Intellectus Speculativus

Home » Essay » Hugo Nominations

Hugo Nominations


By now, we’ve all had a chance to see what the ballot for this year’s Hugo Awards looks like; if not, you can find them here. I was in the room as they were announced by the committee, so please bear that personal presence in mind as you read this post; also note that a discussion about the Hugo Awards and what they say about fandom with Stephanie Saulter, author of Gemsigns and a woman of colour, will feed into discussion in this post.

This looks like a ballot of two halves. Some sections strongly reflect one part of fandom, while others are more mixed. Before we go any further I’d like, with four individual exceptions, to congratulate every nominee on that ballot; especially Ann Leckie, who I am a big partisan of and was more than honoured to be the avatar of at the BSFAs on Sunday when she won best novel, and Liz Bourke, who is both a friend and someone whose writing I hugely admire, among others. Those exceptions are Brad Torgersen, Toni Weisskopf, Larry Correia and – most especially – the truly loathsome specimen Vox Day, aka Theodore Beale.

Before we talk about the bad, let’s talk about the good. Of our five Fan Writer nominees, four are women, none have won before, and (at least) four are very outspoken on social justice issues including anti-racism, feminism, and gender and sexuality issues. I won’t claim I always agree with them or their politics, but I wouldn’t expect to; I respect them, the integrity of their positions and writing, and perhaps more significantly, I respect their willingness to stand up to the people on the other side of these issues, the truly toxic souls who don’t believe (for instance) that women can be science fiction writers, or who believe that left-wing politics are evil.

This combination of well-written work, integrity and good politics are also clear in some of our semiprozine and fanzine nominations; The Book Smugglers are a wonderful pair of writers and their blog, whilst sometimes truly infuriating (sorry, Thea and Ana!) and focussing largely on parts of the genre I’m not very engaged with, is still absolutely fantastic work and they’ve really been willing to stick their necks out on the issues over the past year; similarly Strange Horizons, Lightspeed and Beneath Ceaseless Skies all promote progressive fiction, progressive writers, and articles and pieces on progressive issues. They’re well put together and interesting sites I recommend to you all.

Best Related Work continues the theme of progressive, well-done projects being rewarded; Kameron Hurley’s We Have Always Fought essay is a slight entry on this section of the ballot, but it is undeniably a brilliantly researched and well-written historical argument about the genre and the marginalisation of female protagonists in it, and Queers Dig Time Lords, from the title onwards, highlights the role and existence of the similarly-marginalised queer community in its various permutations, especially in this strangely popular part of the fandom.

The final part of this ballot that I really want to celebrate is the Campbell awards; these are inherently awards for newcomers, but this year they are also an award for often-marginalised parts of our fandom. The ballot only has one white man, one white woman, two men of colour, and a woman of colour; all of these writers look at diversity and feature diverse cast, in fact often focusing on characters of colour, and look at larger progressive issues. This all demonstrates that the upwards trajectory of the genre is one that the next generation is going to consolidate.

There’s also the mediocre, unobjectionable work on the ballot. While I like some of Stross’ work, I’ve not managed to get through Neptune’s Brood (though it’ll be my next book now), and Mira Grant’s Parasite is an unobjectionable, fun read, very similar to the Newsflesh books; readable, but again, not the best of the year by any means. Across the rest of the novels on the ballot, only Ann Leckie’s Ancillary Justice strikes me as a really strong work pushing the genre forward and doing interesting, new things with space opera; especially as a debut novel, this is fantastic work. For the most part I’ve not read what’s on the rest of the fiction ballots, but it is here where the objectionable work is concentrated.

Splashed onto a fan ballot that is an absolutely beautiful example of some of the best and brightest the genre has, some of the most forward-thinking authors and commentators, are some truly toxic presences. First and foremost amongst these is the appalling Vox Day, real name Theodore Beale. VD has been published by, among others, WorldNetDaily, a fringe rightwing site, and has espoused the views that implies; he is an outspoken white supremacist, male supremacist, homophobe, transphobe and all-round bigot. That vile streak of hatred has been so violently, loudly and bluntly espoused by VD that the Science Fiction Writers of America expelled him, and his status as a tax exile from the United States is an interesting twist on his outspoken patriotism. He is well outside the genre mainstream, but he and the slate he promoted for the Hugos – Larry Correia, Brad Torgersen, Toni Weisskopf – received enough nominations to ensure that they made the ballot, self-admittedly in order to troll the rest of the fandom.

It’s become common on Twitter to decry those who accuse VD’s slate of ballot-stuffing. I’m just going to note how truly toxic these individuals are from the perspective of the rest of fandom, and that there was a 43% increase in nominations this year as compared to last year; while LonCon3 is one of the largest WorldCons ever, I don’t think that alone can account for this jump, especially with VD and his crowd out there actively campaigning for people to nominate a slate to troll the genre. The toxic underbelly of genre, that has cruelly attacked so much of fandom (and especially its already marginalised and vulnerable members), has managed to claim one of the highest profile parts of the genre for itself, and that cannot be overlooked.

On the other hand, Stephanie Saulter reminded me that she’d seen racism increasingly marginalised in her lifetime, and that sight had always been accompanied by the same thing fandom is seeing in VD (and among other writers). In her opinion, what we’re seeing here is the spasming rage of a dying breed of bigots. That the scale of those bigots has just been revealed only means we now know how many there are, though that’s an exact figure that will have to wait until after the award is announced and nomination figures are released.

I continue to think Saulter is, on this topic, overly optimistic, and that Scalzi’s advice that these people’s work should be treated on their merits are both wrong. The latter comes from a place of immense privilege; whilst VD has a longstanding feud with Scalzi, he remains a straight white middle class American male with a huge fanbase; that insulates him hugely from the damage and indeed fear that VD’s base can and has incited in others. The former has a lot more credibility with me; Saulter’s life experience and the changes she’s seen in her lifetime give her a historical insight into the present situation that honestly ought not to be overlooked. However, I think she’s wrong.

When 10% of SFWA want Theodore Beale as their president, when enough people are willing to pay the money to put Beale and his little cabal of racists onto the Hugo Award ballots, that’s not the dying gasps of racists. That’s the tip of the iceberg; fellow-travellers, those who don’t <em>quite</em> endorse how extreme he is but think he’s onto something, the UKIP members to VD’s BNP (to use a British political analogy) are all invisible to this harsh metric. I think (and I don’t know if Stephanie Saulter agrees) that this is something we need to actively, completely root out; our fandom cannot survive if it continues to nurture VD and his ilk, if it continues to provide him with a platform. The nice liberal-fandom bubble social media allows many of us to live in is not representative, or at a minimum not as representative as we would wish.

Let’s come clean, confront that fact… and throw these arseholes out.



NB: This isn’t the Hugo Awards Committee’s fault. Once VD &co got their nominations, there was nothing in the Hugo rules to allow them to exclude these bigots from the awards. That’s our fault as fandom. It’s our job, not the Committee’s, to no-platform and exclude those people, both by changing the rules (risky) and by getting more heavily involved rather than walking away. Things don’t get fixed when we leave them, they’re only allowed to decay more.


  1. Paul Weimer says:

    This isn’t the Hugo Awards Committee’s fault. Once VD &co got their nominations, there was nothing in the Hugo rules to allow them to exclude these bigots from the awards

    Reading VD’s blog (glutton for masochistic punishment), me, he was specifically trying to see if he WOULD be banned or kicked off the ballot.

  2. erinhorakova says:

    This is interesting and well-articulated, but I’m also left wondering how we no-platform, and what “getting more heavily involved rather than walking away” looks like. Are these minds that can be changed (even the UKIP fringe)? Is it worth the effort of doing so, if that’s even possible? Who should be doing this work? If someone feels this way, they’re not very likely to listen to me, as a queer Jewish woman, and I wouldn’t want to plunge into those depths more than I have to already to write things, exist on the internet, teach, interact with weird family members, etc. I know people occupying various ally positions might also be wary of wading into the neo-con spaces and ‘speaking for’ others. Is it remunerative to positively troll these spaces versus saying positive things louder and more publicly? This feels like an unfair question, because it’s a general Left issue unconfined to genre in some ways and it’s not like I’m expecting you to solve the problems of the modern left RIGHT HERE AND NOW!!, but it’s the decision we also sort of need to make in order to productively go forward.

    • As you say, I don’t have the solutions, and as a genderqueer-leaning-male white queer, I’d be wary of speaking out for (especially) people of colour about our best tactics. I think one problem is we keep putting the discussion off; instead, we fight about each instance among ourselves (cf Ross and how he’s being brought up by some in the context of VD). How we get past that I honestly don’t know.

  3. I would point out that it wasn’t that 10% of SFWA who wanted Beale as their president, but rather that 10% of the SFWA members who voted. SFWA had something over 1750 members at the time of the election, but there were only 493 tabulated votes. 46 of them were for Beale. (Numbers from this well-sourced comment).
    Which is not to say that 10% of the votes is not a problem, nor that having 46 people willing to vote for him is OK. But it’s a different scale and kind of problem than if 175 people had so voted.

    • This is true and thank you for the link; that’s actually really helpful, and does make a difference – although the 1200+ nonvoters can’t be definitively placed in either camp, of course.

  4. […] Hugo Nominations (Dan[i/iel] Franklin, Daniel Libris) […]

  5. Oh, I absolutely think they need to be completely rooted out! I’m not suggesting that the war is won, or that one should be complacent. I’m simply saying that for these people to be so marginalised and embattled is something that would have been unthinkable twenty years ago. We have made immense progress; we need to keep making it.

  6. […] you’re interested: Posts by Vox Day, Larry Correia, “The Radish”, Peter David, Daniel Libris (“genderqueer Classics and Ancient History MLitt student at the University of Glasgow, and a […]

  7. […] Daniel Libris on Hugo Nominations […]

  8. karisperring says:

    Good post: thank you.
    I think, though, that some of what we’re seeing here is a group that can see its power and acceptability slipping and acting any way it can to try and hang on to it, by provoking, and shouting loudly and (probably) claiming *they* are being victimised. Their views are increasingly being challenged and derided and marginalised, those they are accustomed to bullying are increasingly talking back, confronting them and being supported and upheld by the wider peer group. 30 years ago, it was fine for a group of men to mob me repeatedly at a con. Now, such behaviour is marked and censured when observed and the participants cannot expect that they will receive the bulk of support. That’s a small example and there are still far too many areas in which we as a community fail (especially around race and non-binary gender). But VD and co can no longer expect to dominate, control and shape the narrative, and that’s good and they are beginning to flail as they try and keep hold.

  9. […] on a deleted scene from Nnedi Okorafor’s Lagoon, and on the Hugo Award winners and the nominees, and perhaps most importantly on the (now-ruled-illegal) banning of sending books to prisoners; as […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: