Canon and Campbell

There is an on-going discussion about SFF canon amid general dissatisfaction with a couple of related aspects of this years Hugo Awards.

The short version of my take on all this is that canon is important but it is not THAT important. Put another way, there are books of great historical significance and there exactly zero books that you must read.

head canon

Canonical books and writers serve two roles:

  1. They can act as kind of metonyms for time periods, literary movements or sub-genres.
  2. They make it easier to talk about current works by providing common points of comparison.

The second point implies a populist conception of canon where it isn’t the critical acclaim of a work but its popular influence. For example, I think it is an easy argument to make that when looking at contemporary fantasy Avatar: The Last Air Bender is a key text, even though it was a kid’s cartoon (all be it one that was critically acclaimed as a kid’s cartoon).

On the first point I’d cite Chuck Tingle’s Space Raptor Butt Invasion, which has canonical qualities to it but which is also a shining example of something that is not required reading. Yet it’s existence is a simple way of pointing to a whole gaggle of aspects of SFF publishing in the second decade of the 21st century (social media, Amazon ebook niches, culture wars etc). You don’t need to have read it to make sense of a whole bunch of stuff that went on in that recently departed decade but it really helps to know about it if you are hoping to make sense of a whole pile of things.

Significance, impact and influence are more relevant factors when thinking about canonical works (IMHO) than literary merit or critical acclaim (or awards) but those factors aren’t wholly independent of each other either.

But canon is also political. Political in the sense of power and of privilege. This is true whether we think of canon in terms of edifying work of great literary merit or canon in the more populist sense that I am using. Not all works get the same chances and “significance” and “influence” can exist for good and bad reasons. That is an issue when considering history in general. The British Empire is of great historical significance but mainly because of all the damage it caused in multiple regions around the world. Historical significance includes disasters, wars and acts of malice and when we consider literary significance there are parallels. Works or influential figures can be significant not just in spite of negative aspects but because of them.

John W Campbell is manifestly a significant figure in science fiction. His role as an influential editor shaped popular perceptions of science fiction particularly in the US (and hence because of the political, cultural and economic power of the US, the world). So yes, if you want to understand science fiction in a historical context it is hard to ignore Campbell. But…it’s hard to ignore Campbell because Campbell was powerful and the how and why of “powerful” are necessarily political questions.

And so Campbell himself becomes a metonym not just for SFF in his time but also for debates about SFF and its future in our time.

Consider two propositions (one of which I believe to be false):

  1. John W Campbell was an influential figure in science fiction because his talent & skills as an editor, his imagination & skill as a creator of science fiction, and his vision/aesthetic for science fiction were better than his contemporaries. He gained that influence because of his own individual competence.
  2. John W Campbell was an influential figure in science fiction through a combination of chance, wider social forces, some genuine talent and skill, and personal ambition.

I don’t think I need to belabour that the first proposition is the one I think is false. What is significant about it is that proposition 1 is not just a ‘great man’ view of history but also neatly aligns with the pseudo-libertarian view of history which also neatly aligns with that section of science fiction fandom that also regards itself as Campbellian in outlook.

The compulsion to not just make some historical figures canonical but also to canonise them is even more obvious in one of Campbell’s proteges, L Ron Hubbard. Hubbard famously (and with Campbell’s initial assistance) first blurred the boundary between science fiction and pseudoscience with Dianetics and then went on to found his own toxic religion. Within Scientology Hubbard’s science fiction writing is consider the most significant of all and part of Hubbard’s visionary powers.

That Scientology is manifestly nonsense and that Hubbard’s role as a cult leader is largely undisputed outside of Scientology, makes Hubbard a simpler figure to talk about than Campbell. If I write Tweets about Hubbard’s many and well documented flaws, nobody (aside from Scientologists) is going to get upset or use such Tweets as an example of ‘cancel culture’. Put another way Hubbard arrives in a discussion about the history of US science fiction pre-cancelled. However, if you want to know about the history of the genre, Hubbard is definitely a figure you should know about but clearly NOT because he was a good person or because he was a particularly talented writer but because he was somebody who used the genre to gain power and influence far beyond his abilities.

What Scientologists do with Hubbard is to take the undeniable significance of Hubbard to their movement and then re-apply that significance as a moral virtue of Hubbard, which in turn establishes in their eyes the broader moral virtue of Hubbard as a person. For want of a better term, let’s call that process Hubbardisation — the process of canonising influential figures in science fiction. The flip-side of Hubbardisation’s confusion of significance with virtue is that when people cite facts about the painted-saints of SFF that cast them in a bad light (Campbell’s racism for example) it is perceived as an attack on their significance because of the confusion of significance with virtue. The more you think about it the weirder it is, after all there’s no shortage of historical figures in wider history who are significant precisely because THEY WERE BAD PEOPLE (Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler).

Not every notable SFF writer is equally Hubbardised. I guess on the left Le Guin gets somewhat Hubbardised and I get the defensiveness that arises when people point out the moral failings in writers you admire. Other writers not so much. Philip K Dick seems less prone to this process — his struggles with mental health are perhaps too integral to his work for him to be seen as saintly and hence he is romanticised into a tragic figure.

I’ve talked about two aspects of canon but there is a third aspect of looking at literary history which is that it is a buried treasure house. Not everybody is going to enjoy older works but plenty of people do. There is also a hidden history of people whose influence was minimised, under-played or erased from popular recounts. We can infer as well that there must be many people and works that in different circumstances would have been of great significance but through social and political circumstances or the malign influence of powerful figures, never had the opportunity. Exploring this other history is valuable and rewarding in itself but also helps us understand how interesting works and creators still end up being sidelined and marginalised today.

A few more Hugo Stats

Firstly if you haven’t checked out Martin Pyne’s Sankey diagrams showing how the preferences flowed, check them out on Twitter:

One thing we’ve looked at before is how many finalists should there be. I still think 6 is the sweet-spot and I also think this year validates that.

This bubble graph compares the ranking of the finalists in the EPH stats with the final ranking from the transferable vote stats. As a generality, popular nominees are popular finalists, as you might expect. If you had to bet on what the final rankings would be with nothing but the EPH rankings to go on then you generally wouldn’t be very wrong if you just picked the EPH ranking. However, you’d still be wrong quite often.

Notably Best Related Work and Best Editor Short Form both had winners that were sixth in the nomination process. That’s a notable divergence from the bubble graph being something other than a diagonal line. A more quirky difference is Jonathan Strahan in Best Editor Short Form is the only finalist to be second in both processes.

O Westin asked in the comments:

“I might be misreading/misrepresenting the data, but if I understand things correctly, the closer the initial points are to the number of nominations, the more focused that person’s nominators are”

I think that is correct and if so, we could look at the ratio of the raw vote to the initial set of points to quantify that a bit. Here I’ve ranked fan writers by that stat (sorry, it’s the only category where I grabbed these numbers).

Elsa Sjunneson81%
Adam Whitehead76%
Gavia Baker-Whitelaw71%
James Davis Nicoll66%
Jason Sanford60%
Alasdair Stuart53%
Paul Weimer51%
Sarah Gailey48%
Bogi Takács48%
Charles Payseur47%
Cora Buhlert43%
Camestros Felapton41%
Adri Joy40%
Aidan Moher39%

Note that the ratio certainly doesn’t sort finalists from non-finalists. There is a finalist (Adam) in the 70s and a finalist in the 40s (Cora). Primarily this is because with EPH the raw votes matter most. When it comes to each elimination you get more points for your raw votes if your votes are more “bullety” which makes it a bit less likely that you end up in a head-to-head elimination. However, in the end, it is raw votes that decide whether you get eliminated. As people get eliminated, the survivors own points get more bullety.

tl;dr a “bullet vote” set of ballots is neither a substantial advantage or a disadvantage with EPH and nor is the opposite. EPH really only makes a difference when comparing two nominees with a similar number of raw votes.

I think the two-stage voting process for the Hugos is pretty neat all round. I wouldn’t change it currently. However, if I was devising a new award and wanted only one stage of voting, EPH looks pretty good.

  • Voters only have to list things they like.
  • You get many of the features of ranked voting without the rankings
  • It avoids ties. (arguably this is a bug rather than a feature)

If I suddenly had a lot of money/time to create a new SF award program, I’d go with single stage EPH voting with voters having up to 10 nominees per category. However, rather than a single winner I’d award the final three as the joint winner.

BDP Short Graph of No Meaning

This is still just messing around. The difference this time is I included the finals voting process as well. That’s dodgy obviously as it is a different method. I included directions this time but I’m still messing it up as the arrows point to where the votes came FROM not where they went to. Numbers after the title just indicate which instance in the show (reading down the first Good Place episode listed in the stats is Good Place1 etc)

Hyperspace Fan Writer Network

I don’t know a lot about social network analysis but I do know how to plug numbers into software I don’t entirely understand. So there’s no blistering insights from the following graph, I just thought it looked neat.

This is the data from the previous post converted into a network graph. The thickness of the bar are the proportion of points that re-allocated as a nominee was eliminated. The data is essentially incomplete because EPH stops when the six finalists have been identified. In theory the algorithm could keep going until there was one ‘winner’. So, for example, Cora and Paul don’t have a connection because they were both finalists. I also turned it into an undirected graph because I messed up how I imported the data into Gephi ( ) and the arrows were pointing the wrong way round.

The main thing is that it ended up looking pretty, like a faceted gemstone. It also shows that EPH functions in a way that is somehow both competitive but also mutually supportive.

EPH Fan Writer

Just looking at how EPH operates and as fan writer is the most personally interesting (to me and some regular readers!) I thought I’d show an interesting aspect.

As each person is eliminated, the points get redistributed. By looking at the change in points for each surviving nominee, you can calculate the proportion of points that the survivor gets from the eliminated.

For example, when I go out Paul, Cora and James get most of the extra — which makes sense I think given overlap in readers etc.

Alasdair S23%23%17%7%3%10%6%34%0%
Paul W14%0%36%1%16%40%6%1%23%
Bogi T4%15%8%38%0%10%54%26%8%
James DN3%23%2%7%26%0%6%0%23%
Cora B9%0%5%8%6%0%3%1%33%
Adam W23%0%10%14%0%0%0%0%5%
Charles P7%0%9%6%0%10%0%36%8%
Camestros F0%0%2%8%49%0%26%1%
Jason S3%0%1%0%0%30%0%


Elsa S0%0%1%7%0%

O Westin0%0%1%0%

Sarah G7%31%4%

Adri J0%7%

Gavia BW0%

Aidan M

Hugo 2020 Stats First Look

Firstly, that ceremony was just not very good. Sorry ConNZ people, I know you’ve done a lot in difficult circumstances but yikes that was a slow landslide of bad things. The idea of long pre-recorded segments to allow for technical hitches was sound, having most of them been rambling dodgy anecdotes from GRR Martin with bonus Robert Silverberg was not good. A tour round the WETA workshop or somebody talking about the Hugos in nearby Rivendell etc. And then the mispronunciations…people will make allowances for live mistakes but recorded…not good.

Anyway. The results were a lot more fun than the ceremony and at times the results were duelling with the ceremony (e.g. Jeannette Ng speech from last year’s ceremony winning Best Related Work).

So what is interesting in the stats

Best Novel

The answer to why Ann Leckie’s The Raven Tower wasn’t a finalist is that she declined the nomination. This resulted in Charlie Jane Anders book The City in the Middle of the Night being a finalist. I think The City... was a worthy finalist but I thought it would come last. While it was low ranked in the final vote it still beat The Ten Thousand Doors of January.

The winner, A Memory Called Empire by Arkady Martine, was my second choice and a very deserving winner. The ironic surprise is that Martine didn’t quite make it to be a finalist for the Astounding Award. She was eliminated in the final EPH round of the nomination phase. I’m sure she’ll be happy with the Hugo Award for Best Novel as a consolation prize thought.

The longlist is quite strong in Best Novel. Some books I have enjoyed (Tiamat’s Wrath, Children of Ruin) and books I’ve seen strongly recommended.

Short Fiction

No big surprises here. The longlist for Short Story is a stronger set of stories than the longlist for Novella and Novelette IMHO but that’s the way of those categories. Short Story is a tougher and more competitive field. There was some interesting stuff going on in the EPH rounds as a consequence. Sen, Ramdas, Greenblatt, Kowal, Bolander, Osborne and Wise all battling it out with some Nebula finalist stories not making it to the Hugo finals.

Dramatic Presentation

Boring choices dear Hugo voters and I say that as somebody who thoroughly enjoyed The Good Place. Longlist is a bit dull to.


I don’t pay much attention to this category. Not sure why Navah Wolfe wasn’t eligible but interestingly the winner of the category, Ellen Datlow was ranked relatively low in the initial nominations. Some EPH battles going on in later rounds also. The net effect of all of this was nil as Wolfe then won the other editor category.


A decent longlist with Hugo Book Club, Rocket Stack Rank and The Full Lid, just below the cut off to be finalists.

In the final voting there was a bit of an exciting preference battle between The Book Smugglers and Nerds of a Feather, with the Nerds overtaking the Smugglers briefly after Galactic Journey got eliminated.

Fan writer

You naughty people! Looks like I got to play some fun EPH games! (The only name I don’t recognise in the long list is Stitch. [ETA: really interesting blog here ])

So I had an EPH battle with Sarah Gailey and then with O Westin, then stood aside while Jason Sandford had a couple of bouts, then he and I fought and then I had to fight Cora but she beat me with one of her secret power attacks. None of us remember this happening of course and reading the EPH stats looks like a very weird game of Pokemon as explained by an eight year-old!

The race for the winner proved to quite close at the end. After eliminations, there was only 21 votes between Bogi and Cora. It was always going to be a tough category to vote and so it proved! A talented set of finalists.

Hugo Ceremony Link

The livestream will be available here


  • Wellington NZ: Saturday 1 August 11 am
  • Sydney AU: Saturday 1 August 9 am – nice!
  • Perth AU/Hong Kong/Singapore: Saturday 1 August 7 am
  • Delhi: Saturday 1 August 4:30 am
  • Most of Europe & Africa: Saturday 1 August 1 am
  • UK & other more westerly bits: Midnight Friday 31 July/August 1
  • New York/ East Coast US: Friday 31 July 7 pm.
  • All those other US time zones: etc I lost track
  • Hawaii: Friday 31 July 1 pm.

It’s a neat problem of how to schedule a worldwide event so it hits civilised times. In this case, NZ gets a rare opportunity to pick but Europe & Africa have to have a late night party.

What should go in the 2020 Hugosauriad addendum?

I had a short Twitter conversation about the lack of Dinosaurs in this year’s Hugo Awards. There were two good suggestions from people:

  • Seanan McGuire’s InCryptid series has plesiosaurs in Book 5 Chaos Choreography. I’ve not truly engaged with Best Series but cryptids and prehistoric marine creatures are a different strand in dino-literature.
  • Omphalos of course does not dinosaurs in it because it is a story set in a world were Young Earth Creationism is factually correct. I do like it when things are defined by their abscence.

So post the Hugo results, I’ll do a 2020 addendum covering those two or maybe an essay each. Ted Chiang and Seanan McGuire themselves are relevant topics in a Hugo history as well, so that’s kind of neat.

Hugo Fan Writer: Why you should vote for…all of them!

I’m shirking my responsibility to rank this year’s finalists because it is too emotionally painful.

However here are links to my fan-writing meta-reviews in reverse alphabetical order:

Adam Whitehead

Paul Weimer

Bogi Takács

Alasdair Stuart

James Davis Nicoll

Cora Buhlert

But most of all don’t forget to vote!