Should There Be Any Limits?

[kevin_standlee]

I am waiting to see what happens with DisCon III, which is in the midst of the "Winter Crisis" that hits many Worldcon committees around this point in their timeline. (It was because of ConJosé's Winter Crisis that I ended up as co-chair in 2002, for example.) However, I'd like to ask those people who read my journal this question:

What is the maximum number of Hugo Award trophies that the "winners" of a category should receive from the convention?

There was once a time when there was one trophy per category, period. If you were co-authors, you had to work it out amongst yourselves. Then conventions started giving every co-author a trophy. In 1993, we gave Paramount two trophies for "The Inner Light" and allowed them to purchase a third trophy (we had one spare) for about what it cost us to make it (around $300). But what do you do for a work that declares that it has ten or twenty co-authors/co-editors/co-creators?

In addition, I want to know where people think there should be a limit, or if there should be any limits at all. More than one person has pointed out to me that in a dramatic presentation, there are certainly a lot of people who could claim to have a stake in the work. Who should get trophies and award credit? Director, every person with the word "producer" in their title, and every person who had something to do with the script or the underlying story if applicable? Should we stop there? If so, where do we stop. And then what do you do with things like An Archive of Our Own, where there are a large number of people who insist that every single contributor is a co-author.

Here's another case that seems way too likely to me: a crowdfunded project offers to list anyone who contributes as a particular level as a "co-author" or "co-producer" or "co-editor." This work makes the ballot and wins. Are all of those contributors entitled to award credit and/or a trophy? Again, where do you draw the line?

Anyone who claims that I'm trying to discriminate against any particular person or group by asking this question is wrong. I am asking you where you think the practical limit should be for demand on a resource that is not infinite, even though from the outside it may appear to be so. "Get a bigger room" is not necessarily the wrong answer for complaints about pre-ceremony receptions or post-ceremony parties, but assuming that Worldcons have unlimited resources is wrong, too. Pretend that you're running the convention and tell me what you would do.

Worldcon trophies used to be a significant proportion of the total Worldcon budget. Nowadays they are almost a rounding error, but they are a finite resource. The bases are all custom-made, so you can't just go to your local trophy shop and buy some extra blocks of wood. (It would be much easier if that's what you had to do.) The rockets themselves have to be ordered from the one foundry with the one and only one mold, but this is less tricky than bases, especially as it's not unusual for Worldcons to club together for larger orders and to share rockets with each other. So the issue is less about absolute fabrication cost than about the logistics of production. Trophies have to be ordered well in advance of when you know who won, and if you ordered the absolute maximum you might need, you could easily end up with more leftover trophies than the ones you actually gave out. Is this what we want?

Comments

[totient]

There is a rule of thumb in computer programming that numerical constants other than 0 and 1 should be avoided if at all possible. This sounds like it'd be reflected in the idea of giving out only one trophy no matter what, but really the rule of thumb is there to say that if you find yourself considering some other hard limit, you are probably ignoring a useful input to the system. In this case, that is the nominating ballots. If the preponderance of those explicitly name two or three or four creators, then the work should be listed that way, and that number of trophies presented. If they name an organization, then that should be how the work is listed, and producing extra copies of the trophy is a courtesy, to be done only if there are extras available because, perhaps, some set of co-authors lost out to a single author in another category.

[kevin_standlee]

In my experience, most people don't fill in the lists of names on works that have potentially many "co-authors." Remember, filling in those fields aren't necessary for it to be a valid nomination. That information is mostly to help the administrators try to track down the authors. It's pretty common for people just to nominate the work, not the author(s).

[billroper]

Since it's unlikely to ever affect me, I am sure that there's a faction who would argue that I'm not allowed to have an opinion. That said, *of course* there's a limit and no matter *where* you set that limit, someone is going to complain. Since it's easy to generate outrage on the Internet (All Fandom Was Plunged Into War is much easier to accomplish nowadays), anyone who tries to make a decision is likely doomed.

But, hey, I'm into doom. So let me take a stab at rational criteria.

The Hugo Awards traditionally are given to writers, artists, publications, and dramatic presentations. For publications, the right answer seems to be "give it to the editor(s)". Dramatic presentations frequently fuse writing, directing, performances, cinematography, and more. My inclination is to say "give it to the writer(s)". In the case of a graphic novel, I lean toward saying "the writer and the artist", but not the inker and the letterer, which is a prejudice from my history as a comics fan, even though I know how much the right inker can contribute to a project. (Letterer too! And colorist!)

That's preface. This question wouldn't be asked if it weren't for the large number of collaborative projects involving larger groups that are bubbling up in popularity. And now judgment is required and we know exactly how unpopular it is when you exercise judgment and someone is on the wrong side of it.

Let's pick a silly example. Suppose the 2021 San Diego Comic-con was nominated for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form. It was a crowd-sourced production that was performed exactly once from a loose outline, but it got excellent reviews and enough votes to put it on the ballot. Are you going to give out 30,000 Hugos?

Well, no.

So I'm going to suggest that the right answer for the maximum is three, because that seems like a reasonable number to me. If a project has more than three creators who played substantial roles, then the right answer is *one*.

And if I were in charge, I would now be The Most Hated Person In Fandom.

Which is why I am no longer interested in being in charge. :)

[lydy]

I don't really think you can have conversation about reasonable limits absent a conversation about goals and priorities. Why do we give out the Hugos? Who are they for? What are our priorities in making this award? One of the things the latest kerfuffle was about was the on-going argument about whether or not fannish projects are second-class citizens in the Hugo award ecosphere, or if they are central and part of what it is we are doing when we make these awards. If fannish projects are not a priority, then it makes sense to pay no attention to how often those projects are collaborative. If they _are_ important, then asking questions about what we are honoring, who we are honoring, and how we balance that against finite resources is a different conversation.

The field has changed a lot in the last ten years. It makes sense that this has created some new strains on the system. I think that a frank and difficult conversation about goals and priorities would help us find our way to a reasonable set of standards about who gets trophies and how many are awarded.

[delosharriman]

I would suppose that the Hugo Awards themselves are a fine example of a "fannish project". To say that the Hugos don't properly value fannish projects is thus, perhaps, a bit of a tangled proposition. But you are entirely right that a decision of this sort requires, first & foremost, a discussion of what the Hugos are meant to be, achieve, & recognize. Lately there has been, perhaps, too much emphasis on adding, shuffling, & redefining categories without enough consideration of that top-level question. I suspect, however, it may not be one that people want to touch. Supposing a general reluctance to open the can of worms, a simple resource-distribution approach, leaving many people at least mildly irritated, is the only feasible one.

[wild_patience]

For those who are part of a small team (roughly a handful rather than dozens, hundreds, or thousands), if not all members receive the official Hugo rocket, are they given something else to recognize their achievement? Of course, everyone wants the rocket with the gorgeous base, but you bring up good points, Kevin, regarding the practical aspects.

Bill Roper and Lydy also make excellent points. I like the idea of really examining the purpose of the award. It's my understanding that for writers, editors, and artists (not so much the commercial media like movie studios), winning a Hugo is a big deal insofar as they can now plaster "Hugo-winning" across their creations. This can have a huge financial impact on them as their marketability to publishers.

As Hugo categories and number of participants involved in each nominated work have expanded, this is something that should be addressed Real Soon Now. I don't know how you're going to do it without mortally offending people - no one wants to be the test case for this kind of thing.

My best suggestion is to come up with a less expensive certificate or plaque or something for the winners who are not deemed the primary contributor to the work but still need to be recognized. And this other thing needs to be touted as fully equivalent to the rocket. People still won't like it, but you're in a bad space with this. Good luck.

[timill]

Semi-seriously:
Co-creators 1-3 get Trophy A: the rocket, with the con's individual base
Co-creators 4-6 get Trophy B: the rocket, with a wooden plinth and a plaque.
Co-creators 7+ can buy Trophy B at cost.

Finalists claiming 1-3 co-creators get one invite each to the ceremony and parties and a plus 1.
Finalists claiming 4-6 co-creators get one invite each to the ceremony and parties.
Finalists claiming 7 or more co-creators get one invite to the ceremony and parties.

That should offend them all...

[kevin_standlee]

And the plain bases for >3 are produced post-convention and shipped later, and it might be very later.

[fred_mouse]

Having read this comment and thought about it some, I really like the idea that extra trophies on plain bases could be an option.

[lydy]

This tiered plan involves creating second-class awards, and I do not think you should do that without first interrogating whether or not you want to do that. Are you comfortable saying that some award winners are less worthy than others? Because that is how it will be interpreted, even with very good messaging.

If it were me, I would want to talk to the people who have been affected in the past, and the people most lilkely to be affected in the future, and see what their take on it is. A lot of those creators are very invested in Worldcon and the Hugos; they are not the opposition. They will be sympathetic to the problems of resource constraints. A lot of them are people putting out publications on a shoe-string, they totally get that. And you will get way better buy=-in if you involve the affected parties in the decision-making process.

[timill]

Who gets what award is down to the co-creators, not the con. But it recognises that the bases are handmade works of art, and thus in limited supply.

Rockets are essentially fungible; bases are not.

[lydy]

I understand your proposal. I also believe that your proposal would create a perception of second-class award winners. I am not failing to understand your proposal, I just think that it has potential ramifications that should be considered carefully. In point of fact, I think we are asking the wrong questions, and of the wrong people. We need to ask ourselves what our goal is in making these awards, and we need to talk to the people who are likely to be affected by changes how they would understand those changes, and see if that understanding undermines the goals of making the award in the first place. Your programmatic, tiered system does neither of the things that I think are important, all it does is address a resource allocation issue. Resource allocation is only important once you understand your priorities. Otherwise, it's just random. One allocates resources for a reason.

[fred_mouse]

I'm not sure I fully understand your position, but I agree that the wrong people are being asked. I have no horse in this race, and should not dispassionately discuss.

[fred_mouse]

My knee-jerk reaction is 'no, everyone doesn't get one'. And I say this as someone who has shared in a group award (not as prestigious as the Hugo, but still a shiny thing on the shelf), where only one trophy is given per category, unless there is a tie. The fact that at least one of those awards is on my bookshelf might be influencing that though.

I don't have a considered response at this point, but my second thought is that the number of trophies be constrained by cost. There have to be enough for 'one per category and insurance for ties', and maybe there can be 'insurance for co-creators'. And I'm okay with the idea of two trophies for two co-creators, but less comfortable with the idea of three. But like the situation that only so many people can come up on stage, and only one or two get to speak in response, when there are a lot of contributors, a single trophy makes as much sense.

[timill]

If there's only one mold, perhaps WIP Inc should look at funding the creation of a spare.

[billroper]

It looks to be a wee bit more complex than that. You should read the article Kevin linked above -- it's actually very interesting reading! :)

[kevin_standlee]

I was fortunate enough to see Peter Weston's in-person talk on the subject when he was FGoH at Noreascon Four in 2004. That article is based on that talk.