Hugo Award Predictions and Handicapping Sheet

Summary of predictions (full list and explication below)

BEST NOVEL (3695 ballots)
The Fifth Season by N.K. Jemisin (Orbit)
BEST NOVELLA (2416 ballots)
Binti by Nnedi Okorafor (Tor.com)
BEST NOVELETTE (1975 ballots)
“Folding Beijing” by Hao Jingfang, trans. Ken Liu (Uncanny Magazine, Jan-Feb 2015)
BEST SHORT STORY (2451 ballots)
Space Raptor Butt Invasion by Chuck Tingle (Amazon Digital Services)
BEST RELATED WORK (2080 ballots)
No Award
BEST GRAPHIC STORY (1838 ballots)
No Award
BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION (LONG FORM) (2904 ballots)
Mad Max: Fury Road written by George Miller, Brendan McCarthy, and Nico Lathouris, directed by George Miller (Village Roadshow Pictures; Kennedy Miller Mitchell; RatPac-Dune Entertainment; Warner Bros. Pictures)
BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION (SHORT FORM) (2219 ballots)
Doctor Who: “Heaven Sent” written by Steven Moffat, directed by Rachel Talalay (BBC Television)
BEST EDITOR – SHORT FORM (1891 ballots)
Neil Clarke
BEST EDITOR – LONG FORM (1764 ballots)
Liz Gorinsky
BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST (1481 ballots)
No Award
BEST SEMIPROZINE (1457 ballots)
Uncanny Magazine edited by Lynne M. Thomas & Michael Damian Thomas, Michi Trota, and Erika Ensign & Steven Schapansky
BEST FANZINE (1455 ballots)
File 770 edited by Mike Glyer
BEST FANCAST (1267 ballots)
Tales to Terrify, Stephen Kilpatrick
BEST FAN WRITER (1568 ballots)
Mike Glyer
BEST FAN ARTIST (1073 ballots)
Steve Stiles
JOHN W. CAMPBELL AWARD FOR BEST NEW WRITER (1922 ballots)
Andy Weir *

Notes:  Asterisks in the Puppy columns indicate that the creator stated, in some fashion, that they did not want to be included on Puppy slates (whether that request was honored or not – and they weren’t).  Asterisks next to the Campbell Award Finalists indicate an author’s second and final year of eligibility.

You can use this handy-dandy handicapping sheet to follow along with the awards and see how well I’ve done.

For the past several years I have recorded my Hugo winner guesstimates and have achieved no less than 82% accuracy (last year was over 90%).  While this does suggest that if people want to vote for the winners, all they need to do is ask me, it’s probably not the way to go.  (Besides, I charge.)

How do I get so close?  It’s pretty simple.  I’d like to think that I’ve got a fairly good grasp on the fannish zeitgeist.

Some might suggest that this is evidence of collusion (such accusations have been leveled in the past) and certainly proof that I have an inside handle on what the “cabal” is thinking and/or doing.  (On that score – better start building that fallout shelter….).  But it’s really simpler and much cooler than that.

Fans vote for the things that stand out and have a positive impact on the field and/or that are reflective of Fandom’s vision of itself as a progressive force for good.

If, for example, two very well written novels that offer something new are up for the award at the same time, and one author is perceived by fans as having been more active (either within fandom or outside of it) regarding the social issues fandom concerns itself with, chances are that a voter who has read and liked both novels will place the more active individual in the number one slot.

Similarly, particularly in the fan award categories, the finalist receiving the most number 1 votes will likely be the individual (or work) that represents quality AND a positive reflection of fannish values.

Then there’s also the “new” to take into account.  Collective fandom seems to have a place in its heart for new entities – that reflect fannish values.  If, for example, two new things come into the field and both reflect quality, it is more likely that the thing operated by “fans” (especially if they’re known individuals in the field) will get more #1 slot votes than the one that isn’t.  Is that favoritism?  Is it pushing a fannish (SJW) agenda?  No.  It’s people being responsive to those they are familiar with who seem to share their values.  But that extra consideration doesn’t kick in until after taking quality into consideration.  Fan favorite creators who turn out crap (that somehow makes it onto the final ballot) hardly ever finish well.  Works by complete “outsiders” that represent quality (and possibly inadvertently support fannish values) can and have won.  So it is clear that quality comes first and is then tempered by these other considerations, and it is this approach to voting that has seen the awards gain their prestige.

I also take a look at how various works are doing in regards to other major awards, the general reception (what’s being well-received and receiving a lot of press, for example), the history of the awards (someone who has been nominated numerous times in the past but never won, up against a weak field, is likely to get greater consideration than otherwise) and sometimes even the public persona of individuals.  Fans are unlikely to vote for a fugghead even IF they are producing quality work.  This is not contradictory; fuggheads rarely, if ever, reflect fannish values in their works.

What puppies perceive as collusion, cabalism (that’s a pun for Jewish fans, of which, comparatively, there are a lot) and the pushing of an SJW agenda is, in reality, an effort by a cohesive community to reward quality efforts AND reward the values that it holds dear.  People who regularly participate in the community and positively enhance the value of that community are more likely to receive positive attention at Hugo voting time. The work(s) reflective of high quality AND fannish community values receive greater weight than work(s) that is only high quality.

Which  brings me to explaining why I think Chuck Tingle is going to take home a Hugo.

It’s pretty obvious to most of us that Chuck’s work was slated because of it’s title.  Someone thought that it would present a conundrum to “SJW” fans, forcing them to choose between a work that positively reflects diversity and one that was on a Puppy Slate;  and/or forcing fans to choose something that had what some might consider an embarrassing title that would forever be associated with the Hugo Awards.

What those someones don’t get though is this:  Fans are willing to own something regardless of how the mundane world receives it, and so long as the work itself (and the person(s) behind it) reflect quality and fannish values.

It may very well be that Space Raptor Butt Invasion will be claimed as a win by puppies, but the real triumph is fandom’s seeing through the BS and continuing to vote its values.

Final notes:  my picks do not necessarily reflect my actual vote.  They’re what I believe will win, not necessarily what I wanted to win.  (Though in a lot of cases they’re pretty close.)
Also, this was a very difficult year to try and predict the winners.  My other prediction is that I won’t be hitting that 80%+ accuracy mark this year.  But as they say, if you don’t play, you can’t win.

Below, a PDF version of the handicapping sheet for use by anyone as they follow the awards.

2016 Hugo Awards Handicapping Form