The Hugos are over, but the controversy isn’t over. In this episode, I talk about the results of the 2015 Hugo Awards and how the Sad Puppies have irreparably harmed whatever good message they had. It’s not an exhaustive discussion, but it’s one I wanted to start while I had time.
If you want to learn more about what is going on, here are few useful links:
- The 2015 Hugo Awards Results
- “On the Hugo Awards: Two Scholarly-ish Projects to Come” by ME!
- “The Obligatory Hugo Awards Recap Post” by Chuck Wendig
- “2015 Hugo Stats: Initial Analysis” by Chaos Horizon
- “Who Won Science Fiction’s Hugo Awards, and Why It Matters” by Amy Wallace (if you want to see just how batshit some of the people running the Puppies are, this is the place to go right now)
Feel free to leave a comment below!
Please support Shaun’s Rambles by reviewing it on iTunes and Stitcher, and if you like what you hear or read on this blog, donate to my Patreon page! You can subscribe to this show on iTunes, Stitcher, or via RSS.
You can download the MP3 here or stream the file below.
Intro and outro music comes from “Pyro Flow” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com); licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
Enjoy the episode!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS
2 Responses
I have considerable statistics training and independently arrived at the same conclusion that Chaos Horizon did.
There was a hard core 2,500 votes against anything nominated, regardless of quality, by one group.
The interpretation of the motivations of the 2,500 hard core votes depends on your point of view. I look at it as lock-step coordinated voting against nominations made by the “wrong fans.” Chaos Horizon interprets this as a hard core vote against “slate voting that followed the existing rules.” But the 2,500 lock-step voting behavior is clear from the data itself.
Your use of the phrase “lock step” assumes a bias which the data does not provide. They voted the same. That does not mean they were in “lock step.” That term would imply organization. How organized the voter ship was is unclear. That they voted “no” is clear. They rejected the slate en mass. Why isn’t defined. It’s likely a combination.