Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Six Days Left

Less than a week remains to cast a vote for this year's Hugo Awards. Voting closes on July 31, but it would be wise not to wait until the last day. Sasquan has already warned that its servers may overload if there is too large a rush of last-minute ballots. Remember, you can vote NOW, even if you haven't finished reading, and return later to change your ballot once you've read more.

The ballot is here: http://sasquan.org/hugo-awards/voting/

And of course, you need to be a member of worldcon (Supporting or Attending, either will do) and secure a PIN to be able to vote.

You can join here: https://sasquan.swoc.us/sasquan/reg.php

Membership also allows you to vote for site selection for the 2017 worldcon. There are four contenders: Japan, Montreal, Washington DC, and Helsinki.

Parris and I are supporters of the Helsinki bid. I was GOH at Finncon a few years ago, and at Archipelacon more recently, and the Finnish fans are wonderful. Also, I favor making worldcon truly a global affair, which means going outside the US from time to time. Finland has never had a worldcon. Montreal and Japan are also outside the US, of course, but both have hosted worldcons in the recent past. I missed the Japanese worldcon, but I understand that it is still massively in debt, so going back there so soon seems unwise. I did attend the Montreal worldcon, and it was one of the worst-run in recent memory, with a truly horrendous hotel and party situation. On the other hand, Washington DC has not had a worldcon since 1974, and the Washington bid is a very strong one, with a great concom and great facilities. They are probably the favorite this year, and in any other year I'd be backing them too. This year, though... it's still Helsinki for us.

How you choose to vote is, of course, entirely up to you.

As for the Hugo Awards proper... I do not have the time or the space or the energy to share my own views on every story and book and writer on the ballot. This is by no means a normal Hugo year, however; Puppygate has plunged all fandom into war as never before. So I will recap a few of my own views from previous blog posts downstream.

I oppose the "nuclear option" of voting No Award down the board, to protest the hijacking of the ballot by the Sad and Rabid Puppies.

I favor reading the work, and voting for the stories, books, and writers you feel are worthy of a Hugo. Those you do NOT feel are worthy of the Hugo can and should be ranked below No Award or left off your ballot entirely.

This does not mean I am entirely opposed to voting No Award in all cases. Far from it. Having now finished most (not quite all) of my Hugo reading, I can say that I will probably be voting No Award myself in... hmmm... at least three categories, maybe four, maybe even five. These are categories where in my judgement none of the nominated work is worthy of a rocket.

But in those categories where I do find one or more nominees to be of sufficient quality, I will be voting for him or her or them, regardless of whether or not they were on a slate. And yes, this is true even if only one nominee is worthy. To throw out that one worthy nominee because they "had no real competition" (as some have suggested) seems wrong-headed to me. If it is worthy of a Hugo, give it a Hugo, that's what I say.

Let me be specific here. Short Form Editor, Long Form Editor are all slate, but there are nominees in both who deserve a Hugo, and I'll be voting for them. The Puppies liked a lot (though not all) of the nominees in the two Dramatic Presentation categories as well... but you know, so did I, so I'll be voting for those as well. Sorry, but IMNSHO, only an idiot would want to "no award" GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY or INTERSTELLAR because the Puppies slated them. I am not going to tell you which movie or TV show or editor or novel I am voting for. I've mentioned some that I liked in older blog posts. Your mileage may vary; read, watch, consider, vote.

I will, however, make one exception there, one "endorsement," if you will. I am voting for LAURA MIXON for Best Fan Writer, and I urge everyone reading this to do the same. (Hardly a surprise, I know, since I suggested that she be nominated in the first place). Having looked at the Hugo packet, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that Laura is plainly the best writer of the five nominees... but there's more to my choice than that. In this year of all years, with Puppygate turning so toxic and hatespeech spreading all over the internet, it behooves us more than ever to honor someone who spoke up AGAINST Hate and for healing, not by spewing vitriol in retaliation, but calmly, dispassionately, with clean hands and composure and... most of all... compassion. A victory for Mixon here would have huge symbolic value, I think; a vote for her is a vote for decency, and a vote against the trolls and haters of all stripes and persuasions, be they left-wing or right-wing or just loony.


FILE 770 reports that Sasquan membership has passed 10,000, and that more than 2900 Hugo ballots have already been cast. http://file770.com/?p=23985 The record was set last year at Loncon, when 3587 ballots were received. Given the Puppygate war, there's a good chance that Sasquan will break that record, since it seems memberships are still pouring in.

Six days left.

Let your voice be heard.


Jeddy B Wilkinson Jr
Jul. 25th, 2015 07:11 pm (UTC)
Just out of curiosity
Once the voting is closed would you be willing to disclose how you voted?
Jul. 25th, 2015 07:23 pm (UTC)
Re: Just out of curiosity
No, probably not.

I mean, I may drop a remark or two. Or not.

