Not a Blog

More Hugo Ruminations

December 22, 2015 at 5:52 pm
Profile Pic

Time to look at another Hugo category.

Today, Best Graphic Story. (Or ‘best comic book,’ if you want to be less pretentious).

Anyone who knows anything about me knows that I am an old time comic fanboy. I was there for the birth of comics fandom in the 60s. I was the first fan to sign up for the first comicon. My first published words were letters to Stan and Jack in the pages of THE FANTASTIC FOUR and THE AVENGERS. My first published fictions were prose superhero stories in fanzines like HERO and YMIR and STAR-STUDDED COMICS. I was a member of the Merry Marvel Marching Society. I once won an Alley Award (though I never got it). Decades later, I was a guest of honor at San Diego Comicon and won an Inkpot.

That was a long time ago, however. I fear I no longer follow mainstream comics much. I still love the stories and heroes I grew up, Silver Age Marvel and DC (hell, even Charlton, the Question and Blue Beetle were great), but there have been way too many retcons and reboots and restarts for my taste. I don’t know who these characters are any longer, and what’s worse, I don’t much care.

I really don’t think we needed to add a Graphic Story category to the Hugo Awards. Comics have their own awards, the Eisners, they don’t need the Hugo too. Besides, most SF fans do not follow comics closely enough to make informed judgements in this area.

That being said, however, I have to concede that the fans did pretty damned well nominating in this category last year. SAGA was the only one of the finalists that I had actually heard of before Sasquan announced last year’s ballot… but I dutifully read all the others before I voted, and for the most part, I was impressed (okay, not by the Puppy nominee, which was several notches below the other four)… especially by MS. MARVEL, a whole new take on the character (actually a whole new character with an old name), a charming new addition to the Marvel universe, and the eventual winner.

So… I still don’t love Graphic Novel as a Hugo category, but it exists, and those who follow the field more closely than me should nominate Good Stuff here again, and maybe I’ll have more comic books to discover and delight in when the final ballot comes out.

Meanwhile, I do have one truly outstanding graphic novel to suggest… I am not totally disconnected from the world of comics, y’see… and that’s a book called THE SCULPTOR, by Scott McCloud.

McCloud, of course, is the author of UNDERSTANDING COMICS, the seminal work about graphic stories and how they work, a book I recommend unreservedly to all aspiring comic book artists and writers. With THE SCULPTOR, McCloud proves he’s as talented a practitioner as he is a theoretician. It’s a story about a guy with superpowers, yes… but a very real one. No one puts on spandex to fight crime here. This is a story of character, a tale that evokes not Stan Lee or Jack Kirby or even Steve Ditko (much as I love them), but rather Will Eisner. And higher praise than that I do not have.

I haven’t read enough graphic novels to know for certain that THE SCULPTOR was the best of 2015. But it is so damned good, so original and so human, that I cannot imagine that it is not one of the best five. THE SCULPTOR deserves a Hugo nomination, and I know it will be on my ballot.

More Hugo Musings

December 14, 2015 at 11:31 pm
Profile Pic

Speaking of awards, nominations for the 2016 Hugo Awards will be opening soon… so maybe I should post a few more thoughts about some works I think worthy of consideration.

I talked about the two Dramatic Presentation categories in previous posts, and also mentioned NEMESIS GAMES by James S.A. Corey as a possible contender in Best Novel. Tonight I want to draw your attention to a couple of possibilities for Best Related Work.

Now, I will freely admit that Best Related Work is not my favorite Hugo category. It is kind of a grab bag category, the place fandom puts stuff that it likes that doesn’t fit anywhere else. Nobody really seems to have a clear idea what a “related work” is… but past nominees have included biographies, autobiographies, essays, critical works, encyclopedias, science books, graphic novels (before there was a graphic novel category), and other, stranger things.

This year, I think there a couple of strong ‘related works’ worthy of attention.

THE WHEEL OF TIME COMPANION was a mammoth concordance of facts about the universe and characters of the late Robert Jordan’s epic fantasy series, edited and assembled by Harriet McDougal, Alan Romanczuk, and Maria Simons. It’s a labor of love, and everything one could possibly want to know about Jordan’s universe is in there.

Robert Jordan was a giant in the history of modern fantasy, but during his lifetime he was never nominated for a Hugo, for a Nebula, for a World Fantasy Award (the entire WOT series was nominated at Loncon after his death, but lost). The COMPANION is worthy of consideration in its own right, I think… and a Hugo for Harriet, Jim’s widow and Jim’s editor, would be a splendid way to acknowledge his contribution to the genre he loved so much.

Biographies and memoirs have often contended and won in this category before: Jack Vance’s memoir was a recent winner, as was a brilliant biography of Alice Sheldon. The first volume of William Patterson’s Heinlein biography was nominated (though it lost).

This year we have something different: Felicia Day’s delightful look at her life, YOU’RE NEVER WEIRD ON THE INTERNET (Almost).

