You very likely know Gideon Marcus from his Hugo nominated fanzine Galactic Journey, his work as a space historian, and his educational lectures, but did you know he also writes fiction? His short fiction appears in the anthology Tales of Alternate Earths 2, and his debut YA novel, Kitra, is available now.
Nineteen-year-old Kitra dreams of traveling to the stars like her mother, and she jumps at the chance to fly into space on her own ship. A diverse crew of nerdy young adults on an old junked Navy ship, what could possibly go wrong? Well. . . everything. Before they know it, they are stranded. No fuel, no way home, and no one coming to rescue them. Did I mention Kitra's ex-girlfriend is among the crew? Talk about awkward!
Kitra is a story of perseverance in the face of fear and uncertainty, and that we only get through times like these by helping each other. Uplifting and positive, this novel speaks to all ages.
Galactic Journey is Gideon's Serling award winning and Hugo nominated web-project. Going back in time 55 years to bring today's readers news from the past, the site features reviews of published short stories and novels, and tons of articles on movies, tv shows, "current" events such as the Space Race, and other interesting things. The neat thing is that everything on the site is written as if it is happening right now. You can also follow Galactic Journey on twitter, @journeygalactic.
Gideon was kind enough to let me ask him all sorts of questions about the novel and Galactic Journey. In our wide ranging conversation we talk about everything from recent trends in YA fiction to characters writing the story themselves, to the importance of small moments, to the future of Galactic Journey, and more!
Let's get to the interview!
NOAF: Congratulations on your new novel, Kitra! Who is Kitra and why is her story so compelling?
Gideon Marcus: Thanks very much! Kitra is a 19 year old amateur glider pilot with one overriding passion: to go to space. Her mother was an interstellar ambassador, an almost larger than life figure, and when she died, she left behind big (metaphorical) shoes to fill. What makes Kitra special is what can make anyone special: persistence and a determination to seek help in achieving one's goals.
As for what makes her story compelling, I think a story of hope against odds, of ingenuity beating adversity, always resonates. But right now especially, when we're all stuck in various levels of isolation and there's no clear path back to normal, a story about being trapped in a small ship for weeks on end resonates all the more strongly. It's eerily timely and, I'm hoping, inspiring.
NOAF: Sounds like there's a lot of wonderful things happening in this book! What challenges did you come across, when you were plotting out everything that needed to happen?
GM: Plotwise, I wrote myself into a corner about 65% of the way through the book. I really didn't know how Kitra was going to accomplish the most important thing she needed to do to get home. When you read how she and her crew got through the puzzle, you'll think it was just brilliant foreshadowing . . . but really, I just sat in my backyard and thought, "What would the characters do?" They quite literally wrote their own solution.
More technically, my biggest challenge was scientific consistency. Kitra is a "young adult" novel, which means it needs to be accessible to everyone age 10 and up. At the same time, there's plenty of Star Wars-style science fantasies out there that play fast and loose with physics. I wanted to write a story that is plausible science fiction while still enjoyable and a quick read. That was the challenge, making sure I kept all the numbers right - how much fuel they had, their food reserves, the mechanics of space travel, etc. It's all invisible to the reader (this is a novel, not a textbook!) but that consistency is important to me.
NOAF: What inspired you to write this novel?
GM: Two main reasons. First: I wrote what I wanted to read. Second: No one else was doing it.
I grew up on "classic" science fiction, mostly stuff from the 50s through the 80s. There wasn't a YA genre back then; it was called "juvenile" instead and usually featured young men doing adventurous things among the stars. Back then, space was the final frontier, after all.
For the last twenty years, YA has been dominated by fantasy and dystopia. Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed Harry Potter and The Hunger Games, but it got to the point where everyone was trying to write the next Harry Potter or Hunger Games. Space hasn't gotten any less interesting; science shouldn't be passé; and characters don't need magic or special powers to be extraordinary.
As for why Kitra in particular, in those books I grew up with, there weren't enough (read ANY) young women protagonists . . . except in my beloved L. Frank Baum Oz books. There weren't queer protagonists, rarely persons of color in starring roles. It was something I didn't notice when I was a kid. And that's, of course, the problem. I want young people, and older ones too, to read my book and see a world that looks like theirs, with all the diversity therein.
NOAF: What surprised you the most, while you were writing this novel?
GM: A lot of the book was planned well in advance. I'm not exactly a plotter, but I like to bullet point the pivotal scenes. Some, though, I just sat in front of a blank page with my 1000-words-a-day deadline looming, and pulled a chapter out of . . . hyperspace. :) The snowball fight was one of those.
I didn't plan the situation between Kitra and Marta. In retrospect, it's obvious - two close friends with a romantic history trapped together in an enclosed space - something was bound to happen. Not only does it affect the events in Kitra, it will be important to later books in the series, too.
I think that's the mark of successfully realized characters. They do what they want regardless of what you have planned for them!
NOAF: I hear there is a second novel in the series in the works! Where does Kitra's story go from here?
GM: I'm never certain how much to spoil in these interviews! Kitra's saga definitely doesn't end with the first book, though Kitra wraps up satisfactorily (all of the books in the series will; no one likes a novel that's not a complete story.) By the end of the first book, Kitra and her friends have just been forged into a crew. There's a whole universe to explore, and mind-boggling things to discover. Plus, Kitra will grow as a person, as will those around her. I think that will resonate with readers, too, watching these characters mature over time.
NOAF: In another interview you did, you mentioned that you're "not really about villains". Does Kitra's world not have any bad guys? What does a world without baddies look like?
GM: What's a "bad guy"? I grew up on superhero comics, and I enjoyed the MCU for a while, but I got tired of the zero sum game. If there were heroes, the rationale went, there had to be equally powerful villains, and they had to fight incessantly. In a dystopian novel, there's the big evil government. In a fantasy, there's the Sauron/Voldemort. I wanted to try something different.
The real world is a complicated place. The "enemy" can be poverty, natural disaster, or closest to home right now, a pandemic. There are definitely selfish, cruel people in this world, but they are almost always the symptom of a problem rather than the source.
My wife once observed that "good writing is the art of making small things matter." Writers have gotten obsessed with toppling Big Bads, or a series of successively tougher "bosses". The scope is always enormous: the world, or the universe . . . maybe even the multiverse. With Kitra, I dialed it back. It's just her and the four friends she feels obligated to help. There is no enemy, just a challenging situation to deal with creatively.
That said, the scope will expand as the series goes on. Will there be trouble? Of course. Politics? To a degree. People who try to hurt Kitra and her crew, sure. But there will never be an arch-nemesis for her to rail against.
NOAF: I'd be a terrible interviewer if I didn't congratulate you on your Hugo nomination for Best Fanzine, Congratulations! You've been on the Hugo ballot a few times now, how did it feel to get that first nomination? What will winning a Hugo mean for you?
GM: Becoming a Hugo Finalist was literally a life-changer. It happened at the same time as my first professional fiction sales (I've been a nonfiction writer for 15 years) as well as my first educational performances. That was when I realized I could make a go of this writing thing. Two years later, I have a successful publishing company, I'm working with laureled authors, and I'm doing what I love most - telling stories that entertain.
NOAF: Why did you start Galactic Journey? Has Galactic Journey's goals or focus changed since you started it? Where do you see the site going in the next few years?
GM: It all began in 1954. That's when my dad started collecting science fiction magazines. He died in 1993 and left me almost a thousand of them. In 2009, I decided I wanted to read them all. To keep me on a regular schedule, I decided to read them once a month "as they came out" with a time-shift of 55 years. In 1958 . . . er . . . 2013, my wife asked me to recommend some of my favorite stories. I decided to write a blog instead, sort of projecting myself into the past to live in the bygone age, day by day. I'm a space historian, and my specialty is the late '50s, so I added articles about the Space Race, too.
Well, you can't immerse yourself in a time, listening to the music, watching the movies, reading the paper, and not have it become part of you. And I kept seeing our modern age reflected in the past. 55 years ago is now, just a little crappier. I found myself excited on the rare occasions I saw a woman's byline in my fiction and started chronicling the (these days largely forgotten) contributions women made to science fiction back then. I got invested in the struggle for civil rights which, even today, is far from complete...and has faltered lately. I wanted to know more about the world of that age, not just the fiction and technology, but the culture, the fashion, the politics, and how they ultimately led to the age we know today.
Twenty people make up the Journey now, demographically diverse, from all hemispheres of the globe. What we make is, I think, a lot more than just a fanzine. It's a living time capsule with something for everyone. We've finished The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, and we pretty well wrapped up the latter Silver Age of science fiction. Doctor Who is in its second season and will go on for a long time. Over the next few years, we're going to be covering a lot more familiar franchises: Star Trek, the New Wave of SF, 2001.
And we're really just starting the 1960s in earnest. Society is about to be turned on its ear, and at the end of the revolution are the seeds of our current world. I hope folks enjoy the trip as much as I am!
NOAF: Thank you so much Gideon!
- Reviews
- _Book reviews
- _Film and TV Reviews
- _Game Reviews
- _Thursday Morning Superhero
- _Short Fiction Reviews
- Lists
- _New Books Spotlight
- _6 Books Posts
- _We Rank 'Ems
- Features
- _Interviews and Blogtables
- _Talking About Books
- _The Hugo Awards
- _Mini-Projects
- Projects
- _Nerds on Tour (2020)
- _The Hugo Initiative (2019)
- _Feminist Futures (2018)
- _Dystopian Visions (2017)
- Meet the Flock
- Review Policy
- Home
Showing posts with label Hugos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hugos. Show all posts
Monday, April 27, 2020
Monday, April 2, 2018
Initial Thoughts on the 2018 Hugo Award Finalists
We've known Nerds of a Feather was to be announced as a finalist for the Hugo Award for about ten days before the official announcement on Saturday. It's tough to sit on that sort of news, but it's also important to respect the process. There's a certain amount of stress involved when you know there is a reasonable chance of making the final ballot, but understanding that nothing is remotely guaranteed or promised. We just want to try to do good work here and we're beyond grateful and ecstatic for the recognition.
Again, thank you to everyone who nominated us.
Beyond our excitement over being included on this year's Hugo ballot, the next coolest thing about the announcement of the finalists is that we finally get a chance to see what all is going to be on the ballot and nerd out about the short list and share in the excitement of the day. So let's take a look.
Best Novel
Best Novella
Best Novelette
Best Short Story
Best Series
Best Related Work
Best Graphic Story
Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form
Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form
Best Editor, Short Form
Best Editor, Long Form
Best Professional Artist
Best Semiprozine
Best Fanzine
Best Fancast
Best Fan Writer
Best Fan Artist
There are two other Awards administered by Worldcon 76 that are not Hugo Awards:
Award for Best Young Adult Book
John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer
That's the ballot and it looks to be pretty exceptional. We couldn't be prouder for Nerds of a Feather to be a part of it. Let's get to reading and discussing, folks.
POSTED BY: Joe Sherry - Co-editor of Nerds of a Feather, 2017 / 2018 Hugo Award Finalist for Best Fanzine. Writer / Editor of the mostly defunct Adventures in Reading since 2004. Minnesotan.
Again, thank you to everyone who nominated us.
Beyond our excitement over being included on this year's Hugo ballot, the next coolest thing about the announcement of the finalists is that we finally get a chance to see what all is going to be on the ballot and nerd out about the short list and share in the excitement of the day. So let's take a look.
Best Novel
- The Collapsing Empire, by John Scalzi (Tor) (our review)
- New York 2140, by Kim Stanley Robinson (Orbit)
- Provenance, by Ann Leckie (Orbit) (our review)
- Raven Stratagem, by Yoon Ha Lee (Solaris)
- Six Wakes, by Mur Lafferty (Orbit) (our review)
- The Stone Sky, by N.K. Jemisin (Orbit) (our review)
Best Novella
- All Systems Red, by Martha Wells (Tor.com Publishing)
- “And Then There Were (N-One),” by Sarah Pinsker (Uncanny, March/April 2017)
- Binti: Home, by Nnedi Okorafor (Tor.com Publishing)
- The Black Tides of Heaven, by JY Yang (Tor.com Publishing)
- Down Among the Sticks and Bones, by Seanan McGuire (Tor.Com Publishing) (our review)
- River of Teeth, by Sarah Gailey (Tor.com Publishing) (our review)
Best Novelette
- “Children of Thorns, Children of Water,” by Aliette de Bodard (Uncanny, July-August 2017)
- “Extracurricular Activities,” by Yoon Ha Lee (Tor.com, February 15, 2017)
- “The Secret Life of Bots,” by Suzanne Palmer (Clarkesworld, September 2017)
- “A Series of Steaks,” by Vina Jie-Min Prasad (Clarkesworld, January 2017)
- “Small Changes Over Long Periods of Time,” by K.M. Szpara (Uncanny, May/June 2017)
- “Wind Will Rove,” by Sarah Pinsker (Asimov’s, September/October 2017)
Best Short Story
- “Carnival Nine,” by Caroline M. Yoachim (Beneath Ceaseless Skies, May 2017)
- “Clearly Lettered in a Mostly Steady Hand,” by Fran Wilde (Uncanny, September 2017)
- “Fandom for Robots,” by Vina Jie-Min Prasad (Uncanny, September/October 2017)
- “The Martian Obelisk,” by Linda Nagata (Tor.com, July 19, 2017)
- “Sun, Moon, Dust” by Ursula Vernon, (Uncanny, May/June 2017)
- “Welcome to your Authentic Indian Experience™,” by Rebecca Roanhorse (Apex, August 2017)
Best Series
- The Books of the Raksura, by Martha Wells (Night Shade)
- The Divine Cities, by Robert Jackson Bennett (Broadway)
- InCryptid, by Seanan McGuire (DAW)
- The Memoirs of Lady Trent, by Marie Brennan (Tor US / Titan UK)
- The Stormlight Archive, by Brandon Sanderson (Tor US / Gollancz UK)
- World of the Five Gods, by Lois McMaster Bujold (Harper Voyager / Spectrum Literary Agency)
Best Related Work
- Crash Override: How Gamergate (Nearly) Destroyed My Life, and How We Can Win the Fight Against Online Hate, by Zoe Quinn (PublicAffairs)
- Iain M. Banks (Modern Masters of Science Fiction), by Paul Kincaid (University of Illinois Press)
- A Lit Fuse: The Provocative Life of Harlan Ellison, by Nat Segaloff (NESFA Press)
- Luminescent Threads: Connections to Octavia E. Butler, edited by Alexandra Pierce and Mimi Mondal (Twelfth Planet Press)
- No Time to Spare: Thinking About What Matters, by Ursula K. Le Guin (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt)
- Sleeping with Monsters: Readings and Reactions in Science Fiction and Fantasy, by Liz Bourke (Aqueduct Press)
Best Graphic Story
- Bitch Planet, Volume 2: President Bitch, written by Kelly Sue DeConnick, illustrated by Valentine DeLandro and Taki Soma, colored by Kelly Fitzpatrick, lettered by Clayton Cowles (Image Comics)
- Black Bolt, Volume 1: Hard Time, written by Saladin Ahmed, illustrated by Christian Ward, lettered by Clayton Cowles (Marvel)
- Monstress, Volume 2: The Blood, written by Marjorie M. Liu, illustrated by Sana Takeda (Image Comics)
- My Favorite Thing is Monsters, written and illustrated by Emil Ferris (Fantagraphics)
- Paper Girls, Volume 3, written by Brian K. Vaughan, illustrated by Cliff Chiang, colored by Matthew Wilson, lettered by Jared Fletcher (Image Comics)
- Saga, Volume 7, written by Brian K. Vaughan, illustrated by Fiona Staples (Image Comics)
Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form
- Blade Runner 2049, written by Hampton Fancher and Michael Green, directed by Denis Villeneuve (Alcon Entertainment / Bud Yorkin Productions / Torridon Films / Columbia Pictures)
- Get Out, written and directed by Jordan Peele (Blumhouse Productions / Monkeypaw Productions / QC Entertainment)
- The Shape of Water, written by Guillermo del Toro and Vanessa Taylor, directed by Guillermo del Toro (TSG Entertainment / Double Dare You / Fox Searchlight Pictures)
- Star Wars: The Last Jedi, written and directed by Rian Johnson (Lucasfilm, Ltd.)
- Thor: Ragnarok, written by Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle, and Christopher Yost; directed by Taika Waititi (Marvel Studios)
- Wonder Woman, screenplay by Allan Heinberg, story by Zack Snyder & Allan Heinberg and Jason Fuchs, directed by Patty Jenkins (DC Films / Warner Brothers)
Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form
- Black Mirror: “USS Callister,” written by William Bridges and Charlie Brooker, directed by Toby Haynes (House of Tomorrow)
- “The Deep” [song], by Clipping (Daveed Diggs, William Hutson, Jonathan Snipes)
- Doctor Who: “Twice Upon a Time,” written by Steven Moffat, directed by Rachel Talalay (BBC Cymru Wales)
- The Good Place: “Michael’s Gambit,” written and directed by Michael Schur (Fremulon / 3 Arts Entertainment / Universal Television)
- The Good Place: “The Trolley Problem,” written by Josh Siegal and Dylan Morgan, directed by Dean Holland (Fremulon / 3 Arts Entertainment / Universal Television)
- Star Trek: Discovery: “Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad,” written by Aron Eli Coleite & Jesse Alexander, directed by David M. Barrett (CBS Television Studios)
Best Editor, Short Form
- John Joseph Adams
- Neil Clarke
- Lee Harris
- Jonathan Strahan
- Lynne M. Thomas & Michael Damian Thomas
- Sheila Williams
Best Editor, Long Form
- Sheila E. Gilbert
- Joe Monti
- Diana M. Pho
- Devi Pillai
- Miriam Weinberg
- Navah Wolfe
Best Professional Artist
- Galen Dara
- Kathleen Jennings
- Bastien Lecouffe Deharme
- Victo Ngai
- John Picacio
- Sana Takeda
Best Semiprozine
- Beneath Ceaseless Skies, editor-in-chief and publisher Scott H. Andrews
- The Book Smugglers, edited by Ana Grilo and Thea James
- Escape Pod, edited by Mur Lafferty, S.B. Divya, and Norm Sherman, with assistant editor Benjamin C. Kinney
- Fireside Magazine, edited by Brian White and Julia Rios; managing editor Elsa Sjunneson-Henry; special feature editor Mikki Kendall; publisher & art director Pablo Defendini
- Strange Horizons, edited by Kate Dollarhyde, Gautam Bhatia, A.J. Odasso, Lila Garrott, Heather McDougal, Ciro Faienza, Tahlia Day, Vanessa Rose Phin, and the Strange Horizons staff
- Uncanny Magazine, edited by Lynne M. Thomas & Michael Damian Thomas, Michi Trota, and Julia Rios; podcast produced by Erika Ensign & Steven Schapansky
Best Fanzine
- File 770, edited by Mike Glyer
- Galactic Journey, edited by Gideon Marcus
- Journey Planet, edited by Team Journey Planet
- nerds of a feather, flock together, edited by The G, Vance Kotrla, and Joe Sherry
- Rocket Stack Rank, edited by Greg Hullender and Eric Wong
- SF Bluestocking, edited by Bridget McKinney
Best Fancast
- The Coode Street Podcast, presented by Jonathan Strahan and Gary K. Wolfe
- Ditch Diggers, presented by Mur Lafferty and Matt Wallace
- Fangirl Happy Hour, presented by Ana Grilo and Renay William
- Galactic Suburbia, presented by Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce and Tansy Rayner Roberts; produced by Andrew Finch
- Sword and Laser, presented by Veronica Belmont and Tom Merritt
- Verity!, presented by Deborah Stanish, Erika Ensign, Katrina Griffiths, L.M. Myles, Lynne M. Thomas, and Tansy Rayner Roberts
Best Fan Writer
- Camestros Felapton
- Sarah Gailey
- Mike Glyer
- Foz Meadows
- Charles Payseur
- Bogi Takács
Best Fan Artist
- Geneva Benton
- Grace P. Fong
- Maya Hahto
- Likhain (M. Sereno)
- Spring Schoenhuth
- Steve Stiles
There are two other Awards administered by Worldcon 76 that are not Hugo Awards:
Award for Best Young Adult Book
- Akata Warrior, by Nnedi Okorafor (Viking)
- The Art of Starving, by Sam J. Miller (HarperTeen)
- The Book of Dust: La Belle Sauvage, by Philip Pullman (Knopf)
- In Other Lands, by Sarah Rees Brennan (Big Mouth House)
- A Skinful of Shadows, by Frances Hardinge (Macmillan UK / Harry N. Abrams US)
- Summer in Orcus, written by T. Kingfisher (Ursula Vernon), illustrated by Lauren Henderson (Sofawolf Press)
John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer
- Katherine Arden
- Sarah Kuhn
- Jeannette Ng
- Vina Jie-Min Prasad
- Rebecca Roanhorse
- Rivers Solomon
That's the ballot and it looks to be pretty exceptional. We couldn't be prouder for Nerds of a Feather to be a part of it. Let's get to reading and discussing, folks.
POSTED BY: Joe Sherry - Co-editor of Nerds of a Feather, 2017 / 2018 Hugo Award Finalist for Best Fanzine. Writer / Editor of the mostly defunct Adventures in Reading since 2004. Minnesotan.
Labels:
Hugo Awards,
Hugos,
Joe,
Reading the Hugos
Saturday, March 31, 2018
Thank You
The finalists for the 2018 Hugo Awards were announced earlier today and, for the second time, we are among the shortlisted fanzines. To be a finalist once was incredible and a dream come true. To be a finalist twice? We are honored and we are humbled to recognize that we are part of the history of the Hugo Award. We are doubly honored and proud to be in such good company with the other finalists for Best Fanzine.
If you could have seen the ear to ear smiles on our faces when we first received the news, you can rest assured that we do not take this nomination for granted. Our hearts are filled with joy and gratitude today.
As such, we'd like to take this opportunity to thank the people who have made this possible and who are ultimately responsible for us to even have a chance to even be considered. First, our wonderful group of in-house writers, who manage to create outstanding work amid busy and complex lives, and do so purely for love of these genres and media. We also want to thank our regular (and irregular) guest writers, all the authors who have participated in our blogtables and 6 books series, those who have sat both physically and electronically for interviews. Finally, we would like to give a special thanks to our readers and supporters within the community. Without you guys, we never make it here - not once, and certainly not twice.
Thank you. Thank you for nominating nerds of a feather, flock together. It means more than we can possibly express.
If you could have seen the ear to ear smiles on our faces when we first received the news, you can rest assured that we do not take this nomination for granted. Our hearts are filled with joy and gratitude today.
As such, we'd like to take this opportunity to thank the people who have made this possible and who are ultimately responsible for us to even have a chance to even be considered. First, our wonderful group of in-house writers, who manage to create outstanding work amid busy and complex lives, and do so purely for love of these genres and media. We also want to thank our regular (and irregular) guest writers, all the authors who have participated in our blogtables and 6 books series, those who have sat both physically and electronically for interviews. Finally, we would like to give a special thanks to our readers and supporters within the community. Without you guys, we never make it here - not once, and certainly not twice.
Thank you. Thank you for nominating nerds of a feather, flock together. It means more than we can possibly express.
-The G, Vance, & Joe
Labels:
Hugo Awards,
Hugos
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
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.
Sunday, August 23, 2015
A Personal Thank You to 29 Awesome People (and some blogs)
So the Hugo voting statistics are available, and it looks like 'nerds of a feather, flock together' received the 12th most nominating votes. That's still a far cry from the 68 garnered by nominee #5 (and eventual winner) Journey Planet, but it's also the first time we've made the longlist.
More importantly, it means that 29 individuals believe enough in what we've built and what we're doing here to cast a vote for this site, and that makes me happier than anything else. I am humbled by and grateful to each and every one of you for your support. I hope that we continue to earn your time and attention in years to come.
Finally, I want to recognize a few other sites on the longlist who I think are really deserving:
#4 Black Gate
I'd kind of forgotten about Black Gate, to be honest, but I was hugely impressed with how they, and writer Matthew David Surridge, comported themselves after receiving puppy nominations. I've since fallen back in love with the venerable site--and especially with, you know, the stuff about books. Top notch content, though could use a site redesign.
#7 Lady Business
One of my shortlist nominees, and just an outstanding site.
#8 File770
Another one I'd sort of written off in past years, but now it has to be considered the frontrunner for 2016, due to Mike Glyer's decision to chronicle the whole sordid affair. Somewhere right now I suspect a sociologist is silently thanking you.
#9 A Dribble of Ink
The 2014 winner, and the site that convinced me to start this one. Beautifully designed and a showcase for Aidan Moher's elegant writing on fantasy.
#11 SF Signal
I mean, come on--these guys are just too awesome for words.
#13 SF Mistressworks
One of the few SF/F blogs I'd classify as important.
You are all winners in my book.
More importantly, it means that 29 individuals believe enough in what we've built and what we're doing here to cast a vote for this site, and that makes me happier than anything else. I am humbled by and grateful to each and every one of you for your support. I hope that we continue to earn your time and attention in years to come.
Finally, I want to recognize a few other sites on the longlist who I think are really deserving:
#4 Black Gate
I'd kind of forgotten about Black Gate, to be honest, but I was hugely impressed with how they, and writer Matthew David Surridge, comported themselves after receiving puppy nominations. I've since fallen back in love with the venerable site--and especially with, you know, the stuff about books. Top notch content, though could use a site redesign.
#7 Lady Business
One of my shortlist nominees, and just an outstanding site.
#8 File770
Another one I'd sort of written off in past years, but now it has to be considered the frontrunner for 2016, due to Mike Glyer's decision to chronicle the whole sordid affair. Somewhere right now I suspect a sociologist is silently thanking you.
#9 A Dribble of Ink
The 2014 winner, and the site that convinced me to start this one. Beautifully designed and a showcase for Aidan Moher's elegant writing on fantasy.
#11 SF Signal
I mean, come on--these guys are just too awesome for words.
#13 SF Mistressworks
One of the few SF/F blogs I'd classify as important.
You are all winners in my book.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
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).
Labels:
awards,
books,
fantasy,
Hugo Reform,
Hugos,
science fiction
Monday, June 15, 2015
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:
...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.
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
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
It's just that, in recent years, a disproportionate percentage of:
- Hugo/Nebula/Locus winners in the short fiction categories
- Selections in the annual “best of” collections
- 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
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.
Labels:
awards,
books,
fantasy,
Hugo Reform,
Hugos,
science fiction
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
What I'll Consider for the 2015 Hugo Awards
I've thought long and hard about how I'd respond to the Sad/Rabid Puppies slate-voting debacle (at the Hugo Awards, for those who don't know). Some have argued that those of us who oppose slate voting should send a message by voting No Award in every category; others suggest we should only consider works outside the highly correlated S/RP slates. But I don't think I can, in good conscience, penalize those who: (a) never asked to be on those slates; (b) had nothing to do with the construction or mobilization in favor of those slates; and (c) produced award-worthy work in 2014. So I'll consider anything provided it's not:
If anything falls under these categories, I will not place them on my ballot, placing No Award in their stead.* I understand that this doesn't send the strongest message, but the fact is that I like Adventures in Sci-Fi Publishing, I like Black Gate and I like Andromeda Spaceways. I'm not going to deprive them of the chance to win an award that, for many people in SF/F fandom, is the culmination of a life-long labor of love--just because someone else decided to turn them into political footballs.
In practical terms, since I'm not terribly knowledgeable about the S/RP process or its principal ideologues (outside the obvious four, two of whom have recused themselves from award consideration), #1 doesn't really cut that much from the list. And since I haven't read most of the stuff on S/RP, I can make even fewer cuts based on #2 at this moment. There are some, based on past experiences, that I imagine will end up in #2, but I won't make that call until I've read/engaged with the nominated work.
Similarly, as I become more aware of how this thing was organized, a greater number of nominees may end up in #1. But I'm going to define "organized or publicly advocated for" in narrow terms. Saying "thanks for including me on this list" in the comments section of some S/RP-related blog post isn't enough for me, nor is defending S/RP or slate voting in the course of a public conversation. Rather, for someone to fit into #1, they need to be or have been an activist. If there is demonstrable proof, in the way of URLs or screencaps, showing S/RP nominees engaging in pro-slate activism, then I'll update the list that comes at the bottom of this post with their names and/or works removed. And, of course, if something is too shit to be seriously considered for an award, it won't matter what it's about. But without either of those things, I'll consider any nominee valid unless proven otherwise.
On to my list, revised as of 4/30/15:
BEST NOVEL
Award for the best new professional science fiction or fantasy writer of 2013 or 2014, sponsored by Dell Magazines (not a Hugo Award).
- Directly (and demonstrably) associated with someone who organized or publicly advocated for S/RP.
- Too shit to be taken seriously.
If anything falls under these categories, I will not place them on my ballot, placing No Award in their stead.* I understand that this doesn't send the strongest message, but the fact is that I like Adventures in Sci-Fi Publishing, I like Black Gate and I like Andromeda Spaceways. I'm not going to deprive them of the chance to win an award that, for many people in SF/F fandom, is the culmination of a life-long labor of love--just because someone else decided to turn them into political footballs.
In practical terms, since I'm not terribly knowledgeable about the S/RP process or its principal ideologues (outside the obvious four, two of whom have recused themselves from award consideration), #1 doesn't really cut that much from the list. And since I haven't read most of the stuff on S/RP, I can make even fewer cuts based on #2 at this moment. There are some, based on past experiences, that I imagine will end up in #2, but I won't make that call until I've read/engaged with the nominated work.
Similarly, as I become more aware of how this thing was organized, a greater number of nominees may end up in #1. But I'm going to define "organized or publicly advocated for" in narrow terms. Saying "thanks for including me on this list" in the comments section of some S/RP-related blog post isn't enough for me, nor is defending S/RP or slate voting in the course of a public conversation. Rather, for someone to fit into #1, they need to be or have been an activist. If there is demonstrable proof, in the way of URLs or screencaps, showing S/RP nominees engaging in pro-slate activism, then I'll update the list that comes at the bottom of this post with their names and/or works removed. And, of course, if something is too shit to be seriously considered for an award, it won't matter what it's about. But without either of those things, I'll consider any nominee valid unless proven otherwise.
On to my list, revised as of 4/30/15:
BEST NOVEL
- Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie (Orbit US; Orbit UK)
- The Dark Between the Stars by Kevin J. Anderson (Tor Books)
- The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison (Sarah Monette) (Tor Books)
- Lines of Departure by Marko Kloos (47North)
- Skin Game: A Novel of the Dresden Files by Jim Butcher (Roc Books)
- “Flow” by Arlan Andrews, Sr. (Analog, Nov 2014)
- “Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium” by Gray Rinehart (Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show, May 2014)
- “Championship B’tok” by Edward M Lerner (Analog, Sept 2014)
- “The Journeyman: In the Stone House” by Michael F. Flynn (Analog, June 2014)
- “The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale” by Rajnar Vajra (Analog, Jul/Aug 2014)
- “The Day The World Turned Upside Down” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Lightspeed Magazine, April 2014)
- “Goodnight Stars” by Annie Bellet (The End is Now (Apocalypse Triptych Book 2), Broad Reach Publishing)
- “On A Spiritual Plain” by Lou Antonelli (Sci Phi Journal #2, Nov 2014)
- “Totaled” by Kary English (Galaxy’s Edge magazine, July 2014)
- Letters from Gardner by Lou Antonelli (The Merry Blacksmith Press)
- “Why Science is Never Settled” by Tedd Roberts (Baen.com)
- Wisdom from my Internet by Michael Z. Williamson (Patriarchy Press)
- Ms. Marvel Vol 1: No Normal written by G. Willow Wilson, illustrated by Adrian Alphona and Jake Wyatt, (Marvel Comics)
- Rat Queens Volume 1: Sass and Sorcery written by Kurtis J. Weibe, art by Roc Upchurch (Image Comics)
- Zombie Nation Book #2: Reduce Reuse Reanimate by Carter Reid (The Zombie Nation)
- Saga, Volume 3 written by Brian K. Vaughan, illustrated by Fiona Staples (Image Comics)
- Sex Criminals, Vol. 1: One Weird Trick written by Matt Fraction, art by Chip Zdarsky (Image Comics)
- 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)
- Guardians of the Galaxy written by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman, directed by James Gunn (Marvel Studios, Moving Picture Company)
- 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))
- Doctor Who: “Listen” written by Steven Moffat directed by Douglas Mackinnon (BBC Television)
- 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)
- 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)
- Grimm: “Once We Were Gods” written by Alan DiFiore, directed by Steven DePaul (NBC; GK Productions, Hazy Mills Productions, Universal TV)
- Orphan Black: “By Means Which Have Never Yet Been Tried”written by Graham Manson, directed by John Fawcett (Temple Street Productions, Space/BBC America)
- Jennifer Brozek
- Mike Resnick
- Bryan Thomas Schmidt
- Sheila Gilbert
- Jim Minz
- Anne Sowards
- Toni Weisskopf
- Julie Dillon
- Kirk DouPonce
- Nick Greenwood
- Alan Pollack
- Carter Reid
- Abyss & Apex, Wendy Delmater editor and publisher
- Andromeda Spaceways In-Flight Magazine, Andromeda Spaceways Publishing Association Incorporated, 2014 editors David Kernot and Sue Bursztynski
- Lightspeed Magazine, edited by John Joseph Adams, Stefan Rudnicki, Rich Horton, Wendy N. Wagner, and Christie Yant
- Beneath Ceaseless Skies, edited by Scott H. Andrews
- Strange Horizons, Niall Harrison Editor-in-Chief
- Elitist Book Reviews edited by Steve Diamond
- Journey Planet edited by James Bacon, Chris Garcia, Alissa McKersie, Colin Harris and Helen Montgomery
- The Revenge of Hump Day edited by Tim Bolgeo
- Tangent SF Online edited by Dave Truesdale
- Adventures in SF 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)
- Galactic Suburbia Podcast Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, Tansy Rayner Roberts (Presenters) and Andrew Finch (Producer)
- The Sci Phi Show Jason Rennie
- Tea and Jeopardy Emma Newman & Peter Newman
- Jeffro Johnson
- Laura J. Mixon
- Ninni Aalto
- Brad Foster
- Elizabeth Leggett
- Spring Schoenhuth
- Steve Stiles
Award for the best new professional science fiction or fantasy writer of 2013 or 2014, sponsored by Dell Magazines (not a Hugo Award).
- Wesley Chu
- Jason Cordova
- Kary English
- Rolf Nelson
Labels:
awards,
fantasy,
Hugos,
science fiction
Sunday, April 5, 2015
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.
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...
Now about that Locus Recommended Reading list...
Labels:
awards,
fantasy,
Hugo Reform,
Hugos,
science fiction
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
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*).
Okay, here goes...
"Radical Elegance" Slate (9 categories)
Moderately Expanded Slate (18 categories)
***
POSTED BY: The G--purveyor of nerdliness, genre fanatic and 'nerds of a
feather, flock together' founder/administrator.
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.
Labels:
awards,
books,
fantasy,
Hugo Reform,
Hugos,
science fiction
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




