2015 Hugo Awards

2015 Hugo Award TrophyPresented at: Sasquan, Spokane, Washington, USA, August 22, 2015

Hosts: David Gerrold and Tananarive Due

Base design: Matthew Dockrey

Awards Administration: John Lorentz, Ruth Sachter, Linda Deneroff, Ron Oakes, Dave McCarty, and Glenn Glazer


The 2015 Hugo Awards were announced at a ceremony in Spokane, Washington on August 21, 2015, shown on UStream and through CoverItLive.

5,950 valid final ballots were cast by the members of Sasquan. Per the WSFS Constitution, each category must have at least 25% (1,488 ballots) participation; otherwise “No Award” must be presented in this category. This did not happen in any category. In the list below, we show the number of ballots cast in that category.

2,122 valid nominating ballots (2,119 electronic and 3 paper) were received and counted from the members of Loncon 3, Sasquan, and MidAmeriCon II the 2014, 2015, and 2016 World Science Fiction Conventions.

After the ceremony, the Award Administrators released detailed voting breakdowns in each category and a list of the top 15 nominees in each category, along with the number of nominations received by each. Direct administrative questions about the 2015 Hugo Awards to the Sasquan Hugo Administration Subcommittee.

In some categories below, the members voted to give No Award in a category. This means no Hugo Award was presented in that category. In some categories, the members voted No Award ahead of some of the finalists. When this happened, we have listed No Award as if it was a finalist, with all finalists listed in the order in which they placed.

Best Novel (5653 final ballots, 1827 nominating ballots, 587 entries, range 212-387)

  • The Three Body Problem, Cixin Liu, Ken Liu translator (Tor Books)
  • The Goblin Emperor, Katherine Addison (Sarah Monette) (Tor Books)
  • Ancillary Sword, Ann Leckie (Orbit US/Orbit UK)
  • No Award
  • Skin Game, Jim Butcher (Orbit UK/Roc Books)
  • The Dark Between the Stars, Kevin J. Anderson (Tor Books)

Note: The Three-Body Problem was originally published in Chinese in 2008. The 2014 publication by Tor was the first English-language version, and therefore it is again eligible for the Hugos, according to section 3.4.1 of the WSFS Constitution.

Best Novella (5337 final ballots, 1083 nominating ballots, 201 entries, range 145-338)

  • No Award
  • “Flow”, Arlan Andrews, Sr. (Analog, 11-2014)
  • Big Boys Don’t Cry, Tom Kratman (Castalia House)
  • One Bright Star to Guide Them, John C. Wright (Castalia House)
  • “The Plural of Helen of Troy”, John C. Wright (City Beyond Time: Tales of the Fall of Metachronopolis, Castalia House)
  • “Pale Realms of Shade”, John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)

Note: Both Big Boys Don’t Cry and One Bright Star to Guide Them were previously published in much shorter versions, and were significantly expanded to novella-length in their 2014 publication. Following previous precedents, for the purposes of the 2015 Hugos they are designated as new works.

Best Novelette (5104 final ballots, 1031 nominating ballots, 314 entries, (72-267)

  • “The Day the World Turned Upside Down”, Thomas Olde Heuvelt, Lia Belt translator (Lightspeed, 04-2014)
  • No Award
  • “The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale”, Rajnar Vajra (Analog, 07/08-2014)
  • “Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium”, Gray Rinehart (Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show, 05-2014)
  • “The Journeyman: In the Stone House”, Michael F. Flynn (Analog, 06-2014)
  • “Championship B’tok”, Edward M. Lerner (Analog, 09-2014)

Best Short Story (5267 final ballots, 1174 nominating ballots, 728 entries, range 132-226)

  • No Award
  • “Totaled”, Kary English (Galaxy’s Edge Magazine, 07-2014)
  • “A Single Samurai”, Steven Diamond (The Baen Big Book of Monsters, Baen Books)
  • “Turncoat”, Steve Rzasa (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)
  • “On A Spiritual Plain”, Lou Antonelli (Sci Phi Journal , 11-2014)
  • “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds”, John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)

Best Related Work (4901 final ballots, 1150 nominating ballots, 346 entries, range 206-273)

  • No Award
  • “The Hot Equations: Thermodynamics and Military SF”, Ken Burnside (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)
  • “Why Science is Never Settled”, Tedd Roberts (Baen.com)
  • Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth, John C. Wright (Castalia House)
  • Letters from Gardner, Lou Antonelli (The Merry Blacksmith Press)
  • Wisdom from My Internet, Michael Z. Williamson (Patriarchy Press)

Best Graphic Story (4412 final ballots, 785 nominating ballots, 325 entries, range 60-201)

  • Ms. Marvel Volume 1: No Normal, written by G. Willow Wilson, illustrated by Adrian Alphona and Jake Wyatt, (Marvel Comics)
  • Saga Volume 3, written by Brian K. Vaughan, illustrated by Fiona Staples (Image Comics))
  • Rat Queens Volume 1: Sass and Sorcery, written by Kurtis J. Weibe, art by Roc Upchurch (Image Comics)
  • Sex Criminals Volume 1: One Weird Trick, written by Matt Fraction, art by Chip Zdarsky (Image Comics)
  • No Award
  • The Zombie Nation Book : Reduce Reuse Reanimate, Carter Reid (The Zombie Nation)

Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form (5240 final ballots, 1285 nominating ballots, 189 entries, range 204-769)

  • Guardians of the Galaxy, written by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman, directed by James Gunn (Marvel Studios, Moving Picture Company)
  • Captain America: The Winter Soldier, screenplay by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely, concept and story by Ed Brubaker, directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo (Marvel Entertainment, Perception, Sony Pictures Imageworks)
  • Edge of Tomorrow, screenplay by Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, and John-Henry Butterworth, directed by Doug Liman (Village Roadshow, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, 3 Arts Entertainment; Viz Productions)
  • Interstellar, screenplay by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan, directed by Christopher Nolan (Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, Legendary Pictures, Lynda Obst Productions, Syncopy)
  • The Lego Movie, written by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, story by Dan Hageman, Kevin Hageman, Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, directed by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller (Warner Bros. Pictures, Village Roadshow Pictures, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, LEGO System A/S, Vertigo Entertainment, Lin Pictures, Warner Bros. Animation (as Warner Animation Group))

Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form (4705 final ballots, 938 nominating ballots, 470 entries, range 71-170)

  • Orphan Black: “By Means Which Have Never Yet Been Tried”, ” written by Graeme Manson, directed by John Fawcett (Temple Street Productions, Space/BBC America)
  • Doctor Who: “Listen”, written by Steven Moffat, directed by Douglas Mackinnon (BBC Television)
  • Game of Thrones: “The Mountain and the Viper”, written by David Benioff & D. B. Weiss, directed by Alex Graves ((HBO Entertainment in association with Bighead, Littlehead; Television 360; Startling Television and Generator Productions)
  • The Flash: “Pilot”, teleplay by Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, story by Greg Berlanti, Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, directed by David Nutter (The CW) (Berlanti Productions, DC Entertainment, Warner Bros. Television)
  • Grimm: “Once We Were Gods”, written by Alan DiFiore, directed by Steven DePaul (NBC) (GK Productions, Hazy Mills Productions, Universal TV)

Best Editor, Short Form (4850 final ballots, 870 nominating ballots, 187 entries, range 162-279)

  • No Award
  • Mike Resnick
  • Jennifer Brozek
  • Bryan Thomas Schmidt
  • Vox Day
  • Edmund R. Schubert (Withdrew after ballot finalized)

Best Editor, Long Form (4907 final ballots, 712 nominating ballots, 124 entries, range 166-368)

  • No Award
  • Toni Weisskopf
  • Sheila Gilbert
  • Anne Sowards
  • Jim Minz
  • Vox Day

Best Professional Artist (4354 final ballots, 753 nominating ballots, 300 entries, range 118-188)

  • Julie Dillon
  • No Award
  • Kirk DouPonce
  • Alan Pollack
  • Nick Greenwood
  • Carter Reid

Best Semiprozine (3880 final ballots, 660 nominating ballots, 100 entries, range 94-229)

  • Lightspeed Magazine, edited by John Joseph Adams, Stefan Rudnicki, Rich Horton, Wendy N. Wagner, and Christie Yant
  • Strange Horizons, Niall Harrison, editor-in-chief
  • Beneath Ceaseless Skies, edited by Scott H. Andrews
  • No Award
  • Abyss & Apex, Wendy Delmater editor and publisher
  • Andromeda Spaceways In-Flight Magazine, Andromeda Spaceways Publishing Association Incorporated, 2014 editors David Kernot and Sue Bursztynski

Best Fanzine (3818 final ballots, 576 nominating ballots, 162 entries, range 68-208)

  • Journey Planet, edited by James Bacon, Christopher J Garcia, Colin Harris, Alissa McKersie, and Helen J. Montgomery
  • No Award
  • Black Gate, edited by John O’Neill (Withdrew after ballot finalized)
  • Tangent SF Online, edited by Dave Truesdale
  • Elitist Book Reviews, edited by Steven Diamond
  • The Revenge of Hump Day, edited by Tim Bolgeo

Best Fancast (3884 final ballots, 668 nominating ballots, 162 entries, range 69-179)

  • Galactic Suburbia Podcast, Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, Tansy Rayner Roberts (Presenters) and Andrew Finch (Producer)
  • Tea and Jeopardy, Emma Newman and Peter Newman
  • No Award
  • The Sci Phi Show, Jason Rennie
  • Adventures in SciFi Publishing, Brent Bower (Executive Producer), Kristi Charish, Timothy C. Ward & Moses Siregar III (Co-Hosts, Interviewers and Producers)
  • Dungeon Crawlers Radio, Daniel Swenson (Producer/Host), Travis Alexander & Scott Tomlin (Hosts), Dale Newton (Host/Tech), Damien Swenson (Audio/Video Tech)

Best Fan Writer (3884 final ballots, 777 nominating ballots, 265 entries, range 129-201)

  • Laura J. Mixon
  • No Award
  • Jeffro Johnson
  • Dave Freer
  • Amanda S. Green
  • Cedar Sanderson

Best Fan Artist (3476 final ballots, 296 nominating ballots, 198 entries, range 23-48)

  • Elizabeth Leggett
  • Spring Schoenhuth
  • Ninni Aalto
  • Steve Stiles
  • Brad W. Foster

The John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer (4338 final ballots, 851 nominating ballots, 220 entries, range 106-229)
Award for the best new professional science fiction or fantasy writer of 2013 or 2014, sponsored by Dell Magazines. (Not a Hugo Award, but administered along with the Hugo Awards.)

  • Wesley Chu*
  • No Award
  • Kary English*
  • Eric S. Raymond
  • Jason Cordova
  • Rolf Nelson

*Finalists in their 2nd year of eligibility.

For the full breakdown of voting and nomination see here (PDF).

Pre-Ceremony Panel and Part 1 (starting at approximately 1:16) of the 2015 Hugo Awards Ceremony (The file descriptions at UStream are misleading)

Part 2 of the 2015 Hugo Awards Ceremony

CoverItLive text-based coverage of the 2015 Hugo Awards Ceremony

UStream video coverage of the 2015 Hugo Awards Nomination Announcement

605 thoughts on “2015 Hugo Awards

  1. Seems like I’ll have some fun reading to check out this year. Congrats on such a large turn out, Hugo. Nothing like spiffing up the old gal and running her around the solar system.

    1. I agree. I don’t recognize some of the authors, which means NEW ONES TO CHECK OUT. I have to admit, I tried to read Ancillary Justice last year and just got nowhere with it. Uninteresting, unrelatable protagonist so I tossed it after 100 pages…and I see its sequel is up. Will pass on that one.

      And the titles of some of them are incredible. Many times the title or cover art will draw me in before the author’s name, although I do have a few authors that are no brainers to me.

      1. You might not like Ancillary Justice…but you have to check out The Goblin Emperor. It’s one of the best books I’ve read in years.

    1. I’ll add my voice to this, what’s embarrassing about any of the people nominated, any more so than the last fifteen or twenty years of the fix being in, I mean.

    2. Clearly rochrist is sore because he or someone he knows was not nominated because fans of the genre actually got involved in voting.

      1. I think the issue is that This year’s Hugo is stack with Right-Wing ideologues, in hopes of stuffing with those associated with GamerGate and anti-SJWs

        1. I have been reading Jim Butcher for years and never would I describe his books in the manner you do. Just because someone has a political view different from yours doesn’t give people the right to attack them when they get recognition. I’m going to bet the people complaining on this board haven’t given these writers a chance and that is not the fault of the ideology of the writer but that of the person complaining. I personally keep an open mind in regards to this genre and thought others did too.

        2. “I think the issue is that This year’s Hugo is stack with Right-Wing ideologues, in hopes of stuffing with those associated with GamerGate and anti-SJWs”

          No. It is stack with decent stories that don’t try to shove SJWs’ message down the readers’ throats. Books written to entertain first, rather than those written solely to preen and posture, to show that the author has the right opinion. Books chosen not by the sex, sexual preferences or skin tone of the author but by the tale told, the writing style and that elusive quantity, the voice of the author.

          The reason everyone was asking why is to bring out those, like you, who are going to say what they are told to say by the SJWs, the people who don’t care about books but care about their own political ideology. Well the Hugos should be there to bring out entertaining books, not dull message fiction. If you don’t like this then you are welcome to buy boring books that did not make the list. You have not been harmed by this coup, this take-over of book awards by people who actually like to read for pleasure.

        3. As opposed to 20 years of left domination of the field? Yeah, I can see how that’s upsetting to some folk.

  2. I have a lot of reading to do as I have not already read a number of the works nominated. But it looks like a well rounded selection to choose from.

      1. Please explain your comment. [Remainder of comment redacted for personal abuse – ed.]

        1. Dear editor what is abusive about saying all the nominees are profesional and good people???

      2. Here’s a tissue. Guys like Jim Butcher are “political” and not worthy? Hey, pass that acid yer droppin.

          1. Exactly, I’ve read all the dresden novels more times than I care to count. Harry is a humanist that totes a .45 and is willing to put his life on the line for a guy that stalked him with a sword for decades, just because it’s the right thing to do. Point his politics out to me. I got five bucks for anyone that can.

  3. What a wasteland of campaigning. Such a horribly politically-weighted selection of nominees in most categories. So much for science fiction being forward-thinking.

    1. Yes, much better to have the fix in for fifteen to twenty years than have someone advance a bunch of writers from all across the spectrum, what a bunch of jerks to do something like that.

      1. Rick:

        Explain “the fix in.” Are you saying that the Administrators have been ignoring the voters, or that there have been deliberate conspiracies to exclude everyone but five people from each category? If so, show evidence.

        The Hugo Awards have an admirably record of openness and transparency in their administration process, and you must substantiate your accusations. The response of, “I hated all of the finalists personally,” is not a valid answer to this question.

        1. No, I’m saying that one side has dominated the publishing houses, and one side had dominated the elected nominees for around two decades now. If the others here are gonna resort to hyperbole, then I can too. I’d rather not.

          The Hugo’s have had an influx of interest, an influx of fans like they haven’t seen in years, and one side doesn’t want those fans to come in because it’s “Political”. The selection was all across the board. And if it was weighted to the brash newcomers side this once, out of nearly two decades…well, sometimes it takes a stick of dynamite to blast a stump out of a hole.

          1. Let me add, for clarity, Larry Correia did a thorough investigation and concluded that there was nothing being done wrong by the administrators. He said so on his website, and since he is an accountant of no mean rep, I have no reason to disbelieve him.

            The “fix” comes from one thing and one thing only: One side of the socio/political spectrum has dominated the publishing houses, the releases, the PRESS PUSHES for around two decades, with an occasional squeaker making it through their houses. If you don’t believe this sort of thing happens, just look up Making Light or Steve Donaldson, who actually advised authors to get away from said slate while couching it in very deliberate terms.

            I don’t care who is nominated as long as the work is good, and it not preset by big houses or huge editorial egos. Let all the work be put forth , and the best writer win. In a real, honest, fair system, votes will win out across the spectrum, and that’s what seems to have taken some folks aback here, that there was a segment that felt their voices where heard, that one side felt their voices weren’t worthy of hearing.

            That is what I meant by the fix being in. It was being decided before it ever reach Hugo.

        2. Take a gander at the number of nominations for certain related authors/publishers in the same year and tell me there is any possible explanation aside from a voting bloc.

          http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/04/how-do-they-know.html

          We can make rhetorical arguments back and forth. But you can’t argue with numbers, specifically the variance.

          Scalzi, Tor Books, and the rest of their SJW buddies no longer have a stranglehold on the Hugos that they hijacked in the mid 90s, and that is only a good thing.

          1. There have been no organized conspiracies or voting blocs in the way you think. Hugo Administrators know how to spot such things and they talk to each other. Had there been secret voting slates, the Administrators would have seen the patterns. They didn’t.

            That doesn’t mean that there haven’t been organized campaigns for individual works, including at least one that appears to have been flat-out unethical “voting the phone book,” but there’s never before been a deliberate campaign to dominate the entire list of finalists in each category. If you think the various recommendation lists and “here’s what I published last year” posts are the same thing as specific slates with the same number of candidates as there are finalist spots, you are sadly mistaken.

            Rather than a conspiracy, consider the possibility that a significant number of the regularly voting members of Worldcons happened to like similar things. It’s far more likely than thinking you could organize the individuals involved and give them marching orders for how to cast their ballots.

            Besides, I’ve nominated every year since the mid-1980s, and sometimes things I nominate make the ballot, and I know I’ve never received any marching orders or given any.

          2. Does it really matter, from the point of view of those not included in the preferred groups, if the incredibly tight vote clustering in the Hugo nominations of past years was the result of organized conspiracy or groupthink?

            Either way, statistically speaking, the only way they were going to have any impact whatsoever was to do exactly what they did. You may agree with it, you may not. But it makes no difference if the controlling blocs were active conspirators or merely a Pauline-Kaelish “Everybody knows the right way to vote” crowd of right-thinking fen. They were invulnerable to anything other than injecting a large number of non-right-thinking fen and having them vote for alternate works.

            This, sadly, is a variant of the Worst Argument In the World, and I’m having a hard time believing so many intelligent, thoughtful SF/F fans are using it so blatantly.

        3. Kevin, I don’t think you read the post I linked to. There is no way a rational person can look at that and come to the conclusion “people just like the same things!” If exactly 40 people out of 200 vote for two wildly different books and an editor who have no connections aside from being part of the SJW circle, the chances of this occurring randomly are akin to those of winning the lottery.

          Either that, or you don’t believe in mathematics and probability, or something like Benford’s Law and Zipf’s Theorem in characterizing randomness.

          Again, here are the numbers from the cited article;

          “They talk to one another on a regular basis and arrange things like this outcome in 2008.

          43 Best Fan Writer John Scalzi
          41 Best Novel The Last Colony John Scalzi
          40 Best Novel Halting State Charles Stross

          That’s quite the coincidence, considering that Larry, Brad, and I were accused of bloc voting in 2014 with the following outcome.

          184 Best Novel Warbound Larry Correia
          111 Best Novella The Chaplain’s Legacy Brad Torgersen
          092 Best Novelette The Exchange Officers Brad Torgersen
          069 Best Novelette Opera Vita Aeterna Vox Day

          What looks more like a bloc vote to you? Oh, and speaking of 2014, let’s not forget this:

          120 Best Novel Neptune’s Brood Charles Stross
          127 Best Novella Equoid Charles Stross
          118 Best Novelette Lady Astronaut of Mars Mary Kowal

          Again, what looks more like a bloc vote to you? Are we seriously supposed to believe that a 115-vote variance is an invalid bloc vote, but 9-vote and 3-vote variances that are limited to SJW authors published by Tor are just a pair of freakish coincidences involving the same group of closely connected authors six years apart?”

          1. You are seeing a conspiracy where none exists. Correlation does not equal causation.

            And I assure you that if there had been such organized blocs, i.e. the same 41 people had voted for The Last Colony and Halting State, we would have learned about it. And I can tell you right now that I personally nominated Halting State and did not nominate The Last Colony.

            One thing I’ve learned from the years of Hugo-watching is that there always odd random fluctuations like that. What there almost never are is a run of the exact same ballot repeated over and over again from multiple people.

          2. Halting State is my all-time favorite novel. Much as I like Stross (and was an early nominator of his work), I didn’t nominate The Last Colony because I hadn’t read it yet.

            Last year, I didn’t nominate any of the three works you mention; I was late in getting around to reading them.

    2. I have been far less interested in selection from the past several years than in the current selections. I am curious as to how many of these you have read? It is impossible to judge if you haven’t actually paid attention to these entries.

  4. Looks like a good list with a lot of familiar names. Congrats to the finalists. They should be proud.

    1. I agree. Some of the authors are unknown to me but I am looking up synopses on them and reading what I can get from my library. Sorry that it won’t include all of them but honestly, I couldn’t stand Ancillary Justice so that is won’t that I won’t even look for. Wish I could get the fanzines!

  5. While I get confused about awards I think what negative people get upset about is the nature of the awards itself. It is after all a ballot award and doesn’t necessarily got to the best story of the year. A ballot system doesn’t guarantee this. So those who get upset or narky about who is on the list simply do not understand how it works.

    We all know lobbying for votes takes place, and the system allows this and encourages this, it has to, otherwise no one would pay attention to the awards.

    Do I like the list of works through out the short list? It is okay, and representative of the year in the genre. Yes there are probably better works not on the list, but the process is not really about seeking out the best work possible to win. A ballot system doesn’t work like that and understanding this would at least take some of the stream away from those who are being bad spirited.

    I wish all the short listed creators well and the highest vote getter will win the awards. You don’t have to agree with it but it is how the system works. Can the system be improved – maybe, but it would take some serious change after even more serious consideration. So while the Hugos are still a lobby system, as with politics, we just continue to support it efforts, the authors and creators, and also the memory of the man whose name this award is after.

  6. I like that two of the books just really liked made it. The Goblin Emperor and Lines of Departure are both great.

    1. Yep, Lines of Departure was awesome. I can’t wait until Kloos (sp?) finishes the next in the series.

  7. Jim Butcher is a heck of an author. I started The Dresden Files in mid-2013, caught up around March of last year, and then the wait for Skin Game was interminable. Totally worth it, though, and awesome to see it in the finals.

  8. From a first timer: The list looks great even though several of my nominations didn’t make the cut. I know I am going to have fun reading the stuff I haven’t read yet.

    Congratulations to all the nominees.

  9. Congratulations to all the nominees. I love these nominations as they are not only deserved but for the first time, since I have been following this award, fairly diverse in publisher and in alleged political affiliations. I say congratulations Hugo voters for voting against political intolerance and special interests. I love some of these authors works.

  10. Pingback: Wha Happened? |
  11. I’m so excited for Mr. Antonelli! I met him just today and he was the nicest person I’ve ever met. A good writer, too. I’m reading “Letters from Gardner” right now and I love it. I haven’t read the other authors but the other authors have to be just as excellent or better, if possible.

  12. Thank you so much, Hugo folks, on behalf of myself and my husband (John C. Wright). We are still in awe and feel quite humbled.

    I am also do delighted that Jim Butcher made the list!

  13. Bit of a sci-fi community outsider here. Lot of complaining about there being “right-wingers” or stupid stuff like that on the comments. Whatever happened to judging books and authors by their merits? Why inject politics somewhere where they dont belong? the art of writing should be treated like craftsmanship. If you mix politics into it, you dilute the art itself. If I go to a restaurant, I don’t care if the cook has different political opinions from me. I care about the quality of the food.

    1. Because the Social Justice crowd hates the concept of meritocracy. Ars gratia artis is anathema to them; since culture is socially constructed, they claim, all expressions of that culture may serve only one purpose: the advancement of social justice.

  14. It would be interesting to know how the list of nominees compares to the list of actual top sellers, for this and previous years.

  15. That’s more the Theodore “Can’t win so rig the game” Beale awarding spin.

  16. My current reading list is based on Hugo Award nominated authors that have writings that are in the public domain.
    I read this blog and commented because of the current news worthy discontent and conflict in the 2015 nominations.
    My thanks to the members selections, I do not recognize any of them.

  17. Pingback: 10 Hugo Thoughts
  18. Kevin’s probably said this already better than I can, but just in case some of those of you upthread still think that the problem is about not liking the authors / editors / films / fanzines etc etc on list: it isn’t. It’s about a group (probably of around 200 people) who have gamed the nomination process by slavishly voting for one set of nominees that have been put forward by a couple of people disgruntled that their favourite authors never seem to end up on ballots. And because of that nearly all of their nominations have ended up on the ballot. Note that this wasn’t a case of people saying “we think these stories we think are worth voting for”, it was a case of “these are the nominations you should make”.

    I actually quite like to make my own mind up about what I think should end up on a Hugo ballot. I don’t like people telling me who I should vote for. The real danger here is that if the sad / rabid puppy slate succeeds, we’ll be in a position where rival slates will be produced and people will feel that they have to vote for one or the other based on matters other than whether the nominees are deserving or not.

    I leave it to individuals to figure out for themselves how to stop such nonsense.

    1. One man’s nonsense is another man’s shot across the bow to wake people up.

      You keep talking about ‘slate’, just like all the others that don’t like what SP did. Kinda like when “gravitas” suddenly became a catchword a couple of elections ago. The word was mentioned once, and then parroted endlessly.

      Have you read the reasons behind what SP did on their sites? Have you taken a look at who’s controlled the process for the last twenty years by running the publishing houses, the magazines, the online sites and blogs?

      Have you looked into possible vote corruption like Larry Correia did, using his skills and as an accountant and verified that the committee wasn’t wrong, but the process/program by outsiders before it got to the Hugo’s was the problem?

      No one from SP said “You should vote for these” as you say. The put forth a list of who they liked. Others, individuals with their own minds, picked who they like. Much like the rather insulated former Hugo voters of years past. So, why is is wrong for one group to “game” the system, though they did nothing wrong, but the other to control a limited pool of who you get to choose from? Same difference, one just does it openly, and the other group does it with a wink and a nod and a thumbs up before it gets to Hugo.

      And then there’s the whole “well, this has been the system for years now”. yeah, and so was Jim Crow, and so was women denied the vote. So was gay marriage being illegal, or interracial marriage being illegal.

      Discerning minds will make their own choices. And a discerning group decided that it was time to stand up and be counted rather than brushed aside with a condescending attitude and being told to “play nice and we’ll let you sit at the children’s table” point of view.

      Sometimes you knock over the cart to get the donkey’s attention.

      1. Just a few points as I can see that we’re not going to agree on this.

        1) Yes, I’ve read several of the blogs supporting the Sad / Rabid Puppies. I see people complaining about social justice warriors. I see quite a bit of fairly nasty racist and sexist writing. And I also see a fair few people complaining that the books they love never get on the ballot. I would suggest that such people disavow their political and discriminatory colleagues and start campaigning for their favourite books instead.

        2) I just don’t understand this need to assume that just because your favourite books don’t end up on the ballot there’s a conspiracy going on somewhere. My favourite books tend not to end up on the list either. I don’t make that assumption. My assumption is that I’m getting older and tastes in SF are changing. Kevin has confirmed that in the past there has been no block voting to anywhere near the extent that has happened this year. You can choose not to believe him, but I’m not sure why you wouldn’t.

        3) You may have picked and chosen who you liked. It’s clear from the ballot that most people voted as a block. There wouldn’t have been the result we have if they hadn’t.

        And finally that last sentence is very close to “I don’t like the things you like so I’m going to have a tantrum and destroy the whole thing for everyone this year”.

  19. Let me say this, in the past, I’ve bought two author’s that I knew were Hugo award winners, Spider Robinson and Roger Zelazny. And there was a prominent Hugo Award label on the cover of those cheap little paperbacks all those years ago. I knew Hugo was an award, but didn’t know much about it other than it covered up some crazy artwork on Callahan’s Lady, which kinda irked, but that’s okay.

    Because of Larry Correia’s work in MHI and the Grimnoir series, I looked up his stuff. Imagine that, a reader of scifi following an author to find even more work by other authors, and finding the Hugo’s again. Getting interested, and doing a little background research. And I am just one person.

    The numbers brought in, the interest generated by this for a faded award (sorry if that hurts feelings, but for me it was, and I suspect I’m not alone), a rekindled spark…isn’t that what people were calling for…for years now? You may not like the method, it may destroy your starship enterprise c , but then you get enterprise d.

    Change is what is being accomplished, and that is always scary to those “in charge”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.