2021 Hugo Awards Finalists Announced

DisCon III, the 79th World Science Fiction Convention, today announced the finalists for the 2021 Hugo Awards, Astounding Award for Best New Writer, and Lodestar Award for Best Young Adult Book.

DisCon III received 1249 valid nominating ballots (1246 electronic and 3 paper) from the members of the 2020 and 2021 World Science Fiction Conventions.

A video announcing the finalists is available to watch on DisCon III’s YouTube channel, presided over by Malka Older and Sheree Renée Thomas who will host of the Hugo Award Ceremony in December 2021.

Voting on the final ballot will open later in April. Due to the Worldcon shifting its dates to December, voters will be given until November 19, 2021 to submit their ballots. Only DisCon III members will be able to vote on the final ballot to choose the 2021 award winners. You can join the convention at www.discon3.org – one must be at least a supporting member in order to participate in the awards voting.

The 2021 Hugo Award base will be designed by Baltimore artist Sebastian Martorana. The 2021 Lodestar Award will once again be designed by Sara Felix, president of the Association of Science Fiction and Fantasy Artists.

More information about the Hugo Awards is available from the DisCon III website.

2021 Hugo Awards Finalists

BEST NOVEL

[1093 votes for 441 nominees, finalist range 309-132]

  • Black Sun, Rebecca Roanhorse (Gallery / Saga Press / Solaris)       
  • The City We Became, N.K. Jemisin (Orbit)
  • Harrow the Ninth, Tamsyn Muir (Tor.com)
  • Network Effect, Martha Wells (Tor.com)
  • Piranesi, Susanna Clarke (Bloomsbury)
  • The Relentless Moon, Mary Robinette Kowal (Tor Books / Solaris)

BEST NOVELLA

[778 votes for 157 nominees, finalist range 219-124]

  • Come Tumbling Down, Seanan McGuire (Tor.com)
  • The Empress of Salt and Fortune, Nghi Vo (Tor.com)
  • Finna, Nino Cipri (Tor.com)
  • Ring Shout, P. Djèlí Clark (Tor.com)
  • Riot Baby, Tochi Onyebuchi (Tor.com)
  • Upright Women Wanted, Sarah Gailey (Tor.com)

BEST NOVELETTE

[465 votes for 197 nominees, finalist range 108-33]

  • “Burn, or the Episodic Life of Sam Wells as a Super”, A.T. Greenblatt (Uncanny Magazine,May/June 2020)
  • “Helicopter Story”, Isabel Fall (Clarkesworld, January 2020)
  • “The Inaccessibility of Heaven”, Aliette de Bodard (Uncanny Magazine, July/August 2020)
  • “Monster”, Naomi Kritzer (Clarkesworld, January 2020)
  • “The Pill”, Meg Elison (from Big Girl, (PM Press))
  • Two Truths and a Lie, Sarah Pinsker (Tor.com)

BEST SHORT STORY

[586 votes for 634 nominees, finalist range 65-35]

  • “Badass Moms in the Zombie Apocalypse”, Rae Carson (Uncanny Magazine, January/February 2020)
  • “A Guide for Working Breeds”, Vina Jie-Min Prasad (Made to Order: Robots and Revolution, ed. Jonathan Strahan (Solaris))
  • “Little Free Library,” Naomi Kritzer (Tor.com)
  • “The Mermaid Astronaut”, Yoon Ha Lee (Beneath Ceaseless Skies, February 2020)
  • “Metal Like Blood in the Dark”, T. Kingfisher (Uncanny Magazine, September/October 2020)
  • “Open House on Haunted Hill”, John Wiswell (Diabolical Plots – 2020, ed. David Steffen)

BEST SERIES

[727 votes for 180 nominees, finalist range 300-87]

  • The Daevabad Trilogy, S.A. Chakraborty (Harper Voyager)
  • The Interdependency, John Scalzi (Tor Books)
  • The Lady Astronaut Universe, Mary Robinette Kowal (Tor Books/Audible/Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction / Solaris)
  • The Murderbot Diaries, Martha Wells (Tor.com)
  • October Daye, Seanan McGuire (DAW)
  • The Poppy War, R.F. Kuang (Harper Voyager)

BEST RELATED WORK

[456 votes for 277 nominees, finalist range 74-31]

  • Beowulf: A New Translation, Maria Dahvana Headley (FSG)
  • CoNZealand Fringe, Claire Rousseau, C, Cassie Hart, Adri Joy, Marguerite Kenner, Cheryl Morgan, Alasdair Stuart.
  • FIYAHCON, L.D. Lewis–Director, Brent Lambert–Senior Programming Coordinator, Iori Kusano–FIYAHCON Fringe Co-Director, Vida Cruz–FIYAHCON Fringe Co-Director, and the Incredible FIYAHCON team
  • “George R.R. Martin Can Fuck Off Into the Sun, Or: The 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony (Rageblog Edition)”, Natalie Luhrs (Pretty Terrible, August 2020)
  • A Handful of Earth, A Handful of Sky: The World of Octavia E. Butler, Lynell George (Angel City Press)
  • The Last Bronycon: a fandom autopsy, Jenny Nicholson (YouTube)

BEST GRAPHIC STORY OR COMIC

[303 votes for 254 nominees, finalist range 43-24]

  • DIE, Volume 2: Split the Party, written by Kieron Gillen and Stephanie Hans, letters by Clayton Cowles (Image Comics)
  • Ghost-Spider vol. 1: Dog Days Are Over, Author: Seanan McGuire,  Artist: Takeshi Miyazawa and Rosi Kämpe (Marvel)
  • Invisible Kingdom, vol 2: Edge of Everything, Author: G. Willow Wilson, Artist: Christian Ward (Dark Horse Comics)
  • Monstress, vol. 5: Warchild, Author: Marjorie Liu, Artist: Sana Takeda (Image Comics)
  • Once & Future vol. 1: The King Is Undead, written by Kieron Gillen, iIllustrated by Dan Mora, colored by Tamra Bonvillain, lettered by Ed Dukeshire (BOOM! Studios)
  • Parable of the Sower: A Graphic Novel Adaptation, written by Octavia Butler, adapted by Damian Duffy, illustrated by John Jennings (Harry N. Abrams)

BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, LONG FORM

[574 votes for 192 nominees, finalist range 164-56]

  • Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn), written by Christina Hodson, directed by Cathy Yan (Warner Bros.)
  • Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga, written by Will Ferrell, Andrew Steele, directed by David Dobkin (European Broadcasting Union/Netflix)
  • The Old Guard, written by Greg Rucka, directed by Gina Prince-Bythewood (Netflix / Skydance Media)
  • Palm Springs, written by Andy Siara, directed by Max Barbakow (Limelight / Sun Entertainment Culture / The Lonely Island / Culmination Productions / Neon / Hulu / Amazon Prime)
  • Soul, screenplay by Pete Docter, Mike Jones and Kemp Powers, directed by Pete Docter, co-directed by Kemp Powers, produced by Dana Murray (Pixar Animation Studios/ Walt Disney Pictures)
  • Tenet, written and directed by Christopher Nolan (Warner Bros./Syncopy)

BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, SHORT FORM

[454 votes for 321 nominees, finalist range 130-30]

  • Doctor Who: Fugitive of the Judoon, written by Vinay Patel and Chris Chibnall, directed by Nida Manzoor (BBC)
  • The Expanse: Gaugamela, written by Dan Nowak, directed by Nick Gomez (Alcon Entertainment / Alcon Television Group / Amazon Studios / Hivemind / Just So)
  • She-Ra and the Princesses of Power: Heart (parts 1 and 2), written by Josie Campbell and Noelle Stevenson, directed by Jen Bennett and Kiki Manrique (DreamWorks Animation Television / Netflix)
  • The Mandalorian: Chapter 13: The Jedi, written and directed by Dave Filoni (Golem Creations / Lucasfilm / Disney+)
  • The Mandalorian: Chapter 16: The Rescue, written by Jon Favreau, directed by Peyton Reed (Golem Creations / Lucasfilm / Disney+)
  • The Good Place: Whenever You’re Ready, written and directed by Michael Schur (Fremulon / 3 Arts Entertainment / Universal Television, a division of Universal Studio Group)

BEST EDITOR, SHORT FORM

[370 votes for 162 nominees, finalist range 79-38]

  • Neil Clarke
  • Ellen Datlow
  • C.C. Finlay
  • Mur Lafferty and S.B. Divya
  • Jonathan Strahan
  • Sheila Williams

BEST EDITOR, LONG FORM

[310 votes for 82 nominees, finalist range 83-52]

  • Nivia Evans
  • Sheila E. Gilbert
  • Sarah Guan
  • Brit Hvide
  • Diana M. Pho
  • Navah Wolfe

BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST

[331 votes for 179 nominees, finalist range 91-37]

  • Tommy Arnold
  • Rovina Cai
  • Galen Dara
  • Maurizio Manzieri
  • John Picacio
  • Alyssa Winans

BEST SEMIPROZINE

[331 votes for 77 nominees, finalist range 174-39]

  • Beneath Ceaseless Skies, ed.Scott H. Andrews
  • Escape Pod, editors Mur Lafferty and S.B. Divya, assistant editor Benjamin C. Kinney, hosts Tina Connolly and Alasdair Stuart, audio producers Summer Brooks and Adam Pracht and the entire Escape Pod team.
  • FIYAH Magazine of Black Speculative Fiction, publisher Troy L. Wiggins, executive editor DaVaun Sanders, managing editor Eboni Dunbar, poetry editor Brandon O’Brien, reviews and social media Brent Lambert,  art director L. D. Lewis, and the FIYAH Team.
  • PodCastle, editors, C.L. Clark and Jen R. Albert, assistant editor and host, Setsu Uzumé, producer Peter Adrian Behravesh, and the entire PodCastle team.
  • Uncanny Magazine, editors in chief: Lynne M. Thomas and Michael Damian Thomas, managing editor: Chimedum Ohaegbu, non-fiction editor:  Elsa Sjunneson, podcast producers: Erika Ensign and Steven Schapansky
  • Strange Horizons, Vanessa Aguirre, Joseph Aitken, Rachel Ayers, M H Ayinde, Tierney Bailey, Scott Beggs, Drew Matthew Beyer, Gautam Bhatia, S. K. Campbell, Zhui Ning Chang, Tania Chen, Joyce Chng, Liz Christman, Linda H. Codega, Kristian Wilson Colyard, Yelena Crane, Bruhad Dave, Sarah Davidson, Tahlia Day, Arinn Dembo, Nathaniel Eakman, Belen Edwards, George Tom Elavathingal, Rebecca Evans, Ciro Faienza, Courtney Floyd, Lila Garrott, Colette Grecco, Guananí Gómez-Van Cortright, Julia Gunnison, Dan Hartland, Sydney Hilton, Angela Hinck, Stephen Ira, Amanda Jean, Ai Jiang, Sean Joyce-Farley, Erika Kanda, Anna Krepinsky, Kat Kourbeti, Clayton Kroh, Maureen Kincaid Speller, Catherine Krahe, Natasha Leullier, A.Z. Louise, Dante Luiz, Gui Machiavelli, Cameron Mack, Samantha Manaktola, Marisa Manuel, Jean McConnell, Heather McDougal, Maria Morabe, Amelia Moriarty, Emory Noakes, Sara Noakes, Aidan Oatway, AJ Odasso, Joel Oliver-Cormier, Kristina Palmer, Karintha Parker, Anjali Patel, Vanessa Rose Phin, Nicasio Reed, Belicia Rhea, Endria Richardson, Natalie Ritter, Abbey Schlanz, Clark Seanor, Elijah Rain Smith, Hebe Stanton, Melody Steiner, Romie Stott, Yejin Suh, Kwan-Ann Tan, Luke Tolvaj, Ben Tyrrell, Renee Van Siclen, Kathryn Weaver, Liza Wemakor, Aigner Loren Wilson, E.M. Wright, Vicki Xu, Fred G. Yost, staff members who prefer not to be named, and guest editor Libia Brenda with guest first reader Raquel González-Franco Alva for the Mexicanx special issue

BEST FANZINE

[271 votes for 94 nominees, finalist range 79-38]

  • The Full Lid, written by Alasdair Stuart, edited by Marguerite Kenner
  • Journey Planet, edited by Michael Carroll, John Coxon, Sara Felix, Ann Gry, Sarah Gulde, Alissa McKersie, Errick Nunnally, Pádraig Ó Méalóid, Chuck Serface, Steven H Silver, Paul Trimble, Erin Underwood, James Bacon, and Chris Garcia.
  • Lady Business, editors. Ira, Jodie, KJ, Renay, and Susan.
  • nerds of a feather, flock together, ed. Adri Joy, Joe Sherry, The G, and Vance Kotrla
  • Quick Sip Reviews, editor, Charles Payseur
  • Unofficial Hugo Book Club Blog, ed. Amanda Wakaruk and Olav Rokne

BEST FANCAST

[376 votes for 230 nominees, finalist range 72-28]

  • Be The Serpent, presented by Alexandra Rowland, Freya Marske and Jennifer Mace
  • Claire Rousseau’s YouTube channel, produced by Claire Rousseau
  • The Coode Street Podcast, presented by Jonathan Strahan and Gary K. Wolfe, Jonathan Strahan, producer
  • Kalanadi, produced and presented by Rachel
  • The Skiffy and Fanty Show, produced by Shaun Duke and Jen Zink,  presented by Shaun Duke, Jen Zink, Alex Acks, Paul Weimer, and David Annandale.
  • Worldbuilding for Masochists, presented by Rowenna Miller, Marshall Ryan Maresca and Cass Morris

BEST FAN WRITER

[365 votes for 185 nominees, finalist range 89-42]

  • Cora Buhlert
  • Charles Payseur
  • Jason Sanford
  • Elsa Sjunneson
  • Alasdair Stuart
  • Paul Weimer

BEST FAN ARTIST

[221 votes for 158 nominees, finalist range 54-10]

  • Iain J. Clark
  • Cyan Daly
  • Sara Felix
  • Grace P. Fong
  • Maya Hahto
  • Laya Rose

