240 thoughts on “2021 Hugo Awards Finalists Announced”

1. rcade on April 13, 2021 at 11:51 pm said:

   P.s. I’m not thrilled that a convention whose Code of Conduct prohibits “[c]omments directly intended to belittle, offend, or cause discomfort including telling others they are not welcome and should leave” is going to make a presenter invite GRRM to “fuck off into the sun” during the Hugo Awards ceremony.

   Presumably there is a punching up or old white dude exception to that rule.

2. I’d prefer that Best Related Work didn’t go to rants, however much I appreciated the one of Natalie Luhrs’ at the time.

   I will most likely vote it below No Award, just wanted to state that it in no way means I think it was ill-placed or that Martin didn’t deserve some meaningful criticism. It is just that it isn’t what I think the category should be for.

   Perhaps there needs to be a new Angry Rant Award for “Best Fandom Kerfuffle Statement”. So the Hugo categories can go to celebrate what we love instead of what we hate.

3. Matt Cavanagh: And I suppose that’s why they didn’t announce anything until after the speech hmmm

   Because the book’s subject related so closely to Analog the magazine, Quachri was given an early draft by the author in 2017 or early 2018. He was already planning to make the change because he was so disturbed by the well-researched contents of the book, but I suspect he wanted to wait another year until the 90th anniversary (2020) of the magazine was past, so that the re-naming controversy didn’t drown out the anniversary.

   Do I think he moved it up to 2019 because of Ng’s speech? Sure. But Quachri has a hell of a lot more professional credibility than you do (given your propensity in the past for having gotten so many things wrong about Worldcon, WSFS, and the Hugo Awards), so you might want to think about that while you’re busy calling him a liar.

   I also think that it’s pretty criminal that the deeply-important, years-long work by Nevala-Lee (who is a POC, by the way) was ignored and voted down by a bunch of people who wrongly assumed that it was a hagiography of a bunch of old white men, when in fact it was rather the opposite.

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

   But glad you admit Ng’s speech contributed as we know facts are important and heaven forbid a publisher wanting to pub their anniversary plans abound doing the right thing.

5. A Wizard’s Guide to Defensive Baking is a middle-grade novel.

   It was always my concern about the Lodestar. What is Young Adult? By my age 30 year olds seem pretty young. A 25 year old is a Young Adult according to DisconIII, but I don’t think I was reading substantially different books at 25 to what I am now. And now we need to police the lower boundary as well?

   Otherwise, yes, there look like worthy nominees in all categories.

6. NickPheas: And now we need to police the lower boundary as well?

   The point of the Lodestar Award was never for Worldcon members to duplicate the results of the Alex Award or any other specifically-YA award, where a jury which is deeply knowledgeable about YA awards chooses the longlists, shortlists, and winners.

   The purpose of the Lodestar Award is for Worldcon members to recognize the works that they enjoyed, which they perceive to be YA. It’s not Hugo nominators’ job to try to judge what young adults would enjoy, or where a work falls on the YA-MG spectrum; if that was the goal, then it shouldn’t be an award presented by Worldcon at all, because that is an impossible task for a bunch of adults whose average age is going to be 30+.

   So criticisms of what Hugo nominators select for the Lodestar Award seem rather silly to me. If an award selected by young adults is wanted, then it needs to be done by another organization.

7. I was okay with the nomination of the Cambellspeach last year. I didn’t think it should have won, but I was okay with it.
   There are a couble of nominees I am not okay with:
   Helicopter Story”, Isabel Fall
   The Rant
   and I am on the fence about the Fridge.

   Because in all of those I suspect bad faith in nominations. Nominations should be there to cellabrated and not to attack people.

   I am also skeptical about the nomination of FIYAHCON and the Beowulftranslation, even if here I am assuming good faith in the nominators.
   I think the best related really should be reformed (personal opinion).
   Block Post should not per se, not eligatable (We have always fought) but I don’t like best related that year.

8. I’m conflicted about CONZealand Fringe. On one hand I think they did a fantastic job, worthy of celebration. On the other hand, that goes for all conventions. Should we nominate Chicon 3 next year for Best Related Work? EasterCon!? And thirdly, I’m not really happy with them appropriating the name of another convention to put on their own event.

   I most likely won’t rank them and stay at that.

9. Two first steps goes for FIYAHCON too. I’m a bit sad about this, because I think both CONZealand Fringr and FIYAHCON should be praised, I just don’t agree with the how.

10. @Hampus Eckerman:

    Perhaps there needs to be a new Angry Rant Award for “Best Fandom Kerfuffle Statement”

    Sounds like a job for the Hogu Awards, perhaps

11. Alec’s book losing out did sadden me, because it IS such an important work in SF criticism. In the long run it will hopefully be seen for what it is. But yeah.

12. I was delighted at the AO3s win, but even in the moment I felt a twinge about Astounding not getting it… and I was alarmed when I looked at the full voting results to find it had got so few votes. I’ve been defending the grab bag aspect of BRW for awhile now (having the odd wildcard is fun!), but it does seem to be getting to the point where serious work – whether book or lengthy project or documentary – is getting completely side-lined, either in nominations like this year or voting like any of the past few years without a Le Guin focused work. I don’t think that’s a good thing. I’m unlikely to ever get myself to a business meeting, but any reasonable proposal that wouldn’t exclude documentaries, extensive blog projects, etc, happy to argue its case now.

    Jeanette Ng’s speech got attention. It was dramatic. But Nevala-Lee’s book was a helluva lot better and more comprehensive and his work coming last in his year while her speech beat a field of good books the next year is… not great. However cool and brave I think Ng is (very, very cool, and very, very brave).

13. It occurred to me that my 250 tweet fulmination of book recommendations I did last year could have been considered under Best Related Work.

    That’s a terrifying thought. It wouldn’t be as WTF as other items, but still, I’d be frankly embarassed by such a nomination. That’s…not what I think of as a Hugo nominated item.

    The grab bag of Best Related Work…yeah. I don’t know what a good improvement for it would be that doesn’t look like exclusionary gatekeeping.

14. bill on April 13, 2021 at 11:20 pm said:

    But as far as what’s definitive, I’m a little surprised that someone like yourself, Fandom’s parliamentarian, would suggest that somehow the shape of an award is definitive, or its name, in lieu of black-and-white language of the Consititution.

    You might want to read the black-and-white language of the last sentence of the WSFS Constitution, Section 3.5.

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

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

    In large part, this is because for the last year & a half, I’ve not had much bandwidth for seeking out new works. I did (somewhat) keep up with my favorite authors, so I’ve read Relentless Moon, Defensive Baking, & Tumbling Down, but that’s it out of this year’s nominees. Also, I’m not super active in fandom; I read one or two author blogs, and sometimes file770, and that’s about it. And I tend towards mostly reading Novels. So nomination & voting takes a lot of effort, as I seek out short fiction, look for fan artists/writers/etc as to not leave my ballot completely blank in those areas. And last year & this year, I just couldn’t. It’s taking too much effort to get through the day to day to expend mental energy on other things.

    I think and hope that next year, participation will increase again; I know I hope to be in a spot to participate next year.

16. Oh, Avilyn.

    The past year has been so hard, on so many people, in so many ways.

    This is not a deficiency on your part (or on anyone else’s part), it’s just a matter of people needing to deal with the critically important stuff and to let the rest of it slide, until it’s feasible to take it up again.

    I hope that next year will be for you, and for so many other people including me, a return to some semblance of normalcy – where our bandwidth won’t all be taken up merely with the act of coping and surviving. <hugs>

17. @Matt
    Astounding by Alec Nevala-Lee is not a novel. It’s a non-fiction book about the history of Astounding/Analog, its longtime editor John W. Campbell and his trio of star writers Isaac Asimov, Robert E. Heinlein and L. Ron Hubbard. It is extremely well researched, highly critical of its subjects and coincidentally, also the only book which actually explains what Scientology and Dianetics are, what the background is, how it developed. Considering that in Germany, the only thing you ever hear about Scientology is “They’re a dangerous cult. Stay away!”, it was a refreshing change to read a book which actually addresses the underlying beliefs.

    Astounding is also highly readable and actually reads like a soap opera in parts. Serious and well-researched non-fiction books like that are rare and we should celebrate them. Until I saw the ballot details, I assumed that Astounding simply had the bad luck to be up against AO3 and its millions of users. But then I saw that it finished dead last, which is just a shame.

    And this wasn’t the first time that a serious and well researched non-fiction book lost out against a less serious work. Farah Mendlesohn’s excellent academic non-fiction book Rhetorics of Fantasy lost out against John Scalzi’s collected blogposts (which had already won him a well deserved Best Fan Writer Hugo at that point) in 2009.

    @Avilyn
    I strongly suspect that the pandemic is responsible for there being fewer Hugo nominations than usual. Libraries and bookstores were closed and many people retreated to familiar comfort reads instead of reading new works. Money is also tight for many and Worldcon memberships are not a vital expense.

18. N on April 13, 2021 at 9:03 pm said:
    Plus I just plain disagree with her/the general assertion that 2020 was lacking in quality genre movies. There were plenty, and plenty of people were recommending them.

    Exactly this. There’s the critical darling The Invisible Man. The Academy Award-nominated Love & Monsters. The underrated (and theatrically released) Underwater.

    Moreover, the WSFS extended the eligibility of some 2019 works that hadn’t gotten wide release until 2020. Vast of Night, as example.

19. @Kevin Standlee

    You might want to read the black-and-white language of the last sentence of the WSFS Constitution, Section 3.5.

    I read it before my original post, and just re-read it. And a statement that “the Rocket cannot go to non-Hugo awards” is not the equivalent of “since the statue isn’t a Rocket, the award isn’t a Hugo.” If I’m remembering my Boolean Logic correctly, A implies B is not the same as Not A implies Not B.

20. StefanB on April 14, 2021 at 2:41 am said:
    I am on the fence about the Fridge.

    Because in all of those I suspect bad faith in nominations. Nominations should be there to cellabrated and not to attack people.

    Personally, I put Fringe on my Hugo nominating ballot in good faith.

    I had no involvement in the event, but what I saw as an outsider was actually a constructive move by a group of people who saw gaps in Worldcon programming.

    My belief is that this enhanced the Worldcon. Personally, I would much rather see people doing things constructively (like creating additional programing) rather than just bellyaching or tearing things down.

    CZ Fringe was fan-run, fan-driven, extremely positive, and a celebration. Done by fans of good intent.

21. Paul Weimer on April 14, 2021 at 5:08 am said:
    Alec’s book losing out did sadden me, because it IS such an important work in SF criticism. In the long run it will hopefully be seen for what it is. But yeah.

    Since we’re on the subject of Best Related Works that are critical examinations of problematic creators, can I just point out just how good Abraham Riesman’s new biography of Stan Lee is? Really grapples with Stan Lee’s self-mythologizing, and his treatment of other creators.

    It’s a book that I think should be on the BRW shortlist next year.

22. @Cora Buhlert

    And this wasn’t the first time that a serious and well researched non-fiction book lost out against a less serious work.

    I put the poor showings of William Patterson’s two volumes of biography of Heinlein in this category.

23. Olav Rokne on April 14, 2021 at 8:10 am said:

    Personally, I put Fringe on my Hugo nominating ballot in good faith.

    I had no involvement in the event, but what I saw as an outsider was actually a constructive move by a group of people who saw gaps in Worldcon programming.

    My belief is that this enhanced the Worldcon. Personally, I would much rather see people doing things constructively (like creating additional programing) rather than just bellyaching or tearing things down.

    CZ Fringe was fan-run, fan-driven, extremely positive, and a celebration. Done by fans of good intent.

    It’s probably debatable whether it was intended as additional or replacement programming, given that it was run on the same weekend by a bunch of people who apparently hate the old guard of Worldcon.

24. @ Olav Rokne

    To me, the quality of conventions has nothing to do with the reasons why it should not be suitable for a Hugo nomination. Since it is a real-time event which can only have a limited number of participants, only those participants can judge that event and determine that it is Hugo-worthy.

    This leaves the remainder of the voters in the dark and guessing whether the con is worthy or not. For example, how do I know whether CZ Fringe was any good since I didn’t go to it? This could easily lead people to vote for a con even if they never went for reasons that had nothing to do with the con (because they didn’t go).

25. bill on April 14, 2021 at 8:04 am said:

    @Kevin Standlee

    You might want to read the black-and-white language of the last sentence of the WSFS Constitution, Section 3.5.

    I read it before my original post, and just re-read it. And a statement that “the Rocket cannot go to non-Hugo awards” is not the equivalent of “since the statue isn’t a Rocket, the award isn’t a Hugo.” If I’m remembering my Boolean Logic correctly, A implies B is not the same as Not A implies Not B.

    That might be true by Boolean logic, but if the trophy doesn’t include the specific form of rocket covered by WSFS’s design mark (section 3.5), the award is not a Hugo Award. Worldcons may not present a Hugo Award to a non-Hugo Award winner. The Lodestar (and its unnamed predecessor) have been awarded multiple times. None of the winners have received a Hugo Award trophy for the award. Those Worldcons actually understand that the Lodestar is not a Hugo Award.

    Now maybe there are people who want a ghetto for YA works, but those who thought it was a bad idea to create a category that would take a particularly type of SF/F and effectively exclude it from being considered from Best Novel (or Novella, depending on length) came up with a solution that allowed WSFS to award a sub-type of fiction while still allowing that same work to compete for our top honor.

    Let’s also try WSFS Constitution 3.7.3:

    3.7.3: Nominations shall be solicited only for the Hugo Awards, the Astounding Award for Best New Writer, and the Lodestar Award for Best Young Adult Book.

    If the Lodestar Award was a Hugo Award, it wouldn’t be explicitly listed here as one of the two exceptions to the rule that only Hugo Award categories can be listed on the nominating ballot. Does this rather strongly suggest that the intention of WSFS is for the Lodestar Award to not be considered as a Hugo Award? Or do we need to write an entire new Article into the WSFS Constitution that restates most of Article III but only lists the Lodestar Award with the words THIS IS NOT A HUGO AWARD CATEGORY in large bold type on both sides of the sentence defining it?

    There is such a thing as reading things in their proper context, and the context and history of the Awards is that neither the Lodestar nor the Astounding Awards are Hugo Awards, despite the fact that they are both mentioned in Article III of the WSFS Constitution and that they are administered similarly to the Hugo Awards.

26. @Rob Thornton

    Since it is a real-time event which can only have a limited number of participants, only those participants can judge that event and determine that it is Hugo-worthy.

    I think this is a question that is becoming relevant to more and more categories. For example;

    Can enough voters properly evaluate all the games nominees?
    Can enough voters evaluate dramatic presentation nominees from some streaming services?
    Can an ordinary reader determine the contribution of a long form editor nominee?

27. rob_matic on April 14, 2021 at 8:42 am said:
    Olav Rokne on April 14, 2021 at 8:10 am said:
    It’s probably debatable whether it was intended as additional or replacement programming, given that it was run on the same weekend by a bunch of people who apparently hate the old guard of Worldcon.

    Uh. It didn’t seem like “hate” to me. It seemed like an addition / enhancement.

    And the amount of additional content that CZF has generated; the transcripts, the videos, the essays. I don’t really see it as a convention, so much as a multimedia project.

28. Rob Thornton on April 14, 2021 at 9:04 am said:

    To me, the quality of conventions has nothing to do with the reasons why it should not be suitable for a Hugo nomination. Since it is a real-time event which can only have a limited number of participants, only those participants can judge that event and determine that it is Hugo-worthy.

    So are you saying that live theatrical performances should not be eligible for Best Dramatic Presentation, either? That is, only things that are recorded should be eligible?

29. @ Kevin Standlee

    Well, preferably theatrical events should be recorded. If you haven’t experienced something, how can you judge it? If you’ve got an answer to this question, I’m curious to hear it.

30. “And the amount of additional content that CZF has generated; the transcripts, the videos, the essays. I don’t really see it as a convention, so much as a multimedia project.”

    Then it should have been moved to “Best Fancast”.

