Previous Entry Share Next Entry
2013 Campbell and Sturgeon Finalists f/m
james_nicoll
The current Sturgeon jury consists of Elizabeth Bear, Andy Duncan, James Gunn, Kij Johnson, George Zebrowski, and Nöel Sturgeon, Trustee of the Theodore Sturgeon Literary Estate.

The Campbell Award jury consists of Gregory Benford, Paul Di Filippo, Sheila Finch, James Gunn, Elizabeth Anne Hull, Paul Kincaid, Christopher McKitterick, Pamela Sargent, and T.A. Shippey.

Award          Total   Female  Male    Mu
Sturgeon	12	7	 5		0.58	
 Jury            6      2        4              0.33 
Campbell	13	1	12	 	0.08
 Jury            9      3        6              0.33	



The nominees for the Theodore Sturgeon Memorial Award (honoring the best short science fiction story published in 2012) and John W. Campbell Memorial Award (honoring the best science fiction novel of 2012) are as follows:



2013 Theodore Sturgeon Memorial Award Nominees

“Things Greater Than Love” by Kate Bachus (Strange Horizons 3/19/12)
“Immersion” by Aliette de Bodard (Clarkesworld 6/12)
“Scattered Along the River of Heaven” by Aliette de Bodard (Clarkesworld 1/12)
“The Grinnell Method” by Molly Gloss (Strange Horizons 9/3/12 & 9/10/12)
After the Fall, Before the Fall, During the Fall by Nancy Kress (Taychon)
“The Weight of History, the Lightness of the Future” by Jay Lake (Subterranean Spring 2012)
“The Bookmaking Habits of Select Species” by Ken Liu (Lightspeed 8/12)
“Mono No Aware” by Ken Liu (The Future Is Japanese)
“Nahiiku West” by Linda Nagata (Analog 10/12)
Eater of Bone by Robert Reed (PS Publishing)
“The Peak of Eternal Light” by Bruce Sterling (Edge of Infinity)
“(To See the Other) Whole Against the Sky” by E. Catherine Tobler (Clarkesworld 11/12)


2013 John W. Campbell Memorial Award Nominees

The Hydrogen Sonata by Iain M. Banks (Orbit)
Any Day Now by Terry Bisson (Overlook)
Existence by David Brin (Tor)
The Rapture of the Nerds by Cory Doctorow & Charles Stross (Tor)
Empty Space by M. John Harrison (Night Shade)
Intrusion by Ken MacLeod (Orbit)
Railsea by China Miéville (Del Rey)
The Fractal Prince by Hannu Rajaniemi (Tor)
Blue Remembered Earth by Alastair Reynolds (Ace)
Jack Glass: The Story of a Murderer by Adam Roberts (Gollancz)
2312 by Kim Stanley Robinson (Orbit)
Slow Apocalypse by John Varley (Ace)
Alif the Unseen by G. Willow Wilson (Grove Press)

Also posted at Dreamwidth, where there are comment count unavailable comment(s); comment here or there.
Tags:

  • 1

Elizabeth Bear 41
Andy Duncan 48
Kij Johnson 53
Nöel Sturgeon 57
George Zebrowski 67
James Gunn 90

Average 59
Median 55

(Deleted comment)
1: I'm not yet 61.
2: What the hell has age got to do with this? And do you similarly go round worrying about the ages of every other prize jury?

Thank you for your correction. I apologize for the error and will correct it.

In this case, it's because I know the Campbell jury skews old and I just looked at an overlapping group that also skewed old. But now that I've done it for the Campbell, I guess I have to do it for all juried awards for context.


And age comes into because SF seems to be turning itself into the genre for the elderly, with works that would have been SF 40 years heading to the more lucrative young adult shelves.

The Tiptree Jury the year I was on it


Tansy Roberts 35
Karen Meisner (probably 45ish, going by her high school year)
James Davis Nicoll 50
Nisi Shawl 58
Lynne Thomas Don't Know

Ignoring the one for which I lack data:

Average 47
Median 47.5






Edited at 2013-05-15 01:51 pm (UTC)

You do a post about the female/male ratio on two juried awards, then suddenly throw in the ages of the jurors. I still don't see how that is supposed to relate the subject of the post.

And from my experience on Clarke Award juries, a Tiptree jury, and the Campbell jury I can say without hesitation that the age of the jurors has no relationship whatsoever with the gender of the authors chosen, with the nature of the books chosen, with whether traditional or experimental works are chosen, or indeed any of the other variables that might be discussed. So I really don't understand why, year after year, you make a point of discussing the age of the Campbell jurors.

I don't see an issue with James bringing up age, as it could explain a number of perceived problems with the John W. Campbell Memorial Award. But in any case since 2000, out of 140 nominees, only thirty have been women, or 20%. That seems low, especially considering the expansion of the list of nominees over the years. It is more than justifiable to ask why. Is it because of the judges? (If so, what is it about these judges that these results pop out?) Or is it because of the marketplace? (For 2009-2013, were 20% of all science fiction releases only by women? Or more? Less?) Or is something else at fault? (Such as the science fiction category effectively a niche market, much like men's adventure, and thus abandoned by most authors.) Beyond that, I'm not too sure what your latter point is, as I question your use of "without hesitation" or "whatsoever." It's disingenuous to suggest that bias can't exist, otherwise. You protest too much.

Edited at 2013-05-15 04:27 pm (UTC)

I'm not saying that bias doesn't exist, only that it is misleading to link it to the age of the jurors.

As for the wider point, I can speak only for the years in which I have been a Campbell juror. This year, for instance, we had around 80 submissions, of which 9 were identifiably by women. I know we called in a number of books, so it wasn't for want of trying to get at books. And of those 9 books, several were overtly fantasy, in other words not actually eligible for the award. The proportion of books by women that were submitted was considerably higher in each of the previous years I've been a judge (though in none of those three years was it as high as 20%).

Why is the number so low? I honestly don't know. It might be that the Campbell Award is perceived as being very masculine and so books by women just aren't being submitted. Though having said that I am aware of only two books by women that I would have liked to see this year and that weren't submitted. So maybe it is that sf by women just isn't being published at the moment. Or maybe 2012 was an anomalous year (the Clarke Award has the same issue, after all).

I think we might disagree on some of the current selections as being clearly science fiction. I mean, if you can argue that Railsea is science fiction, or even Any Day Now, neither of which I would have considered as category science fiction, then it opens up the door to a lot more eligible material, in my mind. And yet there was still only one woman out of thirteen books? Something isn't adding up. I wouldn't mind asking around if there was any works that they think were overlooked.

In any case I wonder if the first step is whether or not we work it out by figuring if there were other eligible works, and if enough effort was applied to incorporate them into serious consideration, instead of stretching outside of category science fiction to include works that, to my eye, simply don't apply. Oddly enough, 2008 appears to be the last major year that women had anything more than two nominations, with four. After that it sharply dropped to zero in 2009, two in 2010, two in 2011, two in 2012, and 1 on in 2013. That's not even 20%. That's 13%. It's gotten considerably worse, not better, after 2008.

Edited at 2013-05-15 07:17 pm (UTC)

In any case I wonder if the first step is whether or not we work it out by figuring if there were other eligible works, and if enough effort was applied to incorporate them into serious consideration, instead of stretching outside of category science fiction to include works that, to my eye, simply don't apply.

This point appears to have been addressed in the comment you are replying to.

Things are rarely that simple, unfortunately, and require more analysis, honestly. To cite one example, an editor I know insists that the reason their anthologies don't contain a lot of women is because women don't submit in enough quantities, compared to their male counterparts. But it later turned out that the “rolodex”—Nick Mamatas's term for the list of authors that editors know to hit up for stories—said editor was relying upon was predominantly male. So if you have two hundred male authors, and only ten female authors, in your “rolodex” that you can solicit from then your sample size is unusually male-heavy. And of course you'll always have male-heavy contents :p

And I should point out, as I'm sure I have done before, that James Gunn chairs the jury but is not a juror. He has no vote in the final decision.

This replaces the incorrect version

James E. Gunn 90
Sheila Finch 78
Elizabeth Anne Hull, PhD, 76
Gregory Benford, 72
Thomas Alan Shippey, 70
Pamela Sargent, 65
Paul Kincaid 60
Paul Di Filippo, 59
Christopher McKitterick, 46

Average 69
Median 70

Re: This replaces the incorrect version

And again I say that James Gunn should not be included in your averages here, because he does not serve on the jury, he simply acts as a non-voting chairman.

Re: This replaces the incorrect version

James E. Gunn 90: Chairing and not counted.


Sheila Finch 78
Elizabeth Anne Hull, PhD, 76
Gregory Benford, 72
Thomas Alan Shippey, 70
Pamela Sargent, 65
Paul Kincaid 60
Paul Di Filippo, 59
Christopher McKitterick, 46

Average 65.75
Median 67.5

> Jury 9 3 8 0.33

The 8 should be a 6, unless I'm really confused about what's being counted.

So it should. Sorry, all hopped up on antihistamines.

f/m for the Campbell, as of when I started tracking this:

Decade	Category	Total	Male	Female	F/M	F/T
1970s	1	        8	8	0	0	0
	2	        8	7	1	0.14	0.13
	3	        5	4	1	0.25	0.2
1980s	1	       10	8	2	0.25	0.2
	2	        9	9	0	0	0
	3	        9	8	1	0.13	0.11
1990s	1	        9	9	0	0	0
	2	       10	8	2	0.25	0.2
	3	       11	9	2	0.22	0.18
2000s	1	       11	9	2	0.22	0.18
	2	        8	7	1	0.14	0.13
	3	       10	7	3	0.43	0.3
2010s	1	        2	2	0	0	0
	2	        2	2	0	0	0
	3	        2	2	0	0	0


If we discard 2nd and 3rd
Decade	Category	Total	Male	Female	F/M	F/T
1970s	1	        8	8	0	0	0
1980s	1	       10	8	2	0.25	0.2
1990s	1	        9	9	0	0	0
2000s	1	       11	9	2	0.22	0.18
2010s	1	        2	2	0	0	0


Edited at 2013-05-15 02:23 pm (UTC)

These figures are wrong. In 2012 there was a female winner of the Campbell. The First Place was a tie between Christopher Priest and Joan Slonczewski. So the 2010s figure cannot be 2 male 0 female.

That's a couple of years old ("as of when I started tracking this") and only includes 2010 (Paolo Bacigalupi's rapetastic Orientalist POS The Windup Girl and 2011's Ian McDonald's The Dervish House.

Updated, the 2010s look like this:
Decade	Category	Total	Male	Female	F/T
 2010s	1	         4	3	  1	.25
	2	         2	2	  0	 0
	3	         3	3	  0	 0


Given that there's only one woman on this year's list of nominees and given the Campbell's f/m to date, I am pretty confident next year will look something like this:
Decade	Category	Total	Male	Female	F/M	F/T
 2010s	1	         5	4	1	1	.2
	2	         3	3	0	0	0
	3	         4	4	0	0	0


Although the 2nd or 3rd place might increment F by one.

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account