http://www.heinleinsociety.org/thsnexus/

2015 Hugo Nominations
http://www.heinleinsociety.org/thsnexus/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1618
Page 1 of 2

Author:  beamjockey [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:44 pm ]
Post subject:  2015 Hugo Nominations

Over here Bill Mullins, Mostlyclassics, and Robert Pearson have been discussing the most recent Hugo Awards nominations, released last Saturday. Their correspondence is attached to a "Hugo Awards" thread first begun in March of 2011.

I thought it best to reply in a new thread.

All noted that the second volume of Bill Patterson's Heinlein biography, Robert A. Heinlein: In Dialogue with His Century: The Man Who Learned Better, published in 2014 and eligible for a Best Related Work nomination, did not appear on the ballot.

We're talking about the Hugo nominations ballot here, the finalists: about five nominees in each category, six if one counts "No Award." Hugo voters will choose winners from this ballot later in the year, and the shiny rockets will be awarded at a ceremony at Sasquan, the Worldcon in Spokane, Washington, on the weekend of 22 August.

As you may know, all fandom has been plunged into war, er, I mean*, two author-bloggers promoted "slates" for the 2015 Hugos, meaning five recommended nominees in each category. They encouraged voters not to come up with their own independent lists of authors and works, but rather to vote all of a slate's candidates together.

According to Mike Glyer's analysis, 51 of 60 nominees recommended by the Sad Puppies 3 slate made the ballot, and 58 of 67 recommended by the more successful Rabid Puppies slate appear.

Neither one of the slatemakers saw fit to include Patterson's Heinlein biography among their Best Related Work recommendations.

Both slates recommended an identical list of five works for Best Related Work.

Every one of the slate recommendations earned a position on the final ballot.

The nominees are:

    Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth, by John C. Wright, Castalia House

    “The Hot Equations: Thermodynamics and Military SF” by Ken Burnside, Riding the Red Horse / Castalia House

    Wisdom From My Internet by Michael Z. Williamson, self-published

    “The Science is Never Settled” by Tedd Roberts, Baen Free Library

    “Letters from Gardner” by Lou Antonelli, Sci Phi Journal #3

One of these authors will get the rocket in August, unless for some reason No Award proves more popular than all the nominees.

=============
* Apparently the Nexus Forum is unwilling to employ the BBcode for "strikeout," which I understand to be [s][/s].

Author:  beamjockey [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2015 Hugo Nominations

I might add a few more facts.

There were a total of 1150 nomination ballots cast in the Best Related Work category. (Each voter could name up to five potential nominees.)

Nominees are the works which received the most nominating votes among those 1150 ballots. The counting of the Hugo final ballot employs a complex "Instant Runoff Voting" system, but counting the nominating ballots is fairly simple.

More numerical details will not be published until after the Hugos are awarded in August. At that time we may expect to learn how many nominations each work received, or how many nominations went to works such as Bill Patterson's which failed to make it to the final ballot. As an example, here are the 2014 Hugo voting results (PDF).

As we can see from page 21 of that document, last year, 752 ballots were cast for Best Related Work. The top vote-getter received 89 nominations; the lowest number of nominations that landed a nominee among the finalists was 52. The administrators also listed ten works which did not make the final ballot, with votes ranging from 42 to 21.

On the final ballot, 2148 valid votes were cast in the BRW category, out of 3457 total ballots (presumably many Hugo voters did not cast votes in this category).

Author:  RobertPearson [ Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 2015 Hugo Nominations

Thanks very much for that excellent information, Bill. It occurs to me that since I didn't bother to vote, my complaints about the biography not being nominated ring somewhat hollow. :(

Author:  LilLeaguer [ Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2015 Hugo Nominations

This seems like friendly fire, as both groups of Puppies should be fond of Patterson as well as Heinlein, unless there is yet another schism in the One True Libertarianism that I'm not aware of. Probably just an oversight, though I suppose we can't rule out cronyism.

Author:  PeterScott [ Thu Apr 09, 2015 7:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2015 Hugo Nominations

I should be glad that the biography did not get nominated despite my vote. People might have associated Bill with the hijackers. I'd rather his memory not be so tainted.

Author:  BillMullins [ Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2015 Hugo Nominations

I think I read, somewhere in the millions of blogosphere words written since the Hugo noms came out, that the Sad Puppies principals would have nominated Vol 2 if they had seen it or knew that it was out. It slipped under their radar.

Author:  beamjockey [ Fri Apr 10, 2015 5:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 2015 Hugo Nominations

Doesn't speak well for their radar, does it?

Author:  BillMullins [ Fri Apr 10, 2015 8:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2015 Hugo Nominations

No, it doesn't. They had an agenda, and I guess they just surveyed the field only as far as they needed to, to make their points.

Author:  beamjockey [ Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 2015 Hugo Nominations

On his blog, "More Words, Deeper Hole," noting "the absence of the second Heinlein bio from either of the Puppy slates," James Nicoll stirs up trouble.
Quote:
Doesn't this mean the Puppies effectively declared a War on Heinlein by denying that volume a spot on the ballot? I think instead of Puppygate, The War on Heinlein would be a better name for the whole Puppy thing.

Author:  beamjockey [ Tue Aug 25, 2015 1:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2015 Hugo Nominations

Hugos were awarded on 22 August, and statistics were released immediately afterwards. I mean, I walked out of the auditorium and encountered a Sasquan volunteer handing out pink copies of a 26-page document. Which I began to read avidly.

According to page 20 of the detailed breakdown of Hugo final balloting and nominating, Bill Patterson's Heinlein biography The Man Who Learned Better received 62 nominations in the Best Related Work category.

As you probably know, the five works on the final ballot in this category were all part of the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies effort to create slates for the Hugo. They received between 206 and 273 nominating votes, representing between 17.9% and 23.7% of the ballots cast.

We had been wondering whether The Man Who Learned Better would have been a finalist in the absence of the Puppies. The answer appears to be no.

Each voter casting a nominating ballot is allowed to name up to five works in a category. A total of 1150 valid nominating ballots were cast.

Here are the works receiving the highest number of nominating votes, below the finalists:

What Makes This Book so Great by Jo Walton
105 votes, 9.1%

Chicks Dig Gaming edited by Jennifer Brozek, Robert Smith, and Lars Pearson
92 votes, 8.0%

Shadows Beneath: The Writing Excuses Anthology edited by Brandon Sanderson, Mary Robinette Kowal, Dan Wells, Howard Taylor
83 votes, 7.2%

Invisible: Personal Essays on Representation in SF by Jim C. Hines
79 votes, 6.9%

Tropes vs Women: Women as Background Decoration by Anita Sarkeesian
77 votes, 6.7%

Robert A. Heinlein: In Dialogue with His Century, Volume 2: The Man Who Learned Better: 1948-1988 by William H. Patterson, Jr.
62 votes, 5.4%

Even if we presume that, in the absence of a slatemaking campaign, none of the Puppies' favored works make the final ballot, the Heinlein book comes in sixth, and thus would not have been a Hugo finalist.

It would have needed 16 more votes to rank ahead of Sarekeesian to land on a hypothetical Puppy-free final ballot. It would have needed 145 more votes to rank ahead of the lowest-ranked Puppy finalist, Lou Antoinelli's Letters from Gardner.

In the end, the Hugo voters, casting 4901 valid votes, chose No Award in the Best Related Work category. See page 5 of the statistics document for details.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/