I’m trying to write sub-text here and Brad just keeps spelling it out

“Oh,” I said “I’ll write a long series exploring parallels between the Sad Puppies and the 2020 election” That’ll be clever. What does flippin’ Brad Torgersen do? Just flippin’ spells out the thesis of the whole thing directly:

“In 2015 Toni Weisskopf got more first-run votes for Best Editor Hugo than any prior winner, ever. Hell, she got more votes than many of the prior winners combined. And the Woke Children used 2,500 scab “votes” to trash Toni’s win — cough, not too different from how a hundred thousand Biden “votes” magically appeared overnight in key counties, back in November, cough — because they’ve always hated Baen as a business, and Toni by association, and also because the “wrong people” both nominated and voted for her. (see my essay, “The Mote in Gernsback’s Eye.”)”

https://monsterhunternation.com/2021/02/19/an-open-letter-to-the-old-time-fans-at-worldcon/#comment-103067

Yeah, thanks Brad.

97 thoughts on “I’m trying to write sub-text here and Brad just keeps spelling it out

  1. I think I was one of the scab votes. I don’t normally vote for the Hugos, since I don’t read enough new stuff to make informed choices, but voting “No Award” multiple times was easy.

    I find the choice of the word scab to be interesting, since if I understand correctly, it means that I crossed a union picket line to work in lieu of a striking worker. I promise I did not cross a picket line to vote that year, and I was not paid to do so.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Ideally give a fuck about Baen Books. I’ve read maybe several dozen of them over the years — some were good, most were all right. What I did notice in all of them is the shifty editing that took place there.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. I was reading a really interesting book by Wen Spencer that I literally threw against the wall out of frustration over the fucking bad editing in it. Never did finish it.

        Liked by 4 people

      1. Exactly! It’s like someone not putting their name on their book and then getting all upset because nobody awarded them Best Novel. How were we supposed to tell?

        Liked by 2 people

      2. I’m with you here. I remember reading *everything* that year and coming to my own conclusions on who (if anybody) deserved the award this year. And I specifically remember both Toni and the other Baen editor coming out and saying something like ‘Editing at Baen is a cooperative process…’ I’m just like, nope. If you can’t point out to me your value add — what books you helped usher through the pipeline personally — then you don’t deserve an individual award.

        And I’m not a scab, I’ve been voting irregularly in Hugo elections since 2007. How about you, Brad?

        Liked by 2 people

      3. I think I qualify as a “scab” in this context. My first year voting for the Hugos was after the *Puppy slate(s) were forced onto the ballot. I voted for a few years after that, but eventually stopped as I found myself less and less able to focus on reading during the chaotic years of the asterisk presidency, and couldn’t justify voting, much less nominating. When I finally started regularly reading books again, last year, a lot of that reading was political texts as I desperately searched for some solution to the crumbling of our (the US’s) democratic republic.

        Anyway, my strategy for best editor, every year I voted, was to leave it blank. I’d read up on the controversy around the very existence of the category, and, given I don’t know much about editing, decided I’d leave those decisions to people with strong opinions. I never Noah’d Weisskopf, or any other editor. Had I strong opinions, I probably would have Noah’d her, as she claimed not to have made any notable editorial contributions to any books in the years she was nominated.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. I’ve been regularly and semi-regularly voting for the Hugos since 1981, so that’s an extra-weird definition of scab as applied to me.

        Like

    1. For those that voted in 2020 on the final ballot for long form editor, how did you handle those who did not give any info about what they edited?

      Like

      1. Laura: For those that voted in 2020 on the final ballot for long form editor, how did you handle those who did not give any info about what they edited?

        I did it based on their credits in the post, and how I felt about the books I had read which were edited by each of them.

        Like

      2. Yes, I used that post too. Thanks to their authors (plus you and other Filers for unearthing and sharing that info), but no thanks to them, we at least had something to go by.

        Like

      3. I didn’t vote, but if someone can’t even bother to give me a damn list of titles, why should I try to evaluate their work? They don’t value it, why should I? It’s how I’ve done it ever since we started getting Hugo Packets.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. I didn’t vote in 2020 due to money issues, but generally, I either rank them last or under no award (I use no award much more liberally after Puppy messes.) If you aren’t going to bother to tell me, why should I honor you?

        Liked by 1 person

      5. For me that was one of the reasons I didn’t vote in Long Editor Long Form. (Also not Short Form) I will say that those who did include some work here, samples were very efective on getting on my wishlist, I have not bought the books but there are on a list, if I need somethink to read.
        Okay after voting for everythink else exspecially with the retros, were I wanted to vote, I had 3 days left and wasn’t so keen on starting short form.

        Like

      6. I wouldn’t blame anyone for putting them under no award or just leaving them off (with or without ranking no award). I definitely thought about it. I probably ranked them lower than I would have otherwise.
        Seriously, it shouldn’t be too difficult to make a list of at least four titles. But I was aware that one of them had edited one of my best novel nominees (which went on to win) and the other had a best novel finalist (even though that was my least favorite there). Sheila Gilbert is the absolute ruler when it comes to packets. A list of everything she’s edited in the eligible year and good size sample from each author.

        Like

      7. @Laura: I would say that Navah Wolfes Package did also work quite well, I still think getting whole novels by Diana M. Pho was a bit much.
        It should be so hard to do it either. Aren’t samples of novel, be it first chapters or a bit more, somethink that is nomal to have around? I think beginnings are a good advertisment.

        Like

      8. Yes, Navah Wolfe’s packet was also very nicely done. I had a couple problems with what Diana Pho included. First, works which aren’t applicable for the category — short fiction and graphic novels. Why were those even allowed in the packet?! Then the epub and mobi files included were an unreadable waste of space. Someone just hit convert with default settings on the watermarked PDFs and obviously never opened them up to look at what a mess that produced.

        Like

  3. I guess that in Brad’s world, only some people have votes that should count, and he should decide who those people are.

    There is a name for this sort of societal arrangement, but I can’t quite remember what it is . . . .

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Yes, to Brad’s ilk Black American votes don’t count (except perhaps his wife’s) and if Black voters manage to get past all the suppression obstacles and the harassing truck caravans to vote, their votes are “mysterious.” It was all the Black majority counties where they tried to get the votes tossed. Now they’re just back to massive Jim Crow voter suppression laws and policies again where Republicans control the state governments.

      Calling it scab votes for people caring about the Hugos in the wake of the Puppies’ attacks is rich coming from the guys who not only went and recruited Gamergate agitators to come fake vote for the Hugos at Beale’s direction but publicly bragged that they were doing it to roll the votes. So now Brad is sad that their vote roll attempt failed. How did Weisskopf suddenly get “more votes than many of the prior winners combined” in a category hardly anybody bothers much to vote in and which has literally no impact on a publisher’s sales? Because the Puppies brought in non-fan voters for her as part of their slate. But projection is their number one fun time, after all.

      Nobody hated Baen Books. That’s the game the Puppies made up. They declared that Baen was a conservative publisher — it wasn’t — and that Baen authors were thus being shut out of the awards — they weren’t, see Bujold — and that conservative authors were being spit on by the Big 5 publishers — who were actually publishing many of them. And when none of those arguments held water, they just insisted that it was a war between Baen and Tor (thanks to Beale.) So yeah, a lot of the voters were not going to vote for Weisskopf and reward the Puppies’ voting slate that particular year. The Puppies set it up so that Weisskopf would lose; they wanted her to lose. They still want her to lose; it’s really sad. They’re the ones who dragged her and Baen Books into their campaign and declared that Baen Books and the Puppies/conservatives were one and the same. (Weisskopf now seems to be going with that, but that was not clear at the time.)

      So yeah, there are similarities between the Puppies and the 2020 U.S. election. But the Puppies tended to drag or try to drag people into their cause against their will — Baen Books, Marko Kloos, Annie Bellet, Chuck Tingle, refusing to take authors who asked off their rec list later on, etc. They wanted to split fandom into factions, like a gang war, and they certainly did alienate a ton of people from them. I think, ultimately, that they were counting on a lot more right-wing media support than they got — that they’d get what Gamergate got. Instead, they were presented as a lesser copier of Gamergate by the general media, a little outlying branch of the alt right, and most of the right-wing media ignored the whole thing.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. It just occurred to me — yeah, I’m slow sometimes — that when right-wingers say the election was stolen, what they mean is that certain groups — black people and immigrants mostly — shouldn’t have been allowed to vote. When rational people say, “No, look, this number here is clearly bigger than that number over there,” they’re not really responding to what the Qult thinks went wrong with the election, and they just ignore that argument like so much noise. And the scary thing is that the Qult is busy coming up with ingenious vote-suppression laws these days.

        Liked by 7 people

  4. They really cannot believe that their candidates could lose a race. So obviously the other side cheated. Toni by all that is holy is the best editor there is because they know she is, damn it. It never occurs to them that most Hugo voters aren’t even aware of who she is, and that those that are are aren’t really Baen readers. (I’m not.) i voted her below No Award that year.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Toni refused to say what books (if any) she edited when we was a candidate for the Hugo – and I took her at her word, and gave her the same vote I would give anyone else who wasn’t a book editor.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. This is why I voted Weisskopf behind “no award” that year. The other editors who were nominated all provided samples of their work for people to review. Weisskopf didn’t. If you keep your work hidden from view, I’m not going to vote for you.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. If you can’t be bothered to tell the voters what you did, you shouldn’t be surprised when you don’t win. If you don’t care, why should I?

        So all the people who voted for her, in other words, did it just because she was her. Not for her actual work. They thought she ought to get a participation trophy.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. She said something about all editors at Baen having an equal hand in all their books. She couldn’t say she alone was responsible for any specific title. So there was really no way to judge her separately from Jim Minz when he was also a slated puppy finalist in 2015 and 2016. Unsurprisingly they were both still below No Award even in 2016 when Mr. Noah lost to Sheila Gilbert (and Liz Gorinsky came in 2nd).

        Liked by 1 person

      4. This is just a side note, but of course a telling one – This shows that the Puppies (and Toni) dont see the awards as an award for the _works_ but for the _person_. This is an important distiction and a big part of the Puppies mind set – Correira should not recieve a Hugo for any particular work, but because ahe “deserves” an award by now (according to them).

        Liked by 4 people

      5. I think many voters actually do this with the person categories. At least, they don’t consider just the work from the previous year alone. Yet another reason I’d like to see changes to the editor and artist categories.

        Like

      6. To be fair, buying the right books is part of an editors job. So perhabs they believed that TW was worthy for that.
        (As someone who didn’t vote in that catagory last year, but read their stuff later und it some people were very succesful to get on a wishlist)

        Also even if we try we can’t be completly neutral. There are writers who from past exspiriance have allready won against other writers, when I only read their name.
        (I need to have strong negative feeling for the writer to have him or her at a disadvantage)
        So subcontionesly it can be that certain post works may influence how we vote.
        I don’t know if that would play a role for me in artist, because I am very bad at remembering artists name, because I am more a writers kind of guy.

        Like

  5. Irony is trying to game the Hugo vote than becoming indignant when people who don’t normally vote do so in order to slap you down hard. I swear, if it weren’t for projection, some people would have no thoughts at all.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. First off – spoiler alert!

    Secondly – wow, what a densely packed statement Torgersen made. Love use of the word “scabs” by someone who likely thinks union organizers should be thrown out of helicopters.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. The Sad Puppies won in a landslide but they had to pretend that they lost because the US army couldn’t arrest the SJW-CHORFs until the crime had been fully committed. Any day now we’ll all get arrested and Brad will get a rocket.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. I am looking forward to March 5th. QAnon will still be around but it will be fractured into multiple factions going in different directions, rather like the Tea Party did when Obama did not, in fact, come for their guns, throw them in FEMA camps and raise their taxes. Simultaneously.

        Liked by 5 people

  7. Brad writes: because they’ve always hated Baen as a business, and Toni by association,

    I used to be a “frequent Baen Buyer”. Mostly because a decade or so ago, they were close to the best place to buy SF ebooks (and I suspect they had the electronic rights for most of their authors, making at least a few into “buy from Baen or else”). And, for a long while, that was pretty much the only way to get Vorkosigan books (electronic or print).

    Their monthly bundles frequently had enough “interesting or possibly interesting stuff” that they were worth the money. Not every month, but multiple months a year. Then I ran across one book, by an author I shall not name, that was… well… I am not sure what I disliked most about the book. It may have been the described-at-length generous cleavage. It may have been how all bisexuals are inherently evil. It may have been that the only use one has for male homosexuals is to manly die on the front-lines (but, only because it is a TOTAL WAR and we have to go that far).

    At that point, I assigned that author a negative value for evaluating the worth of a bundle. Then, a few more ended up in that bucket. And, eventually, some authors ended up at an infinite negative value (or, at least large enough that it would always end up in a “not buying this bundle”). Now, I could genuinely not tell you what year I last looked at what was coming up in the bundles. Mostly because the last few times before that, it was all “nope, not getting that” and, well, not worth the hassle. I am thinking I did actually check in 2019.

    So, all in all, I would say that I don’t hate Baen as a business. I don’t automatically (although I can’t promise that won’t change) assume that anyone publishing with Baen is a right-wing nutjob. I don’t even assume that anyone working for them is that.

    I don’t really have an opinion on Ms Weisskopf. I do have opinions on the statement she recently made about the Baen’s Bar thing. And that is “it was extremely weasel-worded, unless she was caught completely blind-sided, in which case she has shown lack of competence in running a business”.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I don’t hate Baen either. Jim Baen is still probably to this day one of the only people in publishing who ever truly “got” and embraced ebooks. But, yeah, there’s just been less and less to nothing of interest coming from them of late.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. I’m quite fond of some Baen authors. Just last week I recommended several Baen authors to someone looking for interesting MilSF, and the week before, I let a writer know about Baen’s fantasy contest (I heard about it from File770, that hotbed of Baen support) – unfortunately, a few days later, I did feel compelled to warn the author of more recent Baen news). But I have no problem with DisCon III withdrawing their GoH invitation to Toni Weiskopf.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. It may have been that the only use one has for male homosexuals is to manly die on the front-lines (but, only because it is a TOTAL WAR and we have to go that far).

      I hadn’t seen that before. In the bad old days, books and movies made us out to be pathetic sissies and then killed us off in the first half of the story. The audience was meant to either laugh or cheer when it happened. Manly gay characters who die nobly on the front lines are a big step up!

      I might add that realistic gay characters almost don’t exist in SF/F no matter who the publisher is. Someone polled gay SF readers about that a while back and was surprised to find that we’re pretty much okay with any positive representation, even if it’s not realistic. I suppose I kind of feel that way too, but I’m always super excited on those occasions that I see something better.

      Making all the bi guys “inherently” evil is weird. I’d have expected them to deny that bi guys existed at all.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I don’t recall any bi guys, only bi women. Does’t mean there were no bi male characters.

        But, also, I have spent a long good while trying to forget that book. It’s not working as well as it could have…

        Like

      2. Actually that would be an interesting panel, tipps to write a gay character realistic. It would be very interesting Greg to tell us what mostly went wrong.(Only of course if you want to talk about it, or if you have allready talked about it, can you sent a link)

        Warning short rant about one of the worst cases of that that I remember from my childhood:
        I remember a Bud Spencermovie in German TV (I don’t know if any non-Germans now the Actioncomedies from the Italian Star) where the hero switched the car with a gay character, because he was hunted by a think gangsters, and the character was then killed by a carbomb. The movie seemed to play it for laughts and I remember my horror watching this scene.

        Liked by 3 people

      3. What do you think of Charlie Stross’ attempts?

        In ‘Rule 34’ he consciously made all the protagonists queer, and the main antagonist straight. And his Laundry series have, to this date, at least one gay male couple and one trans man.

        Charlie being bi himself is fairly bullish on providing representation of non-straight characters, but since I’m as straight as a ruler I have no clue how well he succeeds.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. @Mart I’m going to decline to answer your question on the grounds that “queer” is a trigger word for me, so I’m uncomfortable even hearing that from other gay people. A straight person has absolutely no right to be using it.

        Like

      5. that was always one of the problems I’ve always had with Eric Flint’s 1632 books. Apart from anything else, they were always so damn het. I mean, I’m more-or-less het these days, and so old I’m not sure it matters anyway, but jeez, have at least one or two LGBT characters, huh? An entire fucking town is transported back 350 years, and no-one in that town is gay? At all?

        Greg, as far as I can tell, most of the the LGBTQI characters I’ve seen in the last 10 to 15 years have been written by women authors. Tanya Huff, Melissa Scott, Martha Wells and KB Spangler leap to mind.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. I’ve never hated Baen at all. I’m disappointed at the way it’s gone downhill in recent years – and the far-right associations, too. But not all the good has gone even now.

      Like

    4. The insane loyalty some authors and readers have to Baen is weird. I mean, I love a lot of books that Tor and Orbit publish, but if either one of those companies turned out to be hosting Nazi insurrectionists on their message boards, I wouldn’t be rallying to their defense.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I think it’s just pure tribalism: they regard Baen as “their” publishing house, as opposed to all those other liberal/elitist/commie/SJW publishers, and so any criticism – even peripherally, as in this case – triggers their circle-the-wagons response. Plus, as is typical of the right, as a group they’re unbelievably thin-skinned

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Baen almost strikes me as a cult with their whole “We are the real heart of science fiction. We are what the real fans read. We are where the really successful authors publish” shtick.

        Liked by 3 people

  8. “cough, not too different from how a hundred thousand Biden “votes” magically appeared overnight in key counties, back in November, cough “
    Well, gee, Brad, if the Republicans-run state legislatures hadn’t forbidden those mail- in votes to be opened and counted before November 4th, you’d have been able to see the Trump Train falling off of the elevated trestle.

    Liked by 6 people

      1. Und it was super suprising, that a lot of mail-in ballots were for Bidden and not for Trump.
        The same as it was supersuprising that more people voted in the Hugos 2015 then before.
        Brad stament is so much of a selfown it isn’t funny.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. And of course this meant there would be a “red mirage” on election night, as was widely discussed prior to election day.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. As far as I can recollect, the best contemporaneous discussion of the 2015 Toni Weisskopf thing was on Eric Flint’s blog (in the wake of Sasquan), where Eric accused composite Worldcon fandom of punishing Ms. Weisskopf (among others) for partisan reasons, and of ignoring the merits of finalists’ work, in his April 2016 blog entry But for Wales?.

    I took it as a good-faith challenge and commented in that spirit, as Eric had always been a good egg, and I trusted to his blog to not immediately become a dumpster fire. I pointed out that, obviously, the composite Worldcon fan has no voice and isn’t a hive mind, but that I could speak for at least one voter, and moreover one who spotted a few things Eric missed.

    One was that Best Editor Long Form is an infamously problematic category. Prior to 2015, I’d failed to grapple fully with it, and felt vaguely guilty over either skipping the category or making guesses. For 2015, my all-out effort to be a fully informed voter in all categories had brought me to the surprise conclusion that an informed vote in Editor Long is actually not possible (except maybe for a handful of book-industry insiders). So, I’d regretfully concluded that first place No Award was the only way to vote my opinion that the category should be eliminated (that splitting Best Editor Long Form from the former Best Editor award had been a blunder), and did exactly that (as I’ve done every year since).

    Moreover, I pointed out, that year’s nominees hadn’t helped much. Sheila Gilbert helpfully provided for the voter packet a list of books she edited, and samples of some. Anne Sowards listed titles she edited, but provided no samples. Toni Weisskopf sent a thoughtful one-paragraph statement that she’d decided to submit nothing because “editor long form” covers such a wide breadth of work that she’d have to send all the books Baen published in 2014. The two other finalists (Vox Day and Jim Minz) provided nothing to judge by, and — shocker, gosh, who knew? — ended up at the bottom of the voters’ rankings.

    More generally (and with maybe a few industry insiders as exceptions), nobody really knows which book (and other Long Form works if any) editors did exceptional work. Modern fiction editors’ work is largely invisible (and, pro-tip: doesn’t involve line-editing), some leading books get handled by many editors, and it’s just generally de-facto impossible to determine who deserves the statue. Anyway, the ericflint,net discussion thread covered all this, in detail.

    I certainly didn’t expect the resident Pups to suddenly say “Oh, I am thus enlightened!”. In fact, some of the usual suspects (May, Monaghan, and the like) pointedly ignored that subthread and continued to try to shadowbox against invisible enemies and yell at clouds.

    Still, it’s just a bit vexing to see Torgersen pretend as if he hadn’t been right there when these matters were recapped, since he very much was (and was among those who studiously ignored the subthread).

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Do you think it’s possible that the intent behind the best editor award is to honor editors who have curated anthologies? It’s a suspicion that’s been slowly sneaking into my conscious mind and something about your comment just brought it to light. People like Dozois, Datlow, et al.? Not that they are solely curators, but maybe that’s the editing intended to be rewarded? I suspect not, but it would make more sense to me, as you could look at an editor’s anthologies and say “wow, they really find some hidden gems and never include crap” or whatnot, and vote for them.

      Like

      1. That’s certainly part of how you can judge those editors in short form. But in long form the acquiring editor may or may not be the book editor.

        Like

      2. Kathodus, hmm, putting on my old-fogy hat (and cribbing from Web-searching): 2007’s split of Best Professional Editor followed the latter award having been made annual the prior year (2006). WSFS Constitution (in section 3.3.10) defined Editor Long as awarded for “The editor of at least four (4) novel-length works primarily devoted to science fiction and / or fantasy published in the previous calendar year” [that don’t qualify for BDP Short] and (in section 3.3.9) defined Editor Short as for the “editor of at least four (4) anthologies, collections or magazine issues (or their equivalent in other media) primarily devoted to science fiction and / or fantasy, at least one of which was published in the previous calendar year”. Separately in section 3.3.1, novel length is defined as 40,000 words or more.

        So, unless I’m badly misreading that, it’s not Editor Long that aimed to include editors of curated anthologies, but rather Editor Short. I find the latter award possible for us non-industry mere mortals to vote rationally; it’s Editor Long that I find de-facto impossible.

        Frankly, although I’m sure I participated in related WSFS Business Meeting discussion on this at — I think? — L.A. IV, I really don’t remember the logic very clearly.

        Like

      3. Ironically, the split of the Editor Award was in part generated by Jim Baen wanting a Hugo. The Editor Award inevitably went to magazine and anthology editors, given that they craft their magazine issues or anthologies as a whole piece, a creator role and not just an editor role. People knew who those editors were and it was easy to judge their work by the whole cloth of what they edited and put together. This annoyed Baen and some others and they eventually decided to split the award into Short Form (magazines, anthologies,) and Long Form (book publishing.) But developmental editing is seamless, line-editing can often be done by several people and other than rewarding long form editors for their acquisition prowess in snagging books that people like for their lines, it’s not really something that can be judged by readers. SFF authors who work with the editors, like those voting for the Nebulas, yes maybe, readers no.

        So that particular award has essentially become a personality award with Hugo voters voting for editors they know and like from conventions. As such, Weisskopf had as good a chance as anyone else. She was nominated in 2013, before the Puppy mess really got going into a full voting slate. But because the Puppies turned her into their mascot, that has certainly turned people suspicious about whether she has done good work or is just being chosen on political ideological grounds. Add to that Baen’s policy that they don’t edit much on their books and most people did not feel that she’s really put in her dues, despite her heading the company, not in the way they know that Ginjer Buchanan at Ace or Sheila Gilbert at DAW have found, supported and steered SFF authors over decades as part of SFF lore.

        In 2015, none of the nominees got the award. She was not beaten by a rival editor in a rigged vote but instead rejected as suspicious because of the circumstances of how she and other nominees were nominated from the Puppies’ campaign efforts, a suspicion that did extend to the whole award. A lot of Hugo voters for many years prior to the Puppies wanted to get rid of that award and the protest of that particular vote was as much against the award category as it was the specific nominees. But that does not fit the they are out to get us narrative of course.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. That’s funny I’ve always heard the splitting out of Long Form Editor blamed on Tor and specifically Patrick Nielsen Hayden. 🙂

        Brad and the others just think that No Award is a cheat. He looks at how many votes Toni got over the other finalists that year and thinks that should have been it.

        Like

      5. I did say some others and PNH might have been one. Baen was nominated for his work on a magazine several times when it was just one Editor award but didn’t win. Then he got nominated once as a book publisher and didn’t win. The book editors sometimes got nominated and then didn’t win against the magazine/anthology ones. Specifically Gardner Dozois just kept winning the thing for Asimov’s all through the 1990’s.

        When they got the Long Form Editor split, PNH won the first one and several others but he got beat out a lot by fellow Tor editor David G. Hartwell. That wasn’t specifically because Hartwell was a Tor editor but because previously he’d been the anthology editor on the New York Review of Science Fiction’s official Best of Science Fiction and Best of Fantasy annual anthologies, published by Tor. So the Hugo voters knew his work/name putting together short fiction anthologies as the credited editor.

        And that’s really how it works. The editor’s name is on the magazine which is put together by them. The editor’s name is on an anthology which is put together by them. So that’s easy to know the editor’s name and judge their “editorship”. Editor names aren’t slapped on the covers of novels (nor should they be.) It’s a different form, different area of publication, different job, etc. It’s nice for book editors to get recognition for works but it doesn’t really work to have it try to come from fan conventions instead of the actual industry.

        Liked by 2 people

  10. Shorter logic:

    Toni never told us what she edited
    All the books from Baen have shitty proofreading, massive typos, etc.

    Therefore, she didn’t deserve to win Best Editor.

    It’s Best, not Favoritest Who Agrees With Our Politics Editor.

    Puppies just wanted all of them and theirs to get participation trophies. Like the snowflakes they are.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I just looked up my votes for the year and I voted Anne Sowards and Sheila Gilbert above No Award, because they provided a list of books they edited and I enjoyed some of those books and didn’t notice any egregious problems. I placed Toni Weisskops and Jim Minz below No Award, because they provided no information about what they edited and many Baen books I read have had notable editing issues. I left Vox Day off the ballot entirely.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. I did almost exactly the same thing. Two nominees gave me something to evaluate, I looked at the stuff, and made a judgment call to put one in the first slot, and the other in the second, then I voted No Award, because two of the three remaining submitted nothing, and the third’s examples were are crappy.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I agree with the sentiment, but wish to quibble over the obsolete-if-ever-true-at-all notion of judging editors by the adequacy of copyediting — because that is just not what editors are concerned with in the present day publishing industry. They are concerned with acquisitions, cutting through the interminable slush pile on practically a 24×7 basis including when they’re off on holiday, advocating in production meetings for particular gems they truly love, and carrying out the inevitable scutwork of running a business.

      Back when you were talking about Charles Scribner’s Sons lovingly polishing a new F. Scott Fitzgerald manuscript, apparently things were different, and publishing houses assigned major labour resources (but seldom senior editors) to line-editing — but that’s just not the nature of a professional book editor’s job today, and it’s about time for fannish discussion to recognise reality. (The Scribner of olden days, I would guess, fobbed off line-editing onto whoever was the latest intern to arrive clutching an M.A. in English.)

      (And yes, Been copyediting sucks large rocks through a very thin straw. But we should not confuse that with what professional editors in the modern market do.)

      Like

      1. You never really know how much the author came in with and how much an editor helped shape things like plot, pacing, theme, character, etc. But if the end result is award-worthy, then the editor contributed or knew where to leave well enough alone.

        Like

      2. Surely a book editor is responsible for the totality of the final product. No, they’re not responsible for copyediting or text layout or artwork or cover design, but surely they’re responsible for ensuring that those things are done well on their product.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. One of the things that gave an author a big plus check on my deliberations was if they listed a Hugo nominated book from the same year, and that book was good or great. Since I tend to read the novels first, this was helpful.

        Like

      4. In my day job I’m a Principal Technical Writer, and before the economic contraction that meant that most of my work was Information Architecture, plus a little bit of Developmental Editing, and a bit of Technical Writing. For decades I’ve been telling people (even when interviewing for jobs) that I am an AWFUL copyn editor, and if that’s what they are looking for, I’m not their man.

        BUT…

        During the 26 years that I was Editor in Chief of a sci fi shared universe fanzine, I KNEW that I was a horrible copy editor, and thus recruited three people who were very good copy editors to handle that part of the job.

        So, I think it is entirely fair to judge Weisskopf on the lack of copy editing in Baen books because she is in a position to cause good copy editing to happen, and she has not made it a priority for DECADES.

        Liked by 3 people

  11. JJ: I certainly wouldn’t disagree with that, except it’s unclear which person or persons did most of the work on any given book, or what the extent and nature of that work was. In general term, some of it has to do with shaping the text, more for some works than for others, and just a great deal of middleman work between authors and the publishing process. It’s very enlightening to attend Worldcon (/Westercon, etc.) panels and kaffeklatsches with professional genre editors, where they patiently explain what the job is really like.

    Kevin Standlee’s take on the matter, that I first heard during the years in question, is that Best Editor Long Form has ended up being functionally a proxy for a Best Publisher, and Best Editor Short Form a proxy for Best Anthology or Magazine. In the same written piece where he wrote that, he cautioned that one of the problems with conceiving of the awards that way is that books often have multiple editors.

    In any event, in any given year under consideration, even if you can know who did a great job acquiring, selecting shaping, advocating for, and massaging a few notable works, do you know enough about all such work in the genre to determine who was best at it? I can’t. That was my take-away lesson from my all-out effort in 2015 — that after all I didn’t suck that badly, but rather the category did.

    Like

  12. I joined WSFS in the Puppy year specifically to vote against their slate, and stayed on long enough to vote in person for E Pluribus Hugo at the MidAmeriCon business meeting. (I still have my badge with the EPH ribbon on it.) I wasn’t about to tolerate right-wingers hijacking the Hugos even if I don’t think much of the woke either. If I’m a scab voter, then I’m proud to be one. WSFS is open to anyone who can pay, but it takes a fair bit of skill to annoy that many people who are willing to pay just to spite you.

    Like

  13. Brad was delighted at bringing more voters to the Hugos, as I recall; I can’t find the reference at the moment, but I seem to recall that he asked everyone to accept that the influx of new voters would give the 2015 results especial validity. And the subtext keeps turning into text again.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The Puppies did indeed brag about being responsible for all of the new Supporting Members — but of course the Puppies believed that all those new members were joining because they agreed with the Puppies. Instead, it turned out that almost all of the new Supporting Members joined because they were pissed off about what the Puppies had done.

      Seeing the final voting statistics which got released after the 2015 ceremony, and realizing that they were actually just a small minority clique, must have been a very rude awakening for the Puppies.

      Liked by 2 people

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.