[easyazon_link cloaking=”default” keywords=”kate paulk” localization=”default” locale=”US” nofollow=”default” new_window=”default” tag=”superversivesf-20″]Kate Paulk[/easyazon_link] has an interesting article up over at Mad Genius Club called Curiouser and Curiouser: thoughts on Sad Puppydom and the State of the Hugos<. I wonder if I am showing my age knowing what SMOF is.
I freely admit I was looking for an easy topic to rant *coff* talk about this week because this has not been my best week (taking the much-loved 21 year old cat on her final trip to the vet will do that – as well as consume ridiculous quantities of Kleenex). My usual sources for good topics were all suspiciously quiet (yeah, I harass them most weeks), so I googled Sad Puppies Three.
I expected to get unending pages of hits of SJW types waxing poetic about the evil that is the Campaign to End Puppy-Related Sadness. Instead I got the official Sad Puppies posts, and a whole lot of “Read books and nominate them for awards if you think they deserve it? Good idea.”
Now, I’ll concede that Google might be customizing my search results just for me and automatically filtering off SJW hits, but I also got (after about page 3) a whole lot of “cute photo” hits. And – seriously – buggerall from the usual suspects.
There were two links to anti-ish posts, both of which showed a remarkable lack of understanding of the whole notion. You know, the idea that it’s good to actually read the books and bring in a bigger diversity of topic and theme for consideration. Because an award that calls itself the “most prestigious” is kind of by definition something meaningful to Joe Average SFF Fan looking for a good read to spend his hard earned money on.
And… well… the Hugo isn’t.