Sasquan Replaces Two Ineligible Nominees on Hugo Ballot

Sasquan, the 2015 Worldcon, has made changes to the final Hugo ballot to reflect  eligibility rulings by Hugo administrator John Lorentz.

  • “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus” by John C. Wright was previously published on a web site in 2013 prior to its inclusion in The Book of Feasts & Seasons in 2014, so it is not eligible for the 2015 Novelette Hugo.
  • Jon Eno did not publish any qualifying artwork in 2014, so he is not eligible for the 2015 Professional Artist Hugo

Replacing Wright’s novelette on the ballot is “The Day The World Turned Upside Down” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Lightspeed Magazine, April 2014).

Kirk DouPonce has been elevated to take Eno’s place in the Best Professional Artist category.

Lorentz also reviewed the eligibility of two other works and allowed them to stand:

Both Big Boys Don’t Cry (Kratman) and One Bright Star to Guide Them (Wright) were previously published in much shorter versions, and were significantly expanded to novella-length in their 2014 publication.  Following previous precedents, for the purposes of the 2015 Hugos they are designated as new works.

Here is the new final ballot incorporating all these changes:

BEST NOVEL (1827 ballots)

  • Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie (Orbit US; Orbit UK)
  • The Dark Between the Stars by Kevin J. Anderson (Tor Books)
  • The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison (Sarah Monette) (Tor Books)
  • Lines of Departure by Marko Kloos (47North)
  • Skin Game by Jim Butcher (Roc Books)

BEST NOVELLA (1083 ballots)

  • Big Boys Don’t Cry by Tom Kratman (Castalia House)
  • “Flow” by Arlan Andrews, Sr. (Analog, Nov 2014)
  • One Bright Star to Guide Them by John C. Wright (Castalia House)
  • “Pale Realms of Shade” by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
  • “The Plural of Helen of Troy” by John C. Wright (City Beyond Time: Tales of the Fall of Metachronopolis, Castalia House)

BEST NOVELETTE (1031 ballots)

  • “Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium” by Gray Rinehart (Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show, May 2014)
  • “Championship B’tok” by Edward M. Lerner (Analog, Sept 2014)
  • “The Day The World Turned Upside Down” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Lightspeed Magazine, April 2014)
  • “The Journeyman: In the Stone House” by Michael F. Flynn (Analog, June 2014)
  • “The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale” by Rajnar Vajra (Analog, Jul/Aug 2014)

SHORT STORY (1174 ballots)

  • “Goodnight Stars” by Annie Bellet (The End is Now (Apocalypse Triptych Book 2), Broad Reach Publishing)
  • “On A Spiritual Plain” by Lou Antonelli (Sci Phi Journal #2, Nov 2014)
  • “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds” by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
  • “Totaled” by Kary English (Galaxy’s Edge Magazine, July 2014)
  • “Turncoat” by Steve Rzasa (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)

BEST RELATED WORK (1150 ballots)

  • “The Hot Equations: Thermodynamics and Military SF” by Ken Burnside (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)
  • Letters from Gardner by Lou Antonelli (The Merry Blacksmith Press)
  • Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth by John C. Wright (Castalia House)
  • “Why Science is Never Settled” by Tedd Roberts (Baen.com)
  • Wisdom from My Internet by Michael Z. Williamson (Patriarchy Press)

BEST GRAPHIC STORY (785 ballots)

  • Ms. Marvel Volume 1: No Normal written by G. Willow Wilson, illustrated by Adrian Alphona and Jake Wyatt, (Marvel Comics)
  • Rat Queens Volume 1: Sass and Sorcery written by Kurtis J. Weibe, art by Roc Upchurch (Image Comics)
  • Saga Volume 3 written by Brian K. Vaughan, illustrated by Fiona Staples (Image Comics)
  • Sex Criminals Volume 1: One Weird Trick written by Matt Fraction, art by Chip Zdarsky (Image Comics)
  • The Zombie Nation Book #2: Reduce Reuse Reanimate by Carter Reid (The Zombie Nation)

DRAMATIC PRESENTATION (LONG FORM) (1285 ballots)

  • Captain America: The Winter Soldier screenplay by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely, concept and story by Ed Brubaker, directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo (Marvel Entertainment, Perception, Sony Pictures Imageworks)
  • Edge of Tomorrow screenplay by Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, and John-Henry Butterworth, directed by Doug Liman (Village Roadshow, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, 3 Arts Entertainment; Viz Productions)
  • Guardians of the Galaxy written by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman, directed by James Gunn (Marvel Studios, Moving Picture Company)
  • Interstellar screenplay by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan, directed by Christopher Nolan (Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, Legendary Pictures, Lynda Obst Productions, Syncopy)
  • The Lego Movie written by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, story by Dan Hageman, Kevin Hageman, Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, directed by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller (Warner Bros. Pictures, Village Roadshow Pictures, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, LEGO System A/S, Vertigo Entertainment, Lin Pictures, Warner Bros. Animation (as Warner Animation Group))

DRAMATIC PRESENTATION (SHORT FORM) (938 ballots)

  • Doctor Who: “Listen” written by Steven Moffat, directed by Douglas Mackinnon (BBC Television)
  • The Flash: “Pilot” teleplay by Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, story by Greg Berlanti, Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, directed by David Nutter (The CW) (Berlanti Productions, DC Entertainment, Warner Bros. Television)
  • Game of Thrones: “The Mountain and the Viper” written by David Benioff & D. B. Weiss, directed by Alex Graves ((HBO Entertainment in association with Bighead, Littlehead; Television 360; Startling Television and Generator Productions)
  • Grimm: “Once We Were Gods” written by Alan DiFiore, directed by Steven DePaul (NBC) (GK Productions, Hazy Mills Productions, Universal TV)
  • Orphan Black: “By Means Which Have Never Yet Been Tried written by Graham Manson, directed by John Fawcett (Temple Street Productions, Space/BBC America)

BEST EDITOR (SHORT FORM) (870 ballots)

  • Jennifer Brozek
  • Vox Day
  • Mike Resnick
  • Edmund R. Schubert
  • Bryan Thomas Schmidt

BEST EDITOR (LONG FORM) (712 ballots)

  • Vox Day
  • Sheila Gilbert
  • Jim Minz
  • Anne Sowards
  • Toni Weisskopf

BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST (753 ballots)

  • Julie Dillon
  • Kirk DouPonce
  • Nick Greenwood
  • Alan Pollack
  • Carter Reid

BEST SEMIPROZINE (660 ballots)

  • Abyss & Apex Wendy Delmater editor and publisher
  • Andromeda Spaceways In-Flight Magazine Andromeda Spaceways Publishing Association Incorporated, 2014 editors David Kernot and Sue Bursztynski
  • Beneath Ceaseless Skies edited by Scott H. Andrews
  • Lightspeed Magazine edited by John Joseph Adams, Stefan Rudnicki, Rich Horton, Wendy N. Wagner, and Christie Yant
  • Strange Horizons Niall Harrison Editor-in-Chief

BEST FANZINE (576 ballots)

  • Black Gate edited by John O’Neill
  • Elitist Book Reviews edited by Steven Diamond
  • Journey Planet edited by James Bacon, Chris Garcia, Alissa McKersie, Colin Harris and Helen Montgomery
  • The Revenge of Hump Day edited by Tim Bolgeo
  • Tangent SF Online edited by Dave Truesdale

BEST FANCAST (668 ballots)

  • Adventures in Sci-Fi Publishing Brent Bowen (Executive Producer), Kristi Charish, Timothy C. Ward, Shaun Ferrell & Moses Siregar III (Co-Hosts, Interviewers and Producers)
  • Dungeon Crawlers Radio Daniel Swenson (Producer/Host), Travis Alexander & Scott Tomlin (Hosts), Dale Newton (Host/Tech), Damien Swenson (Audio/Video Tech)
  • Galactic Suburbia Podcast Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, Tansy Rayner Roberts (Presenters) and Andrew Finch (Producer)
  • The Sci Phi Show Jason Rennie
  • Tea and Jeopardy Emma Newman & Peter Newman

BEST FAN WRITER (777 ballots)

  • Dave Freer
  • Amanda S. Green
  • Jeffro Johnson
  • Laura J. Mixon
  • Cedar Sanderson

BEST FAN ARTIST (296 ballots)

  • Ninni Aalto
  • Brad Foster
  • Elizabeth Leggett
  • Spring Schoenhuth
  • Steve Stiles

Award for the best new professional science fiction or fantasy writer of 2013 or 2014, sponsored by Dell Magazines (not a Hugo Award).

CAMPBELL AWARD FOR BEST NEW WRITER (851 ballots)

  • Wesley Chu *
  • Jason Cordova
  • Kary English *
  • Rolf Nelson
  • Eric S. Raymond

*Finalists in their 2nd year of eligibility.

Update 04/14/2015: At 4 p.m. PDT. The official Sasquan press release follows the jump.

MEDIA RELEASE #2015-2 Sasquan, the 73rd World Science Fiction Convention
19-23 August 2015 at Spokane WA USA
http://www.sasquan.org
pressrelease@sasquan.org
Hugo Awards Final Ballot — REVISED

Spokane, 14 April 2015

The nominees that follow were chosen by popular vote of members of Loncon 3 (the 2014 Worldcon), Sasquan (the 2015 Worldcon) and MidAmeriCon II (the 2016 Worldcon). Note that this is revised from the first ballot which was released on 4 April 2015. In particular:

In the  Best Novelette  category,  “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus” by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)  was originally published online in 2013 prior to its appearance in that collection.  It has been  replaced by “The Day the World Turned Upside Down” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Lightspeed Magazine, April 2014) ;

In the Best Professional Artist category, Jon Eno was replaced by Kirk DouPonce.
We also misnamed Adventures in SciFi Publishing.

A total of 2122 valid nomination forms were received (2119 online and 3 paper).

A list of the top 15 nominees in each category, along with the number of nominations received by each, will be released after the Hugo Awards Ceremony on Saturday, 22 August, 2015 at Sasquan.

Best Novel (1827 nominating ballots)

  • Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie (Orbit US; Orbit UK)
  • The Dark Between the Stars by Kevin J. Anderson (Tor Books)
  • The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison (Sarah Monette) (Tor Books)
  • Lines of Departure by Marko Kloos (47North)
  • Skin Game by Jim Butcher (Roc Books)

Best Novella (1083 nominating ballots)

  • Big Boys Don’t Cry by Tom Kratman (Castalia House)
  • “Flow” by Arlan Andrews, Sr. (Analog, Nov 2014)
  • One Bright Star to Guide Them by John C. Wright (Castalia House)
  • “Pale Realms of Shade” by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
  • “The Plural of Helen of Troy by John C. Wright (City Beyond Time: Tales of the Fall of Metachronopolis, Castalia House)

[Both Big Boys Don’t Cry and One Bright Star to Guide Them were previously published in much shorter versions, and were significantly expanded to novella-length in their 2014 publication.  Following previous precedents, for the purposes of the 2015 Hugos they are designated as new works.]

Best Novelette (1031 nominating ballots)

  • “Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium” by Gray Rinehart (Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show, May 2014)
  • “Championship B’tok” by Edward M. Lerner (Analog, Sept 2014)
  • “The Day The World Turned Upside Down” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Lightspeed Magazine, April 2014)
  • “The Journeyman: In the Stone House” by Michael F. Flynn (Analog, June 2014)
  • “The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale” by Rajnar Vajra (Analog, Jul/Aug 2014)

Best Short Story (1174 nominating ballots)

  • “Goodnight Stars” by Annie Bellet (The End is Now (Apocalypse Triptych Book 2), Broad Reach Publishing)
  • “On A Spiritual Plain” by Lou Antonelli (Sci Phi Journal #2, Nov 2014)
  • “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds” by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
  • “Totaled” by Kary English (Galaxy’s Edge Magazine, July 2014)
  • “Turncoat” by Steve Rzasa (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)

Best Related Work (1150 nominating ballots)

  • “The Hot Equations: Thermodynamics and Military SF” by Ken Burnside (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)
  • Letters from Gardner by Lou Antonelli (The Merry Blacksmith Press)
  • Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth by John C. Wright (Castalia House)
  • “Why Science is Never Settled” by Tedd Roberts (Baen.com)
  • Wisdom from My Internet by Michael Z. Williamson (Patriarchy Press)

Best Graphic Story (785 nominating ballots)

  • Ms. Marvel Volume 1: No Normal written by G. Willow Wilson, illustrated by Adrian Alphona and Jake Wyatt (Marvel Comics)
  • Rat Queens Volume 1: Sass and Sorcery written by Kurtis J. Weibe, art by Roc Upchurch (Image Comics)
  • Saga Volume 3 written by Brian K. Vaughan, illustrated by Fiona Staples (Image Comics)
  • Sex Criminals Volume 1: One Weird Trick written by Matt Fraction, art by Chip Zdarsky (Image Comics)
  • The Zombie Nation Book #2: Reduce Reuse Reanimate by Carter Reid (The Zombie Nation)

Dramatic Presentation (Long Form) (1285 nominating ballots)

  • Captain America: The Winter Soldier screenplay by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely, concept and story by Ed Brubaker, directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo (Marvel Entertainment, Perception, Sony Pictures Imageworks)
  • Edge of Tomorrow screenplay by Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, and John-Henry Butterworth, directed by Doug Liman (Village Roadshow, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, 3 Arts Entertainment; Viz Productions)
  • Guardians of the Galaxy written by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman, directed by James Gunn (Marvel Studios, Moving Picture Company)
  • Interstellar screenplay by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan, directed by Christopher Nolan (Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, Legendary Pictures, Lynda Obst Productions, Syncopy)
  • The Lego Movie written by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, story by Dan Hageman, Kevin Hageman, Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, directed by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller (Warner Bros. Pictures, Village Roadshow Pictures, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, LEGO Systems A/S Vertigo Entertainment, Lin Pictures, Warner Bros. Animation (as Warner Animation Group))

Dramatic Presentation (Short Form) (938 nominating ballots)

  • Doctor Who: “Listen” written by Steven Moffat, directed by Douglas Mackinnon (BBC Television)
  • The Flash: “Pilot” teleplay by Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, story by Greg Berlanti, Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, directed by David Nutter (The CW) (Berlanti Productions, DC Entertainment, Warner Bros. Television)
  • Game of Thrones: “The Mountain and the Viper” written by David Benioff & D.B. Weiss, directed by Alex Graves (HBO Entertainment in association with Bighead, Littlehead; Television 360; Startling Television and Generator Productions)
  • Grimm: “Once We Were Gods”, written by Alan DiFiore, directed by Steven DePaul (NBC) (GK Productions, Hazy Mills Productions, Universal TV)
  • Orphan Black: “By Means Which Have Never Yet Been Tried” written by Graham Manson, directed by John Fawcett (Temple Street Productions; Space/BBC America)

Best Editor (Short Form) (870 nominating ballots)

  • Jennifer Brozek
  • Vox Day
  • Mike Resnick
  • Edmund R. Schubert
  • Bryan Thomas Schmidt

Best Editor (Long Form) (712 nominating ballots)

  • Vox Day
  • Sheila Gilbert
  • Jim Minz
  • Anne Sowards
  • Toni Weisskopf

Best Professional Artist (753 nominating ballots)

  • Julie Dillon
  • Kirk DouPonce
  • Nick Greenwood
  • Alan Pollack
  • Carter Reid

Best Semiprozine (660 nominating ballots)

  • Abyss & Apex Wendy Delmater editor and publisher
  • Andromeda Spaceways In-Flight Magazine Andromeda Spaceways Publishing Association Incorporated, 2014 editors David Kernot and Sue Burtsztynski
  • Beneath Ceaseless Skies edited by Scott H. Andrews
  • Lightspeed Magazine, edited by John Joseph Adams, Wendy N. Wagner, Stefan Rudnicki, Rich Horton and Christie Yant
  • Strange Horizons Niall Harrison (Editor-in-Chief), Brit Mandelo, An Owomoyela and Julia Rios (Fiction Editors), Sonya Taaffe (Senior Poetry Editor), Abigail Nussbaum (Senior Reviews Editor), Rebecca Cross (Columns Editor), Anaea Lay (Podcast Editor) and Tim Moore (Webmaster)

Best Fanzine (576 nominating ballots)

  • Black Gate, edited by John O’Neill
  • Elitist Book Reviews edited by Steven Diamond
  • Journey Planet edited by James Bacon, Chris Garcia, Alissa McKersie, Colin Harris, and Helen Montgomery
  • The Revenge of Hump Day edited by Tim Bolgeo
  • Tangent SF Online, edited by Dave Truesdale

Best Fancast (668 nominating ballots)

  • Adventures in SciFi Publishing Brent Bowen (Executive Producer), Kristi Charish, Timothy C. Ward, Shaun Ferrell & Moses Siregar III (Co-Hosts, Interviewers and Producers)
  • Dungeon Crawlers Radio Daniel Swenson (Producer/Host), Travis Alexander & Scott Tomlin (Hosts), Dale Newton (Host/Tech), Damien Swenson (Audio/Video Tech)
  • Galactic Suburbia Podcast, Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, Tansy Rayner Roberts (Presenters) and Andrew Finch (Producer)
  • The Sci Phi Show Jason Rennie
  • Tea and Jeopardy Emma Newman and Peter Newman

Best Fan Writer (777 nominating ballots)

  • Dave Freer
  • Amanda S. Green
  • Jeffro Johnson
  • Laura J. Mixon
  • Cedar Sanderson

Best Fan Artist (296 nominating ballots)

  • Ninni Aalto
  • Brad Foster
  • Elizabeth Leggett
  • Spring Schoenhuth
  • Steve Stiles

The John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer (851 nominating ballots)  Award for the best new professional science fiction or fantasy writer of 2013 or 2014, sponsored by Dell Magazines (not a Hugo Award).

  • Wesley Chu*
  • Jason Cordova
  • Kary English*
  • Rolf Nelson
  • Eric S. Raymond

*Finalists in their 2nd year of eligibility.

Direct administrative questions about the 2015 Hugo Awards to the Sasquan Hugo Administrators.

The Hugo voting ballot will be available to members of Sasquan online and by mail later in April.

For more information about the Hugos, please see http://sasquan.org/faq-hugos/

Full details of how to become a member of Sasquan are available at https://sasquan.swoc.us/sasquan/reg.php

ENDS For general media enquiries about Sasquan please contact media@sasquan.org.

To unsubscribe, click here: pressrelease-request@sasquan.org?subject=unsubscribe

ABOUT THE WORLD SCIENCE FICTION CONVENTION
Founded in 1939, the World Science Fiction Convention is one of the largest international gatherings of authors, artists, editors, publishers, and fans of science fiction and fantasy. The annual Hugo Awards, the leading award for excellence in the fields of science fiction and fantasy, are voted on by the Worldcon membership and presented during the convention.
Sasquan is organized under the banner of the SWOC: http://swoc.org/contact.php

“World Science Fiction Society”, “WSFS”, “World Science Fiction Convention”, “Worldcon”, “NASFiC”, “Hugo Award”, the Hugo Award Logo, and the distinctive design of the Hugo Award Trophy Rocket are service marks of the World Science Fiction Society, an unincorporated literary society.

— Pressrelease mailing list Pressrelease@sasquan.org http://lists.sasquan.org/mailman/listinfo/pressrelease

82 thoughts on “Sasquan Replaces Two Ineligible Nominees on Hugo Ballot

  1. Hunh, I would have suspected Sasquan might have been reluctant to remove Wright’s story.
    I hope there won’t be any blowback thereby.

  2. “I hope there won’t be any blowback thereby.”

    There will be. The fact that OLD MAN’S WAR was deemed eligible for Best Novel three years after being openly self-published on John Scalzi’s website while “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus” is disqualified is further evidence that Worldcon has one rule for its approved SJWs and another for everyone else.

    Notice how it’s ALWAYS the same name that keeps appearing at the center of the Hugo-related controversies, from award pimpage to Guardian articles to disqualifications? Do you seriously still think it is mere coincidence?

    That being said, Castalia House recognizes that each Worldcon has the right to make its own eligibility determinations and will not formally protest this one. We will, however, point out the observable dichotomy between the treatment of Mr. Wright’s work and Mr. Scalzi’s.

    By the way, note that Glen Hauman is openly calling for people to post fake reviews of Rabid Puppies works on Amazon and one Mary L. Thomases has already obliged with a fake one-star review of RIDING THE RED HORSE.

    Do you seriously think many neutral parties regard this as anything even remotely resembling a level playing field? We had several hundred Puppies show they were willing to pay $40 to vote. Think of how many thousands we could get to sink the Amazon reviews of every single SJW out there.

    Do you all really want to play this game? If not, then police your own damn side for once.

  3. I suspect the new vote ranges for those categories haven’t been published yet? In case they are or will be, it’s interesting to see what was the distance between the last slate novelette and the first non-slate one.

  4. Mr. Day, I presume you mean John Lorentz? Because his name should be associated with the 2015 Hugos, he’s the administrator. I am sad he didn’t do due diligence on eligibility.

    I believe the rules say something about serialization, a leftover from the old days.

  5. Teddy can no more get thousands of people to leave fake Amazon reviews than he can No Award the 2016 Hugos. Bluster and ridiculous threats seem to be his go to MO.

    I mean, he said he’d get First Sword out almost three years ago, and he talked a big game about suing the SFWA if they kicked him out. He couldn’t even garner enough Rabid Puppies votes to get him above No Award last year.

  6. ‘We will, however, point out the observable dichotomy between the treatment of Mr. Wright’s work and Mr. Scalzi’s.’

    Yeah! And the treatment of the work of Mr Wright and Mr Kratman, which was blatantly left in even as the work of Mr Wright was put out! Where do they get off with their double standards, treating the work of Mr Wright one way and the work of Mr Wright another way entirely? There will be blowback! Mr Beale will CONTINUE to say mean things about the Hugos! THOUSANDS will give Amazon star ratings! And only the one-star reviews will be fake!

  7. “I believe the rules say something about serialization, a leftover from the old days.”

    They do. But they would not make OLD MAN’S WAR eligible because the serialization was complete in 2002. I assume Mr. Lorentz would point to the “substantial revisions” clause of “Web Sites, E-books, and Medium of Distribution” to explain why OLD MAN’S WAR was eligible three years post-publication while “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus” is not, despite not being published. The problem is that a) this is setting a precedent that ANY electronic presence is automatically equated with being published and b) we cannot confirm if the revisions were substantial or not in the earlier case.

    Just to be clear, I don’t think Mr. Lorentz had it in for Mr. Wright and he was obviously not responsible for the Scalzi decision. If he had it in for Mr. Wright, or Castalia House, for that matter, he would have also declared the two novellas mentioned ineligible. I don’t think he has done anything wrong, I merely think he has inadvertently created a problematic precedent that will foster an existing perception of unequal treatment.

    That is why we are accepting his ruling and will promptly squash any complaints directed at Mr. Lorentz. He is simply calling them as he sees them. We respect that, even though we disagree with the call.

  8. “There will be blowback!”

    Nigel, the fact that I can predict it does not mean that I am instigating it or responsible for it. I knew about this several days ago. I didn’t make a fuss. I’m not making a fuss now.

    But the fact is that a lot of people are going to see John “2 more nominations than Arthur C. Clarke” Scalzi getting special treatment, again, and consider it unfair. Do you think it was fair for a novel self-published in 2002 to make the 2006 Best Novel shortlist?

  9. Nigel wrote: “There will be blowback! Mr Beale will CONTINUE to say mean things about the Hugos.”

    Mean (and nice) are secondary (if not tertiary) to whether or not they are true.

    Is what Beale is saying true? If so, it surely looks like a double-standard is in effect.

  10. VD: I agree with you regarding Old Man’s War. I looked up both the 2005 and 2006 WSFS Constitution because I’m not sure which one would have been in effect for the 2006 Hugo Awards when Scalzi picked up that particular nomination.

    The section I believe applies is: 3.2.6: Works appearing in a series are eligible as individual works, but the series as a whole is not eligible. However, a work appearing in a number of parts shall be eligible for the year of the final part.

    Which suggests OMW was no longer eligible. I was not participating in fandom at the time, otherwise I would have said something then just as I would have said something regarding The Martian (excellent book, btw) this year had everyone else not been already discussing the book’s ineligibility for consideration. My voice is small, but I would have used it for a situation I was aware of.

    I may be overlooking something, but I do not see anything from the 2005 and 2006 constitutions which discuss

    One could argue the “limited distribution” of Section 3.4: Extended Eligibility. In the event that a potential Hugo Award nominee receives extremely limited distribution in the year of its first publication or presentation, its eligibility may be extended for an additional year by a three fourths (3/4) vote of the intervening Business Meeting of WSFS.

    But I doubt that such a vote took place in the instance of OMW. So, Substantial Revision? It’s not technically part of the constitution and only shows up on the Hugo Awards website as part of a “plain English” interpretation – but I’m generally okay with that because it helps explain potential thought processes as “substantial revision” suggests a piece is a new work. I never read OMW prior to print publication, so I have no idea. I’m a touch skeptical. Good book, I own a copy, but I’m not sure it should have been eligible.

    That particular Worldcon committee, though, needs to have been aware that OMW was previously published to declare it ineligible and Scalzi (at the time) would have needed to have been aware self pub was a problem. Given that OMW’s self pub success was, to the best of my knowledge, nowhere near The Martian’s, it could have been easy to miss.

  11. The appropriate clause to allow “Old Man’s War” on the ballot is “substantial revision.” The precedent is “Dune” which won in 1966 despite being on the short list in 1964 as “Dune World.”

  12. ‘Worldcon has one rule for its approved SJWs and another for everyone else.’

    ‘Just to be clear, I don’t think Mr. Lorentz had it in for Mr. Wright and he was obviously not responsible for the Scalzi decision.’

    Stuck the landing.

    ‘Do you think it was fair for a novel self-published in 2002 to make the 2006 Best Novel shortlist?’

    I’m sure they simply called it as they saw it. But I expect a certain amount of expert opinion will now be forthcoming, so I’ll wait and see what they say.

  13. Dune’s revisions were substantial Chris.

    OMW’s were not. In your opinion. Having never read the self-published version of OMW, I don’t know.

  14. I had always wondered about the eligibility of last year’s winning Kowal novelette, which iirc was previously published in audio. Was that a “substantially revision” thing?

  15. The 2006 Hugo Awards would have been governed by the 2005-2006 WSFS Constitution. (The Constitutions are dated based on how they stood at the end of the Worldcon at which any amendments took effect, so the 2005 Constitution is based on changes ratified at the 2005 Worldcon, and thus in effect through the end of the 2006 Worldcon.)

    I don’t remember off the top of my head the decision on Old Man’s War, but it did not get a specific-work exemption the previous year, and therefore logically the “substantial revision” interpretation applies. Presumably the 2006 Administrator (who was, er, John Lorentz) ruled in 2006 that the 2005 publication of OMW was substantially revised from prior online publication.

    The decision of what constitutes “substantial revision” is solely up to the Administrator. For example, the Star Wars extended edition revisions were rules to be insufficient to be considered a new work. This is an area left up to the judgment of the Administrator, and there is no appeal from such rulings, on account of the authority is irrevocably delegated to the Hugo Awards Administration Subcommittee under Section 3.12 of the (current) WSFS Constitution.

    Besides the example Chris Garrib mentions, there is “Flowers for Algernon,” which won the 1960 Hugo Award for Best Short Fiction and was also nominated for the 1967 Hugo Award for Best Novel. (In addition, a teleplay based on the story was nominated for the 1962 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation and the movie Charly was nominated for the 1969 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation. Whew!

    Based on existing WSFS practice (and copyright law), first publication online counts as “published or appearing.”

  16. IIRC Kowal’s novelette got enough votes to be nominated the year before, but was deemed ineligible due to only appearing in audio form. It was published in print form the next year and this is when it was considered its first year of eligibility.

  17. Lois: My understanding is that “Lady Astronaut” was deemed ineligible as a novelette the previous year and was instead ruled as Dramatic Presentation only (see Mary’s post here, which includes an e-mail conversation with the Hugo administrators: http://maryrobinettekowal.com/journal/perhaps-you-noticed-that-my-novelette-lady-astronaut-of-mars-had-enough-nominations-to-make-the-hugo-ballot/)

    So, when she self published the story in 2013, it was then eligible for fiction nomination in 2014 (it was later published by Tor.com)

  18. Nice to hear that there is now one non-Puppy nominee on the Novelette ballot. While I will read all works with great interest, I particularly look forward to that one.

    Congratulations to Mr Huevelt, who wrote the Novelette most popular among the 83% of the Hugo nominators who were not working from a slate!

  19. Hello: I’m attending Sasquan this year (my first Worldcon!) and would like to make informed decisions on my Hugo ballot. Can someone point me to a site where someone has already done the work of creating a list of links to places I can purchase or legally read the nominated novels/novellas/shorts? I couldn’t find one. Thanks in advance.

    (Also, as a non-American I find the meta-discussion around the nominations pretty awful. Please tell me American culture wars don’t extend to the con itself. To an outsider it seems that some Americans hate the politics of some other Americans so much it overwhelms all other concerns. I really don’t want to attend a hate-fest.)

  20. Follow-up: Found a link list at sfsignal.com. It doesn’t have links to most of the novellas though, so if someone could help there that would be great. Thanks in advance again.

  21. I notice on the Hugo website, this note in the page on eligibility:
    “Works published electronically rather than on paper have always been accepted as nominees. A decision of the 2009 WSFS Business Meeting formally acknowledged this by ratifying a Constitutional Amendment that added the words “or the equivalent in other media” to various category definitions.

    Note, however, that this means that if a work is first published electronically and then is printed in paper form without substantial revisions in a subsequent year, the later paper publication is not a new work; the original electronic publication is what’s eligible, not the later paper publication.”

    So it’s clear that OMW would not be eligible, unless mitigated by another clause as described by others. However, what caught my eye was the “…decision of the 2009 WSFS Business Meeting…” part, which makes me wonder if this was the view of the committee back in 2005/6. Perhaps OMW made it through because the web publication wasn’t considered a formal publication until later.

    For fun, I dug through the internet archive – the oldest copy of the Hugo awards site I could fine was 2008. At that time – there was no mention of web or other electronic publication. Instead, it says “For any work, the year is from the printed publication date if there is one, or else from the copyright date. (Many printed works are actually available before their printed publication date, but this does not matter for Hugo eligibility.)” So it seems to me OMW was probably perfectly eligible in 2006, even if it’s not under current rules.

  22. Vox, you have a lot to say about “Yes, Virginia” being declared ineligible. That’s great, but I’m curious about Jon Eno. Do you object to that disqualification, or do you agree with the decision there?

    Followup question: are you willing to comment on why you added Jon Eno to your slate, in detail?

  23. Item A.2 in the Business Passed On to the 2015 WSFS Business Meeting for ratification, “A Story by Any Other Name,” is intended to address the “Lady Astronaut” issue, whereby a work published in audio form was ruled an Dramatic Presentation one year and thus not eligible in a “story” category.

    WSFS members are no omnipotent nor can they foresee all eventualities. If they could do so, I suspect the nomination rules for the Hugo Awards would be different from what they are no. When issues arise, the members attempt to address them.

    For everyone who says, “But that’s closing the barn door after the horse escaped,” there’s someone who will say, “Don’t fix something that isn’t broken.”

  24. “Do you object to that disqualification, or do you agree with the decision there?”

    I know nothing about it. Being the editor of the novelette in question, I do know quite a lot about it.

    “Followup question: are you willing to comment on why you added Jon Eno to your slate, in detail?”

    Absolutely. Jon Eno was on the Sad Puppy list of recommendations. That is the entire story.

  25. Thank you, Kevin, Steve and Joe Sherry for that clarification. I didn’t follow that controversy, only knew it as previously published.

    I suppose if I could have known it would be nominated, I might have reviewed it when it came out on Tor.

  26. “Think of how many thousands we could get to sink the Amazon reviews of every single SJW out there.”

    Hey, can I have an SJW reading list please…. you know after ALL this I’m still not sure who they actually are.

  27. From the linked text: “Here’s a list of all of Mr. Beale’s nominees, complete with handy links to Amazon. It might be a good idea to take a look at the reviews and see which ones are helpful. If you’ve read the works [italics mine], you should add your own review.” How is this requesting a fake review?

    Alauda, don’t know about anyone else, but I usually don’t take Amazon reviews seriously . . .

  28. So, was Old Man’s War substantially revised from the version published in the web site? Anyone knows enough about it to comment?

    Anyway, this rules really could use some improvements. What happened this year with The Martian was a pity.

  29. alauda, Amazon reviews may be a first approximation of a work’s worth, but I do keep in mind how the meme of “Amazon One Star Reviews” has been hilariously used to poke fun at the critical ineptitude of some Amazon reviewers.

    That said, it’s also true that one-star reviews can have a disproportionate impact on some potential readers/buyers. So for me, I consider reviews to be serious when they really engage with the book, rather than merely act as a way for a critic to merely vent or otherwise ride their favorite hobby-horse at the reviewed book’s expense.

  30. “Do people even take Amazon reviews seriously?”

    Apparently, Mr. Beale does. He believes that it proves that works he published are “objectively” better.

  31. Even though I have been one of the members of the Hugo Awards web site team from the beginning, I really have no recollection of the precise status of what the rules were at that particularly time in question in the past. Our rules continue to evolve and change in the face of circumstances, and sometimes it’s difficult to confirm what was going on a decade ago.

  32. Mr Day, I read Mr Hauman’s post, and I interpreted his line “You can game Amazon ratings as well” to be, not a threat of future poisoning, but an accusation of past poisoning. As in, “Mr Day claims that his recommendations are highly ranked on Amazon, but these rankings may be false’.

    While you are certainly free to be wrathful against Mr Hauman for whatever reason you like, I politely suggest that you do so in response to what he *actually* did (namely, accusing you and your fan base of gaming Amazon rankings).

  33. “Notice how it’s ALWAYS the same name that keeps appearing at the center of the Hugo-related controversies, from award pimpage to Guardian articles to disqualifications? Do you seriously still think it is mere coincidence?”

    I’m fairly sure we’re all aware of VD’s vendetta against Scalzi. In any event, anyone who thinks Scalzi’s name is at the center of this year’s controversy in any way is coming at the thing from, to put it charitably, a skewed perspective. To put it honestly… an unhealthy envy and obsession with the man, perhaps?

    Whether or not the Hugo committee at the time erred in allowing OMW’s nomination has no bearing on the correctness of the current committee’s decision to disqualify the two nominations this year. In fact it’s surprising more such disqualifications didn’t occur, as ineligible works are bound to pop up when one puts together a slate heavily favoring one’s own micropress and solicits nominations from people outside of SFF fandom who don’t even bother to read the slated works but are eager to strike a blow against an imaginary “SJW” Illuminati.

    I’m sure, though, that Scalzi will be very flattered to hear that his Blofeld-like power over the Hugo Awards is apparently so complete that he had the influence to manipulate the balloting right from the time of his very first professional novel sale.

  34. I encourage everyone to go to http://www.joneno.com and sample the magnificence that is Jon Eno’s artwork. Especially these works that contain the words “Jon Eno” in giant 3D letters, posed over a variety of scenes. Not since the heyday of KPT Bryce in the 90’s and Poser in the early 2000’s (3D artists will know what I’m talking aobut) have I seen such great (mostly procedurally generated) art. I will take this as an example of the strict standard of quality by which Mr. Day chose his slate.

  35. Well, I was going to read the Puppy works anyway, and another honest review never hurt a good story.

  36. Given that Old Man’s War was originally self-published online as a first novel and went to being professionally published at one of the premier SF houses, it seems logical to assume there was a substantial editing pass. But I’ve never read the self-published version so I can’t say for sure.

  37. Thank Ghu there’s the Chesley Awards to help us ignore the slater’s artist noms. (Not to say anything negative about their art, this is only about the slater(s) scam that finagled them their Hugo nominations.)

  38. Mr Grosberg – I believe it was Mr Torgersen who selected Jon Eno for his slate, not Mr Day.

  39. Mr. Standlee: You state “Based on existing WSFS practice (and copyright law), first publication online counts as ‘published or appearing.'”

    The question of when online posting becomes “publication” as that word is used in the copyright law is at least a semi-open one. Frankly, until the SCOTUS rules on it, nobody knows for *sure.* However, the Copyright Office has definitively stated (See this link: http://www.copyright.gov/eco/help-publication.html and Circular 66, both available at the Copyright Office website.) that IT thinks the rule is that merely posting something online does *not* mean that it has been “published.”

    Unless and until a Federal court overrules them, the rule stands. (Courts are very deferential to the Copyright Office on these matters. I think it’s very likely the rule would survive appellate review.) It seems reasonable to assume that posting something online falls within the term “published or appearing.” For Hugo purposes, I would agree with the idea that putting something on a website for the public to read should start the year-of-publication clock. That being said, “appearing [online]” and “published are not synonyms to a copyright lawyer. It does anyone who might read such an assertion a disservice to make it as if it were settled law. It’s hard enough to explain to creators when the various clocks start without casual disinformation being spread about.

    Aluada: Amazon does, and since it uses them in its recommendation-engine they are a matter of life or death to authors who don’t have the backing of co-op money.

  40. RNO: That’s one of the reasons that the WSFS Constitution currently uses the word “appearing” in the general rules. It used to say “published.”

    3.2.1. Unless otherwise specified, Hugo Awards are given for work in the field of science fiction or fantasy appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year.

  41. So Glenn, “putting down” sad puppies was a threat of violence and not an incitement to false ratings? Fascinating.

    @Kevin,

    Since you seem to know such things, are the reasonings on a ruling of this sort published to form a sort of “case law”? I’m inclined to a simple reading of the rules showing Wright is not eligible but it does seem to be a reversal of a previously held standard. At the very least if this is going to be the case going forward “substantial” is going to have to be defined or at least have some metrics for judgement attached to it.

  42. GKC: Other than in terms of pure length, I think any definition of “substantial editing” is doomed to gaming and to ultimate failure. If I were going to “fix” this, I’d say that unless the “new” version was at least 1/3 longer by pure word count, it was not a new version, no matter what other changes might have been made.

    Overly harsh? Maybe. But trust me, this is hard. I wouldn’t even like to guess how many hundreds of millions of dollars (not exaggerating) in legal fees have been spent trying to answer similar questions in intellectual property law cases. Either give the administrator more or less carte blanche, or set the limit as something which is *literally* objectively measurable and inarguably distinctive.

Comments are closed.