“Too many notes” Mozart was told, and there are 2023 Hugo finalists being told something comparable.
The version of the 2023 Hugo ballot released yesterday – promptly withdrawn as incorrect by the Hugo Administrator, and explained as a byproduct of IT testing – nevertheless confirmed reports that the Chengdu Worldcon Hugo team wants to restrict how many names may be listed as finalists for works produced by large groups of creators and editors.
File 770 had already been alerted to this issue and tried over the weekend to learn directly from the committee the answers to the following questions. No answer was given.
(1) Are the 2023 Hugo Administrators (or the committee) limiting the number of names that can be listed as finalists for works that have multiple creators, or teams of editors, etc.?
(2) If there is a limit, what is the maximum number of names being accepted?
(3) If there is a limit, what is the reason for it?
That there actually has been an attempt to impose a limit in the Semiprozine and fan Hugo categories was apparent from the draft ballot where one finalist was credited as the “Strange Horizons Editorial Collective”, while others’ lists of six or seven names were followed by “and the [fill-in-the-blank] Team”. That this is a policy rather than one of the errors to be corrected has been confirmed by the committee sending further communications to enforce the limit.
In contrast Chicon 8, the 2022 Worldcon, shaped its policy to avoid the troubles experienced by the 2021 committee, DisCon III, which had attempted to impose limits. Last year’s Chicon 8 Hugo finalist press release carried the names of dozens of Strange Horizons staff, plus extended lists of editors and staffers for many other entries such as Escape Pod (10, plus “and the entire Escape Pod team”), FIYAH Magazine (20), Podcastle (8, plus the “entire team”), and Journey Planet (10).
DisCon III had originally announced in January 2021 they would “list a maximum of four names for each finalist on the 2021 Hugo Final Ballot (both printed and online), the visuals used during the Hugo Award ceremony, and the plaques on the Hugo trophies. Where a finalist does not wish to limit their list of named persons on the ballot to four or fewer, they will be listed as “[Title] by the [Title] Team” or agreed equivalent.” After an intensely negative response on social media these limits were repudiated the next day by then-DisCon III co-chair Bill Lawhorn (see “DisCon III Abandons Previously Announced Hugo Policy”). DisCon III then suffered two rounds of resignations by volunteers connected with the Hugos while trying to settle its policies about the perks of finalists (name on the ballot and in publications; souvenir pins; admission to the pre-Hugo Reception; program participant invitations, etc.) (One group of volunteers returned after Mary Robinette Kowal became chair.)
After paying such a high price to learn these lessons it is reasonable to ask why a Worldcon runner is trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
(sigh) I love the Hugos, but I will be glad to put this year behind us.
I thought this had been settled, too. 😐
Eesh
The preliminary release was archived—even though you unpublished it here—and it’s been much commented on in a group I could name.
I’m starting a rumor that Mao was nominated for “Best New Fan.”
Andrew Porter: I needed to take the list down here, even though it continued to be available on at least one other blog, the Internet Archive,
and even on the Chengdu website (is it gone from there by now?)
I couldn’t get the list to come up on the Chengdu website later yesterday. Earlier I had seen the list and even requested and successfully used a voting login. Didn’t actually try submitting anything. Just closed the window after seeing that really wasn’t ready.
This is an ongoing disaster.
Click
Some of the finalist demands in lesser voted on categories are getting ridiculous. Semiprozine is a great example from last year. In a category where it took only 39 nominations to become a finalist, Strange Horizons if they had won wanted named recognition and physical awards for 75 named people plus “The Strange Horizons Editorial Collective”. Their total nominations were only 100 and their first round votes for the Hugo, third highest in the category, were only 176, not many more in either case than the total number of people for whom they wanted an award if they won. More than three times as many awards to be produced in one category than all other categories combined (24 in other categories in 2022). This kind of disproportionate ratio of attention seeking to voter participation is really making the case for killing the category.
Strange Horizons said they only wanted one Hugo with only Strange Horizons on it should they win.
@Laura Thanks! That was not the impression I was left with during the discussion last year about how many names could be recognized and what to do on the awards. That would relieve the physical production issue certainly.
Actually looking back at the discussion which took place 2 years ago when all of this blew up for DisCon3, there is a big difference between what people assumed about Strange Horizons and what Strange Horizon folks actually expected. First, to correct myself, they asked for 2 trophies…still less than other groups have received. The only thing they wanted for all listed people was pins which they offered to pay for.
I’ll leave looking back at the previous discussion surrounding removing semiprozine from the ballot as an excercise for someone else.
From our point of view as frequent finalists with Uncanny Magazine, we just want official consistency from Worldcon to Worldcon. Almost every year, we’re given different arbitrary numbers. We then have to have difficult discussions with the Hugo Admin about the unfairness of overturning previous precedents, and how it penalizes and hurts members of our staff. It leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouths.
It takes a lot of joy out of getting a nomination when you go in thinking it will be the same as the previous year, but now you are being told that you will need to tell multiple staff members that actually they won’t be listed, because of reasons, even though their position was previously listed in the nominations. (And in one case for us, that year’s WSFS Head sent us a very angry, dismissive email after we “won” the discussion that completely ruined the experience for a staff member who was nominated for the first time.)
We really believe the WSFS Constitution needs to be amended to clarify how this should be handled in a consistent and fair manner. I’m sure that if everyone works together, we can find a solution to this issue.
I will have a lot more to say on this in the coming days.
Mike Glyer, Laura: I think this was the page on the Chengdu Worldcon website that had the premature Hugo nominations. It now contains a single statement in Chinese characters (which failed to paste on this post, alas), but Google Translate renders it in the Latin alphabet (approximately – couldn’t paste some of the diacritics) as “Zhàndian shengjí zhong, qing dengdài”, meaning “The site is being upgraded, please wait”.
Yeah, that’s what has been there since last night for me …around the same time Mike redacted it here I think.
Because some people keep harping on Strange Horizons, true, they asked for their entire staff to be listed, but they did not demand more than two trophies nor did they complain about the limit of four people per finalist that would be able to go to the reception and ceremony. The ones who complained about the four people limit was a completely different team in different category, so please stop blaming Strange Horizons for something they never did.
I agree with that the names should be limited, though I’m not sure what the right number is. One trophy which should list only the publication name no individual. Online announcements can include a hundred names if you want, it’s not a problem. It some limited number is needed for award ceremony.
Thanks for this, Mike.
@Cora Noted. Thanks for the clarification!
Schrodinger’s Nominees. Until they open the box, we will never really know.
Forgive them, Jophan, for they know not what they do.
As a previous Hugo Admin, I agree wholeheartedly with Michael above. We don’t like the uncertainty and having to figure it out every year with a new batch of finalists. If the constitution says we need to list every single name a finalist gives us, then fine, we might grumble, but we’ll do it. And if the constitution says there’s a hard limit, then we won’t have to deal with personal attacks from finalists who object to the limit. But having no guidance is no good for anyone.
Tammy Coxen: “…we might grumble…”
It sounds like you don’t necessarily want to use the complete list of names a finalist gives the Hugo Administrator — would you be willing to discuss why you don’t want to do that?
“ (One group of volunteers returned after Mary Robinette Kowal became chair.)” Not all of them, and none to the same roles.
Nicholas Whyte: As a veteran Hugo Administrator what is your view on whether the number of listed finalists should be restricted, or some other policy should be applied?
So when emailing nominees for confirmation that they accept, how many emails would be sent for an entry listing multiple contributers? Seems like this has the potential to delay the process.
I try to watch the movies and TV shows and read at least the novels. I usually have read the novellas because there are some of my favorite writers there. Come on, give me a list.
It does not use that much ink or pixels to list all the names the nominees want listed. Let it be a page full. Just have a set number of statutes etc.
@Peter Card
I’d think you’d start with the group’s email (zine, podcast..) and only try to track down individuals if that failed.
Peter Card saying So when emailing nominees for confirmation that they accept, how many emails would be sent for an entry listing multiple contributers? Seems like this has the potential to delay the process.
That would be up to the nominee but it’s reasonable to assume that nominee would only have a very limited number of individuals to be contacted for this. Probably only two.
It sure as Hell wouldn’t be everyone listed on, say, the Strange Horizons entry.
A couple of belated thoughts re Strange Horizons and lists of names on the ballot:
• Presumably, nobody who nominated SH listed every single staff member on the nominating ballot. I therefore assume that the long list of staff members was supplied by the magazine, after the magazine was notified that it was a finalist. Therefore, I can’t see any reason that the Hugo admins would need to contact every listed staff member to confirm with them.
• This issue about number of allowed people listed has been going on for a long time now. My last year as an SH editor was 2012; in 2013, when the magazine appeared on the ballot, we were told multiple contradictory things by the Hugo administrators about how many names were allowed for the pre-ceremony reception, for the nominee seating area, and in various lists of nominees. (And we weren’t trying to put dozens of names on the ballot at that point.) It was pretty annoying for me personally (because it was likely to be the last time that my name would ever appear in a Hugo context), but it was also a big hassle for everyone who was trying to figure out schedules and travel plans and so on. I agree with others here that having a formal and standardized policy would help a lot.
• I think one thing that often gets lost in discussions of name listings is that a lot of works (especially magazine-like works) really are team efforts these days. SH in particular has a huge staff of volunteers who put in a lot of hard work to make the magazine what it is; the same is true (though usually with fewer people) for other magazines. When a nominee asks to have a bunch of names listed, part of the point (imo—I’m not speaking for SH or anyone else) is to show that it’s not just the editor-in-chief (for example) who creates a magazine; it’s to recognize the work done by the whole staff.
@Jed Hartman
“a lot of works . . . really are team efforts these days. ”
“When a nominee asks to have a bunch of names listed, part of the point . . . is to show that it’s not just the editor-in-chief who creates a magazine; it’s to recognize the work done by the whole staff.”
That being the case, is listing a bunch of names the best way to recognize the team? Even with the biggest list of names, is everyone on the team included? Further, the reaction of those included is sometimes “I got a nomination”, and not a deferral to the team.
If it is the editorial position that a magazine is a team effort, and that recognizing the editor is a slight to other members of the team, I’d think the best response would be to not honor any individuals at all, but to list only “The Editorial Staff of [Magazine]” on any communications, records, and trophies.
Compare to the World Series (American baseball, for those who don’t do sports). The Commissioner’s Trophy (the actual physical trophy, analogous to the Hugo Rocket) is awarded to the winning team, in that team’s name only. No players are named. The team will usually then give rings to the members of the team, but they are not official World Series awards.
Good point. Movies are the same. Dozens if not hundreds of people work on a movie. All are critical in making the movie, yet on the Academy Awards, I see a few people go up on the stage and are handed awards. Certainly individuals can say later that the movie they worked on as a gaffer or in accounting got an Oscar but they do not get an award.
The Hugo Award in question is meant to recognize the Best Fanzine, not the people who produced the Best Fanzine.
Following up on movies —
It may be useful to look at the rules for the Oscars. There are a number of awards in which the thing being recognized is a film, but individuals who worked on the film accept the award. Throughout the rules, a couple of guiding principles stand out:
There are hard limits on the number of nominees who can be named or can accept the award, typically 2 or 3 people.
Nominees must have performed a particular task associated with the picture (typically a director or producer); must be credited as such on the screen; and must have performed the major portion of the work involved.
It is the prerogative of the awarding organization (the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) to set the limits, not the groups who worked on any given picture.
Now there’s no particular requirement that the Hugos should follow these principles, but they seem to work and be successful in selecting and honoring the Best Pictures/Documentaries/Short Films/etc. The Oscar folks have been doing this for longer than the Hugo folks, and presumably have dealt with the same sorts of problems over the years. Their solution(s) make work here as well.
Bill: I don’t see any point in using the rules to argue that only the title of a Best Fanzine finalist should be considered. The names of the editors are always credited. And — this was not your argument but is relevant — it insults people’s intelligence to plead that the space available on a tiny brass plaque or a paper ballot (now used by a tiny number of voters) represents any real limit on the space available to list names on an internet website or a video slide.
And while we’re throwing out examples, a TV special in the Fifties called “An Evening with Fred Astaire” won an Emmy. It was noted for being broadcast in color. My father,who was a video engineer in the crew, got an award plaque, and it listed the names of show’s entire crew. It was on our wall at home for years. These perceived limits are not immutable.
The issuance of an award plaque for contributing to the technology that made the broadcast possible is a great way to honor a wonderful achievement. I wonder if a pin or other token could be given out to the multitude who produce the Best Fanzine.
@bill
Back in 2021 when Strange Horizons first had their long list of names, they said that they saw the magazine itself as the finalist. Their list included “staff members who prefer not to be named”.
Then you must be happy to see that that is exactly what Strange Horizons (as well as FIYAH and khoreo) did this year.
As I mentioned earlier, that is pretty much the way Strange Horizons wanted it handled should they have won at DisConIII. They requested 2 trophies with the name of the magazine only. They wanted pins for everyone which they were willing to purchase.
@Mike Glyer
[Note: I previously said “Best Fanzine”; should have said “Best Semiprozine”; but the discussion here could conceivably include both, as well as other periodicals and also Best Dramatic]
The only time I would argue that only the title should be considered is in cases like this — where the number of people that the periodical wants to be recognized is very high (both in an absolute sense, and relative to historical norms). When we are talking about 2-3 people, it never has been an issue, nor should it (especially given that the contributions of those top 2-3 likely had a lot to do with the quality of the work being honored).
But if there is a strong desire to recognize the people behind a Best Zine, then the named awardees shouldn’t be everyone on staff, because even though everyone contributes, the contributions of the 27th most important person on staff were not what made this particular zine “best”. The fact that Strange Horizons is very good doesn’t mean that their copyeditor or First Readers have done Hugo-worthy work. At some point soon after 2 or 3 names, recognition is by association, rather than any measurable individual contribution.
Although I can see that it’s been mentioned previously here, I did not know that your father had worked on an Emmy-award winning show. You must have been proud of him. I see that Fred Astaire himself (or producers, acting in his name) went so far as to buy ads in the trades that recognized him and his coworkers.
@Laura
Weren’t there also requests for many names to be listed in ballots, publicity, final reports and ballot summaries, and during the ceremony? For access to the pre- and post-ceremony parties? Or am I misremembering?
@bill
You are probably remembering things that others said or assumed instead of anything that came from Strange Horizons. If you had seen some of the responses people actually involved there had, you would be aware that they truly see themselves as a collective. They view everyone’s contributions as essential. That’s what they were trying to convey. When the list first appeared, DisCon put their then editor-in-chief at the beginning. They asked for the name to be placed in alphabetical order with the rest.
Pingback: Top 10 Stories of July 2023 - File 770