Sad Puppies, Take Whatever
Feb. 19th, 2015 11:40 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chris_gerribSo 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Sad Puppies, Take Whatever
Date: 2015-02-19 06:45 pm (UTC)The reason I bring this up is that you *seem* to conclude that it is voter apathy but it could just as logically be how the voting is organized (the voting procedures might be prejudiced in some manner making it challenging for some attendees to participate) or the nominees might be unpopular enough that attendees don't have a positive vote option, etc. To me it seems like apathy would be the least likely reason for participants to vote at a fan convention.
Re: Sad Puppies, Take Whatever
Date: 2015-02-19 07:31 pm (UTC)Re: Sad Puppies, Take Whatever
Date: 2015-02-19 11:20 pm (UTC)My understanding is that there are several tiers of participation for Worldcon with the most expensive being 'attending' and the least expensive being 'supporting'. The fact that one has to pay at all to vote disincentives some fans, particularly those that are economically disadvantaged or on a fixed income, so to my way of thinking this is a 'bad thing' and means that those who care most about the award don't necessarily get to vote as there is an economic barrier. This is one of the reasons that in the United States there is very often a strong push back against IDs being required to vote or there being some sort of required assessment or toll -- even if the barrier seems absurdly low.
Also participation in voting does not necessarily equate to caring about an outcome. Much has been made of the current US Congress lacking a clear mandate because of low voter participation in the last election cycle and it is a criticism that I agree with. More on point, prior to this year I had no idea that I *could* vote without attending Worldcon.
Unlike you, I don't know anyone associated with organizing Worldcon so you should have better entries into receiving data on this but I would imagine that a very high percentage of potential Worldcon voters that signed up for 'supporting' memberships actually vote. Otherwise, why send any money at all? I've heard that at least with some packages members (may?) receive stories with paid membership so that may be the reason -- they wanted the stories but never intended to vote.
Anyhow, the point I'd been intending to make is that maybe there are hidden reasons why people don't actually vote that has little or nothing to do with apathy over the Hugo. It seems like a fairly simple question to add to the registration form for new and renewing members to find out why there is such poor participation from those paying money for the privilege to vote and I would think it would be of huge interest to the organizers.
Re: Sad Puppies, Take Whatever
Date: 2015-02-19 11:49 pm (UTC)Re: Sad Puppies, Take Whatever
Date: 2015-02-20 12:11 am (UTC)Re: Sad Puppies, Take Whatevers
Date: 2015-02-20 12:20 am (UTC)Re: Sad Puppies, Take Whatever
Date: 2015-02-20 01:06 am (UTC)In any event, we do have a free-to-vote best-of list, ran by Locus Magazine. (In fairness, subscribers are weighted more heavily.) I don't see a radical difference between the Hugos, Nebulas and Locus - the three awards usually share the same top books and stories.
no subject
Date: 2015-02-19 07:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-02-19 08:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-02-20 04:55 am (UTC)The bad part of that comes down to the old Edmund Burke saying, that for evil to triumph it is only necessary that good men do nothing. The reason why the Communist Party's various off-shoots and descendants and outright hand-puppets have been able to do such damage to Western civilization, is because they care enough to work at it as a career, while those who favor individual freedom and self-determination… don't.
So you could find - and arguably, already do find - the once-coveted “Hugo Award” becoming a bellwether for Politically Correct garbage, just as happened to the Academy Awards out on the Left Coast, which annually ignore good and popular movies to favor leftist propaganda - and are themselves ignored by the ordinary people of this nation who know that they are not consulted or welcome anyway.
Eventually, “winning a Hugo” could mean essentially nothing, save among a clique of jealous Zealots who watch each other constantly for any signs of thoughtcrime.