kevin_standlee | Hugo Awards: Not Enough Fantasy?

You really need to stop all this voting and nomination crap and do the smart thing: all nominators go into Thunderdome; the one who survives gets the nomination/Hugo. You charge a nominal fee for people to watch, and the Hugos would run in the black for ages to come.

Let's see, the Hugo is awarded by which fantasy fan group?

I'll side with the anti-Potters, until WSFS changes that first "S" to "Speculative".

Section 3.2.1 of the WSFS Constitution trumps the specific words in the name.

Besides, who do you want deciding that a work isn't sufficiently "science fictional?"

who do you want deciding that a work isn't sufficiently "science fictional?"
The same people I want deciding that a work isn't sufficiently fantasy or science fictional. That argument falls flat as long as there is any genre restriction. While some works of fantasy do border on having a science base, the Harry Potter series isn't one of them, and doesn't pretend to be.

the WSFS Constitution trumps the specific words in the name.
Yes it does. I guess if the membership wanted to, they could also add mystery, medical anatomy and kayaking to that list. Or remove the genre references completely. But that would defeat the purpose of a Sci-Fi fan group giving awards in its area of expertise, wouldn't it?

On the contrary, the Harry Potter books take an extremely mechanistic, engineering-oriented view of magic (if a spell doesn't work, there's either a kink in the machine or else the user doesn't have his degree yet) that I find very SFnal in spirit, contrary to the pure fantasies I know and love best.

Now, it's true that "SFnal in spirit" doesn't equal "SF", but there are people like Larry Niven who insist that all kinds of scientifically impossible things get unjustly swept under the SF reg, simply because they're so convenient to have: time travel, FTL, and the like.

So are those not really "science fiction"?

Hugo Gernsback, the founder of the SF publishing genre and the man for whom our awards are named, said in 1962 or so that only one of the stories that had yet received the Hugo was really, in his view, SF rather than fantasy. But he didn't say which one, and you can really scratch your head over the list, wondering which one met Hugo's sanction, remembering that if it did, all of the others didn't.

The border between "SF" and "fantasy" is far more treacherous and full of kinks than the border between "SF/fantasy" and the outside world.

I'm more than amused that he should grump about the "anti-fantasy bias" in an award that makes The Graveyard Book a finalist.

What he really means is, "A couple fantasy books I really like didn't get on the ballot, and an SF author who always gets nominated got nominated again, so I'll call that a blatant anti-fantasy bias."

Given that the guy is apparently a regular on westeros.org, I suspect he'd insists that The Graveyard Book isn't fantasy either. After all, it doesn't have any knights or battles in it, and it is less than 500 pages long.

OTOH, one of his reviews has this: "an excellent, headily atmospheric novel that forces the reader to think about what they are reading carefully. I recommend it without hesitation."

It does have battles, but no knights, nor is it 500+ pages long.

Here's the review: http://tinyurl.com/cl9qdl

-- Michael Walsh

Cheryl, you're just mad that we mocked your tail in LA. And of course you used the infamous line "It's people like you who killed Emerald City!" on me. That was a classic. Glad I could help, btw.

Westeros.org (and the forums associated with them, which is what you really mean, but you don't read them, and so don't know) is a place where well read and intelligent fans of speculative fiction of every flavor congregate on the internet. It is not controlled by SMOF's and so it is frightening to you.

There is a definite bias against fantasy novels when it comes to the Hugo's. That this can be argued is rampant foolishness. Neil Gaiman is immune to this treatment, for whatever reason. Sandman? Leather Jacket? Fascinating Blog? So is Bujold, for more obvious reasons. And Rowling has so many fans that were the mistake made to ever let her on another ballot, the result would be a foregone conclusion. Again.

An argument in a panel at Worldcon LA featured Gardner Dozois dismissing Margo Lanagan's short story nomination because "It's not even Science Fiction."

This is the reality of the Hugo's. They have become a joke. (Points at Scalzi. Have you read those books?) Strangely enough, Rowling winning was the beginning of this precipitous decline, but it certainly isn't the most egregious act of foolishness by Worldcon attendants. The complete overlooking of Cormac McCarthy and his opus The Road takes that honor.

When Oprah Winfrey is more on-the-ball than Fandom, it's time to shake up Fandom.

And Cheryl, please feel welcome to come to the forums of Westeros. We'd be thrilled to hear you input and then cogently explain to you how wrong you are and why. Or agree with you, if you happen to be in a rare state of enlightenment.(I'm sure it happens. I have faith in you.)

William Lexner

...were the mistake made to ever let her on another ballot....

If she publishes a work and the members of WSFS voted to nominate her, how could we keep her off it? Or are you under the delusion that the Hugo Award administrators are making value judgments about the "worth" of nominees?

If Rowling was such an unstoppable juggernaut, then how come the rest of the books in the series weren't nominated and didn't walk away with a string of Hugos? Oh, it must be that "anti-fantasy bias." You can't have it both ways.

The Hugo Awards reflect the opinions of the people who take the trouble to join WSFS and vote. Anyone who thinks the purpose of awards is to only reward works that suit his/her personal tastes is asking to be perpetually disappointed. Or else s/he should give out the "I Like These Things And You're Stupid If You Don't Awards" and see how much attention anyone pays to them.

Thanks for explaining the rules to me. I'm sure you did not hear about the boycott of voting for Rowling based upon her failure to show up to the Hugo Awards.

You don't have your ear to the ground of fandom or anything.

I have an idea... you could nominate the authors who have been nominated before, write pastiches that remind us of our childhood in SF, or who write interesting blogs. And then see how much attention anyone pays them.

I'm sure you did not hear about the boycott of voting for Rowling based upon her failure to show up to the Hugo Awards.

That's rich. If we had a sustained boycott of every author who didn't show up for the Hugo Awards ceremony to accept his/her trophy, pretty soon there wouldn't be any Awards because there would be no ballots cast.

I'm so sorry that the Hugo Awards aren't what you want, which apparently is the "Give Awards To Things I Like Because Everyone Who Likes Anything Else Is Stupid And Conspiring Against Me."

By the way, there are only a handful of Hugo Award nominations this year that I am personally delighted about, such as (but not limited to) that for Girl Genius in Best Graphic Story. But I don't think that just because the Hugo Awards are not a perfect reflection of my own taste that there is some Grand Conspiracy trying to exclude works I like. It means my tastes are not perfectly congruent with the voters, that's all. And unlike you, I don't think that's a bad thing.

It is not controlled by SMOF's and so it is frightening to you.

It is such a pity you don't know how absurd that statement is in that context. It's really laughable, but you'll never understand why.

Of course not. No one is as enlightened as you, Kevin.

I suppose now you'll say that you personally don't have an overwhelming need to try to control everything you're involved with? You;re kind of a running joke that way, man.

Of course not. No one is as enlightened as you, Kevin.

Me? I'm not enlightened at all. The older I get, the less I know, and the less certain I get about my decisions. I think I've accumulated too many viewpoints, which leads to a kind of decision-making paralysis.

The specific point at which I was pointing was your implicit assumption that Cheryl is "one of those SMOFS who controls everything." If you actually knew anything about the community of which you speak, you would know how absurd that is. But what's the point of explaining anything to you? You apparently already "know" these things, and nothing like "evidence" means anything, since you can always make up new justifications after the fact.

I suppose now you'll say that you personally don't have an overwhelming need to try to control everything you're involved with? You;re kind of a running joke that way, man.

