Hugo Administrator Vincent Docherty, as is customary, has published statistics about the total 2011 Hugo nominating ballots received, with summary figures for each category such as the high/low vote ranges of nominees. They appear as an inclusion with the final ballot [PDF file] at the Renovation website.
In 2011 the minimum number of votes to make the ballot in the Best Fanzine category was 43, in Best Fan Writer, 30, and in Best Fan Artist, 23. All this despite the record number of nominating ballots, 1006.
Judged by the minimum number of votes needed to get on the final ballot, it was actually tougher for a fanzine or fan writer to get nominated than in four professional categories where stories or editors made the cut with less than 30 votes – Best Novelette, Best Short Story (which was truncated to four nominees because all others failed the 5% rule), Best Graphic Story and Best Editor, Long Form (where a tie for the fifth spot resulted in a total of seven nominees).
[Via SMOFS.]
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
a lot of discussion on TLTSNBN (which you allude to with an acronym above) centers on a perennial issue: should “pros” be allowed to be nominated in “fan” categories.
Of course there are sideboard arguments: what is a pro? what is an award category? why isn’t this award category different so we can argue about other things? Why can’t we argue about arguing instead of all of this awards crap? They give awards for crap? Is that a ‘short form’ or a ‘long form’ award?
The sticking point for many is the (supposed) feeling that those earning their living from creative endeavors ought not to be horning in on the ‘amateurs’ terrority.
Which feeling seems to be engendered by a misapplication of the term ‘fan’. Increasingly, I am seeing it associated with the concept of ‘amateur’ (or sometimes even ‘annoyingly bad with no hope of pro-dom’)
‘Fan’ does NOT mean ‘amateur’ or semi-anything. It means someone involved in the community who does (or is trying to do) something related to their interest(s) in fandom. Related to may be nothing more than the fact that their inner circle of fannish friends like it, or appreciate it or get mad enough about it to write a LOC back.
I suggested on my blog the other day that perhaps a solution can be found in re-wording the titles if the ‘fan’ awards to include one more word: activity
Best Writer – Fan Activity
Best Artist – Fan Activity
Best Publication – Fan Activity
See? Now we know exactly why Frederick Pohl was given an “amateurs” award last year. (The only real downside to this is that it would allow pro publications to be nominated in the publication realm – but, if you think about it (especially in light of circulation numbers), isn’t that kind of appropriate?
And selling a novel to Tor in order to enlightened the ignorant masses with my opinons and fictional inventions doesn’t make me “someone involved in the community who does (or is trying to do) something related to their interest(s) in fandom?”
I haven’t read the WSFS constitution lately. Perhaps that is what it says. But it seems such a vague definition that it would almost be hard to construct a rationality to exclude something as “fanac” under it.
Taral, the intention is to INCLUDE as many people as possible; works prepared FOR commercial uses are easily identified; works prepared for fannish gratification may or may not also be works prepared for commercial use.
Oh, well, we must include everybody or perish the thought. There is probably an Innuit who has painted a unicorn on his toilet seat, and therefore painted toilet seats *must* be entered. The will of the majority — or at least the Hugo committee — has spoken, and I for one have finished arguing about it.