Hugo-Gate Continues..

So...Puppygate or preferably Hugo-Gate continues...this is about an, ahem, extreme and crazy right-wing faction of the Sci-Fantasy Fandom attempting to take over Worldcon and the Hugo Awards. All they've managed to do is derail the awards, piss off the majority of the Sci-Fantasy fan base (or the sane portion of the fandom, yes, there are relatively sane people in the Sci-Fantasy Fandom, believe it or not - and they do make up the majority (or at least we hope)), with various people speaking out and disassociating themselves with the awards. (And I do mean the extreme right-wing faction. These people make like Orson Scott Card look relatively moderate in comparison. Also just in case you think it's only US, the publishing house sponsoring Puppygate is located in Finland. It's a small publishing house. The Finns apparently are just as crazy as several midwestern Sci-Fantasy fans...hmmm, note to self continue to avoid the midwest and Finland. (I'm joking, I know that's a broad generalization.))

Here's the most recent links provided by GRR Martin on his journal. He's been discussing it at length for weeks now.

* Connie Willis explains in her blog why she won't be presenting the John Campbell Award at the Hugos and is boycotting them this year

In case you don't know who Connie Willis is - she's the writer of The Doomsday Book, Bellweather, and To Say Nothing of the Dog - all of which I've read. (Okay, except for To Say Nothing of the Dog, which I couldn't get through. And they've all been nominated or won Hugos.)

( Sample below )

* David Gerrold who was a writer on the Original Star Trek Series, and won a Hugo for The Trouble with Tribbles, writes in Facebook:

His Fury with Puppygate and basically reams the Puppies

have been following the whole sad puppy/rabid puppy thing for a long time -- long enough that I am seriously annoyed at the amount of time I've wasted on it, because that time could have been better spent reading a good book. Or even writing one.

And I think I've finally hit my ohfuckitall point. Brad Torgersen has made himself the point man in this year's brouhaha -- and I have patiently slogged through his endless blogs, his self-serving sideways denials, his squalid victim racket, and his astonishing refusal to recognize that he has committed all the same sins he is now projecting onto others.

That's an old trick -- one that has served bullies well for a long time -- blame the other side for all the things you're guilty of. A lot of Confederate politicians do that because it confuses those who haven't had time to pay closer attention because they're scrambling to get food on the table from day to day.

But here's the real question -- and although I doubt I'm going to get an honest answer here, I'm going to ask it anyway -- in the long lead-up to all of this, did anybody in the group think about methodology?

If the goal was to honor those who you thought had been overlooked, a recommended reading list, even an enthusiastic endorsement, would have been sufficient.

But -- as I have said before, there were three mistakes. The first was the slate, the second was the vilification of those they didn't like, and the third was the alliance with Vox Day.

* Abigail Nussbaum's blog "Asking the Wrong Questions" - gives us a history on Puppygate, where the term "Sad Puppies" originated and how people are handling the Hugos, also why she isn't voting for anything but the dramatic category, and everything else gets "No Award".

That said, it is worth remembering that the Hugos aren't the only award out there. Alongside their nominations, yesterday also saw the announcement of the winners of the James Tiptree Jr. Award and the Philip K. Dick Award, both of which delivered interesting winners and honors lists. We should be seeing the Clarke shortlist soon enough, and the list of submitted novels certainly suggests some intriguing possibilities. I have my (loudly-stated) problems with the Locus Award, but if you're looking for an alternative to the Hugos that is still a popular vote award, you could certainly do worse. 2014 was a fantastic year for genre writing. It's a shame that the Hugos aren't going to acknowledge that, but that doesn't meant no one else has.

* Writer who declined the Sad Puppy Nomination for Best Fan Writer

* Embroiled in a Political Fight Not of Their Making and Declined, even though they want a Hugo, they feel no pride for it.

Interesting reading, if only to see how crazy the sci-fi fandom can get. (Which I sort of already knew, because I've been reading sci-fantasy since I was in the 5th grade, and lurking on the fringes of the fandom ---because it can get CRAZY, extremist, and just a tad self-righteous.)

I agree with GRR Martin and John Scalzi...in that it's unfair to the people on the slate who have not been nominated by the crazy folks, to rule out the Hugos. Letting the crazy folks ruin it - is giving them a wee bit more power than they deserve in the fandom, particularly since it appears that they make up the minority. Not that I care about the Hugos or any awards for that matter, per se. But as a struggling writer myself - I can understand why winning one may be important to various writers or may not get nominated in other categories. It shines a spotlight on your book, however briefly. Let's face it not everyone is GRR Martin, Jim Butcher, Stephen King, Connie Willis...or Neil Gaiman.
A lot of writers, good, possibly great writers fall beneath the radar. We don't know about them - unless someone brings them to our attention. And sci-fantasy is a tough genre to get ahead in.

Justified Series Finale: Well shot, well acted, well played...

Justified Series Finale was good. Possibly amongst the best series and season finales that I've seen. As an aside, why is it that television series with excellent music and theme songs, generally speaking, tend to be better than television series that lack heavily in the music ability? (I liked Justified's music so much, I bought the album. Same with The Wire, and Buffy. Also have Sopranos.)

( spoilers )