Lately, I’ve taken a serious interest in family history. A huge amount of records have gone online in the past decade, making it far easier to trace your ancestors. Before that, my father was able to trace the Vasicek line to the Czech lands (places with cool names like Frenštát, Vratimov, Trojanovice, Staříč, etc), but that was as far as he could go. Just a couple of years ago, however, my sister found the parish records for that region. They’re mostly all scanned and online, and they go back as far as the late 15th century to the start of the Hapsburgs. The pieces are all there—all we have to do is put them together.
Needless to say, this has got me really excited. It also made me wonder: how far back is it possible go? According to my sister, who is also a certified genealogist, the European records start to get really sketchy around the 7th or 8th century. Only the royal lines go back that far, and since they were all trying to connect themselves to mythical figures and Biblical characters, the records are not very reliable.
So I went to Wikipedia to look up the period of Late Antiquity leading up to the 7th century, and soon became completely absorbed in it. This is the period when the Roman Empire collapsed, leaving Europe in a hot mess. The Vandals, Franks, Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Huns, and Saxons were running around all over the place, sometimes fighting for the Romans, sometimes fighting against them, constantly fighting each other, and migrating clear across the continent in their search for new homelands.
As clear as I can make it out, this is how it basically went down:
There once was a tribe on the Italian penninsula that built a city called Rome. Through innovations in engineering, warfare, governance, and philosophy, they conquered virtually all of the known world and built a mighty empire. Rome became legendary as the center of it all.
Over time, however, the Romans became decadent and corrupt. The empire slowly began to disintegrate and fall apart, though great pains were taken to preserve the appearance that all was well. By the end of the third century, it had effectively split into two halves: the eastern empire and the western empire. This division fell roughly along cultural lines: the Greco-Roman culture in the east, and the Latin-Roman culture in the west.
Around this time, a barbarian tribe (or alliance of tribes) appeared on the northeastern frontiers of the empire. Known as the Huns, these barbarians launched an invasion of Europe that completely shuffled the deck. They only briefly threatened the Romans, but had a much larger impact on the barbarian tribes of Europe, displacing them from their homelands and forcing them to seek a new home. This launched what is known as the migration period.
There were a lot of barbarian tribes seeking a new homeland: the Franks, the Saxons, the Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and the Vandals. With the Huns at their backs, they invaded the Roman Empire, which was the weaker of the two.
…except “invade” isn’t quite the right word. Many of these tribes became allies or foederati of the Romans (often after defeating them). Even some Hunnic tribes were absorbed into the empire in this way, and were often employed as mercenaries to fight against the Frankish, Gothic, and Vandal tribes that hadn’t allied with Rome. The salient point is that Rome had become weak, and thus had to make concessions to these barbarians who were starting to flood the empire.
At the end of the fourth century, a tribe of Visigoths that had settled in the eastern empire became upset with the way that the Romans were treating them. After being starved, taxed, and treated as sub-human, they took up arms under a leader named Alaric the First. They were unable to make much headway against the eastern empire, so instead they went west and invaded the Italian penninsula.
Over the course of the next two decades, the western empire vacillated between accomodating them, backstabbing them, and declaring outright war. This was mostly due to internal power struggles that had little to do with the Visigoths. Even though Alaric threatened the heart of the western empire and laid seige to Rome three times, they treated him with outright contempt, blatantly violating previous agreements and going so far as to ambush him under a flag of truce.
In 408, the internal power struggle eliminated the faction that was willing to accomodate the Visigoths. Shortly thereafter, Alaric decided that he’d had enough and marched on Rome. In 410, he sacked the city, shocking the civilized world.
Up until that point, Rome was considered sacrosanct. Sure, the barbarians were overrunning the frontiers and threatening vast swaths of the empire, but Rome was the cultural and spiritual center of the world. How could it possibly fall? But it did, and following the sack in 455 at the hands of the Vandals, the Roman Empire never regained its former glory.
Reading up on this history at the same time as the 2015 Hugo Awards played out has made me notice a bunch of similarities between the two events. Obviously, the decline and fall of Rome is not a perfect analogy for the decline and fall of the Hugo Awards, but there are some very interesting parallels.
The Hugo Awards were founded in the 1950s, back when SF&F fandom was a tiny community of geeks on the fringes of society, and not taken seriously by anyone in the cultural mainstream. Over the next several decades, the geeks took over the world, dominating the popular culture with things like Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, etc.
