Stevo Darkly wrote:I admit that I don't fully understand the Hugo nominating and voting process. (And based on my quick attempt to research the matter, nobody else does, either.)
You join the World Science Fiction Society. You send in the names of eligible works you want nominated under various categories before the nomination deadline. The ones that get the most submissions get nominated. Then you vote on those nominations for the awards, before that deadline. Results get announced at that year's convention.
Stevo Darkly wrote:However, the fact that there is an overlap in the successes of the nominations put forth by the Rabid Puppies and the Sad Puppies does not indicate, to me, that Sad Puppies are necessarily the same as Rabid Puppies.
They are two organizations with two slates. One is Vox Day giving a list of his preferred nominees. One is Brad Torgesen giving a very similar list. As far as distinguishing them goes, the evidence is that, despite a lot of insistence that Vox Day is this horrible outlier who it's just unfair and mean to talk about, his slate has pointed more support where it doesn't overlap Torgesen's than Torgesen's does when it doesn't overlap Day's.
However, I don't see it as particularly meaningful
to distinguish the slates or the efforts. The main difference for the Sad Puppies is "We don't have Vox Day". They, however, have most of his slate and the same rationale.
Stevo Darkly wrote:Rather, what it says to me is that, however loony one group or the other may be, both are somewhat competent at picking some nominees that end up on the final ballot. I assume that happens because sufficient numbers of other nominators, part of neither group, also find those works worthy. In other words, the various Puppies pick some works that they both like, and some of those works are also liked by others, and they end up on the final ballot.
Or in yet other words, the shared nomination successes may indicate that neither group is completely tasteless or out of step with fandom out of whole when they select their nominees, and pick some broadly popular works.
OK. So, the claim of both slate organizers, over the course of a multi-year effort to encourage their supporters to join and vote, has been that the Hugos are warped by ideological forces, preventing good works from getting proper attention and giving bad works unfair attention, etc.
How exactly do openly political campaigns like the Puppies slates produce nominations that are any more valid that the prior ones? Why do these nominations only go from politically correct bilge
to people just picking quality fiction
when people vote like Vox Day?
Stevo Darkly wrote:Or, alternate explanation for the shared successes: The Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies both, in fact, control more of the Hugo nominating process than they realize or admit, and have overlapping tastes.
They've had major success after a spurt of growth in WSFS memberships.