![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sad Puppies, Take Whatever
Feb. 19th, 2015 11:40 amSo today's argument on the Sad Puppies front is that because Comic Cons pull in a lot more people, the Hugos aren't relevant.
That's a bit snarky, so let me elaborate. Brad notes that, from the mid-1980s on, Comic Con went from a few thousand attendees to 100,000+. Here, let him explain from a clarifying comment:
I used Comic Con in contrast to Worldcon to illustrate the divide between “big” fandom and “little” fandom. A division that “big” is oblivious to, and “little” actively fosters and protects. Because “little” still pretends that it gets to decide (for “little” and “big” alike) which SF/F works are worthy of recognition.
My head exploded a little there. I know people like Steven Silver and Helen Montgomery, and they'd trade body parts to get half the attendance of a Comic Con at a Worldcon. We don't get it because those worthies don't have the luxury of spending full-time on running cons or the budget thereof. Continuing:
Just because they’ve fallen [Hugo awards] to a place of relative irrelevance, doesn’t mean that have to stay there. The road back to relevance begins with the Hugos reflecting the tastes of a wider selection base. Thus SAD PUPPIES.
Asserting the Hugo Awards are relatively irrelevant is, well, an assertion, one without evidence and at least partially refuted by the Puppies campaign. Things that are truly irrelevant aren't resurrected.
But the fact of the matter is that anybody who wants to can come and vote for a Hugo. And at Loncon, only a third of attendees even bothered to vote the top line of the ballot. What this tells me is that those who vote are in fact the group of fandom that cares the most about the award. I fail to see why that's a bad thing.
That's a bit snarky, so let me elaborate. Brad notes that, from the mid-1980s on, Comic Con went from a few thousand attendees to 100,000+. Here, let him explain from a clarifying comment:
I used Comic Con in contrast to Worldcon to illustrate the divide between “big” fandom and “little” fandom. A division that “big” is oblivious to, and “little” actively fosters and protects. Because “little” still pretends that it gets to decide (for “little” and “big” alike) which SF/F works are worthy of recognition.
My head exploded a little there. I know people like Steven Silver and Helen Montgomery, and they'd trade body parts to get half the attendance of a Comic Con at a Worldcon. We don't get it because those worthies don't have the luxury of spending full-time on running cons or the budget thereof. Continuing:
Just because they’ve fallen [Hugo awards] to a place of relative irrelevance, doesn’t mean that have to stay there. The road back to relevance begins with the Hugos reflecting the tastes of a wider selection base. Thus SAD PUPPIES.
Asserting the Hugo Awards are relatively irrelevant is, well, an assertion, one without evidence and at least partially refuted by the Puppies campaign. Things that are truly irrelevant aren't resurrected.
But the fact of the matter is that anybody who wants to can come and vote for a Hugo. And at Loncon, only a third of attendees even bothered to vote the top line of the ballot. What this tells me is that those who vote are in fact the group of fandom that cares the most about the award. I fail to see why that's a bad thing.
