2016 HUGO AWARDS SANS PUPPY TAINT

The following two listings represent modified versions of the 2016 Hugo Awards Finalists.

The first listing shows ONLY those Finalists that were NOT on ANY puppy list.  (Some will consider this harsh as they argue that finalists had no control over whether they were put on those lists or not.  However, they DID have the opportunity to publicly repudiate voting slates and, while some did so, many others did not.  Failing to do so leaves voters in limbo.  This is not an accusation leveled at anyone (politics combined with the writing biz is tough!).  However, I stated two years ago that the only effective strategy to counter the rise of slates/blocs/whatever you want to call them, was to not vote for anything appearing on such.

This first list represents the choices I, and anyone else who does not want to support or encourage this kind of thing have to select from this year.  (Remember – EPH will only curtail this behavior, it will NOT eliminate it – and if anyone thinks the puppies are going to consider this a win and walk away:  well – lots of people thought that with over 4,000 nominations, the handful of puppy voters working like happy mind-slaves would not be able to work their bullshit.  It is now obvious that they will continue to ratchet up and little, if nothing, will change next year in Helsinki.)

The second list, which I’ll post after the waves of nausea have passed, will reflect a ballot free from Rabid Puppy taint, while still retaining the whiff of Sad Puppies.

For the Finalist List that excludes Rabid Puppy taint but includes Sad Puppy taint, visit this post on File 770

2016 HUGOS TOTALLY PUPPY-FREE NOMINATIONS

BEST NOVEL

THE FIFTH SEASON – N.K. JEMISIN

ANCILLARY MERCY – ANN LECKIE (requested removal, was ignored)

BEST NOVELLA

PENRIC’S DEMON – LOIS MCMASTER BUJOLD (requested removal, was ignored)

SLOW BULLETS – ALASTAIR REYNOLDS (requested removal, was ignored)

BEST NOVELETTE

NO UNTAINTED NOMINATIONS

BEST SHORT STORY

NO UNTAINTED NOMINATIONS

BEST RELATED WORK

NO UNTAINTED NOMINATIONS

BEST GRAPHIC STORY

NO UNTAINTED NOMINATIONS

BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION – LONG FORM

NO UNTAINTED NOMINATIONS

BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION – SHORT FORM

JESSICA JONES: AKA SMILE

BEST EDITOR – LONG FORM

SHIELA GILBERT
LIZ GORINSKY

BEST EDITOR – SHORT FORM

NEIL CLARKE
ELLEN DATLOW
SHEILA WILLIAMS

BEST SEMIPROZINE

UNCANNY MAGAZINE

BEST FANZINE

NO UNTAINTED NOMINATIONS

BEST FANCAST

NO UNTAINTED NOMINATIONS

BEST FAN WRITER

NO UNTAINTED NOMINATIONS

BEST FAN ARTIST

STEVE STILES

CAMPBELL AWARD FOR BEST NEW WRITER

NO UNTAINTED NOMINATIONS

My general comment on all of the above?  I sure hope N.K. Jemisin wins for Best Novel and delivers a jeremiad at the convention to sets hair on fire as far away as Melbourne – and beyond!

 

 

28 thoughts on "2016 HUGO AWARDS SANS PUPPY TAINT"

  1. Jeremy Szal says:

    For what it’s worth, Tales to Terrify, is a sister podcast of
    StarShipSofa. We won the Hugo back in 2010 and have been nominated since
    then again. So we’ve “made it” before without Puppy help.

    Like others have said, this needs to be considered when voting. So,
    so many amazing writers and markets could and would have made it without
    Puppy help, especially writers in very early stages in their career. Scazli has the right of that in that regard. They’re trying to discredit their names. Let’s not let them do that. Don’t give them more credit than they’re worth.

    Ultimately, we’re happy that Tales to Terrify got a Hugo nomination.
    But I’m also worried about the association. I don’t know how many of you
    know this, but TTT founding host and editor Larry Santoro died just
    under two years ago from cancer. He gave TTT everything he had and the
    whole community adored him. He was absolutely dedicated not only to
    diversity, but showcasing newer writers alongside bigger ones. He was a
    powerhouse – we all loved him and it crushed us all when he passed. The
    fact that Tales to Terrify got this nomination now and was supposedly
    bloc voted on not only threatens to undo everything he and the team
    worked on, but soil his reputation as well.

    Not getting the award? Not a big deal.

    Having Larry’s legacy and the years he spent working on the podcast dragged through the mud? Quite a big deal.

    We had absolutely no clue about *any* of this – and the fact that
    we’re even associated with Day disgusts me. It’s put us in a tough
    decision, and I can’t imagine what some others are going through. The
    District of Wonders has already scored a Hugo. Others are in a far more
    vulnerable position.

    I speak for the whole team when I say we’ve *always* been committed
    to diversity, both in authors and work featured on the show – and we
    always will be.

    Vote for what you want based on nothing but *merit*. Pretend Day doesn’t exist. Squash him from your minds – don’t play his game. Vote for the best damn content and let it shine. Soldier on.

    Because really, that’s all we can do.

    1. Wordgot says:

      That sounds like exactly the quandary Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine was in last year. Like TTT we’d never even even heard of the SP’s and their slate. The fuss hadn’t reached as far as the southern hemisphere. Now it seems from what you say it hasn’t really reached deeply into Britain, either. The general culture wars, maybe, but not the puppies.

      I used to love Larry Santoro’s hosting of TTT, btw. He’s just inimitable. No one else could pull off that mix of creepiness and solicitude the way he did, or do again his special “Hmmm…?”

  2. Mike Glyer says:

    Sure, I follow why your ideological scheme requires you to treat File 770 as a slate nominee. Do whatever you think is right.
    Unfortunately, it has misled you into treating me as a slated fan writer nominee, when you know I’m one of the last people Sad Puppies want to vote for, and most of the 5 recommendations (which is all it was) that put me on the list came from people who crossed over from my blog to yank their chain.

    1. stevedavidson says:

      Mike,

      I am TRULY conflicted over this.

      You’ve been right there all the way, and are obviously familiar with the hows and whys, so I need not explain those.

      I do wish that many others had taken the route of requesting no inclusion on slates. That would have prevented this situation.

      If it is any consolation, I’ve nominated and voted for File 770 (and you) every year I’ve participated in the Hugos (with the exception of the first year when it wasn’t around).

    2. Laura says:

      I nominated File 770, and there’s no way I’m putting it under No Award just because VD put it on his slate. The Sad Puppies did not have a slate this year.

      1. stevedavidson says:

        Laura – that’s fine. You’ll note that not once during this whole puppy debacle have I told people what to do with their vote: I have shared my strategy, the reasons for it and why I think it is effective.
        But unlike puppies, I am not looking for people to follow whatever I suggest blindly – I’m looking for Fans to do what they usually do, which is to consider a situation logically and then do what they think is best.

        1. Laura says:

          I appreciate that. I too am trying to be careful about saying this is how *I* feel and why. And I agree that everyone should be encouraged to decide for themselves.

    3. Tasha Turner says:

      This is one of the things which is bothering me with how Steve is treating the SP4 recommendation/slate this year.

      He knows non-puppies put many of people on the SP4 list as a “test” of their “word and transparency”. I find it hard to believe many of either group of puppies voted for works by people they’ve shown disgust and disrespect for over the last few years.

      I believe the way you’ve covered #puppygate makes it clear your against slates.

      In my mind those things should add up to “anti-slate” without you needing to spell it out.

      But I’m not Steve.

      1. Mike Glyer says:

        I am anti-slate. However, satisfying Steve’s requirements runs contrary to my own, let’s call them, rules of engagement. I’m not giving Vox Day a veto over the work I did last year. On the other hand, I’m far from infallible. If people think I made the wrong call, they’ll vote accordingly.

      2. stevedavidson says:

        Actually, I don’t have access to the “reasons” people put “suggestions” on the SPIV list. In many cases I can’t even identify who added what to the list; given the known antipathy of SPIV types for “Filers”, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that names appearing next to suggestions might not be who they appear to be (and given past actions by puppies, its reasonable to suspect them of taking such actions).
        This is one of the major reasons I have gone for a ‘default’ position. I don’t have to guess, or suspect or wonder: if it is on a slate, it’s off the Hugo ballot, period.
        I’ve stated why I don’t accept SPIV as a “recommended reading list”. There are demonstrable reasons. Others disagree and have their reasons as well.

        1. Tasha Turner says:

          Given a number of the filers who participated on SPIV have chimed in both at the time they initially made suggestions on SPIV and again after the shortlist was posted I do know who and why. I’m not making guesses I have their exact words on file770. You have the same access I do.

          You were around the first time. This second time you were possibly off your meds while dealing with a family crisis and may have missed filers comments on why they participated on SPIV. I didn’t save links or notice this reply earlier as I’ve been dealing with my own health issues.

          1. stevedavidson says:

            When people mentioned what they did in comments, I was not really paying attention; going back to find those notes would be a herculean task; additionally, what someone ‘said’ they did may not be what they actually ‘did’. (Not doubting anyone’s word, but, reality.)
            However, personal communication with various and sundry and some of those statements were one of the reasons I modified my position.

  3. stevedavidson says:

    Tasha,

    no – I’m more than happy to take nearly any positive evidence of desire not to be on slates and will re-instate Ann’s nomination. (Glad to be able to do so!)

    1. Tasha Turner says:

      Glad to help. 😀

  4. Matthew M. Foster says:

    This is pretty much the only way I will vote. I do not understand why so many are just ignoring the Sad Puppies this year (the Sads are not, claiming great victory). Though anyway you go, there is no honor in the Hugos this year. Still, like you, I’d like to hear . Jemisin’s speech.

    (assuming this post works as the email verification errored)

  5. Tasha Turner says:

    Here is Ann Leckie’s opinion on slating last year. She’s very clear on where she stands. No slating. Ever. http://www.annleckie.com/2015/08/29/on-slates/

    1. Tasha Turner says:

      You might disagree as I reread the entire post after dropping the link. I’d forgotten she said she’d laugh if she ended up slated by some people. She ended up on SP4 due to non-puppies nominating her. I’ve read the thread and I know the names of the nominators as do you I believe. I’m not sure if she tweeted or emailed asking to be removed.

  6. stevedavidson says:

    If anyone knows of any other authors on the finalist list who have rejected slates, please let me know

  7. stevedavidson says:

    It will be placed back on the list shortly

  8. Nicholas Whyte says:

    From Lois McMaster Bujold:

    ‘”Penric’s Demon” was conscripted onto the “Rabid Puppies” slate without my notification or permission, and my request that it be removed was refused.’

    https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/10319292-penric-s-demon-is-a-hugo-nominee

  9. Alan D Smith says:

    Christian Quinot was a Puppy nominee under the name Darkcloud013.

    1. stevedavidson says:

      thanks. I believe that has been corrected.

  10. Daniel W Kauffman Jr says:

    The above fulfills all the requirements needed to create a Slate

    1. stevedavidson says:

      No, it does not. This is not a list telling people HOW to vote. It is informational in content only, showing only those finalists that were not on ether puppy slate.

  11. Daniel W Kauffman Jr says:

    I think I will just vote the Sad Puppy finalists and then No Award after that I mean the other side started the No Award if My guy does not get to be a finalist so it MUST be an ethical action?

Leave a Reply to stevedavidson Cancel reply