Quick 2014 Hugo Nomination Thoughts

Because, I have them!

* Nope, I’m not on the ballot this year. It will happen. As I won the best novel Hugo last year, I am perfectly fine with that. It’s nice to spread around the joy.

* I think it’s an interesting slate this year: Lots of stuff to like, a few things to puzzle over, and as always lots of fodder for discussion. On the novel ballot it’s particularly interesting to see Wheel of Time (the complete series) there — it’s a quirk of the Hugo rules that if any individual book of a series hasn’t been nominated, the entire series can be. So here we are with the whole series. Quirky Hugo rules are fun.

* I just know you’re all dying to know what I think of Vox Day’s nomination in the Novelette category. I think this: One, I haven’t read the story in question, so I can’t possibly comment on it. Two, the Hugo nomination process is pretty straightforward — people nominate a work in a category. If it gets enough votes, it’s a nominee. If the work’s on the ballot, it’s because enough nominators wanted it there. Three, the Hugo rules don’t say that a racist, sexist, homophobic dipshit can’t be nominated for a Hugo — nor should they, because in that particular category at least, it’s about the work, not the person.

In sum: Vox Day has every right (so far as I know, and as far as you know, too) to be on the ballot. You may not like it, or may wish to intimate that the work in question doesn’t deserve to be on the ballot, but you should remember what “deserve” means in the context of Hugo (i.e., that the nominators follow the rules while nominating), and just deal with it like the grown up you are.

* Apropos of nothing in particular, however, I will note that in every category it is possible to rank a nominated work below “No Award” if, after reading the work in question and giving it fair and serious consideration, you decide that it doesn’t deserve to be on the ballot and, say, that its presence on the ballot is basically a stunt by a bunch of nominators who were more interested in trolling the awards than anything else. Just a thing for you to keep in mind when voting time rolls around.

* Also, remember when I said that one of the drawbacks of announcing the Hugo Awards on the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter was that it means that the stories the media will pick up on during the week will be the outraged reactions? Yeah, this is very likely to be another year that it works that way, I think.

* On a related note, and to get out ahead of what I suspect will be a talking point, I think people may wish to suggest that aside from Vox Day there are other writers on the Hugo ballot who are there more for political and/or trolling purposes than for the quality of the nominated work, and in particular writers who are known to be more on the politically conservative side of things.

Here’s what I have to say about that: You know what? Don’t do that. Instead, take a look at the work, read the work, and if you like the work, place it appropriately on your ballot. Because why shouldn’t you? Regardless of how a work got on the ballot (or more accurately in this case, how you think it got onto the ballot), it’s there now. Read the books and stories. If you like them, great. If you don’t, there’s plenty of other excellent work on the ballot for your consideration.

Let me put it this way: In the last year, Larry Correia and Brad Torgersen have teed up on me several times in blog posts and comments, for their own various reasons. They don’t have my politics or my world view in a lot of things. But I’m looking forward to reading their nominated works, and if one of them really catches my fancy, and I don’t see why I wouldn’t vote for it. Correia and Torgersen disagreeing with me or trying to score points off of me for their own purposes isn’t really enough to dissuade me from giving their work a fair shake. It’s a pretty simple thing as far as I’m concerned. Your mileage may vary, of course. But this is my mileage.

* I noted on Twitter that I was delighted that yet again the Fan Writer Hugo category will have a new winner this year — no one nominated this year has won it before. It really does make me happy this has been the path of this particular Hugo category.

Aaaaaand those are my immediate Hugo thoughts. Your thoughts on my thoughts?

Update: No, the Hugo nominations were not rigged.

111 Comments on “Quick 2014 Hugo Nomination Thoughts”

  1. Quite obviously, the Mallet is in play with this thread. Please be civil to each other, and leave it to me to smack down any trolls.

  2. I don’t want to comment on the quality of the work of a pseudonymous author whose works I’ve never read, but I will speak out regarding Larry Correia; I’ve read and enjoyed many of his books, including the one that was nominated, just as I have by our inestimable host.

    There may be underlying politics, but at least his books are entertaining.

  3. Dumb, but the nominations are making me polish my own manuscript today. It’s my own “fuck that, I can do it too,” motivation at play.

  4. I want to be best writing buddies with you. I wish there are more civil, honest, and rational writers in the SF/F genres. I, too, try to encourage writers and readers both to disconnect the art from the artists, because there are often times when an artist squicks me, but their work is admirable. Keep up the good work.

  5. I am curious what the Hugo packet will look like this year. Will the whole Wheel of Time series really be in it? Will publishers of the 1938 works (that are amazingly still in copyright) be as eager as those of modern works to put their stuff in the packet?

  6. If you want to judge a book completely by the content and not be colored by the politics, you pretty much have to do a double blind study.

    It’s admirable to try.

  7. I see that they did not take your advice regarding announcing nominees on the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter. I am…disappointed.

  8. Well, I’ve made my position clear in these pages before: I believe in not buying/watching/reading products from truly reprehensible people. There are only a few people in that category; but if I won’t read Orson Scott Card, I hardly think I can read RSHD in good conscience, since he’s far worse.

    I will read the others in the category (when the package becomes available), but RSHD has no chance of getting a number above the one I assign to “No Award.” Ordinarily I won’t vote in a category unless I’ve read everything in it, but I’m not required to vomit my guts out.

  9. I’m not a WorldCon member as so haven’t voted and won’t be voting. But I read Ted Chiang’s nominated novella. Not my favorite of his work, but nonetheless a strong story. (And in my reading so far, it seems that Chiang always delivers strong material.)

    I haven’t read the Valente story that’s up for Best Novella, but I’m most of the way through one of her short fiction collections and recently bought another, so I look forward to reading this story, too. (Though, since I’m not voting in the Hugos this year, I don’t need to shuffle my queue to get to it sooner.)

    And I am delighted to see Sheila Gilbert on the ballot again. She really deserves a Hugo and has been overlooked for too long, so I hope this us her year.

    Also delighted to see Dan Dos Santos on the ballot, who’s the wonderful cover artist for my Esther Diamond series, as well as for many other books (including quite a few other DAW Books).

  10. I agree that Vix Day has every right to be a nominee. I also think it’s embarrassing and entirely valid to say so, particularly as his nomination happened in the way of the Jonathan Ross uproar.

  11. “it’s a quirk of the Hugo rules that if any individual book of a series hasn’t been nominated, the entire series can be. ”

    P.S. That’s interesting! I never knew that. And creates a curious dynamic for voting–trying to compare the weight of a whole series in one slot with the weight of a single novel in another slot? In my NINK column this month, I talked about my favorite writer Barbara Mertz aka Barbara Michaels aka Elizabeth Peters, and I say that although there’s no one book of hers that I would point to and say, “This is one of the best books I’ve ever read,” I’ve gotten a huge amount of enjoyment from her overall body of work–and have read a number of her books multiple times. So how would I vote, if stacking 10-20 of Barbara’s books up against a single excellent novel by someone else? Perplexing choice to make…

  12. Xopher:

    It would seem to me the responsible thing to do if one has not read a particular work in a category is simply to leave it off one’s final ballot entirely.

  13. My first thought? Serious disappointment that Human Division isn’t on there somewhere.

    As for VD, well, something like that was bound to happen.

  14. Well, I know that Correia engaged in a campaign for himself and his editor to be nominated, and what’s wrong with that? The Hugo is in large proportion a popularity contest. I’m not saying it’s a good or bad thing, it’s just what it is. You want a hugo, the first thing you should do is exhort your fans to vote for you. I like his stuff, so I voted for him. As for VD, we should judge his work on the merits. I’m certainly not paying for any of his stuff, but if his writing can rise above his reprehensible politics, (however unlikely that is,) he deserves consideration.

  15. Hardly any of my nominations made the ballot but a few did. I am looking forward to reading the material I haven’t already read.

    I will place Gravity after No Award.

  16. Dave Hogg:

    I did earlier this year say to people that I would be fine not being on the Best Novel ballot this year because I won it last year. So I’m not entirely surprised not to be on it.


    “Well, I know that Correia engaged in a campaign for himself and his editor to be nominated, and what’s wrong with that?”

    If “engaged in a campaign” means “reminded people on his Web site,” then, you know, he didn’t do anything lots of other people haven’t done (yours truly included). His book is SF/F, and lots of people like his brand of SF/F. Seems simple enough.

  17. Interesting that a series can be nominated if none of the individual works were previously nominated. One, it’s a little sad that none of Robert Jordan’s earlier WoT books were nominated. The first half of the series was some truly great writing. Two, the series as a whole was really good. It may have become convoluted and unnecessarily long, but it’s still one of the best fantasy series out there.

  18. Jon: That is correct. Leaving a work off your ballot, if you rank No Award anywhere on your ballot, is exactly the same, procedurally, as if you ranked the work below No Award. The reason for this is complicated and the complex rule that makes it work that way has never actually caused a would-be winner to be knocked off in favor of No Award, but it’s the way the system is written.,

  19. Alastair Reynolds made the point that the Hugo’s are becoming the battle of the fan boiz (I’ve paraphrased). I think a panel of professional critics should be used to balance out this problem.

  20. John, That might be a good sop to my conscience, especially if it makes no difference!

  21. John:

    I completely agree. I was speaking more towards the the idea that some of the authors are political nominations.

  22. In the best novel category, I am delighted to see a couple of my favorites. And though I love Seanan to itty bitty pieces, I’m going to be pulling for Wheel of Time to get the award this year. The series is so vast and rich and detailed that I’m somewhat baffled that it has never received the attention of the Hugos, and this is the Very Last Chance.

  23. Ugh, RSHD again…

    Can’t we all just ignore that pathetic dipshit and go about our merry lives?

  24. I’m glad that the WoT got a nomination – any work that changed the landscape of a genre deserves it. Although it has some unfortunate dead spots, when it’s working it’s some of the best fantasy I’ve ever read. I’m very glad to have read it. Plus, Sanderson is my favorite author.

    I think it’s better than Neptune’s Brood, the only other of the finalists in that category that I’ve read, also by one of my favorite authors. I’ll definitely read the others – the Hugo nominations makes for a great reading list. Except perhaps Correia’s book – mostly because it’s the third book in a series, and so requires a lot more time investment, than because of the author’s political beliefs.

    A ballot with neither Bujold or Willis on it. Was Cryoburn released too late for consideration this year, or was it not well enough liked?

    Also, Stross has the possibility of winning for Best Novel and Best Novella. Has anyone ever won both in the same year?

  25. “it’s a quirk of the Hugo rules that if any individual book of a series hasn’t been nominated, the entire series can be.”

    This is presumably an interpretation of Section 3.2.2: “A work shall not be eligible if in a prior year it received sufficient nominations to appear on the final award ballot.”

    I would argue that a novel in a series is not the same work as the series, and therefore should not be excluded under this clause. Certainly, it’s not what I meant when I wrote that clause…

    [Also, did you mean ‘if no book in the series has been nominated’?]

  26. I thought Vincent Docherty and Dave McCarty (and the station rep they were with whose name I didn’t catch) did an absolutely fine job. They covered both Hugo and Retro Hug I nominations and added some interesting info and commentary, all in 25 minutes. Should be a model for this kind of thing in the future.
    The real solution to avoiding gamed voting is to continue to enlarge the participation pool. guesstimate, but I’d venture to say that when participation tops 3-5 thousand, it will be next to impossible to create a voting block that will have any real influence.

  27. I wish I could be as magnanimous as you. You have convinced me, when I’m a pro author, that I don’t want a comments section of any kind. I don’t have the energy.

  28. It’s a pity that so many people, both on the right and left wings of the political spectrum, are so intolerant of the other wing that they judge the character of a piece of literature by their opinions of the author’s politics. Try to remember (if you are old enough) the day when everything on this ballot would have been judged worthles crap by your literature teachers, and banned from school libraries. Judging a work without reading it can only be called prejudice (judging-before). And any argument starting with “but he/she … ” belongs in the elementary school mindset, not the adult one.

  29. What Steve Davidson said. I thought Dave and Vincent did an excellent job presenting the nominations this year. I only wish some of those sidebars were done with the Retro Hugos, too.

    What are your thoughts on the Retro Hugos, John? I was disappointed that the Dramatic Presentation–Long Form category didn’t receive sufficient nominations to make the ballot. I guess not enough came out in 1938. Also disappointed “Mother Goose Goes Hollywood” didn’t make it in DP-SF.

  30. I have not read most of the works being questions so will offer no opinion on their quality. I will say something about this quote:
    But I’m looking forward to reading their nominated works, and if one of them really catches my fancy, and I don’t see why I wouldn’t vote for it. Correia and Torgersen disagreeing with me or trying to score points off of me for their own purposes isn’t really enough to dissuade me from giving their work a fair shake. It’s a pretty simple thing as far as I’m concerned.

    That is one reasons they will always be able to win, its is a courtesy they would not offer you. And should they not win it will be further proof to them that the game is rigged for the benefit of people who are not racist sexist homophobic assholes.

  31. Adrienne Foster:

    Honestly, I don’t have any real opinion about the Retro Hugos. I didn’t know enough about the year in SF/F to nominate.


    “That is one reasons they will always be able to win, it is a courtesy they would not offer you.”

    Even if this were true, it doesn’t follow that I should treat them as shabbily as they would treat me.

    And in any event, you know what? Let’s put their work out there for consideration. If it competes on quality, then fine. If it quickly becomes evident that its presence on the ballot is due to some other factor, then I suspect in the long run they will not benefit from pulling such a stunt. Fandom, it should be noted, has a very long memory.

  32. I do hope everyone on the ballot gets a fair shake. While I don’t agree with Correia’s politics, I find his books entertaining. I hope people really can put aside their opinions of the author and judge the works for what they are. Admittedly, they ARE up against WoT…

  33. Never heard of Corrhea before: now that I’ve glimpsed his blog, I’m putting him in the “Ringo/assholes” bin.

  34. I’m baffled – if the nominations are based on popularity, why is Hugh Howey not on any list? Now that he has a publisher for his print books, I would have thought he’d be eligible. As for the other authors, the only one I know and love is Mary Robinette Kowal. I’m clearly reading in a different ball park.

  35. I’m sure the statistics of the high and low number of nominations for each category are on some page somewhere, but there are on the video of the announcement at 26:28. I found the video quiet interesting with some nice commentary about the number of past nominations in the categories.

  36. I have not read many of the nominees in the Pro categories, so my comments will be limited to some of the Fan Hugo nomination. I think they offer a perfect example of the schism that exists between the Fandom I entered in 1968, when I attended my first con, and the Fandom I observe today (and, yes, this may be one of those “back in my days” comment, so you can ignore the rest if you want).

    When I entered fandom, fanzines were published on paper and distributed at conventions or through the mail. While very few current fanzines are distributed on paper, my view of a traditional fanzine is those publications, on paper or on-line, that can trace their linage, and follow the style, of the written fanzines of which I fondly remember. This year’s ballot provides a perfect example of why my view in most likely a minority one. Of the five nominees in the fanzine category, only one, “Journey Planet,” meets that definition of a traditional fanzine.

    To be honest, I was basically unfamiliar with the other four nominees. At first glance, they appear to be either blogs (2) or book review websites (2), none of which appear to focus on material that I I consider “fannish.” Of course, your definition of fannishness may differ, depending on when and how you entered the big tent that fandom has become. I’m not saying that my definition is the only one or even the correct one, just that things have changed from the fandom that I entered many years ago.

    The same can be said for the nominees for best fan writer. As I mentioned above, I have been attending cons for 45+ years and while I do not think I was ever considered a BNF (big name fan), I have met or interacted with many of the celebrated fan writers of my generation. In fact, even though the 1939 Retro Hugos is for work (allegedly) done 14 years prior to my birth, I had met at least three of the nominees for best fan writer of 1939 and knew of the other two by reputation. In my years in fandom, however, I do not believe I have ever met any of the 2014 nominees.

    Perhaps they do not go to the same cons as me (or if they do, hang out at the same parties); perhaps their fanac (if they know the term) is limited to their on-line presence. And perhaps, it is because I have not made the effort to expand my horizons beyonds the realms of what is considered to be traditional science fiction fandom. All I know is that this year’s fan Hugo nominations, for the first time, makes me think that fandom has passed me by.

    (And I will be skipping the fan artist category since there are a few nominees who come from what I see as traditional fandom.)

    I’m not saying that the fandom I joined is the only real fandom, or even if it is the best part of fandom. I realize that things have changed and that fandom has massively grown and splintered since i first tested the waters. I do feel sad, however, for the many of the wonderful fan publishers and writers who have long been and who are still doing great work (check out http://www.efanzines.com for examples), but whose work is being ignored by the new generation of fans.

    Just my 2 cents.

  37. Since I’m not eligible to vote for the Hugos, which is fine with me, my opinion maybe doesn’t matter. But my general sentiment on literary awards is meh. I’m no speed reader, but I read at what I gather is the upper end of the normal reading speed spectrum. Despite that, it would take a good chunk of my annual recreational reading time to chew through everything on the ballot, never mind that I just might not be in the mood for something when it’s on the ballot, and that’s just for one set of awards. Ignoring that speculative fiction isn’t the only genre in which books I want to read are published, I just don’t want my super-fun-time reading to be about making it through a list. So while I’m happy for him or her when an author who’s work I like lands an award, the awards themselves don’t signify all that much to me.

    I considered going to the Worldcon this year because it was close to home and had an anti-harassment policy. I ended up not having time. But when I thought I might, I wondered if the WSFS had ever entertained the idea of making the Hugo vote eligibility transferable so I could give it to someone who cared and would take the time to at least read some of the ballot selections. Good idea? Horrible idea? Crazy idea?

  38. @Tiliqua:

    Alastair Reynolds made the point that the Hugo’s are becoming the battle of the fan boiz (I’ve paraphrased). I think a panel of professional critics should be used to balance out this problem.

    Um, I’ll have to read what Alastair said on the subject before I comment, but I think it’s fair comment to say “professional critics” can cause as many problems as “fan boiz” whatever that means. But practically speaking, I think we’ve got to live with the rules around the Hugos as they are.

  39. I’m really glad I’m not eligible to vote – it’s just depressing to me to see RSHD on a ballot anywhere. Not just because I think he’s a terrible human being, but because I think he’s a terrible writer. But because I do think he’s a terrible human being, it’s depressing to see him on a ballot. It feels like a victory for the bad guys. And even a small victory for him is a victory too many.

  40. Incidentally, everyone who says they are not eligible to vote: You can BECOME eligible to vote by getting a supporting membership to this year’s Worldcon. $40, I think.

  41. I reckon there will be a lot of people putting down there money as soon as the voter’s packet is released. I know I plan to,

  42. Joel Zakem’s comment about what is “fannish” brings a nostalgic smile to my face. This is where I came in!

    I got active in fanzine fandom in the 1970s precisely because it was dominated by sercon/book review zines — the best of which was Geis’ Science Fiction Review. Discussing sf stories and how to write them was what interested me. But I remember there were others who complained that sercon fanzines had overrun the Hugo ballot and shut out the fannish zines they liked.

    So today, if I disregard the zine-vs.-blog argument, what’s left sounds very like the old familiar argument. Personally, I find it hard to blame science fiction fans for taking an interest in… science fiction.

  43. @Crystal Shepherd–Bujold’s Captain Vorpatril’s Alliance was on the ballot last year. Lost out to some dude’s book called Redshirts.

    I nominated Bujold this year in Best Related Work for Sidelines: Talks and Essays but not enough people joined me.

    @Alexvdl–If they’re able to put the entire Wheel of Time in the Hugo Packet, They may just have a RUN on supporting memberships!

  44. “Can’t we all just ignore that pathetic dipshit and go about our merry lives?”

    It seems like it’s impossible for JS to do so. You can ban RHDS from the party, but there is nothing saying he can’t make his own party.

    The really bad problem is that the novella in question is quite good. On top of that, you have to watch out for RHDS because Seanan isn’t the only one with new and exciting pen names.

  45. dpmaine:

    It’s a novelette, not novella. Two different categories. Also, if the story can compete on its merits, then so be it. As I said, I haven’t read it, so I can’t speak to it. One does hope, if he seriously intends to compete with the other nominees in the category, that he writes fiction better than he writes everything else he’s put his pen to (or at least, that I have read). He doesn’t impress me. I have no doubt he feels similarly about me.

    Re: Discussing Mr. Beale: Eh. This is the first time in a while; I typically snip him out of my searches these days because I find him tiresome in a general sense, so I neither know nor care what he’s up to (or what he’s saying about me, if anything). But I knew people would be curious of my thoughts about it. These are my thoughts.

  46. Whilst in politically closer in word view to the Correia/Baen camp and pleased his novel is nominated, I’d also find Mr. Scalzi work as well excellent and just a shame this time around is not in the running for an award. However, even though explained, I find the inclusion of the WoT series a tad odd.

  47. Thanks for clarifying novelette/novella. I had to go look it up. I can’t say I ever noticed the difference in length but it seems like a cracking good idea to split it that way.

    The problem with everyone on Twitter, as well as here is that at some point you have to stop saying “We should ignore him”, and actually do it. Without saying the “we should ignore him” part. If it’s that problematic, if you’d rather not vote than read his work (or, alternatively, pick a winner without reading the whole nomination list, which I think is also an option), you should just do that and move on. You started down this road and then I think you took a detour with pointing out these options. The temptation might still be too strong but maybe in the future you can pull it of for more than a few months at a time.

    Haven’t you featured his work on Whatever in the distant past? Or blurbed it? I may be thinking of the blog of someone else.

    If he’s so bad you can’t read his work any reason why you can’t just ignore him?

  48. Mporciuscato:

    Thanks. It’s always nice to be nominated, of course. But as I noted above, inasmuch as I won the Best Novel award last year, I can’t complain overly much. I think it’s good to have churn in the categories. And anyway, there’s always next year — and I’m pretty happy with Lock In, I have to say.


    Well, actually, I was ignoring him, without making too much of a fuss about it, since the turn of the year. At this point he’s not worth my time. But when the nominations were announced, I got pinged about it, and all things considered it wasn’t unreasonable for people to wonder. It’s not really that big of a deal to address it.

    With regard to reading to nominated work of Mr. Beale’s: I suspect I will, because I tend to read as many of the nominees as I can. As noted, given my experience of his writing I’m not expecting great things, but you never do know and I’m willing to be surprised. However, I also acknowledge a personal dislike of the fellow — I think as a human being he’s a contemptible piece of shit — and I would be lying if I didn’t believe that will have an effect on how I approach the work. Other readers may not have the same problem.

  49. I was just thinking . . . . if you haven’t read the wheel of time, is there really any way you can read the entire thing in time to make an informed decision in voting for the best novel? It seems like that category this year is going to rely on reputation and/or people previously having read the work.

    I certainly think that, given the impact of the wheel of time on the genre, it deserves to at least get a nomination (and I would be happy to see it win), but it does seem to place quite a strain on the ‘read and then vote’ system.

  50. “It seems like that category this year is going to rely on reputation and/or people previously having read the work.”

    Is this a problem?

  51. Jesse:

    Given the long-term bestselling status of the Wheel of Time series, it seems likely that a reasonable number of potential voters will have already read many of the books in the series.

  52. I’d be shocked if Tor allowed the entire Wheel of Time to be put in the voter packet (for one thing it would be super-huge), but I can certainly see them doing selected pieces with the best writing. There’s also a continuing problem of short stories not reaching the threshold of enough nominations. Last year only three made the ballot, this year was one short again.

  53. if the nominations are based on popularity, why is Hugh Howey not on any list?

    Perhaps Hugh Howey is not as popular as you imagine? I for one have never heard of him.

    I considered going to the Worldcon this year because it was close to home and had an anti-harassment policy. I ended up not having time. But when I thought I might, I wondered if the WSFS had ever entertained the idea of making the Hugo vote eligibility transferable so I could give it to someone who cared and would take the time to at least read some of the ballot selections.

    Attending memberships certainly are transferable; if the voting rights have not been exercised before the transfer, they transfer too. I don’t know about supporting memberships, I would tend to think that they ought not to be.

  54. Glad to see Frozen made the ballot, not only because I liked it (and yay, female protagonists, etc.) but because it was a freaking phenomenon among the kids, and if the Hugos overlooked it that would perhaps have indicated an unfortunate gap between current nominators and the next generation of young people.

    Also, I am totally Psyched to see Julie Dillon and Fiona Staples on the ballot for pro artist. They are two of my favorite artists, and also I am glad to see Fiona getting recognized for work in graphic novels and comics; there is a lot of incredible sf art in that medium that deserves recognition.

  55. From what I understand, the nominees actually found out a week or so ago, so I would imagine Tor has had some time to decide what they’ll put in the packet. I’m definitely interested.

  56. “Perhaps Hugh Howey is not as popular as you imagine? I for one have never heard of him.”

    Dust by Hugh Howey: #906 Paid in Kindle Store
    Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie: #5,091 Paid in Kindle Store
    Neptune’s Brood by Charles Stross: #9,033 Paid in Kindle Store
    Parasite by Mira Grant: #10,755 Paid in Kindle Store
    Warbound by Larry Correia: #16,052 Paid in Kindle Store

    (impossible to get a useful number for WoT, so I’m leaving that one out)

    The rankings for the nominees will no doubt jump considerably in the coming hours and days, but that’s where they are as I type.

    Perhaps your knowledge of modern science fiction is not as encyclopedic as you imagine?

  57. Guys, let’s not do this sort of nonsense. Howey’s work isn’t nominated because not enough people nominating chose his work. Simple as that.

  58. I’m very entertained by the nominations for John W. Campbell for 1939 retro Hugo’s, after all the jokes about the “John W. Campbell Award, not a Hugo award,” because I’m silly that way. :)

    Jon, placing “no award” above someone on the ballot, instead of leaving them off the ballot entirely, can make a difference. From the voting system rules on the website:

    The No Award Test

    The final check before a winner can be determined is known as the No Award Test. The valid ballots are divided into three piles: those in which No Award is ranked higher than the prospective winner, those in which the prospective winner is ranked higher than No Award, and those in which neither No Award nor the prospective winner have preferences listed. Note that a ballot that contains a preference for the prospective winner but does not contain a preference for No Award goes into the “prospective winner higher than no award” pile. This is because lack of preference is, by definition, lower than any preference. Having got the three piles, the votes in the “prospective winner higher than No Award pile” and the votes in the “No Award higher than prospective winner” pile are counted. If the number of votes with the prospective winner placed higher is greater then the result is confirmed. If the pile with No Award placed higher is greater then no award is given in the category that year.

  59. One thing to keep in mind about the “no award” option is that if you list something below it, you might still end up boosting the ranking of the work you dislike. The “no award” option usually gets the fewest number of first-place votes, so gets eliminated for the first of the instant runoffs. If everything you put above it is eliminated in the runoffs as well, your vote would be redistributed to whatever is below it.

    This might not be all that likely in a given category, at least for the winner. They also calculate the second through last place winners by eliminating the votes of the first place winner and running the numbers again, so that’s another way you could end up voting for something you’d rather not.

  60. @John, I would have been very surprised if you had said nothing about Vox Day’s nomination; your comments are entirely reasonable.

    I will attempt to do as you suggest and read the fiction categories and give them proper consideration. (It’s a lot of effort.) I will be interested to see what the voting results are in those categories.

    I find the term “fan boiz” to be insulting as it deprecates a community that I consider important and positive. I think the increasing number of nominators and voters improves the overall quality of the process. Obviously we aren’t eliminating the effect of motivated groups pushing single authors they favor, and name recognition starts to become more of a factor, but overall I think more voters leads to the final result being a group-consciousness result of greater value; increased competition involves more scrutiny by more people. These are the awards of the World Science Fiction Society, not some juried panel of supposed experts, and that’s not going to change; others are free to create awards with whatever selection or judging process they prefer.

    I’m delighted to see Orphan Black make the list of finalists. It didn’t quite make my own short list because, although the acting, characters, and story are brilliant and it’s great television, it’s a bit shallow as science fiction, i.e. I like more density of ideas. But this was a bizarre episode embracing the contradictions of being clones, and I’m glad people will have a reason to see it; I’m also happy when local talent is shown off.

  61. I haven’t read but a couple of the nominated works (I’m always way behind the Hugo ballot curve), but I’m still disappointed that nothing from “The Human Division” got a nod. I would have been surprised if it had landed in Best Novel, but some of the “episodes” were really very good. I wonder if perhaps the votes got split too many ways for any part to make the cut?

    I do now wonder if Mr. Torgensen’s fictional prose is actually compellingly written. Because his long-winded comments here were often so utterly tedious to read. Still, unless he wins, I don’t think I’m curious enough to spend money to find out.

  62. As an addendum to my last post, I’d like to make it clear that I did actually realize that if you rank everything in a category, your last place vote will never go to anyone. Some people don’t list everything, or list more than one item below “no award”.

  63. Yeah, it seems reasonable to me that Correia has been nominated. He was nominated a few years ago (maybe for a Campbell rather than a Hugo?) for Monster Hunter International, and while the politics of that book were definitely not to my taste (I know nothing else about Correia, but I assume from that book that he’s a libertarian gun nut/tea party type?) the book was written competently enough that I can easily see him getting nominated on the strength of his writing.

    Mr “Day”, on the other hand, seems subliterate from his blog. I strongly suspect there will be at least one novelette I rank below “no award” this year.

  64. Corriea is the one of the major reasons Day is on the nomination slate. He put out a suggested list on his blog and told his readers how to buy supporting memberships. I suspect most of them won’t be at the con, and voted just to piss off liberals. That seems to be about 90% of Corriea’s reason for blogging.

    Corriea, Hoyt, and for all I know Torgensen as well are, for all intents and purposes, Vox Day boosters. They want to amplify him and his message. They want him popular, and presumably he wants them popular.

    Hugo nominations are not 100% about the strength of one’s writing, they’re about the strength of one’s fan base who’s either attending, or fan enough to buy a voting membership just to hype a book they love. It’s always been a popularity contest. It’s a popularity contest that ends in one’s career getting a boost, but that’s all. Even as subjective a thing as quality is, books that get critical acclaim are often edged out by books with less acclaim but a bigger fan base.

    This is how any democracy works. It’s how someone as vile as David Duke got so far in the Republican party before he crashed and burned. He was popular. Day and Corriea are popular, because the far right wants science fiction too. And they’re entitled to it and participation in an award in which voting is just a matter of spending money. Any populist award is going to have this problem.

    And that’s why I really prefer using juried awards to help me select reading material, and popular awards to tell me what trends are enjoyed by the broadest audience, which has little to do with quality. Budweiser and Coors Light are still remarkably popular as beers. This does not and will not convince me that I’m just not a good judge of beer because I don’t think they’re really interesting, well crafted, delicious beers.

  65. Correia and Torgersen disagreeing with me or trying to score points off of me for their own purposes isn’t really enough to dissuade me from giving their work a fair shake. It’s a pretty simple thing as far as I’m concerned. Your mileage may vary, of course. But this is my mileage.

    Excellent mileage. If I refused to read your work based on what I think of your politic opinions it would have been my loss. ;)

  66. I’ve not read the nominated Corriea book, the second in the series is currently sitting in my to read pile and I wasn’t aware the third had been published yet. I suspect I will enjoy it, his work has typically hit that spot for me and with less nose holding than is sometimes necessary when reading Ringo (I generally like Ringo’s work (except Ghost and sequels), but especially of late, there’s usually at least one scene or concept that just make me feel icky). Would I rank it as Hugo worthy? Heck if I know, my first thought is probably not, but then again, I haven’t read any of the nominees yet.
    If we are truly down to disqualifying people from consideration because they are ‘gun nuts’, I might have to agree with them that left wing intolerance might be getting out of hand. Disclosure: I haven’t owned a gun in over 30 years, and don’t really care to. But a number of my friends are definitely ‘gun nuts’ (goes hand in hand with growing up in rural America)
    and most of them are good people, as are the more left wing types I mostly hang out with these days. I’m always a bit saddened when we start writing off people because of their politics (although, there are certainly exceptions, because some politics are just too noxious).

  67. You know John, you need a better Nemesis than Beale. He is so Johnny Snow.

    Teddy Boy isn’t Our Host’s nemesis. He’s a mosquito coated in rancid fat. And Our Host has a mosquito net called “passively ignoring RSHD”.

    dpmaine, I’ll believe that RSHD can write a good book when live Bohlinia attica fall from the sky and Jesus returns in a pillar of light to say that not only was he gay the whole time, but that he’s sick and tired of god because the dude’s a horrible, horrible, genocidal person (not to mention a rapist).

