|
flosofl posted:NO AWARD is quite prolific. They may just sweep this year. I'll have to pick up some of their stuff. It just got the Best Short Story category. That's four so far.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:Bear in mind that No Award has only been used five times before this year. edit: Novella, no award. Easily better that way. And Three-body gets the big one. Looks like common sense has prevailed. anilEhilated fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Poor John C. Wright. Nominated three times in the same category and still loses. The Three Body Problem won Best Novel. Ornamented Death fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
This is the best.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Gotta be perfectly honest, I'm a *tiny* bit unsure about Three-Body Problem winning, if only because Theodore "Vox Day" Beale liked it and I hate him with a passion. However, I do realise that this is unfair to the author, so congratulations to him. That said, at least the Puppies got virtually no awards. (The only award they won was the Dramatic Presentation award, and Guardians of the Galaxy probably would have been on the ballot without Beale and company's "help").
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:Poor John C. Wright. Nominated three times in the same category and still loses. Six nominations, no rocketships. If you listen closely, you can hear my heart bleeding for Wright.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
He gets off on imagined persecution so he's getting exactly what he wants.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
Forgall posted:He gets off on imagined persecution so he's getting exactly what he wants. Which is why it sounds like he's going to try to burn it down entirely next year by just bringing in more people to vote party line (and presumably vote No Award or flood their slate in all categories).
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
Here's a link to the voting tallies: http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2015HugoStatistics.pdf It also shows which nominations were superseded by the "puppies". A really interesting read.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
I bought a membership for this year's WorldCon to vote for Helsinki 2017 (and we won  ) and I nearly forgot to vote in the Hugos but this is giving me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.I think this One Weird Trick to Ruin the Hugos (Feminists hate it!) can only be tried once, now that everyone's cottoned on to the fact that you can try to engineer the noms, people will counter-engineer them just like they counter-voted for the awards themselves now. Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
a trolley posted:Here's a link to the voting tallies: http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2015HugoStatistics.pdf Here it is non-PDF'd. looking through that list it seems the attempted slate managed maybe at best 800-900 votes, out of around 3000+ votes in each category. quote:Best Novel (5653 final ballots, 1827 nominating ballots, 587 entries, range 212-387)
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
cultureulterior posted:This is a fantastic book! I so enjoy an author that does not give in to pointless sentimentality at the final hurdle. Im kind of split on this. Im on chapter 9 right now, but im like, really gritting my teeth through it. One the one hand, I really like the way the prose is written. On the other hand, I find myself really bored with the story. I really don't care about carolyn as a character or the librarians plight. so far the pacing is boring me to death. But like I said the style of writing is something im really fond of but I just cant get engaged. maybe these "big idea" kind of books arn't my thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
So next year's theme is 'If I can't have you, no one will'?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:So next year's theme is 'If I can't have you, no one will'? Now we know the result of that. This is a cultural war, not a literary sport. They are practicing a scorched earth strategy, and we can certainly assist them in that since we do not value their territory. I still think it was worth trying to take Berlin and end the war in one fell swoop, but even though our attempt break them once and for all failed, that only means that the victory was less than complete. What the Puppies accomplished was incredible when you look at the numbers involved and clearly indicates that the Rabid strategy, not the Sad one, is the only viable strategy. There will be no reconciliation. -Vox Day
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
The epitome of Christian attitude.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
Yay the book that should have won did win!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 11:05
|
|
|
Antti posted:I bought a membership for this year's WorldCon to vote for Helsinki 2017 (and we won I'm not sure how I feel about the Hugos - apart from feeling super proud for David Gerrold - but this is super news, congratulations! evilbastard posted:Here it is non-PDF'd. looking through that list it seems the attempted slate managed maybe at best 800-900 votes, out of around 3000+ votes in each category. Actually what he linked is the detailed breakdown with how many votes each nominee got; the really anal stuff. What jumped out at me was a) that neither the first nor second place Novel finalists were on the original ballot, and b) the Puppies, if I'm reading this correctly, voted very differently for different prizes. The Dark Between the Stars got 251 votes (but Skin Game got 874) and three novellas got about 500 votes. I'd guess the straight Puppy voters numbered about 800ish. The business meeting where we plot to prevent any good, old-fashioned, simple storytelling ever winning again is tomorrow, and that's the real news, I suppose. (E: some interesting analysis here: https://chaoshorizon.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/2015-hugo-stats-initial-analysis/ - check out the very end...) adhuin posted:What the Puppies accomplished was incredible when you look at the numbers involved and clearly indicates that the Rabid strategy, Wasting no time turning on his friends, is he? Safety Biscuits fucked around with this message at 12:37 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
I like how he got dead last in every editor category. But remember Vox, you surround them! The silent majority is with you!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
I voted "No award" in categories where I felt none of the nominations were really worth it, but in stuff like the editor picks I did some digging to find a non-Puppy candidate. Otherwise I just left the ballot blank (especially in the fan categories) since I didn't feel it was right to vote if I have no idea what I'm doing. I get the logic behind just No awarding everything as a protest to the nomination process being tainted, though. Oh yeah and City of Stairs getting knocked off the ballot is a drat shame. I doubt it would have won but it deserved to be up there. Oh and apparently Kloos withdrawing allowed the eventual Novel winner on the ballot? That guy deserves a lot of beers. House Louse posted:I'm not sure how I feel about the Hugos - apart from feeling super proud for David Gerrold - but this is super news, congratulations! Thanks. I'm a local so I'm already getting reservations for a spot on the floor! I haven't been to a WorldCon before but having one a 45 minute drive away instead of a 12 hour flight is a big incentive. Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
Tor.com has a list of the winners, but you won't see that no award has won in several categories until you read the full article, it doesn't get mentioned in the brief text, and unlike nearly all other posts on tor.com, comments are disabled.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 12:52
|
|
|
Tobias Buckell did a good break down on how the alternate Hugo Ballot would have looked like without ballot stuffing: http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2015/08/23/what-the-alternate-hugo-ballot-would-likely-have-been/ quote:
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 12:52
|
|
|
Heh. Another Scalzi. Was it even good?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
Megazver posted:Heh. Another Scalzi. Was it even good? I liked it. And I say that knowing of the hate-on this thread has for him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
I don't hate him either, but I definitely think the criticism that he keeps getting nominated because of his huge online fanbase rather than the actual quality of his books is valid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
I'm pretty satisfied with how the Hugos turned out this year. I spent June and July reading, voting, and blogging on the entries, and for the categories that I actually finished reading (50-60% of them, I'm guessing), either my choice won (Novel) or there were so many worthy entries that I'd just shrug and chalk it up to different tastes. (Graphic Story and Dramatic Presentation: Long Form) The only exception was "The Day the World Turned Upside-Down" winning the Novelette category. Am I the only one here who thinks that particular story is facile and insufferable, that the metaphor is painfully obvious and pretentious?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
Solitair posted:The only exception was "The Day the World Turned Upside-Down" winning the Novelette category. Am I the only one here who thinks that particular story is facile and insufferable, that the metaphor is painfully obvious and pretentious? That alternate list seems a bit suspect, to be honest. Rothfuss? And where the gently caress is Acceptance?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:Yeah, it didn't feel too good. It was probably best out of that category, though. It's rather sad, really. "Ashes to Ashes etc." and "The Journeyman" were both more satisfying reads, if nothing mind-blowing, but they probably lost because they didn't have a hook like a reverse-gravity apocalypse (Do you get it? The world is literally upside-down! It's a double meaning!  ).
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:That alternate list seems a bit suspect, to be honest. Rothfuss? And where the gently caress is Acceptance? If you think Rothfuss being on the ballot, and Acceptance isn't there, is suspect, it should be pretty easy to verify. Unless it's just your personal preferences shining through 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
 Sounds about right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
polish sausage posted:Im kind of split on this. Im on chapter 9 right now, but im like, really gritting my teeth through it. One the one hand, I really like the way the prose is written. On the other hand, I find myself really bored with the story. I really don't care about carolyn as a character or the librarians plight. so far the pacing is boring me to death. But like I said the style of writing is something im really fond of but I just cant get engaged. maybe these "big idea" kind of books arn't my thing. Well, Carolyn will destroy the sun, conquer the universe and kill her most-loved memory in the last 2/5th of the book
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Megazver posted:
Not really. King's a special case--people don't really think of him as a Science Fiction or Fantasy writer anymore. But if he showed up at Dragoncon and spent it rubbing elbows with the fans, SMOFs, and writers somewhere visible, people would think of him as part of the community--and then he'd get nominated for another award because people love the poo poo out of his books. Of course, from here on out it's probably campaigning all the way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
So on a scale from 1 to loving dramabomb, how dramabomb were the Hugos this year? I've kinda avoided most sci-fi blogs with a passion since the Sad Puppies thing started happening. It's been a while. e: for Stephen King, he's not wrong but scifi whether by virtue of being a thing for shut-in basement dwellers or not being totally accepted by "mainstream" literary types it's always been more a grassroots thing... which is what opened the Hugos to voting fuckery this year. He's not wrong, but eh I like the grassroot-y feeling even with the dark side of nerds taken into account. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 17:29
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Monopthalmus posted:Is there such a thing as a hard fantasy series or book that attempts to treat warfare in a rigorously coherent and, dare I say it, "realistic" manner? I guess I'm looking for something that treats its combat and warfare the way Tolkien treated his languages, if that makes sense. And not just the military tactics and physical mechanics of fighting, but the entire scope of why and how (economics, logistics, etc.) nations go war. Something that explores the themes and concerns of real-life military history but in a fantasy setting. I realize that this might be completely antithetical to a genre which tends to focus on individual heroics, but I think there is a lot of room to explore a more logical and consistent treatment of warfare in fantasy. Fighting is such a major preoccupation of the genre, after all, at yet so much of it gets hand-waved away or relegated to the background in service of the hero. Maybe it isn't really possible to have true hero's journey while still exploring the intricacies large-scale fake warfare. Or maybe this is an autistic rabbit hole I don't want to go down. But, I'm open to suggestions anyway! I'll second the Shadow Campaigns. I'm about half way through the first book right now and the battles have impressed me. Nothing on the logistics really but the tactics, strategy, and weapons have been fairly believeable. He also does a good job showing the different quirks and competition between the three combat arms.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Solitair posted:The only exception was "The Day the World Turned Upside-Down" winning the Novelette category. Am I the only one here who thinks that particular story is facile and insufferable, that the metaphor is painfully obvious and pretentious? It sucks that Olde Heuvelt (barely) got the Hugo he's been angling for. I think he's adequate at best and this story wasn't even that. But the Dutch SFF scene acts like he's the messiah so they're never gonna shut up about "the first Dutch Hugo winner". On the bright side the more international exposure his stuff gets the more it gets slammed, so at least I no longer feel like I'm the only one who thinks it's stupid as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
I have no idea what the hell Puppies are in this context, or what the big deal with the Hugo awards this year is 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
The Heuvelt entry is that story about the goon who carried a printer two miles redone with Dutch goldfish.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:So on a scale from 1 to loving dramabomb, how dramabomb were the Hugos this year? The nomination was a shitstorm with a bunch of MRA types (the "Sad Puppies"* and "Rabid Puppies") stuffing the ballots with their own nominees but they lost badly in the actual vote. Apparently everyone behaved at the actual event in Spokane, so I'd give this maybe 0.5 dramabombs. It all probably goes back to the SFWA trying to pull the reins on some of the more odious of its members and with the election of John Scalzi, a self-declared feminist (I think? Anyway, the MRA crowd HATES him) to the leadership. They are upset that all these bullshit stories about gender and social stuff are crowding out pew-pew stories, the REAL science fiction. The MRA leadership figure is an editor using the nom de plume Vox Day who is a publicly confirmed misogynist and fundamentalist Christian crazy-man. * This comes from some kind of ironic take on "these people only care about puppies and little children so we'll mockingly name ourselves 'sad puppies'", I don't get it either. This is my gist of the whole thing. Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Lprsti99 posted:I have no idea what the hell Puppies are in this context, or what the big deal with the Hugo awards this year is To get considered by the Hugos you have to get nominated. To get nominated people have to vote for you. To vote for a book people have to pay ten buxs/participate in wondercon. Some schmuck pointed out that the hugos might have a basis and got enough people to consider this to be true. Said Schmuck and group got several things nominated, sometimes getting everything they wanted to dominate a category. To get an award several authors and people go through the nominees and vote. The board isn't just everyone its select people. One of the things people can do is say "There isn't anything here I consider good" and vote for "NO award". This year several categories got the No Award vote, some where the schmuck group was dominating and some where they only had a few. People are contesting that the hugos awards were voted by politics rather than content. Imagine if something awful book forum held an award and then FYAD brigaded it and somehow got a book onto the nomination, and then people voted to not have an award after that. Megazver posted:
Also consider this when thinking about the hugos
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Lprsti99 posted:I have no idea what the hell Puppies are in this context, or what the big deal with the Hugo awards this year is http://www.wired.com/2015/08/won-science-fictions-hugo-awards-matters/?mbid=social_twitter
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
Exmond posted:
This is actually a pretty good analogy. Edit: I can't stress enough that there was a HUGE voting drive on the 2017 site selection in Finnish social media so the voting attendance may have been influenced by that too, since voting for the Hugos came along with the same membership that allowed you to vote in the site ballot. Possibly hundreds of brand new voters through that. You could send your ballot in an email so you didn't need to actually go to Spokane. Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 18:15
|
|