As has become an annual tradition here in Speculiction’s
peanut gallery, there is a certain amount of pleasure taken in laughing at the
foibles of the Hugo Award. The 2015
situation too ripe to stand idly by, let the bombardment commence anew!
To be clear and open up front, I am neutral. The peanut gallery standing to the side by
default, I don’t have a vested interest in seeing the Sad Puppies or SJWs take
the Hugo crown. Their rhetoric is as
amusing as it is sad. What I do have a
vested interest in is the field of speculative fiction as a whole, what is
recognized as ‘good’, and the role the Hugo plays in this. This, in truth, is
the reason for the following admission:
When people ask what I enjoy reading, there is a part of me
that winces before I say: speculative fiction.
One of the main reasons for this shame is the Hugo. The writers and books awarded the Nobel, Man
Booker, Pulitzer, etc. are like vast, glorious suns compared to the cave
squabble of titles ‘science fiction’s most preeminent award’ often recognizes. A Nobel Prize winning book is normally something
a person can be proud to say they’ve read.
The 2015 Hugo’s caliber of fiction is literally incomparable. To be more blunt, Kevin J. Anderson is not a
writer a respectable person can, with a straight face, say is among the top
five novelists in speculative fiction in 2015.
I mean no personal offence to Anderson; he’s pursuing a career, like all
of us. But the fact the man publicly and
openly advertizes himself as someone to contact should you ever want to see
your first media success converted into commercially viable fiction says a lot
about the underlying integrity of his work, and by default the Hugo for putting
him on the ballot. (The fact his actual writing
is perfunctory at best is another thing.) To him fiction is the art of making
money, not literature. And just to prove how neutral the peanut gallery is, Ann Leckie may have gender issues sprinkled on her space opera muffin, but she too has thus far shown more interest in mediocrity than producing a sophisticated work capable of examining gender or any other issue in truly substantial fashion. It’s therefore embarrassing
to count myself amongst a community which allows such writers to be lofted to such
heights. Readers of literary fiction simply do not worry about this. (They have more detailed, intellectual quibbles.)
More frustrating is perhaps that Nobel, Man Booker,
Pulitzer-esque texts do exist in speculative fiction. No matter how consistently the likes of the
World Fantasy Award, Mythopoeic Fantasy Award, James Tiptree Jr. Award (and
less consistently the Nebula and Arthur C. Clarke Awards) identify works the
field can be proud of, the Hugo remains intent on allowing popularity to be its
guiding light toward “literary quality”.
In the modern world of rampant consumerism, this is laughable at best—the humor echoing down the corridors of this year’s ballot.
Given the clean sweep of the Sad Puppies, it will be
interesting to see if there is any reaction from the awards committee in the
coming year. My guess is the award was
always a popular award, and always will be, not to mention that changing the
process would be giving in to the accusation of cliquishness, gatekeeping, etc. Moreover, despite John Scalzi’s desperate
attempt to rally the troops, I think non-Sad Puppy interests are too diverse to
unify themselves into such a coalition.
Therefore, it’s more likely that the SJWs (many of whom seem in a state
of silent shock as they digest the nominations) will abandon ship and look to
“cleaner waters”, leaving the Sad Puppies the spoils of victory.
The Hugo will never die, but this year’s award nominations
proved how lacking in integrity the whole concept is, how close to moribund it can get. After all, one of the main ideas behind an award is to raise
the bar for quality, not lower it. Ha
and ha. *wince*
(The image of Homer, with his pants falling down while riding the tiny bike through the loop, was used without permission. It was just too ripe symbolism to pass up.)
I tend to agree.
ReplyDeleteAnd on a similar note, I haven't been able to force myself to read the Ancillary books myself. I enjoy the award, though drama just seems to be an intrinsic part of it. I have never found it in myself to take it particularly seriously though.
Thanks for stopping by, Nikki.
DeleteI would so much love to be able to issue the blanket statement: the Hugos 100% suck. But every few years, in some surprise fashion, they are capable of recognizing a book that is truly deserving of being considered among the best. Le Guin's The Dispossessed, Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, Frederik Pohl's Gateway, Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars books, Fritz Leiber's The Big Time and a couple other books have won and are truly great. But for every Le Guin and Robinson there is a J.K. Rowling, Robert J. Sawyer, Vernor Vinge, Isaac Asimov, Ann Leckie, or another rather mediocre writers, who, for as popular as they may be, does not write the same quality of fiction. But I verge on ranting...
I'd be more willing to accept the Puppies' argument that they are they only way to promote these deserving/overlooked authors in the face of a bullying progressive conspiracy... if the "hard-working, overlooked professionals" they nominated had wrote anything worth an award. Case in point, Kevin J. Anderson. Hard working? I guess if you're referring to quantity over quality, but I'm not sure writing shelves worth of shitty Dune and Star Wars novels is worth rewarding. (Just give him a Lifetime Achievement in Bastardization of Existing Properties and shuffle him off the board, like the Oscars do.)
ReplyDeleteI think that you may be right in that non-SP crowd may just walk away and let the award die for a few years---or worse, this will trigger armed camps of conflicting slates, where two hostile parties camp the Hugos and vote according to party line rather than merit. At this point I think the Puppies have won a Pyrrhic victory, and are going to see the likes of Leckie and No Award dominate the awards as backlash---let's reward mediocrity because it's the only thing not slate-tainted. Yes, they've shown how easily manipulable it is. They've also broken its back in terms of "SF's most prestigious reward," and proven all the mainstream readers correct who see SF as regressive/juvenile/schlock.
I'm curious about the "broken back". Have they really broken its back this year? Was it already broken? Has it always been broken? Can it ever truly break? I ask because as long as the Hugo award is given, and probably even in cultural hindsight, I'm afeared it may have already cemented its place as 'most prestigious'. This is why I like Megan's idea of moving more deserving awards into the spotlight. I will be following suit as soon as I catch up on my reading of 2014 and 2015 titles... :)
DeleteI think the Hugo has always been broken, but it's only been in the past decade or so that the illusion of the award -- e.g., promoting quality above all -- or more importantly, its illusion of integrity, has broken. You couldn't have pulled off a vote-by-slate bid even twenty years ago, so social media and technology is a factor. The Potter fans' big push in 2008 was notable in revealing the obvious (populist voting is easily exploitable when the voters are unorganized, and apathetic about non-Best Novel categories), but it didn't seem like anyone had noticed the potential for vote-swinging until the Puppy campaigns. Really, it felt like the Hugo turned more into the Oscars in the last decade, rewarding middle-of-the-road works based on authorial popularity and other factors. This is just making it more of a binary mess, since we'll probably end up with the "competing Hugo slate factions" future. Even if the Hugo has cemented itself in non-SF spheres to remain the "most prestigious SF award" to outsiders, I expect many within SF fandom may migrate to the Nebulas, Clarkes, BSFAs, etc. if this foreshadows the future of the Hugos.
DeleteAnd yes, as others have mentioned, despite attempts to re-appropriate it the term SJW remains a pejorative. I don't think you fit the Urban Dictionary definition, but as that description shows a heavy bias it all comes down to perspective... I recall one of Torgersen's reasons for SP3 was that the Hugos are becoming too literary and elitist (!?), and that the forces of social justice are rewarding books that force deep psychological issues and social commentary into what should be good ole entertaining skiffy built for the masses:
A few decades ago, if you saw a lovely spaceship on a book cover, with a gorgeous planet in the background, you could be pretty sure you were going to get a rousing space adventure featuring starships and distant, amazing worlds. If you saw a barbarian swinging an axe? You were going to get a rousing fantasy epic with broad-chested heroes who slay monsters, and run off with beautiful women...
The book has a spaceship on the cover, but is it really going to be a story about space exploration and pioneering derring-do? Or is the story merely about racial prejudice and exploitation…
A planet, framed by a galactic backdrop. Could it be an actual bona fide space opera? Heroes and princesses and laser blasters? No, wait. It’s about sexism and the oppression of women.
Finally, a book with a painting of a person wearing a mechanized suit of armor! Holding a rifle! War story ahoy! Nope, wait. It’s actually about gay and transgender issues." Source, quoting Torgersen's blog.
Or, "a true SF fan wants ideologically barren pulp adventure, gosh darnit" ;)
Really like this reply. I couldn't agree more with the 'always broken' and Oscar comparison. And I too laugh out loud reading that the "Hugos have become too literary and elitist". I knew they had a narrow view, but... :)
Delete"When people ask what I enjoy reading, there is a part of me that winces before I say: speculative fiction." I lie. I flat out lie. But I mostly just do what I can to avoid that question.
ReplyDeleteI dig the anti-pups (SJWs as you and everybody else calls them/me/us, but I hate that it's being thrown around like an insult) because the playing field is in dire need of being leveled, and it's rather frightening how intolerant and threatened these SP people are. I just wish the anti-pups would reach a little higher than the low-hanging fruit of pronoun play and token characters. Or, actually, I will settle for pronoun play and token characters if they aim for rich narrative style, and stop writing primarily for the ease of screenplay adaptations. As you say, "Pulitzer-esque texts do exist in speculative fiction" and I'm really bothered by how some of the most vocal anti-pups refuse to even look at or talk about some of the more stunning works that SF can produce.
I only encountered the term SJW a few weeks ago. The Urban Dictionary defines it as: "A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation." So, while I consider myself concerned about social justice issues, and in some very minor way do my part to raise awareness, I hope I do not fit that definition.
DeleteWhat I find most humorous is that the SJWs and Sad Puppies are a perfect, salt & pepper match. The ship is going down and they are duking it out on the decks, oblivious to the larger portent. Another way of putting this is, many, many SJWs are incapable of appreciating the very texts they claim to be in support of. Numerous, numerous are the occasions I read 'reviews' of what I would consider a progressive novel only to find remarks tothe tune it is "too dense, too complex, not exciting enough, the characters are not likeable, etc., etc." They like the idea of supporting social justice issues, but are unaware when a relevant text slaps them in the face. I don't want to start pointing fingers, but... you need only search for sites championing Leckie as the greatest thing since sliced bread and you've probably struck upon someone quite upset by the Sad Puppies complete and utter takeover but who fails to recognize fiction that in fact is line with the ideas they say they support. Like the Sad Puppies, I feel that the SJWs are mainstream readers who like their reading fare familiar, no slick tricks, just as they like their
I don't know which side I'd choose: willful ignorance, or ignorant ignorance?
I used to think social justice warrior was a useful term for the sort of person who talks about social justice issues to the exclusion of all else; a person who means well, but is ultimately boring to listen to, because you need to have a sense of humour as well to get by in life. Or at least show interests outside of talking about how shitty the world is to so many people.
DeleteUnfortunately, post-gamergate, the term has been used by that amorphous online rabble of self-entitled shitheads to mean literally anybody who disagrees with them, or who dares to try to enter their self-imposed ghetto of white male nerd culture. Use of "SJW" is a typically a red flag that the writer is taking sides, so you might want to avoid it.
Interesting. Both of your "definitions" make much more logical sense than the urban dictionary's, which seems to be an awkward combination of the two.
DeleteThanks for the heads up. (It looks as though I need to go catch up on my gamergate history, as well...)
Long story short, they're really just different fronts in this stupid cultural war being waged by reactionary nerds. They've built this identity for themselves, this "culture," and when people suggest that it can be dominated by pretty dated racist and sexist attitudes, and that hey, maybe it would be cool if there was the occasional female/gay/non-white character, they hyperventilate and screech about censorship, and start these insane campaigns (couched in military language about "operations" and "targets") to stalk and harass the various people, usually women, whom they think have wronged them. "Ethics in journalism" and "sci-fi never used to be POLITICAL!" are really just cover for a culture war.
DeleteI think one of the most telling things is the use of military language (which was also in use with the sad puppies), and the sense of some kind of brotherhood or fraternity, this sense of belonging - which is why they also give themselves actual names like gamergaters or sad puppies - is very telling. Whether they're "fans" or "gamers," they're people who have been ostracised from mainstream culture and have built their own identity, and now they feel their clique is under threat and they're lashing out. The leaders, people like Vox Day or John C Wright, are psychopaths who literally believe things like black people being subhuman or that women shouldn't be able to vote, and they draw in all these lonely and disillusioned children, and man-children, who want to be a part of something. It's really sad more than anything else.
I would add another 's' word: scary. Some are also gun rights activists. A couple of people who have commented on my blog - very negatively - have google profiles openly brandishing weapons or discussing how great guns are, Looking at Larry Correia's blog/website, he has a picture of himself wielding a rifle that is more science fiction-sized than anything needed to shoot a deer or bear. And looking at the comments on my negative review of Conan, while extremely humorous, is also frightening in the degree of anger my minor (to put it politely) corner of the web evokes in them, mild threats just the beginning. If you have ten minutes you want to kill with humor, check this out:
Deletehttp://speculiction.blogspot.com/2013/01/review-of-conan-warrior-by-robert-e.html
I was speechless when I saw the nomination for this year. It is pathetic beyond words.
ReplyDeleteWhat I honestly don't understand is what the Sad Puppies hope to gain with this flooding of the ballot. Last time they tried to get one candidate nominated in each category. Sad as that was, it at least made some sense if you want to promote those kind of novels. If next year is a repeat of this year, everybody not on board with the Sad Puppies will just cease to care who actually wins the Hugo. What will you have gained then? It seems rather self-defeating to me.
The Hugo as their private ghetto. I'd rather they didn't destroy what is, for better or worse, an institution of the genre but if it makes them happy, be my guest.
Regardless of year or how they won, award histories remember the winners. All of the actual politics that went into making the winners is margin notes. For example, do we know what went into making Fritz Leiber's The Big Time the 1958 winner without a short list? No (or at least I don't), and in the future, I don't think people will know about the Sad Puppies, only that "_________ was who the genre community thought was the best in 2014". And for as long as they control the Hugo ghetto, such will be the case. That, I think, is the Sad Puppies' victory.
DeleteI personally disagree with much of the politics the SPs support, but I give them full credit for building a fan base, using the system within allowed bounds, and accomplishing their goal. Hugo fans who dislike SPs have only themselves to blame for not doing the same with their own agendas. (And truth be told, I think many SJWs are upset about being outsmarted by a group of people they consider less intelligent.)
SJW is a much more diverse group with a wildly varying agenda. It's much harder to get them organized in this way even if anyone wanted to. Which I personally think would be a very bad idea.
DeleteA few years back, Jonathan Lethem wrote a biting essay on this issue: The Squandered Promise of Science Fiction. He begins by imagining an alternate history - Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow wins the nebula, for which it was nominated, and the best recognizes SF ranks with the best mainstream literature.
ReplyDeleteThat's not how the main trend went, instead:
"Among the factors arrayed against acceptance of SF as serious writing, none is more plain to outsiders than this: the books are so fucking ugly. Worse, they're all ugly in the same way, so you can't distinguish those meant for grown-ups from those meant for 12-year-olds...
SF can also function as a clubhouse, where members share the resentments of the excluded and a defensive fondness for stories which thrived in 12-year-old imaginations but shrivel on first contact with adult brains."
Wow, thanks Mike. How could I not have heard of that essay before? It sums up my thoughts in far more concise language. I knew there was some noise surrounding Gravity Rainbow's place in genre history as a major turning point, now I see the backdrop. Interesting to see Lethem has put his money where his mouth is a turned his back on Hugo-esque readers to write adult speculative fiction - and been successful amongst adults.
Delete