No, Felicia’s not an SF writer like Vance or Heinlein or Pohl… but she’s certainly an SF person, the queen of the geek girls, an actress, a gamer, a producer. Her whole life has been lived in and around the worlds of SF and fantasy, and her credits include EUREKA and THE GUILD and DR. HORRIBLE’S SING-ALONG BLOG and SUPERNATURAL and… Her book is a lot of fun, witty and wise and insightful… and besides, if she was nominated, maybe she’d come to Kansas City, and it would be a hoot and a half to have Felicia at MidAmericon.

So there you are. Two books to consider when nominating for Best Related Work. I am sure there’s other good stuff out there as well… let’s get some of it on the ballot this year.

More Hugo Thoughts

December 5, 2015 at 12:59 pm
Profile Pic

Continuing the conversation I began in my Not A Post of November 2…

Last time I talked about some possible nominees for Dramatic Presentation, Long Form. This time I want to focus on Dramatic Presentation, Short Form. In other words, best television episode. (No, not officially, but that’s what it usually comes down to, and let’s ignore the silliness of nominating an Easter Egg or an acceptance speech from the previous year’s Hugos).

I was no fan of the efforts of Puppies to game the Hugo Awards last year. I don’t think I have been shy in my opinions on that subject. But I will give the Puppies this much — their efforts did break the decade-long hold that Dr. Who fandom had on the nominations in this category. I have no problem with episodes of DR. WHO being nominated, and indeed winning, mind you… and the Doctor has won plenty of times in this category over the past decade… but when four of the six finalists are from the same category, that strikes me as way unbalanced and, well, greedy. The Doctor’s fans love their show, I know, but there is a LOT of great SF and fantasy on the tube right now. Nominate DR. WHO, by all means… but leave some room for someone else, please.

(And yes, I would feel the same way if it was four episodes of GAME OF THRONES being nominated every year, rather than four episodes of DR. WHO).

Last year, for the first time in recent memory, we actually had five different series represented on the final ballot. In addition to GAME OF THRONES and DR. WHO, the two shows that had dominated the previous three years, we also had ORPHAN BLACK (the eventual winner), plus episodes of THE FLASH and GRIMM. The Puppies had something to do with that, I can’t deny that. Nonetheless, I do think it was a healthy development. I hope we have five different series represented this year as well… though maybe not the same five.

There’s a lot to choose from, actually. Yes, DR. WHO. No way to keep the Doctor off the ballot. Yes, GAME OF THRONES. I am only human, so I do hope we contend again… I’d favor “Hardhome” myself, but “Mother’s Mercy,” with Cersei’s walk of shame, could be a strong choice as well. ORPHAN BLACK is the defending champion, and should get another nod as well.

THE FLASH? Maybe. But there’s also ARROW and GOTHAM and AGENTS OF SHIELD for the comic book fans out there (I count myself as one of those), and now SUPERGIRL as well.

GRIMM was nominated last year, and is still going strong. And there’s ONCE UPON A TIME as well. That one has never gotten a nod.

However, looking beyond previous nominees, there are lots of shows out there that might be due for a bit of Hugo love. Start with the zombie triad: the very grim WALKING DEAD, the very tongue-in-cheek Z NATION, plus I, ZOMBIE. The undead are well represented.

And for horror fans, there’s also AMERICAN HORROR STORY. A perennial Emmy contender, yet it never seems to get any notice at Hugo time.

I love scary stories myself, count myself a fan of Lovecraft and Poe and Stephen King, so I’ve sampled and enjoyed most of these shows. The one I like better than any of them, though? PENNY DREADFUL. That’s the one I’ll be including on my own Hugo ballot.

I am tempted to mention THE LAST KINGDOM as well… but as much as I love it, it really isn’t eligible. A terrific show, one you should all be watching, but it’s straight historical fiction, with no fantasy elements.

However, I will mention another show that might otherwise be overlooked: OUTLANDER. Yes, it is a historical. Yes, it is a romance. But it is also a science fiction show. TIME TRAVEL, remember? Plus, it’s just flat out terrific. Great production values, first rate writing and directing, and some amazing acting… all three of the leads gave performances worthy of Emmy nods this past year, though the Academy overlooked them. I hope that fandom doesn’t make the same mistake.

Let’s spread the love. Lots of people are doing good work in television right now, and deserve some recognition. Five nominations, five different series, that’s my hope. When the time comes to make your nominations, look beyond the usual suspects.

Speaking of THE EXPANSE…

December 2, 2015 at 1:29 pm
Profile Pic

As Ogre Jenni details below, we will be hosting the world premiere of SyFy’s new EXPANSE series tomorrow at the JCC, screening the first two episodes on our big medium-sized screen. First fifty people to attend the 4pm booksigning will get tickets for the 8:30 screening; the rest of the tix will be available on first come, first seated basis.

However, it’s the latest Expanse novel that I want to talk about here.

NEMESIS GAMES is just terrific.

