A(n Even More) Modest Proposal for Hugo Reform

I've previously weighed in on reforming the Hugo award categories, on the following grounds:

• Awards, whenever possible, should be given to works and collections of works rather than individuals.
• Criteria for inclusion in any given category should be clear, intuitive and reflect practical understandings of how the field is structured, rather than be path dependent to existing conventions.  
• Following up on that, reform proposals shouldn't just add categories, but also subtract those that no longer reflect how the field is structured. 

For the most part, I stick to the recommendations made in 2015. That said, it's clear that this kind of comprehensive overhaul is unlikely to ever happen. As such, I have a few actionable proposals that could possibly happen:


1. Unburden Readers in the Fiction Categories

Last time around, I suggested adding a category for Best Anthology/Collection and getting rid of Best Novelette. I suggested this because anthologies and collections play an important role in the field, while very few non-professionals think in terms of novel/novella/novelette/story (and instead think in terms of novel/novella/story).

I still think this is a very sensible change. However, I understand that there are many people--professionals, mostly, but also hardcore readers of short fiction--for whom axing novelette would be a bridge too far. Thus I'd suggest the following as a sensible and practical half-measure:

Require all periodicals and anthologies to publish word counts as a prerequisite for consideration. 

While this does not address the issue of mismatch between existing categories and prevalent conceptions of the structure of the field, it does at least make life easier for voters and vote tally-ers alike, while potentially rendering the nonintuitive, intuitive.


2. Add a Category for Original Anthologies/Collections

Putting together a cohesive, high quality anthology or collection of stories is a skill that, frankly, the Hugos should recognize. I'd suggest limiting the award to original anthologies and collections, rather than anthologies and collections of previously published works.


3. Replace Best Semiprozine with Categories that Better Reflect the Field 

Outside WorldCon insiders and hardcore Hugo-obsessives, does anyone know what a "semiprozine" is? Do they care? The answers to these questions, unsurprisingly, are "no and no."

But the category's problems don't end there. I's ridiculous to ask voters (and vote tally-ers) to distinguish who is in or out of that category based on the amorphous criteria of "being professional" and how editorial staff are paid. And it's strange--to say the least--that the field's leading periodicals aren't up for an award of their own. So let's all get rid of this nonsensical award category and replace it with something more sensible and interesting.

Here I'm narrowing the suggestions in 2.0:

Get rid of Best Semiprozine, and replace it with:

1. Best Fiction Periodical (SFWA Qualifying Professional)
2. Best Fiction Periodical (Non-SFWA Qualifying Professional) 

While the SFWA is technically an organization for US writers, at this point it's membership is fairly global. And I'm not suggesting that certification by SFWA should be the criteria for inclusion in the former category, but rather whether the periodical--over the previous calendar year--has paid writers by the industry standard set by SFWA (currently $0.06 per word). Which, I'll note, is publicly available information.

In this scheme, popular online magazines like Lightspeed or Strange Horizons would compete with their print magazine peers, like F&SF and Asimov's. This makes a lot more sense to me than the way things look right now.


4. Ditch the Editor Awards

If we are granting an award to anthologists and expanding the fiction periodical categories from one to two, then really there's no reason to give out an award to short-form editors. As I've argued before, awards work better when they are given out for works or collections of work rather than people, as people awards almost inevitably become "lifetime achievement" awards rather than "stuff done in previous calendar year" awards.

And while we are at it, let's get rid of Best Editor - Long Form, since very few people know who edits what, and publishing companies are often not forthcoming with that information. Besides, aren't the editors already awarded via Best Novel?

***

That's it for now. Or, at least, that's all I'm going to stress for now. Hopefully one or more of these merits consideration at the business meeting.  -G

HUGOPOCALYPSE II: Where Do We Go From Here?

WorldCon just premiered Hugopocalypse II, and guess what--it's almost as depressing as the first one. Sure Best Novel, Novella and Semiprozine are pretty good, but the rest is bad. A few categories, like Best Related Work, Best Fanzine and Best Fan Writer, are out and out shitshows.

...which brings us to the inevitable question of where we go from here. Interested parties may suggest and debate various rules changes, which they most assuredly will. But at this point I think we all have to admit that voter mobilization works and is here to stay. It's just too easy to do.

So I'm looking at the Hugos and seeing two viable paths. First, a counter-mobillization. Second, looking for a more productive use of time and money. Right now I'm strongly considering the latter.


"But wait--wouldn't disengaging just give them what they want?"

Maybe, but I suspect what they really want to do is create a conflict situation, because that's worldview affirming. Last year's repudiation of the slate-derived nominees had moral authority precisely because it wasn't tied to an alternative, politically-inspired slate. It was fans standing up to the conflict entrepreneurs who were imposing their bullshit culture wars frame on the rest of us.

This year is kind of different, and kind of not. The Sad Puppies dropped the slate and made a recommended reading list instead. Though some people disagree, I thought their new approach was a move in the right direction--away from conflict entrepreneurship and toward something more constructive. I appreciate that.

The Rabid Puppies, on the other hand…well, it's more complicated. Yes, in some ways they also changed tack, insofar as they included titles with non-puppy appeal (including some that are written by or reflect a left-wing politics). I did a quick count in the fiction categories and concluded that 9/20 of their nominees would appeal to voters outside that clique. That's a significant difference from last year. And the rhetoric seemed toned down too. That's all good, in my book.

[Plus I have to admit that nominating Space Raptor Butt Invasion is kind o funny.]

On the other hand, unlike the SPs, the RPs still presented a slate (despite the unconvincing boilerplate statement to the contrary). So outside the popular categories, it's pretty much all RP all the time. And this is the big problem for me, because the clear message is "organize or be rendered irrelevant."

Like I said last year, I don't want the Hugos to be an annual rerun of the US presidential election. That already takes up too much oxygen as it is, and the Hugos are supposed to be about fans celebrating the best stuff they discovered over the previous year--not voting in lockstep to further someone's agenda. So I won't back any proposed counter-slates--not even one that reflected my exact political worldview (and it's very doubtful that any would). I want nothing to do with that--nothing at all.

On the other hand, what's the point of voting in a one party system?


"Fine. But where do we go from here, then?"

Every year I ask myself if I should just defect to the Locus Awards. After all, the categories much better and I really like the nominating system, which limits the possibility of slating. And in truth my issues with the Hugos run far deeper than recent events--most notably the nonsensical categories and the tribal voting patterns, which often devolve into a contest over who has the most dedicated following. (And yes, this is one area where I broadly agree with Larry Correia, who started the whole puppy thing. On the other hand, I find his analysis of how and why it happens way off base, and categorically reject his solution.)

Unfortunately, the Locus Awards don't have the fan categories, and this is where the slates have done the most damage. So those of us who see value in the fan awards need to figure out a way to salvage them, or recreate them in a way that's relatively immune to slating. I don't claim to have a solution myself, but if you do, then I'm listening.

As for the Hugos, I guess I'm not quite ready to cut my losses yet. And I'll definitely wait and see what happens with the final ballot voting. But I am going to think long and hard over whether this is a good use of money and time, and if the answer is "no," then so be it.


***

POSTED BY: The G--purveyor of nerdliness, genre fanatic and Nerds of a
Feather founder/administrator, since 2012. 


   

Assessing the Hugo Reform Proposals

There are currently three proposals for Hugo reform that will be discussed at the Sasquan business meeting. None are in the ballpark of the comprehensive reforms I've suggested, but are at least attempts to rationalize and/or streamline areas of the Hugo process that are either inefficient, inexplicable or path dependent to older models of the SF/F field. Here I assess their merits.


1. The "4 and 6" Proposal

Summary: This rule change would alter the way nominations work. Under the current system, voters can nominate up to 5 selections per category. Usually 5 selections/category are shortlisted, though there are scenarios in which it can be more or less. (For a full explanation, read this.) If 4/6 is adopted, however, voters will only be able to pick 4 selections/category, while the eventual shortlist will include 6 selections/category.

Analysis: 4/6 is being touted in some corners as a solution to slate voting. It isn't, as two highly correlated slates could easily account for 5 if not all 6 selections. Yet while the system would remain gameable, 4/6 would at least reduce the prospects for domination by any given slate. Just as importantly, 4/6 would potentially open the door for some riskier selections to make the shortlists.

Verdict: I support this proposal as is.


2. Proposal to Eliminate the 5% Threshold for Shortlisting

Summary: As it stands, a nominee must appear on at least 5% of all nominating ballots in its category in order to be shortlisted. Thus if only 4 short stories appear on 5+% of nominating ballots in that category, only 4 short stories will appear on the shortlist. This proposal would do away with that requirement.

Analysis: The 5% rule has never made sense to me. Sure, it can impose a semblance of order in parliamentary systems where there are 80 political parties, but this is not that. I fail to see any advantage to the 5% rule. Plus it's necessary to remove this in order for 4/6 to function correctly.

Verdict: I support this proposal as is.


3. Proposal to Replace Best Novelette with Best Saga

Summary: A Best Saga category is proposed in order to award series rather than individual volumes; it is further proposed that the Best Novelette category be removed in order to "make room." Under the new scheme, a short story would be anything with a 0-10k word count, and a novella would be anything with a 10k-40k word count. It is proposed that qualifying sagas have at least a 400k word count over multiple volumes. A given saga is also eligible in every year that a new volume is published. 

Analysis: I applaud the bold effort at reform, and to bring the awards in line with the structure of the field as it stands today. As I've argued before, novelette is a relic from the time when most SF/F filtered through short fiction magazines, while the growing emphasis on multivolume series (especially but not exclusively in fantasy) suggests that popular awards like the Hugos might want to get with the times if they want to retain their cultural relevance. But I don't think this proposal presents the solution.

To begin, the Hugo voters have often been perfectly content to award the same things over and over again. Recall that, during a 30-year period, David Langford won Best Fan Writer a whopping 21 times. Or, more recently, when Best Related Work was essentially "Best Episode of Dr. Who." If we are going to have an award for Best Saga, it would make sense if a series were deemed ineligible after winning. That would insure against "Best David Langford Syndrome."

Then there's the issue of whether it's necessary to "make room" for Best Saga by cutting Best Novelette. I did indeed propose getting rid of Best Novelette in my reform proposal, but to be replaced by Best Original Anthology or Collection--which is, in essence, a short fiction award. That said, I do not oppose, in principle, altering the ratio of short to long-form fiction categories from the current 3:1 to 2:2--it isn't the 1970s anymore, after all. Nevertheless, I do believe that there has to be a better payoff than this specific proposal promises, and wonder--as some others have--whether there might not be other categories that could be eliminated first. Like Best Editor (Long Form)--an award that seems awfully remote from the world of non-professionals. (And the Hugos are fan awards, first and foremost.)

Don't take that as a ringing endorsement of Best Novelette--I still think it should go, but in the context of more comprehensive Hugo reforms that would: (a) eliminate all awards for individuals (rather than works or collections of works; (b) create categories that scale with consistency; and (c) rationalize/modernize the categories themselves. But, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I don't want to cut down an apple tree if I can't be sure that this other seed will ever produce oranges.

Verdict: I do not support this proposal in its present form. However, I urge everyone to keep an open mind and not just circle the wagons. I look forward to a vigorous debate both on Best Saga's and Best Novelette's merits, and may support an amended form of the proposal (depending on how it evolves). In making such assessments, I will be looking for compelling arguments that are divorced from self-interest, which aim to make the Hugo Awards most reflective of the field as it stands, and which are backed by data--whether quantitative or anecdotal. To date I have seen little that fit these criteria. However, I am sure some will emerge.

***

POSTED BY: The G--purveyor of nerdliness, genre fanatic and Nerds of a
Feather founder/administrator (2012).





 

Final Words on #Hugowank

I’ve written and tossed two versions of this already—including one that extensively deconstructed the various puppy claims. But other people have already done this, and I doubt one more would do anything other than stir the pot one more time. And who needs that, really? So I’m going to try to do something different here.

See, while I’m utterly frustrated by the current situation, I’m also the kind who thinks it’s better to dial it down than dial it up when things get too heated. That doesn’t mean accepting bullshit—like, say, watching the individual who wrote this publicly claim that someone else has committed slander or libel, and then have a major publishing house take it seriously. But it does entail remembering that not everyone who sympathizes with the puppy campaign is cut from the same cloth, as well as considering that maybe it’s time to try to shift the discourse in a more constructive direction.

Because I’ve had it with all the negativity and recrimination. Like many people, I’m utterly frustrated by the transformation of a field that most of us enter as a pastime into yet another tiresome battleground in the so-called “culture wars”—a dynamic that, of course, only benefits the most deeply committed culture warriors. I like having cordial, measured conversations with people who don’t see the world through the same lens as me, yet that is increasingly difficult to do when everyone’s supposed to pick a side. And, again, I am not alone in this: most people I’ve spoken to are just as frustrated by the posturing, pontificating, attention-seeking, rabble-rousing, logrolling, dog-piling WANK of it all.

So maybe—just maybe—it’s time to pull the plug on #Hugowank. Here’s how I’m planning to do that (for myself):


1. Isolate and address the legitimate grievances

The sad version claims its campaign is really about sticking up for fun and/or commercial and/or pulpy and/or conservative and/or apolitical science fiction and fantasy against the onslaught of intellectual snobs and/or “social justice warriors” who have forced works of high-minded and/or message-driven and/or progressive literature on the unsuspecting masses of fandom.

Despite finding the majority of victimization claims empirically bogus, I do have some sympathy for the base-claim that popular genre is often crowded out by a specific style of literary-minded SF/F. But in short fiction, where voting pools are small and its likely that writers, editors and slush readers represent a disproportionate slice of the electorate. And it’s not the result of conspiracy but an institutional effect—a self-replicating mechanism that structures the field. Jonathan McCalmont explains how that works in these (one, two, three) articles.

For the record, I see no evidence of this in the best novel category. In fact, I see the opposite—voters rewarding novels that are, on the surface, light and breezy, but have some deeper messages if you bother to look for them. However, it’s not necessary to do that if you just want fun and adventure—sort of like Firefly. (Actually a lot like Firefly, come to think of it.) Plus several Hugo winners, Redshirts and Among Others in particular, are aimed directly at so-called trufans: Redshirts is a Star Trek parody and the protagonist of Among Others is literally a trufan. These are genuinely popular books, and if being a fan is a major part of your life, then there’s an even stronger chance you’ll connect with them. But New Yorker material they are not.

What's more, even if certain kinds of short fiction enjoy institutional advantages at the moment, pulpy SF/F has not been shut out. Brandon Sanderson, for example, won Best Novella in 2013 for the popular and commercial The Emperor's Soul. And though I understand Charles Stross is, for some, a demon whose recent Hugo successes haunt dreams and stalk imaginations, 2014 Novella winner "Equoid" (on Tor dot com) is actually super pulpy.

It's just that, in recent years, a disproportionate percentage of:

1. Hugo/Nebula/Locus winners in the short fiction categories
2. Selections in the annual “best of” collections
3. Stories published in the pro-paying markets (Analog excluded)

...seem to conform to a certain narrative format, where genre elements are thin but literalized and employed as a metaphor through which to explore emotional or psychological issues. These are all connected, and reinforce one another. Voters are more likely to nominate works in high-prestige markets, while high-prestige markets are more likely to publish works that look like award-winners. Over time, in such an environment, writers are more likely to shift toward the successful narrative models, as these are the ones that will advance their careers. The institutional structure thus provides clear incentives for narrative convergence.

Is this a problem? Depends on your perspective. Jonathan McCalmont thinks so; Jodie from Lady Business does not. I’m somewhere in-between: I like a lot of literary-minded SF/F, including stories where genre elements are thin and literalized, and routinely complain that the novel categories for the major awards aren’t daring or literary-minded enough (see, for example, me griping about this year’s Nebula (best novel) shortlist). And some recent award winners have been flat-out great, like Pat Cadigan's "The Girl-Thing Who Went Out for Sushi" (in Edge of Infinity) or Aliette de Bodard's "Immersion" (in Clarkesworld).

But I'm also convinced that the narrative convergence described above is underway (in the prestige circles that matter for short fiction), and I don’t think convergence--on any style--is healthy. In any given year there are really worthy examples of pulp SF/F, or SF/F that is high-minded or literary but doesn’t adhere to the literalized metaphor model. And I’d like to see that kind of stuff get more serious consideration—from editors, publishers, readers and Hugo/Nebula/Locus voters—than it has over the past few years. For the record that includes stuff that puppies like on stylistic grounds, as well as stuff puppies dislike on political grounds.

[Editor's Note: for clarity's sake, this is not a justification or rationalization of any puppy claims. Please see my reply to Jonathan M. below for further explication.]

 
2. Just say no to slates

The puppies claim they want to broaden the field too, though in reality slates like theirs reduce narrative diversity, impose severe limitations on what's chosen and, as such, work against that stated goal. So we here at ‘nerds of a feather, flock together’ are hereby adopting a strong anti-slate position.

Why? Because if slates are bullshit, and this year proves that they are, then I don’t want to be part of the problem—even tangentially. I mean, the Hugos are supposed to be a celebration of what we love. It’s supposed to be about individual fans selecting the things that moved or excited them, and any ballot or shortlist published while voting is on going potentially encroaches upon the autonomy of the individual voter.

To that end, I won't tell you who I've voted for this year's awards until after voting closes. As for next year, we’ll be publishing a longlist instead of a shortlist, one that draws on the whole ‘nerds of a feather' team’s reading/consumption experiences over the previous calendar year, and which provides at least 15 suggestions in every category we decide to comment on. We won’t recommend that anyone do anything other than read/consume the things we put on it, and we won’t lend support to anyone else’s efforts to sway voting.

We do, of course, reserve the right to thank anyone who sees fit to include us on their own lists, or mention that someone else’s list fits our various definitions of “good.” We just won’t get behind any organized effort to mobilize or influence voters. No sides, no teams, no bullshit.


3. Stop feeding the wank

I'll freely admit, there have been days where I've read every last word of every last blog post that made the daily file770 roundup. Mike Glyer has done an incredible job chronicling the whole sordid affair, and indeed some of the editorializing has been quite good (hi, Spacefaring Kitten). But at some point #Hugowank achieved perfect circularity. For me the moment came when Mike linked to a tweet that referenced a comment left on a previous daily #Hugowank roundup.

So as far as I can see, there isn't very much left to say--and yes, in case you are wondering, I do recognize the irony of asserting such a thing in the midst of a long post on #Hugowank. But it's true. I could deconstruct the puppies or come up with some new, flashy acronym to describe those terrible people who don't like the same books as me (TTPWDLTSBAMs). Only what would that accomplish? And what would reading more about TTPWDLTSBAMs accomplish, for that matter?

On the other hand, I think there's much to be gained by denying oxygen to a raging flame. It's not the only way to go about one's business, but as far as I'm concerned, it's the healthier option. I'm just gonna keep doing my thing, evangelizing the stuff I think is deserving and griping about the stuff that bothers me. Don't like it? Take a number.

Of course this is going to get a lot harder to do when the results are announced. Most people I know are assuming it'll go like last year, when the puppies got a bunch of stuff nominated but had little-to-no success in the final round. But remember--a lot of people who voted last year and nominated this year, were LonCon 3 attendees who are unlikely to pay for a Sasquan supporting membership, especially in the current climate. Most British LonCon 3 members I know shifted attention back to the BFSAs this year. So while I don't think many puppy candidates will win, I suspect more will be in the running than last year. I don't think the "no award" folks are going to get their desired outcome.

(As a reminder, I do not back the "no award" campaign, but rather will only put "no award" above nominees who are also activists for one of the slates, or for works that are not appropriate for/worthy of the award they are nominated for.)


4. Keep trying to improve the Hugo system

For the past two years I’ve advocated changes in how the Hugos are set up—getting rid of or rationalizing nonsensical categories, simplifying byzantine terms of inclusion, calling for Worldcon to lower cost of voting, etc. I doubt these efforts have had much impact, in the grand scheme of things, but I’m going to keep it up as long as the Hugo categories remain the clusterfuck they are. Meanwhile, it's at least theoretically possible that a reform movement could highlight areas of common interest among those who care about the Hugos. 

Put another way, while I realize this blog has limited influence in fandom, I’m reaffirming commitment to working toward the end of rationalizing and streamlining the Hugos in a way that isn’t exclusive to the like-minded. To that end I will reach out to people who care as deeply about the Hugos--regardless of whether we read the same books or have the same politics.

That would, at least, be a small patch of common ground to stand upon.


***

POSTED BY: The G--purveyor of nerdliness, genre fanatic and 'nerds of a
feather, flock together' founder/administrator.

The Hugos (*sigh*)

Regular readers of this blog are, by now, surely aware of my issues with the Hugo Awards. The categories don’t scale, the terms of inclusion range from byzantine to straight up counter-intuitive, there are too many awards for people and, paradoxically, not enough for the creative products or ventures that we should actually be celebrating, and so forth.

But another structural issue plaguing the Hugos centers on the way selections are made. Once upon a time, you had to be an attending member of World Con to vote. But for years the World Science Fiction Society has sold “supporting memberships,” which grant access to some features of the annual World Con (including Hugo voting privileges) to those who can’t physically attend. The cost, however, is relatively high—set between $40-60 total for two annual conventions.

As a result, Hugo voting is best characterized as “semi-open.” Anyone can vote, for a price, but that price is high enough that only deeply committed individuals are actually going to vote. And who are those committed voters? SF/F obsessives, for one; people up for awards and those close to them for another. And now, clearly, that class includes foot soldiers mobilized to fight an imagined "culture war" very few science fiction and fantasy readers know about, care about or care to know about.

The past two years have illustrated just how easy it is to dominate the Hugo nominating process if you organize your pretend army. You don’t even need a lot of people, actually. Just look at the voting statistics for 2014: 100 votes would get you on the ballot for every single category save Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form. If you had a full slate, and got 100 people to vote for it in lockstep, you’d get:

1/5 Best Novel nominations
1/5 Best Novella nomination

4/5 Best Novelette nominations

4/4 Best Short Story nominations

5/5 Best Related Work nominations

4/4 Best Graphic Story nominations

0/5 Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form nominations

3/5 Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form nominations

3/5 Best Editor, Short form nominations

3/5 Best Editor, Long Form nominations

4/6 Best Professional Artist nominations

4/6 Best Semiprozine nominations

4/5 Best Fanzine nominations

7/7 Best Fancast nominations

5/5 Best Fanwriter nominations

5/5 Best Fan Artist nominations

Or, in aggregate terms, 100 voters voting in lockstep on a full slate of nominees would get you 57/82 nominations—or a full 70% of everything on the shortlist. And remember that this is with just 100 mobilized voters.

Clearly the architects of the crosscutting Sad/Rabid Puppies slates noticed this, and acted accordingly. We don’t know the actual statistics for this year’s Hugos (and won’t until August), but we do know that S/RP accounted for 61/85 shortlisted nominees, which is 72% (thanks to Mike Glyer at file770). Note the similarity between the hypothetical 70% projected for the 2014 Hugo Awards, based on 100 votes for a full slate, and the actual 72% garnered for the 2/3 full slates presented for the 2015 Hugo Awards (albeit in a year with a larger number of nominating ballots). Clearly they had more than 100 voters this year, but I doubt it was much more than that. 200? 250? Neither is a very big number.

The reason it works this way is because there’s massive diffusion in what people nominate. Tastes vary, and there is a lot of SF/F produced and consumed over a calendar year. Then you have the inevitable mistakes—nominations for books not actually published in the calendar year, nominations for books not initially published in the calendar year (e.g. The Martian), spaces left blank, etc. Without a longlist, a la the Locus Awards, you get lots of stuff with some nominations and not a lot of stuff with a lot of nominations. But without a really large voter base, a la the David Gemmell Legend Awards, that 100 or so voters can come in and clean house. Django Wexler has provided a game theoretic explanation that largely comes to the same conclusion, which I suggest everyone read.

But suffice to say, the Hugos were gamed because they are structurally game-able; and though I'm deeply frustrated by the emergence of slate voting, I also can't 100% blame the S/RP folks for taking advantage of something that was so ripe for the picking. Genteel assumptions that everyone will always just vote their individual conscience strikes me as naive, even as the event of its passing remains tragic. This is, after all, the age of the digital pile-on.

What This Means For Me

Something clearly needs to change with the structure of the Hugos—either the nominating process or the size of the voting pool. Or both. I’ve heard from reputable sources (like this comment from a certain Kevin Standlee) that a 4/6 amendment is going to be floated, which as I understand it would limit voters to providing 4 nominations, though 6 selections would eventually be shortlisted. This would limit the impact of slate voting. Sort of.

Only, I find myself wondering if I’m just barking up the wrong tree, because, frankly, the Hugos have never felt less meaningful to me than they do now. And it’s not just S/RP—that’s just the straw threatening to break the camel’s back. I do think the awards have value, and are worth working on to enact the right set of fixes. But the sum total of category madness and slate voting sure do make other vote-based awards look nice and shiny.

Like the Locus Awards, which asks voters to nominate from a curated longlist (this year’s), includes separate awards for science fiction and fantasy novels, has an award for anthologies, and which doesn’t charge as much as World Con does for a supporting membership. Of course there are no fan categories, which is a bummer, but that begs the question: is it more efficient for fans like me to contribute ideas for Hugo reform or to start thinking about creating a set of fan awards on the Locus model?

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not giving up on the Hugos—not yet, that is. But it’s going to take some major changes to keep people like me from drifting away. And if we do, its days as the most prestigious award in SF/F fandom are probably numbered. Oh, and that number starts counting down faster and faster if, as some suspect, others try to organize an opposing slate for next year. In that case, I’d just wash my hands of the whole thing, as I suspect many others would, because escalating “culture war” politics are bad enough when not ruining my favorite pastime. I mean, this is supposed to be fun, but the sad fact is that it's just not that fun right now.

Now about that Locus Recommended Reading list...

Hugo Reform v 2.0 Addendum

As per usual, when a piece of ours generates !massive controversy! I like to post an addendum. So here are some thoughts on comments, criticisms, points of contention, etc. I've received (mostly via twitter, but also in the comments on the original post):

1. Your slate still has too many categories!

For some, a 16-category slate is still bloated. The most frequent suggestions I've seen would be to: (a) cut all the dramatic presentation categories (-2 from real slate; -3 from my proposed one); (b) as per Martin Lewis, cut the fiction categories down Best Novel/Best Short Story, and then allow for 10 nominees for the latter (-3 from real slate; -3 from my proposed one); and/or (c) as per Niall Harrison (editor of Strange Horizons), cut the periodicals/related down to Best Pro/Best Fanzine (-2 from real state; -3 from my proposed one).

The advantage here is elegance and simplicity, but the solutions are quite far from what exists now. As such, I doubt this kind of "radical elegance" is an actionable solution for the Hugos. Still, these suggestions are worth taking seriously, even if they might be suited to a new set of awards (without the historical baggage and laborious decision-making process). Nevertheless, I'll take all individual suggestions under consideration for version 3.0. Also, for fun, I'll experiment with a "radical elegance" slate below to show what it might look like if one implemented all these proposed changes.

2. Now your slate has too few categories!

At the same time, some readers feel I've either: (a) collapsed categories that are meaningful and, as such, worth preserving; or (b) failed to add categories that really should be on the slate.

Oddly, I expected some uproar about eliminating Best Fan Writer, but didn't really get any (possibly because, for 30 years, the award was really for Best David Langford). However, Shaun Duke did suggest I split Podcast into Pro- and Fan- categories, which is certainly consistent with with overall logic of my proposed reforms. At the same time, it would increase the number of categories and, as such, work against the goal of streamlining the slate. I'm nevertheless open to this idea, and will consider it when I next revise my proposed slate. 

Two additional critiques worth noting. First, Cora Buhlert suggested that my hostility to Best Novelette is anachronistic, as digital publishing platforms have led to an uptick in novelette writing. That may be true (and perhaps even more true of novellas), but I still think a tripartite distinction within short fiction dilutes the categories (especially considering how many more short stories are published per year than novelettes or novellas), and don't think most readers really *think* in terms of novelettes either. So I'd still like to get rid of it. 

Finally, Renay of Lady Business expressed the concern that, by eliminating Best Fan Artist, I was erecting a new barrier to participation in SF/F fandom--particularly for female fans--and that the proper solution to a moribund Best Fan Artist award would be to generate interest rather than cut losses and move on.  I'm definitely sensitive to this point of view, which embodies why it's so much more difficult to cut categories than add new ones--not only because people will stand up and say "hold on, I like this category--who the hell are you to take it from me," but also because when you cut categories, you are reducing avenues of exposure and celebration for people other than yourself, including people who haven't, historically-speaking, been all that well represented at the Hugo table.

I still think these categories are problematic, in that they reward individuals rather than works or collections--which both goes against the defining principle of my reform slate and makes rendering judgment difficult (and a pain) for all but the deeply committed. But perhaps there's better way to reform them than the one I suggested? My initial thought is to have two categories: Best Book Cover and Best Work of Fan Art. This would uphold the principle of awarding works or collections rather than people, while retaining that avenue of exposure and celebration for fan artists. Plus this way voters could look at a slideshow of five book covers and five works of fan art and easily decide which one they prefer. Invigoration (potentially) achieved!

3. There's nothing wrong with the Hugos, so quit your griping/put up or shut up! 

Some criticisms are more meta, based either on the idea that the Hugos don't need saving or the idea that griping about the Hugos from the sanctity of a blog (while not actually attending the business meetings where changes are discussed) is like tilting at windmills. Valid opinions both, but I beg to differ--the sheer amount of discussion my post initiated on twitter demonstrates that a lot of people are thinking about how to make the Hugos better, and there is even serious talk about taking this to the next level, so all I can say is: we're working on it! 

4. Your suggestion on category X is wrong, therefore the whole reform idea is wrong.

Disagreement is fine and healthy. But I'd hope that readers would not only look at this proposed reform slate as a coherent idea (which, of course, it aspires to be), but also as a collection of individual ideas. I'd be pleased as punch if just one suggestion were implemented (*cough* semiprozine *cough*).

Thought Experiments

Okay, here goes...


"Radical Elegance" Slate (9 categories)

• Best Novel: Awarded for a science fiction or fantasy story of forty thousand (40,000) words or more.
• Best Short Fiction: Awarded for a science fiction or fantasy story of under forty thousand (40,000) words
• Best Graphic Story: A science fiction or fantasy story told in graphic form, such as a comic book, graphic novel, or webcomic. 
• Best Non-Fiction Work (Long Form): Awarded to a non-fiction book related to the field of science fiction, fantasy, or fandom of forty thousand (40,000) words or more, appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year or which has been substantially modified during the previous calendar year. 
• Best Non-Fiction Work (Short Form): Awarded to a non-fiction essay, review or critical piece related to the  field of science fiction, fantasy, or fandom, of less than forty thousand (40,000) words, and appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year.
• Best Periodical (Pro-Paying): This award is for any regularly published (4 issues more more within a given calender year) periodical that pays professional rates. Nominees may be published in print, electronically or both.   
• Best Periodical (Non-Pro-Paying): This award is for any regularly published (4 issues more more within a given calender year) periodical that does not pay professional rates. Nominees may be published in print, electronically or both.
• Best Non-Fiction Pod/Videocast: Awarded for any audio- or video-casting with at least four (4) episodes that had at least one (1) episode released in the previous calendar year. 
• Best Book Cover: This award goes to the best original SF/F book cover (hardbound, paperback or digital) released in the calendar year.

Moderately Expanded Slate (18 categories)

• Best Novel: Awarded for a science fiction or fantasy story of forty thousand (40,000) words or more.
• Best Novella: Awarded for a science fiction or fantasy story of between ten thousand (10,000) and forty thousand (40,000) words.
• Best Short Story: Awarded for science fiction or fantasy story of less than ten thousand (10,000) words.
• Best Graphic Story: A science fiction or fantasy story told in graphic form, such as a comic book, graphic novel, or webcomic. 
• Best Original Anthology/Collection: Awarded for the best collection of short science fiction and/or fantasy.
• Best Dramatic Presentation (Scripted - Long Form): This Award can be given to any dramatized production that is scripted, including film, television, radio, live theater, or music. The work must last 90 minutes or longer (excluding commercials).
• Best Dramatic Presentation (Scripted - Short Form): This Award can be given to any dramatized production in any medium that is scripted, including film, television, radio, live theater, or music. The work must be less than 90 minutes long (excluding commercials).
• Best Dramatic Presentation (Interactive): This Award can be given to any dramatized production in ant medium that is interactive, for example video or computer games (or performance art!), of any length. 
• Best Non-Fiction Work (Long Form): Awarded to a non-fiction book related to the field of science fiction, fantasy, or fandom of forty thousand (40,000) words or more, appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year or which has been substantially modified during the previous calendar year. 
• Best Non-Fiction Work (Short Form): Awarded to a non-fiction essay, review or critical piece related to the  field of science fiction, fantasy, or fandom, of less than forty thousand (40,000) words, and appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year. 
• Best Fiction Periodical (Pro-Paying): This award is for any regularly published (4 issues more more within a given calender year) short fiction market that pays professional rates, as determined by the SFWA (whether or not it has been certified by the SFWA as a qualifying professional market). Nominees may be published in print, electronically or both.  
• Best Fiction Periodical (Non-Pro-Paying): This award is for any regularly published (4 issues more more within a given calender year) short fiction market that does not pay professional rates, as determined by the SFWA. Nominees may be published in print, electronically or both. 
• Best Non-Fiction Periodical (Professional): This award is for any regularly published (4 issues more more within a given calender year) non-fiction periodical, either print or electronic, that pays its contributors and/or staff in other than copies of the publication.
• Best Non-Fiction Periodical (Non-Professional): This award is for regularly published (4 issues more more within a given calender year) fanzine, either print or electronic, that does not pay its contributors and/or staff in other than copies of the publication.
• Best Non-Fiction Professional Pod/Videocast: Awarded for any audio- or video-casting with at least four (4) episodes that had at least one (1) episode released in the previous calendar year, and whose hosts are compensated in more than token fashion. 
• Best Fancast: Awarded for any audio- or video-casting with at least four (4) episodes that had at least one (1) episode released in the previous calendar year, and whose hosts receive token or no monetary compensation. 
• Best Book Cover: This award goes to the best original SF/F book cover (hardbound, paperback or digital) released in the calendar year.
• Best Work of Fan Art: Awarded for the best work of non-professionally published visual art released during the calendar year.

***

POSTED BY: The G--purveyor of nerdliness, genre fanatic and 'nerds of a
feather, flock together' founder/administrator.

A Modest Proposal for Hugo Reform v 2.0

Last year I conducted a thought experiment with the Hugo categories: could I alter them in such a way as to render them intuitive, logical and voter-friendly yet still preserved as much of the current setup as possible? The result was a list that, while certainly an improvement on the "intuitive, logical and voter-friendly" front (in my view), was also...er...a bit long. So round two takes what we started with last year and streamlines things. (If you listened to last week's Rocket Talk, you'll recall this being a major point of discussion.)

Operative in the streamlining process is the principle, articulated by Ian Sales in a comment left on last year's piece, that the Hugos should, ideally, reward creative works or collections of creative works (e.g. in an anthology or magazine). So I'm dispensing with most of the personalized awards (Campbell excluded) and replacing them with awards for things people have produced over the previous year.

Admittedly that's treading a fine line--aren't personal awards, to a degree, rewards for what individuals have done over the past year? To a degree, yes, and in truth I would particularly lament the end of the Best Fan Writer category. But historically it's been one of the most prone to the kind of insider conservatism that dogs the Hugos, and which seems particularly embedded into the personalized categories (Campbell again excluded). Consider this: during a 30 year period (1980-2009), David Langford was shortlisted 30/30 times (100%) and won the award 21/30 times (70%)--including, at one point, an unbroken string of 19 victories. That's mind-boggling and, obviously, a big problem--however deserving Mr. Langford might be.

[This, of course, brings up another question tangentially related to category reform--whether the Hugos need some kind of a "mercy rule." It could work like this: after, say, 3 victories in 5 years a given person or institution would have to sit out competition for the at least one year--possibly more. That would level the playing field and spread the love, so to speak--and a version is already in place for the Campbell, where it works beautifully. "Mercy rules" come with their own problematics, of course, but I think it's something the powers that be should at least consider.]

So that's the idea, at least--to take last year's altered Hugo slate, fix what needs fixing, and see if we can get it down to a more manageable number of categories. So, without further ado, here is your shiny, new--and still "modest"--proposal!


Awards for Works of Fiction

Current Award Categories:

• Best Novel: Awarded for a science fiction or fantasy story of forty thousand (40,000) words or more.
• Best Novella: Awarded for a science fiction or fantasy story of between seventeen thousand five hundred (17,500) and forty thousand (40,000) words.
• Best Novelette: Awarded for a science fiction or fantasy story of between seven thousand five hundred (7,500) and seventeen thousand five hundred (17,500) words.
• Best Short Story: Awarded for science fiction or fantasy story of less than seven thousand five hundred (7,500) words.
• Best Graphic Story: A science fiction or fantasy story told in graphic form, such as a comic book, graphic novel, or webcomic.

Reformed Award Categories (1.0):

• Best Novel: Awarded for a science fiction or fantasy story of forty thousand (40,000) words or more.
• Best Novella: Awarded for a science fiction or fantasy story of between ten thousand (10,000) and forty thousand (40,000) words.
• Best Short Story: Awarded for science fiction or fantasy story of less than ten thousand (10,000) words.
• Best Graphic Story: A science fiction or fantasy story told in graphic form, such as a comic book, graphic novel, or webcomic. 
• Best Original Anthology: Awarded for the best collection of original, previously unpublished short science fiction and/or fantasy.
• Best Collection: Awarded for the best collection of previously published short science fiction and/or fantasy.

In version 1.0, I collapsed novelette and short story, for the simple reason that very few people know or care what a novelette is, and it's annoying (as a nominating voter) to have to try to figure out what fits where. At the same time, I felt it was high time the Hugos bestowed awards on anthologies and collections, which readers really do care about. On second thought, though, I'm not sure we need separate categories for anthologies and collections.

 Reformed Award Categories (2.0):

• Best Novel: Awarded for a science fiction or fantasy story of forty thousand (40,000) words or more.
• Best Novella: Awarded for a science fiction or fantasy story of between ten thousand (10,000) and forty thousand (40,000) words.
• Best Short Story: Awarded for science fiction or fantasy story of less than ten thousand (10,000) words.
• Best Graphic Story: A science fiction or fantasy story told in graphic form, such as a comic book, graphic novel, or webcomic. 
• Best Original Anthology/Collection: Awarded for the best collection of short science fiction and/or fantasy.

Awards for Dramatic Presentations

Current Award Categories:

• Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form): This Award can be given a dramatized production in any medium, including film, television, radio, live theater, computer games or music. The work must last 90 minutes or longer (excluding commercials).
• Best Dramatic Presentation (Short Form): This Award can be given a dramatized production in any medium, including film, television, radio, live theater, computer games or music. The work must be less than 90 minutes long (excluding commercials).

Reformed Award Categories (1.0):

• Best Dramatic Presentation (Scripted - Long Form): This Award can be given to any dramatized production that is scripted, including film, television, radio, live theater, or music. The work must last 90 minutes or longer (excluding commercials).
• Best Dramatic Presentation (Scripted - Short Form): This Award can be given to any dramatized production in any medium that is scripted, including film, television, radio, live theater, or music. The work must be less than 90 minutes long (excluding commercials).
• Best Dramatic Presentation (Interactive): This Award can be given to any dramatized production in ant medium that is interactive, for example video or computer games (or performance art!), of any length.

The main gripe here was lack of attention to games--I mean, seriously? Games are arguably bigger than film now, and a higher percentage of games released in a given calendar year count (at least in terms of recognizable tropes) as SF/F. Get with the times, WorldCon! No changes proposed here for version 2.0.

Reformed Award Categories (2.0)

• Best Dramatic Presentation (Scripted - Long Form): This Award can be given to any dramatized production that is scripted, including film, television, radio, live theater, or music. The work must last 90 minutes or longer (excluding commercials).
• Best Dramatic Presentation (Scripted - Short Form): This Award can be given to any dramatized production in any medium that is scripted, including film, television, radio, live theater, or music. The work must be less than 90 minutes long (excluding commercials).
• Best Dramatic Presentation (Interactive): This Award can be given to any dramatized production in ant medium that is interactive, for example video or computer games (or performance art!), of any length.

Awards for Editors

Current Award Categories:

• Best Editor (Long Form): This is the first of the person categories, so the Award is given for the work that person has done in the year of eligibility. To be eligible the person must have edited at least 4 novel-length (i.e. 40,000 words or more) books devoted to science fiction and/or fantasy in the year of eligibility that are not anthologies or collections.
• Best Editor (Short Form): To be eligible the person must have edited at least four anthologies, collections or magazine issues devoted to science fiction and/or fantasy, at least one of which must have been published in the year of eligibility.

Reformed Award Categories (1.0):

• Best Editor (Long Form): This is the first of the person categories, so the Award is given for the work that person has done in the year of eligibility. To be eligible the person must have edited at least 4 novel-length (i.e. 40,000 words or more) books devoted to science fiction and/or fantasy in the year of eligibility that are not anthologies or collections.
• Best Editor (Short Form): To be eligible the person must have edited at least four anthologies, collections or magazine issues devoted to science fiction and/or fantasy, at least one of which must have been published in the year of eligibility.

I declined to make changes in version 1.0, but--with apologies to all the great editors out there--I'm not sure we actually need these categories anymore. To begin, I really don't think most voters have any clue what goes into being a great long-form editor. And while more do know what goes into being a great short-form editor (i.e. consistently releasing high quality anthologies and/or editing a consistently high-quality periodical), there are already several categories in this re-imagined Hugo setup that reward the work short-form editors do--obviating the need for a personal award here. 

Reformed Award Categories (2.0):

• Eliminate both categories

Awards for  Related Works Non-Fiction

Current Award Categories:

• Best Related Work: Awarded to a work related to the field of science fiction, fantasy, or fandom, appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year or which has been substantially modified during the previous calendar year. The type of works eligible include, but are not limited to, collections of art, works of literary criticism, books about the making of a film or TV series, biographies and so on, provided that they do not qualify for another category.

Reformed Award Categories (1.0):

• Best Non-Fiction Work (Long Form): Awarded to a non-fiction book related to the field of science fiction, fantasy, or fandom of forty thousand (40,000) words or more, appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year or which has been substantially modified during the previous calendar year. 
• Best Non-Fiction Work (Short Form): Awarded to a non-fiction essay, review or critical piece related to the  field of science fiction, fantasy, or fandom, of less than forty thousand (40,000) words, and appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year.  

It annoys the hell out of me that books compete with blog posts for "Best Related Work." So why not have separate categories here? I can easily think of five essays or blog posts that are award-worthy. No proposed changes for version 2.0. [The 40,000 word delineation is fairly arbitrary, though--I'm open for suggestions as to why a different marker would be better.]
  
Reformed Award Categories (2.0):

• Best Non-Fiction Work (Long Form): Awarded to a non-fiction book related to the field of science fiction, fantasy, or fandom of forty thousand (40,000) words or more, appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year or which has been substantially modified during the previous calendar year. 
• Best Non-Fiction Work (Short Form): Awarded to a non-fiction essay, review or critical piece related to the  field of science fiction, fantasy, or fandom, of less than forty thousand (40,000) words, and appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year. 

Awards for 'Zines and Related Periodicals and Related 

Current Award Categories:

• Best Semiprozine: This is the first of the three serial publication/work categories. To qualify, the publication must have produced at least 4 issues, at least one of which must have appeared in the year of eligibility (this being similar to the requirements for magazine editors in Best Editor, Short Form), and meet additional requirements as listed below.
  Semiprozine is the most complicated category because of the need to define semi-professional. A lot of science fiction and fantasy magazines are run on a semi-professional basis: that is they pay a little, but generally not enough to make a living for anyone. The object of this category is to separate such things from fanzines, which are generally loss-making hobbyist pursuits. To qualify a publication must not be professional (see above) and must meet at least one of the following criteria:
  1. The publication pays its contributors and/or staff in other than copies of the publication.
  2. The publication was generally available only for paid purchase.
• Best Fanzine: This Award is for anything that is neither professional nor semi-professional and that does not qualify as a Fancast (see below). The publication must also satisfy the rule of a minimum of 4 issues, at least one of which must have appeared in the year of eligibility.
• Best Fancast: Awarded for any non-professional audio- or video-casting with at least four (4) episodes that had at least one (1) episode released in the previous calendar year.
• Best Fan Writer: This is another person category. Note that it does not just apply to writing done in fanzines. Work published in semiprozines, and even on mailing lists, blogs, BBSs, and similar electronic fora, can be including when judging people for this Award. Only work in professional publications should not be considered.

 Reformed Award Categories (1.0):

• Best Fiction Periodical (SFWA-Qualifying): This award is for any regularly published (4 issues more more within a given calender year) short fiction market that pays professional rates, as determined by the SFWA, and has furthermore been certified by the SFWA as a qualifying professional market. Nominees may be published in print, electronically or both.  
• Best Fiction Periodical (Non-SFWA-Qualifying): This award is for any regularly published (4 issues more more within a given calender year) short fiction market that has not been certified by the SFWA as a qualifying professional market--though non-qualifying outlets that pay professional rates also qualify. Nominees may be published in print, electronically or both. 
• Best Non-Fiction Periodical (Professional): This award is for any regularly published (4 issues more more within a given calender year) non-fiction that pays its contributors and/or staff in other than copies of the publication.
• Best Non-Fiction Fanzine (Non-Professional): This award is for regularly published (4 issues more more within a given calender year) traditional primarily-print fanzines that do not pay their contributors and/or staff in other than copies of the publication.
• Best Non-Fiction Blog (Non-Professional): This award is for blogs and other electronic-only fanzines that do not pay their contributors and/or staff in other than copies of the publication. 
• Best Non-Fiction Pod/Videocast: Awarded for any non-professional audio- or video-casting with at least four (4) episodes that had at least one (1) episode released in the previous calendar year. 
• Best Fan Writer: This is another person category. Note that it does not just apply to writing done in fanzines. Work published in semiprozines, and even on mailing lists, blogs, BBSs, and similar electronic fora, can be including when judging people for this Award. Only work in professional publications should not be considered. 

In version 1.0, I wanted to reconceptualize this clusterfuck of categories so it would be: (a) intuitive and (b) consistent; with (c) categories that compare like with like; and also ensure that (d) nominating voters don't need insider knowledge of an enterprise's finances in order to correctly assess what belongs in what category. And I also wanted to correct for the nonsensical fact that there's no award for professional fiction magazines, despite their historical and continued importance for SF/F literature and fandom. So I separated out (primarily) fiction periodicals from (primarily) non-fiction ones (punting the issue of whether outlets that do both, like Strange Horizons, Tor.com or Interzone, would count as one or both), and changed the criteria for determining "pro" from "not pro" from the money made to the money paid.

In version 2.0 I've altered the criteria for inclusion in the "pro" category for fiction outlets: instead of being SFWA-certified, now markets only need to meet SFWA minimums for pro-level payment. This seems better, as it utilizes relatively value-neutral industry standards, broadens the field to include new markets and doesn't make an outside organization (which has its own awards) the gatekeeper. I'm also re-collapsing Best Fanzine/Best Blog, because separating them out doesn't seem as important to me as it did last year. Oh, and I've gotten rid of Best Fan Writer because it conflicts with the principle of awarding works not people. As stated above, this is the change I'm most conflicted about, but the fact is that, if this set of changes were to go into effect (however unlikely that may be), fan writers would get rewarded in several of the other proposed categories.

Reformed Award Categories (2.0):

• Best Fiction Periodical (Pro-Paying): This award is for any regularly published (4 issues more more within a given calender year) short fiction market that pays professional rates, as determined by the SFWA (whether or not it has been certified by the SFWA as a qualifying professional market). Nominees may be published in print, electronically or both.  
• Best Fiction Periodical (Non-Pro-Paying): This award is for any regularly published (4 issues more more within a given calender year) short fiction market that does not pay professional rates, as determined by the SFWA. Nominees may be published in print, electronically or both. 
• Best Non-Fiction Periodical (Professional): This award is for any regularly published (4 issues more more within a given calender year) non-fiction periodical, either print or electronic, that pays its contributors and/or staff in other than copies of the publication.
• Best Non-Fiction Periodical (Non-Professional): This award is for regularly published (4 issues more more within a given calender year) fanzine, either print or electronic, that does not pay its contributors and/or staff in other than copies of the publication.
• Best Non-Fiction Pod/Videocast: Awarded for any audio- or video-casting with at least four (4) episodes that had at least one (1) episode released in the previous calendar year.

 Artist Art

 Current Award Categories:

• Best Professional Artist: Another person category, this time for artists and illustrators. The work on which the nominees are judged must class as “professional” (see above for a discussion of how “professional” is defined).
• Best Fan Artist: The final category is also for people. Again note that the work by which artists should be judged is not limited to material published in fanzines. 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.

Reformed Award Categories (1.0):

• Best Artist: This award goes to a personal who has produced at least one piece of art relevant to SF/F in the calendar year. 

I believe "Best Fan Artist" receives the fewest votes and has relatively low levels of enthusiasm (including among fan artists), so I collapsed the two in version 1.0. However, even that has to go if we're ditching the personal awards. So I thought a bit about how one could both keep an art award but also generate interest in the categories, and it struck me: book covers. Everyone's got an opinion on book covers! (Hint: abstract design > figurative art.)

Reformed Award Categories (2.0):

• Best Book Cover: This award goes to the best original SF/F book cover (hardbound, paperback or digital) released in the calendar year.

Statistics

Current Award Categories:

5 fiction
2 dramatic presentation
2 editors
1 related work
4 'zines and related
2 artist
____________________
16 total categories

Reformed Award Categories (1.0):

6 fiction
3 dramatic presentation
2 editors
2 related work
7 periodicals and related
1 artist
_____________________
21 total categories

 Reformed Award Categories (2.0):

5 fiction
3 dramatic presentation
2 related work
5 periodicals and related
1 art
______________________
16 total categories

Draft Hugo Ballot 2015

Welcome to my Second Annual Draft Hugo Ballot! This year I’ve loosened the reins a bit and brought in some outside assistance from fellow nerds of a feather Charles, English Scribbler, Mike and Vance--mostly in the short fiction categories (which I was exceedingly grumpy about in 2014) and in the graphic fiction and dramatic presentation categories (which I consumed far too little of in 2014). The rest is mine, for better or for worse.

As a disclaimer, I should probably also mention that ‘nerds of a feather, flock together’ is eligible in the Best Fanzine category. So if you read and enjoy what we post on this site, and are going to fill in a ballot (you can sign up here), I encourage you to consider us alongside the other blogs and print ‘zines you enjoy reading.

[If you do happen to nominate us, our official name is ‘nerds of a feather, flock together,’ edited by The G and Vance Kotrla).]

Returning to this list of Hugo nominees, and particularly to the fan categories, I feel obliged to mention that there are many more deserving folks than there are spaces on the ballot. That’s speaks to the richness of our discourse but also makes me feel like any list I could draw up would insufficiently capture the range of awesomeness that I’ve observed over the past year. I could easily make another list full of great stuff from deserving people.

On the other side of the coin, you may notice a few categories missing. That’s because there are some I feel unqualified to discuss (such as the artist categories) or just don’t feel like nominating anything (due to the aforementioned grumpiness). But enough about all that--on to the nominees! (Purchase links at the bottom.)

Part I: Creative Products

Best Novel

These all feature on my Best of 2014 post for The Book Smugglers, so forgive me if the copy looks familiar...

Station Eleven by Emily St. John Mandel (Knopf)

“In some ways, the book feels like a sequel to Cormac McCarthy’s The Road (and it is arguably framed as such). At other points it resembles a science fictional riff on Roberto Bolaño’s magisterial 2666. But here’s the thing: Station Eleven isn’t just very good literary fiction in speculative clothing; it’s also very good at being speculative fiction—something litfic authors rarely manage when “slumming it” in genre. Easily the best novel I read in 2014, and one I imagine I’ll re-read periodically for the rest of my life.” (The G)

A Darkling Sea by James Cambias (Tor)

“Equally a tale of first contact and how good intentions can go awry, A Darkling Sea is smart and sociologically complex “hard” SF—the kind of thing I often long for but rarely find.” (The G)

 Baptism of Fire by Andrzej Sapkowski (Orbit/Gollancz)

“As I wrote in my review, ‘there are a lot more decent fantasy novels than detractors might believe, [but] very few can credibly claim to be significant works of literature. Andrzej Sapkowski’s Witcher Cycle is a rare exception.’ A highly significant work of genre fiction that deserves to be much more widely read than it is. Also far, far more sophisticated than the two video games. (Oh, and if you decide to read the series, please start with the short story collection The Last Wish.)” (The G)

Eternal Sky Trilogy [Range of Ghosts, Shattered Pillars, Steles of the Sky] by Elizabeth Bear (Tor)

“I’m going to follow Aidan of A Dribble of Ink (as I do in many things) and nominate this for the Hugo under the “Wheel of Time Rule.” Though the ending to Bear’s “silk road fantasy” may not have been as superlative as the start, I honestly can’t remember the last time I read a fantasy trilogy this good.” (The G)

City of Stairs by Robert J. Bennett (Broadway Books)

“City of Stairs has a briskly paced plot and well-rounded characters, both of which are integral to its success. But it’s the way Bennett smashes past the genre’s assumptions and conventions of world building that really make it stand out. Plus the whole cars but no guns thing—Bennett doesn’t really make a big deal out of it but I found the notion fascinating.” A shot of fresh air in a genre that can be very stale and crusty. (The G)






Best Novella

Scale-Bright by Benjanun Sriduangkaew (Immersion Press)

I understand that some will view anything with Sriduangkaew's name attached as toxic, and I understand why. But one of my 2015 resolutions is to respect the Barthesian author/text distinction to the best of my ability. Accordingly, I think texts should ideally be considered on their own merits and not through the prism of the author's person (or vice versa). Of course this is not always possible and people draw the line in different places. However, I am compelled to note that Scale-Bright was--by far--the best novella I read in 2014. Strong characters, confident world-building (based on Chinese mythology) and elegant prose--exactly what I look for in fantasy. (The G)

Best Novelette

"Dancing with Batgirl in the Land of Nod" by Will McIntosh (The End is Now)

About the world ending and the choices people make when faced with such an event. A sad look at nostalgia, loss, and endings. (Charles)

“The Magician and Laplace's Demon” by Tom Crosshill (Clarkesworld)

A great story that explores the intersection of magic and science, computers and humanity. (Charles)

“Heaven Thunders the Truth” by K. J. Parker (Beneath Ceaseless Skies)

Another year, another top-notch gritty fantasy from Parker features in the middle-sized categories. Should anyone be surprised? Parker is one of the few remaining practitioners who can write a compact novel with a linear plot and make it feel like nothing’s left out. (The G)

“We are the Cloud” by Sam J. Miller (Lightspeed)

A very painful, personal piece, heavily coated in early 1990s nostalgia. That did turn some people off, as it ends up being more about the writer and similarly-aged readers working through their own personal issues (related to growing older and less connected to the totems of youth and adolescence) than speculation. But, being both a fan of Miller's writing and somewhat forgiving of nostalgia, this one really resonated with me--especially since I am that similarly-aged reader. (The G)

Best Short Story

Didn’t realize Lightspeed had such a good year until I saw how it accounted for 3/5 of our short story picks (and 2/4 of the alternates).

“Candy Girl” by Chikodili Emelumadu (Apex)

A bitingly funny commentary on cultural appropriation as a woman is first transformed into chocolate and then consumed. That it doesn't end there is a great twist. (Charles)

“What Glistens Back” by Sunny Moraine (Lightspeed)

A man falls toward the surface of an alien world while saying his last goodbyes to his husband. Heartbreaking in every way, it focuses on the human spirit spreading out among the stars and is hopeful and tragic and made me cry so much. (Charles)

"Four Days of Christmas" by Tim Maughan (Terraform)

Inspired by a visit to the factory in China where 60 percent of all Christmas products are made (the subject of this non-fiction article), "Four Days of Christmas" features strong writing and highly focused (and unsettling) speculation on realistic future(s). If you ask me, this is what science fiction was made for. (The G)

“A Tank Only Fears Four Things” by Seth Dickinson (Lightspeed)

A woman must recover after war, when she literally was a tank, to find a purpose in life, and perhaps some human contact. About dealing with the scars left long after the fighting is done, the story managed to be uplifting and genuine. (Charles)

INELIGIBLE BUT STILL AWESOME: “The Herons of Mer D'Ouest” by Matthew Bennardo (Lightspeed)

This historical horror is superb, frankly. Told in the form of 1764 diary entries, it charts the discovery by an early American pioneer of a local tribe and the monsters that they fight. The haunting imagery is wonderful, and the resulting violence outlandish and yet believable. (English Scribbler)

Best Related Work

I’ll be honest here and state that I don’t really understand the point of a category that compares 1,000 word blog posts with books. And what about post series, you know, statements broken into several component pieces either because they took time to write or because the author didn’t want to inundate her/his readers with too much at once? Do those count as multiple “related works” or a single “related work?”

Speculative Fiction 2013 edited by Ana Grilo and Thea James (Jurassic London)

This yearly anthology of writing on SF/F continues to impress. And we’re featured in it! (Not that this is why it impresses--just saying.) (The G)

Call and Response by Paul Kincaid (Beccon)

A collection of must-read essays by the guy I consider to be one of--if not the--preeminent critics in SF/F. (The G)

“Deep Forests and Manicured Gardens - A Look at Two New Short Fiction Magazines” by Jonathan McCalmont (Ruthless Culture)

I’ve linked to the binding post, because my understanding of the rules is that post series not compiled in a single publication (like a book) aren’t eligible while single essays are. But really you should read the other two entries to get an idea of why this is such an important piece of criticism. Also served as the prompt for our first Perspectives post. (The G)

Best Graphic Story

Locke and Key: Alpha and Omega by Joe Hill and Gabriel Rodriguez (IDW)

The emotional ride with the Locke family came to a stunning conclusion in my favorite comic series of all-time. I can't think of any series (television, film, or written) that has so appropriately parted ways with its fans. It was so heart breaking and fulfilling and I can't imagine ever enjoying a series as much as this one. (Mike). Puts a period at the end of what is frankly the most engrossing comic saga I've ever read. The end of the story of the Locke family's stay in Keyhouse is so, so sad and so beautiful. The ending more than lived up to the high expectations set by the earlier volumes. (Vance)

Sex Criminals, Vol. 1 by Matt Fraction and Chip Zdarsky (Check)

I think I've pretty much aged out of my titillation phase, so I didn't rush out to get SEX CRIMINALS until it had been recommended by several people. What I found was a stunningly inventive sci-fi story like a filthy episode of THE TWILIGHT ZONE that was also laugh-out-loud funny, even while the characters experienced grim and frightening things. (Vance)

Trillium by Jeff Lemire (Vertigo)

One of the most creative sci-fi titles I read in 2014, Trillium captivates your imagination as the reader explores the budding relationship between two individuals separated by over 2,000 years. Lemire continues to flex his artistic chops as he is able to balance the juxtaposition of a beautiful love story with the sheer terror of The Caul. Lemire is one of the most creative and talented individuals in any medium. (Mike)


 

Saga Vol. 3 by Brian K. Vaughan and Fiona Staples (Vertigo)

If say anything negative about this title Lying Cat will call me out on it. An epic sci-fi tale of star crossed lovers told from the perspective of their child that will appeal to a broad range of fans. An epic saga (sorry) that everyone should read. There is a reason it won the Hugo in 2013 and has a great chance of repeating. (Mike)

The Wake by Scott Snyder and Sean Murphy (Vertigo)

Technically this started in 2013, but kept going into 2014, so I *think* it’s eligible. It’s also a hyper-experimental, freaky science fiction/horror mashup marked by great writing and seriously high quality art. (The G)







Best Dramatic Presentation (Long-Form)

Big Hero 6 (dir. Don Hall and Chris Williams)

This was the most magical, most captivating sci-fi film I saw this year. From the emotional core of the film to the individual characters, there was nothing that didn't grab me in a major way. This also has the distinction of becoming my son's first favorite film — that first movie where you "get it," what film is capable of, like Ghostbusters was for me. (Vance)

**Guardians of the Galaxy (dir. James Gunn)

I honestly feel bad that all three of my nods are to Disney movies, which certainly don't need any more help, but they're the best I saw in 2014. The sci-fi comedy is always a tightrope act, but when it works it's probably my favorite kind of movie. Guardians works. (Vance)**

Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier (dir. Anthony and Joe Russo)

What a strange year for Marvel releases, that their lightest, funniest film is paired with their most serious-minded. Cap 2 does something I really never considered, and does it very well, which is to cross a political thriller with a superhero film. I mean, for your plugged-in, thinking moviegoer, this is a film tailor-made for our times, and which evokes favorable comparisons with classics of 1970s paranoia like Three Days of the Condor. It also embraces the emotional pain of its characters, from Steve Rogers' displacement in time and Sam Wilson's struggles to adjust to civilian life after the war, to the gut-punch of learning the Winter Soldier's identity and what that means to Cap. Plus, the action is just badass. This is a sequel that, to me, exceeds its predecessor in every way. (Vance)

[Anything but] Interstellar (dir. Christopher Nolan)

A visually beautiful film unfortunately paired to a hackneyed, nonsensical and frequently cringe-worthy screenplay. Sorry, Shaun! (The G)

Part II: Fan Categories and Quasi-Fan Categories

Best Semiprozine

I’m thumbing my nose at the established pro-paying markets this year, mostly because I want to give a signal boost to a few deserving folks who might be off the radar, but also because I question whether “semi-pro” is an appropriate label for established, high-profile and pro-paying online magazines like Clarkesworld, Strange Horizons or Lightspeed. Not that they shouldn’t be up for an award--they should--but in a new/appropriate category in which they would be considered alongside Asimov’s and F&SF.

Interzone (edited by Andy Cox)

I read pretty much every issue of Interzone in 2014, and was consistently impressed--not just with the fiction, but also the reviews and essays, which are often an afterthought for fiction magazines. Many of my favorite British critics and reviewers--for example, Maureen Kincaid-Speller, Ian Sales, Jonathan McCalmont--are on the team. Top quality stuff.

Pornokitsch (edited by Jared Shurin and Anna Perry)

Like us, Pornokitsch cast a wide net across geekdom. But it covers an even wider terrain than we do, yet does so with a voice that is clear, strong and unmistakable for anything else. As someone who’s tried hard to build an “identity” for a fundamentally eclectic blog, I can attest to how difficult that is to accomplish. Somehow Jared and Anne manage to come off as high-brow but not snooty, a delicate balance to maintain, yet maintain it they do--even when discussing things like D&D.

The Book Smugglers (edited by Ana Grilo and Thea James)

One of the best, most professional and most readable blogs out there, The Book Smugglers are now publishing short fiction. And not just any short fiction, but really, really good stuff--with a mild emphasis on YA too, which adds to the thematic and stylistic diversity of the overall short fiction market.

Fantasy Scroll Magazine (edited by Iulian Ionescu)

This is a new, fantasy and science fiction venture but one that already feels like it's been around forever. The inaugural issue could serve as a masterclass on how to make a semipro-paying relevant, though I suspect FSM fast on its way to evolving into a fully-fledged pro-paying market. 

Bastion Science Fiction Magazine (edited by R. Leigh Hennig)

In the interests of transparency, I should note that they published a short story of mine. However, I hope that doesn't give the wrong impression about my including them on this list. I read Bastion regularly, and though it can be a bit uneven, I highly value the fact that, in an environment with increasingly indistinct borders between science fiction and fantasy, Bastion publishes stories that are both strictly science fiction and often quite different from what you see published elsewhere.

  
Best Fanzine

For this category, I simply asked myself: which sites or print ‘zines (that fit the criteria of what is or isn’t a fanzine) did I read the most in 2014? And the fact is there were too many to mention, so I picked the five that most consistently did it for me over the course of the past 12 months.

SF Mistressworks (edited by Ian Sales)

Year after year, Ian Sales’ blog dedicated to the secret history of female-written science fiction uncovers more top-quality (and important!) stuff that’s been neglected, looked past or left on the shelf in favor of the Asimovs, Heinleins and Clarkes of genre history. Depending on your perspective, SF Mistressworks either provides a long overdue complement or much needed correction to the dominant narrative. Either way, it’s highly valuable and deserves recognition as such.

A Dribble of Ink (edited by Aidan Moher)

Initially I wasn't sure whether I should re-nominate last year’s winner, but A Dribble of Ink is just too impressive not to. Someone (Justin I think) once said that Aidan Moher’s fantasy-oriented blog was evolving into something more akin to a magazine, and I think that’s even more so today than it was at the time (2013 I think). The writing, whether Aidan’s or from one of his many illustrious guest posters, is consistently top-flight, while the gorgeous site design leaves everything else in its dust.

Lady Business (edited by Renay, Ana and Jodie)

I’ve been reading Renay’s work for a while now, but 2014 was the year I really came to appreciate Lady Business and its signature voice, which combines the casual style of a fansite with the heft of critique. And in 2014 they added some quality new features, such as "Short Business" (a short fiction review series). Of course the ultimate compliment I can pay the Feminist Ponies is to say that, even when I disagree vociferously with their conclusions, I always leave wondering if I just wasn’t looking at things right. And, as far as I’m concerned, that’s the mark of a great review.

Violin in a Void (edited by Lauren Smith)

I don’t remember how I discovered the Africa-based blog Violin in a Void (founder Lauren is from South Africa and, until recently, lived in Ethiopia), but I quickly recognized its reviews for their insight and general high quality. Tilts more fantasy than SF, but there’s enough of both to satisfy both halves of fandom. A site I really hope more people take notice of in 2015.

SFSignal (edited by John DiNardo)

Yes I know they wouldn’t accept the award if given to them, but there are several people writing for the site whose work I’d like to recognize for the top-notch stuff it is: Paul Weimer, Andrea Johnson, Rob Bedford, Sarah Chorn and Rachel Cordasco, among others. So there!

Best Fan Writer

Another category with too many deserving folks for five slots...

Jonathan McCalmont

Last year I called Jonathan “acerbic in the best possible way,” further celebrating “his broadsides against the hypocrisies and absurdities of fandom.” Both statements stand--but, if anything, Jonathan upped his game in 2014. His "Future Interrupted" column for Interzone and blog posts at Ruthless Culture demonstrate a sharp critical eye, wonderfully sophisticated writing and a unique ability to frame current discourses within genre history and social theory. Though there are a lot of critics/reviewers I enjoy reading, Jonathan is one who most consistently inspires me. Now get back on twitter already!

Natalie Luhrs

Every year there’s an essay or post series that shakes me out of my comfort zone. This year it was Natalie’s heartbreaking post on Marion Zimmer Bradley and her family’s sordid history of pedophilia. I loved The Mists of Avalon as a child, and learned to value its ideas as an adult; as such, the revelations triggered an extra level of dismay beyond the shock and horror of the revelations themselves. Though “Silence is Complicity” was not the only essay on the topic in 2014, it was the one that best framed the story for me.

Foz Meadows

Her essays and opinion pieces are remarkable for their insight and her writing is really sophisticated. But in 2014 I also discovered how good Foz is at constructing a book review (thanks to doozies like this one for A Dribble of Ink). Simply put, she's operating on another level.

Justin Landon

Staffers Book Review is dearly departed from this mortal coil, but Justin is still out there making his (typically strong) opinions known. And thank goodness for that--he’s consistently one of the most entertaining and informative voices out there. Absolutely one of the best and someone deserves to be recognized as such.

Martin Lewis/Petto

Martin’s output slowed in 2014, but I guess the less he produces the more I value him as a critic. Martin, as it happens, may pull the fewest in the business, and he’s a great writer. Fandom needs more voices like his.

Best Fancast

Rocket Talk (Justin Landon)

Well, you knew that even if he shut down his blog, Justin wouldn’t shut up, right? I mean, this is a guy who loves to talk genre, and unlike many of us, he’s got an excellent speaking voice. So I guess you could say Tor.com’s podcast is the perfect venue! In all seriousness, Rocket Talk was my single favorite podcast of 2014. Great, high-level conversations and always fun.

Skiffy and Fanty (Shaun Duke, Jen Zinc, Paul Weimer, Rachel Acks, Julia Rios, Michael Underwood, David Annandale and Stina Leicht) 

My other favorite podcast--one that consistently impresses with its professionalism and quality of discourse (and lack of insider/card-table-style chitchat--the failing of many a podcast). Though I nominated them last year as well, I think Skiffy and Fanty got even better in 2014. Also love the range of tastes and insight that its many contributors provide.

Midnight in Karachi (Mahvesh Murad)

Mahvesh is someone whose work I only discovered recently, but both her podcast and print reviews bring the awesome. She’s fast becoming one of my favorite critical voices in fandom. 

The Coode Street Podcast (Jonathan Strahan and Gary K. Wolfe)

Always great listening to these guys.

Part III: Support the Creative Folks (and us)!

Novels/Novellas

Station Eleven by Emily St. John Mandel
A Darkling Sea by James Cambias
Range of Ghosts/Shattered Pillars/Steles of the Sky by Elizabeth Bear
Baptism of Fire by Andrzej Sapkowski
City of Stairs by Robert Jackson Bennett
Scale-Bright by Benjanun Sriduangkaew

Anthologies/Magazines

The End is Nigh (Apocalypse Triptych Book 1) (Anthology)
Clarkesworld (Magazine)
Apex (Magazine)
Beneath Ceaseless Skies (Magazine) 
Lightspeed (Magazine)
Fantasy Scroll (Magazine)
Bastion Science Fiction (Magazine)
 
Graphic Novels/Collections

Alpha & Omega (Locke & Key) by Joe Hill and Gabriel Rodriguez
Sex Criminals, Vol. 1 by Matt Fraction and Chip Zdarsky
Trillium by Jeff Lemire
Saga, Vol. 3 by Brian K. Vaughan and Fiona Staples
The Wake by Scott Snyder and Sean Murphy

Related Works

Speculative Fiction 2013: The year's best online reviews, essays and commentary (Volume 2) edited by Ana Grilo and Thea James
Call and Response by Paul Kincaid


***

POSTED BY: The G--purveyor of nerdliness, genre fanatic and Nerds of a
Feather founder/administrator (2012).