Register or log in:

F&SF Forum » Other Topics

Hugo Awards

(17 posts)
  • Started 1 month ago by Marian
  • Latest reply from Dave Truesdale

  1. Marian
    Member

    Here are the results from the Dublin World Con. Note that Gardner won for Best Editor. Obviously, this will be the last time he could win. https://locusmag.com/2019/08/2019-hugo-and-campbell-awards-winners/

    Posted 1 month ago #
  2. Chris DeVito
    Member

    Technically, those cheap rocket things are now called the "Tor.com/Free Internet Shit" awards.

    Posted 1 month ago #
  3. JohnWThiel
    Member

    I'm surprised how many winners have East Indian and Oriental names. Also, F&SF, Analog and Asimov's aren't being mentioned in the awards much any more.

    Posted 1 month ago #
  4. Technically, those cheap rocket things are now called the Woke Hugos, as in Let the Wokies win. Somebody's chickens may be coming home to roost and they don't even see it yet.

    Posted 1 month ago #
  5. John, you're not seeing F&SF, Analog, and Asimov's being mentioned as much anymore because you have to _pay_ for them. Thus, Chris's comment about "Free Internet Shit."

    Posted 1 month ago #
  6. dolphintornsea
    Member

    The only story from one of the "Big Three" print magazines to be seen anywhere near the Hugos, is "Mother Tongues", by S. Qiouyi Lu, a short story from Asimov's.

    It finished in the lower reaches of the long list, but not close to the final ballot. And even that may be because it was "reprinted" in Clarkesworld, and could therefore be read for free.

    Based on this, and the results of the last few years, we are unlikely to see a Hugo winner from F&SF, Asimov's, or Analog again.

    The time has come for an award for stories from primarily print magazines.

    Posted 4 weeks ago #
  7. Having an award solely for original stories in print zines (to include, I presume, original anthologies and original stories in single author reprint collections), seems like a fine idea at first glance, but it wouldn't solve the more damaging, underlying cause: that awards have been taken over, appropriated if you will, by Woke voters who vote awards based on gender,, sexual persuasion, and perceived minority status or any class of "victimhood" du jour, instead of the quality of the work or who wrote it. The Woke voters could also nominate and vote for printzine only awards.

    The new Woke ethic has become the new boss same as the old boss, for unless a straight white male has proven his Wokeness by word or deed and has been approved by the Woke fandom king makers, then their work will be dismissed out of hand as written by someone with Wrongthink. I know how this sounds, but don't doubt me. The evidence is there for all to see and you only need to look at who's been nominated for and winning 99% of the Hugos and Nebs for the past few years.

    Posted 4 weeks ago #
  8. JohnWThiel
    Member

    Making room for the oppressed, eh?

    Posted 4 weeks ago #
  9. dolphintornsea
    Member

    Dave, I have no objection to what you call the "woke" community influencing the Hugo and other awards. I have no objection to them winning Hugo Awards, either, and in fact I have no objection to them dominating the Hugos.

    When you get to my age, you simply have to understand and accept that people much younger than yourself, and especially those from marginalized (or previously marginalized) demographics, have a different perspective from your own, and that their voices must and will be heard.

    My concern is that there is currently no balance. Older authors simply don't get a look in at all. It's a complete shutout. There were fine stories by Samuel R. Delany and Michael Swanwick in this magazine in 2017 that would have graced the Hugo ballot, but in the current situation they have realistically no chance of even becoming finalists. Those are just two examples of many, of course. So if even Samuel R. Delany isn't woke enough nowadays, then where are we?

    If we had some sort of recognition for stories from print sources, then at least stories like the ones I mentioned would be part of the conversation, even if they don't win.

    Posted 4 weeks ago #
  10. The more diverse kinds of stories being nominated for awards the better. Emphasis on _stories_ and not the person who wrote them. The emphasis lately has been on who writes the stories based on current social and political factions. And those factions actively go out of their way _not_ to recognize stories because of who wrote them--mostly straight, white, men. That is a _huge_ difference in the way stories were nominated before the Woke crowd advanced their slander campaign against SF in general and straight old white guys in particular. The Hugo nominations were _never_ chosen on the basis of a rigid social or political litmus test that excluded other points of view--until now. And this attitude, if it continues, will kill the field for all intents and purposes. Time for the Woke crowd to Wake Up and see what they're doing to the field. But then again, they bow to their woke social and political agendas, and love them much more, than they do SF. Same as their agendas come first in the real world regardless of consequences.

    Posted 4 weeks ago #
  11. Chris DeVito
    Member

    It won't "kill the field for all intents and purposes," Dave -- it'll just change it into something you don't like. The field will go on without you. (The field -- most of it, anyway -- changed into something I don't like a long time ago, which is fine; it's the nature of the way things work. I direct my energies elsewhere.)

    Posted 4 weeks ago #
  12. C.C. Finlay
    Charles Coleman Finlay

    Creatively, the field is stronger and healthier than it's ever been. Commercially, it's still trying to figure out how to adapt economically to people who expect free things on the internet and to the competition for attention from genre-related content in video games and streaming. It's wonderful that so many diverse voices and writers are winning awards right now. If it feels a little out of balance in their favor, that's only fair -- since the creation of the genre, it's been far more out of balance the other direction: Things will even out again over time. Obviously, I would love to see more stories and writers from F&SF included in that public recognition. (How was R. S. Benedict =not= on the Campbell ballot?!) We're publishing work right now as good as anything online, and Asimov's and Analog are also publishing excellent work. But we don't have the same built-in online community and free access to our fiction online that allows for easy mobilization of nominators and voters. I expect this will sort out over time as more and more subscribers turn to electronic editions of the magazine(s), but I haven't seen evidence of it yet. In the meanwhile, if you're eligible to nominate or vote in any of the awards, we are grateful for every story from F&SF that you help bring to wider attention. Thank you for that.

    Posted 3 weeks ago #
  13. Chris, you're wrong when you say my complaint (or observation) is wrong, and all it amounts to is the field morphing into something I don't like. If things go on like they are now the field will, over time, die due to an imposed stricture on its _creativity_. When the SF field's creativity in terms of taking risks and exploring unpopular subject matter is threatened, it will become a field where openness and diverse opinion of _thought_ is stifled.

    Even this magazine's esteemed and respected publisher has said publicly that he has noted that certain kinds of risks in the fiction he's seeing aren't being taken today.

    Now, don't mistake this next as being subjects I personally agree or disagree with; they're just positions on subjects that few (if any) magazine publishers or editors will publish today, this magazine included. Ask yourself when the last time was that you read a story in a professional SF/F magazine that was pro-abortion. Or pro 2nd amendment. Or for building a wall on our southern border that wasn't characterized as racist, but necessary given current circumstances. Or a story that blasted sanctuary cities and the officials of those cities who allowed them to become sanctuaries in the first place. Or for praising capitalism and big business and not (as is boringly usual) as evil entities. Or portraying smaller government with less interference in private lives. Or socialism as a terrible evil. Or a minimum wage of $15 as am ignorant idea. Or a story clearly exposing groups _like_ Antifa as evil and of a fascistic nature.

    An author can take any subject and make it full of tension and drama and sell any pov he or she likes. But you won't see any stories dealing with any of the subjects noted above from anything other than a liberal or progressive point of view. So how many stories can we read having the same basic takes on these subjects before boredom and brain rot sets in? And what's the challenge for the writer in trying to explore these subjects with an opposite take if they know editors have ideological blinders on? Creativity dies and so will the SF field with its monorail thinking.

    Anyone think Phil Dick's "The Pre-Persons" could be published today...without certain vocal Woke factions calling for the editor's head on a pike and a boycott of the magazine? Prove me wrong. Unless editors and publishers start standing up to the blatant intimidation and bullying tactics from the Left, the field's creativity, its imaginative spark will indeed, over time, gradually erode and kill the field. Or leave it to die a slow painful death as fewer and fewer stories keep trying to preach to an ever smaller choir.

    Laugh or poo-poo me if you want to, but just wait. Have a good old time now and while it lasts, reading the same takes on themes dealing with social or political matters, but even you in time will grow weary when the truth finally hits home one day and this or that magazine isn't as much fun to read because you know that its contents are just another instance of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

    The balance of certain categories of authors might have been unbalanced before, but not _because_ of SF. Factors in the public domain, in our culture, _outside_ of the small SF field had one heckuva lot more to do with any perceived imbalance in the field than anything _inside_ the field did. The SF field--its Hugo and Nebula voters (until now)--_never_ consciously declined to nominate or vote on a story or novel *because of the author's skin color, or gender, or sexual preference, etc.* But now they do and it's a crime. The factions doing this today have become the enemy they tried to persuade the rest of us was us. Look at the Hugo and Nebula _fiction_ winners from the past 5 years. And tell me how many straight, white, males who do _not_ belong to any other victimhood class--or who we know for a fact do not belong to the Woke crowd--have won any of the fiction awards. And put that in a percentage for the rest of us to see. This is being done on purpose and not randomly. Those doing this have put forth a dandy, never-ending, full press PR campaign of division in the SF world. They have actively pitted old, straight, white guys as the problem to every perceived injustice in the field, and boy have a lot of you bought it hook, line, and sinker. White guilt and being Woke rules, and it shows in the fiction big time. And it's killing opposing views. And it's killing creativity and exploration of controversial ideas. And it's slowly killing the field.

    But if it makes you feel any better, any more secure and assured that everything is just as it was meant to be, then just keep believing the mob _won't_ rally at your door with pitchforks and torches if you publish anything they don't like--because you know they will and you can't afford to take that chance.

    Posted 3 weeks ago #
  14. SHamm
    Member

    Dave: I'm surprised you are not aware of this already, but there is a hugely popular alternate-reality series which checks off a lot of the issues on your wishlist (border walls, gun rights, pro-abortion, pro-big business, anti-minimum wage, etc., etc.) and usually treats them as not only necessary, but (get this!) desirable. The writers do get a little preachy sometimes, and they are reeeeeally slapdash with their background details and especially their science--which is a problem for me but less so for most viewers, who are deeper into the fantasy genre than I am, and therefore more willing to suspend the ol' disbelief. But the overall narrative is undeniably addictive, because there are millions of viewers who eagerly lap it up.

    It's called "Fox News." Give it a try!

    Posted 3 weeks ago #
  15. SHamm
    Member

    P.S.--I really like your border-wall idea. Could you write it up, adding some Dianetics and psi powers to make it publishable in today's market?

    Posted 3 weeks ago #
  16. Ron
    Member

    Worldcon has no future.
    Dragoncon--which is open to science fiction--gets about 7 times more attendees than Worldcon.

    List of Worldcons:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Worldcons

    List of Dragoncons:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Con

    Posted 3 weeks ago #
  17. Closer to 10 times more _attendees_ than Worldcon.

    Posted 3 weeks ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.