Hugos, Editors and Best Related

[chris_gerrib]

Continuing my practice of noting who I'm voting for in the Hugos, here's my thoughts on a couple of categories. I recommend Jim Hines' thoughts on this as well.

Best Editor, Short Form (870 nominating ballots, 187 entries, range 162-279)


1) Jennifer Brozek
2) Mike Resnick
3) Bryan Thomas Schmidt
4) No Award

Comments: Schmidt is a bit of a light-weight in this category, and can be abrasive, but I did really like his Raygun Chronicles collection.

Best Editor, Long Form (712 nominating ballots, 124 entries, range 166-368)


1) Sheila Gilbert
2) Toni Weisskopf
3) Anne Sowards
4) Jim Minz
5) No Award

Comments: My logic here is to favor repeat nominees over first-timers.

Best Related Work (1150 nominating ballots, 346 entries, range 206-273)

1) No Award

(The non-awarded nominees are:)
“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 (Baen.com)
Wisdom from My Internet, Michael Z. Williamson (Patriarchy Press)

Comments: I've read 3 of the 5, and a sample of the Williamson. Unless the Antonelli really impresses me, this is my vote.

Comments

Thank you for reading "The Hot Equations."

[ken burnside (from livejournal.com)]

In this imbroglio, I've only ever asked for people to read the works, vote their conscience, and do so in that order.

Thank you for reading "The Hot Equations." Sorry it didn't work for you as entertainment.

Re: Thank you for reading "The Hot Equations."

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

It worked as entertainment. It was not the sort of "wow" I look for in a Hugo nominee, as evidenced by the fact that I bought the anthology it appeared in yet didn't even consider it for "Best Related."