Fri, 12:22: RT @APCOBXLInsider: Your Easter weekend read is ready: with only 12 months to go until the #UK leaves the #EU, we give you the latest on #B…
Fri, 21:00: RT @BorderIrish: Good Friday is a solemn day. A day to reflect. A day to remember the past. A day to remember the dead. A day to look forwa…
OK, the weasel king, I’ve set up a LiveJournal account just so I could respond to your comment. This is because I still can’t see my previous comment, even though you were able to respond to it.
Me:
but I didn’t think of it at the time [the subject of ACCELERANDO’s eligibility]
Your response:
So that makes it eligible. Right.
Me now:
I didn’t say that. I merely said I didn’t think of it at the time. The committee made it eligible, and they didn’t ask me for advice.
Me:
I’m certainly OK with the nominations of FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON and ENDER’S GAME.
Your response:
Not for any RATIONAL reason, but because they meet your preconception. Gotcha.
Me now:
The reason I think FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON and ENDER’S GAME were OK as nominees is because only a small percentage of them had appeared prior to their years of eligibility. You may not think it’s rational, but I think there is a qualitative difference (for Hugo eligibility purposes) between 10% and 90%.
Me:
DUNE is a little more iffy. If I were allowed to redraft the rule, I’d say at least 50% of the material should be original to the year of eligibility.
Your response:
Ah, but you ARE allowed to redraft the rule, and you COULD HAVE, had you only shown up, and cared, sometime in the last 40 years or so.
Me now:
I’m allowed to ARGUE for the redrafting of the rule. I’m not allowed to redraft the rule. Thanks, but I don’t like banging my head against a wall.
I had never disagreed with any of the eligibility decisions before. I didn’t worry much about possible egregious decisions by the committee.
Me:
I plan to vote “No Award” at #5 and then leave THE WHEEL OF TIME blank.
Your response:
Good for you. I hope you’ve read the rest, but, really, the Hugos don’t care. As should be obvious, by electing Space Hitler Versus The Jews *more than once*.
Me now:
The Hugos sometimes care what I do. “Houston, Houston, Do You Read?”, A FIRE UPON THE DEEP, and THE WINDUP GIRL would not be Hugo winners without my votes.
Me:
I’ve always read ALL of the nominees in each category I’ve voted in.
Your response:
You may have trouble with The Wheel Of Time, without a head start. Seriously, that’s long. But I don’t believe you, regardless.
Me now:
This is the most galling thing you’ve written. If you were to look at the membership lists of every Worldcon going back to 1973, you’d find my name on all of them. In 1973 I bought a supporting membership to the Worldcon so I could vote in the Hugos. It turned out that I joined a little too late to participate in Hugo voting that year, but I’ve voted every year from 1974 through 2013.
I’ve never been willing to vote in a category without reading ALL of the nominees. Only the prose fiction categories really interest me much. In 1974 I missed on voting in three of the four categories (due to being unable to obtain all of the nominees). In 1977 I missed on one category (for the same reason). In the other 38 years I’ve voted in all four categories. I sometimes went to extraordinary lengths to obtain all of the nominees. I had to. For a lot of these years, there was no internet…and no voter packets.
A few years ago Jo Walton did a series of posts on Tor.com about the Hugo awards. She did a post for each of the years that they gave out Hugos from 1953-2000. I found these posts a bit late. But in September 2011 I posted my Hugo votes in each of the comments sections from 1974-2000. Near the bottom of each comments section, you can find the details of my Hugo votes for that particular year. I list how I ranked each category, top to bottom. Feel free to check out my votes and make fun of my “taste.” They’re on the internet for all to see. I’ve broken up the link a bit so it wouldn’t appear AS a link:
OK, the weasel king, I’ve set up a LiveJournal account just so I could respond to your comment. This is because I still can’t see my previous comment, even though you were able to respond to it.
Me:
but I didn’t think of it at the time [the subject of ACCELERANDO’s eligibility]
Your response:
So that makes it eligible. Right.
Me now:
I didn’t say that. I merely said I didn’t think of it at the time. The committee made it eligible, and they didn’t ask me for advice.
Me:
I’m certainly OK with the nominations of FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON and ENDER’S GAME.
Your response:
Not for any RATIONAL reason, but because they meet your preconception. Gotcha.
Me now:
The reason I think FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON and ENDER’S GAME were OK as nominees is because only a small percentage of them had appeared prior to their years of eligibility. You may not think it’s rational, but I think there is a qualitative difference (for Hugo eligibility purposes) between 10% and 90%.
Me:
DUNE is a little more iffy. If I were allowed to redraft the rule, I’d say at least 50% of the material should be original to the year of eligibility.
Your response:
Ah, but you ARE allowed to redraft the rule, and you COULD HAVE, had you only shown up, and cared, sometime in the last 40 years or so.
Me now:
I’m allowed to ARGUE for the redrafting of the rule. I’m not allowed to redraft the rule. Thanks, but I don’t like banging my head against a wall.
I had never disagreed with any of the eligibility decisions before. I didn’t worry much about possible egregious decisions by the committee.
Me:
I plan to vote “No Award” at #5 and then leave THE WHEEL OF TIME blank.
Your response:
Good for you. I hope you’ve read the rest, but, really, the Hugos don’t care. As should be obvious, by electing Space Hitler Versus The Jews *more than once*.
Me now:
The Hugos sometimes care what I do. “Houston, Houston, Do You Read?”, A FIRE UPON THE DEEP, and THE WINDUP GIRL would not be Hugo winners without my votes.
Me:
I’ve always read ALL of the nominees in each category I’ve voted in.
Your response:
You may have trouble with The Wheel Of Time, without a head start. Seriously, that’s long. But I don’t believe you, regardless.
Me now:
This is the most galling thing you’ve written. If you were to look at the membership lists of every Worldcon going back to 1973, you’d find my name on all of them. In 1973 I bought a supporting membership to the Worldcon so I could vote in the Hugos. It turned out that I joined a little too late to participate in Hugo voting that year, but I’ve voted every year from 1974 through 2013.
I’ve never been willing to vote in a category without reading ALL of the nominees. Only the prose fiction categories really interest me much. In 1974 I missed on voting in three of the four categories (due to being unable to obtain all of the nominees). In 1977 I missed on one category (for the same reason). In the other 38 years I’ve voted in all four categories. I sometimes went to extraordinary lengths to obtain all of the nominees. I had to. For a lot of these years, there was no internet…and no voter packets.
A few years ago Jo Walton did a series of posts on Tor.com about the Hugo awards. She did a post for each of the years that they gave out Hugos from 1953-2000. I found these posts a bit late. But in September 2011 I posted my Hugo votes in each of the comments sections from 1974-2000. Near the bottom of each comments section, you can find the details of my Hugo votes for that particular year. I list how I ranked each category, top to bottom. Feel free to check out my votes and make fun of my “taste.” They’re on the internet for all to see. I’ve broken up the link a bit so it wouldn’t appear AS a link:
ht tp://ww w.tor.com/features/series/revisiting-the-hugos
To be continued: