A Hugo Review: Best Fan Writer - Abigail Nussbaum

Another writer I know almost nothing about, Abigail Nussbaum included six pieces in her packet (and a table of contents, yay!). All six were reviews, and of the six works reviewed, I was only familiar with one.

The issues she brings up in each review tend to be fascinating, and she presents her arguments nicely. It's almost like each review is an essay on a topic and the work she brings in just to support the topic. The review of Ex Machina discusses artificial intelligence and the gender of such constructs. Reviews of Luke Cage and The Underground Railroad both discuss race relations and how we view it from a mass media perspective.

She also doesn't shy away from comparing similar works or source material with the works she's reviewing. Her review of Russell T. Davies' adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream is compared with the BBC's The Hollow Crown. And her review of Arrival looks at the differences between it and "Story of Your Life" by Ted Chiang, which the movie was based on.

I find her website's name, "Asking the Wrong Questions" to be delightful when comparing her ability to see past the basics and get into a nice piece of meaty issues. She's got the writing chops along with the logical skills, and she's well worthy of a Hugo.

Conclusion: I have no idea how I'm going to end up voting in this category. The order on my ballot will likely change daily until the deadline.

A Hugo Review: Best Fan Writer - Natalie Luhrs

I'm not sure I'd ever heard of Natalie Luhrs before the Hugo finalists were announced, although the chances are good I've run across her at some point in my readings just like most of the other fan writers. I enjoyed her packet, which included a piece on Hamilton, an analysis of the Locus Recommended Reading List, a rant about people who review Romance without understanding the genre, an overview of silencing tactics, and thoughts on the World Fantasy Convention.

The Hamilton piece made me want to check out the Hamilton soundtrack, just to see what my brain will make of it. The Locus analysis reminded me why statistics are so nasty to deal with - there's just so much information there that can be read different ways. And in the comments, she notes that some people are upset because of the dataset she used. But you have to draw a line somewhere, and the Locus list is at least an accepted "best of" list in the field, even if it isn't all-inclusive. As an aside, I recognized quite a few names in the comments sections of her posts - so people I know and like follow her writings.

I didn't really understand the romance piece, except in the broadest terms - it's dumb to criticize an entire genre when you object to certain examples from it and aren't even familiar with the vast majority of the field. I don't go to the World Fantasy Convention, and probably never will, so - while I was sympathetic - I didn't really understand the specific issues she referred to except - again - in the broadest terms.

The most informative piece in her packet was probably the overview of silencing tactics, and I spent some time wondering if I'm guilty of any of them and trying to think of concrete examples that I might need to apologize for. I felt more informed coming out than I did going in, and that's a good piece of writing.

Conclusion: Yet another good writer... this is really gonna be a tough category for me to judge.

A Hugo Review: Best Fan Writer - Mike Glyer

I've never made a secret of the fact that I enjoy File 770 and read it regularly. That said, I sometimes think of Glyer as the teacher of a class of rowdy high school students being clever in the comments, and forget that he does a lot of writing, too. So I had to adjust my brain a little to examine his status as a finalist in this category.

Fortunately, Glyer provided an excellent packet that picked out a few good pieces of writing, including a post on Hallmark ornaments, a movie review, some news articles and far too many obituaries. If I hadn't already been familiar with his work, this would give a good overview. Because I have read his website/fanzine for a few years now, it simply reminded me of what types of posts I should be thinking about.

I didn't find Glyer's writing quite as compelling as Foz Meadows' work in her packet - which is slightly ironic in that Glyer included a news piece on a Meadows article. I feel like Glyer is more of a pure reporter - he manages to present information without too much bias, making it great for learning and getting information, but not as great for getting a feel for him as a writer. I consider this a virtue, not a fault, but it does make it harder for me to give him the top spot on my ballot.

Conclusion: I'm going to have a very tough time deciding the order of writers on this ballot, aren't I?

Reviews of 2017 Hugo Finalists

A Hugo Review: Best Fan Writer - Foz Meadows

Foz Meadows is a blogger, author, reviewer and poet, and very easy to read. I didn't check out her blog until after I read through the posts provided in the Hugo packet, and I'm afraid I might get sucked in, so I only visited her page for a short while. Yeah, she's that good.

As a big fan of the Vorkosigan series by Lois McMaster Bujold, Meadows' writings about that series were naturally the most appealing to me of the pieces in the packet, which included: Bad TV Romance: Could You Not?, Dragon Age: Meta, Thoughts & Feelings, Diversity: More Than White Women and Gentleman Jole and the Vorkosigan Saga: Thoughts.

The truth is, I have never played Dragon Age, so I wasn't really sure what that piece was about on the gaming side - but I found I enjoyed the arguments being made. Meadows is a compelling writer who states her opinions clearly. The Bad TV Romance piece had me wanting to write a story that counters all the problems she sees. And the diversity piece I found disturbingly correct in its assessment.

But her thoughts on Vorkosigan are brilliant. The analysis forced me to look at the series from a different angle only to realize I've noticed that angle all along. And to understand that maybe that's the reason the series speaks to me so completely and deeply. It the series I return to read when I'm feeling horrible about the universe and always provides me with the comfort I desire. And Meadows gave me a hint of why that might be the case.

Conclusion: While I'm fond of Chuck Tingle, the only other Fan Writer I've looked at so far, I'm afraid Foz Meadows has claimed the top spot of the ballot now. We'll just have to see if any of the others are even better. If so, I'm really looking forward to reading them, because this is one dynamite writer.

Reviews of 2017 Hugo Finalists

A Hugo Review: Best Fan Writer - Chuck Tingle

Chuck Tingle is a most unlikely finalist for fan writing, but his severe trolling of the puppies via Twitter earned him acclaim. He took a horrible situation where people were trying to use him as a tool to hurt others, and turned it around. The result was one of the best things to come out of the puppy movement, if not the best thing.

For the Hugo packet, Tingle provided a link to a Secret Page that explains the whole thing from his unique perspective and includes the full text of Slammed in the Butt By My Hugo Award Nomination and Pounded in the Butt By My Hugo Award Loss. I read ... um ... parts of both stories. I'm not into gay erotica, so I skipped those bits. Interestingly, the story leading up to the bits I wasn't interested in were... interesting. In the first, Tingle uses an alternate universe version of himself to contextualize being nominated for the Hugo, learning about the puppies, and then dealing with it the way all his books deal with hard problems. Ahem. The second story starts with nightmares about winning the Hugo and having his life changed by the experience. We can safely say that his life was changed even with the loss, but it is an interesting look into the psyche of a person dealing with an unexpected situation.

Now, I'm not sure either of those works are part of this year's nomination, since I believe he sold them as ebooks. I'm not really sure what the rules are on that. I do know that I followed his tweets during the events in question, and they were pretty funny in their own right. That they ripped the puppies up one side and down the other was a nice touch. Were they enough to earn him a legitimate spot as a Hugo finalist? Yes, I think so. Are they enough to earn him the Hugo award? Honestly, I don't know. I will reread his tweets as I read works from the other fan writers and make my decision. They are pretty fun to reread.

I also seriously love how he continually talks about drinking too much chocolate milk.

Conclusion: Chuck, you may not make it to the top of my ballot, but Love Is Real anyway.

Reviews of 2017 Hugo Finalists