No Award (Part One)
The following is a guest column by Chris Chan, the first of eight parts, to be published in this space over the next few weeks. The topic is a tidbit of inglorious Science Fiction fandom history in which I played a small part, known of old as the Sad Puppies Kerfuffle, and hence might be of interest to my readers.
*** *** ***
This article first appeared on the now-defunct NerdHQ blog.
“No Award”
The Hugo Awards, Sad Puppies, and Sci-Fi/Fantasy Literature
Part I: What’s Happening with the Hugos?
By Chris Chan
Introduction
This is the first of a series of articles, serving as an overview of one of the biggest controversies to divide fans of science fiction and fantasy in recent years. It’s the story of clashing perspectives and strong opinions, and how literature and fandom can both unite and divide. It is the hope of this author that these articles can serve as a means of building bridges and mending fences. However, given the vitriolic emotions in some quarters, this may be too optimistic a hope.
The Hugo Awards are meant to celebrate high-quality science fiction and fantasy writing, and since 1953 they’ve honored many works by celebrated writers, ranging from Issac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke, to Neil Gaiman and J.K. Rowling. As with every creative award, from the Nobel Prize for Literature, to the Pulitzer Prize, to the Oscars, and any other comparable prize, not every winner can please everybody. Some people are bound to loathe a winning work beloved by many, and countless amazing works have been snubbed of their well-deserved recognition.
Over the past five years, a group of writers and fans known as the Sad Puppies have expressed their displeasure with many of the Hugo winners and nominees, contending that political opinions, affiliations, and connections have trumped writing quality and storytelling skill in recent years, and that an “in-crowd” of people connected to the Hugos has exercised too much control over the nominees. In response, the Sad Puppies have made an effort to suggest new nominees, and in recent years they have shown a remarkable level of success over the content of the nominee slate.
The description of the Sad Puppies and their influence on the Hugos in many mass media outlets has been scathing. The Sad Puppies organizers have been dubbed bigots, sexists, and all sorts of vile names by opponents and critics. It is the contention of these articles that the attacks on the characters of the Sad Puppies writers has been slanderous.
Several prominent authors involved with the Sad Puppies have graciously consented to interviews: Sarah A. Hoyt, Amanda S. Green, Brad Torgersen, and John C. Wright. All of them insist that the common media narrative ascribing malicious intent to the Sad Puppies is defamatory. The Sad Puppies are not motivated by bigotry, but out of love for the genre, a desire to reshape the debate over what constitutes quality literature, and a desire to give works that they really appreciate the recognition that they believe is deserved.
Amanda S. Green explains, “One of the goals of Sad Puppies has always been to promote books (as well as short stories, films, etc.) that entertain. We want our fans to know there are alternatives out there, titles that will take them on flights of imagination where they can forget their troubles at work, etc., and just have fun.” Sarah A. Hoyt concurs, noting that “Fun does not need to be vacuous or light… It does however need to be interesting and to draw the reader in. It does not and should not either be a dense and impenetrable forest of pretty words or (more likely) a barely disguised political pamphlet.” This speaks to the heart of the artistic and stylistic debate that propels the Sad Puppies– What is the purpose of science fiction, fantasy, and literature in general? What constitutes “good” or “bad” literature?
This is a debate that extends far beyond the Sad Puppies, the Hugos, and literature in general. Many genres, such as the mystery genre, have been having similar conversations for years. How do we know what great literature is? Is it what we like, what certain artists think we need, or is there something else at play here? Are social and class issues at work in attempts to divide quality writing from the also-rans? Brad R. Torgersen believes so, saying that, “Really, the bottom line is that Sad Puppies dared to speak openly, all the things which many people had been saying quietly (and often behind closed doors) for years. That SF/F had become too obsessed with “literary” credibility in contemporary literature circles.” John C. Wright takes further issue with some of the pre-Sad Puppies Hugo Nominees, stating that, “The running joke was that this one-sided voting for dull and inferior but politically correct works and authors was the prime cause of sadness in big-eyed puppies. From this the slogan and the name of the movement began.”
Now, honest people can have genuine differences of opinion over the evaluation of literary merit, and it’s possible to dislike a work without malicious intent or bigotry-based motives. Matters of taste and ideology are central to this controversy. As we will see in future installments in this series, different people have different perspectives on the Hugos in recent years, and though certain contrasting reactions are equally valid, some narratives of this story have more validity than others. “Neo-Nazis Take Over Hugo Awards” is a much more eye-catching headline than “Science Fiction Writers Disagree Over What Constitutes Quality Writing,” but the latter is infinitely more based in reality than the former.
In this series of essays, numerous aspects of the Sad Puppies and the Hugos will be discussed. In order to properly start this narrative, an introduction to the Hugos is necessary.
What are the Hugo Awards?
The Hugo Awards are prizes that are given for achievements in writing in the fields of science fiction and fantasy. The Hugos are overseen by the World Science Fiction Convention, or “Worldcon,” and are named after Hugo Gernsback, a leading figure in the development and popularization of science fiction. The Hugo trophy is in the shape of a rocket, though the base of the statue changes from year to year. Though the categories have changed somewhat over time, at present there are fifteen categories: Best Novel (over 40,000 words), Best Novella (17,500-40,000 words), Best Novelette (7,500-17,500 words), Best Short Story (under 7,500 words), Best Related Work (a non-fiction or critical piece of writing), Best Graphic Story, Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form) (a movie, play, computer game, television episode, or other form of entertainment over ninety minutes long), Best Dramatic Presentation (Short Form), Best Editor (Long Form), Best Editor (Short Form), Best Professional Artist, Best Semiprozine, Best Fanzine, Best Fancast, Best Fan Writer, and Best Fan Artist, along with the John W. Campbell Writer for Best New Writer.
Unlike many other awards, the Hugos are nominated and voted on by the fans. Anybody who pays the necessary fee can submit nominations and vote for a winner. Other writing awards, like the Edgar Awards for crime writing, have a review panel looking over and evaluating submitted works, selecting their top picks, and then the voting members pick from the choices the judges have chosen as the best of the year.
Every awards nomination process has pros and cons. If a panel of judges serve as the gatekeepers to the awards, then the preferences of a small group determines the nominees, and the opinions of the judges may not reflect the broader tastes of other fans and the general public. When the general public submits nominees (as the Hugos does– at least amongst those members of the public that choose to be voters) there are really only three ways for a work to get a nomination. The first way is to be very popular. Bestsellers and authors with a broad fan base are far more likely to get nominated because more people have read and liked them. It’s hard to be nominated when very few people know about you. This means that obscure writers and works printed in publications with small circulations have far less chance of gaining recognition. The second way to get a nomination is to organize. If enough fans get together to draw attention to writings and authors they consider deserving, then such a grassroots movement can tip the scales, especially when in many cases only a few dozen fans are necessary in order to get a nomination for a Hugo. As we will see later, the Sad Puppies have used this method in order to gain recognition for their preferred works. The third way to get a nomination is to be very lucky, and that somehow sufficient numbers of people have read your work, liked it, and independently decided to put you up for a nomination. This can happen, but it’s not nearly as reliable as the first two methods.
Five years ago, Larry Correia, the creator of the MONSTER HUNTER INTERNATIONAL series, expressed his belief that the Hugo Awards were overlooking some high-quality works and authors, and that certain works were nominated mainly for the philosophical and political perspectives expressed in them. This was– and is– a highly controversial opinion. As John C. Wright notes, “When Mr. Correia complained in print of this one-sidedness, he was savagely attacked and called a liar.” Regardless of the disagreement over the point, Mr. Correia decided to try and shake up the nominations, and in 2013, he suggested that his fans nominate some works that he believed to be interesting, well-written, and deserving of celebration. The Hugo Awards haven’t been the same since.
Coming up in Part Two of this series– A short history of the Sad Puppies at the Hugos
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
