Tags: hugos 2013

buzz

Since Alison asked: two answers on counting the Hugos - EPH and Best Dramatic Presentation

The latest installment of the Octothorpe podcast has a couple of points on counting Hugo nominations raised by Alison Scott, which I'd like to address here.

First off, at 18:53, Alison expresses the concern that under the counting system (known as "EPH, short for "E Pluribus Hugo"), "if I nominate anything else, it reduces the chance that the thing I love gets on the ballot. And that seems to me to be the big downside of EPH." The podcast is kind enough to link to the explanation of EPH that I wrote in 2017.

It is of course perfectly true that under the current counting system, if you love one thing, and you nominate other things as well, you reduce the chance that your vote will help the one thing you love getting on the ballot. But this was equally true of the old tallying system. It's the principle of monotonicity, as Kenneth Arrow put it in his famous Theorem. Candidate A getting more votes should not lead to her getting a worse result, and Candidate B getting fewer votes should not lead to his getting a better result. If you give an extra vote to A, you are inevitably hurting B's chances, even if you love B more. So it's not uniquely a problem with EPH, but with any system where your vote can go to several candidates simultaneously. (Preferential voting systems, where a lower preference doesn't affect the chances of your highest-placed choice, are a different matter, and in fact are sometimes criticised by their opponents for allegedly violating monotonicity, though I think this is not a reasonable criticism.)

The second point is a question raised by Liz Batty at 21:42, on which Alison calls me out by name at at 22:23. In a situation where a TV series qualifies for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form, and one or more episodes of it qualify for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form, how do administrators decide which will actually appear on the ballot?

This is of course a recent problem. but my answer is clear: if faced with a choice, administrators should choose whatever alternative gets more voters the thing they want on the vote. To go into the detail:

The Dramatic Presentation categories were only split from 2003. The first series to qualify was season 1 of Heroes, in 2008, and only one of its individual episodes even scraped onto the long list that year. It was in 2012 that the first season of Game of Thrones got 171 votes for the Long Form ballot, and individual episodes got 73 and 60 votes which would have been enough to qualify for the Short Form ballot (and another episode was runner-up with 49 votes); but the administrators decided that the series rather than the individual episodes should qualify. George R.R. Martin had anticipated this outcome several months earlier. I do not know if the showrunners were consulted. The series won the Long Form Hugo.

It's worth noting that the 171 votes for the series in Long Form are more than the sum of the votes for the two episodes that made the top five in Short Form (73+60 = 133), and of course a number of voters will have voted for both of the Short Form episodes, so the total number of voters who wanted to see either of the two on the Short Form ballot would have been much less than 133. The episode which came sixth, with 49 votes, doesn't count here, as it would never have been on the final ballot anyway.

Edited to add: A calculation I made for the other years when I first posted this, but forgot to make for 2012, is the down-ballot impact of the decisions available to the administrators. Excluding the series would have brought a film with 94 votes onto the Long Form ballot. Including the two GoT episodes would have excluded two nominees with 38 and 36 votes which ended up on the Short Form ballot in our timeline. So the administrators' decision was in line with the wishes of up to 171+38+36 = 245 voters, whereas the alternative would have satisfied a maximum of 94+73+60 = 227 voters. There would have been some overlap of supporters in the short form nominations, though more in the latter scenario than the former.

The following year, 2013, the second series of Game of Thrones got 164 votes for Long Form, and an individual episode got 95 votes for Short Form. The showrunners were consulted this time as to which should be on the ballot, and opted for the individual episode, which indeed won the Short Form Hugo. This is the only occasion of the five times the situation has arisen (2012, 2013, twice in 2020 and 2021) where the showrunners were consulted, as far as I am aware. This brought a film with 141 votes onto the Long Form ballot; otherwise an audiobook with 58 votes would have replaced the GoT episode on the Short Form ballot. So arguably more voters were satisfied with the actual ballot (141+95 = 236) than with the alternative (164+58 = 222).

The next TV series to qualify for the Long Form category was the first of Stranger Things, in 2017, my first year as Hugo Administrator. None of the episodes came close to qualifying in Short Form however, so there was no decision to make. NB that from that year on there were six finalists per category, rather than five as previously.

The most complex decision so far was in 2020, when the top six nominees for Long Form included the TV series Good Omens, with 212 votes, and Watchmen, with 81; while the top six nominees  in Short Form included an individual episode of Good Omens with 104 votes, and two episodes of Watchmen with 81 and 59. I was Deputy Administrator that year, and we made our thinking pretty clear: more voters supported Good Omens being in Long Form, and more voters supported at least one of the two Watchmen episodes in Short Form, so that was the decision we made, without consulting the showrunners. (We were also, as you may remember, in the middle of a global pandemic.)

If we had instead kept the Good Omens episode on the Short Form ballot (where it actually came top) we'd have got a film with 74 votes on the Long Form ballot and lost a TV episode with 36 votes on the Short Form ballot, thus satisfying 104+74 = 178 voters rather than 212+36 = 248 voters. On the other hand, if we'd kept Watchmen on Long Form and dropped the two episodes from Short Form, the category ballots would have lost a film with 75 votes and gained two TV episodes with 34 and 35, which also clearly satisfies fewer voters, especially if the two TV episodes had supporters in common.

We followed that precedent again in 2021 (official results sheet, tidier version which I supplied too late to the convention), when I was WSFS Division Head and a member of the Hugo sub-committee at the time nominations closed; the second series of The Mandalorian got 67 votes for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form, and two individual episodes got 67 and 45 for Short Fom. Clearly more voters supported having at least one of the episodes in Short Form, so again without consulting the showrunners, that was the decision that we made. That brought a film onto the Long Form ballot that had got 63 votes; if we had gone the other way, two TV episodes with 28 and 25 votes would have been on the Short Form ballot. I don't need to work out the arthmetic in detail, but you can if you want; it was pretty clear what outcome better reflected the wishes of the voters.

So, in summary (I bet you're glad there's a summary), the practice of administrators has been that the wishes of voters should be given priority, if they are clear, and whichever alternative gives more voters a thing they want on the ballot is the one that should be followed. 2013 may look like an exception at first glance, but if you look at the down-ballot consequences of the decision, it's also defensible in those terms.

I would resist any move to formally throw the decision to showrunners rather than the Hugo administrators. I'm uneasy with the idea that studio execs rather than WSFS voters should get to decide what is on the Hugo ballot, and it should be added that in practice, many showrunners are not very responsive to communications from Hugo administrators (Game of Thrones was very much an honourable exception there).

I'm also opposed to further codifying existing practice in the rules. Let's concentrate on fixing the things that need fixing, in particular the Best Artist categories, and not waste time on the things that already work.

But thank you for asking, Alison!
tardis

Companion Piece, eds. L.M. Myles and Liz Barr

Second paragraph of third essay:
I'm going to look at Barbara and Ian not only as televisual companions to the Doctor, but as icons within the wider worlds of Doctor Who. Who were they, why were they key to the success of the series, and why do we still keep returning to them over 50 years after Ian was the first person to say "but it was just a police box"?
This is the sixth of the Geek Girl Chronicles, and the third of them to collect essays by women about Doctor Who (following on from Chicks Dig Time Lords and Chicks Unravel Time). Published earlier this year, it is eligible for next year's Hugo nominations as Best Related Work; the first in the series won that category in 2011, and Mad Norwegian Press has had three more nominations since (Chicks Unravel Time, Chicks Dig Gaming and Queers Dig Time Lords).

Obviously this is mainly going to appeal to Who fans with a decent knowledge of both Old and New Who, but I commend it to the rest of you anyway. I think the weakest essay here is better than the weakest ones in the two previous volumes; I think that there are a couple of really standout pieces (the para I quote above is from "Scheherazade and Galahad in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks", by Mags L. Halliday, which was one of my favourites); and I think that the best of them relate the ongoing story of Doctor Who to wider cultural and literary trends in a way that should be relevant to anyone with an interest in the genre.

It's quite likely to get one of my nomination slots next spring. But this is the one category where my shortlist is already overpopulated, and mostly with Whoviana at that. I'll leave you with the opening para of the final chapter, Amal El-Mohtar on "A Question of Emphasis: The Doctor as Companion":
buzz

Predicting the Hugos

As the dust settles from this year's Hugos, I thought it worth revisiting my two posts from earlier this year assessing how the nominees had been rated in different ways online.

The LibraryThing/Goodreads statistics proved a good guide this time round, with Redshirts, the Best Novel winner, pretty far ahead of the field on both sites. It has to be said that LibraryThing/Goodreads prognostication is not always so successful. LibraryThing called 2312 for the Nebula this year, and Goodreads was not far off; but the process failed completely for the BSFA Award and the Clarke Award - both winners, Jack Glass and Dark Eden respectively, were fourth on the Goodreads ranking and fifth on LibraryThing. Basically this is a good way of identifying books that have built up a wide audience, but won't take you much further.

My survey of blog posts got two winners in the fiction categories right and failed to spot the other two. The overwhelming consensus from bloggers for "Mono no Aware" for Best Short Story, and the strong consensus for The Emperor's Soul for Best Novella, were reflected in the voters' choices. But only one blogger of my original survey went for "The Girl-Thing Who Went Out For Sushi" for Best Novella, and none at all for Redshirts, though each of them drew support from two (different) commenters to my post.

This is not unusual. In my 2011 survey, the blogging consensus converged correctly on "The Lady Who Plucked Red Flowers beneath the Queen’s Window" for Best Novella. But the strike rate was unimpressive in other categories, with majority support for ultimately unsuccessful nominees in the other short fiction shortlists, and not a single blogger in my survey voting for the eventual Best Novel winner, Blackout/All Clear. Basically, blog surveys are a pretty blunt tool, covering only the articulate voter who posts in forums which I can see. If there is a strong consensus around a particular nominee, it is often right. If there is no strong consensus, it is certain that most people are wrong. (Using "right" and "wrong" as shorthand for "correct [bzw. incorrect] reflections of the outcome of the actual vote" rather than any judgement of individual choices here.)

Despite the demonstrably limited value of these surveys, I expect I shall continue doing them; it is interesting to identify front-runners, especially when it turns out that they do not win.

buzz

Hugos in detail

Headlines:

  • Closest results of the night were for Best Related Work, the final margin for the Writing Excuses podcast being only 3 votes over The Cambridge Companion to Fantasy, after a tie-break on the penultimate count between the Cambridge Companion and Chicks Unravel Time. Second place was also decided by a mere five votes (Chicks Unravel Time this time ahead of the Cambridge Companion.)

  • The Unwritten Vol 6 missed nomination for Best Graphic Story by five votes; 15 people nominated The Unwritten without specifying whether they were nominating Vol 5 or Vol 6.

  • "The Waves" by Ken Liu (Novelette), The Writer and the Critic (Fancast), Abigail Nussbaum (Fan Writer) and Taral Wayne (Fan Artist) all missed nomination by one vote.

  • If the threshold for nominations had been 4% instead of 5%, there would have been eight nominees for Best Short Story rather than three.

  • Tansy Rayner Roberts won Best Fan Writer despite narrowly scraping into the fifth place in nominations. (Well done Tansy!) Mark Oshiro had more nominations for Best Fan Writer than the next two nominees combined, but still came only fourth in the actual award voting.

  • SF Signal crushed all opposition in the Best Fanzine category.

  • “The Lady Astronaut of Mars” by Mary Robinette Kowal got enough votes to qualify for nomination for Best Novelette, but was ruled ineligible due to being an audiobook.

Full results here.

Collapse )
books

2013 Hugo Awards

Best Novel: Redshirts: A Novel with Three Codas, John Scalzi (Tor)

Best Novella: The Emperor’s Soul, Brandon Sanderson (Tachyon Publications)

Best Novelette: “The Girl-Thing Who Went Out for Sushi”, Pat Cadigan (Edge of Infinity, Solaris)

Best Short Story: “Mono no Aware”, Ken Liu (The Future is Japanese, VIZ Media LLC)

Best Related Work: Writing Excuses Season Seven, Brandon Sanderson, Dan Wells, Mary Robinette Kowal, Howard Tayler and Jordan Sanderson

Best Graphic Story: Saga, Volume One, written by Brian K. Vaughn, illustrated by Fiona Staples (Image Comics)

Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form: The Avengers, Screenplay & Directed by Joss Whedon (Marvel Studios, Disney, Paramount)

Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form: Game of Thrones: Blackwater, Written by George R.R. Martin, Directed by Neil Marshall. Created by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss (HBO)

Best Editor, Short Form: Stanley Schmidt

Best Editor, Long Form: Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Best Professional Artist: John Picacio

Best Semiprozine: Clarkesworld, edited by Neil Clarke, Jason Heller, Sean Wallace and Kate Baker

Best Fanzine: SF Signal, edited by John DeNardo, JP Frantz, and Patrick Hester

Best Fancast: SF Squeecast, Elizabeth Bear, Paul Cornell, Seanan McGuire, Lynne M. Thomas, Catherynne M. Valente (Presenters) and David McHone-Chase (Technical Producer)

Best Fan Writer: Tansy Rayner Roberts

Best Fan Artist: Galen Dara

The John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer: Mur Lafferty

Special Committee Award: Stanley Schmidt

Forrest J. Ackerman Big Heart Award: Tom Veal

More later.
buzz

Other people's Hugo votes

It's much more difficult to find online discussion of the Hugo nominees now than it was ten years ago. That doesn't mean it's not happening - I'm sure it is. But I suspect that the gardens of the internet are regaining their walls, which is a bit sad. Even two years ago (admittedly two days before the voting deadline, rather than ten) I found a lot more to work on.

Anyway, there are a few brave souls who have posted their likely votes on the fiction categories in places where I was able to find them. There were a number of others who had listed the nominees but didn't give me a clear enough idea of their rankings to include below; please shout if you feel unjustly excluded. If I am able, I may post an update as the voting deadline nears.

In two categories there is a pretty clear front-runner, and in the other two the votes seem more dispersed. This, of course, doesn't represent anything even approximating to an opinion poll: it is very far from a random sample, and I can entirely believe that there are fans of particular authors who will vote for their works but don't feel the need to blog about it, or even necessarily to read the competition. But it's interesting to read the analysis of people who have read the same stories and taken very different things from them.

Collapse )

Collapse )

Collapse )

Collapse )

So, there we are. When I did the same exercise two years ago, the blogging consensus did not pick a single one of the eventual four winners.

Needless to say, if any of those linked to feel that I have mischaracterised them (or even worse, mis-identified them) in any way, please get in touch.

buzz

2013 Hugos: Best Professional Artist

The deadline is drawing nearer, and it's time to quickly look through the Hugo nominees in a couple of the other categories. I was struck by how many of the Best Professional Artist pictures were sketches just of sultry individuals looking sultry; then the question is, how much circumstantial detail can be fitted in to make this image more memorable than that? It is very much a matter of individual taste and mood. I feel pretty sure of my first and fifth rankings, but the middle three placings are much more difficult because I found them so similar to each other.

Collapse )

There you are: my carefully considered judgement. Or something.

See also: Best Novel | Best Novella | Best Novelette | Best Short Story | Best Related Work | Best Graphic Story | Best Dramatic Presentation (Short Form)

manga-me

2013 Hugos: Best Graphic Story

I found this a particularly tough category to rank (of those I had read), and I'm also aware that my own tastes are particularly out of sync with those of other voters here, so it may not matter that much. For what it's worth my order of preference is:

Collapse )

This is a good list; it was in no way a chore to read any of these.

See also: Best Novel | Best Novella | Best Novelette | Best Short Story | Best Related Work | Best Dramatic Presentation (Short Form)
buzz

June Books 11) Saga, vol. 1, by Brian K. Vaughan and Fiona Staples

Last of the Hugo nominees for Best Graphic Story (well, the last that I will read; I will skip Schlock Mercenary as I did last year).

The only other Vaughan I have read was the last volume of Y: The Last Man, similarly nominated four years ago, and I was underwhelmed by it. I like this a little more. Fiona Staples' art is fantastic - she has a great way of bringing our the characters (memorable characters here include a spiderwoman who is clearly related to the Queen of the Racnoss, and a giant lynx which only speaks when others lie) and also does superb set-piece big picture scenes - this is her only listed work on LibraryThing, hopefully the first of many.

I'm much more dubious about Vaughan's story; there is a very dodgy episode set in a space brothel; and various bits of the setup don't make much sense. I wonder whose choice it was for our heroine to have wee fairy wings, and our hero manly horns? Edited to add: Ian points out in comments that she is obviously an angel, and he a demon, which means we needn't waste much time worrying about originality.

Not one I'll be adding to my regular purchase list, but glad to have read it this year.
buzz

June Books 9) Blackbirds, by Chuck Wendig

"The first rule," Miriam says, "is that I only see what I see when skin touches skin. If I touch your elbow and you're wearing a shirt, then nothing. If I wear gloves – and I used to, because I didn't want to bear witness to all this craziness – then it prevents the vision from happening."
Another from this year's Hugo Voter Pack - and the last of the novels by Campbell nominees - this is actually fairly far into dark fantasy, a novel about Miriam Black who can see when people she touches are going to die. It has a strong start, grim and very violent; I felt it didn't quite deliver on the premise at the end, but it is a very good ride.

(Now to read the short stories submitted by Cho and Lafferty.)