Hugo nominees for 2014 (shortlist @ post 156 on page 8)

[Datepalm]

I'm baffled - and irritated - by Grant's popularity precisely because it would seem to run counter to the stereotypes about the Hugo voters - grouchy, old, get-off-my-lawn men pining for a neverexistent golden age of hard SF where men where real men and orbital mechanics were real orbital mechanics. But the most ridiculously over-represented recent author at the hugo is one who writes humorous urban fantasies and books about zombies and blogging. And yet, the voting for her seems to be every bit as much a parochial popularity contest as the Hugo is always accused of. Do these old dudes (34 of whom mailed in paper ballots!) love mediocre books about hot girls who save the world? Or is there's some new, LJ based audience there, and they've proudly pushed out that reactionary old guard and have naturally turned out to be every bit as lame and inward looking, if not worse? It's not surprising, I suppose, but it is annoying.

[Seli]

Was The Hobbit actually not nominated? That's just....obscene.

The movie? Thank god no.

The book for the retro? It wasn't eligible.

[Darth Richard II]

I meant the book, yeah.

Although I'll be honest, Smaug made me pee a little.

[Seli]

I meant the book, yeah.

Although I'll be honest, Smaug made me pee a little.

The book was sadly published in 1937 (UK) / 1938 (USA). So just a tad too early.

The film had great moments, but I am glad it is not on the list.

[Werthead]

Actually, we were told that The Hobbit was eligible because it was released just before the eligibility period with a tiny print run in the USA and only got a 'proper' release a few months later, when it was eligible. Word was that if enough people voted for it, they'd go for it.

So either that was incorrect, they changed their mind or the novel didn't get enough votes (perhaps because people did think it was ineligible).

Because of The Adjacent's release last month in the US, I believe it's also eligible for next year, not that I expect it to get very far. Priest is better-known and more respected in the UK, so if he couldn't get up there when Worldcon is in the UK he probably won't in the US.

[Maester Llama]

Interesting list -- as these always inevitably are, for the conversation. I haven't read a lot on here and don't agree with a good piece of what I am familiar with, and award lists be crazy, but it makes for an interesting conversation about the field.

Happy to see Ancillary Justice nominated. I ... think I hope it wins [not quite as over the moon about it as some other readers but I still think much of it is tremendously good and its probably my preference on this list, though there are some I still need to get to, maybe, I guess]. Expected a couple more British nominees. Expected Reynolds. Expected Priest -- though the point about The Adjacent not being published in the States until recently makes me realize I shouldn't have. I'm a bad person who hasn't read Priest yet; I know this makes me deficient and will correct it, I've just been slowed by my preference for plot and character and thematic junkfood over "puzzle books" and my reaction to his Clarke Award thing a little while ago. Also yay Orphan Black!

I find it really hard to get bent out of shape about the McGuire / Grant nominations even when they're a little bit baffling to me personally. Maybe this is partly because I am very pro-McGuire in a general sense; I like her work and what little I have seen of the impression she makes on the community, even though I don't find the novels to be award-worthy [except for Feed, which I feel had its nomination coming] and feel like a lot of her sentence-by-sentence writing and general narrative style isn't evolving as she goes on as much as it could. I think, though, that the reason I find it tough to get upset has more to do with where I see the nominations coming from. Basically, so far as I can tell McGuire gets nominated because people really do love her work that much, rather than because she encourages mass voting or anything. Might some of this come from a narrow frame of reference on the part of some voters? Maybe; I have no idea. But it feels like it comes from a place of genuine enthusiasm and belief in the quality of the work and I have a hard time hating on that.

Torn on the WoT nomination. On the one hand it does feel like a bit of an exploit, and -- while I really do love WoT -- I'm not sure any of the novels are individually worthy, and I agree that that maybe should matter. And the space its occupying could have gone to some other very worthy novel thirteen fourteenths of which did not come out years and years ago. On the other hand, it really is a single work, a single narrative, and them is the rules. And it would be too bad if the Hugos never acknowledged WoT at all, even with a nomination. When talking about how none of the individual Wheel of Time books have been nominated so clearly they're not good enough, I think, and I'm not a fandom historian so take this with a grain of salt, its maybe worth taking into account the difficulty secondary world epic fantasy has had getting on the Hugo list. Yeah, there's been one per shortlist the last couple years, so maybe this is changing, but it seems to be a subgenre that still has an uphill battle at the Hugos no matter how good it is. Relic of the award's origin as an sf only prize, maybe?

Dear Hugo voters, the following books cannot appear on this list because you have nominated "The Grimnoir Chronicles," which is the name of a thing that exists. Gaze upon what you have done: The Shining Girls by Lauren Beukes, A Stranger in Olondria by Sofia Samatar, River of Stars by Guy Gavriel Kay, Shattered Pillars by Elizabeth Bear, Two Serpents Rise by Max Gladstone, NOS4A2 by Joe Hill, Sea Change by S. M. Wheeler, American Elsewhere by Robert Jackson Bennett.

Vox Day, Hugo voters? Actually? Ah well. I will try not to hold this against the hivemind in the future.

[Whining] I hope to one day have a financial position secure enough to make quick decisions on buying the original fiction Sub Press publishes that can be gotten nowhere else before all the copies are gone. I wanted Six-Gun Snow White with a deep want. [/whining]

I'm very very happy about the Campbell list. It contains much awesome. Particularly pleased to see Sofia Samatar, Max Gladstone, and Benjanun Sriduangkaew nominated.

[Nearly Headless Ned]

How the fuck did the Vox Day nomination happen? Isn't he some sort of 'pro rape in marriage' advocate?

[Seli]

How the fuck did the Vox Day nomination happen? Isn't he some sort of 'pro rape in marriage' advocate?

Slightly trolling get people out to vote * campaign.

*and punish those liberal lefties who are ignoring us and steal our genre*

[Brendan Moody]

I'm baffled - and irritated - by Grant's popularity precisely because it would seem to run counter to the stereotypes about the Hugo voters - grouchy, old, get-off-my-lawn men pining for a neverexistent golden age of hard SF where men where real men and orbital mechanics were real orbital mechanics. But the most ridiculously over-represented recent author at the hugo is one who writes humorous urban fantasies and books about zombies and blogging. And yet, the voting for her seems to be every bit as much a parochial popularity contest as the Hugo is always accused of. Do these old dudes (34 of whom mailed in paper ballots!) love mediocre books about hot girls who save the world? Or is there's some new, LJ based audience there, and they've proudly pushed out that reactionary old guard and have naturally turned out to be every bit as lame and inward looking, if not worse? It's not surprising, I suppose, but it is annoying.

I'm not sure it's really a new audience anymore: there have been nominees that reflect a different niche with fandom for several years now. It's certainly not a graying, conservative hard-SF audience that's been nominating Neil Gaiman, John Scalzi, China Mieville, and Doctor Who whenever possible. Back when I was new to Hugo-watching, I felt like there was a gap between people who nominated members of their in-group and people who looked for quality fiction; now I feel it's more of a gap between different in-groups that are shaped in part by their general aesthetic sensibilities. And, as we've been reminded this year, in part by their politics. But I don't even want to get into that at the moment.

[David Selig]

It's a shame that they only release the data of the number of votes after the awards are presented, 3 months from now. Why not release it now? At least the numbers of the ones which didn't make the cut, 6-10th place works are usually more interesting to me anyway.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Nearly Headless Ned,

At its root, it's a few different things:
1. There are almost always (or always) fewer nominators than there are voters. This means that each nominator has a big influence on who makes the shortlist.
2. The novelette category had fewer valid ballots than any other fiction category. Each nominator can therefore have even more of an effect. (Novelette had fewer than half the number of nominators of Novel, for example.)
3. A large proportion of the nominators this time around are fans of Correia, VD, or the respective works chosen.

Now, as I said before, I get the sense that this is a little hinky. More "vote for X, Y, and Z" or "here's what I'm choosing, and if you happen to agree... (broad wink)" than just "have your voice heard and nominate the best items you've read/watched!"

However, I've seen a number of good points raised over the past day or so. It's an increase in involvement in the process, and may spur further involvement as a reaction. It's an influx of funds to Loncon that they otherwise might not have received. Unless there's some actual evidence of vote-buying of which I'm not aware, there's no reason to say that any of the nominees shouldn't be there. And there's always "no award", if people choose to vote that way after reading the works. (Or leaving it off entirely, if they object to reading one or more of them.)



David,

I think it's down to the wording of the rules. "The complete numerical vote totals, including all preliminary tallies for first, second, … places, shall be made public by the Worldcon Committee within ninety (90) days after the Worldcon." While in ordinary speech I'd say that could be read as "any time (from the announcement of the final ballot) up to, but no later than, 90 days after the Worldcon", I think in strict interpretation it means "any time from 1 to 90 days after the final day of the convention." Or possibly up to 90 days after the Hugo ceremony itself, actually -- I seem to recall reading that the breakdown was posted at the Loser's Party last year. Other than that, it's not as though they wouldn't already have the data.

[Werthead]

Thomas Wagner's take is quite interesting, drawing comparisons with the OSC situation and Rossgate.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I also liked this post, which pointed out that it could have taken somewhere under 50 nominations to make the ballot. That's really just a blip. One percent of total members. It's indicative of nothing per se except a very small nominating pool.

Edited: I love the tag on that VD quote. "<racist nonsense>" -- VD, asshole.

[mormont]

It's a shame that they only release the data of the number of votes after the awards are presented, 3 months from now. Why not release it now? At least the numbers of the ones which didn't make the cut, 6-10th place works are usually more interesting to me anyway.

It would be quite messy revealing that sort of data prior to the awards, IMHO. You'd risk a lot of the discussion around the awards being framed as '(6th place novel) was robbed' instead of 'which of these works is best?' Worse, you'd risk influencing the vote if you could see which of the actual nominees was first and which last.

[Darth Richard II]

Maybe it's a trap, VD shows up and they put him in a rocket and send him to Venus.

[beniowa]

2014 Hugos:

BEST NOVEL (1595 ballots)

• Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie (Orbit US / Orbit UK)
  
• Neptune's Brood by Charles Stross (Ace / Orbit UK)
  
• Parasite by Mira Grant (Orbit US / Orbit UK)
  
• Warbound, Book III of the Grimnoir Chronicles by Larry Correia (Baen Books)
  
• The Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson (Tor Books)
  

BEST NOVELLA (847 ballots)

• The Butcher of Khardov by Dan Wells (Privateer Press)
  
• “The Chaplain's Legacy” by Brad Torgersen (Analog, Jul-Aug 2013)
  
• “Equoid” by Charles Stross (Tor.com, 09-2013)
  
• Six-Gun Snow White by Catherynne M. Valente (Subterranean Press)
  
• “Wakulla Springs” by Andy Duncan and Ellen Klages (Tor.com, 10-2013)
  

BEST NOVELETTE (728 ballots)

• “The Exchange Officers” by Brad Torgersen (Analog, Jan-Feb 2013)
  
• “The Lady Astronaut of Mars” by Mary Robinette Kowal (maryrobinettekowal.com / Tor.com, 09-2013)
  
• “Opera Vita Aeterna” by Vox Day (The Last Witchking, Marcher Lord Hinterlands)
  
• “The Truth of Fact, the Truth of Feeling” by Ted Chiang (Subterranean, Fall 2013)
  
• “The Waiting Stars” by Aliette de Bodard (The Other Half of the Sky, Candlemark & Gleam)
  

BEST SHORT STORY (865 ballots)

• “If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love” by Rachel Swirsky (Apex Magazine, Mar-2013)
  
• “The Ink Readers of Doi Saket” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Tor.com, 04-2013)
  
• “Selkie Stories Are for Losers” by Sofia Samatar (Strange Horizons, Jan-2013)
  
• “The Water That Falls on You from Nowhere” by John Chu (Tor.com, 02-2013)
  

Note: category has 4 nominees due to a 5% requirement under Section 3.8.5 of the WSFS constitution.

BEST RELATED WORK (752 ballots)

• Queers Dig Time Lords: A Celebration of Doctor Who by the LGBTQ Fans Who Love It Edited by Sigrid Ellis & Michael Damian Thomas (Mad Norwegian Press)
  
• Speculative Fiction 2012: The Best Online Reviews, Essays and Commentary by Justin Landon & Jared Shurin (Jurassic London)
  
• “We Have Always Fought: Challenging the Women, Cattle and Slaves Narrative” by Kameron Hurley (A Dribble of Ink)
  
• Wonderbook: The Illustrated Guide to Creating Imaginative Fiction by Jeff VanderMeer, with Jeremy Zerfoss (Abrams Image)
  
• Writing Excuses Season 8 by Brandon Sanderson, Dan Wells, Mary Robinette Kowal, Howard Tayler, and Jordan Sanderson
  

BEST GRAPHIC STORY (552 ballots)

• Girl Genius, Volume 13: Agatha Heterodyne & The Sleeping City written by Phil and Kaja Foglio; art by Phil Foglio; colors by Cheyenne Wright (Airship Entertainment)
  
• "The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who" written by Paul Cornell, illustrated by Jimmy Broxton (Doctor Who Special 2013, IDW)
  
• The Meathouse Man adapted from the story by George R.R. Martin and illustrated by Raya Golden (Jet City Comics)
  
• Saga, Volume 2 written by Brian K. Vaughan, illustrated by Fiona Staples (Image Comics )
  
• “Time” by Randall Munroe (XKCD)
  

BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION (LONG FORM) (995 ballots)

• Frozen screenplay by Jennifer Lee, directed by Chris Buck & Jennifer Lee (Walt Disney Studios)
  
• Gravity written by Alfonso Cuarón & Jonás Cuarón, directed by Alfonso Cuarón (Esperanto Filmoj; Heyday Films; Warner Bros.)
  
• The Hunger Games: Catching Fire screenplay by Simon Beaufoy & Michael Arndt, directed by Francis Lawrence (Color Force; Lionsgate)
  
• Iron Man 3 screenplay by Drew Pearce & Shane Black, directed by Shane Black (Marvel Studios; DMG Entertainment; Paramount Pictures)
  
• Pacific Rim screenplay by Travis Beacham & Guillermo del Toro, directed by Guillermo del Toro (Legendary Pictures, Warner Bros., Disney Double Dare You)
  

BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION (SHORT FORM) (760 ballots)

• An Adventure in Space and Time written by Mark Gatiss, directed by Terry McDonough (BBC Television)
  
• Doctor Who: “The Day of the Doctor” written by Steven Moffat, directed by Nick Hurran (BBC Television)
  
• Doctor Who: “The Name of the Doctor” written by Steven Moffat, directed by Saul Metzstein (BBC Televison)
  
• The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot written & directed by Peter Davison (BBC Television)
  
• Game of Thrones: “The Rains of Castamere” written by David Benioff & D.B. Weiss, directed by David Nutter (HBO Entertainment in association with Bighead, Littlehead; Television 360; Startling Television and Generator Productions)
  
• Orphan Black: “Variations under Domestication” written by Will Pascoe, directed by John Fawcett (Temple Street Productions; Space / BBC America)
  

Note: category has 6 nominees due to a tie for 5th place.

BEST EDITOR - SHORT FORM (656 ballots)

• John Joseph Adams
  
• Neil Clarke
  
• Ellen Datlow
  
• Jonathan Strahan
  
• Sheila Williams
  

BEST EDITOR - LONG FORM (632 ballots)

• Ginjer Buchanan
  
• Sheila Gilbert
  
• Liz Gorinsky
  
• Lee Harris
  
• Toni Weisskopf
  

BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST (624 ballots)

• Galen Dara
  
• Julie Dillon
  
• Daniel Dos Santos
  
• John Harris
  
• John Picacio
  
• Fiona Staples
  

Note: category has 6 nominees due to a tie for 5th place.

BEST SEMIPROZINE (411 ballots)

• Apex Magazine edited by Lynne M. Thomas, Jason Sizemore, and Michael Damian Thomas
  
• Beneath Ceaseless Skies edited by Scott H. Andrews
  
• Interzone edited by Andy Cox
  
• Lightspeed Magazine edited by John Joseph Adams, Rich Horton, and Stefan Rudnicki
  
• Strange Horizons edited by Niall Harrison, Brit Mandelo, An Owomoyela, Julia Rios, Sonya Taaffe, Abigail Nussbaum, Rebecca Cross, Anaea Lay, and Shane Gavin
  

BEST FANZINE (478 ballots)

• The Book Smugglers edited by Ana Grilo and Thea James
  
• A Dribble of Ink edited by Aidan Moher
  
• Elitist Book Reviews edited by Steven Diamond
  
• Journey Planet edited by James Bacon, Christopher J. Garcia, Lynda E. Rucker, Pete Young, Colin Harris, and Helen J. Montgomery
  
• Pornokitsch edited by Anne C. Perry and Jared Shurin
  

BEST FANCAST (396 ballots)

• The Coode Street Podcast Jonathan Strahan and Gary K. Wolfe
  
• Galactic Suburbia Podcast Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, Tansy Rayner Roberts (Presenters) and Andrew Finch (Producer)
  
• SF Signal Podcast Patrick Hester
  
• The Skiffy and Fanty Show Shaun Duke, Jen Zink, Julia Rios, Paul Weimer, David Annandale, Mike Underwood, and Stina Leicht
  
• Tea and Jeopardy Emma Newman
  
• Verity! Deborah Stanish, Erika Ensign, Katrina Griffiths, L.M. Myles, Lynne M. Thomas, and Tansy Rayner Roberts
  
• The Writer and the Critic Kirstyn McDermott and Ian Mond
  

Note: category has 7 nominees due to a tie for 5th place.

BEST FAN WRITER (521 ballots)

• Liz Bourke
  
• Kameron Hurley
  
• Foz Meadows
  
• Abigail Nussbaum
  
• Mark Oshiro
  

BEST FAN ARTIST (316 ballots)

• Brad W. Foster
  
• Mandie Manzano
  
• Spring Schoenhuth
  
• Steve Stiles
  
• Sarah Webb
  

JOHN W. CAMPBELL AWARD FOR BEST NEW WRITER (767 ballots)

Award for the best new professional science fiction or fantasy writer of 2012 or 2013, sponsored by Dell Magazines (not a Hugo Award).

• Wesley Chu
  
• Max Gladstone *
  
• Ramez Naam *
  
• Sofia Samatar *
  
• Benjanun Sriduangkaew
  

*Finalists in their 2nd year of eligibility.

1939 Retro Hugos:

BEST NOVEL (208 ballots)

• Carson of Venus by Edgar Rice Burroughs (Argosy, February 1938)
  
• Galactic Patrol by E. E. Smith (Astounding Stories, February 1938)
  
• The Legion of Time by Jack Williamson (Astounding Science-Fiction, July 1938)
  
• Out of the Silent Planet by C. S. Lewis (The Bodley Head)
  
• The Sword in the Stone by T. H. White (Collins)
  

BEST NOVELLA (125 ballots)

• Anthem by Ayn Rand (Cassell)
  
• “A Matter of Form” by H. L. Gold (Astounding Science-Fiction, December 1938)
  
• “Sleepers of Mars” by John Beynon [John Wyndham] (Tales of Wonder, March 1938)
  
• “The Time Trap” by Henry Kuttner (Marvel Science Stories, November 1938)
  
• “Who Goes There?” by Don A Stuart [John W. Campbell] (Astounding Science-Fiction, August 1938)
  

