Pixel Scroll 3/22/16 The Scrolls Are Alive With The Sound of Pixels

(1) MEDIA CON INFLATION. Rob Salkowitz at ICv2 says “As The 2016 Con Season Begins, Seams Are Starting To Show”.

Competition for big names is getting crazy. Every show wants the top names to draw fans, but the bidding war for A-list talent is starting to sound unsustainable. I’ve heard reliable reports that the appearance fees for the Wizard World Show in Philadelphia in June, which lists Chris Evans, Chris Helmsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Sebastian Stan, Anthony Mackie and the stars of Back to the Future, top $1 million in guaranteed money.

Well sure. Those are all the stars of what seems likely to be 2016’s biggest movie, all in one place.

But this is having a trickle-down effect. Because this is Star Trek’s 50th anniversary, the surviving original cast members and just about everyone associated with all versions of the show, are in unusually high demand. Competition to get these names on the marquee has reportedly led to cancelled contracts, bidding wars, waivers of exclusives, a shift from guaranteed revenues for autograph sales to straight appearance fees, and other cutthroat tactics.

Cons need to make that money back somewhere, and it’s coming from three places: fans, exhibitors and sponsors.

Costs are rising for attendees. Badges for 3- and 4-day events are starting to crack the $100 level, and that’s just the start. More and more events are not only adding VIP packages, which start around $195 and can go as high as $800-900, but are also requiring fans to pre-pay for celebrity photo ops and celebrity autographs in advance. SVCC even experimented with charging a $10 surcharge for admission to the Back to the Future Panel in its big room on Saturday afternoon, only to oversell the event and not have room for prepaid customers.

(2) PATHFINDER. Marion Deeds has an excellent report on FOGCon 2016 at Fantasy Literature.

Is 72 Letters Enough? In Search of the Perfect Language

I consider a panel “good” if I come away with new book titles to track down, or lots of ideas. By those two measurements, this panel was the best panel of the convention. Panelists included Ted Chiang, who took his inspiration from the Umberto Eco book In Search of the Perfect Language (The Making of Europe). The other panelists were Cathy Hindersinn and Steven Schwartz, with Michelle Cox moderating. There was another panelist but I don’t remember her name and it doesn’t appear in the program. Hindersinn studied linguistics before making a lateral move and becoming a computer programmer. Schwartz is part of the FOGCon committee and writes speculative fiction and epic poetry. He loves language and he loves to talk about language. Cox has an MA in Church History and theology and is a technical writer.

Chiang is scary-smart, articulate if a bit abstract at times, and serious, but he has a great wit, which was on display during the panel. This panel was held in the large room and, as near as I could tell, there was one empty chair. Several people were standing. The panelists were opinionated, and in some cases their passion outstripped their knowledge; the audience was the same way. It was brilliant.

Chiang used the Eco book as a jumping off point for a discussion and critique of the conceit of a “perfect” language; one that existed in the past, in humanity’s “golden age;” a language that all humans could speak and understand. There are two parts to that idea: universalism; the idea that there is one language every human on the planet can communicate in, (perhaps as a second language); and then a language that has the smallest possible divide between the signifier and the thing signified.

(3) STRANGE PUBLISHING TREND. The New Republic reports “The Mass-Market Edition of ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ Is Dead”.

We may never know what Lee’s will stipulates, but the estate’s first action in the wake of Lee’s death is both bold and somewhat baffling: The New Republic has obtained an email from Hachette Book Group, sent on Friday, March 4 to booksellers across the country, revealing that Lee’s estate will no longer allow publication of the mass-market paperback edition of To Kill a Mockingbird…..

That said, mass-market paperbacks have been on a precipitous decline lately, though TKAM’s success, particularly in the education market, makes it a notable exception. But many publishers are moving away from the format. Pressed for further comment, a HarperCollins spokesperson informed me that “Like many American classics, To Kill A Mockingbird’s primary paperback format will be the trade paperback edition.” That’s an important distinction: The general trend in publishing has been against the mass-market and toward more expensive (and durable) editions—many American classics, including The Great Gatsby and The Grapes of Wrath no longer have mass-market editions.

(4) THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST. Murray Leinster’s warning is just waiting for tech to catch up. A Logic Named Joe: The 1946 sci-fi short that nailed modern tech. 70 years later, Murray Leinster’s disaster scenario is the internet you know and love.”

The story goes on to tell how “Joe,” a rogue logic with a slight manufacturing defect, becomes self-aware and resolves to provide his owners and all other “logic” users with whatever information they require. Leinster says of Joe:

Joe ain’t vicious, you understand. He ain’t like one of those ambitious robots you read about that make up their minds the human race is inefficient and has got to be wiped out an’ replaced by thinkin’ machines. Joe’s just got ambition. If you were a machine you’d wanna work right, wouldn’t you? That’s Joe. He wants to work right. And he’s a logic, an’ logics can do a lotta things that ain’t been found out yet.

This, in turn, leads to logics around the city providing tips on everything from poisoning spouses to covering up drinking binges and robbing banks. Only when Joe is taken offline is that information hidden away from humanity and order restored.

(5) TODAY’S BIRTHDAY BOY

  • Born March 22, 1931 – William Shatner. The whole internet is barely big enough to contain everything there is to know about his show biz career. Google revealed to me that Shatner was on the old What’s My Line? game show in January 1965.

He was there to plug the premiere episode of his (then) new lawyer drama series For The People — which fortunately for all concerned failed in time for him to be cast in Star Trek.

(6) TODAY’S OTHER BIRTHDAY BOY

trekkie-recipe-william-shatners-cappuccino-muffins_w654

(7) RECORD STRAIGHTENER. Larry Correia has been unfairly charged with abandoning the battlefield, as he explains in “The Guardian’s Village Idiot Declares Another Career Ruined”.

I wasn’t going to write anything about SP, but it has come to my attention that a new narrative has arisen amongst the mushy headed dope punditry of fandom, because they are always scrambling for something to get their collective panties in a bunch over. This time it is that Brad and I are cowards—and are probably misogynistic women haters too—because we abandoned poor female Kate to their mighty wrath.

Well, you’ll have to forgive Brad’s cowardice, because he has been deployed by the US Army to the Middle East for the last year, supporting missions against terrorists, but that’s nothing compared to the courage it takes to have a good fandom slapfight. (And really? Scared of what? There are only so many ways you guys can send out a press release alleging that somebody is a racist).

And you’ll have to forgive me too, because I thought I had made my point in 2014 that the system was biased, and I was done. Only Brad asked me to come back to help in 2015, so I did, and after the CHORFs proved my point for me far better than I ever could—wooden assholes and No Awarding the most deserving editor in the business—I said at the end of that I was done.

Why am I out? Mostly because it was a giant time suck, and I’ve got stuff to do. Unlike most of my detractors, I actually write books for a living. I wrote a novella worth of posts on SP in public, and another one worth of emails on the topic behind the scenes. Then there is the joy of spending an hour on the phone with reporters, so that they can quote one sentence from you, and then quote paragraphs from some dolt who knows jack about the topic but belongs to the right clique.

Honestly, in the time I spent on Sad Puppies, I probably could have gotten another book out the door. Plus in 2016 I’ve got my European research trip, I have a new business venture I’ve not talked about at all, I bought a big chunk of property, and mountain fortress compounds don’t build themselves. All that’s in addition to the three novels that are coming out this year, the short fiction collection I have to put together, and the MHI anthology I have to edit.

So I could either try to prove again the point that I’ve already proven, or I can get paid more. Hmmm…. Tough call.

(8) A PUPPY SURPRISE. Apparently Jeffro Johnson was the last person on Earth to realize this was the game plan from Day 1. “Comments on Sad Puppies IV and Rabid Puppies II” at Jeffro’s Space Gaming Blog.

You know, I have to say… making the Puppies lists for Best Related Work was a real shock for me. That’s just not something that ever even occurred to me as being a possibility. Maybe it’s a bit ironic, but it’s actually humbling to have even a modest number of people think that well of me. I honestly don’t know what else to say, but “thank you.” So: thank you! 

(9) HONORED. Cheah Kai Wai (Benjamin Cheah) is also pleased to be included. See “Rabid Puppies Recommended”.

I am greatly honoured to accept such praise, and am deeply humbled by the fact that there are people who believe I am worthy of standing beside such luminaries as Stephen King and Andy Weir. Looking at the rest of the Rapid Puppies recommendations, I am fully confident that the recommendations will live up to the Rapid Puppies’ mission of making the Hugos great again.

Further, I am especially pleased by Vox Day’s inclusion of Space Raptor Butt Invasion. Science fiction is the literature of ideas, allowing radical concepts to be explored in great detail. This story is indubitably a masterwork that skilfully portrays interspecies non-heterosexual relations within a vividly-created science fictional universe, and would surely be a shoo-in for the Hugos among certain quarters.

(10) REMOVAL REQUEST. In revolutionary Boston the tea had to be thrown overboard. This time it jumped.

Emma Newman speaks “Regarding Tea and Jeopardy being included on a certain list”.

All I know is that I would like Tea and Jeopardy to be removed from this latest list. I don’t want something that Pete and I spend a hell of a lot of time and energy creating to be associated with anything like this. Our podcast has made it to the nominations shortlist two years in a row on its own merit and if we are lucky enough to be shortlisted for a third time, I want it to be because people listen to the show and are moved to nominate it. Nothing more.

Sadly, it seems that requests to be removed for the Sad Puppies 4 list are being ignored. Whilst part of me agrees that people can put whatever they like into a list on their own website, the part that values courtesy disagrees with the refusal to respect a creator’s requests to remove something from it. I’m sorry if this hurts the feelings of the people involved, but no matter what the intentions are this year, no matter the reasons why our podcast made it onto that list, I personally do not want my work to be associated with it.

(11) SECOND CUP. Peter Newman affirms the request in “Tea and Jeopardy, Hugo nominations and Sad Puppies”.

To be clear, I have never solicited the attention of this group, nor do I endorse it. I was not asked if Tea & Jeopardy could be included and I am told that requests to be taken off the list will be ignored. That said, I’d like Tea & Jeopardy to be taken off the Sad Puppies 4 list.

(12) SCHMIDT ASKS OUT. Bryan Thomas Schmidt tells Facebook readers he’s unhappy to find himself on the Rabid Puppies slate.

So apparently the abominable Vox Day put me on his Hugo list this year. First I heard if it. I have paid NO attention this year to lists, etc. I would demand removal but he clearly cares not what people think and states flat out he will not entertain removal requests. I “No Awarded” him last year and would again. I do not approve of this and see it as his attempt to do me further harm. Just going to ignore.

He’s also got an asterisk next to his name on the Sad Puppies 4 List now, too.

In fact, Schmidt says he would rather not be considered for the Hugo at all.

Although I am flattered when friends say they nominated me for the Hugo, please do not waste votes on me this year. I do not want to participate in this broken, biased process, at least until perhaps people of all creeds and levels can be fairly considered without politics ruling the day. I would decline a nomination if offered, though I highly suspect there will be no need. Instead, please consider MISSION: TOMORROW for the Locus Awards. Thanks.

(13) LIMITING DAMAGE. David D. Levine also got his short story “Damage” asterisked by asking to be removed from the Sad Puppies 4 List in a comment.

(14) SUPPORT FOR KATE PAULK. Amanda S. Green in “Cranky Writer is, well, cranky” said —

As for those who don’t want to be associated with SP4, I suggest you go back and look at what Kate has done throughout the year. The list is not something she pulled out of thin air. This is a list that is based solely on recommendations made by anyone who wanted to take part. By telling Kate you don’t want to be associated with the list, you are basically telling your readers — your fans and the people who buy your work — that you don’t value their support. You are letting fear of what a few in the industry might think of you override what should be important: keeping your fans happy. Unless, of course, you don’t give a flip what your fans think and you like slapping them in the face for daring to support your work and recommend it for what has been one of the most prestigious prizes in the industry.

(15) BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARDSHELL. Alexandra Erin brings back the field’s most insightful reviewer, John Z. Upjohn, USMC (Aspired) – “Sad Puppies Review Books: Yertle the Turtle”.

The villain of the piece is a turtle named Mack who is so dissatisfied with his place in the world that rather than climbing the ladder and making something of himself, he instead blames society for such petty things as the pain in his back and his lack of food. Not content to merely complain, he uses his extraordinary power and privilege to impose his will upon all other turtles. Lacking the gumption and will to raise himself up, he instead only tears down, and will not be satisfied until all other turtles have been brought down to his level.

(16) DELVING. Alexandra Erin’s “Nineteen Puppy Four” contains her opinion of the Sad Puppy worldview and motivations.

Well, so much for the notion that this year’s litter of Sad Puppies were kinder, gentler, or even more moderate than last year’s. Over the past weekend, when the initial reactions to their new list were still more initial, Sarah Hoyt posted a response that was… well, we’ll say “typically hyperbolic”, but also quite telling.

A lot of it follows the “BUT MOM, I’m NOT Touching Him!” school of legalism that sprouts up whenever reactionaries try to argue with or by what they think is progressive logic, but as she goes on, she eventually compares Puppy critics to such nuanced things as German citizens whipped into a frenzy of anti-Semitism by the Nazi party, only “worse” because those who disagree with the Pups are doing it of our own free will. In the same piece, she refers to those who dissent from her party line as being slaves bound in chains.

(17) NOT THE DOG IN THE NIGHT. Paul Cornell can still hear them.

(18) AND NOW ABOUT SOME BOOKS. Book Smugglers Publishing thinks you will be interested in Superheroes in Space.

Broken by Susan Jane Bigelow has earned a Starred Review by Publishers Weekly, a super great review by Foz Meadows over at Hugo Award winner A Dribble of Ink and has sold TV rights. Broken is Book Smugglers Publishing’s first novel and the opening act in The Extrahuman Union Series….

Introducing readers to Susan Jane Bigelow’s sprawling series in which Extrahumans will fight wars, overthrow governments, fall in and out of love, have life-changing adventures and travel the stars in search of a home—and their promised freedom—Broken is out now and is available as a trade paperback and ebook (EPUB & MOBI) from all major retailers online. The print book contains the novel, two illustrations from Kirbi Fagan, and a sneak peek at Sky Ranger, the second book in the series (published this June). The ebook edition also contains a prequel short story, Crimson Cadet, as well as an essay from the author and a Q&A with the artist.

(19) ET TU PENTAWERE? Scanners do not live in vain when it comes to extracting secrets from the mummies of Pharoahs.

The New Kingdom Pharaoh Ramesses III was assassinated by multiple assailants — and given postmortem cosmetic surgery to improve his mummy’s appearance.

Those are some of the new tidbits on ancient Egyptian royalty detailed in a new book by Egyptologist Zahi Hawass and Cairo University radiologist Sahar Saleem, “Scanning the Pharaohs: CT Imaging of the New Kingdom Royal Mummies” (American University in Cairo Press, 2016).

[Thanks to John King Tarpinian, Darren Garrison, and James H. Burns for some of these stories. Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day Peace Is My Middle Name.]

411 thoughts on “Pixel Scroll 3/22/16 The Scrolls Are Alive With The Sound of Pixels

  1. @Tasha:

    I’m 100% certain the world would be a better place if everyone did things my way. I keep hitting this problem though. Other people think they are the ones who are always right. I’ve not figured out how to mind control the entire world to see things my way while still allowing people free will.

    Reasonable suggestions accepted and a reward offered.

    I hereby propose that everyone do things Tasha’s way for a couple of years. Y’know, as a trial period.

    By then I’m sure everybody will be sufficiently persuaded.

  2. Ray:

    You can’t drop all the variations of Russian names and just call people Anna or Boris all the time, because the names used in different situations are significant.

    On the other hand, anyone who is unfamiliar enough with Russian naming conventions to be confused by the variations is also unlikely to catch the nuances that are implied by which variant is used in a scene. So they would not lose anything by a translation using the same name all the time.

    But the better option is probably to explain the differences to readers. It’s much easier to keep track of these things when you know why it’s done. In my experience translators are generally averse to adding footnotes to explain stuff in the translation, but I think that would often make the translated work much more accessible. I liked the footnotes in Three Body Problem, for example.

    As for the names and characters in Goblin Emperor, I used the search function on my Kindle a lot. Whenever there was a character I couldn’t place I highlighted it, selected “find in this book”, and I would usually find the scene where that someone was introduced.

  3. re: Goblin Emperor –

    The names there are really something. I just heard the book in its audio version, and the reader is AMAZIGOOD.

    I’m wondering how much that affected my experience on things like this. I noticed, for example, that there were a bunch of patterns I was having a hard time recognizing as patterns — names of rooms and halls at the court; nobility titles; nicknames and formal names — which seems to me to be because I was hearing the words spoken, and not seeing the similarity in the text.

    It never occurred to me, but the same thing probably made the extravagant names easier for me — because I only had to hear them, not try to pronounce them or make sense of them myself.

    (Seriously, folks, incredible audiobook. Narrated by Kyle McCarley. Full of emotion and attention to detail, without getting melodramatic; great character voices that are subtle instead of over-the-top. You never feel like he’s falling into a monotone or a “default reading tone.” I don’t think I’d have enjoyed the book nearly as much if I’d read just the text, and I think it’s an excellent book. I highly recommend.)

  4. @lurkertype:

    Wait, if I’m going by avatars, Standback is TWO people?

    Oh! Now I get it.

    …not only two people! Also several goldfish!

  5. I suspect if there could be annotated editions Russian naming conventions would be no more difficult to parse than the English naming conventions in Jane Austen’s books, where firstborn boys are always named after their fathers and firstborn girls after their mothers, where the eldest unmarried girl is always “Miss Soandso” in formal situations when all younger sisters are “Miss ChristianName Soandso”, where using a Christian name without an honorific in front of it is extremely familiar and using a nickname is positively impertinent if one is not a blood relation, and even then.

    The names used in Austen tell us a lot about the characters and what liberties they are taking, when they are being polite, when playful, when coldly formal, and when deliberately rude.

    It sounds like Russian literature is very similar. Having annotations to crack the code might be very helpful.

  6. I remember the name of a professor at Rice from the 80s, though I only spoke once, and that was with his secretary. I was in the Interlibrary Loan department and I called and told her we had a book in for Professor Narayanaswami Dharmarajan, and she said I was the only one who got it right. I was flattered. All I’d done was read the letters in order.

    Lee
    My friend Paul King used to use “P. King” in most places. Round about 1980, I started using “B. Jing” instead. (I notice it’s still “Peking Duck,” too. Maybe they changed it just to take the wind out of the puns with “peeking” as a common theme.)

  7. Ray, the translation of War And Peace that I read some years back had, if memory serves, the Russian translated to English and the French left as French but with footnote translations. I think. Or possibly the French was left alone and my high-school French let me puzzle it out; as I write this I’m second-guessing my memory…

    I loved the look on the face of the (very young) bookstore clerk when I dumped War and Peace, The Brothers Karamazov, and Crime and Punishment on the checkout counter. (I’d been meaning to read some Russian novels other than Solzhenitsyn, and I finally decided that an upcoming vacation was a good excuse.) “A little light summer reading” I cheerfully explained. She poked at the books dubiously and then said (of Crime and Punishment) “…isn’t there a movie of this one….?”

    Heh.

  8. @Hampus

    While Dann665 is clearly wrong, I do not think he is a troll.

    Much appreciated. I prefer a world where we can all have sincere and civil disagreements.

    As for the larger issue…..horse….dead…bloody red spot….hope y’all have had a good day otherwise.


    Regards,
    Dann

  9. @Cassy B
    Yes, there is at least one translation where the French remains French, but I didn’t dare it. I remember also one edition that came with a very useful bookmark that listed the cast of characters, and all their names.
    Take that, e-books!

  10. Growing up, I went to high school with a guy named Rusty Nail. The best part was that he was Rusty Nail, Jr.

  11. @ Hampus

    Could you explain a bit about why you don’t think Dann665 is a troll? I’m not asking for an essay with links; just a paragraph or two to help me follow your reasoning.

  12. @ Peace is My Middle Name (because it would feel too familiar to reduce that to initials – *wink*)

    The names used in Austen tell us a lot about the characters and what liberties they are taking, when they are being polite, when playful, when coldly formal, and when deliberately rude.

    I have a lot of fun thinking about and using naming and reference conventions in the Alpennia books. They probably go past a lot of readers (and there was the one reviewer who said, “enough with the peculiar names already!”), but the above is exactly why I put the effort into it.

    How does each character address the other characters? How to they refer to them to other people? How does it change depending on who they’re talking to, and what other people are around? How do characters name other characters in the privacy of their thoughts? What are the socio-politics around the fact that the Princess of Alpennia is most commonly referred to by an affectionate nickname (with her tacit approval)?

    Only a few characters have affectionate nicknames that aren’t transparent shortenings of their full name–pretty much the only one people have to work at is understanding that “Toneke” is a pet-form of “Antuniet”.

    For me, it was an important part of the world-building for the names and forms of address to feel real in that complex and sometimes confusing way. And–because I’m me–I wrote a multi-part essay laying it all out, just for fun and reader edification.

  13. Andrew M.

    The Hugos represent a particular community – literary convention fandom – which is only a subset of the wider community of people who are in any way actively fannish, which is itself a subset of the yet wider community of people who read/watch and enjoy science fiction.

    JJ

    Worldcon members, who own the Hugo Awards, have set them up to be the way they are for several very specific reasons — including that the awards are intended to represent the preferences of Worldcon members. And the Hugos have achieved enormous prestige that way.

    JJ (again)

    I’m sorry, Lee, but I totally disagree with you here. The Hugo Awards are a convention award. They are Worldcon’s convention award. They are intended to represent the preferences of Worldcon members, not just anyone who has “a fairly heavy interest in book-SF”.

    JJ (once more)

    . . . your argument seems to me to be only a variant of the Puppy argument: that the Hugo Awards should be something all SFF fans get to nominate and vote on, and therefore the ability to do that should be extremely inexpensive or free.

    The Hugo Awards were never intended to be that. And I don’t see that changing them to be that will do anything other than turning them into the GoodReads Readers’ Choice Awards — nice for an author, I’m sure, but not particularly meaningful or distinguishing of special quality.

    There are some branding issues here. The common perception as held by myself and expressed on Wikipedia, is that, “The Hugo Awards are a set of awards given annually for the best science fiction or fantasy works and achievements of the previous year. ”

    The entry does not say, “It’s an award based on WorldCon members’ opinion as to what was the best science fiction or fantasy,” but rather, the best works, without qualifier. It does go on to say that the Hugos are “[o]rganized and overseen by the World Science Fiction Society” but states nothing of ownership or exclusivity.

    The entry, to be frank conveys little about how the Hugos function. Yes, the info is from Wikipedia, not WorldCon, and, well . . . Wikipedia. Enough said.

    The problem is, outside of Fandom, the information on the Wiki entry is well beyond what just about anyone knows regarding the award and the entry isn’t even that informative.

    And really, how do you argue that limiting voting to WorldCon membership maintains the award’s prestige when anyone can pay and vote. How does that boost the award’s prestige if anybody with a couple 20s in their pocket can nominate and vote? Why then are they “meaningful or distinguishing of special quality”? Because only people who can afford the $40 get a say? No, I’m not advocating that it be free to nominate and vote (chaos otherwise), but having $40 does not exactly give you credentials.

    Or does the prestige emanate from the fact that so few people know that they even have the ability to participate? It’s not exactly well-advertised. The Wiki entry certainly didn’t mention it, and generally you have to go looking for the award website to get the details. The thing is, why would someone go looking for information on how to vote when they have no idea that’s even possible? The only way I’ve ever seen someone learn about Hugo participation is by word of mouth. Is reclusivity part of what makes the award so exclusive and prestigious?

    Do most WorldCon members prefer the general public to be unaware that they can contribute and participate in the process?

    Prior to the Puppy involvement, only a few hundred people even bothered to nominate each year and if just 50 people (in the most popular category, best novel) liked a work, it made the final ballot. 50 people, 50 anybodys, who happened to have $40 to pay for membership (or less, the further you go back), could put a book in the running for the best science fiction and fantasy of the year.

    So why, again, other than low participation numbers and spare change, does the award belong to WorldCon make it so prestigious? Isn’t it somewhat pretentious to believe that such a tiny number of people know what should be considered “the best” SciFi works for a given year? Especially given that anyone can pony up to vote? Shouldn’t WorldCon want that number to be, you know, bigger?

    Granted, that means you have less power and your vote is more diluted. However, it also means that more viewpoints are expressed in the selection of awards.

    Changing subjects slightly, there’s also the problem of the Hugos belonging to “WorldCon Members” because *I* happen to be a WorldCon member (have been for years), and I’m pretty sure Justin Landon was/is as well. And JJ, for all you know, so is Lee. Ironically, so were all the Sad/Rabid Puppies who voted, all were co-owners. Does this mean there are Owners and owners, just as there are Fans (or Fen, if you prefer) and fans?

    So, branding. The Hugos are purported to represent the best works of the year but (relatively) few people get to decide that for the reasons stated above. Given such a small sample size, anyone who understands statistics also understands that it cannot accurately represent the greater whole. This is a problem. What is WorldCon doing to fix it?

  14. The prestige accorded to the Hugos is not because they cost money to vote, because they have low participation numbers, or because they are voted for by members of Worldcon – at least not directly, in that people don’t think “oh, the members of Worldcon voted for this? It must be good!”

    The prestige accorded to the Hugos is because the awards have a history of recognising good SF. Given that throughout the history of the awards, they have had low participation numbers, because it cost money to be a member of Worldcon and only Worldcon members got to vote on them, these things are obviously not problems in themselves. (We could argue about whether they are features, but clearly they are not problems)

    The argument from branding is unutterably stupid. The Booker prize is given to the best English language original novel published in the UK. Who says it is “the best”? The panel of Booker judges. Does that mean a vote of all novel readers in the UK would agree? No. Does it mean you have to agree? No. Does that mean the Booker prize organisers must send a letter to all novel buyers in the UK explaining that when they say “The Man Booker Prize promotes the finest in fiction by rewarding the very best book of the year. ” this is not necessarily true, because it is only what some people think is the best and maybe others disagree? No, because most people are not idiots.

    if you don’t think the Hugo awards go to the best SF of the year, so what? If you think a different voting structure would do a better job of identifying the best work, good for you. Go find an award with that voting structure, or start one up yourself.

  15. The common perception as held by myself and expressed on Wikipedia, is that, “The Hugo Awards are a set of awards given annually for the best science fiction or fantasy works and achievements of the previous year. ”

    And? That perception arose while the award was managed the way it is currently managed. There are other genre-fiction related awards that are run differently, including awards that are run the way you seem to think the Hugos should be run. They are all regarded as being less prestigious. Why do you think changing the way the Hugo awards are run will “fix” them?

    The Hugos are purported to represent the best works of the year but (relatively) few people get to decide that for the reasons stated above. Given such a small sample size, anyone who understands statistics also understands that it cannot accurately represent the greater whole. This is a problem. What is WorldCon doing to fix it?

    The thing is, this is not a problem. The Hugo Awards have achieved the prominence they have because of the structure they have, not despite it. The Nebula Awards say they honor the best stories of the year, and they are decided by an even smaller group. Somehow, people still see them as prestigious. Prestige and validity for awards has nothing to do with how many people participate, or what the rules for participation are.

    The Locus Awards at times have had more people participating than participate in the Hugo, Nebula, and World Fantasy Awards combined. There is absolutely no barrier to voting: All you have to do is go to the Locus website and vote. Yet the Locus Awards are seen as being far less important, and far less prestigious.

    One might also note that the Locus electorate, although often larger than the Hugo electorate, is still quite tiny, despite the complete lack of barriers to voting. The theory that reducing the cost of voting will cause enormous numbers of voters to jump into the process seems to not align with known facts like this.

  16. Sean: The entry does not say, “It’s an award based on WorldCon members’ opinion as to what was the best science fiction or fantasy,” but rather, the best works, without qualifier. It does go on to say that the Hugos are “[o]rganized and overseen by the World Science Fiction Society” but states nothing of ownership or exclusivity. The entry, to be frank conveys little about how the Hugos function. Yes, the info is from Wikipedia, not WorldCon, and, well . . . Wikipedia

    Yay, a volunteer! Please come back here and report when you’ve updated the Wikipedia entry with accurate information, so that everybody else here can take a look.

     
    Sean: how do you argue that limiting voting to WorldCon membership maintains the award’s prestige when anyone can pay and vote.

    Simple. The award for the last 60+ years has been limited to the Worldcon membership, and that’s how its prestige was developed. How do you argue that changing how the Hugos are awarded is not going to destroy that prestige?

     
    Sean: Do most WorldCon members prefer the general public to be unaware that they can contribute and participate in the process?

    Do most Worldcon members, who are for the most part quite well-read in SFF, think that the general public is going to be able to do as well as they do at picking the works that Worldcon members would like to see recognized?

     
    Sean: So why, again, other than low participation numbers and spare change, does the award belong to WorldCon make it so prestigious? Isn’t it somewhat pretentious to believe that such a tiny number of people know what should be considered “the best” SciFi works for a given year?

    Well, if the small numbers of Worldcon members is such a problem, then how did the Hugos come to be known for recognizing outstanding works? Clearly a great many people who are not Worldcon members have felt that to be the case; how is it “pretentious” to recognize the well-established fact that many, many thousands of people who are not Worldcon members, including librarians and bookstore owners and managers, agree with that assessment?

    And why would “such a tiny number of people” care whether others agree with what they consider to be the best SciFi works for a given year? The Hugo Awards exist to please Worldcon members, not anyone else.

     
    Sean: *I* happen to be a WorldCon member (have been for years), and I’m pretty sure Justin Landon was/is as well. And JJ, for all you know, so is Lee. Ironically, so were all the Sad/Rabid Puppies who voted, all were co-owners

    Actually, Lee is a long-time Worldcon member and attendee, and I had a nice conversation with her in person in Sasquan. Sure, Worldcon members thought it was important for people who couldn’t attend and only paid for a Supporting Membership to have a number of privileges including nominating and voting for Hugos (it wasn’t always that way), so both Attending and Supporting Members are who gets to nominate and vote. So what’s your point?

     
    Sean: The Hugos are purported to represent the best works of the year but (relatively) few people get to decide that for the reasons stated above. Given such a small sample size, anyone who understands statistics also understands that it cannot accurately represent the greater whole. This is a problem.

    As I and other people have pointed out repeatedly (not sure why you’re having such a hard time understanding this), the Hugos have always been intended to represent the preferences of Worldcon members and not “the greater whole” of people who read SFF. Why is this a problem? Why should Worldcon change this?

  17. @Standback

    I hereby propose that everyone do things Tasha’s way for a couple of years. Y’know, as a trial period.

    By then I’m sure everybody will be sufficiently persuaded.

    I like it. But I suspect persuading others to the 2-3 year trial will be the problem. Thank you for your confidence in my way.

    @Sean
    The WSFS owns the Hugos. BTW WSFS is made up supporting and attending members of Worldcon. It’s not a board of directors it’s the members. The below is from the WSFS link I’ve provided. Feel free to update Wikipedia to reflect reality.

    Purposes:
    The purposes of the WSFS, according to its rules, are as follows: to choose the recipients of the annual Hugo Awards (Science Fiction Achievement Awards), to choose the locations and Committees for the annual World Science Fiction Conventions (the Worldcons), to attend those Worldcons, and to choose the locations and Committees for the occasional North American Science Fiction Conventions (the NASFiCs). (A NASFiC is held in North America in any year when the Worldcon is outside of North America.)

    A number of groups of people over the history of Worldcon and the Hugos have deciried the Hugos demise (for example second wave) but they’ve been wrong in the past. Nothing indicates the puppies are correct this time around. Editors and publishers are still republishing books with the Hugo logo on them if someone wins the Hugo.

    So while a group of people, as has happened in the past, feel the Hugos have lost their shine, the majority of readers are unaware of the current “culture war”, publishers and editors still treat the Hugo as prestigious, and members of Worldcon which owns the Hugos, don’t feel anything is broken other than some people gaming the system which they are taking steps to fix.

    Your argument doesn’t hold much water given its lack of knowledge of major facts which is an ongoing puppy problem.

    ETA: from Wikipedia I believe anyone can follow the link to Worldcon.org to read information directly. Most Wikipedia entries include links to the organization. It’s not Wiki’s fault if people don’t do so.

  18. Standback

    …not only two people! Also several goldfish!

    What, did they swim up and latch onto your DNA like those viruses you were mentioning earlier?

  19. The claim that ‘The Hugos belong to the members of WorldCon’ is not a positive argument for excluding any group of people, in particular the SP and RP voters; clearly it doesn’t exclude them, since they are members of WorldCon. Rather, it is a rebuttal to a Puppy argument that, as the Hugos are meant to represent everyone interested in science fiction, the current way of constituting the electorate is illegitimate.

    I take it as obvious that ‘These awards are for the best…’ means ‘in the opinions of the voters’; literary quality is not an objective matter, or at least an objectively decidable one. I am mystified by the idea that a different body of voters would be better placed to decide what is without qualification the best; any result, whoever decides it, is necessarily an opinion.

    I find it very unclear that widening the voting body would lead to a wider variety of viewpoints being represented. It would lead to a greater variety of people and works being nominated, in a grammatical sense, i.e. someone nominates them; but the finalists would still be dominated by a relatively small group of people and works, those which are most popular – perhaps the same people as now, just with larger vote totals, perhaps a different group, but still a limited one. The GoodReads Choice awards are very predictable.

    I think it makes perfect sense for convention fandom to give an award, because convention fandom is engaged in discussion of science fiction, which gives it a perspective on the field different from that of simple readers. It is of course only one perspective – any claim that it finds what is objectively the best is ridiculous – but it’s a valuable one.

    That said, I agree that using a subscription as the qualification for voting is a blunt instrument.The mere fact that someone has paid does not make them especially qualified to judge the quality of science fiction, even if judging just means offering one valuable perspective. I take it that at one time, supporting members were people who actually wanted to support the convention – perhaps people who had attended it in other years, or who attended other conventions – so that allowing them to vote did not destroy the link between the award and the convention. Limiting it to attending members would reaffirm the link and perhaps create a more seriously committed voting body, but would clearly exclude some people unfairly. If we could find some other way of sorting people on the basis of interest, rather than just on a financial basis, that would improve the process. I can’t think of any right now, though; the matter isn’t trivial.

  20. Cat:

    “Could you explain a bit about why you don’t think Dann665 is a troll? I’m not asking for an essay with links; just a paragraph or two to help me follow your reasoning.”

    Mostly because he actually interacts with the community regarding books he likes. Also because of the missing glee, scorn, passive aggressiveness, hidden anger and so on.

  21. Andrew M: Limiting [Hugo nominating and voting] to attending members would reaffirm the link and perhaps create a more seriously committed voting body, but would clearly exclude some people unfairly. If we could find some other way of sorting people on the basis of interest, rather than just on a financial basis, that would improve the process. I can’t think of any right now, though; the matter isn’t trivial.

    Given that the vast majority of Puppies have expressed contempt for Worldcon members and their Hugo Awards, and an utter disdain for Worldcon and attending it, it’s a mystery to me why they think they should be in a position to dictate how the Hugo Awards program should be run.

    But hey, if they want to pay for memberships and travel and hotel rooms to go to Worldcon, and get up in the mornings to go to the Business Meetings so that they can try to convince the rest of the Worldcon members that the Hugo Awards should be run differently, power to ’em. After all, if they’re really the huge majority of SFF fans that they keep insisting they are, they shouldn’t have any difficulty accomplishing that, should they?

  22. JJ: How exactly is it any different to have a $20 voting membership than to have a $50 supporting membership when neither one requires you to attend the con? What I’m suggesting is to add a third membership tier, not to remove membership in the con altogether. For as long as there have been supporting memberships, people have been able to self-select into “the group of people who nominate and vote on the Hugos” without actually going to Worldcons.

    nickpheas: No, I’m saying that like it’s a good thing. You want to have a filter which will discourage people who don’t consume literary SF (I started to say “read SF”, but some people’s primary consumption is audiobooks), and paying for a membership is not a bad one to have.

    Hampus: Since “but that wouldn’t pay for the cost of the voting packet” has been deployed in previous discussions of this idea, I believe you are incorrect in saying that the voting packet doesn’t cost the convention anything.

  23. Cat: Could you explain a bit about why you don’t think Dann665 is a troll? I’m not asking for an essay with links; just a paragraph or two to help me follow your reasoning.

    I agree with Hampus. While Dann665 is usually wrong when it comes to making claims about how and what non-Puppies think, have done, and will do, he has generally done a reasonable job of articulating his own position and reasons for it, and he is clearly a genuine fan of SFF.

  24. @ Hampus and JJ

    Okay, thank you. Now that you mention it, I agree that he does talk about books he likes and understand how that works to make him feel more like a resident with different opinions, and a fellow SFF fan and less like a troll.

    Thanks for your insight.

  25. Sean:

    “The entry does not say, “It’s an award based on WorldCon members’ opinion as to what was the best science fiction or fantasy,” but rather, the best works, without qualifier. It does go on to say that the Hugos are “[o]rganized and overseen by the World Science Fiction Society” but states nothing of ownership or exclusivity.”

    It doesn’t say that about the Oscars either. Or about any kind of award, that they are only based on the opinions on those who give them away. So I do not know what kind of argument you are trying to make. That all entries in Wikipedia on awards should be updated?

    “What is WorldCon doing to fix it?”

    If you think something is wrong with the Hugos and you are a member of Worldcon, then it is easy. You take your ideas to the business meeting and see if you can get support for them. If you can’t attend yourself, you find someone else to do it. If you can’t find someone else, it is most likely that your ideals haven’t got much support.

    So what ideas would you like to bring to the business meeting? What is it you would want them to rule on?

  26. Lee: How exactly is it any different to have a $20 voting membership than to have a $50 supporting membership when neither one requires you to attend the con? What I’m suggesting is to add a third membership tier, not to remove membership in the con altogether.

    That’s different, because then it becomes a fee to nominate and vote on the Hugo Awards — rather than nominating and voting being a privilege of Supporting Membership.

    I agree with Andrew M. above, there should be some kind of qualification — but there’s no way to define and enforce a qualification based on being widely-read in SFF or being a genuine fan of SFF, as evidenced this past year by a significant participation by people whose reason for participating appeared — based on their own statements — to be only “to make SJW heads explode”. There is unfortunately no way to screen members for that.

    As Andrew M. says: If we could find some other way of sorting people on the basis of interest, rather than just on a financial basis, that would improve the process. I can’t think of any right now, though; the matter isn’t trivial.

    I don’t know what the answer is to that, either; it’s not trivial. However, I don’t think that creating a low-cost Hugo nominating and voting fee level is the right answer. That privilege should go to people who genuinely care about the Hugo Awards — and right now, the only method to determine that is that $50 membership fee, greatly imperfect as a method though it may be.

  27. On the whole, outside of science* and math articles, I find Wikipedia to be an overall very patchy and unreliable information source.

    I don’t think much of any argument that presents a Wikipedia entry as its proof of concept.

    .

    .

    *and then only science that is not currently embroiled in religious controversy.

  28. Lee:

    “Since “but that wouldn’t pay for the cost of the voting packet” has been deployed in previous discussions of this idea, I believe you are incorrect in saying that the voting packet doesn’t cost the convention anything.”

    The point is that if you have membership that gets the voting packet, you will have to pay administration costs for it. And those administration costs does not differ much if there are 1000 or 3000 members that will receive the package. You will still have to create the system that sends out the package.

    So a membership of 50 dollar will help to pay for that administration cost. The one for 20 dollar will not.

  29. @Cat

    You’d be surprised. Some of my opinions have changed over the last year or so.

    And if I can be forgiven a moment of self-defense, I also avoid using insulting/condescending language. It generally undermines a position. And it isn’t who I am. Or at least who I aspire to be as no one has ever been perfect.


    Regards.
    Dann

  30. Lee on March 24, 2016 at 12:20 am said:

    One thing I’ve suggested is a $20 “voting membership” which gets you only the right to vote, not any of the other perks of a supporting membership — no PRs, no voting packet, just your nominating and voting PIN. That’s still going to be a stretch for some of my friends, but it’s at least possible to contemplate.

    Until 2015, this would have been possible had the hosting Worldcon decided to offer it; however, a rule change ratified in Spokane (originally passed in London in 2014 and thus now in effect) makes it effectively impossible for a Worldcon to offer such a membership without cutting its financial throat. (Details available upon request.) This is the result of a specific desire for the Awards presented by WSFS to be presented by the members of WSFS, rather than just people paying a “voting fee.”

    I still am waiting for someone to set up the One True Real Fan Awards to be run the Real Right Way for Real Fans to vote for Real Good Stuff. And for someone to be willing to do the work necessary to make it happen. In a way, it’s almost amusing to see people from such wildly diverse opinions of what Real Fans and Really Good Stuff is all want the Hugo Awards to be run the way they say, which amounts to “give awards to things that I personally want — anything else means the Awards are Broken!”

    Sean on March 24, 2016 at 8:01 am said:

    …The entry does not say, “It’s an award based on Worldcon members’ opinion as to what was the best science fiction or fantasy,” but rather, the best works, without qualifier.

    Yes. So what. There is no such thing as an objective standard of “best” when it comes to literary merit. Anyone can say they are the “best.” There’s no way to measure it. What matters is how things are perceived.

    The Academy Awards are for “Best Picture,” etc. even though they are “Motion Picture that the largest number of members of AMPAS voted for.” Same issue. No objective standard.

    Changing subjects slightly, there’s also the problem of the Hugos belonging to “Worldcon Members” because *I* happen to be a Worldcon member (have been for years), and I’m pretty sure Justin Landon was/is as well. And JJ, for all you know, so is Lee. Ironically, so were all the Sad/Rabid Puppies who voted, all were co-owners. Does this mean there are Owners and owners, just as there are Fans (or Fen, if you prefer) and fans?

    No. Being a member of a given Worldcon gives you one share of WSFS for that year, with the same right to vote your “share” as every other member. You co-own everything WSFS owns for that year. You can (generally) even alienate that ownership by transferring it to someone else. But just because you are a co-owner doesn’t mean you can (for example) sell the WSFS service marks to someone else, because the authority to manage the intellectual property of WSFS is delegated (through the organization’s rules) to a committee. If you wanted to sell the IP, you’d have to get the Business Meeting to agree to allow it, and in that case, you’d have the same right to participate and vote as every other member. (I wouldn’t expect you to have much luck in doing so.)

    So, branding. The Hugos are purported to represent the best works of the year but (relatively) few people get to decide that for the reasons stated above. Given such a small sample size, anyone who understands statistics also understands that it cannot accurately represent the greater whole. This is a problem. What is Worldcon doing to fix it?

    I expect that Worldcon will continue to go on presenting its awards using the rules agreed to by its members, as it has been doing for more than fifty years. If you think that’s a bad thing, you should (a) try and change the process to be the way you personally think it should be, within the rules-making process or (b) set up your own awards that are somehow the Objectively Best SF/F Awards. (And good luck coming up with an objective definition of an inherently subjective quantity!)

  31. Hi Dann!

    I disagree with you in many respects, but I don’t consider you a troll. A good part of why is what you just said. I have not observed you to use what I consider deliberately inflammatory language or insults. I have not seen long arguments where you appear to be twisting peoples’ words and do not acknowledge (or in fact double down) when called on it.

    So while I may not agree with you, you seem to be arguing in good faith. I respect that, and your attempt to avoid insulting language. I’m trying to do the same, but I have a very deep snarky streak and that doesn’t always translate well.

    Maybe we’ll have a book discussion one day. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is fairly high in my queue, so I may be keyboard-smashing about that soon 😉

    Cheers!

  32. Hi Dawn,

    Thanks very much for the kind words.

    While I hope this doesn’t come off poorly, but based on our Goodreads lists, I think I can predict a pleasant experience for you with TMIAHM. (My read pile at Goodreads, FWIW. A few of the ones at the top of the “to read” pile have been read, but I haven’t reviewed them yet.)


    VBR,
    Dann

  33. Dann et al: Yaaaaaaay for book discussions! 😀

    @Dann, sending you a Goodreads friend request – I’m always glad to add genre/fandom folks 🙂

  34. I have to say, I’ve heard a lot of slang terms for “vagina” but “iron chamber of memory” is new to me.

    No, there’s a spelling mistake on the cover–the real title of the book is Iron Chamber of Mammaries. (Apparently, she’s wearing one of those underwire thingies.)

    The strangest-sounding name I ever encountered in real life was Pornsith Zookzwad.

    As I suspected, a google image search for “pornsith” does not disappoint–especially if you put a space in the middle.

    As for encountered strange names–when I was in 5th grade, my class got a transfer student (strangely, less mysterious than they are in practically every manga I’ve ever read.) When the teacher read that his last name was “Sexauer”, he commented before the class “Sex hour–I don’t even get a coffee break!”

  35. Recently re-read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. The Suck Fairy hasn’t been at it, exactly… but its view of women is rather… erm… dated. Even though Heinlein was trying so very very hard to be revolutionary (no pun intended). Keep firmly in mind when the novel was written and you’ll like it just fine.

    But then, I’ve almost always had a problem with Heinlein’s women. Although he gets points for trying, in an era when many male writers did not.

  36. Aaron:

    The thing is, this is not a problem. The Hugo Awards have achieved the prominence they have because of the structure they have, not despite it. The Nebula Awards say they honor the best stories of the year, and they are decided by an even smaller group. Somehow, people still see them as prestigious. Prestige and validity for awards has nothing to do with how many people participate, or what the rules for participation are.

    (emphasis mine)

    I (and many others) would argue that the prestige is not what it once was. I know opinions will differ on this, but really, it *is* an opinion, one held by a not-insignificant number of people, and not all of them “Puppies” of one stripe or another.

