Re: The whole "Puppies" furor

In article <vig6du$1vtgk$1@dont-email.me>,
 Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:

In article <robertaw-D56189.21595429112024@news.individual.net>,
Robert Woodward  <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

I once spent a good deal of time studying the 2015 Hugo nominations.
While the Rabid Puppies were definitely block voting, the Sad Puppies
appeared to be different. Either there were secret puppies with their
own nominations lists (which overlapped the Sad Puppy list) or many of
the Sad Puppies were only nominating works that they had read. If the
latter was the case, while they could be accused of ungood literary
taste, was this block voting?

 
My understanding of the "puppies" thing was that the "Sad
Puppies" (name inspired by that "Give to the Humane Society"
ad with all the forlorn looking doggies in it) thought that
the kinds of stories they liked (and thought a bunch of
other people liked) were getting short shrift at the Hugos,
so made a list of what they considered worthy works, and said
"Here's some stuff we like that you might like as well; if so,
consider nominating it for a Hugo."
 

<snip>

I'd kind of lost interest in the Hugos years before, anyway;
little of the kind of thing I like ever seems to get nominated,
at least, since "The Mote in God's Eye."  I note in particular
that no stories from Analog *ever* get nominated.  (Or, hardly
ever.  I can't think the last time I saw one on the list.)

Last story from Analog that was nominated was "Ray of Light" by
Brad R. Torgerson in 2012. BTW, last story from Asimov's (which had
multiple entries just about every year before 2010 in each of the 3
non-novel categories) was "Wind Will Rove" by Sarah Pinsker in 2018.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
�-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com