The 2015 Hugo Awards Finalists

It’s later today.  Here are your Hugo Award Nominees:

Best Novel (1827 nominating ballots)

  • Ancillary Sword, Ann Leckie (Orbit US/Orbit UK)
  • The Goblin Emperor, Katherine Addison (Sarah Monette) (Tor Books)
  • The Dark Between the Stars, Kevin J. Anderson (Tor Books)
  • Lines of Departure, Marko Kloos (47North)
  • Skin Game, Jim Butcher (Roc Books)

Best Novella (1083 nominating ballots)

  • “Pale Realms of Shade”, John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
  • “The Plural of Helen of Troy”, John C. Wright (City Beyond Time: Tales of the Fall of Metachronopolis, Castalia House)
  • Big Boys Don’t Cry, Tom Kratman (Castalia House)
  • “Flow”, Arlan Andrews, Sr. (, 11-2014)
  • One Bright Star to Guide Them, John C. Wright (Castalia House)

Best Novelette (1031 nominating ballots)

  • “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus”, John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
  • “Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium”, Gray Rinehart (Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show, 05-2014)
  • “Championship B’tok”, Edward M. Lerner (Analog, 09-2014)
  • “The Journeyman: In the Stone House”, Michael F. Flynn (Analog, 06-2014)
  • “The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale”, Rajnar Vajra (Analog, 07/08-2014)

Best Short Story (1174 nominating ballots)

  • “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds”, John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
  • “Turncoat”, Steve Rzasa (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)
  • “Goodnight Stars”, Annie Bellet (The End is Now (Apocalypse Triptych Book 2), Broad Reach Publishing)
  • “On A Spiritual Plain”, Lou Antonelli (Sci Phi Journal #2, 11-2014)
  • “Totaled”, Kary English (Galaxy’s Edge Magazine, 07-2014)

Best Related Work (1150 nominating ballots)

  • “The Hot Equations: Thermodynamics and Military SF”, Ken Burnside (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)
  • Letters from Gardner, Lou Antonelli (The Merry Blacksmith Press)
  • Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth, John C. Wright (Castalia House)
  • “Why Science is Never Settled”, Tedd Roberts (
  • Wisdom from My Internet, Michael Z. Williamson (Patriarchy Press)

Best Graphic Story (785 nominating ballots)

  • Ms. Marvel Volume 1: No Normal, written by G. Willow Wilson, illustrated by Adrian Alphona and Jake Wyatt, (Marvel Comics)
  • Rat Queens Volume 1: Sass and Sorcery, written by Kurtis J. Weibe, art by Roc Upchurch (Image Comics)
  • Saga Volume 3, written by Brian K. Vaughan, illustrated by Fiona Staples (Image Comics))
  • Sex Criminals Volume 1: One Weird Trick, written by Matt Fraction, art by Chip Zdarsky (Image Comics)
  • The Zombie Nation Book #2: Reduce Reuse Reanimate, Carter Reid (The Zombie Nation)

Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form (1285 nominating ballots)

  • Captain America: The Winter Soldier, screenplay by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely, concept and story by Ed Brubaker, directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo (Marvel Entertainment, Perception, Sony Pictures Imageworks)
  • Edge of Tomorrow, screenplay by Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, and John-Henry Butterworth, directed by Doug Liman (Village Roadshow, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, 3 Arts Entertainment; Viz Productions)
  • Guardians of the Galaxy, written by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman, directed by James Gunn (Marvel Studios, Moving Picture Company)
  • Interstellar, screenplay by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan, directed by Christopher Nolan (Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, Legendary Pictures, Lynda Obst Productions, Syncopy)
  • The Lego Movie, written by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, story by Dan Hageman, Kevin Hageman, Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, directed by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller (Warner Bros. Pictures, Village Roadshow Pictures, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, LEGO System A/S, Vertigo Entertainment, Lin Pictures, Warner Bros. Animation (as Warner Animation Group))

Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form (938 nominating ballots)

  • Doctor Who: “Listen”, written by Steven Moffat, directed by Douglas Mackinnon (BBC Television)
  • The Flash: “Pilot”, teleplay by Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, story by Greg Berlanti, Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, directed by David Nutter (The CW) (Berlanti Productions, DC Entertainment, Warner Bros. Television)
  • Game of Thrones: “The Mountain and the Viper”, written by David Benioff & D. B. Weiss, directed by Alex Graves ((HBO Entertainment in association with Bighead, Littlehead; Television 360; Startling Television and Generator Productions)
  • Orphan Black: “By Means Which Have Never Yet Been Tried”, ” written by Graham Manson, directed by John Fawcett (Temple Street Productions, Space/BBC America)
  • Grimm: “Once We Were Gods”, written by Alan DiFiore, directed by Steven DePaul (NBC) (GK Productions, Hazy Mills Productions, Universal TV)

Best Editor, Short Form (870 nominating ballots)

  • Jennifer Brozek
  • Vox Day
  • Mike Resnick
  • Edmund R. Schubert
  • Bryan Thomas Schmidt

Best Editor, Long Form (712 nominating ballots)

  • Vox Day
  • Sheila Gilbert
  • Jim Minz
  • Anne Sowards
  • Toni Weisskopf

Best Professional Artist (753 nominating ballots)

  • Julie Dillon
  • Jon Eno
  • Nick Greenwood
  • Alan Pollack
  • Carter Reid

Best Semiprozine (660 nominating ballots)

  • Abyss & Apex, Wendy Delmater editor and publisher
  • Andromeda Spaceways In-Flight Magazine, Andromeda Spaceways Publishing Association Incorporated, 2014 editors David Kernot and Sue Bursztynski
  • Beneath Ceaseless Skies, edited by Scott H. Andrews
  • Lightspeed Magazine, edited by John Joseph Adams, Stefan Rudnicki, Rich Horton, Wendy N. Wagner, and Christie Yant
  • Strange Horizons, Niall Harrison, editor-in-chief

Best Fanzine (576 nominating ballots)

  • Black Gate, edited by John O’Neill
  • Elitist Book Reviews, edited by Steven Diamond
  • Journey Planet, edited by James Bacon, Christopher J Garcia, Lynda E. Rucker, Pete Young, Colin Harris, and Helen J.Montgomery
  • The Revenge of Hump Day, edited by Tim Bolgeo
  • Tangent SF Online, edited by Dave Truesdale

Best Fancast (668 nominating ballots)

  • Adventures in SF Publishing, Brent Bower (Executive Producer), Kristi Charish, Timothy C. Ward & Moses Siregar III (Co-Hosts, Interviewers and Producers)
  • Dungeon Crawlers Radio, Daniel Swenson (Producer/Host), Travis Alexander & Scott Tomlin (Hosts), Dale Newton (Host/Tech), Damien Swenson (Audio/Video Tech)
  • Galactic Suburbia Podcast, Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, Tansy Rayner Roberts (Presenters) and Andrew Finch (Producer)
  • The Sci Phi Show, Jason Rennie
  • Tea and Jeopardy, Emma Newman and Peter Newman

Best Fan Writer (777 nominating ballots)

  • Dave Freer
  • Amanda S. Green
  • Jeffro Johnson
  • Laura J. Mixon
  • Cedar Sanderson

Best Fan Artist (296 nominating ballots)

  • Ninni Aalto
  • Brad W. Foster
  • Elizabeth Leggett
  • Spring Schoenhuth
  • Steve Stiles

The John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer (851 nominating ballots)
Award for the best new professional science fiction or fantasy writer of 2013 or 2014, sponsored by Dell Magazines. (Not a Hugo Award, but administered along with the Hugo Awards.)

