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. Rob Thornton: Sigh. GRRM’s misconduct is no excuse for you to harass others. Just to put that “harassment” bugaboo aside, I believe harassment requires intent and it didn’t seem to me that GRRM deliberately meant to cause anyone grief. If you want a term that might fit, I would suggest “micro-aggression(s)” instead of harassment. You really ought to get caught up on your terminology.

    Oh. So you don’t think that GRRM making people uncomfortable was harassment? “making people uncomfortable” and “harassment” aren’t synonymous? Heh.

    That’s pretty good information to know. I think that might impact one of your previous comments.

  2. I certainly haven’t said anything about people angry about the blog post being on the ballot should be ignored.

    I haven’t said people angry about last year’s Hugo ceremony should be ignored. It was a debacle. GRRM deserved the criticism he got from all over the place, including on File 770. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the longest response he made to the criticism was in a comment here. This place was hopping mad about the ceremony, in particular the lack of effort to pronounce names correctly and the long stories about past big names that distracted from the event being a party about the current nominees and winners.

    I don’t have a problem with anger motivating a Hugo-nominated work, even if the target is Worldcon or the Hugo Awards, but anger and a transgressive title aren’t enough to make something a Best Related Work. The nominations should go to things that reflect time and effort.

  3. I don’t give a shit about swearing in a title, and frankly, it’s neither respectful to the arguments people are making nor to the work itself to reduce it down to profanity rather than the meaning of the whole sentence. Fuck Me, Ray Bradbury has swearing. This ended up an attack on a real actual person who could reasonably have been expected to watch it live while he was there to enjoy and celebrate an event he loves. It was cruel. I don’t know whether that was deliberate – maybe people didn’t realise anyone would you know, likely be hurt by someone embedding an attack on them within the thing they love. It’s possible. I think it more likely that they just didn’t care.

    God knows people have the right to be angry. But moving straight on to cruelty aimed at one man is one hell of an over-reaction.

    Note: I’m not calling the essay, or the title, cruel in its original context. Rude, sure, but sometimes people are rude, and sometimes there are good reasons for that rudeness. I’m saying nominating it was cruel.

  4. @ alexvdl

    Oh. So you don’t think that GRRM making people uncomfortable was harassment? “making people uncomfortable” and “harassment” aren’t synonymous? Heh.

    That’s pretty good information to know. I think that might impact one of your previous comments.

    I’m sorry, you don’t get to define “harassment” and you obviously didn’t read my message. If you intend to make someone uncomfortable, you are harassing people, if you unintentionally make someone uncomfortable, you are probably committing micro-aggressions.

    Let me make it simple. If GRRM’s actions were not deliberate, he did not harass anybody. He committed micro-aggressions which are defined as “a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority.”

    I do not believe there is any evidence that GRRM did what he did out of spite. If you have any evidence, go ahead.

  5. Once Larry Correia and Vox Day found you could round up enough voters to torture people by putting on the Hugo ballot not only badly-written stories and porn but faux works like Michael Z. Williamson’s Wisdom From My Internet and books with vindictive titles like SJWs Always Lie, the rest was just engineering for anyone else who can round up 30 or 40 votes.

    and

    we know from the con’s news release that in two-thirds of the categories it was possible to make the ballot with fewer than 40 nominations.

    It seems strange to me that we have a semiprzine finalist listing 80-something contributers in a category where it was possible to make the ballot with fewer than 40 nominations.

  6. rcade: I don’t have a problem with anger motivating a Hugo-nominated work, even if the target is Worldcon or the Hugo Awards, but anger and a transgressive title aren’t enough to make something a Best Related Work. The nominations should go to things that reflect time and effort.

    This is, still, the same value judgement.

    You went from saying that something being put on the ballot “to make points about the Worldcon and Hugo Awards failures” meant that it couldn’t be a Best Related Work to saying being put on the ballot as “an expression of anger intended to send a message” meant that it couldn’t be a best Related Work to ” anger and a transgressive title aren’t enough to make something a Best Related Work.”

    You don’t think it’s a Best Related Work. Great. Don’t vote for it. But that’s a different sorta thing than these value judgements you’re making.

  7. Meredith:

    “Fuck Me, Ray Bradbury has swearing. This ended up an attack on a real actual person who could reasonably have been expected to watch it live while he was there to enjoy and celebrate an event he loves. It was cruel.”

    He enjoyed that video and invited Rachel Bloom to visit after seeing it.

    EDIT: Sorry, thought you wore still talking about Bradbury.

  8. @ rcade

    I haven’t said people angry about last year’s Hugo ceremony should be ignored. It was a debacle. GRRM deserved the criticism he got from all over the place, including on File 770.

    Thanks for reminding me what this is all about. I got caught up in a useless argument about fault, and I apologize. GRRM could not have screwed up any more than he did but last year but turning his terrible mess into a full-on vendetta is worrisome. I don’t think GRRM deserved to be upgraded to villain status, regardless where Luhr’s blog post ends up in the Related Work category.

  9. rcade: I don’t have a problem with anger motivating a Hugo-nominated work, even if the target is Worldcon or the Hugo Awards, but anger and a transgressive title aren’t enough to make something a Best Related Work. The nominations should go to things that reflect time and effort.

    This is the exact same value judgment argument you’ve made twice before. If you don’t think that the work is the Best Related Work, then don’t vote for it. But to argue that the people who nominated it did so without believing it to be a Best Related work is just your assumptions at work.

    @Rob Thornton:
    You spectacularly missed the point I was making. You said “When I hear the phrase “making people uncomfortable,” I immediately think of the word “harassment.” ”

    And then in a different comment clarified that GRRM making people uncomfortable wasn’t harassment because he didn’t do it on purpose. In your original comment, you didn’t discriminate. You said you hear “Making people uncomfortable” and immediately think of the word “harassment.”

    Are you trying to say that Luhr harassed GRRM by posting her opinion of his bad behavior? That her intent was to make GRRM uncomfortable? What do you think she should’ve done? Just kept her mouth shut and let him continue?

  10. @Hampus

    Sorry, I think I wasn’t clear with my “this” – I was trying to contrast Fuck Me, Ray Bradbury, which has swearing but was affectionate, with the above finalist which has swearing but as a finalist rather than just an essay becomes an attack on an individual embedded in something they love. Swearing is not the issue and wasn’t an issue with FM,RB as far as I’m concerned.

  11. But to argue that the people who nominated it did so without believing it to be a Best Related work is just your assumptions at work.

    You’ve ignored several invitations to tell us why it’s an excellent choice for Best Related Work on the merits.

    Instead you tell me it’s wrong to believe that there was bad faith behind this nomination. A lot of us concluded that bad faith motivated the Puppies and we voted accordingly, giving Noah Ward his best awards night in decades. I’m not seeing the downside of doing the same here, if that’s what we ultimately believe as individual voters.

    I am not clear on what calling my position a “value judgment” is intended to say. Every action I take as a Hugo Awards nominator, voter or bloviator is a value judgment (“a personal opinion about how good or bad someone or something is”).

  12. It’s almost as though people saw a difference between righteous anger and its opposite, strange.

  13. @ alexdvl

    Are you trying to say that Luhr harassed GRRM by posting her opinion of his bad behavior? That her intent was to make GRRM uncomfortable? What do you think she should’ve done? Just kept her mouth shut and let him continue?

    First of all, you act as if Luhr’s blog post is out of context. As rcade said, she was just one of many who yelled at GRRM for his frankly terrible acts when he hosted ConZealand. GRRM was broiled to a cinder by fan anger, so I think most fans considered the topic closed.

    So when a group of people decided to nominate an anti-GRRM blog post from that angry ConZealand time period, particularly with an obnoxious title, to this year’s Related Works, I was offended. Frankly, I think Luhr should be offended too, because there’s a good chance that it was chosen for the offensive title instead of the contents. No one should nominate anything for a Hugo just to maintain a vendetta. That tactic comes straight out of the Sad Puppy playbook.

  14. Meredith:

    Agree. Swearing isn’t an issue. Nathalie Luhrs writing a heartfelt post about her experiences, showing her anger about GRRM:s disrespect towards Worldcon members and finalists isn’t an issue, it was applauded by most here.

    Nominating it to Best Related Work is the issue and I think I’m not the only one who will vote No Award. I’m also hoping there will be a proposal to rewrite the rules for Best Related Work – or remove it as a whole – until the next Business Meeting.

  15. I’m probably unqualified to speak on all the nuances in every argument that’s going on concurrently here. But I do think we should all take a step back and remember we’re all talking about an awards show here. Just an awards show.

  16. rcade: You’ve ignored several invitations to tell us why it’s an excellent choice for Best Related Work on the merits.

    Yes, I’m aware you’ve repeatedly tried to shift the discussion away from your assumptions.

    Also, lol at comparing the Puppies and Luhrs. The Puppies acted out of a desire to make the Hugo Awards less inclusive and welcoming. Luhrs acted out of a desire to make them more inclusive and welcoming. So much bad faith. eyeroll

    Rob Thornton: So when a group of people decided to nominate an anti-GRRM blog post from that angry ConZealand time period, particularly with an obnoxious title, to this year’s Related Works, I was offended. Frankly, I think Luhr should be offended too, because there’s a good chance that it was chosen for the offensive title instead of the contents. No one should nominate anything for a Hugo just to maintain a vendetta. That tactic comes straight out of the Sad Puppy playbook.

    Oh, look, another person that wants to compare it to the Puppies while completely ignoring context.

    As an aside, if most of fandom thought the issue was over, her work probably wouldn’t have been nominated, eh? It’s not JUST about GRRM. It’s about how the same things keep happening over and over because some people are seen as more important in fandom than others.

  17. Rcade said

    ‘I think that making people uncomfortable is one of the ways that change happens.

    The Puppies used the ballot to make us uncomfortable. Nobody but them found value in that.’

    Except the reaction against this a) improved Hugo voting and b) brought a lot more voters into this. I think it hat has opened up debate now on the next stage of the Hugos now the Puppies have gone. Worldcons haven’t yet fully got their heads around the expectations of this group which is the newer part of where the community is going to.

    BRW is being used to highlight where this aspect of the community thinks change is required. I can see why the more traditional Worldcon attendees feel this is out of order. I’m sure there is a faction who will not vote and move it below No Award I think the voting though will show how many in the community are aligned to either group

    Personally I think if Worldcons want less protests about Worldcons they need to actually sort these things out and stop making people feel insulted then promise lessons will be learnt and then repeat the same errors

  18. rcade on April 14, 2021 at 11:32 am said:
    It seems like a double standard to say the anger that puts hostile profanity on the ballot should be heard but the anger that it provokes in response should be ignored.

    +1

  19. Also, lol at comparing the Puppies and Luhrs. The Puppies acted out of a desire to make the Hugo Awards less inclusive and welcoming. Luhrs acted out of a desire to make them more inclusive and welcoming. So much bad faith. eyeroll

    I didn’t say Luhrs acted in bad faith. Go back and reread my comment and your comment excerpt that I quoted. They were referring to whether nominators were acting in bad faith

    Until you can say whether the work was worthy of Best Related Work on the merits, I don’t see the point of continuing this thread.

  20. The File 770 discussion of what people nominated didn’t have anyone saying they nominated the GRRM solar fornication rant, so I can’t learn anything from that about intent.

    If anyone reading this discussion did nominate it and can say why they did, I’d love to see it. You might fear it would be an experience comparable to being run through a sausage grinder, given the current temperature of the discussion, but Filers usually have a soft spot for people saying why they liked something. It’s soothes like shaving bristles on Curly’s chin.

    It used to even be the standard way to deflect a Puppy who arrived here just to chew our shoes and piddle on the floor. Someone (I want to say Meredith) would ask, “Have you read anything good lately? Tell us about it.”

  21. “So, anyone read any good books lately?”

    (I am SUCH a Middle Child)

    I really enjoyed FLOODPATH, the second half of Emily B Martin’s duology with SUNSHIELD. American type geographies for fantasy are still relatively uncommon, and she uses her park ranger experience to really good effect with her secondary world.

  22. @Rob Thornton

    Frankly, I think Luhr should be offended too, because there’s a good chance that it was chosen for the offensive title instead of the contents.

    Luhr posted about her eligibility specifically for the piece. She invited nomination. She is decidedly not offended, as her message of gratitude for the nomination indicates.

    As has been noted elsewhere, the convention committee has no real say as to what works get on the ballot so long as they meet the criteria for the category. However, telling specific members of WSFS to “fuck off into the sun” sure seems like it’s telling them they don’t belong there, which as others noted is explicitly noted as being against the Code of Conduct.

    Beyond the bad taste and thoughtlessness of indulging in such petty cruelty, what’s worse is that it is hijacking the machinery of Discon and the Hugo Awards itself. Websites around the world have amplified that a member of the WSFS should fuck off. Every official publication that lists the nomination is telling a member of the WSFS to fuck off. The Hugo Nominees discussion panel will have people talking about how GRRM (and Robert Silverberg) should fuck off. On the night of the ceremonies, the screen, the presenter, the sign language interpreter will be announcing to an audience of hundreds that specific members of the WSFS should fuck off.

    I believe it’s incumbent on the concom to come out with a statement one way or the other: either acknowledging that this a violation of the code of conduct, a violation it must unwillingly accept according to the terms of the WSFS constitution but which it most strenuously deplores because it’s making the convention committee, its staff, and the wider WSFS all party to this deplorable situation; or how it is not in fact a violation of the CoC.

  23. @rcade

    Quite often! But definitely a few other people who did it regularly too and almost everyone took a turn at least once.

    @Hampus

    Yes, that. I’ve defended the BRW grab bag a lot in the past but the last three years have kind of nudged me away from that – I still love the possibilities but it’s clearly not a high priority for voting time at the moment and as a result anything truly long form (and not Le Guin related..!) is running head first into a wall of “mostly people didn’t bother”, if they even get on the ballot at all. While I still think there’s plenty of value in most of the grab bag finalists (/waves tiny yay AO3 flag, while proudly wearing AO3 Hugo pin), effectively removing its function as a celebration of excellent non-fiction is not what I wanted, and that’s what’s happening. I’ll be very interested to see what proposals start being cooked up, if any.

  24. Oh, and I forgot! I want to thank Tamsyn for her comment on the first page of comments – I hadn’t heard that perspective on the essay before and it’s good food for thought.

  25. I’m reading Rosemary and Rue, which coincidentally turned out to be research for the Hugo Awards Best Series category since October Daye made the ballot.

    I loved the beginning and the terrible thing that befell the protagonist, then got lost in the large number of characters who had to be met to set the table for intricate court intrigue in the world of the fae. But once introductions were finished I’m finding my way again.

  26. @JJ
    I’m hoping next year will be much improved, for all of us. I’ve still been buying new books, but either not starting them or starting them and setting them aside to return to comfort reads.

    @Cora
    I hadn’t considered the effect of closed/restricted services libraries, but that’s a good point. And I think many have had their budgets cut as well, which may lead to fewer new works being available.

    @rcade
    I got into the October Daye series based on the audiobooks – if you’re an audiobook fan, I recommend them. Mary Robinette Kowal does the narration, and she is amazing.

  27. Just a side-query, but I’m seeing claims that Brandon Sanderson’s Stormlight Archive series was rendered ineligible for Best Series when he had two qualifying books out in the eligibility period.

    Anyone know why that might be?

  28. @Mike Glyer The thousands who jumped in to participate in the Puppy years have largely gone back where they came from, unfortunately.

    ::waves:: Still here, just quiet. I nominated, though I didn’t nominate as much as I usually do because 2020 was a year of comfort reading. I think I read The Goblin Emperor at least once every two months, if not more, through 2020.

    I am looking forward to reading a lot of these 2020 books that I bought but did not read. Mount TBR is going to fall over and squish me.

    One goal I have this year to to read more widely of the Fan Writers and Fanzines, since I tend not to do that. Then I depend on the packet for making a choice. I am glad that a couple of booktubers got nominated for Fancast, as I’m not much for podcasts but I like booktube.

  29. rcade: I didn’t say Luhrs acted in bad faith. Go back and reread my comment and your comment excerpt that I quoted. They were referring to whether nominators were acting in bad faith

    I see it as a distinction without a difference. If you don’t think she acted in bad faith, then why would nominating her good faith work be in bad faith?

    She wrote it because she was aghast at the bad behavior exhibited by GRRM and how it was part of a pattern of such behavior. She wrote it because she wants better for and from Fandom.

    Is it outside the realm of possibility that other people also want better for and from Fandom? And that nominating that work wasn’t a middle finger to GRRM, but then recognizing the work resonated with them and their desire for more and better?

    We knew puppies were acting in bad faith because their blog posts said as much. They were called the Sad Puppies because of Correia’s disingenuous comment. You, however, said you don’t know why people nominated it and have assumed it was in bad faith because of that lack of knowledge.

    I think operating out of a “I don’t know why people nominated this work, therefore it must be bad faith” is a shitty mindset. And you acknowledged that assumption on your part may be keeping people from speaking up. So… Maybe that’s a bad assumption?

  30. I agree with some of the previous comments that the GRRM article’s title is a violation of DisCon III’s code of conduct. I wonder how the award hosts will deal with this, if they aren’t allowed to say the title.

  31. @rcade: DAW put copies of Rosemary and Rue on the freebie table at LoneStarCon III, no doubt in the hopes that people would pick one up and go on to buy the rest of the series and further volumes as they came out. Worked a treat on me, I’m here to tell you.

  32. @Meredith Thank you for the kind words! I truly appreciate it. I’m an intermittent lurker around here, and I have mega anxiety leaving comments in public sections. So I’m sincere in my thanks for that. 🙂

    And as a follow up, I think Hampus Eckerman really underscores why I’m so miffed about the rage blog nomination. Even though there are aspects of it that don’t sit right with me, it’s been even more the response to it than its existence unto itself, in how it’s been elevated time and again, that has my feelings around it all curdled.

    Like, not every blog post needs to be super well researched. There’s value in capturing emotions in the moment, and I don’t think Luhrs intended the piece to be taken up as authoritatively as it was.

    But if we’re talking about issues that especially center the experiences of BIPOC and trans folks, why did I see so many subsequent outlets use the words of a cis white woman as their primary source in reporting on the brouhaha embroiling the ceremony? But, it was a bit of a flash in the pan, and I moved on from my discomfort.

    But now, so many months later, I see a contingent of folks nominating this as THE representative piece on the event? 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?

    That to me is the major difference between the events surrounding the renaming of the formerly Campbell award: it focused the voices of people of color. But the response to last year’s ceremony, from my experience, has more prominently centered cis, white voices.

    Thus, I don’t really feel lifted up right now. I don’t feel that the trans community is truly being listened to. In this particular moment, it feels more like my trans identity is being used as cultural cache by folks who aren’t trans to center their own voices, not ours. Whether intentional or not, that’s the message I’ve received.

  33. @avilyn:

    Speaking only for myself, as someone who has long been a fan of SFF but who only got involved in Worldcon/Hugo voting with the whole Puppy mess; I think the pandemic played a larger part here. I had been nominating & voting in the Hugos every year since I got involved, except this past year. I did not submit any nominations, although I was eligible to, and I do not plan to register a membership with Discon to vote for this year’s awards.

    Yeah, this. This is me in all particulars. 2020 scraped me so raw that This I How You Lose the Time War and even Catfishing on CatNet were basically too intense for me to handle. There’s just so much everything everywhere all the time, and I just have not had the bandwidth for any of it

  34. If you don’t think she acted in bad faith, then why would nominating her good faith work be in bad faith?

    Because different people have different motives for doing different things?

    You keep steering the subject back to me. Hard pass.

  35. @Martin Easterbrook:

    It is possible that someone may be “right” but still deserves to be kicked out of the conversation because of their behaviour.

    Dave Kyle says they can’t even sit in the balcony

  36. A nominee changed the title of their work this year before the announcement.

    If the blog rant had been retitled at the author’s request to “The 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony (RageBlog Edition)” for the final ballot announcement, I think it would have gotten a different reception.

    The Hugo Awards administrator might still agree to do that if asked, since it removes an issue that people aren’t likely to drop before the ceremony.

  37. @Adam Whitehead: I’m confused why ask folks here to guess wildly about something vague you don’t even link to. Still, I’ll take a stab at it. 😉 But you really do have to ask them why they said something. No one here can answer that.

    BTW, useful links to send them include the handy short summary at thehugeawards.org and the WSFS Constitution itself.

    Anyway, my wild guess is they’re wrong and/or confused, possibly by misreading the ballot. The ballot listed previously-nominated series and what it would take to be eligible again. Sanderson’s needed 2 or more works from 2018-2020, totalling 240K or more words. Maybe someone(s) misunderstood this or made incorrect assumptions.

    Over at @JJ’s very useful post about Best Series, @Kyra asked @JJ to add Starlight and listed a qualifying work; then @David Goldfarb mentioned there was also a novella coming out. I’d be surprised if the two works didn’t add up to over 204K words (wasn’t one of them a doorstopper novel?).

    Granted, that post isn’t authoritative, but it’s a combination of @JJ’s excellent research and a well-informed commentariat. @JJ’s cautious about such things and listed it in the main post, so I figure it’s eligible. This doesn’t mean enough people nominated it (or, if nominated, that Sanderson accepted the nomination).

    Anyway, that’s my guess! How’d I do/what do I win?

  38. Here’s the thing: There’s a lot of great stuff on this Hugo ballot. Like … really goddamned good.

    This is my favourite Short Story shortlist in several years. Like, it’s really great. Three of the novellas are stunning.

    Everywhere you look on this list, you’ll find top-tier works from long-time Hugo regulars (looking at you, Seanan McGuire), there’s first-timers who have earned a spot on the ballot with fresh and innovative voices (Finna! Love Finna!)

    Every category has stunning works. Handful of Earth, Handful of Sky by Lynell George. So glad to see that recognized. Then there’s the fan categories — I want all the fan writer and fan artist finalists to win.

    For once, I’m even happy with the Graphic Story category! Invisible Kingdom is so great!

    Heck, five of those fanzines are so great that I’m not even sure who I’m going to put at the top of my ballot in that category! (No seriously. I am so enthusiastic about NOAF, Full Lid, Journey Planet, Lady Business, and Quick Sip, that I’m not certain who I’m going to vote for.)

    Are there a couple of works in a few categories that sit a little oddly for me? Yes.

    But I am sure as heck going to spend most of my emotional energy celebrating the amazing stuff, rather than complaining.

  39. OGH says: The thousands who jumped in to participate in the Puppy years have largely gone back where they came from, unfortunately.

    I think I started voting during the Puppy years? It looks like 2015 was my first year voting in the Hugos.

    @Adam Whitehead: IIRC Best Series has some kind of requirement that a series can’t be nominated if it’s been a nominee or winner within the past several (I forget exactly how many) years. Given how popular SA is, I wouldn’t be surprised if it had been a nominee recently enough to be ineligible this year.

  40. @OlavRokne
    If nominated, it is perfectly fine to vote for yourself, though it’s my policy not to nominate myself and not to no award anybody in a category I’m nominated in, unless they are puppy level horrible.Not that I would have no awarded anybody in Best Fan Writer in either 2020 or 2021 anyway – they’re all great.

  41. Matt Cavanagh: I’m learning about Worldcons and fandoms every day JJ just possibly not the lessons you want me to learn

    All the times you’ve been wrong about things, I have never once seen you acknowledge that you were wrong and say that you will try to do better. Instead, I’ve seen you repeatedly make excuses and justifications, and move the goalposts or just change the subject entirely, rather than ever acknowledge that you were wrong.

    I look forward eagerly to the day when you start educating yourself on subjects before you opine on them.

     
    Matt Cavanagh: Personally I think if Worldcons want less protests about Worldcons they need to actually sort these things out and stop making people feel insulted then promise lessons will be learnt and then repeat the same errors.

    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.

     
    Matt Cavanagh: Except the reaction against this a) improved Hugo voting and b) brought a lot more voters into this. I think it hat has opened up debate now on the next stage of the Hugos now the Puppies have gone.

    What the Puppies also did was to deprive a bunch of worthy finalists of permanent recognition and take away what should have been their well-deserved day in the sun. 80 works and creators, over the course of 4 years, deprived of the recognition they deserved.

    What the Puppies also did was to instead put a bunch of garbage onto the ballot that will remain a part of the Hugo records forever.

    80 works and creators, over the course of 4 years, deprived of the recognition they deserved – but they’re just a “positive result” for you.

    It’s almost as if you don’t really care about the Hugo Awards or the people who’ve been fucked over by the baby tantrums, Puppy and otherwise, you just want to make justifications for people fucking them up.

    Do better.

  42. alexvdl: Also, lol at comparing the Puppies and Luhrs. The Puppies acted out of a desire to make the Hugo Awards less inclusive and welcoming. Luhrs acted out of a desire to make them more inclusive and welcoming. So much bad faith.

    Ooo, nice straw man! No one has compared Luhrs to the Puppies, they’ve compared the people who threw this big baby tantrum to the Puppies. Talk about a bad faith “argument” on your part. Do better.

     
    JJ: It’s funny how so many people stridently demand respect for themselves and their works, but are so quick to disrespect the Hugo Awards, the works of others, and other Worldcon members.

    alexvdl: Are we talking about the nominated work, or the presenter who couldn’t bother to pronounce people’s names correctly?

    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. There’s a word for that. It’s “hypocrisy”.

     
    alexvdl: It’s not just GRRM that people are mad at. They’re mad at the entire system to that brought GRRM to where he had the ability and power to do those things that they’re upset with.

    And this is where you and a bunch of other people either have blinders on – or else it’s just that you don’t give a damn about anyone but yourselves.

    You keep talking about “they” as if you’re talking about the people who thought what GRRM did last year was fine – and you keep ignoring the fact that the “they” to whom you refer includes a whole lot of people who are angry, too, about various Worldcon failures and want them to do better – but who didn’t feel compelled to behave like 6-year-olds and fuck things up for people who deserved to have a good Worldcon and Hugo celebration this year.

    I am still fucking furious about the way GRRM ruined the Hugo Award ceremony last year and disrespected the finalists. I wrote at least one very heated rant about it here. A lot of other people posted rants as well, here and elsewhere.

    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.

    Luhrs’ rant is not any more remarkable than a lot of the other rants I saw posted. It was less well-researched and less articulate than some of the other rants that I read. 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.

    And what that has also done is take away the bulk of the attention from where it should be – accolades and celebrations for the finalists – to a huge controversy about the big baby tantrum thrown by a few people. 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.

     
    alexvdl: “How can we ensure that a portion of membership isn’t so angry as to vote potty words onto the ballot?”

    How can we ensure that a group of people who are ostensibly adults behave like good human beings instead of like infantile 6-year-olds who care only about themselves?

    That’s a very good question. 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?

  43. Kendall: JJ’s cautious about such things and listed it in the main post, so I figure it’s eligible.

    The Stormlight Archive was nominated for Best Series in 2018 for the entirety of the work in that series up through the end of 2017. In 2020, Rhythm of War and Dawnshard were published – and although the second is only a novella, I’m pretty sure that the first makes up more than 240,000 words on its own. I would be very surprised if the Hugo Administrators made a wrong call on it.

    I think it’s more likely that disgruntled Sanderson supporters were convinced that they had enough nominations for it to make the ballot, and are making shit up to explain why it didn’t. I’d like to introduce them to John Ringo, who to this day, with no evidence whatsoever, insists that the Hugo Admins wrongly disqualified him from the Campbell Award ballot “because he’d been writing forever”.

    Whatever the case, we’ll see what actually happened in December when the stats come out.

  44. Cora Buhlert on April 14, 2021 at 7:22 pm said:
    @OlavRokne
    If nominated, it is perfectly fine to vote for yourself … .

    Ah. You misunderstand.

    I’m not uncomfortable voting for myself. What I’m suggesting is that the quality of those other five works on the shortlist is so high that they might deserve my vote.

  45. @Kevin Standlee — I’ll make one more post on the Lodestar, and then stop. If you want the last word, it’s yours.
    You’ve said the Lodestar is Not a Hugo. I’ve said it’s Not a Hugo.
    I do think, however, that the Constitution does not make that clear. And I don’t think it does as good of a job as it could or should in dealing with Not Hugos as it does with Hugos.
    When it was written, it was to support an organization that awarded Hugos, and only Hugos. That assumption exists on every page. When Lodestars were tacked on, many of those assumptions became invalid, but not all of the clauses depending on them were re-written to accomodate that amendment. I think a close reading of the Constitution, with an eye towards recognizing and making clear the intent of adding the Lodestar but also recognizing and making clear that it is not a Hugo, and all that entails, would make a better constitution. But a proper fix might mean dozens of small amendments.

    In a world where everyone is acting in good faith, it wouldn’t make much difference. It’s been awarded without hitch more than once. Unfortunately, that’s not the world we live in, and bad actors exploit the ambiguities. Which bad actors, you say? I dunno. 10 years ago, no one was predicting the rise of the Puppies, yet they happened.

    @rcade

    If the blog rant had been retitled at the author’s request to “The 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony (RageBlog Edition)” for the final ballot announcement, I think it would have gotten a different reception.

    The Hugo Awards administrator might still agree to do that if asked, since it removes an issue that people aren’t likely to drop before the ceremony.

    If Luhrs changed the title, or acquiesced to the Convention doing so, it wouldn’t change much. 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.

    @Elio M. Garcia, Jr

    I believe it’s incumbent on the concom to come out with a statement one way or the other: either acknowledging that this a violation of the code of conduct, a violation it must unwillingly accept according to the terms of the WSFS constitution but which it most strenuously deplores because it’s making the convention committee, its staff, and the wider WSFS all party to this deplorable situation; or how it is not in fact a violation of the CoC.

    An even better solution might be for Luhrs to withdraw the work from consideration, regardless of any merits it may have, because it doesn’t do what the Hugos have always tried to do — recognize achievement in SF/F. She could withdraw it, and still stand by what she said. Her essay was appropriate for a blog post, but not as a Hugo Nominee.
    I recall the respect given to nominees during the Puppy years who withdrew their works because they wanted it to be clear that they weren’t fellow travellers, even though the works were noteworthy enough to have been nominated without Puppy support. I think many would similarly respect Luhrs for withdrawing the work in the interest of making Discon and the Hugo Ceremony a welcoming event, even to people who she feels had not made her or her friends welcome.

    @Mike Glyer

    bill: What Asimov received today would be classified as a special committee award — given by the committee, not voted by the members. See Fancyclopedia 3, 1963 Hugos. These used to be Hugo rockets until the rules were changed to forbid that, in the Seventies as I recall.

    As I read sec. 3.3.19, then, they (currently, at least) are Hugos (and as such, wouldn’t they still get a Rocket?): “Awards created under this paragraph shall be considered to be Hugo Awards.”
    So if I were the record keeper of the Hugos, I’d add these to the list.

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

    We need to inform you of a few corrections to the award ballot. The updated press release and ballot are attached, and a list of corrections follows:
    “Steven H. Silver” corrected to “Steven H Silver”
    “Diane M. Pho” corrected to “Diana M. Pho”
    “Sarah Noakes” corrected to “Sara Noakes”
    “Rosie Kämpe” corrected to “Rosi Kämpe”
    “Alyn Spector” removed from Strange Horizons listing
    “Solaris” added to the publishers for Black Sun, The Relentless Moon, and The Lady Astronaut Universe

  47. Rule 3.3.19 governs the creation of an additional Hugo category that will be voted on by the members in the same manner as the other permanent Hugo categories.

    A special committee award is an example of Rule 3.5’s “any other award” which it bars from using the Hugo design. The recipients of these awards are determined by the committee, and are not voted on by the members. (They’re not WSFS Awards, so the only rule addressing them is to prevent the Hugo rocket from being used as the trophy.)

    I guess I’ll leave it at that, since I already explained this in the answer you quoted and for some reason you refuse to believe it.

  48. @Mike — it’s not that I “refuse to believe it”; I just got it wrong. Thanks for explaining it a second time.

  49. Pingback: DisCon III Declines to Comment on Code of Conduct Issue About Hugo Finalist | File 770

Comments are closed.