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

[nwhyte]

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

Comments

Re: Not both ways, but two different things

[smofbabe]

* 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."

That contention means that you feel the work was legitimately on the ballot not solely because of its intrinsic worth but as a means of holding the convention to account.

* George's viewpoints might be open to criticism but the length of the ceremony and the mispronunciation of names, which are key factors in the loud outrage expressed, are directly the result of the Hugo ceremony staff not doing their jobs, and the convention allowed all of the blame for those points to fall solely on George.

* I fail to see why the convention committee is not entitled to apply Code of Conduct guidelines to Hugo nominations, which are part of the larger convention.

* Yes, I thought it would be clear from the context that I was talking about the Hugo *ceremony* staff, not the administrators, when I was talking about correspondence about the ceremony.

Re: Not both ways, but two different things

[nwhyte]

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]

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]

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