Well, I can't speak for others but I did read all the fiction and had very little trouble putting all of it below No Award, except Kary English, and even there while her story wasn't bad, it wasn't remotely original, not given that Roald Dalh had done pretty much the same story before I was born, and I'm pushing 50…

Seriously, find another hobby horse, or set up your own Real Convention for Real Fans or something and offer Real Awards.

No Award is a candidate like any other. You are angry because it won. Therefore, you don't like democracy when you don't get your way.

>> Were you at Worldcon? I was. I have
>> pictures to prove it.

> Absolutely not. I have a real life and
> job.

And you don't think that I do? I have a pretty good paying job as a computer programmer. It's how I pay for this hobby. I think you would be surprised at how many people who are regular Worldcon attendees are in fact pretty darn well off. Worldcons are expensive.

> The only con I hit is SDCC, and that
> is because it is in walking distance of my home.

Then how in the world can you possibly know what the people at Worldcon looked like? The answer is you can't. You haven't a clue. It's like saying "I know all about how living conditions in India becuase I once ate at an Indian restaurant in Mission Valley."

> If you do not stop your life for a week or
> more to attend worldcon, you are excluded
> from the Hugo awards process. Thus, the
> only people who vote are those that have
> a lifestyle that supports wasting a week
> or more at a convention. Duh.

Do you really think that the Hugo Awards are only voted upon by the people who travel to the convention? How ignorant are you? As a matter of fact, it's clear that more people voted on this year's Awards who were not at the convention. Voting closes several weeks before the convention, and there is nothing in the rules that requires you to personally attend the convention. For someone who seems to be deeply angry about the Hugo Awards, you display a remarkable lack of knowledge about them.

> No, it means nobody ever wins. it means that
> 51% always have the right to decide how 49%
> live, no matter how intrusive, inappropriate,
> or oppressive it is.

Not really true. Make is sufficiently inappropriate and oppressive and you get a revolution. That's how America started, after all, isn't it? (Oh, and to admittedly nitpick, a majority is not 51%; it's "more than half." You probably don't think this makes a difference, but I've administered elections where it did.)

> Feel free to get in the last word, however,
> I simply don't enjoy debates with people
> who argue like a woman.

And you obviously think that "people who argue like a woman" is an insult, which says a tremendous amout about you and not very much about me. I pity any woman in your life.

In summary: You hate any form of governance where you personally aren't the one who makes the decisions. You think that women are a lower form of life, so that calling a man a woman is a horrible insult. You think that Might Makes Right, so that if you don't like someone else's opinions, you should go beat them up, and that makes you right. You think that SF/F fans are required to give awards to authors so those authors can make more money, even if those fans don't like those authors' works. You are absurdly ill-informed about how the Hugo Awards actually work. You haven't a clue about how Worldcon works — at most, you think it's a small version of Comic-Con. In your world, the only way you can possibly be happy is to take happiness away from other people. And you're much too lazy to actually go out and create Real Awards that work the way you personally think they should work.

I said earlier that I pitied any woman in your life. Actually, I pity you. It must be very sad to be such an ignorant, angry person.

"No, you haven't, or at least you've done a poor job of it. You've complained bitterly when You Don't Win. Therefore, you think the award is only fair when You Win."

Lies. Re read my original comment. My argument is with manipulating the 'no award'. I could give a crap who the actual authors were. I have nothing invested there, as I don't have any opinion on the editing awards, and most of the authors I haven't read.

"Were you at Worldcon? I was. I have pictures to prove it."
Absolutely not. I have a real life and job. The only con I hit is SDCC, and that is because it is in walking distance of my home.

"Okay, do you somehow think that the Hugo Awards is supposed to represent the opinions of every single human being, anywhere in the world, who consumed any form of SF/F-related popular culture entertainment of any sort, any kind, in any language, anywhere?"

No, it is advertised, however, as representing the 'best of' scifi and fantasy', and has been so since the eighties. It is broadly touted as the definitive authority on what is good and what is not, and is used in many management decision by one of the largest publishers, tor books.

