?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

More Hugo reflections

In the fiction categories: One woman out of four (on a par with Hugos in general, 41 of 201 Hugo awards (20%) in total, 9 out of 40 in the last ten years); three first-time winners, same as last year (though the year before, all winners already had at least two Hugos).

Details (thanks to despotliz for pointing me to the full stats):

Spin had a convincing lead over Accelerando at all stages of the count. Accelerando came second, with a smaller but still convincing lead over Old Man's War. The third place result was very tight, Old Man's War one first preference ahead of Learning the World, extending that lead to two on the second count, and ending with 216 to 213. For fourth place, contrary to Ken MacLeod's gloomy predictions to me a few weeks earlier, Learning the World was decently far ahead of A Feast for Crows which in turn was decently ahead of "No Award" for the fifth slot. Apparently Neil Gaiman withdrew Anansi Boys which otherwise would have had the third highest number of nominations and would have knocked Old Man's War off the list.

"Inside Job" was in fact level with "Magic for Beginners" with 124 first preferences, inched ahead for the second, third and fourth counts, and then received a substantial number of transfers from "Identity Theft" to finish ahead by a clear margin. "Magic for Beginners" was a reasonably strong second place, with a tight contest between Burn and "The Little Goddess" for third resolved in Burn's favour, again by transfers from "Identity Theft". "The Little Goddess" came a comfortable fourth, and "Identity Theft" a decent enough fifth with fewer votes preferring "No Award" than for any of the other fiction categories.

The results for Best Novelette were pretty clear with nobody changing places at any stage of the count: "Two Hearts" top, "I, Robot" in second place, "The King of Where-I Go" in third place, "The Calorie Man" in fourth and "Telepresence" in fifth.

The Best Short Story category saw the best performace for "No Award" indicating general voter dissatisfaction with the choices available. "Singing My Sister Down" actually got the highest number of first preferences, 120 to 110 for "Tk'tk'tk" but did dismally in later stages, with "Tk'tk'tk" getting more than twice as many transfers from "The Clockwork Atom Bomb" and doing almost as well from "Down Memory Lane". For second place it was even more drastic, with "Singing My Sister Down" again starting on top, but being overtaken by both "Down Memory Lane" and "The Clockwork Atom Bomb", the latter winning the #2 spot. Even for third place, it was fairly tight, "Singing My Sister Down" finishing on 217 votes to 202 for "Down Memory Lane", which secured fourth place fairly comfortably. "Seventy-Five Years" did not shift from the fifth place at any stage, and beat "No Award" by only 257 to 96. ("No Award" also got 64 votes to 340 for "Tk'tk'tk" in the runoff to see if the award could be made at all.)

Looking around elsewhere, I see that the three Doctor Who stories won the top three spots for Best Dramatic Presentation (short) - Hurrah! Though "Father's Day" sneaked it by a single vote ahead of Battlestar Galactica. (Followed, a very long way behind, by "Jack-Jack Attack", Lucas Back in Anger, and last year's Hugo awards ceremony.)

The most one-sided result was, predictably, the one in which the most votes were cast, Serenity getting 329 out of 660, and winning a clear majority once "No Award" had been eliminated. This category also saw the only actual tie, for third place, between "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" and "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" ("Batman Begins" coming second and "Goblet of Fire" fifth).

The closest result for any actual award was for Best Fan Writer, Dave Langford finishing with 156 votes to Cheryl Morgan's 148 (Cheryl presumably being boosted a little by the fact the the Worldcon was on her home turf).

Tags:

Comments

( 32 comments — Leave a comment )
(Deleted comment)
pickwick
Aug. 27th, 2006 03:59 pm (UTC)
No, I didn't see anything on his blog either, and was wondering the same thing.
abigail_n
Aug. 27th, 2006 09:12 pm (UTC)
Gaiman comments on refusing the Hugo nom:

And now that the nominees list is up on the web, people are asking me why Anansi Boys was withdrawn from Hugo consideration, and whether it was me that withdrew it. Yes, it was me. And I suppose partly I did it because I have three Hugos already, and I felt it was better to get more names on the ballot that weren't mine, and partly because I think I feel more comfortable when the things of mine that get Hugo nominations are marginally closer to SF than to pure fantasy, but mostly because when they told me Anansi Boys was nominated it just felt right to say no thank you, this time. Obviously I'm grateful to everyone who voted for it, and happy for the other awards that it's won and is nominated for, but on this one, well, it just felt right to say no. So I did.

If only someone could convince Connie Willis to do the same...
(no subject) - despotliz - Aug. 27th, 2006 11:41 pm (UTC) - Expand
abigail_n
Aug. 27th, 2006 03:53 pm (UTC)
At the risk of exposing myself to ridicule, I have to admit that I have no idea how the Hugo winners are calculated. I know that everyone rates the nominees (with 'no award' being a possibility at any point), and I assume that those are the numbers in the first column. So, for the best novel category, Spin got 165 first place votes, Accelerando 116 and so on. But what are the columns to the right of that?
despotliz
Aug. 27th, 2006 04:26 pm (UTC)
As I understand it...
Hugo voting is by single transferable vote. You list your preferences in order, including "No Award". At each stage the nominee with the lowest number of votes is eliminated, and all the votes for that nominee are distributed to whoever the voters put in second place, if they listed one. The winner is whoever has the most votes when all but the second place candidate is eliminated, as long as they have more votes than No Award.

This has the effect of allowing your votes to still count even if you vote for something which gets knocked out early. It meant that it didn't matter that there were 3 Doctor Who episodes nominated - in a straight fight the vote would be split and BSG might win, but in this method of voting you can vote for whichever one you like and it won't cause problems.

I like the system, as it means I can really vote on my preferences and not have to think about tactical voting. There's a fuller explanation of the whole thing here.
secritcrush
Aug. 27th, 2006 04:28 pm (UTC)
Re: As I understand it...
Damn you with your faster typing skills! :P
coalescent
Aug. 27th, 2006 05:47 pm (UTC)
Re: As I understand it...
but in this method of voting you can vote for whichever one you like and it won't cause problems.

Assuming that everyone votes their Who episodes in a block, rather than (say) Dalek / Empty Child / Pegasus / Father's Day.
secritcrush
Aug. 27th, 2006 04:27 pm (UTC)
It's Australian or preferential voting - if no one has a majority the first round, the nominee with the lowest total is out. Its votes are then redistributed to their second choices. Each round another nominee is knocked out and their votes are redistributed until someone is a winner. Usually it takes until there are just two nominees remaining, but sometimes it only takes a round or two (like with Scalzi's Campbell win.)

Cheryl Morgan has a lengthy description of the process.
abigail_n
Aug. 27th, 2006 06:36 pm (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations, Liz and Chance (apart from everything else, I now understand how it's possible that the three Doctor Who eps didn't split the vote between them).

By the way, I now know everything there is to know about the census Hugo voting. Go ahead,you can ask me anything.
pnh
Aug. 28th, 2006 04:06 am (UTC)
"The most one-sided result was, predictably, the one in which the most votes were cast, Serenity getting 329 out of 660"

I realize you were technically only talking about the Hugos, but in fact Scalzi's Campbell win was by an even greater percentage margin.
nwhyte
Aug. 28th, 2006 04:53 am (UTC)
Scalzi had a bigger margin over the next candidate, yes, but a smaller % share of the votes cast.
pgmcc
Aug. 28th, 2006 07:29 am (UTC)
Ever the psephologist.
(no subject) - nwhyte - Aug. 28th, 2006 07:40 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - pgmcc - Aug. 28th, 2006 09:17 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - nwhyte - Aug. 28th, 2006 09:30 am (UTC) - Expand
alex_wilcock
Aug. 28th, 2006 07:42 am (UTC)
Excellent news - fabulous double-nerdiness points with Doctor Who and STV. I'm jealous, and know I won't have time to nick it for my own blog today ;-)

Is this the first time any Who has won a Hugo, or did any of the books make it?
nwhyte
Aug. 28th, 2006 07:46 am (UTC)
As far as I know, it was the first time any Who made it to nomination stage for the Hugos!

See previos shortlists here and here.
nwhyte
Aug. 28th, 2006 08:01 am (UTC)
Actually I think there is still plenty of scope for number-crunching from the full figures!
( 32 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

June 2019
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel