WorldCon Part 5: The Hugo Awards ceremony and my thoughts on same
So, basics first. For those of you who follow me and don't know, the Hugo Awards are given annually, voted on my the membership of the World Science Fiction Convention. They include fan awards (for example, best fanzine, best fan artist, best fan writer and so on) and pro awards for best short story, best novel, best dramatic long form, etc. This year, a cohort of writers calling themselves the Sad Puppies and another group calling themselves the Rabid Puppies decided to organize bloc voting to get works and writers on the ballot that they thought had been ignored or shut out in previous years as a result of political and social correctness influencing the voting. There were accusations of ballot stuffing on both sides; things got heated; there were accusations (not unfounded) of racism, of elitism, of influence peddling. It was all pretty terrible and, frankly, pretty upsetting--until it all just got exhausting.
The ballot itself had caused a great deal of consternation. A lot of people (including myself) thought that many of the works that had made it to the ballot weren't of a quality worthy of the Hugo Awards (and I attempted to read them so I have some basis for this opinion). Others were infuriated by a concerted effort at bloc voting for awards that traditionally relied on voters not doing that sort of thing, but voting their individual tastes. Millions of words were spent arguing and analyzing the situation from all perspectives, by fans and pros both; heavyweights like George R.R. Martin (our own grrm*) and David Gerrold (WorldCon's guest of honor this year, and the Hugo Awards co-host) spent many posts analyzing, discussing, and advocating for Peace In Fandom and fairness in voting. After a very contentious year on social media and in fannish circles, the night of the Hugos was, predictably, fraught with tension.
The awards ceremony
The hosts for the evening were David Gerrold (as previously noted) and Tananarive Due. Tananarive paid tribute to Nichelle Nichols by cosplaying Lt. Uhura; she wore the red mini-dress very well indeed. David paid tribute to the last three Doctors Who by wearing Chucks, a jacket and a bowtie. The evening started with the handing out of fan awards; this year's TAFF award winner did the honors in a charming Austrian accent. Guest speakers during the evening included Connie Willis, because you can't have a Hugo Awards ceremony without her (she was funny and pointed all at once) and Robert Silverberg, who has attended every single Hugo Awards ceremony since the first, whose call for calm was quirky and entertaining (and still a cause for some unhappiness in small corners of fandom :: sigh :: ).
The first award that caused contention (and, I should note, contention that I wasn't aware of until later) was the Best Fan Writer Award. It went to Laura J. Mixon, who did an impressive, extensive investigative report on a blogger calling herself Requires Hate (among other noms de guerre), who had been targeting many writers for pretty significant abuse online. This award caused upset because some fans felt that because Mixon isn't a fan writer in the traditional sense--writing for fanzines and participating in other fan-ac--but a professional fiction writer, she didn't qualify for the category. Mixon gave a stirring acceptance speech, the best of the evening by far, and one that spoke not just to the issue she tackled in her article but to the larger drama that enveloped the Hugos this year as well.
You could feel the tension in the air once the pro awards began to be announced. I think the first No Award of the evening was given in the category of Best Editor, Long Form Best Related Work. The applause was like a crack of thunder, loud and long and enthusiastic. Now, as I noted earlier in this post, there were a LOT of fans who felt that bloc voting violates the spirit of the Hugo Awards; I am among them. When "No Award" was announced in this category, I knew that the applause was in support of this idea. It wasn't because the Puppies didn't win. It was because people believe that bloc voting for the Hugos isn't what the awards are about. Every vote for No Award wasn't against the people who were nominated. It wasn't nearly as much against a particular group of people who nominated but, more importantly, how they went about their nominating process.
As it turned out, No Award was given in four more categories as the evening progressed--a total of five in all, more than in any other year. More than ever in the accumulated history of the Hugo Awards. In the end, it should also be noted, Best Novel, Best Novelette, and the John W. Cambell Award for Best New Writer all went to people of color. For the first time in the award's history, Best Novel went to a novel translated into English. It was, in many ways, a historic year for Hugo.
What I thought about the Hugos and the whole Puppy thing
Predictably, I have some thoughts about this. They are not as deep or involved as the many others who have written on this subject. They are mine. Here they are:
1) I think that bloc voting and advocacy for same violate the spirit of the Hugos. I don't care who the bloc voting is advocating for; I think it's wrong, whether it's a slate dictated by one /V/o/x/ voice insisting that this is the list, the only list, to vote for, or a group of people doing it. Hugo voting should be a matter of personal taste and your vote should be your own, no matter what anyone else says.
2) There is a difference between advocating for a specific list of writers to be voted on in a specific way in specific categories, and recommending a bunch of works that you think people ought to read and consider when filling out a ballot. I agree with the second method; I abhor the first.
3) The world is changing, therefore science fiction and fantasy are changing. Voices from other cultures and upcoming generations are rising and providing different perspectives, telling different stories and raising different issues than the genre has seen before. This is a good thing. Change is what science fiction is about. Our fiction can and should reflect that change.
4) If work by a new voice is good enough to provoke discussion, if the writing is of remarkable quality, if it's entertaining, it should be recognized. Similarly, if a story comes out of science fiction's traditional veins and tells a remarkable story with remarkable quality and it's entertaining, it too should be recognized. But the work, whether by new voices or from SF's older traditions, must be remarkable in some way, whether that's a matter of ground-breaking ideas or brilliant prose. It should knock our socks off. We should have fun with it. It should be making us think in new ways. It should, as Adam-Troy Castro says, blow our minds so completely that we can't think about NOT giving it an award. I like and respect a number of the people who were nominated on the Puppy slates, but much of their work didn't do that for me, and so they didn't get my vote. The works that did--those works got my votes. That's how it should be.
5) Racism sucks. Sexism sucks. Exclusion sucks. None of these things should be part of our Hugo discussions, ever, unless they are part of the ideas in the works being discussed. Discussions about books and Hugo Awards should be about their quality, their ideas, their innovation, their ability to shine new light into old places, their ability to amuse us. The hurling of racial or sexist epithets at individuals or classes of people should not be part of the conversation. The idea that some SF is real and some is fake, the idea that some voices should be heard and others shouldn't be is despicable. Once such epithets appear in conversation, those who throw them are persona non-grata. They should be. The days when such language, such attitudes were acceptable is long past.
6) Read what you dig. Nominate what you dig. Don't judge what anyone else digs. If you disagree about a book's quality, disagree civilly. Discuss civilly. Perhaps even attempt to persuade--but civilly. And if you don't have anything nice to say about another person--remember what your mama said--don't say anything at all.
* George devoted a tag to his Hugo posts; you can go back months to read them all.
The ballot itself had caused a great deal of consternation. A lot of people (including myself) thought that many of the works that had made it to the ballot weren't of a quality worthy of the Hugo Awards (and I attempted to read them so I have some basis for this opinion). Others were infuriated by a concerted effort at bloc voting for awards that traditionally relied on voters not doing that sort of thing, but voting their individual tastes. Millions of words were spent arguing and analyzing the situation from all perspectives, by fans and pros both; heavyweights like George R.R. Martin (our own grrm*) and David Gerrold (WorldCon's guest of honor this year, and the Hugo Awards co-host) spent many posts analyzing, discussing, and advocating for Peace In Fandom and fairness in voting. After a very contentious year on social media and in fannish circles, the night of the Hugos was, predictably, fraught with tension.
The awards ceremony
The hosts for the evening were David Gerrold (as previously noted) and Tananarive Due. Tananarive paid tribute to Nichelle Nichols by cosplaying Lt. Uhura; she wore the red mini-dress very well indeed. David paid tribute to the last three Doctors Who by wearing Chucks, a jacket and a bowtie. The evening started with the handing out of fan awards; this year's TAFF award winner did the honors in a charming Austrian accent. Guest speakers during the evening included Connie Willis, because you can't have a Hugo Awards ceremony without her (she was funny and pointed all at once) and Robert Silverberg, who has attended every single Hugo Awards ceremony since the first, whose call for calm was quirky and entertaining (and still a cause for some unhappiness in small corners of fandom :: sigh :: ).
The first award that caused contention (and, I should note, contention that I wasn't aware of until later) was the Best Fan Writer Award. It went to Laura J. Mixon, who did an impressive, extensive investigative report on a blogger calling herself Requires Hate (among other noms de guerre), who had been targeting many writers for pretty significant abuse online. This award caused upset because some fans felt that because Mixon isn't a fan writer in the traditional sense--writing for fanzines and participating in other fan-ac--but a professional fiction writer, she didn't qualify for the category. Mixon gave a stirring acceptance speech, the best of the evening by far, and one that spoke not just to the issue she tackled in her article but to the larger drama that enveloped the Hugos this year as well.
You could feel the tension in the air once the pro awards began to be announced. I think the first No Award of the evening was given in the category of Best Editor, Long Form Best Related Work. The applause was like a crack of thunder, loud and long and enthusiastic. Now, as I noted earlier in this post, there were a LOT of fans who felt that bloc voting violates the spirit of the Hugo Awards; I am among them. When "No Award" was announced in this category, I knew that the applause was in support of this idea. It wasn't because the Puppies didn't win. It was because people believe that bloc voting for the Hugos isn't what the awards are about. Every vote for No Award wasn't against the people who were nominated. It wasn't nearly as much against a particular group of people who nominated but, more importantly, how they went about their nominating process.
As it turned out, No Award was given in four more categories as the evening progressed--a total of five in all, more than in any other year. More than ever in the accumulated history of the Hugo Awards. In the end, it should also be noted, Best Novel, Best Novelette, and the John W. Cambell Award for Best New Writer all went to people of color. For the first time in the award's history, Best Novel went to a novel translated into English. It was, in many ways, a historic year for Hugo.
What I thought about the Hugos and the whole Puppy thing
Predictably, I have some thoughts about this. They are not as deep or involved as the many others who have written on this subject. They are mine. Here they are:
1) I think that bloc voting and advocacy for same violate the spirit of the Hugos. I don't care who the bloc voting is advocating for; I think it's wrong, whether it's a slate dictated by one /V/o/x/ voice insisting that this is the list, the only list, to vote for, or a group of people doing it. Hugo voting should be a matter of personal taste and your vote should be your own, no matter what anyone else says.
2) There is a difference between advocating for a specific list of writers to be voted on in a specific way in specific categories, and recommending a bunch of works that you think people ought to read and consider when filling out a ballot. I agree with the second method; I abhor the first.
3) The world is changing, therefore science fiction and fantasy are changing. Voices from other cultures and upcoming generations are rising and providing different perspectives, telling different stories and raising different issues than the genre has seen before. This is a good thing. Change is what science fiction is about. Our fiction can and should reflect that change.
4) If work by a new voice is good enough to provoke discussion, if the writing is of remarkable quality, if it's entertaining, it should be recognized. Similarly, if a story comes out of science fiction's traditional veins and tells a remarkable story with remarkable quality and it's entertaining, it too should be recognized. But the work, whether by new voices or from SF's older traditions, must be remarkable in some way, whether that's a matter of ground-breaking ideas or brilliant prose. It should knock our socks off. We should have fun with it. It should be making us think in new ways. It should, as Adam-Troy Castro says, blow our minds so completely that we can't think about NOT giving it an award. I like and respect a number of the people who were nominated on the Puppy slates, but much of their work didn't do that for me, and so they didn't get my vote. The works that did--those works got my votes. That's how it should be.
5) Racism sucks. Sexism sucks. Exclusion sucks. None of these things should be part of our Hugo discussions, ever, unless they are part of the ideas in the works being discussed. Discussions about books and Hugo Awards should be about their quality, their ideas, their innovation, their ability to shine new light into old places, their ability to amuse us. The hurling of racial or sexist epithets at individuals or classes of people should not be part of the conversation. The idea that some SF is real and some is fake, the idea that some voices should be heard and others shouldn't be is despicable. Once such epithets appear in conversation, those who throw them are persona non-grata. They should be. The days when such language, such attitudes were acceptable is long past.
6) Read what you dig. Nominate what you dig. Don't judge what anyone else digs. If you disagree about a book's quality, disagree civilly. Discuss civilly. Perhaps even attempt to persuade--but civilly. And if you don't have anything nice to say about another person--remember what your mama said--don't say anything at all.
* George devoted a tag to his Hugo posts; you can go back months to read them all.