The 2014 Hugo Awards

Dave Knott writes: WorldCon 2014 wrapped up in London this last weekend and this year's Hugo Award winners were announced. Notable award winners include:

Best Novel: Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie
Best Novelette: "The Lady Astronaut of Mars" by Mary Robinette Kowal
Best Novella: "Equoid" by Charles Stross
Best Short Story: "The Water That Falls on You from Nowhere" by John Chu
Best Graphic Story: "Time" by Randall Munroe
Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form): Gravity written by Alfonso Cuarón & Jonás Cuarón, directed by Alfonso Cuarón
Best Dramatic Presentation (Short Form): Game of Thrones: "The Rains of Castamere" written by David Benioff & D.B. Weiss, directed by David Nutter

The results of this year's awards were awaited with some some trepidation in the SF community, due to well-documented attempts by some controversial authors to game the voting system. These tactics appear to have been largely unsuccessful, as this is the fourth major award for the Leckie novel, which had already won the 2013 BSFA, 2013 Nebula and 2014 Clarke awards.

Novel

[Anonymous Coward]

Ancillary Justice has its merits but read like an first novelist's smart attempt at crossing Alistair Reynolds with Iain M. Banks. Indeed, all three can/could do with good editors to tidy the worst longeurs. There's a little too much fashion sometimes; I rate Phillip Mann's The Disestablishment of Paradise as the strongest sf novel I've read in the past year, stylistically, structurally, thematically and in its characterisation and humour; it betters the Leckie IMO but only made one of the shortlists.

[/. Member, AC due to travel]

Re: "Time" won Best Graphic Story?

[TheGavster]

It's actually several thousand frames that play out a sequence of events. It was notable both because of the unique presentation (most frames, particularly the early ones, change only subtly) and because of the details that go into establishing the otherwise unexplained setting.

Re:Game of Thrones = Sci-FI?

[jlockard]

From the Hugos' webiste:

"Science Fiction? Fantasy? Horror?

While the World Science Fiction Society sponsors the Hugos, they are not limited to sf. Works of fantasy or horror are eligible if the members of the Worldcon think they are eligible."

well-documented attempts to expose nomination bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of what was going on was designed to expose the EXISTING issues with Hugo nominations and voting. There have been strong indications of idealogical bias in the 'acceptable' nominations for quite a while. As a result of the efforts made the last two years, some of the reasons for that bias, and some of its proponents, have 'outed' themselves. The absolutely vile hatred spewed out by the 'powers that be', basically the 'establishment' that has been running the nominations and awards for years was breathtaking; the near total (but happily NOT total) lack of any effort to actually debate the issue was, sadly, expected. If you the author, or your story, did not adhere to or support the dogma of the establishment, why then you were a horrible author, a rape apologist, a fascist, or worse.

Ad hominem attacks. Slanders against the authors in question. It was all pretty interesting. Unfortunately, much like the constant exposure of corruption and pandering in politics in the nation, it will likely be forgotten unless some few brave folks stand up again next year.

Re:Informative winners list

[jratcliffe]

"the book is shit, or pompous, or written specifically to woo often sophisticated, pedantic jury members into giving the award."

Over 3,500 people voted on the Hugos this year, not exactly a tiny jury.

Re:So, what controversy?

[Anonymous Coward]

>If Americans can find the courage to consciously reject the myth of the melting pot and expel the Mexicans from the American Southwest, the Arabs from Detroit and the Somalis from Minneapolis, they can reclaim their traditional white Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture.

or maybe

>EuropeÃ(TM)s demise is all but assured, thanks to them, as womenÃ(TM)s individual choices taken in the collective have stricken European society and brought on successive waves of feminist-friendly Islamic immigration by reducing EuropeÃ(TM)s birth rates far below replacement levels

or

>The women of America would do well to consider whether their much-cherished gains of the right to vote, work, murder and freely fornicate are worth destroying marriage, children, civilized Western society and little girls

Yeah, I don't think it takes a lot of digging to find out he is a racist, sexist scumbag.

Re:"Time" won Best Graphic Story?

[Atzanteol]

Click the panel itself. Brings you here:

http://geekwagon.net/projects/... [geekwagon.net]

Wait for it...

[orgelspieler]

That's only part of the story. The forum [xkcd.com] is where all the real action was/is. There was/is a religion of sorts. Complete with popes, prophets and pilgrimages. And lingo. (Chirping mustard! The OTT is seaish. and cancercoffeesemenbabies). I assume it is still going, but I refuse to check. I lost a lot of time in that forum, and I had to make a clean break. There were many people whose RL relationships were strained because of this. People were up every hour checking the latest ONG. For those of you willing to go down the rabbit hole, you will want to read the thread from the beginning. That is called blizting. You will be encouraged along your way, and encounter many strange and wonderful things. Randallspeed.

Re:So, what controversy?

[Xtifr]

I've read some of what he's written on his blog, and I am more than satisfied that he's a racist, sexist, homophobic dipshit who completely deserves all the opprobrium he receives. What's worse, he's one of those crazy religious fanatics who twists the bible into excuses to hate people, like the Westborough folks. As a human, I find him utterly contemptible.

Nevertheless, if I'd been voting on the Hugos this year, I would have judged his work on its own merit. I still find Orson Scott Card an outstanding writer, despite my (milder) contempt for the man himself. Fortunately, I have many friends who were Hugo voters this year, who are also capable of separating their opinion of the artist from their opinion of the art, and they have uniformly told me that the work didn't deserve a nomination, let alone a win. Maybe it wasn't bad enough to end up below no-award--maybe that happened because of Day's vile on-line persona--but the fact that it didn't win seems to me to be fully justified.