This is definitely one to keep in mind when filling out your Hugo ballot this year. The first of the Expanse series, LEVIATHAN WAKES, was a Hugo nominee (and loser) back in 2012. Subsequent volumes have not made the ballot. This one should. I don’t know if it will be the best SF novel published in 2015 (I still have a lot of novels to read), but I can’t imagine that it won’t be one of the top five. Fans of space opera, of classic old school SF done really well, of great can’t-put-it-down storytelling, should love this one, I’d think. Fans of military SF as well; the Expanse books have all the excitement of the best military SF along with a lot more. Two-headed Jimmy Corey has created a detailed, vivid, well-imagined, lived-in world, peopled it with a great cast of characters, and here welded all that to a page-turning plot that takes us places I never imagined they could go.

Those of you who live near enough, come to the JCC tomorrow and get Jimmy to sign your books and catch the EXPANSE premiere.

Those who don’t… go out and grab NEMESIS GAMES. It’s a hell of ride.

Seveneves at the JCC

November 20, 2015 at 12:35 am
Profile Pic

Next week should be epic at the JCC.

Yes, we have Sibel Kekilli and WHEN WE LEAVE on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Thursday, well, Thursday is Thanksgiving. Turkey and football and (I hope) Melinda’s epic apple pie. (Pumpkin pie has its fans, I know, but I’m an All American apple pie guy. With a slice of cheese on the side, please. ‘Apple pie without cheese is like a kiss without a squeeze,’ my mother used to say). That will be fun… but it won’t be at the JCC.

On the Sunday after Thanksgiving, we have another very special event. That afternoon, at 3:30, NEAL STEPHENSON will be dropping by for a visit, to talk about his new novel SEVENEVES.

I haven’t had the chance to read SEVENEVES myself, though I am looking forward to it. There’s been a lot of critical buzz about this one, and some great reviews; right now, it looks as if SEVENEVES will be a strong contender come Hugo time. Neal Stephenson is no stranger to that, of course. He’s won (and lost) Hugos before, and his wins include ‘the Big One,’ the Hugo for best novel. We will also have a good selection of his backlist available for sale… and signing… at the JCC.

So if you’re in New Mexico this Sunday, come by and meet him, enjoy a cocktail, and hear how it happened that the moon broke up.

Hugo Thoughts

November 2, 2015 at 3:08 pm
Profile Pic

Talking about sports this morning is immeasurably depressing… so I am going to talk about science fiction and the Hugo awards instead.

After several months of relative quiet, the Puppygate mess seems to be stirring again.

It is my hope — maybe a naive hope — that this time around, we can actually talk about the WORK instead of engaging in endless recrimination and name-calling. I am, I confess, not optimistic on that front, but I am going to try to do my bit, by… well, by talking about the work.

In the past, I have usually made my own Hugo recommendations only after nominations have opened. But in light of what happened last year, it seems useful to begin much sooner. To get talking about the things we like, the things we don’t like. This is especially useful in the case of the lesser known and obscure work. Drawing attention to such earlier in the process is the best way to get more fans looking at them… and unless you are aware of a work, you’re not likely to nominate it, are you? (Well, unless you’re voting a slate, and just ticking off boxes).

Let me start with the Dramatic Presentation category. Long form.

Big Hollywood movies traditionally dominate this category. I suspect it will be the same this year. The new STAR WARS comes out at year’s end, and has to be the favorite here. I have not seen it, you have not seen it, no one really knows if it will be another EMPIRE STRIKES BACK or another PHANTOM MENACE… but it’s still STAR WARS, and I suspect it will be nominated.

THE MARTIAN should also be nominated. A great adaptation of a terrific book, I actually think it has a fair chance of upsetting STAR WARS. Fans of hard SF — and there are a LOT of those — love this one, and for good reason. I loved it too. (And wish we’d been allowed to screen it at my theatre). There seems to be some confusion about whether Andy Weir is still eligible for the Campbell Award, by the way… but if he is eligible, he should certainly be nominated.

Also, there’s MAD MAX: FURY ROAD. I loved the old Mad Max movies (especially THE ROAD WARRIOR), and this one was a worthy successor. Deserves a space on the ballot for sure.

Those are the big obvious choices. But let me draw your attention to a few more obscure possibilities.

PREDESTINATION is an adaptation of Robert A. Heinlein’s classic short “All You Zombies.” It actually came out last year (we showed it at the JCC), but had little distribution. For that reason, the Sasquan business meeting voted to give it a second year of eligibility, so it is eligible again this year. It is an excellent little film, with a wonderful performance by Sarah Snook. Very faithful to RAH. If you liked the story, you should like the movie. Seek it out and give it a look.

WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS is a comedy out of New Zealand, about four vampires living together in Wellington, NZ. I saw it first in Switzerland at a film festival. It’s hilarious. Won the festival’s audience award, deservedly. Comedy is often overlooked at awards time, if there are no special categories for it. This one deserves a better fate. Not a chance in hell it will ever win a Hugo… but wouldn’t it be cool if a small, funny film like this could make the ballot?

Finally… the Long Form category is not actually limited to movies, though those do tend to dominate. So do also consider JONATHAN STRANGE AND MR. NORRELL, the seven-part BBC television miniseries adaptation of the Hugo-winning novel by Susannah Clarke. A lovely piece of work, I thought, and — again — faithful to the source material (a big thing with me). It should not be forgotten at nominations time.

I am not urging anyone to nominate any of these… but I am suggesting that you might want to check them out. They’re all works I enjoyed a lot. I suspect that THE MARTIAN and FURY ROAD and the yet-unseen STAR WARS are all pretty much locks for Hugo nominations regardless, but the other three, the more obscure three, are worthy efforts that might be missed, unless people seek them out. So…

One Alfie, Two Hugos

September 12, 2015 at 9:25 pm
Profile Pic

John Joseph Adams was one of the winners at Sasquan.

As part of the LIGHTSPEED editorial team, he took home a Hugo for Best Semiprozine.

But he also won one of our Alfies as Best Editor, Short Form.

Though I searched for JJA in the aftermath of the Hugo ceremony in Spokane, I was never able to find him (he was in the bar, as it happens) to give him an invite to the Hugo Losers Party. So he was not on hand to accept his trophy.

We shipped it to him instead. It’s finally turned up on his end, and he was kind enough to send a picture of the Alfie sandwiched between his two Hugos (from Sasquan and Loncon).

The Alfie doesn’t have a name plate yet, you’ll notice. Since we had no way of knowing the winners until after the Hugo nominations were released, we could not get them engraved ahead of time. But the plates are being engraved now, and will be shipped out shortly.

John writes, “The Alfie just arrived — it looks so fabulous! Thanks again so so much! I’ve attached a picture of it in between my Hugos. It’s extra cool to win an Alfie for me — THE STARS MY DESTINATION is my favorite book, and is kind of responsible for becoming an editor in the first place. I even invoked it in the opening of the foreword to volume one of BEST AMERICAN SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY.”

(( As an ironic footnote, Bester won his Hugo for THE DEMOLISHED MAN, though many people consider THE STARS MY DESTINATION his masterpiece. Including me and John Joseph Adams, clearly. However, the year that THE STARS MY DESTINATION would have been eligible, worldcon was in London, and for reasons incomprehensible to me they dropped the Best Novel category. So Alfie was a Hugo loser too, and in a unique manner. ))

Anyway, John, congrats, and thanks for sending the picture.

Hugo Reform

September 4, 2015 at 12:11 am
Profile Pic

Loathe as I am to say any more about the Hugo Awards…

This one has nothing to do with the Puppies, be they Sad or Rabid. This is about the awards themselves, and ways they could be made better. At several points during Puppygate, I said words to the effect that, “the Hugos are not perfect, but… ” Given all that was going on, defending the awards seemed more important than reforming them.

But now that Sasquan is past, maybe this is a good time to discuss ways in which our field’s oldest and most prestigious awards could be made better.

Over on his own Live Journal, Kevin Standlee has put forward a pretty bold proposal. He proposes abolishing three of the current Hugo categories:
1) Best Semiprozine
2) Best Editor, Short Form
3) Best Editor, Long Form
In their place, he would add three new categories (one actually an old category restored):
1) Best Professional Magazine
2) Best Anthology or Collection
3) Best Publisher

I suspect that the chance of these changes being enacted are remote (every existing Hugo category has an entrenched constituency, so while adding categories is difficult, abolishing one is all but impossible) but nonetheless, I think these are eminently sensible changes and I would whole-heartedly support them. Let me tell you why.

For me, the most problematic Hugo categories are those that honor a person rather than a work. Look at Best Artist, for instant. I was just discussing that with my friend John Picacio this past weekend, as it’s a pet peeve of his. The award has been around for half a century, yet fewer than twenty people have ever won it. The same people win, year after year. Many voters have no idea what art they did the past year, if any; they just know, “oh, I like X’s art,” and they vote for him, again.

The Best Editor categories have shown every signs of working the same way. Originally the category WAS Best Magazine, which was easy to judge. Did ASTOUNDING or GALAXY have a better year? It was changed to Best Editor in the 70s, during the boom in original anthologies, sometimes called “book-a-zines”… and to allow book editors to compete. But few book editors were ever nominated, and none ever won, until the category was split in half. Problem is, and this complaint came up often during Puppygate and after, that most books do not credit their editors… and besides that, the reader has no real way to know what the editor did. Some novels are heavily edited, some much less. What is the criterion?

The proof should be in the pudding. Which pudding tastes better. Reward the WORK, not the author or editor or artist. Go back to Best Magazine, and add Anthology/ Collection (both the Locus Awards and the World Fantasy Awards have such a category, and it works well). That more than covers the Short Form Editors.

And Best Publisher covers the Long Form Editors. It is much easier to know which publisher issued the most outstanding books during the previous year, than to decide what editor did what… assuming you can even find out who edited your favorite book.

Of course, book editors may object that they don’t get a trophy. Easy answer: more trophies. A few years ago, they handed out SEVEN rockets to the seven winners of the Best Podcast category. They can do the same for Best Publisher: a rocket for the publisher, and one for every senior (i.e. not assistant) editor in the SF/ fantasy imprint(s). The publisher lists the nominees when they get the nomination, the same way that those of us in TV are asked to list the people who’ll get the rockets when we get nominated in Best Dramatic Presentation.

Oh, and getting rid of Semiprozine is long past due as well. It’s a bastard categtory, created solely to get LOCUS out of Fanzine, where it was winning far too often for the taste of all the other fanzine publishers. No other award in the world that I have ever heard of has a “semi” category. Best Semipro Artist? Best Semipro Director? Best Semiprofessional Actress in a Supporting Role?

Make it Best Magazine, the way it used to be. Once upon a time, the semipros could not compete with the professional magazines since the imbalance in circulation was too great. ANALOG sold 100,000 copies, LOCUS sold 10,000. Well, guess what? Those days are gone. I am not sure that F&SF has ANY circulation advantage over CLARKSWORLD or INTERZONE or LOCUS these days, but if they do, it’s no longer an order of magnitude. And decades of results in Best Novel show that books that sell a relatively small number of copies regularly defeat ones that sell a lot more… why shouldn’t it work that way for magazines as well?

Anyway… I think these are good ideas. Maybe even something old fans and new fans and Puppies and non-Puppies can agree on, without politics getting into it.

I am going to close comments on this post, however. Not because there is nothing to say — there is a LOT to say about these proposals — but because there’s a better place to say it, over on Kevin Standlee’s own LJ, which you will find here:

http://kevin-standlee.livejournal.com/1495246.html

There’s a vigorous (and courteous) debate already going on there. Go and join it.

These are Kevin’s proposals, not mine. But I like them.

Next Year’s Hugos

August 31, 2015 at 8:39 pm
Profile Pic

The Hugo Awards for 2015 have been announced, the rockets handed out, the post-mortems written and published. You can read analyses all over the internet. My own thoughts on the results can be found below, so I won’t recap them here. The Great Puppy War is over.

Or is it?

That’s the question. Where do we go from here?

I know where I’d like to go: back to normalcy, as old Warren G. Harding once said.

No one who truly cares about science fiction, fantasy, or fandom could possibly want a Second Puppy War. The past half year has been deeply unpleasant for writers and readers on both sides. Next year’s worldcon is in Kansas City, and it would be great if the Hugo ceremony next August could once again be a celebration of excellence, rewarding all the writers, editors, artists, and fans who had done outstanding work in 2015.

Can that possibly happen? Can we remember that “we are all science fiction,” as some of the ribbons I saw at Sasquan proclaimed? Can we have a reconciliation?

I think there’s a chance. But a chance is not a certainty. It depends. Mostly, I think, it depends on the Sad Puppies.

We already know that VD Beale and the Rabid Puppies are going to try to do it again. They want to destroy the award, and they will no doubt do their damndest, and there will be a rabid slate. Nothing can be done about that… except to ignore the troll. Fandom — liberal and conservative, Sad Puppy and Truefan, have all been paying too much attention to Beale. Our links and denunciations have driven his page views higher and higher. And too many people empowered VD and his slate… either by voting for the work he slated (often unread) or by voting AGAINST the work he slated. We should not be giving these toxic clowns the power to sway our votes either way. Beale will do a slate, no doubt. Just ignore it. Nominate and vote as if the Rabid Puppies did not exist. That’s certainly what I intend to do.

Which brings me to the Sad Puppies. Brad Torgersen has retired from the fray, he tells us. There will be a Sad Puppies 4 campaign, but it will be run by Kate Paulk. It is my understanding that she does not intend to generate a slate, but rather a recommended reading list, similar in scope and intent to the LOCUS Recommended Reading List, or that of NESFA, or LASFS. I think that’s good. Unlike the Torgersen list, which was carefully “curated,” Paulk has said that her list will focus on the works that receive the most suggestions from those participating, that it could include “even David Gerrold” if a lot of people suggest him. I think that’s VERY good. Could it also include “even” N.K. Jemisin and Rachel Swirsky and Ken Liu and Mary Robinette Kowal? Even better. Not that I think it will… the Puppies may not be all conservative, but certainly more of them tend right than left, and their literary tastes undoubtedly run to more traditional forms and styles too. But if Paulk is honestly willing to consider all the suggestions she gets, without litmus tests, I applaud that. It should enable her to produce a recommended reading list that is far more varied, and far more interesting, than the SP3 slate.

Slating was one of this year’s big problems. It was SLATING that produced the avalanche of “No Award” voting in this year’s Hugo balloting, the widespread perception in fandom that the slated nominees were illegitimate. If there is no slating (save for the Rabid slate, which I fear is inescapable), I think fandom as a whole will be far more open to the suggestions of the Sad Puppies.

Let’s make it about the work. Let’s argue about the BOOKS. And yes, of course, it will be an argument. I may not like the stories you like. You may not like the stories I like. We can all live with that, I think. I survived the Old Wave/ New Wave debate. Hell, I enjoyed parts of it… because it was about literature, about prose style, characterization, storytelling. Some of the stuff that Jo Walton explores in her Alfie-winning Best Related Work, WHAT MAKES THIS BOOK SO GREAT? That’s the sort of debate we should be having.

The elimination of slates will be a huge step toward the end of hostilities.

But there’s a second step that’s also necessary. One I have touched on many times before. We have to put an end to the name-calling. To the stupid epithets.

I have seen some hopeful signs on that front in some of the Hugo round-ups I’ve read. Puppies and Puppy sympathizers using terms like Fan (with a capital), or trufan, or anti-Puppy, all of which I am fine with. I am not fine with CHORF, ASP, Puppy-kicker, Morlock, SJW, Social Justice Bully, and some of the other stupid, offensive labels that some Pups (please note, I said SOME) have repeatedly used for describe their opponents since this whole thing began. I am REALLY not fine with the loonies on the Puppy side who find even those insults too mild, and prefer to call us Marxists, Maoists, feminazis, Nazis, Christ-hating Sodomites, and the like. There have been some truly insane analogies coming from the kennels too — comparisons to World War II, to the Nazi death camps, to ethnic cleansing. Guy, come on, cool down. WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT A LITERARY AWARD THAT BEGAN AS AN OLDSMOBILE HOOD ORNAMENT. Even getting voted below No Award is NOT the same as being put on a train to Auschwitz, and when you type shit like that, well…

The Pups have often complained that they don’t get no respect… which has never actually been true, as the pre-Puppy awards nominations of Correia and Torgersen have proved… but never mind, the point here is that to get respect, you need to give respect.

And before any of the Puppies jump on here to say, “you did or first,” or “you did it worse,” well… I think you’re wrong, but we’ve argued it before, and there is no point in arguing it again. A lot of things were said during the past few months. Do we want to keep rehashing them endlessly, or do we want to move on?

I am very proud of what I did with the Alfies; the reactions of the winners, and the way the awards have been received by fandom, pleases me no end. Sometimes it is better to give than to receive, and I got as much joy from giving out the Alfies than I have from receiving any of my Hugo awards, Nebulas, or World Fantasy Awards.

But I don’t want to have to give them again.

I voted No Award in several Hugo categories this year, because the finalists were unworthy of the rocket, but I was not pleased to do so.

I would rather not have to do that again either. Next year, I hope, the Hugo ballot will present me with so many excellent choices that No Award will be ranked last in every category.

If there are fans of good will on the other side who share these hopes, be they liberal or conservative, left wing or right wing, great… I am holding out my hand. Let’s talk about books. We may disagree… probably WILL disagree… but that’s not the end of the world, or even the Hugos. That’s just fandom. If you have ever been to a con, you’ll know that the best panels are the ones with a little lively disagreement.

((And for those of you who would prefer to continue to call names and throw stones and talk about cabals and conspiracies and death trains… sorry, not going to engage. Hatespeech is not lively disagreement. I am too old, too smart, and too rich to waste my time with assholes.))

<lj-embed id=”596″/>

The Alfies

August 27, 2015 at 5:41 pm
Profile Pic

Once I had decided to hand out the Alfies, as detailed on the previous post, I had to make a lot of other decisions. Again and again, I found myself returning to the original 1953 awards, and the spirit in which they were given.

The prestige of the Hugo, the history, the lineage, whatever career-boosting or financial rewards the rocket supposedly carries… there was no way for me to make up for any of that. But I could certainly give some losers an “Attaboy! You did good!” in the spirit of ’53.

In 1953, there were no losers, just winners. That appealed to me. I wanted these awards to be a celebration, a occasion of happiness. I would award some worthy people, but there would be no shortlist, no campaigning, and therefore no losers.

Of course, an “Attaboy!” is nice, but a cool trophy is even nicer. Right away I decided that plaques (boring) and “certificates suitable for framing” would not serve. We needed something much better. Something that could stand next to a Hugo, tall and proud and ready for blast off.

In 1953, legend says the Hugos were made from Oldsmobile hood ornaments. But as we now know (see previous post), they were not called the Hugos that year, and were not actually hood ornaments. That would need to wait till 1956. But what the hell, when the legend becomes truth, print the legend. I loved the legend, and I loved the way Alfie Bester talked himself into that first Hugo Losers party, so I decided that my awards would also be made from old 50s hood ornaments. I went up on ebay to look for some, and discovered… gods be good, that really was the “Space Age,” half the cars on the road had some sort of rocket or jet on their hoods (to go with those gigantic tailfins).

I decided to avoid the 1950 and 1951 Oldsmobile Rocket 88 ornaments on offer (except for one I bought for show ‘n tell). The central rocket on those is too close to the Hugo rocket of today, and the Hugo and its iconic design are the trademarked property of the World Science Fiction Convention. I did not want to infringe, nor open myself up to charges that I was handing out ‘my own Hugos.’ The Alfies needed to look dramatically different… but still cool.

Fortunately, even with the Olds taken off the table, I had a wealth of choices. Fords, Chevys, Mercurys, Willys, Lincolns… there were some amazing rocket-shaped thingamabobs out there. Nobody was selling a lot of a dozen identical ones, however, so I realized that the Alfies would have to include a number of different designs. A whole fleet of spaceships, as it were. I set to bidding, and buying. Won some, lost some, dropped out on others when the prices got too high. When they started coming in, I saw right away that some were not as suitable as they’d looked, but others were perfect. None of them were in especially great condition, to be sure. That’s why most of them came cheap. Just like that DEMOLISHED MAN rocket from 1953, they were rusted, pitted, corroded by the passage of time.

So I turned to Tyler Smith, sculptor and metal-worker par excellence, the guy who made the Beast’s head for the Jean Cocteau Cinema and is working on the dragon’s head for Dragonstone Studios. Consider him the spiritual heir to the original Hugo-maker, Jack McKnight. Tyler sanded and smoothed the hood ornaments, ground down the rough bits and filled in holes, then had them all powder-coated and rechromed. Then he set to designing bases for them. We rejected the idea of fastening them to wooden backings, like the 1956 Hugo; instead Tyler cut some dramatic metal bases with his trusty plasma-cutter, so the Alfies looked as if they were taking flight.

Here’s the fleet, as it looked when Tyler finished:

Back in 1953, Jack McKnight worked all through the convention to finish the awards in time for the presentation. Thankfully, Tyler managed to finish the Alfies the day before we were scheduled to take off for Spokane. (Even so, that last week gave me ulcers). In 1953, the concom presumably told McKnight who the winners were going to be, so he could have their names engraved on the bases. We had no such knowledge, so the Alfies had no engraving, no names. We would not find that out who won them until after the Hugo Awards ceremony, when Sasquan released the voting totals. (We do plan to have name plates for the bases engraved now, and will mail them out to the winners).

As to who those winners would be… I decided, early on, that I would not attempt to give Alfies out in every category. The Puppies had dominated the ballot as a whole, beyond a doubt, but in most categories there were a couple… or at least one… legitimate nominee. In those races, at least, the voters had a choice.

But in five categories no such choice existed: Novella, Short Story, Related Work, Long Form Editor, Short Form Editor. In those categories the only choice was between the Sad Puppies and the Rabids and the Sad/ Rabids. The slates had taken EVERY slot in those races. Unless you were a Puppy, you were not even allowed in the starting gate. Even Secretariat could not hope to win a horserace under those conditions. (I suspected that No Award would win in some of these categories, as I said in my Hugo handicapping. I was shocked that NA won in all five).

And it should be stressed: I did not pick the Alfie winners, at least not in these five races. FANDOM picked the winners. The Alfie in each of these races went to the writer or editor who had received the most nominations while not part of any slate. I had no idea who the winners would be until after the Hugo ceremony, when I got my hands on the ‘pink sheet’ with all of this year’s voting details, and was able to check the nomination numbers.

My plan had been to reveal the Alfies and announce the winners at the Hugo Losers Party, as a midnight surprise. Turned out to be closer to one, since everything ran late that night. Rather than presenting all the awards myself, I asked a few friends to help me hand them out. Ellen Datlow, Pat Cadigan, David Gerrold, and Robert Silverberg — stalwart fellows, and Hugo Losers in good standing, all — came forward to lend a hand.

BEST EDITOR, SHORT FORM was the first Alfie handed out. The winner was JOHN JOSEPH ADAMS, who had come in sixth behind the slates with 149 nominations (only 13 behind Vox Day — if only a few more fans had troubled to nominate, we might not have had No Award winning here). Adams was at the con, but unfortunately not at the party. I had never been able to track him down.

BEST EDITOR, LONG FORM was presented by Ellen Datlow, one of our field’s leading editors for close on forty years. Ellen has won Hugos and lost more, and probably has more World Fantasy Awards than any other person. Her apartment looks like Easter Island; everywhere you turn, H.P. Lovecraft is staring at you. The winner was LIZ GORINSKY of Tor, with 96 nominations. Liz is a Hugo Loser in good standing, since she has been a finalist several times, but has never won. She’s still a Hugo Loser… but now at least she is an Alfie winner, and she was there to accept, which delighted me no end.

Next was BEST RELATED WORK. Jo Walton took this one, with 105 nominations, for WHAT MAKES THIS BOOK SO GREAT. Alas, though she was said to be at the con, I never found her, so she was not at the party. (Until I saw the nomination totals, I had been thinking the second volume of William Patterson’s Heinlein bio would take this Alfie, but I was completely wrong. And the Walton book is a perfect winner, one that epitomizes the spirit of the original Hugo Awards. It is a big book of Attaboys!, a fond and affectionate look back at the books that made us SF fans). David Gerrold made the presentation.

BEST SHORT STORY. “Jackalope Wives” by Ursula Vernon. 76 nominations. Ursula was not at the con, but her friend Mur Lafferty came forward to accept on her behalf. Pat Cadigan made the presentation. Mur spent the rest of the evening having photographs taken of various editors, writers, and fans holding Ursula’s Alfie. Hope you don’t mind the fingerprints, Ursula.

BEST NOVELLA. Robert Silverberg presented the Alfie (a monster, the largest of the hood ornaments I secured, since novella has the biggest stories) to “The Slow Regard of Silent Things,” by Patrick Rothfuss, 124 nominations. Patrick was not at Sasquan, so the massive trophy was accepted on his behalf by Scott Lynch.

Those were the five Alfies determined by fan vote. I know, of course, that the story with the most nominations does not always win the Hugo in the end, so there is no certainty that John Joseph Adams, Liz Gorinsky, Jo Walton, Ursula Vernon, or Patrick Rothfuss would have won Hugos this year… but we do know, based on the nominations, that they would have been contenders. The slates deprived them of that chance. They may win Hugo Awards in the future, or they may not. This year’s rocket is gone forever. But they will always have the Alfie.

Attaboy, guys. Attaboy, girls. You did good!

But that’s not all, folks. Worldcons have the authority to give one special committee award each year, according to the WSFS constitution. I decided I would give some special committee awards as well, in the spirit of those ’53 Hugos, where none of the awards were voted on. Not being bound by the WSFS constitution, I could give out four extra awards, not just one.

These I presented myself.

One went to ERIC FLINT. Through these long months of vitriol and mud-slinging, Eric Flint’s blog remained an oasis of common sense, facts, and sanity. He kept his calm when everyone else was losing theirs, and he spoke truth, though he had no horse in this race, and no need to speak up at all. I did not always agree with everything he said about Puppygate, mind you, but that’s okay. Reasonable men should be able to disagree. His courage and calm words deserved an Alfie… and when next year comes around, I plan to nominate Flint for Best Fan Writer.

Two more Alfies went to ANNIE BELLET and MARKO KLOOS. Added to the slates without their knowledge or consent, both of these talented young writers found themselves on this year’s Hugo ballot, Bellet for her short story “Goodnight Stars” and Kloos for his novel LINES OF DEPARTURE. It was the first Hugo nomination for both of them, something that every science fiction writer dreams of, a day to be remembered and cherished forever. And yet, when they discovered the nature of the slates and the block-voting that had placed them on the ballot, both Bellet and Kloos withdrew, turning down their nominations. I cannot imagine how difficult and painful a decision that must have been. Bellet’s story actually had more nominations than any other short story on the ballot, regardless of slate, which suggests that she might well have been nominated even without the ‘help’ of the Puppies. And it was Marko Kloos’ withdrawal that opened up a space on the ballot for Cixin Liu’s THREE-BODY PROBLEM, the eventual winner. They lost their shot at a Hugo (this year, at least — I think both of them will be back), but their courage and integrity earned them both an Alfie.

The last Alfie of the night had… surprise, surprise… nothing to do with the slates, the Sads, the Puppies, or any of that madness. I wanted to give a token of recognition to one of the giants of our field, a Hugo winner, Hugo loser (if you look only at the fiction categories, he has lost more Hugos than anyone, I believe), SFWA Grand Master, former Worldcon Guest of Honor, and Big Heart Award winner… the one and only Silverbob. The coolest Alfie of all (the half-lucite one that lights up) went to ROBERT SILVERBERG, the only man among us to have attended every Hugo Awards ceremony since 1953. There has never been a Hugo given out without Silverberg watching. Just think of that!

And that was the night. The party resumed with much hooting and hollering.

A few last words. Some people are calling the Alfies an “alternative” award. I prefer to think of them as “supplementary” awards. A way to heal the hurt, spread some joy, reward good work.

I wanted them to be a surprise, so I did all I could to keep them secret. Aside from me and my team here in Santa Fe, no one knew about the Alfies ahead of time except the handful of people I asked to help me present them. None of the winners had so much as an inkling.

Some of the leading Puppies have oft said that the awards should be about the work. I agree. And looking at the Alfie winners, I could not be more proud of the quality of the work represented. Truly top-flight stuff, and no “boring message fiction” to be found (that was always an empty talking point). Any of them would have done the Hugo proud.

So let’s have a round of applause for Robert Silverberg, Marko Kloos, Annie Bellet, Eric Flint, Jo Walton, Ursula Vernon, Liz Gorinsky, John Joseph Adams, Patrick Rothfuss. Enjoy your rockets. But remember what Alfie Bester said… they’re hood ornaments, and in twenty-three years they may be so pitted and corroded that you’ll be welcome at the Losers Party.