SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Hugo awards, being the favorite they are with SN readers, are out again!
As posted at The Vox.
The first-ever threepeat of the Hugo Awards — the prestigious, long-running fantasy awards handed out annually at WorldCon — just issued a giant rejection of right-wing gatekeeping in the struggle to diversify the world of science fiction and fantasy writing.
N.K. Jemisin's groundbreaking fantasy series the Broken Earth trilogy has won critical acclaim, been optioned for development as a TV series, and received numerous accolades from the sci-fi and fantasy community. And on August 19, it achieved yet another milestone when Jemisin became the first author in the Hugos' 65-year history to win back-to-back awards for every book in a trilogy. Jemisin won the award for Best Novel three years in a row, starting with The Fifth Season in 2016, The Obelisk Gate in 2017, and now The Stone Sky in 2018.
Meanwhile, The Verge reports:
The 2018 Hugo Awards were held last night at the World Science Fiction Convention in San Jose, California. The Hugo award, voted on by members of the fan community, is considered the highest honor for science fiction and fantasy literature.
Like the previous couple of years, women almost completely swept the awards. N.K. Jemisin took home the top honor for The Stone Sky, the third installment of her Broken Earth trilogy. Other winners include Martha Wells for her first Murderbot novella All Systems Red, Suzanne Palmer for her novelette “The Secret Life of Bots,” and Rebecca Roanhorse for her short story “Welcome to your Authentic Indian Experience™.” (Roanhorse also took home the John W. Campbell Jr. Award for Best New Writer.)
Jemisin’s win gives her a history-making hat trick: she’s won the top award for each Broken Earth installment, the first two having been for The Fifth Season and The Obelisk Gate. It’s a significant achievement, earned for Jemisin’s groundbreaking writing, blending of genres, and outstanding storytelling.
The complete list of nominees can be found in The Verge's story. Additional reporting can be found at the Guardian, on TOR.com, and elsewhere.
(Score: 4, Informative) by aristarchus on Wednesday August 22 2018, @06:30PM (17 children)
Yes, I hardly recognize it, and am surprised my name is still on it! As per usual, check out the original submission.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2018, @06:44PM
As was I but this Alt-Aristarchus submission is fine, keep it up!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2018, @07:58PM
heh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2018, @09:17PM
Well I have to agree that "Poor Sad Puppies, now with extra sadness, and some Proud Boys on the side." is a pretty shitty addition to the summary.
However, janrinok tries to remove the controversy by changing the parts you quoted, that is pretty scummy.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday August 23 2018, @02:46AM (13 children)
It is what editors do. The story was about the winners of the Hugo Award, the hit for the alt-right was a side issue. However, I left your quotation in the summary and some of our community still thought the story had a political bias.
Seriously, thank you for the submission. Give me something to work with and your contributions can be on the front page.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday August 23 2018, @06:51AM (12 children)
My thanks, janrinok. But next time, a bit more respect for the line between an author and an editor? Even a lowly submitter deserves a bit of authorial respect, under the Moral Property provisions of the Berne convention.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by janrinok on Thursday August 23 2018, @07:50AM (11 children)
If the alt-right aspect was the whole point of your submission, then change the headline to suit. Next time you try to get an alt-right story through by using a false headline then I will reject it.
I am more than happy to help you get your stories to the front page if they are not on your usual topic, unless they have got something new to say.
Show a little respect yourself to the other members of this community.
(Score: 2, Informative) by aristarchus on Thursday August 23 2018, @08:10AM (1 child)
Pretty sure the headline I submitted was taken from the source, not something I made up. But, have you noticed that people are out to get you, lately, janrinok? Especially the antifa, or the anti-alt-right? Just because people are out to get you, that does mean you are paranoid.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday August 23 2018, @08:29AM
I don't lose sleep over it.
(Score: 1) by oakgrove on Thursday August 23 2018, @08:29AM (8 children)
WTF? Alt right blah blah blah alt right right alt alt alt right rrrriiiigggghhhttttt. Jeez dude
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday August 23 2018, @08:35AM (7 children)
I apologise. But you ought to see what we have to put with that doesn't reach the front page.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday August 23 2018, @07:20PM (6 children)
You say we ought to see it. But, you don't put it on the frontpage. So goofy!!!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday August 24 2018, @02:38AM (5 children)
You can read the contents of the submission queue any time you wish.
The material isn't suitable for the front page, which is why we don't publish it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday August 24 2018, @07:23AM (1 child)
As good a reason for censorship as any, I guess. . .
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday August 24 2018, @08:14AM
Stories are selected depending on quality and interest, and subsequently edited. That's what editors do.
Comments are not censored. If you check, you can still read all of yours.
Discussion closed.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday August 24 2018, @08:48PM (2 children)
The Rejected Subs aren't in the Subs Queue. As everybody knows. Very hard to see those. It’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday August 25 2018, @05:20AM (1 child)
No, but we do expect our community members to have a modicum of intelligence. There is always the exception to the rule though...
You can review all of your own submissions on your personal submissions page.
However, if you want others to see your rejected submissions, we suggest that you put them in your personal Journal - so that they can be kept in the database and backed-up automatically with all of our other data.
(Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday August 25 2018, @09:34PM
You say, "oh, go look at your own Subs, at the ones we rejected." And I can do that very easily, that's so true. But we were talking about, @oakgrove should see the rejected Subs. From me, from @aristarchus, from anybody, I don't know. But you didn't say, "@oakgrove, you're part of the problem, go look at your TERRIBLE rejected Subs!" And I don't think you meant that. I think you meant, look at other people's rejected Subs, see how bad they are. But, not easy to see someone else's rejected Subs. Except, I assume, for people like TMB, @chromas and @cmn32480 who RUN the website and have VERY SPECIAL cyber powers. Like the ones you use for unmasking. You know it's not easy. And you go, "oh, all the SMART people can do it, @realDonaldTrump can't figure that one out, he must be DUMB, so sad!" Believe me, I can figure it out. If I want to spend a million years fiddling with the cyber. Who wants that? Nobody wants that. If I want to see @oakgrove's rejected Subs, where are they? I do the Search, right? I put oakgrove, I put submissions -- otherwise known as Subs. And there's nothing. But, I touch on @oakgrove's tweet where it says oakgrove. I touch submissions. There's a Sub that got accepted. And it says the rejected ones aren't "listed." Nice way to say, we know what you're looking for, we're hiding that. It shows the one that got accepted. I not listed in the Search, why? It was accepted, it's hidden in the Search. Not hidden in the other place. I'm not a cyber person, it looks like bad cyber to me. I'll tell you one thing about cyber, it always does exactly what the folks running it tell it to do. It's the most loyal thing you've seen in your entire life.
And I think you don't understand the cyber. And don't understand what you're saying. Because you say, I can go look at my rejected Subs. I can, I do, it's always PERFECTO. But you say, put Subs in journal so they can be kept. They're kept, I can tell they're kept. Because I can look at them. And you said I can look at them. Or maybe, you're saying they won't be kept anymore, maybe they'll get wiped. Wouldn't it be a shame if something happened to them. Little bit of a threat again. Believe me, I'm not worried. I'm hearing all the time about somebody flipping, somebody getting whacked. And maybe my Subs about old old news are getting wiped. It's a nothing.