2018 Hugo Fancast

My review of this year's fan-casting nominees.  I began listening before the packets were issued.  I selected roughly two hours worth of material based on the episode descriptions.  If the descriptions sounded like a topic (or topics) that might interest me, then they got added to my list.

By selecting episodes that attract my interest, I'm hoping to give each nominee the best chance to engage me.

As that is the process that I began using, I think it would be unfair to change my approach and use whatever is in the packets to guide my listening.

As with my indispensable podcast listing, my ratings are based on three factors; production values, entertainment, and information.*

• Doctor Who: Verity! (Episodes 143 and Aug 2, 2017) - The hosts seemed to be having a great time discussing their perspectives.  They shared the microphone well and were entertaining.  If I were inclined towards Doctor Who, I would be very inclined to make this a regular part of my podcasting habit.  One modest word of warning.  The rampant objectification and sexism displayed in the August 2nd episode served as a pointed reminder of the importance of including a diverse range of opinions.  
• The Sword and Laser (Episodes 277, 282, 284, and 310) - This show was quite delightful.  The hosts are engaging with one another and with the audience.  They covered a lot of ground with respect to new books being published and discussions on Goodreads.  If I weren't already fully engaged in the genre, I would consider these folks to be a good starting point.  My only criticism is that most of the "information" in the information part of my assessment ended up being an invitation to join them on Goodreads.  It sounds like a lively group.  If I had the time, I would definitely consider engaging with them.
• Galactic Suburbia - (Episodes 163 and 168) - This is a podcast that I put below No Award last year because of their fixation on identity politics.  That factor was dialed back quite a bit in these two episodes.  The hosts were lively, shared the microphone quite well, and covered a broad range of properties and topics within the genre.
• The Coode Street Podcast - (Episodes 315 with Liz Bourke and Niall Harrison, and 317 with Irene Gallow) - Episode 315 suffered from a dry erudition that one might imagine occurring in a stately library furnished with overstuffed chairs with the vague aroma of pipe tobacco floating in the air.  The thoughts of the hosts and the guests were mildly entertaining and reasonably informative.  Beyond that, there isn't much to recall.  Episode 317 was much better as the hosts asked interesting questions and then got out of Irene Gallo's way.  Her responses to their questions about her career and her role in the industry were quite interesting.  [Before someone asks, yes, I know about Irene Gallo's past pronouncements.  There are some areas where she and I clearly do not agree.  Those issues were not addressed this episode and I am unwilling to discount the Coode Street Podcast due to her disagreeable past.]
• No Award
• Ditch Diggers - (Episodes 42 and 50) - This was a tough one.  One of the hosts grinds on my ears a bit.  He is a bit on the pompous side.  However, Episode 42 provided some fantastic role-playing to illustrate how writers (and other creatives) and reject offers of working for "exposure".  The flip side was Episode 50 which used precisely the same situation to provide a "fuck you" to authors that choose to work for exposure.  Intolerance and uncompassionate perspectives are unworthy of awards.
• Fangirl Happy Hour - (Episodes 81, 85, 101, and 102) - The primary problem with this podcast is that the range of discussion was somewhat limited.  Quite a bit of discussion ended up being "I liked that thing" followed by "I liked that thing, too.  I also liked this other thing" followed by "I liked that thing, too!"  That is a bit of an oversimplification, but not by much.  There wasn't much of a discussion about why the "thing" was liked.  A secondary issue was that the hosts seem to be only able to perceive the world from an identity politics/intersectional perspective.  The most prominent example was a discussion of the movie Stargate.  There was a brief discussion lamenting that the plot involved "white people saving brown people".  The hosts overlooked the fact that the team sent through the Stargate was diverse.  They also overlooked the fact that the people being saved in this particular case were being held as slaves and therefore could not save themselves.  There was also an offhand comment along the lines of "White people are creepy".  That sort of enabling of racism really needs to be rejected.
 

*Entertainment - Are the hosts engaging with one another and their audience.  Do they leave you wanting to listen more.

Information - Are the hosts presenting new information.  Are they at least providing a fresh perspective on an old property.

Production values - Do they share the microphone well.  Is there distracting background noise.  Are the levels on the microphones equalized so all of the personalities are speaking at the same relative volume.

There are some factors that might influence two different categories such as a host that is less than engaging as a speaker.

Hugo 2017 Fancast

I completed my review of the fan-cast nominees a few weeks back.

From my perspective, a good podcast will include the following;  good audio quality, news/information, an entertaining format, and engaging hosts.  With respect to hosts, I appreciate it when hosts know how to share the microphone in a conversation as well as know how to get out of their lane with respect to understanding other perspectives.  An additional consideration for the Hugos is whether or not I would recommend a podcast to someone else even if it might not be in my wheelhouse.  I also evaluated podcasts against my current list of regular podcast subscriptions.

1.  Tea and Jeopardy

I'm a fan.  They are on my list of regularly experience podcasts.  I donate via Patreon.  Emma and Peter Newman provide a great podcast.

For those that haven't listened to their podcast, they combine radio theater with an interview podcast.  Peter Newman portrays Emma's butler, Latimer.  Latimer locates unusual and frequently perilous locations for Emma and her guests to take tea.  Emma hosts her guests in a manner reflective to my American ears as that of a proper British lady.

She and her guests talk about books and writing and publishing and other oddments.  At the end of the show, there is another bit of radio theater as the guests encounter a peril uniquely associated with the locale for the tea lair and/or the guest in question.

It is just simply great fun, wonderfully written (where writing is required), and most informative.  The hiccups are few.

I have a tough time believing that any of the other nominees will be able to knock the Newmans out of first place on my ballot, but we shall see. (Yup!  I was right!)

2.  Coode Street Podcast

I listened to Episodes #286 & #292.

This is a fairly straightforward news and interview format.  The hosts shared the microphone quite well.  When they had guests, they asked relevant questions and then got out of the way to let the guests speak.

Those episodes were good enough for me to consider adding it to my regular list of podcasts.

One aspect of their program that I enjoyed was that it was conducted with a level of maturity.  One episode included Canadian author Jo Walton.  There was a discussion about preferential treatment of authors and their books.

Ms. Walton quite openly acknowledged that publishers, reviewers, and readers choose to focus their attention on a smaller range of the genre.  She indicated that she will frequently discover rare gems from prior years that were ignored when they were first published in favor of other works.

It was a refreshing exchange that acknowledged the reality of publishing and media promotion.  It is quite possible for Author X to write something superior to the work of Authors A, B, and C despite the publishing/media/fandom desire to promote Authors A, B, and C for any of a number of reasons.

3. Rageaholic

For the purposes of consideration for the Hugos, I limited my review to episodes that are limited to SF/F commentary.  The host is clearly pro-Trump.  I elected not to let that bleed over into my review.

I listened to the following episodes.  They covered three video games and one comic series.

• The Rageaholic: Doom
• Razor vs Comics: NIGHTWING Rebirth #1-5
• Battlefield 1 - The Rageaholic
• Mechwarrior 5: For Real, This Time! (A rant)

As with last year, I found the persona being presented to be over-the-top entertainment.  I wouldn't want a strict diet of this stuff, but it is entertaining in manageable doses.

What comes through all of the rapid-fire delivery of invective is a central concern for properties that provide a satisfying experience.  For video games, then need to provide an engaging experience within the respective sub-genres.  The host appears to have enough playing experience within enough titles to be able to offer informed opinions about what works to provide a reasonable gaming experience.

There is also the basic subtext that he believes gaming journalism is placing non-gaming factors ahead of game playability factors when assessing the relative merits of a given title.  Welcome to 2017.

His thoughts on various iterations of Nightwing were also interesting.  I followed that series for a while a decade or so ago.  It was pretty standard fare, so I stopped.  But it looks like there was one period that I might want to go back and review.  Specifically, the Nightwing/Huntress series written by Devin Grayson.

4.  No Award

5. Galactic Suburbia

After attempting to listen to a Galactic Suburbia debacle last year, I wasn't exactly keen on listening to them this year.  I ended up listening to Episode #148 (Ghostbusters Review).

On a positive note, the podcast was less of a hot mess than the episode I sampled last year.  The participants were better able to "share the mic".  A modest negative was that their commentary seemed to lean too frequently on viewing Ghostbusters (2016) via a feminist lens rather than simply relating the story elements that they found engaging.  That is an important perspective.  It isn't the only one worthy of their thoughts.

The moment that drove this podcast below No Award was when they started to suggest that they would consider alternative opinions once they purged stalking and threats of violence from that range of perspectives.  That is (or should be) a no-brainer.  But then they followed it up with a quick assertion that they wouldn't consider other perspectives anyway.

Exclusionary and eliminationist rhetoric isn't deserving of any reward.

I do have to give them credit as one of the co-hosts didn't really enjoy Ghostbusters (2016).  Her reasons dovetailed with others that I have heard/read.

6.  Fan Girl Happy Hour

I listened to Episodes #32 (No Fucks 2016) and #42 (2016 Hugo nominations announcement)

In episode 32, the hosts spent too much time talking about their other blogs/commentary projects.  So they consumed a significant amount of time on one commentary project talking about their other commentary projects.  Once they finally moved beyond talking about their opinions about their other opinions, the podcast became pretty informative and engaging.

Episode #42 was a reaction to the nominations for last year.  It amounted to a half hour's worth of guttural sounds of exasperation and a half hour's worth of "I don't understand".  Both of which are fine reactions, but not necessarily informative nor entertaining.

7.  Ditch Diggers

I listened to episodes #29 and #33.  Two people talking together.  Occasionally informative, but not terribly entertaining.  Presumptuous of the value of their opinions.  And I say that while agreeing with quite a few things that they said about people taking advantage of freelance writers by offering "exposure" or "beer money" in lieu of, you know, paying people based on the value of their work.

In one of the episodes, Mur announced that Netflix had announced that they were developing one of her properties.  She then went on a rant about the TV and film industries "white washing" properties.  A couple of her secondary characters are gay.  Mur was concerned that Netflix might change her work to make it more palatable to a wider audience.

Netflix is the same network that presents Sense8 that includes some pretty graphic scenes between gay and lesbian characters.  While I share the concern about the displacement of authentic/original characters, Nexflix has produced a number of Marvel properties that emphasize the use of characters as originally created.  Netflix isn't exactly a place where "whitewashing" is not a valid concern.

It just came off as a knee-jerk perspective as opposed to a reasonable concern based on the history of the production company.

While that seems like I'm teeing off on Mur, she was really the more engaging of the two hosts.  Her co-host, Matt, was pretty self-absorbed.  I kept picturing being stuck at a party with him and inevitably found that I would be seeking the quickest way out of the conversation as I could reasonably find.

I've listened to other SFF author based podcasts that offer similar advice.  Those authors have a better format, better sense of perspective, demonstrate interest outside of themselves, and generally are more engaging in their presentation.

So What Is Better??

In addition to Tea and Jeopardy, I also nominated Sincast, Sarcastic Voyage, The Post Atomic Horror Podcast, and The Horror Show with Brian Keene.  All of those other four podcasts are (admittedly subjectively) better than those that I put below No Award.  Sincast and PAH utilize a combination of entertainment and information that is comparable with Tea and Jeopardy.  The Horror Show uses a straight news/interview format.  The entire range of regular hosts of The Horror Show are more engaging and entertaining than the shows that I put below No Award.  The Sarcastic Voyage is a straight up bit of radio theater based on fantasy writing.

All of them deserve to have sufficient attention from fandom to be discussed as contenders for the Hugo awards.  They would (or should) easily beat out those that I put below No Award.

The Indispensable Podcast Listing

I got into listening to podcasts a while back.  Most of those early podcasts were focused on the Fantasy & Science Fiction genre(s).  My early interest was motivated by a couple of different factors.

The first factor is that I love the genre and have hopes (more probably ethereal ravings) of writing in the field some day.  Even if I never get a chance to pursue that interest, it is always interesting to hear about authors, their writing process, and their challenges within the industry.

The other factor at the time was in learning more about the industry due to my interest in the Sad Puppies imbroglio.  I didn't learn as much about that, but it was an early motivating factor.

My podcast list grew from there due to my continuing interest in a few public radio programs.

While I know that the trend is to make everything seem to be larger than life these days, this list really, really isn't indispensable.  It isn't huge.  Or huuuuuuge! in modern presidential parlance, I suppose.

However, it is a great starting point for people that are curious about podcasting.  Take a look, and then give a listen.

I have scored each podcast in three areas; Production Values, Entertainment, and Information.  Production values represent the recording quality, the voice quality of the participants, and the general organization of the podcast.  Entertainment is pretty self-explanatory; how much does the podcast engage me from an entertainment perspective.  Essentially, the giggle factor.  Information is equally self-explanatory; how much new information does the podcast present.

There may be some bleed-through from one category to another.  For example, a regular participant with a less than entertaining voice may drag down both the production values and the entertainment scores.

I don't listen to all of these podcasts every week.  Some are on hiatus.  Some come out on an irregular basis.  A few of the podcasts will provide re-runs to fill in on weeks when they don't have something new.

I have filtered through some podcasts and dropped many that just were not worth the effort.  While there are some overtly political podcasts on the list, I think that most of these programs are worthy of consideration.  For someone new to podcasts, this list is a decent place to start.

2016 Hugos - Fancast

Cane and Rinse - No episode specified in the nomination.  Sampled Episode 197 from 10/11/2015 covering Halo 4.

Can and Rinse reviews various video games.  They had been reviewing the entire series of Halo games.  Previously, my primary experience was with Halo CE which I enjoyed a great deal.

The hosts did a great job of sharing the "air time" and providing individual perspectives on Halo 4.  They were entertaining and informative.

In fact, I went searching on their website for podcast commentary regarding a couple other games as a result.  Unfortunately, either they have yet to cover those games via podcast, or the GUI for their search results is cluttered to the point of obfuscation.

Were I spending more time playing games, I would definitely subscribe to this podcast.

The Rageaholic - No episode specified.  Sampled:

• Jessica Jones Review
• Cinema: Sudden Impact
• Skyrim Online: Tamriel Unplayable
• B-but Everyone is Corrupt: The Downfall of Gaming Journalism

The Rageaholic appears to be a persona of a stereotypical person that lives in their parent's basement known as RazörFist.  The presentation style is borderline hyperventilating and spittle flying rage; hence one supposes the "Rage" in Rageaholic.

Surprisingly, he loved Jessica Jones for the most part.  He had little use for flipping one manipulative male character into being a manipulative lesbian character.  He thought Carrie Ann Moss' acting salvaged that change to the plot.  His general perspective seemed to be along the line of suggesting that people should worry more about telling a compelling story and less about the supporting/non-critical elements that get incorporated.

He also loved Sudden Impact.  That was unsurprising based on the persona.

In the review of Skyrim Online, his chief complaint was that the software publisher had taken everything that was interesting about Skyrim and chucked it aside in order to make something that was played online.

The gaming journalism was the weakest of the four episodes I sampled.  Central to his argument was that the percentage of magazine pages dedicated to promoting the products being reviewed was significantly higher in gaming oriented publications.

While I would not want a steady diet of this persona, these videos were entertaining and engaging.  I can understand why someone would subscribe to them.

HelloGreedo - No episode specified.  Sampled:

• Star Wars: A New Hope - Deleted Scenes
• Star Wars: The Force Awakens Trailer
• Star Wars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace

The podcast features a presenter named Greedo wearing a storm trooper helmet(!) who discusses various aspects of the Star Wars franchise.  In general, his presentation is lucid and passionate without going overboard.  Greedo has a speaking style that conveys his interest in a clear and measured speaking style.  It is clear that our host is thoroughly invested in the Star Wars 'verse.  

In the first episode I sampled, Greedo breaks down a series of deleted scenes and why (or why not) their omission from the final film served the interest of telling a compelling story.  It was an interesting look at some of the editorial decisions that were made in putting the story together.

The second episode was a fannish treatment of the trailer for The Force Awakens that could be best summarized as "I love Star Wars and this trailer designed to appeal to people that love Star Wars appeals to me a great deal".  The substance of the commentary wasn't all that great.  But the presentation was good.

The final episode I sampled broken down all of the issues surrounding the plot...or lack thereof...in The Phantom Menace.  Given the megabytes that have been written excoriating this installment of the franchise, none of Greedo's were all that surprising.  But again, his presentation was excellent.

Tales to Terrify - No episode specified in the nomination.  Sampled episodes 164 and 204.

Tales to Terrify is essentially a reading of selected short horror stories.  Episode 164 wasn't really terrifying, but one story was definitely disgusting.  I'm not sure if the characters were supposed to be self-aware zombies that were subjected to all manner of abuse, or people held captive for zombie food that were subjected to all manner of abuse, or just people held captive that were abused.  But there was a lot of abuse going on.  I bailed on episode 164 after the n-th iteration of "arseholes leaking shit, blood, and cum".

Episode 204 was much better. The two stories presented were Angela Slatter's Sourdough and Patrick O'Neill's Underwriting Department.  Both were well written and well read.  While not necessarily terrifying, they fit within the horror/fantasy spectrum quite well.

The presentation in both episodes was good but not great.  Having a couple more readers to create more of a radio theater experience might have improved things.  The editorial decisions for Episode 164 certainly weighed into my ranking for the Hugo Awards this year.

NO AWARD

8>4 Play Japan Game Panic - No episode specified in the nomination.  Sampled Happy Little Cloud from 11/13/2015.

Quite frankly, this podcast was a mess.  All four (?) of the hosts were talking over one another and none of them really had much to add to the conversation.

This episode seemed to focus on classic/older games from the 1990s.  Mostly it was a case of "I own this, you own that, how neat is that".  I was neither entertained nor informed by this podcast.  It reminded me heavily of last year's Galactic Suburbia Podcast; the eventual winner for 2015 that I put below "No Award".