An interesting commentary. The conclusion is correct, we must preserve diversity, but I have to raise one skeptical eyebrow at the guys roundabout way of reaching it. First of all, I was ignorant of Larry Correias political views until this columnist mentioned them. Whether or not I would vote for Correias book for a Hugo award depends totally on whether or not I think it deserves one. I do have to acknowledge, however, that some fans -- many fans? -- are concerned about the possibility that his nomination, as well as Vox Days, may have been purchased by block-voting. Even if thats the case, and even if he should win a trophy, in the long run its irrelevant. The quality of the work determines whether or not it gets remembered, much more than any award it may receive. Singin In The Rain is still a better picture than The Greatest Show On Earth, even though the latter won the best movie Oscar for 1953. (Personal example: The Man Who Folded Himself did not win the Hugo, but its been in print now for 41 years and continually gets mentioned as a landmark novel. Carl Sagan once told me how much he admired it. That was my wow moment.) But there are two points made in the column that deserve rebuke. 1) ...is getting a lot of flak because hes a right-leaning libertarian. Makes you wonder if Robert Heinlein could get a Hugo Award today. (Answer: Probably not.) Bullshit. Heinlein was not a libertarian. He was a contrarian. He was, at various points in his life, socialist, liberal, independent, conservative, and his own personal definition of libertarian, which was nothing at all like the political movement which has claimed the name. He was ferociously patriotic to the United States and not only would not recognize todays brand of libertarians, but probably wouldnt waste the water to piss on them. The current definition of libertarian is mean, selfish, bastard. The rest is details. 2) The title of the piece is Politics dont belong in science fiction. This is bullshit-cubed. Science fiction has always been about politics. Some of it has been dystopic -- if we keep doing this stuff, this shit is going to happen. Some of it has been prescriptive -- if we do this stuff, were going to the stars. The best science fiction has been about the choices we as a species will be making. Political science fiction has included 1984, Brave New World, Things To Come, 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, Starship Troopers, Childhoods End, The Dispossessed, Make Room Make Room, The Man In The High Castle, It Cant Happen Here (by Sinclair Lewis), anything by Kim Stanley Robinson or David Brin, my own Jumping Off The Planet trilogy, and Im certain that people commenting on this post will add several dozen better examples. Science fiction is a way for us to consider ideas without wrapping them up in political or religious ideology. Its a way to examine ourselves as a species, who we are and what were up to. At its best, it changes the way we look at the world and the way we think about our place in it. If this columnist thinks that politics shouldnt belong in the Hugo voting ... well, okay. But he might be wrong there too. If an author invests his public identity with his political views, then that becomes part of his brand. The backlash against Vox Day, for instance, is not about whether or not hes a good writer, its about his lack of respect for his colleagues, and his racist and homophobic comments on his blog. Were he to win an award, would he accept it as an acknowledgment of the quality of the work -- or would he hold it aloft and proclaim it a victory for his personal and political views? And that is a valid concern for those who vote in the awards process. Because ... as much as authors like to say, I won a Hugo, the award really belongs to the science fiction community. It belongs to the voters -- and wise or foolish, it is their award to give to those who they deem worthy, and their award to deny to those who do not qualify under their criteria. If someone deliberately sets himself outside the community, declares himself an adversary, he should not expect that same community to bestow accolades. I dont know Larry Correia, I havent read his book yet. But I think its a mistake for him -- or for any author -- to characterize the voting process as a political rebuke or endorsement. In my never-humble opinion, the award is an acknowledgment of excellence. (If you purchased it or campaigned for it, then youll never know if its an honest acknowledgment or a hollow one. And if youre actively campaigning for the acknowledgment of an award, youre putting your emotional and writing energy in the wrong place anyway.) The acknowledgment of a nomination is not only that youre one of the people who sets the standard of excellence for the field, but that youre one of the people redefining and reinventing the craft. I think thats the real honor, regardless of the awards process itself. Coming back to the starting point of the column -- if we accept that science fiction awards should not be politicized, then the columnist is blaming the wrong people. He should start by blaming Vox Day (Theodore Beale) the guy who politicized this years process in the first place. usatoday/story/opinion/2014/04/28/hugo-awards-science-fiction-reading-politics-larry-correia-column/8282843/
Posted on: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 18:44:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015