beatrice_otter: A sword in front of a dome (Harrington sword and dome)
TW for racism, genocide, and fascism.

Every year at Worldcon, there is an award given out that is not a Hugo.  It is the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, and it is sponsored by Dell publishing house.  It's named after John W. Campbell, who edited Astounding (later Analog) Magazine for decades and in so doing shaped the field of science fiction.  Campbell was one of the main people who took the pulps of the 20s and pushed and prodded the authors into becoming better writers.  Having read some of the best SF/F stories of the 20s-40s, there is a HUGE difference in quality of writing (plot construction, characterization, worldbuilding, themes, eloquence and wordsmithing, everything) between the stories of the 20s and the stories of the 40s, and pretty much everyone who was involved at the time agree that John Campbell was a major part of the reason why.  He was incredible at taking a new author under his wing and shaping and polishing and encouraging their writing and helping them be the best they could be.  John W. Campbell was a great editor.

John W. Campbell was also a fascist.  He was racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, and ableist, and he was outspokenly so even for his time.  He was authoritarian and distrusted democracy.  He once wrote a column supporting the shooting of student protesters.  He believed in eugenics.  He was colonialist in the worst possible sense of the word.  He shaped SF/F to fit his view of what the world should be, both by picking what authors got published and dictating what they should write.  Some of the most disgustingly vile SF/F stories ever published were commissioned by him and written to his specifications, including Heinlein's infamous novel "Sixth Column" in which the "happy ending" is genocide.  (He's also the reason why "hard" SF can include stuff like telepathy.)

This year's Campbell Award winner is Jeanette Ng.  An Asian woman.  Originally from Hong Kong, who vocally supports the Hong Kong protests.  Someone Campbell would have despised and used his considerable influence to keep out of SF/F.  Here's how she began her acceptance speech: "John W. Campbell, for whom this award was named, is a fucking fascist."  (Here's a video.)  Here's a transcript, go read her speech, it is awesome and short.  (And if you get to the end of the speech and wonder what "the hat thing" is, here it is.  Her hat had a peacock tail, and she could trigger the tail to stand erect from the hat.)

As always, when some major (white ablebodied heterosexual male) historical person gets rightly identified as having done and said really terrible things in addition to the good things they did, there is handwringing and pushback, especially when the person pointing out the problems is a woman of color.  But I am very glad that from what I can tell most people are supporting Ms. Ng.  She got a cheer when she gave the speech, and people are continuing to back her up.  A number of past Campbell Award winners support her, as does at least one of this year's runners up (Rivers Solomon).

Justine Larbalestier, who did her dissertation on early SF/F: "I doubt many Campbell defenders have read all his editorials. I have. is spot on."

Here's Cory Doctorow's response on BoingBoing: It Needed Saying, in which he goes into greater detail as to why Ng is spot on the money.

John Scalzi said he knew Campbell was a racist, but had never wondered whether he might be a fascist, and pointed out that it's because as a white male writing the sort of action-adventure/"hard" SF that Campbell loved, he's never HAD to consider the question, and that was pretty much true of all the people who didn't like what Ng said.  Also, that Ng was probably right that Campbell was a fascist, and she definitely had the right to say what she did.

My personal take is that I believe Campbell's contributions to the genre should be remembered.  All of them.  Including the shitty ones.  Especially the shitty ones.  You cannot separate out the good things he did (helping the overall quality of writing in SF/F increase, mentoring lots of writers over the decades) with the evil things he did (keeping anyone out of SF/F who wasn't white, male, straight, able-bodied, and encouraging racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, classism, authoritarianism, and every other -ism out there).

And for damn sure his name should be taken off the most prestigious award for Best New Writer.
beatrice_otter: A sword in front of a dome (Harrington sword and dome)
The Wired writeup of the Hugo Awards, given out last night.  (The official listing of who won.)

A good writeup.  I think things went as well as they possibly could have, under the circumstances.  (I’m a little disappointed that “The Day the World Turned Upside Down got best Novelette; it was terrible.  It was the only non-Puppy nominee in that category, but I ranked it below No Award because I couldn’t be bothered to finish it.)

The Alfies were an awesome idea, I’m so glad for GRRM.

beatrice_otter: Elrond and a line of Elves, ready for battle (Elven warriors)
So I'm reading my way through the Hugo packet (slowly, in between other commitments, OMG this summer has been so frantic summer is supposed to be my DOWN TIME), and decided to start the Best Novel category today.  (This is actually something to be grateful to the Sad/Rabid puppies slate; I will be voting No Award above them, and would even if I didn't find their politics and beliefs to be abhorrent, because the way they gamed the noms was shitty and against the spirit of the Hugos, and SHOULD NOT be rewarded.  Anyway, because I know I will not be voting for their works, that means I don't have to read them, which cuts down the amount of reading to do.  Which, one can normally count on the Hugo packet to be a lot of good reading, but this summer I DO NOT HAVE TIME.)

Anyway, I tend to be of the opinion that a Hugo-winning book should be both a) really good fun to read and either b) have a really fascinating/new thing to bring to enrich the genre, or c) be exquisitely well written.  And The Goblin Emperor is certainly good fun, but there's nothing new about it, and it's not exquisitely well written.

On the other hand, I couldn't put it down, so ... we'll see.

beatrice_otter: A horserider with a glowing blue sword--from the cover of Robin McKinley's The Blue Sword (Blue Sword)

The Hugos are (supposed to be) the Oscars of sci-fi and fantasy fandom.  But in the last couple of decades, they’ve divorced pretty far from the mainstream of the genre.  Not in the way that the Sad/Rabid Puppies claim (becoming an elitist bastion of SJW’s persecuting Manly Men).  But simply because there is now a HUGE swath of fandom that is younger, online, and watches SF/F TV and movies and webcomics, but doesn’t read much published SF/F or participate much in the events that the book people put much stock in.

This is, to me, evidenced by the nominations for Best Fan Artist.  They’re all competent, but … I have seen way more awesome fanart on tumblr and DeviantArt and the like.

Next year, when the Hugos are being nominated, I shall put out a call for y’all to tell me who you think are the best fan artists are, so I can nominate them.

*The Hugos give all voters e-copies of most of the works on the ballot, so we can make informed decisions.  Since anybody who pays the $40 for a supporting membership can vote (and thus get the packet), it’s a pretty good deal.  I’m really enjoying a lot of this stuff that I would never have gotten to read otherwise.  And that also means you can nominate in the next year.
beatrice_otter: A horserider with a glowing blue sword--from the cover of Robin McKinley's The Blue Sword (Blue Sword)
Matthew David Surridge, nominated for Best Fan Writer on the Sad Puppy Slate, goes into great detail about why the reasoning behind the Sad/Rabid Puppies Slate is completely wrong and why he is declining the nomination.  He doesn't go into great detail about the racist/sexist aspect of their thinking, but demonstrates quite well that their entire perception of the history of SF/F and the Hugos is pretty much dissociated from reality, and why that means they are completely wrong about what's happening in modern SF/F and whether or not it's a good thing.

beatrice_otter: Me in red--face not shown (Default)
The Hugo awards are the top award in Science Fiction, given out yearly, and they are nominated on and voted on by people who have memberships to the World Science Fiction Convention, wherever that may be held.  (Note: you can buy a supporting membership that does not give you the right to attend but does give you the right to nominate and vote.)

For the past several years, a slowly-getting-louder vocal minority of poo-slinger dudebros has been whining about how "biased" the Hugos are because their poorly-written white-male-power idfics don't get nominated.  Vox Day (aka Theodore Beale) is by far the loudest.  He's also stated publicly that he doesn't even really care about winning any more, he just wants to destroy the Hugos.  So last year he put together a slate of like-minded authors with Hugo-eligible works, called it the "Sad Puppy" slate, and urged his followers to nominate them.  They did, and those works got on the ballot, and none of them won for obvious reasons.  (If they'd had actual good works of SF with enough literary merit to be worthy of a Hugo, they might have had a chance.  And the Hugos have historically been very easy to game in the nominating phase and very hard to game in the voting phase, because there are a lot of people who vote every year but never nominate.)

This year, Vox Day's Sad/Rabid puppy slate managed to game the system such that there are six whole categories with NOTHING but Rabid Puppy nominations.  He did this by calling on GamerGaters to flock to his banner and buy memberships solely for the purpose of hurting "SJWs"  (Note: some of the authors whose works are on his slate were not aware of it before the nominations were done.  Some of them have already withdrawn their work from consideration because of their disagreement with Vox Day and his tactics.)

Of the various responses to this that I've seen, Abigail Nussbaum's is the best at laying things out clearly.

How am I going to respond to this?  Personally, I'm going to buy a supporting membership to Worldcon this year, and will vote for NO AWARD in the six categories they swept and instead of ranking their works in other categories.  And next year, you can bet your sweet britches I'll be nominating works that actually deserve a Hugo.
beatrice_otter: Atlantis--And the sky full of stars (Sky Full of Stars)
There is a divide in science fiction and fantasy fandom, dating back to Star Trek.  Media fans (fans of TV shows and movies) are on one side and lit fans (fans of books and short stories and original written works of varying kinds) are on the other, and it's not hard-and-fast but things that make huge waves in one area of fandom often don't even get noticed in the other part of fandom.

There is something huge going on in lit fandom, and it's important.  So here, for your edification, is what's going on with the 2014 Hugo nominations.

First, some background.  The Hugo Awards are the Oscars of the SF/F world.  They're voted on every year by the members of WorldCon, the World Science Fiction Convention, and handed out there.  (This year it will be in London.)  Who is a member of WorldCon?  Anyone who buys a membership for that year!  A full membership is $205, but if you will not be attending in person you can buy a supporting membership for $40.  This $40 investment will get you a) a packet with all the written works nominated for an award that year (which is a pretty good deal--5 novels, 5 novellas, 5 novellettes, and five short stories, each of them ones that a large number of fans think were the absolute best thing published the year before) and b) the right to vote for the Hugos and c) the right to nominate works for next year's awards.  There is wank about this every year, just like there's always wank about the Oscars.  Usually it's nothing.  This year, it's bad.

Second, some background on the major players.  As in all areas of life, there are some SF/F authors who are complete wastes of space on a personal level.  (I can't speak to the quality of their writing as I've never read it, but they are total wastes of space as people.)  In particular, Larry Correia and Vox Day (aka Theodore Beale) are vocally sexist, racist, homophobic pieces of trash who think that only white men can be real SF/F fans and that while they can spew any filth they want, anybody who dares to stand up to them is a horrible person who is oppressing them.  I won't be linking because y'all have google and I am not going to waste my spoons diving through their splooge for examples.  (Day/Beale uses both name and pseudonym for a variety of things so if you want to look him up, google both.)

So!  This year, Correia put forth a slate of twelve works (including his own most recent novel) that should get Hugos, and urging people to buy Worldcon memberships solely to nominate and then vote for those twelve works, which Vox Day (aka Theodore Beale) then championed as well.  All of them are what he considers "real" Science Fiction by "real SF" (read: white racist sexist asshole) authors.  And seven of them got enough nominations to get on the Hugo ballot.  On the bright side, there are also a lot of women authors and authors of color and people who have never gotten Hugos on the ballot, way more than normal.  (On the weird side, since the last book in the Wheel of Time series came out last year and none of the books in the series have ever been nominated and all of the novels are part of a single story told in installments, the entire series has been nominated for a Hugo for Best Novel.  ETA: Yes, the entire series will be part of the membership packet this year, all fourteen of them.)

Reactions:
Natalie Luhrs over at Radish Reviews

Abigail Nussbaum (one of the nominated authors) on her own blog

Blackgate.com ignores the whole Correia and Vox Day issue but raises interesting points on other things

Far Beyond Reality does a linkspam of the whole issue


John Scalzi, one of the leading writers and bloggers in lit fandom and one who is usually pretty loudspoken about being a feminist and pro-poc, says people should take the high road and vote solely on artistic merit, not the character of the author.

Shweta Narayan
, Arachne Jericho, Rose Lemberg, and Kate Nepveu point out several flaws in Scalzi's position.

Daniel Libris' take.


Polenth Blake on separating writers and their work.

There's two issues with the Hugos this year.  First, Correia's actions in promoting a slate of candidates, and urging all of his fans to buy memberships solely to nominate it and vote for it leaves a bad taste in peoples' mouths, and would no matter what kind of a person he was.  There are lots of people in literary fandom who think it's wrong to even say publicly "Hey, guess what, I'm eligible if you want to nominate me for X!"  So even if Correia's actions weren't technically against the rules, it's Not Good Behavior.

More importantly, obviously, are the social justice implications: Correia and Vox Day should not get to dictate what counts as "good" science fiction and fantasy; they should not get to dictate what science fiction fandom is like and who can and can't be part of it.

I am not going to urge anyone to buy WorldCon memberships just to vote against them, but I will note that $40 for a supporting membership will get you all the nominated works, the right to vote, and the right to nominate for next year's Hugos.  The packets aren't yet ready for distribution, because they only just announced who was nominated and are now approaching publishers and authors for the rights.  (Also, they're doing Retro-Hugos this year; it's the 75th anniversary of the first WorldCon in 1939, but the Hugos didn't come along until later, so they're going to give out Hugos for 1939 as well as 2014.  Hopefully, those works from 1938 will also be in the member packet.)

ETA: due to trolling, anonymous commenting has been disabled.  If you're going to call me a racist fascist, you're going to at least need to drum up the courage to sign it.

Profile

beatrice_otter: Me in red--face not shown (Default)
beatrice_otter

April 2025

S M T W T F S
  12 345
6789101112
1314 1516171819
20212223242526
27282930   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 16th, 2025 12:47 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios