Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Understanding the world science fiction convention

antipope.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 61 posts

Re: Understanding the world science fiction convention

#41

Post by pavel_lishin »

boznz wrote: post #33

The world of book writing is an iceberg, and with thousands of works being released a year that not just go unreviewed but unread there is little chance the awards are inclusive of the genre. We are literally only a GPT generation away from the book writing machines of 1984 and as a new author myself this makes me so sad.

> We are literally only a GPT generation away from the book writing machines of 1984

I think we're there already, no? Amazon is being flooded with AI-written novels, including "fun" ones like a guide to foraging mushrooms; Clarkesworld had to stop accepting submissions for awhile due to AI-generated garbage flooding their inboxes.

Re: Understanding the world science fiction convention

#42

Post by maire »

This article answers one of the questions I had about this year's Hugo awards.

R. F. Kuang's Babel was on many other lists of top book of the year. I was surprised that it did not even on the nomination list. Now I find out that it was pre-emptively removed from the nomination list before the vote!

I am not a big fan of Babel (and posted my issues on Goodreads) but I do want the vote to be fair.

Re: Understanding the world science fiction convention

#43

Post by abosley »

donaldihunter wrote: post #40
PeterStuer wrote: post #38

This reads like an extremely one sided take with a myopic US west coast moralising slant. The author seems oblivious to the irony of calling something world con, then throwing a tantrum if the world does dare not to prostrate to their idiological microbubble.

What an odd take. I don't see the moralising or the tantrum, just a take on events that happened and the likely consequences. I don't think you're getting a myopic US west coast viewpoint from a British author.

+1 Stross is decidedly the opposite of the stereotypical US west coast sci-fi author.

Re: Understanding the world science fiction convention

#44

Post by sangnoir »

LanceH wrote: post #37
senkora wrote: post #6

I think HN may be interested in another recent instance of the Hugo awards running into difficulties because of its rules: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sad_Puppies TL;DR: A conservative block of voters swept the nominations for certain categories. At final voting, members voted to not give awards at all in those categories.

I would agree that a group swept the nominations. (and I don't agree with them) Having attended a couple conventions, including a worldcon just before this happened, I would say that the same low voter turnout that made sad puppies possible was being abused to prop up obscure books based on the identity of the author rather the quality of the story. The sad puppies effort was more mutually assured destruction than re…

> I would say that the same low voter turnout that made sad puppies possible was being abused to prop up obscure books based on the identity of the author rather the quality of the story

Which undeserving stories/authors exemplify this?

Re: Understanding the world science fiction convention

#45

Post by maire »

maire wrote: post #42

This article answers one of the questions I had about this year's Hugo awards. R. F. Kuang's Babel was on many other lists of top book of the year. I was surprised that it did not even on the nomination list. Now I find out that it was pre-emptively removed from the nomination list before the vote! I am not a big fan of Babel (and posted my issues on Goodreads) but I do want the vote to be fair.

I just looked at the votes - and Babel would not have won in any case. It was ranked #7 when it was disqualified.

Netflix's Sandman was also disqualified. On Bluesky Neil Gaiman said he was never told why it was disqualified. He also said he was one of four disqualified authors.

The lesson learned is do not have a world-wide vote in a country with censorship.

Re: Understanding the world science fiction convention

#46

Post by LanceH »

sangnoir wrote: post #44
LanceH wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree that a group swept the nominations. (and I don't agree with them) Having attended a couple conventions, including a worldcon just before this happened, I would say that the same low voter turnout that made sad puppies possible was being abused to prop up obscure books based on the identity of the author rather the quality of the story. The sad puppies effort was more mutually assured destruction than re…

> I would say that the same low voter turnout that made sad puppies possible was being abused to prop up obscure books based on the identity of the author rather the quality of the story Which undeserving stories/authors exemplify this?

Of the winners, I've only read The Three Body Problem, which I liked for a number of reasons.

I'm not familiar with any of the other winners.

Which of these are monsters on par with the big winners from the 60's through 90's?

There are a lot of people saying that the current trend is a backlash against sad puppies (which would also be wrong) while simultaneously denying that it was happening before sad puppies.

My experience is they were doing this, the sad puppies blew it up, now it seems to be happening with impunity. There are alternate more conservative cons out there, maybe the two groups have separated entirely.

Putting all the blame on the sad puppies (who, again are wrong, but I have to say this because people like painting anyone who disagrees as right wing fascist) isn't taking in the whole picture.

Re: Understanding the world science fiction convention

#47

Post by ianburrell »

maire wrote: post #45
maire wrote: post #42

This article answers one of the questions I had about this year's Hugo awards. R. F. Kuang's Babel was on many other lists of top book of the year. I was surprised that it did not even on the nomination list. Now I find out that it was pre-emptively removed from the nomination list before the vote! I am not a big fan of Babel (and posted my issues on Goodreads) but I do want the vote to be fair.

I just looked at the votes - and Babel would not have won in any case. It was ranked #7 when it was disqualified. Netflix's Sandman was also disqualified. On Bluesky Neil Gaiman said he was never told why it was disqualified. He also said he was one of four disqualified authors. The lesson learned is do not have a world-wide vote in a country with censorship.

People are talking about them miscounting nomination votes to eliminate Babel. It is very strange that the #3 position would lose to #7. Like there would have to been no ballots that ranked Babel in lower position. The only thing makes sense is that they disqualified it early and stopped counting votes.

Re: Understanding the world science fiction convention

#48

Post by maire »

ianburrell wrote: post #47
maire wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just looked at the votes - and Babel would not have won in any case. It was ranked #7 when it was disqualified. Netflix's Sandman was also disqualified. On Bluesky Neil Gaiman said he was never told why it was disqualified. He also said he was one of four disqualified authors. The lesson learned is do not have a world-wide vote in a country with censorship.

People are talking about them miscounting nomination votes to eliminate Babel. It is very strange that the #3 position would lose to #7. Like there would have to been no ballots that ranked Babel in lower position. The only thing makes sense is that they disqualified it early and stopped counting votes.

Although Babel was removed during the final vote count, here is what the interim vote count looked like. It looks like it would not even be on the short list.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25245686/h...

Re: Understanding the world science fiction convention

#49

Post by ianburrell »

maire wrote: post #48
ianburrell wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are talking about them miscounting nomination votes to eliminate Babel. It is very strange that the #3 position would lose to #7. Like there would have to been no ballots that ranked Babel in lower position. The only thing makes sense is that they disqualified it early and stopped counting votes.

Although Babel was removed during the final vote count, here is what the interim vote count looked like. It looks like it would not even be on the short list. https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25245686/h...

People have been pointing out the numbers are bogus [1]. Notice that huge drop in votes between #7 and #8, that doesn't happen with normal voting. It can happen with slate voting but this would have to be pretty extreme. Also, the weird votes are only for some awards like novel.

I don't know what the score means, but notice that for Babel it starts lower and never changes, while the others increase presumably from lower ranks being added to score. I think the only way Babel happens if there were no ballots who put it lower only top position. It is also suspicious that it goes out at the seventh position, just losing out to the lowest slate.

Also, why would they the disqualify it if it had been eliminated. It makes sense to disqualify at the beginning or end of nomination. Also, there is no final vote count, there is nomination count and the final vote. It was removed before the final vote.

1: https://alpennia.com/blog/comparison-hugo-nomination-distrib...

Re: Understanding the world science fiction convention

#50

Post by maire »

ianburrell wrote: post #49
maire wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although Babel was removed during the final vote count, here is what the interim vote count looked like. It looks like it would not even be on the short list. https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25245686/h...

People have been pointing out the numbers are bogus [1]. Notice that huge drop in votes between #7 and #8, that doesn't happen with normal voting. It can happen with slate voting but this would have to be pretty extreme. Also, the weird votes are only for some awards like novel. I don't know what the score means, but notice that for Babel it starts lower and never changes, while the others increase presumably from lo…

That looks like a compelling argument.
Post reply on HN