Final 2016 Hugo Best Novel Prediction

Let’s me finalize my 2016 Hugo Best Novel Prediction:

  1. Uprooted by Naomi Novik
  2. The Fifth Season by N.K. Jemisin
  3. Ancillary Mercy by Ann Leckie
  4. Seveneves by Neal Stephenson
  5. The Aeronaut’s Windlass by Jim Butcher

Remember, Chaos Horizon doesn’t predict what I want to happen, but rather what I think will happen based on my analysis and understanding of past Hugo trends.

First off, those past trends have been shot full of holes in recent years. The Puppy controversies have fundamentally transformed the voting pool of the Hugos, meaning that past trends might not apply given how widely the voters have changed. New voters have come in with the Puppies; new voters have come in to contest the Puppies; some of those voters might have stayed, some might have dropped out. Some voters are voting No Award out principle; some aren’t. How exactly you balance all of that is going to be largely speculative, maybe to the point that no predictions are meaningful. That’s why we’re called “Chaos Horizon” here!

However, I think the potential Kingmaker effect, when combined with past Hugo trends and the popularity of Uprooted, makes Novik a reasonable favorite. Novik has already won the Nebula and the Locus Fantasy (beating Jemisin twice); her book is a stand-alone, making it feel more complete than either the Jemisin, Leckie, or Butcher; and Novik, along with Stephenson, is more popular than the other nominees. In the past, these have all been characteristics of the Hugo winner.

In the past few years, I’ve developed a mathematical formula to help me predict the Hugos. The formula won’t be accurate this year because of the Rabid Puppy voters, but here’s what it came up with:

Uprooted 27.1%
Ancillary Mercy 20.5%
Seveneves 20.0%
The Fifth Season 17.1%
The Cinder Spires 15.3%

The formula obviously doesn’t take pro or anti-Puppy sentiment into account. Uprooted is a big favorite because of her Nebula win this year. The Nebula has been the best predictor of the Hugo in the last decade: in 5 of the last 10 years, the Nebula winner has gone on to win the Hugo. The stats are actually better than that. In the 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2015, the Nebula winner was not even nominated for the Hugo. So the only time a Nebula winner has lost the Hugo in the final voting round was when Redshirts beat 2312 in 2013. So the last 5/6 times when the Nebula winner had a chance to win the Hugo, it did. Those are nice odds.

My formula is not designed to accurately predict second place. With that in mind, I think Jemisin is too low. Leckie won too recently with Ancillary Justice to seem to have a chance to win again, and Seveneves is pretty divisive. One reason my formula fails is because it currently doesn’t punish books for being sequels. Leckie should be lower for that reason. It’s something I’ll factor in next year. Stephenson will be lower because some people will vote him “No Award” for appearing on the Rabid Puppy list. So this pushes Jemisin up two spots.

However, Jemisin is lower down in the formula because she doesn’t have a history of winning major awards, unlike Stephenson and Leckie. Check out Jemisin’s sfadb page. She’s been nominated for 12 major awards and hasn’t won any. Not good odds. That’s what my formula is picking up on. My formula has trouble gauging changes in sentiment. I think most readers believe The Fifth Season is better than Jemisin’s earlier works, but I have trouble quantifying that.

What my numbers give is a percentage to win based on the patterns of past Hugo votes, based on my analysis and combination of those formulas using a Linear Opinion Pool prediction model. Prediction is different than statistical analysis: different statisticians would build different models based on different assumptions. You should never treat a prediction (either on Chaos Horizon or in something like American elections) the same way you would treat a statistical analysis; they are guided by different logical methods. Someone who disagrees with one of my assumptions would come up with a different prediction. Fair enough. This is all just for fun! You can trace back through the model using some of these posts: Hugo Indicators, and my series of Nebula model posts beginning here. The Hugo model uses the same math but different data.

Let’s look at this with some other data. Here’s the head to head popularity comparison of our five Hugo finalists, based on the number of ratings at Goodreads and Amazon.

Goodreads Amazon
Uprooted 41,174 1,332
Seveneves 35,428 2,487
The Aeronaut’s Windlass 18,249 1,285
Ancillary Mercy 11,698 247
The Fifth Season 7,676 184

These aren’t perfect samples, as neither Goodreads nor Amazon is 100% reflective of the Hugo voting audience, nor has the Hugo Awards always correlated with popularity. Still, it gives us another interesting perspective.

Jemisin does not break out of the bubble in ways that Novik and Stephenson do. These aren’t small differences, either: Uprooted is 5x more popular on Goodreads and 7x on Amazon than The Fifth Season. I put stock in that—the more people read your book, the more there are to vote for it. While the Hugo voting audience is a subset of all readers, popularity matters.

Two other notes: it’s fascinating how different Amazon and Goodreads are. Novik outpaces Stephenson on Goodreads but gets crushed on Amazon. Different audiences, different reading habits. The question for Chaos Horizon is which one better correlates with the Hugo winner? Second, Butcher may be a very popular Urban Fantasy writer with Dresden, but he’s only a moderately popular Fantasy writer.

So, all told, Novik has big advantages in popularity and same year awards (having won the Nebula already). Neither Jemisin, Leckie, or Stephenson managed to do better than Novik in critical acclaim or award nominations. Stephenson and Leckie do beat Novik in past awards history. When we factor in the possible Kingmaker effect from the Rabid Puppies, Novik is a clear favorite.

It would take a lot of change in the voting pool to overcome Novik’s seeming advantages. I wouldn’t count it out completely—these past two years have been so volatile that anything can happen.

Last question—where will No Award place? Last year, voters chose to place Jim Butcher and Kevin J. Anderson below No Award, likely as punishment for appearing on the Puppy slates. Will it happen again this year? I have a hard time seeing Stephenson getting No Awarded, Puppy appearance or not. He’s been a well-liked Hugo writer for a long time, and he may well have scored a nomination without Puppy help. I think Stephenson will beat No Award.

That leaves Butcher. He was No Awarded in 2015 by 2674 to 2000 votes, so a No Award margin of 674. That’s a pretty substantial number. If we go back to 2014, when Larry Correia’s Warbound was the first Puppy pick to make it to the Best Novel category, he beat No Award by a 1161 to 1052 margin. So that means the “No Awarders” are picking up steam. At Chaos Horizon, I go with the past year’s results to predict the future unless there’s some compelling data to suggest otherwise. So I’ll predict that Butcher will lose to No Award in 2016 just as he did in 2015.

So, what do you think? Are we in for a Best Novel surprise, or will Novik walk away with the crown?

11 responses to “Final 2016 Hugo Best Novel Prediction”

  1. Laura says :

    I ranked the first three in the same order as your prediction. I flipped the last two. I liked the Butcher more than expect and the Stephenson a lot less. I didn’t use No Award in this category. I agree that Stephenson was likely to be there without the Puppy boost. While Butcher may not have been, I think at least a fair number of the Puppies actually honestly voted for him. I don’t think it was really Hugo-worthy myself, but I’d rather see it win (as unlikely as that would be) than No Award in Best Novel.

  2. Shirley Marquez says :

    I agree that Novik is the likely winner, and also that Jemisin is the only one likely to create an upset. Stephenson may do a bit better than you predict based on his past record, but Seveneves is not his best work.

    I have no idea whether Butcher would have made the ballot without Puppy help. Likely not. But it’s a good example of what it is, though it’s not a type of work that the Hugo voters tend to reward. I think Butcher will escape the No Award fate this year.

  3. debyfredericks says :

    As a totally non-statistician, I enjoy your analysis and find it helpful to have the perspective among the emotions we all feel. Thanks for doing this.

  4. Lela E. Buis says :

    I agree that Novik will win, but I think a lot of people are going to be stressing about a No Award vote this year. Vox Day has designed the Puppy recommendations to make this a harder choice. As you’ve noted above, Stephenson is a quality entry, and it would be hard to justify putting him below the line. Butcher has a strong fan following, but I don’t know that it’s big enough to save him from the fray. I expect he’ll end up below the No Award line.

    I expect a lot of Puppies will use the No Award strategy this year as part of their arsenal. Do you think they have enough weight to sink The Fifth Season and Ancillary Mercy below the No Award line?

  5. airboy says :

    There has been a lot of signaling by “Hugo Regulars” not to “no award” credible nominees “this time.” There has also been some signaling that the Sads and the Rabids are different. There has also been a lot of signaling that the novel nominees were at least “good” as compared to other categories.

    The overall voting pool is down this year which “probably” indicates less knee jerk voting.

    So on those qualitative signals alone, I don’t think “Windlass” will be no awarded. But I acknowledge both your vote totals from last year and second your acknowledgement that the past may not predict the future very well this time.

    • chaoshorizon says :

      Not much of a chance of Leckie or Jemisin getting “No Awarded” based on the way collating votes works. Just to show how in the clear Leckie was last year: in the third round of tabulation, when Leckie took 3rd place, she beat No Award 3240 to 428. Butcher was in between her and No Award with 1465 votes. Even if all those Butcher votes had Leckie below No Award, she’s still over 1000 votes in the clear. In rough terms, if a group of voters has the power to “No Award” a nominee (meaning they could grab 50+% of the available vote for No Award over that nominee), they’d have the voting power to win that category.

      • Airboy says :

        The Dragon Award finalists have been announced. You can see the list at

        I’m very surprised that Uprooted did not make the finalist list in the Fantasy category.

      • chaoshorizon says :

        My analysis post is halfway done—it was our Faculty Development Week on campus and I had to run a ton of meetings!

        Uprooted wasn’t eligible, nor was Seveneves. The Dragon dates run from July to June, and neither Novik nor Stephenson’s books came out in that span.

Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Lela E. Buis - August 10, 2016
  2. The 2016 Hugo Awards: The Results – Science-fictionality - August 20, 2016

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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

Xeno Swarm

Multiple Estrangements in Philosophy and Science Fiction


Pluralism and Individuation in a World of Becoming

Space and Sorcery

Adventures in speculative fiction

The BiblioSanctum

A Book Blog for Speculative Fiction, Graphic Novels... and more!

The Skiffy and Fanty Show

Running away from the thought police on wings of gossamer and lace...

Relentless Reading

"A Veritable Paladin of Blogging!"


A little about me, a lot about books, and a dash of something else

SCy-Fy: the blog of S. C. Flynn

Reader. Writer of fantasy novels.

Far Beyond Reality

Science Fiction and Fantasy Reviews

Andrew Liptak

three more from on high

Eamo The Geek

The Best In Sci-Fi And Fantasy Book Reviews by Eamon Ambrose

Read & Survive

How-To Read Books

Mountain Was Here

writing like a drunken seismograph

The Grimdark Review

The very best of fantasy.

From couch to moon

Sci-fi and fantasy reviews, among other things

SFF Book Reviews

random thoughts about fantasy & science fiction books

Philip K. Dick Review

A Re-read Project

%d bloggers like this: