
Many people also criticize others for things which are really matters of personal taste. If you go on a date, and you order chocolate ice cream for dessert, and your date asks for strawberry, you don't jump up and shout:
"You're a complete idiot! How can you like strawberry ice cream! What a sorry little asshole you are!"
Of course, those of you who follow science fiction these days know most criticism sounds like this. That kind of reaction is the product of privilege, from people with a very limited world view who have grown up never hearing anyone disagree with them because of their political, social or financial privilege.
Last year most of the criticism of Hugo nominated works was done in bad faith from people who simply deep down don't like the fact the authors existed at all. The fact they weren't aware or couldn't acknowledge their preconceived biases is immaterial.
Most of the reviews of my short story "On a Spiritual Plain" boiled down to "The premise sucks, and it's a weak story, and it's badly written, and Lou Antonelli is a miserable human being, anyhow."
Occasionally I was surprised by some genuinely thoughtful reviews. Any author worth his salt will recognize VALID criticisms. For example, saying a story of mine relies too much on dialogue and first person narration is valid; I lean on that a lot, and it indicates a weakness in my writing skills.
But IMHO, overall most so-called constructive criticism I hear simply reminds me (having been raised a Catholic) of original sin. Deep down, we're all sinners, and it's something we all have to fight constantly - to do good and help people, and improve the world.
Constructive criticism is usually just a justification for hatefulness.
What the hell is wrong with science fiction?
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
The Year in Review in the rear view mirror
Back on Dec. 31 I posted a short Year in Review on my blog, This Way to Texas and my Facebook page, which mostly consisted of reviewing what a miserable year it was for us financially, with a paragraph at the end noting how much the Hugo nomination hurt.
Mike Glyer, the Lavrenty Beria of the s-f establishment (look it up), pulled out that last part and posted it his web site, File 770. I didn’t get savaged too badly, but I thought I’d run through a few of the comments:
The original post on File 770 on Jan. 2:
(13) YEAR IN REVIEW. Like on that game show, Lou Antonelli delivers the answer in the form of a question: ”2015? The Year in Review?” at This Way to Texas.
“And then, what I would have thought would be be a great thing, being nominated for the Hugo award twice, turned out to be the worst thing that ever happened in my life. But it helped me realize that, in the end, I really only write for myself and friends, and in literature – as in other things in life – trying to please other people is the fast track to misery.”
Teresa Nielsen Hayden immediately said:
“I doubt this is true or even possible, and if it is, it’s certainly not undeserved; but Antonelli doesn’t hesitate to baste himself in self-pity. He got two Hugo nominations, lo how he suffers!
To which Hampus Eckerman replied:
“I actually believe this might be how he feels and I see absolutely no reason to denigrate a person for feeling miserable, regardless of if it might have been deserved or not. Antonelli is human and it must have been a terrible situation for him where badly miscalculated the reactions of the Worldcon fandom and also managed to create a horrible PR catastrophes right before which severely damaged his reputation. I guess he now feels that his career has been damaged, possibly with no chance of recuperation and it is absolutely something he is allowed to feel miserable about.
RedWombat followed up::
“He’s certainly allowed to feel miserable, and in isolation, the blog post does nothing to indicate how much responsibility he feels for that….miscalculation.
“In…ah…gestalt, I’d be surprised if he took any responsibility for his part in it, but I suppose he could surprise me. I do hope his next year is better–regardless of how much of an ass he’s been, financial instability sucks. But I wouldn’t be human if I didn’t give his commentary a little bit of a side-eye, considering.
Teresa Nielsen Hayden comes back:
“Hampus, I’d feel more sympathetic if I hadn’t watched Antonelli and the other Pups repeatedly go way out of their way to misinterpret friendly-to-neutral fannish input as further evidence of their martyrdom. They insist on it, even when doing so requires that they flat-out contradict known and easily checked facts.
“When people work that hard to embrace that unlikely a conclusion, I start doubting that it hurts, or that they don’t want to reach it.
Lexica then said:
“If getting nominated for two Hugos and not winning is the worst thing that’s happened to Lou Antonelli, I envy him.
Hampus Eckerman replied:
“Here is the thing. I’m as much as for smacking down on bad behaviour as anyone else. But this was a post from Antonelli on a very bad year that cost both him and his wife financially. It was also a post that did not attack anyone else.
“It was a post about the Hugos without lashing out. Without putting blame on others. A post only about how the experience left him feeling miserable. And I think it is ok to write those posts without getting snarky comments back.
“If it had been the usual puppy nonsense with attacking absolutely everyone else, yes, then snark would have been appropriate. But I don’t like attacking people when they’re down.
Then McJulie weighs in:
“If Mr. Antonelli is going through hard times money or healthwise, I’m sorry for his troubles. But if he wants sympathy because he just feels really bad now about the fact that his former bad actions have led him to a worse place in his life… I’m not willing to grant that.
---
Of course, I didn’t reply to any of this on File 770. One thing I certainly learned last year is never comment or reply on a forum you don’t moderate. John C. Wright made some comments on that same day’s posting and got the usual savaging. The people who comment on File 770 are generally the worst people on the internet – not the s-f world, the internet, period.
So here are my comments by way of a follow-up:
Teresa Nielsen Hayden seems to think getting even a Hugo nomination is a big deal. Well, maybe once, but not anymore, and certainly not after 2015. Vox Day is in the process of destroying the award, and Nielsen Hayden and her chums are cooperating magnificently. I respected and admired the award once, also, but the way things are preceding, I doubt it will be around along much longer, and its respectability is already destroyed.
So, yes, catching a lot of shit over a worthless award was the worst thing that happened in my life, especially when you factor in my disappointment.
Hampus Eckerman seemed to embrace a small flicker of humanity in that pixeled cesspool, and “got it”. I’m impressed.
Finally, I made my original comments simply as s statement of fact, certainly not looking for sympathy. Don’t ever go on the internet looking for sympathy.
Mike Glyer, the Lavrenty Beria of the s-f establishment (look it up), pulled out that last part and posted it his web site, File 770. I didn’t get savaged too badly, but I thought I’d run through a few of the comments:
The original post on File 770 on Jan. 2:
(13) YEAR IN REVIEW. Like on that game show, Lou Antonelli delivers the answer in the form of a question: ”2015? The Year in Review?” at This Way to Texas.
“And then, what I would have thought would be be a great thing, being nominated for the Hugo award twice, turned out to be the worst thing that ever happened in my life. But it helped me realize that, in the end, I really only write for myself and friends, and in literature – as in other things in life – trying to please other people is the fast track to misery.”
Teresa Nielsen Hayden immediately said:
“I doubt this is true or even possible, and if it is, it’s certainly not undeserved; but Antonelli doesn’t hesitate to baste himself in self-pity. He got two Hugo nominations, lo how he suffers!
To which Hampus Eckerman replied:
“I actually believe this might be how he feels and I see absolutely no reason to denigrate a person for feeling miserable, regardless of if it might have been deserved or not. Antonelli is human and it must have been a terrible situation for him where badly miscalculated the reactions of the Worldcon fandom and also managed to create a horrible PR catastrophes right before which severely damaged his reputation. I guess he now feels that his career has been damaged, possibly with no chance of recuperation and it is absolutely something he is allowed to feel miserable about.
RedWombat followed up::
“He’s certainly allowed to feel miserable, and in isolation, the blog post does nothing to indicate how much responsibility he feels for that….miscalculation.
“In…ah…gestalt, I’d be surprised if he took any responsibility for his part in it, but I suppose he could surprise me. I do hope his next year is better–regardless of how much of an ass he’s been, financial instability sucks. But I wouldn’t be human if I didn’t give his commentary a little bit of a side-eye, considering.
Teresa Nielsen Hayden comes back:
“Hampus, I’d feel more sympathetic if I hadn’t watched Antonelli and the other Pups repeatedly go way out of their way to misinterpret friendly-to-neutral fannish input as further evidence of their martyrdom. They insist on it, even when doing so requires that they flat-out contradict known and easily checked facts.
“When people work that hard to embrace that unlikely a conclusion, I start doubting that it hurts, or that they don’t want to reach it.
Lexica then said:
“If getting nominated for two Hugos and not winning is the worst thing that’s happened to Lou Antonelli, I envy him.
Hampus Eckerman replied:
“Here is the thing. I’m as much as for smacking down on bad behaviour as anyone else. But this was a post from Antonelli on a very bad year that cost both him and his wife financially. It was also a post that did not attack anyone else.
“It was a post about the Hugos without lashing out. Without putting blame on others. A post only about how the experience left him feeling miserable. And I think it is ok to write those posts without getting snarky comments back.
“If it had been the usual puppy nonsense with attacking absolutely everyone else, yes, then snark would have been appropriate. But I don’t like attacking people when they’re down.
Then McJulie weighs in:
“If Mr. Antonelli is going through hard times money or healthwise, I’m sorry for his troubles. But if he wants sympathy because he just feels really bad now about the fact that his former bad actions have led him to a worse place in his life… I’m not willing to grant that.
---
Of course, I didn’t reply to any of this on File 770. One thing I certainly learned last year is never comment or reply on a forum you don’t moderate. John C. Wright made some comments on that same day’s posting and got the usual savaging. The people who comment on File 770 are generally the worst people on the internet – not the s-f world, the internet, period.
So here are my comments by way of a follow-up:
Teresa Nielsen Hayden seems to think getting even a Hugo nomination is a big deal. Well, maybe once, but not anymore, and certainly not after 2015. Vox Day is in the process of destroying the award, and Nielsen Hayden and her chums are cooperating magnificently. I respected and admired the award once, also, but the way things are preceding, I doubt it will be around along much longer, and its respectability is already destroyed.
So, yes, catching a lot of shit over a worthless award was the worst thing that happened in my life, especially when you factor in my disappointment.
Hampus Eckerman seemed to embrace a small flicker of humanity in that pixeled cesspool, and “got it”. I’m impressed.
Finally, I made my original comments simply as s statement of fact, certainly not looking for sympathy. Don’t ever go on the internet looking for sympathy.
Saturday, January 2, 2016
Special Announcement for All SF/F Fans from Dave Truesdale of Tangent Online
Dave Truesdale discusses the upcoming Sad Puppies 4 recommended reading list and process at the Tangent Online 2015 Recommended Reading list, which you can find here:
Otherwise, I have cut and pasted his excellent post below:
---
If you are a science fiction or fantasy fan and are looking for a place to let others know what you think is Hugo Award worthy from 2015, now you have such a place.
Sad Puppies 4 is helmed this year by Kate Paulk, with able assistance from Amanda Green and Sarah A. Hoyt. As many groups and individual fans do every year, they will be posting a list of suggestions, possible recommendations for the Hugo Award in each of its numerous categories.
What makes it special this year is that the recommendations will come from anyone who chooses to visit the Sad Puppies 4 web page and enters a recommendation. It's that simple. Read a great short story or novel this year? Follow a terrific tv show or have seen a fantastic movie? All you need to do to share your favorite choices is to enter your recommendations at the SP4 web page, which you can find here.
Sad Puppies was the name given to a small group of fans four years ago who had become disgruntled after seeing many of the same names on the final Hugo ballot, year after year. It was spearheaded that first year by SF author Larry Correia, who decided to put forth a list of authors and works he believed were being overlooked. He recused himself from being recommended or being nominated. No one was obligated to vote for any author or work on his recommended list, but he found that he was not the only fan grumbling about the general sameness of the final Hugo ballot (grumbling about this aspect of the Hugo awards had been going on for many years, it should be noted).
A handful of names kept cropping up for several years (in one category or another) and though fans continued to grumble (conventions, blogs, etc.) nothing ever seemed to change, so Larry Correia decided it was time for a wake up call. Thus, Sad Puppies was born. As one might imagine, it raised hell among those satisfied with the status quo (those voters obviously liked those who kept winning awards, and why not?).
I won't recount every detail of the back and forth since then (it would take forever), but the situation came to a head last year with Sad Puppies 3. One side saw nothing wrong with the way things were working in regards to the Hugo award nominating process, while the other side tried to get fresh names on the ballot while at the same time increasing the voting base. Encouraging more fans to get involved was a core goal, for from either lack of interest or lack of knowledge many fans weren't participating in either the nominating or final ballot voting; thus, all it took for some categories to produce a winner was decided by a miniscule 40-50 votes out of (in some cases) only a few hundred (depending on the category).
To nominate or vote on the Hugo awards one must be a paid member. That's how it works and is fine. What has been troubling is that many fans, paid members of any given worldcon, had no idea they could nominate or vote. A positive side-effect of the Sad Puppy “movement” is that now awareness has been raised and many more eligible voters, SF fans of all stripe, are actively participating. That in itself is a Good Thing. Fresh perspectives, new fan involvement in their own awards, and a more representative slice of “fandom.” And possibly different (and hopefully worthy) names on the final Hugo ballots. Or maybe not. Maybe all of these fresh new voters would cast their ballots for the names they'd already seen on the ballot many times in recent years, because they liked what or who they saw, affirming the prior voters' choices as the best. After all, it's well known that short story writers or novelists “get on a roll” for any number of years and produce some of their finest work in spurts lasting years.
So why not recognize their achievements for several years in a row? That's only fair in my book. Point being is that there would be no guarantee how fans would cast their ballots, but at least there would be a larger number involved and participating in the process.
Sad Puppies 2 & 3 also produced a list of recommendations, though the selection process, frankly, left a lot to be desired. They were not open to the public (the fans) but selected by one or two (or maybe a few more) individuals. And add to the mix that a certain individual not affiliated with Sad Puppies and with a decidedly different (and purposely destructive) agenda co-opted the name and changed the first word from “Sad” to something similarly associated with the canine species, placing some of the same recommendations on his list, and it was low-hanging fruit for those siding against the Sad Puppy list to merge the two, trying to smear Sad Puppies with posts and personal views the unwelcome outsider had made or espoused. And thus the sides became even more divided into what became more a fight over social and political ideologies (fiction where social or political ideology—message fiction—was taking over many of the Hugo awards voted on by a relative few; and SF/F where story came first and any “message,” political or otherwise, came second) than what the original, core purpose was to have been: increasing awareness of overlooked authors whose work was well written and well received by readers (in a few cases for years or decades), but who were not getting their just due.
The nasty intrusion of politics led to the Hugo awards being blown to hell and back last year, with a certain faction gaining enough votes to cast NO AWARD for any category in which a Sad Puppy nomination had made the final ballot. Thus, in several important categories (regardless of how many innocent final nominees were hurt by the tactic), no Hugo award was presented in more categories than ever in the history of the awards. What a shame. Were the illustrious fan awards, the Hugos, broken beyond repair? What, if anything, could be done to avoid a repeat at 2016's Worldcon, MidAmericon II and its Hugo Awards, to be held in Kansas City, MO for the second time, and the first since the groundbreaking worldcon it held in 1976, affectionately dubbed BigMac?
Sad Puppies 4 has taken a giant step forward to insure that the original, core, at-the-bottom-of-it-all purpose now buried beneath all of the nasty politics—that of increasing SF/F fan interest and perhaps, just maybe, seeing a few overlooked authors getting a shot at a Hugo—is once more front and center. Kate Paulk and crew have opened the doors wide this year. Any fan may cast their recommendation for anything or anyone. You don't have to pay for a membership, you don't have to be a member of a publication where only critics or reviewers provide suggestions or recommendations for further reading (Locus or Tangent Online, for instance)—or a possible Hugo nomination. Regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, age, or political persuasion the Sad Puppy 4 website is open to all. Again, it can be found here, where you will find a drop down menu in the lower right corner of the Sad Puppies IV banner/title. Clicking on it will show all the available categories in which you may enter a recommendation.
To provide proper perspective on just what fans are casting their recommendations for, it is not for a final ballot Hugo nomination. That step in the process is way down the road. The SP4 final recommendation list will simply provide (once the votes are tabulated) a list of the top 10 vote getters in each category which will then be placed on a large recommendation list for possible consideration for those paid members of worldcon who can actually cast a valid nomination for the Hugo. There is no guarantee that anything on the final SP4 list of recommended works will even end up on the final 2016 Hugo ballot. But it is a start. It will hopefully get more fans involved who believed they had no voice in the Hugos at any stage in the process. If this effort sparks individual interest maybe some will spring for a worldcon membership for the first time in their lives, and eventually become more involved in some aspect of fandom beyond reading or watching it (and be eligible to actually vote on the Hugos—we all had to start sometime as neofans, remember? So maybe this will lead to a few more fans who catch the fanac [fan activity] bug and who will, in time, become the new blood every organization needs, replenishing the ranks of fandom as older fans bow out or pass away. This cycle of fannish renewal is a Good Thing).
I think there is reason to be optimistic this year. There have been calls from both sides for fans to vote for the best work, and not a specific work or author purely on grounds of the work's or author's political viewpoint. Outspoken anti-puppy proponent of last year, past SFWA President and multiple award winning author John Scalzi, stated recently on his blog that he was removing himself for any 2016 award consideration, and asked his many followers to give other worthy writers the spotlight this year. This is also what Sad Puppies are seeking and have made abundantly clear.
Scalzi writes on his blog: “I’ve decided I’d like to sit out the year, awards-wise.” And further along, “But for work that was put out in 2015, please look past me. Find the other writers whose work deserves the spotlight you can put on them with your attention, nomination and vote. Find the works that move your heart and your mind. Find the writers whose work you love and who you feel a nomination can help in their careers and their lives. Look past your usual suspects — including me! — and find someone new to you whose stories and effort you can champion to others. Put those people and works on your ballots. 2015 has been a genuinely great year for science fiction and fantasy; it won’t be difficult to find deserving work and people for your consideration.” —John Scalzi, from a blogpost dated November 18, 2015.
George R. R. Martin (GRRM)—another outspoken and highly influential critic against last year's SP3 efforts—finds hope after viewing the SP4 growing recommendation list this year, when he writes on his blog: “Call me naive. Call me an innocent. Call me too trusting by half, too nice a guy to see how things really are... but, really, I am starting to have some hope. All over the internet, people are already talking about the Hugo Awards, making recommendations, discussing the work... the WORK, the things we love, the stuff that unites us instead of the stuff that divides us. I've been trying to do my part, here on my Not A Blog, and will continue to do so.”
And further on, returning from viewing the SP4 recommendation page, George writes: “As of a few minutes ago, there were 159 'thoughts' in the Best Novel section, which suggests a healthy level of participation. And, I am pleased to say, almost all of what follows seems to be honest and enthusiastic discussion of the work.” George continues a bit later with, “...people are recommending books. A very wide range of books. Sure, new works by familiar Puppy favorites like Larry Correia, Mike Williamson, and John C. Wright are being recommended (no surprise there)... but so are works by Neal Stephenson, James S.A. Corey, Naomi Novik, Victor Milan, Terry Pratchett, S.M. Stirling, Ian Tregillis, Ernie Cline, Elizabeth Bear, Gene Wolfe, Michael Moorcock, Orson Scott Card, Greg Bear, Kate Elliott, and many others... including the latest Marko Kloos, and... wonder of wonder... novels from N.K. Jemisin and Anne Leckie!
"There are some really good names on that list. Some really good books. (And many I have not read yet, but will look up now). And there's an amazing range of literary styles, subgenres, and... yes... political and religious views. And all this is to the good.” And to wrap up George's comments we have: “For decades now, LOCUS and NESFA and other fan groups have produced reading lists at year's end, long lists generated by recommendations from their editors/ members/ etc. If at the end of this process, Sad Puppies 4 puts forth a similar list, one that has room for BOTH Larry Correia and Anne Leckie, I don't think anyone could possibly object. I won't, certainly. A list like that would not be a slate, and the whole "slate voting" thing will become moot.
“And that would be great. That would mean no Puppygate II. That would mean a spirited literary debate about writers and books without the acrimony and the name-calling. From that debate a truly democratic and diverse ballot could emerge, one that represents all tastes. That would mean no 'No Awards' at Big MAC II, and the Hugo ceremony could once again become a joyous celebration of the best and brightest in our field.” —George R. R. Martin, from his blog post of December 24, 2015, the full text of which is here, and the title of this particular blog entry is “Puppies at Christmas” for those wishing to read the complete post."
Though I appreciate and agree with George's comments, I would like to make a fine distinction, a clarification if you will, concerning something he wrote. To wit: “If at the end of this process, Sad Puppies 4 puts forth a similar list, one that has room for BOTH Larry Correia and Anne Leckie, I don't think anyone could possibly object.” In truth, Sad Puppies 4 will have no say, or control, on what makes their list—the fans who contribute and participate will define what makes the list. It will be up to the fans, not SP4, for SP4 merely provides the means for the fans to speak and be heard. The final list will reflect the views of the fans—and no one else.
All of that said, and with outspoken SP critics John Scalzi and George R. R. Martin either calling for fresh names on the final Hugo ballot, or observing (cautiously) that, so far, the SP4 plan seems to be working quite well, there will always be those on both sides of the issue who wish to dwell on the past, who continue to stoke the flames of discord by posting inflammatory pieces on the internet, or who troll the internet looking for individual posts against whatever side they are on, and then collecting them on their own websites to somehow show how idiotic the other side is, and then purposely misinterpreting or distorting what was originally said—and then attempting to label one side or the other as indicative of the entire opposition based on their own spin on what someone else said with which they disagree. Well, as we all know, anyone can find anything on the internet supporting or disagreeing with any side of any issue.
It's easy to do. For those who do so, I would call into question your true motives for doing so. Are you of the opinion that only “trufans” (in large measure, those fans who have been involved with fandom for a long time, or who run conventions, or are otherwise involved) as some have narrowly defined them, are somehow privileged, and thus their opinions count more than those of other fans who enjoy fandom on their own terms? That including these not-trufans (new fans, or “neofans,” those attending their first convention, or worldcon or who have otherwise found SF fandom for the first time through film or magazines or tv or any other entry point) would be harmful to fandom? Please to remember that each and every one of us was at one time a raw, stumbling neofan just happy and grinning from ear to ear to have found other friends of like mind—and try to recall how we were treated by more experienced fans. In my case I was welcomed with open arms. Those who believe in the narrow and self-serving definition of “trufan” might wish to revisit their roots, and then begin to welcome any and all to the ranks of science fiction fandom. It's not a closed club for those who believe they are of some privileged elite class simply because they've been involved in SF fandom long enough to receive a gold watch. That attitude is insular, elitist, and divisive, and dishonors one of fandom's finest, most cherished, and longest-standing traditions—that of a large tent and a welcome-to-the-party drink and metaphorical hug.
In closing:
1: Sad Puppies 4 welcomes anyone to their recommendation page. It is non-partisan and a-political. It is aligned with no other group and stands steadfastly in opposition to any individual or group trading off of its name or logo.
2: The Sad Puppies 4 recommendation list is but a preliminary list of suggestions and recommendations from fans from all walks of life who choose to participate. Any work or author ending up on the list is guaranteed nothing, for it will be paid, voting members of worldcon whose votes select all final Hugo nominees.
3: The final Sad Puppies 4 list of recommendations will consist of 10 recommendations in each category. That is quite a large pool of suggested reading or viewing for the interested SF/F fan, but serves the purpose of providing exposure to new, or unknown authors or their work. If nothing on the SP4 2015 recommended list is to your liking and your favorite author or work is not in the top 10 (and you are a paid worldcon member eligible to vote), then by all means nominate your own favorites when MidAmericon II opens the doors to Hugo nominations in the near future. No one is bound by any recommendation on the SP4 list. This seems obvious, but needed to be said.
4: The Sad Puppies 4 nominating and final selection process will be open and above-board on all counts. Though stated on the SP4 website, I asked Kate Paulk about the number of selections in each category, to which she replied (and with permission to quote): “I'll be posting the top 10 in each category, and linking to the full list—which will contain every recommendation made.”
With the SP4 format and process now explained, I quote again from George R. R. Martin:
“If at the end of this process, Sad Puppies 4 puts forth a similar list, one that has room for BOTH Larry Correia and Anne Leckie, I don't think anyone could possibly object.”
Who indeed?
---
If you would like to go the Sad Puppies 4 Recommended Reading list, here you go:
Otherwise, I have cut and pasted his excellent post below:
---
If you are a science fiction or fantasy fan and are looking for a place to let others know what you think is Hugo Award worthy from 2015, now you have such a place.
Sad Puppies 4 is helmed this year by Kate Paulk, with able assistance from Amanda Green and Sarah A. Hoyt. As many groups and individual fans do every year, they will be posting a list of suggestions, possible recommendations for the Hugo Award in each of its numerous categories.
What makes it special this year is that the recommendations will come from anyone who chooses to visit the Sad Puppies 4 web page and enters a recommendation. It's that simple. Read a great short story or novel this year? Follow a terrific tv show or have seen a fantastic movie? All you need to do to share your favorite choices is to enter your recommendations at the SP4 web page, which you can find here.
Sad Puppies was the name given to a small group of fans four years ago who had become disgruntled after seeing many of the same names on the final Hugo ballot, year after year. It was spearheaded that first year by SF author Larry Correia, who decided to put forth a list of authors and works he believed were being overlooked. He recused himself from being recommended or being nominated. No one was obligated to vote for any author or work on his recommended list, but he found that he was not the only fan grumbling about the general sameness of the final Hugo ballot (grumbling about this aspect of the Hugo awards had been going on for many years, it should be noted).
A handful of names kept cropping up for several years (in one category or another) and though fans continued to grumble (conventions, blogs, etc.) nothing ever seemed to change, so Larry Correia decided it was time for a wake up call. Thus, Sad Puppies was born. As one might imagine, it raised hell among those satisfied with the status quo (those voters obviously liked those who kept winning awards, and why not?).
I won't recount every detail of the back and forth since then (it would take forever), but the situation came to a head last year with Sad Puppies 3. One side saw nothing wrong with the way things were working in regards to the Hugo award nominating process, while the other side tried to get fresh names on the ballot while at the same time increasing the voting base. Encouraging more fans to get involved was a core goal, for from either lack of interest or lack of knowledge many fans weren't participating in either the nominating or final ballot voting; thus, all it took for some categories to produce a winner was decided by a miniscule 40-50 votes out of (in some cases) only a few hundred (depending on the category).
To nominate or vote on the Hugo awards one must be a paid member. That's how it works and is fine. What has been troubling is that many fans, paid members of any given worldcon, had no idea they could nominate or vote. A positive side-effect of the Sad Puppy “movement” is that now awareness has been raised and many more eligible voters, SF fans of all stripe, are actively participating. That in itself is a Good Thing. Fresh perspectives, new fan involvement in their own awards, and a more representative slice of “fandom.” And possibly different (and hopefully worthy) names on the final Hugo ballots. Or maybe not. Maybe all of these fresh new voters would cast their ballots for the names they'd already seen on the ballot many times in recent years, because they liked what or who they saw, affirming the prior voters' choices as the best. After all, it's well known that short story writers or novelists “get on a roll” for any number of years and produce some of their finest work in spurts lasting years.
So why not recognize their achievements for several years in a row? That's only fair in my book. Point being is that there would be no guarantee how fans would cast their ballots, but at least there would be a larger number involved and participating in the process.
Sad Puppies 2 & 3 also produced a list of recommendations, though the selection process, frankly, left a lot to be desired. They were not open to the public (the fans) but selected by one or two (or maybe a few more) individuals. And add to the mix that a certain individual not affiliated with Sad Puppies and with a decidedly different (and purposely destructive) agenda co-opted the name and changed the first word from “Sad” to something similarly associated with the canine species, placing some of the same recommendations on his list, and it was low-hanging fruit for those siding against the Sad Puppy list to merge the two, trying to smear Sad Puppies with posts and personal views the unwelcome outsider had made or espoused. And thus the sides became even more divided into what became more a fight over social and political ideologies (fiction where social or political ideology—message fiction—was taking over many of the Hugo awards voted on by a relative few; and SF/F where story came first and any “message,” political or otherwise, came second) than what the original, core purpose was to have been: increasing awareness of overlooked authors whose work was well written and well received by readers (in a few cases for years or decades), but who were not getting their just due.
The nasty intrusion of politics led to the Hugo awards being blown to hell and back last year, with a certain faction gaining enough votes to cast NO AWARD for any category in which a Sad Puppy nomination had made the final ballot. Thus, in several important categories (regardless of how many innocent final nominees were hurt by the tactic), no Hugo award was presented in more categories than ever in the history of the awards. What a shame. Were the illustrious fan awards, the Hugos, broken beyond repair? What, if anything, could be done to avoid a repeat at 2016's Worldcon, MidAmericon II and its Hugo Awards, to be held in Kansas City, MO for the second time, and the first since the groundbreaking worldcon it held in 1976, affectionately dubbed BigMac?
Sad Puppies 4 has taken a giant step forward to insure that the original, core, at-the-bottom-of-it-all purpose now buried beneath all of the nasty politics—that of increasing SF/F fan interest and perhaps, just maybe, seeing a few overlooked authors getting a shot at a Hugo—is once more front and center. Kate Paulk and crew have opened the doors wide this year. Any fan may cast their recommendation for anything or anyone. You don't have to pay for a membership, you don't have to be a member of a publication where only critics or reviewers provide suggestions or recommendations for further reading (Locus or Tangent Online, for instance)—or a possible Hugo nomination. Regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, age, or political persuasion the Sad Puppy 4 website is open to all. Again, it can be found here, where you will find a drop down menu in the lower right corner of the Sad Puppies IV banner/title. Clicking on it will show all the available categories in which you may enter a recommendation.
To provide proper perspective on just what fans are casting their recommendations for, it is not for a final ballot Hugo nomination. That step in the process is way down the road. The SP4 final recommendation list will simply provide (once the votes are tabulated) a list of the top 10 vote getters in each category which will then be placed on a large recommendation list for possible consideration for those paid members of worldcon who can actually cast a valid nomination for the Hugo. There is no guarantee that anything on the final SP4 list of recommended works will even end up on the final 2016 Hugo ballot. But it is a start. It will hopefully get more fans involved who believed they had no voice in the Hugos at any stage in the process. If this effort sparks individual interest maybe some will spring for a worldcon membership for the first time in their lives, and eventually become more involved in some aspect of fandom beyond reading or watching it (and be eligible to actually vote on the Hugos—we all had to start sometime as neofans, remember? So maybe this will lead to a few more fans who catch the fanac [fan activity] bug and who will, in time, become the new blood every organization needs, replenishing the ranks of fandom as older fans bow out or pass away. This cycle of fannish renewal is a Good Thing).
I think there is reason to be optimistic this year. There have been calls from both sides for fans to vote for the best work, and not a specific work or author purely on grounds of the work's or author's political viewpoint. Outspoken anti-puppy proponent of last year, past SFWA President and multiple award winning author John Scalzi, stated recently on his blog that he was removing himself for any 2016 award consideration, and asked his many followers to give other worthy writers the spotlight this year. This is also what Sad Puppies are seeking and have made abundantly clear.
Scalzi writes on his blog: “I’ve decided I’d like to sit out the year, awards-wise.” And further along, “But for work that was put out in 2015, please look past me. Find the other writers whose work deserves the spotlight you can put on them with your attention, nomination and vote. Find the works that move your heart and your mind. Find the writers whose work you love and who you feel a nomination can help in their careers and their lives. Look past your usual suspects — including me! — and find someone new to you whose stories and effort you can champion to others. Put those people and works on your ballots. 2015 has been a genuinely great year for science fiction and fantasy; it won’t be difficult to find deserving work and people for your consideration.” —John Scalzi, from a blogpost dated November 18, 2015.
George R. R. Martin (GRRM)—another outspoken and highly influential critic against last year's SP3 efforts—finds hope after viewing the SP4 growing recommendation list this year, when he writes on his blog: “Call me naive. Call me an innocent. Call me too trusting by half, too nice a guy to see how things really are... but, really, I am starting to have some hope. All over the internet, people are already talking about the Hugo Awards, making recommendations, discussing the work... the WORK, the things we love, the stuff that unites us instead of the stuff that divides us. I've been trying to do my part, here on my Not A Blog, and will continue to do so.”
And further on, returning from viewing the SP4 recommendation page, George writes: “As of a few minutes ago, there were 159 'thoughts' in the Best Novel section, which suggests a healthy level of participation. And, I am pleased to say, almost all of what follows seems to be honest and enthusiastic discussion of the work.” George continues a bit later with, “...people are recommending books. A very wide range of books. Sure, new works by familiar Puppy favorites like Larry Correia, Mike Williamson, and John C. Wright are being recommended (no surprise there)... but so are works by Neal Stephenson, James S.A. Corey, Naomi Novik, Victor Milan, Terry Pratchett, S.M. Stirling, Ian Tregillis, Ernie Cline, Elizabeth Bear, Gene Wolfe, Michael Moorcock, Orson Scott Card, Greg Bear, Kate Elliott, and many others... including the latest Marko Kloos, and... wonder of wonder... novels from N.K. Jemisin and Anne Leckie!
"There are some really good names on that list. Some really good books. (And many I have not read yet, but will look up now). And there's an amazing range of literary styles, subgenres, and... yes... political and religious views. And all this is to the good.” And to wrap up George's comments we have: “For decades now, LOCUS and NESFA and other fan groups have produced reading lists at year's end, long lists generated by recommendations from their editors/ members/ etc. If at the end of this process, Sad Puppies 4 puts forth a similar list, one that has room for BOTH Larry Correia and Anne Leckie, I don't think anyone could possibly object. I won't, certainly. A list like that would not be a slate, and the whole "slate voting" thing will become moot.
“And that would be great. That would mean no Puppygate II. That would mean a spirited literary debate about writers and books without the acrimony and the name-calling. From that debate a truly democratic and diverse ballot could emerge, one that represents all tastes. That would mean no 'No Awards' at Big MAC II, and the Hugo ceremony could once again become a joyous celebration of the best and brightest in our field.” —George R. R. Martin, from his blog post of December 24, 2015, the full text of which is here, and the title of this particular blog entry is “Puppies at Christmas” for those wishing to read the complete post."
Though I appreciate and agree with George's comments, I would like to make a fine distinction, a clarification if you will, concerning something he wrote. To wit: “If at the end of this process, Sad Puppies 4 puts forth a similar list, one that has room for BOTH Larry Correia and Anne Leckie, I don't think anyone could possibly object.” In truth, Sad Puppies 4 will have no say, or control, on what makes their list—the fans who contribute and participate will define what makes the list. It will be up to the fans, not SP4, for SP4 merely provides the means for the fans to speak and be heard. The final list will reflect the views of the fans—and no one else.
All of that said, and with outspoken SP critics John Scalzi and George R. R. Martin either calling for fresh names on the final Hugo ballot, or observing (cautiously) that, so far, the SP4 plan seems to be working quite well, there will always be those on both sides of the issue who wish to dwell on the past, who continue to stoke the flames of discord by posting inflammatory pieces on the internet, or who troll the internet looking for individual posts against whatever side they are on, and then collecting them on their own websites to somehow show how idiotic the other side is, and then purposely misinterpreting or distorting what was originally said—and then attempting to label one side or the other as indicative of the entire opposition based on their own spin on what someone else said with which they disagree. Well, as we all know, anyone can find anything on the internet supporting or disagreeing with any side of any issue.
It's easy to do. For those who do so, I would call into question your true motives for doing so. Are you of the opinion that only “trufans” (in large measure, those fans who have been involved with fandom for a long time, or who run conventions, or are otherwise involved) as some have narrowly defined them, are somehow privileged, and thus their opinions count more than those of other fans who enjoy fandom on their own terms? That including these not-trufans (new fans, or “neofans,” those attending their first convention, or worldcon or who have otherwise found SF fandom for the first time through film or magazines or tv or any other entry point) would be harmful to fandom? Please to remember that each and every one of us was at one time a raw, stumbling neofan just happy and grinning from ear to ear to have found other friends of like mind—and try to recall how we were treated by more experienced fans. In my case I was welcomed with open arms. Those who believe in the narrow and self-serving definition of “trufan” might wish to revisit their roots, and then begin to welcome any and all to the ranks of science fiction fandom. It's not a closed club for those who believe they are of some privileged elite class simply because they've been involved in SF fandom long enough to receive a gold watch. That attitude is insular, elitist, and divisive, and dishonors one of fandom's finest, most cherished, and longest-standing traditions—that of a large tent and a welcome-to-the-party drink and metaphorical hug.
In closing:
1: Sad Puppies 4 welcomes anyone to their recommendation page. It is non-partisan and a-political. It is aligned with no other group and stands steadfastly in opposition to any individual or group trading off of its name or logo.
2: The Sad Puppies 4 recommendation list is but a preliminary list of suggestions and recommendations from fans from all walks of life who choose to participate. Any work or author ending up on the list is guaranteed nothing, for it will be paid, voting members of worldcon whose votes select all final Hugo nominees.
3: The final Sad Puppies 4 list of recommendations will consist of 10 recommendations in each category. That is quite a large pool of suggested reading or viewing for the interested SF/F fan, but serves the purpose of providing exposure to new, or unknown authors or their work. If nothing on the SP4 2015 recommended list is to your liking and your favorite author or work is not in the top 10 (and you are a paid worldcon member eligible to vote), then by all means nominate your own favorites when MidAmericon II opens the doors to Hugo nominations in the near future. No one is bound by any recommendation on the SP4 list. This seems obvious, but needed to be said.
4: The Sad Puppies 4 nominating and final selection process will be open and above-board on all counts. Though stated on the SP4 website, I asked Kate Paulk about the number of selections in each category, to which she replied (and with permission to quote): “I'll be posting the top 10 in each category, and linking to the full list—which will contain every recommendation made.”
With the SP4 format and process now explained, I quote again from George R. R. Martin:
“If at the end of this process, Sad Puppies 4 puts forth a similar list, one that has room for BOTH Larry Correia and Anne Leckie, I don't think anyone could possibly object.”
Who indeed?
---
If you would like to go the Sad Puppies 4 Recommended Reading list, here you go:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)