Survey of International Science Fiction and Fantasy Fans About The Hugo Awards and the Puppies Controversy

Mini Hugo rocket carried into space and photgraphed by astronaut Kjell Lindgren in 2015.

Mini Hugo rocket carried into space and photgraphed by astronaut Kjell Lindgren in 2015.

By Shaun Duke and Aaron Beveridge:

Introduction

In April 2015, conversations with several non-U.S. fans about the then-developing controversy surrounding the 2015 Hugo Awards motivated the work that follows. Though no digital archeology of that conversation remains, a passing remark that the Sad/Rabid Puppies controversy is a product of the American culture wars sparked the work that follows. Unfortunately, the Hugos remain subject to the whims of American politics, whatever they might be at a given time. This prompted the initial question as to whether or not many non-U.S. fans held this same view of the Hugo Awards. Shortly after that conversation, a survey was created to ask that very question.

The initial aim of the survey was to determine how non-U.S. fans discovered the Hugo Awards, whether they considered the awards an American affair, and what they thought of the Sad/Rabid Puppies controversy. We began the survey with two assumptions based on the conversations that inspired this survey: (1) that non-U.S. fans largely viewed the Hugos as an American award which often excluded non-U.S. works by default; and (2) that non-U.S. fans were largely unfavorable to the Sad/Rabid Puppies controversy. Additionally, we used the survey as an opportunity to learn more about how non-U.S. fans learned about and engaged with the Hugos.

The following sections provide some background information, our methodology, and details about the results of the survey. This project summarizes and investigates the perception of non-U.S. fans. Certainly, it by no means captures a fully-representative global opinion of the effects that American politics have on the Hugos, but we were able to gather enough international survey responses to feel that our results add to the ongoing conversation. As with any opinion survey, the responses are merely that:  the gathered opinions of the individuals that decided to respond to the survey.[1]

The Controversy

The Sad Puppies is a slate voting campaign begun in 2013 designed to counter the perceived dominance of left-leaning science fiction and fantasy literature — what conservatives in the movement initially called “message fiction.” As the movement progressed, the supporters and writers of these works of “message fiction,” particularly those most opposed to the Sad Puppies movement, were referred to as the snobbish literati and, more recently, “Social Justice Warriors” (borrowing a term more broadly associated with the Gamergate movement); detractors have accused the Sad Puppies of being racists and sexists (Wallace).  Members of both sides have argued that the other is, in effect, actively destroying the science fiction and fantasy community, either through regressive politics and selfishness or through oppressive political correctness.

While there are many motivations behind these campaigns and their detractors, the veracity of which is not the purview of this report, the act of slate voting to “hack” the Hugo Awards took the campaigns from the fringes of science fiction discourse to the forefront of the awards discussion. The greatest Puppies controversy emerged in 2015, in which a new group called the Rabid Puppies (a more reactionary slate voting group than their Sad Puppies counterparts), organized a larger following to effectively dominate the 2015 Hugo Awards nominee ballots.  The final ballot — after several nominees recused themselves from consideration — contained 59 nominees from Sad and Rabid Puppies out of 85 total nominee slots.  The campaigns were less successful when final votes were cast.  In the end, no Sad or Rabid Puppies selection won an award, with all categories containing only slate items resulting in no awards being given.

In 2016, the Rabid Puppies had a similar influence on the awards, with 64 of their 81 selections making the final ballot; however, unlike in 2015, the Rabid Puppies slate for the 2016 Hugo Awards ballot consisted of many works chosen to deliberately counter the “No Award” process by essentially forcing the “sf/f left” to either “No Award” works they otherwise would support OR compromise their anti-slate values in order to support those same works.  Voters responded to this latest variation of the Kobayashi Maru[2] by rejecting “Trojan Horse” options[3] and handing awards to an overwhelming number of women and people of color.

Though the Sad Puppies were active in 2016, the shift from a slate to a longer, categorized recommendation list that favored a more diverse group of works and creators has made their present efforts less controversial than in previous years.

Methodology

The survey was conducted between April 22nd, 2015 and July 5th, 2015 using Google Forms with a combination of long answer and yes/no questions.  To find participants, the survey was disseminated through Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and, in rarer instances, email.  Participants were not asked for their names or identifying markers to protect their identities and to facilitate honest responses.

The original questions were as follows:

  1. What is your country of origin? (One-word Answer)
  2. How did you hear about the Hugo Awards? (Short Answer)
  3. Do you nominate/vote for the Hugo Awards? (Multiple Choice: Yes/No/Sometimes)
  4. Do you think the Hugo Award is primarily an American award? (Multiple Choice: Yes/No/Mostly)
  5. If you answered “yes” to the previous question, please explain your position here. (Long Answer)
  6. Do works nominated for the Hugo Awards reflect sf/f as you see it? (Long Answer)
  7. Do you think the makeup of the Hugo Awards voters reflects sf/f fandom as you see it? (Long Answer)
  8. Do you think others in your area share your opinion? Feel free to elaborate if necessary. (Long Answer)
  9. How do you view the current controversy regarding the Sad Puppies / Rabid Puppies and slate-based voting? Do SP/RP proponents (or opponents) represent fandom as you see it? (Long Answer)
  10. Do you feel drawn to certain Hugo categories more than others? If so, please explain. (Long Answer)
  11. Are there SF/F awards that you find more relevant? (Short Answer)
  12. Is there anything else you would like to add? Feel free to use this space for additional thoughts! (Short Answer)

We might have anticipated that the answers to some of these questions would prove redundant or repetitive.  In some cases, more participants answered one related question or another.  Inevitably, we chose to reduce the questions used for our data set; this removed redundancy and focused the survey on the original intent:  to understand how non-U.S. fans engage with the Hugo Awards and its current controversy.  In the end, we narrowed the questions down to the following categories, which will be explored in the following section:

  1. Participant Countries
  2. Are the Hugos an American Award?
  3. How did the participants her about the Hugos?
  4. Did the participant vote for the Hugos?
  5. What is the participant’s opinion about the Sad / Rabid Puppies and Slate Voting?

The next step involved coding the answers for category 5.  In order to do so, we applied the following rubric to the answers:

  • Undecided: the participant offers no opinion on the subject.
  • No Answer: self-explanatory
  • Agree: unequivocal agreement; the participant states “yes” with no reservations, offers absolute support of the Sad / Rabid Puppies side, and/or uses extreme language to describe the anti-Sad / Rabid Puppies or related groups.
  • Mostly Agree: nuanced agreement; the participant may sincerely agree with slates or the Sad / Rabid Puppies, but they offer concessions concerning the other side’s position or qualifications in their language.
  • Mostly Disagree: nuanced disagreement; the participant may sincerely disagree with slates or the Sad / Rabid Puppies, but they offer concessions concerning the other side’s position or qualifications in their language.
  • Disagree: unequivocal disagreement; the participant states “no” with no reservations, offers no statements of understanding concerning the opposite side, and/or uses extreme language to describe the Sad / Rabid Puppies.

We individually coded the entire dataset for category #5 and ranked each answer according to the above rubric, and then we compared our individual rankings to determine any areas of disagreement. Where disagreements existed, we chose the more conservative (less extreme) of the two options.

Once completed, we compiled all of the data into graphs and charts, which can be found in the following section.

Our method presented several limitations for the breadth and specificity of the data:

  1. The survey was conducted in English. As such, the majority of the participants came from countries in which English is regularly spoken — specifically, North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand.  Roughly 90.6% of our participants came from these regions and 9.4% came from other areas.  It is possible that the Hugo Awards have had minimal penetration into the non-English-speaking world due to its association with the United States and with English-language works — the success of The Three-Body Problem by Liu Cixin and “Folding Beijing” by Hao Jingfang notwithstanding.
  2. Some of the questions on the survey resulted, as indicated above, in repeated answers or in participants simply pointing to another question to find their answer. As such, we chose to remove some questions from the final data set to limit redundancy and to provide focus.
  3. The survey resulted in responses from approximately 393 people and should not be viewed as anything but the opinions of 393 people. It is likely impossible to determine the size of the population of non-U.S. science fiction and fantasy fans in the world or to adequately conduct a study whose sample size could account for the variations of such a population.

Despite the limitations of our survey, the results offer some insight into the science fiction community outside of the United States.

Results

The following sections detail our findings for each of the five categories.

Category #1:  Participant Countries

countryTable [4]

Unsurprisingly, the majority of the participants came from countries with strong or dominant English-speaking populations, including Australia (15.7%), New Zealand (3.8%), Canada (14.2%), the United Kingdom (comprising England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland)(29%), Ireland (2.3%), France (1.7%), and others.  Europe dominates with 56.5% of the responses originating from the continent.

Unfortunately, countries outside of Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand are noticeably sparse.  Though we did receive some responses from surprising places — Zambia (0.02%), Trinidad and Tobago (0.02%), and Malaysia (0.05%), for example — our survey regrettably missed the sizable science fiction and fantasy community in China, Japan, and South Korea, among other places.  This is almost certainly due to the language of our survey (English) and to our own failure to do more to reach into those communities.  In the future, we hope surveys like this will be translated for non-English audiences and that more will be done to reach out to fandoms outside of the English-speaking world.

The participant countries list also contains a nation that one would rightfully assume doesn’t belong:  the United States of America.  Our survey didn’t account for individuals from the United States who have since taken up residence elsewhere OR individuals from outside the United States who have taken residence within the states.  Though they accounted for only 1.2% of the responses, we chose to keep them in the survey as a reminder of avenues that we might explore in the future.

Category #2:  Are the Hugos an American Award?

amTable

We anticipated that the answers to this question would lean toward our own initial assumptions, in part because the conversations that led to the survey took a similar position. Unsurprisingly, then, the majority of participants either emphatically declared Yes (49.6%) or Mostly (31.8%), with a smaller percentage (17%) stating either that the awards are not an American award or that they shouldn’t be perceived that way.

Many of the respondents argued that the awards were a reflection of the most dominant group within the larger field; the United States was typically identified as dominant within the sf/f field at large for what should be obvious reasons (the size of its publishing industry and fandom and the global influence of U.S. culture).  Some respondents were quick to note that just because the awards are American in nature, either due to its history or the culture that influences it, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are a reflection of American culture as a whole.  Indeed, many of the responses to our survey seemed to recognize the fractionality of American fandom in the basic sense of being loosely split across region, topic, age group, etc.

How respondents felt about the Hugo Awards “being American” varied between resigned to the current state of the awards and optimistic about a more international future.  Those who were more resigned tended to agree that the awards have favored American fiction due to history.  One respondent offered three reasons for this:

1) Locals make up a large proportion of each Worldcon. Most Worldcons are held in the US, therefore a large proportion of the Voting group is always American

2) Up until the 21st Century voting was mostly in person (yes, paper ballot was possible but the majority of ballots were not paper). e-voting mean that non-attendees can vote easily now. And as most Worldcons were in the US, pre-21st Century voters were therefore mostly American[5]

3) American fiction is known well in the rest of the world, but non-American literature is not known well in America. Therefore, the way the nomination system works, American works get on the ballot more often

[Mr. Glyer notes that statement 2) may confuse Site Selection voting with Hugo Awards voting. As far as we are aware, Hugo Awards voting has always involved mail-in ballots.]

The more optimistic side of this conversation noted that the greater influence of the Internet on engagement could potentially make the awards more inclusive, though such responses were occasionally tempered by the acknowledgement that the awards would probably always maintain an American focus for the exact reason listed in the first point above:  Worldcons are typically held in the United States.

For those who listed “Mostly” as their answer, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia were often listed as being secondary focuses for the Hugo Awards.  However, for a small minority of respondents, the notion that the awards might be international at all was met with either severe skepticism or outright rejection.

Category #3:  How did you hear about the Hugos?

hearTable2

For the most part, the answers were expected, with the majority of participants (63.3%) stating that they learned about the Hugos from traditional sources such as book covers, magazines, the Internet, conventions, marketing, blogs, and the news.  There is certainly overlap in the various categories, as some who answered “store” may have seen a Hugo Awards sticker on a book; however, we chose not to interpret words for the participants, opting instead to place such items as “store” and “university” in their own categories.

Category #4:  Have you voted for the Hugos?

voteTable

We were surprised to find that the majority of participants (47.3%) have never voted for the Hugos or consider themselves not to be voters because they rarely vote.  In retrospect, we probably shouldn’t have found this alarming given that only 6 (30%) of the Worldcons in the last 20 years have occurred outside of North America the U.S..  Of those 6, only 2 have been held in a country whose primary language is not English (Nippon, Japan in 2007 and Montreal, Quebec, Canada in 2009).  In total, only 18 (24.3%) of the 75 concluded or upcoming Worldcons have been or will be held outside the U.S.; 2017 will see Worldcon hosted in Finland for the first time (“The Long List”).

Combined with the responses to Category #2, it is clear that the perceptions of the Hugos as an American award influences the voting activity of the participants, with only 18.8% declaring that they are regular voters.  This is also supported by the fact that the majority of Worldcon attendees and supporters hail from the United States (see the chart below).  In the last four Worldcons, Americans were the overwhelmingly dominant demographic in three, each convention hosted in the United States; at LonCon3, whose membership naturally skewed towards the United Kingdom, Americans were the second largest demographic next to members from the host country (44.9%).  The data — and the history of the convention in the United States — reflect the notion that the location of a Worldcon heavily influences the degree to which non-U.S. fans participate, as to be expected given that the majority of non-U.S. survey participants see the Hugo Awards and Worldcons in general to be rooted in American fandom (as clearly shown in Category #2).  To our knowledge, however, no data is currently available for the voting demographics for every Hugo Award.

Convention U.S. Attending / Supporting Non-U.S. Attending / Supporting Source
ChiCon 7

Worldcon 70

2012

84.9% 15.1% (ChiCon 7 Progress Report #4)
LoneStarCon3

Worldcon 71

2013

88.7% 11.3% (LoneStarCon3 Progress Report #4)
LonCon3

Worldcon 72

2014

44.1% 55.9% (LonCon3 Membership Demographics)
Sasquan

Worldcon 73

2015

82.4% 17.6% (Sasquan Member Numbers)

 

Category #5:  What is your opinion of the Sad Puppies / Rabid Puppies and Slate Voting

pupTable

If 47.3% of participants do not vote in the Hugo Awards, it is not surprising that a sizable portion of them either had not decided what they thought about the Sad Puppies/Rabid Puppies controversy or had no opinion whatsoever (25.7%).  However, of those who had formed an opinion, almost all of them (72.3% in total and 97.3% of those who had an opinion) were neither favorable to the Sad Puppies nor the Rabid Puppies, with most vehemently disagreeing with the entire affair (38.7% of the total respondents and 52% of those who had an opinion).

Participants were not particularly shy about their opinions either.  Some of the most vocal detractors associated or compared the Sad or Rabid Puppies to neo-fascism, the Tea Party, Mens Rights Activists, and Gamergate.  These sorts of terms coincided with concerns about the damage the SP/RP event would have on the Hugo Awards and SF/F fandom in general.  For example, one respondent argued that

It has caused irreparable damage to the reputation and good names of the Hugo and of SFF fandom, which is almost entirely the fault of established fan-run management of the community. In less than a decade, the Hugo has gone from a calling card to Hollywood for SFF creators, to a flame war with white supremacists and Tea Party goons. You could see – from space, ironically – that this was going to happen and yet the mostly white and mostly American SFF fandom sat on its hands and hoped the problem would go away. Just as American fandom sat on its hands and hoped Marion Zimmer Bradley’s child abuse wasn’t real (her photo was still up at the London world con as a “professional SF writer). Yes, the puppies represent traditional SFF fandom just as Fox News playing in a MacDonald’s in Indiana represents the American midwest. Most people stopping by a MacDonald’s probabaly don’t agree with Bill O’Reilly but they do nothing to stop his toxic opinions from spreading in public space.

Part of this perspective was common among those who most vehemently opposed the SP/RP project:  namely, that the movement is both irrational and regressively conservative.  However, the above respondent is unusual in that they also place the blame partly on the feet of American SFF and fandom.

Most respondents, however, took the perspective, as the following respondent did, that SP/RP proponents viewed the world in “black and white” and “presumed themselves to be the ‘good guys’ and so [looked] around for enemies.”  Respondents in the two negative categories also cited “diversity” as a primary concern; quite a few held a similar position as the following:  “I think the Puppies represent an older demographic that’s threatened by the growing diversity of the genre — or, I should say, the growing visibility of diversity that has always been there.”  Diversity, of course, was a major issue in the conversation surrounding the events of 2015.

Not all respondents were entirely uncharitable to the SP/RP project.  Even those who largely viewed the movement as negative occasionally expressed an understanding of the movement’s intent or, more likely, an acknowledgement that the SP/RP proponents “[meant] to do a good thing by expanding the voter base [to] a slightly under-represented group (fans of military sf, Baen, Analog, etc.).”  However, these same respondents also rejected the methods used by the leaders of the SP/RP group (i.e., slate voting).  In a lot of cases, these slightly more favorable respondents differentiated between understanding or acknowledging the Sad Puppies and unambiguously rejecting the Rabid Puppies.

There were also a handful of respondents who took a positive view of the Sad Puppies in particular.  In almost all of these cases, the response specifically cited “ending political correctness” as the reason; for several respondents from the United Kingdom, the Jonathan Ross controversy in 2014 was the primary example of “political correctness” run amok.

Conclusions

The majority of non-U.S. participants agreed that the Hugo Awards are definitively an American award; they also overwhelmingly rejected the rhetoric and agenda of the Sad and Rabid Puppies, often emphatically so.

However, there are several unanswered questions which might be answered by a future survey.  First, we wonder how non-American fans living within the United States and American fans living outside of the United States view the ownership of the Hugo Awards and its controversies.  Second, we think a future survey should ask the participants who never voted or only occasionally voted what motivated their decisions to abstain entirely or participate only sporadically; this might help us better understand unseen divisions within international science fiction fandom. Finally, we think it crucial to reach out to communities that were not present in our survey.  In the map below, the black areas represent areas from which we received no responses:

country-map

 

As we suggested earlier in the essay — and as the map makes clear — we were unable to reach communities in these areas for a variety of reasons, including language and the limitations of our outreach methods. We hope to conduct a much more extensive survey in the next year in order to fill some of these gaps.

Special thanks goes to all those who helped create and disseminate the survey, including Ian Sales, Maureen Kincaid Speller, and many others.

Biographies

Shaun Duke is a PhD student at the University of Florida studying science fiction, postcolonialism, Caribbean literature, and the rhetorics of fandom.  His non-fiction work has appeared in Science Fiction Film and Television, Extrapolation, The Journal on the Fantastic in the Arts, Like Clockwork (forthcoming from the University of Minnesota Press in December 2016), and Strange Horizons.  Shaun also hosts the Hugo Award-nominated podcast, The Skiffy and Fanty Show, among others, and co-edited Speculative Fiction 2014: The Year’s Best Online Reviews, Essays, and Commentary (The Booksmugglers Publishing) with Renee Williams.  You can find out more about Shaun’s podcasts, writing, etc. at http://www.shaunduke.net/

Aaron Beveridge is a doctoral student in the University of Florida’s Department of English. His research intersects writing studies and data science paradigms — focusing on programming, data mining, and data-visualization as they motivate the ongoing expansion of research methods in rhetoric, writing, and the digital humanities. Grounded primarily in the study of networked writing and trend circulation, his research interests also include technical communication, the rhetoric of science, media ecology, and maker culture. Visit Aaron’s personal website: here.

Sources

ChiCon 7 Progress Report #4. Chicago: ChiCon 7, 2012. Print.

“LonCon3 Member Demographics.” Member Demographics. LonCon3, July 2014. Web. 29 June 2016. <http://www.loncon3.org/demographics.php>.

LoneStarCon 3 Progress Report #4. San Antonio: LoneStarCon 3, 2014. Print.

“The Long List of World Science Fiction Conventions (Worldcons).” The Long List of Worldcons. WSFS Long List Committee, n.d. Web. 29 June 2016. <http://www.smofinfo.com/LL/TheLongList.html>.

“Sasquan Member Numbers.” Sasquan — 2015 Worldcon. Sasquan, 30 June 2015. Web. 29 June 2016. <http://sasquan.org/member-numbers/>.

Wallace, Amy. “Who Won Science Fiction’s Hugo Awards, and Why It Matters.” Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 23 Aug. 2015. Web. 02 Feb. 2016. <http://www.wired.com/2015/08/won-science-fictions-hugo-awards-matters/>.

Footnotes

[1] This survey is an informal, non-academic survey.

[2] Technically, this situation is closer to a Cornelian Dilemma than the infamous Star Trek test of character.

[3] “Trojan Horse” votes refers to items places on the final ballot by voting campaigns that are designed to force competing camps of voters to choose between choosing what they love or maintaining their anti-slate principles to vote “No Award” a second time around. For the most part, voters seemed to reject this dilemma. One interpretation holds that voters voted on merit, an argument made in defense of the Hugo voting process on numerous occasions; it is also likely that some voters were able to identify deserving nominees in the list.

[4] The following countries had one respondent each and were not listed in the countries chart:  Austria, China, Hungary, Iceland, Luxembourg, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, The Philippines, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Zambia.

[5] Mr. Glyer notes that this statement may confuse Site Selection voting with Hugo Awards voting. As far as we are aware, Hugo Awards voting has always involved mail-in ballots.

Barkley — So Glad You (Didn’t) Ask: A Column of Unsolicited Opinions — #4 

I YA

The Young Adult (Hugo) Award: A Minority Report

By Chris M. Barkley: Author’s Note: Of all the columns I have written so far, the following was the hardest and took the longest period to write. From my own, subjective viewpoint, I may be too close to the trees to actually perceive the forest. Nonetheless, I promised Mike Glyer a column about the Young Adult Award. Since I initially proposed it in 2010, I feel a certain sense of responsibility, to all those who are fervent supporters of this idea and to the committee members who have slaved over its composition and torturous course through numerous Worldcon Business Meeting over the past few years.

I spoke at the 2016 Business Meeting at MidAmeriCon II and my remarks are included in a video link provided with this article. While I do not renounce my support of the YA amendment in its current form, this column also serves as a minority report that I feel I should have presented to the Business Meeting.

While recounting the events that have led us to the current status of the YA Award, I felt compelled to point out some deficiencies of the process and some of the critical decisions that have been made over this period of time. By doing so, I do not mean to denigrate the efforts of the members of the YA committees, past or present and I apologize in advance if this report is perceived in that matter.)


On the morning of Saturday, August 20, my fellow activist Dan Berger and I were seated in Room 2104AB of the Kansas City Convention Center for the third session of the World Science Fiction Convention Business Meeting. As the morning progressed, we watched a seemingly endless parade of observations, objections and motions to various agenda items.

At one indeterminable point, Dan exclaimed, “Is this EVER going the end?”

I casually turned to Dan and said, “This is how the sausage is made.” I was not new to the process; since the year 2000, I have attended many Business Meetings. Way, way too many, I sometimes think to myself.

As the meeting marched onwards to a vote on the Young Adult Award amendment to the Constitution of the World Science Fiction society, I had mixed feelings. On the one hand, this issue was finally being dealt with on the floor with an up or down vote. On the other hand, I felt that the committee’s recommendations fell far short of what I had in mind. Still, better to compromise for a half a loaf of something than no bread at all.

As we waited, I glanced down at the notes of my statement that I had hastily scribbled down on a scrap of paper that morning. I was not stranger to speaking in public, having been a radio talk show host and a retail bookseller. Still, I felt unduly nervous. I have maintained some particularly strong feelings about establishing this award over the years and here it was, probably the final opportunity to forcefully speak in its favor.

Finally, debate began on the amendment. I arose, was recognized by the chair and I slowly made my way to the podium to face my peers…

I first became aware of the Science Fiction Achievement Awards as a fifteen year old in high school with my discovery of the book club edition of The Hugo Winners Volumes One and Two, edited by Isaac Asimov.

The stories, which ranged from rousing tales of adventure (Murray Leinster’s “Exploration Team”), tragedy (“Flowers for Algernon” by Daniel Keyes), elegant fantasy (Jack Vance’s “The Dragon Masters” and “The Last Castle”) to head spinning metaphors (“’Repent Harlequin!’, said the Ticktockman” by Harlan Ellison and Samuel R. Delany’s “Time Considered as a Helix of Semi-Precious Stones”).

Needless to say, I was hooked for life.

In his various introductions to the stories, Asimov continually alluded to “conventions” where the awards were voted on and given out. The trouble was that he said nothing about how these things happened. I was blissfully unaware until my best friend and I stumbled upon a local convention in Cincinnati, Midwestcon, in the summer of 1976.

In those forty years, I have attended several hundred local and regional conventions and twenty-eight Worldcons.

After a near death experience in 1996, I began to be more active as a fan writer and activist. This in turn, led to a more direct involvement with the Hugo Awards.

Since 1999, I have proposed changes to the Best Dramatic Presentation Award and Best Editor categories, the establishment of the Best Graphic Story award and was one of the many co-sponsors of the Best Fancast award.

As a young reader, I cherished the authors and works that made me the reader I am today. The resurgence of YA and children’s books since the advent of the works J.K. Rowling and other breakout YA authors in the late 1990’s have made an enormous impact on the reading habits of children, teenagers and a great many adult readers of this generation, especially for those who love fantasy and sf.

Although gene oriented YA has been stereotypically been tagged as tales of young people struggling against dystopias, I think that there has been a wealth of stories being published about how young women and men struggle with their feelings about themselves, their friendships, parents, authority figures, magic and technology.

Starting in 2011, I decided to ask and poll fans privately about the possibility of a YA Award. The responses I received were numerous and enthusiastic enough that I established a Facebook page to spearhead the effort.

I pleaded with Chicon 7 convention committee to try it out as a special category award (which is legal under the World Science Fiction Constitution), but was eventually turned down because they deemed a test the Fancast Hugo, which had just passed through on its first ratification at Renovation the year before, was a more pressing concern.

In addition, I also privately petitioned the San Antonio, London and Sasquan Worldcon committees for a special award, but they all chose not to do so. While I was disappointed with their reactions, I said nothing since nothing because there was nothing to been gained by complaining publicly about the situation.

In the meantime, the amendment remained in various committees for four years.  I participated in deliberations of the first committee but not on the subsequent panels.

In retrospect, I bear much of the blame for the current state of affairs; my lack of participation in these committees amounts to a failure of leadership on my part. Even though I remained the lead administrator of the YA Hugo Facebook page, this was the extent of my participation in the process. This, in part, was due to some personal problems I was undergoing at the time and ineptitude, for which I alone take responsibility for.

The YA committee report is on the following link, on pages 48 (as C.3.2) and 130-133 (Appendix 2):

http://www.wsfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2016-WSFS-Minutes-Final.pdf

The Young Adult amendment that was passed at MidAmeriCon II reads as follows:

Short Title: Young Adult Award

Moved, to amend the WSFS Constitution for the purpose of establishing an award for Young Adult literature by striking out and >adding words as follows:

  1. Insert words in existing sections 3.7.3 and 3.10.2 as follows:

3.7.3:

Nominations shall be solicited only for the Hugo Awards, And the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, and the <blank> Award for Best Young Adult Book.

3.10.2:

Final Award ballots shall list only the Hugo Awards, and the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, and the <blank> Award for Best Young Adult Book.

  1. Insert the following section before existing Section 3.4.:

3.X: <blank> Award for Best Young Adult Book.

The <blank> Award for Best Young Adult Book is given for a book published for young adult readers in the field of science fiction or fantasy appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year, with such exceptions as are listed in Section 3.4.

Provided that filling the < blank> in this amendment to name the award shall not be considered a greater change in the scope of the amendment.

Provided that unless this amendment is re-ratified by the 2021 Business Meeting, Section 3.X shall be repealed and the modifications to 3.7.3 and 3.10.2  reversed; and Provided further that the question of re-ratification shall automatically be placed on the agenda of the 2021 Business Meeting.

The following is a summary of the committee report that was distributed at the Business Meeting:

Members of the YA Award Committee

Commentary: The YA award Committee is proposing a new WSFS award for Young Adult fiction that, like the Campbell Award, would not be a Hugo but would be administered by the WSFS. There have been many attempts going back to the 1990s to create a YA Hugo award, but none of these were successful. The previous year’s YA Hugo Committee (2014-2015) determined that a Hugo was not feasible, while this year’s Committee determined that an award in the mold of the Campbell has merits.

For details of the Committee’s findings, please see the Report submitted to the Business Meeting. In brief, no sponsor is required for an award, which would be a WSFS-sponsored award. Like the Hugo and Campbell, it would be added to the Constitution. The award would be paid for and administered by each Worldcon and presented during the Hugo Ceremony.

This proposal represents the closest we could come to a consensus in the time allotted. Although there are areas where the members of the Committee do not perfectly agree, we feel this proposal reflects our general feeling that a YA award at Worldcon is viable. We recommend its passage and the creation of a separate committee to move forward with consideration of a name for this new award and the physical template for it

In turn, I offer my counterpoints to both summaries:

The report mentions the previous committee reported that a YA Hugo category was “not feasible”.  (That report can be read here: http://dothraki.com/yareport_sasquan.pdf). I will beg to differ on this point. The main point in the report states that, “Under the existing methodology of the Hugo Awards, however, a separate category for YA fiction is not practical. That is, the Hugo fiction categories are defined by word count, not by age categories. We suggest instead the creation of a Campbell-like award, since the Campbell addresses authors and thereby functions outside the Hugo methodology.”

I find the logic of the argument baffling. After all, the Locus Award and the Edgar Awards offer a Young Adult categories and seeming have no problems either garnering viable nominations or administering the awards annually. The same could be said of the Andre Norton Award presented by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (even though they chose to go the “Campbell-like” route with their award).

Why is the Hugo Award perceived differently? Because of the awards are governed by a word count, specifically, that the Novel category in the WSFS Constitution states that a novel must exceed 40,000 words in length. I maintain that a great many YA novels published today easily exceed that limit and that any nominees that fall below that could fall into any of the other fiction categories. This, in other words, is a non-issue.

There was a great deal of consternation during the committee deliberations over the definition of a young adult book, to quote the report:

A Campbell-like award solves a lot of the problems that have come up in past business meetings. A Campbell-like award based on age-group solves the issue of defining what YA is and how the award would be categorized if it were a Hugo. A very strong definition of YA is not a good idea because trends change, and each year’s Worldcon should be allowed to define what they think is YA.

This is the definition of the YA category used by the Mystery Writers of America:

Best Young Adult Mystery: Hardbound or Paperback books, Grades 8 – 12. Ages 13 -18.

That’s it.

Well, it is my opinion that a “Campbell-like” award cannot be equated to an actual Hugo Award. It may be mitigated or regarded as a supplemental award, as the Andre Norton Award, but not as an equal in stature. The John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer is regarded as a prestigious award due to it being named after an influential editor of modern science fiction, it’s longevity and, of course, the annual presentation of the tiara.

The perception that a YA award should be seated at a separate table from the Hugos unsettles me on a personal level. I have always loved YA novels through my youth through today as a professional bookseller. To me, the act of placing YA books in a separate category from the rest of the other categories seems to imply that it is a lesser for of literature, seated, as it were, at the kids table during a Thanksgiving feast.

While a number of authors polled stated that they would support a separate award, I am quite certain a majority of them would prefer having a Hugo Award instead.

Also, I would stipulate that each year’s Worldcon should NOT determine what YA is, the readers and nominators have that honor. The readers who are interested in nominating a YA book for a Hugo Awards already knows what a YA novel is and certainly does not need any prompting from any one in fandom.

As for “trends changing” in sf and fantasy, I should certainly hope this is the case! Imaginative literature should chronicle the changes in culture, society, styles and explorations into the inner nature of human beings (or aliens and demons, for that matter) are the bread and butter of any sort literature that grows and endures. Literature that tends to skirt or avoid these vital issues usually wind up being disregarded, ridiculed or worse, ignored and rejected by readers.

To be sure, this is not the first time I have witnessed Worldcon committees and Business Meeting regulars indulging over in over thinking proposed changes to the Constitution AND underestimating the intelligence of the nominating readers and fans. I recall similar arguments that were made during the deliberations of the Best Dramatic Presentation, Editing and Graphic Story categories; in each set of debates, there was a considerable amount of hand wringing over whether people could be bothered to look up the running times of television shows and movies, finding out who edited a novel or whether certain comics or graphic stories should even be considered sf or fantasy.

In every instance, each of these and countless small worries and dire scenarios turned out to be entirely unfounded. And, even with the exception of the Puppy slated nominations, the nominators and voters of the Hugo Awards have consistently come through with interesting and outstanding selections for the final ballot.

I submitted a request to Worldcon 75’s committee to consider a YA category and for a while, I was actually hopeful that they might grant my request. On September 30, I was rather surprised by the announcement of their decision to present a Best Series Award next year.

My frustration was further compounded by a presumptive ruling by the next Chair of the Business Meeting, Kevin Standlee, who stated on his LiveJournal page in November that any changes to the current incomplete amendment would be considered by him as a “greater change” and thereby would need yet another year of passage through the BM.

I happen to believe that Mr. Standlee is correct in his ruling BUT, this costly delay means that the soonest a YA award might be given could be another two years away. Thus, I felt the need to make my feelings known about what has gone before

So, I strode slowly to the podium. Here’s what I said at the MidAmericon II Business Meeting, at the 4:30 mark of the link:

And I meant what I said; we cannot afford to make this a contest about egos, personal interests, political agendas, but what is in the best interests of the Hugo Awards AND the readers who vote.

Although it is highly unlikely to occur, I would not be terribly upset if the members of Worldcon 75 Business Meeting reject the current amendment and substitute a lesser change, which I offer for consideration this amendment (which was originally written in 2014, when I anticipated that I would be attending the Loncon Business Meeting, but did not due to personal obligations):

Best Young Adult Hugo Award

a) A book length young adult science fiction or fantasy book published in the previous calendar year. A book nominated in this category may not be eligible for any other fiction category.

b)Provided that unless this amendment is re-ratified by the Business Meeting three years after this amendment has been ratified it shall be immediately repealed and,

Provided that the question of re-ratification shall be automatically be placed on the agenda of the Business Meeting three years afterward with any constitutional amendments awaiting ratification.

Please note that this amendment would not require naming, it would seamlessly fit into the regular Hugo Award administrative team and it would not require an original award design, all problems which the current committee has yet to come to a consensus on of this date. The designation of “book” easily dodges any dilemma of a word count for the Hugo Administrator, but as I mentioned earlier, most nominees will easily exceed the Novel category limit.

While I personally object to the establishment of a non-Hugo category for YA novels, my first preference has always been to establish it as a Hugo category. But since I was absent from the majority of the deliberations, I chose to go agree with the compromise.

Should the members of the Business meeting of Worldcon 75 decide to keep the current framework, I strongly suggest that the only way to establish this separate award with any chance of creating and maintaining a lasting and prestigious aura is to definitely name it after a undisputed champion of young adult literature: Ursula K Le Guin, Jane Yolen, Tamora Pierce, Madeline L’Engle, Anne McCaffrey or Octavia Butler easily come to mind. And I wouldn’t worry about a nickname for the new award; the fans will probably take care of that on their own and in the age of social media, it probably won’t take very long for something to stick.

Right now there are several websites and set up to take suggestions on what the awards should be named.

Among those is the Worldcon YA page:

(https://www.facebook.com/worldconya/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE)

The Worldcon YA committee page:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdPJlnD7hXaVI7Q5vntFW3OpEp2PqF6QhqGu2VmP71JR3Fn9Q/viewform

The YA Hugo Proposal Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/YA-Hugo-Proposal-187492394596256/

And yes, while I recognize that there may be some strong objections to naming (or nicknaming) an award after a living person, I would like to point out that it is not without precedent.  The Science Fiction Achievement Award was eventually nicknamed the Hugo Award WHILE the namesake, Hugo Gernsback was very much alive.

As the primary instigator of many of the category changes over the past sixteen years, I have never sought credit or favor for my fan activities.  My interest has always been, and always will be, purely altruistic.  Normally, I am not the sort of person who likes to draw attention to my fannish activities but I love the idea of establishing a YA award so much that I wanted my vociferous objections about how it has been treated to be formally recorded for the public record. I am drawing attention to this minority report now express my deep frustration at the stumbling attempts to establish a Young Adult Book Award, as a separate award category or otherwise.

My goals as a fan activist has been to assure that the Hugo Awards remain fair, engaging, diverse, thought-provoking and most importantly, relevant to the times and to the people who nominate and vote for them every year.

It is my fervent hope is that this minority report will spur the passage of a Young Adult Award forward, to Helsinki’s Worldcon 75 and beyond.

Herding Puppies

his_masters_voice

Both the Sad and Rabid Puppies heard from leadership today.

Someone tried to run ahead of the Sad Puppy pack, compelling Amanda S. Green to swat him with a rolled-up internet – “Sad Puppies 5 and recommendation lists” at Mad Genius Club.

Anyway, this morning, the BP rising bit came in the form of a private message from a friend of mine. We are in a number of groups together on Faceplant. In one of those groups, someone had posted a notice with the header of “Sad Puppies 5 Suggestions.” Now, that got my eyes open real quick because the person posting it wasn’t Sarah [Hoyt] and, the last I heard – which was last night – Sarah was the one coordinating SP5. So, with coffee starting to brew, I figured I’d go see what I had missed overnight…

So, if you woke around 0630 CST to the sound of loud thumping, I apologize. That was me pounding my head against the wall. After reading the post my friend warned me about, I saw why. And I saw red. And I made the mistake of taking to Faceplant to write a response – still before coffee. I should have waited. Then I could have made a more detailed response, complete with link. As it was, it took a couple of posts and I’m still not sure I got my point across….

So, let’s be very clear. The New Year is here and with it comes the time when we need to start thinking about the books we read and whether we feel they are worthy of being nominated for any of the various awards being offered this year. Be it the Hugo, the Dragon, the Rita or whatever, it is something we need to keep in mind and, if we are so moved, we need to nominate them for the appropriate award(s).

It also means we are going to start seeing folks saying they are “making a little list”. Some will follow through with their lists and keep a running tally. Others will simply have a single post where you can add your comments. What they do is up to them – up to a point. However, when they start implying they are involved with something they aren’t, or when they seem to be stepping up and taking control of something they have not been involved in, then they have crossed the line.

To preempt further problems with overeager helpers before the new Sad Puppies 5 website goes up, Green has directed those interested to make their current recommendations in comments on a new post at the old site

Sad Puppies 5

In the near future, this site will be shut down and a new site for Sad Puppies 5 will go live. In the meantime, if you have any books, movies, etc., you think award-worthy, please list them in the comment section. Your recommendations will be migrated to the new site when it is ready.

As for Declan Finn’s “Sad Puppies 5 suggestions” at A Pius Geek, had he chosen any other headline the post would have been indistinguishable from the awards recommendations everyone else is writing this month in which their own books feature prominently.

However, Finn says he felt the need to add the following paragraph – not because of Amanda S. Green’s post, but in response to hearing privately from “770 morons.”

EDIT: FOR THE READING BEREFT — APPARENTLY, THE USUAL CROWD AT FILE 770 CAN’T READ — I MUST PUT IN AN EVEN BIGGER NOTE HERE. I’M NOT IN CHARGE OF SP5. THE FOLLOWING IS, IN PART, A GUIDE FOR MY RECOLLECTION, SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR THOSE WHO WILL BE VOTING,  AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO GUIDE MY VOTING. APPARENTLY, SOME PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID TO HAVE FIGURED THIS OUT FROM THE BELOW. THAT IS ALL.

The Rabid Puppies also received marching orders today from Vox Day at Vox Popoli — “Rabid Puppies 2017”.

While I will certainly be making my 2017 recommendations soon – particularly for Best Series – I would NOT recommend anyone to register [for the Worldcon]. As the God-Emperor Ascendant [his nickname for Trump] demonstrated so masterfully, there is a time to press forward and there is a time to sit back and see how things play out. Now, obviously, those of us who are already registered can, and should, nominate, but there is no sense in wasting money that might be more effectively utilized elsewhere on Worldcon this year.

Let the SF-SJWs do their happy dances and celebrate the success of EPH, little realizing that in adopting it, they have done exactly what we intended in pursuit of our long term objective. Let’s face it, thinking through the logical consequences of their actions has never exactly been their strong suit. It’s bewildering that they genuinely appear to believe that we did not anticipate their changing the rules, even though I said right from the very start that they would have no choice but to do so if we were successful.

Even if Day’s readers refrain from joining Helsinki, those who were members of MidAmeriCon II or have joined the San Jose Worldcon (2018) by the end of this month are still eligible to nominate, so it is not unlikely the Rabid Puppies may exert their influence over the composition of this year’s final Hugo ballot. To what extent they can do so remains to be seen, depending on their own numbers and the impact of EPH rules changes in the first year of operation.

2017 Hugo Nominations Open

Worldcon 75 is now taking nominations for the 2017 Hugo Awards. All members eligible to nominate may do so either by sending in a paper ballot, included with the convention’s Progress Report 3 and also separately downloadable from the Worldcon 75 website, or voting online by individual links supplied to voters.

Helsinki worldcon-only-you COMPAll nomination ballots must be postmarked by March 17, 2017 or submitted by 11:59 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time on March 17.

Eligible to vote are all those who have purchased membership in Worldcon 75, MidAmericon II or Worldcon 76 in San José by January 31, 2017. Both attending and supporting members have the right to vote for the Hugo Awards and in Worldcon Site Selection for 2019.

Hugo voters are encouraged to nominate up to five works/individuals in each category that they believe are worthy of the award. The most popular nominees will go forward to the Final Ballot.

According to Karl-Johan Norén, online voting —

…uses a new system with personalized links, which should not be shared. Once you have logged in, you can make as many changes as you like up to your nomination ballot until the deadline. Your current ballot will be emailed to you an hour after you stop making changes to it.

The final ballot will be announced in early April, and the awards will be presented August 11 at Worldcon 75 in Helsinki, Finland. Only Worldcon 75 members will be able to vote on the final ballot and choose the winners.

As in previous years, voters may nominate up to five possible finalists in each category. However, the World Science Fiction Society’s Business Meetings in 2015 and 2016 made some changes to the way nominations will be tallied this year to produce the final ballot. These include:

  • Final ballots in each category will now have six rather than five finalists (but the maximum number of nominations that a voter can make in each category remains five);
  • A new system for counting nominations, which will reduce the extent to which a small bloc of voters can dominate individual categories;
  • No more than two works by the same creator(s), and no more than two stories from the same series, can appear on the ballot for any one category;
  • The requirement that all finalists in a category must receive more than 5% of nominations has been removed.

Worldcon 75 also is using its right under the rules to run a one-time Hugo category by giving a trial run to the proposed Best Series category, which received its first passage at the 2016 Worldcon Business Meeting and will become permanent if the 2017 Business Meeting ratifies it.

The Hugo base this year will be designed by a Finnish artist, to be selected by the Worldcon 75 committee.

The Hugos are the most prestigious award in the science fiction genre, honoring literature and media as well as fan activities. The awards were first presented in 1953.

More information about the Hugo Awards, including details about how to submit a nominating ballot, is available at http://www.worldcon.fi/wsfs/hugo/

Going To The Dogs Again

Here’s the advance word on Sad Puppies Five, from a post today on Mad Genius Club.

Sarah A. Hoyt could have had a Hugo if she wanted one —

Also, the Hugo was not an object, or I could have captured one of the “least voted” categories by enjoining my fans to buy supporting memberships and get me a Hugo.

But real fans aren’t interested in the Hugos.

Oh, the real fans didn’t give it much attention or credit (and by real fans I mean people who REALLY read SF/F preferentially, not people who are using SF/F for social signaling, much less those who came to SF/F in the spirit of missionaries bringing their gospel to our field and trying to make us wear pants, or be literary, or whatever the tight-lipped scolds are obsessing on right now.

Still, a disinterested professional (like Hoyt) looking over the field could see why something needed to be done:

The problem with what happened to the Hugos is that it was objectively bad for the field.  Because having a Hugo allowed books entry to places that rarely carry SF, like supermarkets.  And then people who aren’t into the field will pick one up, casually, and decide it’s atrocious and run screaming.

So, Sarah A. Hoyt will be leading Sad Puppies Five.

Just don’t expect her to join the Worldcon or actually vote on the Hugo Awards —

I am still not going to give them any money.

But Sarah, you’ll say, how can you lead Sad Puppies 5, when you’re not going to nominate and vote on the Hugos.

Well, as much as I hate to say this, the Hugos as the award Heinlein won, are dead.  There is nothing that can be done.  I’m not a necromancer.  In that sense the Sad Puppies won.  We proved the game is rigged, and we can walk away.

Only she can’t walk away. She believes these Sad Puppies campaigns are the only thing that makes anyone pay attention to writers on her end of the spectrum.

We’re still in the middle of a culture war.  And one of the things the — for lack of a better term — other side has is bully pulpits.  Now most of them are in the old paper media, and they’re not really read by fans of the field.  BUT still, they have magazines that publish recommended lists, and interviews with authors, and turn the spotlight on work they think should be read.

We have nothing like that.  Yeah, yeah, Otherwhere Gazette, which might or might not be revived some day (depending on health and a million other things) but even if it is, will have to climb up into …. people’s awareness.

And if we’re going to do that, we might as well tie it to the Sad Puppies effort, because hey, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

So what will the 2017 Sad Puppies campaign look like?

This year the Sad Puppies (5) will host a page, on which you can make recommendations, and which will, every month, give you a collated list of the 5 works with the most votes, in each subcategory (if we have that many, of course) and if/what awards they’re eligible for.  The list will also include mystery, where a lot of the indie are quite good and by and large unnoticed.

Before the nominating dates for major awards, I’ll put a notice on the page, and a list of the however many (5 or 10) most recommended books for your consideration.

Even though all this activity will be keyed to award deadlines, don’t think awards are important. Oh, no.

However, the awards are NOT the point anymore.  Frankly in the hyper-distributed world of indie publishing, they might never be the point again.

The point is to give science fiction and fantasy that escapes the bounds of what traditional publishers encourage — which is often not what the public at large will even read — and to promote the health and popularity of our genre.

That’s the real goal – to let slip the surly bonds of New York publishing. No matter how many times Hoyt talks about the Hugo Awards, don’t let yourself be distracted….

The 1980 Timewarp Finalists

By Nicholas Whyte and Colette Fozard: Over the last two weeks of October 2016, Worldcon 75 organised the 1980 Timewarp Project to test the new systems we have been developing for the new Hugo rules.We asked people to revisit of the sf and fantasy of 1979, and submit nominations as if they had been voting in the 1980 Hugos. 33 people did so, including numerous Anders and commenters on the previous File 770 post on this topic. This is our initial report of what would have been on the final ballot, if the nominations submitted had been processed by today’s rules. This does not, of course, in any way replace the real Hugo Final Ballot from 1980, which is firmly embedded in history.

There are some major differences between today’s Hugo rules and those in force in 1980. Each category has at least six finalists, and there are several more categories – Best Professional Editor and Best Dramatic Presentation have been split, and Best Fancast, Best Semiprozine and (for this year at least) Best Series have been added. The new EPH counting system means that the top six vote-getters are not necessarily the six finalists. We also had to invoke the new rule barring more than two stories from the same TV show from appearing on the final ballot. Not surprisingly, there were not enough nominations in Best Fancast category to make it worth while proceeding with it for Timewarp purposes.

In several categories, one or more nominees received sufficient nominations to qualify as a finalist, but which would have been omitted from the final ballot under the current rules if they had been in force in 1980. The normal practice for the Hugos is to publish notes on such removals only after the Hugo votes have taken place and the awards presented. As there will be no such vote in the 1980 Timewarp project, the Timewarp Coordinators are publishing the notes on eligibility decisions now.

The Timewarp Coordinators are still finalising the presentation of the full EPH counts of the last ten rounds for each category, and anticipate being able to publish them soon. Meanwhile, here is the final ballot as it would have emerged from the nominations submitted in the 1980 Timewarp Project.

BEST NOVEL

  • The Fountains of Paradise, by Arthur C. Clarke (Gollancz /
    Harcourt Brace Jovanovich)
  • Harpist in the Wind, by Patricia A. McKillip (Atheneum Books)
  • The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams (Pan Books)
  • Titan, by John Varley (Berkley/Putnam)
  • Kindred, by Octavia Butler (Doubleday)
  • Roadmarks, by Roger Zelazny (Del Rey / Ballantine)

(30 ballots submitted, 40 works nominated)

Comment: The real 1980 Hugo ballot included The Fountains of Paradise (which won), Harpist in the Wind and Titan, but also Jem by Frederik Pohl and On Wings of Song by Thomas M. Disch.

BEST NOVELLA

  • “Enemy Mine”, by Barry B. Longyear (Isaac Asimov’s Science Fiction Magazine, September 1979)
  • “Far Rainbow”, by Arkady & Boris Strugatsky (first US publication, in 1979, was Far Rainbow / The Second Invasion From Mars, Macmillan; originally published by Mir in 1963)
  • “Mars Masked”, by Frederik Pohl (Isaac Asimov’s Science Fiction Magazine, March 1979)
  • “The Moon Goddess and Son”, by Donald Kingsbury (Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, December 1979)
  • “Palely Loitering”, by Christopher Priest (The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, January 1979)
  • “The Tale of Gorgik”, by Samuel R. Delany (Asimov’s SF Adventure Magazine, Summer 1979; Tales of Neveryon, Bantam Books)

(22 ballots submitted, 18 works nominated)

Notes:
“Fireship”, by Joan D. Vinge (Analog) received enough nominations to be on the final ballot, but is ineligible due to 1978 publication.
“Palely Loitering” received nominations both for Best Novella and for Best Novelette, in both 1980 and in the Timewarp. In 1980 it received more nominations in the Best Novelette category, and the Hugo administrators therefore located it there, commenting that this was the appropriate length. For the 1980 Timewarp, however, it received more nominations for Best Novella than for Best Novelette, and in addition the Timewarp Coordinators believe that it is within the permitted length variation for Best Novella, so it is included in that category instead.

Comment: “Enemy Mine” (which won) and “The Moon Goddess and the Son” were on the real 1980 Hugo ballot for Best Novella; so were “Songhouse” by Orson Scott Card, “Ker-Plop” by Ted Reynolds and “The Battle of the Abaco Reefs” by Hilbert Schenck. As noted above, “Palely Loitering” was a Best Novelette finalist in 1980.

BEST NOVELETTE

  • “The Ancient Mind At Work”, by Suzy McKee Charnas (Omni, February 1979)
  • “Fireflood”, by Vonda N. McIntyre (The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, November 1979)
  • “Galatea Galanta”, by Alfred Bester (Omni, April 1979)
  • “Out There Where The Big Ships Go”, by Richard Cowper (The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, August 1979)
  • “The Pathways of Desire”, by Ursula K. Le Guin (New Dimensions Science Fiction Number 9, ed. Robert Silverberg, Harper & Row)
  • “Sandkings”, by George R. R. Martin (Omni, August 1979)
  • “The Woman Who Loved the Moon”, by Elizabeth A. Lynn (Amazons!, ed. Jessica Amanda Salmonson, DAW Books)

(22 ballots submitted, nominating 24 works)

Note:
A tie for sixth place meant seven finalists in this category.

Comment: The real 1980 ballot had six finalists, including “Sandkings” (which won) and “Firefloood”. The other four were “Options”, by John Varley,  “Homecoming” by Barry B. Longyear, “The Locusts” by Larry Niven and Steven Barnes and “Palely Loitering” by Christopher Priest (see above).

BEST SHORT STORY

  • “Daisy, in the Sun”, by Connie Willis” (Galileo, November 1979)
  • “The Extraordinary Voyages of Amélie Bertrand”, by Joanna Russ (The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, September 1979)
  • “Red as Blood”, by Tanith Lee (The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, July 1979)
  • “Unaccompanied Sonata”, by Orson Scott Card (Omni, March 1979)
  • “War Beneath the Tree”, by Gene Wolfe (Omni, December 1979)
  • “The Way of Cross and Dragon”, by George R. R. Martin (Omni, June 1979)

(18 ballots submitted, nominating 23 works)

Comment: Again, the real 1980 ballot had three of these, “The Way of Cross and Dragon” (which won), “Unaccompanied Sonata” and “Daisy, in the Sun”. It also included “Can These Bones Live?” by Ted Reynolds and “giANTS” by Edward Bryant.

BEST RELATED WORK

  • Barlowe’s Guide to Extraterrestrials, by Wayne Douglas Barlowe and Ian Summers (Workman Publishing)
  • In Memory Yet Green : The Autobiography of Isaac Asimov, 1920-1954, by Isaac Asimov (Doubleday)
  • The Inklings: C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, Charles Williams and Their Friends , by Humphrey Carpenter (Houghton Mifflin)
  • The Language of the Night: Essays on Fantasy and Science Fiction , by Ursula K. Le Guin, edited and with introductions by Susan Wood (G. P. Putnam’s Sons)
  • The Science Fiction Encyclopedia / The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction: An Illustrated A to Z, ed. Peter Nicholls (Doubleday / Granada)
  • The World of Science Fiction: 1926-1976: The History of a Subculture, by Lester del Rey (Del Rey / Ballantine)

(20 ballots submitted, nominating 19 works)

Comment: The real 1980 ballot for Best Related Non-Fiction Book included The Science Fiction Encyclopedia (which won), In Memory Yet Green, Barlowe’s Guide to Extraterrestrials by Wayne Barlowe and Ian Summers and The Language of the Night ; it also included Wonderworks by Michael Whelan.

BEST GRAPHIC STORY

  • Alien: The Illustrated Story, by Archie Goodwin and Walt Simonson (Heavy Metal)
  • The Day The Law Died, by John Wagner” 2000 AD (86-95)”
  • Invincible Iron Man 129-137: Demon In A Bottle, by David Micheline, Bob Layton & John Romita Jr (Marvel)
  • Jeremiah, by Herman Huppen (Le Lombard)
  • Micronauts #1-12, by Bill Mantlo and Michael Golden
  • Valhalla: Cry Wolf, by Peter Madsen
  • X-Men 125-8: The Proteus Saga, by Chris Claremont & John Byrne (Marvel)

(9 ballots submitted, nominating 18 works)

Notes:
Superman vs Muhammad Ali, by Denny O’Neil, and “X-Men #111”, by Chris Claremont, both received enough nominations to be on the final ballot but are ineligible due to 1978 publication.
The Uncanny X-Men as a series received enough nominations to be on the final ballot, but is deemed ineligible because an internal X-Men story line also qualified for the final ballot with more votes.

Comment: there was no equivalent category in 1980.

BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, LONG FORM

  • Alien, directed by Ridley Scott, produced by Gordon Carroll, David Giler and Walter Hill, screenplay by Dan O’Bannon (20th Century Fox)
  • Mad Max, directed by George Miller, produced by Byron Kennedy, screenplay by James McCausland and George Miller (Kennedy Miller Productions/Mad Max Films/Crossroads)
  • Star Trek: The Motion Picture, directed by Robert Wise, produced by Gene Roddenberry, screenplay by Harold Livingston (Paramount)
  • Stalker directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, produced by Aleksandra Demidova, written by Arkadi Strugatsky and Boris Strugatsky (Mosfilm)
  • The Muppet Movie directed by James Frawley, produced by Jim Henson, written by Jack Burns and Jerry Juhl (Associated Film)
  • Time After Time directed by Nicholas Meyer, produced by Herb Jaffe, screenplay by Nicholas Meyer (Warner Brothers)

(23 ballots submitted, nominating 24 works)

BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, SHORT FORM

  • Battlestar Galactica: The Hand of God, produced by Glen A. Larson, directed and written by Donald Bellisario (ABC)
  • Blake’s 7: Star One produced (and directed) by David Maloney, written by Chris Boucher (BBC)
  • Doctor Who: City of Death produced by Graham Williams, directed by    Michael Hayes, written by “David Agnew” (pseudonym for David Fisher, Douglas Adams and Graham Williams) (BBC)
  • Doctor Who: Destiny of the Daleks produced by Graham Williams, directed by Ken Grieve, written by Terry Nation (BBC)
  • The Incredible Hulk: The Snare produced by James D. Parritt, directed by Frank Orsatti, written by Richard Matheson & Thomas E. Szollosi (Universal Television)
  • Sapphire & Steel: Escape Through a Crack in Time: Part 1 produced and directed by Shaun O’Riordan, written by P.J. Hammond (Associated Television)

(10 ballots submitted, nominating 21 works)

Notes:

Mad Max, perhaps surprisingly, is less than 90 minutes in length. However, all of its nominations were in the Long Form category and the Timewarp Coordinators decided to keep it there.

Doctor Who: City of Death, Doctor Who: Destiny of the Daleks and Doctor Who: Nightmare of Eden all received equal numbers of nominations in both Long Form and Short Form categories. In keeping with recent Hugo tradition, although all three are longer than 90 minutes, the Timewarp Coordinators moved them to Short Form.

We then faced another problem: both Doctor Who: Destiny of the Daleks and Doctor Who: Nightmare of Eden received enough nominations to be on the final ballot in joint sixth place. (One for casual, one for best, perhaps.) But Doctor Who: City of Death received rather more nominations than either, and also (easily) qualified for the final ballot . Under the new rules, no more than two stories from any one show are allowed to be on the ballot.

In a real life Hugo situation, we would have consulted the show-runners, but unfortunately neither Graham Williams nor Douglas Adams is now available for consultation. The 1980 Timewarp Coordinators therefore chose Destiny of the Daleks rather than Nightmare of Eden for the 1980 Timewarp final ballot, because we like it better. (No offense meant at all!)

Comment: The real 1980 Hugo ballot for Best Dramatic Presentation included five feature-length films. Four of these made it as Timewarp finalists for Long Form category – Alien (which won the 1980 Hugo), Star Trek: The Motion Picture and The Muppet Movie. The other was Disney’s The Black Hole.

BEST EDITOR, SHORT FORM

  • Ben Bova
  • Terry Carr
  • Edward Ferman
  • David Hartwell
  • Stanley Schmidt
  • George H. Scithers

(7 ballots submitted, nominating 12 candidates)

Note:
Robert Asprin received enough nominations to be on the final ballot, but had published only one anthology by 1979 and is therefore ineligible.
David Hartwell scrapes into eligibility thanks to acknowledged editorial work on L.W. Currey’s 1979 collection, Science Fiction and Fantasy Authors: A Bibliography of First Printings of Their Fiction and Selected Nonfiction.

BEST EDITOR, LONG FORM

  • Jim Baen
  • Terry Carr
  • Judith Lynn Del-Rey
  • Lester Del Rey
  • David G. Hartwell
  • Pat LoBrutto
  • Terri Windling
  • Donald A. Wollheim

(4 ballots submitted, nominating 9 candidates)

Note: Beth Meacham received enough nominations to be on the final ballot, but did not edit any books in 1979 and is therefore ineligible. (The Timewarp Coordinators are grateful to Ms Meacham and to Pat LoBrutto for clarifying their eligibility status for us.)

Comment: Four of the finalists for the real 1980 Hugo Best Professional Editor ballot are on the Short Form list above – they are George H. Scithers (who won in 1980), Edward L. Ferman, Ben Bova and Stanley Schmidt. The fifth of the real 1980 finalists, James P. Baen, is on the Long Form list above.

BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST

  • Christopher Foss
  • Frank Kelly Freas
  • H.R. Giger
  • Rowena Morrill
  • Boris Vallejo
  • Michael Whelan

(13 ballots submitted, nominating 20 candidates)

Comment: The real 1980 Hugo ballot included Michael Whelan (who won) and Boris Vallejo. It also included Vincent Di Fate, Stephen Fabian and Paul Lehr.

BEST SEMIPROZINE

  • Fantasy Tales, edited by Stephen Jones and David A Sutton
  • Locus, edited by Charlie Brown
  • Science Fiction Chronicle, edited by Andrew Porter
  • Science Fiction Review, edited by Richard E. Geis
  • Starlog, edited by Howard Zimmerman
  • Thrust, edited by D. Douglas Fratz
  • Science Literature, edited by Yang Xiao

(11 ballots submitted, nominating 10 candidates)

BEST FANZINE

  • Ansible, edited by David Langford
  • File 770, edited by Mike Glyer
  • Janus, edited by Janice Bogstad and Jeanne Gomoll
  • Pyrotechnics, edited by Jeff Duntemann
  • Rune, edited by Lee Pelton and Carol Kennedy
  • Starship, edited by Andrew Porter

(12 ballots submitted, nominating 13 candidates)

Notes:
Best Semiprozine and Best Fanzine caused us the most trouble by far of any categories.
Science Literature is the magazine now known as Science Fiction World, aka Sci Fi World and its one nomination – enough to get it on the final ballot – was made under the current title rather than the 1979 title.
File 770 received enough votes to received enough nominations to qualify for the final ballot in both Best Fanzine and Best Semiprozine. The Timewarp Coordinators believe that it falls under the current Fanzine definition, even in 1979.
Locus, Science Fiction Chronicle and Science Fiction Review all received enough nominations to qualify for the final ballot in both Best Fanzine and Best Semiprozine. The Timewarp Coordinators believe that they fall under the current Semiprozine definition, even in 1979.
Thrust was nominated only in Best Fanzine, but was clearly a semiprozine under current definition by 1979, and the Timewarp Coordinators have therefore re-located its nomination to Best Semiprozine.

Comment: All of the real 1980 finalists for Best Fanzine appear on one or other of the above lists – Locus (which won), Science Fiction Review and Thrust as Best Semiprozine finalists, and File 770 and Janus as Best Fanzine finalists.

BEST FANCAST

Insufficient nominations, not very surprisingly.
(3 ballots submitted, nominating 4 candidates)

BEST FAN WRITER

  • Richard E. Geis
  • Mike Glyer
  • Arthur D. Hlavaty
  • David Langford
  • Bob Shaw
  • Susan Wood

(13 ballots submitted, nominating 10 candidates)

Comment:  The above list adds Susan Wood to the real 1980 Hugo ballot in this category. Bob Shaw won in real life.

BEST FAN ARTIST

  • Alexis Gilliland
  • Jeanne Gomoll
  • Joan Hanke-Woods
  • Lars “LON” Olsson
  • Victoria Poyser
  • Bill Rotsler

(8 ballots submitted, nominating 11 candidates)

Note:
Michael Whelan received enough nominations to be on the final ballot in this category, but was clearly a professional artist by 1978, and received more nominations as such.

Comment: The real 1980 Hugo ballot in this category had six finalists – all of the above, with the exception of Lars “LON” Olsson and the addition of Stu Shiffman. Alexis Gilliland was the winner.

BEST SERIES (and qualifying 1979 volume)

  • The Count of Saint Germain (Blood Games), by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro (St. Martin’s Press)
  • The Dragonriders of Pern (Dragondrums), by Anne McCaffrey (Del Rey / Atheneum)
  • The Faded Sun (The Faded Sun: Kutath), by C.J. Cherryh (DAW)
  • The Merlin series (The Last Enchantment), by Mary Stewart (Hodder & Stoughton)
  • The Morgaine cycle (Fires of Azeroth), by C. J. Cherryh (DAW)
  • The Riddle-Master trilogy (Harpist in the Wind), by Patricia MacKillip (Atheneum)

(11 ballots cast for 18 candidates)

Comment: There was no Best Series category in the real 1980 Hugo ballot.

BEST NEW WRITER

  • Lynn Abbey
  • Diane Duane
  • Karen G. Jollie
  • Megan Lindholm (Robin Hobb)
  • Barry B. Longyear
  • Somtow Sucharitkul / S.P. Somtow

(13 ballots submitted, nominating 11 candidates)

Comment: The real 1980 John W. Campbell Award for best New Writer went to Barry B. Longyear. The six finalists were the above, plus Alan Ryan and minus what in retrospect seems a surprising oversight: Megan Lindholm (Robin Hobb), whose first story was published in 1979.

The Timewarp Coordinators are grateful to all who participated in this exercise, and particularly to the DevOps Division of Worldcon 75 for innovative coding solutions.

[File 770 editor’s note: Whyte and Fozard included several renderings of titles in Chinese and Russian, but unfortunately Wordpress reproduces Chinese and Cyrillic characters as question marks, therefore I have not been able to include them in the posted version.]

Best Series Hugo: Eligible Series

By JJ: Worldcon 75, to be held in Helsinki in August 2017, has announced that it will exercise its right under WSFS Constitution to run a special Hugo category for “Best Series.”

To assist Hugo nominators, listed below are the series believed to be eligible as of this writing for the 2017 Best Series Hugo next year*.

Each series name is followed by the main author(s) name and the 2016-published work.

1632 by Eric Flint and a cast of thousands, 1635: A Parcel of Rogues (with Andrew Dennis)

5th Wave by Rick Yancey, The Last Star

Age of Legends by Kelley Armstrong, Forest of Ruin

Alcatraz Smedry by Brandon Sanderson, The Dark Talent

The Alchemy Wars by Ian Tregillis, The Liberation

Alien Hunter by Whitley Strieber, The White House

Alpennia by Heather Rose Jones, Mother of Souls

American Faerie Tales by Bishop O’Connell, The Returned

Ark Royal by Chris Nuttall, Fear God and Dread Naught

Ascendant Kingdoms by Gail Z. Martin, Shadow and Flame

Bel Dame Apocrypha by Kameron Hurley, The Heart is Eaten Last (novella on Patreon)

Betsy the Vampire Queen / Wyndham Werewolf by MaryJanice Davidson, Undead and Done

Black Blade by Jennifer Estep, Bright Blaze of Magic

Black Dagger Brotherhood by J.R. Ward, The Beast

Blackdog / Marakand by K.V. Johansen, Gods of Nabban

Blackthorn & Grim by Juliet Marillier, Den of Wolves

Bloodbound by Erin Lindsey, The Bloodsworn

Broken Empire / Red Queen’s War by Mark Lawrence, The Wheel of Osheim

Bryant & May by Christopher Fowler, Strange Tide

Cainsville by Kelley Armstrong, Betrayals

Cal Leandros by Rob Thurman, “Impossible Monsters” (short story)

Carpathian by Christine Feehan, Dark Promises, Dark Carousel

Case Files of Justis Fearsson by David B. Coe, Shadow’s Blade

Castle by Steph Swainston, Fair Rebel

Celaena / Throne of Glass by Sarah J. Maas, Empire of Storms

Chaos Station by Jenn Burke and Kelly Jensen, Inversion Point

Chicagoland Vampires by Chloe Neil, Midnight Marked

Chronicles of Elantra by Michelle Sagara, Cast in Flight

Chronicles of Exile by Marc Turner, Red Tide

Chronicles of St. Mary’s by Jodi Taylor, Lies, Damned Lies, and History

Clan Chronicles by Julie E. Czerneda, The Gate To Futures Past

Clockwork Dagger by Beth Cato, Final Flight (novelette) (possibly not enough total words)

Colours of Madeleine by Jaclyn Moriarty, A Tangle of Gold

Commonweal by Graydon Saunders, Safely You Deliver

Commonwealth by Peter F Hamilton, Night Without Stars

Cosmere / Mistborn by Brandon Sanderson, Secret History, The Bands of Mourning (novellas)

Court of Fives by Kate Elliott, The Poisoned Blade

Craft Sequence by Max Gladstone, Four Roads Cross

Dagger and the Coin by Daniel Abraham, The Spider’s War

Dark Eden by Chris Beckett, Daughter of Eden

Dark Hunter by Sherrilyn Kenyon, Dragonmark

Dark Tower by Stephen King, Charlie the Choo-Choo (graphic novel / scary children’s book)

Decline and Fall of the Galactic Empire by Chris Nuttall, The Barbarian Bride

Devices by Philip Purser-Hallard, Trojans

Diamond City Magic by Diana Pharaoh Francis, Whisper of Shadows

Diving Universe by Kristine Kathryn Rusch, The Falls

Dragonships of Vindras by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, Doom of the Dragon

Dread Empire’s Fall by Walter Jon Williams, Impersonations (novella)

Dream Archipelago by Christopher Priest, The Gradual

Dresden Files by Jim Butcher, “Cold Case” (short story)

Dune by Frank Herbert, Brian Herbert, and Kevin J. Anderson, Navigators of Dune

Elder Races by Thea Harrison, Moonshadow

Elemental Assassin by Jennifer Estep, Bitter Bite, Unraveled

Elemental Masters by Mercedes Lackey, A Study in Sable

Elfhome / Steel City by Wen Spencer, Project Elfhome (collection including novella)

Elves on the Road / SERRAted Edge by Mercedes Lackey, Silence (with Cody Martin)

Emberverse by S.M. Stirling, Prince of Outcasts

Europe by Dave Hutchinson, Europe in Winter

Ex-Heroes by Peter Clines, Ex-Isle

Expanse by James S.A. Corey, Babylon’s Ashes

Fairyland by Catherynne M. Valente, The Girl Who Raced Fairyland All the Way Home

Fall of the Gas-Lit Empire by Rod Duncan, The Custodian of Marvels

Fever by Karen Marie Moning, Feverborn

Foreigner by C.J. Cherryh, Visitor

Frontlines by Marko Kloos, Chains of Command

Gaia Chronicles by Naomi Foyle, The Blood of the Hoopoe

Gallow and Ragged by Lilith Saintcrow, Roadside Magic, Wasteland King

GhostWalkers by Christine Feehan, Spider Game

Gor by John Norman, Plunder of Gor

Greatcoats by Sebastien de Castell, Saint’s Blood

Grisha by Leigh Bardugo, Crooked Kingdom

Guardians by Nora Roberts, Island of Glass

Guild Hunter by Nalini Singh, Archangel’s Heart

Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling, The Cursed Child, Fantastic Beasts (scripts)

Heartstrikers by Rachel Aaron, No Good Dragon Goes Unpunished

Her Instruments by M.C.A. Hogarth, A Rose Point Holiday (online serial novel)

Honorverse by David Weber, Shadow of Victory

Humanity’s Fire by Michael Cobley, Ancestral Machines

In Death by J.D. Robb (Nora Roberts), Brotherhood in Death

InCryptid by Seanan McGuire, Chaos Choreography

Invisible Library by Genevieve Cogman, The Burning Page

Iron Druid Chronicles by Kevin Hearne, Staked

Ixia / Sitia by Maria V. Snyder, Night Study

Jane Yellowrock by Faith Hunter, Shadow Rites, Blood of the Earth

Johannes Cabal by Jonathan L. Howard, The Fall of the House of Cabal

Kara Gillian by Diana Rowland, Legacy of the Demon

Kate Daniels by Ilona Andrews (Ilona Gordon and Andrew Gordon), Magic Binds

Kitty Katt by Gini Koch, Camp Alien

Lady Trent by Marie Brennan, In the Labyrinth of Drakes

Laundry Files by Charles Stross, The Nightmare Stacks

League by Sherrilyn Kenyon, Born of Legend

Learning Experience by Chris Nuttall, The Black Sheep

Leopard by Christine Feehan, Leopard’s Fury

Liaden Universe by Sharon Lee and Steve Miller, Alliance of Equals

Lightbringer by Brent Weeks, The Blood Mirror

Long Earth by Stephen Baxter and Terry Pratchett, The Long Cosmos

Lost Fleet by Jack Campbell (John G. Hemry), Shattered Spear

Magic Ex Libris by Jim C. Hines, Revisionary

Malazan / Kharkanas by Steven Erikson, Fall of Light

Mancer by Ferrett Steinmetz, Fix

Maradaine by Marshall Ryan Maresca, The Alchemy of Chaos

Matthew Corbett by Robert McCammon, Freedom of the Mask

Mercy Thompson by Patricia Briggs, Fire Touched

Midnight, Texas by Charlaine Harris, Night Shift

Ministry of Peculiar Occurrences by Pip (Philippa) Ballantine and Tee (Thomas Earl) Morris, The Ghost Rebellion

Monster Hunter by Larry Correia, Monster Hunter Memoirs: Grunge (with John Ringo)

Mutant Files by William C. Dietz, Graveyard

Myth Adventures by Robert Asprin and Jody Lynn Nye, Myth-Fits

Newsflesh by Mira Grant (Seanan McGuire), FeedBack

October Daye by Seanan McGuire, Once Broken Faith

Old Kingdom / Abhorsen by Garth Nix, Goldenhand

Others by Anne Bishop, Marked in Flesh

Pantheon by James Lovegrove, Age of Heroes

Parasol Protectorate by Gail Carriger, Romancing the Inventor, Poison or Protect (novellas)

Perry Rhodan / Lemuria by a cast of billions, The First Immortal, The Last Days of Lemuria, The Longest Night

Polity by Neal Asher, War Factory

Poseidon’s Children by Alastair Reynolds, Poseidon’s Wake

Psy-Changelings by Nalini Singh, Allegiance of Honor

Psycop by Jordan Castillo Price, Psycop Briefs (collection including 4 new stories)

Queen of the Tearling by Erika Johansen, Fate of the Tearling

Raksura by Martha Wells, The Edge of Worlds

Raven Cycle by Maggie Stiefvater, The Raven King

RCN by David Drake, Death’s Bright Day

Reckoners by Brandon Sanderson, Calamity

Red Rising by Pierce Brown, Morning Star

Rivers of London / Peter Grant by Ben Aaronovitch, The Hanging Tree

Riverside by Ellen Kushner, Tremontaine

Royal Sorceress by Chris Nuttall, Sons of Liberty

Russell’s Attic by S.L. Huang, Plastic Smile

Safehold by David Weber, At the Sign of Triumph

Saga of Shadows by Kevin J. Anderson, Eternity’s Mind

Sandman Slim by Richard Kadrey, The Perdition Score

Santi / Remembrance of Earth’s Past by Cixin Liu, Death’s End

Schooled in Magic by Chris Nuttall, Infinite Regress

Sea Haven by Christine Feehan, Fire Bound

Secret History by Simon R. Green, Dr. DOA

Shade of Vampire by Bella Forrest, A Sword of Chance

Shadow Campaigns by Django Wexler, The Guns of Empire

Shadow Police by Paul Cornell, Who Killed Sherlock Holmes?

Shannara by Terry Brooks, The Sorcerer’s Daughter

Simon Canderous by Anton Strout, “Solus” (novelette)

Sorcery Ascendant by Mitchell Hogan, A Shattered Empire

Spellwright by Blake Charlton, Spellbreaker

Split Worlds by Emma Newman, A Little Knowledge

Tao by Wesley Chu, The Days of Tao (novella)

Temeraire by Naomi Novik, League Of Dragons

Thessaly by Jo Walton, Necessity

Thrones and Bones by Lou Anders, Skyborn

Time and Shadows by Liana Brooks, Decoherence

Twenty-Sided Sorceress by Annie Bellet, Magic to the Bone

Valdemar by Mercedes Lackey, Closer to the Chest

Victory Nelson, Investigator/Henry Fitzroy by Tanya Huff, “If Wishes Were” (novelette)

Vorkosigan Saga by Lois McMaster Bujold, Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen

Walker Universe by C.E. Murphy, “Slaying the Dragon” (short story on Patreon)

Wall of Night by Helen Lowe, The Daughter of Blood

War Dogs by Greg Bear, Take Back the Sky

Warhammer 40K / The Horus Heresy by a cast of gazillions, Pharos

Wild Cards by George R.R. Martin and a cast of thousands, High Stakes

Women of the Otherworld by Kelley Armstrong, Driven (novella)

World of the Five Gods by Lois McMaster Bujold, Penric and the Shaman (novella)

World of the Lupi by Eileen Wilks, Dragon Spawn

Xanth by Piers Anthony, Isis Orb

Xuya Universe by Aliette de Bodard, A Salvaging of Ghosts (23 short fiction works, including 2 novellas, may or may not meet the word count)

Young Wizards by Diane Duane, Games Wizards Play

* no warranties are made about series eligibility based on word count (or lack thereof)

no warranties are made about the presumed quality of listed series (or lack thereof)

Please feel free to add comments regarding series which have been missed.

Update 10/01/2016: Added series pointed out in comments. Update 10/8/2016: Made more additions. Update 01/13/17: Added three more series. Update 01/14/17: And three more.

Helsinki To Run Best Series Hugo

Worldcon 75, to be held in Helsinki in August 2017, will exercise its right under WSFS Constitution to run a special Hugo category for “Best Series.”

The committee’s announcement today explains:

Fans voted in August 2016  to trial a new Hugo award for “Best Series”, which could be added in 2018. Each Worldcon Committee has the authority to introduce a special category Hugo award, and Worldcon 75 has decided to test “Best Series” in 2017. This follows the precedent of the 2009 Worldcon, which trialled “Best Graphic Story” before it became a regular Hugo the following year. Fans at Worldcon 75 will be able to decide whether to ratify the “Best Series” for future years and suggest revisions to the award definition at the World Science Fiction Society Business Meeting held in Helsinki during the convention.

The committee says an eligible work for the special Best Series Hugo award is “a multi-volume science fiction or fantasy story, unified by elements such as plot, characters, setting, and presentation, which has appeared in at least three volumes consisting of a total of at least 240,000 words by the close of the calendar year 2016, at least one volume of which was published in 2016.”

 

Just A Few More Hours To Vote on Hugos

Time is running out to vote online or make last-minute changes to your Hugo ballot.

Hugo Voting Closes Sunday July 31 at 11:59 PM PDT

You will need your membership number and PIN.

The Hugo Administrators warn that the website will be quite busy as the deadline approaches. They plead, “Don’t wait until the very end or you may encounter delays that could keep some or all of your choices from being properly recorded.”

They also say that the system will automatically send voters an email confirmation of your ballot. However: “When many people are voting at the same time these email confirmations get backed up and may arrive delayed, out of order, or not at all. But don’t worry – your votes have been recorded.”

The Hugo Voter Packets for both the 2016 Hugo  and 1941 Retro Hugo works will remain accessible by Worldcon members until voting closes.

Additional Finalists Hugo Proposal

Lisa Hayes’ “Additional Finalists” Hugo Award proposal has been submitted for inclusion on the Worldcon Business Meeting agenda.

Short Title: Additional Finalists

Moved, to amend the WSFS Constitution for the purpose of allowing the Committee to add up to two additional finalists to each Hugo Award category, by adding a new section after existing Section 3.8 as follows:

Section 3.X: Additional Finalists. The Worldcon Committee may add not more than two additional finalists in each category, provided that such additional finalists would qualify to be in the list of nominees described in Section 3.11.4.

Moved by: Lisa Hayes, Lisa Deutsch Harrigan, David Wallace

See supporting commentary here.

[Thanks to Kevin Standlee for the story.]