Register or log in:

F&SF Forum » The Process of Writing

2017 Hugo Ballot

(29 posts)
  • Started 3 years ago by digdug
  • Latest reply from dolphintornsea

  1. digdug

    See the link above for the full list.

    See below for the short fiction nominees.
    The rabid puppies have a slight impact again this year (see the first entry in the novelette category for an example ) but that is not what is interesting to me.

    I'm quite upset that no stories from F&SF, Asimov's or Analog made it onto the ballot. I believe I have read every story that was PRINTED in a magazine in all of SF for 2016, and I have only read one of the nominees. I very much enjoyed 'Touring with the Alien' by Carolyn Ives Gilman and I am happy it is on the ballot. Clarkesworld is an online magazine but you can buy printed copies via Amazon, so I am reading every issue.

    Has anyone read any more of the nominated stories? Are they any good?


    Best Novella

    1410 ballots cast for 187 nominees.
    Votes for finalists ranged from 167 to 511.

    The Ballad of Black Tom, by Victor LaValle ( publishing)
    The Dream-Quest of Vellitt Boe, by Kij Johnson ( publishing)
    Every Heart a Doorway, by Seanan McGuire ( publishing)
    Penric and the Shaman, by Lois McMaster Bujold (Spectrum Literary Agency)
    A Taste of Honey, by Kai Ashante Wilson ( publishing)
    This Census-Taker, by China Miéville (Del Rey / Picador)

    Best Novelette

    1097 ballots cast for 295 nominees.
    Votes for finalists ranged from 74 to 268.

    Alien Stripper Boned From Behind By The T-Rex, by Stix Hiscock (self-published)
    “The Art of Space Travel”, by Nina Allan ( , July 2016)
    “The Jewel and Her Lapidary”, by Fran Wilde ( publishing, May 2016)
    “The Tomato Thief”, by Ursula Vernon (Apex Magazine, January 2016)
    “Touring with the Alien”, by Carolyn Ives Gilman (Clarkesworld Magazine, April 2016)
    “You’ll Surely Drown Here If You Stay”, by Alyssa Wong (Uncanny Magazine, May 2016)

    Best Short Story

    1275 ballots cast for 830 nominees.
    Votes for finalists ranged from 87 to 182.

    “The City Born Great”, by N. K. Jemisin (, September 2016)
    “A Fist of Permutations in Lightning and Wildflowers”, by Alyssa Wong (, March 2016)
    “Our Talons Can Crush Galaxies”, by Brooke Bolander (Uncanny Magazine, November 2016)
    “Seasons of Glass and Iron”, by Amal El-Mohtar (The Starlit Wood: New Fairy Tales, Saga Press)
    “That Game We Played During the War”, by Carrie Vaughn (, March 2016)
    “An Unimaginable Light”, by John C. Wright (God, Robot, Castalia House)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  2. C.C. Finlay
    Charles Coleman Finlay

    I'll be very interested in seeing if any F&SF stories came close to making the ballot this year. It seems most likely in the "best novelette" category, where it only took 74 nominations to be a finalist, and you'd think that more of our readers would have shown up to nominate than fans of "Alien Stripper Boned From Behind By The T-Rex." But that one example aside, there are some very good works on this year's ballot, even though I believe F&SF's best stories stand right up there with them. With the way nominations work these days, I think it pays to be either online or organized.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  3. dolphintornsea

    The reaction to the ballot has been mostly positive, with relief that the Rabid Puppies haven't had a greater impact.

    But all the same, I'm still unhappy. I would rather not see ANY obvious troll nominations on the ballot.

    I'm also disappointed that no stories from F&SF or Asimov's make the ballot nowadays. Sorry to be a crusty old traditionalist, but there it is.

    Of course, the field is more diverse now, and there's more quality fiction to read - much of it for free. I think that's part of the problem.

    There are other measures of excellence - David Steffen's Long List Anthologies give you a much more inclusive picture of what was popular with Hugo voters. And don't forget that there will be four stories from F&SF in Gardner Dozois's next YBSF book - the most in a very long time.

    I also like to watch the Sturgeon Awards. Not only do they provide a nice long list of finalists, but because it is a juried award, the electors are much more likely to have read all the year's good work. They won't overlook anything just because they insist on sticking to the free stuff.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  4. Mark Pontin

    'Sorry to be a crusty old traditionalist, but there it is.'

