Whose Hugo?
It's nomination time again.
I've been thinking about the Hugos lately, and about whether the sets of nominees and winners in recent memory represent what I appreciate about the contemporary SFF genre. I've been thinking about what sorts of books and stories and such tend to win, and how often I've been disappointed by both the shortlists and the winners.
Thanks to conversations with friends, and cherylmmorgan's excellent post on the topic, I've realized that there is absolutely something I can do about this. All it takes is a supporting membership to the Worldcon, and I can finally participate in one of the most prestigious awards in the SFF field. I will have only a small influence, but I can stand up and make my voice heard for the first time.
I don't want to clutter this particular post with my opinions in this, my inaugural year of participation. Not right now. Right now, I want everyone reading this, if you have any interest in science fiction and fantasy, to reflect: have the Hugo awards largely reflected what you think is the best of the genre? Have the winners always delighted you, and left you secure in the knowledge that the best writers and stories have won? Most importantly: have you nominated, and then voted?
If not, and if you haven't yet participated because you worry about the credentials for doing so, please read this excerpt from Cheryl Morgan's post:
The basic form of this meme is that people complain that they are not qualified to vote in awards because they haven’t read enough of the field.
People, this is not what a popular vote award is all about. If you have a juried award then the judges have a duty to read all of the books submitted/recommended to them. If you have a list of nominees to choose from, such as the final ballot in the Hugos, then there is an expectation that you will read all of the nominees because there are only a few of them. But an open popular vote award, such as the nomination stage of the Hugos, or the Locus Awards, does not work like that.
Because if the requirement was that you read “all of the field”, or even a majority of it, then no one would be qualified to vote. Remember, the Hugos are open to every work of science fiction and fantasy published in the previous year, regardless of where it was published or what language it was published in. No one can possibly read more than a tiny fraction of that, ergo no one is qualified to vote. That’s clearly a ridiculous conclusion, so the argument must be ridiculous.
Popular vote awards are designed to find out what is popular. So when an award says “best” what it really means is “most popular”. The process of finding out what is “most popular” is statistical. You ask a large number of people which books (or stories or movies, etc.) they liked, and you add up all of their individual votes. Those works that get the most votes are, by definition, the most popular.
So to be qualified to vote in a popular vote award, all you have to do is to have read (or viewed) something that you thought was good. No other qualification is required.
Here is the link once more; she also links to some other excellent points on the Hugos, nominating/voting, and you.
I've been thinking about the Hugos lately, and about whether the sets of nominees and winners in recent memory represent what I appreciate about the contemporary SFF genre. I've been thinking about what sorts of books and stories and such tend to win, and how often I've been disappointed by both the shortlists and the winners.
Thanks to conversations with friends, and cherylmmorgan's excellent post on the topic, I've realized that there is absolutely something I can do about this. All it takes is a supporting membership to the Worldcon, and I can finally participate in one of the most prestigious awards in the SFF field. I will have only a small influence, but I can stand up and make my voice heard for the first time.
I don't want to clutter this particular post with my opinions in this, my inaugural year of participation. Not right now. Right now, I want everyone reading this, if you have any interest in science fiction and fantasy, to reflect: have the Hugo awards largely reflected what you think is the best of the genre? Have the winners always delighted you, and left you secure in the knowledge that the best writers and stories have won? Most importantly: have you nominated, and then voted?
If not, and if you haven't yet participated because you worry about the credentials for doing so, please read this excerpt from Cheryl Morgan's post:
The basic form of this meme is that people complain that they are not qualified to vote in awards because they haven’t read enough of the field.
People, this is not what a popular vote award is all about. If you have a juried award then the judges have a duty to read all of the books submitted/recommended to them. If you have a list of nominees to choose from, such as the final ballot in the Hugos, then there is an expectation that you will read all of the nominees because there are only a few of them. But an open popular vote award, such as the nomination stage of the Hugos, or the Locus Awards, does not work like that.
Because if the requirement was that you read “all of the field”, or even a majority of it, then no one would be qualified to vote. Remember, the Hugos are open to every work of science fiction and fantasy published in the previous year, regardless of where it was published or what language it was published in. No one can possibly read more than a tiny fraction of that, ergo no one is qualified to vote. That’s clearly a ridiculous conclusion, so the argument must be ridiculous.
Popular vote awards are designed to find out what is popular. So when an award says “best” what it really means is “most popular”. The process of finding out what is “most popular” is statistical. You ask a large number of people which books (or stories or movies, etc.) they liked, and you add up all of their individual votes. Those works that get the most votes are, by definition, the most popular.
So to be qualified to vote in a popular vote award, all you have to do is to have read (or viewed) something that you thought was good. No other qualification is required.
Here is the link once more; she also links to some other excellent points on the Hugos, nominating/voting, and you.