  • Wesley Chu*
  • Jason Cordova
  • Kary English*
  • Rolf Nelson
  • Eric S. Raymond

*Finalists in their 2nd year of eligibility.


Later today, WSFS will announce, both online at Ustream and thru multiple conventions around the world, what will undoubtedly be the most contentious final ballot in the history of the awards.

Advance ‘leakage’ (also unprecedented for its ‘reach’ this year) seems to suggest that a good percentage of the works on the final ballot will by synonymous with those works “recommended” by the Sad Puppy slate.  (No links.  Returning the favor.)

I – and presumably a good portion of fandom as well (if other internet gabble is anything to go by) – are bothered by voting slates, particularly when they are motivated by a political agenda that has little to nothing to do with the awards.  The other day I wrote a piece explaining the situation and offering up my solution for dealing with it – a solution that is designed to minimize the impact of organized voting for the Hugos, to send a strong message regarding the unacceptability if this kind of thing and hopefully to discourage the activity in the future.  (Reaction from both sides would seem to indicate it largely hit its mark.)

My solution is to reject all works appearing on voting slates by placing them below No Award on the ballot.*

This is a pointed and strategic  action.  It directly addresses the core problem, and avoids the deliberately convoluted, cagey and obfuscatory arguments being put forth in defense of voting slates.  It does not address the merits of individual works, the politics of individual authors.  It is very much like drinking age restrictions.  Under 21?  No alcohol for you.  On a Hugo slate?  Under No Award for you.

The response from the ‘slaters’ was both swift and predictable.  The arguments put forth addressed everything except the inherent wrongness of organized voting.  Which strongly suggests that the No Award strategy is  and can be an effective one.

Those putting forth and endorsing the slate are certainly of fandom, but they do not understand fandom.  If they really did, they’d never have started this voting slate nonsense to begin with.  Indications that they’ve had to go outside of fandom in order to gain recruits suggests that fandom largely rejected their actions – a message that they should have heeded early on.

They’re setting a dangerous precedent, one that needs nipping.  Going down the path of competing voting slates – the obvious counter – will rob every voter of their agency and impact and will ultimately rob the awards of their meaning.  Some have suggested that destroying the Hugo Awards is the ultimate goal (if I can’t win, no one can) of this campaign, and this is not outside the realm of possibility.  Even more reason to put a stop to it now.

If we want the Hugo Awards to continue to represent the COLLECTIVE wisdom of the fans;  if we want the works so honored to be chosen on their merits – a desire proclaimed by all – then we must send a clear and pointed message that organizing for a nomination or a win, by whatever means, is completely unacceptable. And unfannish.

And I think the next thing I’m going to do is get in touch with some rules mavens and begin drafting a proposal to change the WSFS rules.  The draft will outline a method by which evidence of vote organizing (efforts to increase participation exempted) can be submitted to the Awards committee and used as grounds to disqualify a work for consideration – following an opportunity for thise so named to publicly disclaim their inclusion.  It will also specifically exempt notices of eligibility, as anyone not advancing a political agenda sans reason can clearly see the difference between that and vote mongering. It’s going to be tough to write, but well worth the effort.

Later on today we’ll be publishing the final ballot.  Works on voting slates WILL appear below No Award.


*Here is an explanation of how the voting works on the final ballots in regards to choosing No Award above slate-recommended works (from The Hugo Awards website):

No Award

Under each category you will also be given the choice of voting for No Award.

You should vote for No Award as your first choice if you believe that none of the nominees are worthy of the Award, or that the Award category should be abolished. If you vote for No Award in any other position it means that you believe the nominees you placed above No Award were worthy of a Hugo, but that those not placed above it were not worthy. However, as we shall see, it is possible to rank nominees below No Award and have an effect on the outcome. (Emphasis added.)

The No Award Test

The final check before a winner can be determined is known as the No Award Test. The valid ballots are divided into three piles: those in which No Award is ranked higher than the prospective winner, those in which the prospective winner is ranked higher than No Award, and those in which neither No Award nor the prospective winner have preferences listed. Note that a ballot that contains a preference for the prospective winner but does not contain a preference for No Award goes into the “prospective winner higher than no award” pile. This is because lack of preference is, by definition, lower than any preference. Having got the three piles, the votes in the “prospective winner higher than No Award pile” and the votes in the “No Award higher than prospective winner” pile are counted. If the number of votes with the prospective winner placed higher is greater then the result is confirmed. If the pile with No Award placed higher is greater then no award is given in the category that year.

My interpretation of these rules is this:

My presumption is that I WILL read all of the works in the voters packet, which will presumably include those works on the ballot that were also on the voting slate.  (Doing otherwise would be inherently unfair as, again, I propose this action to protest against voting slates, not individual authors or their works)

I will then divide each categories nominees into two piles:  those works not tainted by slateness and those so tainted.  Lets assume for the rest of this discussion that the category in question has three tainted works on it.

Here’s how I will rank the first group in order of my personal preference:

If none of them rise to Hugo Award worthiness (in my opinion), I will choose No Award as my first choice and will then place the remaining works on the ballot in the following order untainted works in order of preference, followed by tainted works in order of preference.

2. no taint 1
3. no taint 2
4. taint 1
5. taint 2

I only have five slots for six nominees (counting No Award). so inevitably, one of the tainted nominees will be left off of my ballot.

If, on the other hand, some or all of the untainted works ARE worthy of the award (which I strongly suspect will be the case) then I will write in my votes thusly:

1. no taint 1
2. no taint 2
4. taint 1
5. taint 2

Again (bonus), one of the tainted works remains off the ballot.

When it comes time to tally in either case, I am placing works not associated with a slate ahead of works on slates; I’m leaving one slate work off the ballot entirely, and I am clearly placing a preference for No Award to win ahead of all works on a voting slate.

During the No Award Test, I’ve place No Award ahead of any of the slate nominees and my ballot will go into the pile of NO AWARD AHEAD OF and will count towards preventing any of the works from slates from receiving the award.

If I only voted non-slate works, then, if neither of them was up for winning, my ballot would endorse one of the works from the slate during the No Award test – so I must place No Award on the ballot.

If No Award does not win (presuming that legitimate nominees ahead of No Award have been eliminated), then it’s already off the ballot and the only help remaining is the No Award test.

The slate, in case you wish to avoid it: (highlight to reveal)

Best Novel
“The Dark Between the Stars” – Kevin J. Anderson – TOR
“Trial by Fire” – Charles E. Gannon – BAEN
“Skin Game” – Jim Butcher – ROC
“Monster Hunter Nemesis” – Larry Correia – BAEN
“Lines of Departure” – Marko Kloos – 47 North (Amazon)

Best Novella
“Flow” – Arlan Andrews Sr. – Analog magazine November 2014
“One Bright Star to Guide Them” – John C. Wright – Castalia House
“The Jenregar and the Light” – Dave Creek – Analog magazine October 2014
“Big Boys Don’t Cry” – Tom Kratman – Castalia House

Best Novelette
“The Journeyman: In the Stone House” – Michael F. Flynn – Analog magazine June 2014
“The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale” – Rajnar Vajra – Analog magazine July/Aug 2014
“Championship B’tok” – Edward M. Lerner – Analog magazine Sept 2014
“Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium” – Gray Rinehart – Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show

Best Short Story
“Goodnight Stars” – Annie Bellet – The Apocalypse Triptych
“Tuesdays With Molakesh the Destroyer” – Megan Grey – Fireside Fiction
“Totaled” – Kary English – Galaxy’s Edge magazine
“On A Spiritual Plain” – Lou Antonelli – Sci Phi Journal #2

Best Related Work
“Letters from Gardner” – Lou Antonelli – Merry Blacksmith Press
“Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth” – John C. Wright – Castalia House
“Wisdom From My Internet” – Michael Z. Williamson
“Why Science is Never Settled” – Tedd Roberts – BAEN

Best Graphic Story
“Reduce Reuse Reanimate (Zombie Nation book #2) – Carter Reid – (independent)

Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form)
“The Lego Movie” – Phil Lord, Christopher Miller
“Guardians of the Galaxy” – James Gunn
“Interstellar” – Christopher Nolan
“The Maze Runner” – Wes Ball

Best Dramatic Presentation (Short Form)
Grimm – NBC
Marvel’s Agent’s of Shield – ABC
Warehouse 13 – SyFY

Best Editor (Long Form)
Toni Weisskopf – BAEN
Jim Minz – BAEN
Anne Sowards – ACE/ROC
Sheila Gilbert – DAW

Best Editor (Short Form)
Mike Resnick – Galaxy’s Edge magazine
Edmund R. Schubert – Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show
Jennifer Brozek (Shattered Shields)
Bryan Thomas Schmidt (Shattered Shields)

Best Professional Artist
Carter Reid
Jon Eno
Alan Polack
Nick Greenwood

Best Semiprozine
Sci Phi Journal – Jason Rennie
Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show – Edmund Schubert
Abyss & Apex
Andromeda Spaceways In-Flight Magazine

Best Fanzine
Tangent SF On-line – Dave Truesdale
SF Signal – Jon DeNardo
Elitist Book Reviews – Steve Diamond
The Revenge of Hump Day – Tim Bolgeo

Best Fancast
“The Sci Phi Show” – Jason Rennie
Dungeon Crawlers Radio
Adventures in SF Publishing

Best Fan Writer
Matthew David Surridge (Black Gate)
Jeffro Johnson
Amanda Green
Cedar Sanderson
Dave Freer

The John W. Campbell Award
Jason Cordova
Kary English
Eric S. Raymond
Amy Turner Hughes

Please take a moment to support Amazing Stories with a one-time or recurring donation via Patreon. We rely on donations to keep the site going, and we need your financial support to continue quality coverage of the science fiction, fantasy, and horror genres as well as supply free stories weekly for your reading pleasure.

Previous Article

An Interview with Author Anton Marks

Next Article


You might be interested in …


  1. The culture wars within the SF community leave me disappointed, disturbed and depressed, as does the same polarization within our overall society. I take no sides in this thimble-sized tempest; my only reaction is it doesn’t do science fiction any good.

    Steve, perhaps you should take to heart this comment from John Scalzi’s blog last year:

    “You’ve seen me snark about it, I’m sure, but now that the voting is over, what did I really think of the “sad puppy” slate of nominees championed by Larry Correia and others? What I thought at the beginning, which was: The folks pushing the slate played within the rules, so game on, and the game is to convince people that the work deserves the Hugo. It does not appear the voters were convinced. As a multiple Hugo loser myself, I can say: That’s the breaks, and better luck another year.”

    Well, this is “another year,” so let the chips fall where they may. The sooner this controversy dies out, the better.

  2. Curiously i notice in the list on the J W Campbell Award the name of Eric S Raymond. I know him for is work in information theory. I known, he is became a libertarian thinker. And he was recruited in the consulting team leaded by Ray Kurzweill by Google. I am not an adept of the conspiration theory but it’s is an issue of what the Sad Puppies was really. It’s not simply a conservative cabal but it’s the little soldiers of Google.
    The firm is suspected for few years by journalists, information theoreticians and human rights activists in Europe, to want control what the people think. And few think they want control pop culture to control humanity. Yes it seems a delirious conspirationism but the peoples who say that are unervisty teachers or journalists.
    Sad Puppies are the first wave for the firm to control the pop culture. The Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies are Google marionnettes. The real question is who have funded the Puppies campaign ? I’m suspecting the answer. It’s the guy who furnish the cash who pull the strings, not one who speaks.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.