Sad Puppies and the Hugo Awards

Ever since I was young and discovered the stories of Jules Verne in my elementary school library, i have loved Science Fiction.  I read the stories of Robert Heinlein, Arthur C, Clarke, Isaac Asimov, and later Andre Norton, Alan Nourse, and Ben Bova.  I didn’t discover Fantasy until High School, when a friend introduced me to J.R.R. Tolkien, but I have followed the development of the fields as they began to merge. I have a small to medium collection of my favorites, which I occasionally ad to

Somewhere along the line, I encountered the Hugo Awards and the Nebula Awards, which were awarded by fans and other authors.  Over the past 20 or so years, I have been less and less enchanted with the Hugo Awards as a guide to the kind of science fiction I would like.

To simplify the descriptions,  Hugo awards are selected and nominated by fans, specifically those who attend the WorldCon conventions. The history is complex, but right now, there are two major factions. The newcomers on the scene are the Sad Puppies, first organized by Larry Correia, with something of his history and reasons for proposing a slate of works to be considered,  here, although the current campaign is led by Brad Torgerson  The Sad Puppies were successful in having a major influence on this year’s nominations.  The other major party is the old traditionalists. These are livid with rage over the success of the Sad Puppies, and have proposed that “No Award” be selectect over anything on the Sad Puppy suggested slate, and have thrown away all restraint at demonizing and vilifying the Sad puppy organizers, recommended writers, and fans. Patrick Neilsen Hayden and Teresa Nielsen Hayden, who run the Making Light blog are among the leaders of the old traditionalists, although t here are several others.


Leave a Reply