2015 Hugo Award winners

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The only difference in the electoral system is that the voter ranks their choices from, say, 1-4, and if their first-place candidate is knocked out, their vote is transferred to their second-place candidate, and the process continues until only one candidate is left. The basic idea of it is exactly the same, however.

This is pretty much how the actual voting works for the Hugos now.

I guess that's the other key difference with the leadership vote: it's about who actually wins, not who gets to be on the ballot.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I guess that's the other key difference with the leadership vote: it's about who actually wins, not who gets to be on the ballot.

It's just a "two stage" election, isn't it, with the first stage having as many "winners" as there are places on the second-stage ballot?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's just a "two stage" election, isn't it, with the first stage having as many "winners" as there are places on the second-stage ballot?

Not really for the Hugo.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Not really for the Hugo.

We were talking about the "EPH" proposal. Would that not make it effectively a 2-stage election?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We were talking about the "EPH" proposal. Would that not make it effectively a 2-stage election?

I assume they are not removing no award. It is 2-stage in the sense "consider these works and see if any is worthy of winning the award". So there is really no conclusion that can be said about just being nominated since usually the number of people that nominates is small.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

I assume they are not removing no award. It is 2-stage in the sense "consider these works and see if any is worthy of winning the award".

We're talking at cross-purposes. I meant it's 2-stage in the sense that the first stage is an election to decide what makes it onto the ballot paper (the nomination process); the second stage is a separate election to decide which item on the ballot is awarded the prize.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We're talking at cross-purposes. I meant it's 2-stage in the sense that the first stage is an election to decide what makes it onto the ballot paper (the nomination process); the second stage is a separate election to decide which item on the ballot is awarded the prize.

The Hugos have been a two stage election for a long time.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

tompe, you keep repeating "voting with the intention to destroy an award", that isn't what the Sad Puppies were doing, they were attempting to get what they classed as more entertaining works nominated and that works were getting nominated more on diversity checkboxes than merit. You can easily argue that you didn't like their choices, but it was started because they didn't like the current choices, tastes differ.

Hope about not insulting the nominators and winners of previous years by claiming works were only nominated for affirmative action when the whole puppy raison d'etre is affirmative action for the friends of Brad.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

tompe, you keep repeating "voting with the intention to destroy an award", that isn't what the Sad Puppies were doing, they were attempting to get what they classed as more entertaining works nominated and that works were getting nominated more on diversity checkboxes than merit. You can easily argue that you didn't like their choices, but it was started because they didn't like the current choices, tastes differ.

Rabid Puppies are a different matter of course, but as far as I know nobody is defending Beale, the only reason they keep getting mentioned is because one (non-puppy) side keeps conflating the 2 groups.

I consider both to be "voting with the intention to destroy an award".

But kudos to Mr. Beale for having the honesty to admit it.


I have yet to make up my mind which group I find more reprehensible.

[darryl]

@eschwartz. Exactly. As usual when things get that political, both sides have behaved reprehensibly.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Hope about not insulting the nominators and winners of previous years by claiming works were only nominated for affirmative action when the whole puppy raison d'etre is affirmative action for the friends of Brad.

Nope, well, some of them.

Ignoring the obvious dinosaur in the room, take Wakulla Springs as a recent example, it was actually far and away the best novella in the list, and I have no problem with it winning an award, but the Hugo? short of a throwaway one liner at the end, in what way is it SFF.

I have previously said that both groups just like different things and there is no huge conspiracy, and although there seems to be a fair number of puppy supporters who will accept that as the reason for the nominated works being as they are (they are of course allowed to vote for their own ideas of what is good), the anti-puppy lobby (with extremely few exceptions) simply seem to attack the participants instead of attempting to see reason or even argue their own case.

I, personally, don't think Catherynne M Valente is good enough to have been nominated for an award every year for the last 5 years for the Hugo, Nebula and locus awards. That's probably just me, although a puppy could argue that it is solely because she won the James Tiptree Jr. Award for expanding gender and sexuality in SFF and the Lambda Award for LGBT fiction. As I said though, tastes vary.

You claiming that the puppies reason for being is just for friends of Brad is just blatantly dismissing their point without addressing it.

There is reason for hope though as both sides do agree that Rabid puppies is just Beale being an arse.

[DrNefario]

The puppies seemed to be focused on some stupid false equivalences, and what they say rarely seems to correspond to what they do.

The false equivalences:

Good old-fashioned adventure space fiction = popular = right wing = Baen (or at least not Tor)
Hectoring message fiction = unpopular = left wing = Tor

Now, I love a good story, and I think about 99% of the Hugo constituency do too. I am in no way right wing, I like some Baen books. Oddly, I have this capacity to enjoy tropey military SF and thoughtful literary SF. It seems insane, I know, but I don't always want the same things out of every book I read.

In addition, I'm not American, so the politics and publisher bun-fights aren't really much to do with me. I don't really even know how the popularity converts across the Atlantic.

So, popular best-selling space adventures? Like John Scalzi's Redshirts, you mean? No? The author is too left-wing? (I didn't especially rate Redshirts, myself, but I don't think you can sensibly deny that it was popular and mainstream.)

How about like Ancillary Justice, a great galactic empire story with some nice ideas? No? You can't get over the pronoun thing and somehow think this is heavy-handed message fiction (rather than being, in my opinion, the most Hugo-y Hugo winner in about 20 years)?

Good old-fashioned stuff like Heinlein? You have read Heinlein? Only I don't remember him shying away from the odd message.


It's interesting to me that among the categories completely dominated by the puppy slates, were the short fiction and editorial categories. I've mentioned before that I nominated last year, but I didn't nominate in any of those categories. I don't really read any new short fiction, except maybe in the odd anthology, and I don't really get the point of the editorial awards. How do I know what an editor does? How do I even know who edited a given book? I'd be happy to see those categories dropped. Maybe have best Anthology instead of Editor, Short Form (we already have a best magazine, for some weird definition of magazine), and best Publisher/Imprint instead of Long Form (maybe just assume it'll be Tor every year and don't bother)?

The short fiction categories have low nomination numbers and have thrown up some pretty disappointing shortlists lately. I know that Eric Flint, for one, has argued that short fiction isn't very relevant any more, and we should be going the other way and having Best Series, but I think that does miss a crucial point: It's very easy to do the due diligence on the short fiction awards, and it'd be nearly impossible with a series award. In the few years I've taken part in the voting, I've never failed to read all of the short fiction (except that one Mira Grant novella I just didn't want to read), whereas I have failed to read all the novels on a couple of occasions.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Nope, well, some of them.

Ignoring the obvious dinosaur in the room,

No, please, let's do talk about the dinosaur in the room. http://www.apex-magazine.com/if-you-...osaur-my-love/

Now explain to me why this is so bad that the people who nominated it were only checking boxes and didn't actually _like_ it. Come on, right here we have the second biggest puppy bugaboo. The evil evil thing that no one could actually like, a symbol of all that's wrong.

Dazzle me with your proof that I'm lying when I say I like it.

take Wakulla Springs as a recent example, it was actually far and away the best novella in the list, and I have no problem with it winning an award, but the Hugo? short of a throwaway one liner at the end, in what way is it SFF.

If you don't think a nominated work is worthy of a hugo, there's a remedy for that, No Award. You'll note that like Dinosaur, it didn't win. Now show me why the people who did like it were box checking instead of actually enjoying the story. You seem to think it's good so why couldn't they?

Should I claim that the 1995 nominators were pushing a box checking agenda when they put Apollo 13 on the ballot? It was history not SFF, right?

Or maybe I should agree that space stuff or dinosaur stuff, or a little touch of magic, monsters or aliens is close enough to most people and not throw a fit.

I have previously said that both groups just like different things and there is no huge conspiracy, and although there seems to be a fair number of puppy supporters who will accept that as the reason for the nominated works being as they are (they are of course allowed to vote for their own ideas of what is good), the anti-puppy lobby (with extremely few exceptions) simply seem to attack the participants instead of attempting to see reason or even argue their own case.

Which is why you went to the box ticking well.

But maybe you're right, the puppies don't attack the participants. Just look how kind they are to everyone

http://accordingtohoyt.com/2015/08/28/fauxtrage/
http://madgeniusclub.com/2015/08/27/...ost-hugo-post/
https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com...g-diary-day-6/
Uh, John C Wright, everything he says.
And don't forget the fountain of care and kindness that is uncle Lou. http://dreamingaboutotherworlds.blog...nelli-lou.html
aww hell, it's all collected http://file770.com/?tag=sad-puppies

I, personally, don't think Catherynne M Valente is good enough to have been nominated for an award every year for the last 5 years for the Hugo, Nebula and locus awards. That's probably just me, although a puppy could argue that it is solely because she won the James Tiptree Jr. Award for expanding gender and sexuality in SFF and the Lambda Award for LGBT fiction. As I said though, tastes vary.

Yes a puppy might say that and it's so kind of you to tell us purely for information and not just because you want to pretend you're not the one making the argument.

This is supposed to be a conspiracy or affirmative action? It couldn't be consistent quality or just that the number of people who seek out her work being large and the more readers the greater the number of chances to end up on someone's award list? And there are ever so few people give awards these day after all.

You claiming that the puppies reason for being is just for friends of Brad is just blatantly dismissing their point without addressing it.

Actions speak louder than words http://file770.com/?p=22962&cpage=1#comment-276488

though his words are telling

http://madgeniusclub.com/2015/04/13/...#comment-55499

Do tell me what injustice was being righted by Brad slating whatever his buddy happened to have published?

There is reason for hope though as both sides do agree that Rabid puppies is just Beale being an arse.

Not _just_ Beale.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

No, please, let's do talk about the dinosaur in the room. http://www.apex-magazine.com/if-you-...osaur-my-love/

Now explain to me why this is so bad that the people who nominated it were only checking boxes and didn't actually _like_ it. Come on, right here we have the second biggest puppy bugaboo. The evil evil thing that no one could actually like, a symbol of all that's wrong.

Dazzle me with your proof that I'm lying when I say I like it.

No proof, I'm not saying you didn't like it, as I mentioned, tastes vary.
I'm not using the argument that no one could like it, I just believe it's not SFF.
If she was nominated for The Portrait of Lisane da Patagnia instead, fair enough (I wasn't keen on that either TBH)

Originally Posted by Iphinome

If you don't think a nominated work is worthy of a hugo, there's a remedy for that, No Award. You'll note that like Dinosaur, it didn't win. Now show me why the people who did like it were box checking instead of actually enjoying the story. You seem to think it's good so why couldn't they?

I did No Award Wakulla Springs even though I liked it.
As above, not SFF, thats pretty much my sole argument against them being nominated for Hugo's.

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Should I claim that the 1995 nominators were pushing a box checking agenda when they put Apollo 13 on the ballot? It was history not SFF, right?
Or maybe I should agree that space stuff or dinosaur stuff, or a little touch of magic, monsters or aliens is close enough to most people and not throw a fit.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Which is why you went to the box ticking well.
But maybe you're right, the puppies don't attack the participants. Just look how kind they are to everyone

http://accordingtohoyt.com/2015/08/28/fauxtrage/
http://madgeniusclub.com/2015/08/27/...ost-hugo-post/
https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com...g-diary-day-6/
Uh, John C Wright, everything he says.
And don't forget the fountain of care and kindness that is uncle Lou. http://dreamingaboutotherworlds.blog...nelli-lou.html
aww hell, it's all collected http://file770.com/?tag=sad-puppies

I don't seem to like anything John C Wright wrote, I No Awarded all his stuff, it was bloody awful.

Had to do some reading so it took awhile

Short of Hoyt, who really doesn't seem to like Mary and this post seems to be part of a back and forth between the two of them, none of the authors seemed to be attacking anybody directly (Well at least aren't making up provably false claims).
Whereas Hoyt, Correia & Torgersen seem to have been described as 3 old racist white men everywhere.

I bet a lot of people in the comments were, there seem to be a lot of nuts on both sides.

Never heard of Lou Antonelli before.

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Yes a puppy might say that and it's so kind of you to tell us purely for information and not just because you want to pretend you're not the one making the argument.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am a puppy. I've argued both sides and keep saying there is no great conspiracy and tastes vary.

Originally Posted by Iphinome

This is supposed to be a conspiracy or affirmative action? It couldn't be consistent quality or just that the number of people who seek out her work being large and the more readers the greater the number of chances to end up on someone's award list? And there are ever so few people give awards these day after all.

It might be, certainly as valid a point as the diversity argument.
She seems to get good reviews on Amazon, but really, 5 years running, do you think she is that good?

It was Aldiss who said the awards were a barometer of reader popularity rather than artistic merit. I think the awards have gotten a bit political of late and moved more towards the artistic merit side of the spectrum, probably due to the low number of people voting nowadays
Hopefully this fiasco has spurred more people in general to nominate and vote going forwards.

[Waylander]

Because I have the observation powers of a mole, I'm ashamed to say I didn't know this thread existed. However, here are a couple of responses from L.E. Modesitt:

http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2015/09/...nt-understand/

http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2015/09/...the-unobvious/

Nice to have measured responses rather than highly emotive knee-jerk reactions.