kevin_standlee | Better Known Than We Thought?

The intriguing thing about this story in the Los Angeles Times is not the story itself, but the headline. That headline is sort of meaningless unless you already know what a Hugo Award is -- otherwise, the play on words is lost. So whoever the editorial writer for the L.A. Times is, he must be enough of a science fiction fan to know what the Hugo Award is.

I find this vaguely encouraging, as a member of the committee charged with enhancing the profile of our field's highest honor. We sometimes berate ourselves, figuring that the Hugo is unknown and trivial outside of a relatively small number of people in a limited field. But we may have Friends in High Places that we didn't even know about.

My thanks to Mike Glyer for pointing this headline out to the SMOFS e-mail list.

Current Mood: optimistic

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

spacecrab.livejournal.com

[bomb] Maybe it's better that the Hugo doesn't achieve that much status outside the S-F community until a larger number of knowledgeable, interested s-f readers participate in the voting process every year. [/bomb]

I know we've been over this. I'm still in favor of setting up an inexpensive "Hugo Voter" membership class for each Worldcon (say $10 to $25) *and then* trying a publicity campaign by placing nomination/voter ballots and "voting class" membership applications in places frequented by science fiction readers: bookstores, regional conventions, libraries, etc. (Or maybe distribute just the voter ballots and applications in reader hangouts, each year, after the nominations have been finalized.)

I'm willing to listen while you patiently explain why this is impractical or you don't like the idea. I understand that getting Worldcon/Hugo Committee volunteers who would be willing to attempt widescale distribution of ballots and "voting member" applications is one obstacle. Mechanisms to discourage ballot box stuffing by people who would just pay a hundred friends to get "voting memberships" might be another concern.

On the debate over "juried" versus "popular" methods of acknowledging excellent art, my attitude is that the Hugo is currently more like a "juried" award than a popular one -- the jury consists of the fraction of regular Worldcon attendees who are willing to pay $50 to $200 in a particular year and then take the trouble to nominate and vote. But unlike true juried awards, the Hugo "judges" don't have an achievement filter in the selection process.

If the Hugos are really supposed to be awards determined by popular vote, I'd be interested in experimenting to move them in the direction of the Locus Awards, which really are determined by a large and open popular vote.

From:

kevin-standlee.livejournal.com

I'm willing to listen while you patiently explain why this is impractical or you don't like the idea.

Perhaps you'll be surprised, then, by hearing me say that I think it's a good idea. The major obstacle, as you noted, is the people points necessary to make it happen. The promotional campaign is the hard part. Establishing final-ballot-only voting membership isn't difficult. It doesn't even need WSFS Business Meeting intervention. Worldcon committees already have the right to add additional classes of membership. So if I were you, I'd be nagging Denvention Three about setting up such a class, probably costing about $20. (I'm not sure it would make much of a difference for Nippon 2007, but I could be wrong.)

I'm less worried than most people about ballot-box "stuffing" on the final ballot. It's actually much more of an issue at the nominating ballot stage, because it takes so few nominations to make the ballot in some categories.

If the Hugos are really supposed to be awards determined by popular vote,...

Actually, that's somewhat of an overstatement. They are awards given by the membership of a particular club. You have to be a member of the club to participate in the award process.

Let's imagine for a minute that NESFA decided that it wanted to start giving out the NESFA Awards. (I won't call them "Neffies" because the N3F's awards are already called that.) Any member of NESFA could vote on those awards. It would perhaps be more obvious to people that this was a club whose members selected the awards.

WSFS is a club. It's a fairly large club, with around 5,000 or so members in it. it's a club where I suspect around two-thirds of its members don't even realize they are members of it. But it's a club, nevertheless. I know it's somewhat difficult for many people to see it that way, because the only way to become a member of the World Science Fiction Society is to join the World Science Fiction Convention, but that's really what's going on here.

There are actually a bunch of other "popular vote" SF awards out there. The Locus Awards are probably about the only ones that I think are taken very seriously. WSFS has never disguised that its awards are presented by a self-selected relatively small group. Personally, I think it might be more worthwhile to work a bit harder on why so many people who already have voting rights don't bother to exercise them.

Expect to see more on this subject in the penultimate issue of Emerald City, coming out in a few days. I claim no credit for the material Cheryl is writing in that issue, although my comments here are informed by having read them in proofs.

Again, however, let me emphasize that I think you and I are in general agreement on many things, and I'm not opposed to making it easier for more people to vote. Despite my apparent reputation, I'm not the hidebound conservative bar-the-doors-and-man-the-barricades type.

From:

spacecrab.livejournal.com

Kevin, I might suspect you of wanting the size of Worldcons to double or triple (in order to defray expenses) -- which is something I would hate. But I would never accuse you of being a hidebound conservative bar-the-doors-and-man-the-barricades type. I'm aware of the heat you took, this year, for supporting one simple progressive change in Worldcon policy -- the trial memberships.

In my ideal fantasy, it would only cost $10, at most, to purchase a "Hugo Voting" membership in the Worldcon. The fee would be a token fee, the administrative costs absorbed by an idealistic Worldcon community that wants to recruit readers in any economic niche to fandom. (Particularly, I'd like to see some repopulation by students/book readers and struggling artists.) I don't have much direct knowledge of the sentiments that run through the conrunner portion of the s-f community, these days -- but my hunch is that this proposition wouldn't go over if something that conrunners like more (a Hall of Robots exhibit, a well-stocked Green Room, cutting edge film program -- I don't know, you know better than I do) would have to be cut.

A $20 "voting membership" would be better than none, from my point of view -- particularly, if it could subsequently be converted and/or the Worldcon were willing to absorb the cost of mailing a set of progress reports as part of the deal. There would still be a difficult-to-resolve paradigm clash: "I don't know if I'm going. I could buy a book or a bottle of wine with $20" -- versus "Anyone who really cares about the Hugo can certainly afford to spend $20." (This point is already made by contented WSFS members about spending $45 or $60. )

I'll be honest. Part of my agenda in this advocacy is that I'd like to inspire a partial cellular replacement in the current Worldcon-going population -- from "tourists" in search of an entertainment experience in the Wonderful World of Science Fiction back to hungry rebels and intellectual seekers. But I would also like to see a Hugo Award based on the votes of 1000 to 5000 passionate readers -- instead of 400 who see it as a perk of buying a "club membership."

From:

kevin-standlee.livejournal.com

The fee would be a token fee, the administrative costs absorbed by an idealistic Worldcon community...

I'm afraid that idealism has to contend with pragmatism here. Worldcons run too close to the edge financially to run risks like that. Remember, we can't pay off a loss at this year's Worldcon using the surplus from last year -- they're separate business entities. Anything you get Worldcon committees to do had better be revenue-neutral at least.

but my hunch is that this proposition wouldn't go over if something that conrunners like more...would have to be cut.

Well, that possibly overstates it, I think, but the general idea is correct. With no other source of revenue, Worldcons will look at any program that costs money without increasing revenue as "what do I cut to pay for it?"

A $20 "voting membership" would be better than none, from my point of view -- particularly, if it could subsequently be converted...

I know that I'd make such a membership convertable -- it's bad marketing otherwise. OTOH, I doubt very many people would actually pay the $20 and then show up at the door of the convention.

or the Worldcon were willing to absorb the cost of mailing a set of progress reports as part of the deal.

I fear that is a path that leads to this "voting only" membership turning back into what a supporting membership currently is.

Right now, the marginal cost of supplying a supporting membership -- that is, what it costs a Worldcon to sell one more non-attending membership -- is about $20-$25. Thus the "profit margin" on a supporting membership is around $20. That's money that goes toward paying for the vast overhead costs of a Worldcon. (Most of a Worldcon's expenses are fixed or only semi-variable.) Thus Supporting memberships really do help support a Worldcon.

To sell this proposal to Worldcon runners, you need to convince them that they're not going to lose money on the deal. With the likely marginal cost of a voting-only membership being around $1 (remember that we're talking about only being able to vote on the final Hugo ballot, not the other three WSFS elections that a supporting membership includes), the margin on the membership is the same as an existing supporting membership. That makes them revenue-neutral to a Worldcon committee, and thus more likely to be offered.

[To be continued]

From:

kevin-standlee.livejournal.com

[Continued from previous comment]

Part of my agenda in this advocacy is that I'd like to inspire a partial cellular replacement in the current Worldcon-going population...

Actually, I'm not sure it would do any good, really. Fandom is graying because the population is graying, and Fandom reflects the population in which it is embedded. A generation from now, a bunch of anime fans will be grumbling about the kids these days who don't know what it was like back in '06.

But I take it that you want to drive the cost down, since if they're "hungry," they're probably also "poor." The way you do that is to significantly reduce the cost of running the convention, or significantly increase the number of attendees to drive the unit cost down. Worldcons are far more elaborate than they were 30-40 years ago, and their cost have increased accordingly -- at around 2x inflation since 1984, according to my analysis. Since most of the costs are fixed, if you dont' want to try and grow revenue, you'd have to do something dramatic to fixed costs, like getting rid of an exhibit hall or large ballrooms and a lot of function space so you could fit into cheaper space. I don't know where to cut!

But I would also like to see a Hugo Award based on the votes of 1000 to 5000 passionate readers

Here's a thought experiment: Pretend you've won the lottery and can subsidize a Worldcon to offer voting for free. Do you think (a) the number of ballots would go up substantially, as anyone with a web connection or a way to mail a paper ballot could now vote, (b) that the results would be considered singnifcantly better? And if the answer to (b) is Yes, is that solely on the "it's more legitimate if more people vote" grounds?

I'm really at least as concerned about why most of the existing electorate doesn't vote. Nominating I understand -- nominating is pretty hard, actually. But voting on the final ballot is easy, and yet a supermajority of the existing electorate doesn't even bother.

From:

kevin-standlee.livejournal.com

And now the penultimate issue of Emerald City is on-line, with comments directly applicable to this discussion.

From:

spacecrab.livejournal.com

I'll read it and hope to find some time to reply to some of your other comments. (I'm a little under the weather, this weekend.)

But two things, quickly:

I think that offering "Hugo Voting" memberships in the Worldcon for a token fee ($10 to $20), would produce different (and possible "better") voting results than having a completely open and free voting process through clicking on a website button. (What do I mean by "better?" That could launch a separate, lengthy sub-discussion.)

I'm really at least as concerned about why most of the existing electorate doesn't vote. Nominating I understand -- nominating is pretty hard, actually. But voting on the final ballot is easy, and yet a supermajority of the existing electorate doesn't even bother.

I've heard a bunch of people saying that they don't vote because they haven't read all the nominees. An even larger portion of the membership-buying population may feel that Hugo Voting really isn't "their part" of the convention.

LB:
>> Part of my agenda in this advocacy is that I'd like to inspire a
>>partial cellular replacement in the current Worldcon-going population...

KS:
>Actually, I'm not sure it would do any good, really. Fandom is graying
>because the population is graying, and Fandom reflects the population in
>which it is embedded.

I'm not ready to believe in that simple statistical analysis. Would you accept a statement like (for instance): "the population of night-club/live-music patrons must be graying because the general population is graying"? There are selection factors that determine who shows up at science fiction conventions (or who becomes active in s-f fandom) that trump a simple abstract from the average age of the general population.

I'd argue (until someone presents a convincing rebuttal) that s-f fandom is becoming a less obvious and attractive pastime for intellectual eclectics -- people who feel impelled to read, write, and discuss ideas among their peers -- in competition with everything else that now exists. Certainly, s-f fandom still has a legacy presence as the ur-progenitor of magazines, amateur journals, electronic forums and blogs created for people who read science fiction. But here it is from my point of view: we're not going out of our way, these days, to provide the kind of playground that would foster a teenaged Don Wollheim or Damon Knight (or Charles Burbee or Walt Willis or Bob Leman or Greg Benford or Ted White) to find their voices and vehicles for expression.

Livejournal has spawned some critical communities connected to fandom, and Wiscon lives!. But conventions like Wiscon, Readercon, and Potlatch -- or, I hope Cheryl will excuse me for mentioning it Corflu, are at the periphery. I'd like to see more presence at Worldcons for the spirit that animates these lesser-known entities.

From:

kevin-standlee.livejournal.com

Would you accept a statement like (for instance): "the population of night-club/live-music patrons must be graying because the general population is graying"?

I'll probably irritate you by saying, "yes, possibly." As I mentioned recently, I watched a 25th-anniversary performance of Huey Lewis and the News, and I though the audience looked distinctly older than you would have expected a performance of the same group twenty years ago to look.

However (and this is relevant below), that population you mention may not be changing because there's an additional factor that is age-related: stamina. That is, the folks growing older are possibly less apt to be up all hours at the clubs.

There are selection factors that determine who shows up at science fiction conventions (or who becomes active in s-f fandom) that trump a simple abstract from the average age of the general population.

Including the fact that, in times past, people were more likely to "grow out of fandom." It was something they were interested in when they were younger, but they'd grow up and leave. Nowadays, people who find fandom are more likely to stay. That necessarily increases the average age. It also changes the way the conventions run. While there is still a bustling party scene as most SF conventions I attend, a lot of people who I know from my "entry days" are not staying up so late. We're going to bed earlier and leaving it to the younger fans to party all night.

SF in '93 ran a 24-hour bid party back in 1989 at Noreascon Three. We never even considered such a thing for Bay Area in 2002 -- we knew we couldn't pull it off.

I'd argue (until someone presents a convincing rebuttal) that s-f fandom is becoming a less obvious and attractive pastime for intellectual eclectics...

I wouldn't disagree with you here. Another way of restating this would, however, be, "We don't need the ghetto anymore."

From:

orangemike.livejournal.com

That depends on what you mean by "We don't need the ghetto anymore."

The "ghetto" in question is where I have spent a significant part of my life (outside politics, union activity, and religion): the smallish circle of intelligent, articulate (at least in print) passionate readers who enjoy the literature of imagination. Outside the "ghetto" walls are such dubious delights as the Sci-Fi Channel; semi-literates who think that wearing leather pants and an "Orion Slave Traders Guild" badge makes them "fans"; and people who think that George Lucas is a competent writer. Explain to me again why we don't need the ghetto?

If "[a]n even larger portion of the membership-buying population may feel that Hugo Voting really isn't "their part" of the convention" then what the hell kind of a 'science fiction' convention have we deteriorated into? Not every con has to be Wiscon or Readercon; but the World Science Fiction Convention shouldn't resemble Dragon*Con, Magnum Opus Con, a CreationCon, or the goddamn San Diego Comic-Con International either.

From:

kevin-standlee.livejournal.com

I need to ask Moshe Feder if he could find the essay he wrote a few years ago about "How We Won the Culture War." I can't find it online, and it should be. It, as I recall, addresses some of your points, and does so better than I could.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, but the percentage of people who share your outlook who also attend events labeled "science fiction conventions" is probably pretty small.

From:

spacecrab.livejournal.com

Your "ghetto" comment has also (temporarily) taken away my enthusiasm for discussing this topic with you. I'm still glad that we agree on the idea of "Hugo Voting" memberships for Worldcons and I may ask your advice, later on, about the best strategy for presenting the idea to Denver.

But jeez, Kevin: where do you think all the books, writers, and ideas that s-f conventions have been talking about for fifty years came from? Where do you think the next generations of thinkers willing to question the status quo are going to come from?