by Doctor Science
The Hugo Awards Ceremony is just starting. There's a livestream here, they tell me -- I have Flash disabled, so I can't see it. I'm following Mur Lafferty's twitter, Sasquan's twitter, and the thread at File 770. The ceremony is on Pacific Time and I am on Eastern, so I am pretty much certain to be asleep long before we get to Best Novel.
I'll put this much up right now, then edit to add what I have to say about the Art awards.
The Hugo Art Awards, for "Pro Artist" and "Fan Artist", are stuck in the Century of the Fruitbat; it's really time to think about how they should work in the Century of the Anchovy.
In the first place, the names aren't accurate: they're not actually for two different types of *artist*. The rules state:
Best Professional Artist. An illustrator whose work has appeared in a professional publication in the field of science fiction or fantasy during the previous calendar year.The Hugo Awards site states, of "Fan Artist":Best Fan Artist. An artist or cartoonist whose work has appeared through
publication in semiprozines or fanzines or through other public display during the previous calendar year.
Material for semiprozines or material on public displays (such as in convention art shows) is also eligible. Fan artists can have work published in professional publications as well. You should not consider such professionally-published works when judging this award.In other words, a single artist could be nominated for both "Fan Artist" and "Pro Artist", which doesn't make sense if the words "fan" and "pro" describe the person.
The rules actually distinguish different types of *distribution*, not different types of *people*.
"Pro" art is accessible to anyone who pays the distributor, usually a magazine or book publisher. It is out in the public world, anyone can find it. Traditionally, this art is of high technical quality, professional in every sense.
"Fan" art may be sold -- as works in art shows often are -- but it's only really accessible to people inside sf/f fandom. You have to be an insider, on some level, to find (or hear about) fanzines, or to go to conventions where art shows take place. Traditionally, this art is frequently humorous or black-and-white only, reflecting the fact that the artists and distributors don't spend much money on it.
But that division is so 20th century. How do you categorize artwork that is not (directly) paid for, but which is distributed very widely, accessible to anyone in the world? Art on web pages, on deviantart, on tumblr?
At present, art on non-pro websites is all categorized as "fan art", whether the artist is a pro or not. If you look over the list of winners and nominees, you can see that a revolution took place in about 2013.
Before then, there weren't all that many new names from year to year, and an artist's first win usually happened after several appearances on the nominees list.
As I predicted, Elizabeth Leggett won for Fan Artist. I will also predict that she was not in first place for nominations.
This is the third year in a row when someone won the Fan Artist award in their (her) first time on the ballot. In 2013 and 2014, the "dark horses" were fifth and third among the nominees, respectively.
I think what's going on is a seismic shift in how sf/f art is distributed. Galen Dara, Sarah Webb, and now Leggett are professional-quality artists who have a significant amount of work online, but outside of the (few) pro sites. Internet distribution isn't mentioned in the Hugo rules, so their work counts as "fan art" for Hugo purposes -- but they are clearly leaps and bounds ahead of the amateur fan artists who are the usual suspects.
In between house renovations, I was dithering all summer about whether the Art categories need to be re-furbished or re-written. I'm now thinking that we shouldn't, I'll just encourage net-based fandom to nominate more artists from deviantart, tumblr, etc., in "Fan Artist". I anticipate that category will end up being broader than "Pro Artist", because it can include artists from all over the world, who might not have access to professional sf/f publishing, but who can nonetheless distribute their work globally.
I don't know that there will be any place or award for the traditional amateur fanartists, who really aren't going to be able to compete against the best of the world on the Web. But hey, that's the future for you.
I reckon this rising star Noah Ward is going to have a very good night.
It's been fascinating to see the Puppies in various fora proving by their own words that their opponents have them pegged correctly as loathsome reactionaries.
Posted by: Morzer | August 22, 2015 at 11:34 PM
I bet the Puppies are foaming at the mouth (or any other orifice they use for communication) over the Sasquan Asterisk!
Posted by: Morzer | August 22, 2015 at 11:55 PM
Morzer:
What asterisk? Explain, plz! File700 is having connection problems for me.
Posted by: Doctor Science | August 23, 2015 at 12:02 AM
@Doctor Science
There is now an official WorldCon asterisk, designed and made by Jim Wright of Stonekettle Station, because if you put a bunch of exclamation points together you just happen to get an asterisk.....
The asterisk is commemorative and proceeds go to Sir Terry Pratchett's favorite charity.
And I have now seen Robert Silverberg singing Hare,hare Krishna....
Posted by: Morzer | August 23, 2015 at 12:07 AM
You might try the io9 liveblog:
http://io9.com/its-a-party-were-liveblogging-the-2015-hugo-awards-1725933125
(Better than File770 by a mile, I reckon!)
Posted by: Morzer | August 23, 2015 at 12:08 AM
Wes Chu gets the Campbell and a thousand puppies cry out in anguish before hastily screaming "Victory! Total victory!"
Posted by: Morzer | August 23, 2015 at 12:11 AM
David Gerrold:
"Mr Trump, I want my tribble back!"
Posted by: Morzer | August 23, 2015 at 12:16 AM
"Benjanun Sriduangkaew" is probably not overjoyed to see Laura J. Mixon win the award for best fan writer. Nor are the four rejected Puppies!
Looks like a very bad night for the Puppies.
Posted by: Morzer | August 23, 2015 at 12:24 AM
Yup. And I gather Mixon gave a shout-out to #BlackLivesMatter, too.
Now io9 is flaking on me, too. We still have twitter, thank goodness.
Posted by: Doctor Science | August 23, 2015 at 12:42 AM
I am truly impressed by the Annihilation of the Puppies. There's no way of spinning this: Teddy Beale and his comrades have been smashed out of sight by the fans.
Thank the FSM!
Posted by: Morzer | August 23, 2015 at 01:10 AM
No Award to Short Story -- and that was the short fiction category where I thought it possible there'd be a winner.
Posted by: Doctor Science | August 23, 2015 at 01:24 AM
Whoops I was wrong -- I mis-remembered and thought Heuvelt's story was Short, not Novelette. I didn't care for it, but I'm not terribly surprised it won.
The Puppies are being *cremated*.
Posted by: Doctor Science | August 23, 2015 at 01:26 AM
John C Wright must have set a new record for most Hugo rejections in one evening.
Perhaps there is some sort of cosmic justice after all.
Posted by: Morzer | August 23, 2015 at 01:31 AM
And there we go: No Award for Novella, Best Novel to Three Body Problem.
Posted by: Doctor Science | August 23, 2015 at 01:33 AM
FANomenon: A gripping and intimate look at the sub-culture of female sci-fi fans, their creative pursuits, and why they need heroes. (video - Hulu)
Posted by: CharlesWT | August 23, 2015 at 05:18 AM
Vox Day convinced a bunch of his ideological fellow-travelers to contribute $40 each to the Worldcon, just so they could vote on the Hugos.
I wonder if they're happy with the results of their "investment".
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | August 23, 2015 at 09:47 AM
@snarki
Well, so far the Puppets' reactions range from "'Twas a famous victory!" to "You will all regret the day you mocked my complexion!" to "Am Ende der Sieg!" to "This shows the evil malice of the treacherous SJW cabal!" to "This is what Teddy Beale prophesied, so he must be a great spiritual leader and strategic genius!"
In sum, they are are scurrying around like headless chickens and trying desperately to pretend that crushing rejection didn't really mean crushing rejection.
Posted by: Morzer | August 23, 2015 at 10:58 AM
No Award for Long Form Editor. Word was this was Sheila Gilbert's turn for this.
Posted by: Chuchundra | August 23, 2015 at 11:09 AM
I usually read these SF threads because I'm out of touch with the current writers for the most part and people usually mention some books (award winning or not) that they really like, which I may then check out at the local library. This ain't happening here people. (Hint, hint). For some reason the names of the new authors (new to me) don't stick in my head.
