Wednesday, April 27, 2016

The Hugo Nominations Are Again Filled With Garbage


Well, boys and girls, the Hugo nods are out again. And they're slightly less fucked than last year! I don't want to recap the situation too much, but here's a short primer. The Hugos are the most prestigious speculative fiction awards. Last year, some gross, conservative bigots found out they could manipulate the system to get their garbage nominated. These are the Sad Puppies. Some even grosser, fascist bigots latched on to this, and got their barely-literate screeds nominated. These are the Rabid Puppies. All the nominees (most of which are terrible, some of which are innocent bystanders placed on the list without their consent) placed below "No Award Given," which is basically the equivalent of the Leonardo DiCaprio presenting at the Oscars and saying, "You know what? All the acting this year sucked. I'm not going to give this to anybody."
Select a bunch of high-profile writers who would have been nominated anyway along with a bunch of puerile trash ... It's called Poisoning the Well.
I was really hoping the Puppies would have gotten bored of ruining someone else's party to make some sort of point, but they're back again and show no signs of quitting. As Mike Glyer outlines, 64 of the 81 recommendations on the Rabid Puppy slate made it to the ballot. As Donald Trump would say--sad!

The biggest problem with this mess is I'm genuinely unsure which nominees are deserving, and which are simply there because they were on a slate (or a "recommended reading list" which is just a broader fucking slate), or because they were sticking it to the ess jay double-yous. Vox Day's submissions are obvious, but the rest are up in the air to anyone who isn't following this catastrophe on a daily basis.

For instance, let's look at the Campbell Award for Best New Writer. Four out of the five nominees appeared on the Sad Puppy list, which makes me immediately skeptical of their talent and really hesitant to read, let alone actually purchase, anything they've written. But! Let's just take one example: Alyssa Wong. By all accounts, she seems to be a talented writer who has been published in multiple prestigious magazines and who seems to be generally supportive of diversity in fiction (which is something the puppies vehemently oppose). So, a false positive! I'm looking forward to reading her stuff.

But are we expected to do this for every single nominee? Will the casual Hugo voter? Probably not. Which is entirely the point of this year's insidious campaign. Select a bunch of high-profile writers who would have been nominated anyway along with a bunch of puerile trash like "Safe Space as Rape Room," an offensively inaccurate piece of work that appeared on both Puppy slates. It's called Poisoning the Well. The thought is that, since the nominees aren't all hateful, self-published nonsense this year, people either won't notice or care about the trash that did make the list. The truth is, of course, that these nominations will utterly fail to place in the actual awards. My only hope is that writers like Ms. Wong aren't unduly punished in the wake of it.

The silver lining, I suppose, is that a rules change set to take effect next year may mitigate some of this in the future. The bigger problem, though, is that several of the Puppies themselves make the circuit within the speculative fiction convention fandom, despite being actively toxic. Saying 'Hugo nominated' puts you quite far ahead of most panelists, so there's plenty of damage done that will be hard to repair. We will continue to fight against this, but it's clear this is a hissy fit that's not going away any time soon.