Investment in the Hugo Awards

Dang, my little traffic counter is tired—Vox Day linked to my last blog. I normally get an uptick when File770 links, but now we see who the real powerhouse is. Thanks to all who stopped by. It’s good to have discussion, although this one got a little off-track.

I read all the comments, here and also on these two respective sites. There are interesting responses. First, I gather that some people have a quite a personal investment in the Hugo Awards. The suggestion I made in the blog that DragonCon had looked at the Hugo controversy and would be in competition turned out more than one knight-errant to defend the Hugo Awards. Steve Davidson wrote a response supporting my position that the Dragon Awards are likely to change the flow of both money and promotion in ways that will undermine the Hugos.

The big question was about what I meant by “the Hugo process where works are winnowed through a narrow review and recommendation system and onto the ballot.” Although the Sad/Rabid Puppies have been severely trashed for their viewpoints, a faction of fandom has looked at their complaints critically and moved to analyze the awards process in response. If you’ve been following the blog, you’ll recall that I’ve featured statistical studies of the awards process for both the Hugos and the Nebulas during the last year. These show that prominent recommendation lists can be used to predict the nominees pretty accurately, and that the awards process is subject to bias. Other studies have shown the lists have limited sources, low diversity and a tendency for repeat appearances. The award winners for both the Hugos and the Nebulas are typically chosen by relatively small groups of individuals that lean to professional writers, editors and publishers. This is what I’m calling a “narrow” process.

I don’t know that you can ever eliminate these problems. People will always need a system to sift through what’s available. One of the main issues is how to work through the sheer number of SFF works published during the year, and another is the fierce competition to use the awards for their promotional value. I expect the Dragon Awards will have similar fairness issues. Plus, you can bet some people are already looking for ways to manipulate the results.

Review of Our Lady of the Open Road by Sarah Pinsker

This novelette was published in Asimov’s. Near future, mundane SF.

Luce, Silva and Jacky are a dying breed, an independent band that’s not signed to StageHolo. That means they’re broke and living in a 23-year-old diesel van they run on vegetable oil. They beg for oil and dumpster dive for food, drive cross-country to gigs booked in dumps of independent clubs. The gigs are still rewarding, and they’re recognized by both older and young fans. They play a gig in Columbus, Ohio, where Luce is approached by a StageHolo rep, but she angrily refuses to sign. The band is invited by a group of bike kids to spend the night at an abandoned barracks. When they wake up in the morning, someone has stolen their van with most of the equipment and swag. What should they do?

This feels like a nostalgia piece. StageHolo could very well be a stand in for Netflix, iTunes or MTV, and Luce is a Luddite about technology. She doesn’t have a cell phone, a self-driving vehicle or Google maps. She’s concerned about music being an authentic experience where she is actually in contact with fans. She views a contract with StageHolo as selling out to commercial interests. Unfortunately, I think this question was answered back in the 1980s or 1990s.

Well written with good theme, characterization, imagery, LGBTQ diversity. There’s not enough science or technology to pick at it. Average story—3 stars.

Vivienne Raper on short stories and the Hugos: Another slate?

I’ve been checking around today and found where Vivienne Raper has blogged about what short stories she might have nominated for the Hugo Awards, then compared her choices to the Sad/Rabid Puppy slate. You can read it here.

Raper notes how difficult it is to get any kind of short story nominated under the current Hugo system (where a nominee has to get 5% of nominations to appear on the ballot). This has been pointed out by a lot of bloggers in recent months–she’s right that it’s a huge obstacle for short story writers. I think Raper is also correct that a wide readership is necessary, meaning it’s nearly impossible to get nominated if you appear in a token payment magazine, for example.

Raper’s choices are her own, of course, but there’s some interesting discussion that comes up in the Comments section. There are some complaints about the shortcomings of current short story reviews. Also, if I’m reading the comments correctly, folks are proposing a system to make up lists of stories and rate them for possible nomination. I agree something like this would be very helpful, but isn’t this just the kind of slate the Puppies have been complaining about? Hm.