Hugo Notes 2017

Posted by

I discovered that The Dispatcher was number seven in terms of the nomination tally for the Novella category, a category with six finalist spots. And, why yes, women won in nearly every category. To the extent that the jackholes who have been slating work for the last few years were able to get on the ballot at all, they were confined to one finalist out of six. Share:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to email (Opens in new window) My own thinking on this is that it was muted because the jerkholes knew the Hugos were that much harder to game, and given the scope of the slating nonsense — which lingered over four years of Hugo voting — maybe dropping anti-slating measures after just a year is a little precipitate. Also, you know. Let’s do this again next year. I’ll talk more about that in a bit). It was a finalist for the Locus and three separate Audie awards (winning the Best Original Work category), so it was certainly honored enough. Congratulations to all! There was so much great work and so many great people celebrated this year that it was almost impossible to go wrong (there were a couple of troll attempts in there too, but they were never really a factor in the actual finalist voting. Aaaaand that’s all the mental energy I’m expending on that dude. 1. Got it? Good for them. 5. For the purposes of defeating slating — pretty well! Speaking of the jackholes, I did like that when when voting process sorted everything down, the chief jackhole got outvoted by “no award” in his category by a ratio of about 12:1. The Dispatcher was in audio form for the entire nomination period, which is not the usual format for works considered for the Hugo ballot. 6. Their work certainly deserved it. That seems about right to me. This was the first year nominations for the finalist ballot were run through the “E Pluribus Hugo” process, a complicated procedure involving fractional votes that aimed specifically to blunt the effect of “slating,” i.e., jackholes trying to swamp the ballot via lockstep nominations. 2. I’m both super pleased with the list of winners and even more pleased that the the ballot could have fallen differently and that in nearly all cases I still would have been happy. Pretty darn good. And I think some people noted that the jerkhole movement was muted this year in any event, so factoring for it might not even have been necessary — there was a motion at the WSFS business meeting to have EPS lifted next year. How do I feel about that? It’s also the first year of “4/6,” in which people could nominate four people/works in each category but six people/works were on the final ballot — again, to minimize the effects of slating. 4. Okay! And how did it work? The signal-to-noise ratio of the Hugo ballot was much closer to the mean this year than it’s been in the last few, and that’s a good thing. And I happen to think that all the finalists in the Hugo category were excellent. 3. To begin, for informational purposes, the list of 2017 Hugo winners, the document of how the voting went, and the document of what and who got nominated and what just missed the ballot. It does appear that others agreed with me on that, since the motion to suspend it for next year failed. Overall, a very fine year for the Hugos. So I think it’s pretty cool it got close. Which is not to say EPH in particular doesn’t have its issues — there were people/works this year that would have gotten on the ballot under the old system that missed out in this one (not The Dispatcher, I note, which would have been in the #7 position in either system). All those jerkhole-related finalists were dealt with appropriately in the voting — most appearing below “no award” (i.e., we’d rather not give an award than have it given to this finalist). No complaints! Good.