Hugo Award Categories: Magazines and Editors

[kevin_standlee]

I have mentioned this elsewhere, but here's my proposal for a significant revision of the Magazine and Editor categories to reflect what I perceive to be the way the electorate today wants to vote upon such things.



Long ago, the Hugo Awards had categories that included "Best Professional Magazine" (1953-1972) and "Best SF Book Publisher" (1964-1969). However, as I understand it, there was a complaint that rewarding the magazines was leaving out the anthologies, and thus in 1973 the Prozine category was dropped in favor of Best Professional Editor, which mostly went to magazine editors but was supposed to cover anthology and book editors as well. Over time, it appears to me that nearly everyone who looks at the Hugo Awards either forgot or never knew about this connection. Then we split Editor into Short and Long Form, with Long Form theoretically aimed at book editors; however, very few publishers actually list the editors of the novels they publish. At best, Editor Long Form could be seen as a proxy for the old Best Publisher category.

Also in the meantime, the dominance of a single publication over the Fanzine category led to the creation of a the Semiprozine category, primarily to keep Locus from winning Fanzine every year; instead, Locus won Semiprozine almost every year. Then, when some people worked to simply kill the category entirely, a bunch of small semi-professional magazines sprang forward to "save" the category, and in the ensuing multi-year melee, the category got modified in such a way that Locus wasn't even eligible anymore, although its editors are eligible in Editor Short Form.

Also in the meantime, we have people who want a Best Anthology or Collection category, and who are unconvinced when knowledgeable people like me point them at Editor Short Form. "That's not the same thing," they say. They want an award for the work, not the person, and they aren't particularly interested in a WSFS dispute from forty years ago.

I think we've reached a point, in small steps, where a significant proportion of the Hugo Award electorate doesn't know how to actually nominate in at least three categories, and at worst derides those categories because they think they are so complicated or need specialist knowledge that they'll never have. This is not good for the health of the Hugo Awards.

I therefore propose that we should delete three existing categories that people find confusing and unclear and replace them with three new categories that, while not perfectly defined (it's difficult to define things completely air-tight), are at least more accessible and understandable to the people picking up the ballot or reading the results list.

Categories to Delete

• Best Semiprozine


• Best Editor Long Form


• Best Editor Short Form

Categories to Add

• Best Professional Magazine


• Best Anthology or Collection


• Best Publisher

The definition of Professional Magazine would be the converse of Fanzine, and would be pretty straightforward to determine:

1. Paid its contributors or staff monetarily in other than copies of the publication, and/or


2. Was generally available only for paid purchase

Existing semi-professional magazines would compete against the existing professional magazines. Oh, and Locus would be eligible for the category, too, inasmuch as I'd not consider limiting such a category to be primarily fictional works. The boundary between "semi-pro" and "professional" is a lot fuzzier than it once was, thanks to online publishing.

We would have to work on the definition of Best Publisher to deal with cases like Tor US/Tor UK or to try and figure out if an imprint within a publisher is distinct from the parent publisher, but it still would be easier to figure out than Editor Long Form.

Now there is no Rule of Conservation of Hugo Number. Just because you delete three categories doesn't mean you have to add three categories. However, I do think the three new categories I propose are easier to understand for the average person than the increasingly inscrutable categories I propose to delete.

Personally, I'd prefer to pair the category changes, so each deletion was paired with an addition: Semiprozine -> Prozine; Editor Short -> Anthology/Collection; Editor Long -> Publisher. However, politics of category addition/deletion being what they are, I expect that it would be easier to submit them as six separate changes. On the other hand, this means you could have a potential swing of between -3 and +3 categories, which would also not really be ideal in my opinion. (I'd personally prefer there be not more than -1/+1 net.) In any event, even if submitted as three pairs of changes, the Business Meeting could by majority vote split the deletions and additions by the motion to Divide the Question.

I'm prepared to draft up all of the necessary language for these changes if there are sufficient people, especially people intending to attend the 2016 Worldcon in Kansas City and the Business Meeting there, who agree that these would be improvements to the Hugo Award categories.

Comments

[annieworld.livejournal.com]

I am not sure about the Best Publisher category - it has very similar problems to the current Editors ones - it is not that easy to judge what a publisher put out in a year. On the other hand I would love to have a way to nominate the small presses that I had liked in a certain year - even if the winner will always end up being one of the big publishing houses. The other 5 changes I would love to see proposed ( and accepted - and I will be in the Kansas BMs.)

[bovil.livejournal.com]

I would drop "professional" from the "magazine" title category. And the semi-pro supporters will fight against being lumped with large-publisher magazines.

"Publisher," as you note, is sloppy. It's also ripe for still being part of the political war. Though at least we're looking at openly so...

[brithistorian.livejournal.com]

I like these changes, but unfortunately will not be at the Worldcon to champion them. I hope you're able to get volunteers to stop forward.

[solarbird]

Yes, the best editor categories are utterly incoherent. This makes a lot more sense even if, honestly, I'm not sure I'm feeling the whole "Best Publisher" thing. But if it keeps people happy, I'm for it.

[jcfiala.livejournal.com]

I like these ideas... I'm considering attending the Kansas City con next year, but I'm not certain yet.

[paul kincaid-critic (from livejournal.com)]

Yes, I thoroughly approve of these changes. I have long argued that the Hugo Awards should be for a specific work rather than for a person, and this is exactly what your proposal does.

My only hesitation is in lumping together fiction and non-fiction magazines. I really am not sure that would work. For these purposes I would restrict the category to fiction magazines. Non-fiction magazines might find a place in Related Work when that mess of a category gets the make-over it so desperately needs.

[elysdir.livejournal.com]

Although my intuition agrees with you about fiction vs nonfiction magazines, I'm not sure how to usefully make that distinction, because most magazines that I think of as fiction magazines also publish nonfiction. Are you proposing that the distinction would be that a magazine that publishes any fiction at all counts as a fiction magazine? What if (unlikely example for the sake of argument) Locus ran a short-short story in one issue?

[(Anonymous)]

especially people intending to attend the 2017 Worldcon in Kansas City


Uh, Kevin, if you go to the Kansas City WorldCon ins 2017, you will be very lonesome there...


Laura Resnick

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Fixed.

[j. c. salomon (from livejournal.com)]

Slightly off-topic, but I can’t find a better place to ask this: What happened to the Best Series proposal? From what I could tell it was discussed, sent to committee—and then what?

[buddykat.livejournal.com]

My understanding is that the committee will work on refining the proposal over the next year and report back at next year's business meeting.

[jeffsoesbe.livejournal.com]

I also had some "Retooling The Hugos" thoughts while at Sasquan and attending the Business Meeting. Especially now that I realize that the process of proposing improvements to the Hugos is not as frightening or perilous as one might think it would be. (The Business Meeting was very interesting, and actually fun at times).

Those three categories were some I also felt could use some improvement.

I'd be totally behind "Best Professional Magazine" (I assume it encompasses both print and online).

I'd also be all for Best Anthology or Collection.

As other mention, Best Publisher feels "squishy" though finding out what a publisher output in a given year is arguably easier than finding out what a Long Form Editor did in a given year.

As for "semi-pro" venues, perhaps there's something to be made with "a publication that does not pay SFWA qualifying rates". That is a fiction-oriented definition, but could be a starting point. And there are a LOT of those venues, many of them quite good. (IGMS, LCRW, Abyss & Apex, Shimmer, Ideomancer, and Diabolical Plots come to mind).

I currently have it in my mental timeline to attend MidAmericaCon but have not finalized my plans.

- yeff

[nwhyte]

Please consider me too as a potential co-signatory.

[scott-sanford.livejournal.com]

The success of E Pluribus Hugo as measured by its votes relative to the 4/6 proposal teaches us that what a constitutional change really needs is a snappy name, lots of publicity, and badge ribbons.

...tongue only slightly in cheek here...

[timill]

Which is no doubt why my amendment titled "An Alligator Sandwich" passed and was ratified...

[seekingferret.livejournal.com]

I've no real objection in a vacuum, but I'm concerned about the potential for a Best Publisher Hugo to exacerbate the current fictitious Baen vs. Tor proxy wars.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Shrug. I see Baen as a very plausible nominee in the category. I've read and enjoyed many books they publish.

[(Anonymous)]

I am pretty happy with those, though I might tweak Best Anthology/Collection to just Best Anthology as I don't think they're quite the same thing at all.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

But what about someone then saying than a collection of works by a single author is an anthology as well? You would end up having to include extra words trying to define the difference. And attempting to add two categories is likely to be the kiss of death.

In fact, I suspect nothing will happen, even if I introduce all six proposals, because there will be enough people unhappy about any particular change that they'd rather keep the current system, even though they agree it's not very good, than give way on any specific change that is more important.

Me, I'm a politician, I guess, prepared to compromise on some things to get something closer to what I want. But I compromised on Popular Ratification and it didn't do any good in the end, so what do I know?

[figmo.livejournal.com]

I fear that the "Best Publisher" category will be bloc-nominated in the same way many nominees landed on the ballot this year.

I agree with "Best Anthology or Collection" as a category, but I'd keep the Editor categories as they are.

I've got mixed feelings about the Professional Magazine category. How do you tell whether publications such as Asimov's fall under "Professional Magazine" or "Best Anthology or Collection?"

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I would say that Asimov's is quite obviously a serial publication and therefore it is a magazine.

I'm unclear on just how far into writing dictionary definitions into the constitution we have to go.

[grrm.livejournal.com]

I love this suggestion.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Thank you! Would you be interested in co-sponsoring any of the proposals? I know your Worldcon time is deeply limited, but I also remember your debate in Australia on the proposed split of Best Dramatic Presentation.

[qeldoq.livejournal.com]

I also think that this makes a lot of sense, especially the Anthology/Collection. I have always tried to remember those for Short Form Editor.

I don't yet know our plans for KC next year, but if we're there I can help a bit.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

A few more historical notes here:

1) Best Professional Magazine was always accepted by the current editor of the magazine, if that person was in attendance. It is a curiosity of older Hugo winner lists that, while the editor(s) of Best Fanzine were always listed, those of Best Professional Magazine were not. This struck me as unfair. For one thing, if John W. Campbell may be said to have won Hugos (as opposed to Retro Hugos), as it is often said that he did, it was in the capacity of Astounding/Analog winning Best Professional Magazine. One of the things I tried to do as Hugo Administrator two decades ago was to get the names of the editors for the period the award covered included in the Hugo winners lists. This seems to have been continued inconsistently since my time.

2) It is my understanding that Best Book Publisher was intended as a one-shot award by the 1964 Worldcon. The 1965 Worldcon did not know this, and continued the award. (At that time, categories were not defined by the Constitution.) After that it was dropped (not continued to 1969). Perhaps the reason was fear that there were too few likely candidates, though it was won by different publishers in the two years.

3) I would have thought it would make sense to group anthology editors with Long Form when Best Editor split. However, they actually go with Short Form. That does leave Long Form hanging out there with undefined candidates. So yes, Best Publisher - a much broader field than in 1964 - makes sense in this case.

But if you're going to say "Best Publisher" rather than "Best Book Publisher", and if you're going to group collections (which in SF usually means single-author) with anthologies, a lot of definitional natter is going to be necessary. Are what currently go in Best Semiprozine going to be considered Professional Magazines under your proposal?

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Are what currently go in Best Semiprozine going to be considered Professional Magazines under your proposal?

Yes. I propose that we divide solely based on whether it's a paying market, for any amount of pay (other than contributor copies). If it's unpaid, it's a fanzine; otherwise, it's a professional magazine. This is a lot easier to determine than the current kludge about Semiprozine, and I think far more accessible to the average voter rather than to the people who have been studying this stuff for years.

The whole point of this series of proposals is to make the categories more accessible on the surface to people coming to them for the first time, and to make their definitions more obvious.

[lee harris (from livejournal.com)]

I would also oppose the removal of both Best Editor categories. Despite being a professional working in the field, I'm no longer eligible for nomination in either category, so I'm not being self-serving, here - I don't have a horse in the race.

For Best Editor (short form) I believe it to be a relatively simple category in which to vote. The editors' names are front and centre on the anthologies, and simple to find in the magazines. I agree that the long form category is less obvious to judge, but for those with an interest, there are enough clues, there. Editors often talk about the books they've acquired and edited, authors often acknowledge their editors in their books, and (a small number of) publishers sometimes credit the editor on the copyright page. It's a category with fewer nominations than some other categories, it's true, but this isn't a reality TV show where the category with the lowest number of nominations gets voted off - it's an award that's designed to honour the fans and professionals in our genre.

Nominee names rotate on a regular basis in these categories. I think that - due to the relatively few publishers entering the genre on an annual basis - a Best Publisher category would probably have the same few companies/imprints listed year after year, which, though perhaps more people might vote (*might*) would make the category more problematical than Best Editor, where there's a healthy turnaround in nominees.

[arashiss.livejournal.com]

I agree with "Best Anthology or Collection" as a category, but I'd keep the Editor categories as they are.

[grrm.livejournal.com]

One issue that is likely to create resistance to these proposals is the question of who keeps the rocket.

In the old days, when there was a Hugo for Best Magazine, the publisher kept the trophy. I remember visiting the Conde Nast offices back when Ben Bova was editor, and seeing all the Hugos that ANALOG and ASTOUNDING had won under Campbell, still on display. They belonged to the magazine.

Once the category became Best Editor, the editors started taking them home. Gardner Dozois won like fifteen of these, and none of them are to be seen in the ASIMOV's offices. They're all at Gardner's house.

I know that, in theory, the honor is all. The hardware is just a symbol. A bowling trophy. But the truth is, the rockets are coveted, and highly treasured by those who have won them. I certainly treasure mine.

As sensible as these changes are, I fear that every editor in the field will oppose them if it means a return to the old days, when the rocket went to the company, not the person. One possible answer to that, I think, is multiple trophies. If F&SF wins Best Magazine, say, one rocket for the company/ publisher, and one for the current editor.

It would mean more rockets and higher costs, of course. But people want the trophies.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

The WSFS Constitution is actually silent about who gets the trophy. Back in the Olden Days, Hugo trophy production costs were a significant proportion of the total cost of putting on the Worldcon. Nowadays, it's just over 1% of the cost of putting on the convention. That's why (for example), if a novel with co-authors wins, they both get rockets now instead of just one like used to happen. So there's no reason that a Best Magazine award couldn't result in a trophy to the Publisher and to the Editor both.

The decision about "who gets the trophy" is entirely in the hands of the administering Worldcon and isn't defined in the WSFS Constitution. I've been very leery of trying to get WSFS to directly legislate the subject. At most, I'd suggest that the Business Meeting pass continuing resolutions (non-binding guidance to Worldcons) on the subject.

Worldcons have been more generous these days, but OTOH there has to be a limit. A collection of twenty different authors' articles shouldn't result in one trophy for each author. Some Worldcons have said, "No more than X trophies in a category; if you win and need more, you can pay for extras up to a limit based on how many more we can get, since the bases are custom-built each year. (The rockets are relatively standard as long as you stick with the Peter Weston chrome-plated zinc design.)

The real controversy on trophies is in Best Dramatic Presentation, where it's very unclear to whom rockets should go. The producer, the director, and the writer(s) all have plausible claims, and different Worldcons have made different decisiosn.

[kristine kathryn rusch (from livejournal.com)]

Kevin, I think Best Editor Short Form should remain as is. Because there are a lot of editors who edit anthologies and magazines and a whole bunch of other things. They might not be covered by best anthology or best magazine, but they might do the best work in the short form category. Editors like Ellen Datlow or Gardner Dozois come to mind. Yes, back in the day, they edited for magazines—Ellen never edited a short fiction magazine, but she edited short fiction **for** a magazine that had other things in it. And Gardner edited reprint anthologies as well as original anthologies. Same with Mike Resnick in the 1990s. He edited a number of fantastic anthologies in the space of a few years, and might've been rewarded for all of them, but none of them rose to the standard of the best anthology for that year. IMHO.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

You could use the same argument to claim that there should be a Best Author category instead of fiction awards.

[mike stern (from livejournal.com)]

Kevin, my proposal is even more radical: For the professional written categories, get rid of Editors and semiprozines. Instead, give hugo awards to the Author, the publisher (or magazine), the editor, and the translator if necessary for the novel, novella, novelette. short story, and related work. You can do the same for dramatic presentation in honoring authors, directors, and producers (and possibly translators). Keep the artist and fan awards as they are. It means less classes, but more hugos.

[lunaticsx.livejournal.com]

>"The whole point of this series of proposals is to make the categories more accessible on the surface to people coming to them for the first time, and to make their definitions more obvious."

This is an admirable goal, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. The Best Editor (Long Form) and Best Editor (Short Form) are particularly two categories that I have found difficulty in knowing who to nominate for Hugos, and then who to vote for.

It's very clear, though, that there is and will continue to be a great deal of resistance to removing the Best Editor (Long Form) and Best Editor (Short Form) categories in particular. This is at the very least because many people really do like to vote for a particular individual--especially, I'd suggest, over "Best Publisher."

In the written works categories (Novel, Novella, Novelette, Short Story) it should be clear to all that even though specific works are named, it's likely that for many people the name of the author associated with those works bears significant weight on their votes. Yes, of course, in a perfect world it should be the works themselves that bear the full weight of the consideration, regardless of author, but we live in the real world, not a perfect one.

As mentioned above, there is then also the consideration if these categories are switched of "who gets to keep the rocket?", again especially for "Best Publisher."

I would make a suggestion that achieves the same goals, without these objections, at the cost of a bit of complexity to the Hugo Awards committee. (That is, it moves the burden of complexity from the shoulders of the nominating and voting members to those of the committee.)

Viz.

First:

Change "Best Editor (Long Form)" to "Best Editor (Long Form), AND/OR Best Publisher"

Under this category, nominating members could for example submit either "Patrick Nielsen Hayden" *or* "Tor Books" and it would count the same. If they submit both, they are counted as duplicate entries. On the final ballot, both the name of the editor and the name of the publishing house would be listed. When the Hugo is awarded, two rockets are given, one for the editor to take home and one for the publishing house to display in their office.

Second, instead of changing "Best Semiprozine" to "Best Professional Magazine":

Change "Best Semiprozine" to "Best Professional Magazine Editor AND/OR Best Professional Magazine."

Finally, "Best Editor (Short Form)" would be changed to "Best Editor of an Anthology/Collection AND/OR Best Anthology/Collection."

This separates editors of specific anthologies/collections from editors of magazines, where they are currently both mixed together in "Best Editor (Short Form)," right now.

Again, when the award is given in the Pro Magazine/Editor category two rockets would be handed out, one for the editor to take home and one for the magazine's office.

If there's only one editor of the winner in the Anthology/Collection/Editor category there obviously only needs to be one rocket given.

From my viewpoint the main difficulty with the above suggestions would be what to do when a publisher or pro magazine changes editors within the period of eligibility. I'd say just give one to each editor as well as one for the office of the publisher/magazine. Multiple rockets are already given for winners in categories like Best Fanzine and Best Fancast, and I don't think it would be an extraordinary burden on the convention.

Of course, people are likely to grumble at the awkwardness of these category names, with their "AND/OR" constructs, but IMHO with just a tiny bit of text on the nominating/voting ballots they are both the most clear in the end to the members (as well as the world at large), *and* the most fair to all parties involved.

[lunaticsx.livejournal.com]

Edit: Ok, what happens when a publishing house has multiple concurrent editors? (I admit, I don't pay so much attention to the inside of the industry, and I didn't look close enough at the list of past "Best Editor (Long Form)" nominees.)

One option would be to list all the editors together for each nominated publisher, and then award rockets to all of who are listed on the winning entry. It could be argued that this both diminishes some individuals who would have otherwise won singularly over their peers, as well as gives some publishers extra weight if they have multiple popular editors.

Or the second rocket could just go to the "head" editor for that publisher. But then a nomination for one of the other editors gets collapsed into the single publisher finalist, and they don't get individual recognition on the final ballot.

Honestly I'm not sure if the majority of the nominating and voting members really know enough about who has edited which books under a publisher that has multiple concurrent editors. I know that I have absolutely no clue.

I would speculate that those who really do know the best should perhaps be giving out some kind of "inside publishing" "Best Book Editor for SF&F" award, instead of a Hugo.

So maybe just "Best Publisher" actually should be the replacement for "Best Editor (Long Form)," but I still think that's going to face a significant amount of resistance, since people really like to give their nods towards specific individuals.

Or "Best Editor (Long Form)" could just be left as it is, with the recognition that it'll still be confusing to a large number of members, and we can just hope that the people who are nominating and voting in that category are the ones who might actually know the kinds of inside information needed to do so. (I'd still favor switching it to "Best Publisher," at least, with the recognition that that proposal would be harder to pass.)

[raycun.livejournal.com]

I'm strongly in favour of removing Editor - Long Form.
Most voters don't know the names of the editors for the books they read, and they can't assess the editor's contribution. When a shortlist is produced, you might get some information about which books an editor worked on, but still, you can't see what they did on those books.
In the other categories, the voters can educate themselves. You can watch the dramatic presentations, read the novels, listen to the podcasts, look at the art. For Editor - Short Form you can see what the editor chose for their publication. But none of this is possible for Editor - Long Form. You can't see what the editor did, so you can't judge if they did a good job.
Maybe some voters get inside information from authors and others involved in publishing. But for most voters it comes down to name recognition (I've heard of Patrick Nielsen Hayden, he must be good!) and brand loyalty (Toni Weisskopf works for Baen and I like Baen, she must be good!), not an informed opinion of the quality of the work.

[amazingstoriesm.livejournal.com]

Totally agree with getting rid of the editor categories. Not because I don't think editors are deserving of recognition, but because it is so hard for most voters to have any idea of who is responsible for a work and how to go about judging it.

(if publishers, particularly of novels, credited the editor as a matter of course this might be mitigated, but most don't. And even with a named individual being responsible - how much was the editor's contribution? Did they turn a turkey into a best seller, or did they make a couple of suggestions about a paragraph or two...?)

So yes. Lets move those back to things that those not on the inside of the business have a hope of effectively judging - best magazine, best publisher (though there I would suggest best publisher and best small publisher as marketing and reach can have a very large influence over perception and small presses simply can't compete in those realms).

[markbernstein.livejournal.com]

To be clear, I like the basic ideas here. What I'm about to post is meant as a request for clarification.

Quoting from the original post:

"The definition of Professional Magazine would be the converse of Fanzine, and would be pretty straightforward to determine:

Paid its contributors or staff monetarily in other than copies of the publication, and/or

Was generally available only for paid purchase"

There are several online magazines (e.g, Beneath Ceaseless Skies, Clarkesworld) that follow a model where content is, and remains, available online as web pages for free, but also offer options, usually through third parties like Amazon, B&N, and Weightless Books, to purchase issues and subscriptions in eBook formats. To me, that seems to fail your second criterion. Apex Magazine is slightly different, in that it only offers the current issue online, with back issues available for purchase. This seems closer to qualifying. Strange Horizons pays contributors, but doesn't sell anything, choosing instead to rely on donations. My point being that "generally available only for paid purchase" may need a bit more detail. Either that, or just cut the word "only".

One of the top sources of short fiction Hugo nominees in recent years has been tor.com. I don't think that site would qualify as a magazine. I can live with that, but it does feel a little odd, locking the source of much award-worthy short fiction out of the category. I'd be interested in other people's opinions. (Note: Baen also offers stories online.)

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

If a publication pays it contributors in anything other than copies of the publication or generally is only available by paid purchase, it would be professional. That's an OR, not an an AND.

So all of the examples you give are professional. They meet the "pay the contributors" criteria, even if they don't meet the "paid purchase" criteria. Only one need apply.

Actually, It think Tor.com probably is the functional equivalent of a professional magazine. It pays its contributors, although the content itself is available for free. Same with Baen.

[(Anonymous)]

This proposal would also go a long way towards fixing the problem I have with the current Pro and Fan Artist categories. Currently someone who is paid for artwork that appears in a semiprofessional publication is a "fan artist", which is silly because the person is being paid--fan work should for for the fun of it, not the money. (It would be possible for someone to make living from being a "fan artist".) With Semiprozine going away, then this person now becomes a professional artist.

It also gets rid of the highly blurred lines between what is "professional" and what is "semiprofessional". The main reason that Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show withdrew this year as a Semiprozine nominee is, while they thought they qualified as a semiprozine, they just weren't sure.

John Lorentz
Sasquan Hugo Administrator (retired)