Research rabbit holes

I’ve been living in the past! I wanted to write some stuff about the ‘space’ of people that form Fan writers. As ‘research’=’spreadsheet’ for some reason, I ended up with a spreadsheet of everybody who had been listed in the nomination data for the Hugo Fanwriter award from 2010 to 2018.

That is quite a lot of people (72 people to be precise) with some people who have appeared lots of times and some who have appeared once. I can’t claim to know every name but it’s a fascinating list. However, I really am not sure how to present it. The multiple nominees* are, arguably, of more note when considering people who Hugo voters have consistently thought of as examples of fan writers. However, the single nominees**, particularly finalists, contain notable names and highlight events and arguments within fandom more.

The result was me wandering back in time following old blog posts. Some about the Sad Puppies again but also following the trail around “Requires Hate’ and the Mixon report — which itself generated a fair degree of commentary and what is or should count as fan writing but which was overshadowed by the Puppy Debarkle. Of course, that took me further down into the history of the whole RequiresHate affair, which looking back seems like a major conflict that was interrupted by something bigger.

No conclusion here, other than ‘that’s what I did with my time’.

*[‘Nominees’ is, of course, not a term used by the Hugos and there is no special status accorded to those people listed in the nomination data but who were not finalists. For convenience, in this context ‘nominee’ is the simplest term as I can’t keep typing ‘people listed in the nomination data’]
*[Single nominees within the time span I collated data — some will have been multiple nominees over a different time span]

5 thoughts on “Research rabbit holes

  1. The other issue with a list like this is that there will be a lot of people who have been doing good Fan Writing the last 2-4 years but won’t be on the list, whereas a lot of the people on the list won’t be producing much Fan Writing these days.

    Hell, there are more than a couple of very recent Finalists who haven’t produced much in the way of Fan Writing in the last couple of years, who seem to be getting nominated based on peoples’ perceptions of what they used to be producing (or maybe just because they’re friends, who knows).

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Very true, but I was planning on following up with the Hugo Spreadsheet list. From there thinking of the space that wasn’t covered (i.e. who isn’t on either list who should be)


    2. Yes, a few of my past fan writer nominees are mainly writing about politics these days (not that I can blame them, given the current political shitshow in much of the western world). Others have written less because of illness, etc… and at least three have recused themselves.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Longtime lurker and reader here….

    I think the whole RequiresHate debacle was a strange and separate affair from the wider issue of fan writing.

    Fan Writing has changed so much because the huge behemoth of Facebook caused kind of a withering of blogs. Unless a writer could be on a site like or have a huge separate following on the magnitude of Scalzi, or Glyer, or yourself, there is not so much of it out there as a freestanding thing. Much of what used to be done on freestanding blogs now happens on Twitter. And it don’t think fan awards take account of Twitter.

    It’s a quandary.

    Unrelated, thanks for your website. I follow it closely and so appreciate it.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yes, sorry – didn’t want to imply a super strong connection. It was just that the ‘acrackedmoon’ identity (i.e. RH) was one of the names that came up on the list, and the later Laura Mixon. Fannish events leave a trace in Fan Writer nominations being the point.


Comments are closed.