So you’re saying that you’re willing to have your opinions given to you by famous people, rather than developing them by thinking for yourself? Really?

I have lots of good thoughts and feelings for Mr. Martin. He’s a good writer. He’s a clever person. But he’s not infallible. He sees things from his own point of view and experience, and that’s fine. He’s also incredibly busy — so he doesn’t get everywhere on the Internet or read everything that I probably do. He’s also got an Insider’s perspective — which, you know, good for him, but I don’t.

I would argue that his experience is very different from the average fan experience. My fan experience is one of reading at least a half dozen Baen books every year and being dismayed by the crap copyediting and the horrible covers. I don’t care what GRRM thinks, I’m going to form my own opinion — and my own opinion is, I’m supposed to give a Hugo Award to someone whose publishing house produces that kind of shyte, to an editor who can’t even be arsed to provide a list of the books she’s edited in the previous year — either because she has that much contempt for the opinion of an average fan like me, or because she thinks she’s so entitled to the award she doesn’t need to provide any evidence of her work?

I’ll say it again — I think that Sheila Gilbert and Anne Sowards demonstrated themselves to be eminently more qualified for the Best Editor Award, and I’m really tired of hearing all the whining about “poor Toni” — as if she was somehow entitled to be given that award.

 
Tim Hall: But anyone can buy a supporting membership and vote, without pre-conditions. Who decides who’s a true fan and who’s an outsider?

I’m not claiming that anyone who’s purchased a membership is an outsider. I’m pointing out that:

1) the only thing the Hugo Awards were ever intended to represent is the opinions of Worldcon voters, while you’re claiming that there are all these other things that they should supposedly represent, and

2) just because someone pays a membership fee, which gives them among other things the right to nominate and vote in the Hugos, it does not give them the right to demand that the results exactly reflect their own preferences.

Also, “Slow Bullets” is good, but not, I think, close to Reynolds’ best, and not necessarily Hugo-worthy. I won’t be placing it after “No Award” on my ballot — but it won’t be first on the list, either. I hope you can get hold of it soon.

@Kat – As far as SF fandom goes, I’m just some random guy with a blog. If you take a look at the rest of the site, my real fandom is music. I don’t really have the resources to travel all around the world to conventions on top of all the music events I go to.

I did seriously consider paying for supporting membership this year, but decided against because whatever I voted for in good faith would still end up being used as a political football. Perhaps next year with a less obviously broken voting system…

And the one thing I really wanted to support, Alastair Reynold’s “Slow Bullets” I haven’t been able to read since it’s not published yet in the UK. When is the publishing industry going to follow the music and film industry’s lead with international publication dates?

@JJ – You speak of Worldcon as “the people who created the awards program, and have nurtured it for the last 6 decades”. But anyone can buy a supporting membership and vote, without pre-conditions. Who decides who’s a true fan and who’s an outsider?

@Bruce I’m sure we’ll see plenty of tactical use of No Award, but try to use it as a scalpel this year, not as a bludgeon?

And I’m sure I’m not the only person to think Chuck Tingle should be used in place of No Award in the Short Story category. Placing something below “Space Raptor Butt Explosion” sends a stronger message than a mere No Award.

However, the rest of your recommendations are perhaps not as well-considered.

The complaints from numerous quarters about Toni Weisskopf, at this point, have become really tiresome. First of all, there were 5 nominees for Best Editor Long Form last year, all of whom were No Awarded. Why is Weisskopf the only one people seem to care about? Some of the other nominees were arguably stronger candidates than Weisskopf. Secondly, she was given the opportunity to provide links to works that she edited in 2014. She refused to do so, claiming that at Baen (whose books are notorious for being rife with spelling and grammar errors), editing is a “team effort”. Why, then should she be worthy of a Hugo for editing, when she can provide no evidence of a basis for giving her that award? (Note that 2 of the nominees did provide creditable editing references.)

You say: One problem with the Hugo Awards in recent years seems to be the lack of any consensus about what they’re supposed to represent… Only once Worldcon decide exactly what the Hugos are and who they are supposed to be…

This is not correct. The consensus of Worldcon members is — and has always been — that the Hugo Awards are supposed to represent the convergence of preferences of Worldcon members. The fact that random other people and groups seem to be unable to agree on what the Hugo Awards represent is irrelevant. The only people whose consensus matters on this subject are the Worldcon members — the people who created the awards program, and have nurtured it for the last 6 decades.

VD has not “outmanoevred” anyone. He is just a tiresome, bratty infant who decided to take advantage of a vulnerability that, up until now, most people had too much class to violate. And starting next year, his slide into irrelevancy, as far as the Hugo Awards are concerned, will be complete.

For what it’s worth, I did try to read and evaluate all the nominees last year, with the exception of some of the most obviously trolly entries. The reason I voted Toni Weisskopf below “No Award?” I couldn’t find any way to evaluate her work from the previous year! I dug through the Baen web site. A lot. I couldn’t find mention of any titles that she edited. She didn’t include any examples of her work in the voter’s packet, which would be really unusual anyway for a long form editor nominee. But she also didn’t include ANYTHING in the voter’s packet. If she had just sent in a list of the things she had edited, I would have gone and found them, if I hadn’t already read them. I can’t vote for someone if I can’t evaluate their work! I don’t have to be given your copyrighted materials for free. Point me in the right direction. I’ll find them. But give me a hint, at least!

Regarding Vox Day, he’s just a troll. That’s it. Because he says any possible outcome means victory for him doesn’t make it so. He doesn’t win. He and some of his friends did successfully point out a flaw in the Hugo nominations process, which we’re fixing. Beyond that – well, you know what they say about trolls.