?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

10 Hugo Predictions

Hugo voting closed a week or so back, and in another two weeks, the winners will be announced at Sasquan. After said announcements, social media will explode with commentary, congratulations, criticism, and chest-thumping. I figured I’d get my post-Hugo blogging done before the Hugos are actually announced, and thus beat the crowd. (Feel free to check back later and see how close I was with my predictions, or mock me for being completely off-base.)

Hugo Award Logo1. Congrats to David Gerrold and Tananarive Due for a wonderful job hosting the Hugo award ceremony!

Some of the puppies were complaining that the hosts would use their platform to take shots at the Sad and Rabid Puppies and their works. I’m glad (and utterly unsurprised) to see those fears were nothing but paranoia, and perhaps wishful thinking on the part of those trying a little too hard to portray themselves as victims. Gerrold and Due both care a great deal about the Hugos, the genre, and the community, and that showed. Thank you both for your professionalism on stage after a very challenging lead-up.

2. At least three puppy nominees won Hugo awards.

Congratulations to the winners, including those who were on the puppy slates. While most of the puppy nominees failed to take home a rocket, I imagine there will be at least three. I’m predicting one will go to my own editor, Sheila Gilbert, who’s made the ballot on her own in previous years, and is (in my biased opinion) utterly deserving of the award. I’m not as sure who the second will be, but I’m guessing Kary English in the short story category. One of the movies on the puppy ballots will also win. Finally, I think there’s a good shot of either Resnick or Brozek taking home a short-form editor Hugo.

3. At least one category went to No Award.

No Award didn’t sweep the ballot like some people hoped/feared. It did take the Novella category, though. I think it will probably take Best Related Work as well.

4. A number of puppies came in below No Award in the voting.

Once the Hugo Awards have been announced, the next step is to pore over the voting numbers. Vox Day and John C. Wright had the most dramatic losses, but they weren’t alone in scoring behind No Award. Michael Williamson’s related work also took a drubbing from No Award. (On a related note, I believe John C. Wright is now the first person ever to be nominated for six Hugo awards, as well as the first person to lose or be disqualified in all six.)

Some people will point to this as evidence that Hugo voters don’t like slate-voting, and/or proof of the low quality of much of the puppy-nommed work. Others will point to it as proof that the SJW cabal still runs the Hugos, and worked to keep the Wrong People out.

5. The non-puppy nominees did quite well.

Congrats in particular to Cixin Liu and Ken Liu in the Best Novel category for The Three-Body Problem, which narrowly beat out Ancillary Sword and The Goblin Emperor.

6. Various puppies immediately ran to the internet to declare victory.

This was an easy prediction, since a number of folks have been declaring victory for weeks or months now. Because losing the Hugos proves their point that the game is rigged against them! Winning the Hugos proves their point that people really want to read their kind of stories. No Award is what they wanted all along, because it’s actually about destroying the Hugo awards.

In addition to these old and surprisingly mobile goal posts, there will also be crowing about who was kept off the final ballot by the puppy slates, because it’s actually about rocket-blocking those evil SJWs.

7. Wesley Chu took home the Campbell Award.

It’s not technically a Hugo award, but it’s presented at the ceremony, and I think Wes is going to be rocking that tiara.

8. The Puppies will return for at least one more year, but they won’t have the same impact.

Given the amount of attention it brought him, I have little doubt that Theodore Beale will launch Rabid Puppies 2016 and try to repeat this year’s performance. The Sad Puppies have chosen their spokesperson for 2016 as well, but after the backlash they received this year, I expect the sad side to start to quietly move on. So we’ll have at least another year of puppy slates, and they’ll probably get some nominees on the ballot again, but it won’t be a repeat of 2015.

9. Someone will try to run a counterslate in 2016. It will fail.

Slates and counterslates are, in my opinion, a really bad idea. That won’t stop someone, somewhere from trying to run an anti-puppy slate. But it will be condemned pretty broadly, and won’t get any real traction.

10. Fandom and the Hugos survived.

This year did not break the Hugos. It did not destroy fandom or the genre. It did expose a lot of anger and emotion, and led to tens of thousands of hours of lost productivity for people trying to read every last update and/or respond to every comment. Because no matter what “side” you’re on, at least we can all agree that 20th Century Fox really needs to stop trying to make Fantastic Four movies.

Bonus Prediction: If I’m right about some or most of these, some dumbass will point to it as proof I’m part of the SJW cabal rigging the results ahead of time.

Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.

Tags:

Comments

buddykat
Aug. 7th, 2015 05:31 pm (UTC)
Next year's Sad Puppies coordinator does NOT plan on doing a slate. She plans on doing a recommendation list. I spoke with her about it at RavenCon, and she was very clear about not wanting to do a slate; she will have a few rules for recommendations, but they are *very* simple and ones that I personally do not find objectionable - and don't think most people would find objectionable.

1. You must have actually read what you are recommending.
2. The author must not have won a Hugo in the past.
3. (I don't recall what this one was, I just recall that there was a third rule)
4. She will not list any recommendations for herself - if people want to nominate her works, that's fine, but she will not list them on the recommendation list.

ETA: She plans on waiting until after the Hugos are awarded this year to start requesting recommendations.

Edited at 2015-08-07 05:32 pm (UTC)
jimhines
Aug. 7th, 2015 05:58 pm (UTC)
I would be happy to be proven wrong on that one...
starcat_jewel
Aug. 7th, 2015 06:05 pm (UTC)
That shows a good connection to reality. If the SPs had stuck with that instead of doing what they did, we wouldn't be having this whole mess this year.
jimhines
Aug. 7th, 2015 06:08 pm (UTC)
But even if the sad puppies back off a bit, I expect another full-on slate from Beale, one which will likely try again to capitalize on the sad puppy slate or recommendations.
soon_lee
Aug. 8th, 2015 12:17 pm (UTC)

Given that it was Beale/Rabids that had the greater impact (look at the number of SP works that didn't end up in the ballot vs the number of RP works that didn't) the SPs are at best stooges, and at worst the "reasonable" front for Beale.


And besides, why should I trust what they say they plan to do next year, especially given that their words & actions to date have been inconsistent?

Profile

Snoopy
jimhines
Jim C. Hines
Website

Tags

Page Summary

Latest Month

November 2019
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow