The Sad Puppies Hugo Issue.

In an earlier post I mentioned the current controversy stemming from the 73^rd World Science Fiction Awards. I chose not to address what was going on at the time because I wanted to speak without bias about the nominees. As the time for voting draws to a close I think I’m ready to elaborate on what’s been going on as well as my thoughts on the matter.

Currently there is a faction of science fiction writers and readers going by the name Sad Puppies. This group is interested in righting a wrong they feel has been done to them and their like in the field as of late. According to them good, old-fashioned science fiction has fallen out of favor with awards because the conventions are overrun with a liberal agenda. They feel that while the books they’re writing are still popular with audiences their dedication to more traditional tropes of the genre have taken them out of the running for awards. They’ve pointed to several of the more recent ballots claiming that they are overrun with women and people of color authors.

The three main talking heads in this debate for the Sad Puppies side are Larry Correia, Brad Torgersen, and Vox Day. All three are white, Christian, conservative men. My first run in with the Sad Puppies opinion was in an article that Brad Torgersen wrote on his blog. In it he addressed what he felt is a big issue in the genre. His main complaint stemmed from the idea that science fiction as a genre was losing sales and it was because people had expectations that were not being lived up to. Essentially, people were picking up science fiction books expecting the genre to have not matured or evolved since the 50s.

My first issue with all of this is that this movement is based in three authors who haven’t been nominated for an award recently, and it comes across just as an attempt to whine their way into the awards. They say that the voting is skewed, but the voting for the Hugo Awards is done by fans. These are the books the fans are choosing. These are the books that are popular.

My second issue was that they’ve taken a stand against the literary bent they feel has infected the genre. Is pulp truly out of style? Well, maybe. But is there really anything wrong with the genre becoming more technically sound and intellectually stimulating?

My third issue is with the idea that there is something wrong with stories being more than what they appear on the surface. If I wanted a story about space travel would it really be so bad to also have that story be about sexism and gender equality issues? If the issues are presented solidly so that neither one detracts from the other then I don’t see the issue. Science fiction is notorious for doing that sort of thing!

And after reading all the nominees for the award I found it to be a particularly weak selection. Is this because it’s a result of slate voting taking over? I can’t say. It could be that this year was weak for science fiction, though there are still strong selections on the ballot. I went into the readings without the prior knowledge of how they got nominated so it can’t be that my politics are blinding me. I read and judged everything based purely on its merit as entertaining science fiction. The Sad Puppies' nominees just didn’t do it for me.