Presented 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 #2, 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 #2: 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”
Of course racists and communists and genderists and everyone else should be allowed to promote their views via Hugo voting. You can’t censor views, no matter how awful they seem to you.
Heck, most people can’t even decide whether “vote for X because of X’s race/gender/politics!” is racist/etc.
OTOH the ease of “scorched earth” tactics of voting No Award are a bit like giving toddlers nuclear weapons. I would suggest No Award have different requirements to “win,” or that it simply be removed.
The stated point of the exercise, by Theodore Beale, was “a giant Fuck You—one massive gesture of contempt.”
Why should the actions of a small, loud group of trolls destroy something of such great worth in a single blow? No, the institution of the Hugos is certainly stronger than that, and the “No Award” votes were appropriate. Remember that this isn’t some fictitious “Social Justice Warriors” anti-troll cabal acting against Beale and the rest of the Puppies. That name was something Larry Correia invented three years ago when he started this whole mess. He needed to create an “us versus them” diatribe for his followers to motivate them not by reason, but by emotion. To succumb to this manipulation is to agree with Correia, Beale and the rest of the Puppies. No, there are no SJW’s. There are only science fiction readers who, easily recognizing that the nominations had been hijacked, simply declared that they aren’t having any of it.
The denial of Best Editor, Long Form to Toni Weisskopf was wrong. But then to cheer and encourage cheering for a “No Award” victory over this woman who has been a staunch supporter of so many authors over the years showed just how low people can stoop. If they even needed to stoop.
there were four other people in that category as well.
No Award was not directed specifically at Toni, it was directed at the manner in which she ended up on the ballot.
What you are really saying here, Dave, is “Why, when we went to so much trouble to game the system, is the majority not happy what what we did?”
Why don’t the sad, rabid or whatever puppies not game the system next year? Stop sounds good to me too.
Gamed the system. Interesting phrase. You mean people came into this awards system for the best Science Fiction and Fantasy with legitimate votes for what they felt was the best Science Fiction and Fantasy, and it was gaming the system? Or are you referring to the fact that some people talked about what they liked, and suggested people should vote for what they liked as well? I would say that ANYONE involved in the Hugos in the last few years should be jumping for joy at the amount of people who are interested in the Hugos again. Let’s look at the numbers. 2013 had 1848 valid ballots. Less than 2000 people decided the BEST SFF for the year. 2014 had 3587 valid ballots. That is a nice little bump in interest for SFF. Hooray! 2015 had 5950 valid ballots! Over FOUR THOUSAND more people are involved in deciding what is the best SFF for this last year! If the purpose of SFF is inclusiveness and progress, then the Sad Puppies campaign has done wonders for this community. Without breaking any rules, just getting people interested in the Hugos again. And if you look at that and say, “Well, those are the wrong kind of people to vote,” then maybe you need to do some soul-searching and admit that you don’t really want diversity. There are many definitions of diversity. I like this one: policy of encouraging tolerance for people of different backgrounds. Do you want to be a part of a policy that encourages tolerance, or do you want to continue to complain about all of these unwanted people voting for your award?
What’s your point? Every single member of WSFS who wanted to vote had his/her vote counted. Nobody was prohibited from voting. Are you suggesting that anyone who wanted to buy a membership in WSFS and vote was prohibited from doing so? A large number of people joined WSFS and expressed their opinion that all of the finalists in five categories were not worthy of the organization’s highest honor. There’s nothing wrong with this, and it’s completely within the organization’s rules, just as it was within the rules for many like-minded people to nominate works that they liked, no matter how much other people disliked them.
Nothing prohibited by the WSFS rules has happened. The members of WSFS acted in an open, democratic manner, in a system whose rules are open and public, and that can be changed if enough member of the organization want them to change. There’s no secret cabal or shadowy Board of Directors making the decisions.
Are you suggesting that anyone who wanted to buy a membership in WSFS and vote was prohibited from doing so?
No Kevin, I am not. Please don’t attribute an idea to me that is false and then go on a two paragraph explanation of why I am wrong. I agree with everything you said. I was reply DIRECTLY to DOT who said:
“Why don’t the sad, rabid or whatever puppies not game the system next year? Stop sounds good to me too.”
Then read my comment to her telling her that NOBODY was GAMING THE SYSTEM. Once you’ve done that, then read your comment to me and see how it was very obviously misdirected, since I have been saying that the people voting deserve to vote and have their opinion heard.
More voters did not technically see better results. Yes the issue of No Award actually pushed out deserving category winners. I think this is a frustration felt by those authors and a bad taste left on the award this year.
There has been an awful lot of chest beating lead up and exit the Hugos and watching from Australia it has been troublesome. I suppose what was highlighted was how the awards could get manipulated, or more to the truth, steered in a direction wanted by a lobby group or dedicated group of people.
I think that has been my own personal issue with the Hugos, and other such vote awards around the world is how lobbying is allowed and can influence what is seen is good or of high standing.
Vote, or fan awards are not really for the best of the year, or the outstanding works of the year, but more a popular vote. Yes, we have been blessed with some outstanding works actually making those top positions, but I do recall when Calculating God by Robert J Sawyer (which took a big wack of first votes) lost to Harry Potter on Fifth level votes. I suppose I saw that as a bit of a slap in the face to Mr Sawyer. But that is the system in place and it will take strong minds and determination to tune it again to be more representative of quality over simply fanish quirks. That is just my opinion folks, it isn’t a wide spread on and it is personal, so it will very well be flawed, no doubt.
I don’t think anyone can shout hoorah! I think all can just be thankful the damage wasn’t greater.
What, specifically, had she done that merited an award? What book or books had she done such a stellar job editing that she ought to have won for it?
The link to the “full breakdown of voting and nomination” PDF seems to be broken.
Fixed. Thanks for letting us know.
You’re welcome. And thanx!
an excellent comment!
I’ll confess I left the editor choices on my ballot blank, because I’m not sure what criteria one would use to judge the job an editor does.
I suppose a product riddled with grammatical and other errors would be a good reason to vote against. Beyond that, I’m not sure. Do I vote because I like the selection of stories in an anthology? If the editor edits books, do I vote for or against the editor because I like or dislike the story?
What criteria do you use when evaluating whether an editor is Hugo-worthy?
And on the flip side of that, what criteria mark an editor as so substandard that his or her defeat deserves to be cheered?
Both of these might be useful guidance for next year’s voting. TIA
Vox Day put out a book with two chapter 5s.
That kind of criteria.
That would cause me to question editorial competence.
Since Toni Weisskopf was mentioned, what were her sins against the art of editing?