![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sad Puppies 4
Mar. 18th, 2016 10:03 amSo, after much Sturm und Drang, the Sad Puppies have released this year's recommended list. A few thoughts.
1) Kate Paulk released a Google spreadsheet she used to tabulate the votes. It was noticeable how few people participated. For example, for Campbell award, 43 votes were cast. Best novel looks more popular, with 133 works nominated, but still, for this round the Sads don't seem to have a huge number of people.
2) Along the lines above, the distribution looks very "normal." Lots of stuff getting 1 or 2 votes, with the #10 novel, Ancillary Mercy, getting 9 votes.
3) Going by the works nominated, very little of the top tens jump out at me as controversial. The closest we get to controversy is nominating seemingly everybody at Baen for Best Editor Long Form. Well, that and nominating a Scalzi novella (he recused himself this year).
In short, so far this is everything Sad Puppies 3 was not, namely open and transparent.
1) Kate Paulk released a Google spreadsheet she used to tabulate the votes. It was noticeable how few people participated. For example, for Campbell award, 43 votes were cast. Best novel looks more popular, with 133 works nominated, but still, for this round the Sads don't seem to have a huge number of people.
2) Along the lines above, the distribution looks very "normal." Lots of stuff getting 1 or 2 votes, with the #10 novel, Ancillary Mercy, getting 9 votes.
3) Going by the works nominated, very little of the top tens jump out at me as controversial. The closest we get to controversy is nominating seemingly everybody at Baen for Best Editor Long Form. Well, that and nominating a Scalzi novella (he recused himself this year).
In short, so far this is everything Sad Puppies 3 was not, namely open and transparent.
