Note: This is another post dedicated to the Hugo Awards. If you aren’t interested, we will return to our regular programming eventually. I promise.
I freely admit that I’m spending more time on this whole Sad Puppies/Hugogate phenomenon than is perhaps healthy. (If you’re just coming into this discussion, just google “Sad Puppies 2015.” It’s gotten too big to encapsulate in any one reference.) In my own defense, however, this controversy is not going away any time soon, and by “soon” I mean “the next few years.” So I might as well be up on it, and for that reason I have been trying to amass as many viewpoints as possible. And because of that, I have made the startling discovery that both sides actually have something in common:
They’re both wrong.
Not about everything, of course. Much of what they say is a matter of taste and/or opinion, which cannot be wrong. That’s why taste and opinion are not fact. But they are wrong on the facts–sometimes. Maybe if they weren’t, some kind of meaningful discussion could actually occur (although I doubt it). I’d like to take this opportunity to show how both sides get some things wrong. I’ll start with the Sad Puppies, because they ignited the current contretemps.* I will use a recent posting by Larry Correia as my template.
Mr. Correia’s posting is too long to cover in its entirety, and much of it, as I said earlier, is opinion, so I’ll only speak to certain sections.
Sad Puppies is all about getting good books recognized. That’s what you say and I’m sure you believe it. But Sad Puppies was created expressly as a right-wing political experiment, and two years of evolution is not going to erase people’s memories. You can’t expect it will.
SP3 won big because the fannish cabal was mean to us after last year’s SP selections lost. No, it was because you mobilized your troops and the other side didn’t.
We’ve got nothing against fans. We’re fans too. Yes, I’m sure the CHORFs would agree.
We’re doing this in defense of freedom of artistic expression. This has nothing to do with artistic expression and everything to do with who gets awards. Artistic expression is not at risk. Neither is freedom.
Don’t blame Vox Day on us. True, he was a jerk before Sad Puppies. True, he’s no longer connected with SP. But he started with you, and you knew damned well who and what he was. In fact, you recommended works on his slate. Now Frankenstein’s Creature is loose (“Rabid Puppies” is no coincidence) and you can’t say you don’t share the blame.
As for the left side of the aisle…
For its (many) sins, the only proper response to the Sad Puppies slate is complete rejection. Although it is only one fact, it is as wrong as all of the facts listed above collectively.
First, not everyone on the Sad Puppies slate was consulted, or knew what was going on when they found out they were included. You’re punishing the innocent with the “guilty.” Isn’t it conservatives who supposedly shoot first and ask questions later?
Second, some people on the slate choose to remain there not because they agree with the SPs politics, but because they’ve been nominated for a Hugo. Had I been asked to be put on the slate, I don’t know that I would not have agreed, just for the publicity. We authors are in it to sell books, and “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.”
Third, voting “No Award” before every category is only going to give the SPs ammunition. They’ll say, “They’d rather destroy the Hugos than let us win,” and they will, sadly, be right. You don’t trim a tree by chopping it down.
So okay, all of you are wrong about something. Can you climb down from your fortified towers, wave a white flag, and talk? If you are all, as you say, only interested in finding the best stories to honor, then you actually have a lot in common.