(1) DOC MARTIN. Texas A&M will give George R.R. Martin an honorary degree reports the Houston Chronicle.
Texas A&M University is set to give “Game of Thrones” author George R.R. Martin the latest link in his maester’s chain this week, as the school offers up an honorary degree to the author.
Martin has a long history with A&M, which has been home to his writings since long before his books were picked up by HBO.
Martin, who calls himself a pack rat, regularly sends copies of just about everything he’s written, produced or been given, from games and calendars based on the series to replica swords and war hammers, to Texas A&M University’s Cushing Memorial Library and Archives. The library boasts a world-renowned sci-fi and fantasy collection and Martin’s works are its crown jewel.
Martin last year gave A&M a first-edition copy of “The Hobbit,” saying at the time that the Cushing library has one of the best science fiction and fantasy collections in the nation. The author acknowledged that A&M — “a place where people shout ‘yeehaw’ a lot, and of course lately (was) known for Johnny Football” — might seem like a strange place for such a collection.
(2) THE MEDIUM IS THE MIXED MESSAGE. Variety reports Hannibal creator Bryan Fuller has been named showrunner and co-creator of CBS’ new Star Trek series. Who suspected Hannibal would be the proving grounds for the next executive at the helm of the Trek franchise?
The new series is set to bow on CBS in January 2017, then move to CBS’ All Access digital subscription service. It will be the first original series to launch on a broadcast network but air primarily on an SVOD service.
“Bringing ‘Star Trek’ back to television means returning it to its roots, and for years those roots flourished under Bryan’s devoted care,” said Kurtzman. “His encyclopedic knowledge of ‘Trek’ canon is surpassed only by his love for Gene Roddenberry’s optimistic future, a vision that continues to guide us as we explore strange new worlds.”
The creative plan is for the series to introduce new characters and civilizations, existing outside of the mythology charted by previous series and the current movie franchises.
(3) WHO COUNTS. The Den of Geek tells us Steven Moffat has confirmed the length of the runs for the next seasons of his two BBC shows.
Speaking after receiving his OBE the other day, Steven Moffat confirmed that Doctor Who series 10 will have 13 episodes. And Sherlock series 4 will have three episodes.
(4) HMM. Anthony at the Castalia House Blog puts his finger on a problem with the Potterverse in “So You Made It Into Hufflepuff”.
Hufflepuff is noteworthy in the Harry Potter series for being supremely un-noteworthy (“A Very Potter Musical” famously lampshades this after the end of its opening number “Gotta Get Back to Hogwarts” with the immortal line “What the hell is a Hufflepuff?”). The Hufflepuff we know the best is Cedric Diggory. Diggory is a fine character, but he probably doesn’t even rank in the series’ top twenty most interesting. Even in “Goblet of Fire” we just don’t learn that much about him, except that he’s apparently an honorable man, a hard worker, and a capable wizard. Besides that – nothing.
Vox Day, pointing to the post in “The Shortchanging of House Hufflepuff”, extended the critique —
I could never figure out what Hermione was doing in Gryffindor when she was an obvious Ravensclaw. I mean, being intelligent and studious to the point of being annoying about it was the primary aspect of her personality.
(5) SORT YOURSELF. Moviepilot reports “Harry Potter Fans Are Officially Being Sorted Into Hogwarts Houses & They’re Not Happy About It!”
For now though, it seems that J.K. wants to take us back to basics. Over the weekend an official Sorting Hat quiz went live on Pottermore — and unlike the numerous ones you’ve probably taken over the years, this is the real deal because it was developed by the author herself.
Which #Hogwarts house are you in? Be sorted and have a wand choose you, now on #Pottermore: https://t.co/9WQlPBk4lg pic.twitter.com/5bMAjywjLL
— Wizarding World (@wizardingworld) January 28, 2016
The quiz determines whether you’re in Gryffindor, Slytherin, Hufflepuff, or Ravenclaw by asking you a series of personality questions and by placing you in a number of unique scenarios.
….Naturally, most Potter fans jumped at the chance to try out this new sorting utility — yet instead of uncontrollable excitement, many were overcome with a deep sense of despair. Indeed, when the quiz dropped, the Internet became awash with staunch criticism. Why? Well, because most people were mad they didn’t get into the house they felt they deserved to be in.
(6) A SECOND OPINION. Or if you think it’s too much bother to register at Pottermore, you can always take this quickie quiz at Moviepilot — “The Ultimate Harry Potter Sorting Quiz Will Prove Which Hogwarts House You Belong In”.
“There’s nothing hidden in your head the Sorting Hat can’t see, so try me on and I will tell you where you ought to be!”
I took it and was identified as a Gryffindor. See what a reliable quiz this is?
(7) GERSON OBIT. Scriptwriter Daniel Gerson died February 6, age 49, of brain cancer. Genre credits include Monsters, Inc., Monsters University, and Big Hero 6.
(8) COOPER OBIT. Henry S.F. Cooper Jr., the author of eight books and a writer for The New Yorker, died January 31 at the age of 82.
Mr. Cooper celebrated scientific achievement, addressed scientific failure and demystified what was behind both.
Reviewing his book “Apollo on the Moon” in 1969 in The New York Times, Franklin A. Long, who was the vice president for research at Cornell University, said that Mr. Cooper’s description of an imminent mission to the moon was “remarkably evocative” and that a reader “gets the feel of what it is like to be a crew member in the lunar module.”
Mr. Cooper began his book “Thirteen: The Apollo Flight That Failed” this way: “At a little after 9 Central Standard Time on the night of Monday, April 13, 1970, there was, high in the western sky, a tiny flare of light that in some respects resembled a star exploding far away in our galaxy.”
The flare was caused by a cloud of frozen oxygen — a “tank failure,” as NASA engineers delicately described it — that would cripple the service module and jeopardize the crew’s return to Earth. The story was told in the 1995 film “Apollo 13,” starring Tom Hanks.
Brian Troutwine, in The Huffington Post, called Mr. Cooper’s book “one of the best technical explanations of a catastrophic failure and its resolution ever written.”
He was a descendant of famed author James Fenimore Cooper.
(9) TODAY’S BIRTHDAY BOY
- Born February 9, 1928 – Frank Frazetta
(10) VISIT OTHER WORLDS. NASA has issued a new series of space tourism posters.
Each new poster mixes a bit of that reality with an optimistic take on what exploring our solar system might actually look like someday. The poster for Venus calls for visitors to come see the “Cloud 9 Observatory,” which isn’t far off from an idea that’s been thrown around at NASA. The poster for Europa advertises the ability to see underwater life — something that doesn’t feel so far-fetched considering the moon is home to a global subsurface ocean.
(11) RABID PUPPIES. Vox Day has advanced to Rabid Puppies 2016: Best Editor (short-form), and in this category has only one name for his slate, Jerry Pournelle, editor of There Will Be War, Vol. X.
(12) NUMEROUS SUGGESTIONS. George R.R. Martin gave his recommendations for Short Form in “A Rocket For The Editor, Part Two”. He covers quite a few names. Martin also emphasizes that he feels there is an equivalency between last year’s slate makers and advocates for No Award in the Best Editor (Short Form) category.
All that being said… the slates, by whatever means, did throw up some legitimate Hugo-worthy nominees in this category last year, though not as many as in Long Form. One of those stood well above the others, IMNSHO. The Hugo really should have gone to MIKE RESNICK. Resnick has a long and distinguished career as an anthologist, one stretching back decades, and while he has plenty of rockets on his mantle at home, and even more crashed upside down rockets on the shirts he wears at worldcon, he had never been recognized for his work as an editor before. In addition, Resnick had founded a new SF magazine, GALAXY’S EDGE; in an age when the older magazines are struggling just to keep going, starting up a new one is a bold act (maybe a little insane) that deserves applause. But even more than that, Resnick has been a mentor to generations of new young writers, featuring them in his anthologies and now his magazine, advising them, nurturing them, teaching them, even collaborating with them. His “writer babies,” I have heard them called. In a way, Resnick is a one-man Clarion. Finding and nurturing new talent is one of an editor’s most important tasks, and Resnick has been doing it, and doing it well, for decades.
He got my Hugo vote. He got a lot of other Hugo votes as well. But not enough to win. As with Long Form, this category went to No Award. The work that the Sad and Rabid Puppies began to wreck this Hugo category was completed by Steve Davidson of AMAZING, Deirdre Saoirse Moan, and the rest of the Nuclear Fans. Resnick was never part of the slates, fwiw. He took no part in the Puppy Wars on either side, preferring to stay above the fray. And he did deserve a Hugo. But guilt by association prevailed, and he was voted down with the rest. A real pity.
Now there are Nuclear Fans, to go along with the other names people get called? And, in the circumstances, a very unfortunate misspelling of Moen’s name?
(13) SHATNER ON NIMOY. Jen Chaney reviews Leonard: My Fifty-Year Friendship With A Remarkable Man by William Shatner (with David Fisher) in the Washington Post.
A few years before Leonard Nimoy died last February at age 83, he stopped speaking to William Shatner, his close friend since their many “Star Trek” adventures. As he explains in “Leonard,” his new book about that relationship, Shatner still isn’t sure what caused Nimoy to freeze out his Starship Enterprise other half. “It remains a mystery to me, and it is heartbreaking, heartbreaking,” Shatner writes. “It is something I will wonder about, and regret, forever.”
That revelation, both personal and laden with questions, is very much in keeping with the overall tone of Shatner’s book. At times, the actor recounts his connection to Nimoy with great candor and reverence, particularly when he discusses how that bond solidified after the death of Shatner’s third wife, Nerine Kidd, who drowned in the couple’s pool in 1999. But readers may wish they got a little more fly-on-the-wall perspective on the lengthy friendship born in a place where few are: on the set of an iconic sci-fi TV series. As Shatner says at one point, “When I think about Leonard, my memories are emotional more than specific.” His memories often read that way, too.
(14) TREK PARODY ON STAGE. Boldly Go!, a musical parody based upon Star Trek, opens February 26 at Caltech Theater in Pasadena, CA.
Boldly Go! follows the intrepid crew of the Starship Enterprise, along with some new characters, on an exciting and hilarious adventure.
Assumptions will be confronted, paradigms challenged, alliances tested, and new contacts made – whether for good or ill as yet to be seen. And it’s all set to a side-splitting tour de force of musical mayhem!
While having fun with the sometimes farcical aspects of science fiction and parodying Star Trek, this new show also satirizes the musical theater genre. Boldly Go! is written by brothers Cole Remmen (University of Minnesota Theatre Arts Senior) and Grant Remmen (Caltech theoretical physics graduate student). The Caltech world premiere, featuring a talented cast from the Caltech and Jet Propulsion Lab communities, is being directed by Theater Arts Caltech director Brian Brophy (Star Trek TNG; Shawshank Redemption; PhD Comics 2).
A series of short videos about the production can be viewed at the site.
(15) HARRYHAUSEN CAMEO. John King Tarpinian enthused about Burke & Hare —
Watched this Simon Pegg movie yesterday. Even in period costume most of the actors were recognizable…except one who looked very familiar but I could not put my finger on who he was. The ending credits identified him as Ray Harryhausen…a pleasant surprise.
Harryhausen can be seen in the closing credits at 1:03.
[Thanks to Brian Z., John King Tarpinian, Chip Hitchcock, Michael J. Walsh and Andrew Porter for some of these stories. Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day Steve Wright.]
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
@Barry Deutsch:
Have you read The Oven by Sophie Goldstein? Great striking, expressive artwork and an understated story about adapting (or not) to life in a counterculture community.
@Karl-Yohan Noren I wanted to send a signal to the nominees, then and future, that I rejected any slates utterly, and associating with them is toxic.
This. NA has been used this way in the past and even after EPH passes I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s used again in the future.
I understand GRRM and others feeling differently. But I think name-calling is unnecessary. We’ve asked the puppies to stop. We shouldn’t be doing it among our disorganized selves. Not if your one of the ones calling for a stop in name calling.
Mike Resnick could have stated as others did that he didn’t want to be on the slate. It’s not like he hasn’t been vocal in his opinions in the past. Stayed above it all is weak sauce IMHO. I’m afraid his behavior in the SFWA bulletin of doubling down did him no favors in my eyes. Doing good doesn’t wipe out harm you’ve done. Sorry Laura it must be difficult to have your dad discussed like this. 🙁
Again No one deserves a Hugo. No one.
@Greg Hullender – nor me.
GRRM and I exchanged a few comments when he first came out against the “nuclear option”, which was, in my opinion, a mis-characterization of the tactic I was advocating (which was – read everything, then vote, either not including items on the slates or placing them below No Award. The nuclear option was originally presented as voting No Award across the board.
Demonstrably (I’ll find my ballot), this was not what I did. I read everything in the packet, added my prior familiarity with various and then voted. In those categories that were completely filled with slated works, I voted NO Award and only No Award. The slated works did not belong on the ballot – because they were slated. The slated works denied other, legitimate entrants, as was acknowledged by GRRMs on Alfie awards.
In those categories that were mixed, I voted for the non-slated works as I saw fit, then included NO Award as the last vote. (And yes, I even did that for BDLF)
It was very clear during the run up to the voting that those people who protested their inclusion on the slates were given due deference and consideration; and very clear that the people voted according to their wishes (disregarding some items on the final ballot because the originator had made that request).
In the absence of any commentary to the contrary, one had to make the assumption that anyone remaining on the slates without protest was, at the very least, willing to accept the votes they got from organized campaigning, if not happy to get the extra attention.
I tried to be as clear as I could that the tactic I advocated had nothing to do with individuals and was a protest vote against slates and campaigning. Voting GotG off my final ballot is a clear demonstration of that in action. I wanted GotG to win. I had no way of knowing if it would. I did not vote for it “even though the slate inclusion probably didn’t affect anything”. Gunn could have asked for it to be removed from the slate as well (he was asked to – no response) and therefore – no wishy-washy here – it was subject to the same decision making process as everyone else “deserving” of a Hugo who was on a slate.
You don’t get to benefit from being part of a community and then expect to continue to benefit when your actions (or in-actions) run counter to the sensibilities of that community.
The vote was not about the individuals. It was about the process.
@Hampus & Mark
Have a look at his Worldcon: Winning and Losing post from last August. Search for “nuclear”. It’s clear that that’s what he means; people who advocated “no award across the board.”
If that wasn’t what Steve and/or Deirdre actually advocated, then I’d guess he has them confused with someone else.
If that wasn’t what Steve and/or Deirdre actually advocated, then I’d guess he has them confused with someone else.
I don’t think there was anyone of any prominence who actually advocated for that.
Red Wombat:
Come to think of it, I think I would prefer Ravenpuff.
RedWombat
Thank you for that; it has cheered up an otherwise rather dismal day.
http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2015/05/final-hugo-ballot/
There were four different No Award positions.
There was the one I call nuclear: No Award any category where there are any slate nominees.
There was the one that George RR Martin calls nuclear: Place all nominees that were on a slate below No Award.
There was the one that George RR Martin himself adopted: Place works or people undeserving of the Hugo below No Award.
There was the one that some Rabid Puppies adopted: Place any work not on a slate below No Award.
(and there was the position of at most Puppies, particularly the Sad type, which was that No Award is an abuse of the process and no-one should ever use it).
Though some zombies have gone quite a long way on raw brains.
@Greg – except that he (deliberately, intentionally?) conflated what I was suggesting with the nuclear option in those comment exchanges I mentioned, and the current post seems to suggest that we should have all happily ignored the slates and voted for whatever.
@Aaron
Martin obviously thought otherwise, and he was worried about it all the way to the eve of the announcements. He had more than one post about it. Search these for “nuclear” and you’ll see.
http://grrm.livejournal.com/?skip=10&tag=hugo%20awards
@Richard Gadsden
As to the first kind of No Award, of any category touched by a slate, it seems to be much like the Great Seeekrit Tor Cabal: often heard of, but little seen.
@Mark:
Can you link to where he said that?
@Greg
Sorry, you are quite correct, it does seem like GRRM believes there was a position like that. I was going on how he’d described it in his latest post. I’m now very confused as to why he’s associating people with it who clearly didn’t advocate for it. As Aaron says, I didn’t see any credible calls for “NA everything” so I wonder where GRRM got it from.
To take another example, this is what I wrote back in April last year, just to show my reasoning at the time:
Thoughts on the Hugos and the Puppies
GRRM’s piece is trying so much to be even-handed and above the fray that it misses the entire moral part of the conflict. And yes, he directly points out Steve Davidson and Deirdre Saoirse Moan (sic!) as people who denied Resnick a Hugo:
Resnick may or may not deserve a Hugo. But I can’t call Resnick a “legitimate Hugo-worthy nomineess”, as GRRM does, because he got onto the ballot using illegitimate means. Doesn’t matter if he knew, or if he condoned, or what he thought about the Puppies.
And if Resnick deserves a Hugo, he deserves to get it against real competition.
@Gadsden – thus providing additional proof that the counter to the puppies was anything but monolithic.
You guys are not reading the man’s plain words. Here are two clear quotes:
Edit: Overlapped Mark’s latest post. Thanks for restoring my faith in humanity. 🙂
Ravenclaw. Expert forensimancer first class and I completely have the student loans to prove it.
Also: 10′, slightly springy, fir wood with a unicorn hair core.
@Vasha
In A Rocket For The Editor, Part Two he says
I edited RSR’s 2016 Editors (Short Form) to reflect the change.
@Vasha-
Thanks for the recommendation! I haven’t read it yet, but I just ordered a copy and I’ll read it sometime this week.
I thought Phil Sandifer proposed No Award to any category with a puppy nominee, didn’t he?
@Vasha
His post in today’s scroll, last substantial paragraph. He says it was his only anthology work in the year, and he only did half of it.
Martin obviously thought otherwise
And he was wrong. I can’t think of any notable blogger, author, or other commentator who advocated voting “No Award” across the board in all categories, which is what Martin is asserting the “Nuclear Fan” option was. Some people advocated voting all slated nominees below “No Award”, but that’s a very different position.
@Mark
He doesn’t actually name any names. I wonder if it was just stuff he got in the mail from his fans.
I feel there’s another Stonehenge joke here.
Personally I am happy to nominate both Martin and Dozois. Let them fight it out over the Moon Door.
Re Potterverse
There doesn’t appear to be any higher education so I choose to think of the houses as defining future careers. Gryffindors go to work that takes courage like aurors. In our world, firefighters, military or police. Ravenclaws go into academia and sciences. Slytherin are for those interested in law and politics. Hufflepuff, in my head canon, go into medicine because kindness is an interest in helping others.
I got Gryffindor in both tests which is funny because I’m a coward.
RedWombat, as a Hufflepuff myself (I sometimes try fool myself I’m a Ravenclaw, but, no, really, if I’m honest with myself I’m a Hufflepuff) I really, really want a Warbadger now….
Scrolleryn, Ravenpixel, Gyiffinscroll and Hufflepixel are the four File 770 Houses, by the way. We’re all just waiting for our visit from the dreaded Traveling Sorting Trousers. I hope I’m in Gryffinpixel. I hear Mike picks all his Contributing Editors from Gryffinpixel.
Ok, how about this:
If your work is on a slate – you will not get my vote.
If you were unaware that you’d been slatened and take action to make it known that it happened without your consent, I’ll consider that to have removed the association.
If you were unaware, become aware and take no action, I will have to assume that you’re ok with the concept of campaigning for Hugo awards and – you will not get my vote.
If you were unaware and came to the party too late to do anything about it, but evidence a disagreement with the concept, I’ll have to apply the preceding, but I’ll feel bad about if after the fact, when I learn of your position. (And I’ll consider it a pass for future years)
Forget No Award. My VOTE will never be given to any work or individual who by action or inaction supports slates or campaigning for a Hugo Award. In the absence of affirmative information to the contrary, I will have to assume that silence is the equivalent of support.
@Richard Gadsden
There was also the NA and leave slated works OFF the ballot
This is what I do. Once I understood how the voting worked I didn’t want any slated works to get any of my votes. I’ve voted this way since SP1.
If I don’t think something is Hugo worthy I leave it off my ballot with my last vote going to NA. Kevin Standlee and I (Malka Esther) had a number of comments back and forth on a couple LiveJournalswith me trying to understand the difference between putting something under NA and leaving it off the ballot. I think I’ve spent some 10-20 hours since SP1 on this one issue alone including arguing with my husband based on the wording.
I think the puppy leaders are as confused as I was about how votes are counted.
I found this LJ particularly helpful
Red Wombat – loved your Potterverse fanfic!
@Tasha Turner
Looks like you got it figured out, though. It took me a while too.
The method I use is essentially the same. If I think a work is exceptional, then I rank it above No Award. If I think the work is unexceptional, but not actually bad, then I rank it below No Award. But if I think the work is genuinely bad–to the degree that I’m surprised it got published at all–then I don’t put it on the ballot at all. Either way, I put No Award on the ballot somewhere, unless all choices are exceptional. (The weird case is where you have some exceptional and some bad works but no ordinary ones. Then you have No Award after the exceptional ones but with nothing under it.)
Just a quick pointer on leaving things off the ballot.
Anything you leave off is considered to occupy (or be tied for) the first blank spot on your ballot.
If No Award is eliminated, and cannot win no matter what, do you care which of the bad works wins? Rank them under no award with the worst in the coveted sixth place position.
Is your position “if you’re going to give one of these a Hugo give them all a Hugo and call it a day”? Put No Award on your ballot and leave the bad works off.
Not that it matters here in the nomination stage, of course, but for future reference.
@Tasha Turner Well, at least I’ve finally understood someone’s argument for the difference between putting things below NA and leaving them off.
I’d always understood it as being whether to vote all the way down to six, or just leave your ballot blank after NA. In which case, there really isn’t any difference, which is why I didn’t understand.
The problem comes if someone tries to do both. As long as you either have NA as the last thing on your ballot, or you number all the way down to six, then you’re fine.
A ballot that goes:
1 Something Great
2 Something Good
3 No Award
4 Something undeserving
5 Something terrible
6 Something that should die in a fire
is fine.
So is:
1 Something Great
2 Something Good
3 No Award
(this implicitly has Something undeserving, Something terrible and Something that should die in a fire tied for fourth)
It’s
1 Something Great
2 Something Good
3 No Award
4 Something that should die in a fire
that is the problem, because you’ve then tied Something undeserving and Something terrible for fifth – behind Something that should die in a fire.
I would advise a much simpler rule-of-thumb: Either have No Award the last thing on your ballot, or put all six possibilities on the ballot.
Or – simpler – anything you leave off your ballot, you’re saying is worse than anything you put on. So if you want to put bad things on your ballot to vote against them, you have to put mediocre things on ahead of them.
@Richard Gadsden: Thanks, that’s a really helpful expansion of what Cat said.
There is a God. I must stalk it.
I have been sorted as a Ravenclaw and my wand is hazel wood with a dragon heartstring core. I had no idea Pottermore had gotten so elaborate.
@Jim Henley – I’ve always thought of it as Gods Talk! A weekly debate show featuring a cross-pantheon panel of deities discussing vital issues of the eon.
@Cat, Wish I’d seen that before I posted my longer, more boring, and no-more-informative version.
No matter how many times I put the hat on I keep getting Hilarious House of Frightenstein.
[ticky]
Consistently Ravenclaw – but RedWombat puts a strong argument for Hufflepuff and badgers are cool (also how cool is Badger in Wind and the Willows – very cool is the answer). Naturally as a Ravenclaw I can only endorse the use of an ‘other’ category in any taxonomic arrangement of human being by personality but would prefer proper psychometric testing using the Big5 personality traits model as a method most supported by research rather than a magical hat.
Also ravens are cool and probably way smarter than badgers and are basically super-smart dinosaurs and hence deserve to be addressed directly using ones best Bob Peck impression.
Presumably the other wizarding schools have different houses. I notice a lack of an Australian school but I’d assume the Hufflepuff analog would have a wombat as a symbol.
Oddly, the symbolic animals for each house is a kitten playing chase with a puppy
I’m having the same problem, and emailed them about it. Haven’t heard back yet.
Gah! After all this work, I am just *itching* to fill out a ballot!
I completely understand the desire to oppose slates. I think they’re poisonous to the idea of an award recognizing quality and books I’d like to read. This is why I think opposing them is a bit of a moral duty. Last year, that was somewhat easy for me, because almost everything slated were things I would No Award (and I thought Edge of Tomorrow was better sci-fi than Guardians, which I also loved).
Now Teddy is trying to mold behavior, by putting things that could beat no-award on his slates. Which leaves me with the dilemma of how to oppose his slates now that he hasn’t presented a slate of feces, but the occasional good thing. Again, I’m motivated by the imperative of not giving the man who publishes book about the “cuckservative betrayal”* what he wants. The worst I’m facing is some Reddit boi “logically, you must be my straw man, nyahnyahnyah!”
I don’t know what the nominating slate will look like, or what the slated creators will end up doing once the finalists are announced. But I like the File, I liked the Martian, and I dislike the idea of doing Teddy’s business. Personally, I’d have nominated a few of the nominees he’s announced already; looks like there may be a few more.
At the end of the day, this is a self-aggrandizing publicity stunt for an awful human being. I’m not going to give Teddy the power of deciding how I nominate. I know that in the end, I haven’t seen a damn thing Teddy or his cronies have produced themselves that I’d ever put above No Award. I feel comfortable that in the end, I can can keep Teddy’s schemes out and still vote for Hugo finalists that won’t disgrace the award.
*It’s a slur that’s crude enough I’ll tell you to look it up, often popular among U.S. white supremacists. I remember reading that OGH dislike a lot of graphic sexual crudity here.
That’s my philosophy.
In many categories, I didn’t care and left it blank below No Award. In categories with exceptional excrement or two chapters five, I went out of my way to rank things below No Award to simply ensure the turdiest turds were dead last. It’s not caring about which one wins if No Award loses; it was very much about making sure something didn’t win.
I got round to trying my PIN, and no dice, even with the name swap etc etc. Also emailed them. I feel sorry for the volunteers on the other end of the email, but presumably they’d like to know sooner rather than later.