Review of “The Tomato Thief” by Ursula Vernon

This novelette is a Hugo finalist published by Apex Magazine in January 2016.

Grandma Harken lives on the edge of the desert and tends her garden. As her tomatoes ripen, they begin to disappear, so Harken waits up at night with her shotgun. The thief turns out to be shapeshifter mocking bird woman that is enslaved by an unnamed enchanter. Harken lets her go in the morning, but follows her a distance into the desert. When the bird disappears, Harken sees train rails, so she realizes she needs to consult with the train gods. Her friend Anna’s grandson is a priest that hooks her up, and armed with knowledge of where to look, Harken sets off again into the desert. She meets a coyote, negotiates folded reality, frees a Gila dragon and finally locates the decaying house of the misplaced god. Does she have the strength to free his captives?

This seems to be standard Vernon fare, as all I’ve read from her includes similar themes of magical realism and the mystic properties of everyday people and things. This particular story references last years’ Nebula finalist, “The Jackalope Wives” and uses the same setting and some of the same characters.

Pros: The story features a strong elderly woman as a protagonist, which we certainly need more of. It has a folksy, authentic Western feel to it, and the characters are suitably magical. It includes good world-building with the folding realities. This is very readable, and the characters and images well-drawn.

Cons: I can’t believe the description of the cat. Any feline that lives on the edge of the desert like that is going to be just as ornery and magical as everything else. There’s not much development of the captives’ characters, and I ended up not knowing where they’re from or what might happen to them after they’re freed—especially the Gila dragon. Are we going to meet that creature wandering around on our next trip to the desert? Hm.

Three and a half stars.

Review of “The Art of Space Travel” by Nina Allan

This novelette is a Hugo finalist published by Tor.com in July 2016.

Emily Starr works as the housekeeping supervisor at the Edison Star hotel, near Heathrow Airport. Rooms at the hotel have been booked for astronauts of the upcoming Mars mission, which has caused extra work. Her boss is Benny Conway, who came from Africa years ago with nothing but is now manager of the hotel. Her mother is Moolie, a retired metallurgist suffering from dementia related to a hazardous materials investigation. Emily’s favorite book is The Art of Space Travel, a book with star maps that has always been in the house. Moolie alternately tells Emily she doesn’t know who Emily’s father was, that the book was his, and that he was a member of the dead New Dawn crew, or maybe he wasn’t. It’s a mystery that Emily wants to track down. When Moolie has a health crisis, she gets a final clue.

Pros: This is very well-written, heart-warming fiction about the near future. Emily narrates, moving from her childhood need for a father to concerns related to Moolie’s illness, to concerns about management at the hotel in the press glare following the astronauts. She tells us about Benny, about the neighborhood where she lives, about Moolie’s moods and conflicting stories, and about preparations for the Mars crew’s stay at the hotel.

Cons: Although this is technically science fiction, the science is tangential. It’s basically a character-driven story using the Mars mission as a pretext, and it would work just as well without that. Nothing really happens here except Emily’s quest, and it’s fairly clear early in the story who Emily’s father is.

This is masquerading as science fiction, but I have to give it extra points for the quality of the work. It’s very absorbing.

Four and a half stars.

More on Awards Pressures

Following up on award pressures, here’s an article in the Guardian that claims British literary fiction is actually being undermined by a handful of powerful book prizes. You’d think that high-profile prizes would be good for the industry, as they recognize excellence and point readers to where the best fiction is. Winning the prize generally gives a big boost to sales for the book. However, this article suggests that the costs associated with entering a lot of books into the larger competitions tend to limit the submissions to publishers with deep pockets. That means small, independent publishers that might actually be publishing the most cutting-edge work are sidelined and the larger publishers set the standard for what the public reads.

According to literary agent Jonny Geller in this same article, “Literary fiction is under threat…due to a combination of factors – reluctance by major houses to take risks; a bottleneck in the distribution chain [and] diverse voices being ignored by a predominantly white, middle-class industry.” Geller goes on to note the pressures on the prize juries. “Every major literary prize is under the same pressures – the balance between picking books that break new ground, challenge readers and those books that will be popular.”

There are other issues, as well. Past literary judge Tom Leclair notes in another article that the different tastes, criteria and loyalties of judges mean that disagreements can lead to horse-trading type compromise. He also relates experiences where fellow judges tried to give awards to their friends or to other authors represented by their own literary agent.

These people are talking about large, national awards, of course, which are normally juried. However, one can draw parallels with the SFF industry awards. We’ve seen the recent move by the Puppies to promote Hugo slates. This is very visible promotion, but how much does less visible promotion affect who wins? And what effect does author/publisher reputation have?

Brandon Kempner at Chaos Horizon notes the tendency of award winners to be re-nominated. In a similar vein, Natalie Luhrs recently completed her annual “slice and dice” of the influential Locus Reading List and commented on repeat appearances. Her review notes that white men continue to dominate the list, while the same small group of women and people of color appear year after year. Is this a tribute to their reputations, or just a form of tokenism?

Review of Penric and the Shaman by Lois McMaster Bujold

One good thing about the cross-over between Nebula and Hugo finalists is that it cuts down on the amount of reading I have to do to review all the candidates. I’ve already finished all the other Hugo contenders in the novella category, so this will close it out. The listed publisher for Bujold’s novel is Spectrum Literary Agency. (Penric’s Demon says this same thing. I gather she self-published.)

Four years after the events of Penric’s Demon, Penric has been hastily educated and is living in the palace of the Princess-Archdivine. He has come to terms with his demon Desdemona and is respectably installed as a divine of the Bastard’s Order. However, his scholarly work is interrupted by the arrival of a Locator of the Father’s Order who is trying to capture a shaman charged with murder. Because magic is involved, the Archdivine assigns Penric to accompany the Locator. Once they get close to their quarry in the mountains, they find all is not as it seemed, and Penric needs all of his skills and talent to deal with the situation.

This novella has many of the same good points that Penric’s prior adventure had. It’s apparently young adult and is a smooth, easy read, well-plotted, with good characterization, good imagery, etc. etc. etc. Bujold is a professional, after all. The story is an entertaining tale, but this one didn’t grip me quite the way Penric’s Demon did. It reads more like a straightforward supernatural mystery, and lacks the depth that Penric’s symbolic marriage to Desdemona gave the first installment. It doesn’t develop quite the same drama, either.

Three and a half stars.

Has the Hugo Turned into an Affirmative Action Award?

Another point that came up during the recent discussion at File 770 was how the Hugo Award winners are now regarded. There was commentary on this well before the 2016 awards cycle. For example, various bloggers have noted that the awards are increasingly dominated by women and minorities. In 2015 Brad Torgersen posted his  view of this trend, which is that the Hugos are being used as an “affirmative action award”. For anyone vague on what that means, affirmative action is defined as “an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination.” The fact that anyone sees it this way is another suggestion (see previous blog) that the award voting has become politically motivated. Of course, any reasonable exchange on the idea is impossible. As one poster at File 770 noted, it is “inherently racist” to discuss the results in this way.

This is not to suggest that the winning works are not deserving. The makeup of the SFF community has clearly changed over the more than a century that SFF has been recognized as a genre. This means that readers’ tastes have changed, as well. I tend to lean progressive, and I love the interesting and creative elements that diverse authors bring to the genre. I reviewed all the winners this year and pointed out deserving elements well before the awards were given (as well as undeserving ones). However, the political squabble tends to obscure the positives. For an idea of how the response to this year’s awards went, check this exchange on Twitter.

Because of the virulence of the politics, no one these days can be sure whether they’ve won a Hugo Award based on the quality of the works or because of the politics. It looks to be a damaging experience. The Twitter exchange is another example of Internet bullying of someone who had little to do with allocation of the awards. Regardless of the Hugo committee’s efforts, you have to admit the Puppies are now right about a taint in the awards system.

Note: Mike Glyer has asked me to note that discussions that take place at File 770 don’t necessarily represent his personal views.

Politics and Hugo Wins

Before disappearing, I was involved in another interesting discussion at File 770. It’s pretty cold now, but I think it warrants at least a couple of blog posts. The debate was about what effect the political maneuvering related to the Sad/Rabid Puppies slates has had on who wins a Hugo Award and how people see the results.

The first point that stood out for me is that posters at File 770 seem to consider the nomination slates as a political move by the Sad/Rabid Puppies, but don’t consider countervotes like “No Award” as a political response. This is part of characterizing the Puppies as a loony, sexist, racist fringe who are only trying to sabotage the Hugo Award because they are angry about diversity, while everyone else is an “organic voter,” presumably focused only on the quality of the work. This isn’t only language used at File 770, but also on various other blog and analysis sites. It seems a curious idea to me that a counter to a political strategy isn’t itself a political strategy. Hm. Something’s wrong there.

In the wake of the recent election, it’s hard to miss the clash of ideologies that went on—Clinton veering hard left versus Trump channeling the alt-right. The interesting thing is that a day after the popular vote showed 47.7% for Clinton and 47.5% for Trump (with presumably some ballots not yet counted). To those on either the conservative or liberal side who think they are a majority, it just ain’t so. Also, the fact that the polls were so far wrong shows that shutting down the opposition can produce a surprise that comes back to bite you in the butt.

And how does that apply to the SFF community? If we accept that the clash of ideologies we’ve just seen in the US election is also playing out in other segments of society, it’s likely that the Sad/Rabid Puppies are representing a valid social/political argument in their complaints about SFF publishers and the SFF awards system. This is quite probably a response to extremism on the left, as described by the various manifestos put out by the Puppies. So what does that make the political reaction from the SFF community? Is it about shutting down the discussion with a club of moral censure? About refusing to listen to heartfelt concerns because they run counter to the reigning ideology?

Shouldn’t we be looking at that roughly 50/50 split that Clinton and Trump achieved in the electorate an applying it to the conflict within the SFF community? Wouldn’t it be helpful if the community were to move a little more toward the center?

Note: Mike Glyer has asked me to note that discussions that take place at File 770 don’t necessarily represent his personal views.

Thoughts on Atlantic’s Interview with N.K. Jemisin

In the run up to the Hugo Awards, Atlantic magazine’s writer Vann R. Newkirk II interviewed N.K. Jemisin on her finalist position for the Best Novel Hugo Award. Of course, The Fifth Season went on to win the award.

Jemisin’s nomination and win in the Best Novel category are historic, as she’s the first black writer to achieve this milestone. Newkirk notes the brilliance of the ideas in the novel, and Jemisin admits that a story of this length and scope has been somewhat difficult for her to deal with. Then they go on to politics in the SFF genre (i.e. the Sad/Rabid Puppies) and what has informed the content of what will be a trilogy with The Fifth Season as the first installment. Jemisin notes that she has read a lot of history that will go into the oppression theme of the trilogy. She also suggests she will add “hints” from the Khmer Rouge and the Holocaust to the extant slavery theme and what Newkirk calls the “racial critiques” the first book presents.

In light of current social trends, Jemisin’s comments seem confusing. One of the hot-button topics in the culture war is cultural appropriation (already featured in other blogs here). Some people might consider Jemisin already privileged because of her American birthright, and with her nomination and Hugo win, she has now joined a privileged class of SFF writers. No one questions her right to comment about slavery and oppression, as she comes from a heritage of African American slavery, but is it cultural appropriation for her to borrow from the Khmer Rouge and the Holocaust? Will it be transgressive for her to be putting words in the mouths of Asians and Jews? Also, as an American, is it transgressive for her to be making assumptions about Africa and African history?

I’ve asked these questions before just as a theoretical, but here we have an actual example. Is Jemisin planning something that will be considered cultural appropriation? Or should she not be limited by her race and heritage to writing only about certain racial groups and a certain cultural experience?

Views on the Hugo fallout

I’ve had a look around the Web and it almost looks like the Hugo scuffle this year was eclipsed by SF writer Dave Truesdale. He apparently hijacked a panel discussion and got thrown out of the Hugo convention, regardless that he was a finalist for an award. Hm. More on the controversy later, maybe.

Checking in on the Puppy camp, I see Vox Day suspects people still voted this year without reading most of the works. That might be correct, as my reviews have gotten a rush of traffic today—maybe because people want to see what they voted for or against. Day also expresses amazement that people voted No Award for the scholarly and well done Between Light and Shadow: An Exploration of the Fiction of Gene Wolfe and gave the Hugo to a novel as grim and hopeless as The Fifth Season. He sort of has a point. However, the other side is complaining about the deserving works kept off the ballot by the Puppy nominations. They’ve got a point, too. Everyone seems put off, and I was surprised at how many of the winners didn’t bother to show up in case they got an award.

Both sides of the political spectrum declared victory, of course. This is one of those “victimhood” arguments that has no solution. Whatever, I think the Puppies have clearly demonstrated how political the awards are. It’s a black eye for the Hugo that won’t go away.

By the way, many congrats to the review site Rocket Stack Rank! Stats for the awards show it narrowly missed qualifying as a finalist for an award in the Best Fanzine category.

2016 Hugo Awards Done!

I’ve noted the winners of the 2016 Hugo Awards below in bold. A few surprises here. I’ve also noted where the Sad Puppies (SP) and Rabid Puppies (RP) won one of their initial recommendations. Interestingly, WorldCon has published the voting stats here.

So, it looks like the Puppies’ strategy of nominating stronger works has paid off, meaning voters appeared more willing to evaluate their recommendations on quality. No Award only won in two of the categories this year, and looking at the stats, it’s clear that some of Vox Day’s recommendations ran a strong second and/or third place when they didn’t win. Uprooted by Naomi Novik, Penric’s Demon by Lois McMaster Bujold and Between Light and Shadow: An Exploration of the Fiction of Gene Wolfe by Marc Aramini came in second. Tingle’s “Space Raptor Butt Invasion” actually came in third, as did Slow Bullets by Alistair Reynolds, “The Story of Moira Greyland” by Moira Greyland and “Obits” by Stephen King.

All the fiction categories went to women, three of which were minorities. Both editor winners were women, as was the professional artist. That leaves Andy Weir, Mike Glyer, Neil Gaiman and Steve Stiles as the men who took home awards. Leaving out the categories with a list of names, that looks like 7 women/4 men.

Many congrats to all the winners!

Best Novel (3695 nominating ballots)
Ancillary Mercy by Ann Leckie (Orbit)
The Cinder Spires: The Aeronaut’s Windlass by Jim Butcher (Roc)
The Fifth Season by N.K. Jemisin (Orbit)
Seveneves: A Novel by Neal Stephenson (William Morrow)
Uprooted by Naomi Novik (Del Rey)

Best Novella (2416 nominating ballots)
Binti by Nnedi Okorafor (Tor.com) (SP)
The Builders by Daniel Polansky (Tor.com)
Penric’s Demon by Lois McMaster Bujold (Spectrum)
Perfect State by Brandon Sanderson (Dragonsteel Entertainment)
Slow Bullets by Alastair Reynolds (Tachyon)

Best Novelette (1975 nominating ballots)
“And You Shall Know Her by the Trail of Dead” by Brooke Bolander (Lightspeed, Feb 2015)
“Flashpoint: Titan” by CHEAH Kai Wai (There Will Be War Volume X, Castalia House)
“Folding Beijing” by Hao Jingfang, trans. Ken Liu (Uncanny Magazine, Jan-Feb 2015) (SP)(RP)
“Obits” by Stephen King (The Bazaar of Bad Dreams, Scribner)
“What Price Humanity?” by David VanDyke (There Will Be War Volume X, Castalia House)

Best Short Story (2451 nominating ballots)
“Asymmetrical Warfare” by S. R. Algernon (Nature, Mar 2015)
“Cat Pictures Please” by Naomi Kritzer (Clarkesworld, January 2015) (SP)
“If You Were an Award, My Love” by Juan Tabo and S. Harris (voxday.blogspot.com, Jun 2015)
“Seven Kill Tiger” by Charles Shao (There Will Be War Volume X, Castalia House)
Space Raptor Butt Invasion by Chuck Tingle (Amazon Digital Services)

Best Related Work (2080 nominating ballots)
No Award
Between Light and Shadow: An Exploration of the Fiction of Gene Wolfe, 1951 to 1986 by Marc Aramini (Castalia House)
“The First Draft of My Appendix N Book” by Jeffro Johnson (jeffro.wordpress.com)
“Safe Space as Rape Room” by Daniel Eness (castaliahouse.com)
SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day (Castalia House)
“The Story of Moira Greyland” by Moira Greyland (askthebigot.com)

Best Graphic Story (1838 nominating ballots)
The Divine written by Boaz Lavie, art by Asaf Hanuka and Tomer Hanuka (First Second)
Erin Dies Alone written by Grey Carter, art by Cory Rydell (dyingalone.net)
Full Frontal Nerdity by Aaron Williams (ffn.nodwick.com)
Invisible Republic Vol 1 written by Corinna Bechko and Gabriel Hardman, art by Gabriel Hardman (Image Comics)
The Sandman: Overture written by Neil Gaiman, art by J.H. Williams III (Vertigo) (RP)

Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form (2904 nominating ballots)
Avengers: Age of Ultron written and directed by Joss Whedon (Marvel Studios; Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures)
Ex Machina written and directed by Alex Garland (Film4; DNA Films; Universal Pictures)
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)
The Martian screenplay by Drew Goddard, directed by Ridley Scott (Scott Free Productions; Kinberg Genre; TSG Entertainment; 20th Century Fox) (SP)(RP)
Star Wars: The Force Awakens written by Lawrence Kasdan, J. J. Abrams, and Michael Arndt, directed by J.J. Abrams (Lucasfilm Ltd.; Bad Robot Productions; Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures)

Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form (2219 nominating ballots)
Doctor Who: “Heaven Sent” written by Steven Moffat, directed by Rachel Talalay (BBC Television)
Grimm: “Headache” written by Jim Kouf and David Greenwalt, directed by Jim Kouf (Universal Television; GK Productions; Hazy Mills Productions; Open 4 Business Productions; NBCUniversal Television Distribution)
Jessica Jones: “AKA Smile” written by Scott Reynolds, Melissa Rosenberg, and Jamie King, directed by Michael Rymer (Marvel Television; ABC Studios; Tall Girls Productions;Netflix)
My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic: “The Cutie Map” Parts 1 and 2 written by Scott Sonneborn, M.A. Larson, and Meghan McCarthy, directed by Jayson Thiessen and Jim Miller (DHX Media/Vancouver; Hasbro Studios)
Supernatural: “Just My Imagination” written by Jenny Klein, directed by Richard Speight Jr. (Kripke Enterprises; Wonderland Sound and Vision; Warner Bros. Television)

Best Editor, Short Form (1891 nominating ballots)
John Joseph Adams
Neil Clarke
Ellen Datlow
Jerry Pournelle
Sheila Williams

Best Editor, Long Form (1764 nominating ballots)
Vox Day
Sheila E. Gilbert
Liz Gorinsky
Jim Minz
Toni Weisskopf

Best Professional Artist (1481 nominating ballots)
Lars Braad Andersen
Larry Elmore
Abigail Larson (SP)(RP)
Michal Karcz
Larry Rostant

Best Semiprozine (1457 nominating ballots)
Beneath Ceaseless Skies edited by Scott H. Andrews
Daily Science Fiction edited by Michele-Lee Barasso and Jonathan Laden
Sci Phi Journal edited by Jason Rennie
Strange Horizons edited by Catherine Krahe, Julia Rios, A. J. Odasso, Vanessa Rose Phin, Maureen Kincaid Speller, and the Strange Horizons staff
Uncanny Magazine edited by Lynne M. Thomas & Michael Damian Thomas, Michi Trota, and Erika Ensign & Steven Schapansky

Best Fanzine (1455 nominating ballots)
Castalia House Blog edited by Jeffro Johnson
File 770 edited by Mike Glyer (SP)(RP)
Lady Business edited by Clare, Ira, Jodie, KJ, Renay, and Susan
Superversive SF edited by Jason Rennie
Tangent Online edited by Dave Truesdale

Best Fancast (1267 nominating ballots)
No Award
8-4 Play, Mark MacDonald, John RPRicciardi, Hiroko Minamoto, and Justin Epperson
Cane and Rinse, Cane and Rinse
HelloGreedo, HelloGreedo
The Rageaholic, RazörFist
Tales to Terrify, Stephen Kilpatrick

Best Fan Writer (1568 nominating ballots)
Douglas Ernst
Mike Glyer (SP)
Morgan Holmes
Jeffro Johnson
Shamus Young

Best Fan Artist (1073 nominating ballots)
Matthew Callahan
Christian Quinot
disse86
Kukuruyo
Steve Stiles

The John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer (1922 nominating ballots)
Pierce Brown *
Sebastien de Castell *
Brian Niemeier
Andy Weir * (SP)(RP)
Alyssa Wong *

Rocket Stack Rank on the award nominees

While I was out poking around, I stopped by to visit at the Rocket Stack Rank website. For anyone unfamiliar, the guys at RSR write and collate story/novel reviews, plus provide other services to make your Hugo voting experience easier and more enjoyable. These services have served their purpose for 2016, but you can start checking in for info on the possible contenders for next year’s award cycle.

On to the discussion: RSR has provided rankings for the most recommended novellas, novelettes and short stories eligible for nomination for 2016 awards, based on the opinions of 500+ prolific reviewers. What jumps off the page here is the apparent difference between reviewer opinions and results of the Hugo and Nebula award nomination process. For example, Okorafor’s Nebula Award winner and Hugo finalist Binti (actually it won) didn’t make the list of recommended novellas at all. Hugo finalists Slow Bullets by Alastair Reynolds and Penric’s Demon by Lois McMaster Bujold both scored fairly close to the bottom of the list.

In the novelette recommendations, Hugo finalists “And You Shall Know Her by the Trail of Dead” by Brooke Bolander, (Hugo winner) “Folding Beijing” by Hao Jingfang and Nebula winner “Our Lady of the Open Road” by Sarah Pinsker all scored only about midlist.

In the short story recommendations, Nebula winner “Hungry Daughters of Starving Mothers” by Alyssa Wong did score well, but the apparently quite popular Hugo finalist (and winner) “Cat Pictures Please” by Naomi Kritzer only scored about midlist.

I personally think this is an interesting result. Why should there be such a disparity between reviewer opinions and the results of the nominations? Should we expect that reviewers have looked at the writing quality? The ideas presented? The themes and/or subtext? Are they swayed by market forces? Do they just recommend what they like? Or are there other influences at work in the nominations?

This is a distinct possibility, of course, considering the recent political tides in the SF community.