Flaming the Eastercon (and the web) – The 2015 Hugo Controversy

Steph P. Bianchini April 8, 2015 4 Comments

If you had the impression by following the twitter feed of Dysprosium/ Eastercon 2015 (i.e. the Eastercon SF convention in the UK where, among others, the announcement of the Hugo nominations are given) that this year things have flamed out of control, I’ll reassure you: it is exactly what has happened, even worse than in previous years. This post is to contribute some sparse thoughts on the matter, now that the convention has ended.

To make short a long story: you might (or might not) be aware of the controversy ongoing since a while related to the so-called SP slates (SP stands for Sad Puppies), and related to who has the concrete possibility to get nominated for the Hugo Awards. It is not a pure philosophical dispute: Hugo Awards = notoriety = contracts, publishers, and eventually fame and money. Given to the fact that there are an increasing number of different “voices” in the SFF – in terms of gender, race and sexual orientation –  a few writers have started complaining that if you are a white male heterosexual you’re going to be victim of a different kind of discrimination, provided, of course, you’re not an established member of the SF community in some kind or form. 

True or not, these same writers have decided to actively collect votes – Hugo Nominations are a democratic process and decided by the fandom: everybody that has participated to Loncon 3 in 2014 had the right to vote, for example – and managed to get nominated (many) names that were on their slates (this year, in addition to the SP slate there was another one, the RP = Rabid Puppies). Twitter went literally on flame, with aggressive statements, insults and threats of lawsuits (!) swooping in from any corner of the planet. Not a nice reading, no matter where you stand.

For an idea of what I am talking about, see this blog post that has done a great job in collecting the different views.

And this is what I think, after a few days of mulling it over. 

1- SFF community is finally catching up with reality (read this good article by Charlie Jane Anders here). Yes, ALL nominations in life are about politics. If you think SFF just because of its topics doesn’t belong to this planet and the way it works, you’re wrong. Its dominant species (humans) does, and so does the genre.

2- You can blame and even despise SP/RP for the way they got in, but they have NOT broken any rule. Even Scalzi  has recognised it (btw, if you’re a SF lover and you have only one blog to follow, John Scalzi’s Whatever is the one you want to read). This is NOT to say they have done a good thing either, and it opens a wider debate about the Hugo system itself; but then this debate should be about democracy in general. How can you decide who has the right to vote and who not? And on what basis? Winston Churchill was probably right when saying “the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” The point is that, alas, we haven’t found so far anything that works better than that, and he knew it, like we do. There are dangers in democracy: the only way to avoid minorities you despise to take power and do things you don’t like is to prevent them to do it by participating as well. 

3- The main point in this Hugo controversy to me is more whether the nominees and their outputs are actually worth their inclusion in the ballot. There is another set of twitters against a specific writer, John C. Wright, said to be racist, homophobic and therefore not deserving any recognition and even less a nomination. Now, they might be right about the writer himself: I don’t know him at all, but what he has posted here is not encouraging. More, it gives me the creeps. But again, what Hugo Awards are about, a writer or his/her output? I honestly can’t care less about whom a writer is, and what he/she does in his/her own life. His/her work is the only thing that matters to me, and so it should. You can disagree with Celine’s (or Sartre, just to pick up two controversial cases) political standing, but that should not prevent you to appreciate their novels. I’ve simply seen too many crusades in my life to condone this attitude. So it’s quite possible I won’t like what Mr. Wright has published – especially if there is anything sexist, racist or homophobic as it seems from what he has declared in other venues. But I will try to keep an open mind, and judge his work for its merits (if there are indeed any).

This is how things are at the moment. I had not voted for the nominations simply because I felt I was not able to make an informed choice (and maybe I was wrong, all considered). But I’m definitively going to vote for the Awards, even if for that I’ll have to read my nights away (I still refuse to vote for something I haven’t had a look at). I’m a SF lover, reader and writer, I don’t belong to any group, and I think it’s important giving my own contribution to keep the awards as open and fair as possible, only judging on merit and taste, and not on any other kind of considerations, political or not. And I do invite all people with the same attitude to do likewise, for the sake of the genre we love so much.

The full list of Hugo Nomination is available here. If you haven’t done it yet, buy a membership: if there are no enough votes for a specific category, then it will be a No Award, and in some cases maybe it’s what should be. Whatever your position, read, judge by yourself and do vote!