Since you obviously are convinced you know everything there is to know about everything with which I'm involved at the most minute detail, I'm sure you can explain away why I don't "overwhelmingly control," oh, let's pick a few:

The WSFS Formulation of Long List Entries Committee (I'm a member, but I'm not the leader -- and if you're so smart, then you tell me how much "control" I have over that committee and then go tell Mark Olson, the committee chairman, about it)

The San Jose in 2011 Westercon bid (I'm one of the people who updates the web site, but I'm mostly just funneling other people's work, and I'm not its chairman)

The 2009 World Fantasy Convention (ditto on the web site, pieces of which I should be applying corrections that the hotel liaison just sent me instead of replying to you)

The Bay Area Science Fiction Association (I'm a member and regular attendee, but have strenuously avoided becoming involved in anything significant since I did my penance as the club's president many years ago.

But of course I'm sure you can rationalize all of these things. You're very good at coming up with rationalizations.

Edited 2009-03-25 20:06 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is not as detailed as I'd prefer. Would you mind putting up a full resume?

No, how about you address how the four current statuses he mentioned support your claim that Kevin has to be in control of everything.

Oh, it's you. I've been wondering where you've been.

As usual I haven't got a clue what bizarre fantasy world you are living in, so I can't really address anything you say. But if it makes you feel better to believe that there's a vast conspiracy preventing the books you like from getting nominated, and that you were personally responsible for driving me out of fandom, that's OK by me. I suspect that those SMOFs you talk about will be the first people to congratulate you on your achievement.

Anyway, when you learn the proper use of an apostrophe, come back to me and we can try again to have a conversation.

So I say SMOF's wrong?

I bet you had a fucking conniption fit over the recent Syfy change to the SciFi channel, huh? That's the shit that strikes you as important. It's alright. You wear a tail.

You come on here and offhandedly insult thousands of fans whom you do not know in any way, and then when called on it, you play the martyr? You set yourself up on a pedestal of pretentiousness because you are not ignorant enough to actually enjoy a book over 500 pages or that contains a knight?

Yeah, that Don Quixote crap sucks.

If you're truly wondering where I am, well it's probably because I avoid you at Cons. But hey, I can't avoid you if you come to our one of our parties!

I don't know what books I like in your fantasy world, but I'm sure you'll happily tell me. In the real world I like all sorts of books, including some that are very long and contain knights. The difference between you and me is that when the books I like don't get nominated (and they very rarely do) I shug and assume that my tastes are not the same as those of others, whereas you invent entertaining and complex conspiracies to explain why the world doesn't see things you way, and then whine about how unfair it all is.

I'm not whining. I flinging poo.

At you.

Y'know, it's really rare when someone in an argument manages to insult himself by likening his own actions to that of an angry chimp.

[Free hint; stop digging yourself deeper in the "making a fool of yourself" hole]

Sure. Great advice.

She shits on a community of thousands of fans, and I'm the asshole. Go figure.

Pretty accurate summation.

If you truly think that, you're just the same sort of jackhole.

It would have to be a vast conspiracy; every Worldcon member except for a small number, otherwise those books would be nominated.

So I guess I'm by default a member of the conspiracy because I don't like many of the books that

stegoking loves. After all, it's not possible that I just have better taste.

Glad you understand that fact. :D

Out of curosity, did you nominate any Fantasy novels or any work for the Hugos this year? Did your friends?

For someone who wants more fantasy on the Hugo's I find it a little interesting that on your own LJ you ask for people to nominate Kristin Janz.

Since I never heard of her, I did a search on her. The first result from Google game me a sci-fi story (Veritas Nos Liberabit)and not a fantasy story. I'm sure she might write fantasy - but find it sort of ironic that the first result would be sci-fi.

Guess we will have to wait for the detailed breakdown of nominations to see how close any fantasy work was to making the ballot.

Maybe you should put your recommendations on http://community.livejournal.com/hugo_recommend/

That way everyone on LJ can see what you want to see on the ballot.

Yes, I nominated a fantasy novel. Daniel Abraham, to be precise. But you were inferring that I don't nominate, right? I nominate. I vote. I nominate again next year.

