All Hugo Nominees Who Finished Behind No Award Prior to 2015

One of many ideas advanced in the recent discussion of Hugo Award voting reform is a rule that would erase from the Long List any Hugo nominee who finished behind No Award in the final tally.

I’m not in favor of that suggestion, and I don’t see much evidence that it’s being seriously considered. It’s directed at the immediate past, as a kind of payback for being on a Puppy slate.

My foremost argument is against the very idea of erasing history – let the nominations stand, to remind us why we’re looking for effective reforms.

My second argument is there will be undeserved consequences that haven’t really been considered. To illustrate my point I have prepared the following thought experiment: What if it had always been the rule to strike off nominees who finish behind No Award; Who would have been erased?

It’s not only movies. True, prior to 2015, No Award “won” on only five occasions, four of those times in the Best Dramatic Presentation category. The losing movies and recordings were corporate products and rarely had any personal connection to fandom, no feelings to hurt. (Though fans of the authors of the adapted books, like Carrie and Logan’s Run, might raise a cry in their behalf.)

No Award also came out on top of the voting for Best New Author of 1958 – leading Brian W. Aldiss, Paul Ash (aka: Pauline Ashwell), Rosel George Brown, Louis Charbonneau, and Kit Reed.

But there have been many occasions when No Award didn’t “win” the category but still finished ahead of one or more nominees. They are not nominees I would want to see erased, nor their future counterparts.

1978 Best Fan Writer

  • Charles N. Brown, Don D’Ammassa, Don C. Thompson

1979 Best Fanzine

  • Janus, ed. by Janice Bogstad and Jeanne Gomoll, Mota ed. by Terry Hughes, Twll-Ddu ed. by David Langford

1979 Best Fan Writer

  • Leroy Kettle, Dave Langford, D. West

1980 Best Dramatic Presentation

  • The Black Hole

1982 Best Fan Writer

  • Arthur D. Hlavaty

1985 Best Novelette

  • “The Lucky Strike” by Kim Stanley Robinson

1985 Best Semiprozine

  • Whispers ed. by Stuart David Schiff, Fantasy Review ed. by Robert Collins

1985 Best Fanzine

  • Mythologies ed. by Don D’Ammassa, Holier Than Thou ed. by Marty Cantor and Robbie Cantor

1985 Best Fan Writer

  • Arthur D. Hlavaty

1985 Best Fan Artist

  • Steve Fox

1986 Best Fanzine

  • Anvil ed. by Charlotte Proctor, Universal Translator ed. by Susan Bridges, Holier Than Thou ed. by Marty Cantor and Robbie Cantor, Greater Columbia Fantasy Costumers Guild Newsletter ed. by Bobby Gear

1987 Best Novel

  • Black Genesis by L. Ron Hubbard

1987 Best Fanzine

  • Lan’s Lantern ed. by George “Lan” Laskowski, Texas SF Enquirer ed. by Pat Mueller, Trap Door ed. by Robert Lichtman

1987 Best Fan Writer

  • D. West, Arthur D. Hlavaty

1989 Best Fan Writer

  • Guy H. Lillian III

1992 Best Fan Writer

  • Andrew P. Hooper

2014 Best Novelette

  • “Opera Vita Aeterna” by Vox Day

In closing I want to point out Steve Davidson discussed the idea of conducting an additional vote on whether to exclude finalists from the Long List, so automatic erasure isn’t the only option that’s been suggested. In any case, I go back to my primary argument — we should keep our history, the good and the bad: our scars remind us what we fought for.

26 thoughts on “All Hugo Nominees Who Finished Behind No Award Prior to 2015

  1. I read and enjoyed Robinson’s The Lucky Strike when it was republished a few years ago in the PM Press Outspoken Authors series of short paperbacks. I’m surprised to learn that it finished below No Award in the Hugo voting and I’d like to know more about the circumstances. Was there some kind of political controversy around the story?

    edited to add that I agree completely with Mike Glyer about not erasing history.

  2. I strongly agree with your first reason (I don’t disagree with your second–just not focussing on it at the moment); changing the nominations list after the final vote would be an attempt to erase history. At best, that’s silly–especially in this internet age, when it wouldn’t work. The “official” Hugo list might be missing some of the works originally nominated, but anyone with decent search skills could find what actually happened–so what’s the purpose of basically making the official list inaccurate?

    At worst–in my opinion, trying to rewrite history is arrogant and foolish, full stop. What’s the old line–he who doesn’t learn from history is doomed to repeat it? Well, he who tries to pretend history didn’t actually happen that way has no chance of learning anything . . .

  3. I agree: we should own our history. All of it, the good & the bad.

    There are enough instances of historical erasure being a bad idea, that any similar proposal to revise/erase the Hugo award finalists makes me very uncomfortable.

    By all means, write articles about bad actors, point out how how misguided they are, laugh at them even. But sweeping them under the carpet? That’s an ostrich move.

  4. StephenfromOttawa: I read and enjoyed Robinson’s The Lucky Strike when it was republished a few years ago in the PM Press Outspoken Authors series of short paperbacks. I’m surprised to learn that it finished below No Award in the Hugo voting and I’d like to know more about the circumstances. Was there some kind of political controversy around the story?

    I recently read “The Lucky Strike”, after finding out that it had been No Awarded and wondering the same thing.

    My take on it is that, even in 1985, gur vqrn gung obzovat Uvebfuvzn naq Antnfnxv jnf fbzrguvat gung gur H.F. fubhyqa’g unir qbar, gur vqrn gung n obzoneqvre jnf n ureb sbe ershfvat gb borl gubfr beqref, naq gung n cbfvgvir shgher bhgpbzr jnf gur erfhyg bs gung ershfny, jrer nyy fgvyy pbafvqrerq urvabhf, genvgbebhf vqrnf – naq gung gur Ab Njneq jnf gur byq FS thneq’f irel ivfpreny ernpgvba gb gung.

    But I would love to hear the perspective of SF fans who were heavily involved in Worldcon at the time.

  5. Yeah. Finding The Lucky Strike on that list was a surprise. I read it for the first time a year or two ago and loved it. I’m having trouble imagining why it was voted below “no award.” Maybe it wasn’t SF enough? I mean, it’s clearly alternate history, but it reads pretty straight.

    Back from a cursory search about it being voted below “No Award.”

    There’s a bit of discussion over at Jo Walton’s post for that year’s Hugos, but no satisfying answer.

    I want to know.

  6. JJ: I am guessing that the story got caught up in Reagan era debates around nuclear arms policy. Maybe Robinson himself particpated in the public debate. I had no contact at all with sf fandom at that time though so I don’t know.

  7. I also think trying to strike works from the historical record is a bad idea. And at the moment, I’d be the person who would be obliged to do so, as one of the maintainers of The Hugo Awards web site.

  8. We shouldn’t intentionally discard history; it’s bad enough when it happens by accident. Just look at the frustration historians have over the lost info from the first few Hugos – it would be nice to know just what lost to They’d Rather Be Right.

  9. On the other hand, aside from the Fan categories, which I don’t know a lot about*, the Robinson is the only thing I see that I’d miss if we did “erase” the history here. And maybe the Semiprozine, but I don’t know enough to comment on that one.

    I’m not saying we should discard history—the notion definitely makes me uncomfortable—but if we did, I’m not sure I’d weep for much of anything here.

    Please note, though, that we wouldn’t—and can’t—make all record of these works’ appearance on the ballots go away. Historians would have nothing to worry about. The information is widely available.

    The most that could possibly happen here is that these works would be reclassified as not-nominated. No one is going to forget that VD had a story on the ballot. So it’s a pretty minor punishment. If anything, it would be likely to create more publicity—see Streisand’s Law. Really, the whole thing sounds like more work than it’s worth, even if you can convince yourself it’s a good idea. Which I certainly can’t.

    But yeah, taking away the “Hugo Nominated” category from Disney’s The Black Hole is not something I can bring myself to object to, either. 😀

    * Before the puppies came along, I basically just skipped the whole “fan whatsit” part of the ballot.

  10. I believe there is a major distinction between erasing history and having a formal mechanism that allows the membership to publicly explain the special circumstances surrounding certain finalists/vote results.

    Those looking to the official record for solid information deserve to have the entire story available to them, and that story includes the fact that certain individuals gamed their way onto the official record.

    I’m not recommending erasure or rewrite, only a more complete presentation of the actual facts.

  11. I believe there is a major distinction between erasing history and having a formal mechanism that allows the membership to publicly explain the special circumstances surrounding certain finalists/vote results.

    Those looking to the official record for solid information deserve to have the entire story available to them, and that story includes the fact that certain individuals gamed their way onto the official record.

    I’m not recommending erasure or rewrite, only a more complete presentation of the actual facts.

    ***

    If only Mike had used one of my titles this morning….

  12. Geeze, I feel awful for Arthur Hlavaty. And for Langford to finish below “No Award” is every bit as ludicrous as Brian Aldiss.

  13. I think finishing below No Award is enough. The general public wouldn’t know about the distinction of falling below No Award, but those who really value the awards and their history will.

  14. I understand why some nominees should be removed from the list, but in measure agree that leaving them there is the best course. No Award serves its purpose and history does as well. We can look back at the record and say hey, wait a second

  15. The other thing is that “I don’t think this person/work deserves the Hugo this year” is a different statement from “,,,and I don’t want the record to show that enough people disagreed with me to put it on the ballot in the first place.” One reason people vote for “no award” in some categories is that they don’t think the category belongs on the ballot; would they act differently if they knew the likely effect was to make it look as though there were only (say) two worthwhile nominees in that category that year? Someone might have voted ”

    Making this change for the future—since it’s now 2016, starting with the 2018 Hugos—would at least reduce the risk of sending a message different than the No Award voter might have had in mind. Someone might have voted “no award” in fourth place for novel in 1987, meaning “that Hubbard novel stinks” or “it’s not legitimately on the ballot” and in first place in one or more of the fan categories, meaning “this category shouldn’t exist,” and those are different messages. Wanting to eliminate a category isn’t a comment about the quality, or honesty, of any of the nominees.

  16. Just looking at the fan categories there are a whole bunch of people who deserved to win a Hugo, let alone be nominated. The no award rankings for those years are probably telling us more about the limited distribution of fan works, compared to the voting population, rather than the quality of the works.

    It also may be that the odd fan feud is represented in those results :). In either case this is a genuine party of our history and we should not erase it.

  17. Thanks to Mike for making this list, most illuminating. It makes it clear that finishing below No Award in the past was not actually a sign that something is the “worst of the worst”. (Fans of the past seeming to wielded NA without remorse!)

    Well, maybe apart from “The Black Hole”, which filled a much-needed gap. But that is a rare exception.

  18. This is a proposal I would strenuously vote against. With prejudice. History is what it is. Rewriting it won’t help anything.

  19. Pingback: Pixel Scroll 6/21/16 Everybody In The Whole Scrollblock, Dance To The Pixelhouse Rock | File 770

  20. Ray Radlein: Thanks for the kind words. If memory serves, it didn’t bother me too much because I knew I was somewhat controversial. (These days I’m probably old & therefore respectable.)

Comments are closed.