![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kevin_standleeAs it usual around this time of year, I'm seeing people calling for "the Hugo Committee" to add more categories to the Hugo Awards. The most-common calls I'm seeing this year are for Best Anthology (there is IMO no category at all in which fiction anthologies are eligible, including Best Related Work, and I'd disqualify a fiction anthology if it had the votes to make the ballot if I were the Administrator, which I'm not) and Best Video Game (Personally I think games should be nominated in Best Related Work).
Now first off, let's remind everyone that there is no "Hugo Committee" that decides what the categories are and who gets the Awards. There is a Hugo Administration Subcommittee that counts the ballots and makes eligibility decisions, but that committee doesn't decide what the categories are. The categories are established by the WSFS Constitution, and the way you change the WSFS Constitution is to convince the members of two consecutive Worldcons attending the Business Meeting to vote for a change.
There's an article on the Hugo Awards Web Site about Changing the Hugo Rules, but lets review the high points:
Over the last decade-plus, it has been nearly impossible to get a new permanent category added to the Hugo Awards without at least one and usually both of the following conditions:
I advise anyone who thinks that We Need Another Hugo that any proposal they bring to the Business Meeting should have an automatic sunset clause in it. I further advise such people that they need to earnestly try to persuade a future Worldcon (Spokane is too late, of course; watch out, Kansas City) to trial the proposed new category in their year. If I were campaigning for a new category, I'd go straight to the top and start lobbying the chairs of Kansas City and the bid committees for the 2017 and 2018 to ask them to trial the proposed category. If I were successful in getting the trial approved, I would work diligently with my fellow supporters to promote the existence of the category and to make sure it got enough nominations to justify its existence.
The last time that Best Video Game was attempted was only nine years ago (2006, L.A. con IV), and frankly, it was a dismal failure. In a year when only 430 people nominated in the most popular category (Best Novel), only 154 nominated in the least popular permanent category (Best Fan Artist), and a work made the final ballot with only 18 nominations (Best Related Book), the turnout for Best Interactive Video Game was pathetic: Only 58 people nominated; only one work got more than 9 nominations. The category was rightfully dropped due to lack of interest.
Now you can argue that the world has changed significantly in the past decade, but promoters of a Best Video Game Hugo Award are going to have to do more than just claim it: they're going to have to prove it. The regular attendees of the Business Meeting are in general very skeptical of change without proof. If I were pushing such a change (I'm not), I would encourage people to nominate games in Best Related Work. If games started turning up in BRW, it would be evidence that there was sufficient interest in such works to justify a new trial as a separate category
As I said earlier, I do not think that fiction anthologies are eligible in any category at all, including Best Related Work, on the grounds that they consist of works that are individually eligible in the various "story" categories. (Edit: As pointed out in comments below, anthologies are considered equivalent to fiction professional magazines, and their editors are eligible for Best Editor as a proxy for either Best Professional Magazine or Best Anthology.) I know not everyone agrees with this interpretation, but it's consistent with precedent and practice of the Awards, so IMO you'd need a new category, and if I were drafting it, I would make explicit in the definition that it was creating an overlap, inasmuch as you might have an anthology that included a piece of fiction in it that itself found itself on the short list in one of the story categories. In general, the Business Meeting has shown itself very reluctant to create overlaps and allow "the same work" as they perceive it to be eligible in two categories simultaneously. Advocates for Best Anthology need to come prepared to address this argument.
The Worldcon Business Meeting is a "Town Meeting" of Worldcon attendees, but its procedures are deliberately designed to resist change. In particular, the requirement that changes adopted at one Worldcon must be ratified at the following one is designed to prevent people from "packing" a single meeting with single-issue voters. It appears unlikely that people would be able to retain sufficient passion in this short-attention-span era to not only flood one Worldcon Business Meeting, but two in a row; furthermore, flooding one year's meeting with a narrow focus group is likely to prompt a counter-reaction the following year, as people who don't usually attend but who keep an ear open to what's happening would show up the following year for the ratification debates. Finally, the change up for ratification this year (to require anything that gets through the ratification stage to be submitted to the members of the following Worldcon for a final ratification vote) further makes the change process deliberately slow and not susceptible to narrow focus groups.
What I'm saying here is that any change attempts need to work broadly and to persuade people who may not be part of your own narrow interest that it's worth making the change. Business Meeting voters aren't going to reject any change just because it's a new idea, but they need to be shown, not told, that the idea is a good one and isn't going to saddle the World Science Fiction Society with a category that only a ten or fifteen people actually care about.
I'm not saying not to try. After all, I've been standing before the meeting since 1984 and have authored and argued many proposals, some of them quite substantial. (The current Standing Rules of the Business Meeting are my work, based on a revision of earlier works.) I am saying not to expect your fellow members to roll over and vote for your proposal based solely upon your assertion that You Are Self-Evidently Right.
Now first off, let's remind everyone that there is no "Hugo Committee" that decides what the categories are and who gets the Awards. There is a Hugo Administration Subcommittee that counts the ballots and makes eligibility decisions, but that committee doesn't decide what the categories are. The categories are established by the WSFS Constitution, and the way you change the WSFS Constitution is to convince the members of two consecutive Worldcons attending the Business Meeting to vote for a change.
There's an article on the Hugo Awards Web Site about Changing the Hugo Rules, but lets review the high points:
- Any two members of the current Worldcon (even non-attending members) can submit proposals to the Business Meeting.
- Only those members present in person can debate and vote on proposals.
- There is no proxy voting. You represent yourself and nobody else.
- Every attending member of Worldcon can participate in the Business Meeting. You don't need permission, nor do you need to be elected by somebody else.
- There is no Board of Directors or other Shadowy Cabal that makes all of the "real" decisions. The "secret" part of the Secret Masters of Fandom is that they aren't actually secret. If you show up and participate, you're a SMOF.
- Politics is hard work and usually requires compromise.
Over the last decade-plus, it has been nearly impossible to get a new permanent category added to the Hugo Awards without at least one and usually both of the following conditions:
- A Trial Run. Each Worldcon (not the Hugo Administration Subcommittee, not the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee, not the Business Meeting) can, on its own individual authority, add a one-shot Special Category to that year's Hugo Awards. If such a trial fails to draw sufficient nominations to justify putting the category on the final ballot, it's unlikely that your proposal to make it a permanent category will get very far.
- A Sunset Clause. Most new categories these days come with a "sunset" clause that requires the Business Meeting to re-ratify the proposal after 4 years, with the default being that the category automatically goes away if not re-ratified.
I advise anyone who thinks that We Need Another Hugo that any proposal they bring to the Business Meeting should have an automatic sunset clause in it. I further advise such people that they need to earnestly try to persuade a future Worldcon (Spokane is too late, of course; watch out, Kansas City) to trial the proposed new category in their year. If I were campaigning for a new category, I'd go straight to the top and start lobbying the chairs of Kansas City and the bid committees for the 2017 and 2018 to ask them to trial the proposed category. If I were successful in getting the trial approved, I would work diligently with my fellow supporters to promote the existence of the category and to make sure it got enough nominations to justify its existence.
The last time that Best Video Game was attempted was only nine years ago (2006, L.A. con IV), and frankly, it was a dismal failure. In a year when only 430 people nominated in the most popular category (Best Novel), only 154 nominated in the least popular permanent category (Best Fan Artist), and a work made the final ballot with only 18 nominations (Best Related Book), the turnout for Best Interactive Video Game was pathetic: Only 58 people nominated; only one work got more than 9 nominations. The category was rightfully dropped due to lack of interest.
Now you can argue that the world has changed significantly in the past decade, but promoters of a Best Video Game Hugo Award are going to have to do more than just claim it: they're going to have to prove it. The regular attendees of the Business Meeting are in general very skeptical of change without proof. If I were pushing such a change (I'm not), I would encourage people to nominate games in Best Related Work. If games started turning up in BRW, it would be evidence that there was sufficient interest in such works to justify a new trial as a separate category
As I said earlier, I do not think that fiction anthologies are eligible in any category at all, including Best Related Work, on the grounds that they consist of works that are individually eligible in the various "story" categories. (Edit: As pointed out in comments below, anthologies are considered equivalent to fiction professional magazines, and their editors are eligible for Best Editor as a proxy for either Best Professional Magazine or Best Anthology.) I know not everyone agrees with this interpretation, but it's consistent with precedent and practice of the Awards, so IMO you'd need a new category, and if I were drafting it, I would make explicit in the definition that it was creating an overlap, inasmuch as you might have an anthology that included a piece of fiction in it that itself found itself on the short list in one of the story categories. In general, the Business Meeting has shown itself very reluctant to create overlaps and allow "the same work" as they perceive it to be eligible in two categories simultaneously. Advocates for Best Anthology need to come prepared to address this argument.
The Worldcon Business Meeting is a "Town Meeting" of Worldcon attendees, but its procedures are deliberately designed to resist change. In particular, the requirement that changes adopted at one Worldcon must be ratified at the following one is designed to prevent people from "packing" a single meeting with single-issue voters. It appears unlikely that people would be able to retain sufficient passion in this short-attention-span era to not only flood one Worldcon Business Meeting, but two in a row; furthermore, flooding one year's meeting with a narrow focus group is likely to prompt a counter-reaction the following year, as people who don't usually attend but who keep an ear open to what's happening would show up the following year for the ratification debates. Finally, the change up for ratification this year (to require anything that gets through the ratification stage to be submitted to the members of the following Worldcon for a final ratification vote) further makes the change process deliberately slow and not susceptible to narrow focus groups.
What I'm saying here is that any change attempts need to work broadly and to persuade people who may not be part of your own narrow interest that it's worth making the change. Business Meeting voters aren't going to reject any change just because it's a new idea, but they need to be shown, not told, that the idea is a good one and isn't going to saddle the World Science Fiction Society with a category that only a ten or fifteen people actually care about.
I'm not saying not to try. After all, I've been standing before the meeting since 1984 and have authored and argued many proposals, some of them quite substantial. (The current Standing Rules of the Business Meeting are my work, based on a revision of earlier works.) I am saying not to expect your fellow members to roll over and vote for your proposal based solely upon your assertion that You Are Self-Evidently Right.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-02-24 03:45 pm (UTC)Indeed, it was the rise of the original anthology in the late 60s/early 70s that prompted the change from Best Magazine to Best Editor back then.
no subject
Date: 2015-02-24 06:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-02-24 09:07 pm (UTC)The four-issue rule was added to Best Fanzine to prevent one-shots from winning it, after one did and this was deprecated; I'm not sure about its history in the Pro Editor categories.
no subject
Date: 2015-02-24 06:21 pm (UTC)3.2.2: A work shall not be eligible if in a prior year it received sufficient nominations to appear on the final award ballot.
should be "prior year of eligibility" - it didn't need this when it was in 3.4, but does now.
no subject
Date: 2015-02-24 07:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-02-24 06:22 pm (UTC)Wait, then how does last year's "We Have Always Fought: Challenging the Women, Cattle and Slaves Narrative" and A Dribble of Ink work? If the posts to ADI are eligible for Best Related AND A Dribble of Ink is also eligible in Best Fanzine, how is that different than stories being eligible in the Fiction Categories AND Anthologies being eligible in Best Related?
Not that I think they should be, but that would indicate past rulings supporting the idea of Anthologies being eligible for BRW.
Chris
no subject
Date: 2015-02-24 07:20 pm (UTC)Anthologies are considered equivalent to professional magazines, as
We're not completely symmetric about this this: if we were, there wouldn't be a Best Fanzine category, but a Best Fan Editor category.
no subject
Date: 2015-02-25 06:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-02-24 11:28 pm (UTC)But I wished them well, and still do if they bring it up again. And the same for a videogame category.
no subject
Date: 2015-03-11 02:09 pm (UTC)strangely recently I was in conversation with a fan, who is interested in such categories. The conversation was positive, they understood that work has to be done, and recognised that the constituency of Worldcon needs to want such things, (me included) and also can see the issue with Anthologies and seemed to have a handle on the Worldcon Hugo rules but new to the process.
I said, a thing, which is a bit of Mantra now, which was 'if you need technical help, or guidance, ask Kevin Standlee, he may not like your idea, but he loves the democratic Worldcon machine and is helpful' to which I was pointed here, and I have to say, there is loads of good stuff here, it is helpful, and of course, you can post what you like,
but this could have been two posts, one about how you feel and one about the technical side, I think that you could be softer in correcting about hugo committee or commitment to the worldcon process - I assume folk are well meaning, and while I can understand you may be tired of people making assumptions, I have an expectation and experience based argument now, that people - including you, and others who are regulars at Business Meetings, are patient, helpful and at times really ensure that one doesn't foul up. And that 'real person element' is perhaps lost in this post.
One question that then came from your post, and one that will probably not be resolved until after the Hugo's is where does an Anthology of Short Fictitious Science Fictional Plays fit. And that is a really valid question. I would have thought this was indeed the perfect place for best related. Now it could have been best Other Forms if that still existed, because a play is not a short story (or is it)
There are occasional instances where things seem not like the are meant to be. I note that an Anthology has been nominated in 'Best Other Forms' which lasted a year, Wild Cards edited by GRRM and The Essential Ellison: A 35-Year Retrospective collection was also nominated. And I wonder why this category only lasted a year, if it was because of the double nominating issue.
The Best Related Work was called Hugo Award for Best Non-Fiction Book - and yet Warhoon 28 was nominated, it contained The Enchanted Duplicator, which was Fan Fiction, The Dark Knight Returns was nominated in 1988, definitely fiction.
A number of Art books feature given artists, who would be valid nominees in Best Artist, in the year that the art originally appeared in.
And then there is a year like 2007 when Cover Story: The Art of John Picacio by John Picacio was nomintaed in Best Related as well as John in Best Artist which all seems valid, but also seems like a paralell for best short fiction and best collection.
Things do not always sit perfectly, and I am not one for destroying the good to foresake the perfect, and generally trust the constituency, even if I disagree with it.
Anyhow, when one reads ' I do not think that fiction anthologies are eligible in any category at all, including Best Related Work, on the grounds that they consist of works that are individually eligible in the various "story" categories.' it is hard to know where the Plays do fit.
We need to be welcoming, and in my experience, are, and you are too, of people who are interested in Hugos and the process, and of course, I am pleased to say the person I spoke with is an active worldcon volunteer, not just a fair weather supporter and hope they get in touch on technical matters.
James
no subject
Date: 2015-03-11 04:44 pm (UTC)Best Other Forms was a one-shot category added by a Worldcon under their existing authority to add a Special Category. That's why it only lasted one year. I don't even remember if anyone attempted to introduce it as a permanent category or not.
This is because Charles Brown (who I guess disliked graphic novels) insisted that "funny books" were "art books," which qualify as Non Fiction, and administrators went with him (and the voters) on this.
The actual definition of Best Related Work/Book/Best Non-Fiction Book includes "...if fictional, is noteworthy primarily for aspects other than the fictional text...", and that's why "art books" belong in Best Related Work. There is no other category for individual artwork. We tried. It lasted four years and was a failure, with very few works nominated.
As pointed out in the comments, fiction anthologies and professional magazines are considered the same thing under the WSFS rules. We used to have a Best Professional Magazine category and got rid of it (replacing it with Best Professional Editor, later split into Short Form and Long Form) on the grounds that anthology editors were being overlooked. I think that a collection of plays is a fiction anthology. Fiction anthologies are not eligible in any category because their editors are eligible in Best Editor Short Form (if they meet the lifetime achievement requirement). This is consistent.
If people want a Best Anthology category, they're going to have to change the rules. And in doing so, they're going to have it pointed out that they're allowing the editors of those works to double-dip because the editors are eligible in Best Editor Short Form. Maybe we should just get rid of the Editor and Semiprozine categories entirely and replace them with a "Best Anthology or Magazine" category? That would have the benefit (apparently of grave importance to some folks) of shortening the Hugo Awards ceremony by around eight minutes or so.
no subject
Date: 2015-03-18 05:05 pm (UTC)Alas for those outside the US unless they regularly travel to the worldcons predominantly held in US, it is difficult to see through successive WSFS business meetings to get a substantive change through.
Personally, I have found the Locus Awards speak to me more than the Hugos. They divide up Fantasy and SF into novels, shorts etc. Those nominating can dicide whether a work is SF or fantasy, and just as is I understand already allowed, the administrators can shift nominations between categories to ensure no vote splitting.
no subject
Date: 2015-03-19 12:02 am (UTC)You speak of "the US" as though it was a geographically small place like the UK. It's not. Aside from the sheer cussidness of US officials making it difficult to come to the US (not trivial, I admit), the physical difficulty of attending Worldcons as far apart as Chicago and Spokane is not that much more than the difference between Worldcons in (say) London and Montreal. (Yes, I know you can't drive between them.)
The past sixteen Worldcons (as I write this) were in:
2014: London UK
2013: San Antonio TX
2012: Chicago IL
2011: Reno NV
2010: Melbourne AU
2009: Montreal QC
2008: Denver CO
2007: Yokohama JP
2006: Anaheim CA
2005: Glasgow UK
2004: Boston MA
2003: Toronto ON
2002: San Jose CA
2001: Philadelphia PA
2000: Chicago IL
1999: Melbourne AU
While there have been a pair of three-year US runs (2000-2002, 2011-2013), I would point out that despite what some people might think, Philadelphia and San Jose aren't very close to each other, and in fact we've spent most of the past two decades where consecutive Worldcons in different countries are considered the rule, not the exception.
My point is that it's not really as easy for Americans to attend two consecutive Worldcons as you may think it is, so Americans are not quite as privileged as you may think they are when it comes to changing WSFS rules. In fact, it's not that unusual for people who propose a change to not be able to attend the following Worldcon and speak to the motion. That does not guarantee its defeat. If the proposal is sufficiently well thought out and argued, the presence of the original maker shouldn't make or break it.
Besides, changing the rules isn't supposed to be easy.
I do not think you will ever be able to get a motion to split SF and Fantasy. The Locus Awards can do that because they are owned by an entity that can make arbitrary editorial decisions and who is responsible only to itself, not to thousands of individual members. Trying to actually split SF/F in practice for the Hugo Awards isn't practical. You may think you can draw a bright line between SF/F, but I hold up The Dragonriders of Pern as the object example of a work that can easily be classified as both simultaneously. You say to let the voters decide? What if the same work got half its nominations in both categories, but in neither case enough to make the ballot, but that together it might appear in one or the other? Administrators can move works around, but (1) Generally this only works in length-delimited categories and (2) It's not allowed if you didn't leave enough room on your ballot to allow it. (For example, if you nominated five Best SF and five Best Fantasy, the administrator wouldn't be allowed to shift works back and forth to create a "6/4" split. Besides, do you really want the administrator applying his/her own opinion as to whether a work is SF or Fantasy?) What if the same work got enough votes in both categories? No, I think the administrative nightmares alone are enough to keep WSFS from trying that particular trick.