Worlds Without End Blog

I really liked the article, too. I’d share this article with others. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

wow, thanks for that, I really appreciate it.

I find it very difficult to write on controversial topics under the Amazing Stories banner as I am always cognizant of the place the magazine holds for so many people. On the other hand, that place – if honored properly – must take into consideration the history and influence it had over fandom and must I think, express opinions regarding the health and well-being of fandom when it is threatened.

Steve’s piece is really well-reasoned and (I thought) on target. He’s spot on in calling out Correia et al on their dishonest argumentation tactics. Instead of simply calling on your “followers” to consider participating in the Hugo process (which would be great–the more the better), the campaign must be couched in terms of a non-existent “us vs. them” battle, where the motivation isn’t just to get “our” favorites considered for the Hugo, but also to punish “them” for disrespecting “us.” In retrospect, it’s not surprising that this has happened, since it’s the same tactics that have increasingly been used in American politics over the last three or four decades.

Read the article yesterday (and yeah, it’s great).

I agree with Scott. There’s a monumental difference between the actions of Day and Correia and simply campaigning for your own (or someone else’s) work for an award. That was the main confusion happening in fandom over the last week, so far as I could tell. So it’s good that Davidson’s article made that distinction.

What makes me sad, in a meta-sense, is the books (and their authors) that were effectively pushed off the Hugo ballot due to their actions.

A group of extremists take advantage of low voter turnout to get disproportionate representation.

Who’d have thought? 😉