Hugo Generalities?

It’s important to note that the more difficult to review pieces of the Hugo nominations are the ones that refer to great scopes of work like best editor, artist, ‘cast, or ‘zine. Inevitably people will nominate those that lay within their domain of interest or experience. To then look over all the domains that made it through the nomination process from all the people with all the diverse interests is challenging to say the least.

To make this a little easier on myself I’m going to give it some scope. I’m only going to look at each person’s work as done in the last year. For example: Adventures in Sci Fi Publishing archive 2014 podcasts only. If that proves too daunting or editors too prolific I will do a random sampling and review based on that.

If anyone out there has a “best of” recommendation for the following (below the fold) I would really appreciate the pointer. Only for 2014 though. It seems the best way to be fair as well as smart:

  • Specific
  • Measurable
  • Assignable -> (Me)
  • Realistic -> state what results can realistically be achieved, given available resources.
  • Time-related -> (Due July 2015)

Best Editor, Short Form

  • Jennifer Brozek
  • Vox Day
  • Mike Resnick
  • Bryan Thomas Schmidt

Best Editor, Long Form

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

Best Professional Artist

Best Semiprozine

Best Fanzine

Best Fancast

Best Fan Writer

Best Fan Artist

Categories: 2015 Hugos, Hugos, reviews | 5 Comments

Post navigation

5 thoughts on “Hugo Generalities?

  1. Well, in regards to the fancasts, they all have an episode (self-curated) of their 2014 work in the ballot. That might be a good place to start.

    (Came here via file770, which linked to a couple of your reviews, and I started poking around.)

  2. Mark

    For VD for editor, you have “Riding the Red Horse” in the packet. You might judge his story-selection skills based on “Turncoat” being one of the anchor pieces.

  3. In regards to long form, I’m inclined to leave Beale and the Baen editors off the ballot simply because they’ve gone and made it difficult for me to have any clue what they’ve edited in the last year.

    I’m also a little confused how to determine credit for Shattered Shields, given as how it’s co-edited by Brozek and Schmidt, which makes it hard to untangle. At least Brozek gave us another example of her editing.

    • I haven’t even started on reviewing editors. It does seem like a difficult endeavor and I agree with your assessment that any work done with co-editors doesn’t really give a good sense of whether or not an individual is the best editor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: