{"id":10824,"date":"2019-07-31T10:11:19","date_gmt":"2019-07-31T10:11:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sfmagazines.com\/?p=10824"},"modified":"2019-07-31T13:26:01","modified_gmt":"2019-07-31T13:26:01","slug":"the-2019-hugo-award-1944-retro-hugo-award-finalists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sfmagazines.com\/?p=10824","title":{"rendered":"The 2019 Hugo Award & 1944 Retro Hugo Award Finalists"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

As the Hugo and Retro Hugo voting is due to finish tomorrow (07:59 BST on Thursday in the UK and Eire), this is a quick post about the finalists\u2014but mostly a plug for Anthony Boucher\u2019s Retro novella We Print the Truth<\/em>.\u00a0More about that later.
\nFirst off, let\u2019s remember that the winner of any Hugo Award is a result of this equation:<\/p>\n

Success = (a) Author popularity x (b) Work availability x (c) Work quality x (d) Zeitgeist.<\/p>\n

(a) Author popularity use to depend on a writer\u2019s general attractiveness, e.g., How well liked were his\/her stories or fanzine articles? How affable or entertaining a convention presence were they? What had their lifetime impact been? Nowadays, a writer\u2019s popularity will be partially or largely related to their \u201ctribe\u201d and social media presence. For the Retro Hugo awards in particular, the writer\u2019s lifetime achievement will probably dominate (minor stories by major writers have already won Retro Hugos).
\n(b) Work availability once meant that it was better to appear in, for example, Astounding<\/em> or Galaxy<\/em> rather than in Fantasy Book<\/em>, or any of the British SF magazines. Nowadays, free online trumps paid online or paper (hence the near total omission of F&SF<\/em>, Asimov\u2019s SF<\/em>, and Analog<\/em> from recent final ballots).
\n(c) Quality is not as big a deal as you might think. Jo Walton noted in her recent Hugo Awards book that the Hugos get it right about two-thirds of the time. For the Retro Hugos I\u2019d shoehorn memorability into the quality category; a story fondly remembered will be thought of as \u201cquality\u201d\u2014even though there may be sixty or seventy years of rose-coloured slow glass between the memory and the actuality.
\n(d) There are many examples of zeitgeist: New Wave, the 1970\u2019s wave of feminism, SJWs versus Puppies, #MeToo, etc.<\/p>\n

Okay, onto the 2019 Hugo Awards.<\/em><\/strong> I have little to say about these as I have read virtually none of the fiction or non-fiction, and saw little media. What can I say apart from, \u201cI\u2019ll try and do better next year.\u201d The convention sent out a very good voters\u2019 package too.
\nI did read Jo Walton\u2019s An Informal History of the Hugos: A Personal Look Back at the Hugo Awards 1953-2000<\/em>, and Alec Nevala-Lee\u2019s Astounding: John W. Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Golden Age of Science Fiction<\/em> (and voted for them in that order\u2014I may write a review and say why later). I also voted for a few other things, Rocket Stack Rank<\/em>, Beyond Ceaseless Skies<\/em>, Vina Jie-Min Prasad, etc.<\/p>\n

I read most of the fiction on the 1944 Retro Hugos<\/em><\/strong> final ballot and voted like this:<\/p>\n

Best Novel<\/em><\/strong>:
\nGather, Darkness!<\/em> by Fritz Leiber, Jr. (Astounding Science-Fiction<\/em>, May-July 1943)
\nConjure Wife<\/em> by Fritz Leiber, Jr. (Unknown Worlds<\/em>, April 1943)
\nThe Weapon Makers<\/em> by A.E. van Vogt (Astounding Science-Fiction<\/em>, February-April 1943)
\nDas Glasperlenspiel<\/em> [The Glass Bead Game<\/em>] by Hermann Hesse (Fretz & Wasmuth)
\nPerelandra<\/em> by C.S. Lewis (John Lane, The Bodley Head)
\nNo award
\nEarth\u2019s Last Citadel<\/em> by C.L. Moore and Henry Kuttner (Argosy<\/em>, April-July 1943)<\/p>\n

Comment: I really liked the two Leibers, especially Gather Darkness!<\/em>, but would be happy if either won (I think Gather, Darkness!<\/em> is better technically and more fun, but realise that Conjure Wife<\/em> may be seminal). I hope Leiber\u2019s vote isn\u2019t split and something else comes through the middle. I did not like the Moore\/Kuttner (I can\u2019t understand why it was nominated), and am baffled that Moore\u2019s solo novel Judgement Night<\/em> didn\u2019t make the final ballot. This gives me a bad feeling in my water about how this year\u2019s awards will turn out.
\nI didn\u2019t have time (i.e. too lazy and not sufficiently organised) to read the Hesse or Lewis even though I had copies.<\/p>\n

Best Novella<\/em><\/strong>:
\nWe Print the Truth<\/em> by Anthony Boucher (Astounding Science-Fiction<\/em>, December 1943)
\nClash by Night<\/em> by Lawrence O\u2019Donnell (Henry Kuttner & C.L. Moore) (Astounding Science-Fiction<\/em>, March 1943)
\nAttitude <\/em>by Hal Clement (Astounding Science-Fiction<\/em>, September 1943)
\nThe Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath<\/em> by H.P. Lovecraft, (Beyond the Wall of Sleep<\/em>, Arkham House)
\nThe Little Prince<\/em> by Antoine de Saint-Exup\u00e9ry (Reynal & Hitchcock)
\nThe Magic Bed-Knob; or, How to Become a Witch in Ten Easy Lessons<\/em> by Mary Norton (Hyperion Press)<\/p>\n

Comment: A weak category this year, as seen by the inclusion of two children\u2019s books (although these are maybe here as a diversity vote, +translation, +woman, i.e. zeitgeist, or as a more general attempt to make the genre seem respectable). I don\u2019t object to children\u2019s books on the ballot (I would have voted for J. K. Rowling\u2019s winner) but there is a difference between \u201cchildren\u2019s\u201d and \u201cYA\u201d books.
\nNotwithstanding this, I read the Saint-Exup\u00e9ry and found its quirkiness, homilies, and views on adult behaviour quite interesting to begin with\u2014but eventually got bored with it. I didn\u2019t read the Norton or the Lovecraft.
\nOf the remainder, the standout story for me is the Boucher novella We Print the Truth<\/a><\/em>. I\u2019d love it if this won, not only because it deserves to, but because he lost out last year and probably doesn\u2019t have many chances left. However, Boucher isn\u2019t that well known as a writer, and it\u2019s a fantasy, so it wouldn\u2019t surprise me if the Clement or Kuttner\/Moore won. The Clement is a weaker early work but the Kuttner\/Moore would be an okay choice.<\/p>\n

Best Novelette<\/em><\/strong>:
\nMimsy Were the Borogoves<\/em> by Lewis Padgett (C.L. Moore & Henry Kuttner) (Astounding Science-Fiction<\/em>, February 1943)
\nThe Proud Robot<\/em> by Lewis Padgett (Henry Kuttner) (Astounding Science-Fiction<\/em>, October 1943)
\nThieves\u2019 House<\/em> by Fritz Leiber, Jr (Unknown Worlds<\/em>, February 1943)
\nThe Halfling<\/em> by Leigh Brackett (Astonishing Stories<\/em>, February 1943)
\nCitadel of Lost Ships<\/em> by Leigh Brackett (Planet Stories<\/em>, March 1943)
\nSymbiotica <\/em>by Eric Frank Russell (Astounding Science-Fiction<\/em>, October 1943)<\/p>\n

Comment: I liked all these bar the Russell\u2014which is a weak adventure story in my opinion\u2014and Brackett\u2019s Citadel of Lost Ships (The Halfling <\/em>is better), although both are okay. The obvious winner here is Mimsy<\/em>, but there are two Kuttner stories on the ballot so the vote could be split, something that could also happen to Brackett (she had two on the ballot last year as well\u2014is this because people like Brackett or is it a zeitgeist vote for a woman?) I just hope the Russell doesn\u2019t come through the middle of these two pairs.
\nI\u2019d like to mention Malcolm Jameson\u2019s story Blind Alley<\/a><\/em>, which should have been on the final ballot.<\/p>\n

Best Short Story<\/em><\/strong>:
\nKing of the Gray Spaces<\/em> (R is for Rocket<\/em>) by Ray Bradbury (Famous Fantastic Mysteries<\/em>, December 1943)
\nYours Truly \u2013 Jack the Ripper<\/em> by Robert Bloch (Weird Tales<\/em>, July 1943)
\nExile<\/em> by Edmond Hamilton (Super Science Stories<\/em>, May 1943)
\nNo award
\nDoorway into Time<\/em> by C.L. Moore (Famous Fantastic Mysteries<\/em>, September 1943)
\nDeath Sentence<\/em> by Isaac Asimov (Astounding Science Fiction<\/em>, November 1943)
\nQ.U.R.<\/em> by H.H. Holmes (Anthony Boucher) (Astounding Science-Fiction<\/em>, March 1943)<\/p>\n

Comment: What a strange category\u2014half the stories are good, and half are average or poor. Asimov would probably take this on name recognition were it not for the fact that Bradbury and Bloch have equal recognisability, and better stories to boot.<\/p>\n

Best Professional Editor, Short Form<\/em><\/strong>:
\nJohn W. Campbell
\nDorothy McIlwraith
\nMary Gnaedinger
\nDonald A. Wollheim
\nOscar J. Friend
\nRaymond A. Palmer<\/p>\n

Comment: Campbell and the also-rans, I\u2019m afraid.<\/p>\n

Best Professional Artist<\/em><\/strong>:
\nHannes Bok
\nJ. Allen St. John
\nMargaret Brundage
\nWilliam Timmins
\nVirgil Finlay
\nAntoine de Saint-Exup\u00e9ry<\/p>\n

Comment: I\u2019ve put Finlay near the bottom as nearly everyone votes him a lifetime achievement award every year. Boris Dolgov should have been on the ballot.<\/p>\n

Good luck to all the finalists, although you\u2019d be better off trying to maximise your scores in each of the four categories above. \u25cf<\/p>\n

Edited 1420: minor changes.<\/em><\/p>\n\"rss\"<\/a>\"rss\"<\/a><\/span>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As the Hugo and Retro Hugo voting is due to finish tomorrow (07:59 BST on Thursday in the UK and Eire), this is a quick post about the finalists\u2014but mostly a plug for Anthony Boucher\u2019s Retro novella We Print the Truth.\u00a0More about that later. First off, let\u2019s remember that the winner of any Hugo Award […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[46],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10824","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6Pcj7-2OA","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sfmagazines.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10824","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sfmagazines.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sfmagazines.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sfmagazines.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sfmagazines.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10824"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/sfmagazines.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10824\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10840,"href":"https:\/\/sfmagazines.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10824\/revisions\/10840"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sfmagazines.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10824"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sfmagazines.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10824"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sfmagazines.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}