Of course I could just stop being lazy and start googling around, but it's more fun to hear people here recommend their favorites.
Glad to hear the Puppies are losing.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | August 23, 2015 at 11:54 AM
On the topic, I had never given much thought to SF art, except I always thought that most SF book covers were deeply embarrassing and sometimes did a disservice to what was inside, even if the cover depicted an actual scene from the book. I'm thinking, for instance, of the cover of a paperback copy of The Malacia Tapestry ( which is fantasy rather than SF) that I have somewhere. A really good book as I recall (it's been decades since I read it) about a narcissistic social climbing young man in what I took to be a city on the verge of revolution during the Italian Renaissance in an alternate universe with magic and dinosaurs and the cover shows a scene in the book, but it makes it seem like a shallow adventure story with scantily clad women being saved from an allosaurus by heroic young men.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | August 23, 2015 at 12:24 PM
I can't really help with that; the only novel nominee I read this year was Goblin Emperor and I hated it.
For the most part I'm underwhelmed by cover art, for reasons including yours, but I always had a soft spot for Michael Whelan. Even when he depicted highly pulpy subject matter, he managed to make the images rich and evoking.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | August 23, 2015 at 01:07 PM
I just read the Wikipedia article on Goblin Emperor-- it did sound dull. Characterization is great and political intrigue can be interesting, but if that's all you want to write about then why set it in a fantasy world? The only reasons I can think of is that you may not know enough about the real world's politics to do a good job in a realistic setting, or maybe you want to explore some sort of conflict which doesn't quite match anything inthe real world or you wish to feel free to make up details. I guess those are legit reasons, but it probably wouldn't interest me.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | August 23, 2015 at 01:35 PM
the cover shows a scene in the book, but it makes it seem like a shallow adventure story with scantily clad women being saved from an allosaurus by heroic young men.
It has been obvious for a long time that publishers think that cover images of scantily clad women help sales.** I don't know if they have any data to actually support that. But it is pretty clear that they believe it.
** Which presumably means that they think their customer base is heavily skewed towards adolescent males.
Posted by: wj | August 23, 2015 at 02:03 PM
Silly cover art is nothing new. Tolkien was quite surprised when he got to see the intended covers for the first (legal) US edition of The Hobbit. Two Emus and a lion and a strange tree?
http://nerdalicious.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Barbara_Remington_Hobbit.jpg
Posted by: Hartmut | August 23, 2015 at 02:29 PM
Yeah, that tree looks like it was inspired by something like this
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | August 23, 2015 at 04:04 PM
Have any science fiction writers thought of this?
http://wonkette.com/593206/your-saturday-nerdout-the-world-now-has-a-vomiting-robot-thanks-science
On the other hand, the world could use a pukebot in time for the Republican debates.
More science fiction from the past, and the stress is on the word "fiction"
http://wonkette.com/566865/you-will-be-outraged-by-the-tax-dollars-not-spent-on-this-dumb-science-thing
Posted by: Countme-In | August 23, 2015 at 04:41 PM
Re: Goblin Emperor
I loved it, but I would not have voted for it to win a Hugo; it is just the kind of character-and-shenanigans story I enjoy, and I think the fantasy setting made it more fun to read -- I love worldbuilding, so getting fun characters and fun worldbuilding in one place was a bonus.
But it's...I don't know. It's well but not stellarly written, it's complex but not deep. I prefer Hugos to go to deeper things, personally.
Posted by: Laura V | August 23, 2015 at 05:00 PM
Men. Fuck you. It he 'AWARD' looks stupid and you know it.
Posted by: Princess tam tam | August 24, 2015 at 12:09 AM
I meant 'The 'AWARD' has serious design-flaws ... and I'm sorry this was my first comment. I lenjoy reading your work and the comments.
Posted by: Princess tam tam | August 24, 2015 at 12:13 AM
Studies Show Reading Fiction Can Transform the Way Our Brains Think and Act Every Day
Posted by: CharlesWT | August 24, 2015 at 07:56 AM
the FBI, besides being shitty at writing, was not a fan of scifi.
Posted by: cleek | August 24, 2015 at 09:24 AM
people usually mention some books (award winning or not) that they really like, which I may then check out at the local library. This ain't happening here people. (Hint, hint)
DJ, a fair point. My tastes in SF run to AltHist. If this appeals, I recommend SM Stirling's Island in the Sea of Time series.
Posted by: McKinneyTexas | August 24, 2015 at 10:22 AM
Cleek, have you even noticed how those folks getting hysterical about the baleful impact of science fiction on the view of American children never seem to cite Heinlein?
Maybe because they agree with his views, and are looking for something to get worked up about....
Posted by: wj | August 24, 2015 at 11:15 AM
bad linky! bad!
http://boingboing.net/2015/08/24/fbi-kept-files-on-ray-bradbury.html
Posted by: cleek | August 24, 2015 at 11:29 AM
Thanks MckT. I looked at the Wikipedia article and the plot sounded fun. I'll see if the library has it.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | August 24, 2015 at 11:48 AM
Put this on the wrong thread:
According to John Boehner, keeping government files on Ray Bradbury and company in 1959 occurred during the golden age of America.
The high marginal rate was 91%. Now we know what it was spent on.
I'm going to cry. The nostalgia is killing me.
Boehner can find some solace that Black Lives Matter people are being tailed and harassed by the FBI in 2015, the latter a nest of uptight conservatives if ever there was one, with the exception of the times J. Edgar showed up in pumps and a house dress and claimed he was Vivian Vance.
In fact, I think he ordered a file opened on Vivian Vance while he was dressed as Vivian Vance, which seems to be a conflict of interest.
Awww, Fred!
Makes you wonder if he ordered the assassination of Martin Luther King while he was dressed as Lena Horne.
I don't understand why Boehner doesn't congratulate Obama for surveilling Black Lives Matter and I don't understand why he doesn't call for impeaching Obama for permitting the FBI its surveillance of BlackLM.
Seems like a terribly neutral position for an anti-gummint radical.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 24, 2015 at 12:11 PM
DJ, hope you find it. If you do, let me know your thoughts.
Posted by: McKinneyTexas | August 24, 2015 at 02:26 PM
Science Fiction Fans Are Fighting About Politics. It’s Not the End of the Universe: Science fiction's culture wars have been around for as long as science fiction.
Posted by: CharlesWT | August 24, 2015 at 05:43 PM
I was really rooting for neither "side". I have never been part of fandom, although I have read SF and Fantasy fairly obsessively all of my life.
Ted Beale is not a guy you'd want to ally with, is probably my strongest reaction. John C. Wright, what I have read of him (which is zero other than blog posts related to this conflict), is a guy who's a little too overly full of himself for his own good. If his fiction comes off anything like his blogging, I am not interested.
I like what I like. I don't see a need to ally with anyone over it. If enough people like what I like, someone gets an award for me having liked it. If not, well, I was never really cheering that hard on anyone's behalf in the first place. Because different people have different tastes, and will like different things than I do. That's life.
This argument over which side is more overly composed of old white guys, though, is enough to keep me out of the argument altogether. If white guys are writing the fiction that people like the most, well, it's no scratch on them.
I do recognize, of course, that it's good to get out and take a look at new things, literarily, from time to time. But Delaney's stuff was putting me to sleep a long, LONG time before I was aware that he's not a straight white guy. This is not a stab at Delaney; from what I have seen, he's a very decent human being. Just not my cup of tea.
And that's pretty much all I have to say about that.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 24, 2015 at 05:45 PM
John C. Wright, what I have read of him..., is a guy who's a little too overly full of himself for his own good. If his fiction comes off anything like his blogging, I am not interested.
There seems to be little relationship between what kind of a writer someone is and what kind of a human being. The example that always leaps to my mind is Poul Anderson vs. Randall Garrett. Poul was a wonderful human being, and his writing was OK. Randall, in contrast, wrote a lot of really good stuff (under a mountain of pen names), but he was a dead loss as a human being (not to mention enormously full of himself).
There are those who are wonderful people and wonderful writers. And there are those (Jerry Pournelle comes to mind somehow) who are terrible writers and rotten human beings as well.
In short, there is just no correllation.
Posted by: wj | August 24, 2015 at 06:06 PM
From what I have read from him, Ted Beale doesn't have allies; he has minions.
Posted by: John Spragge | August 25, 2015 at 01:40 AM
Ted Beale is entirely a creation of Patrick Nielson Hayden, doncha know. or so says "...in all modesty, a skilled author, one of the finest writing today."
Posted by: cleek | August 25, 2015 at 07:30 AM
spam trapped???
come on.
Posted by: cleek | August 25, 2015 at 07:45 AM
It's spelled 'minions', it's pronounced 'suckers'.
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | August 25, 2015 at 11:27 AM
If you dig into the roots of this with your cynicism hat on (all the way back to Sad Puppies 1) you find that it started because Larry Correria got mad because he didn't win the Campbell award or the Hugo. (It's an award for best newbie writer. Just getting nominated means your first work caught TONS of eyes). So, first book by a new writer gets nominated for a Campbell and a Hugo, doesn't win, and proceeds to throw massive snit-fit for years over it.
My sympathy for him dried up pretty quickly that that point.
Having perused the Puppy blogs, I do note many of them don't seem to understand IRV. One of the puppies (Wright, Torgeson or Correllia -- I think Wright) literally used the phrase "Hugo I was owed" because on the first ballot he came in second to "No Award" (not even a close second. No award took 50%+).
However, once the balloting was complete he was 3rd or 4th. Without "No Award" he still wouldn't have won -- that's the joy of IRV, you can tell things like that.
*shrug*.
If you look at the EPH change to voting, AND if you take the Sad Puppies complaints at face value (they worry that slates are being used against them, and that beloved but somewhat minority books are being kept off the lists either through conspiracies and slates or just the nature of the nomination process) then they won. EPH spikes slates, no matter the source.
Further, if there is a stand-out book beloved by a minority of the nominees it now has a much greater chance of hitting the voting list.
Therefore, if Sad Puppies et. al are actually honest about their complaints, the proposed voting changes that passed at Worldcon (have to be ratified again next year before they go into effect) have addressed their concerns.
Since they're still screaming and threatening fire and brimstone, I can't help but feel that perhaps their stated rationale is a bit...deceptive.
Posted by: Morat20 | August 25, 2015 at 12:36 PM
Ted Beale, "the monster known as Vox Day is a creation entirely of Mr. Patrick Nielsen Hayden". at least according to "...in all modesty, a skilled author, one of the finest writing today.'"
Posted by: cleek | August 25, 2015 at 01:59 PM
(3rd try!)
Ted Beale, "the monster known as Vox Day is a creation entirely of Mr. Patrick Nielsen Hayden". at least according to "...in all modesty, a skilled author, one of the finest writing today.'"
Posted by: cleek | August 25, 2015 at 01:59 PM
Cleek: Our own Gary Farber has posted this self-evaluation by John C. Wright on his Facebook page, resulting in a lengthy thread to which I (among many others) have contributed.
Posted by: dr ngo | August 25, 2015 at 02:30 PM
I'm always so confused about figuring out where an artist I like belongs, fan or pro. I hate that it is such a headache to figure out. I've only been nominating and voting for a few years now. I tend to separate them by making pros anyone who designed a book cover that year and the others in fan. Ugh.
Posted by: Caitrin | August 25, 2015 at 02:38 PM
to which I (among many others) have contributed
I am among those many others.
Posted by: cleek | August 25, 2015 at 02:49 PM
Our own Gary Farber has posted this self-evaluation by John C. Wright
I keep trying to put my finger on Wright's blogging style, but without success.
