Her Story at the Emmys

jenangelica
The Emmy Awards ceremony took place in Hollywood over the weekend. They did two nights, because there are so many awards these days. Some good stuff went down. Game of Thrones won big, of course. Jessica Jones won for its theme music. Ru Paul won Best Reality TV Presenter. But I want to focus on the Short Form Comedy or Drama Series category, for which Her Story was a finalist.

Lots of trans people have been nominated for, and even won, Emmys in the past, most notably Angela Morley. However, I’m pretty sure this is the first time that a show written by and starring trans people, telling the stories of trans people, has been up for the award. They didn’t win, but it is a landmark achievement all the same. All of the other finalists were on major TV channels. Her Story went out on YouTube.

Of course there was a red carpet and, while cisnormative beauty standards are by no means a requirement for trans women, I am that sort of girl who loves a good ballgown. I’ve done a few award ceremonies myself in the past, and I have to say that Angelica Ross and Jen Richards put me totally to shame. Rock on, girls, you are so inspiring.

More Awards for Ujima

commradio
Some very nice people have set up awards for Community Radio. About time, you might say, as we’ve been around for years now, but I know how much work these things are so thanks to the kind people at the Community Radio Awards.

The first ever award ceremony took place in Birmingham over the weekend. Ujima was shortlisted in three categories: Community Development Project (for our work with Bristol’s Green Capital year), Female Presenter of the Year, and the big one, Station of the Year.

And we won two. Congratulations to Miss Prim, and to the team as a whole. The photo above shows two of our directors, Kevin and Roger, plus Miss Prim, collecting the Station of the Year award.

I guess I need some new patter to celebrate that.

By the way, my next show will be on September 21st and is devoted entirely to the first ever Trans Pride South West.

Parsec Award Announcement Coming Soon

The winners of this year’s Parsec Awards will be announced at Dragon*Con this weekend. I’ll be keeping a close eye on the announcement.

As you may know, the Parsecs are given for achievement in speculative fiction podcasting. Salon Futura isn’t up for anything, which doesn’t surprise me as uploads are anything but regular. Besides, you have to submit your podcast in order to be considered, so I’m clearly full of FAIL on that account. However, quite a few people I know are among the finalists.

There are no Clarkesworld stories up in the fiction categories, which may be because Neil didn’t submit any. However, Beneath Ceaseless Skies has a few contenders. Also both Uncanny and Strange Horizons are finalists in the Best Speculative Fiction Magazine or Anthology category. Verity, the all-woman Doctor Who podcast, is a finalist in the Best Speculative Fiction Fan or News Podcast (Specific), which will give Tansy something to crow about after the torrent of awards that have been heaped on Alisa and Alex for Letters to Tiptree.

However, the category that I am most interested in is Best Speculative Fiction Audio Drama (Short Form). That’s because one of the finalists is Ray Gunn and Starburst, written by my good friend ‘Olly Rose. There will be a great deal of celebrating done in Bath if the results go the right way.

Hugos Best Dressed Award, 2016

Back when I was doing Emerald City I started an award for the best dressed person at the Hugos. It is hard doing it when I’m not actually at the ceremony, but being a hopeless fashionista I try to keep up the practice as much as possible. My apologies to all of the people whose fabulous outfits have not got onto teh intrawebs. Next year I will include you all.

I do try to include the guys as well. Sadly far too many of them seem slaves to oppressive Western cultural traditions and turn up in boring suits because that’s the only thing that is socially acceptable. I think they need a liberation movement. I miss having Charlie Stross and Cory Doctorow to liven things up. It’s a shame that Chuck Tingle wasn’t there. I’m sure he would have put on a good show.

Having two women host the ceremony certainly got us off to a good start. Both Pat Cadigan and Jan Siegel looked lovely. Jan dear, I now have serious cleavage envy.

Lynne Thomas always looks lovely at these things, and it is no surprise that someone in the audience yelled out “best dress” when she came on stage. Sadly she’s not a winner this year.

I didn’t see Zoe Quinn’s entire outfit, but she gets an honorable mention for these adorable unicorn shoes.

ZoeQuinnHugos2016
Photo by Lyda Morehouse

There’s an honorable mention also for Michi Trota, who not only gave the best speech of the evening but also had a fabulous necklace.

MichiTrotaHugos2016

Runner up, Hao Jingfang, bravely bucked the ballgown trend and looked positively angelic. Sorry about the poor picture quality, it was the best I could find.

HaoJingfangHugos2016

However, the winner was called by Pat from the stage, and who am I, a mere mortal, to contradict her word? Besides, she’s right (as usual). Therefore, for not only looking utterly gorgeous, but also fitting in perfectly with the artistic theme of the convention, the Emerald City Best Dressed at the Hugos Award goes to Alyssa Wong.

AlyssaWongHugos2016
Photo by John Scalzi

Hugos in the News

One of the effects of the Puppies has been to bring the Hugos to the attention of the mainstream media. A lot of the coverage has, of course, been embarrassing, but now that the Awards are a subject for discussion we are starting to see more serious coverage, and more general interest around the world.

So, for example, I was very pleased to see this coverage of the Awards in a youth-focused news site based in India. Hopefully that is giving young Indian writers dreams of rockets in their future.

Of course Nnedi has a point:

All of the fiction winners this year are really good, and it would be nice to see them get celebrated for that rather than for their dealing yet another defeat to the Puppies.

China at least has got it’s act together and is enthusiastically celebrating a second win. The South China Morning Post majors on the fact that Hao Jingfang beat Stephen King to the trophy, whole The Shanghaiist notes that Hao has two published novels that I hope will now get translated.

Hao, however, is no stranger to mainstream news. Her story was actually cited in The Economist back in July. Another political news site, Quartz, picked up the story after her win.

Newspapers in the Philippines have also taken note of what went down in Kansas City. Here’s The Inquirer celebrating Michi Trota’s win.

Next year, of course, we will get to see what Finnish newspapers make of Worldcon. The Helsinki Sanomat has generally had good coverage of FinnCon so I’m looking forward to seeing what they do for the big show.

WSFS Has Spoken – What Does It Mean?

Over the long weekend the World Science Fiction Society Business Meeting met several times. It was a marathon, much longer than is usual at Worldcon, because there was a lot to discuss. So much so, in fact, that I’m not going to attempt to cover it all in one post. This post, which is quite long enough, will be devoted solely to measures that affect how the Hugo Awards are conducted. The majority of these measures were intended, in some way or another, to combat the efforts of Pox Day and his Rabid Crypuppies.

Of course I was not actually at any of the meetings. However, video of the meetings has been posted online, and I am particularly indebted to Mx. Rachael Acks for their superb live-blogging of the meetings.

I want to start with the theory that the Puppy Problem will go away because they will get bored of pumping their money into voting when it is clear that they can’t actually game the final ballot and will those always end up getting thumped with a No Award. Pox may think that by putting people like Neil Gaiman on his slate that he can claim to have “won” because so many other people love Neil’s work too, but Neil has made it very clear that he dislikes the Puppy project just as much as anyone else.

An analysis on the Chaos Horizon website makes the claim that the Puppies are already running out of steam because Pox got 437 nominations for Editor: Long Form in the first round of voting, but only 165 first preference votes. They attribute this to large numbers of Puppies having participated in the nominating stage on the strength of the two-year eligibility rule for that part of the voting, but being unwilling to splash an additional $50 on a supporting membership of MidAmeriCon II to be able to vote on the final ballot.

This analysis is somewhat flawed because the voting methods are different. You get five equally weighted votes in the nominations, but have to rank them in the final ballot. There’s no guarantee that every Puppy voter will have put their Glorious Leader in first place when other Puppy Picks are available. Pox was eliminated fairly quickly in Editor: Long Form, so we can’t gauge the level of support he had in preferences. However, in Fanzine, where far fewer people cast ballots, the Castalia House Blog ended up with 298 votes in the final round of redistribution.

Still, 298 is a lot fewer than 437, and I’m not entirely surprised that some of the Puppy supporters have given up. Pox may be able to convince himself that he’s winning, but his fans will be a lot less invested in his infallibility. As the Puppies will have to pony up cash again to nominate next year, we may see rather fewer of them.

I want now to look at a couple of measures that were not specifically aimed at the Puppies, but which are relevant to the way in which the votes are counted and which will feed into the discussion later. Both are measures which received first passage at Sasquan last year and were ratified this year, so they will be in operation in Helsinki.

The first measure removes the requirement for finalists to have at least 5% of the vote. This is the rule that resulted in us having fewer than 5 finalists in Short Story for several years because the nominations were so diverse. One of the arguments for keeping it was that we may end up with lots of finalists because of a big tie for 5th place. That now may not happen, for reasons I shall explain later.

The other measure is the so-called Nominee Diversity motion, which is specifically aimed at the Dramatic Presentation: Short Form category. Basically it means that if there are lots of Doctor Who episodes on the final ballot, they must all be written by different people (or possibly not — see updates below). The salient point here is that WSFS members have got fed up of having a category for TV episodes in which almost every finalist comes from the same show (that’s definitely right). This too has relevance for later discussion.

The first set of specifically anti-Puppy measures to be discussed were those intended to limit participation in the voting pool. Currently you can participate in the nominating stage if you have a membership in the current Worldcon, the previous one, or the next one. There were motions to cut this down to just the current and previous years, and to the current year only. The former was passed (and requires ratification next year), the latter was not.

I’ve been a bit concerned about these motions because I don’t like the idea of us retreating into elitism as an anti-Puppy measure. We should be encouraging participation, not discouraging it. Having seen the debate, I think we did the right thing.

The right to nominate if you are a member of the following year’s Worldcon is a relatively new thing, and it is now opposed by experienced Hugo Administrators who cite problems with the system. There’s no doubt who is a member of the previous year’s Worldcon. No one is going to be joining it after it has happened. Next year’s convention, on the other hand, has a growing membership, and that leads to a requirement to coordinate closely with that event to ensure that everyone who has a right to vote can do so.

That would be OK if it meant that lots of new people were getting to vote, but most of the people who join a Worldcon more than a year in advance are WSFS regulars who join every year. We were told that including next year’s members resulted in the franchise being extended to very few additional people, and it wasn’t worth the effort.

Restricting nominating rights to just the current year is a different matter. From the debate that was very clearly an attempt to make it more expensive to vote. Also, as Lisa Hayes cogently pointed out, many people join Worldcon the current too late to participate in the nominations stage, or even the final ballot. The two year system gives those people a stake in the Hugos, which is a Good Thing.

Well done, Business Meeting, in both of those cases. We seem to have got it right.

Now we get to the serious changes in the voting mechanism. First up was a new proposal, Three Stage Voting (3SV), which I discussed before the convention. At the time most of the negative points I had seen made were about the additional load placed on the Hugo Administrators, which I addressed. At the Business Meeting three new groups of objections emerged.

The first was that the proposed calendar simply didn’t allow enough time for everyone to read and judge 15 semi-finalists in each category. That’s a fair point, and I’d like to see if any adjustments could be made to give people more time. However, it is also true that no one has enough time to read every eligible work before the nominations stage, and yet we still have it, so I’m not sure that this objection holds water.

Some people were also concerned that 3SV could be used by the Puppies to kick deserving finalists off the ballot. I’m not worried about this. The threshold to remove a potential finalist is quite high, and the Puppies have proved twice now that they just don’t have the numbers to game anything other than the nominations.

The final objection was that 3SV is purely a negative proposal designed to kick Puppy Picks off the final ballot. Effectively it is a proposal to move the process of No Awarding forward in time so that we end up with 5 finalists in each category, each of which people are happy do not need to be thumped with a No Award.

No one (expect possibly Pox and his cult followers) particularly likes how contentious the Hugos have become. But using No Award is a wholly negative action and we have been doing that a lot lately. 3SV doesn’t make the process more negative, it just moves the negativity to an earlier stage of the process.

At this point I should note that when I first wrote about 3SV I did not fully understand how it was proposed to work. I apologize profusely for this. Kevin has since put me right, but there was no time to go into the detail before the convention as a complicated amendment would have been required.

I thought that in stage 2 of 3SV we’d be allowed to up-vote works on the long lists as well as down-vote them. It seemed obvious to me that we would want to do that. However, the current proposal only allows for down-voting.

Allowing up-voting as well would have two benefits. Firstly it would allow people to change their votes based on items on the long lists that they had not heard about before. It is by no means unheard of for a work that got the fewest nominations to win the final ballot, because being on the final ballot exposes it to a lot more readers. Allowing up-voting in stage 2 would enhance that effect. In addition, if we had up-voting, the second stage would be much less of a solely Puppy-kicking exercise.

Kevin tells me that the proposers of 3SV decided not to allow up-voting because they feared that people would demand that the Voter Packet include all 15 items in each category on the long list, which would be a massively complex operation. I think that was foolish, for two reasons:

  1. People will demand to have these works in the Voter Packet anyway. Indeed, someone at the meeting did so.
  2. As I noted the other week, part of the value of 3SV is crowdsourcing eligibility checking. The items on the long list would not have been checked for eligibility so we have a solid excuse for not putting them all in the Voter Packet.

Talking of eligibility checking, Jonathan Cowie pointed out that the nominations statistics for this year show 83 nominations for “The Coode Street Podcast (Jonathan Strahan)” and separately 66 nominations for “Coode Street Podcast (Wolfe/Strahan)”. This is an obvious error. Thankfully, even if the two had been combined, the show would not have made the final ballot, but at least one mistake like that has been made in the past that did affect who got to be a finalist. We need extra eyes on eligibility checking.

Obviously allowing up-voting would be a greater change, and therefore can’t be tacked on during the ratification process next year, but I think it is worth doing. More to the point, I think that WSFS members will demand it, once they get to see all of the good stuff on the long lists that they wish they had nominated.

3SV was passed by the meeting, which then proceeded to discuss ratification of E Pluribus Hugo (EPH), the complicated statistical procedure intended to combat slate voting of the type practiced by the Puppies.

Up until recently, we had no idea what effect EPH would have. This year we had actual test data. There are two reports, one looking at the 2014 and 2015 Hugo Awards, and one looking at this year’s data (they also look at the Retro Hugos from 2014 and 2016, but those tests are not as useful because a lot fewer people vote). The reports are quite long, but the salient points are as follows:

  1. EPH will not get rid of all of the Puppy Picks on the final ballot. At best it will remove one or two.
  2. EPH will also kick off some non-Puppy works. Indeed, in 2014 it would have kicked off one of the eventual winners.
  3. The effect of EPH on the Dramatic Presentation categories is currently unknown because it was not tested on them.

The effect of EPH on this year’s ballot was quite encouraging. It didn’t get rid of all of the Puppy Picks, but it added enough good material to allow a contest in almost every category. That is, there were at least two finalists worth voting for in most of the categories. But not all of them. It made no difference to Fan Artist, and in Fanzine Lady Business again finished sixth. Given the validation of EPH, Black Gate may not have withdrawn.

The effect on previous years was less good, and in particular it is notable that EPH made five changes to the final ballot for 2014, a year in which the Puppies were not active. In particular it kicked Galen Dara out of Professional Artist, a category that she went on to win.

What is going on here? You may well ask. Surely the point of EPH is to defeat slate voting. It should not make any difference to the ballots if there were no slates in operation. But it does, because it detects what we might call “natural slates”. That is, if a whole bunch of people happen to nominate the same works, EPH will penalize that, even if no collusion took place. Algorithms have no political bias. They do their job in all cases.

One thing we can say about this is that it has proved the Puppies have a point. While I am satisfied that there was no SJW slate in operation in 2014, nevertheless EPH found that some categories did indeed suffer from “group think”, and it acted to produce a more diverse set of finalists. I like the idea that Joey Hi-Fi would have been a finalist in 2014.

So I have no objection to the detection of “natural slates”. Politically, however, I suspect it will be a minefield. If, next year, when EPH is used on the actual voting, people who are not on the Puppy slates get eliminated by it, I think that there will be an outcry. Fandom at large is expecting EPH to get rid of all of the Puppies, and no one else. It will not do either. People are not going to be happy.

Another potential issue here is the effect that EPH will have on Helsinki in particular. Finnish fans will presumably want to vote for Finnish works. Because there are a lot fewer Finnish writers than non-Finnish ones, there will be much less diversity in their nominations. I suspect that EPH will see the Finnish votes as a slate and kick some of the nominees off. That too will make some people unhappy, including me.

By far the biggest problem with EPH, however, is its effect on the Dramatic Presentation categories (and my thanks to Martin Easterbrook for alerting me to this). None of the tests presented to the Business Meeting included these categories. Apparently it was too time consuming to do this. So my first question is, what about the poor Hugo Admins for Helsinki who will have to run EPH on those categories? It sounds like they are in for a lot of work.

In addition I note that the Dramatic Presentations are two of the highest profile, and highest participation, categories in the Hugos. If there is a problem with them, there will be serious outrage. If I were being offered a new piece of software and the tests I was shown deliberately excluded two of the most important cases I would have been very worried indeed, and would have sent the people trying to sell me the software packing until they had done all of the tests I wanted.

So what will be the effect of EPH on the Dramatic Presentation categories? I quote from Rachael Acks’ live blog here: “Dramatic presentation will be the most changed category.”

Why? Because these are the categories that have the least diversity in nominees. To EPH, both Dramatic Presentation categories look like slates have been at work, and it will act to diversify the finalists.

To some extent it will be right. The Dramatic Presentation: Short From category has had slate voting of a sort for as long as it has existed. Fans of each series get together online to decide which episode(s) to nominate. No one has cared too much in the past, partly because it is only one category, partly because the slates are not run by arseholes determined to wreck the Awards, and partly because there are several competing slates each year.

However, as we have seen from the passage of the Nominee Diversity amendment, WSFS members have become fed up of Dramatic Presentation: Short From being dominated by Doctor Who every year, and they have acted to try to stop that. EPH will, I think assist with that process. Which is perhaps a good thing.

Except that the Doctor Who fans won’t like it. If they see some the episodes they nominated getting kicked off by EPH I suspect that complaints will be made. In fact, given the amount of dummy-spitting I have seen because of Jessica Jones winning the category this year, I suspect that very vociferous complaints will be made.

Something else that concerned me about EPH is what was said by the people doing the testing. Jameson Quinn was still in favor of EPH, but it is his baby. Dave McCarty was much more reticent. Dave was one of this year’s Hugo Administrators, he’s a past Worldcon chair, and like Kevin and I he is a member of the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee, the people charged with dealing with any bad publicity that the Hugos get. This is what Dave had to say in the testing report:

The changes to the Ballot and Long list are not easily verified and for people reviewing the detailed results at the end the only way to check that the process is working correctly would require access to secret nomination data and significant time. The difficulty in verification means that to check any result requires time which is NOT available to award administrators when it is time to close the nominating and prepare for the Ballot announcement. These are significant hurdles for a process that is generally designed to be open and democratic.

All of which makes me quite worried about the effect that EPH is going to have. Fortunately there is a clause in the motion implementing it that allows us to suspend it for a year at the Business Meeting. So if things go very badly pear-shaped in Helsinki we can keep voting to suspend it until the BM can vote to remove it again.

Having said all of that, EPH does have one unexpected benefit. If you have looked at the testing reports you will see that, whereas the traditional nomination system always gives integral numbers of votes, EPH gives fractional numbers. That’s a result of the algorithm. This will, I think, make it much more difficult for ties to happen, which will remove one of the major worries over the effect of dropping the 5% rule.

Finally, on Puppy issues, the Business Meeting ratified the 4 and 6 proposal. Or rather they didn’t, because they voted to change it to 5 and 6 and ratified that. Yes, they watered it down, making it less effective as an anti-Puppy measure.

Why would they do that? Well partly because they felt it was safe to do so. They had already passed EPH, so they felt the Puppy threat was being dealt with. 5 and 6 is a very different thing to 4 and 6. It is basically a proposal to increase the number of finalists on the ballot. It is a “share the love more widely” exercise. Business Meeting attendees are a bunch of softies at heart, and they tend to like any proposal that means giving out more prizes. They also dislike having anything taken away from them. 4 and 6 would have reduced the number of works they can nominate in each category, whereas 5 and 6 does not.

Overall I think we have made progress this weekend. I am fairly confident that next year’s final ballot will have at least one, hopefully two, deserving winners in each category, even if Pox and his cult do decide to try to piss in our beer again. But I also expect a fair amount of controversy over the fact that EPH does not do what people expected it to do. It will not get rid of all of the Puppy Picks, and it will kick off some non-Puppy finalists.

It’s the Hugo Awards. There will be drama.

Updates: A couple of small but significant changes here. I mis-spelled Jameson Quinn’s name, for which profuse apologies. Also supporting membership of Mac II was $50 (though it is down to $40 for Helsinki and San José).

The other update is a bit more complicated and pending. The Nominee Diversity motion isn’t as clear as I, with my editor hat on, would like. I read it one way. Kevin, with his knowledge of the intent of the proposers, says it means something different. I need to talk to him more about that. What I did miss is that you can have two similar works on the ballot, not just one.

Normally I get Kevin to proof this stuff, but he’s driving home from Worldcon and so has no time to look at anything in detail.

Alfies Update

As I noted yesterday, Tea and Jeopardy won an Alfie this year for being the best placed non-Puppy in the Fancast category. Emma and Pete have done a special episode to mark the occasion. In it Emma has an attack of the squees and the little chickens perform “The Rains of Castamere”. It is hilarious. Give these folks a Hugo next year, folks, they deserve it.

The Chesleys

Uncanny004

The Hugos are by no means the only awards to be given out at Worldcon. Another very significant set of awards is the Chesleys, given by the Association of Science Fiction & Fantasy Artists (ASFA). Locus has a full list of winners and finalists. I’d like to highlight a few that pleased me.

First up, adding to the diversity of the weekend and a fantastic Worldcon for Uncanny Magazine, Best Cover Illustration – Magazine was won by Tran Nguyen for the cover of Uncanny #4 (see above).

Second, Best Art Director was won by Neil Clarke for his work on Clarkesworld, which is an amazing achievement given that he’s up against professional art directors in big publishing houses. Well done, (ex-)Boss!

Kinuko Y. Craft won the Lifetime Artistic Achievement award, which is richly deserved.

And finally a nod to my good friend John Picaccio who picked up Best Product Illustration for one of his Loteria cards (see below).

ElArbol

Emergency Holographic Kevin

That’s an old Star Trek joke. No one remembers Voyager these days, right?

Anyway, last night there were Hugos, and that meant being up in the middle of the night, because it is my job.

Back in the dim, dark days before Twitter I used to update a blog live from the award ceremony. The SMOFs hated that. Then Twitter happened and everyone did it. With a lot of help from Kevin, what I was doing morphed into an official text-based report on the ceremony run via the CoverItLive (CiL) system. These days, of course, we have live video on UStream as well, but that doesn’t work for everyone due to bandwidth issues. Also UStream doesn’t always hold up, and they seem happy to stick ads in the feed even when the host Worldcon has paid for it to be ad-free. So the text-based coverage has value. These days it is fronted by Kevin and Mur Lafferty, and I help out behind the scenes, mostly by handling the comments. Last night we had over 900 people online following what we had to say.

It does need a team. Basically you need one person to handle the factual stuff — who the finalists are, who won, what is happening on stage; you need one person to handle the comments; and you need someone to be a color commentator and make it entertaining.

The main problem with doing this is that we can never tell how much help we are going to get from the host convention. Sometimes we get none at all; sometimes they are very good; and sometimes we get treated like an enemy that is threatening their brand.

This year, thanks to Dave McCarty, we got details of the results in advance. This was very useful and allowed us to do a lot of advance prep so that we could be more efficient during and after the ceremony. On the downside, we don’t seem to have got any help with Internet access, because when it came time to go live neither Kevin nor Mur could get online. All we had was Kevin tweeting from his phone.

I, however, was sat at home with good quality wired access. So I had to take over running the event. I was reliant on the UStream coverage and Kevin’s tweets to find out what was going on. Thankfully the audience was very patient, and I’m hugely grateful to Susan de Guardiola who took over compiling the lists of nominees and posting them via the CiL comment system so that I could concentrate on other stuff.

The other major problem that we had was that the order of business was not as expected. Traditionally we announce non-Hugo things first, then the Hugo categories in reverse order so that we end with Novel. MidAmeriCon II decided to start with the fan categories, some back to the non-Hugos, and muddle up the order of the rest.

There is, of course, no requirement to do things in a particular order. But equally there is no obvious reason to change. What appears to have happened here is that Mac II’s Hugo Ceremony team decided that fan Hugos are worthless and should be demoted in the pecking order. People have opinions. I don’t care much, except that it made it hard for me to know what was coming up next.

Thankfully, about half way through the show, Kevin and Mur finally managed to get online. Things ran much more smoothly from then on. Also Pat Cadigan and Jan Siegel, who hosted the ceremony, kept things moving quickly so we finished in good time. Thanks to having the data in advance, I was able to get the Hugo Awards website updated fairly quickly after the ceremony, which is just as well as Kevin still had next to no bandwidth. I finally got to bed around 5:00am.

However, practical issues aside it was a pretty good evening. I’m very pleased with most of the results, and not unhappy with any of them. The only real “victory” that the Puppies can claim is, I think, pushing Fury Road into second place behind The Martian. Mostly their picks were either things that lots of other people liked, or they got pushed below No Award.

It is a shame that Fancast and Related Work got thumped with a No Award, but I gather that George Martin did his thing and awarded Alfies to Letters to Tiptree and Tea and Jeopardy. Emma and Pete will hopefully get another shot at a rocket next year.

In the meantime the Business Meeting is busily discussing the various anti-Puppy motions. Next year we should have something worth voting for in every category, though we probably won’t get Puppy-free finalist lists. More on that tomorrow.

1941 Hugo Envy

1941Retro

That’s the 1941 Retro Hugo trophy. Isn’t it gorgeous? Sadly even I am not old enough to have been in the running for one of those.

The trophy base was designed by Brent Simmons and the photo is by Fred Teifeld (permission for non-commercial and journalistic uses with attribution granted. All other rights reserved.).

The full results of the 1941 Retro Hugos are available here. I’m pleased with quite a few of those, especially Fantasia, but cringed over the Novel result. I have nothing against the book itself, but Slan has become a byword for fannish elitism.

The 2016 Hugos will be presented tonight. You should be able to follow all of the action via text-based commentary from Kevin, Mur and myself here. There should be video via UStream as well, but there will be the usual bandwidth issues and probably an un-moderated comment feed.

Saving Hugo

Worldcon is almost upon us for another year. I am looking forward to having to be up half the night on Saturday to help Kevin and Mur Lafferty host the text-based coverage of the Hugo Award Ceremony. There will also, of course, be a Business Meeting, where thoughts once again will turn to saving Hugo.

Just about everyone is agreed, I think, that poor little Hugo needs to be saved from the Hideous Puppy Hordes. Unfortunately, just as no one seems to be able to agree on what Brexit means (other than that it means “Brexit”, as our Prime Minister so sagely put it), no one seems to be able to agree what saving Hugo means.

There are people who are perfectly happy with the status quo, pointing out that whenever a Puppy-dominated category pops up we can just whack it with a No Award. There are people who will be happy if there can just be one or two finalists in each category that are worth voting for. There are those who want all Puppy picks expunged from the ballot. And there are those who want the Puppies nuked from orbit, both in the present, at all times in the past, and in the future from now until eternity. The solutions required to produce these outcomes are not the same.

It is also true that people can’t agree on what a “Puppy pick” means. Does it include works promoted by the Sads? If so that can be a lot of potential finalists, as this year the Sads tried to do the right thing and build a recommendation list. Does it mean everything on the Rabids slate? That could be a problem, because VD has got into the habit of including some hot favorites on his list so that he can claim to have “won” when those works take the rocket. It is not an easy decision.

Sadly it is not possible to build an automated system that will correctly remove all Puppy picks from the ballot, if only because people can’t agree on what a Puppy pick is. There are those, of course, who think this is an argument for human intervention. “I know a Puppy pick when I see one,” they say. Well yes, you might, but does everyone agree with you?

All of this talk of having people whose job it is to decide which works are worthy of being a Hugo finalist and which are not makes me very nervous. Why? Because I remember people insisting that Emerald City be removed from the ballot. And then when it won demanding that the “Hugo Committee” correct the obvious error and take back my Hugo. Putting someone in charge of deciding what is Hugo-worthy and what isn’t will make it possible for those sorts of demands to be acceded to. Regardless of whether you think I deserved any Hugos or not, I hope you will agree that giving someone that power has the potential to go very badly wrong.

There is a proposal on the agenda (“Additional Finalists”) to give Hugo Administrators the power to add finalists to the ballot, which has less potential for abuse. I think it is important that these issues be debated, but I think they are way more complex than most people think. Currently Hugo Administrators are not expected to have any view on the merits of the works. Giving them that power would change the nature of the job, change who would want to have the job, and ask serious questions about how people were appointed to the job.

Another suggested means of combatting the Puppies is to place new restrictions on who is allowed to vote. There are two proposals aimed at stripping nominating rights away from some of the people who currently have them. Whether this would affect the Puppies or not depends on how willing they are to spend money to get their voting rights. If they are prepared to buy a Supporting Membership each year then it will not restrain them at all. We extended nominating rights to try to encourage more people to take part in the first stage of the ballot. If we take those rights away again, fewer people will nominate, and those people who claim that voting in the Hugos is too expensive will have more of a case.

Up for ratification this year are the two proposals from last year that aim to curtail the power of slate voting. These are “E Pluribus Hugo” (EPH) and “4 and 6”. It has been argued that “EPH” is the better of these because if the Puppies have enough numbers, money and discipline then they can still dominate the entire ballot under “4 and 6”. This is true, though we don’t know whether they are capable of doing that.

On the flip side, “EPH” is less transparent. I can guarantee that if it is implemented then in future everyone who has a beef about the final ballot will complain that they were unfairly discriminated against by it. I have no concerns about the math because I trust the people putting it forward, but I do think it is important that fandom understands what it will do. It is becoming clear that many people thought it would remove all of the Puppy picks from the final ballot, and that’s certainly not the case.

Then we come to a new proposal called “Three Stage Voting”. Do we really need another method to pick from? Well perhaps we do.

Before I get into discussing the details of the proposal I want to address the complaint that having three stages of voting massively increases the workload for Hugo Administrators. It will certainly mean another set of ballots to count, but that doesn’t necessarily mean a 50% increase in work load. Here’s why.

Counting should be a mostly electronic process. These days vast majority of ballots are submitted online and are validated and counted by software. Much of the work involved in Hugo administration revolves around checking eligibility of likely finalists, checking who should get the credit for those works, and sorting out situations where people have nominated the same work under a variety of different names. There have been some embarrassing screw-ups in these areas in the fairly recent past.

As I understand it, the proposal is that the long list generated by the new stage of voting could be less thoroughly checked, and that fandom at large could have some input into the checking process. This would actually reduce the work for the Administrators. In addition, of course, any withdrawals would take place at this stage rather than the final ballot.

One of the proposed benefits of the new system is that it could potentially remove all of the Puppy picks entirely. That’s because it allows the voters, all of them, to make that decision as to whether a work is worthy or not. I think that’s a solution that is far more in keeping with the traditions of the Hugos than appointing a jury. It has been argued that under this system the Puppies would be able to vote off any works they didn’t like. However, that assumes that the Puppies make up at least 60% of the people voting. If that’s the case I think they have won anyway.

By the way, I don’t think that down-voting is a necessary part of the proposal. As long as the majority of voters are non-Puppies, up-voting should be sufficient to produce a decent final ballot when there are only 15 choices. Down-voting will, of course, make those people who want to the ability to vent happy.

However, the thing that interests me most about this proposal is that it directly addresses the problem with the current system, which is not the Puppies, but the way in which the nominating ballot works.

All awards need a means of getting the list of finalists down to manageable proportions. There are vast numbers of novels published each year, and even more short stories. In the case of the Hugos, because eligibility extends to works published anywhere in the world, in any language, the pool of potential finalists is truly vast.

Different methods are used to thin the herd. The British Science Fiction Association and British Fantasy Society allow their members to make the picks before opening voting up to a wider pool of convention attendees. The Clarke Award charges publishers for the right to enter their contest. The Locus Awards has a pool of experts (of whom I am one) charged with picking the long lists. The Hugos use the nominating ballot, and this does not work well for a variety of reasons:

  1. Voter tastes can vary widely, leading to a large number of works all getting a small number of nominations;
  2. This makes the process possible to game by a small, determined group who decide to all vote for the same works;
  3. Every year, despite being continually reassured that this is not the case, large numbers of people recuse themselves from voting claiming that they are “not qualified” to participate.

The three stage system won’t do away with the problems of the nominating ballot, but it will provide a filter on the results of that ballot to control which works get onto the final ballot. Because people will have a limited number of items to vote on, we won’t have the issue of way too many things to pick from. The power of block voting will be much reduced. And most importantly potential voters won’t get that “rabbit in the headlights” feeling they have when faced with an entirely blank nomination ballot. In the second stage, no one will have to “be familiar with the entire field” (as if anyone ever could be), and that should encourage participation.

People have often asked why WSFS doesn’t produce an official recommendation list. The answer is that we’d have to appoint someone to compile it. What three-stage voting does is turn the nominating ballot into a process to create a crowd-sourced recommendation list. Just as works with get the fewest nominations of the finalists can go on to win once more people are aware of them, so I think three-stage voting will allow some of the works in the 6-15 positions in the nominating ballot to gain more attention and possibly make the final ballot.

I’m not 100% convinced by any of these solutions, if only because I don’t think fandom really knows what sort of a fix it wants. Given that, I think it is more important that we give ourselves options to react quickly next year if whatever gets implemented this year doesn’t work out as intended. I can’t be at the Business Meeting, but if I could be this is what I’d be advocating:

  1. We decide which of “EPH” and “4 and 6” to ratify for next year (I prefer 4 and 6, but your mileage may vary), but require it to be re-ratified next year;
  2. We postpone ratification of the other one until next year so it can be implemented for 2018 if required;
  3. We pass “Three Stage Voting” as well so that is also available for implementation in 2018.

Kevin notes that “EPH” and “4 and 6” are not incompatible. We could pass both. I’m not competent to judge whether this would result in elimination of more Puppy picks than “EPH” alone, but I am sure that someone can work it out.

I note in passing that the three-stage voting proposal effectively makes nominations “5 and 15”.

There are lots of other items of business on the agenda. My very best wishes to Jared Dashoff who has a challenging task ahead of him in his first time as Chair. I don’t have firm views on all of the measures, but I do have a couple I would like to highlight.

Firstly please do ratify the “Electronic Signature” motion, which will allow online voting in site selection. It is ridiculous that we allow online voting for the Hugos but not for site selection.

Secondly I’m really impressed with the creative solution that the YA Hugo Committee has come up with. Doubtless some people in the YA field will get all irate about their award being “Not a Hugo”, but by making a proposal for a separate award the YA Committee has neatly sidestepped all of the arguments about exactly how a YA category in the Hugos should be defined, and how to avoid a work winning two Hugos in the same year. I’d like to see their proposal given a try.

WSFA Small Press Award

The Washington Science Fiction Association has released the short list for this year’s Small Press Award. I like this award, partly because it is only for small presses, and partly because all of the judging is done blind. This year has produced a very interesting list.

Of the nine finalists, five are women and four are men. There are three stories from Clarkesworld, including Naomi Kritzer’s “Cat Pictures Please”, which I very much hope will also get a Hugo. Cats are clearly the in thing as two other stories come from Lawrence M. Schoen’s anthology, Cats in Space. One of the finalists is by Tanith Lee. It was published posthumously. I’m also pleased to see a story on the list by Stephanie Burgis who is a BristolCon regular. However, the story I want to win is “The Haunting of Apollo A7LB” by Hannu Rajaniemi, which I fell in love with when I heard Hannu read it at Finconn in 2014.

The full list off finalists is as follows:

  • “The Art of Deception,” by Stephanie Burgis in Insert Title Here, ed. by Tehani Wessely, published by Fablecroft Publishing, (April 2015);
  • “Burn Her,” by Tanith Lee in Dancing Through The Fire, ed. by Ian Randal Strock, published by Fantastic Books (September 2015);
  • “Cat Pictures Please,” by Naomi Kritzer, published in Clarkesworld Magazine, ed. by Neil Clarke and Sean Wallace, (January 2015);
  • “The Empress in Her Glory,” by Robert Reed, published in Clarkesworld Magazine, ed. by Neil Clarke and Sean Wallace, (April 2015);
  • “The Haunting of Apollo A7LB,” by Hannu Rajaniemi in Hannu Rajaniemi: Collected Fiction published by Tachyon Publications, (May 2015);
  • “Headspace,” by Beth Cato in Cats In Space, ed. by Lawrence M. Schoen, published by Paper Golem LLC, (December 2015);
  • “Leashing the Muse,” by Larry Hodges, published in Space and Time Magazine, ed. by Hildy Silverman, (May 2015);
  • “Leftovers,” by Leona Wisoker in Cats In Space, ed. by Lawrence M. Schoen, published by Paper Golem LLC, (December 2015);
  • “Today I Am Paul,” by Martin L. Shoemaker, published in Clarkesworld Magazine, ed. by Neil Clarke and Sean Wallace, (August 2015).

Hugo Voting Time

There’s an awful lot bad going on in the world at the moment, and much of it we can’t do anything about. However, those of you who have a membership in this year’s Worldcon can do one positive thing: you can give everyone’s least favorite disease another kick in the teeth. Yep, it is Puppy Clobbering time again.

Many of you will have already downloaded the Voter Packet, though I don’t blame you if you haven’t read it all. If you need a quick guide to which items on it got there because of the Puppies, Mike Glyer has a comprehensive guide.

Having said that, not everything on the Puppy slates is awful. Last year VD and his drones claimed “victory” because one of their picks took out the Dramatic Presentation: Long Form category. That was for a film about a multi-racial crew of misfits who saved the galaxy from a racist, religious fundamentalist bigot on behalf of a government with a female head of state. It says a lot about the fragility of VD’s ego that he has to claim such things as victories.

Of course you should come up with your own philosophy as to how to vote. Mine is that I only place things below No Award if I think that they genuinely do not deserve to be on the ballot. I have done that occasionally in years past, long before the Puppy Plague, and I’ll continue to do it now. Most years very little of what was on my nominating ballot makes it to the Finalist stage, so I’m very used to voting for things put on the ballot by other people. And as far as I am concerned, works by the likes of Al Reynolds and Neil Gaiman deserve to be on the ballot whether or not the Puppies put them on a slate.

This year most categories appear to have at least one Finalist that deserves a rocket, though Related Work looks to be a disaster zone which is sad because Letters to Tiptree surely deserved a Hugo.

You have until the end of the month to vote. Get in early, just in case the final rush causes the MidAmeriCon II servers to melt down under the last minute rush. You can always update your votes later if you want to.

There is also the Business Meeting to come, and the question of what we do with the Hugo rules. That deserves a post all of its own.

Awards at Finncon

Being a national convention, Finncon has a number of award ceremonies as part of the program. Usually I manage to report on this at the time, but this year I managed to be way too busy. Thankfully the ever-reliable Tero Ykspetäjä has done the job for me and all I need to do is to point you to his fine (English language) blog.

First up Atorox Award for Finnish short fiction went to Magdalena Hai. If you don’t remember her name you may remember her fabulous blue hair from her photo in issue #3 of The Finnish Weird. The story that won the Atorox (“Beautiful Ululian”) is different from the one in The Finnish Weird (“Corpsemarsh”) so she’s clearly building up a good portfolio.

By the way, Toni Jerrman tells me that the ebook editions of the first two Finnish Weird magazines have been substantially re-worked, so if you have those and have issues with the formatting please download the new ones.

Next on the awards list we have the Tähtifantasia Award which is for fantasy novels translated from a language other than Finnish. This went to Tales from Outer Suburbia by Shaun Tan. That’s quite an achievement for a graphic novel to win such an award. It beat out books by Haruki Murakami and Patrick Rothfuss among others. Well done Shaun!

Finally we come to the Kosmoskynä Award which is an occasional award given to people or organizations who have significantly advanced the cause of Finnish science fiction. This year it was given to my dear friend, Irma Hirsjärvi. This is so thoroughly deserved that I can only ask why it didn’t happen earlier. Then again, the Kosmoskynä is a really hard award to get. It has only been bestowed 13 times since 1985. Congratulations, Ipa!

Some Brief Awards News

Last weekend was a busy one for awards. First up the Shirley Jackson Awards were announced at Readercon. I’m not familiar with all of the winners, but I am delighted to see an award for Wylding Hall by the fabulous Liz Hand. That, of course, is a novella. The novel category was taken by Experimental Film by Gemma Files, a book I have been wanting to read since I first heard about it a couple of years ago.

Also announced at Readercon was the Cordwainer Smith Rediscovery Award, given to unfairly forgotten authors. This year it went to Judith Merril, better known as an editor but also a fine writer. The judges for the award were Elizabeth Hand, Barry Malzberg, Mike Resnick, and Robert J. Sawyer. This may come as a surprise to some as Malzberg has recently penned an article for Galaxy’s Edge which is, shall we say, less than complimentary about Merril’s contribution to the field. Malzberg notes:

I am not in a merciful mode—as I have become both the perpetrator of a body of work now close to unknown…

Oh dear…

The finalists for this year’s World Fantasy Awards were also announced at the weekend. There’s a lot of good material in there. I’m pleased to see both Uprooted and The Fifth Season make the novel list. Congratulations are due to a couple of my friends, Kim Newman and Selina Chambers, who both have fiction nominations. There’s a Finnish book on the list — the awesome Collected Fiction of Leena Krohn, published by the VanderMeers’ Cheeky Frawg. And there’s a nod for Letters to Tiptree in the still insultingly named “Special Award, Nonprofessional” category. Alisa and Alex already have a Locus Award, and I’d love to see them add a not-Howie-any-more to it.

Over in Japan, Ancillary Justice has added a Seiun to its many awards. Tough luck on my pal, Gareth Powell, but hey, what company to be in. Big in Japan, mate.

The Gemmell Award shortlists have produced the expected whiff of testosterone, but I’m pleased to see two local(ish) writers on the debut novel list. Well done Pete Newman (The Vagrant) and Lucy Hounsom (Starborn).

Canada’s Suburst Award (their version of the Clarke) has shortlisted both Experimental Film and Silvia Moreno-Garcia’s wonderful Signal to Noise.

And there have been announcements about the Sidewise Awards and Prometheus Award, neither of which I have much to say about as I’m unfamiliar with the works involved.

Lammy Winners

The winners of this year’s Lambda Literary Awards were announced last night in New York. Most of the categories won’t mean much to you, or me for that matter. However, there are always a few of interest.

The science fiction, fantasy and horror category was won by The Gracekeepers by Kirsty Logan. I’ve not read it, but several of my friends loved it. A worthy winner given that neither Radiance nor Luna: New Moon was on the ballot.

And… wait for it…

FANFARE!!!

The winner of the Trans Fiction category was Tiny Pieces of Skull by Roz Kaveney.

And here is my interview with Roz about the book which I did for the Lambda Literary website last year.

Some Awards Thoughts

First up, today is the final day of voting for the Locus Awards. It is free to vote, you don’t have to be a subscriber, and you don’t have to choose only from the pre-filled choices. Vote here.

Also this year’s Worldcon has announced the level of participation in the Hugo Award nomination stage. There were over 4,000 ballots received, almost double last year’s record of 2,122 ballots. That’s certainly very interesting, and I look forward to finding out what the finalists are when they are announced on April 26th.

Yesterday there was some discussion on Twitter as to how this huge increase in participation might affect the process. Assuming that the additional voters are not all slavishly voting for the works on someone’s slate, the chances are that more participants means more variation in what people vote for. If we have learned one thing from awards over the years, it is that everyone has a different view of what is “good”.

One potential effect of this is that it may see more works excluded from the final ballot under the “5% Rule”. This states that a work can only become a finalist if it receives at least 5% of the votes cast in its category. If, as I suggested above (and thanks to Aliette de Bodard for pointing out the possibility) more voters means more variety in what gets nominated, then we may see more categories in which fewer than 5 works get 5% of the vote. (This has happened in Short Story on a number of occasions in the past, but is rare in other categories.)

The first thing to note is that the rule is 5% of ballots in that category, not 5% of ballots overall. 5% of 4000 ballots is 200 votes, and that will probably be required in Novel and the Dramatic Presentation categories, but participation in other categories tends to be much lower. In addition, there is a separate rule that says every category must have at least three finalists, regardless of the 5% rule. So no category is going to be wiped out by this.

There is a rule that a category can be dropped through lack of interest, but that would mean that, in the opinion of the Administrators, the number of ballots cast in that category is too low. I can’t remember that happening to an established category in recent years, and with all of this extra participation I can’t see it happening this year. I’m pretty sure that every category will have more participation than last year, so there can’t possibly be any grounds from dropping one.

My guess is, therefore, that we’ll have a few categories with 3 or 4 finalists this year. We’ll be able to draw some pretty graphs showing how more participation means more variation. And that will be useful because a motion to remove the 5% Rule got first passage in Spokane last year. This data will inform the debate on final ratification.

Tiptree Winners

The winners of this year’s James Tiptree, Jr. Award (“An award encouraging the exploration & expansion of gender”) have been announced. They are as follows:

  • Eugene Fischer, “The New Mother” (Asimov’s Science Fiction, April/May 2015)
  • Pat Schmatz, Lizard Radio (Candlewick, 2015)

Both are totally new to me and sound very interesting. I shall be checking them out.

Descriptions of the winners and honor list works, plus the long list, can be found at the Tiptree Award website. My congratulations to Ian Sales for making the honor list with his novel, All That Outer Space Allows. I am delighted, if a little surprised, to see Radiance on the honor list. It is a fabulous book but perhaps not my first choice for the Tiptree. And I am absolutely flabbergasted to see no mention whatsoever of Luna: New Moon. Still, juried awards are notoriously unpredictable.

Controversially, I shall not be setting up a “Sad Kittens” organisation to protest that the Tiptree is worse than Hitler for no platforming a book I happen to like. Nor will I be screaming FREEZE PEACH!!! all over social media.

The 2016 jury is already hard at work. If you want to recommend a work for their attention you can do so here. I’m pleased to see that someone has just recommended Fight Like A Girl. Good luck, fighty friends!

Kevin and the Hugos

Yesterday in my post on the Hugos Jim Hines asked whether it wasn’t the case that Kevin has said he would decline being a finalist if he were voted in the top five. He and I have been talking about it, and this is how I understand the situation.

First up there have apparently been suggestions that the WSFS Business meeting be nominated for Dramatic Presentation: Long Form. I think that’s a bit silly myself, but if it did make the top five then Kevin would have to talk to the other people responsible for the production. I’m not sure if declining is something he could do by himself.

With regard to the possibility of being a Fan Writer finalist, the charge that is likely to be leveled is that his position as Business Meeting Chair, and Chair of the Mark Protection Committee, give him an unfair advantage over other potential nominees.

Certainly, when I got slung off the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee, the impression I was given was that it was felt I had abused my position to unfairly win Hugos, despite the fact that most of my work was behind the scenes rather than public-facing like Kevin’s.

My view on this is that it is one thing to have a high position and get nominated for something else (in my case being on the staff of Clarkesworld). It is quite another to have a high position and get nominated for doing that job. In my case, if my WSFS job was getting me votes for my Clarkesworld work, that could be construed as unfair. (I think it is silly to suggest that it was, and the Business Meeting agreed, but that’s not relevant here.) In Kevin’s case the job and the work are the same thing. So yes, having the job makes him noticed, but he’s being nominated for doing the job. That seems entirely reasonable to me.

Of course it is not my decision. I’m not party to a lot of the behind the scenes wrangling that goes on, and if Kevin thinks that the work he does for WSFS might be imperiled by his accepting a Hugo finalist place then I will wholeheartedly support him in turning it down.

But I still have him on my ballot. Yes, it might be a wasted vote, but I think he did a great job last year (yes, I am very biased) and I think that fandom should tell him so.