"Would you please cite who is "forcing" you to do any of these things?"
If you do not stop your life for a week or more to attend worldcon, you are excluded from the Hugo awards process. Thus, the only people who vote are those that have a lifestyle that supports wasting a week or more at a convention. Duh.

"Do you mean the Nebula Awards have applied No Award twice over the Awards' lifetime? I haven't really been paying much attention to them."

Then why do you feel you are qualified to reply to my initial assertion?

"You think that fans are required to give authors awards so that they can make more money."

No, I didn't say that, you did. If you want to assume that I 'implied' that the Hugos had become nothing more than a moneymaking scam for politically correct crap, Then I probably would not argue with that assumption, since I believe that sort of garbage is one of the main reasons so few writers are producing quality fiction today.

"To extend your argument…" Don't. You cannot presume to speak for me, you don't know, me, you don't drink with me, and clearly you don't even read the same books I do.

"I, however, recognize that democracy doesn't always mean "I win."" No, it means nobody ever wins. it means that 51% always have the right to decide how 49% live, no matter how intrusive, inappropriate, or oppressive it is.

That's why I state that the nebulas 'appear' more effective as an award, because it relies exclusively on the opinions of established writers, rather than giving every loudmouth the right to decide who gets promoted.

BTW, since you apparently are arguing with what you THINK I am saying rather than my actual statements, this discussion is over. Feel free to get in the last word, however, I simply don't enjoy debates with people who argue like a woman.

> I realized it was nothing more than a
> personal attack and not worth reading.
> If you wish to attack my person, we
> can work out a time and place to meet…

This sounds very much like you would like to physically attack me. Was this your intention?

> but internet badassery and e-peen
> measurement is irrelevant to the
> article or conversation at hand.

Yep, and unlike you, I'm not some pseudonym hiding on the internet. I actually show up at events and don't hide. But you probably could beat me up. I'm 50 years old, overweight, and not in top physical health. Does physically assaulting people and hurting them make you somehow right magically? I could have sworn that trial by combat isn't considered a particularly valid form of proof anymore.

> But yes, we do need a new award.

Good, we agree. Please, go make that award. Group together with people who always agree with your choices, and give awards that reflect your personal opinions. Please do this. I sincerely and honestly want you and people like you who are convinced that the SF/F genre's oldest award is completely wrong becuase it doesn't reflect your personal choices will set up an award that makes you happy.

> I have explained my motivations.

No, you haven't, or at least you've done a poor job of it. You've complained bitterly when You Don't Win. Therefore, you think the award is only fair when You Win. By all means, set up awards where You Always Win. Don't let me or anyone else stop you from doing this. Why are you unhappy with people who are Not You freely associating and making their own decisions. Do you somehow think that your should have the right to impose your decisions on other people just because you don't like their decisions?

> Your anecdotes have no more validity than mine.

Were you at Worldcon? I was. I have pictures to prove it.

> The Hugo award represents MONEY to an author.

Oh, now we get to it. You think that fans are required to give authors awards so that they can make more money. You demand that other people reward things they don't like so that the people they don't like can make money. Do you realize how selfish this makes you look?

Fandom is not required to give you or any other author anything at all. If I don't like your work, I will not vote for it. The Hugo Award is not an entitlment program for SF/F authors. It's a gift bestowed upon people by like-minded fans. If you really think that authors are somehow entitled to awards, you are an amazingly selfish person.

> It's cute that you somehow think that
> this version of a 'democratic process
> to determine excellence in writing' is
> anything other than an absolute farce.

If the winner had been something that you personally liked, I expect that you would have crowing from the skies about what a wonderful thing it was that the democratic process produced a fantastic choice and how amazing and wonderful democracy was. I stand by my assertion that to you, democracy is only valid if you personally win.

I, however, recognize that democracy doesn't always mean "I win." I've been participating in WSFS affairs since 1984. Sometimes I get what I want; sometimes I do not. I invested quite a bit of effort into a proposal that got first passage before WSFS last year but failed of ratification this year. I'm disappointed, but I don't go around complaining that the entire process is invalid just becuase I didn't get my way.

> The science fiction writers of America
> are not forced to stop their work

Would you please cite who is "forcing" you to do any of these things? I know of nobody forcing you do to anything at all. Who or what is compelling you to do these things?

In case you didn't read the instructions, WSFS is a voluntary organization. Nobody is making you join it. (For that matter, SFWA is also a voluntary organization. Nobody is required to join it, either.)

> And apparently, at this point, the 'No award'
> has only been applied twice in the entire
> history of the award.

Do you mean the Nebula Awards have applied No Award twice over the Awards' lifetime? I haven't really been paying much attention to them.

> When you consider the Hugo is a representative
> Award, then yes… I am not represented.

Not so. The Hugo Award is a representative award of the members of the World Science Fiction Society just like the Nebula Award is a representative award of the members of the SF & F Writers of America.

> How can a vote be legitimate when it doesn't
> actually represent the preferences of the
> Genre Base?

Okay, do you somehow think that the Hugo Awards is supposed to represent the opinions of every single human being, anywhere in the world, who consumed any form of SF/F-related popular culture entertainment of any sort, any kind, in any language, anywhere? If so, then you seem to have misunderstood the description. Read what I wrote above. The Hugo Awards represent the members of WSFS, just like the Nebula Awards represent the members of SFWA.

To extend your argument about the Hugo Awards not being representative: What would you think if I started complaining that the Nebula Awards were not "representative" because they don't reflect the opinions of every single person in the world who wrote any works of SF & Fantasy of any sort?

"The Nebula Awards are selected democratically by the members of SFWA. By your own definition, democracy is Bad. Can you reconcile these two statements?"
The science fiction writers of America are not forced to stop their work, pack up for a week and waste time and money attending a con. apples and oranges. Most awards are a farce (even hitting the new york times bestseller list can be gamed jmarkpowell.com/the-bestseller-book-that-didnt-exist-how-the-author-of-a-beloved-christmas-classic-pulled-off-the-hoax-of-the-century/) but it gives readers a place to start. And apparently, at this point, the 'No award' has only been applied twice in the entire history of the award.

"In any event, if you're using this as shorthand for, "I don't want to associate with anyone who doesn't share my opinions 100% and doesn't look and sound exactly like me,"
When you consider the Hugo is a representative Award, then yes… I am not represented. How can a vote be legitimate when it doesn't actually represent the preferences of the Genre Base? What, exactly, do looks, or opinions OTHER than the ones about science fiction have to do with this conversation or thread?

" You sound to me like want an award selected by you. Only you. And nobody else but you."
Nice Straw man. Your opinion on my motivations is irrelevant. I have explained my motivations. If you choose not to accept that explanation, then feel free not to reply. I question the validity of the award when it becomes politically motivated. Thus, the Hugo awards are now as invalid as the Nobel peace prize became when they awarded it to Obama for 'Not being George Bush'.

"Well, I didn't see either set of people at this year's Worldcon, so what difference does that make."
I could care less what you see or do not see at worldcon. Unless you happen to be working in the security offices and perusing the security cameras. Your anecdotes have no more validity than mine.

Apparently you fail to realize the Flaw with the Hugo Award. That was embraced by a commentor two or three articles back. "I only read Hugo-award wining authors."

The Hugo award represents MONEY to an author. It is free advertising, and a pass to a much greater audience. Thus, when it has no bearing on the actual abilities of the author, or when it is subverted by political action groups, That means that SJW's are literally picking the pockets of decent writers in order to make a political statement.

It's cute that you somehow think that this version of a 'democratic process to determine excellence in writing' is anything other than an absolute farce.

As for the last paragraph? On skimming I realized it was nothing more than a personal attack and not worth reading. If you wish to attack my person, we can work out a time and place to meet… but internet badassery and e-peen measurement is irrelevant to the article or conversation at hand.

But yes, we do need a new award. I don't suggest the 'Brigadon Award', and the 'readers choice' at Amazon is flooded with books outside of Genre, but something needs to replace the now crashed-and-burned Hugo awards, and people need to recognize that the Hugos no longer demonstrate a book's quality, creativity, or any of the Hugo categories… It only demonstrates which authors are the most politically correct.

> I define democracy as 'socialism that appeals
> only to unibrows, retarded ignorants, and
> the corrupt.'

Good luck setting up the Dictatorship with you as the Dictator, that being what sounds like the only thing that would satisfy you personally.

> That's why i have always considered the
> Nebula Awards far more relevant.

The Nebula Awards are selected democratically by the members of SFWA. By your own definition, democracy is Bad. Can you reconcile these two statements?

> Then again, 'Worldcon attendees' are not even a
> close approximation of science fiction fans.

Of course they are not. Nor has anyone that I take seriously said that they are. The members of Worldcon are the members of Worldcon. The members of Worldcon vote on the award given by the members of Worldcon. Not even the Hugo Awards web site claims that the Hugo Awards are selected by every single human being who has consumed any form of SF/F popular culture, which is presumably what you mean by all "science fiction fans." Your statement is a straw man. I agree with you completely that "Worldcon Attendees" <> "All Science Fiction Fans" So what? I also think that 2+2=4.

> I for example am self employed and reasonably
> well off, but I will not take off a week to hang
> out with Obese slave Leias and rubber Iron Men.

Well, I didn't see either set of people at this year's Worldcon, so what difference does that make. Have you looked at any of the actual pictures of people who were at Worldcon, instead of the straw men and women you have set up? If you're talking about people in costume, the Official Masquerade & Hugo Award photo album is an example of some of those.

In any event, if you're using this as shorthand for, "I don't want to associate with anyone who doesn't share my opinions 100% and doesn't look and sound exactly like me," well, that's your right to do so. Nobody is forced to join Worldcon. It's a voluntary organization.

> I am a voracious reader of authors like Vox, Ringo,
> Kratman, Niven, and the twin Davids, a
> 'democratically elected award' is absolutely
> irrelevant when only a specific social subset
> of a fan base is represented.

Yes. I agree with you. You sound to me like want an award selected by you. Only you. And nobody else but you. Guess what? You have one. It's called "money" and "buying books you like." You have given them the Brigadon Award for Best SF/F pop culture entertainment. And in the long run, I expect most authors are much happier to get money than awards. So I'm not disagreeing with you.

> In short, the Hugo Awards at this point are
> more of a list to tell me which authors to
> avoid rather than pointing me towards
> new up and comers.

Great! That's wonderful! Now you know what to avoid, and instead know who to give the Brigadon Award!

If it's so important for someone to give out awards that validate your literary choices, then you really need to gang together with people who think exactly like you do and give out the Real Awards. And guess what? Nobody else is stopping you from doing so, any more than (as far as I know), nobody is stopping you from giving the Brigadon Award to any work you personally like. I think you should continue to keep giving Brigadon Awards to every work you personally like, and would be very displeased with anyone who acted to prevent you from giving out as many Brigadon Awards as you possibly can afford to bestow. Knock yourself out.

I define democracy as 'socialism that appeals only to unibrows, retarded ignorants, and the corrupt.' That's why i have always considered the nebula awards far more relevant.

Then again, 'worldcon attendees' are not even a close approximation of science fiction fans. They are a very specific subset of fans that specifically exclude the vast majority of SF fandom, they are the ones with idle hands, idle money, and idle mouths.

This specifically excludes almost the entire genre of milscifi, political scifi thrillers, and hard SF purists… Most of whom are self employed or full time workers or military personel, are successful, and have families to care for and cannot blow off a week to fly someplace to hang out with basement dwellers and hygiene-optional congoers.

I for example am self employed and reasonably well off, but I will not take off a week to hang out with Obese slave Leias and rubber Iron Men. Yet, I am a voracious reader of authors like Vox, Ringo, Kratman, Niven, and the twin Davids, a 'democratically elected award' is absolutely irrelevant when only a specific social subset of a fan base is represented. Especially when that fanbase has bvery specifically mentioned that they are motivated less by genre excellence and more by political expediency.

In short, the Hugo Awards at this point are more of a list to tell me which authors to avoid rather than pointing me towards new up and comers.