The vast majority of my LJ is not public, and so I don't expect you to find much. Kristin is a friend, and I felt her worthy to push.

And please, don't misunderstand me. I do not want more fantasy. I do not want more female writers. I do not want more Steampunk or more New Weird or more Space Opera.

I simply want people to nominate on merit, regardless of genre classification, sex, race, nationality, etc. Merit.

I would like someone to give some sort of argument, any sort, really, as to how Rainbow's End is a better novel, in any way, than The Road.

It's an annual embarrassment to fandom.

Good for you for nominating! You are indeed doing the right thing. Encouraging other people to vote is a good thing, too.

But why is it so difficult for you to get the concept that not everyone likes the same things you do? You seem so convinced of the rightness of your cause that you assume that The Right Works aren't being nominated because of some Vast Conspiracy rather than because not enough people like them sufficiently to nominate them.

You do realize that if the Works You Like were nominated, there would be a whole bunch of other people whining about how unfair it is, and that there must be some sort of Vast Conspiracy to get those works nominated instead of Good Things.

What happens when the merit is in the more fantasy, female writers, Steampunk, Space Opera, or whatever?

One one hand you want people to nominate based on merit, BUT it can NOT be a female writer, Steampunk, or fantasy - correct?

Umm, I don't think you can have it both ways.

If a steampunk novel or movie has merit for a Hugo I will nominate it and vote for it.

You misunderstood my message, and for that apologize for my lack of clarification.

I do not want more fantasy nominated simply because it is fantasy. I do not want more women nominated simply because they are women. Etc for the rest.

I do not want people to nominate Scalzi because they like his blog. Does anyone actually like his horrible Heinlein pastiches? I do not want people to nominate Neil Gaiman because he is SO DREAMY.

Merit is all that should considered, but it's not.

Kevin,

There is a problem with the system. There are many aspects to this problem, but there has never been a more concrete example than The Road not being nominated.

And I'm absolutely certain that had The Road been nominated, there would have been people just as passionately arguing that there is a problem with the system if such horrible works as The Road are being nominated. How can I be certain of that? Because you hear such complaints about every nominee.

Your passion for SF & F literature does you merit. Allowing it to delude you into paranoid fantasies about conspiracies keeping Good Works off the ballot does not.

Denial, is, obviously, a river in Egypt.

Just curious, could you point to one award that is presented for creative works that isn't subjective?

Cheryl, having read the succeeding comments, I believe I should actually say what I thought when I first saw yours, which is that
1) you have a good way with a clever snark; and
2) I recognize one when I read it.

Why thank you. That's very kind. Though to be fair to Mr. Lexner he is remarkably talented at flinging poo. It is a shame you can't win a Hugo for it.

So, your small group of fellow Asperger's sufferers agrees with you? Shocking!

Actually, Cheryl, it's very unfair of me to attack a group that I know nothing about. So I take it back with the sincerest of apologies. Perhaps you should consider the same.

I'm sure that the folks of Westeros are mainly grown ups who don't mind the occasional rib tickle, but I will happily apologize to any of them who are offended.

With one exception. I won't apologize for laughing at people who complain that there is a conspiracy against them in the Hugos, or indeed who claim that I am somehow a leader of the SMOFish community, because really such claims are laughable.

PS, I nominated Daniel Abraham too. Great book, wasn't it.

Isn't it about time for the "in private emails, many people support what I'm saying?" line to be trotted out?

In private emails, many people support Kevin's right to ban

stegoking from his LJ. While I support free speech for all, including those with whom I disagree wholeheartedly, I'm not required to let them smear their opinions in poo on my living room wall, works of Shakespeare and a million monkeys and a million typewriters and a million years notwithstanding.

I was thinking more along the lines of how trolls always have supporters in private emails.

But I get your point.

YM "Time for a rousing chorus of 'The Lurkers Support Me in Email'."

Hugo Awards: Not Enough Fantasy?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject