?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Hugo Aftermath

We are back from Sasquan, where we saw friends, bought books, were wined and dined by editors and publishers, partied, breathed a lot of smoke (cough, cough), and attended the Hugo Awards.

By now most of you reading this will know what happened. The news has been all over the internet. You can pretty well tell how the evening went from the reactions. The Puppies are howling in outrage and anger, while simultaneously claiming it as a great victory and what they wanted all along. Fandom is mostly relieved. No, not a great Hugo night -- how could it be, with so many No Awards -- but not nearly as bad as some had feared either.

And my own reactions?

Mixed.

I did pretty well handicapping the awards. Missed a few, sure, but I got more right than wrong. Actually, my predictions were more on the nose than they have been for a decade or so. Maybe the slates and their opponents simplified things, in a weird way. Anyway...

The John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer was first up. It went to Wesley Chu, as I'd hoped, and as I predicted that was a harbinger for the rest of the night. Chu defeated four Puppy nominees, and his win was the start of a landslide. The Puppies lost and lost big; not just defeated, but routed, finishing behind No Award in almost all cases.

I totally whiffed on Best Fan Artist. I picked Brad Foster to win, and he finished last. But Laura Mixon won Best Fan Writer (YES!), a big win over both the Puppy nominees, the Moen faction, the Nuclear Option, and the allies and enablers of Requires Hate. It was a great moment for fandom, and Laura gave a moving and eloquent acceptance, best speech of the night.

I missed on Fancast, but hit on Fanzine (JOURNEY PLANET) and SemiProzine (LIGHTSPEED), both popular choices that the audience applauded loudly. Julie Dillon won Best Professional Artist. I'd called that one too. At this point I was 5-2 as a handicapper.

Then I hit a bump. Two bumps, in fact. Both editing categories went to No Award.

I had picked Mike Resnick in Short Form and Toni Weisskopf in Long Form, and indeed, each of them finished above all the other nominees in the first round of voting... but well behind No Award. This was a crushing defeat for the slates, and a big victory for the Puppy-Free ballot of Deirdre Moen. Honestly? I hated this. In my judgment the voters threw the babies out with bathwater in these two categories. Long Form had three nominees who are more than worthy of a Hugo (and one, Jim Minz, who will be in a few more years), and Short Form had some good candidates too. They were on the slates, yes, but some of them were put on there without their knowledge and consent. A victory by Resnick, Sowards, Gilbert, or Weisskopf would have done credit to the rocket, regardless of how they got on the ballot. (All four of these editors would almost certainly have been nominated anyway, even if there had been no slates).

((Some are saying that voting No Award over these editors was an insult to them. Maybe so, I can't argue with that. But it should be added that there was a far far worse insult in putting them on the ballot with Vox Day, who was the fifth nominee in both categories. Even putting aside his bigotry and racism, Beale's credential as an editor are laughable. Yet hundreds of Puppies chose to nominate him rather than, oh, Liz Gorinsky or Anne Lesley Groell or Beth Meacham (in Long Form) or Gardner Dozois or Ellen Datlow or John Joseph Adams (in Short Form). To pass over actual working editors of considerable accomplishment in order to nominate someone purely to 'stick it to the SJWs' strikes me as proof positive that the Rabid Puppies at least were more interested in saying 'fuck you' to fandom than in rewarding good work)).

I also misliked the roar of approval that went up at the announcement of the first No Award. I understand it, yes... fandom as a whole is heartily sick of the Puppies and delighted to see them brought low... but No Award is an occasion for sadness, not celebration, especially in THESE two categories. For what its worth, neither Parris nor I participated in the cheering. And the two No Awards dropped my score to 5 - 4.

Which brought us to my own category: Dramatic Presentation, Short Form. I was the designated acceptor for GAME OF THRONES, and I had some words from David Benioff and Dan Weiss in my pocket, but I didn't think I would get to use them, and I didn't. Even so, my call was wrong. I'd predicted "The Mountain and the Viper" would lose to DOCTOR WHO. Instead we lost to ORPHAN BLACK. The Doctor finished second. It is telling that the three shows that were on the slates -- us, THE FLASH, and GRIMM -- finished at the bottom, below the two the Puppies ignored. This was a clear defeat for the Pups, and another victory for Moen's Puppy-Free ballot. Plainly a lot of voters ignored the shows on the slates. Nobody at HBO or GAME OF THRONES had any contact with the Puppies, mind you, and I am pretty certain the same was true of GRIMM and THE FLASH. By slating us, the Pups effectively destroyed our chances. I don't mind... much. ORPHAN BLACK is a worthy win, an excellent show long overdue for some recognition, and GOT had won three years in a row. Even so, there's a part of me that would have liked to have seen how GAME OF THRONES did against ORPHAN BLACK on a level playing field. Even chances we might have won a fourth, I say. But we'll never know. The Pups poisoned the well.

Dramatic Presentation, Long Form went to GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY. The only candidate from the slates to win all evening. I called that one. If not for the slates, I think GUARDIANS might have won even bigger... Puppygate drove some voters to the unslated CAPTAIN AMERICA: WINTER SOLDIER, I think. But a win is a win is a win. I was 6-5 by this point.

Graphic Novel was next, though. Another miss for me. I had loved MS MARVEL (yay! a very fun read, a great new character for the Marvel universe), but I predicted SAGA for the victory, and MS. MARVEL took the rocket. Should have gone with my heart instead of my head. 6-6. Urk.

That was followed by two more No Awards, for Related Work and Short Story, both of which I called correctly. Related Work was the weakest category on the ballot, with two truly odious finalists. "The Hot Equations" was the strongest of the bunch, but not strong enough to cop a Hugo... not when people like Gilbert, Weisskopf, and Resnick had already been passed over. In Short Story, "Totaled" was probably the strongest slate nominee on the ballot, aside from Jim Butcher... but the tide was running strong by then, and it was swept under. Which brought me to 8-6 as a handicapper.

I had picked NO AWARD in Novelette as well, but I missed that one. Nobody ran a strong race, but in the end the Dutch author Thomas Olde Heuvelt eked out a narrow win with "The World Turned Upside Down" and took the rocket. He was the only non-slate nominee in the three short fiction categories. Novella did go NO AWARD, which anyone could have predicted by this point.

I did not cheer for the No Awards in Related Work, Short Story, or Novella either, but those decisions did not disturb me as much as the votes in the editing categories. The people around me were not cheering either. The mood was somber rather than celebratory, at least at the front of the hall. Even David Gerrold said, "Let there be some winners, please," as he clutched the last batch of envelopes. Voting in these categories was very much a painful choice. What was worse, No Award or giving our beloved rocket to an unworthy nominee? There's no good answer.

The night did finish on an up note, however. The "big one," Best Novel, went to THREE-BODY PROBLEM by Cixin Liu, accepted by his translator, Ken Liu. That was pleased me greatly, and not just because I'd called it. (Fwiw, I would have been pleased by a GOBLIN EMPEROR win as well, and a win by Anne Leckie or Jim Butcher would not have disturbed me unduly). It's a strong book, an AMBITIOUS book, a worthy winner... and the first Hugo to go to China, which is cool. Let us put more "world" in worldcon, by all means.

All in all, I finished 9-7. And left the hall feeling pretty good. My worst fears -- a Puppy sweep, or across the board wins by the Nuclear Option -- did not come true. It wasn't perfect. I would have liked to see a couple rockets handed out in editor, and I would have liked less cheering for No Award, but it was a night I could live with.

The vote totals, when we saw them, were overwhelming. Conclusive proof that Puppygate was never a war between the Puppies and the "SJWs," as their narratives would have it. There were no SJWs, then or now. There were only the Puppies... and the rest of us, who weren't Puppies, and did not like having their choices imposed on us.

Oh, and before I close this, a few final words. Ben Yalow won the Big Heart Award. VERY cool; Ben is a SMOF, one of the people (oft vilified by the Pups) who work behind the scenes to put on these cons we love so much. He has been giving tirelessly of himself for decades, and it was great to see him get some recognition.

And the ceremony itself was terrific. The dynamic duo of David Gerrold and Tananarive Due were a delight from start to finish. David had vowed to keep politics out of the awards, and make the ceremony fun for everyone, and he did just that... even when he was being upstaged by the Dalek. I would think that even the most rabid of Puppies would have to acknowledge that David was as fair as he was funny. When some booing broke out in the hall, he moved to quell it instantly... and, even more crucially, he insisted that the crowd hold its applause until after all the nominees in a category had been read... a real kindness in my estimation, saving some of the Puppies from real humiliation. You're a good man, David Gerrold.

The bits by Connie Willis and Robert Silverberg were very funny as well. I used to say that they should let Willis and Silverbob present the rockets every year, and I still think that would be a good idea... but now I'd add Gerrold to the list as well.

That's all for now.

Next rock, I will talk about my Hugo Losers Party, and the Alfies.

Comments

( 154 comments )
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
Loren Schmidt
Aug. 26th, 2015 04:15 am (UTC)
Somewhere R. A. Lafferty Smiles
Continued on next rock, indeed.
toscanasunshine
Aug. 26th, 2015 04:35 am (UTC)
Could you please enlighten us new comers about Hugo voting procedure and rules?
First I would like to thank you for introducing how to register for World con and vote for Hugo a couple of months ago. Excuse my ignorance, but that was the first time I heard about how we can get involved in Hugo. Following your instruction, I registered as a supporting member and received the "package". As a Chinese reader and a big fan of Three-Body Problem (I first read it as instalments published in Sci-fi World back in 2007), my main goal was to vote for Three-Body Problem (of course after reading some works in the package, I had voted in some other categories as well). However, it still confused me (and my friends) a lot how the vote is counted and how the result is decided. Your entry today gave me some more insights of the voting but brought more confusion. What is "puppy", and what is "puppy gate"? What is between "puppy" and "slates"? Does the voting goes like how the Olympic Committee decides which country hold the next Olympic Games? I would truly appreciate it if you can enlighten me (and other new comers). Thanks a lot!
grrm
Aug. 26th, 2015 04:48 am (UTC)
Re: Could you please enlighten us new comers about Hugo voting procedure and rules?
Oh, boy.

The Hugo votes are counted by a preferential ranking system called "the Australian ballot." Essentially a series of run-offs.

Puppygate... scroll down and read my earlier posts. I've devoted thousands of words to explaining this mess. Hard to do so in less.
mermaidnchains
Aug. 26th, 2015 04:37 am (UTC)
As a WA resident, I was very worried for you guys there. I am glad you came out of our state with no more than some coughing, and didn't have to be evacuated from the fires.

Keep on being your fantastic self! <3

Tracy
randomised.blogspot.com
Aug. 26th, 2015 04:46 am (UTC)
I think I managed one good call (Ms Avenger: interesting that current graphic novels have such a strong set of female leads, and not just the pneumatic bimbo variety)

I did not vote in the editor categories as I wasn't sure what to look for.

The one literary category (other than novel) where I did vote NA was the one category where an award was given.

At least I was voting as an individual! On the whole, I'm happy with who did win and offer them my congratulations (even if I only voted for one of them!)
toscanasunshine
Aug. 26th, 2015 06:09 am (UTC)
Thanks for answering my question above! It is still screened so I cannot reply to the thread. That was very helpful. I didn't know that Three-Body Problem barely squeezed in. Could you please share some more details if any? Thanks a lot!
(no subject) - wendyzski - Aug. 26th, 2015 04:22 pm (UTC) - Expand
rjcollins
Aug. 26th, 2015 04:50 am (UTC)
George I have been very moved by your passion for Worldcon and the Hugos. You probably don't remember, but I said as much to you during your signing (I was the guy with the old paperback of Dying of the Light). Your blog posts here made me want to attend the convention. Sasquan was my first Worldcon (or convention of any kind), but they've found a lifelong fan in me.

I tried to go about this convention with the eyes of a puppy. In other words, I was on the lookout for behavior which might ostracize conservative fans. I even wore a tea Party pin on my lanyard for the first few days as a sort of social experiment. I probably spoke to a hundred people over the course of the convention, and I really only ran into one person that was an asshole about the pin. Ditto with the panels. A woman on one panel went off on a tangent about religion and compared Donald Trump to a Lovecraftain horror (granted, that latter part was pretty funny, I could see there being tentacles and ichor under that hairpiece), but that was the lone anomaly. The overwhelming majority of the people and panels were delightful and indifferent of the political spectrum of who they were talking to.

All of this talk about a TOR clique and conservative fans being corralled into a dark corner seems like fiction to me. All of the people I talked to were fans first, and political entities a distant second. It's disappointing that the puppy slates effectively gimped the Hugos this year, but the massive turnout was undoubtedly thanks to the fans such as yourself, who encouraged people to come out and support Worldcon and the artists deserving of an award. The voting results sent a strong message to the Puppies, and I can only hope that the fans who came out to defend this years Hugos will remember their fervor for next year's nominations.

Edited at 2015-08-26 04:54 am (UTC)
grrm
Aug. 26th, 2015 03:33 pm (UTC)
Liberals are certainly a majority in SF fandom, but there are still plenty of conservatives. In a con of thousands, hundreds are likely to be conservatives.

But the truth is, politics are seldom discussed or even mentioned at most cons. It is a love of SF and fantasy and fandom that brings us together, and those are the topics that dominate.
politics and politics - eeanm - Aug. 26th, 2015 03:51 pm (UTC) - Expand
Two Words, Ryan - Greg Price - Aug. 26th, 2015 04:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Two Words, Ryan - rjcollins - Aug. 26th, 2015 04:24 pm (UTC) - Expand
samuraiartguy
Aug. 26th, 2015 04:51 am (UTC)
Ben Yalow
Due to family, career, life, EVERYTHING, I've been unable to attend Worldcon for DECADES. So I am very pleased to hear about Ben Yalow. LONG overdue recognition, he's been a tireless moving mover for YEARS. Good for him!

As for the puppies... I'll grab this from a comment on a Facebook post discussing the topic – 

"Then I'LL say it, sounds like a bunch of "old white privileged males flinging poo because..." stories about the stuff they like and about THEM no longer dominate what's being published and read - or win awards. But guess what, the SF and Fantasy world has expanded beyond nerdy white boys, and so has it's writers and readers and it's fandom. Their attitudes are a shame because some of them are stonking good writers – and I DO like me a brilliant ripping yarn or some rollicking batshit-insane space opera. Keep writing good stuff, your audience will make nice at you. Win awards the old fashion way, earn them with great writing that grabs people."

edgehopper
Aug. 26th, 2015 06:13 pm (UTC)
RE: Ben Yalow
So congratulations on denying the Hugo for long form editor to a qualified woman! Way to fight the patriarchy!
Re: Ben Yalow - grrm - Aug. 26th, 2015 06:18 pm (UTC) - Expand
RE: Re: Ben Yalow - edgehopper - Aug. 26th, 2015 06:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Um... not Ben Yalow - samuraiartguy - Aug. 26th, 2015 06:47 pm (UTC) - Expand
solarbird
Aug. 26th, 2015 05:01 am (UTC)
Ben Yalow won the Big Heart Award.
And tremendously well-deserved it was, too. The next day at the Business Meeting, Ben was recognised to speak on some topic and while he was on the way up to the microphone Kevin introduced him as, "Mr. Yalow, or, I should say more correctly, Mr. Big Heart" and everybody just rose up and cheered.
lydy
Aug. 26th, 2015 04:36 pm (UTC)
And then Kevin Standlee noted that the applause would not be counted against his time, which was also funny and charming. Applause usually does count against the debate time.

Edited at 2015-08-26 04:37 pm (UTC)
Ben Yalow's standing O - Greg Machlin - Aug. 26th, 2015 05:42 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Ben Yalow's standing O - solarbird - Aug. 26th, 2015 06:51 pm (UTC) - Expand
viciadoguarana
Aug. 26th, 2015 05:07 am (UTC)
I don't know if you believe in these things Martin ("greater evil" and "lesser evil"), but I think these No Awards was the "lesser evil".

All these No Awards... really, it's sad, but... it had to be done, right?

I mean... You do not expect that next year the Puppies attack again, right?

Edited at 2015-08-26 01:08 pm (UTC)
grrm
Aug. 26th, 2015 03:35 pm (UTC)
The Rabids will do it again, certainly. The Sads have announced a fourth campaign, but I live in hope that they may conduct it in a less divisive way.
abqlady2
Aug. 26th, 2015 05:11 am (UTC)
I've been avidly following the puppy saga for months now and have greatly appreciated your cogent and what I see as scrupulously fair writing about it. So, I closely followed from home and I'm relieved at the results and appreciated the lack of gloating from the various sources I read from. Saw one of my favorite bloggers who I've read for years now, got to do a bit providing some asterisks for y'all and briefly met up with you. That was a nice "it's a small world" tickle.
serverwench
Aug. 26th, 2015 05:14 am (UTC)
Here here! I want to thank you for educating us on not only puppygate, but the Hugo process as a whole. I voted (and attended.) This year I'm keeping a list so that I can nominate for next year. I didn't cheer the no awards, but I was glad to see that short story and novella did go No Award as I felt the nominated works there were abysmal. I read a lot of short stories, anthologies and novellas. I'll be keeping track so I can nominate the works I believe are Hugo-worthy.

Again, thank you for taking the time to educate us and remind us of the importance of nominating and voting.
TJaneBerry
Aug. 26th, 2015 05:22 am (UTC)
As a first time voter, I had a difficult time making a choice in the editor categories. I wasn’t sure what to look for, but I did my best to research and make an educated choice. I wish there had been awards in those categories.

It sounds like we’ll be dealing with a slate again next year. I wonder if they'll be springing for attending memberships to vote against the ratification of E Pluribus Hugo in the business meeting, as well.
jamisonpridgen
Aug. 26th, 2015 05:24 am (UTC)
Dunno man, i think this whole community is a bit too invested in this culture war.

Its cool when gamergate et al does it because they're all young impeteous children who were raised on the internet going at it.

Its depressing when the worldcon community does it, you all should be better at communicating if you're readers and writers. Not to mention much older and wiser.

Blaming the puppies for the sins of vox day or beale or whatever his name is, hes a convenient boogyman for you to justify the childish behavior displayed by this crop of Fandom. That definition includes the puppies, because while theyre not blameless, theyre also not the bullies.
livejournal
Aug. 26th, 2015 05:27 am (UTC)
Hello! Your entry got to top-25 of the most popular entries in LiveJournal!
Learn more about LiveJournal Ratings in FAQ.
James Cowling
Aug. 26th, 2015 05:52 am (UTC)
Editor awards
I was under the impression that the Hugos for Editor are for work published in 2014, and not lifetime achievement awards. I was also under the impression that Weisskopf refused to provide a list of edited works. Would that not mean that nobody could have cogently voted for her?
grrm
Aug. 26th, 2015 03:37 pm (UTC)
Re: Editor awards
Toni is the top editor/ boss at Baen Books. You can pretty much assume she has a hand in everything Baen does, just as Jim Baen did when he was alive. It is true that she provided less information for the packet than the other editors.
Jamaal Mac
Aug. 26th, 2015 06:04 am (UTC)
Mr. Martin, I'm not sure on your position regarding these questions but I've been wondering.. When you are writing your novels, do you have a room full of material surrounding you? Things like pinup boards, maps, calendars, and notes to the point where you can stand up and walk around the room with everything at your fingertips? Or do you just use the encyclopedia that is your mind?
grrm
Aug. 26th, 2015 03:38 pm (UTC)
A bit of both.
chuckbuckethead
Aug. 26th, 2015 06:05 am (UTC)
Hi George,

I'm a big fan of your work and have a question for you: Is Longclaw really Blackfyre, the bastard sword of the Targaryen kings? Searching through the books I found the description of both blades to be almost identical.
grrm
Aug. 26th, 2015 03:39 pm (UTC)
No.
Re: - axe383 - Aug. 26th, 2015 03:59 pm (UTC) - Expand
ASOIAF - harryberger89 - Aug. 26th, 2015 05:19 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: ASOIAF - grrm - Aug. 26th, 2015 06:30 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: ASOIAF - el_peluzza - Aug. 26th, 2015 06:46 pm (UTC) - Expand
A_Man_In_Tomato
Aug. 26th, 2015 06:09 am (UTC)
Puppygate
I was extremely critical of the Puppies,
especially so after reading your blogposts about them.
I think your response was well-reasoned.
It came from a place of nostalgia and personal feelings, but you provided facts for your claims as well!

What happened at the awards however was very ugly,
and it kind of proved them right in a way.
I would have preferred to just see them get two wins from their slate,
in the editing categories, and perhaps one in the Short Story one,
and be done with it.

The way it happened, REAL block voting occurred against them,
where many people did not read the works at ALL,
and which was mostly based on the belief that the goal of the puppies was:
"Having less minorities and women win a Hugo this year!"

You never fielded this claim, and I think good of you for that.

However, is it true that you gave your little "Hugo-Looser-Trophies" not to nominees, but to Non-minees this year?
That seriously cracked my perception of you as one of the only reasonable people in this thing.

I have to agree with Correia though in the end,
when he says that Three Body Problem as best longform was not a great win for anything, when you consider that it almost made the Rabid Puppies slate,
and people would have voted against it en block if it had.
Thinking of this makes me sad.
kalimac
Aug. 26th, 2015 07:08 pm (UTC)
First off, I'm really skeptical that Three Body Problem really did "almost" make the Rabid Puppy slate. That sounds like the sort of story made up after the fact. I don't have any proof of this, but I'm suspicious.

Second, if that's true, that the only reason it didn't make the slate is because Beale hadn't gotten around to reading it yet, then it proves one of the complaints about the slate: that it wasn't a carefully considered list of what was best according to its makers' criteria, but whatever items happened to cross Mr Beale's desk.

Third, if it had made the slate, it would have conspicuously stood out as by far the best work of fiction on the slate. The slate nominees weren't voted down because the Wrong People nominated them, but mostly because they were just lousy nominees. Proof? Guardians of the Galaxy was on the slates, and it won anyway. But that was a good movie.

Fourth, if 3-body had been on the slate, and had been voted down, that would have proven what the anti-slate forces have been saying all along: it's not really the works, or who likes them, it's that they were put on the ballot by a slate. That's what happened to Toni Weisskopf.
conway299
Aug. 26th, 2015 06:45 am (UTC)
To me it just proved larry corriera right. "Trufans" would rather burn the award down than give it to people not in the clique or people who refuse to bend the knee. Its plain for the world to see.

Now we wait til next year where this happens all over again.
grrm
Aug. 26th, 2015 03:42 pm (UTC)
There is no clique, and no bending the knee. Correia is wrong.

Fandom would rather not give it an award than to give one to work they deem unworthy of a Hugo. (In their judgement, of course. Opinions may differ). That's what happened in Short Story, Novella, and Related Work.

As for the editor categories, well, I've stated my feelings about that, I will not repeat myself.
No Award - Vivienne Raper - Aug. 26th, 2015 04:36 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No Award - grrm - Aug. 26th, 2015 07:06 pm (UTC) - Expand
ctd
Aug. 26th, 2015 07:05 am (UTC)
Saying Puppies poisoned the well seems like Stockholm Syndrome to me. You yourself said there were worthy candidates on the Puppy slate. The people who voted explicitly against Puppy-slated candidates weren't Puppies - they were petty and spiteful offendatrons (and probably didn't actually read the nominated works).
grrm
Aug. 26th, 2015 03:44 pm (UTC)
Thousands of people voted. Some did not read the work, one may assume. But many did. There are reviews all over the internet that prove that. The readers were not impressed, by and large.

There is no way to know how many read the work, how many did not.

There is also no way to know how many Puppies read the work before nominating. Some, certainly. But many just voted the way that Brad and Larry and Teddy B. told them too.

Two wrongs don't make a right, true. Just a mess.
(no subject) - filkerdave - Aug. 26th, 2015 05:35 pm (UTC) - Expand
astalnar
Aug. 26th, 2015 07:16 am (UTC)
Ah, Mr. Martin, you disappoint me. I hoped that the voting would open your eyes, and you'd see what your beloved Trufans have become since you claimed before that Trufans would be the ones voting according to merit. Now, the best you are capable of doing, is ranting over Vox Day being on a list, instead of condemning your camp for throwing two of the great editors under the bus.

You can console yourself that Game of Thrones lost because it was on the list suggested by Puppies. But doesn't that make it even worse? That means, your Trufans voted according to politics, and not merit. Which is something Correia was telling us all along, for 3 years in a row now. Torgersen was the one believing in your fandom.

You are happy that Three Body Problem won, but that was Vox Day's number one pick as well. The only reason why it wasn't on the Rabid Puppies' list is because Day finished the book a month too late. How does it make you feel, knowing that if Vox Day put that book on Rabid Puppies list your Trufans would nuke it out of the sky?

Why don't you tell us anything about the numbers needed to get the book you want into the race? Because the numbers I saw are pathetic. Puppies demonstrated that they are not the ones voting mindlessly because someone told them to. Their votes are equally distributed among the candidates. This indicates they were voting according to their own opinion, and for whose work they thought has most merit.
That cannot be said for Trufans. Now, there we have block voting. The numbers are astonishing.

Way to go cutting your own nose in order to spite your face Trufans. Way to go.
grrm
Aug. 26th, 2015 03:47 pm (UTC)
These are your views. Obviously, I disagree.

Please don't swallow Beale's "that is what I wanted all along" lies.
(no subject) - astalnar - Aug. 26th, 2015 05:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - grrm - Aug. 26th, 2015 06:33 pm (UTC) - Expand
tisiphone
Aug. 26th, 2015 07:18 am (UTC)
As a reader, I think the editor categories are the hardest to vote in - while authors and works are prominent, editors are not, and particularly in the Long Form category you have to really work to even know who edited what. Even then, their work isn't obvious. (It's a little easier with Short Form since the editors' names are on the anthologies or whatever, and clearly they chose the works included.) It's displeasing that several really worthy candidates lost out, but it's not surprising.
chrismireya
Aug. 26th, 2015 07:21 am (UTC)
Is there an award that you hope for more than any other?
Are there any awards for books, television or anything else that you would feel most satisfied or honored by?

Also: Please let Sam live a long and healthy life. I've always thought that he would have been the best "king" (outside of Jon Snow or, perhaps, Tyrion).

In a perfect world, I've always thought that men like Jimmy Stewart (the man from real life OR the Mr. Smith version) would have made good political leaders. Whereas Frodo might get all of the glory, it was Samwise Gamgee who carried him up the mountain.

My preference for the endgame ruler of the Seven Kingdoms:

1.) Jon Snow
2.) Sam
3.) Tyrion
4.) Daenarys
5.) Stannis
6.) Ser Jorah
7.) Jaime Lannister (strange...but there is something noble hiding in his heart)
8.) Bran Stark
9.) Arya Stark
10.) Brienne
voodooqueen126
Aug. 26th, 2015 07:44 am (UTC)
if you register for the voting process do they send you the books for free(after you have paid membership)?
As someone trying to write an AU series (which I think comes under the category of speculative fiction) I realised I should take an interest in the industry... Certainly your posts about the Hugos have made it seem like a fascinating field.
grrm
Aug. 26th, 2015 03:48 pm (UTC)
You don't get the books for free, but you get a "Hugo packet," which contains electronic versions of the short fiction, and usually some excerpts from the novels. Sometimes entire novels, but not always.
(no subject) - filkerdave - Aug. 26th, 2015 05:36 pm (UTC) - Expand
TheNighIsDark
Aug. 26th, 2015 07:45 am (UTC)
Encore
Hey George,
Indeed, all in all, it was as good a night as it was going to be.

Do you think we should expect the same battle next year ?
Obviously the puppies won't catch fandom sleeping again but will people turn out to vote every year (in big enough numbers) to keep them at bay ?


grrm
Aug. 26th, 2015 03:50 pm (UTC)
Re: Encore
There will be something next year. Whether it will take the same shape or not, I have no idea.
Nickpheas
Aug. 26th, 2015 07:48 am (UTC)
One of the great problems of the editor Hugos is that no-one outside the author-editor relationship can really tell what the editor did. A good editor is invisible. And publishers don't really help, since (checks) who is the editor? My UK first ed of Dance with Dragons doesn't say.
I put Shiela above the line, didn't vote for any of the others, because I have no idea what Toni's contribution was, and she chose not to tell anyone what books she'd even edited, and in general I see Baen sliding from being a significant house under Jim to a milSF niche under Toni. What's to reward?
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
( 154 comments )

Profile

Spain
grrm
George R.R. Martin
George R. R. Martin

Latest Month

June 2017
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner