Yes, They Really Believe This

[kevin_standlee]

I have been accused of lying when I recount stories of people demanding that "The Hugo Committee" withdraw Hugo Awards from given winners because whoever was writing the post thought it was a bad decision. This is because I don't keep track and bookmark every single web site and page I've ever read. And while I cannot easily find the actual statement that I saw where the writer was convinced that "the Hugo Committee" decided who won the Award and could withdraw it and give it to the "right" work, it wasn't all that difficult to find the following quotes from people who similarly do not understand that the Hugos aren't given out by a tiny secret group of SMOFS. So here you go, Mr. Pictures-or-it-didn't-happen:

"I sort of question the Harry Potter selection. I assume that was an attempt by the Hugo committee to remain relevant to the tween generation."

"boy oh boy does the Hugo committee love it some Lois McMaster Bujold. Four Hugos: that’s as many as Heinlein, twice as many as LeGuin or Asimov, and as much as Herbert, Bester, Dick and Brunner put together. Also exactly four more than Samuel Delaney, Ray Bradbury, Octavia Butler, Johnathan Lethem, Douglas Adams, Gene Wolfe, Thomas Disch or China Mieville, to name a few at random. What gives?"

"It must have been slim pickings for the Hugo committee when Robert Sawyer‘s book Hominids took science fiction’s big prize in 2003."

"Maybe the Hugo committee that year was full of frustrated Furries."

Every single one of those comments sounds to me that the writer thinks that the Hugos are selected by a small secret jury, not by an open nomination and election process in which anyone who wants to buy a WSFS membership can participate. And these are just the easy comments to find. I admit that I can't find the original comment that set me off (it was years ago), but that doesn't mean it wasn't made, just that it's buried in the mass of data that is The Interwebz. Indeed, there's more than a passing chance that the original comment is gone entirely.

I really dislike being accused of lying. If I hadn't seen the "The Committee Must Withdraw that Hugo" comment in the first place, it would never have stuck in my head the way it has. And being accused of having made things like this up makes me more prone to speak in footnotes than I already do. If any of you think that I digress too much and provide Too Much Detail, it's accusations that I'm lying about things that are one of the prods to me being that way.

Comments

[yourbob.livejournal.com]

WTF? Anyone who knows you and isn't a dumbass would know that while you don't (to my knowledge) ever lie in public statements, you are most of all scrupulous in your Hugo & WSFS comments. To the point that "no comment" from you can't be interpreted as yes or no (as with so many), but only as "I have no comment."

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I can be as partisan as the next person, but I try to be fair. I'll admit to spinning things sometimes (although it does go against my grain to do so), and I can be misled, but lying about something like this? There's no point! The real stupidity (not ignorance, which is curable) is more than things I could make up. I just now have to be better at linking to and pointing out such foolishness as I see it, that's all.

[ceemage.livejournal.com]

Maybe the Hugo Committee should team up with that other imaginary entity, the Internet Police, and remove all references to "the Hugo Committee" from the web.

[a-cubed.livejournal.com]

The trouble is that the Hugo (sub)Committee does actually exist most years. It's the way that avoids every single staff member of a Worldcon having to recuse themselves from a nomination, or resign from the committee. It did happen one year with a Pro nomination, not a Fan nomination. I don't recall which (I'm sure out gracious host can tell us) but a pro who was acting as treasurer I think it was, was nominated and wanted to refuse the nomination, so the chair fired them as treasurer instead. James Bacon has been committee and nominated a number of times in recent years for fanzine/fan writer.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

That would have been, as I recall, Noreascon 1, and Harry Stubbs was the Treasurer. When Hal Clement was nominated, Harry was fired from the committee so that Hal could accept the nomination.

Worldcon committees are so large now that it's almost inevitable that there is someone on the committee (by the US definition, which appears to be much more broadly drawn than the European one) is in contention for a Hugo, so having the Hugo Administration Subcommittee is vital to firewall the rest of the committee from eligibility considerations.

I'm pretty scrupulous about either referring to the "Hugo Administration Subcommittee" (which seems to slightly reduce the tendency of people to assume that it's the group that actually decides who wins) or the "Hugo Administrator" to personalize it. Even though there are typically around five people on the Hugo Administration Subcommittee, there is usually a leader or chair who gives the last word on eligibility and other technical matters.

[redneckotaku.livejournal.com]

When I see things like that, it is an insult to the members of WSFS who vote in the Hugos. I spent several hours reading Graphic Novels, Fanzines, short Stories, looking at art and watching shows online to fill out my Hugo Ballot and I didn't even get to the long form fiction categories. It also shows how few people understand the Hugos.

[soon_lee]

I can empathise with the need to correct "the wrong". And I find your clarifications informative.

Thank you for your efforts.

Obligatory xkcd: