Eruditorum Press

The bodies on the gears of the culture industry

Skip to content

Elizabeth Sandifer

Elizabeth Sandifer created Eruditorum Press. She’s not really sure why she did that, and she apologizes for the inconvenience. She currently writes Last War in Albion, a history of the magical war between Alan Moore and Grant Morrison. She used to write TARDIS Eruditorum, a history of Britain told through the lens of a ropey sci-fi series. She also wrote Neoreaction a Basilisk, writes comics these days, and has ADHD so will probably just randomly write some other shit sooner or later.Support Elizabeth on Patreon.

17 Comments

  1. Andrew Hickey
    April 26, 2016 @ 8:49 pm

    “Andrew Hickey has suggested putting the poison pill choices below No Award while excluding the other Puppy picks entirely, which is probably what I’ll do. But I won’t pretend it’s not a genuinely hard decision.”

    Richard Gadsden (who is the person who I trust most in the whole world when it comes to tactical effects of choices in different voting systems) has since pointed out to me that that’s probably counterproductive. The best tactic appears to be to rank everything if you’re going to rank poison-pill nominees below No Award.

    My suggestion, assuming you don’t want to read them all, is to rank them poison pill, non-Castalia, Castalia, with No Award above all Puppy picks and any genuine nominees above that.

    Reply

    • Richard Gadsden
      April 27, 2016 @ 10:41 am

      I’ve run the numbers properly now. It doesn’t make the difference I thought it did.

      Off-ballot has exactly the same meaning as ranked below everything on the ballot.

      If you’re interested, I’d misread a minor clause in the “No Award Test” rule. I thought that your vote only counted in the NA test if it had both NA and the PW on the ballot. This is not the case; if you include only one of the two, then your vote is also counted.

      Reply

      • Andrew Hickey
        April 27, 2016 @ 11:11 am

        Thanks for the clarification, Richard — that makes a lot of difference.

        Reply

  2. John Seavey
    April 26, 2016 @ 9:01 pm

    ‘Fifth Season’ was nominated.

    Beale has to be spitting bile right now over that. 🙂

    Reply

  3. Camestros Felapton
    April 26, 2016 @ 9:16 pm

    I’ll plug the same tactic I advocated last year (anticipating the Rabid strategy this year). A slated work needs to be exceptionally good to vote it above No Award.

    Reply

  4. Eric Gimlin
    April 26, 2016 @ 9:24 pm

    The Retro Hugos really are a thing of beauty to cling to given the mess 2015 is, aren’t they?

    I’m a bit fuzzy on how Lovecraft qualifies, though; given that he passed away several years earlier, and a glance at ISFDB doesn’t suggest any qualifying publications.

    Reply

    • Elizabeth Sandifer
      April 26, 2016 @ 9:26 pm

      Fan Writer is tricky, though. He could well have something posthumous in some 40s fanzine. I assume eligibility checked it.

      Reply

  5. The Oncoming Hurricane
    April 27, 2016 @ 6:10 am

    I briefly wondered about them nominating Supernatural, but then I remembered that it has basically no female characters. That’ll be why then. I’m surprised they didn’t have a GoT up for nomination.

    Quick question, I note that none of the games on the slate for short or long form presentation got nominated, is that an issue of eligibility or because they just couldn’t garner enough votes?

    Reply

    • Andrew Hickey
      April 27, 2016 @ 9:35 am

      The latter. The votes for short story or fan writer or whatever were split between several thousand eligible, worthy, works, mostly with small non-overlapping audiences, so block-voting a slate can get results.
      The dramatic presentation awards would essentially be block-voted by the entire selectorate anyway, as there are only a small number of eligible films and TV series (there was a joke for a long time that the short-form award should be renamed “Best Episode of Doctor Who”, before Game of Thrones started competing) and so that makes them effectively slate-proof. Best Dramatic Presentation: Long-Form would have been identical without the Puppy influence (unless anyone really thinks that The Martian — nominated for the Best Picture Oscar and based on one of the most wildly popular SF novels of recent decades — or Avengers: Age of Ultron wouldn’t have appeared without Vox Day’s imprimatur).
      (Similarly with the novels — the Rabids only got one pick on there that wouldn’t have made it without them — Jim Butcher’s one)

      Reply

  6. James Wylder
    April 27, 2016 @ 11:48 am

    In short, i thought was ready for this, and it felt like even more of a punch in the gut than last year.

    sigh

    Reply

    • Kate
      April 28, 2016 @ 6:54 am

      I was surprised that the ballot was so awful once again, which only shows I haven’t been paying attention.

      Is there some legitimate way for a nominee to find out what work would enter their ballot if they withdrew theirs? No point in doing it if another Puppy pick pops up into the vacant slot.

      Reply

  7. Tom Bither
    April 27, 2016 @ 1:39 pm

    My only worry is that Dragon Con gets to use this to help push their new awards as the “legitimate” award for science fiction fans. After last year it looks like they saw the vulnerability with the Hugo Awards after the Rabid Puppy debacle there and have decided to take advantage. I can’t say it’s because of altruistic reasons because of Dragon Con’s initial decision to schedule their convention against World Con, I suspect it might be to try to weaken WorldCon further and then try to put forth the argument that WorldCon should be subsumed into Dragon Con.

    I don’t think Vox Day is consciously trying to help them with this, I just think he’s just wanting to blow things up and doesn’t care what happens afterwards. It would be a shame though if because of him the Hugos don’t get to recover.

    Reply

    • Andrew Hickey
      April 27, 2016 @ 2:02 pm

      DragonCon can do what they like. They’re basically a media-fandom con, and the crossover with literary-SF fandom is fairly small. And people can argue whatever they want about how Worldcon “should” become part of DragonCon, but it won’t be.
      DragonCon’s award categories don’t even overlap much with the Hugo categories.
      The Hugos will be back to normal next year, once E Pluribus Hugo passes. There’s no need to see the DragonCon awards as being rivals — there’s no limit on how many awards can be given out, and I’m sure they’ll be very nice for people who have strong opinions on children’s books and mobile games.

      Reply

    • Camestros Felapton
      April 27, 2016 @ 8:00 pm

      I’d say, if anything, it is the DragonCon Awards that look in trouble as a consequence. The proposed set up will be freepable by Day (or any other nut). The notion was that because DragonCon was big that somehow weight of numbers will prevent somebody like Day running that kind of stunt. However that isn’t the way these things scale up – more nominations this year didn’t help several categories in the Hugos. More nominations mean more variety of things nominated and you need a lot, lot more non-slate nominations to beat a bunch of people voting together.

      When faced with somebody willing to slate-vote and who has no shame about doing so, any simple popular vote is going to get freeped if there is somebody with sufficient motive and resources to do so.

      Reply

  8. Cat
    April 27, 2016 @ 10:14 pm

    I plan to put slate picks below No Award with a “GotG exception.” In other words, where I think the Puppies were running out in front of a parade to pretend they were leading it, like Uprooted and Seveneves, I’ll treat those nominees as honest (which doesn’t mean they can’t end up below No Award if I think they’re crud, but it means they have a chance of scoring higher.) Where it’s plain the nominee would never have made it without the Puppies, like Space Raptor, I’ll probably No Award–if it really knocks my socks off I might reconsider. If it’s by someone who has promoted the Puppies, like the Castalia House stuff I’ll certainly No Award it.

    I’ll have to make some judgement calls on some nominees–can I really know that Uprooted would have made it?–but I use my judgement all the time, so I’m not too worried about that.

    One thing to remember: For voting purposesm anything you leave off your ballot is effectively tied for the highest place you left empty. So if you give Great Story first place and Good Story second place and No Award third place and leave your ballot blank after that, you have left Slated But Good, Slated And Bad and OMG What Were They Thinking tied for fourth place. Certainly your prerogative, but if you want OMG What Were They Thinking to have that coveted sixth place spot you have to enter your ballot all the way down to sixth place.

    Reply

  9. Cmm
    April 28, 2016 @ 12:07 am

    Some things I nominated made it through, probably because they were also VD poison pill nominees, but I can’t see No Awarding something I liked enough to want to see on the ballot anyway. The only thing I know for sure is that no one who led or vociferously supported the puppies or is associated with VDs vanity press will ever, ever get above No Award on my ballot, this year or any year.

    Any rabid nominee that is not directly published by Castalia House or written by a puppy leader/loud supporter, I will do as I did last year: read as much as I can stomach and then see what I was able to finish and decide if any are high enough quality to go above No Award. In a non puppy year my inclination would be to rank everything above No Award unless I utterly loathe it; puppy nominees are the opposite, based on how they got in, my inclination is to go NA, unless I really really like it.

    Anything that I’m fairly sure would have been nominated without the slate I will not hold the slate against; I will treat those as any other nominee.

    I’m just glad that VD wasn’t strategic enough to sit out this year with the hope that fading memories, less drama, and general inertia would lead to the failure of EPH and other fixes. Then pop up again next year because the change would have to at least be voted on at the next Worldcon or even start over in the 2 year process. This way this is the last year one person will have so much sway over the nominees.

    Phil, I did nominate your blog on my ballot, mainly for the long essay you did last year on the puppies and political philosophies. I’m sorry it didn’t make the cut.

    Reply

  10. Lovecraft in Brooklyn
    April 29, 2016 @ 2:28 am

    Have you written a Fury Road essay? I’d love to read one.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
https://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/2016-hugo-nominations-reaction
www.eruditorumpress.com
CC-MAIN-2023-40
116235
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:GKTU4Y6GL7BIJPZOJVKSLD4D2HVQL2UX
<urn:uuid:a6e05e67-0823-46fc-9bcb-e8706f2f309d>
2023-09-23T11:54:36Z
173.255.229.240
text/html
sha1:AV3GAYHYEADVV3MQRZGMAY4A2W7TWK6U
<urn:uuid:004d9498-993d-4378-bd78-8e615e4b6ac9>
https://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/2016-hugo-nominations-reaction
response
<urn:uuid:aa4d37b4-e2e5-4cbe-b424-b4824d1c51bf>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-40
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September/October 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-196
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/