The Hugos and the Puppies (last post on the topic for the year for this year?)

I’ve made several posts in the past discussing this year’s Hugo nominations, and the efforts by the “Sad Puppies” such as Brad Torgersen (whose views I looked at here) to get nominees they considered as Stuff People Actually Want to Read, not Just Stuff That’s All PC And Has Gay or Female Protagonists. This got more complicated when Theodore Beale (the man who insists black fantasy writer NK Jemisin is a “savage” and genetically inferior, though he has conceded she’s human) became involved in the effort. For details you can read Jim Hines’ history, with lots of quotes from the Puppy activists.

So the Hugos were last weekend and the puppy-nominated candidates lost completely. The story analyzes what it all means for the future—unfortunately it probably doesn’t mean the Puppies in some form won’t try again (Beale, who loves flaunting his bigotry, will undoubtedly seize any chance to make more mayhem).  The story quotes Torgersen as arguing that his issue is classism—he and Correia write blue-collar stuff rather than fiction for literati—but that’s not how most of his posts (like my link above) paint the issue.

Foz Meadows has a typically good response to the charges that “social justice warriors” are nominating books with gay/non-white/female/trans/whatever leads or authors instead of good books. The (very) condensed version of her point is that nobody who says “This book has a gay protagonist! Read it!” is saying “This book was a piece of crap but it’s got a gay guy in the lead so read it anyway.” The assumption that it’s good is built-in, much like a review saying “this legal thriller is written by someone who totally understands the law! Read it!” is saying the book is good (otherwise the review would say “The legal aspects are totally realistic but the book sucks.”).

Eric Flint has written several good posts, though he hasn’t commented on the final awards that I’ve seen. Here’s a good post, though, discussing why even a wildly popular author isn’t going to be one who appeals to most fans (because even if your book sells a million copies, that’s still a minority of the specfic reading audience). And this post (which I’ve probably linked to before) explains why Puppy claims that their nominations were about highlighting unappreciated conservative writers and fighting literary snobs don’t pass the smell test.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics, Writing

One response to “The Hugos and the Puppies (last post on the topic for the year for this year?)

  1. Pingback: What would Lovecraft think of the Howard Award and other writing (and just plain quirky) links (#SFWApro) | Fraser Sherman's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.