It's as if Hedda Hopper's column was written by Torquemada. In a style that's some kind of weird mash-up of Trollope and Chesterton, but without the wit. And then broadcast in the voice of Pee Wee Herman.
It's a singularity of arch snottiness, moralistic finger-wagging, and self-consciously archaic grad school lit seminar verbosity.
Doesn't anybody read Strunk and White anymore?
Posted by: russell | August 25, 2015 at 04:04 PM
I wouldn't aspire to "contributed", but I too am there.
Ok, I am swiping that one. I probably would have gone more Jar Jar Binks; hence the swipe.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 25, 2015 at 04:28 PM
Oh, yeah. Just ran across this, which some folks might enjoy:
Various forms of correction ensue.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 25, 2015 at 04:51 PM
Just ran across this
it's always a conspiracy, for some folks.
i usually read JCW in the voice of Comic Book Guy. or sometimes in the voice of an old Victorian-era British woman - the kind who is always about to toss her spectacles and faint over the uncivilized behavior of today's youth.
either way: a caricature of a pompous ass.
Posted by: cleek | August 25, 2015 at 05:03 PM
"I keep trying to put my finger on Wright's blogging style"
GK Chesterton as filtered through the mind of an emogirl cosplaying Donald Trump.
Posted by: Morzer | August 25, 2015 at 06:40 PM
If you want a more literary description of John C Wright:
Six Pathologies In Search Of An Editor.
(With apologies to Luigi Pirandello)
Posted by: Morzer | August 25, 2015 at 06:47 PM
Every time I look at the Hugo award, it makes me think of ca. 1950 Olds 88.
It's not an exact match to the hood ornament, it just makes me think of it, for some reason. It's got that same swoopy, shiny, optimistic mid-20th C. jet-age vibe.
In my dreams, I'm the guy whose job it is to drive Jay Leno's cars around every now and then. You know, just to keep the fluids flowing and make sure the carbs don't get dusty.
:)
Posted by: russell | August 26, 2015 at 03:56 PM
Here's the image I get when there is talk of putting a finger on Wright's blogging style
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kancho
Posted by: liberal japonicus | August 26, 2015 at 06:24 PM
"I keep trying to put my finger on Wright's blogging style"
Look on the bright side. By any standard, it falls woefully short of persuasive.
Be thankful for small things.
Posted by: bobbyp | August 26, 2015 at 07:24 PM
It has been a fascinating time catching up with the eternally fractious SFF community. Racefail, RequiresHate, Puppies, Oh my!
I suppose the internet is driving all the factions nuts, no surprise there. I do feel a tad sorry for the pups, though they sure asked for it.
I was surprised to find I do enjoy Wright's prose in his fiction. Wish he would stay off his blog, though. That stuff is not helping him of his family out.
Posted by: Yama | August 27, 2015 at 11:45 AM
To my absolute delight, Ted Beale has released a new book! (It's called something like "SJW's Always Lie").
It's delightful, and contains twice as many Chapter 5's as any other book on the market.
You can see why Beale, is a multiple-Hugo nominee for Best Editor.
A man who can fit two Chapter fives into a single tome is a man of skill indeed.
Posted by: Morat20 | August 27, 2015 at 05:06 PM
Chapter 5 is alive!
Posted by: Yama | August 27, 2015 at 08:45 PM
There is now a parody of Teddy Beale's biquintiley capitulated book-like product by the elegantly named Theo Pratt. Proceeds from the book go to the charity Con or Bust.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/08/27/charity-drive-for-con-or-bust-an-audio-version-of-john-scalzi-is-not-a-very-popular-author-and-i-myself-am-quite-popular-read-by-me/
Posted by: Morzer | August 28, 2015 at 11:16 AM
I don't really follow all of the ins and outs of the SF world, but I'm feeling like John Scalzi is a guy I could hang out with.
Posted by: russell | August 28, 2015 at 11:59 AM
I hadn't heard of Scalzi before the whole 'Puppies' nonsense erupted this year..but since then, got 'Redshirts': it was hilarious.
Got 'Old Man's War': great entertainment, in an updated Heinlein-esque way.
If written dialog is indicative of an authors persona, yeah, Scalzi would be great to hang out and have a beer with.
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | August 28, 2015 at 02:47 PM
yeah, i'm on the second of the Old Man's War books now. entirely thanks to the Puppies' little tantrum.
he hangs out at Making Light, so i'd only known the name as that of a commenter. before the Puppies alerted me to the fact that he is an author.
and yeah, the books are fun. they zip right along.
Posted by: cleek | August 28, 2015 at 03:16 PM
If written dialog is indicative of an authors persona, yeah, Scalzi would be great to hang out and have a beer with.
Tom Hanks apparently felt so. :)
Posted by: Morat20 | August 29, 2015 at 07:49 PM
I actually have a question about all this -- I glanced at the nomination totals for this year and the last few, and I think the upshot here is the SP/RP slate conclusively proved there WAS no other slates.
Specifically only for this year, but you can deduce there wasn't any for prior years either from the numbers.
If there was a 'liberal' or 'SJW' or 'diversity' or whatever slate, the SP/RP couldn't have had such a clean sweep -- the only place they didn't was best novel. The slates would have collided.
Like Best Novellete -- the slate ones were all clustered around 250 to 270 votes --four novelletes, all with 250 to 270 votes. The next eleven range from 38 to 72.
Best novel? You see two big "pop out" novels that weren't slates (Ancillary Sword and TGE) but the next one down is a full 25% lower -- and then a big smear of votes over 10 novels, ranging from 88 to 210.
It's far more clear in 2014. The 5 nominees for novel? Ranged from 100 to 368 votes. The next 10 range from 66 to 96.
There's no coordination, no lockstep, no numbers even remotely together. You have one standout (Ancillary Justice) which had almost twice as many nominations as the next one down (The Ocean at the End of the Lane).
If there was a slate competing with the Puppies, why didn't it show up in the numbers?
I kinda wonder if Correria and Torgeson were actually surprised when they swept the nominations -- because if they truly believed there was secret slate, they couldn't have taken so many categories. Why didn't that cause them to question their assumptions?
Posted by: Morat20 | August 29, 2015 at 10:42 PM
People like Torgeson don't question their assumptions. They create rationales for holding on to their assumptions.
Wasn't it Heinlein, in the voice of Lazarus Long, that said that "Man is not a rational animal, he's a rationalizing animal" ?
Irony, it's what's for post-Hugo breakfast.
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | August 30, 2015 at 11:13 AM
I've read some Scalzi. Not close to a lot of Scalzi, but I pick up his stuff when I happen across it, which is not that often.
Zoe's Tale and The Last Colony are I think the only two of his works I have read so far. They make me want to see a bit more.
My opinion, which is my own, is that Scalzi and a whole lot of other people are at their least best when soapboxing.
Granted, of all the soapboxers on this topic, Scalzi is well above average. I still like his fiction better.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 31, 2015 at 11:44 AM
Speaking for myself I like Scalzi's soapboxing. http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/
An oldie, linked because I think it might be relevant to ObWi interests.
Posted by: Shane | September 01, 2015 at 11:16 AM
Culture Warriors Invade Sci-Fi/Fantasy: Mutiny at the Hugo Awards
Posted by: CharlesWT | September 01, 2015 at 04:51 PM
Horrifyingly bad article. The description of "Ancillary Justice" is just flat out wrong.
He describes "whose protagonist belongs to a futuristic human civilization with no concept of gender distinctions and with "she" as the universal pronoun."
Like literally all of that is wrong. The protagonist isn't human, for starters.
Posted by: Morat20 | September 03, 2015 at 02:48 PM
*She describes...
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | September 03, 2015 at 03:02 PM
Sorry, my advanced AI can't tell gender but defaults the other way.
Or possibly I typo'd it. :)
Posted by: Morat20 | September 03, 2015 at 04:05 PM