kevin_standlee (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
kevin_standlee) wrote2011-09-01 08:50 am
kevin_standlee) wrote2011-09-01 08:50 am
Entry tags:
Sad
Cheryl's withdrawal from many of her current projects saddens me, although it doesn't surprise me.
If there is anyone out there who wants to continue to insinuate that the Hugo Awards are somehow "corrupt," and who has any better evidence than "I didn't win" or "The things I wanted to win didn't," I want them to actually come forward and produce it.
I've said this before and I'll keep saying it: The failure of works/people to win the Hugo Award that you want to win is not a failure of process. Why is it so difficult for people to get it through their heads that not everyone thinks exactly the same way they do? Is it so important to you to consider yourself The Standard Person?
If there is anyone out there who wants to continue to insinuate that the Hugo Awards are somehow "corrupt," and who has any better evidence than "I didn't win" or "The things I wanted to win didn't," I want them to actually come forward and produce it.
I've said this before and I'll keep saying it: The failure of works/people to win the Hugo Award that you want to win is not a failure of process. Why is it so difficult for people to get it through their heads that not everyone thinks exactly the same way they do? Is it so important to you to consider yourself The Standard Person?
Re: Speaking For Fandom
The general rule (remember, you have to read the entire document) is:
This general rule applies to both written fiction and dramatic presentations. Single episodes of ongoing television series are usually going to be short form unless they exceed "three parts." (That's a fuzzy definition, I know, but you can't write a hard-edged one; there are too many variables.) Game of Thrones appears to me to be a single story told in multiple parts — a mini-series — and therefore qualifies as long form.
You want hard-edged rules for a fuzzy-edged world. Try writing a set of rules that does what you want and you may get some idea of why it's do hard. I'm dead serious. I helped draft what's there, and I know why it's hard. I don't claim what we have is perfect; I only know it's what we were able to get passed.
Here's the public record of the two WSFS Business Meetings that passed and ratified the split of Dramatic Presentation into two parts:
If you want to complain that the minutes are difficult to find and should be linked from the WSFS web site, I'll agree with you. The WSFS web site is in desperate need of updating. I have some hope that maybe the project re-launched this year to rebuild wsfs.org will come to fruition and we'll finally get all of these documents in one place.
But one thing I'm hope you get clear here: there was a discussion about these issues, and much of it was in public, not just at a WSFS business meeting, but it happened about ten years ago and you weren't there. Just because you weren't there doesn't mean it didn't happen.
There's a way to get things changed. I know: I've been one of those agents of change. But just complaining isn't enough. You have to have firm, clear, difficult-to-misinterpret proposals and you have to get members of WSFS willing to introduce them. You don't even have to go to the Worldcon to do it (although you do have to be a member, and not being there makes it harder to argue your case).
And, again quite seriously, if you can somehow come up with better wording that I think accomplishes what you want without doing harm elsewhere (say by excluding any non-television, non-theatrical motion picture works, as many proposals aiming to "simplify" the rules have done), I'll introduce it myself and back it before the Business Meeting. You think I like having the rules be difficult to understand? Nope. But as a WSFS politician of long standing, I also think you have to have some concept of what's actually likely to ever get passed.
Re: Speaking For Fandom
I understand the problem with defining TV series. But I have a suggestion that you may or may not agree with. Defining a series of episodes that tell a single story as long form if they exceed two episodes. The two episode mark because it wouldn't separate US and UK series. Alternativly defining any show that is not a continous story (mini or maxi series -hope you understand the comic book terminology of that) as always belonging to the short form category.
I wish I had easy answers, but as you pointed out it is difficult making rules that always apply. But I can't help feeling that the written Hugo rules say that The Pandorica Opens/The big Bang is ineligible, and that it at least should be noted that they were deemed eligible. -Basically more comunication from the Hugo committe to potential voters.
Re: Speaking For Fandom
We really don't want to try and go by "episodes" any more that we should define our measurement lengths as "blocks." "Episodes" have too much variability, as shown in the differences between typical US and UK "one-hour" shows. What about two "half hour" episodes?
The main reason we went with running length, serialized-work rules, and a 20% gray zone is that it's the only general form we could come up with that roughly matches up with how the real world works.
Do you really think some notice like this would have helped:
"Some of the nominations in BDP Short Form are longer than 90 minutes but shorter that 108 minutes because most (or all) of the nominations for those works placed the works in Short Form and because the WSFS Constitution allows works to appear in either Short or Long Form if they are within 20% of the 90 minute boundary between categories. The Hugo Award Administrator kept the works in question in the category where the voters believed the works belonged."
I don't think it would have made a difference and might have actually confused voters.
Re: Speaking For Fandom
Re: Speaking For Fandom