Yet More Hugo Ruminations

[grrm]

MidAmericon II has opened on-line Hugo nominations, as I reported below... at least for those members who have received their PIN numbers (haven't gotten mine yet, alas). No better time for some more of my thoughts on possible contenders for this year's Hugos. You can find my earlier posts downstream, where I share some of my recommendations for

Comments

"No Award" is a scorched earth strategy

[ext_3287731]

I understand why you guys did what you did. But, it can't be sustained. Scorch the earth long enough, and the Hugo will be warped and deformed.

My hope is that, this year, none of the categories get "No Award".

It would be better if a few of the categories get dominated by puppies. The whole puppy issue is fueled by a narrative of overcoming exclusion, of insiders colluding against outsiders. "No Award" is rage-fuel to the growing anger-engine, doubly so when the "No Award" exclusion (as it always, always, always does) hits people whom one cannot in fairness say are without merit. Such as the good people you mention above.

Many puppies will forever be rabid. But many puppies could be mollified by large-minded gestures of recognition and reconciliation. I hope that 2016 will be named Year of Georgehaerys the Reconciliator.

[drplokta]

Malcolm Edwards did in fact get some recognition at Loncon 3; he was a Guest of Honour.

[grrm]

Yes, I believe I mentioned his GOHship. He also chaired a worldcon once.

[seattleforge]

Thank you so much for recognizing those who helped you. That is huge!

How do I identify a good?

[listicath]

As a reader who has no connection to the writing process, this is not an easy category to nominate or vote in.

If I enjoy reading a book (or not), I associate that experience with the writer, rather than the book's editor. In previous Hugo awards I've looked at the list of books an editor has worked on and voted those who've edited books I liked. (Although some had also edited books I didn't enjoy...) But I don't have the knowledge / experience to grok how that editor made a book better than another editor could have done.

So... can someone explain what it is I should be looking for in order to nominate an editor for a Hugo?

RE: How do I identify a good?

[grrm]

You have put your finger on one of the real problems with this category. Since readers do not have the original manuscript to compare with the published work, it is hard to judge how much the editor contributed.

You can do as you have been doing, and find the proof in the pudding: who edited the books you enjoyed the most.

You can also take a critical approach. If a book is rife with typos, if the prose sucks, if the plot makes no sense and the characters are flat... well, most of that is the writer's fault, but it does suggest that the editor was not doing a very good job.

Another factor that weighs heavily for me -- how many new writers did the editor discover? Finding and developing new talent is a hallmark of a great editor.

Unsung Heros

[birdsedge]

Of course the nitty-gritty of typos and punctuation is generally down to the copy editor, who never gets a mention at all.

[mevennen]

Anne LG did a great job on my books when I was with Bantam.

Anne Lesley Groell as your editor

[bibliofile]

So . . if I were to search, say, WorldCat for your name and Bantam, Ms. Groell edited all those? Because then that info could be added to LibraryThing and maybe Goodreads....

Re: Anne Lesley Groell as your editor

[grrm]

I am not sure what WorldCat is.

But yes, Anne edited all my books from Bantam.

(Not the ones from Tor or HarperCollins, however. Different publishers, different editors. Oh, and not the real old ones from Bantam either, the ones from the 80s, like the original Wild Cards run -- that was Shawna McCarthy and Betsy Mitchell)

Re: Anne Lesley Groell as your editor

[bibliofile]

Oh, and LibraryThing has a place for editor info; Goodreads alas does not.