Hugo discussion is already starting...eep!
Jan. 8th, 2015 03:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenayIt's January 8th, and people are already talking about Hugo nominations. Which is both good and not so good.
Good, because people are announcing what they have done that's eligible, and giving me ideas of things I want to try before I have to get my nominations in. It's also reminding me to be a bit more organised this year and actually start compiling a list, jotting things down when I think of them rather than frantically trying to remember stuff on the last day. It's going to be much more efficient this year. Hell, I already have a short form editor on my list. I never remember editors!
I suspect that this is going to be the first year where the category I struggle to narrow down to five in is short fiction. I've read so many wonderful short stories this year. It feels like it's been a fantastic year for short fiction, or maybe it's just been a year where I read more widely than normal? I don't know, but I'm excited to nominate a bunch of stuff.
So, yes, talking about it is good from a pre-reading and list compiling POV, enabling me to nominate with skill and care (hopefully).
And it's bad, because the annual controversy over the Sad Puppies ballot has started already, even before they've actually published it. And that leads to yet more discussion about how terrible it is that the Hugos skew liberal (hahaha), and how wrong it is that commercially successful but very right-wing militaristic fiction gets ignored.
I'm just...in one sentence, they complain about the fact that commercially successful fiction gets ignored *and* that the Hugos is a popularity contest about dominated by fiction that is popular *headdesk* With a side-swipe at certain award winners last year, who might well have got noticed because they did interesting things with gender and diversity, but their rockets weren't rewards for doing that. They were rewards for fucking fantastic writing.
I won't talk about *what* I nominated until after nominations close. Not that I think I'm influential in any way, but after last year's Sad Puppies fiasco, putting out my ballot choices while nominating is still going seems...unwise.
What I will say, is this:
Everyone who was at Loncon/Worldcon last year has a right to nominate for the Hugos. All of you. Even you.
The best way to get things onto the ballot that you loved? Is to use that nomination. What did you read or watch or listen to last year and love the fuck out of? Don't think "is this really a Hugo thing", just think "did I love that and want to see it rewarded?". Because that's what the important bit is: you loved it, and you want to see it acknowledged.
There were eleven thousand of us at Loncon. Biggest Worldcon in history. Let's make this year the largest number of nominations received, okay?
And then I'll start pimping supporting memberships for Sasquan, so you can all vote in the Hugos and get some rockets given out to some amazing stuff :-D
Good, because people are announcing what they have done that's eligible, and giving me ideas of things I want to try before I have to get my nominations in. It's also reminding me to be a bit more organised this year and actually start compiling a list, jotting things down when I think of them rather than frantically trying to remember stuff on the last day. It's going to be much more efficient this year. Hell, I already have a short form editor on my list. I never remember editors!
I suspect that this is going to be the first year where the category I struggle to narrow down to five in is short fiction. I've read so many wonderful short stories this year. It feels like it's been a fantastic year for short fiction, or maybe it's just been a year where I read more widely than normal? I don't know, but I'm excited to nominate a bunch of stuff.
So, yes, talking about it is good from a pre-reading and list compiling POV, enabling me to nominate with skill and care (hopefully).
And it's bad, because the annual controversy over the Sad Puppies ballot has started already, even before they've actually published it. And that leads to yet more discussion about how terrible it is that the Hugos skew liberal (hahaha), and how wrong it is that commercially successful but very right-wing militaristic fiction gets ignored.
I'm just...in one sentence, they complain about the fact that commercially successful fiction gets ignored *and* that the Hugos is a popularity contest about dominated by fiction that is popular *headdesk* With a side-swipe at certain award winners last year, who might well have got noticed because they did interesting things with gender and diversity, but their rockets weren't rewards for doing that. They were rewards for fucking fantastic writing.
I won't talk about *what* I nominated until after nominations close. Not that I think I'm influential in any way, but after last year's Sad Puppies fiasco, putting out my ballot choices while nominating is still going seems...unwise.
What I will say, is this:
Everyone who was at Loncon/Worldcon last year has a right to nominate for the Hugos. All of you. Even you.
The best way to get things onto the ballot that you loved? Is to use that nomination. What did you read or watch or listen to last year and love the fuck out of? Don't think "is this really a Hugo thing", just think "did I love that and want to see it rewarded?". Because that's what the important bit is: you loved it, and you want to see it acknowledged.
There were eleven thousand of us at Loncon. Biggest Worldcon in history. Let's make this year the largest number of nominations received, okay?
And then I'll start pimping supporting memberships for Sasquan, so you can all vote in the Hugos and get some rockets given out to some amazing stuff :-D