  68. Leons, personally I’m unlikely to have a vote (unless I get a new job very soon even supporting membership is out of my reach let alone the relatively easy journey to the venue), but if I did? I wouldn’t exclude an author because of their politics, that would be ridiculous.

    But I can, and would, exclude an individual because of the way that individual behaves, especially if they’re generally an intemperate arsehole. I would, I hope, do that even to authors whose politics I generally share, except that of those I’m aware of, they generally also take the “be nice” rule to heart relatively well.

    Winning a major, fan voted on, award, is an honour, and one that comes, normally with increased sales and exposure. That honour and exposure can go to people I disagree with, even vehemently, but not to people who behave in a way I think brings the entire field into disrepute. Ergo, no vote to Correia or Day, not because they’re rabidly right wing gun nuts, but because, well, they behave as if anyone that isn’t is beneath them, and seem to think that Our Host’s relatively moderate politics are in fact an extremist “liberal” attack on their right to existence, complete with ridiculous insults and exclusionary rhetoric. They don’t deserve praise and adulation from within the community they seek to exclude others from.

  69. leons — no-one has suggested in this thread that Correia should be disqualified from consideration for his politics or for any other reason. I was the only one in this thread who used the phrase “gun nut”, and I used it for the *implied* politics in one of his novels, not for the man’s real politics, of which I know nothing, and said that his nomination probably was due to his writing ability rather than any other factors.

    (I also distinguish “gun nut” from “gun owner” or “supporter of the right to own guns” — I am neither of those, but my wife’s from rural Minnesota and so I know and respect a reasonable number of them. The implied politics of Correia’s book — which, again, I enjoyed as I recall, at least enough to finish it, though not enough to seek out anything else he’s written — fall into the “nut” category for me.)

    But again, no-one has suggested that Correia shouldn’t be on the ballot.

  70. Happy Easter to those who celebrate it!

    I am one of those terrible people who started voting for the Hugos last year, thanks to Larry Correia’s urgings.

    My SF includes Larry Correia, Sarah Hoyt, Kate Paulk, Michael Williamson, Brad Torgersen, Lois McMaster Bujold, John C. Wright, Toni Weisskopf, and even Vox Day.

    And a guy called John Scalzi. He’s pretty good, you might have heard of him. Oh, and Charles Stross, Eric Flint, Jim Hines, Mary Robinette Kowal, and lots of other fine people.

    Since the authors I read range from extreme right to ultra-left, there is no chance I will agree with most of them, no matter what my politics. Indeed, I find much that is offensive in some of them. And being neither white nor male (nor even particularly Western), the particular flashpoints that engage most of these writers are quite alien to me and relatively unimportant to me. I don’t mean to dismiss them as unimportant in general; I simply note things from my own perspective, for me.

    I therefore seek out work that is provocative (intellectually, politically or culturally), interesting, has artistic merit, and is enjoyable. One thing Mr. Correia has said in the past that I largely agree with is that messaging that overwhelms the story is a bad thing. If you want to show me an anarcho-capitalist (or Maoist!) utopia, you’d better be really good at world-building and putting together a good story fitting around a plausible society. (One could incidentally and ironically make a good argument that his own work falls into that trap of too pro-gun a message for many.)

    Dividing SF into pink and blue, while satisfying from a tribal perspective, is silly. Surely we may have more than two shades? Even a rainbow doesn’t suffice for SF; there is far more to the spectrum than merely that which is visible to the human eye.

    I have seen some sharp words directed at those of us who started voting at Larry’s urgings. (Not generally here for which I thank Mr. Scalzi). We are all fans; we all seek great SF to read and enjoy.

    A few thoughts/responses.
    1. Using multiple names/emails for a single person to register repeatedly would be dishonest, bad, and stupid. I do not believe that has occurred, and would be very troubled if it had.

    2. Voting a straight slate is lazy. We should use our own considered judgement. I didn’t nominate all of Mr. Correia’s suggestions, and I did nominate some writers far to his (and Mr. Scalzi’s) left.

    3. People should be delighted that more fans are engaged. More funding for the con, as someone pointed out above, is a good thing.

    4. Works should be judged by their merits alone.

    This last may not of course be possible for those of us who fall short of sainthood. I don’t expect Mr. Scalzi to vote for Mr. Day if he has the best work. Happily, I don’t think that’s likely to be an issue; I enjoyed Opera Vita Aeterna, and I think it was worthy of nomination, but I do not think it is the strongest work of the five.

    I found Mr. Torgersen’s work better, and Ms. Kowal’s work, while stylistically odd because of the narrative style for audio, consequently had very considerable artistic merit. I look forward to reading Mme. de Bodard’s work, and that of Mr. Chiang, which I shall do before I vote in that category.

    I hope this is an opportunity for more people to read and engage with stories they might otherwise miss. It is also a great opportunity to find out more about art, and fan work in the field if you are diligent about it.

    I have greatly enjoyed the experience of reading, considering, nominating, reading more, considering nominating, and voting that Mr. Correia put me on the path to last year.

    I encourage everyone who is prepared to do the reading to sign up as a supporter for LonCon and vote. (This will also give you the opportunity to nominate next year.)

  71. @Floored

    I think you didn’t quite catch the drift of my remark. The joke is that Johnny Snow tries really hard to be the Nemesis of Dr. Horrible but isn’t taken seriously.

  72. Christoph M.: Actually, I was agreeing with you completely there.

    Just as Johnny Snow is an annoying jerk who hassles Dr. Horrible and has no consideration for others (seriously, dude, a super-fight in a public park?), RSHD is an annoying gnat who tries to hassle Our Host and who has no consideration for others.

    The best medicine for RSHD is to just ignore the cowardly little puke and move on.

  73. “dpmaine, I’ll believe that RSHD can write a good book when live Bohlinia attica fall from the sky and Jesus returns in a pillar of”

    Well there is certainly belief, but you could just down load the the novella and put in 7500 words to find out. (Or just vote No Award if that’s your thing) [or not read all the books].

    I mean belief doesn’t have to come out of it.

    The problem is that both Coreia and Torgenson and Day have more readers than you would think. Baen and other right-wing friendly publishers are not exactly dying on the vine.

    The risk is that the Hugo’s are devalued from the premier award of the field because they become overtly political. I think it’s probably clear that politics are always a thing to it, but it they come rigidly ideological than it probably just make them worthless.

  74. Floored:

    I agree with dpmaine here. Nothing I’ve seen Mr. Beale write impresses me much, but as I’ll be voting for the Hugos this year, there’s no reason not to give his story a shot and see how it does. As I’ve noted my own biases, I’ll admit it’ll have to be really good to register. But it won’t kill me to read it. If I think it’s bad, I won’t finish it, but that’s not specific to Mr. Beale. There’s a lot of work I don’t finish.

  75. I just realized (yes, I’m slow) that not only will Fan Writer have a never-before winner this year, but none of the nominees are SWGs. Cool.

  76. Dear folks,

    A couple of points–

    Although John has written at some length about the economic and business impact of winning a Hugo, its nature hasn’t changed.

    It is a popularity contest. Furthermore, it is a popularity contest held among a rather small and distinctive subset of all of fandom.

    That is all it is. Unless it is radically revamped into something not even remotely resembling the current Hugo, that is all it ever will be.

    That means that despite its potential economic benefits to an author or its importance to one’s ego, it will never be fair, unbiased, and objective. Anyone who complains about the Hugo on those grounds is either very unclear on what the word “fair” means or what “popularity contest” means.

    If this still seems like a problem to you, you need to accept the fact that it is most fundamentally not a fixable problem. It is a vice inherent in the object. You get to either live with it or say, “Well, screw the Hugos.” A Door Number Three isn’t even possible.

    There is a known, addressable problem: popular being applied not to the work done that past year but to the nominee’s overall track record/standing in the community/reputation. It’s always a possibility but there’s a certain amount of self policing that goes on. At least one beneficiary of this has said, “I really appreciate the strokes but please stop nominating me because you’re nominating ME, not the work.” Note John’s key point about reading the nominated works and evaluating them (if you can) not how you feel about the creator.

    Second thing: because the Hugos involve a relatively small number of voters, it is theoretically possible to stuff the ballot box.


    This is been raised as an intellectual concern by some people for as long as I’ve been in fandom, which means it’s probably been ever since the Hugo started (no, I’m not anywhere that old, I’m just guessing. It didn’t sound like a new argument when I first heard it.)

    It has never happened in any meaningful way. It just hasn’t. It’s like worrying about identity fraud in voting (there is plenty of voter fraud in the US, but that’s not how it’s done.)

    So, you might ask, well, how would you KNOW?

    Because, if you are looking for concepts that should not ever be associated with each other– along with fair and objective popularity contest, there is discretion and secrecy and fandom.

    I can imagine fans who would think it would be amusing to try to game the system. I cannot ever imagine them being successful on the “ssshhh, don’t tell anybody” part. Oh yeah, we’d know.

    Similarly for buying the vote. That’s been theoretically possible for a few entities for at least 50 years. Today, for some of the more successful authors, and if John’s feelings about the marketing worth of a Hugo are correct, there are not only a lot of authors who could afford the discretionary expense, there are likely some for whom it would even be a sensible business investment. It doesn’t happen. Because, again, we’d know. Collectively, fans are not good at keeping secrets.

    pax \ Ctein
    [ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
    — Ctein’s Online Gallery http://ctein.com 
    — Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com 

  77. It’s a popular-vote award, and furthermore a popular-vote award among con members, which has previously produced potential slant towards popular GoHs and hometown writers. If some consider that the prominence of the award means it should be awarded differently, I’d suggest that instead they should try to set up a different award along the lines they prefer and see what happens. It is what it is.

    I’m heartened by the nomination of works from those who had before been largely griping about the results. It was suggested they participate instead of simply criticize, and they have. That’s good. As a frequent supporting member (the voter pack being a deal that I can’t pass up, whether WoT shows up in any amount or not), I will read as much of the works as I can (time and enjoyment as my main constraints). I won’t deny that my disinclination to increase their status may come into play as I vote, but I won’t know to what extent until the time comes. Novelette is a very competitive field, so simply gaining readership due to the voter pack may be a useful accomplishment.

    I’m glad to see recognition for Orphan Black and XKCD’s Time. And I wonder how many of the retro-Hugo works may show up; I’ve meant to check out Anthem for a while, given my fondness for some derivative work, even notwithstanding Rand’s philosophy.

  78. The previous comment reminded my that I forgot to recognize Randall Munroe. He’s like, the voice of a new generation taking full advantage of advances in technology. It’s not traditional SF, but SF is supposed to be about pushing boundaries.

  79. Shame, Mr. Scalzi. Didn’t you realize that this was what your reaction to the Hugo nominations was supposed to be?

  80. It was said above, but since you haven’t corrected your, post, let me say it again.

    DO NOT RANK A WORK YOU FIND UNWORTHY OF THE HUGO BEHIND NO AWARD, unless you are ranking every nominee in that category, including ones you never read.

    In practice, “No Award” is almost always “eliminated” first in the voting rounds, and so your ballot then becomes a ballot expressing preference to give the award to the disliked story over anything ranked below it, OR ANYTHING YOU DIDN’T RANK. Sorry for the all-caps, but it is quite common that people don’t read all the nominees in some categories, and thus leave off the works they did not read.

    I know it gives satisfaction, in some cases, to rank something below “no award” but it is a false satisfaction and can easily help the work you dislike gain your vote. One way to understand the Hugo voting is that when it comes down to two entries, the winner is the one most preferred over the other, and voting for one (no matter how far down) is preference over not ranking another.

    If you rank all nominees, including ones you did not read, then you can feel more safe. You will not help the unworthy work win over them. If you rank No Award, you will also contribute to the satisfaction of those who wish to check if No Award got more votes. All choices, including No Award, which appear on the ballot are viewed as preferred to unranked works.

    Of course, if you rank works you didn’t read, you may find yourself being dishonest. Bizarrely, in a close race, the winner is decided based on all rankings, so those people who ranked A in 4th place and B in 5th place vs. those who ranked A in 5th and B in 4th are the deciding votes! In a close race, you will be contributing to the decision of what wins if you rank what you did not read. However, the awards do not offer you the ability to express this. A “Did not read” checkbox has been debated but this feature of the system is too obscure to get approval.

  81. @ Our Host:

    I agree with dpmaine here. Nothing I’ve seen Mr. Beale write impresses me much, but as I’ll be voting for the Hugos this year, there’s no reason not to give his story a shot and see how it does. As I’ve noted my own biases, I’ll admit it’ll have to be really good to register. But it won’t kill me to read it. If I think it’s bad, I won’t finish it, but that’s not specific to Mr. Beale. There’s a lot of work I don’t finish.,

    Well, I gave it a shot.

    And it sucked.

    As in, it REALLY sucked.

    As in, I couldn’t finish even the sample.

    As in, I was really glad that I read a sample instead of actually wasting my hard-earned cash on the thing.

    So yeah. I’ll believe that RSHD can write a good book when I see it. And that day, I expect to see extinct giraffes falling from the sky and jesus walking on rainbows and denouncing his dad for being a douche.

    It should be noted that I have also read one of RSHD’s books before I knew that he was RSHD; and I actually sent it back to the library unfinished, which is something I NEVER do.

  82. If it’s the same sample I just read a) it isn’t from the nominated work, and b) the work it IS from will compete with “Eye of Argon” for “can you read this without laughing” contests.

    This is a relief, because if RSHD were actually a decent writer I might have to struggle with my conscience a bit.

  83. I see “Anthem” got mentioned. I tried to read it. I didn’t finish it. It falls down on the craft of telling the story, and a lot of the story-idea had been an element of other works for most of the inter-war period. It’s the slash between individualism and collectivism, and the sort of society “Anthem” describes is little different from the image of the worker in “Metropolis” and “Modern Times”, cogs in a soulless machine.

    What makes “Anthem” difficult to read for me is the verbal trickery, almost stunt writing of the global search-and-replace sort.

    The precis in the Wikipedia entry could describe a work that gets past the history of the ideas, but the executions doesn’t live up to that hope.

    I am somewhat immersed in the history and popular fiction of that era, partly from trying to write stories set in that period. (And I can spot imagery lifted from “Triumph oif the Will” all too easily.) But what I look for is a better balance between the craft of writing and the art of the idea, and that’s where “Anthem” fails for me.

    In contrast, “Who Goes There” isn’t the most polished of prose, but it is almost the ur-story of ASF, with the foe that is defeated by the combination of courage and intellect. And it doesn’t feel unbalanced.

  84. I’m still stunned (and somewhat pleased) to see that a tie-in actually got on to the nominations list this year. Is that the first time this has ever happened?

  85. Any Retro-Hugo slate that doesn’t find a way to include the short story “Superman”, written by Jerry Siegel and illustrated by Joe Shuster, published in Action Comics #1, is bogus, I tell ya, bogus.

    If you go here: http://www.loncon3.org/1939_retro_hugos.php
    and look at all the possible works that could have been nominated for the various categories, none of them were as influential over the next 75 years as “Superman” has been.

    Is a write-in campaign possible at this point?

  86. Oh, OK…so that’s what the deal is with Larry Correia. I read one of his books once (a monster hunter thing) – picked it up in an airport bookstore to stave off boredom on a flight, and liked it enough to finish it. But it was heavy on the “Libertarian, rugged individualist, manly man” schtick, along with a “moar gunz!” thing that became kinda repetitive. ::shrug::

    And mind you, I like well-written military SF (see the OMW universe). So I did what any regular reader would do: I decided not to buy any more of the same, since there was plenty of stuff out there I liked better & limited time to read everything I wanted. (“So many books! So little time!”)

  87. Hey John, just wanna say thanks for all the coverage you give the Hugos. I don’t hang out here much, mostly just around that Hugo time of year, and there’s always a lot of great commentary from you and yours.

    SO thanks.

    Also, if you read the Vox Day piece, and you review it for The Drink Tank (or Journey Planet, which is the one with cache now, maybe?) I’ll buy you Coke Zero the likes of which GOD has never seen!

  88. In lieu of a religion or spirituality, it seems that many leftists and progressive like to make politics their reason for being. Hence their tendency to politicize everything, to turn all culture into a jihad for their favorite causes. This, to me, is a sign of a civilization in a cul-de-sac, cannibalizing and tearing itself apart. I think the best option, other than collapse and renewal, is some kind of civilizational split, so that those of us who find the constant leftist haranguing and attempts to monopolize intellectual and cultural life tedious, arrogant and dispiriting can be free to create our own (proud, strong) culture without the incessant rancor and general unpleasantness that your kind always bring to the table.

  89. Mr Scalzi,
    This was an excellent post, and I truly hope that people take your advice and simply give the works a shot. I think it entirely too bad that a reviewer of science fiction would dismiss a work because the author was simply different than they wish he/she were.

    Once upon a time SciFi itself was seen as a very different genre. I fell in love with it when I realized that the limitations on a SciFi story were purely in the imagination of the author and reader.

    As for Mr Correia, yeah he is a right wing gun nut, and abashedly over the top when defending himself, but in an online fight he was having with a young lady. She kept trying to make the point that the normal sexual orientations, and genders should not always be considered a starting point in a story, and that “good scifi” explores a variety of concepts. He took exception to this train of thought and in between all the fighting, he offered up that new authors need to concentrate on telling a good story. That is how you become successful.

    It’s actually great advice. Tell a good story, and let people want to read it.

    Shouldn’t that be what the Hugos are about?

  90. That’s the point Mike: leftism/cultural Marxism has become so aggressive that for many of these folks it’s no longer just about telling a good story, it’s also about the correctness of your politics. If this memetic virus isn’t resisted vigorously by artists and intellectuals, our culture may before too long become about as vital and interesting as Brezhnev-era issues of Pravda, and our civilization may meet a similar fate. Is this more on point?

  91. Brother Nihil:

    “Is this more on point?”

    It’s really not. Please see the “Libertarian Dismount” discussed here.

    Also, that’s strike two. If your next post is more of the same, I’ll just snip it out.

  92. @br. Nihil: I fail to see how a literature that is more inclusive, containing characters that are not only SWMs, constrains artists.

  93. Dear Xopher,

    I understand about Freudian slips.

    I didn’t realize you’d ordered the whole matching ensemble.


    pax / Ctein

  94. Seems to me that good stories can be good stories without the accidents of shameful perversions. what ever you happen to think is a shameful perversion. One of the best stories I ever read was about an alien race that really needed a 5x coupling to mate properly, and there were two sad puppies that just had trouble getting their group up to a steady 3 with a chance to get a 4th and 5th on a good night. Of course for their race, that wasn’t perversion! For them, the stuck at boring 2x was the nonstandard.

  95. Who does RSHD stand for? Googling didn’t help me and it doesn’t seem to be short for any of Vox Day’s names.

    Also, if one wants an award with more professional judges, I’d think the Nebulas qualify.

  96. Ada: RSHD is short for “Racist Sexist homophobic Dipshit”.

    It’s a description of Teddy Boy, really, rather than a nickname.

    On an unrelated note, Correia’s a bit like Adam Baldwin. Libertarian gun nut, but not an atrociously awful person in spite of it all. I personally don’t agree with him or his views, but I can enjoy some of his work, and I don’t see him as an awful sh*t-stain on the face of humanity like Beale is.