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

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

    rob_matic: I dunno, I have zero interest in participating in Worldcon if the Hugos are about factionalism and this kind of outrage posturing.

    Is it that you don’t want the Hugos about factionalism, or you want them to be about a faction that you’re comfortable with?

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

    Everybody hated that. It wasn’t just the dissidents who left for the Fringe.

33. alexvdl on April 14, 2021 at 10:08 am said:

    Is it that you don’t want the Hugos about factionalism, or you want them to be about a faction that you’re comfortable with?

    Which faction do you suppose that would be?

34. Which faction do you suppose that would be?

    It seems that you’re in the faction that doesn’t like it when people complain about things. Oh, sorry, “this kind of outrage posturing”.

    Other than that, I’m not sure. Feel free to clarify.

35. I’m curious about the eligibility of DIE vol 2 and Ghost-Spider Vol 1. While the trade editions were published in 2020, I believe they both collect issues which were all originally published in 2019.

36. @alexvdl

    Is it that you don’t want the Hugos about factionalism, or you
    Is it that you don’t want the Hugos about factionalism, or you want them to be about a faction that you’re comfortable with?

    Factionalism within SFF fandom is now a fact of life whether we like it or not. That’s not even necessarily a bad thing as we should be talking about issues that matter.

    It is desirable, however, that the discussions are constructive and do not degenerate into abuse or harassment. It is possible that someone may be “right” but still deserves to be kicked out of the conversation because of their behaviour. Our problem is to make sure that a proper and productive environment is maintained for the discussion.

37. @akexvdl

    Oh, you’ve put me in a faction now. Thanks.

38. It seems that you’re in the faction that doesn’t like it when people complain about things. Oh, sorry, “this kind of outrage posturing”.

    I think you’re mischaracterizing the debate. It isn’t about complaints in general. It’s about people putting something on the ballot in Best Related Work to “make points about the Worldcon and Hugo Awards failures” instead of because it’s a Best Related Work, which is what Matt Cavanagh suggested the nominators did.

39. “I can’t get no SF faction”

40. Factionalism within SFF fandom is now a fact of life whether we like it or not. That’s not even necessarily a bad thing as we should be talking about issues that matter.

    It is desirable, however, that the discussions are constructive and do not degenerate into abuse or harassment. It is possible that someone may be “right” but still deserves to be kicked out of the conversation because of their behaviour. Our problem is to make sure that a proper and productive environment is maintained for the discussion.

    I think that factionalism within SFF Fandom has been a fact of life. My mother would tell me stories about grown men fistfighting over whether Captain Kirk or Luke Skywalker was better.

    I think your second paragraph is a roundabout way of saying “It’s okay to disagree as long as you disagree in the ways that people are comfortable with.” I think that making people uncomfortable is one of the ways that change happens.

    It’s not just GRRM that people are mad at. They’re mad at the entire system to that brought GRRM to where he had the ability and power to do those things that they’re upset with. Sure, GRRM is old and he didn’t have the chance to practice pronunciation or whatever and whatever other excuses. But there’s always an excuse.

    Concentrating the discussion on “Should this use of a potty word be on the Hugo ballot?” instead of “How can we ensure that a portion of membership isn’t so angry as to vote potty words onto the ballot?”

41. “I can’t get no SF faction”

    WINNER

    P.S. to alexdvl: When I hear the phrase “making people uncomfortable,” I immediately think of the word “harassment.” What about you?

42. I am extremely disappointed and turned off that such a hateful blog post (the GRRM one, obviously) was nominated. Seeing how few nominations there were, it makes more sense, but it’s still appalling, imo – it makes me feel like there should be a minimum number of nominations. It’s rude and downright mean. Yeah, yeah, punching up, but I’d rather there be no punching, especially not in the title of a nomination. I know that if something were nominated that insulted me so harshly in the title, I would not feel encouraged to attend, and would feel unwelcome. I don’t like that the fandom would make anyone feel this way, regardless of how famous they are.

    George is the reason I first started attending conventions – he would talk so genuinely about fandom = family, and I wanted the same for myself. Unsurprisingly, I did find that! The people I have met through the con (and other cons) will be my lifelong friends, and I look forward to seeing them every year. Seeing someone who has been attending for 40 years treated so callously just really disappoints me, especially during such a dark year, when we have all lost loved ones, especially the older crowd. The very day that the nomination was announced, George posted about grief and depression – what a punch in the gut to also be told to f*ck off into the sun. Said nomination may have only been by about 40-50 people, but comes across as looking like the convention supports such a sentiment. FWIW, I found there to be plenty of very valid flaws and criticisms in the 2020 Hugo’s, but none of them merit such vitriol, especially directed at one person.

    I have a Discon membership, and was planning on attending in December, but frankly, I am seriously reconsidering my attendance (and I know quite a few others in the same boat).

43. @akexvdl

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

    In which case the expressiveness and phrasing used in the title seem to be considerably below the level we would expect of a Hugo nominee.

44. rob_matic: Oh, you’ve put me in a faction now. Thanks.

    As opposed to before when you weren’t in any factions eyeroll

    rcade: I think you’re mischaracterizing the debate. It isn’t about complaints in general. It’s about people putting something on the ballot in Best Related Work to “make points about the Worldcon and Hugo Awards failures” instead of because it’s a Best Related Work, which is what Matt Cavanagh suggested the nominators did.

    I’m not sure how putting something on the ballot “to make points about the Worldcon and Hugo Awards failures” prevents it from being put on the ballot because it’s a Best Related Work.

    Like right off the bat, that’s a value judgement made that those two things can’t be the same thing.

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

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

    Concentrating the discussion on “Should this use of a potty word be on the Hugo ballot?” instead of “How can we ensure that a portion of membership isn’t so angry as to vote potty words onto the ballot?”

    It seems like a double standard to say the anger that puts hostile profanity on the ballot should be heard but the anger that it provokes in response should be ignored.

46. Martin Easterbrook: In which case the expressiveness and phrasing used in the title seem to be considerably below the level we would expect of a Hugo nominee.

    Got a mouse in your pocket?

    Rob Thornton: P.S. to alexdvl: When I hear the phrase “making people uncomfortable,” I immediately think of the word “harassment.” What about you?

    Is there a point to your word association game? Do you think that GRRM harassed all those people he made uncomfortable during his presentation of the Hugo Awards last year?

    On a separate note, I’m not sure how the last three people to attempt my username misspelled it.

47. Like right off the bat, that’s a value judgement made that those two things can’t be the same thing.

    I’ve articulated why the blog post doesn’t merit the Best Related Work honor. You haven’t said why it does. Like Matt Cavanagh you’re talking about it being an expression of anger intended to send a message to others in the Worldcon community, which concedes a lot of ground to those of us who are challenging its nomination.

48. rcade: It seems like a double standard to say the anger that puts hostile profanity on the ballot should be heard but the anger that it provokes in response should be ignored.

    Well, when you find someone saying both of those things, you should really let them have it. I certainly haven’t said anything about people angry about the blog post being on the ballot should be ignored.

    I’m saying that they should examine why they’re angry, and understand that if it’s because they think of it as disrespect to the Hugo Awards, the works of others, and other Worldcon members, they should consider how disrespected Luhrs and many, many other Worldcon members felt by the events that led to that blog post.

    They should consider how angering it is that we continue to have these conversations about how some people in fandom are treated better than others, or who gets to be the average, or how old white dudes consistently get passes that other people don’t.

    You’re angry about the word fuck on a ballot? Luhr’s is angry because people on last year’s ballot were treated poorly.

49. @ alexvdl

    Is there a point to your word association game? Do you think that GRRM harassed all those people he made uncomfortable during his presentation of the Hugo Awards last year?

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

50. rcade: I’ve articulated why the blog post doesn’t merit the Best Related Work honor. You haven’t said why it does. Like Matt Cavanagh you’re talking about it being an expression of anger intended to send a message to others in the Worldcon community, which concedes a lot of ground to those of us who are challenging its nomination.

    …that’s the same value judgement as before. Being “an expression of anger intended to send a message” doesn’t mean it’s not capable of being a Best Related Work.

Comments are closed.