Tag Archives: hugos 2024

Hugo question, answered

Posted on by

I received the following query with regard to the 2024 Hugo Awards:

Can you clarify one point for me?

Under Best Fanzine, File 770 apparently got 14 nominations and was carried through the EPH procedure (until eliminated in Round 33). Yet Brother Glyer in 2018 withdrew himself and File 770 permanently from all future consideration.

If nominators fail to become aware of this, or choose to disregard it e.g. by way of making some kind of public statement, I do not see that the administrators are at fault.

But why was File 770 not excluded at once, with a suitable notice, as e.g. for System Collapse, under Best Novel?

I have replied:

You ask why we did not exclude the nominating votes for File 770 from the 2024 Hugo nomination vote tallies, bearing in mind Mike Glyer’s declared withdrawal back in 2018.

In my view, the duty of the Hugo Administrator is to ascertain the will of the voters, and then (and only then) to assess the conformity of voters’ choices with the rules.

For that reason, we do not check the eligibility of any nominee other than those that make it to the top six, or which replace any of the top six which are disqualified or withdrawn. Had File 770 qualified numerically for the ballot, we would then have contacted Mike Glyer, who would have then had the option to decline or not. In fact this is precisely what happened in 2019, when I was also Administrator.

It is not realistic or reasonable to expect Hugo Administrators to track every public statement of intent from potential finalists – there are an awful lot of them! Also, Mike Glyer would have been within his rights to change his mind and accept the nomination if File 770 had qualified; it is not the Hugo Administrator’s job to hold a nominee accountable for a statement that they made in 2018.

You also ask “Why was File 770 not excluded at once, with a suitable notice, as e.g. for System Collapse under Best Novel?”

I’m afraid you are under a misapprehension here. As noted above, File 770 was neither included nor excluded; we did not make a formal determination of its eligibility in 2024 at any stage. (Though our researchers gave us a strong indication that it would be eligible if it qualified for the ballot.)

As for System Collapse, Martha Wells had not made any prior public or private statement of her intention to decline the nomination. After we counted the nominating votes, we contacted Ms Wells with the news that two of her novels had qualified for the ballot. She replied declining the nomination for one of them and accepting for the other. System Collapse was not excluded “at once”, but only after the votes had been counted and the author consulted.

I hope that this clarifies the situation.

Here for reference are the statistics for Best Novel and Best Fanzine.

The 2024 Consultative Vote on Two New Hugo Categories

Posted on by

The report below is published in our personal capacity  by Nicholas Whyte, WSFS Division Head, and Rosemary Parks, Consultative Vote Administrator. It does not reflect any official position by Glasgow 2024: A Worldcon For Our Futures, the 2024 Worldcon.

Introduction

Suggestions that significant WSFS decisions could be taken by a vote of WSFS members, rather than at the Business Meeting, have been circulating for some years. The Business Meeting tends to absorb much time and energy from Worldcon participants for the sake of debate which can often seem technical and inward-looking. A direct consultation with membership has the potential appeal of directness and clarity.

We began considering the merits of a trial consultative vote on any Business Passed On from the 2023 Business Meeting after a September 2022 discussion on File 770. We assumed confidently that the Business Meeting at the Chengdu Worldcon would give us some material that we could work with; in fact no fewer than twelve constitutional amendments were passed in 2023, for ratification in Glasgow in 2024. 

We felt that most of these were unsuitable for a trial of the consultative vote concept. We decided to concentrate on changes to the Hugo rules. The four Hugo Award rule changes passed by Chengdu included two minor technical fixes, and more substantially an amendment to the Best Fancast category, and the proposal to introduce two new Independent Film Hugo categories. We selected the last of these as likely to generate the most interest, and secured the agreement of the proposers to the idea of making it the subject of the consultative vote trial.

Although the Independent Film proposal would have created two new Hugo categories, it was a single proposal and we treated it as a single measure.  

Implementation

We decided to run the vote between the close of Hugo final ballot voting on Saturday 20 July and the start of the convention on Thursday 8 August. The number of WSFS members of the convention would then be at its maximum, and the WSFS Division leadership would (in theory!) be relatively clear of other distractions.  We settled on Monday 22 July to Monday 5 August, to allow members two full weeks with two full weekends for the vote.

Initially we planned that the consultative vote, given that it was a trial, would take place purely online, though we changed our minds on this once it became clear that it was not technically difficult to provide a paper ballot to print out and mail. In the event, just one paper ballot was received.

Just before we opened the consultative vote, a large number of WSFS memberships were found by the Hugo administrators to have been fraudulently acquired, and the votes cast by 377 memberships for the Hugo Awards were disallowed. None of the memberships in question attempted to participate in the consultative vote. If they had, we would have disallowed their votes.

We are extremely grateful to Chris Rose for creating a module within the NomNom system to enable the consultative vote to take place. A technical glitch meant that we were unable to open the vote on Monday 22 July as planned, and instead it was launched on Thursday 25 July, exactly two weeks before the opening of Glasgow 2024. Initial interest was strong, with more than 550 votes recorded in the first twenty-four hours. A reminder was sent out about fourteen hours before the vote closed, and another 400 voted in that final period. The overall response demonstrates a high level of member interest. 1,260 members voted in total: 533 (42.3%) in favour, and 727 (57.7%) against.

In order to create a fair and comprehensive ballot, we sought statements for and against the proposed Independent Film categories from, respectively, Tony Xia and Louis Savy, who had made the original proposal, and Olav Rokne and Amanda Wakaruk, who had blogged robustly against it. With the overall appearance of the ballot in mind, we held both sides to a 200 word limit, without sight of each others’ arguments. We are very grateful to all four contributors for producing a balancing pair of statements, which reflected considerable thought. For the record, the two statements were as follows:

Statement in Favour:

In the spirit of the fan community, we believe the respected Hugo Awards should ratify the two new dramatic presentation categories. While the literary awards cover a broad range of works from independent and self-published creators, the Dramatic Presentation awards (film and TV) primarily recognize major studios. This overlooks fan creations and smaller independent films that contribute significantly to the genre. 

Recognising independent films is crucial, as myriad high-quality productions have emerged thanks in part, to new technology and film education, bringing diversity and energy to science fiction moving image. These creators deserve visibility alongside independent fanbased writers, podcasts, and magazines and so on. 

Highlighting independent works would introduce both the voting community and a wider audience to material they might not otherwise encounter. Additionally, this recognition could foster greater engagement, with filmmakers likely embracing the Hugo Awards and promoting them within their community. Independent filmmakers are also more likely to respond enthusiastically to nominations and attend WorldCons, unlike the often-detached approach of major studios. 

Adopting these categories will not only honour the innovation of independent creators but also broaden the Hugo Awards’ legacy, ensuring a vibrant, inclusive future for science fiction film. 

(Louis Savy and Tony Xia)

Statement Against 

There are three main reasons to reject this proposal: lack of clarity, lack of availability, and lack of necessity. 

Firstly, what counts as ‘Independent Cinema’? The proposal states: “The films should not be funded by a major studio or distribution label/platform/streamer,” but fails to state what this means. Do A24 or Lionsgate count as major studios? This lack of clarity about what “major” means would be a significant challenge for Hugo administrators and nominators. 

Secondly, are these movies available to nominators? Many independent movies are only available at festivals, or in a handful of cinemas. They are unavailable to most Hugo voters until it’s too late to nominate them. 

Finally, is this category actually necessary? Last year’s winner Everything Everywhere All At Once was produced by the independent IAC Films, and won the Independent Spirit Award for Best Independent Film. If these types of movies are already being shortlisted and winning Hugo awards, a new category is not necessary. If anything, adding the categories might serve to ghettoize instead of celebrate this important area of film-making. 

In summary, this  proposal’s administration would be problematic, features works that would be unavailable to Hugo voters, and for which there is fundamentally no need. 

(Olav Rokne and Amanda Wakaruk) 

When the proposed constitutional amendment came before the Business Meeting, nobody could be found to speak in its favour, though two people spoke against it, and it was heavily defeated after seven minutes of discussion. The Chair of the Business Meeting informed attendees of the result of the consultative vote at the beginning of the debate.

Feedback on the consultative vote

Buzz online indicated the WSFS community anticipated the vote and were invested in its outcome.  The initial December announcement that the Consultative Vote was in the works generated positive comments on BlueSky: “I’m very pleased to see that this experiment will be run,” and, “This is pretty exciting and potentially important for SFFH fans! Glasgow Worldcon is holding a consultative ONLINE vote…Feels like a positive step, in that it’s at least something to try and widen engagement.”

While the vote was open there was quite a lot of activity.  This comment appeared on an online forum: “whether you favor or oppose the proposal, I hope #WSFSmembers will take part in this online advisory vote, which will facilitate more worldwide participation and may help lead the way to more inclusive WSFS Business decision-making in future.” 

The vote inspired a blog post, which included the following: “…adding an online voting component absolutely seems appropriate to me. Participation in this nonbinding vote will help bring that future possibility closer…On a personal note, I’ll certainly be participating in this vote. I’d been planning to attend the Glasgow Worldcon this summer, and participate in the business meetings [sic]…Now I’m [unsure], but at least my opinion will be seen online.”

Other comments included: “Let’s see if my no vote online counts for anything,” “Hopefully the Business Meeting follows the majority opinion here,” and, “… the level of drama should this vote and the business meeting disagree will likely be quite something.”  The social media reminders to vote in the final days were reposted multiple times.

A participant messaged us wishing that there had been an option to refer the matter for further consideration in addition to the straight yes / no options. It is a fair point that the existing mechanism for constitutional change does allow for the refinement of a proposed amendment in the course of ratification, by amending to have the effect of a “lesser change”, and it is difficult to envisage how this could operate in a member-wide vote.

An external commentator condemned the 2024 consultative vote as “a stunt to further the agenda of people who want to add online voting to the functionality of the Business Meeting”. This is incorrect, though it is a confusion we have noted elsewhere. Our intention was always to run a process separate from the Business Meeting, which does not have a mandate to manage consultative votes. (Though frankly we do not see what would be so bad about adding online voting to the Business Meeting.)

A separate proposal for popular ratification was put to the 2024 Business Meeting. It was referred to a committee on reform of the Business Meeting for further consideration, after a ten-minute debate.

Conclusion

We consider this trial to have been a successful proof of concept. The conduct of the vote was not a significant time or monetary cost for the convention. The 1,260 participants in the vote are a significant multiple of those who attended the Business Meeting in Glasgow (which may have peaked at around 150 in the room at any one time, though the full number of those who attended at one time or another will have been much greater). 

If such popular votes are included in the WSFS decision-making process in future, we have the following recommendations:

  1. The voting period should be short, and should be close to the time of the convention. More than 75% of all votes were cast in either the first 24 hours or the last 24 hours of the ballot being open. An extended voting period will not change that, and risks getting the process lost in the weeds. The process needs to be long enough to allow for paper ballots to be received, but no more than that.
  1. We are not convinced that all constitutional amendments are suitable for a popular vote. For instance, should the membership as a whole expect, or be expected, to have a meaningful view on whether or not Hugo administrators can establish a conversion ratio between word counts in English and another language, which was one of the amendments up for ratification this year? Perhaps there could be or should be a fast track for less controversial changes.
  1. Some considerable thought went into the crafting and presentation of the statements pro and contra the proposed changes. Our instinct is that the Constitution and rules should provide general guidance to the administrators of future votes in this regard, and avoid being over-prescriptive. Less controversial issues, if they are ever put to a membership ballot, may not need statements pro and contra to be published at all.
  1. Any future consultative vote mechanism should be part of the WSFS Division of the administering Worldcon, but run separately from the other WSFS areas of responsibility, ie the Business Meeting, the Hugos, and Site Selection. The organisational burden is not onerous, but it is significant enough to require extra human resources. That probably does not need to be hardwired into the Constitution, but it is our recommendation for good future practice.

Members are rightly demanding more transparency and participation in WSFS decision-making, and the suitability of the Business Meeting’s format has increasingly been a subject of discussion. Now, at least, we have some real data about how a popular vote might work.

Nicholas Whyte, WSFS Division Head
Rosemary Parks, Consultative Vote Administrator

The Administrator’s Tale, third time around: part two

Posted on by

(continued from here)

And so, I went to Worldcon in Glasgow. I read with envy of people who were able to attend lots of panels, go to signings and spend long hours hanging out with their mates; because I was doing two jobs in Glasgow, I had even less time than usual. (Also, I forgot to fill out the programme participation form, which is probably just as well.) Lots of good friends were there who I barely said hello to, or simply did not see at all. I think next time I may just announce that there will be a specific evening and a specific bar where I hang out. I did this on the Thursday night for the WSFS team, though not all were able to attend, and by the end a few extras had joined.

WSFS meetup photo from Arthur Liu (who is sitting beside me). The Site Selection team, Thomas and Naveed, are behind me; left is my deputy, Kathryn Duval, and at the far right Business Meeting deputy presiding officer Warren Buff. This was late in the evening and a number of the team had already peeled off.

As will be visible from the above, I injected a bit of light relief, at least for me, for much of the convention by donning a pair of elf ears which I had bought at Eastercon. This made me feel generally happy. When people asked why I was wearing them, I replied that I was cosplaying the Hugo Administrator. (One of the people I said this to turned out to be Suzan Palumbo, the administrator of the Ignyte Awards.)

I was not the only person to have the idea.

It was also very nice to catch up again with Yan Ru, who I had met in Chengdu. I got a badge made for her.

Photo by Paul Cornell

I did manage to attend a couple of panels, one on the likely winners of the Best Novel, Best Series and Best Graphic Story categories (which of course I already knew), and also I was pleased to top and tail Claire Brialey and Mark Plummer’s Guest of Honour presentation. Best of all, I got to the two main musical events, a pre-convention organ recital at the Kelvingrove and the orchestral concert on the Friday night.

Before I get to the Hugos, I must say something about the Business Meeting. First off, the work load on the top table (and to a much lesser extent those of us supporting them) was extreme. This was the longest agenda, and the longest Business Meeting, on record, thanks not only to the reckoning from Chengdu, but also a bunch of other items that some people felt compelled to add to the agenda. I am amazed that Jesi Lipp got us through it, and even finished slightly ahead of time. But it meant that the meeting lasted from 10 to 3 every day, rather than the usual 10 to 1.

The Business Meeting team; photo by Olav Rokne.

I was content with most of the decisions made at the meeting. Good things: an apology to those disqualified without justification by Chengdu was approved; the ban on virtual participation which was sneaked through last year was reversed; the proposal to restrict Site Selection voting rights to People Like Us was rejected; so was the Best Independent Film proposal (more on that when I write about the consultative vote which we trialled before the convention).

Less good: although the amendment clarifying the definition of Best Professional Artist and Best Fan Artist is largely my own wording, I am concerned that many fan artists are unhappy with it. I hope that it can be improved between now and Seattle. The one winner this year that particularly attracted sniping was Best Fan Artist, which indicates that the status quo still needs improvement.

A lot of the really serious stuff was kicked to various committees which will report next year. I got voted onto the committee which will investigate what actually happened at Chengdu. I was also appointed to another committee which will look at the administration of the Hugos more broadly, including the possibility of external audit. Other committees will consider the Business Meeting itself, and Hugo software.

I think that those who love the Business Meeting need to realise that less is more; that making it a smaller burden and less of a time sink for Worldcon members will improve its popularity. The fact that we successfully got through all of the business in 20 hours should be set against the fact that there was far too much business in the first place. This won’t be changed by passing new rules; a cultural shift is needed.

Unfortunately a number of people caught COVID at the convention. I did not, and the two people I spent most time with who did catch it had been wearing masks most of the time (at the Business Meeting). Masks, of course, are better at protecting other people from you than vice versa. I saw somewhere that the rate of infection at Glasgow was not very different to that at the 2021 Worldcon in DC, which had a much more vigorous masking policy. There are no easy answers.

Back to the Hugos. Much of one’s time as Administrator (and team) is spent getting material objects to the right place at the right time. We were fortunate in that the lair where we assembled the Hugos was just backstage of the Armadillo, but we had to assemble rocket, base and plaque and also do the other bits, like pins and certificates. The ceremony and receptions were handled (and handled well) by the Events division rather than by us.

The Hugo wrangling team, Laura, Kathryn, Scott, me and Bridget; photo by Olav Rokne

During the rehearsal, Vince Doherty had the excellent idea that I could bring the first Hugo ever awarded, by Isaac Asimov to Forrest J. Ackerman as #1 Fan Personality in 1953, onto the stage as part of my speech, and I must admit that for me that was the high point of the convention – feeling a direct connection with the previous 70 Hugo ceremonies.

Not sure who took this one, but obviously it wasn’t me. Probably Olav again.

That Hugo trophy, voted in good faith by the Worldcon voters of 1953, started a democratic process of appreciation of fan and professional activity that continues to this day. Controversy was there from the beginning – Ackerman rejected his Hugo and wanted it instead to go to British fan Ken Slater, who kept it for decades and eventually passed it back to Ackerman. John Scalzi summarized it in a witty introduction to the ceremony.

Forrest J. Ackerman rejecting the first ever Hugo, presented by Isaac Asimov, lurking behind him. Ackerman was a creep, who rejected the award on the evening but later repossessed it, and Asimov was worse. Not sure who took the photo.

At the end of the evening, putting Emily Tesh’s award for Best Novel away, I realised that I could get a nice shot of the oldest and most recent Hugo trophies beside each other on the shelf.

The latest Hugo on the left, the earliest on the right. You can see that the latter has acquired a large quasi-cubical wooden base since 1953. It has also lost a fin.

But I am getting ahead of myself. The ceremony had its regrettable glitches, notably when a pre-recorded video failed to play, and when it turned out that the Chinese titles and names in the slides had somehow been mangled beyond recognition. It also turned out that one set of plaques had three errors, including misspelling the word “Worldcon”. Despite those problems, the atmosphere in the room was hugely positive, almost redemptive. There’s a lovely piece about it here. I seem to have voted for only two of the winners myself, but that is par for the course, and I certainly don’t begrudge the other 18 their awards.

Hugo trophies waiting to be awarded. Photo by Laura Martins

The Hugo team, in the wings of the stage, were uniquely poorly placed to hear the speeches made by the winners. It was not until much later that I caught up with Emily Tesh’s well-chosen final words:

I wrote Some Desperate Glory imagining, if you like, a “bad end.” […] I love a bad end. I imagined the worst possible outcome of what humanity could become, some of the worst of our species: cruelty, brutality, hatred of outsiders and love of power. Tonight, I’d like you all to join me in imagining instead the best, which is something science fiction can do and has always done. And through and because of that power of imagination, I ask you to act in whatever way you can and whatever way is right for you to support the victims of violence and warfare around the world, in Gaza, in Ukraine, in Sudan and in many other places. To support the victims of cruelty and intolerance close to home, including here in the islands where that solidarity is dearly needed right now, especially for the victims of the recent racist riots, and for those targeted by the transphobia of some parts of the UK media. I wrote humanity’s bad end, and I call upon you all, with perfect faith, to prove me wrong.

And that brought us to the after-party, which I must say I enjoyed a lot – indeed the pre and post Hugo receptions seemed to me to work better, as a combination, than at any other Worldcon I have been to (the 2017 and 2023 after-parties were awesome, but the pre-ceremony receptions not as good as Glasgow).

Hugo wrangling team rejoices. Photo by Paul Weimer.

We of the Hugo wrangling team spent Monday packing Hugo trophies ready for shipping, and more than a week later we are still gathering addresses for the finalist pins and certificates, and arranging for extra trophies for those who have requested them. But I enjoyed it all immensely, and the person to thank most for that is Esther MacCallum-Stewart, the Chair.

I took an extra day in Glasgow to unwind and to attend the committee farewell dinner, which I had never managed to do before at a Worldcon. I used my extra day profitably, visiting the Kelvingrove in the morning for a proper look around – my word, there is so much there:

And in the afternoon I went to see the Govan Stones, relics of the religious centre of the ancient realm of Strathclyde; a couple of the Glaswegians who I spoke to at dinner had never heard of these amazing 9th to 11th century monuments, a stone’s throw from the Armadillo (if you throw the stone across the river very vigorously).

The Sarcophagus of St Constantine
The hogback grave stones
The Jordanhill Cross (a stump) and the Sun Stane

Next year, unusually, the Hugo team will be much the same as this year. I will be the Hugo administrator again; Cassidy, who was deputy Hugo administrator this year, will be WSFS Division Head; Kathryn Duval will repeat her role as Deputy Division Head; and my deputy as Hugo administrator will be Esther MacCallum-Stewart. Hopefully we will avoid the pitfalls of 2024, and make different mistakes instead.

Kathryn and me in 2017
Kathryn and me in 2024

See you in Seattle, perhaps?

The Administrator’s Tale, third time around: part one

Posted on by

So, this year was my third time as Hugo Award Administrator, and my sixth year of being involved with the Hugos in general. And it was by far the weirdest.

I was the Hugo Award Administrator in 2017 and 2019; Deputy Hugo Administrator in 2020 and 2022; and WSFS Division Head for a few months in 2021. This involved Worldcons on three different continents – Helsinki (2017), Dublin (2019), New Zealand (2020, though conducted virtually in the end), Washington DC (2021), Chicago (2022) and Glasgow (2024). Each presented their own problems. I’ve written up the 2017 experience here and here, and 2019 here and here, and more briefly 2022 here; 2020 and 2021 were too painful to write up in full, for somewhat different reasons.

I see from my records that my discussions with Esther MacCallum-Stewart, the Glasgow 2024 Chair, about taking on the role of WSFS Division Head began as early as February 2020, though not confirmed until November 2021. I got my team lined up fairly early – Kat Jones as Hugo Administrator from the beginning, with Cassidy as her deputy and Kathryn Duval as my deputy from October 2022, and Laura Martins joining the team also at an early stage. For the other parts of the WSFS Division, Jesi Lipp came on board as Chair of the Business Meeting in September 2022 and Naveed Khan and Thomas Westerberg for Site Selection in April 2023. Bridget Chee also volunteered to wrangle Hugos on the ground in Glasgow. So far, so good.

Some of the team in May 2024 – Laura, me, Naveed and Bridget

But several things went very awry in the process. The first of these was software for administering the Hugo voting and counting. This has been the subject of Monday morning quarter-backing from people who are unaware of the constraints under which a Worldcon operates. The first thing to understand is that for the convention, the registration software is critical to the functioning of the entire organisation. The Hugo and Site Selection stuff is a secondary issue, and no matter how hard you may try and push, the fact is that the convention will be embarrassed if the Hugo stuff doesn’t work properly, but will go bust if the registration stuff doesn’t work properly.

For various very good reasons, which I don’t intend to go into here, the Registration software often tends to get largely or completely rewritten for each convention. WSFS’ aim under my watch has generally been to get the Hugo software talking to the registration system and up and running at an early stage in January for nominations and in April for the final ballot. This does not always work. 2020 was the worst case in point, but it’s a bit of a bare knuckle ride every time.

This year, we had an external service provider who did indeed produce a good registration solution. But their Hugo work fell short of expectations, and we had to resort much more hastily than I would have liked to volunteer efforts – a combination of Kansa, the venerable but creaking back-end for tallying nominations written by Eemeli Aro in 2017 and subsequently updated by David Matthewman, and NomNom, a bespoke solution for the front end of nominations and for both ends of the final ballot written specially this year by Chris Rose. This was precious and valuable volunteer time, and I cannot thank them enough.

Even so, the launch of Hugo nominations voting glitched very badly when it turned out that there was a serious software problem linked to the registration system interface that needed to be resolved, and we had to stop the voting a day after it had started and restart several days later. Henry Balen was also crucial to managing the relationship with the software provider at this point.

In the meantime, we faced much bigger reputational problems affecting the Hugos as a whole. I attended Chengdu Worldcon in 2023 and enjoyed a lot of it. But the data from the final ballot vote, released at the start of December, looked distinctly odd. And when the data from the nominations count was released in January, I was dismayed to see that it was clearly very flawed. The numbers simply did not add up, and were clearly not the output of a genuine ballot count.

The other immediate flaw that caught public attention was the disqualification of several finalists without explanation. It has been generally surmised that this was because of overt or implicit censorship from government authorities. I do not know if this is true, but it seems unlikely to me to be the full story. Babel, by R.F. Kuang, which was disqualified from the ballot, actually won a Chinese-organised prize in Chengdu a few months later. On the other hand, John Chu’s story “If You Find Yourself Speaking to God, Address God with the Informal You”, which is about a gay relationship in Taiwan, was allowed to stand as a Hugo finalist.

Personally, I am very disappointed with the behaviour of those who led the Hugo administration in 2023. There is no excuse for the breach of trust with voters and nominees, or for the damage that was done to the Hugos as an institution. The lack of transparency around the decisions is an additional reason for frustration, but the basic point is that the vote very deliberately failed to reflect the wishes of voters.

I have reflected on what I might have done if I were in the position of being instructed that certain Hugo nominees were not allowed on the ballot by local law. (NB that it is still not clear that this was what actually happened in 2023.) The Hugos and Worldcon must of course obey local legislation. But I would have wanted very clear professional advice before taking any such steps, preferably advice that could be published. And if put in an ethically difficult position, I like to think that rather than proceed, I would have resigned – as I did under milder circumstances in 2021.

A silly proposal went to this year’s Business Meeting suggesting that there should be a committee performing broad surveillance of how Worldcons choose WSFS software solutions. This is a bad idea. It adds bureaucracy to a fraught process, blurs lines of responsibility, and ignores the big issue for the convention itself (the registration software). If you think that the biggest problem with the 2023 Hugos was quality control of the software, I have a panda sanctuary that I’d like to sell you. But I will co-operate in good faith with the committee that has been set up to look into these things.

Unfortunately as more details came out about what had happened at Chengdu, it became clear that Kat Jones could not continue as 2024 Hugo Administrator and she resigned. After some reflection, I took on the role of Hugo Administrator myself, doubling up on my existing job as WSFS Division Head. I would not in general recommend this; there are good reasons why these two jobs are generally done by two people.

Translation was a big issue. The many WSFS members of Chengdu were all entitled to vote in 2024 Hugo nominations, and we commissioned Sophia Xue (Xue Yongle) from Shanghai to translate all the relevant materials. I had met her, ironically, because of the 2023 Hugo disqualifications, as a result of which she had qualified for the final ballot, and we had had a long chat at the Hugo ceremony in Chengdu. She caught a number of flaws in the Chinese translation of the WSFS Constitution that had been done the previous year.

With Sophia Xue in Chengdu

I have described the work of the Research Team in the Administrators’ Report and elsewhere. It was essential to the exercise. We had to disqualify three potential finalists, all Chinese (though one also qualified in another category) and another five declined nomination, a couple of them rather late in the process. There were some other tricky calls – Astounding finalists with self-published early work, tallying votes for two of the three volumes of a non-fiction nominee. Northanger Abbey was not a tricky call, but I included it in the final report for amusement.

The Chinese arm of our research team, Regina Kanyu Wang and Arthur Liu

I had had high hopes of producing a video announcing the final ballot with a professional production company and a well-known Scottish actor. The costs, however, were simply unfeasible, so we ended up with a video of self-recorded announcements by various speakers, prefaced with an introduction filmed by my son of me at the Atomium, north of Brussels, which is as science fictional a backdrop as you can get in our part of the world.

I was particularly pleased that we managed to get Geoffrey Gernsback, the oldest great-grandson of Hugo Gernsback, after whom the Hugos are named, as one of the announcers. He supplied us with a photograph of himself as a baby with his great-grandfather. Assembling the whole thing was a mammoth task accomplished without visible seams by Meg McDonald and James Turner.

Looking at the categories, ten out of twenty included Chinese finalists writing in Chinese and ten did not, so we decided to ask Sophia Xue to read the names of the former while I did the latter. (We then used the same audio for the ceremony, which startled me when I heard my own voice booming into the auditorium.)

We also held a town hall meeting for the Hugo finalists a couple of days before the announcement was made, partly for transparency but also to help finalists to make the most of their nomination status in local media.

People sometimes ask why we do not open voting on the Hugo final ballot as soon as it is announced. The simple fact is that there is not enough time. As noted above, we had a couple of very late withdrawals. Better to do the last coding twiddles when we know that the candidates are settled. We did the announcement at Eastercon on the Friday evening, including also details of those who had declined or were disqualified, and posed with those finalists who were present.

At Eastercon we also unveiled Sara Felix’ tartan rocket:

I should mention also the Hugo Helpdesk team, led by Terry Neill backed up by Rosemary Parks, and the Hugo Packet team consisting of Dave Gallaher, Jed Hartman and Scott Bobo, who ensured important elements of the user experience. The Packet in particular needs perhaps a bit more attention from WSFS as a whole; it is an important element of voter expectations, but is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

I am out of chronological order here, because an early and easy decision in the entire process was to commission Iain Clark to design the trophy base. In general I prefer to go to known creators; running a competition absorbs time both from artists and administrators. Iain’s design is simple and pleasing, and leaves no doubt about the geography of the convention.

Hugo voting ended on 20 July, 55 years to the minute after Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin first stepped on the Moon. I was on a plane from Munich to Brussels at the time: my flight from Los Angeles the previous day had got delayed landing and I had to argue my case for Lufthansa to get me home that night. I landed knowing that we had more issues to deal with.

In about two thirds of the categories, an early lead was established by the eventual winner. We watched the inflow of votes for the rest with interest. In early June we became aware of something unusual – a particular finalist, who we will call Finalist A, was picking up something like ten nominations each day, at a time when most others were picking up just a couple. On closer examination it became clear that almost all of Finalist A’s votes were coming from newly purchased memberships, which were behaving quite unlike memberships controlled by real people. We took no immediate action – as Napoleon said, never interrupt the other side when they are making a mistake – but as history records, we disqualified 377 of those votes, and Finalist A therefore did not win in their category.

My hypothesis, based on the data that I have, is that a well-resourced fan of Finalist A hired a ‘vote farm’ to get a Hugo for their favourite creator. A notice was published in some public or semi-public online or meatspace forum, inviting people to make a quick buck by buying a Glasgow 2024 membership and sending the sponsor proof that they had voted for Finalist A. The sponsor then paid their money back plus a bonus. The greedier ones put in multiple memberships in alphabetical sequence, or in one case giving names which were translations of the numbers from 13 to 17.

For reasons which should be obvious, I am being circumspect about the precise details. I don’t want to make it easier for the next person who decides to do this. I do want to emphasise that the evidence points against Finalist A being involved or knowing about this in any way. I should also add that I have briefed and will brief future Hugo administration teams at greater length.

No other outcome was changed by the disqualification of the 377 votes – actually a couple of close finishes in other categories were widened. We found that disqualifying votes in NomNom is a rather tedious activity, which is just as well – it forces you to be absolutely certain that you are getting it right.

Out of time for today; coming soon, my experience of the convention itself.

Continued here.

2024 Hugos in a bit more detail

Posted on by

Headlines:

3813 final ballots were received (3808 electronic, 5 paper). As we announced on 23 July 2024, we had to disqualify 377 of these which were not cast by natural persons. We did count the remaining 3436, which is the third highest final ballot vote ever.

1720 nominating ballots were received (1715 electronic, 5 paper), the eighth highest nominations vote ever.

The winner of Best Semiprozine was decided by a margin of 6 votes, and the winners of Best Professional Artis and Best Fancast by margins of 7. These were the closest results among winners.

At lower placings, there were ties for 3rd place in the Astounding Award, and for 5th place in the Best Graphic Story or Comic category, and 4th place in the Best Graphic Story or Comic category was decided by a margin of one vote.

The most decisive contest was for Best Game or Interactive Experience, where the winner got 42.7% of the first preferences and won on the fourth count, with three other finalists still in the race.

In five categories, the finalist with the second highest number of first preferences won after transfers. In two categories, the finalist with the third highest number of first preferences won after transfers.

In ten out of twenty categories, the winner had also topped the poll at nominations stage. In four categories, the winner placed second at the nominations stage; in three the winner had placed third at nominations, in two the winner was fourth and in one case the winner was the second last to qualify.

The last place on the ballot in the following categories was decided by a single vote: Best Related Work, Best Dramatic Presentation Long Form, Best Fanzine, Best Fan Artist.

The last place on the ballot in the following categories was decided by a margin of two votes: Best Short Story, Best Professional Artist, Best Semiprozine.

Full details linked from here.

In detail:

Best Novel

  1. Some Desperate Glory by 71 votes ahead of Translation State.
  2. Translation State ahead of The Adventures of Amina al-Sirafi
  3. The Adventures of Amina al-Sirafi ahead of Witch King
  4. Witch King ahead of The Saint of Bright Doors
  5. The Saint of Bright Doors ahead of Starter Villain
  6. Starter Villain by John Scalzi (Tor, Tor UK)

Some Desperate Glory also topped nominations by EPH points, though in fact Translation State had the most votes. Martha Wells declined for System Collapse, and its replacement Cosmo Wings was not eligible. The Terraformers by Annalee Newitz missed the ballot by only 3 votes.

This category had the most nominating votes, and the joint fewest first preference votes for No Award on the final ballot.

Best Novella

  1. Thornhedge by 112 votes ahead of Seeds of Mercury
  2. Mammoths at the Gates by 3 votes ahead of Seeds of Mercury
  3. Seeds of Mercury by 12 votes ahead of The Mimicking of Known Successes
  4. The Mimicking of Known Successes ahead of Rose/House
  5. Rose/House ahead of Life Does Not Allow Us to Meet
  6. Life Does Not Allow Us to Meet

Seeds of Mercury had the most first preferences, but lost on transfers.

The Mimicking of Known Successes was narrowly ahead of Thornhedge for nomination votes. Untethered Sky, by Fonda Lee, missed the ballot by twelve votes.

This category had the most final ballot votes, and the joint fewest first preference votes for No Award on the final ballot.

Best Novelette

  1. The Year Without Sunshine by 312 votes ahead of Ivy, Angelica, Bay
  2. One Man’s Treasure by 2 votes ahead of Ivy, Angelica, Bay
  3. Ivy, Angelica, Bay ahead of On the Fox Roads
  4. On the Fox Roads by Nghi Vo way ahead of the other two
  5. I AM AI by Ai Jiang ahead of Introduction to 2181 Overture, Second Edition
  6. Introduction to 2181 Overture, Second Edition

The Far North was way ahead on nominations, but the author, Hai Ja, declined. The Year Without Sunshine was way ahead of the rest. Science Facts, by Sarah Pinsker, needed 8 more votes, or in excess of 4.00 more points, to get on the ballot.

Best Short Story

  1. Better Living Through Algorithms won on the fifth count, with How to Raise a Kraken in Your Bathtub and The Mausoleum’s Children still in the race
  2. How to Raise a Kraken in Your Bathtub ahead of The Mausoleum’s Children
  3. The Mausoleum’s Children ahead of The Sound of Children Screaming
  4. The Sound of Children Screaming ahead of Tasting the Future Delicacy Three Times
  5. Tasting the Future Delicacy Three Times ahead of Answerless Journey
  6. Answerless Journey

Answerless Journey, which came sixth on the final ballot, topped the nominations ballot. The winner, Better Living Through Algorithms, came third. Day Ten Thousand, by Isabel J. Kim, needed 2 more votes to get on the ballot.

This category had the most nominees; the lowest percentage of nominating votes for the top qualifying finalist; the joint fewest first preference votes for No Award on the final ballot; and the lowest percentage for No Award in the runoff.

Best Series

  1. Imperial Radch by 516 votes ahead of October Daye
  2. The Final Architecture ahead of October Daye
  3. The Laundry Files ahead of October Daye
  4. October Daye ahead of The Universe of Xuya
  5. The Universe of Xuya ahead of The Last Binding
  6. The Last Binding

Imperial Radch topped nominations as well, just ahead of The Universe of Xuya. The Craft Sequence, by Max Gladstone, needed 18 more votes to get on the ballot.

Best Graphic Story or Comic

  1. Saga, Vol. 11, by 88 votes ahead of The Three Body Problem
  2. Wonder Woman Historia: The Amazons ahead of The Three Body Problem
  3. Bea Wolf ahead of The Three Body Problem
  4. The Three Body Problem by 1 vote ahead of Shubeik Lubeik
  5. tie between Shubeik Lubeik and The Witches of World War II

The Three Body Problem had the most first preferences, but lost on transfers.

The Three Body Problem was way in front at the nomination stage, with Saga, Vol. 11 second on EPH points but only fourth in actual votes. Why Don’t You Love Me?, by Paul B. Rainey, needed 9 more votes to get on the ballot.

This category saw the winner with the fewest first preference votes.

Best Related Work

  1. A City on Mars by 39 votes ahead of The Culture: The Drawings
  2. The Culture: The Drawings ahead of A Traveller in Time
  3. A Traveller in Time ahead of Chinese Science Fiction: An Oral History v2-3
  4. All These Worlds ahead of the rest
  5. Chinese Science Fiction: An Oral History, vols 2 and 3 ahead of Discover X
  6. Discover X

Discover X was far ahead at nominations, with the most votes in any category, and rather unusually got fewer votes in the final ballot. A City on Mars was fifth on nominations, after Bigolas Dickolas Wolfwood withdrew. Making It So, by Patrick Stewart, needed 1 more vote to get on the ballot.

Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form

  1. Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves by 49 votes ahead of Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse
  2. Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse ahead of Barbie
  3. Barbie ahead of Nimona
  4. Nimona ahead of Poor Things
  5. Poor Things ahead of The Wandering Earth II
  6. The Wandering Earth II

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse had the most first preferences, but lost on transfers.

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves was also well in the lead at nominations stage. Godzilla Minus One needed 1 more vote to qualify for the ballot.

Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form

  1. The Last of Us: “Long, Long Time” by 18 votes ahead of Those Old Scientists
  2. Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: “Those Old Scientists”, ahead of Glorious Purpose
  3. Loki: “Glorious Purpose”, ahead of Subspace Rhapsody
  4. Doctor Who: “The Giggle”, ahead of Subspace Rhapsody
  5. Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: “Subspace Rhapsody”, ahead of Wild Blue Yonder
  6. Doctor Who: “Wild Blue Yonder”

Long, Long Time was also far ahead at nominations. Doctor Who: “The Church on Ruby Road” needed 8.8 more points to get on the ballot.

Best Game or Interactive Work

  1. Baldur’s Gate 3, far ahead of the field
  2. The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom ahead of Chants of Sennaar
  3. Chants of Sennaar ahead of DREDGE
  4. DREDGE ahead of Star Wars Jedi: Survivor
  5. Alan Wake 2 ahead of Star Wars Jedi: Survivor
  6. Star Wars Jedi: Survivor

Baldur’s Gate 3 was also far ahead of the field at nominations stage. Stray Gods needed 6 more bullet votes to qualify for the ballot. No Award got the highest number of first preference in this category.

Best Editor Short Form

  1. Neil Clarke by 100 votes ahead of Lynne M. Thomas and Michael Damian Thomas
  2. Lynne M. Thomas and Michael Damian Thomas ahead of Jonathan Strahan 
  3. Jonathan Strahan ahead of Yang Feng
  4. Scott H. Andrews by 9 votes ahead of Yang Feng
  5. Yang Feng ahead of Liu Weijia
  6. Liu Weijia

Lynne M. Thomas and Michael Damian Thomas had the most first preferences, but lost on transfers.

Yang Feng was way ahead in nominations, and Liu Weijia well ahead of the rest. Nisi Shawl needed 8 more votes worth 3.34 points to get on the ballot.

This was the category in which No Award got the fewest votes in the runoff.

Best Editor Long Form

  1. Ruoxi Chen by 38 votes ahead of Lee Harris
  2. Lee Harris ahead of Yao Haijun
  3. Lindsey Hall ahead of Yao Haijun
  4. Yao Haijun ahead of Kelly Lonesome
  5. Kelly Lonesome by 14 votes ahead of David Thomas Moore
  6. David Thomas Moore

Lee Harris topped nominations, with Ruoxi Chen second. Natasha Bardon declined nomination. Gillian Redfearn needed 5 more votes worth 2.86 points to get on the ballot.

This was the category where No Award got its highest vote share in the runoff.

Best Professional Artist

  1. Rovina Cai by 7 votes ahead of Alyssa Winans
  2. Alyssa Winans ahead of Micaela Alcaino
  3. Galen Dara by 3 votes ahead of Micaela Alcaino
  4. Micaela Alcaino ahead of Dan Dos Santos
  5. Tristan Elwell by 7 votes ahead of Dan Dos Santos
  6. Dan Dos Santos

Alyssa Winans had the most first preferences, but lost on transfers.

Alyssa Winans was far ahead on nominations here, with Rovina Cai third in votes and fourth in EPH points. Feifei Ruan needed 2 more votes worth 1.08 points to get on the ballot.

Best Semiprozine

  1. Strange Horizons by 6 votes ahead of Uncanny Magazine, the closest result of the night.
  2. Uncanny Magazine ahead of FIYAH Literary Magazine
  3. FIYAH Literary Magazine ahead of Escape Pod
  4. Escape Pod ahead of the field
  5. khōréō ahead of GigaNotoSaurus
  6. GigaNotoSaurus

Uncanny Magazine had the most first preferences, but lost on transfers.

Strange Horizons was far ahead at nominations. Interzone needed 2 more votes to qualify for the ballot.

Best Fanzine

  1. Nerds of a Feather, Flock Together by 17 votes ahead of Journey Planet
  2. Black Nerd Problems ahead of Journey Planet
  3. Journey Planet ahead of Unofficial Hugo Book Club Blog
  4. Unofficial Hugo Book Club Blog ahead of Idea
  5. Idea by 8 votes ahead of The Full Lid
  6. The Full Lid

Black Nerd Problems had the most first preferences here, and Journey Planet the second most, with Nerds of a Feather coming from third place to win.

Nerds of a Feather had the most votes at nominations stage, but Journey Planet had the most EPH points. Zero Gravity News needed 0.5 more points to get on the ballot.

This was the category whose winner had the fewest first preference votes.

Best Fancast

  1. Octothorpe by 7 votes ahead of Worldbuilding for Masochists
  2. Worldbuilding for Masochists by 6 votes ahead of The Coode Street Podcast
  3. The Coode Street Podcast ahead of Publishing Rodeo
  4. Hugos There by 18 votes ahead of Publishing Rodeo
  5. Publishing Rodeo ahead of Science Fiction Fans Buma
  6. Science Fiction Fans Buma

Discover X and Diu Diu Sci Fi Radio both got far more nominating votes than anyone else, but both are professional productions so were not eligible. Octothorpe got far more than any of the rest. Hugo, Girl! needed 8.33 more points to get on the ballot.

This was the category with fewest nominees, and the category where fewest final ballot votes were cast.

Best Fan Writer

  1. Paul Weimer by 114 votes ahead of Jason Sanford
  2. Jason Sanford ahead of Bitter Karella
  3. Bitter Karella ahead of Alasdair Stuart
  4. Alasdair Stuart ahead of James Davis Nicoll
  5. James Davis Nicoll ahead of Örjan Westin
  6. Örjan Westin

Paul Weimer was far ahead at nominations. Camestros Felapton withdrew. Alex Brown needed 3 more votes worth 1.75 points to qualify for the ballot.

This was the category where No Award had its best percentage share of first preference votes.

Best Fan Artist

  1. Laya Rose by 57 votes ahead of Sara Felix
  2. Iain J. Clark ahead of Sara Felix
  3. Sara Felix ahead of Dante Luiz
  4. Dante Luiz ahead of the rest
  5. Alison Scott ahead of España Sheriff
  6. España Sheriff

Iain J. Clarke and Sara Felix led nominations, with Laya Rose third on EPH points and fourth on votes. Yuumei needed 0.8 more points to qualify for the ballot.

This was the category with the fewest nominating votes, and therefore also the category where the top nominee got fewest votes.

Lodestar Award for Best YA Book

  1. To Shape a Dragon’s Breath by 42 votes ahead of Liberty’s Daughter
  2. Liberty’s Daughter ahead of The Sinister Booksellers of Bath
  3. The Sinister Booksellers of Bath by 11 votes ahead of Abeni’s Song
  4. Unraveller by 3 votes ahead of Abeni’s Song
  5. Abeni’s Song ahead of Promises Stronger than Darkness
  6. Promises Stronger than Darkness

To Shape a Dragon’s Breath and Promises Stronger than Darkness led nominations. Camp Damascus, by Chuck Tingle, needed 10 more votes worth 6.05 points to qualify for the ballot.

Astounding Award for Best New Writer (sponsored by Dell Magazines)

  1. Xiran Jay Zhao by 159 votes ahead of Moniquill Blackgoose
  2. Moniquill Blackgoose ahead of Ai Jiang
  3. tie between Sunyi Dean and Ai Jiang
  5. Hannah Kaner ahead of Em X. Liu
  6. Em X. Liu

It was very close at the top here in nominations, with Sunyi Dean getting the most votes, just ahead of Moniquill Blackgoose and Ai Jiang, who were just ahead of Xiran Jay Zhao. On EPH points, Blackgoose was top, Jiang second and Dean third, with Zhao fourth again. Bethany Jacobs needed in excess of 3.33 more EPH points, or 12 more votes, to qualify for the ballot.

This was the category where No Award got most votes in the runoff.

And now for next year…

Best Novelette Hugo 2024

Posted on by

“Ivy, Angelica, Bay” by C. L. Polk

Second paragraph of third section:

“Jael Brown.”

“The Year Without Sunshine” by Naomi Kritzer

Second paragraph of third section:

“Maybe someone in the suburbs has an electric tiller they’d trade,”
Lem said. We’d started tearing up yards with spades, and it was slow
going, although at least we weren’t putting buried utility lines at risk.

I AM AI by Ai Jiang

Second paragraph of third section:

Atop the entrance of the café are the flickering neon aqua letters of Mao Tou Ying and the wired image of an orange owl sitting on top of “Tou” as though perched on a tree, the wavering colour making it seem like it’s on fire. Sometimes only the “Ying” is lit, and without the tonal accent, no one can tell whether it is the “ying” in owl or the “ying” in shadow. Ironically, both fit the establishment.荧光绿色的“Mao Tou Ying”在咖啡店入口上方闪烁，一只紧张不安的橙色猫头鹰踩着“Tou”，仿佛栖息在树上，摇曳的色彩令它看似在燃烧。有时候只有“Ying”被点亮，没有声调，没人能区分它表示猫头鹰的鹰还是阴影的影。讽刺的是，二者都挺适合这家店铺。

“Introduction to 2181 Overture, Second Edition”, Gu Shi

Third paragraph of original Chinese text, with English translation by Emily Jin:

这次改变人类生死观和时间观的革命，只用了三十多年就完成了，现在想来真是令人觉得不可思议。其间当然会有种种议论的声音，反对者、甚至是以恐怖行径来威胁的人，亦为数不少。尤其是当冬眠技术不再是一个问题，其安全性也不再令人怀疑之后，反对的声浪却愈演愈烈，几乎上升到宗教和哲学的层面。当然如今回头去看，这些人不过是各说各话罢了，To be or not to be ,这是一个问题，却永远不会有统一的答案。本书最为可贵之处，就在于作者采用了中立、客观的立场，在对“冬眠”这一议题进行了长期追踪后，她找出那些最关键的、足以改变历史方向的人物，和最特殊的、让人深入思考的案例，再平和地向读者展示出来。It’s incredible that three mere decades were enough for the revolution that reshaped the human perception of life, death, and time. Just like every other revolution, the cryosleep revolution was a hotbed of controversies. Heated debates, opposing voices, terrorists that threatened to end the cryosleep project with violence . . . the war of values only became more heated when the reliability of cryosleep technology and relevant safety measures were no longer questioned by the public. Challengers took the discussion to the level of religion and philosophy. Of course, looking back, most of the debates were merely pundits babbling to their respective echo chamber. To be or not to be is a question impossible to elicit a uniform answer. Therefore, in my humble opinion, the greatest achievement of this book is that the author maintains an impartial stance. Industriously tracking the topic of cryosleep through a series of interviews conducted over an extended period; she pinpoints the most crucial figures who had altered the course of history and the most exceptional and thought-provoking case studies. Then, she delivers the information and her analysis to her readers with a voice
that’s objective and calm.

“On the Fox Roads” by Nghi Vo

Second paragraph of section III:

Driving one-handed, Jack skimmed out of his jacket and passed it back to me. I wrapped his jacket thick around my arm and knocked out the shards of glass from the frame, pushing them out onto the road behind us where they glittered briefly before they were lost to the darkness.

If Found Return to Hell / The Death I Gave Him, by Em X. Liu

Posted on by

Second paragraph of “Third Court” in If Found, Return to Hell:

Oh, absolutely,” Nathaniel says. She snaps one last photo of the talisman, then pulls out a small, glass orb.

Second paragraph of Chapter Three of The Death I Gave Him:

There had been a murder.

Two short pieces in the Hugo Packet by Astounding finalist Em X. Liu. If Found, Return to Hell is a tale of an intern in a wizardly call centre who gets sucked into one particular client’s problems; you can get it here. The Death I Gave Him is a retelling of Hamlet as a murder in a family-run technology company; you can get it here. I enjoyed them both.

Best Graphic Story or Comic Hugo 2024

Posted on by

Bea Wolf, written by Zach Weinersmith, art by Boulet

Second frame of Fitt 3:

The Three Body Problem, Part One, by SFCF Studio

Second frame of part 3:

The Witches of World War 2 written by Paul Cornell, art by Valeria Burzo

Second frame of Chapter 3:

Saga, Vol. 11 written by Brian K. Vaughan, art by Fiona Staples

Second frame of Chapter Sixty-three (third chapter in thjs volume):

Wonder Woman Historia: The Amazons written by Kelly Sue DeConnick, art by Phil Jimenez, Gene Ha and Nicola Scott

Second frame of Book Three:

Shubeik Lubeik / Your Wish Is My Command, by Deena Mohamed

Second frame of Part III:

Lodestar Award 2024

Posted on by

Promises Stronger than Darkness by Charlie Jane Anders

Second paragraph of third chapter:

Two cute young Makvarians surround her and gaze adoringly while she keeps their cups overflowing with Yuul sauce. All three of them kiss each other with their mouths full of the spicy, tart liquor, in the gloomiest corner of the sleaziest nightclub at the bottom level of Vandal Station, the Bump Dump. Thaoh has attached new gems to her strong cheekbones and jaw, bigger than the ones Tina used to wear.

The Sinister Booksellers of Bath by Garth Nix 

Second paragraph of third chapter:

“That was stupid of me,” muttered the left-handed bookseller to himself. Hefting the William IV truncheon, he slowly turned on the spot, taking stock of his surroundings.

Unraveller by Frances Hardinge

Second paragraph of third chapter:

Maybe Nettle was right. Maybe they were heading to a new captivity. But at least they were doing so in style.

Abeni’s Song by P. Djèlí Clark

Second paragraph of third chapter:

But just as she had begun the face-off, the old woman ended it. Her eyes gave one last sweep across the village before making a loud humph! Without another word, she hiked up her long dress and started walking forward. No one got in her way—everyone moving quickly to let her pass. It wasn’t hard to tell where she was going, because her eyes were fixed on the large round building ahead.

To Shape a Dragon’s Breath by Moniquill Blackgoose

Second paragraph of third chapter:

But then Crow, who came flying to Masquapaug from the lands west of the sunset, taught the first people how to dance. Nampeshiwe’s Mother came to watch their dances. Nampeshiwe’s Mother said to the people, “Your dancing is beautiful. You must teach me your dancing. I would know how it is done.”

Liberty’s Daughter by Naomi Kritzer

Second paragraph of third chapter:

I was really surprised to hear from you, because Dad told me you were dead. Should I have thought of a more tactful way to say that?

Best Related Work Hugo 2024

Posted on by

雨果X访谈 (Discover X), presented by 王雅婷 (Tina Wong)

First video of third section is a discussion of “The Spirit of Worldcon” with Dave McCarty, Ben Yalow and Helen Montgomery.

中国科幻口述史, 第二卷, 第三卷，(Chinese Science Fiction: An Oral History, vols 2 and 3) ed. 杨枫 / Yang Feng 

Second paragraph of third section of vol 2 (interview with Shen Zaiwang):

申再望：我是 1948 年底在山西兴县蔡家崖出生的。那里当时是解放区，再之前是抗战根据地，叫晋绥革命根据地。我出生的时候，父亲是晋绥军区政委，也是晋绥党委书记。当时我们家孩子比较多，父亲在我出生之前，就把我的哥哥送给了他在晋绥军区的战友孙志远，取名孙巨。我出生以后，又决定把我送给另外一个战友——这个战友以前在大青山抗日根据地跟他一起作战，叫张达志。Shen Zaiwang: I was born in Caijiaya, Xing County, Shanxi Province at the end of 1948. It was a liberated area at that time, and before that it was an anti-Japanese base, called the Jinsui Revolutionary Base. When I was born, my father was the political commissar of the Jinsui Military Region and the secretary of the Jinsui Party Committee. There were many children in our family at that time, and before I was born, my father gave my elder brother to his comrade-in-arms Sun Zhiyuan in the Jinsui Military Region and named him Sun Ju. After I was born, he decided to give me to another comrade-in-arms – this comrade-in-arms had fought with him in the Daqingshan Anti-Japanese Base, and his name was Zhang Dazhi.

Second paragraph of third section of vol 3 (interview with Wang Xiaoda):

王晓达：好的。我是纯粹的苏州人。苏州是一座文化古城，我们家里头，从我的曾祖父、祖父、父亲到我，基本上都是读书人。早年，曾祖父王同愈才十几岁，就穿着棉袍到由清代洋务派创办的上海制造局当学徒。曾祖父有数学跟制图的特长，便在那里站住了脚，也因为这个特长，当时被清朝的封疆重臣吴大澂发掘，被招去做幕僚。曾祖父帮吴大澂干了不少事，有的事情甚至载入了史册。Wang Xiaoda: Yes. I am a pure Suzhou native. Suzhou is an ancient city of culture. In my family, from my great-grandfather, grandfather, father to me, we are basically all scholars. In his early years, my great-grandfather Wang Tongyu was only a teenager, and he wore a cotton robe to be an apprentice at the Shanghai Manufacturing Bureau founded by the Westernization Movement in the Qing Dynasty. My great-grandfather had expertise in mathematics and cartography, so he established himself there. Because of this expertise, he was discovered by Wu Dacheng, a senior official of the Qing Dynasty, and was recruited to be his staff. My great-grandfather helped Wu Dacheng do a lot of things, some of which were even recorded in history.

All These Worlds: Reviews & Essays by Niall Harrison

Second paragraph of third review:

There are rough edges. At times, In the Palace of Repose reminds me of Kelly Link’s first collection, Stranger Things Happen (2001), as an example of work by a writer exploring her options and her strengths – although where Link was exploring the possibilities of story structure, Holly Phillips is more concerned with tone. Her great gift is her ability to capture the feel of things: the smells and textures of places, and the nuances of moods. The stories in In the Palace of Repose are linked by some shared concerns, such as the experiences of young women and the appeal of the fantastic, but most of all by the intense sensory experiences they evoke. Unusually, it is not a richness born of lyricism, for the most part; rather, it comes from her ability to pick exactly the right word or phrase for the job at hand.

A City on Mars, by Kelly Weinersmith and Zach Weinersmith

Second paragraph of third chapter:

On the assumption that this is undesirable, you’ll want something to bind all comers together. We’ve seen more than one proposal for what one author called an “unchastity belt”—a sort of elastic band for two. Another concept is the “snuggle tunnel” for anyone who’s ever wanted to experience lovemaking in a narrow, poorly ventilated pipe. There’s also the 2suit, which would keep a couple connected via Velcro straps. And then, best of all, in the immortal words of engineer and futurist Dr. Thomas Heppenheimer, writing from the glorious 1970s: “One way to enjoy such zero-g delight will be in a space Chevy van.”

A Traveller in Time: The Critical Practice of Maureen Kincaid Speller, by Maureen Kincaid Speller, edited by Nina Allan

Second paragraph of third essay:

In subsequent interviews, Atwood herself has repeated the phrase, or versions of it, though whether because she sincerely believes what she said, because it has become part of her ‘brand’, or because, as I have come to suspect, she simply likes winding up critics of genre, is not clear.

The Culture: The Drawings, by Iain M. Banks

Second paragraph of third chapter:

When I was doing my own bit of physical law revising for my SF books, I deliberately set the near-theoretical limit of interstellar velocity at a value which would mean it would take roughly as long for a starship to travel to the far side of the galaxy and back as it used to take a sailing ship to circumnavigate the Earth; it was a value that felt right, and – in fiction – that’s often all that matters. There are – again in fiction – lots of ways of achieving this kind of technically ludicrous velocity. one old favourite is hyperspace -where the assumption is usually that the value for c is much higher, or there’s warp-drive, which implies it’s possible to distort that fabric in such a way as to told distant points together temporarily, so making a tourney from one to another possible without having to cross the intervening space … or there’s the rather more recently fashionable and – as these things go – slightly less scientifically dubious idea of using singularities or wormholes to short-circuit space-time (there’s also the distantly related possibility of using other universes to apparently travel within this one, rather as one might apparently travel though time using the same technique – as Marcus Chown explained in Science, New Scientist, 28 March 1993.

Second drawing from third chapter:

Best Short Story Hugo 2024

Posted on by

“Tasting the Future Delicacy Three Times”, by Baoshu

Second paragraph of third section:

“郝滋味”餐饮体验新品发布会即将开始，全世界已经有数百万人在线报名参加，而一些重要的客人则是直接被邀请到了现场的体验中心。The launch event for Taste of Herz Dining Experience Group’s new product was about to begin. Already, over a million people had registered their participation online, and some important guests had been invited to the Experience Centre itself to attend it in person.

The Sound of Children Screaming, Rachael K. Jones

Second paragraph of third section:

Michelle wears the armor of an elementary school teacher: an A-line dress in an ocean print, a blue cardigan to match. She bears no weapon but a sharp-edged teacher’s tongue that cuts through noise like scissors.

Answerless Journey, Han Song

Second paragraph of third section:

　　“狗娘养的，它们不管我们了。”同类骂道。生物便说：“喂，看起来我们的世界已经毁灭了，我们俩是唯一的幸存者。”同类点点头说；“这大概是事故的起因。”又说：“但你说的跟圣经中的不一样。听你的意思是说我们乘的是诺亚方舟，那么鸽子呢?”圣经是什么武器?诺亚方舟又是何种疫病?为什么要提到鸽子?生物听了同类的话，痛苦地思索，它朦朦胧胧记起了一些往事，却不得要领。它自己也试探着说：“那也应该有性别之分。这种场合，通常是安排一男一女。”同类就谨慎地发问：“什么场合?”生物便又乱掉了方寸。性别是什么呢?一男一女又该干什么呢?一团模糊遥远的云彩，带着毛边儿，在它的神志中纵横切割，心乱与静谧的空间不成对应。语言杀人！生物慌慌张张地看看同类，发现它也在十分尴尬地打量自己。“Son of a bitch. They don’t care about us,” Same Kind curses. Creature says, “Well, guess our world has already been destroyed. We’re the two sole survivors.” Same Kind nods and says, “This is probably the cause of the trouble.” Then adds, “But what you say is different from what’s in the Bible. I understand you mean we are taking Noah’s Ark, but then where is the dove?” What kind of weapon is the Bible? What kind of epidemic is Noah’s Ark? Why mention a dove? Creature thinks painfully after hearing Same Kind’s remarks. It vaguely remembers some past events but all miss the point. It says tentatively, “Then there should be gender differences. In this kind of situation, the common arrangement is having one man and one woman.” Same Kind asks cautiously, “What situation?” Creature loses its composure again. What is gender? And what should a man and a woman do? A mass of obscure, remote clouds with fuzzy edges surges through its mind. This turbulence clashes with the tranquil space. Language kills! Creature looks nervously at Same Kind, finds that it is awkwardly eyeing it back.

“How to Raise a Kraken in Your Bathtub” by P. Djèlí Clark

Second paragraph of third section:

Trevor called out an order and smiled. “That I can’t tell you yet. But
I’ll be able to show you soon enough.”

“The Mausoleum’s Children”, by Aliette de Bodard

Only two sections, so this is the third paragraph of the first section:

A fitting reminder of her life so far, she supposed.

“Better Living Through Algorithms”, Naomi Kritzer

Second paragraph of third section:

“It’s not a productivity app! It’s a wellness app,” Keith said, like that made it better.(The only thing I hate more than productivity apps are wellness apps.) “It will make you happier! Healthier! I’ve established three new good habits since I started using it—I floss daily, I have increased my fiber intake, and I go for a walk at lunchtime!”

Best Novel Hugo 2024

Posted on by

Again, I’m not discussing my votes, but here is the second paragraph of the third chapter of each of the finalists.

Witch King, by Martha Wells

So far the voyage hadn’t been as bad as Kai had feared. But waking up dead and entombed had invited some unpleasant memories into his dreams, mixed with fading nightmares still written into this new body’s flesh. Like so many aspects of mortal life, sleep was overrated. He said, “Do you know where we are?”

The Saint of Bright Doors, by Vajra Chandrasekara

When he makes conversation, on a third date like this one with Hejmen, for instance, he does his best to be open and vulnerable. It’s easier to open up while they sit at an outdoor café in the darkening evening, lit by the smouldering canopy of the flame trees above. He’ll talk about his childhood at length, but not about his teens.

Starter Villain, by John Scalzi

“Hello, Hera,” I said. I plucked the kitten from my shoulder and brought it down to Hera’s eye level. “I’ve brought you something.” I set the kitten down in front of her and waited.

Translation State, by Ann Leckie

I wasn’t an extra. I toddled out of the Tiny beds and into the slightly wider world of the Littles with not a care. By the time I grew from Little to Small, I had developed a comfortable sense of my own importance to the world, to the other Smalls around me. I knew that the larger figures around us who fed us, who instructed us in various proprieties (don’t put that in your ear!; no, don’t bite off her finger!) would keep me safe and comfortable.

Some Desperate Glory, by Emily Tesh

Vic called Arti’s name after her, but she didn’t look back.

The Adventures of Amina al-Sirafi, by Shannon Chakraborty

My mother had put my clothes, my weapons, my tools—all that made me the infamous Amina al-Sirafi—into storage, and unearthing the woman I used to be, carefully tucked and folded away by another’s hand, was disorienting. I had once delighted in color and flash, known by reputation to traipse about in whatever royal silks, meltingly thin muslins, and silver headdresses I had recently plundered. Part of it was about cultivating the confidence I needed to survive my chosen profession—a little madness goes a long way in convincing men that you might stab them if they step out of line.

Best Novella Hugo 2024

Posted on by

As the Administrator, I’m not discussing my votes, but for completeness here is the second paragraph of the third section or chapter of each of the finalists.

Life Does Not Allow Us To Meet, by He Xi

何夕面无表情地注视着站在飞船前面的三个人，准确地说，他的目光是落在那个娇小的身影上，心里麻木得没有一丝感觉。就在昨天之前，他的心还被幸福的憧憬填得满满，而现在一切都已无法挽回。He Xi stared expressionlessly at the three people standing in front of the spaceship, or more accurately speaking, his gaze fell on one small figure. His heart was too numb to feel anything. Even the day before yesterday his heart had been full of longing for happiness, but now it was all irretrievable.

Seeds of Mercury, by Wang Jinkang

沙巫神行完这件事，失去了父星的宠爱。父星发怒说：你怎么敢代我行这件事？父星用白色的光剑惩罚了蓝星，毁灭了沙巫的家。沙巫神乘神车逃离蓝星，去了父星照不到的地方。The God Shawu completed the work and lost Father Star’s affection. Father Star said angrily: How dare you do this work for me? Father Star punished Blue Star with a white lightsword, destroyed Shawu’s house. Shawu fled Blue Star in a Holy Car to a place
Father Star where could not shine.

The Mimicking of Known Successes, by Malka Older

“Well,” I said, stretching my legs out till they almost reached her bench where it faced mine, an excusable indulgence since the heating pipes ran under the benches. “We have spent most of the day speaking to people who knew the man.” I stopped, not wanting to say it.

Mammoths at the Gates, by Nghi Vo

“That’s the flag of Northern Bell Pass, isn’t it?” asked Chih, and Cleverness Himself whistled disdainfully.

Thornhedge, by T. Kingfisher [Ursula Vernon]

There were many precautions in those days for keeping changelings at bay. Bits of cold iron tucked into the blankets, a lodestone hung above the cradle, three rowan twigs wrapped in red thread and tucked under the pillow. But Toadling’s mother was bleeding heavily and her ladies swarmed around her, and Toadling was set down in the cradle without any wards at all.

Rose/House, by Arkady Martine

The math was easy. Figure twenty-four hours, to the dot, from time of death to Rose House’s mandated duty-of-care call; another day and night to find Selene Gisil and get her across an ocean and into China Lake; one more day until the beginning of this little expedition into dizzying architecture. Maritza couldn’t quite understand why anyone—Basit Deniau, famous architect, or otherwise—would want to live in this place. But she could count hours, and measure decay against them. This man had been dead for three and a half days, and he was rotting.

Hugo final ballot: Goodreads / LibraryThing statistics

Posted on by

As you may be aware, we launched the Hugo ballot earlier today.

Having had a certain amount of foreknowledge, I crunched the numbers for the Goodreads and LibraryThing raters in several categories last weekend, and came up with the following stats. This is of course no more than a reflection of the tastes of the user base on both systems; it may (or may not) be useful to assess how far each of the finalists has penetrated the market.

Best NovelGoodreadsLibraryThing
Titleratersratingownersrating
The Adventures of Amina al-Sirafi, Shannon Chakraborty377504.310774.34
Starter Villain, John Scalzi343564.27724.05
Witch King, Martha Wells146513.728883.78
Translation State, Ann Leckie83604.134444.2
Some Desperate Glory, Emily Tesh67894.064634.08
The Saint of Bright Doors, Vajra Chandrasekera13463.721603.48
Unusually, a clear leader on all four metrics.
Best NovellaGoodreadsLibraryThing
Titleratersratingownersrating
Thornhedge, T. Kingfisher200784.055434.14
The Mimicking of Known Successes, Malka Older 48333.662793.84
Mammoths at the Gates, Nghi Vo37044.271484.36
Rose/House, Arkady Martine15483.8973.46
(Adventures in Space: New Short stories by Chinese & English Science Fiction Writers)223.412–
The last of these is the anthology in which the missing two finalists were both published, which has not really penetrated the mass market.
Best Graphic Story or ComicGoodreadsLibraryThing
Titleratersratingownersrating
Saga, Vol. 1144564.261324.02
Bea Wolf22343.462044.15
Shubeik Lubeik / Your Wish Is My Command 25314.521274.41
Wonder Woman Historia: The Amazons8584.5644.35
The Witches of World War II1583.09172.64
三体漫画：第一部 / The Three Body Problem, Part One––––
More people nominated The Witches of World War II for the Hugos than own it on LibraryThing. Which possibly indicates the sad decline of LibraryThing.
Best Related WorkGoodreadsLibraryThing
Titleratersratingownersrating
A City on Mars, Kelly and Zach Weinersmith 20704.122114.24
The Culture: The Drawings, Iain M. Banks544473.36
A Traveller in Time, Maureen Kincaid Speller64.56–
All These Worlds, Niall Harrison445–
中国科幻口述史, 第二卷, 第三卷 / Chinese Science Fiction: An Oral History, vols 2 and 3 杨枫 / Yang Feng––––
雨果X访谈 (Discover X), 王雅婷 (Tina Wong)(video interviews)
The last of these is not going to register on any book logging system, and the second last hasn’t made a mark in the West – so far. Having said that, only one of the Western finalists has achieved much market penetration as yet; again, a lot more people nominated both A Traveller in Time and All These Worlds than own either on either book-logging system.
Lodestar Award for Best YA BookGoodreadsLibraryThing
Titleratersratingownersrating
The Sinister Booksellers of Bath, Garth Nix 49484.063103.91
To Shape A Dragon’s Breath, Moniquill Blackgoose48664.192514.15
Unraveller, Frances Hardinge21674.121574.08
Abeni’s Song, by P. Djèlí Clark3803.97504.00
Promises Stronger than Darkness, Charlie Jane Anders3134.21493.94
Liberty’s Daughter, Naomi Kritzer1984.12414.11
Unusual to have two finalists close at the top in terms of both GR raters and LT owners.

As I said, this number-crunching has proved a good guide to the outcome rather less than half the time in the past; so I take it as I find it.

The Hugos and me

Posted on by

I have now been appointed Hugo Administrator for Glasgow 2024: A Worldcon for our Futures, double-hatted with the role of Division Head for WSFS. (If the website hasn’t already been updated, it will be soon.) This is my comment on recent events, and my own commitment to future action.

I was not involved with organising the Chengdu Worldcon in any way, though it was a close call. Shortly before the Chengdu bid won the Site Selection vote in 2021, I was invited to become one of the Co-chairs of the convention if the bid won. (I have no idea if Ben Yalow was already on board at that stage.) I declined on the grounds that I really did not have time, but agreed to become a senior adviser, and was listed as such on their org chart presented in DC.

However, I was dismayed by Chengdu Worldcon’s choice of fascist writer Sergei Lukanyenko as a guest of honour, and by a general lack of communication. By summer 2022 I had heard very little from Chengdu Worldcon and it had become clear that they were not very interested in my advice, so I resigned as an advisor and heard no more from them for several months. 

In March 2023, rather to my surprise, I was invited to come to Chengdu as a guest of the convention, with no strings attached. I attended Chengdu Worldcon in October and generally enjoyed myself a lot. I was however aware of the undercurrents of dissatisfaction within Chinese fandom about the way that the convention was being run and with how some Chinese fans were being treated by the organisers. 

I left Chengdu grateful for the hospitality that had been shown me, inspired by the conversations I had had and by the energy of Chinese fans, but also conscious of the gaps between cultures and political systems. I had had a very good time, but a number of Chinese attendees did not. I am conscious of my privilege.

Then came the publication of the Hugo nomination statistics on 20 January. Every year since at least 2013, before EPH was introduced, I have published an analysis of the votes in each category. It took me very little time on this occasion to conclude that – quite apart from the unexplained disqualifications – the published 2023 numbers cannot possibly be an accurate reflection of the nominating votes cast. I concluded that there was nothing that I could usefully say (and said so). 

Others (notably Camestros Felapton and Heather Rose Jones) have put more effort into trying to work out what happened than I have been able to do; but fundamentally the numbers are simply not credible. And no justification has been given for many of the disqualifications. I felt, and feel, sickened and betrayed. I know nothing more about what happened than is in the public domain, and that is bad enough. My cheerful memories of an international celebration of science fiction are now irretrievably tarnished. I feel particularly sorry for all of the finalists and nominees for the 2023 Hugos, and for those Chinese fans who sincerely put their energy into the Chengdu Worldcon.

I am also a member of the WSFS Mark Protection Committee and the Worldcon Intellectual Property board, to which I was elected by the 2022 WSFS Business Meeting. I participated in the January 2024 meeting at which Dave McCarty, Ben Yalow and others were censured for events at and subsequent to the Chengdu Worldcon. I make, and will make, no further comment on those discussions.

I was the Hugo administrator in 2017 and 2019, and part of the teams for 2020, 2021 (for a while) and 2022. My record is clear. We were criticised for allowing contested nominees to appear on the final ballot, including Hidden Figures in 2017, Archive of Our Own in 2019, Jeannette Ng’s speech in 2020, the “George R.R. Martin…” blog post in 2021 and Oghenechovwe Donald Ekpeki in 2022. I stand by those decisions. (Two of those contested nominees went on to win.)

Some nominees are ineligible under the rules. I do not like to unilaterally disqualify anyone. Sometimes a nominee will themselves flag up uncertainty about their eligibility to administrators. If preliminary research indicates that there is a problem with eligibility in a particular case, I prefer to engage in dialogue with the relevant creator to get the full picture. This is not always possible, but it is my ideal.

Sometimes a book has been published in the wrong year (in my experience, one each in 2019 and 2022). Sometimes we have to juggle between entire TV series and individual episodes which were nominated in different categories (twice in 2020, also in 2021 and 2022); and only two episodes of any one TV series are allowed on the ballot, so if more than two have the numbers, they need to be trimmed down (2017). The same goes for authors (2019).

Sometimes artists do not have an appropriate body of work for the years and categories they had been nominated in (four in 2017, one each in 2021 and 2022). Editors turned out to be ineligible in 2020 (one) and 2022 (four). A Semiprozine nominee in 2017 was not eligible. An Astounding nominee in 2020 had been published too early to qualify. Again, I stand by all of those decisions. I helped administer the Retro Hugos in 2019 (for 1944) and less enthusiastically in 2020 (for 1945), and they bring a whole extra dimension of hassle.

The Glasgow 2024 team and I have committed to publishing, along with the final Hugo ballot, the potential nominees who were ineligible or who declined nomination, and the grounds for any ineligibility decision; and along with the final results of voting, the full statistics as mandated by the constitution and in addition a detailed log of our decisions interpreting the rules. My then team did this in 2017, and we can and will do it again in 2024. Kathryn Duval, who was my deputy in 2017, is my deputy again this year (in a slightly different role) and the entire team is committed to transparency. We are considering some additional steps as well.

There are a lot of discussions going on right now about the future governance of the Hugo Awards, of WSFS and of Worldcon. I am personally concentrating my energy on running a better process in 2024, and won’t have time to engage much in those debates. I do however think that the Hugos are fundamentally Worldcon’s award, and removing them from Worldcon will mean that they are no longer the Hugos. But that is enough for now.