The Hugo Awards Kerfuffle...

[Ray McCarthy]

It's like the criticism the Oscars are subjected to

I think they are largely pointless.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

It seems a peculiar omission that fantasy series or books in a series are rarely recognized by awards. But it's not at all clear how it would work. Would you simply open the most recent book in a series to nomination? It's difficult to judge books in isolation. Nominating a series would be harder still. Would you nominate only at the conclusion of a series? How many series would you even see concluded in a given year? And if a series was nominated, would all of the individual books in the series be ineligible?

Once there's three books in the series that series would be eligible for nomination. And it's the series as a whole that would win the award, not the individual books of that series. Something like there had to be at least three books in the series in the previous year, and a new book in that series had to be published in the previous year. So next year A Song of Ice and Fire couldn't be nominated because there was no new addition to that series, for example.

Looking at it again, I think Flint's right about comedy books needing their own awards. Perhaps a long form (40k+ words) and a short form (up to 40k words) would be enough rather than the full range of categories for both comedic and dramatic works.

 

[Dave]

I think they are largely pointless.

Well, an Oscar winning film makes a considerable amount of extra money at the box-office, and then again in pay-for-view and DVD sales, so I don't think 'pointless' is quite the right word. The movie industry will be happy to keep them while that is still the case because it makes them additional money.

The question here would be do the Hugos and Nebula awards equally translate into extra sales of books? Personally, when I have looked for classic science fiction books to read, I have been impressed if the book has won these awards - together with good reviews and if it was still in print and probably other references too - but for "new" published books I haven't found them relative to the kind of book that I like to read. I wouldn't say to myself, "I must read that book because it won....."

 

[MWagner]

I think they are largely pointless.

What's wrong with artists rewarding the top achievements in their craft? Or is popularity the only legitimate measure of worth?

 

[Ray McCarthy]

What's wrong with artists rewarding the top achievements in their craft?

Nothing, very worthy.

But I'm not convinced that Booker, Tate, Oscars, Hugo actually do that.

 

[K. Riehl]

Just as every person gets something different in the reading of a book, every reader assigns their own value to the "worthiness" of a given title to be recognized. Due to the expansion of SF&F into so many subsets a overarching "best book" is impossible to achieve. Lets celebrate the best of each subset as we all gravitate towards our owns preferences anyway.

Lets have a single aggregation of best of the year lists by each group of fans/authors/magazines/blogs etc..Titles that appear on several lists can be given greater weight and "win" for that year. And, if we want to try a different type of book we would have "the list" of recommended titles for the year to investigate. If the recommendation list is self serving then people will avoid the recommendations by that particular group going forward and economics will win out.

sp..

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

Black Gate is attempting to withdraw from the ballot. http://www.blackgate.com/2015/04/19/black-gate-withdraws-from-hugo-consideration/

Martin's take on it.
http://grrm.livejournal.com/422805.html

 

[Nerds_feather]

Black Gate (a puppies nom) has not only withdrawn, but has publicly backed the "no award" campaign.

 

[Bick]

Black Gate (a puppies nom) has not only withdrawn, but has publicly backed the "no award" campaign.

Which I can't agree with.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Which I can't agree with.

For me, it depends. If it's a no award ever campaign then I say no. If it's a no award this year until we sort it out I could be convinced. If it's the right to issue a no award in that category personal choice (as Scalzi outlined early on) then I see no problem - it's essentially spoiling the vote and having a voice.

 

[J-Sun]

Man, I was trying so hard to be out of this. But on this one key point, abstracted from everything else...

If you (generic "you" - I don't like "one doesn't") don't like anything in a category, then simply don't vote. Voting "No Award" is malicious.

If nothing appeals to you, it doesn't mean it can't appeal to anyone and, really, you're saying, "I'd rather deprive someone and their fans of a Hugo award based on my taste than simply stand aside and let those who do like something decide it amongst themselves." It's nothing but spite. I don't know why the option ever existed (unless exactly for this when the fannish wars were about those commie weirdo Futurians or whatever) and, while I believe No Award has finished higher than some nominees, I don't think it's EVER been the top (non-)choice. Maybe once in the Nebulas, I can't remember; I doubt it. That might happen if there's an orchestrated campaign for it.

Really, there have been sub-par Hugo winners before (the Clifton/Riley novel is the standard example) but I doubt it much matters. On the other hand, can you imagine the "mainstream" lit snobs twisting it and making fun of a field that is so bad it can't even give awards to itself? Those NO AWARDs in the Hugo lists would be a far more obvious and permanent blight than just giving it to the best of your options on this slate, however non-optimal they may be. It would take "Hey, that was a weird year, they weren't very good" (except in Novel and Dramatic Short and several other categories where they may be as good or better than usual) and turn it into a "this was the year SF imploded" permanent scar.

The "voice" is abstention. Instead of the decisive representation of all fandom the nominees usually get with up to a whole thousand votes, this year's winners would only get a few hundred. Hah, that's telling them. Now that's no legitimate flagship award this year for the field.

And what would happen if NO AWARD lost to the SP slate generally and did result in a Leckie or Butcher defeat as their votes went to NO AWARD instead and there were still enough SP votes for Kevin J. Anderson?

And, besides, WWGRRRMD?

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

What GRRM will do is that he'll vote for entries he thinks deserving of a win and if he find nothing deserving of a win, he'll vote No Award. All in his blog. ;p

 

[J-Sun]

Well, I know, I read it. My point is that he's explicitly not advocating a program of No Award. And, "I say, I say, that was a joke, son."

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

@J-Sun Reason I pointed that out, is because it is in contradiction with the rest of your post. It proves that No Award has a purpose. ;p You are getting out there and showing that you cared enough about the award to go and decide about it and at the same time that you don't really approve of who is on the ballot. Not voting is silent approval and washing your hands of whoever wins. First one is showing your disapprove, second one acting as if it were none of your business. At least, that's how I see it.

For my own 2 cents, I'd likely do as Martin does if I were as invested as he is. Vote for whoever deserves the award most of the nominees and if none of the nominees deserves one at all, then vote No Award. He cares about the award and he finds that it means something and at the same time, he disapproves of what was done to put the people who aren't deserving of the award on the ballot.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Well, I know, I read it. My point is that he's explicitly not advocating a program of No Award. And, "I say, I say, that was a joke, son."

It's odd to me that it's somehow perfectly okay to advocate a program of nominating specific works en masse, yet, somehow, it's also the depths of wrongness to advocate a program of voting for No Award en masse. Hmm. Why the double standard? Is it a case of the game's already been rigged so you might as well play?

A whole heap of folks (many, most, lots and lots) think the Puppies crowd of nominees are not fit to be mentioned in the same breath as the word 'Hugo', not to mention being actually nominated for the award with that name, to say nothing of actually winning one. So, to them, picking 'the best' between five or six utterly undeserving nominees is a losing proposition. No Award is a far better choice for many in the categories dominated by Puppies.

Here's a Puppy-Free voting guide for anyone who's interested.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

@Fishbowl Helmet If we are going to advocate and promote No Award en masse and pretend that is okay, then what puppies did in the first place is getting an okay from all of us participating in that. Both are wrong, but doesn't mean we should all stoop to that level. Everyone should just decide for themselves. You can give arguments, but I don't think it should go beyond recommendation and into campaign territory which is what is happening. Then you are the same as The Puppies and fighting them pretty much loses any sense. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[J-Sun]

Reason I pointed that out, is because it is in contradiction with the rest of your post. It proves that No Award has a purpose. ;p

I didn't say it didn't have a purpose. I said I didn't know why it was an option because it's only purpose was negativity and spite not at all in keeping with the celebratory purpose of awards.

It's odd to me that it's somehow perfectly okay to advocate a program of nominating specific works en masse, yet, somehow, it's also the depths of wrongness to advocate a program of voting for No Award en masse. Hmm. Why the double standard?

It's odd to me that it's somehow perfectly okay to advocate a program of food aid en masse, yet, somehow, it's also the depths of wrongness to advocate a program of nuking poor countries en masse. Hmm. Why the double standard?

It's kind of funny. Bick mentioned something about my patience back when. It's just come to an end.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

I didn't say it didn't have a purpose. I said I didn't know why it was an option because it's only purpose was negativity and spite not at all in keeping with the celebratory purpose of awards.

There isn't always something to celebrate. It is nice to have that option covered too.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I didn't say it didn't have a purpose. I said I didn't know why it was an option because it's only purpose was negativity and spite not at all in keeping with the celebratory purpose of awards.

And yet, the Puppies only purpose was negativity and spite from the very beginning, which is not at all in keeping with the celebratory purpose of the awards.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I actually have sympathy with the original protest to an extent - the hugos have been insular and niche for years. I don't have sympathy for the Rabid Boyos. But, if I had a vote, I'd want to show my disenfranchisement with the whole process and the need to change things and embrace the wider sff community. For that reason, I'd go no award (unless there was something I liked).

On a different note, I can't believe Scalzi won for Redshirts. I read it, and enjoyed it, but it was hardly groundbreaking, challenging, thought provoking sf. And, to me (and only me) that does show a need for a change - we want a genre embracing what the genre's about and that's the oddities, not just what's in, or who's in.