    I’ve only been involved in Fandom for a little over 5 years, so a relative newcomer introduced to the awards through the Writing Excuses podcasts. I had some favorite books that were Hugo winners/nominees but they were mostly old winners/nominees (Stranger in a Strange Land; Ringworld; Dune; The White Dragon; Ender’s Game; The Postman; and others). I bounced off too many of the new ones (sometimes just by reading their description, sometimes giving them a fair try) and really stopped reading Hugo nominated/awarded works, at least, reading them based on that accolade alone. There have been a number of more recent ones I’ve enjoyed (His Majesty’s Dragon; Old Man’s War; Warbound), but I wasn’t even aware they were Hugo nominated/awarded before reading them, other than Warbound that is.

    Does the award still have prestige? Yes. Will it continue as so if the general populace’s tastes diverge from current/future selections? Questionable. Again, opinions will likely vary on this assessment as well as the underlying assumption that WorldCon’s tastes do not wholly represent the tastes of the populace at large.

    I had an argument with a “Puppy” who wanted to burn the whole award down, if possible, or let it rot into obscurity and irrelevancy if the tastes promoted became too niche. I did not want either outcome as it is an award I have loved and appreciated in the past, and, full disclosure, an award I hope to some day achieve. Sadly, my novel is not writing itself.

    JJ:

    Sean: Do most WorldCon members prefer the general public to be unaware that they can contribute and participate in the process?

    Do most Worldcon members, who are for the most part quite well-read in SFF, think that the general public is going to be able to do as well as they do at picking the works that Worldcon members would like to see recognized?

    So… yes? Your answer is that you think the rest of WorldCon is fine with the functional mechanics of the Hugo Awards being obscure? Or am I misreading you?

    Well, if the small numbers of Worldcon members is such a problem, then how did the Hugos come to be known for recognizing outstanding works? Clearly a great many people who are not Worldcon members have felt that to be the case; how is it “pretentious” to recognize the well-established fact that many, many thousands of people who are not Worldcon members, including librarians and bookstore owners and managers, agree with that assessment?

    And why would “such a tiny number of people” care whether others agree with what they consider to be the best SciFi works for a given year? The Hugo Awards exist to please Worldcon members, not anyone else.

    . . . the Hugos have always been intended to represent the preferences of Worldcon members and not “the greater whole” of people who read SFF. Why is this a problem? Why should Worldcon change this?

    As to your statement regarding the reason for why the Hugo Awards exist, again, my impression was that they existed to award the best books, not just the best books that a certain subset of people happen to like. This goes back to my branding argument.

    See above for my response regarding the value of the Hugo Award vs. divergence from popular opinion. If WorldCon’s tastes become niche, so does the award.

    Andrew M:

    The claim that ‘The Hugos belong to the members of WorldCon’ is not a positive argument for excluding any group of people, in particular the SP and RP voters; clearly it doesn’t exclude them, since they are members of WorldCon. Rather, it is a rebuttal to a Puppy argument that, as the Hugos are meant to represent everyone interested in science fiction, the current way of constituting the electorate is illegitimate.

    I would posit that the current way the Hugos are currently setup is not so very different from what the Puppies are pushing for. Currently, “the Hugos are meant to represent everyone interested in science fiction” who (1) knows they can vote and (2) cares enough to fork out $40. The last two caveats are the only difference as far as I can tell.

    I find it very unclear that widening the voting body would lead to a wider variety of viewpoints being represented.

    Really? Widening the voting body would have eliminated any influence the Puppies had on last year’s picks. It’s an extreme example, yes, but an obvious one. I’m not proposing it be free to vote or anything like that (again, chaos, but also some level of investment weeds out people who are voting just because they have nothing better to do). Still, more people voting equals more people finding hidden gems and bringing them to light and also more people voting on what is “the best,” thus giving a more accurate portrayal of what actually *is* the best.

    Peace:

    I don’t think much of any argument that presents a Wikipedia entry as its proof of concept.

    Me either. Hence the reason I bashed on Wikipedia in my post; they were only mentioned as an illustration that their info was spotty and unhelpful on this topic and that the public’s info is even worse.

    Hampus:

    If you think something is wrong with the Hugos and you are a member of Worldcon, then it is easy. You take your ideas to the business meeting and see if you can get support for them. If you can’t attend yourself, you find someone else to do it. If you can’t find someone else, it is most likely that your ideals haven’t got much support.

    So what ideas would you like to bring to the business meeting? What is it you would want them to rule on?

    Sadly, this is beyond my financial means, or I would love to attend. As to expressing my ideals in the hopes someone else will carry them forward, that is pretty much what I am doing now. I’ve done the same in other forums.

    As to what ideas I would love addressed at the meeting, well, there are a number of suggestions:

    1) A portion of WorldCon proceedings be used to purchase small advertisements on websites such as the SF/F sections of B&N and Amazon during the months of December, January, and February advertising the Hugo Awards and urging fans to get involved.

    2) A third tier as suggested by Lee (with no packet and a reduced cost) would also encourage participation. It might be a good suggestion that it be offered (possibly exclusively) to students to encourage participation in a more under-represented age group.

    3) A trimming down of Hugo Award categories and/or clear and concise examples of what fits in each category. Example: to newcomers, deciphering what belongs in a Fanzine or a Semiprozine is bewildering. A simple way to do this would be to (A) spell out the criteria for a particular category, and then (B) take a recent (prior year if applicable) winner of that category and explain how it met the criteria set out in part (A). Otherwise, there are so many categories currently that it begins to look like Hugos are becoming participation prizes. Some categories are difficult to distinguish from each other without getting very technical as to definition; the result is what looks like 10 nominations and 2 awards for what is essentially the same thing. In the case of the shorter fiction categories, this gets even worse (looking at you Novella and Novelette; why not toss in flash fiction for kicks and giggles?). Some things need to go or be consolidated.

    4) Create a board position (if one does not exist already) dedicated to drumming up new participants from untapped or underutilized sources such as: college related organizations (campus newspapers, clubs, creative writing faculty, etc.), major bookstores and online retailer participation (I know B&N does this somewhat by providing a “best of” list but I didn’t observe much of a push toward actual award participation), media outlets with even tangentially related interests, and I’m sure that smarter people than me can think of others.

    I’m sure I can come up with others, but for now, I have put off work for far too long…

  37. Widening the voting body would have eliminated any influence the Puppies had on last year’s picks.

    Oh yes, I agree with that: a wider voting body would create more variety than a Puppy-dominated one. But this complaint was being made before the Puppy movement got going, and I don’t think it does apply to the normal situation. However great the variety of opinion within a voting body, the most popular authors are going to keep coming out on top. A wider voting body will contain more variety of opinion, but there will still be some popular authors who tend to come out on top. In the Hugos it’s John Scalzi and Lois Bujold and Connie Willis. In Goodreads it’s Veronica Roth and Stephen King and Rick Riordan. Neil Gaiman is successful in both. Slates distort the way this works, but when we have a number of popular authors with distinct, though overlapping, followings, the results will be similar whatever the absolute size.

  38. I know I’m going to regret doing this, because I’m operating on (-spoons) today and for the last couple of days, but the discussion on widening the voting pool by reduction of cost grabbed me by the ears and won’t let go until I type this (apologies in advance if this is incoherent):

    The attending/supporting membership costs are necessary to make the cons and WSFS viable. The Hugos were created by WSFS to be voted on at Worldcon. They don’t belong to “science fiction fans”, but rather to that subset of fans willing, able and inclined to nominate and/or vote on them.

    Can’t afford a membership at the going rate(s)? I’ve been there and empathize, but that’s life. You can afford it, but would rather spend that $50 elsewhere? That’s part of a concept called “opportunity cost”. You have choices A, B or C and can afford one of them. If you decide to pick C, then the opportunity cost means you pass on A and B. This too is life. Life is a series of choices.

    If you consider nominating/voting for the Hugos important enough to pay for a membership in order to obtain that privilege, then maybe that’s a good thing-because that means maybe they’re important enough to you that you’ll take the process seriously. I’d rather have 2,000 or so people who care enough to make that investment nominating/voting than 15,000 doing so on a lark.

    I’ll go stand in the corner again.

  39. @Dann and Cassy B:

    I’m pretty sure I read TMIAHM as a teenager or in my early 20s. I didn’t dislike it at the time. During my reading of historical Hugo-nominated novels, I’ve revisited some Heinlein. I still enjoyed the hell out of Starship Troopers even though I totally disagree with the politics; it was such a smooth read and a fun ride.

    Then I read Glory Road. Oy. Some of Heinlein’s views on women, especially that all women want to be spanked by a big strong man, creep me out. It’s great that they’re often strong and capable characters, but that makes some of the sexual stuff even more problematic for me. It’s almost like strong and capable women are being fetishized? I dunno.

    I’ve been having trouble focusing on reading, which is frustrating given the stack of library books TBR sitting to my left. They mock me. Mock, I say!

  40. A third tier as suggested by Lee (with no packet and a reduced cost) would also encourage participation. It might be a good suggestion that it be offered (possibly exclusively) to students to encourage participation in a more under-represented age group.

    That I could support. But then don’t call it a Voting Membership, which suggests ‘this is for people who just want to vote and have no interest in the convention’; just call it a Student Supporting Membership or a Reduced-Rate Supporting Membership or the like. And I don’t see the point in leaving out the packet. I think the packet is vital; without it there will be more people voting on stuff they haven’t read. I think it’s central to the Hugo process that it’s a consideration and comparison of works, not just a counting of fans. This means voters are ideally either people who follow the field quite closely, or people who are prepared to put in a bit of time working through the packet. The packet makes the Hugos accessible to more people; without it we would only have the first group.

  41. Sean:

    Then good luck with finding someone to attend the business meeting with your proposals! I personally would vote against a few of them. The reasons are this:

    1) The Hugos are connected to WorldCon and I will not try to separate them with specific advertising.

    2) I think every WorldCon should be able to decide their own prices for membership according to their own cost. I will not support a decision that decouples voting for The Hugos from the membership to WorldCon.

    3) I would need to know the exact changes. I am very positive to the changes proposed by Kevin Standlee and I would also be happy with a new category for Series – if that can be defined in a usable way.

    4) If this would be to get new members to support WorldCon, I’m positive. If it is only for getting people to vote for The Hugos, I’m against.

  42. I (and many others) would argue that the prestige is not what it once was.

    And yet your opinion hasn’t damaged the prestige of the Hugos. “I don’t see them that way” is not an argument that they are not. There are a lot of people who think the Oscars are crap, but somehow they are still the top award in the film industry. Other than baseless speculation, there is no evidence that the Hugos will somehow stop being seen as prestigious any time soon.

    I bounced off too many of the new ones (sometimes just by reading their description, sometimes giving them a fair try) and really stopped reading Hugo nominated/awarded works, at least, reading them based on that accolade alone.

    I’m having a hard time seeing how “reading the description” gives any kind of real assessment of the quality of a book. Given this statement from you, I’m not really inclined to take your opinions seriously. I always find it interesting to see people like you proclaim that the Hugos are losing prestige, but then go on to admit that you don’t really know what they have been nominating or awarding because you haven’t bothered to read the books that have been so honored.

    Does the award still have prestige? Yes. Will it continue as so if the general populace’s tastes diverge from current/future selections? Questionable.

    First off, there is no real evidence that Worldcon’s tastes substantially differ from that of the “general populace” of genre fiction fans – most Puppy attempts to “prove” this is the case have proved to be groundless (see for example, Torgersen’s claim that Worldcon voters were ignoring the fans who were in the movie theater watching The Avengers, apparently not realizing that the movie was nominated for and won a Hugo). Second, there has always been some divergence, and yet the award has somehow accumulate prestige anyway. Go back through Hugo history and you will always find people claiming that the Hugos aren’t awarding the “right” works. Somehow they have been seen as the most prestigious award in genre fiction anyway. You have to do more than the hand-waving you have done thus far to convince people that this time is different.

    This goes back to my branding argument.

    Your branding argument is incoherent. The award has built its brand using the current methods. Now you say, despite the fact that the way the Hugos are administered now has (and continues) to result in an award that is seen as the top award in genre fiction, that somehow the brand is in danger. Based on what? Your personal preferences? A handful of internet whiners sad that their favorites haven’t won? You’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist outside of conspiracy theories.

    Still, more people voting equals more people finding hidden gems and bringing them to light and also more people voting on what is “the best,” thus giving a more accurate portrayal of what actually *is* the best.

    No, actually, it doesn’t. We have actual examples of what widely popular votes in genre fiction awards produce, and they aren’t anything like what you are describing. When your claims don’t match known reality, you really aren’t going to be able to convince anyone.

    As to (1) and (4), there already exists a Hugo marketing committee, which has done the sorts of things that you say you want done already. If I remember correctly, Standlee is on that committee so he can fill you in in detail should he be so inclined. Before the Puppy campaign, the number of Hugo nominators and voters was rising every year. People weren’t losing interest in the Hugos before the Pups. The award wasn’t in trouble. Those claiming it was are fabricating an alternate counterfactual history in order to justify their position.

    (2) This is unfeasible for a number of reasons, including cost, administrative difficulty, and prohibitions built into the WSFS Constitution itself. Every person who brings it up reveals themselves to be woefully ignorant on the subject that they are opining upon.

    (3) They already do (A) and anyone can get examples of (B) by looking at nominees from previous years. This, like everything else about your comment, seems to indicate that you don’t really know much about the Hugos or what information the WSFS has provided about them. Showing up with a big bag of ignorance to try and convince people who have actual knowledge of the subject is just not going to work.

  43. @Sean:

    I believe the part of your position that I’m having the most trouble with is the notion that the best way for an award to maintain (or gain) a reputation for picking The Best Of The Best is by lowering barriers to participation. It seems to me that this approach is more likely to produce winners based on popularity rather than merit, a result which I believe would lower the award’s prestige in the long run.

    Consider music for a moment. Hip-hop and bubblegum pop may get the most airtime, but does that make them the best? Are Justin Bieber and Flo Rida on par with the Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Take a look at compilation albums; there’s a reason that “best of” and “greatest hits” collections are different. Sure, there’s some overlap, but do you see the distinction? Hell, just look at the sales figures of the Fifty Shades books (popular!) as compared to the actual quality of the writing (horrible!) – would you argue that the series merits a Best Of award, or merely a Most Popular one?

    The Hugos are not, and IMO should not become, SF’s Greatest Hits. They’re closer to The Best Of SF.

  44. Consider music for a moment. Hip-hop and bubblegum pop may get the most airtime, but does that make them the best?

    The year I was born, the top song on the Billboard top 100 was Sugar, Sugar by the Archies. The Grammy’s for that year picked Age of Aquarius/Let the Sun Shine by the Fifth Dimension as the record of the year. Which choice, in retrospect, seems to have been the better one? I’m going with the Grammy voters on this one.

  45. I believe the part of your position that I’m having the most trouble with is the notion that the best way for an award to maintain (or gain) a reputation for picking The Best Of The Best is by lowering barriers to participation.

    Yes. I’ve never been a Hugo voter, but long used the Hugo results as a recommended reading list. I do that because of the Hugo’s reputation as an elite award, not as a “least common denominator” award. I want the suggestions of the best educated, best read people possible, not Joe Sixbooksperyear. And if some would accuse me of being an intellectual snob for that, well, I wear their scorn as a badger owner.

  46. JJ

    Thank you for offering insults while everyone else offered discussion.

    And now, back to work.

Comments are closed.