    Oh, you're a lightweight compared to me.

    I'm so disgustingly close-minded and reactionary that I actually expect some stories on the ballot competing to win the Hugo to be, you know, actual science fiction.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  5. Chris DeVito

    C.C. sez: "With the way nominations work these days, I think it pays to be either online or organized."

    I'm reasonably sure F&SF and Asim/alog wouldn't exist much longer if they put all their content online for free. So ...

    Anyone want to get organized?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  6. Mark Pontin wrote: "I'm so disgustingly close-minded and reactionary that I actually expect some stories on the ballot competing to win the Hugo to be, you know, actual science fiction."

    Regardless of how I put this there will be some who will probably attack me rather than a close, hard, objective examination of reality, so here goes. I don't care who writes what. The more the merrier. But it seems to me now that evidence throughout the field--at least when it comes to acknowledging the best work in the field (always subjective), seems to favor those works written by *authors* who fit certain demographics: non-white, gay or lesbian or something other than straight, and female. I think this is fairly obvious as recent award ballots are showing.

    Bloggers and those penning essays and articles in numerous places have, in one way or another, even espoused their disdain for white, male, straight authors, and should anyone not hold with their viewpoint are virtually in every case labeled as racist or sexist or homophobic--and hateful, someone to be despised and pilloried.

    I am for all the diversity we can have in the SF/F field. But there does seem to be a strong push for diversity that stems from many (not all) from a hateful and aggressive set of motives quite in opposition to merely diversity advocacy. It's an angry set of motives that, agree with them or not, is beginning to shape nominations for various awards. This has little to do with the quality of the nominations--some of which may be good works, or not--the usual subjective range of quality in any year and for any award. But it seems to me that at this juncture in the field's history that there is somewhat less regard than before for the quality of the work than who writes it. I realize this is highly controversial but it is, I think, at least worthy of careful consideration, and dare I say it--honest and free discussion in the field as a whole.

    Notice the tone in the linked article below. The feeling expressed about "whites," etc., and while we may all agree that diversity really is a good thing for the field, there's something else going on here that may not portend well, and in the long-term best interests of the field.

    All best to everyone,

    Posted 3 years ago #
  7. CWJ

    Dave, I know you mean well, and in many ways you have done good for the field especially with Tangent Online.... but you really have to work on your reading skills.

    I did read the article you cite, and here is, in context, the ONLY reference to "whites":

    "This year is a historic one for the Hugo Awards in more ways than one. In addition to the changes to the awards process, this is the first year in which the Best Novel nominees have been so completely devoid in white men. It may also be the first year in which more than one out trans author received a Best Novel nomination for their work."

    This is a cold statement of fact. There is no "feeling" expressed about whites, certainly not the hostility you imply you are seeing. In fact, the author names certain nominated authors of color whose works she does not find compelling--which is what you claim you want.

    Please note I am not calling you racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I'm calling you a careless reader whose claim to "close, hard, objective examination of reality" is not earned.

    Sincerely, an old straight white dude just like you.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  8. Yes, she uses "white men" rather than the more encompassing "whites." I should have been more precise, but her article is nevertheless typical of far too many other pieces we can point to by the usual suspects--usually, but not confined to, female SF/F writers of color. Female writers of color who actually espouse hatred for white men and want to overthrow our white supremacist society. Granted, this piece is rather mild compared to others, but if you've read other stuff by the essayist (and plenty of other like-minded stuff in the same vein by others) you'll see that this is but one generalized example of the elephant in the room no one is really willing to discuss openly, most often the reluctance being out of fear.

    I stand by the general observation I'm making; it accounts in very large measure for the nominations we're seeing and will continue to see in the years ahead. We'll even see some straight white guys get nominated for this or that, but I'll bet you that the vast majority of them will be outspoken advocates on the same reservation--until they say something not in line with the PC orthodoxy--and then they'll be excommunicated in a New York minute like anyone else (male or female) not dancing to the current agenda talking points. Happens all the time. I know this is an unpopular view in the current SF field, but doggone it, it still needs to be pointed out as something to watch. That's all I'm saying. It's something to put on your radar and be aware of. If you're blissfully blind to it you'll end up being the frog in the pot of slowly boiling water.

    And I wasn't saying the article I linked to exhibited everything I went on to bring up. It was just my jumping off point.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  9. CWJ

    There was no hatred expressed towards white men in the article you cited. She noted the lack of white men on the Best Novel list, full stop.

    If the author in question does express hatred towards white men, or whites in general, you should point to, you know, an actual example, not an article totally devoid of it.

    You started off talking about cold, hard, objective examination of reality, but you aren't doing this. You are arguing by innuendo and implication rather than actual evidence.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  10. Why mention white men at all? Why not just praise the writers of color or female writers for their accomplishment in getting nominated? But no, she has to pit their success against "white men." As if white men were some kind of foe or obstacle or were in some way in cahoots against women or people of color. Hogwash.

    Why didn't she also say "white women"? Why use the word "white" at all? Think about it. Since 1968 there hasn't been a year when women (mostly white) haven't been on the field's top award ballots. Most of them straight. Are these women mentioned along with the "white men"? Again, why single out white men in the first place. The fans vote the nominations and winners, not the writers who won. What does anyone have against "white men" that they should be artificially set up against women and people of color for award nominations in the first place? It's a straw man argument set up to use an easily accepted emotional argument and make non-white women the victim. And the premise of it is just patently false, and that's what rubs me the wrong way. It's a false meme the way they've worked up their argument.

    A major central focus of the so-called SF-discriminates-against-women argument is based on--mostly--trying to put forward a meme without enough facts to back it up, though it's an easy one to accept on the surface without much critical thinking.

    Did you know that were women not only _not_ discriminated against since the early days of SF, but they were far more active in the field than anyone knew? From 1926-1965 there were "at least" two hundred and thirty-three women writers who published a total of 1,055 stories in the SF magazines from 1926-1965? And that between the years 1936 and 1960 there were a total of 26 women who edited science fiction, fantasy, or weird fiction magazines? And as far back as the June 1927 issue of Amazing Stories Claire Winger Harris was the first woman to publish a story in a science fiction magazine?

    Here's another one showing how SF discriminates due to gender. Hollywood separates its Oscars into Best Male and Best Female awards (actor, actress, etc.), but the field of science fiction never has. Connie Willis has not only won more awards as a woman in SF but as a _person_ in SF.

    Going back to 1993, women received the majority of the 15 Hugo short fiction nominations that year. Hardly discrimination by the entire SF field. And that was just shy of 25 years ago!

    But now it's not yay!, look how far we've come in a positive celebration for a year in which women and poc dominate several major awards ballots, it's neener neener we dominated an award ballot and "This year is a historic one for the Hugo Awards in more ways than one. In addition to the changes to the awards process, this is the first year in which the Best Novel nominees have been so completely devoid in white men."

    Why the F bring up white men I ask for the umpteenth time. Why not white straight women too, then, who have been on the ballot plenty over the past 40 or 50 years and have taken up plenty of slots that could have gone to poc, especially in the past decade or so (pick your starting point).

    Why just white men? An unconscious bias perhaps? A conscious prejudice? Give me a sound reason why not just "white" people, or "men" were noted in the article, but "white men." There's something else going on here. The article doesn't have to come right out and be the instigation of a flame war in its use of inflammatory language and tone to reveal certain things about the writer or her view of the situation. That she's more subtle in doing it doesn't give her a pass.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  11. CWJ

    She noted the lack of white men on the Best Novel list, because there were no white men on the Best Novel list. She did not note the lack of white women on the ballot, probably because there were in fact white women on the Best Novel list. Pretty simple, really.

    But that gets in the way of your narrative, doesn't it?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  12. Of course it doesn't get in the way of my narrative at all. She just couldn't have anything but the purest, most innocent motive in mentioning that, now could she?
    You're seeing only what you want to see and pretending that not a bit of what I'm laying out has any relevance at all. The naivety. :-)

    Again, why is it worthy of mention at all? Why not call it a fluke? Why are white men on her mind to such a degree? You darn well know you're ignoring what's in front of you. Not just with this relatively tame piece, but with all of the other anti-white man rhetoric in a fair number of SF quarters being written every day.

    Too many folks in SF say or think, when viewing one such instance, "Oh, it's just nothing, you're reading too much into it." And then they're shown another "isolated" incident or essay or article and say the same thing. And so on and so on with all these little pieces of a greater puzzle adding up that individually don't give the overall picture, but when all of the little isolated pieces come together they can't believe what picture the pieces are showing them. Boiled frog. Ribbit.

    I'm sorry you don't see the same overall pattern developing I do, but you're entitled to your opinion. I think I've just been collecting pieces of the puzzle for a very long time now, have more than enough of them, and am really beginning to see the picture is all. If you disagree, that's what makes for horse races and all that. At least we were able to talk about it with not only earnestness but with civility. And believe me, these days that's really something. :-)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  13. CWJ

    You're the one seeing only what you want to see, Dave. She mentions white men once in the whole article, in a purely factual way, and spends the majority of the article on LGBT issues.

    I do want to be civil, Dave, because you have contributed to SF, and I believe in trying to be civil even with those I disagree with. But I still will insist upon facts. If you want to establish patterns, fine, establish patterns, but don't point to something unrelated and from that weave an entire conspiracy theory.

    I gotta go back to my calculations. Best wishes to you.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  14. I cited plenty of facts on the issue of women being discriminated against in SF. Which to this point you have not felt the urge to comment upon. Which forms the basis, the core argument rarely contested with facts anymore. The example I gave was just that, a snapshot. Read some of her other stuff to place this one in context. LGBT issues are part and parcel of the core argument raised against straight white men, just layered on top of it; it's a mix with other gender/social issues in SF today, one of which is the straw man that evil white guys are to blame for all the world's problems. It's not true in SF but the meme keeps getting tossed out there when needed--or when a logical line of reasoning fails.

    It's going to get worse before it gets better. By that I mean the hate, the vitriol, the bullying and intimidation will happen everywhere anyone disagrees with a certain agenda, the put downs and slurs against anyone not of color or not a female--and woe be it if a straight white man dares to speak out. Look what happened to Milo--and many others in the outer world. Same crap is happening here (same process, not the physical violence) and will continue to happen and it pains me that some who are crying and fighting for diversity because of skin color or gender fail to allow diversity of thought and speech. Writers are far less willing to take the *kind* of risks and chances in their fiction than they were years ago, out of fear. That's no good for the field, regardless of the color of your skin or your gender or sexual preferences. No one I know gives a hoot about those last things, just the damn quality of storytelling. But now all we get is one side shouting down the other--and in a literary field of all places! Good grief. And so now for whatever reason it's a huge historic deal that no "white men" are on an awards list? Yeah, it's just my own private conspiracy theory, so move on, nothing to see here.


    Posted 3 years ago #
  15. In the stuff-you-always-think-of-later department:

    CJW wrote: "She noted the lack of white men on the Best Novel list, because there were no white men on the Best Novel list."

    There were also no black, brown, yellow, or red men on the list either. So why single out white men I ask again for the 3rd or 4th time? Subconscious prejudice bubbling to the surface because that is her default--that pesky white color? What could possibly be the reason she forgot non-white men? I mean, there has to be a perfectly reasonable explanation for her discriminatory statement.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  16. SHamm

    Everybody knows this plot, because it's one of the hoariest in science fiction. Sad and/or Rabid Puppies are somehow given a glimpse into a horrific dystopian future (in this case one in which women/people of color/LGBTQ writers dominate the Hugo Awards). Good Lord!--they cry, back here in the present--we must take swift and decisive action to ensure that this awful vision of tomorrow will never come to pass. But, in an ironic twist, the very measures they take to avert that future actually bring it about!!

    P.S.: Dave, I am not quite sure from your phrasing: are you under the impression that Milo Yiannopoulos is a "straight white male"?

    P.P.S.: Dave, I believe Best Novel nominee Liu Cixin qualifies as a "yellow man," in your parlance, although I am told that particular descriptor is no longer much in vogue.

    P.P.S.: Dave, does it have to be a "straw MAN"? Asking as a man.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  17. SHamm, of course Milo is gay, but he doesn't agree with the party line and so is reviled and efforts are made to silence him.

    Liu Cixin is a yellow man in historical terminology, which makes the essayists use of "white men" even more telling. Person of color=OK. White men not OK.

    Straw man is just a phrase we are all familiar with. No need to make anything out of it.

    Why bring Puppies into this? No Sad Puppy I know of is afraid of women/people of color/LGBTQ writers dominating the awards. Certainly not me. I've said it a hundred times, the more the merrier. The problem for me arises when these same people heralding diversity for their own benefit try to silence diversity of thought from everyone else. And if you dare speak out you suffer the consequences--inside and outside the SF field, witness Milo and others lately who have suffered similar fates while trying to express differing views on university campuses (though maybe not with the violence attendant at Milo's cancelled talk). It's the darker underside agenda of those rallying behind good causes such as diversity that puts the lie to their true agenda. And it's hurting SF. Again, writers aren't taking the kinds of chances in speaking of social or political issues they used to, for fear of various forms of reprisal from those waving the banner of diversity. Their diversity only runs in one way, and its killing free speech and controversial thought experiments in our stories. That Puppy crap still being thrown out is ridiculous and an intellectual dodge. Besides, there was no SP this year as far as I know, but every time this discussion comes up someone thinks that tossing in SP or RP is the answer to everything, when it is an excuse to honestly address the issue.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  18. Chris DeVito

    SHamm: Drop the mic.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  19. SHamm

    C DeV, I am intrigued by your Joe-Hillian (as in the late Swede, not the second-generation horror novelist) suggestion that fans of print fiction should organize, especially in light of recent reports that sales of physical books are on an uptick. What exactly do you have in mind?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  20. SHamm

    As you know, Bob, I mean Dave, Milo was not laid low by the thuggish lefties who gave him back the same kind of vitriol he had based his career on giving them. After all, Milo had parlayed his status as a free-speech martyr and a victim of PC into a pretty sweet racket, with appearances on Bill Maher, a cushy job at Steve Bannon's Breitbart News, a book deal at Simon & Schuster, and a highly-visible speaking gig at CPAC.

    He was laid low by an old video in which he sang the praises of pederasty. As soon as it surfaced, CPAC dropkicked him from its schedule, S&S torpedoed his book deal, and the staff of Breitbart threatened to quit en masse unless he resigned, or was sacked.

    So your real argument, as a Milo fan, is not with the nasty bullies of the left, but with the prim Miss Grundies of the right, who disowned him as soon as he, in your phrase, "disagreed with the party line" on the subject of child rape. Since most of his former champions abandoned their (admittedly shallow) commitment to free speech when Milo's free speech ceased to flatter the sensibilities of their customer base, it is nice to know that he still has one dedicated supporter.

    I have no idea why the people you argue with keep bringing up Sad/Rabid Puppies, unless it's the fact that your sentiments, and arguments, are almost indistinguishable from theirs. I-my-own-self was just going for the easy gag, as is my habit.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  21. I have never, ever, anywhere on the internet or elsewhere, written or said anything against a person because of the color of their skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation. When I've spoken out it has been on two issues--freedom of speech and hypocrisy. So please don't lump me in with whatever you _think_ any group is supposed to believe. And btw, your little scenario included the SPs, which you've obviously misunderstood completely or you would never have included them as you did. A number of them happen to be poc.

    Nice try though, diverting attention from why the essayist singled out white men and neglected the fact that there are other men of color not on the ballot as well. It's interesting to watch all the hoops her--for want of a better word--defenders go through to excuse her prejudice. If the situation were reversed, or she used a different color of man as an historic example, the you-know-what would hit the fan in a nano-second. But it's okay for her to have done it because (wink wink) she's one of the cool people fighting for the rights of the oppressed underclasses so she can get away with anything or tactic because she's one of the "good guys." Sigh.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  22. Marian

    Thank you, CWJ, for posting the author's words which seem to be simply a statement of fact. She offers no opinion and it's important to see the actual statement.

    Dave, everyone here who know who you are respects you for the fine work you're doing. However, respect does not mean we have to agree with all your opinions as you have discovered. You are entitled to your opinions but, having stated your case several times, it's time to let it go. You will not convince anyone by repeating the same arguments over and over or even by thinking up new ways to say the same thing. Time to keep quiet, no matter how painful you find it.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  23. That works both ways, Marian. Too many people are remaining silent these days while one side gets to say all sorts of outrageous things with impunity, with repercussions if the other side dares to speak up.

    The author's words specifically failed to mention black, brown, or red men and singled out white men. Why is that? By omission she is saying a lot no one has addressed. What she said, if you want to take it at face value, is technically correct as far as it goes, but her omissions say just as much by their absence. There's always context; you can ignore it if you wish.

    But you're right, I'm not going to change the opinions of this crowd, or persuade them to entertain even the possibility that the author's motives are anything but as pure as the wind-driven snow. And that's a shame.

    So I guess I've had my say and I will leave it alone.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  24. CWJ

    You're welcome, Marian!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  25. I really did think I was finished with this topic, but something nagged at me. It was when CWJ asked for evidence to support my claim that Bourke singled out white men for a reason other than that "She noted the lack of white men on the Best Novel list, full stop." CWJ said there was no hostility there, just a statement of fact. Along the way I countered that there were also no black, brown, or red men singled out and asked why? No one answered.

    So I did a quick google search and found a couple of pieces where the topic of straight white guys is part of the articles. White male power structures, white male privilege, cis-gendered men, etc. She writes about these issues herself and/or quotes others in her pieces who are concerned with the same issues, whether in SF/F or in real life. This topic is one of her central concerns and has been for a number of years.

    The purpose here is definitely *not* to discuss or judge in any way the contents of the pieces linked below, but rather only to show her deep concerns and views about the white male, which definitely sheds light on why (to answer my own question) she singled out white men in her article without bothering to include other men of certain colors; she wasn't concerned with them. Her "thing" is all about--as I said above--issues of white male power and privilege, which indeed does provide a reason why she singled them out. She definitely exhibits a bias against them.

    The following quotes precede each of the two linked articles. They are not in context but the quotes are pulled only to show that what I mentioned above is indeed part and parcel of her belief system for she comes back to it time and again in various ways. Again, I make no value judgment here and now on the contents of the articles; they are here only to show her abiding interest, concern, and at least partial history on this subject she seems deeply committed to. I still therefore maintain that she did not use the term "white men" in a vacuum, but purposely, because of what she believes about white men. It gives context to an otherwise seemingly standalone, innocent remark. And shows a bias, something she believes others have and which she is fighting against.

    "They’re reinforcing the structures that cast non-white or non-cisgendered-men as non-normative. By refusing to see difference—and by that refusal, just happening to produce lists populated entirely by white, largely straight, cisgendered men..."

    "We can agree that conservative, here, is fundamentally concerned with not changing the present default cultural narratives of who gets to hold and use power, how, and why. For our genre, for our culture(s) in the US, UK, and Europe, that’s white (heterosexual) cisgendered men."

    Bourke has a history with something she feels deeply about. These two links are but a glimpse that clearly shows the "white men" reference in her article was not innocent or off the top of her head, but was done with a reason and not in a vacuum. Full stop.

    Now, unless someone has anything to add that I think must be answered or has grossly misinterpreted anything I've said in this specific post, I really would like this to be the end of it.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  26. CWJ

    Never mind, I shouldn't poke fun.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  27. C.C. Finlay
    Charles Coleman Finlay

    Chris and SHamm: that's why I'm interested in seeing the extended nominations. If a lot of readers nominate F&SF stories, but they all nominate different stories, that's one thing -- maybe there's a way to help people to reach more of a consensus on the best F&SF stories each year. But if F&SF stories aren't getting nominated, that's another issue -- maybe it means that F&SF readers aren't participating in the process.

    Either way, there are clearly great stories on this year's ballot, but I think F&SF published some stories in 2016 that were just as good, and I would like to see those writers have a chance to get recognized too.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  28. dolphintornsea

    It's all very confusing, because it's not clear (to me, anyway) how the slate voting phenomenon of the last few years has influenced the chances of F&SF authors to get onto the final ballot.

    As a sample, I looked at the performance of "The Deepwater Bride", by Tamsyn Muir, in the 2016 Hugos. This was a highly acclaimed story that was chosen for several other award ballots and reprint anthologies (as detailed in our annual awards discussion topic).

    "The Deepwater Bride" received 111 nominations in the novelette category. The highest number of initial nominations was 576 and the lowest number that qualified for the final ballot was 245.

    Overall, "The Deepwater Bride" ranked 13th in the number of initial nominations received, so obviously it was not involved in the final voting.

    Even if we disregard the story that was withdrawn from the ballot, and the two others that finished below No Award, "The Deepwater Bride" still finished only 10th.

    We may be looking at some sort of sample error, but these are not encouraging figures.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  29. dolphintornsea

    Charlie (our editor) says:

    "... maybe there's a way to help people to reach more of a consensus on the best F&SF stories each year."

    Which leads me to wonder if F&SF shouldn't have an annual readers' poll, similar to that of Analog, Asimov's, Clarkesworld, and others?

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic


You must log in to post.