Review of “Little Free Library” by Naomi Kritzer

This fantasy short story is a finalist for the 2021 Hugo Award. It was published by Tor.com. Kritzer is well established as a novelist and short story writer and her short story “Cat Pictures Please” won a Locus and a Hugo Award. This review contains spoilers.

Meigan has recently moved to St. Paul and gotten a house, so she installs a Little Free Library where she can put books for people to borrow or trade. She goes to some effort to decorate it, adds books and then waits to see which ones disappear and what appears in return. At first it seems like normally borrowing traffic, but then someone takes all the books. She leaves a note about sharing, and after that, whoever is taking the books leaves her gifts like carvings, drawings, a leaf. They leave a note asking for more of the Lord of the Rings story, and after a little while, they’re leaving gold coins that the jeweler says are real. Eventually the notes talk about a conflict, and then a final note that “all is lost” and the gift of an egg.

So, this is absorbing and really entertaining. Most of the story is made up of Meigan’s loving preparation and stocking of the library (attractive for book lovers), and the increasingly strange results as her books disappear and the odd gifts and correspondence begin to appear in their place. The fact that the reader likes Lord of the Rings and the coins turn out to be real gold are both telling, and we’re left to wonder what’s going to hatch out of that egg after “all is lost.” It’s sort of a twist ending, but highly effective.

On the less positive side, there’s not much in the way of a theme, or universality in this story, which is normally a requirement for literary awards. Also, we get no information on what Meigan does other than monitor the library. Does she work? Have a family? And last, she seem a little naïve. Is she going to be prepared if a baby dragon hatches out of that egg?

Four stars.

Review of “STET” by Sarah Gailey

This short story is a finalist for the 2019 Hugo Award. It was published by Fireside Magazine on October 2018. This review may contain spoilers.

This story is written in an experimental format, apparently entries for a legal brief about the decision algorithms of autonomous cars and how one has made a decision between striking an endangered woodpecker and a three-year-old child. The brief entries are followed by editorial comments which become increasingly more concerned about the writer’s well-being, and then the response of the writer, Anna. We gather that Anna was the mother of the little girl who was killed.

On the positive side, the format is interesting, and the story line assembles gradually as we read through the brief entries. It’s also an interesting inquiry into what might happen in a case where an autonomous car had to make a choice like this, and of course, it’s very touching, as we realize Anna has lost her little girl.

On the not so positive side, this is a little disjointed, and we have to assemble the story from the clues given in different places and comments. It’s not as easy as just reading a traditional story. Plus, I think the format detracts from the emotion. If this were a fully developed story in standard format, it would have more impact. On the question of interpretation: I doubt very much that autonomous cars are programmed to identify endangered species, and it’s questionable whether they ever would prioritize an animal over a child in the future. So, how are we to take this? Is Gailey asking whether we should always choose human population expansion over endangered species because it’s making a choice in favor of children? Or is it about reality checks and the need for better field testing for autonomous robots? A question about programming morality? Last comment: the trigger warning at the top of this story pretty much gives it away.

Three and a half stars.

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.

Review of This Census-Taker by China Miéville

I’ve been shoveling out from under a pile of work, and still assembling thoughts on the Nebula selections. Meanwhile, here’s a review of one of the Hugo Finalist (next on my agenda). This novella was recommended by Vox Day, and got an extra shove into the finalist position from the Rabid Puppies. It was published by Del Rey/Picador.

A man looks back on his childhood. The boy lives with his mother and father in a hillside home far above the town. The family is isolated, and the boy plays by himself. His mother tends a garden, and his father makes keys with magical properties for various clients. The boy begins to realize that his father kills things, and eventually thinks he has killed his mother. He flees to the town and is taken in by orphans. The town authorities investigate his story, but find no proof. There is a letter, apparently written by his mother, that says she is leaving. Trapped, the boy turns to a passing census taker for help.

This is not terribly gripping, but it is eerie and atmospheric, very artistic in effect. The story is pretty much all suggestion. There are events—the village people and the orphan children are definitely real—but we get this filtered through the narrator’s memories of childhood. In some cases the man is uncertain what really happened, which makes the reader start to wonder if he is a reliable narrator. In a few cases there are weird images that persist for a while, that may or may not be explained. I gather this is called “The New Weird.” I also gather that Miéville is known for his odd ideas, just dropped in passing. Watch for the census taker’s gun in this case. I’m not sure whether to take it as a symbol in the story or not. A comment on statistical methods, maybe?

Best read if you enjoy the author’s style. It gets a little extra for being artistic. Four stars.

Rabid Pups Recommended List for 2016 Hugo Awards

Vox Day has apparently completed his analysis of the new E Pluribus Hugo voting scheme approved at WorldCon last year and adjusted his recommendations accordingly. It seems a little heavy on self-promotion, but that may well be his check on how people voted. I’m pretty busy reviewing the Nebula finalists right now, but I’ll try to get to these right after that.

Here’s the list:

BEST NOVEL

An Equation of Almost Infinite Complexity by J. Mulrooney

BEST NOVELLA

“This Census-taker” by China Miéville

BEST NOVELETTE

“Alien Stripper Boned From Behind By The T-Rex” by Stix Hiscock

BEST SHORT STORY

“An Unimaginable Light” by John C. Wright (God, Robot)

BEST SERIES

Arts of Dark and Light by Vox Day

BEST RELATED WORK

Star Wars Art: Ralph McQuarrie by Ralph McQuarrie (Abrams)

The View From the Cheap Seats, Neil Gaiman (Morrow; Headline)

BEST GRAPHIC STORY

none

BEST EDITOR, SHORT FORM

Anthony Marchetta, independent

BEST EDITOR, LONG FORM

Vox Day, Castalia House

BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, LONG FORM

Deadpool

BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, SHORT FORM

“The Winds of Winter”, Game of Thrones, Miguel Sapochnik, David Benioff & D. B. Weiss

BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST

Tomek Radziewicz

JiHun Lee

BEST SEMIPROZINE

none

BEST FANZINE

Castalia House blog

File 770

BEST FANCAST

The Rageaholic by Razorfist

Superversive SF

BEST FAN WRITER

Jeffro Johnson

Morgan (Castalia House)

BEST FAN ARTIST

Alex Garner

Mansik Yang

BEST NEW WRITER (Campbell Award)

1. Mulrooney

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.

Investment in the Hugo Awards

Dang, my little traffic counter is tired—Vox Day linked to my last blog. I normally get an uptick when File770 links, but now we see who the real powerhouse is. Thanks to all who stopped by. It’s good to have discussion, although this one got a little off-track.

I read all the comments, here and also on these two respective sites. There are interesting responses. First, I gather that some people have a quite a personal investment in the Hugo Awards. The suggestion I made in the blog that DragonCon had looked at the Hugo controversy and would be in competition turned out more than one knight-errant to defend the Hugo Awards. Steve Davidson wrote a response supporting my position that the Dragon Awards are likely to change the flow of both money and promotion in ways that will undermine the Hugos.

The big question was about what I meant by “the Hugo process where works are winnowed through a narrow review and recommendation system and onto the ballot.” Although the Sad/Rabid Puppies have been severely trashed for their viewpoints, a faction of fandom has looked at their complaints critically and moved to analyze the awards process in response. If you’ve been following the blog, you’ll recall that I’ve featured statistical studies of the awards process for both the Hugos and the Nebulas during the last year. These show that prominent recommendation lists can be used to predict the nominees pretty accurately, and that the awards process is subject to bias. Other studies have shown the lists have limited sources, low diversity and a tendency for repeat appearances. The award winners for both the Hugos and the Nebulas are typically chosen by relatively small groups of individuals that lean to professional writers, editors and publishers. This is what I’m calling a “narrow” process.

I don’t know that you can ever eliminate these problems. People will always need a system to sift through what’s available. One of the main issues is how to work through the sheer number of SFF works published during the year, and another is the fierce competition to use the awards for their promotional value. I expect the Dragon Awards will have similar fairness issues. Plus, you can bet some people are already looking for ways to manipulate the results.

Upheaval in the awards system?

This has probably been coming on for a while and I’ve just not noticed, but it seems like a lot of organizations are announcing awards for SFF, or that nominations are open for their awards, etc. This is an awesome development, as it provides recognition for authors who are worthy. Some of these don’t look like mainstream awards, either, which provides a spot for people who are a little off-beat to find an audience and get a little promotion.

However. I see today that DragonCon has announced they will give out awards in 2016. This is kind of a biggie. DragonCon is a huge convention, with an annual on-site attendance of about 70,000 people. The press release says the awards will be based on nominations and votes from all fans, not just attendees or members, through an open system. They’re apparently going to run this off their Website where voters can register to vote.

Contrast this attendance figure with WorldCon that gives out the Hugo Awards. Wikipedia lists 4,644 attendees and 10,350 who bought memberships to vote the 2015 Hugo Awards, which was a record for numbers. With DragonCon moving into the awards game, I’m thinking the Hugo’s are officially undermined. The Puppy scandal has not only disrupted the voting system, but it seems to have led to an inspection of the Hugo process where works are winnowed through a narrow review and recommendation system and onto the ballot.

While most people aren’t going to swallow the Puppies’ complaints of a vast conspiracy whole, their grievances do seem to have resulted in concerns about the fairness of the process. WorldCon has scrambled to provide additional controls, but it could be that their credibility is already shot. The Dragon Awards will include a category for mil-fic, and they’re encouraging a free-for-all, i.e. campaigning.

More on this tomorrow.

Prediction for the Hugos

P.S. Based on traffic flow here at the Website, I’m going to predict that Alyssa Wong’s “Hungry Daughters of Starving Mothers” (Nightmare Magazine) will make it onto the Hugo ballot. Actually, the level of interest in the review sort of suggests it’s a winner.

P.P.S. You don’t see me here. Still on the road.