SAVE THE RETRO HUGOS: A MODEST PROPOSAL

By Cora Buhlert and Chris M. Barkley.

---

Short Title: Save The Retro Hugos

Proposed by: Cora Buhlert, Seconded by Chris M. Barkley

THE PROPOSAL: Save the Retro Hugos

Moved, to amend the WSFS Constitution by altering Section 3.14.1 of the WSFS Constitution, to allow Worldcons to continue to give out Retrospective Hugo Awards at their discretion: Section 3.14: Retrospective Hugo Awards 3.14.1. 3.14.1. A Worldcon held in a year that is an exact multiple of 10 years after a year in which no Hugo Awards were awarded may conduct nominations and elections for retrospective year Hugo Awards for one such year with procedures as for the current Hugo Awards, provided that year was 1939 or later and that no previous Worldcon has awarded retrospective year Hugo Awards for that year. Trophies may be presented, but are not a requirement.

Commentary by Cora Buhlert: Though controversial in certain quarters, the Retro Hugos fulfill an important function of honoring works created before there were Hugo Awards. The Retro Hugos also offer the opportunity to rediscover older works and forgotten authors and can function as a corrective to received wisdom about the SFF of the past. 

Finally, the Retro Hugos have also done a good job in the past of looking beyond the confines of American magazine science fiction to include finalists from further afield. We are aware that holding Retro Hugos means additional work for the Worldcon hosting them and the Hugo subcommittee. 

However, it should remain at the discretion of every individual Worldcon whether they want to take on this extra work or not. Furthermore, there are only seven (potentially eight) years of Retro Hugos left to cover, namely 1940, 1942, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1952 and potentially 1957, which only awarded Hugos in three categories, all for magazines. 

So, the Retro Hugos already come with a built-in sunset clause. Changing the years in which Retro Hugos may be held from an exact multiple of 25 years after a year in which no Hugo Awards were awarded to an exact multiple of 10 years after a year in which no Hugo Awards were awarded also means that it will not take another 25 years to get to the remaining Retro Hugo years, but that Retro Hugos can be given out, while there is at least a chance of some winners and their direct descendants being still alive to enjoy the honor.

Basically, the only change is to make it easier to give out Retro Hugos, so we don’t have to wait another 25 years to get to the last remaining years. Otherwise, the clause remains as it is with the addition that trophies are not required.

Commentary by Chris M. Barkley:  In May of 1928, the year-old Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences came up with a nifty idea to help promote the institution, an annual set of “awards of merit” which eventually became to be called the Academy Awards (whose “Oscar” nickname was still several years in the future).

Since the production of films had already established itself as a cultural and entertainment touchstone with the public at large, it instantly became the gold standard of what Academy members thought were great artistic endeavors. And, of course, winning one became, and still is, the most coveted of all of the motion picture awards. 

(Rant/On: And have I agreed with the choices of the Academy voters over the years? I’ll answer with this question; is there anyone out there who TRULY believes that Annie Hall was or still is a better film than Star Wars (now dubbed Episode IV) in 1977? My answer is HELL to the NO! And that’s just a TINY sample of my dissatisfaction with some of the Academy’s choices over the decades. Rant/Off) 

There is a small but important subset of the film industry that thirsts year round for rumors, scuttlebutt or real information on what may be considered prestigious and important projects, possible candidates for nominations in all of the major categories. And if an actor, writer, producer, members of the craft divisions or studio heads tell you that they’re not dreaming about the possibility of ending up on the stage at the Dolby Theater some March evening, they cannot be believed by any stretch of the imagination.  

Now let’s flash forward to the 11th Worldcon at Philcon II (in Philadelphia PA), in September 1953. The organizers, led by Chair Milton A. Rothman, came up with a nifty idea to help promote the World Science Fiction Society with an annual set of “awards of merit” award to honor the previous year’s best works of science fiction and to be voted on by sff readers. Although it was called a “one off”, they hoped it would become an annual tradition, which happened two years later. 

And, much like its motion picture cousin, over time it became the gold standard of what the voting members of WSFS and subsequently, sff readers thought were great literary endeavors. And, of course, winning one became, and still is, one of the most coveted of all of the awards in SFF and literature in general. 

Let’s skip ahead to the 1996 Worldcon in Los Angeles (L.A.Con III), which marked the inaugural presentation of the Retrospective Hugo Awards, wherein nominated works were from the year 1945. 

When I first heard about the Retro-Hugos, I was very interested in seeing who the fans would nominate and who would win. Among the recipients were George Orwell for Animal Farm, Murray Leinster for his SFWA Hall of Fame short story “First Contact”, Isaac Asimov for “The Mule”, a barely novel length excerpt of his compilation novel, Foundation and Empire, a film version of The Picture of Dorian Gray and John W. Campbell, Jr. for Best Editor. More on him, soon. 

Remarkably enough, there were three among those first recipients who were still living at the time; Hal Clement (for his short story, “Uncommon Sense” (Astounding SF, September, 1945) and William Rostler (for Best Fan Artist) and Forrest J Ackerman picked up a pair of Hugo Awards for Best Fan Writer and Best Fanzine.

I thought most of the choices fans made were fine at the time, but I cannot say that was so for some of the subsequent seven occasions the Retro-Hugo Awards were given. Furthermore, I came to the realization that very few of the recipient’s direct families or relatives were actually receiving these awards to appreciate and celebrate.  

Having participated in the nomination and voting stages of nearly all of the awards since 2001 (I missed the first vote in 1996) and I have tried to be circumspect in my choices, particularly in making sure a number of women who were active in the field were present on the ballot.

After painstakingly looking through all eight of the previous ballots, I counted only five nominees who are women; Leigh Brackett (with two wins for Best Novel and Best Related Work) Catherine L. Moore (two fiction wins, in collaboration with her partner, Henry Kuttner), Myrtle R. Douglas (two wins for Best Fanzine, with Forrest J Ackerman), Anne Frolick (winner in collaboration with Orson Welles for the 1938 radio adaptation of War of the Worlds and Margaret Brundage (Best Professional Artist, 1945).

I was delighted to see overlooked writers like Brackett, Clement, Leinster, T.H. White, A.E. van Vogt, Orson Welles and others get their past due recognition. But I have been somewhat disappointed by some of the choices voters made in the fiction and fan categories.

Especially in the Best Editor category. Because my hesitation to support continuing the Retro-Hugo Awards is firmly rooted in that category. 

The talley of major male recipients reads like a virtual who’s who of the Golden Age:

• John W. Campbell, Jr. – 9 Hugos (Eight for editing, one for fiction)
• Ray Bradbury – 6 Hugos (fan writing and fiction)
• Robert A. Heinlein – 6 Hugos (one for the screenplay for Destination Moon:)
• Forrest J Ackerman – 5 Hugos (fan related)
• Virgil Finlay – 5 Hugos (Artist)
• Bob “Wilson” Tucker -5 Hugos (fan related)
• Isaac Asimov – 3 Hugos

Did 21st century fans select the best sf and fantasy of that era? Taking a critical look at the works that won, I would tend to say no. But, you could fill (or write) a book of opinions on that subject, which I highly recommend someone do, someday.

John W. Campbell, Jr., who was, without a doubt and for the better, the editor that dragged sf literature firmly from its pulpy, bug-eyed monster, dime novel roots into the 20th century from 1937 to 1950, during some of the period the Retro-Hugos are trying to fill. Whether he was relevant to the field or not after 1950 is still being debated to this day.

I do not revere the man as much as others have in the past. And yet I won’t hesitate to say that he was an important figure in our branch of literature and that I own several of his classic anthologies in my library.   

I was in the auditorium in Dublin five years ago when Jeannette Ng roundly denounced the Campbell Award name and the man it was named after in such a passionate (and profane) manner on the stage of the Hugo Awards Ceremony. Some people who were present were outraged and others cheered wildly with thunderous applause. I was in the latter group.

In the aftermath of this event, some speculated that this was some sort of act of spontaneous cultural combustion. I can assure you, it was not.

Campbell’s eccentric notions of science were well known during his tenure at Astounding/Analog magazine, as he was an initial disciple of Dianetics and a devotee of a bogus contraption known as ‘the Dean Drive”. What was not well known to most of the sf readers at the time was that he was a virulent racist.

These facts came to the fore most prominently in Alec-Nevala Lee’s 2018 non-fiction chronicle of the Golden Age, Astounding: John W. Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Golden Age of Science Fiction. Numerous examples of his despicable philosophies and actions have been unearthed since then.

If Jeannette Ng hadn’t said so, someone else eventually would have done so. I say this because I and several other authors and fans openly discussed online how to petition the sponsor of the award, Dell Magazines, or the WSFS Business Meeting to remove his name from the award a good two years before Ng’s speech. Ng’s brave and emotional outburst was the lightning strike that did the job for us and for that, I and other like minded people were and remain, very grateful.

Campbell’s surviving family, who live just up the road from me in Dayton, Ohio, have bitterly denounced the removal of the name and the demise of the Memorial Award that was administered by the University of Kansas’ Center for the Study of Science Fiction, which formally canceled any further awards in 2022. And while I feel some empathy for them, I would remind them that neither I nor anyone is trying to erase John W. Campbell, Jr. from our collective history, but asking for a measure of accountability for the harm he did do to his contemporaries in fandom, writers and the publishing field.    

Having said all of this, you may ask why am I supporting a continuance of the Retrospective Hugo Awards?

Well.

First of all, I am a student of history and I feel as though we are leaving some of it unfinished by not honoring works from 1940, 1942, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1952 and the unawarded categories from 1957.

The second reason is that I am quite hopeful that fans, readers and potential nominators are sufficiently enlightened to select the very best works to honor in these years sooner, in a fair and expeditious manner, rather than later.

The people who make up sff fandom, the fans, convention runners, artists, writers and editors, deserve a chance to look back and objectively (or subjectively) make their opinions and voices heard, whether I agree with their eventual choices or not. 

And even if I have an ideological problem honoring John W. Campbell, Jr., I will not deny the opportunity to those who do. And in turn, I will advocate for Frederik Pohl, Anthony Boucher, Horace L. Gold, Geoff Conklin, Robert P. Mills and other worthy nominees from this period.  

I don’t believe that history is just “one damned thing after the other” as historian Arnold J. Toynbee famously said. History is the slow, tidal compilation of things that happen every single day. 

So, I suggest we continue making history instead of complaining about the established “fixed points in time”.

Let’s finish what we started.

---

Cora Buhlert is a fan writer based in Bremen, Germany and was the recipient of the 2022 Hugo award for Best Fan Writer.

Chris M. Barkley is a news editor and columnist for File770.com. He resides in Cincinnati, Ohio and was the recipient of the 2023 Hugo Award for Best Fan Writer.