Apparently, though, several Hugo nominees who were more diverse had been nominated in recent years, in part, it appears,through a concerted effort to get voters qualified who would nominate more diversely. A counter-reformation apparently arose in which "conservative" readers "took back" the awards for less literary (and less diverse) offerings. A set of twitter tweeters likened the situation to the sordid gamergate controversy in gaming. The long and the short of it all is that everyone on all sides had tried to get slates of works nominated or chosen to win, as has always happened, but now everyone loudly proclaimed their opponents guilty of inappropriate plots and wrongful motives. The whole process for a rather useful but inside-baseball group of awards got invested with new energy and unenlightening debate. I love social media, and in particular Twitter. But this kind of overdone controversy tires me.
I favor lots more diversity in plots, characters, authors and settings--so long as there are lots of rocketships and cool cultures on remote planets. But though the world is probably one big conspiracy, the Hugo Awards is a pretty boring conspiracy platform for either side of this debate.
Beatrice woke me again at 7.30 a.m. I headed to the office by 9.15. At lunch I took pictures of a Barn Swallow at the park. I went to Weight Watchers this evening, as I could not on Easter Sunday. Tonight I did laundry and watched "His Girl Friday" for the x,000th time. I also read about the poets Robert Southey and Samuel Coleridge, and listened with sadness to radio stories about the Kenyan atrocities.