BEST NOVELETTE (80 ballots)

• “Dead Knowledge” by Don A. Stuart [John W. Campbell] (Astounding Stories, January 1938)
  
• “Hollywood on the Moon” by Henry Kuttner (Thrilling Wonder Stories, April 1938)
  
• “Pigeons From Hell” by Robert E. Howard (Weird Tales, May 1938)
  
• “Rule 18” by Clifford D. Simak (Astounding Science-Fiction, July 1938)
  
• “Werewoman” by C. L. Moore (Leaves #2, Winter 1938)
  

BEST SHORT STORY (108 ballots)

• “The Faithful” by Lester del Rey (Astounding Science-Fiction, April 1938)
  
• “Helen O’Loy” by Lester del Rey (Astounding Science-Fiction, December 1938)
  
• “Hollerbochen’s Dilemma” by Ray Bradbury (Imagination!, January 1938)
  
• “How We Went to Mars” by Arthur C. Clarke (Amateur Science Stories, March 1938)
  
• “Hyperpilosity” by L. Sprague de Camp (Astounding Science-Fiction, April 1938)
  

BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION (SHORT FORM) (137 ballots)

• Around the World in Eighty Days by Jules Verne. Written & directed by Orson Welles (The Mercury Theater on the Air, CBS)
  
• A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. Written & directed by Orson Welles (The Campbell Playhouse, CBS)
  
• Dracula by Bram Stoker. Written by Orson Welles and John Houseman, directed by Orson Welles (The Mercury Theater on the Air, CBS)
  
• R. U. R. by Karel Čapek. Produced by Jan Bussell (BBC)
  
• The War of the Worlds by H. G. Wells. Written by Howard Koch & Anne Froelick, directed by Orson Welles (The Mercury Theater on the Air, CBS)
  

BEST EDITOR - SHORT FORM (99 ballots)

• John W. Campbell
  
• Walter H. Gillings
  
• Raymond A. Palmer
  
• Mort Weisinger
  
• Farnsworth Wright
  

BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST (86 ballots)

• Margaret Brundage
  
• Virgil Finlay
  
• Frank R. Paul
  
• Alex Schomburg
  
• H. W. Wesso
  

BEST FANZINE (42 ballots)

• Fantascience Digest edited by Robert A. Madle
  
• Fantasy News edited by James V. Taurasi
  
• Imagination! edited by Forrest J Ackerman, Morojo, and T. Bruce Yerke
  
• Novae Terrae edited by Maurice K. Hanson
  
• Tomorrow edited by Douglas W. F. Mayer
  

BEST FAN WRITER (50 ballots)

• Forrest J Ackerman
  
• Ray Bradbury
  
• Arthur Wilson “Bob” Tucker
  
• Harry Warner, Jr.
  
• Donald A. Wollheim
  

[Spockydog]

I'd never heard of this Vox Day character before the nominations were announced. Jeez, what a douche.

I'm trying to reconcile the nomination of this racist, sexist, homophobic asshole with the demonisation of Jonathan Ross.

My mind is boggled.

[Serious Callers Only]

purge the hugo voters

[felice]

I'd never heard of this Vox Day character before the nominations were announced. Jeez, what a douche.

The key thing now is to ensure that the VD supporters' nominations all score below No Award in the actual voting. A relatively small group can push crap through the nomination process, but the significantly larger pool of voters still have a chance to condemn it.

[mormont]

I'd never heard of this Vox Day character before the nominations were announced. Jeez, what a douche.

I'm trying to reconcile the nomination of this racist, sexist, homophobic asshole with the demonisation of Jonathan Ross.

My mind is boggled.

Different situations. The selection of nominated works, unlike the selection of hosts, is a democratic process wholly dependent on getting the vote out. And it is about the work, not the author, at least in theory. (Of course, if the story is a sexist, racist or homophobic screed, that's a whole different problem.)

Ultimately, there's a difference between the organisers doing something and the voters doing it.