Some Final Thoughts on the 2019 Hugo Awards

My ballot for this year's Hugo Awards went in before the end of July.  I ended up only voting in the Novel category.  My ballot was:

1. Spinning Silver
2. Trail of Lightning
3. Record of a Spaceborn Few
4. No award
5. The Calculating Stars
6. Revenant Gun
7. Space Opera

It was really close on The Calculating Stars, but I thought she took a shortcut that undermined her larger message.

I didn't vote in any other categories for a couple of reasons.  In order:

1. My dad spent this year dying from cancer.  I was his primary support.
2. See #1
3. See #1
4. See #1
5. See #1
6. See #1
7. See #1
8. See #1
9. The narrow range of repeat nominees
10. The seemingly outsized influence of review sites/publishers

So the biggest issue was that I didn't have as much time this year to spend on reading/listening to the nominated works and then reviewing them.  That aside, there are a couple of issues that compromise my enthusiasm for the process.

I typically focus the Novel, Fancast, and Graphic Novel categories.  Depending on time, I might wander into the art and short story categories.  But those first three are the ones that I care about more than the rest.  I think I have a reasonable base of experience with works in that category and thus can offer a reasonably informed opinion regarding what might or might not be worthy of recognition.

The last couple of years have witnessed a significant narrowing in the range of works considered for nomination.

For example, four of the works in the Graphic Novel category come from properties that have nominated in past years.  Black Panther, Monstress, Paper Girls, and Saga are all repeat nominees; in some cases, multiple repeat nominees.

To be blunt, I have never been impressed with the storytelling or art associated with Saga.  I was disinterested in reading this year's nominated volume based on my underwhelming experiences in year's past.  Ironically, the guy that writes Saga also writes Paper Girls.  I think Paper Girls is generally a property that is worthy of attention.  For what it is worth, I thought Frank Cho's "Skybourne" and "Redlands" by Jordie Bellaire & Vanesa Del Rey were worth consideration.  I would put either of them above Saga.

In the Novel category, "Record of a Spaceborn Few" and "Revenant Gun" also come from series that have been nominated several times.  I am concerned that nominations of each installment in a series represent a trend that will ultimately narrow the range of works considered within the category.  All of the novels in N.K. Jemisin's "Broken Earth" series were nominated and won in the novel category. I put all three novels above "no award" on those ballots (and put at least one in first place) as those were incredibly good books.  So I'm not arguing against series-based work ever being on the novel ballot or that multiple entries in a series shouldn't be eligible in the novel category in multiple years.  I am suggesting that a portion of the nominating readers may be focused on such a narrow band of works that they might be excluding other works that are more worthy of consideration and ultimately nomination to the shortlist.

Had I read it in time for nominations this year, Mark Lawrence's "Grey Sister" would surely have been on my ballot.  I hope that the capstone of that trilogy, "Holy Sister" will be read by enough nominators that it will make next year's ballot.  Grey Sister was head and shoulders above the works that I put below "no award" this year.

In the Fancast category, the Coode Street Podcast, Fangirl Happy Hour, and Galactic Suburbia are repeat nominees.  Coode Street and Galactic Suburbia have their positive moments.  I've heard enough of Fangirl Happy Hour to know that they aren't all that impressive.  I gave a quick listen to the first episode of Be The Serpent.  It was the first episode and not bad by that standard.  I hope they've gotten better.  By comparison, all of my nominees in this category have a lengthy history of exemplary work in the genre.

I think the fact that there are so many repeat properties suggests that an unhealthy number of nominators are not looking very seriously at a broader range of titles.  Lela Buis has suggested that identity politics may be one factor that motivates a narrowing of the properties considered for nomination.  A few years ago, K. Tempest Bradford suggested the idea of not bothering to read works by straight white men for a while.

And of course, there is a habitual suggestion that self-published works are not generally worthy of larger consideration.  This year's SPFBO winner, Orconomics, is a tour-de-force that was originally published in 2014.   I would compare it favorably to The Goblin Emperor; a book that has grown on me since I read it.  Either book was better than that year's winner in my opinion.

The point is that if nominators were sampling a broader range of works, then we should see fewer repeat nominees from the series.

A related factor is that review sites may not be as broad in their coverage of the genre.  As a result, readers that look to review sites for references to quality work may not encounter quality works that are not reviewed because those authors or their publishing houses may not enjoy an appropriate "reputation" among reviewers.

One example that should be receiving more attention is Adrian Collins.  He is the editor of Grimdark Magazine and the GdM anthologies.  His work is outstanding.  Many of the included works are also worthy of wider recognition.

A second, admittedly lesser example would be Cirsova magazine.  I read issue #1 a while back.  It presented middling to decent fiction.  The works in the most recent issue were better.  It is definitely a publication that I would suggest that readers try to see if it presents works that they appreciate.  It has a bit of a retro feel to it while also leaving open the possibility of encountering works that translate that retro aesthetic into something that expands upon modern sensibilities.

Neither GdM or Cirsova appears to be on the radar of active readers that nominate for the Hugos.

While I certainly lacked time to engage with the Hugo nominees in a more substantive way this year, I also found that I had less motivation to make that effort.  The narrow range of nominations was less interesting.  With the recent unpleasantness neatly tucked out of the way, I hope that the Hugos do not suffer in the long run from a nomination field that based on an artificially limited scope of interest.