2015 Hugo Awards

2015 Hugo Award TrophyPresented at: Sasquan, Spokane, Washington, USA on 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




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. 5,950 valid final ballots were cast by the members of Sasquan. For the full breakdown of voting and nomination see here (PDF).

Presentation of Best Novel at the 2015 Hugo Awards Ceremony

Making the Hugo Award trophy base (by Matthew Dockrey)

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.



605 thoughts on “2015 Hugo Awards

  1. Pretty awful the awards administrators failed to act to stop the ballot stuffing. An awards program/show, even a long-standing one like the Hugo, can die quickly if it is corrupted or even merely co-opted for commercial advantage. The awards lose credibility. Those people who choose based on the awards will go to alternative, more trustworthy sources. I give these awards one more cycle before they die if the ballot stuffing is not stopped firmly and very publicly next year. I say this with great sadness, as I have chosen novels and authors to read based on the Hugo for many years.

    1. Eric:

      Every member who cast a ballot had the right under the rules to cast that ballot. Therefore, the Award Administrators could not disqualify any ballots. Doing so would be saying that the Administrators get to decide whose decisions are better than others, and this sort of activism in the Administration of the Hugo Awards is frowned upon. Unless you are saying that the Administrators should be allowed to decide what works should be allowed to actually be nominated, it’s up to the members of WSFS who have paid their membership dues to decide what works should be on the Hugo Awards ballot and what the rules for the Hugo Awards should be.

      1. No, we are saying that slate-voting should be banned. Legitimate votes will always be drowned out by slate voting, because legitimate voters will be dispersed amongst as wide number of choices (that is, they will vote for what they actually enjoy) so that a small number of slate-voters concentrating on the proposed slate will almost always outnumber them.

        If slate-voting is tolerated, the Hugos will die. Period.

        1. If you can come up with a technical way to detect “slate voting” that doesn’t amount to “You can tell when you see it,” let us know. Many people in WSFS have devoted a lot of effort to doing so. Methods that require individual Administrators to arbitrarily decide which ballots to count are subject to significant abuse.

          1. David and Eric; Kevin is right. You both haven’t thought this through. You’ve slammed the Hugo administrators for not “stopping the ballot stuffing” when in fact the admins followed the rules to the letter. Had they done otherwise they’d have been castigated for breaking those rules. Do you imagine that anyone who paid attention this year didn’t notice that the Hugo Award nominations had been hijacked? If so, I’m afraid that it’s you who weren’t paying attention. Please stop blaming the Hugo Admins, and if you’re really concerned about the integrity of the Awards, then start joining the Worldcons, read the posted rules, and get involved in the process. Fandom doesn’t need any more “armchair quarterbacks”, we need participants.

          2. As a loser this year, I would like to once again thank the committee itself for its scrupulous neutrality and integrity.

            It is unfortunate other parties chose not to follow that lead.

          3. Michael Z. Williamson says:
            August 23, 2015 at 00:50

            As a loser this year, I would like to once again thank the committee itself for its scrupulous neutrality and integrity.

            It is unfortunate other parties chose not to follow that lead.

            Thank you for supporting the integrity of the process.

          4. Um . . . look at *publicly published* slates like the rabid puppy slate and disqualify any ballot which matches it, or nearly matches it?

            Slate voting only works when the slate is made public, which should make it remarkably *easy* to detect.

          5. What’s a slate? What if someone publicly recommends just one or two or three books?

            What if someone publicly recommends voting “No Slate” out of spite? Oh wait, that happened and you supported it.

            Let’s face it, you want to ruin the Hugos.

        2. At least once in the past the people overseeing the Hugos decided to do exactly that. (It was before i became active in fandom, as i recall, which means pretty well back in the Neolithic Period – perhaps someone else can remember the date, which i can’t.)

          If the voters obeyed the rules, it was just as improper of them then as it would have been now.

          1. You may be referring to a case in which a series of consecutively numbered money orders accompanied a set of nominating ballots that all nominated the same relatively minor work, and spot-checks of the ballots involved determined that at least one of the people said s/he had not purchased a membership. As it happens, in a technical sense, at the time it happened, the specific action wasn’t actually prohibited (it is now), and furthermore, the Administrators did not eliminate the finalist in question. Later in the process, the finalist in question (who does not appear to have been aware of the actions taken on their behalf) withdrew the work from consideration. The Administrators scrupulously followed the rules.

          2. If ballots matching “publicly published” slates were disqualified, I could easily eliminate a single work from eligibility by “publicly publishing” permutations of slates, all of which included that work. Every ballot including the story I wished to be ineligible would match one of my permutations, and therefore be disqualified.

          1. I do not think that Dave H. is saying “anyone you don’t agree with politically shouldn’t be able to vote.” That you choose to interpret it that way says more about your opinions than Dave H.’s., I think.

      2. Anyone who votes along a political line without regard to the actual quality of the stories should be disqualified. It’s as simple as that. It wasn’t hard to see which voters were ding that when the list was public. It should have been easy to stop. It was easy to stop. Shame on everyone who didn’t stop it.

        1. Exactly right, Ash. Shame on those who no-awarded the Long-Form editors category since it was so blatantly political.

        2. Because political voting has never happened before when it was your preferred political persuasion doing the party line voting? “Some Animals are More Equal Than Others”… Despite what some think, Orwell wasn’t writing an instruction manual.

        3. Ash, your comment is foolish and thoughtless. What may seem like politics to you is likely to be a deeply held belief to someone else. You comment amounts to you claiming that *your* beliefs are obviously correct because *you* believe in them. Think about that a little, please. And if you really do think that stopping the puppy ballot stuffing should have been easy,then I challenge you to start joining the Worldcons and get involved in the process yourself. Complaints change little; work changes everything. Are you ready to back up your words with action?

          1. You can’t keep calling it ballot stuffing when it was a group of people who read books and nominated what they liked. You could call that organizing. You could call that bringing new blood into a stagnant award situation. Not ballot stuffing.
            Ballot stuffing is when one person submits multiple ballots during a vote in which only one ballot per person is permitted. The name originates from the earliest days of this practice in which people literally did stuff more than one ballot in a ballot box at the same time

        4. And how do you “Simply” determine that intent, vs quality, which is a QUALITATIVE matter, and therefore subjective?

          You demonstrate, sir, exactly the problem. In fact, you typify it.

      3. What about the anti-slate campaigning? It’s pretty obvious that it worked considering Vox Day got nothing along with editors and writers who were on the SP list or who are known to be politically in the right. That’s just as much ballot stuffing. Or is that easy to ignore because you agree with it?

        1. There was a general agreement that slates were not acceptable. Most people I’ve seen commenting say they read the nominated works, found them not up to scratch.
          I feel somewhat sorry for those people who were not grade-A assholes, and yet found themselves to be political footballs, but frankly, if you allow yourself to be used as they did, then they have to live with that.

      1. I don’t see why. Every person who voted had a membership and exercised his/her right to vote, just like all of the members who exercised their right to nominate works under the rules. No rules have been broken. The members have always had the right to reject the choices of the people who made the nominations. This is not a recent innovation.

        1. I got a supporting membership and at least attempted to read every single nominated work. I wasn’t able to get through more than a chapter or two of some of them, but sufficient to form an opinion.

          I voted “No Award” on more than one category, because I honestly felt that the nominated works were simply not of the quality of work that I think should win a Hugo. I know quite a few people who did the same.

      2. I certainly entered a few, but not many “no award” votes–not for political reasons, but after reading every single fiction entry and determining that, IMO, some items weren’t award worthy. Unfortunately my “no awards” fell well below where the bulk of voters placed them, and I am disappointed that editors and professional artists in particular seemed to bear the brunt of voter disapproval.

        The Hugo awards are a popularity contest–books and writers that fans enjoy move to the top. It is impossible to place “quality” assessments on opinions, and I don’t think there is any way within the current rules to even try. None of my votes came out on top, so obviously popularity took priority over quality 😉 You can be sure I will be nominating next year!

    2. – “I say this with great sadness, as I have chosen novels and authors to read based on the Hugo for many years.”

      I have also used the Hugo (and Nebula) award as a marker for these past 20 years…

      At All Costs, avoid reading anything or anyone Hugo nominated or winner.

      The awards have no credibility now.

    3. Eric, please understand what you are accusing others of and understand why you are wrong in that accusation:
      Ballot stuffing is when one person submits multiple ballots during a vote in which only one ballot per person is permitted. The name originates from the earliest days of this practice in which people literally did stuff more than one ballot in a ballot box at the same time.

  2. Congratulations to Thomas Olde Heuvelt for: Best Novelette : “The Day the World Turned Upside Down”,

  3. Ah, Greg, I see you are confusing civil discussion and angry poo flinging. In a civil discussion people do not call each other names (like Special Snowflakes) and use capitalization on words that don’t require them. Angry poo flinging is when you shout and call other people names and drag up all sorts of things that weren’t in the original disagreement.

    When the other person just is flinging poo, the person looking for a civil discussion is rightly disgusted and insulted.

  4. I am writing this as a neutral interested outsider from Europe (like all informed sf readers I have followed this year’s events).

    Maybe an elegant way out of the conundrum would be to give each member one negative vote (that they would place in a category of their choice), where it would be declared who certainly should not deserve an award, thus adding a negative tally to the votes. This would not eliminate, but certainly dampen the impact of political voting.

    Saying that, in Europe we have known the problem of blatant political voting for decades in the (in)famous “Concours Eurovision de la Chanson”. And yet, every year the least awful song actually seems to win. There is a lesson in there somewhere.

  5. I did some quick analysis of the non-Puppy No Award/No Pref if anyone is interested. Not too much more to be done without full vote data, and nothing more to be done until I enjoy this beautiful day 🙂

    Personally, I disagree with most of the No Awards, but I don’t think they should’ve been DQ’ed. Kevin has it right.

    Also, big thanks to Kevin for the liveblog of the awards and to everyone for their org and planning work!

      1. The voting data is under the management of the individual Hugo Award Administrators at the 2015 Worldcon, Sasquan, not the Hugo Awards web site. You must contact the 2015 Hugo Award Administrators at the 2015 Worldcon to request that information.

  6. How about a two stage nominating process. First step as at present, second, take the top thirty or so and have finalist ballot of that. Some categories now are so full that winnowing would concentrate minds.

  7. No nomination and voting system can ever be perfected as long as votes – one or many – can simply be purchased. Only those limited to a qualifying body of voters can be made sensible… and not always then.

  8. John,

    I thought that’s what all the Hare Krishna stuff was all about – and it apparently worked. The results were “blessed” and came out the way they should have.

  9. I’m so surprised The Three Body Problem could be the best novel through the war of puppies. I hope puppies could stop their destructive behavior next year.

  10. 1) I can see the Hugo Awards are totally worthless now. If I come across any type of “Won a Hugo Award!” type of advertisement for a book I will not buy it & I will not recommend my friends to buy it either.

    2) Spokane? Really? Couldn’t you have chosen a better city? Spokane sucks! It’s nothing more than a meth infested ghetto. Then again I suppose having the Hugo Awards held there fits perfectly.

  11. I am 63 this year, and have read many of the sci-fi and fantasy classics. When I was a kid, I expected the 21st century to be a time of new enlightment; of flying cars and scientists working together for the betterment of mankind, and, definitely, space colonies.

    What do I see now? A world of politicised science, politicised education, politicised fiction, politicisation up the wazoo.

    I certainly did not expect the world to be in imminent danger of being taken over by an ideology similar in many ways to one that was defeated 70 years ago, backed by the force of religion and welcomed by many, feminists and homosexuals, who will be the first victims of that ideology when (as it seems certain now) takes control of the world.

    The world has gone mad. There is no perspective anymore. Women are complaining that they do not have equal numbers to men in industry, whilst ignoring the oppression of women by men of said ideology in their midst, due to some weird idea called “check your privilege”.

    To the point: for over 50 years, to me, the Hugo awards meant something in terms of good literature. All they mean now is that cultural Marxism has worked its way down to science fiction.

    I’m almost glad to be near the end of my life. I just fear for my children.

  12. Well… I have publicly disagreed with political voting in the past and continue to do so. The large amount of Noah Ward is disappointing, but unsurprising. I say this as somebody not afaid to vote for him ifa
    if it seems warranted (and anyone who knows me knows how liberal I am). As somebody else said – restoring the integrity of the awards requires more people to vote and nominate based off of quality and personal aesthetics.

    Congratulations to the winners.

  13. As a long time fan of SF (started reading as a schoolboy in the 1960s and had the temerity to submit BOOK REPORTS in school based on stigmatized SF!), I am sorry to see so much politics in the proceedings, but I am extremely glad to see that Orphan Black won a Hugo. This series deserves every award it can possibly get, especially from the SF community. In a year that brought us so many “NO AWARD” decisions, I am happy that enough people could vote positively for what I believe is one of the best SF series of all time — and I’ve been around long enough to see most of them, either first run or in reruns. Thank you, Hugo voters.

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.