But somewhere along the way, this happened:
Fandom (with a capital F) became decadent and corrupt as the Truefen jealously guarded their turf, creating all sorts of weird Hugo categories (“related work”? “short-form” editor vs. “long-form” editor?) and pushing back against the mainstreaming of the SF&F field. As a result, Worldcon went from the premier SF&F convention to a second-tier convention that falls well short of Dragoncon, Gencon, San Diego Comic Con, Salt Lake Comic Con and Fan Ex, etc, all of which are 1-2 orders of magnitude larger than Worldcon now. The once-prestigious Hugos were now decided by mere hundreds of votes.
Around this time, a tribe (or alliance of tribes) of cultural Marxists began to invade the cultural space. Also known as Social Justice Warriors (SJWs), they began to dominate multiple forms of media, pushing out many of the more conservative readers and viewers who resisted. Fandom (with a capital F) gradually embraced them, using them as mercenaries in their internal power struggles.
By this time, Fandom had split into two broad divisions: Baen and Tor. Baen books were more about action & adventure, while Tor books were more about social issues (though of course there was some overlap). These two houses dominated the field, but it was the Tor side of Fandom that had more ownership in the Hugos than the Baen side.
The SF&F fans who had been displaced by the SJW invasion formed the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies. To Fandom, however, they were all just “wrongfans”—essentially, barbarians. And it wouldn’t exactly be right to say that the puppies “invaded” Fandom, because many of them were already there or were willing to coexist and make alliances. Others, of course, were not.
Vox Day entered the scene as one of the disgruntled puppies who had had enough of Fandom. The Tor side was far more susceptible to his machinations, responding to him in knee-jerk fashion at every turn, so he went after them. In 2015, he sacked the Hugos, causing “no award” to sweep five categories (and place in eight more).
To an impartial observer, Vox Day was the only clear victor of the 2015 Hugo Awards. How else can you explain all the “no awards”? His stated goal was never to win the Hugos, it was to destroy them, and he accomplished that spectacularly. When an esteemed professional such as Toni Weisskopf loses to “no award” purely out of guilt by association (on a ballot decided by less than 6,000 total votes, no less), how can anyone possibly take the Hugos seriously anymore? What was once considered the most prestigious award in the SF&F field has now proven to be a narrow, exlusivist club of politically like-minded elitists.
Fandom (capital F) accomplished many wonderful things back in the days before SF&F entered the mainstream. In a very real sense, they conquered the world. But by doggedly trying to hold on to their turf and refusing to let others play with their toys, especially those who see the world differently than them, they are declining. Like the sack of Rome in 410, the sack of the Hugo Awards in 2015 was a watershed moment that demonstrated just how much the old order had decayed.
Can the Hugo Awards be saved? I seriously doubt it. The “truefans” will jealously clutch it to their chests until they die, and with the graying of fandom, that will probably be accomplished fairly soon. But just as the Renaissance rose from the long-cold ashes of the Roman Empire, so too I hope that something good will eventually come out of all of this. Because really, there is a place in fandom (lower-case f) for everyone, and that has never changed.
Notes and questions:
1. In the past 15 years (excluding this year), Tor has won 4 Best Novel Hugos. That’s not nothing, but if a “Tor contingent” were controlling the Hugos, shouldn’t they have won 10, 11, at least? Shouldn’t they not be awarding their direct competitors 11 out of 15 years? In 2011, there was a *tie* for best novel and Tor *still* didn’t win.
Novella: 2001-2015: Of the 76 novellas nominated, Tor has *4.* One of those 4 is from that notorious SJW Vernor Vinge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Award_for_Best_Novella
Short stories: Same deal. 4 in 15 years, and the recent ones are because Tor.com is being smartly managed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Award_for_Best_Short_Story
All nominees for every single year and every single category are literally on wikipedia. You literally could have googled this. If Tor is running the Hugos, why does it get so few nominations and awards?
2. Follow up: How, exactly, does Tor “control” the Hugos? What incentives do they offer to non-Tor-employees to vote for their stuff? Since both nominations and awards are anonymized, how does Tor enforce anyone to vote for *anything*? Specifics and evidence, please, since you’re suggesting actual corruption among both the voters and Tor employees. And, no, “Patrick Nielsen Hayden was mean to someone” does not consitute evidence.
3. Best Related Work actually dates from 1980; it had a different name, as Best Non-Fiction, but it’s still the same category. How is creating a new category “jealously guarding turf?” What turf is being guarded?
4. It is not, and has never been, Worldcon’s goal to become significantly larger; as Worldcon is an entirely volunteer-run convention, this would be difficult if not impossible to manage. It would make the con more commercial (not a goal of the folks in Worldcon) and less personal (also not a goal). Worldcon being smaller than some other cons is a feature, not a bug.
You knew every single Worldcon was entirely run by volunteers…right?
(ComicCon has been bigger than Worldcon since 1979, when ComicCon pulled in 6,000 people. So to suggest this is a new thing is inaccurate.
6. Worldcon had its highest supporting membership in history, with most new members, it seems clear now, being furious with Vox Day, and–assuming E Pluribus Hugo passes final ratification next year–will have in place a security system that will prevent slating by either liberal cabal or conservative cabal for 2017. Given the large attendance and influx of new, younger members, how are the Hugos “destroyed”?
7. Why should Toni Weisskopf have won Best Editor and not Sheila Gilbert? What specific editing practices did she engage in this year that were more award-worthy than Gilbert’s? (For her best Editor submission, she literally submitted a link to Baen books and said “we group-edit,” leaving people totally in the dark about what she actually did.) Now, if you want to make a case that *Gilbert* should’ve won, or Jennifer Brozek, you’re actually on much firmer ground. It sucks when conservatives like Vox Day and Brad Torgersen hurt innocent people in the process. If you want to revise that paragraph to actually hold Brad accountable as well, that would increase your accuracy.
8. Have you encountered a single non-Puppy who thinks the Hugos are “a narrow, exlusivist club of politically like-minded elitists”?
Look, man, I know this started off as factual but has now clearly turned into epic sea-lioning. And I completely admit it. But it’s sea-lioning with a point, damnit… knowing how few nominations Tor has gotten in the fiction categories is *BASIC,* and should prompt a, “huh… maybe they *don’t* have a secret cabal.” And prompt, further, why you thought there was one, and why *nobody on the Puppy side ever checked WIKIPEDIA, ffs, to see if Tor was sweeping the fiction categories before making that accusation.
Knowing that Worldcon *doesn’t want to increase in size*–basically *can’t* increase in size because of the logistics involved in volunteers–also the BASICS. One of the reasons the Puppies were so monumentally unsuccessful is because they would say things that demonstrated a total lack of understanding, and when people pointed out elementary errors, they’d scream and call us “CHORFS” or babble about Brendan Eich, or say we hated Andy Weir’s awesome The Martian.
Side note: Hey, guess who the CHORFS liked enough that he would’ve gotten a Campbell nomination if not for the slates? I’ll give you a hint. It rhymes with “Randy Bear.” To quote Verbal Kint: bang-up job on that one, Dave.
…and I am also apparently the only person reading this blog, so what you lack in numbers you make up for in length of response, I guess?
The authors (George R.R. Martin, John Scalzi, Mary Robinette Kowal) and editors (Moshe Feder, the Nielsen-Haydens) who have been the most vocal about the 2015 Hugo controversy are all associated with Tor. If Worldcon hasn’t changed much since I last attended in 2011, then Tor also throws one of the larger parties. Culturally, then, the Hugos appear to be more Tor’s territory than Baen’s. But you’re right, they don’t control it in the sense of dominating the awards.
Larry Correia did a good job of showing how Fandom (capital F) guards its turf.
If Worldcon being small is “a feature, not a bug,” then that really proves my point. You can’t be the most prestigious award in the SF&F field if you’re also an order of magnitude smaller than my alma mater. And if ComicCon was less than 6,000 people as late as 1979, clearly Worldcon had the option to become wider and more representative, but chose instead to stay small. Which is fine, if that’s what Worldcon wants to be. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too: you can’t stay small and still claim the prestige of representing the best in fandom (lower-case f) or the field.
Yes, Worldcon has drawn in a lot of new members, the vast majority of which appear to be single-issue voters who chose “no award” as a block. Is that really the sort of engagement that you want? Because it seems to me that when the puppy controversy goes away, so will all these new members.
Toni Weisskopf is just one example of someone who, on the basis of pure merit, didn’t deserve to lose to “no award.” I have no doubt that Sheila Gilbert didn’t merit that either.
Outside of my writer friends, I haven’t encountered anyone who even knows what the Hugos are—and that includes a lot of voracious readers. So yeah, “narrow, exclusivist club” sounds about right.
You’re not the only person who reads this blog, but you are the first visitor from 770 who has bothered to comment. As for “sealioning,” posting thoughts on a personal blog hardly seems to qualify. But if you want to keep sealioning on me, then go ahead. Thanks for stopping by!
There were a hard 2,500 “no award” votes on everything. See chaoshorizon for an analysis. I did the math independently and arrived at the same conclusion.
Hard to see how 2,500 hard no award votes on both editor categories is not a block vote.
gregm91436’s comment about Worldcon not wanting to grow because it is run by volunteers makes a lot of sense. Having been involved in convention planning before (non SF) you are limited by not having a professional staff.
Yet that also severely limits the voter pool to a tiny minority of fandom compared to those at a larger convention. You have a “fan award” that is highly limited in numbers and is insular. Thus you get far more awards given to literary SF instead of less literary SF.