138 thoughts on “Open Post for 2019 Hugos

  1. Another (very) close second choice of mine, and I’m so thrilled to see it win.

    Another great speech, too. So many good speeches tonight.

  2. Alright, who do we delegate to harass Nicholas Whyte until he hands over the goods. 😉

  3. Mary Robinette Kowal used to live in Chicago; she only moved to Nashville quite recently.

  4. I am a happy camper that all of the Murderbot stories got enough votes to make the ballot. 🙂

  5. Contrarius:

    I am a happy camper that all of the Murderbot stories got enough votes to make the ballot.

    Me too. And for some reason, Becky Chambers’ acceptance speech made me cry.

  6. Ouch. Stålenhag might have made the ballot if everyone had nominated him under Art Book instead of some in Art Book, some in Graphic Story.

  7. Congratulations to all the winners!

    I was very happy to see “Practical Compendium” and AO3 win.

    I’m not entirely surprised to see how close some of the categories were. I did quite a bit of hemming-and-hawing over the short fiction categories, and I imagine others did as well. I remember there being some predictions that “If at First You Don’t Succeed”‘s chances would be hindered by not being on the ballot, and clearly that turned out not to be the case. While I put “Temporal Confections” first on my novelette ballot, I think it’s great that so many Hugo voters clearly took the time to seek out and read Cho’s story.

    I second the suggestion that the captioning system should be nominated for Best Unrelated Work, since the captions were obviously completely unrelated to what the presenters were actually saying! 🙂

  8. Just checked out the Best Series nom data. It looks like repeat entries are still a major influence on this category, especially if you take the longlists into account. October Daye was a repeat finalist, and so was Laundry Files (it made the longlist in 2017). Foreigner made the longlist all three years. Rivers of London was either a finalist or a longlist repeat all three years as well. And Wild Cards was a longlist repeat from last year’s longlist.

    I’m thinking that repeats are just going to be a facet of this category, whether we like it or not.

  9. @Nina —

    I was very happy to see “Practical Compendium” and AO3 win.

    I will admit that I ended up NAing AO3, because I decided it just didn’t fit the category. But a very large number of people disagreed with me, and since I have never had anything against the site itself, I am happy to celebrate along with them.

    In the meantime, I’d favor a clarification of the BRW category rules.

  10. @Contrarius

    Yeah, that must’ve been a heck of a thing, deciding WHICH ONE of your Murderbot stories would go on the ballot. What a problem to have!! 🙂

  11. @Bonnie —

    Since she specifically mentioned ART in her acceptance speech, I think we can see how she decided to keep that one! 😉

    It would’ve been a lot of fun to see THREE Murderbots on the ballot, but I’m glad that there was only one so they didn’t end up splitting the vote between them!

  12. I’m also very happy that all the Murderbots got so many nominations. Martha Wells was very considerate in only taking up one slot. I think the rules would have allowed the top two of her works to be on the ballot, not just one.

  13. Congrats to all the winners. Sadly, Skiffy and Fanty did not win…and neither did Nerds of a Feather, which I write for.

    Still it was an exciting list of winners with a couple of surprises (I was sure Bolander was going to win for instance…)

    it was pointed out to me that I made the Long List for Best Fan Writer for the first time, which is really exciting too.

  14. @Lorien Gray: I concur wholeheartedly. (The constitutional citation is 3.8.6.)

    Is Gardner Dozois the first Hugo winner who would have not been on the ballot under pre-EPH rules?

    Still mulling over Art Book’s viability – it had a low but not horrendously low nominating count (248, compare to Fan Artist’s 290) and a very respectable final vote tally; however it also must be said that two of the top seven in nominations were ineligible.


  15. Doctor Science: Are you referring to a bunch of numbers — I think those are the EPH runoff stats.

  16. Goobergunch: Is Gardner Dozois the first Hugo winner who would have not been on the ballot under pre-EPH rules?

    Wow, there’s a fantastic question.

  17. @Doctor Science – the columns are the point scores for each work (which get recalculated after each elimination round). It’s an EPH thing.

  18. Sixth? Astounding came in sixth? For crying out loud…

    I was not expecting Zen Cho in the novelette category; I am surprised and delighted. That was such a strong category, but I thought for sure it’d go to one of the weightier ones. It’s really nice to see stories that are basically pure joy come in first.
    (And I do not mind that “Temporal Confections” came in second, IT’S SO GOOD)

    and and and
    I am so ridiculously overjoyed. Her debut novel next month is going to MAKE SERIOUS WAVES, and I am SOOOO GLAD.

  19. @rcade: That is just terrible. How awful for everyone who couldn’t get in. I wonder how that happened?

  20. @Goobergunch: Is Gardner Dozois the first Hugo winner who would have not been on the ballot under pre-EPH rules?

    Yes. There have been a few other finalists which wouldn’t have been on the ballot pre-EPH, notably “The Collapsing Empire” and “New York 2140” for best novel last year, but no winners.

  21. I think Martha realized it would be more strategic to have one story on the ballot, rather than having votes split between her stories, possibly making her lose.

    I’ve been a huge fan of hers for years and years and am so happy she won again. She a fabulous writer with a great imagination.

  22. One thing I love about the Hugos is that it causes me to read or watch things I have never heard of or would never watch. The movie “Sorry to Bother You” is one thing and the writer/director is local to near where I live so being introduced to his world was useful. I probably voted the movie in the last place because it really was not good SF but it was still fun.

  23. @Lorien Gray: “Laundry Files” was not a nominee in 2017. Possibly you’re confusing it with “Rivers of London”?

    @Ita: The instant runoff vote system (aka “Australian Ballot”) should prevent vote splitting from being a factor. Consider all the recent years in which three “Doctor Who” episodes were on the ballot, but didn’t prevent it from winning. I’d hope that Martha Wells declined two of the nominations so that two other people could get to be on the shortlist. I suppose only she can say for certain.

    Is there anyone here who reads Scalzi’s twitter? He posted a picture captioned “three Best Novel winners” with himselff and Mary Robinette Kowal….and a third person whom I don’t recognize. Anyone know who it is?

  24. According to current rules, Martha Wells could only have had 2 works on the Novella ballot; they would have asked her to select which one to remove, and if she declined to specify, they would have removed her lowest-ranking finalist from the ballot.

    But the IRV method by which Hugo votes are counted does not disadvantage 2 works by the same author, and whichever ones she chose could very well have easily taken first and second places. That she chose to leave only one of her 3 finalist novellas on the ballot was an act of graciousness and generosity by Martha Wells which I appreciate and applaud.

  25. @David Goldfarb – I probably worded my post badly. I didn’t mean ‘repeat finalist’ but a finalist that has been on the longlist in a previous year. I’m taking the various years’ longlists into account when considering whether a work is a “repeat.” Since Laundry Files was on the longlist in 2017 and a finalist this year I consider it a repeat.

    I’ve been tracking repeats so I can get an idea what series might be finalists in the upcoming year. I figured this might help with the reading load. I started reading The Laundry Files last year and I’m glad I did since it made this year’s reading easier.

Comments are closed.