BEST VIDEO GAME

[341 votes for 145 nominees, finalist range 183-30]

  • Animal Crossing: New Horizons (Publisher and Developer: Nintendo)
  • Blaseball (Publisher and Developer: The Game Band)
  • Final Fantasy VII Remake (Publisher Square Enix)
  • Hades (Publisher and Developer: Supergiant Games)
  • The Last of Us: Part II (Publisher: Sony Interactive Entertainment / Developer: Naughty Dog)
  • Spiritfarer (Publisher and Developer: Thunder Lotus)

LODESTAR AWARD FOR BEST YOUNG ADULT BOOK

[507 votes for 172 nominees, finalist range 201-55]

  • Cemetery Boys, Aiden Thomas (Swoon Reads)
  • A Deadly Education, Naomi Novik (Del Rey)
  • Elatsoe, Darcie Little Badger (Levine Querido)
  • Legendborn, Tracy Deonn (Margaret K. McElderry/ Simon & Schuster Children’s Publishing)
  • Raybearer, Jordan Ifueko (Amulet / Hot Key)
  • A Wizard’s Guide to Defensive Baking, T. Kingfisher (Argyll Productions)

ASTOUNDING AWARD FOR BEST NEW WRITER

[422 votes for 181 nominees, finalist range 99-54]

  • Lindsay Ellis (1st year of eligibility)
  • Simon Jimenez (1st year of eligibility)
  • Micaiah Johnson (1st year of eligibility)
  • A.K. Larkwood (1st year of eligibility)
  • Jenn Lyons (2nd year of eligibility)
  • Emily Tesh (2nd year of eligibility)

The Hugo Awards are the premier award in the science fiction genre, honoring science  fiction literature and media as well as the genre’s fans. The Hugo Awards were first presented at the 1953 World Science Fiction Convention in Philadelphia (Philcon II), and they have continued to honor science fiction and fantasy notables for more than 60 years.

[Based on a press release.]

240 thoughts on “2021 Hugo Awards Finalists Announced

  1. JJ I think you get mistaken between your opinion about what I’m wrong about – no apologies are going your way if I don’t agree with your interpretation of events

    I think I won’t be debating anything with you in future

  2. Matt, you’ve been given that gift Robert Frost talked about. I encourage you to use it to take a good hard look at yourself and engage in some constructive self-improvement.

  3. Isn’t Lindsay Ellis ineligible for the astounding award due to her work in the past as part of Serra Elinsen? Awoken came out in 2013.

  4. evilrooster: JJ Robert Burns, surely, not Frost.

    You are right! That’s what I get for trying to do too many things at once! Thank you for the correction. 🙂

  5. @JJ:

    One must keep these distinctions, or it gets messy.

    For though yer land an’ mine
    Are neighbors near, an’ a’ that:
    We split the apple frae the pine
    A Wall’s a Wall for a’ that.

  6. It’s been a long time since you stopped by with poetry, evilrooster. I’m so glad you did. 🎕

  7. Warner Holme: Isn’t Lindsay Ellis ineligible for the astounding award due to her work in the past as half of Serra Elinsen? Awoken came out in 2013.

    Awoken was self-published and did not meet the requirements for being published in a SFWA-qualified market, which is what starts the Astounding Award clock.

  8. rcade: Because different people have different motives for doing different things?
    You keep steering the subject back to me. Hard pass.

    Yes, different people do have different motives for doing different things. So why are you assuming what those motives are? The subject keeps being steered back to you because YOU are the one that is assuming bad faith on the part of the nominators.

    JJ:The problem is that using this as a way to “send a message” to handful of people fucks over hundreds of them who didn’t do anything to deserve it – and many of those are people who were already fucked over by one of Worldcon’s mistakes, so Congratulations on victimizing them again.

    lol. How are hundreds of people fucked over by Luhrs’ blogpost being on the ballot for BRW? How is ANYONE fucked over?

    JJ: No one has compared Luhrs to the Puppies, they’ve compared the people who threw this big baby tantrum to the Puppies.

    I’ve already gone over why this is a difference without distinction. Her work carried a specific message. She wanted that message amplified and put it on her list of works to consider for nomination. The people who nominated it to the shortlist amplified that message.

    JJ: I don’t know what you are talking about. What I am talking about are people who stridently demand respect for themselves and their works, but are quick to disrespect the Hugo Awards, the works of others, and other Worldcon members.

    Yes. GRRM disrespected the Hugo Awards, the works of others, and other Worldcon members. You said you were furious about that behavior and also wrote a rant about it. Luhrs’ rant and yours called him out on that bad behavior. Calling people to account for their bad behavior is hardly disrespectful. Wanting the Hugo Awards to do better, and for people to hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct is hardly disrespectful. You see the nomination of Luhrs’ blog post as disrespectful. Are you disrespecting those nominators by calling out what you see as bad behavior?

    JJ: And yet neither me, nor any of those other people who were extremely angry about what happened last year, are regarded by you as legitimate fans for being angry that small group of selfish, childish people decided that it would be fun to fuck up this year’s awards, too.

    This is just straight wholesale fantasy. Who is saying that you or any of those other people who are extremely angry about what happened last year aren’t legitimate fans? It certainly isn’t me, and I haven’t seen anyone else on this post saying that either.

    JJ: The reason it was nominated wasn’t because of its quality as an essay, it was nominated because its title was a way for some people to get themselves right down to the childish, petty level of GRRM and passive-aggressively fuck things up.

    This is more assumption on your part.

    JJ: Wow, what a way to advocate for respecting the Hugo finalists and treating people better – by treating the Hugo finalists like shit, which is what the nomination of the Luhrs essay has done.

    Yes, nominating a work to the ballot is “treating the Hugo finalists like shit”. Exact same thing. lol.

    JJ: How do you get selfish, petty, childish adults who don’t care about anyone but themselves to actually care about other people and behave like good human beings?

    LOl at “selfish, petty, childish adults” from the guy currently throwing a “big baby tantrum” over a work being on the ballot that he doesn’t think is deserving.

    JJ: Matt, you’ve been given that gift Robert Frost talked about. I encourage you to use it to take a good hard look at yourself and engage in some constructive self-improvement.

    What a remarkably patronizing statement. I encourage you to take a look at the plank in your eye.

    bill: The work itself is still harrassing regardless of its title. It is clearly unwelcoming to GRRM (and to a lesser extent, Robert Silverberg). And Luhrs’ joyous acceptance of the nomination continues the harrassment.

    GRRM is not harrased by the blog post, or the nomination of the blog post, or Luhrs’ joyous acceptance of the nomination. That’s ludicrous. GRRM acted poorly. He is facing the consequences for that poor behavior. Was Jeanette Ng harassing Campbell in her Aware Acceptance speech? Do you think that nominators were harassing Campbell, Asimov, Heinlein, and Hubbard by nominating Astounding by Alec Nevala-Lee? Did Moira Greyland harass Marion Zimmer Bradley by accepting the nomination for “The story of Moira Greyland”?

  9. alexdvl, You do really like making strawman arguments, don’t you? And you also have a serious reading comprehension problem.

    Here’s a tip: “LOL” is not actually a logical argument, and it doesn’t make a valid case for you.

    I explained above who all the people are who have been fucked over by this nomination. You have obviously made no effort to read it.

  10. @John A Arkansawyer: fair enough. But it sure sounded like some kind of slur to me.

  11. JJ: You do really like making strawman arguments, don’t you? And you also have a serious reading comprehension problem.

    Feel free to point out the strawman argument. Also, while we’re on the topic of logical fallacies, your second argument is an ad hominem. Maybe consider responding to what I wrote.

    JJ: I explained above who all the people are who have been fucked over by this nomination.

    No. You did not.

    LOL.

  12. I’ve already gone over why this is a difference without distinction.

    This is (strong language alert) a bunch of malarkey. The motivation of one person to write something has nothing to do with the motivation of at least 30 people* to nominate it for an award.

    An individual voter can reasonably decide that the nominees who chose the solar fornication invitation were pulling a mean-spirited stunt and vote accordingly.

    If there are people as invested as you in taking the wind out of our sails, but who are also willing to actually say why they considered the work both related and best, that would have a better chance to persuade than your continued efforts to only allow this discussion on your terms.

    * – The minimum necessary to get on the ballot in Best Related Work last year was 34 nominations (absent shifts due to EPH). Nominations were down in 2021. That’s how I arrived at 30. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

  13. Jeffrey Jones: Ng did express disparagement of sterile white males, IMO.

    That is not what she said, and I don’t see how anyone can make a reasonable case that is what she said.

    What she actually said was this:
    “[Campbell was] responsible for setting a tone of science fiction that still haunts the genre to this day. Sterile. Male. White. Exalting in the ambitions of imperialists and colonisers, settlers and industrialists.”
    [emphasis mine]

    And she’s not wrong. I can’t tell you how many decades I spent reading science fiction which was almost exclusively male-focused, sexist, and racist — because it was that, or nothing at all — before I finally got to start seeing people like myself and minorities in the books I read, and women stopped being solely trophies for the main male characters.

  14. @Tamsyn

    I wanted to make this a separate note because I think that you have brought up a very good point in your critique of Luhrs’ work.

    “When so much of the discussion around the event dealt with how it wasn’t inclusive of people of color, how it wasn’t inclusive of trans folks, why was the only work regarding last year’s ceremony nominated to the ballot a work that was by neither a trans nor BIPOC person?”

    I don’t have an answer deeper than “The system is set up like that”, but I do think it makes sense to amplify your criticism especially when the very essay proves the thesis by being the one nominated instead of the voice of a trans or BIPOC person.

    For my own reading, is there a critique of last year’s ceremony that you think better captures the affected voices?

  15. @JJ: Okay, I’ll accept it’s not what Ng intended, so no karma. But there are other kinds of causes and effects.

  16. rcade: An individual voter can reasonably decide that the nominees who chose the solar fornication invitation were pulling a mean-spirited stunt and vote accordingly.

    the nominators don’t have control of the title of the blog post, rcade. Mean-spirted is an assumption on your part that you’ve continually stated you don’t have enough data to back up. Pretending like “mean-spirited” is the only option available is “a bunch of malarkey.” I have tried to talk with you about the other options.

    If there are people as invested as you in taking the wind out of our sails, but who are also willing to actually say why they considered the work both related and best, that would have a better chance to persuade than your continued efforts to only allow this discussion on your terms.

    I am neither dictating the terms of this discussion, or trying to persuade that this work is related or best. I am trying to persuade you that you shouldn’t jump to conclusions based on information that you don’t have or assume people’s intentions. You shouldn’t assume that your mindset is the default.

  17. Cora Buhlert did a good job of covering the Hugo Awards ceremony on her blog from the perspective of a first-time nominee, and deserves additional plaudits for the lovely evening gown.

  18. rcade: Cora Buhlert did a good job of covering the Hugo Awards ceremony on her blog from the perspective of a first-time nominee

    When Cora told me that the “lead-up” to the Fan Writer presentation was 17 minutes long, I was horrified and really sympathetic for her. What person, in any universe, could possibly think that sort of grandstanding was acceptable?

  19. @alexvdl

    GRRM is not harrased by the blog post, or the nomination of the blog post, or Luhrs’ joyous acceptance of the nomination.

    GRRM’s reaction is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for harassment to exist.
    That Luhrs may have had reasons to say what she said, or that many people agreed with her statements, does not keep them from being violations of the CoC.
    “Let us shoot George R.R. Martin and Bob Silverberg into the sun where they shall bother us no longer.” is a clear, unambiguous violation of “Comments . . . telling others they are not welcome and should leave.”
    (And I can’t reconcile nominating the post, accepting the post, or voting for the post with the CoC restriction against “Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior.”)

    The difference between Luhr harassing Martin and Silverberg, compared to Ng and Campbell; Nevala-Lee and Campbell, Asimov, Heinlein and Hubbard; and Greyland and Bradley, is that all of the others are dead and presumably wouldn’t be attending the convention regardless of whether Ng or Nevala-Lee or Greyland make unwelcoming statements.

    @rcade

    Cora Buhlert . . . .deserves additional plaudits for the lovely evening gown.

    It is very nice, and she is lovely in it. But is it a gown? or a dress? I would have thought the bright print colors and pattern move it from the former to latter category, but what do I know? What is the difference, pray tell?

  20. GRRM’s reaction is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for harassment to exist.

    I’m assuming that you mean GRRM not attending DisCon. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    Do you consider JDA being told he wasn’t welcome to attend Worldcon76 to be harassment?

    Do you think that people facing the consequences of their poor behavior is “harassment”?

  21. @alexvdl
    As I’ve explained, the clear language of the blog post, when viewed under the terms of the Discon Code of Conduct, is a violation of Discon’s Code of Conduct. Discon says it is harassment, not me.

    I don’t remember enough details of the JDA situation to say whether or not it was (specifically, was there applicable language in WorldCon76’s CoC?); given that the convention is history, the question is moot.

    As to your third question, my answer is “It depends”.

  22. Discon says it is harassment, not me.

    Discon has declined to comment on whether or not it is harassment.

    I don’t remember enough details of the JDA situation to say whether or not it was (specifically, was there applicable language in WorldCon76’s CoC?); given that the convention is history, the question is moot.

    The question isn’t moot. JDA’s bad behavior is why he was told he wasn’t welcome at WorldCon.

    As to your third question, my answer is “It depends”.

    So you think that context and circumstance should inform decision?

  23. @rcade: On top of all that, @Cora Buhlert deserves bonus points for having what appears to be a proto-Stargate behind her. 😉

    (I know that’s not what it is; work with me here!)

  24. The Stargate is an Arco lamp, though not an original. So far, it has not taken me to alien planets which look suspiciously like British Columbia.

    I’m also glad you liked my gown. I’ll probably wear for this year’s ceremony again, if they let me attend/accept virtually.

  25. Weighing in as a newcomer to Worldcon, having joined three years ago after being inspired by Jemisin’s successes (whose trilogy I loved) and the defeat of the Puppies. This will be my third time voting, second time nominating. 2020 didn’t really slow down my reading but a very busy year means I didn’t nominate in too many categories, BRW included. And holy shit am I disappointed with my fellow nominators over that GRRM blog post. I definitely feel that BRW as a category and the Hugos as a whole are cheapened when nominations and awards are used grind axes or litigate political disputes. The public backlash and MANY hot takes resulting from GRRM’s abysmal performance were, as far as I’m concerned, plenty strong denunciation that showed the community wasn’t going to tolerate that kind of disrespect from the Martins and Silverbergs of the community. Using the following Hugos to double down on that denunciation is redundant, self-congratulatory, and embarrassing to witness.

    Regardless of the shallow defense alexvdl has put forward for these nominators, I think it’s very reasonable to assume bad faith on their part, especially because everything I’ve read of Matt Cavanagh’s line of reasoning (ie a protest nomination/making a statement) sounds very bad faith to me. I haven’t heard any among these nominators claim they think a relatively low-effort rant blogpost — which I enjoyed and strongly agreed with, so I’m not trying to disparage — has more merit than longform nonfiction work requiring dedication and sustained effort to create. Granted, there are probably only 30 people who nominated Luhrs’ blog post, so it’s not a very high number of people. But it’s enough that I’m feeling embarrassed to be associated with Hugo voters this year.

  26. @alexvdl
    Discon has declined to confirm that it is harassment; to the extent that the CoC is a statement from Discon (and I think it is), they have already said that unwelcoming statements are harassment. (And their failure to confirm it, or to explain why they think it isn’t, serves no one. Letting the situation fester will only make it worse. They should nut up and express an opinion, one way or the other, for reasons mentioned by OGH.)

    “The question isn’t moot.” Are you aware of the meaning of “moot”? The convention is over, and JDA cannot attend it regardless of the position of the Concom. If it was harassment, nothing can be done about it — the Concom cannot eject anyone. (But I think characterizing the rulings of convention management as equivalent to statements made by attendees to each other as somehow comparable in terms of whether they constitute “harassment” is not useful.)

    “So you think that context and circumstance should inform decision?”
    Please don’t presume to speak for me.

    I don’t know what your agenda is. I think that nominations like this, and the one for Ng last year, coarsen the discourse and deepen divisions. That’s not a good thing. Talking about why it is bad may reduce the chance it happens again in the future.

  27. @JJ I hope it is a relive that I want to talk about Stornlightarchive. I would not take fans asking if it was disqualified that hard.
    I think Series is perhaps with the Cambell the one were people are unsure, if they didn’t screw up.
    I am also halfway in that camp because I did exspect Stormlight Archive to be on the ballot and would bet it is pretty high on the longlist.
    Some people do assume somethink is ineligable because it is so good that it should have made the ballot for them.
    I do not think they could miss that there were 2 works in the Stormlight Archive this year. One was very hard to miss for anyone interested in the genere and I am 100% sure that the other work was at last once mentioned in a nomination. Wordcount is somethink I personally haven’t check but I would be very shocked if it was under.

    Btw: I am sure that another nominee declined their nomination, if they got enough votes because the reused themselves but I didn’t see it soon enough (or you all were paying more Attention) Fancast: Our Opinions are correct

  28. Fwiw, I certainly agree that the “Best Related Work” category is badly in need of some kind of reform.

  29. Kalin: Regardless of the shallow defense alexvdl has put forward for these nominators, I think it’s very reasonable to assume bad faith on their part, especially because everything I’ve read of Matt Cavanagh’s line of reasoning (ie a protest nomination/making a statement) sounds very bad faith to me.

    I would agree that it was a shallow defense. In fact I’d say it was downright non-existent.

    bill: Are you aware of the meaning of “moot”?

    Yes. Asking your opinion on whether or not something was harassment, so as to gage what you think harassment is, means that my question is far from moot. I’m not interested in litigating the JDA situation, I’m interested in your opinion. Which is… why… I .. asked … for your opinion.

    bill: “So you think that context and circumstance should inform decision?”
    Please don’t presume to speak for me.

    You said your answer was “It depends”. I presumed it depended on context and circumstance, and you have rebuked me. So I’ll ask plainly. It depends on what?

  30. Pingback: Some Thoughts on the 2021 Hugo Finalists | Cora Buhlert

  31. @alexvdl

    Asking your opinion on whether or not something was harassment, so as to gage what you think harassment is, means that my question is far from moot.

    I didn’t mean that your question is moot. I meant that the subject of the question (as debaters would say, “the question before the house”) — what happened with JDA — is moot.

    And if your real question is “what do you [bill] think harassment is”, then I’ll say that for the purposes of this discussion, I’m using the terms of the Discon CoC. They say that telling someone that they are unwelcome is harassment, and that advocating or encouraging such statements is further harassment. For other discussions and Codes of Conduct (like the JDA situation), the definition might be different.

    Luhrs said that, specifically and directly, to GRRM and Silverberg, both in the text and in the title of the blog post. Normally, a blog post saying that would be outside the jurisdiction of the CoC. But once people started nominating it, then the Convention has to deal it under the terms of their own CoC.

    If I were Hugo Adminstrator, I’d make a statement acknowledging the issue, and make it clear that the requirement to treat the work seriously as a nominee supersedes the CoC — the Convention will not reject the nomination. I’d also apologize to GRRM and Silverberg for what has happened, and make it clear that the sentiments in the work go contrary to what the Convention believes its obligations, as stated in the CoC, to be.

    I think the Convention can make a statement along the lines of “The title and content of Ms Luhrs’s work is offensive and violates our Code of Conduct, and it will be referred to in all Hugo matters as ‘the Luhrs blog post of 8/1/2020’ [or equivalent, possibly with a tinyurl redirected link]”, and then follow up by not using the original title, ever, at all. It looks to me like this would fulfill the requirements of awarding Hugos and reporting on them later. I’d tell anyone who has to officially deal with the work as part of their duties (publicity, presenters, etc.) that it is expected that they will follow this policy, and that if they don’t, it could be considered a violation of the CoC to intentionally state the original title (from the “advocating and encouraging” clause). If a person, as a matter of principle, can’t accept that restriction, they should pass the duty on to someone who can. The only exception I can think of would be if the business meeting has to deal with it, there might be an implied “legislative privilege” that supersedes the CoC.

    And since Luhrs has made it clear that she stands by the title and won’t withdraw the work, I’d say that she continues to “advocate and encourage” comments that tell others that they are not welcome at DISCON, and as such, is in violation of the CoC, and her membership is either revoked or won’t be accepted (depending on what her current status is). Should she end up winning, the Convention can accept it on her behalf.

    If the Convention were to take such a stand, I’d imagine that a number of people will, as a protest, make a point of stating the original title out loud in ways that can’t be ignored. And the Convention should immediately pull their badges and escort them out.

    I think walking this tightrope is the only way to fulfill the obligations the Convention has with respect to the WSFS Constitution, and its own self-imposed obligations via its Code of Conduct.

    Would all this be controversial? You bet. It’s the sort of thing that they’ll be writing about for years to come, like the Exclusion Act. But if they do anything less, they might as well say “Don’t worry about the CoC — it’s just a bunch of words on a web page we put up. We didn’t mean it.”

    As far as your last question, about “it depends” — you are asking me to pin down the specifics of your open-ended question. Not gonna do it — I’ll stick with “it depends”.

  32. Bill: As far as your last question, about “it depends” — you are asking me to pin down the specifics of your open-ended question. Not gonna do it — I’ll stick with “it depends”.

    LOL. I mean not answering is one way to prevent people from discussing your opinion with you.

  33. @alexvdl

    Since we’ve just got it mostly cooled down enough that people are talking to each other instead of at each other, I’d consider it a boon if you didn’t do your best to heat it up again.

  34. Apologies for posting this here, which isn’t ideal but the other thread got suddenly killed by Godwin before I could post it so Mike suggested I put it here. It’s a proposal for what could be now now so I hope it’s something that doesn’t become quite so negative.

    I think we are being forced to recognise that Codes of Conduct may be different for people or organisations performing different functions for implementing the code of conduct.

    The most obvious example is an HR staffer who is given the job of enforcing the code of conduct. It is highly likely that in order to do that they will have to ask people questions that would be code of conduct breaches if asked by anyone else.

    The convention does not stand in that position but does, however reluctantly, stand in the position of a judge or a senior HR manager. The jury, to continue this analogy, are the Hugo and WSFS voters(*). The convention, the Hugo administrator and WSFS must put any controversial nominees before them without influencing them in any way by expressing any opposition or any support for any item on the ballot. That does not change whether the item is controversial or not but for a controversial item it is better to be absolutely clear and explicit about this. Members of the convention must feel that if a controversial nominee wins or loses it does not then make them a member of an organisation (the convention) which has taken a side.

    For practical reasons it needs to be made absolutely clear to the media that the convention does not support or oppose any item on the ballot and that it is purely following its constitutional responsibilty to fairly administrate that ballot without regard to any other factors.

    (*) I think there is a possibility of conflict between WSFS and the Hugo ballot here so to avoid this we should consider a constitutional amendment which explicitly hands over responsibility to the committee and to the Hugo voters.

  35. Pingback: 2021 D.I.C.E. Awards | File 770

  36. @Mike

    Ten minutes ago DisCon III emailed me these corrections to the original release and I have incorporated them into the post

    And yet they still haven’t made some of these corrections to their own site.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.