What Makes a Work 'New'?

[kevin_standlee]

Joe Sherry writes in a comment elsewhere on an unrelated post:

Hi Kevin,

Mary Robinette Kowal's novella "Water to Wine" was originally published in November 2010 in METAtropolis: Cascadiopolis as audio-fiction. In 2011 it was reprinted on Subterranean Online. Mary's note before the story mentions that it was revised / adapted for print (removing stage directions and adding detail that works better in print than being read aloud).

Do you think it's Hugo eligible this year? I hope so, because I think the story is all sorts of fantastic and I would love to nominate it (and tell others to nominate it as well). I just don't want to waste the slot on an excellent but ineligible story.

Well, I don't have a definite answer to this. It might be eligible, if the Administrator were to rule that the revisions were sufficient to make it a new work. Unfortunately, the Administrators are loathe to make rulings without a specific case before them. That means that they probably won't tell you in advance, and they won't rule at all unless the work receives enough nominations to appear on the short list.

So my advice to you is that if you think this work is one of the five best of the year, you should nominate it, knowing that there is a possibility that it might be disqualified on technical grounds. If you think it's a worthy work, you're not "wasting" your nomination in my opinion, any more than voting for a candidate you don't expect to win is a "wasted" vote. As an informed voter, you should vote for the things/people you want to win, not think that you have to "back the winning team."

Disclaimer: I'm a former Hugo Administrator, not a current one. While I have positions of responsibility with WSFS, I do not determine policy for the administration of the 2012 Hugo Awards, and thus my opinions here are solely my own and do not reflect those of WSFS, Chicon 7, or the 2012 Hugo Award Administration Subcommittee.

Comments

[autopope.livejournal.com]

Here's a related question:

Let's suppose a pair of authors write a novella. The next year they write another novella. Then, a few years later, $PUBLISHER commissions them to write a book. The book eventually emerges; 50% of it is new, but the first 50% consists of the two earlier novellas (somewhat polished/revised).

Is this an eligible work? (Going by past precedents on fix-ups, I'd expect the answer to be "yes".)

What if the entire novel consisted of previously published novellas, edited to fit together as a fix-up? Would they then be eligible as a novel? If the answer is yes, then why aren't single-author short story collections (of previously published stories) eligible?

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

The first case is pretty straightforward, and answer is "yes." Precedent: Flowers for Algernon, which won the 1960 Hugo Award for Best Short Fiction and was nominated for the 1967 Hugo Award for Best Novel.

The second is more problematical. As far as I know, no such fix-up has ever actually received sufficient nominations to force an Administrator to make a ruling on the matter.

[autopope.livejournal.com]

"Accelerando".

(I know, I know, it's a moot point because it didn't win. But it just now occurred to me ...)

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Ah, good point. Well, it comes down to how much new material there is, how much the voters thought it was a new work, and how tightly the current Administrator wants to be. For works in the gray zone like that one, it's really difficult to say for sure what will happen.

[timill]

I would think that a collection would fall foul of
3.2.6: Works appearing in a series are eligible as individual works, but the series as a whole is not eligible. However, a work appearing in a number of parts shall be eligible for the year of the final part.

that is, a collection of works is not a single work unless some changes are made to make it so.

[pwilkinson.livejournal.com]

For some reason, that brings to mind a novel by the name of Accelerando.

[joeboo-k.livejournal.com]

Thanks, Kevin.

"Wasted" was only in reference to the possibility it wasn't eligible. I know how few votes it actually takes to make it on a ballot and how thin the line is between being a nominee and missing the ballot is, so I don't think voting for a work you feel is worth is ever a wasted vote.