Comments | nwhyte: The Hugo for Best Related Work, including my own votes for this year

nwhyte

The Hugo for Best Related Work, including my own votes for this year

Jul 04, 2021 16:50

The Best Related Work category has been on the Hugo ballot every year since 1980. In 28 of those 41 years, it went to a published monograph or essay collection about science fiction and/or fantasy or related themes. The exceptions were as follows:

Popular science books won twice, in 1981 (Carl Sagan: Cosmos) and 1986 (Tom Weller: Science Made Stupid ( Read more... )

writer: seamus heaney, tv: my little pony, hugos 2021

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

Can't Have It Both Ways smofbabe July 4 2021, 23:02:30 UTC

I cannot express how strongly I disagree with this statement: "Given that there are very few mechanisms for accountability for what went wrong, it's entirely legitimate for fandom broadly to express its displeasure with last year's Worldcon by putting Luhrs' essay on this year's Hugo ballot." The Hugo awards are intended to bestow acknowledgment of the best works in the SF/F genre by pros and fans. They are not intended as an avenue for political commentary, especially when the title and a large part of the content of the item being nominated consists of a nasty personal attack on only one of the people involved in a particular event, and that person was not even in charge of the event ( ... )

RE: Can't Have It Both Ways andrewducker July 5 2021, 12:47:08 UTC

There's two different things going on there. He says
"It's entirely *legitimate* for fandom broadly to express its displeasure"
and
"I don't really *want* a 2021 Hugo winner to commemorate the failures"

I can not want something while still believing it's legitimate. I don't want a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, but I believe it is legitimately food and others may choose to eat it. And I would expect that Nicholas would regularly have different beliefs as the maintainer of a prize (whether something is legitimate or not) and as a voter for that award (whether he likes it or not).

Re: Can't Have It Both Ways smofbabe July 5 2021, 13:18:34 UTC

I don't think you understood my point, which has nothing to do with people's tastes or opinions on what is legitimate to be on the ballot (although I have opinions about that too). Rather, it's that I don't see how you can say that it's acceptable and legitimate to nominate something on a ballot but then say it wouldn't be acceptable for it to win. Being on the ballot is a statement that the work is considered to be one of the top works in that category and should be considered to win the award for which it's nominated. It's not a poster that you can take down once it's made some political point.

Re: Can't Have It Both Ways andrewducker July 5 2021, 13:38:16 UTC

I don't think you understand my point - which is that he never says it's not acceptable for it to win.

Re: Can't Have It Both Ways smofbabe July 5 2021, 22:03:23 UTC

Re-read and there is indeed a distinction between his opinions as a voter and as an administrator.

Not both ways, but two different things nwhyte July 5 2021, 15:59:25 UTC

First off, I very clearly and carefully demarcated my remarks between what, as an administrator, I think is a legitimate entry on the final ballot, and what, as a voter, I think is a good winner. Those are two different things. Obviously as an administrator, once it's on the ballot, there's a chance that it will win. As a voter, there are some things I will not vote for. Read what I wrote ( ... )

Re: Not both ways, but two different things smofbabe July 5 2021, 21:56:00 UTC

* Yes, I do think the administrators should have disqualified the Luhrs essay and I think there were plenty of grounds to do so given the convention's Code of Conduct. "Everyone involved with DisCon III is expected to show respect towards the convention attendees, venue staff, the general public, and the various communities associated with the convention." "Comments directly intended to belittle, offend, or cause discomfort ( ... )

Re: Not both ways, but two different things nwhyte July 5 2021, 23:00:48 UTC

No point in prolonging this, but in brief:

Hugo administrators do not make judgements of what is in the minds of voters. If voters want to use their votes to hold a convention accountable for their screwups, that is their business. We just count the votes ( ... )

Re: Not both ways, but two different things smofbabe July 5 2021, 23:19:03 UTC

* You state "Hugo administrators do not make judgements of what is in the minds of voters. If voters want to use their votes to hold a convention accountable for their screwups, that is their business. We just count the votes." You in this essay said "Given that there are very few mechanisms for accountability for what went wrong, it's entirely legitimate for fandom broadly to express its displeasure with last year's Worldcon by putting Luhrs' essay on this year's Hugo ballot ( ... )

Re: Not both ways, but two different things nwhyte July 5 2021, 23:52:13 UTC

To be absolutely clear: the work is on the ballot because people voted for it, no other reason. We can speculate about why people voted for it, we can opine about whether it is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing, but it’s on the ballot, not because the administrators thought it fair comment, but because people voted for it.

Re: Not both ways, but two different things ext_5782146 July 6 2021, 00:05:57 UTC

Your contention that the Hugo ballot is an appropriate venue for people to comment on the screwups of a Worldcon because you perceive they have no other outlet is entirely separate from whether people voted to put it there.

Re: Not both ways, but two different things nwhyte July 6 2021, 05:31:54 UTC

Sure. One is my opinion, the other is the rules.

Code of Conduct Can't Override the Hugo Award Rules kevin_standlee July 6 2021, 02:53:44 UTC

I think there were plenty of grounds to do so given the convention's Code of Conduct.
How so? Worldcon committees have the right to create a Code of Conduct under Section 1.6 of the WSFS Constitution:
Section 1.6: Authority. Authority and responsibility for all matters concerning the Worldcon, except those reserved herein to WSFS, shall rest with the Worldcon Committee, which shall act in its own name and not in that of WSFS.
Article III of the WSFS Constitution (the Hugo Awards) is one of those things that is "reserved to WSFS." In other words, you can't disqualify a Hugo Award finalist by making up rules that go beyond those in the WSFS Constitution like a convention Code of Conduct. If you could do so, then you could also establish a Code of Conduct that says (to give what I hope are absurd examples) that it is a violation of the Code of Conduct to permit Worldcon bids from any site in the USA, or to introduce any proposals to the Business Meeting that are not personally authorized by the Convention Chair. Or possibly just say that ( ... )

nwhyte July 6 2021, 05:30:09 UTC

Agree.

Back to all threads