But there are too many categories, too many nominees, it would take too long to discuss which I like and which I didn't and why.
Re: Just out of curiosity - autopope - Jul. 25th, 2015 07:40 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Just out of curiosity - grrm - Jul. 25th, 2015 08:12 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - kevin_standlee - Jul. 26th, 2015 05:49 am (UTC) - Expand
Jul. 25th, 2015 08:35 pm (UTC)
Hello! Your entry got to top-25 of the most popular entries in LiveJournal!
Learn more about LiveJournal Ratings in FAQ.
Jul. 25th, 2015 08:50 pm (UTC)
Great suggestion regarding Laura, George. I hope it has a positive effect, as I'm in lock step with what you wrote about her - she's hands down the best writer in all the categories I've read. I also agree that she maintained grace and composure when speaking out against the rabbs.

Regarding that: The pups subverted, gamed, hijacked, and cheated the Hugos in order to make a political point. End of story IMO. I might have even agreed with at least parts of their original complaints, but I'm absolutely against the way they went about trying to affect change, and found their statements defending their actions ridiculous.

So, the most important question for next year must be, "how is this type of behavior going to be eliminated in future Hugo award years?"

Since I and most others consider you the Supreme Allied Commander on this issue George, do you have any feelings or suggestions on how to combat future stupidity on this matter?
Jul. 25th, 2015 09:05 pm (UTC)
Getting more people to take part in the nominating process is the main thing. I have been trying to do that for years.

It's cool if people suggest books and stories and editors and fan writers on their blogs and facebook pages, pointing other fans towards things they loved. The more recommendations the better. And that includes the Puppies.

I do see a vast difference between me saying (as I did), "hey, STATION ELEVEN is a great novel and should be nominated for a Hugo," and putting together a slate and saying, "here are five novels, nominate them all," thereby locking up the ballot.

What we want is people talking about the stories... saying what they like, why the work is brilliant, original, award worthy, whatever. What we DON'T want is this crap about cabals and conspiracies and CHORFs and SWJs, and all the mean-spirited name-calling the Puppies injected into the process. The last thing fandom or the genre or the world needs is another attack on that dinosaur story (which did not even WIN the Hugo, for chissakes).

I am against all the proposed rules changes. I think those are overreactions that may have the unintended consequence of making this whole situation worse instead of better.

(no subject) - gman109 - Jul. 25th, 2015 10:21 pm (UTC) - Expand
Liberlaism - peerchen - Jul. 26th, 2015 08:23 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - grrm - Jul. 27th, 2015 07:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - gman109 - Jul. 28th, 2015 12:51 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - kevin_standlee - Jul. 26th, 2015 05:54 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - Stevie Gamble - Jul. 26th, 2015 03:37 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - soon_lee - Jul. 27th, 2015 03:40 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - grrm - Jul. 27th, 2015 07:08 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - soon_lee - Jul. 27th, 2015 07:41 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - grrm - Jul. 28th, 2015 07:03 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - Roger Christie - Jul. 28th, 2015 06:11 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lagopus_muta - Jul. 28th, 2015 07:32 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - grrm - Jul. 29th, 2015 01:28 am (UTC) - Expand
Marah Searle-Kovacevic
Jul. 26th, 2015 12:19 am (UTC)
Actually, Sasquan never said that. Modern websites can handle much more traffic than any Worldcon is likely to see. Every member could vote on the last day and the servers could handle it with no problem. If all 10,000 members tried to vote during the last hour, we might possibly have an issue.
Jul. 26th, 2015 12:28 am (UTC)
As you know, I have a problem voting for even one decent work in a puppy-dominated category because we are supposed to be trying to award the best work of the year in a given category. We can't do so if we know for sure that slate voting has prevented us from evaluating the quality works that in a fair nomination process might have been nominated.
Jul. 26th, 2015 04:14 am (UTC)
Yes, in a perfect world, maybe one can make that case. But the Hugos have never been perfect. No more than any other award.

For me, there have been plenty of cases in the past where "the best work of the year in a given category" was not even on the ballot. What do you do then? What I do, is choose from the works that are on the ballot, so long as I feel they are Hugo worthy. And if only one is Hugo worthy, I vote that one first and No Award second.

I don't see the sense in punishing a worthy finalist because the competition is all crap. Regardless of where the crap came from.

If CASABLANCA was up for an Oscar against four Ed Wood films, I'd vote for CASABLANCA... even if I did think that CITIZEN KANE (not nominated) was slightly better.
(no subject) - smofbabe - Jul. 26th, 2015 05:10 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - grrm - Jul. 27th, 2015 07:10 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - smofbabe - Jul. 27th, 2015 09:11 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - grrm - Jul. 28th, 2015 06:32 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - smofbabe - Jul. 29th, 2015 09:58 pm (UTC) - Expand
Hugo Recommendations - Michael O'Donnell - Jul. 26th, 2015 08:48 am (UTC) - Expand
Jul. 26th, 2015 01:57 am (UTC)
Would you be willing to share your thoughts on the rest of the Best Novel Category?
Really enjoyed your shared opinion on "Goblin Emperor" and "The Three Body Problem". Understandably you wouldn't want to comment on all categories but perhaps the biggest of the "big ones" deserves a bit of harmless analogy? Having read all the nominees(even one god awful one)I have been very curious to see what you thought of Anne Leckie's second book "Ancillary Sword", since the first one was last years winner and it is considered solid writing it seems worthy. Also, what do you think of Jim Butcher as a whole? Not Hugo material IMHO but surely entertaining? Be Well, Mr. Martin.
Bob Jenson
Jul. 26th, 2015 02:36 am (UTC)
I have voted, and will probably look to tweak my ballot in the remaining 6 days - but if I can't because of site overload, I'll be happy with my ballot as is. I voted with my head and not my gut. It was a toss-up for best novel for me - two of them I could have voted #1 for. And the puppies backed "Interstellar" huh? I would have thought that was a no-brainer to get nominated anyways, and it got my vote for the #1 spot. Yeah, it had some issues, but geeze - it had an original story with an intriguing concept and some jaw dropping visuals. The "woo factor" to me was non-existent. And GOTG was a lot of fun, and I couldn't imagine ranking it under no award because of some trolling by certain supporters of it.
Jul. 26th, 2015 04:19 am (UTC)

It was a pity PREDESTINATION was not nominated. A terrific adaption of "All You Zombies," it deserved to be on the ballot. But in a way, maybe it's good that the Puppies were unaware of it, just as they were unaware of the Patterson biography of RAH. Since PREDESTINATION was based on a Heinlein story, there's a strong chance they might have made it one of their picks.

So what's worse -- missing the ballot entirely, or getting on the ballot solely because of a slate.

I pose the question. I don't know the answer.
(no subject) - kevin_standlee - Jul. 26th, 2015 05:56 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - grrm - Jul. 26th, 2015 06:58 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - sethb - Jul. 27th, 2015 03:40 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - grrm - Jul. 27th, 2015 06:59 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - kevin_standlee - Jul. 28th, 2015 06:44 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - Bob Jenson - Jul. 26th, 2015 06:04 am (UTC) - Expand
Jul. 26th, 2015 09:32 am (UTC)
Future world con
Finland is where I want to be
Jul. 26th, 2015 12:16 pm (UTC)
"Nuclear Option"
George, I understand your dislike for the so-called "nuclear option", but I have a bit of an issue with your suggestion that "only an idiot" would vote no award in Best DP: Long Form.

I love Guardians of the Galaxy dearly and would have loved to see it win a Hugo Award as I think it an exemplary portrayal of space opera via film.

However, I feel that voting for it this year, because it was on the slates, would be the equivalent of endorsing the slate/vote campaigning engaged in by the puppies, and that is something that I just can not support.

In a considered, non-idiotic manner, I have therefore chosen to leave it off of my final ballot and have, instead, selected what I consider to be the best option that is not on a slate.

If the puppy slates between them had filled the category, I would be voting No Award for that category - even if it were 1969 and 2001: A Space Odyssey was in the running.

I can not in good conscience vote for anything that is on either of the puppy slates as I believe - after due consideration - that doing so will lend support to their efforts, however minimal that may be.

Rejecting slated works across the board also allows me to vote a clean ballot and to demonstrate how I did so. Violating that methodology (no matter how much I may want to do so for GotG) weakens the argument in my opinion.

I appreciate and respect your approach, but the fact that mine is different from yours does not make it "idiotic".
Jul. 27th, 2015 06:56 pm (UTC)
Re: "Nuclear Option"
I understand your reasoning. I just think you're wrong.

The makers of GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY have no relationship with the Sad Puppies, the Rabid Puppies, or any slate. I doubt they are even aware that these groups exist.

By striking them off the list because they were on a slate, you are engaging in Guilt by Association... and a very tenuous association at that. You are essentially giving VD and the Sads power over your vote... not what you vote for, but what you WON'T vote for.

Sorry, I continue to believe that is idiocy. I won't let the slates tell me who to vote for, and I won't let them tell me who NOT to vote for.
Re: "Nuclear Option" - amazingstoriesm - Jul. 27th, 2015 08:30 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: "Nuclear Option" - grrm - Jul. 28th, 2015 06:39 pm (UTC) - Expand
Olov Livendahl
Jul. 27th, 2015 08:25 am (UTC)
More people nominating
I agree that getting more people to nominate would be great! In the spirit of this I have started a personal reading project - I am going to try to read as many new books (and short story magazines) as possible in 2015 and 2016. It's kind of hard when you're on a budget, though.

As for pointing to works that are eligible I'd like to point out that Nnedi Okorafor's Lagoon, which was published in 2014 and a lot of people liked, will be eligible next year as well, since the first American edition will be published in 2015. So now all you 'mericans will have an easier time getting hold of it.
Jul. 29th, 2015 04:49 pm (UTC)
My ballot has been filled out.

For the first time ever, "No Award" was my only choice in at least one category.



George R.R. Martin
George R. R. Martin

Latest Month

April 2018


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner