Hugo further discussion

(I'm still all excited about the Campbell ballot. I think Jay's at Norwescon this weekend, but I was tempted to call up Tim and say "Dude! You're on the Campbell ballot!" But I figured (a) it's a little late to be calling people, and (b) he already knows, since they presumably check with nominees before making the official announcement. But still. Dude! Y'all are on the Campbell ballot!)

Okay, some serious commentary:

As usual, I haven't read any of the novels. But I'm pleased to see the Stross there; been planning to read that one.

Not many surprises in the short fiction; most of the stories listed were on various Year's Best lists and ToCs. I've only read about half of them. The usual distribution of sources: a bunch from Asimov's, a few from Analog and F&SF, a couple from other magazines (in this case SCI FICTION, which is also nice to see), and a couple from original anthologies. Except that I don't think I've ever seen a Writers of the Future story make the ballot before. I think it was the first of Jay's Campbell-eligible sales to appear in print. And incidentally, I'm pretty sure this is Jay's first year of eligibility rather than second.

Four of the Dramatic Presentation Long Form items are the expected ones; the surprise to me (and the only one I haven't seen) is 28 Days. In Short Form, the expected Buffy finale and Gollum acceptance speech, plus three episodes of Firefly (to my surprise).

Pro Editor: No surprises; five of the usual six. (David Hartwell and Patrick Nielsen Hayden practically alternate in this category; this year it's Hartwell. I still find it odd that Realms stories and Shawna McCarthy never make the ballot.)

Pro Artist: Four of them are the same as the last three years; the only difference is Frank Frazetta instead of David Cherry (2003) or Michael Whelan (2001-2002).

Semiprozine: Four of them are the expected ones. In the fifth slot, on the one hand I'm pleased to see a magazine that publishes fiction (The Third Alternative); on the other hand, I'm disappointed to see Speculations fall off the list, for (I think) the first time in years. Also, I'm kind of disappointed to see two SFWA-qualified prozines in the semipro category; they don't qualify as prozines on circulation grounds by Hugo standards, but a magazine can declare itself to be a prozine and therefore ineligible (which is what we've done) even if it doesn't have a 10K circulation. On the other hand, I certainly can't begrudge Interzone and TTA their spots on the ballot; all I'm really saying here is that I'd love to see some of the good semipro-by-SFWA-standards fiction-oriented magazines make the semiprozine ballot. . . . It'll be interesting to see if IZ makes next year's ballot, with the recent departure of David Pringle as editor; if both IZ and TTA make the ballot next year, that'll be two Andy Cox-edited magazines.

Fanzine includes the usual four, plus what appears to be turning into the usual fifth: Cheryl's Emerald City. Cool beans. And Cheryl's also on the Fan Writer ballot for what I think is the first time—congratulations, Cheryl!

The Fan Artist ballot is the same as last year, and three of them have been on the ballot for several years now. And Frank Wu appears to be turning into a regular in that category—congratulations, Frank!

I already talked about the Campbells, and I'm not gonna talk about the Retrospective Hugos except to say that 1953 appears to have been an astonishingly (Astoundingly?) good year for sf. Zowie. Well, okay, I'll talk about it just a little, just to point out some difficult choices: Fahrenheit 451 or More than Human? "It's a Good Life" or "The Nine Billion Names of God" or "A Saucer of Loneliness"? Duck Dodgers or The War of the Worlds? Boucher, Campbell, Gold, Pohl, or Wollheim? Bonestell, Emshwiller (that's Ed, not Carol), Finlay, or Freas? (I'm tickled that Freas is on both the ballot for 2003 and the ballot for 1953.) Voting is gonna be tough. I hope someone manages to publish the short fiction from the retro ballot online; some damn good stuff there.

Okay, enough from me.

15 Responses to “Hugo further discussion”

  1. Tim Pratt

    In my case, at least, they did not notify me beforehand. I didn’t think I’d made the ballot, in fact, because no one contacted me, so I was rather poleaxed to see my name there. Pleasantly poleaxed, of course.

    You could’ve called. We were up. 🙂

    reply
  2. Jed

    If I’d known they hadn’t notified you, I’d definitely have called you no matter what time it was. That would’ve been fun. 🙂 (Instead, I was thinking, wow, Tim can really keep a secret—he must’ve known when I saw him last week, and he didn’t give any indication.)

    Hmm, I wonder if that means Jay doesn’t know yet?

    reply
  3. Tim Pratt

    Somebody probably knocked down Jay’s door to tell him.

    I know actual Hugo nominees are notified beforehand — Locus was notified a week ago about making the ballot. I assumed it would be the same for Campbell nominees, and so I gave up hope when I didn’t hear from anyone. Guess it’s different for the Campbell’s. Or else my e-mail just ate the notification, which is certainly possible, I guess…

    reply
  4. Jay Lake

    They did contact me in advance, but that was because there was some confusion about my eligibility. Which were cleared.

    reply
  5. Tempest

    So is it really your second year, Jay?

    In other topics, I have also wondered about the Shawna McCarthy thing. I can’t help but feel there is some super secret conspiracy surrounding the magazine. i don’t know that any of their stories have been nominated though many of them have been in the year’s bests. Is it because the fans involved in Fandom don’t read RoF? is there a conspiracy? is it because of those media tie in covers which have barely anything to do with what’s inside?

    Inquiring minds.

    reply
  6. Leah Bobet

    I think it might be something simpler than that. There’s still a feeling about that the Hugos are for SF, and the World Fantasy Awards for Fantasy, and never the twain shall meet. I think enough people still believe that to keep RoF consistently off the Hugo ballot; it’s just not what someone thinks of first when they’re nominating for Hugos.

    Just a theory, yanno. 🙂

    reply
  7. Hannah

    Now I feel bad for forgetting that “Tale of the Golden Eagle” was eligible this year. Not that it needed any help from me to make the ballot.

    I’m only seeing two Firefly eps on the short-form list. The wrong two, alas. “Heart of Gold” struck me as…stunningly ungood.

    28 Days Later is really quite neat. Everything is better with zombies.

    reply
  8. Jed

    Leah: I would be inclined to agree with the “people think Hugos are for science fiction only” theory, except that fantasy has featured prominently on Hugo ballots lately, notably in the novel category. But I guess novel nominators and short-fiction nominators may be largely different groups; not sure.

    I do wonder what percentage of Realms readers sign up for WorldCon and/or participate in Hugo nominating and voting. ‘Cause it still generally only takes about 20-25 nominations for a short story to make the ballot. I was going to say maybe the Realms circulation is just enough smaller than the circulations of the other three major print prozines to account for the difference—but looking at the top-15-nominees lists for 2002 and 2003, there are no Realms stories on those lists either. Odd.

    Hannah: You’re right about the Firefly episodes; I was looking at last year’s nominees and this year’s at the same time, and conflated bits of the two of them. Sorry for the confusion. I haven’t seen “Heart of Gold,” so I can’t comment on that. Re zombies: Next you’ll be telling me that everything is better with zombie unicorns. Or monkeys.

    reply
  9. Alan

    Sorry if this was already covered. I think with the Firefly that it has to do with the air dates–that those two were two of the “never before aired” episodes on the DVD; thus 2003. All of the other episodes were aired in 2002. “The Message” was pretty bad, but I kinda liked “Heart of Gold”. Anyway, I think the Firefly crowd was trying to push whatever they could on the ballot, and didn’t have the aired episodes to work with.

    Jed, you should rent 28 Days Later. Quite a fine zombie flick.

    reply
  10. Jed

    Okay, so here’s the big question: should I watch 28 Days Later even if I don’t like zombie movies? Or, in fact, horror movies of any kind? (Especially not the hide-and-jump-out-at-you kind.)

    Okay, I did like Scream and Pitch Black, and there are certainly some dark and scary movies I like (Silence of the Lambs, for example), and I liked Danny Boyle’s Shallow Grave quite a bit; on the other hand, I didn’t much like Trainspotting and I more or less avoided A Life Less Ordinary and The Beach, so Boyle per se isn’t much of a draw for me.

    And I was pretty much uninterested in Night of the Living Dead when I saw bits of it in high school, and (to bring up the other movie 28 Days Later is always compared to) I thought Quiet Earth was okay but nothing all that special.

    So given all of that, do y’all still think I should watch 28 Days Later?

    reply
  11. David Moles

    Well, aside from the fact that I did like Trainspotting, hated Silence of the Lambs, and haven’t seen Scream, Shallow Grave, or Quiet Earth, that pretty much describes me; and I liked it. So you might.

    reply
  12. Hannah

    There were actually three unaired episodes on the Firefly DVDs. My favorite of the trio (“Trash”) didn’t make the ballot.

    Jed: You forgot pirates. Arr!

    I guess the question is, are not predisposed to like horror/zombie flicks, or do you actively dislike them? If the former, you might like it; it’s an odd little movie for sure. If the latter…I’d guess not so much. I like zombies and I love post-apocalyptic stuff, so I lapped this one right up.

    In other news, yay Zeppelin sale.

    reply
  13. Alan

    That was the name of the third episode, Hannah. Thanks. I couldn’t remember it. That was my favorite too.

    It’s amazing how good a series can be when looking at it sequentially rather than, er, watching the last episode first on network tv.

    reply
  14. Dan

    Re. “28 Days Later”: There’s an awful lot of hide-and-jump-out-at-you in that there movie. There are some nicely done bits here and there, and a pretty decent the-real-monsters-are-ourselves angle… I won’t say it’s a bad movie, because I could see appreciating elements of the story if I happened to be more hardened to watching mayhem and the threat of sexual violence. I know some people who liked it a lot, though… *shrug*

    reply
  15. Benjamin Rosenbaum

    Jed said: “Okay, so here’s the big question: should I watch 28 Days Later even if I don’t like zombie movies?”

    Yes! Yes! Yes!

    It works quite well as SF. I had no idea it was a zombie movie at all, until after I’d seen it and I went out of the theater and read the poster and it said something like “So-and-so reinvents the zombie movie” and I was like “Ohhh— right — zombies!” and cracked up.

    But I read (viewed?) it as dark, philosophical SF. It’s a thinking person’s zombie movie, and extremely well done.

    reply

Join the Conversation