Mark Plummer on Hugo History

At Renovation I attended “How Did We get to Where We Are? A Brief History of the Hugos” with Vincent Docherty, Janice Gelb, Rich Lynch and Mark Plummer, who each contributed interesting stories and exotic trivia.

The fascinating research Mark Plummer shared from 1953 Worldcon progress reports with the committee’s explanation of its newly-invented award is further discussed in his column for the August 1 Strange Horizons, “Rockets in Reno.”

For example, I had never before heard that the 1953 committee encouraged participation by announcing in-progress voting results. Mark says in his column:

Progress report 4 was issued on 1 August 1953 and contain[ed] an update on the voting…. We can see, then, that about four weeks out The Demolished Man was leading over The Long Loud Silence for novel; “old-timer Forrest J Ackerman and new-timer Harlan Ellison” were splitting the votes for Fan Personality….

While remarkable in its own right – such a practice would set off a riot in the blogosphere nowadays – Mark’s information could have been used to immediately settle an old argument if anyone had been aware of it at the time: the question of whether Forry Ackerman’s first Hugo had really been voted by members or was merely the equivalent of today’s committee awards? (See “Ackerman’s Hugo” and “Listing to the Other Side” from 2009.) Since Ackerman and Ellison were “splitting votes for Fan Personality” clearly there’s no room for doubt that the award was put to a vote.

If you have an interest in this slice of fanhistory Mark’s column is well worth your time.

Hugo Linkage

Thanks to Strange Horizons for posting a robust collection of links to commentary about the 2011 Hugo Award winners.

Some of it is harsh enough to make you feel like not winning isn’t such a bad thing. (Did Abigail Nussbaum blog about the winners in 2008? I’m afraid to look.)

Reading all the linked posts at one time hammered home the polar extremes of affection and disdain inspired by Connie Willis’ novel Blackout/All Clear. While Abigail Nussbaum asked “is this the very worst best novel decision ever made by the Hugo voters?”, Jamie Todd Rubin affirmed it as “one of the best novels I’ve ever read, regardless of genre.”

It makes sense that anybody who feels passionately about the outcome would write about it. What prompted some others who didn’t really care to pass their palsied hands over the keyboard? There are several links to shallow analysis from jaded gnostics offering the ignoble reasons they conceive to be the true explanation for each victory – unwilling to believe that anything ever wins just because people think it’s good.

Kat Howard addressed this better than anyone:

But if you hated the results, if you feel they are a travesty, or a joke, or nothing but a popularity contest, or whatever has made you so grumpy that you do nothing but complain for paragraph after paragraph (yes, I’ve seen this. No, I’m not linking to it. The sad thing is, examples aren’t hard to find)…

No day is an appropriate day to try and cast tarnish on the shiny rocketship trophies.

Mark Plummer at Strange Horizons

Mark Plummer of Banana Wings has launched a new column about fandom, “Paraphernalia”, at Strange Horizons. Mark’s opening installment takes Susan Wood’s old “Clubhouse” column in Amazing and her experiences at the first Aussiecon (1975) as the starting point to compare science fiction fandom then and now. It’s a fine read.

Strange Horizons is a weekly web-based sf magazine publishing fiction and features. Editor Niall Harrison says “The idea is that Mark will be writing about fans and fandom, trying to do a little bit to bridge the gap there seems to be between different fannish worlds these days.” Columnists are on an 8-week rotation, so Mark’s next appearance will be in August.

Mark is off to a flying start.