Been away for a couple days and so this evening I am going through my twitter feed (welcome to my two new followers who I won't embarrass by naming) and my RSS feeds and I see that the Hugo Awards have bubbled up to the top again.
For those of you who aren't familiar there has been a bit of a controversy - Larry Correia (@monsterhunter45) and some of his associates, mostly Baen authors I believe, felt that the Hugo awards were being used to advance a political viewpoint rather than rewarding the best or most popular science-fiction novel. To prove their point they organize a slate and campaigned for it. This led to accusations of Racism, Sexism, Homphobia etc. etc. and a charge that rules were being broken because campaigning for a nomination was equivalent to stuffing the ballot box. As predicted these charges were mainly laid from the political left (most of the accusers also happened to be members of the science fiction writers guild or whatever they call their professional organization). Correia and his associates, mostly right wing types, as am I, counterattacked. This has been going on for months now and while some of the insults were fun to read I kind of lost interest after the first day and stopped following.
So there's a bit of background, anyway over the weekend, they announced the winners and Larry Correia posted about the announcement; congratulating the winners and actually defending the vote counting. At the same time John Scalzi (@scalzi) took to twitter and mocked Larry Correia.. OK, I kind of understand, emotions have been running high for awhile and I suspect there might have been a little mocking coming from the Correia camp if he had won so I knond of wrote it off, but It got me thinking If I go back and look at the winners of the Hugos what would I think of the selection.
With that in mind I went back and looked at the last 14 years nominees as listed here and you know what - most of the novels do tend towards the political left, and the same authors tend to get nominated over and over - Melville, Willis, Scalzi, Stephenson, Sawyer (among others) all had multiple nominations. I have read something by all of them, and honestly can only say I really like Stephensons work. I also noted that in that time only two Baen authors have had nominations. This despite the fact that Baen has some of the best selling authors out there. To me this kind of lends credence to Correia's theory. Then I saw that Cory Doctrow's book "Little Brother" was nominated. That seals the deal for me.
Correia is right - If he wasn't there is no way that book could have been nominated. Poor writing, poor story, huge plot holes. The only reason that book exists is as a political screed aimed at teenagers and it is a bad one at that. Bleh, but somehow it was worthy of consideration for a Hugo. Right.
So after all this rambling let me close with congrats Larry Correia on doing as well as you did. Better luck next year.
There was a little bit of confusion on when I was supposed to start this - initially I thought the 19th, then I got an email saying the ...
Next week will be 25% of the planned 52 week run. I'll let you guys decide, stop or keep going?
So again today I am seeing all sorts of tweets about how great Mad Max - Fury Road is. Most revolving around the fact that Furiousa was a k...
4 T-Shirts, Gloves, Skull Coffee Cup, and a Knife.