Re: Fwd: [SF-LIT] Who Won the Hugos and Why It Matters

I am confused about something and maybe someone can fill me in on what happened.
 
The official Hugo nominees I saw a few months ago were:
 
Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie (Orbit US; Orbit UK)                                                                                                     
The Dark Between the Stars by Kevin J. Anderson (Tor Books)  
The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison (Sarah Monette) (Tor Books)
Skin Game: A Novel of the Dresden Files by Jim Butcher (Roc Books)
Lines of Departure by Marko Kloos (47 North)


And now I see the winner is: The Three Body Problem, Cixin Liu, Ken Liu translator (Tor Books)

But Lines of Departure is not on the ballot.

What happened?



 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Helge Moulding <[email protected]>
To: SF-LIT <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, Aug 28, 2015 11:24 am
Subject: Re: [SF-LIT] Fwd: [SF-LIT] Who Won the Hugos and Why It Matters


Interesting - Thanks for that, Dennis. My 1953 comment wasn't meant
all that
seriously, except in the sense that the way we write in the
genre has changed.
I'm happy to know that there've been updates. Now
we need to maybe add "Best
book published as part of a series," and
"Best finished series." Because the
attempt to recognize Jordan and
Sanderson's efforts surely demonstrated that
we've got a hole to fill.

I have noticed before that I usually much prefer
the nominated works
in years when the convention goes abroad. Canada and the
USA just
don't get out much. ^_^

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Dennis
Fischer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Actually, Helge, there have been
alterations in the Hugos since 1953.
> Initially, there was just a short
fiction category and after several years
> it was expanded to short fiction and
novellas.  Then it was further adjusted
> to include short fiction, novelettes,
and novellas.There have been quite a
> few adjustments over the years.
>
>
One series I found interesting was Richard Lupoff's collections What If.  In
>
them, he discusses who won the Hugo year by year, and then offers up stories
>
he feels should have won the award instead.  In almost no instances do I
>
agree with him (preferring the actual Hugo winners almost always), but the
>
collections have some interesting history and interesting stories in them as
>
well.  (Lupoff, for example, points out that most SF fans were Americans and
>
had limited exposure to what appeared in the British magazines, so those
>
stories were much less likely to become nominated as fewer people actually
>
got to read them).
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> On Thursday, August 27, 2015 12:08
PM, Helge Moulding <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> You have to allow
more than one "No Award" vote. Maybe not all in
> position 1, but even without
bloc voting there hasn't been a single
> year of all the years I've been paying
attention where every nominated
> work actually deserved to be considered (in
my opinion). I like the
> option, even if I've never used it in position 1
before. (I didn't
> vote this year. ^_^ )
>
> I do like the idea of expanding
the short list, and perhaps
> restricting the nominating slate from five to
just half of the short
> list's length.
>
> I also agree with those who've
said the categories themselves need to
> be revamped. It is no longer
1953.
>
> But "block voting to combat block voting "seems a bit unfair. I
mean,
> what else would you do? Would you complain about organized law
>
enforcement opposing organized crime? (I know going afield, here.) It
> just
seems to me that fans reacting en masse against an attempt to
> hijack the
award is not the moral equivalent of attempting to hijack
> the award.
> --
>
Helge
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Barry Haworth
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Replied to Dennis instead of to the group
like I meant to.
>>
>> (Sorry Dennis, you're getting this twice).
>>
>>
Barry
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Barry
Haworth <[email protected]>
>> Date: 27 August 2015 at 13:29
>> Subject:
Re: [SF-LIT] Who Won the Hugos and Why It Matters
>> To: Dennis Fischer
<[email protected]>
>>
>>
>> I was vaguely aware of the Sad Puppy
business earlier this year, but
>> the results in this year's voting are very
disturbing. Not so much
>> because of the puppies, but because of the scorched
earth reaction to
>> them.
>>
>> As I undertand it, the puppies selected a
bunch of works to promote,
>> and had enough numbers to get puppy nominations
exclusively in some
>> categories.  Turns out this isn't hard - the number of
people who
>> actually vote in the Hugos isn't too big (more on this later),
and
>> since nominations are first past the post a couple of hundred people
>>
voting for the same work is enough to get it in, past the unfocussed
>> voting
of others voting for many, many other possible works.
>>
>> Which is a problem
which needs to be fixed, definitely, but so far
>> though somewhat dubious it
is nothing illegal - nothing that any other
>> organised campaign might not do.
It is the reaction that rankles with
>> me.  In the figures I have seen, of the
5,950 people who voted this
>> year, overthan 3,000 - more than half - voted
"no award" in all
>> puppy-only categories.  This implies that the only reason
they were
>> voting at all was to deny awards to people with whom they
disagreed.
>> Frankly, it is very bad for the genre, and for the Hugos, if
the
>> biggest voter turnout of all time is because of one group of people
>>
trying to deny a voice to another group.
>>
>> My 2 cents.
>>
>> What really
surprised me, though, was how few votes are involved.
>> This year's 5,950
seemed on the low side for something as prestigious
>> as the Hugos (and the
fact that it is 5,950 out of 11,300 makes it
>> even worse), but this is a huge
step up on last year's 3,587, which is
>> almost double the 1848 votes in 2013.
I looked up vote counts on the
>> Hugo web site and the numbers I found
were:
>>
>> 2015  5950
>> 2014  3587
>> 2013  1848
>> 2012  1922
>> 2011 
1813
>> 2010  1094
>> 2009  1074
>> 2008  745
>> 2007  471
>> 2006  567
>>
2005  543
>>
>> (Note:  these numbers are either total votes, or else the
number of
>> votes for best novel where no total figure is given.)
>>
>> You
don't have to go back very far to get numbers which are very low
>> indeed. 
Sort of makes the whole business seem very shakey.
>>
>> If the Hugos are to
have any sort of credibility going forward then
>> the voting needs to be
fixed.  First, the nomination process needs to
>> be sorted out to prevent one
faction dominating.  Not sure how, but
>> one way might to be to reduce the
number of nominations per person, or
>> increase the number of nominated works.
At present each person can
>> nominate five works for five total places, which
means a bloc voting
>> for the same five can fill the category.  If every
person could only
>> make one nomination, or if only one nomination was counted
from each
>> person, that would be harder.  Alternatively, if the five
votes
>> counted towards ten nominees that would also make it harder to
>>
dominate a cateogry.
>>
>> Second, I think there shuld be a rule against
"Scorched Earth" voting,
>> such that the votes of anyone who votes more than
one or two "No
>> Award" should be disallowed.  The goal is to pick the best
science
>> fiction after all, not to nuke the people you dislike.
>>
>> About
the only positive thing I can think of out of all this is that
>> it has made
me a lot more aware of the process by which the Hugos are
>> selected.  One
thing which I will do is see about voting myself next
>> year - I'll never get
to Worldcon (wrong side of the Pacific, dammit),
>> but a voting membership
isn't very expensive.
>>
>> I expect that next year's awards will be
interesting.
>>
>> Finishing on a more immediate note, did anyone here vote in
this
>> year's Hugos, or attend Worldcon?
>>
>> Barry
>>
>> I am a
Statistician. One false move and you're a Statistic.
>>
>>
>> Who Won Science
Fiction’s Hugo Awards, and Why It Matters
>> Click to Open Overlay
GalleryGuests fill the auditorium at the Hugo
>> Awards in Spokane, Washington,
August 22, 2015. Holly Andres for WIRED
>>
>>
>> --
>> I am a Statistician. 
One False move and you're a Statistic.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Helge
>



--

Helge