Speaking of points of view, I wanted to add something to Brad’s Torgersen very gentle point of view on the pushback against the Sad Puppies 3. I think it is fairly important when writing a point of view to establish where it comes from, and what could motivate that point of view, and of course how reliable that narrator is known to be on the subject. Let’s start by saying a lot of the outrage and smear is coming from Making Light and commenters thereon, the mouthpiece of an editor at Tor, and a major force in Tor.com. Now, at the moment I’m busy putting together a database of the Hugo history. Tor and indeed in shorter works Tor.com are very, very extensively represented. Out of proportion to their share of new publications. As a large, powerful publisher with influence and with a considerable camp following, suggesting they ‘check their privilege’ before whining and bad-mouthing is not a joke, even if it is hilarious goose-sause. Of course, depending on your point of view, they may just be able to find better books or have better editors. If it’s better books they’ll have stood the test of time… Hmmm. Well, check the sales rankings. If it’s better editors… well, check sales rankings. How embarrassing. I do understand why they would be very angry about the status quo being disturbed though.
Well, that explains some of the more… odd… comments I saw.
Now I’m wondering about the utter flip-out that happened a year or two back when I was part of a group that explained that there were ways to rather easily game an attendance based vote, especially if you had a lot of employees.
For the record, it was born from the idea of not even trying to game a system, it just noting that doing something awesome like buying the way for employees and their families for a convention would be a brilliant bit of morale boosting PR. I mostly remember that the reaction to it was all out of proportion and pretty nasty to boot, and that several folks answered increasingly hysterical objections. Stuck in my mind because it was so frantic….
I still think that geek-related companies subsidizing attendance for employees at fandom events would be sensible and with no moral problems, if they work for part of the time or not. Immoral would be requiring them to go and pretend to be random fans that actively promote the company’s goods, but nobody I’ve seen has suggested that.