Far Horizons: Tales of Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Horror. Issue #15 June 2015 | Page 11

are promoting writers they feel should be recognised.
I can’t prove that point but my instinct is that is the
case.

We all have bias and anyone who thinks or says otherwise is being disingenuous. The best we can do is be
aware of our bias and modify appropriately. We can
help ourselves by being informed where possible.

The world is full of imperfect people. There are rude,
obnoxious and unpleasant people of all political
persuasions. Based on his public statements Vox Day
seems to be both racist and misogynistic. I don’t, however, believe that to be true of Correia and Torgerson.
I’ve not seen any evidence of that and I don’t think it
is helpful for them to be so accused. There are people on the left wing side of this debate who are elitist
snobs – I’ve encountered them at conventions - but
most are not.

I offer the following observations.
Right wing creators are not systematically and deliberately excluded from the Hugo awards. I don’t know
the politics of every Hugo nominee in recent years
but I am aware that Bill Willingham, who has been
nominated four times in the graphic novel category
for Fables, is a Republican. Any reading of volume 2,
Animal Farm, will be understood as an attack on left
wing politics. It’s also a very good comic series.

We don’t need to agree with someone’s politics before
we read their work. That way leads down a dangerous
path indeed. I strongly dislike the politics of Steve Ditko but I will go out of my way to read comics by him.

The fiction categories in the Hugo awards are not too
literary. And I speak as someone who is sceptical of
much that is published as literary fiction which is, in
my view, a chimera; a marketing strategy. But when it
comes to the best novel category of the Hugos I don’t
think the lists of nominees has been literary enough.
Where was Cormac McCarthy’s The Road? Were
there really five better SF novels that year? Similarly
‘Cloud Atlas’ by David Mitchell. But of course, spotting the omissions is all part of the fun, the debate, the
conversation.

Awards are silly. The Hugos are silly. So why have I
written about them? Why have so many blog pieces
been written in the last couple of months? Because,
despite their silliness, we care. And that’s a good
thing.

If I had a choice between winning a Hugo and having
fiction sales sufficient that I could make a living from
it I would choose the latter every time. Many of those
who have stirred up this whole affair apparently sell
plenty of books. Larry Correia, for example, has had
a number of books on US bestseller lists (but not here
in the UK). Part of his grievance seems to be that the
Hugos don’t reflect popular tastes as demonstrated
in sales. He’s partly correct in his observations but
misses the point in other ways. What would be the
point of having awards that just told us what we could
find out anyway by looking at bestseller lists. A voted
award like the Hugos should tell us what books and
stories people really care about. We may not share
their passion but we can engage with their reasons for
championing the work. I don’t think that Correia, Brad
Torgerson and the other Puppies have promoted work
they feel about in that way. It seems more like they

11