I think the Tingle nomination was meant to mock other nominations that featured queer characters. They’re basically saying, “You will vote for anything if it’s gay, so here’s badly written absurdist gay porn. By the thought process I have assigned to you, you must vote for this to get a Hugo.”
Dragon*Con is a sci-fi/fantasy/gaming/general nerd culture convention, probably second in prominence to Comic Con.
The Sad Puppies have long argued that “elitist” awards like the Hugos and Nebulas are manipulated by a cabal to give awards based on “political correctness” rather than quality, and consistently pass over more popular and higher quality writers for niche, politically correct writers.
A few years ago, the Sad Puppies were involved in creating (or at least promoting) a new set of awards presented at Dragon*Con, the Dragons. Unlike just about any other SF/Fantasy award, voting for a Dragon is essentially open, for free, to anyone who wants to participate. Thus, in theory, a genuinely popular writer should be at an advantage over niche, “politically correct” writers.
The first year the Dragons were awarded, writers that the Sad Puppies liked did very well. In the years since, they haven’t done nearly as well, and the Dragons’ awards lists have looked more and more like the Hugo and Nebula lists.
The Sad Puppies are unhappy about this. Some of them are celebrating their preferred writers that did win, while ignoring the writers they don’t like who also won. Others are apparently blaming COVID for the votes somehow being biased (how exactly COVID stopped the broad, silent majority of SF/Fantasy fans who supposedly support them from voting while not hindering the supposed minority of PC voters is unclear). And so on.
The amusing thing, IMO, that the Sad Puppies’ attempt basically created a Streisand Effect, where people started to more notice female and POC sci-fi authors. N.K. Jemisin seemed to benefit quite a bit from it, as folks I knew who weren’t into sci-fi heard about her as one of the folks that kicked the Sad Puppies to the curb.
Interesting. thanks for the summary.
The Nebulas, I can see calling elitist, but pretty much anyone can vote for the Hugos, too.
I’ve heard Heinlein called a lot of things, but “Social Justice Warrior” isn’t one of them.
I can’t stand the guy because he writes women so insultingly, but I’m grudgingly considering checking out those works.
In theory, the Hugos are awarded based on voting by attendees of the World Science Fiction Convention. Since early on, you could buy a “ticket” and mail in your ballot without physically attending. It’s my understanding that while you can now vote online, you still have to register with the convention and pay a registration fee. Voting for the Dragons, in contrast, is (I think) completely free.
The argument, as I understand it, is that the paid “attendees” of WorldCon are a highly motivated, vocal, elite minority who are willing to pay to vote, and do so to push a political agenda, while the vast majority of SF/Fantasy fans aren’t willing to pay just to vote. So, the Hugos reflect a vocal, elite, “politically correct” minority of fandom, while the silent majority have their favorites passed over.
I’ve heard Heinlein called a lot of things, but “Social Justice Warrior” isn’t one of them.
[/quote]
Wrote about transgender characters. Put non-Christian, black and mixed-race characters in his juvenile works in the 1950s (which took some tricky writing to do). Wrote a couple of novels about socialist utopias. Complained about police brutality against protesters. Someone who did all that today would be called a Social Justice Warrior…
and mixed-race marriages.
I wouldn’t say I’m pro sad puppy but I think there is something to it. Similar to the Oscars putting “rules” in place for best picture the sad puppies claim the Hugos have similar unspoken rules for Sci Fi.
Is there any evidence for such a claim?
The nominees and winners are chosen by voting. Are you saying they aren’t voting their taste? Or is there some other way that system could have “unspoken rules”?
I saw a van with Happy Kittens written on the side, dropping off a big dump of ballots at the last Hugo award thing.
Turned virulently against Vietnam protesters. Was a narcissist on Trump’s level. Wrote condescending sexist and racist drivel. Made a large audience at a Worldcon which came to worship him howl in anger. Put up an electric fence to keep away hippie fans. Went from flaming liberal to crypto-fascist.
There were many Heinleins. The Puppies would approve of a lot of them.
Absolutely - and they’d loathe other versions of him. They basically worship the books he wrote from 1959 to 1966 (and not all of those), and assume that that period defines his entire output - hence the idea that he has humans superior to all aliens, etc., when a defining characteristic of his earlier work is aliens so far in advance of humans that humanity must retreat, or be very polite indeed.
Now that’s a story I’d like to hear.
MidAmeriCon (1976) Worldcon - Robert Heinlein, Guest of Honor Speech - YouTube - here’s the speech
I doubt it. But more and more it does seem to me that creative works which are P.C. and ‘inclusive’ are given ‘bonus points’ vs. those which are not. I’d prefer that not be part of the equation at all.
Let me give an example of how the Sad Puppies just don’t get the changing genre.
The story that every one of the pointed out as being Everything That Is Wrong with SF was something called, "If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love." Now there are legitimate arguments that can be made against the story (is there any SF/fantastic element?, for instance), but the argument was that it was nothing but an excuse for political correctness run wild. (One amusing thing is that the gender of the narrator and the love is never specified, so the event could have easily have happened to two traditional opposite sex characters). It’s mostly a condemnation of bigotry and violence in all forms.
I loved the story. I reviewed it for Tangent Online when it first came out (long before any of the puppies read it) and gave it three stars, their highest rating. I considered it one of the top stories of the year (two other reviewers agreed).
By their lights, that opinion means I’m just an SJW who doesn’t understand real science fiction and I only said I liked it because I was a slave to political correctness.
But the same year, I also gave three stars to “The Chaplin’s Legacy” by Brad Torgersen, one of the names involved with the Sad Puppies. It was a traditional SF story with a traditional protagonist who was also a man of faith, published in Analog, the most traditional of the SF magazines.
So, by their lights, I couldn’t possibly like them both. I did, not because of political correctness or anything other than the fact that I thought the two stories were excellent – just in different ways.
For the Puppies, there’s only one Way.