Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Biased Opinion - Stopping Harassment After the Fact Just Isn't Good Enough

On Saturday, August 19th, 2016, the redhead and I were at MidAmeriCon II and heading towards a panel titled The Shipping Forecast set to be moderated by Keith Yatsuhashi and featuring Jaylee James and Alyssa Wong. The topic of the panel was the appeal of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic settings for shippers. We had decided to attend this panel specifically because Wong was on it, and we wanted to see the Campbell finalist speak in person. We figured that this was the perfect panel to highlight the skills of someone with her talent for creepy and unsettling fiction.

Alyssa Wong wasn't at the panel.

At the start of the scheduled hour, Yatsuhashi announced that Wong would not be able to attend for personal reasons, and that the trio of scheduled panelists was reduced to a duo. They tried to do their best, but without the third voice the panel got off to an unsteady start, and the redhead and I ended up leaving early, disappointed.

It was only later that we learned what had happened. It seems that two writers of a column called Exploding Spaceship for the online magazine Bull Spec had harassed Wong at WisCon leading to a "no contact" order being issued to them. They turned up at MidAmeriCon and started up more or less where they had left off, continuing to harass Wong and targeting Brooke Bolander as well after she tried to intervene on Alyssa's behalf. Wong, with Fran Wilde's assistance, filed an incident report Saturday morning. To their credit, the MidAmeriCon staff worked quickly and the two people who had harassed Wong were ejected from the convention in relatively short order. In her account of the event, Wong praised the MidAmeriCon staff on this score, but to a certain extent, the damage had already been done because the only thing that they could do at that point amounted to efforts at remediation and amelioration.

Responding to incidents of harassment is important, and it seems that conventions overall are getting better at doing so, but this only deals with one side of the problem. Conventions need to get better at preventing harassment - by identifying repeat harassers and dealing with them accordingly. In their statement announcing the suspension of the two columnists who harassed Wong at WisCon and MidAmeriCon, Bull Spec revealed that their inquiries had uncovered yet another harassment incident that the pair had been involved in at ConCarolinas. That makes three incidents that we know of. Who knows how many more took place that we don't know about. Someone might say that that is three incidents too many, but that's a standard that would be impossible to meet. However, three incidents is probably at least one, and possibly two, too many to be acceptable in terms of conventions acting responsibly to prevent harassment.

In the aftermath of this incident, I have seen numerous posts on blogs and social media discussing it, and the comments have been full of people, mostly women, saying some variant of "this is why I don't go to conventions". Allowing serial harassers to attend conventions is driving a not inconsequential number of people away. The question people running conventions have to ask themselves is simply this: Are we going to provide an environment that is welcoming to people with a track record of harassing others at other conventions, or are we going to provide an environment that is welcoming to the people who are currently staying away from their event because they fear that they will be the target of harassment. Right now, most conventions seem to have taken a somewhat confused stance, becoming better at responding to harassment, but appearing to do almost nothing to prevent it.

Conventions need to be better at stopping harassment before it starts. To be blunt, conventions need to deny entry to potential attendees with a track record of misbehavior. I expect that there will be significant push back on this point, in large part due to the fact that it runs counter to Geek Social Fallacy #1 of "Ostracizers Are Evil" as outlined by Michael Suileabhain-Wilson in 2003. On a certain level, I understand the reaction: No one wants to be the person who tells someone else that they are barred from coming to the party. On another level, however, I am convinced that this sort of preemptive banning is probably necessary: Ignoring these sorts of issues is one of the things that is driving people away from conventions. As Suileabhain-Wilson wrote, "nearly every geek social group of significant size has at least one member that 80% of the members hate, and the remaining 20% merely tolerate". Apply those figures to convention attendees, and then consider how many of the "80%" are simply staying away and it becomes clear that the cost of doing nothing is something that conventions really can't afford to ignore. When one considers that the individuals who would be excluded are those who have demonstrated a propensity to violate the rules of the convention in the past, the need for preemptive action becomes even more readily apparent.

Setting aside the reluctance of people to actually pull the trigger and exclude known bad actors from conventions, the primary practical impediment to doing so is the lack of public information about such bad behavior. When it came to light that the people who harassed Wong at MidAmeriCon II were the same people who had harassed her at WisCon, some excused the MidAmeriCon II staff's lack of proactive action upon the fact that they probably didn't know about the incident at WisCon. The sad truth is that this is very plausible. After all, as far as I can tell, until Bull Spec revealed that their investigations had uncovered an additional instance of harassment traced to the same perpetrators at ConCarolinas, it appears that most people didn't know about that either. The problem is that conventions seem to be very bad at communicating with one another. There is some communication between conventions, but it is informal, winding through back-channels and passed by word of mouth. If someone running one convention doesn't know someone at another, they may never find out about issues that have cropped up, and even if they do, it will probably be related as an anecdote that is likely to be garbled in some way in the telling.

As things stand now, it is entirely possible for someone to go to a convention, harass someone, get kicked out, and the next month go to a second convention, harass someone again, and get kicked out again. That same person could probably go to a third convention the next month, harass someone yet again, and then get kicked out yet again. And on and on, repeating the pattern every month or two, and no one at any of the conventions would know what had happened before the serial harasser caused a problem at their event. And then they could possibly do it all over the next year, starting with the original convention, because not only do conventions not talk to one another about problem attendees, some seem to not even talk internally.

Right now, there is no real way to document patterns of bad behavior on the part of convention attendees. Conventions simply must get better at documenting and sharing information about instances of harassment. There needs to be some way to keep track of who has been ejected from a convention, and for what reason. Other conventions have to be able to look at these records and decide whether to issue a badge to individuals with a propensity to cause trouble. Conventions must be willing to preemptively ban serial harassers and bad actors. Had ConCarolinas documented the harassment that took place at their event and made it available to other conventions, and WisCon documented the harassment that took place at their event and made that available to other conventions, then this pair would not have been able to fly under the radar the way they did and turn up at MidAmeriCon II without anyone there being aware of their history. Had such a system already been in place, the people who harassed Alyssa Wong at MidAmeriCon II might not have even been there to harass her in the first place.

I don't know what the perfect solution is here, but I do know that conventions can do better. Scratch that - I know that conventions have to do better, because when it comes right down to it, not taking action to head off harassment means siding with the harassers and throwing their victims over the side. If conventions are serious about making themselves a welcoming place, then they need to start working together to identify harassers and stop them before they get through the door.

Biased Opinions     Home

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Random Thought - The 2016 "E Pluribus Hugo" Revised Hugo Finalists

In 2016, the Business Meeting of the Worldcon in Kansas City, Missouri ratified a change to the nomination process for the Hugo Awards called E Pluribus Hugo. This ratification was the culmination of a two year process that had been sparked by the domination of the 2015 Hugo Award nomination process by an organized minority of voters comprised of two allied groups that called themselves the "Sad Puppies" and the "Rabid Puppies". E Pluribus Hugo was formulated as a response to these bloc voting campaigns, and as the World Science Fiction Society (WSFS) constitution requires two years to implement changes, the change to the voting system had to be passed at both the 2015 and 2016 Worldcon Business Meeting.

The Old System
The first question one might ask is what voting system E Pluribus Hugo replaced, and why. Prior to the implementation of E Pluribus Hugo, the nomination process for the Hugo Awards was a fairly simple "first past the post" system: Every eligible voter could nominate up to five eligible candidates in each category. These nominations would be tallied, and the five works or people that received the most nominations in each category would become the Hugo Award finalists for that year.

The trouble with this system is that it requires most of the participants to act in good faith, because it is relatively easy for a dedicated voting bloc to "game" the system. As long as voters are voting their individual preferences, the system works, and results in a diffuse array of nominated works and people, five of whom will rise to the top of the list and take position as Hugo finalists. When one looks at the available Hugo nominating data, also known as the Hugo Longlist, provided pursuant to the WSFS constitution, one generally finds this sort of diverse array of nominees in the years prior to the creation of the "Puppy" campaigns.

The most notable attempt to exploit the weakness in the Hugo nomination system prior to the launch of the "Puppy" campaigns occurred in 1987, when members of the Church of Scientology organized a dedicated minority of Hugo voters to vote en masse for the L. Ron Hubbard science fiction novel Black Genesis, which reached the finalist list as a result. The actions of the Scientologists were considered to be outside the accepted norms of behavior by the general body of Hugo voters, who responded by voting the Hubbard novel below "No Award" in the final vote. This form of social sanction was the primary means under by the Hugo community to prevent groups from exploiting the voting system in this manner. It is important to note that most regular Hugo voters knew about the flaw in the voting system prior to the creation of the "Puppy" campaigns, but no one other than the Scientologists had been rude enough to try to use it.

The Puppy Campaigns
In 2013, Larry Correia launched an attempt to get himself a Hugo Award with a blog post titled How to Get Larry a Hugo in which he asserted that him winning the award would "make literati heads explode". Much of Correia's anger over the Hugo Awards seems to stem from the fact that he was nominated for, but did not win, a Campbell Award in 2011. In this iteration of his crusade, Correia clumsily parodied the SPCA commercials relating to pet adoption, asserting that if he did not win a Hugo it would "make puppies sad". This effort on Correia's part was mostly unsuccessful.

In 2014, Correia redoubled his efforts, promoting not only himself for a Hugo Award, but also creating a list of recommended works that he urged his blog followers to vote for. Among the collection of works he promoted was a story titled Opera Vita Aeterna by Theodore Beale, who cross-promoted the so-called "Sad Puppy" selections on his own blog. It seems relatively clear that Correia's objective was to use this sort of cross-promotion among the multiple authors listed as Sad Puppies to garner Hugo nominations for all of them. Several of the candidates on this Sad Puppy slate were nominated. This was regarded as controversial at the time, but as the Sad Puppy candidates were more or less in line with the proportion of Sad Puppies in existence, most people evaluated the Sad Puppy finalists on their own merits. Sadly for the Puppies, this resulted in most of the Sad Puppy works faring quite poorly in the voting.

In 2015, Brad Torgersen took over the "Sad Puppy 3" campaign, and assembled and promoted a slate of works that was comprised of five works in multiple categories. Theodore Beale created a complimentary "Rabid Puppy" slate that was composed of mostly overlapping candidates for the Hugo ballot, filled out with several selections mostly drawn from the small press publisher he owned. Though Torgersen claimed to have selected the works on the Sad Puppy slate "democratically", the evidence shows that most of the actual public suggestions were ignored, and that almost all of the selections had some sort of personal or professional connection to Torgersen. As an organized voting bloc, the minority represented by the Sad and Rabid Puppies were able to dominate the Hugo nominations. Organized political groups - and based upon their rhetoric and campaigning there is no question that the Puppies are an organized political group - will almost always emerge victorious in a "first past the post" system unless there is organized opposition. There was no organized opposition.

Following the domination of the Hugo nominations process by a minority of approximately fifteen to twenty percent of the total voters, the Hugo voters as a whole responded in two ways. First, most voters placed all of the Sad and Rabid Puppy finalists behind "No Award" in the final voting. In most cases, there was no difference between assessing the Puppy finalists based on quality and relegating them to a position behind "No Award" and choosing to place them behind "No Award" as a response to the Puppy political actions. Second, several possible changes to the nomination system were formulated, including E Pluribus Hugo, and then proposed at the Worldcon Business Meeting held at Sasquan that year.

In 2016, the Sad Puppies shifted tactics slightly, creating a longer list of crowd sourced recommendations. Theodore Beale's Rabid Puppies, on the other hand, created a slate and encouraged bloc voting by their supporters. As a result, several of the Hugo categories were once again dominated by Puppy selections driven by the organized bloc voting of a dedicated minority of the total voters, although this time it was clear that the Rabid Puppies were in control. Once again, the majority of Hugo voters responded by relegating many of the Puppy slated works to a position behind "No Award", and once again there was almost no difference between doing so based upon an assessment of the quality of the Puppy nominees and doing so as a response to the political campaigning of the Puppies. At the Worldcon Business Meeting held at MidAmeriCon II, the Worldcon voters ratified the E Pluribus Hugo voting system for the second time, as required to make it effective.

What Is E Pluribus Hugo?
Of the several proposed changes to the Hugo nominating system, the Business Meeting at Sasquan chose to pass E Pluribus Hugo. This, of course, raises the question of what E Pluribus Hugo is intended to do, and how it actually changes the nomination system. At the outset, it should be noted that E Pluribus Hugo doesn't change anything from the perspective of an individual nominating voter. Every eligible voter may nominate up to five works in each category, just as they always have. The difference between E Pluribus Hugo and the previous "first past the post" nomination system is in how the nominations are tabulated.

Each ballot cast under E Pluribus Hugo is worth exactly one "point" per category, with that point divided evenly among all of the works nominated. Therefore, if a voter nominates five items in a category, each of those works will receive one-fifth of a point. If a voter nominates four items in a category, each of those works will receive one-fourth of a point. And so on. All of these ballots are tabulated, and all of the points cast for the various nominees are added together. Once this is done, the nominees with the lowest point total are examined and compared with one another, with the one with the fewest total number of nominations (not points) being eliminated.

The power of E Pluribus Hugo is that once a work is eliminated, the ballots on which that work appeared are recalculated. If a voter nominates five works, each initially receives one-fifth of a point. If one of those works is eliminated from contention, then that voter's ballot would only have four remaining works, which would then receive one-quarter of a point instead of one-fifth. In this manner, the support that voter's ballot provides for the works that were not eliminated is slightly intensified. As one can see, if there is a bloc of voters who all vote in favor of the same work, their support will remain spread thin across all of the ballots, while other voters who have a chaotic arrangement of works supported will see their support for their shared commonalities become more potent as the different works they supported are eliminated from contention.

How Well Does E Pluribus Hugo Work?
In theory, E Pluribus Hugo should dampen the effectiveness of slate voting by making voting for a shared collection of works a less powerful strategy. The nomination system won't eliminate the votes of the bloc voters, and was never intended to do so. One of the goals of changing the voting system was to reduce the ability of bloc voters to dominate the nominations process, the goal was not to exclude the bloc voters, but merely to reduce their ability to place works onto the list of finalists to something closer to their actual proportion of the total voting body.

The means of testing this process is to use the voting data from the last few years and evaluating the results. This post shows the changes that would have been made to the final ballot had E Pluribus Hugo been in effect for the 2016 Hugo nominations process. In many categories, it appears that one or two finalists would be different, replacing a slate-driven candidate with a non-slate candidate. The question that is presented is why E Pluribus Hugo is more effective in some categories than others. For 2016, I think that the answer lies in two places, the first of which is related to the number of nominating ballots cast in that particular category. The following table shows the total nominating ballots cast in each category, my estimate of Rabid Puppy voters in each category, and the estimated percentage of Rabid Puppy voters out of the total:

CategoryTotal Ballots CastEstimated Rabid PuppiesEstimated Percentage
Novel
3,695
400-440
11-12
Novella
2,416
440
18
Novelette
1,975
415-440
21-22
Short Story
2,451
390-425
16-17
Related Work
2,080
385-440
19-24
Graphic Story
1,838
350-375
19-20
Editor, Short
1,891
400
21
Editor, Long
1,794
435
24
Professional Artist
1,481
260-350
24
Semiprozine
1,457
430-450
30
Fanzine
1,455
400
28
Fan Writer
1,568
310-340
20-22
Fan Artist
1,073
320-340
30-32
Fancast
1,267
330
26
Campbell
1,922
400
21

Looking at these figures, it seems that there is a range of effectiveness for E Pluribus Hugo. If there are too few bloc voters - below about fifteen percent of the total - their impact on the final ballot is not sufficiently large that applying E Pluribus Hugo to the results will change them. If there are too many bloc voters - a number that seems to be "something approaching about thirty percent of the total" - then E Pluribus Hugo is not a robust enough system to make a dent in their efforts. In the middle range, it appears that a combinations of factors, including whether or not bloc voted works have support outside of the voting bloc, result in a variable effect that works changes ranging in scale from one to three slots on the final ballot.

Best Novel

(3,695 Ballots, Estimated 400-440 Rabid Puppies)

Unchanged Finalists:
Ancillary Mercy by Ann Leckie
The Aeronaut's Windlass by Jim Butcher
The Fifth Season by N.K. Jemisin
Seveneves by Neal Stephenson
Uprooted by Naomi Novik

Removed Finalists:
None

Added Finalists:
None

Notes: The Best Novel category for 2016 is unchanged by the application of E Pluribus Hugo, which should come as a surprise to no one. The Best Novel category is one of the more resilient categories of the Hugo Awards, due to the relatively greater number of people who nominate in the category, and as a result, bloc voting is not as successful a tactic here as it is in other, smaller categories. When one accounts for the fact that the Rabid Puppy slate tried to latch on to works that were generally popular like Seveneves in a desperate effort to be able to claim credit for their success, the reason for the lack of change worked in this category by E Pluribus Hugo becomes even more readily apparent.

Best Novella

(2,416 Ballots, Estimated 440 Rabid Puppies)

Unchanged Finalists:
Binti by Nnedi Okorafor
The Builders by Daniel Polansky
Penric's Demon by Lois McMaster Bujold
Perfect State by Brandon Sanderson
Slow Bullets by Alastair Reynolds

Removed Finalists:
None

Added Finalists:
None

Notes: The Best Novella category is also (probably) unchanged by E Pluribus Hugo, for much the same reasons that the Best Novel category was unchanged - there are a relatively large number of nominators who vote in this category, and the Rabid Puppy slate tried to piggyback onto works that had broader appeal than just those of the Rabid Puppy voting bloc. There is one wrinkle in the statistics insofar as The Builders is shown in the "EPH Ballot Results on 2016 Hugo Race Report" as having 149.283 nominations under the new system, and is listed in fifth place overall, while The Pauper Prince and the Eucalyptus Jinn by Usman T. Malik is shown with 194.2 nominations and is listed in sixth place overall. According to the list totals, these two stories should be reversed in order, with The Pauper Prince replacing The Builders on the list of finalists. On the other hand, the 194.2 figure seems like it could merely be a misprint, with the 9 and the 4 reversed. In that case, the total number of nominations for The Pauper Prince would be 149.2, and the order listed would be correct. I have not seen anyone involved in running the tests provide clarification on this point as of yet.

Best Novelette

(1,975 Ballots, Estimated 415-440 Rabid Puppies)

Unchanged Finalists:
And You Shall Know Her by the Trail of Dead by Brooke Bolander
Flashpoint: Titan by Cheah Kai Wei
Folding Beijing by Hao Jingfang
Obits by Stephen King

Removed Finalists:
Hyperspace Demons by Jonathan Moeller [nomination declined]
What Price Humanity? by David VanDyke

Added Finalists:
Our Lady of the Open Road by Sarah Pinsker

Notes: One element that is interesting to look at is what effect E Pluribus Hugo would have had on the nominations of works that ended up being declined. In the Best Novelette category, Jonathan Moeller would have never had the opportunity to decline the nomination for Hyperspace Demons, because it would not have placed in the top five nominees. This seems to have happened about half the time there was a nomination that was declined or withdrawn. I'm not sure what the significance of this is, but it is at least moderately notable. Once again, this is a category in which the Rabid Puppy slate attempted to use some works with a wider base of support as a kind of shield. Consequently, the ballot already had pretty good, reasonably popular works like And You Shall Know Her by the Trail of Dead and Folding Beijing upon it, and at least adequate works like Obits as well. Removing the mediocre What Price Humanity? and replacing it with the excellent Our Lady of the Open Road would have given the Hugo voters several excellent choices to select from when casting their final ballots.

Best Short Story

(2,451 Ballots, Estimated 390-425 Rabid Puppies)

Unchanged Finalists:
Asymmetrical Warfare by S.R. Algernon
Seven Kill Tiger by Charles Shao

Removed Finalists:
The Commuter by Thomas Mays [nomination declined]
If You Were an Award My Love by Juan Tabo and S. Harris
Space Raptor Butt Invasion by Chuck Tingle

Added Finalists:
Hungry Daughters of Starving Mothers by Alyssa Wong
Wooden Feathers by Ursula Vernon

Notes: Although E Pluribus Hugo is not aimed at particular nominees based upon their particular content or quality, the results of applying it in the Best Short Story category seem to suggest that it may have the effect of doing so, at least to the extent that a voting bloc supports candidates of low quality or which contain offensive content. I believe, based upon my understanding of the mechanics of E Pluribus Hugo, that to the extent that it has an effect, the voting system will have its greatest impact upon those items that derive most of their support from a voting bloc. I suspect that in this case, the stories If You Were an Award My Love and Space Raptor Butt Invasion had essentially no support other than from the Rabid Puppy voting bloc, which is why they drop off of the ballot to be replaced by much better finalists when E Pluribus Hugo is applied.

Best Related Work

(2,080 Ballots, Estimated 385-440 Rabid Puppies)

Unchanged Finalists:
The First Draft of My Appendix N Book by Jeffro Johnson
Safe Space as Rape Room by Daniel Eness
SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Theodore Beale

Removed Finalists:
Between Light and Shadow: An Exploration of the Fiction of Gene Wolfe, 1951 to 1986 by Marc Aramini
The Story of Moira Greyland by Moira Greyland

Added Finalists:
Letters to Tiptree edited by Alisa Krasnostein and Alexandra Pierce
You're Never Weird on the Internet (Almost) by Felicia Day

Notes: In 2016, the Best Related Work category was overrun with works that ranged from offensive and terrible to merely bland and mediocre, with only the Aramini work being even marginally worthwhile as a finalist. Applying E Pluribus Hugo to this category has the effect of removing both the Aramini work and Moira Greyland's piece from the ballot and replacing them with Letters to Tiptree and You're Never Weird on the Internet (Almost), which represents a substantial increase in quality, but more importantly seems to reveal something of interest about the nature of the bloc that voted for the Rabid Puppy slate. Even though the Rabid Puppy bloc seems to have displayed fairly strong slate discipline, they were not perfect in this regard. Under E Pluribus Hugo, those works that have the strongest slate support, or which have some non-slate support are the ones from the slate that will remain on the ballot over those works that have weaker slate support or little or no non-slate support. The array of slated works that remains on the ballot after the application of E Pluribus Hugo suggests that the primary objective of most of the Rabid Puppy voting bloc was trolling, and they were generally unconcerned with quality.

Best Graphic Story

(1,838 Ballots, Estimated 350-375 Rabid Puppies)

Unchanged Finalists:
Full Frontal Nerdity by Aaron Williams
The Sandman Overture by Neil Gaiman and J.H. Williams, III

Removed Finalists:
The Divine written by Boaz Lavie, art by Asaf Hanuka and Tomer Hanuka
Erin Dies Alone written by Grey Carter, art by Cory Rydell
Invisible Republic, Volume 01 written by Corinna Bechko and Gabriel Hardman, art by Gabriel Hardman

Added Finalists:
Nimona by Noelle Stevenson
Saga, Volume 5 by Brian K. Vaughn and Fiona Staples

Notes: The final ballot of Best Graphic Story is among the most changed by the application of E Pluribus Hugo. Three slated works drop off of the list of finalists, to be replaced by three non-slate driven choices. It is unclear to me why this category was the most affected by E Pluribus Hugo: The estimated percentage of Rabid Puppy bloc voters is comparable to that of some other categories that were unaffected by changing the voting system. There seem to be plenty of works to choose from in the category, so there doesn't appear to be the natural concentration effect for nominations that many people suspect will affect the two Dramatic Presentation categories. No matter the cause, E Pluribus Hugo seems to have been particularly effective in this category.

Best Professional Editor: Short Form

(1,891 Ballots, Estimated 400 Rabid Puppies)

Unchanged Finalists:
John Joseph Adams
Neil Clarke
Ellen Datlow
Jerry Pournelle
Sheila Williams

Removed Finalists:
None

Added Finalists:
None

Notes: Best Professional Editor Short Form is a category almost entirely unaffected by E Pluribus Hugo, which is entirely unsurprising because there was only one slate candidate in this category. In the case where there is a single work or person on a slate, the voting system shouldn't affect the outcome, as it is only intended to dampen the effect of coordinated voting for multiple candidates.

Best Professional Editor: Long Form

(1,794 Ballots, Estimated 435 Rabid Puppies)

Unchanged Finalists:
Sheila Gilbert
Liz Gorinsky
Jim Minz
Anne Sowards [nomination declined]
Toni Weisskopf

Removed Finalists:
Theodore Beale
Mike Braff [ineligible]

Added Finalists:
Anne Lesley Groell

Notes: In the Best Professional Editor Long Form category the application of E Pluribus Hugo would eliminate two slate-driven finalists (one of whom was ineligible) and replace them with a non-slate choice. It seems relatively obvious to most observers that Theodore Beale would have no support in any category other than the Rabid Puppy bloc voters, and the result of the application of E Pluribus Hugo in this category supports that notion.

Best Professional Artist

(1,481 Ballots, Estimated 350 Rabid Puppies)

Unchanged Finalists:
Larry Elmore
Michal Karcz
Abigail Larson

Removed Finalists:
Lars Braad Anderson
Larry Rostant

Added Finalists:
Julie Dillon
John Picacio

Notes: The Best Professional Artist category is another category that the application of E Pluribus Hugo would have had a reasonably notable effect upon, dropping two finalists that were supported by bloc voting and replacing them with two non-slate candidates.

Best Semi-Prozine

(1,457 Ballots, Estimated 430-450 Rabid Puppies)

Unchanged Finalists:
Beneath Ceaseless Skies edited by Scott H. Andrews, Nicole Lavigne, and Kate Marshall
Daily Science Fiction edited by Michele-Lee Barasso and Jonathan Laden
Sci Phi Journal edited by Jason Rennie
Strange Horizons edited by Catherine Krahe, Julia Rios, A.J. Odasso, Vanessa Rose Phin, Maureen Kincaid Speller, and the Strange Horizons staff
Uncanny Magazine edited by Lynne M. Thomas, Michael Damian Thomas, Michi Trota, Erika Ensign, and Steven Schapansky

Removed Finalists:
None

Added Finalists:
None

Notes: The results in the Best Semi-Prozine category are essentially unchanged by the application of E Pluribus Hugo. I estimate that Rabid Puppy voters made up roughly thirty percent of the total number of voters in this category. Based upon my rough analysis, when the size of the voting bloc supporting a slate reaches that proportion of the total, E Pluribus Hugo can do little to change the outcome. Effectively, having a third or more of the total votes appears to more or less immunize a slate against the effects of the voting system.

Best Fanzine

(1,455 Ballots, Estimated 400 Rabid Puppies)

Unchanged Finalists:
Black Gate edited by John O’Neill [withdrawn]
Castalia House Blog edited by Jeffro Johnson
File 770 edited by Mike Glyer
Lady Business edited by Clare McBride, Ira, Jodie, KJ, Renay, and Susan
Superversive SF edited by Jason Rennie
Tangent Online edited by Dave Truesdale

Removed Finalists:
None

Added Finalists:
None

Notes: Like the results in the Best Semi-Prozine category, the results in the Best Fanzine category are essentially unchanged by the application of E Pluribus Hugo. I believe the ineffectiveness of E Pluribus Hugo in this category is for much the same reason as in the Best Semi-Prozine category - the estimated number of Rabid Puppies voting as a bloc in this category approaches thirty percent of the total number of voters (27.5% to be exact). This emphasizes that merely applying E Pluribus Hugo to the ballot is not going to be sufficient to reduce the impact of bloc voting. There also needs to be a critical mass of non-bloc voters to make the voting system effective.

Best Fan Writer

(1,568 Ballots, Estimated 310-340 Rabid Puppies)

Unchanged Finalists:
Mike Glyer
Jeffro Johnson
Morgan Holmes

Removed Finalists:
Douglas Ernst
Shamus Young
Zenopus [nomination declined]

Added Finalists:
Alexandra Erin
Natalie Luhrs

Notes: One of the interesting and somewhat unexpected effects of the application of E Pluribus Hugo is the removal from the final ballot of many potential finalists who declined a slot as a finalist. Other than that wrinkle, the changed results in this category seems to be in line with what one would expect given the estimated percentage of Rabid Puppy voters - three slate-based finalists moved off of the final ballot and replaced by two non-slate finalists.

Best Fan Artist

(1,073 Ballots, Estimated 320-340 Rabid Puppies)

Unchanged Finalists:
Matthew Callahan
disse86
Kukuruyo
RGUS [nomination declined]
Christian Quinot
Steve Stiles

Removed Finalists:
None

Added Finalists:
None

Notes: Although I estimated that there were roughly the same number of Rabid Puppy bloc voters in this category as there were in the Best Fan Writer category, there were fewer ballots cast overall in this category. As a result, the concentration of Rabid Puppy voters was high enough to make E Pluribus Hugo ineffective at diluting the effects of bloc voting.

Best Fancast

(1,267 Ballots, Estimated 330 Rabid Puppies)

Unchanged Finalists:
Cane and Rinse by Cane and Rinse
HelloGreedo by HelloGreedo*
The Rageaholic by RazörFist

Removed Finalists:
8-4 Play by Mark MacDonald, John Ricciardi, Hiroko Minamoto, and Justin Epperson
Tales to Terrify by Stephen Kilpatrick

Added Finalists:
Galactic Suburbia by Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, and Tansy Rayner Roberts
Tea and Jeopardy by Emma Newman and Peter Newman

Notes: The change in the results for the Best Fancast category as a result of the application of E Pluribus Hugo is in ,ine with that in numerous other categories - two slate-based finalists fall off of the ballot and are replaced by two non-slate choices. Although this isn't quite as powerful a result as some might have hoped, this is in line with what E Pluribus Hugo was intended to do: It dilutes the power of bloc voting by reducing the ability of a voting bloc of fifteen to twenty-five percent of the voters to dictate all of the finalists in a category. It doesn't accomplish the optimal objective of reducing the impact of a voting bloc to a percentage of choices proportionate with their numbers, but it does have some effectiveness to that end.

John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer

(1,922 Ballots, Estimated 400 Rabid Puppies)

Unchanged Finalists:
Pierce Brown
Brian Niemeier
Andy Weir
Alyssa Wong

Removed Finalists:
Sebastien de Castell

Added Finalists:
Becky Chambers

Notes: The Campbell Award category, as with so many other categories, sees one slate-based finalist removed and replaced by a non-slate candidate when one applies E Pluribus Hugo to the results. One reason that the impact of E Pluribus Hugo in this category is so minimal is probably the result of substantial overlap between the preference of those within the Rabid Puppy voting bloc for Andy Weir and the preference of the general population of voters for him as well.

What Are the Hugo Awards?

Go to the 2016 list of Hugo finalists: 2016

Random Thoughts     Book Award Reviews     Home

Monday, September 26, 2016

Musical Monday - Two Ladies by Joel Grey


Two Ladies is the point in the movie Cabaret where the numbers performed in the Kit-Kat Klub very pointedly start mirroring and enhancing the plot of the action outside the club. At this point in the movie, Sally Bowles (Liza Minnelli) is living in the same boarding house as Brian Roberts (Michael York), and has been trying to start a romantic relationship with him, although he has been somewhat lukewarm in response. Their relationship is somewhat complicated by Sally's interest in the aristocratic Maximilian von Heune (Helmut Griem), although it turns out that Brian is also interested in Maximilian. Much of the early part of the movie is taken up with the intense and complicated dance the three engage in, and this song serves as a comic, almost mocking counterpoint.

The Master of Ceremonies (Joel Grey) takes to the stage with two of the Kit-Kat Dancers to extol the virtues of a three-way relationship. It is notable, however, the differences in the relationship portrayed on stage, and the actual relationship between Sally, Brian, and Maximilian. On stage, the relationship is between a man and two women, with a lesbian relationship implied, but heterosexual sex clearly is at the forefront. The on-stage trio occupy pretty standard gender roles as well, with the women staying home and the man setting out to "earn their daily bread". Sure, Grey's character is somewhat ambiguously androgynous, but they make clear in the song that he has a penis, and that he is basically the most important member of the group. By contrast, the actual relationship between Sally, Brian, and Maximilian clearly involves male homosexuality, and of the three, Sally is the only one with a regular paying job that involves leaving the home - working as a singer at the Kit-Kat Klub. Everything about the song is dedicated to reinforcing a mainstream notion about polyamorous relationships, while everything about the actual one presented in the film undercuts that.

Most critically, this portion of the movie - both as presented in song and in the "real" world - normalizes homosexuality by showing the characters as normal. Even in the song, which is clearly an over-the-top parody meant to titillate the Klub's audience with its risque theme, presents the three-way relationship as revolving around a domestic life of cooking, making beds, and working a regular job. Outside the club, Sally, Brian, and Maximilian are presented as flawed but generally decent characters, especially Brian, who is an academic, writer, and English teacher. Sally may be a little bit too bohemian to be "normal", but she is shown as being full of life and love. Maximilian is possibly the least likable of the three, but even he is shown to be entrenched in the German political structure, although his desire to control the burgeoning Nazi movement for his own political gain counts as a serious strike against him.

How these characters relate to the ever-present Nazi menace is a critical element in this movie. Though they are mostly in the background, the Nazi Party always looms over the characters, becoming more and more dangerously concrete a threat as the film goes on. The key here is that Maximilian's disdain for the Nazi's and desire to use them to his own advantage is the best reaction anyone has to the Nazis. Sally doesn't care about politics and tries to ignore them. The Master of Ceremonies mocks them repeatedly throughout the movie, while Brian works against them as much as he can, at one point getting into a futile fistfight with some Nazis on the street. Think about this: Cabaret was made in 1972, and the most prominent anti-Nazi characters on the screen are pretty much all some stripe along the Quiltbag spectrum. Not only that, they are, for the most part, presented as normal people living normal lives. They make bad decisions to be sure, but they care about one another. They have empathy for and are friends with the Jewish characters that show up in the story, even when it is dangerous to do so. They are, to the extent the movie has any, the heroes.

I first watched Cabaret when I was thirteen or fourteen. I don't remember exactly when, but I do remember where: When I was living in what was then called Zaire. I am certain that I missed a lot of the subtext of the story that time, but one thing I didn't miss was that the colorful, unconventional, and non-heterosexual characters were lined up against the Nazis. I haven't been perfect on acceptance of alternative sexualities in my life, but I credit this movie (and, actually, All That Jazz, which I watched in roughly the same time frame) with opening my eyes and pointing me in the right direction. This is the power of art and the power of representation: Who you present in a piece of fiction and how you present them matters. You never know who is going to see what you make and take a step into a wider world as a result.

Previous Musical Monday: Mein Herr by Liza Minnelli

Joel Grey     Musical Monday     Home

Sunday, September 25, 2016

2008 Hugo Longlist

One interesting wrinkle for the statistics released for the 2008 Hugo Awards by Denvention 3 is that they were substantially better presented than those that were released a year later for the 2009 Hugo Awards by Anticipation. I think that this illustrates two important points. First, although the quality of the available data concerning the Hugo statistics generally declines as one goes back further in time, it is not a strict linear regression. Some of the data for older years is in better condition than some of the data in more recent years. Second, this highlights the truth that is sometimes easy to forget that every Worldcon is a unique event. Although Denvention 3 in 2008 and Anticipation in 2009 were both "Worldcons", they were essentially two almost entirely separate events. Though they are connected by tradition, each Worldcon is essentially a brand new organization, run by an often entirely different set of people. The more one learns about the structure of the convention, the more it seems like a miracle that Worldcon happens at all. Yet Worldcon does happen every year like clockwork, complete with administering the Hugo Awards.

Best Novel

Finalists:
Brasyl by Ian McDonald
Halting State by Charles Stross
The Last Colony by John Scalzi
Rollback by Robert J. Sawyer
The Yiddish Policeman's Union by Michael Chabon [winner]

Longlisted Nominees:
Accidental Time Machine by Joe Haldeman
Axis by Robert Charles Wilson
Ha'penny by Jo Walton
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling
Mainspring by Jay Lake
Making Money by Terry Pratchett
The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss
The Prefect by Alastair Reynolds
Queen of Candesce: Book Two of Virga by Karl Schroeder
Ragamuffin by Tobias Buckell

Best Novella

Finalists:
All Seated on the Ground by Connie Willis [winner]
The Fountain of Age by Nancy Kress
Memorare by Gene Wolfe
Recovering Apollo 8 by Kristine Kathryn Rusch
Stars Seen Through Stone by Lucius Shepard

Longlisted Nominees:
Alien Archaeology by Neal Asher
Dead Money by Lucius Shepard
The Game by Wynne Jones
Illyria by Elizabeth Hand
Kiosk by Bruce Sterling
The Master Miller's Tale by Ian MacLeod
Minla's Flowers by Alastair Reynolds
Muse of Fire by Dan Simmons
The Sands of Titan by Richard A. Lovett
Womb of Every World by Walter Jon Williams

Best Novelette

Finalists:
The Cambist and Lord Iron: A Fairy Tale of Economics by Daniel Abraham
Dark Integers by Greg Egan
Finisterra by David Moles
Glory by Greg Egan
The Merchant and the Alchemist's Gate by Ted Chiang [winner]

Longlisted Nominees
The Constable of Abal by Kelly Link
Cool Neighbor by Jack McDevitt and Michael Shara
The Evolution of Trickster Stories Among the Dogs of North Park after the Change by Kij Johnson
News from the Front by Harry Turtledove
Not of the Fold by William Shunn
Quaestones Super Caelo et Mundo by Michael F. Flynn
Safeguard by Nancy Kress
Send Them Flowers by Walter Jon Williams
The Sky Is Large and the Earth Is Small by Chris Roberson
The Sun God at Dawn Rising from a Lotus Blossom by Andrea Kail
Trunk and Disorderly by Charles Stross
Where Do the Birds Fly Now? by Yamano Koichi

Best Short Story

Finalists:
Distant Replay by Mike Resnick
Last Contact by Stephen Baxter
A Small Room in Koboldtown by Michael Swanwick
Tideline by Elizabeth Bear [winner]
Who's Afraid of Wolf 359? by Ken MacLeod

Longlisted Nominees
Always by Karen Joy Fowler
Art of War by Nancy Kress
Dreaming Wind by Jeffrey Ford
Hikari by Kono Tensei
How Music Begins by James Van Pelt
Jesus Christ, Reanimator by Ken MacLeod
The Last and Only, or Mr. Moscowitz Becomes French by Peter S. Beagle
Love and Death in the Time of Monsters by Frank Wu
Osama Phone Home by David Marusek
Three Days of Rain by Holly Phillips
Titanium Mike Saves the Day by David D. Levine
Unique Chicken Goes in Reverse by Andy Duncan

Best Related Work

Finalists:
The Arrival by Shaun Tan
Brave New Worlds: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction by Jeff Prucher [winner]
Breakfast in the Ruins: Science Fiction in the Last Millennium by Barry N. Malzberg
The Company They Keep: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien as Writers in Community by Diana Glyer
Emshwiller: Infinity x Two by Luis Ortiz

Longlisted Nominees:
Alice in Sunderland by Bryan Talbot
The Country You Have Never Seen by Joanna Russ
Gateways to Forever by Mike Ashley
Girl Genius, Volume Six: Agatha Heterodyne and the Golden Trilobyte by Phil Foglio and Kaja Foglio
The Gospel According to Science Fiction by Gabriel McKee
The History of the Hobbit by John D. Rateliff
Hugo Gernsback and the Century of Science Fiction by Gary Westfahl
Spectrum 14 by Cathy Fenner and Arnie Fenner
Speculative Japan by Gene van Troyer and Grania Davis
The Unauthorized Harry Potter by Adam-Troy Castro
You're Not Fooling Anyone When You Take Your Laptop in a Coffee Shop by John Scalzi

Best Dramatic Presentation: Long Form

Finalists:
Enchanted
The Golden Compass
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Heroes, Season 1
Stardust [winner]

Longlisted Nominees:
Battlestar Galactica: Razor (extended DVD edition)
Beowulf
Hogfather
I Am Legend
The Last Mimzy
Paprika
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Ratatouille
Spider Man 3
Sunshine
Transformers

Best Dramatic Presentation: Short Form

Finalists:
Battlestar Galactica: Razor (television version)
Doctor Who: Blink [winner]
Doctor Who: Human Nature and The Family of Blood
Star Trek New Voyages: World Enough and Time
Torchwood: Captain Jack Harkness

Longlisted Nominees:
Battlestar Galactica: Crossroads
Family Guy: Blue Harvest
Heroes: How to Stop an Exploding Man
Lifted
Lost: Through the Looking Glass
Pushing Daisies: Dummy
Pushing Daisies: Pie-lette
Robot Chicken: Star Wars
Stargate SG-1: Unending
Torchwood: Out of Time

Best Professional Editor: Short Form

Finalists:
Ellen Datlow
Stanley Schmidt
Jonathan Strahan
Gordon van Gelder [winner]
Sheila Williams

Longlisted Nominees:
Lou Anders
Gardner Dozois
Eric Flint
Eric Flint and Mike Resnick
David G. Hartwell
John Klima
Jay Lake
Kelly Link
George Mann
Shawna McCarthy
Mike Resnick
William Sanders

Best Professional Editor: Long Form

Finalists:
Lou Anders
Ginjer Buchanan
David G. Hartwell [winner]
Beth Meacham
Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Longlisted Nominees:
Ellen Asher
James Frenkel
Anne Groell
Betsy Mitchell
Jim Minz
Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Sharyn November
Bill Shafer
Juliet Ulman
Toni Weisskopf

Best Professional Artist

Finalists:
Bob Eggleton
Phil Foglio
Donato Giancola [nomination declined]
John Harris
Stephan Martiniere [winner]
John Picacio
Shaun Tan

Longlisted Nominees:
Jim Burns
Kinuko Craft
Dan Dos Santos
Michael Komarck
Alan Lee
Todd Lockwood
John-Pierre Normand
John Jude Palencar

Best Semi-Prozine

Finalists:
Ansible edited by David Langford
Interzone edited by Andy Cox
Helix edited by William Sanders and Lawrence Watt-Evans
Locus edited by Charles N. Brown, Kirsten Gong-Wong, and Liza Groen Trombi [winner]
The New York Review of Science Fiction edited by Kathryn Cramer, Kristine Dikeman, David G. Hartwell, and Kevin J. Maroney

Longlisted Nominees:
Abyss & Apex edited by Wendy S. Delmater
Apex Digest edited by Jasone Sizemore
Clarkesworld edited by Neil Clarke and Nick Mamatas
Internet Review of Science Fiction edited by Stacey Janssen
Jim Baen's Universe edited by Eric Flint and Mike Resnick
Lady Churchill's Rosebud Wristlet edited by Gavin Grant and Kelly Link
On Spec edited by Diane Walton
Postscripts edited by Peter Crowther and Nick Gevers
Strange Horizons edited by Susan Marie Groppi, Jed Hartman, and Karen Meisner
Subterranean Magazine edited by William Schafer
Talebones edited by Patrick Swenson
Weird Tales edited by Stephen H. Segal

Best Fanzine

Finalists:
Argentus edited by Steven H Silver
Challenger edited by Guy Lillian, III
Drink Tank edited by Christopher J. Garcia
File 770 edited by Mike Glyer [winner]
Plokta edited by Alison Scott, Steve Davies, and Mike Scott

Longlisted Nominees:
Alexiad edited by Joseph Major
Askance edited by John Purcell
Banana Wings edited by Claire Brialey and Mark Plummer
Bento edited by Kate Yule and David Levine
Chunga edited by Andy Hooper, Randy Byers, and Carl Juarez
Electric Velocipede edited by John Klima
Pat's Fantasy Holiday edited by Patrick of Montreal
Prolapse edited by Peter Weston
SF Signal edited by J.P. Frantz
SF/SF edited by Jean Martin and Christopher J. Garcia
Trapdoor edited by Robert Lichtman

Best Fan Writer

Finalists:
Christopher J. Garcia
David Langford
Cheryl Morgan
John Scalzi [winner]
Steven H Silver

Longlisted Nominees:
James Bacon
Claire Brialey
Mike Glyer
John Hertz
Jay Lake
Guy Lillian, III
Joseph T. Major
James Nicoll
Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Kevin Standlee
Frank Wu

Best Fan Artist

Finalists:
Brad Foster [winner]
Teddy Harvia
Sue Mason
Steve Stiles
Taral Wayne
Frank Wu [nomination declined]

Longlisted Nominees:
Alan F. Beck
Kirk Erichsen
Alexis Gilliland
Laura Givens
Kiriko Moth
Mark Schirmeister
Spring Schoenhuth
Dan Steffan
Alan White

John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer

Finalists:
Joe Abercrombie
John Armstrong
Jeff Carlson [ineligible]
David Anthony Durham
David Louis Edelman
Mary Robinette Kowal [winner]
Scott Lynch

Longlisted Nominees:
Aliette de Bodard
Mark Ferrari
Samantha Henderson
William Ledbetter
C. Sanford Lowe
Andrea Kail
Joshua Palmatier
Tony Pi
William Preston
Patrick Rothfuss

Go to previous year's longlist: 2007
Go to subsequent year's longlist: 2009

Go to 2008 Hugo Finalists and Winners

Hugo Longlist Project     Book Award Reviews     Home

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Book Blogger Hop September 23rd - September 29th: 171 Is Slang for "Scam" or "Swindler" in Brazilian Portuguese

Book Blogger Hop

Jen at Crazy for Books restarted her weekly Book Blogger Hop to help book bloggers connect with one another, but then couldn't continue, so she handed the hosting responsibilities off to Ramblings of a Coffee Addicted Writer. The only requirements to participate in the Hop are to write and link a post answering the weekly question and then visit other blogs that are also participating to see if you like their blog and would like to follow them.

This week Billy asks: How many years have you been blogging? Anything special you want to tell everyone about your experiences?

I started this blog in February of 2008, so I've been blogging for a bit more than eight years now. I'm not sure how special my experiences might be, but I have learned some things over the years. For example, I now know to expect that anything you write will take at least twice as long to write as you expect it to.

I have also learned that I have no idea what blog posts will be a hit and what ones will not. My most popular two blog posts are a review of the Danielle Steele book The Ring, and a review of the Roald Dahl book Boy: Tales of Childhood. I have no idea why those two reviews get the most hits, but they are my most popular posts by a wide margin.

I have learned that the distance between a small scale blogger like me and professional authors, editors, and publishers isn't nearly as large as I believed it to be when I started. I now know that a lot of small press publishers will send review copies of their books out hoping to get a review on even a smallish blog like this one.

Experience has taught me that the spam filter is your friend, and it is wise to keep comment moderation turned on. Odds are that at some point, some people will be outraged by something you've written and will try to fill your comments section with crap. Cutting them off before their vitriol ever sees the light of day works better than anything else I've ever tried.

Most of all, I've learned that you have to write about what fascinates you first and foremost, because otherwise you'll never be willing to put in the time writing even if you aren't sure anyone else will ever read the end result.


Book Blogger Hop     Home

Friday, September 23, 2016

Follow Friday - 272 Is the Sum of Four Consecutive Prime Numbers


It's Friday again, and this means it's time for Follow Friday. There has been a slight change to the format, as now there are two Follow Friday hosts blogs and a single Follow Friday Featured Blogger each week. To join the fun and make now book blogger friends, just follow these simple rules:
  1. Follow both of the Follow My Book Blog Friday Hosts (Parajunkee and Alison Can Read) and any one else you want to follow on the list.
  2. Follow the Featured Blogger of the week - The Bookish Loner.
  3. Put your Blog name and URL in the Linky thing.
  4. Grab the button up there and place it in a post, this post is for people to find a place to say hi in your comments.
  5. Follow, follow, follow as many as you can, as many as you want, or just follow a few. The whole point is to make new friends and find new blogs. Also, don't just follow, comment and say hi. Another blogger might not know you are a new follower if you don't say "Hi".
  6. If someone comments and says they are following you, be a dear and follow back. Spread the love . . . and the followers.
  7. If you want to show the link list, just follow the link below the entries and copy and paste it within your post!
  8. If you're new to the Follow Friday Hop, comment and let me know, so I can stop by and check out your blog!
And now for the Follow Friday Question: What's Your Book Betrayal Story? (Someone borrowed a book and destroyed it? Waited for a book for forever and it was terrible?)

I don't lend books any more. At least not unless I'm willing to never get them back, because nobody every returns books. Ever. For a time, I would break this rule every now and then, usually with someone I thought I could trust to return the book. It never worked out. I even once lent a book to an Eagle scout I was working with when my son was in the Boy Scouts. I never got the book back. I never get books back after I lend them. I've been betrayed on this score so often, that I just don't do it unless I'm willing to say goodbye to that particular copy of the book forever.


Follow Friday     Home

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Random Thought - Separating the Sad Puppies from the Rabid Puppies in the 2016 "What Could Have Been" Hugo Finalists

Following my 2016 "What Could Have Been" Hugo Finalists post yesterday, I received a message noting that it would be interesting to separate out the Sad Puppy and Rabid Puppy votes to see what impact each faction had on the ballot. That is actually an interesting question, but possibly not for the reason the person asking it might have thought. To that end, in each category I am listing four possible arrays of potential finalists. The first is the finalists as they appeared on the actual Hugo ballot. The second is what the finalists look like if one edits the votes I estimated for the Sad Puppies out of the nomination totals, while the third is what the finalists look like if one edits the votes I estimated for the Rabid Puppies out of the nomination totals. The fourth is what the finalists look like after one edits out my estimated totals for both the Sad and Rabid Puppies. The first and the fourth list are not new data: The original list of finalists can be found in my post about the 2016 Hugo Award Finalists, while the fourth can be found in my 2016 "What Could Have Been" Hugo Finalists post.

What is quite interesting is that splitting the data in this manner reveals just how little impact the Sad Puppies actually had on the Hugo ballot in 2016. This confirms my initial reaction to the question that was posed concerning the isolated effect of the two Puppy campaigns, which was "eliminating just the Sad Puppy votes would have essentially no effect, while eliminating just the Rabid Puppy votes would have the same effect as eliminating both the Sad and Rabid Puppy votes". With a very tiny number of exceptions, the list of original finalists is the same as the list of revised finalists with just the estimated number of Sad Puppy votes removed from those candidates who appeared on the Sad Puppy recommended list. In a similar manner, the list of revised finalists with the estimated number of Rabid Puppy votes removed from those candidates from the Rabid Puppy slate is almost identical to the list of revised finalists with estimated number of both Sad and Rabid Puppies removed from the appropriate nominees. In short, removing the Sad Puppy nominations from the pool has a negligible effect on the resulting ballot, whether one does such removal in conjunction with removing the Rabid Puppy nominations, or one removes the Sad Puppy nominations independently. The Sad Puppies were, to be blunt, of almost no importance to the outcome of the Hugo nominating process. As Anne Bellet told Brad Torgersen concerning Beale's Rabid Puppies in 2015, "Dude, you’re in the same car, and Vox Day is driving". Without the Rabid Puppies, the Sad Puppies are virtually irrelevant.

After each of the four sets of alternative finalists in the categories, I'll be writing a few notes about the changes. I'm not really going to go into the quality of the changes, just the magnitude. I've already given my assessment of the effect of the Sad and Rabid Puppy slates in the previous post. The short version is simply this: To the extent that the Sad or Rabid Puppies had an impact on the quality of the Hugo finalists, it was almost universally negative. There are exceptions here and there where the Puppy impact was more or less neutral, but overall, they have degraded the quality of the Hugo finalists in every year that they have been active. That said, on to the categories.

Best Novel

Original Finalists:
Ancillary Mercy by Ann Leckie
The Cinder Spires: The Aeronaut’s Windlass by Jim Butcher
The Fifth Season by N.K. Jemisin
Seveneves: A Novel by Neal Stephenson
Uprooted by Naomi Novik

Revised Finalists (Sad Puppies Removed):
Ancillary Mercy by Ann Leckie
The Cinder Spires: The Aeronaut’s Windlass by Jim Butcher
The Fifth Season by N.K. Jemisin
Seveneves: A Novel by Neal Stephenson
Uprooted by Naomi Novik

Revised Finalists (Rabid Puppies Removed):
Ancillary Mercy by Ann Leckie
Aurora by Kim Stanley Robinson
The Fifth Season by N.K. Jemisin
Seveneves by Neal Stephenson
Uprooted by Naomi Novik

Revised Finalists (Both Sad and Rabid Puppies Removed):
Ancillary Mercy by Ann Leckie
Aurora by Kim Stanley Robinson
The Fifth Season by N.K. Jemisin
Seveneves by Neal Stephenson
Uprooted by Naomi Novik

Notes: The overall Puppy influence on the Best Novel category was modest, amounting to one change when either the Rabid Puppies or the Sad and Rabid Puppies are edited out of the totals. This is largely because the Best Novel category generally has the most participants, limiting the ability of a slate to dominate, and because the Rabid Puppies tried to piggyback their slate onto one work that was generally popular with non-Puppy voters. The Sad Puppies by themselves had zero impact.

Best Novella

Original Finalists:
Binti by Nnedi Okorafor
The Builders by Daniel Polansky
Penric’s Demon by Lois McMaster Bujold
Perfect State by Brandon Sanderson
Slow Bullets by Alastair Reynolds

Revised Finalists (Sad Puppies Removed):
Binti by Nnedi Okorafor
Fear of the Unknown and Self-Loathing in Hollywood by Nick Cole
Penric’s Demon by Lois McMaster Bujold
Perfect State by Brandon Sanderson
Slow Bullets by Alastair Reynolds

Revised Finalists (Rabid Puppies Removed):
Binti by Nnedi Okorafor
The Pauper Prince and the Eucalyptus Jinn by Usman T. Malik
Penric's Demon by Lois McMaster Bujold
Slow Bullets by Alastair Reynolds
Waters of Versailles by Kelly Robson

Revised Finalists (Both Sad and Rabid Puppies Removed):
Binti by Nnedi Okorafor
The Pauper Prince and the Eucalyptus Jinn by Usman T. Malik
Penric's Demon by Lois McMaster Bujold
Slow Bullets by Alastair Reynolds
Waters of Versailles by Kelly Robson

Notes: The Sad Puppies had a slight impact on the finalists in the Best Novella category. If one edits out only the Sad Puppy support, Daniel Polansky's story The Builders loses enough support to put Nick Cole's Rabid Puppy slated work Fear of the Unknown and Self-Loathing in Hollywood onto the list of finalists. Editing out just the Rabid Puppies or both the Sad and Rabid Puppies gives identical results, dropping Polansky's The Builders and Sanderson's Perfect State in favor of Malik's The Pauper Prince and the Eucalyptus Jinn and Robson's Waters of Versailles.

Best Novelette

Original Finalists:
And You Shall Know Her by the Trail of Dead by Brooke Bolander
Flashpoint: Titan by Cheah Kai Wai
Folding Beijing by Hao Jingfang, translated by Ken Liu
Obits by Stephen King
What Price Humanity? by David VanDyke

Revised Finalists (Sad Puppies Removed):
And You Shall Know Her by the Trail of Dead by Brooke Bolander
Flashpoint: Titan by Cheah Kai Wai
Folding Beijing by Hao Jingfang, translated by Ken Liu
Obits by Stephen King
What Price Humanity? by David VanDyke

Revised Finalists (Rabid Puppies Removed):
And You Shall Know Her by the Trail of Dead by Brooke Bolander
Another Word for World by Ann Leckie
The Long Goodnight of Violet Wild by Catherynne M. Valente (reviewed in Clarkesworld: Issue 100 (January 2015))
Our Lady of the Open Road by Sarah Pinsker
So Much Cooking by Naomi Kritzer

And possibly:
Folding Beijing by Hao Jingfang, translated by Ken Liu

Revised Finalists (Both Sad and Rabid Puppies Removed):
And You Shall Know Her by the Trail of Dead by Brooke Bolander
Another Word for World by Ann Leckie
The Long Goodnight of Violet Wild by Catherynne M. Valente (reviewed in Clarkesworld: Issue 100 (January 2015))
Our Lady of the Open Road by Sarah Pinsker
So Much Cooking by Naomi Kritzer

And possibly:
Folding Beijing by Hao Jingfang, translated by Ken Liu

Notes: Editing out just the Sad Puppy votes yields the same result as the original ballot. Editing out the Rabid Puppy votes results yields the same result as editing out both the Sad and Rabid Puppy votes. The Sad Puppies simply didn't have any real impact on the results in this category.

Best Short Story

Original Finalists:
Asymmetrical Warfare by S.R. Algernon (reviewed in 2016 Hugo Voting - Best Short Story)
The Commuter by Thomas A. Mays [withdrawn]
If You Were an Award, My Love by Juan Tabo and S. Harris (reviewed in 2016 Hugo Voting - Best Short Story)
Seven Kill Tiger by Charles Shao (reviewed in 2016 Hugo Voting - Best Short Story)
Space Raptor Butt Invasion by Chuck Tingle (reviewed in 2016 Hugo Voting - Best Short Story)

Revised Finalists (Sad Puppies Removed):
Asymmetrical Warfare by S.R. Algernon (reviewed in 2016 Hugo Voting - Best Short Story)
The Commuter by Thomas A. Mays [withdrawn]
If You Were an Award, My Love by Juan Tabo and S. Harris (reviewed in 2016 Hugo Voting - Best Short Story)
Seven Kill Tiger by Charles Shao (reviewed in 2016 Hugo Voting - Best Short Story)
Space Raptor Butt Invasion by Chuck Tingle (reviewed in 2016 Hugo Voting - Best Short Story)

Revised Finalists (Rabid Puppies Removed):
Hungry Daughters of Starving Mothers by Alyssa Wong
Today I Am Paul by Martin L. Shoemaker (reviewed in 2016 WSFA Small Press Award Voting); and
Tuesdays with Molokesh the Destroyer by Megan Gray
Wooden Feathers by Ursula Vernon

Revised Finalists (Both Sad and Rabid Puppies Removed):
Hungry Daughters of Starving Mothers by Alyssa Wong
Wooden Feathers by Ursula Vernon

Plus two (or possibly three) of:
Madeleine by Amal El-Mohtar;
Pocosin by Ursula Vernon;
Today I Am Paul by Martin L. Shoemaker (reviewed in 2016 WSFA Small Press Award Voting); and
Tuesdays with Molokesh the Destroyer by Megan Gray

Notes: Editing out just the Sad Puppy votes has no impact on this category. Editing out just the Rabid Puppy votes yields a clearer result than editing out both the Sad and Rabid Puppy votes, mostly because one doesn't have to figure out how much Sad Puppy support to attribute to (and deduct from the totals for) Today I Am Paul and Tuesdays with Molokesh the Destroyer.

Best Related Work

Original Finalists:
Between Light and Shadow: An Exploration of the Fiction of Gene Wolfe, 1951 to 1986 by Marc Aramini
The First Draft of My Appendix N Book by Jeffro Johnson
Safe Space as Rape Room by Daniel Eness
SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Theodore Beale
The Story of Moira Greyland by Moira Greyland

Revised Finalists (Sad Puppies Removed):
Between Light and Shadow: An Exploration of the Fiction of Gene Wolfe, 1951 to 1986 by Marc Aramini
The First Draft of My Appendix N Book by Jeffro Johnson
Safe Space as Rape Room by Daniel Eness
SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Theodore Beale
The Story of Moira Greyland by Moira Greyland

Revised Finalists (Rabid Puppies Removed):
Invisible 2 edited by Jim Hines
John Scalzi Is Not a Very Popular Author and I Myself Am Quite Popular: How SJWs Always Lie About Our Comparative Popularity Levels by Theophilus Pratt (aka Alexandra Erin)
Letters to Tiptree edited by Alisa Krasnostein and Alexandra Pierce
Lois McMaster Bujold by Edward James
You're Never Weird on the Internet (Almost) by Felicia Day

Revised Finalists (Both Sad and Rabid Puppies Removed):
Invisible 2 edited by Jim Hines
John Scalzi Is Not a Very Popular Author and I Myself Am Quite Popular: How SJWs Always Lie About Our Comparative Popularity Levels by Theophilus Pratt (aka Alexandra Erin)
Letters to Tiptree edited by Alisa Krasnostein and Alexandra Pierce
Lois McMaster Bujold by Edward James
You're Never Weird on the Internet (Almost) by Felicia Day

Notes: This is another category in which editing just the Sad Puppy votes out of the totals has no impact, and there is no difference between the results one gets from editing out just the Rabid Puppy votes and both the Sad and Rabid Puppy votes. The Sad Puppy voting contingent simply had no effect on this category.

Best Graphic Story

Original Finalists:
The Divine written by Boaz Lavie, art by Asaf Hanuka and Tomer Hanuka
Erin Dies Alone written by Grey Carter, art by Cory Rydell
Full Frontal Nerdity by Aaron Williams
Invisible Republic, Volume 01 written by Corinna Bechko and Gabriel Hardman, art by Gabriel Hardman
The Sandman: Overture written by Neil Gaiman, art by J.H. Williams III

Revised Finalists (Sad Puppies Removed):
The Divine written by Boaz Lavie, art by Asaf Hanuka and Tomer Hanuka
Erin Dies Alone written by Grey Carter, art by Cory Rydell
Full Frontal Nerdity by Aaron Williams
The Sandman: Overture written by Neil Gaiman, art by J.H. Williams III

Plus either:
Invisible Republic, Volume 01 written by Corinna Bechko and Gabriel Hardman, art by Gabriel Hardman

Revised Finalists (Rabid Puppies Removed):
Nimona by Noelle Stevenson
Saga, Volume 5 by Brian K. Vaughn and Fiona Staples
The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl, Volume 1: Squirrel Power by Ryan North and Erica Henderson

Revised Finalists (Both Sad and Rabid Puppies Removed):
Nimona by Noelle Stevenson
The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl, Volume 1: Squirrel Power by Ryan North and Erica Henderson

Plus either:
The Sandman: Overture by Neil Gaiman and J.H. Williams, III; or
Saga, Volume 5 by Brian K. Vaughn and Fiona Staples

Notes: Editing out just the Sad Puppies potentially drops Invisible Republic, Volume 01 from the ballot in favor of Bitch Planet, Book One: Extraordinary Machine. Editing out just the Rabid Puppies yields a clearer result then editing out both the Sad and Rabid Puppies, once again because one does not have to try to determine how much support a Sad Puppy selection had, in this case, Saga 5. Dividing up the factions this way does make clear that The Sandman: Overture probably only reached the list of Hugo finalists because of Rabid Puppy support, and would have had insufficient votes absent the actions of the slate voters.

Best Dramatic Presentation: Long Form

Original Finalists:
Avengers: Age of Ultron written and directed by Joss Whedon
Ex Machina written and directed by Alex Garland
Mad Max: Fury Road written by George Miller, Brendan McCarthy, and Nico Lathouris
The Martian screenplay by Drew Goddard
Star Wars: The Force Awakens written by Lawrence Kasdan, J.J. Abrams, and Michael Arndt

Revised Finalists (Sad Puppies Removed):
Avengers: Age of Ultron written and directed by Joss Whedon
Ex Machina written and directed by Alex Garland
Mad Max: Fury Road written by George Miller, Brendan McCarthy, and Nico Lathouris
The Martian screenplay by Drew Goddard
Star Wars: The Force Awakens written by Lawrence Kasdan, J.J. Abrams, and Michael Arndt

Revised Finalists (Rabid Puppies Removed):
Ex Machina
Inside Out
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Revised Finalists (Both Sad and Rabid Puppies Removed):
Ex Machina
Inside Out
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Notes: This category was minimally affected by the combined strength of the Sad and Rabid Puppies, and without their allies, the Sad Puppies had no impact at all. The results yielded by editing out the Rabid Puppies are identical to the results yielded by editing out both the Sad and Rabid Puppies. The actions of the Sad Puppies had no independent effect.

Best Dramatic Presentation: Short Form

Original Finalists:
Doctor Who: Heaven Sent written by Steven Moffat
Grimm: Headache written by Jim Kouf and David Greenwalt
Jessica Jones: AKA Smile written by Scott Reynolds, Melissa Rosenberg, and Jamie King
My Little Pony, Friendship Is Magic: The Cutie Map, Parts 1 and 2, written by Scott Sonneborn, M.A. Larson, and Meghan McCarthy
Supernatural: Just My Imagination written by Jenny Klein

Revised Finalists (Sad Puppies Removed):
Doctor Who: Heaven Sent written by Steven Moffat
Grimm: Headache written by Jim Kouf and David Greenwalt
Jessica Jones: AKA Smile written by Scott Reynolds, Melissa Rosenberg, and Jamie King
My Little Pony, Friendship Is Magic: The Cutie Map, Parts 1 and 2, written by Scott Sonneborn, M.A. Larson, and Meghan McCarthy
Supernatural: Just My Imagination written by Jenny Klein

Revised Finalists (Rabid Puppies Removed):
Doctor Who: Heaven Sent
The Expanse: CQB
The Expanse: Dulcinea
Game of Thrones: Hardhome
Jessica Jones: AKA Smile
Person of Interest: If-Then-Else

Revised Finalists (Both Sad and Rabid Puppies Removed):
Doctor Who: Heaven Sent
The Expanse: CQB
The Expanse: Dulcinea
Game of Thrones: Hardhome
Jessica Jones: AKA Smile

Notes: Once again, editing out just the Sad Puppy votes has no impact on the ballot in this category. Editing out just the Rabid Puppies has the odd effect of adding one finalist, as Person of Interest: If-Then-Else would have tied for fifth place with The Expanse: Dulcinea. Other than that one minor wrinkle, the results are the same when one edits out just the Rabid Puppy votes and when one edits out the Sad and Rabid Puppy votes.

Best Professional Editor: Short Form

Original Finalists:
John Joseph Adams
Neil Clarke
Ellen Datlow
Jerry Pournelle
Sheila Williams

Revised Finalists (Sad Puppies Removed):
John Joseph Adams
Neil Clarke
Ellen Datlow
Jerry Pournelle
Sheila Williams

Revised Finalists (Rabid Puppies Removed):
John Joseph Adams
Neil Clarke
Ellen Datlow
C.C. Finlay
Sheila Williams

Revised Finalists (Both Sad and Rabid Puppies Removed):
John Joseph Adams
Neil Clarke
Ellen Datlow
C.C. Finlay
Sheila Williams

Notes: Editing out the Sad Puppy votes doesn't change the original ballot at all. Editing out the Rabid Puppy votes has the same effect as editing out both the Sad and Rabid Puppy votes.

Best Professional Editor: Long Form

Original Finalists:
Theodore Beale
Liz Gorinsky
Sheila E. Gilbert
Jim Minz
Toni Weisskopf

Revised Finalists (Sad Puppies Removed):
Theodore Beale
Liz Gorinsky
Sheila E. Gilbert
Jim Minz
Toni Weisskopf

Revised Finalists (Rabid Puppies Removed):
Sheila Gilbert
Liz Gorinsky
Anne Lesley Groell
Devi Pillai
Toni Weisskopf

Revised Finalists (Both Sad and Rabid Puppies Removed):
Sheila Gilbert
Liz Gorinsky
Anne Lesley Groell
Devi Pillai
Toni Weisskopf

Notes: Editing out the Sad Puppy votes doesn't change the original ballot at all. Editing out the Rabid Puppy votes has the same effect as editing out both the Sad and Rabid Puppy votes. Again.

Best Professional Artist

Original Finalists:
Lars Braad Andersen
Larry Elmore
Abigail Larson
Michal Karcz
Larry Rostant

Revised Finalists (Sad Puppies Removed):
Lars Braad Andersen
Larry Elmore
Abigail Larson
Michal Karcz
Larry Rostant

Revised Finalists (Rabid Puppies Removed):
Galen Dara
Julie Dillon
Michal Karcz
John Picacio
Cynthia Sheppard

Revised Finalists (Both Sad and Rabid Puppies Removed):
Galen Dara
Julie Dillon
John Picacio
Cynthia Sheppard

Plus one of:
Larry Elmore; or
Michal Karcz

Notes: Removing just the Sad Puppy votes has no impact on the ballot. Removing just the Rabid Puppy votes definitively bumps Larry Elmore off of the ballot. Removing both the Sad and Rabid Puppy votes brings Elmore back into play as a possible finalist. This category is the one in which the Sad Puppies seem to have had the most overall impact, but only when their votes are assessed in conjunction with those of the Rabid Puppies. Even in a category where they arguably had the most impact, the Sad Puppies are dependent upon the Rabid Puppies.

Best Semi-Prozine

Original Finalists:
Beneath Ceaseless Skies edited by Scott H. Andrews, Nicole Lavigne, and Kate Marshall
Daily Science Fiction edited by Michele-Lee Barasso and Jonathan Laden
Sci Phi Journal edited by Jason Rennie
Strange Horizons edited by Catherine Krahe, Julia Rios, A.J. Odasso, Vanessa Rose Phin, Maureen Kincaid Speller, and the Strange Horizons staff
Uncanny Magazine edited by Lynne M. Thomas, Michael Damian Thomas, Michi Trota, Erika Ensign, and Steven Schapansky

Revised Finalists (Sad Puppies Removed):
Abyss & Apex edited by Wendy S. Delmater
Beneath Ceaseless Skies edited by Scott H. Andrews, Nicole Lavigne, and Kate Marshall
Daily Science Fiction edited by Michele-Lee Barasso and Jonathan Laden
Strange Horizons edited by Catherine Krahe, Julia Rios, A.J. Odasso, Vanessa Rose Phin, Maureen Kincaid Speller, and the Strange Horizons staff
Uncanny Magazine edited by Lynne M. Thomas, Michael Damian Thomas, Michi Trota, Erika Ensign, and Steven Schapansky

Revised Finalists (Rabid Puppies Removed):
Beneath Ceaseless Skies edited by Scott H. Andrews
The Book Smugglers edited by Thea James and Ana Grilo
Lightspeed Magazine edited by John Joseph Adams
Strange Horizons edited by Catherine Krahe, Julia Rios, A.J. Odasso, Vanessa Rose Phin, and Maureen Kincaid Speller
Uncanny Magazine edited by Lynne M. Thomas, Michael Damian Thomas, Michi Trota, Erika Ensign, and Steven Schapansky

Revised Finalists (Both Sad and Rabid Puppies Removed):
Beneath Ceaseless Skies edited by Scott H. Andrews
The Book Smugglers edited by Thea James and Ana Grilo
Lightspeed Magazine edited by John Joseph Adams
Strange Horizons edited by Catherine Krahe, Julia Rios, A.J. Odasso, Vanessa Rose Phin, and Maureen Kincaid Speller
Uncanny Magazine edited by Lynne M. Thomas, Michael Damian Thomas, Michi Trota, Erika Ensign, and Steven Schapansky

Notes: Removing just the Sad Puppy votes knocks off Daily Science Fiction in favor of the Rabid Puppy supported Abyss & Apex. This is one of a few instances in which eliminating the Sad Puppy votes would have worked to the benefit of the Rabid Puppy slate. On the other end of the scale, removing just the Rabid Puppy votes results in a ballot identical to what one would get if one were to remove both the Sad and Rabid Puppy votes.

Best Fanzine

Original Finalists:
Black Gate edited by John O’Neill [withdrawn]
Castalia House Blog edited by Jeffro Johnson
File 770 edited by Mike Glyer
Lady Business edited by Clare McBride, Ira, Jodie, KJ, Renay, and Susan
Superversive SF edited by Jason Rennie
Tangent Online edited by Dave Truesdale

Revised Finalists (Sad Puppies Removed):
Black Gate edited by John O’Neill [withdrawn]
Castalia House Blog edited by Jeffro Johnson
File 770 edited by Mike Glyer
Lady Business edited by Clare McBride, Ira, Jodie, KJ, Renay, and Susan
Superversive SF edited by Jason Rennie
Tangent Online edited by Dave Truesdale

Revised Finalists (Rabid Puppies Removed):
A Dribble of Ink edited by Aidan Moher
File 770 edited by Mike Glyer
Journey Planet edited by James Bacon and Christopher J. Garcia
Lady Business edited by Clare, Ira, Jodie, K.J., Renay, and Susan
Rocket Stack Rank edited by Greg Hullender and Eric Wong

Revised Finalists (Both Sad and Rabid Puppies Removed):
A Dribble of Ink edited by Aidan Moher
File 770 edited by Mike Glyer
Journey Planet edited by James Bacon and Christopher J. Garcia
Lady Business edited by Clare, Ira, Jodie, K.J., Renay, and Susan
Rocket Stack Rank edited by Greg Hullender and Eric Wong

Notes: Editing out the Sad Puppy votes doesn't change the original ballot at all. Editing out the Rabid Puppy votes has the same effect as editing out both the Sad and Rabid Puppy votes. Yet again.

Best Fan Writer

Original Finalists:
Douglas Ernst
Mike Glyer
Morgan Holmes
Jeffro Johnson
Shamus Young

Revised Finalists (Sad Puppies Removed):
Alexandra Erin
Douglas Ernst
Morgan Holmes
Jeffro Johnson
Shamus Young

Revised Finalists (Rabid Puppies Removed):
Alexandra Erin
Eric Flint
Mike Glyer
Natalie Luhrs
Mark Oshiro

Revised Finalists (Both Sad and Rabid Puppies Removed):
Alexandra Erin
Mike Glyer
Natalie Luhrs
Mark Oshiro
Abigail Nussbaum

Notes: Editing out the Sad Puppy votes removes (in a somewhat ironic twist) enough support for Mike Glyer that he is replaced on the ballot with Alexandra Erin. Editing out just the Rabid Puppy votes yields a ballot that is mostly the same as editing out both the Sad and Rabid Puppy votes, except that Abigail Nussbaum does not make the final ballot, with Eric Flint taking the slot instead.

Best Fan Artist

Original Finalists:
Matthew Callahan
disse86
Kukuruyo
Christian Quinot
Steve Stiles

Revised Finalists (Sad Puppies Removed):
Matthew Callahan
disse86
Kukuruyo
Christian Quinot
Steve Stiles

Revised Finalists (Rabid Puppies Removed):
Brad W. Foster
Megan Lara
Michal Karcz
Likhain (aka Mia S)
Steve Stiles

Revised Finalists (Both Sad and Rabid Puppies Removed):
Brad W. Foster
Megan Lara
Likhain (aka Mia S)
Richard Man
Steve Stiles

Notes: Removing just the Sad Puppy votes does not change the original ballot at all. Removing just the Rabid Puppy votes leaves Michal Karcz on the ballot instead of Richard Man, but otherwise gives the same results as removing both the Sad and Rabid Puppy votes.

Best Fancast

Original Finalists:
8-4 Play by Mark MacDonald, John Ricciardi, Hiroko Minamoto, and Justin Epperson
Cane and Rinse by Cane and Rinse
HelloGreedo by HelloGreedo
The Rageaholic by RazörFist
Tales to Terrify by Stephen Kilpatrick

Revised Finalists (Sad Puppies Removed):
8-4 Play by Mark MacDonald, John Ricciardi, Hiroko Minamoto, and Justin Epperson
Cane and Rinse by Cane and Rinse
HelloGreedo by HelloGreedo
The Rageaholic by RazörFist
Tales to Terrify by Stephen Kilpatrick

Revised Finalists (Rabid Puppies Removed):
Fangirl Happy Hour by Renay Williams and Ana Grilo
Galactic Suburbia by Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, and Tansy Rayner Roberts
The Skiffy and Fanty Show by Shaun Duke, Paul Weimer, Julia Rios, David Annandale, Mike Underwood, Rachael Acks, and Jennifer Zink
Tea and Jeopardy by Emma Newman and Peter Newman
Verity! by Deborah Stanish, Erika Ensign, Katrina Griffiths, L.M. Myles, Lynne M. Thomas, and Tansy Rayner Roberts

Revised Finalists (Both Sad and Rabid Puppies Removed):
Fangirl Happy Hour by Renay Williams and Ana Grilo
Galactic Suburbia by Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, and Tansy Rayner Roberts
The Skiffy and Fanty Show by Shaun Duke, Paul Weimer, Julia Rios, David Annandale, Mike Underwood, Rachael Acks, and Jennifer Zink
Tea and Jeopardy by Emma Newman and Peter Newman
Verity! by Deborah Stanish, Erika Ensign, Katrina Griffiths, L.M. Myles, Lynne M. Thomas, and Tansy Rayner Roberts

Notes: Editing out the Sad Puppy votes doesn't change the original ballot at all. Editing out the Rabid Puppy votes has the same effect as editing out both the Sad and Rabid Puppy votes. Yes, yet again. This is becoming something of a broken record.

John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer

Original Finalists:
Pierce Brown
Sebastien de Castell
Brian Niemeier
Andy Weir
Alyssa Wong

Revised Finalists (Sad Puppies Removed):
Pierce Brown
Cheah Kai Wei
Brian Niemeier
Andy Weir
Alyssa Wong

Revised Finalists (Rabid Puppies Removed):
Becky Chambers
Sunil Patel
Kelly Robson
Andy Weir
Alyssa Wong

Revised Finalists (Both Sad and Rabid Puppies Removed):
Becky Chambers
Sunil Patel
Kelly Robson
Andy Weir
Alyssa Wong

Notes: Editing out the Sad Puppy votes bumps Sebastien de Castell off of the list of Campbell award finalists, and replaced him with Rabid Puppy pick Cheah Kai Wei. Editing just the Rabid Puppy votes out of the results gives the same list of finalists that editing out both the Sad and Rabid Puppy votes does.

What Are the Hugo Awards?

Random Thoughts     Book Award Reviews     Home