kevin_standlee | Misinterpretation

Current Mood: croggled
Current Location: Fremont, California

Entry tags:

hugo awards

Misinterpretation

One of the comments on the Fan Writer Hugo Controversy croggled me sufficiently that I want to quote it here. I'm not meaning to pick on the writer, who comments here and is a BASFA member, but this one sort of surprised me:

...my reading of the WSFS constitution's section on the Hugo awards, taken in its entirety, leads me to believe the purpose of the Fan Writer award is to recognize non-professional sci-fi writers.

Wow. What I'm wondering if this is a widespread opinion -- that "Fan Writer" is taken by a significant number of people as "non-professional, fan-written science fiction." Of course, it's not -- "Fan" doesn't mean "Amateur" in our field; it means "enthusiast," which is not the same thing, and that's why one can be a fan and a pro simultaneously. Nor is "Fan Writer" intended as a category aimed at recognizing "fan fiction." Fan writing is writing about science fiction, fantasy, and fandom. All of the people nominated in that category (and everyone who has been nominated in that category in my memory) have been nominated for their writing about the field, not because of any fiction they've written.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Actually, it is a widely-held opinion. In fact, it's far wider-held than the truth.

It's all about name recognition. In the nomination phase, you get a relatively informed section of fandom using their best judgement to give us a list that the wider, less knowledable Big Tent votes on. It's less about name value in the first and far more about it in the second phase.

Frankly, I wish there would be a solid definition so that this wouldn't come up again. We have the category that doesn't solidly say what and who is and isn't eligible. There needs to be clarification, which will undoubtedly piss some people off, but it will keep these things from popping up.

Chris

In the nomination phase, you get a relatively informed section of fandom using their best judgement to give us a list that the wider, less knowledgable Big Tent votes on.

IMO that's the story right there, not only in terms of name recognition, but awareness of and reading of fanwriting in general.

... will undoubtedly piss some people off ... Is it true that part of the reason the Tent is so Big is to have plenty of room for Pissed-off-edness Fandom?

Vanessa

Frankly, I wish there would be a solid definition so that this wouldn't come up again. We have the category that doesn't solidly say what and who is and isn't eligible.

How? Write a definition that doesn't require a Hugo Administrator to make a subjective decision and WSFS might consider it. Otherwise, whether or not someone is a "fan writer" is a question of fact, not of law, and therefore is left up to the jury (the nominators) to decide.

(The distinction here is that questions of law, like word count, running length, or year of publication have objective criteria over which the judge (Hugo Administrator) has jurisdiction.)

I'm not trying to be confrontational; I just don't know how you could write a definition that improved the current situation. Right now, it looks more like trying to keep control of a tube of toothpaste by grabbing it tightly.

You could specify that it's not for fiction. Although even that would be objected to because it cuts out some things. But the big danger is that, by a change in the nominating population, they'll become awards for fanfic. I'd really *really* hate that.

You could specify that it's not for fiction.

That might work, but still obliges subjective (although not quite so heavily subjective) judgment by administrators.

Although even that would be objected to because it cuts out some things.

Specifically, "faan fiction" -- fiction about fandom. (And for anyone else watching, this is not at all like "fan fiction.")

My one paid piece of written fiction (semi-professional because it paid only 1.25 cents/word) was in fact faan fiction -- "The Bridge at Waikiki," part of Again, Alternate Worldcons.

You could specify that it's not for fiction.

That might work, but still obliges subjective (although not quite so heavily subjective) judgment by administrators.

The problem is that the 'net has widened exposure to and speed of fanfic...and many people think of "fan writer" in that way, not tied to "fanzine" in the sense that the regular denizens of the Worldcon understand.

I'm beginning to think more clarification is definitely needed...or else (my own preference) we could just kill all of the "best people" awards. I know the latter won't happen...

Well, there is a very easy way, but it's not at all a popular way. Just say "No Pros". If you've been nominated for a pro Hugo or some such, you're not eligible. That's the way of defining it as Fan Writer, though it is exclusionary.

Of course, you could always go the other way, leave the definitions almost exactly as they are now and call the category Best Fan Writing. Slightly clearer to understand that.

Chris

If you've been nominated for a pro Hugo or some such, you're not eligible.

What's a "Pro Hugo," then? There's only one category with the word "Professional" in its title (Best Professional Artist) and it's handled differently (see a different branch of the discussion).

The Best Editor Hugo Awards do not have the word "professional" in them any more (the predecessor category did).

The four written fiction categories and two dramatic presentation categories do not require that the works be "professional" -- whatever that actually means. Two amateur works were nominated for the Best Dramatic Presentation Hugo Award in 2006. I was nominal Executive Producer of both those works. Would that now make me permanently ineligible under Best Fan Writer, where I placed 12th in 1995?

See why I often approach drafting WSFS legislation the way a trained expert approaches an unexploded bomb?

I was speaking of Best Novel, Novella, Short Story and Novelette (because I like talking about them out of order) and perhaps related book and the editor categories.

I approach everything like I approach an unexploded bomb: with complete ignorance of it's existance!
CHris

I've had the term "fan artist" used to me to explain why I can't be considered a professional before...that I don't do publication work, therefor by (their) definition I'm a hobbyist, fan artist or amateur- even though I make more per year from my art than many "professionals" in the field. It's been pointed out to me repeatedly, especially by some from the east coast, that I cannot be considered a professional without book cover creds. I just say fine, call me whatever you like....I can't afford to take the pay cut that would be involved in doing book covers anyway. But the IRS considers me to be a professional and bills me quarterly accordingly, so that is how I define myself. :P

It's been pointed out to me repeatedly, especially by some from the east coast, that I cannot be considered a professional without book cover creds.

Really? I would never have used that as a criteria. If someone wants to try and redefine Best Professional Artist as Best Book Cover Artist, they're welcome to try.

Actually, the same fan/pro distinction exists in the artist categories as between Fan Writer and the written-fiction "pro" categories: you can be a professional artist and a fan artist at the same time. If your work appears in fanzines and suchlike, then you're eligible as a fan artist, even if you're also a professional artist making a living off of your art. The only distinction here is that under WSFS rules, if you were nominated for Best Professional Artist and Best Fan Artist in the same year, you'd have to pick one or the other, under the terms of the "Gaughan Amendment," passed after Jack Gaughan won both categories in 1967.

(Incidentally, some notable SMOFS have called for the repeal of the Gaughan Amendment; it's unlikely we'll see repeal introduced in Japan, but it may appear in Denver.)

Well, for Hugo purposes, the Constitution does say "Best Professional Artist. An illustrator whose work has appeared in a professional publication in the field of science fiction or fantasy during the previous calendar year." Claiming this has to be "book cover creds" certainly goes too far, interior illos are clearly also included.

It certainly may be time to revisit this definition, now that people do significant business selling art at conventions and direct. On the other hand, it would be a shame if somebody got recategorized out of Fan Artist into Pro just because they sold a few cartoons in a con art show.

You're right that it's possible the category definitions (both the Artist categories) are a bit outdated; however, I've never seen an artist (pro or fan) disqualified on the grounds that s/he only appeared in art shows and never appeared in print. OTOH, the nominators may not be nominating people whose work appears only in those places.

If you want to be really annoying about things (ghu, I almost sound like Seth), you can also point out that public display of art counts as "publication" for copyright purposes. *blonde hair-flip*

Well, yes, I know that one, but it seems to irritate many people when I use "publication" in its technical sense rather than the colloquial one. *smile*

But there is a difference between the acts of "publication" and "appearing in a publication", isn't there?

Yes; however, I've never heard of a Pro Artist nominee being disqualified because his/her work "did not appear in a professional publication." There is a pending constitutional amendment that would add the following underlined words to the section on notification and acceptance of a Hugo Award:

Section 3.9: Notification and Acceptance. Worldcon Committees shall use reasonable efforts to notify the nominees, or in the case of deceased or incapacitated persons, their heirs, assigns, or legal guardians, in each category prior to the release of such information. Each nominee shall be asked at that time to either accept or decline the nomination. If the nominee declines nomination, that nominee shall not appear on the final ballot. In addition, in the Best Professional Artist category, the acceptance must include citations of at least three (3) works first published in the eligible year.

And there is the matter of what actually constitutes "a professional publication." For example, assume for the sake of argument that

theresamather receives sufficient nomination votes next year to be asked to accept a Hugo Award nomination, at which time she is asked to cite at least three works first published in 2007. She can then point at her official web site and say, "I use this as a vehicle for selling my artwork professionally; therefore, it is professional publication. I'd not want to be the administrator who rejects that statement and disqualifies her.

I submit for consideration as a test case the artist Myles Pinkney.

Myles is almost unknown to fandom. He has been to one con- MisCon this year, where he was AGoH and had prints in the art show- all of which sold. He had a couple of kidfanlit bookcovers in the far past, but does NO work inside fandom, illos in books, bookcovers, magazines or anything of the sort.

He makes a good living as an artist doing nothing but fantasy art- primarily licensed to the Bradford exchange, the Danbury Mint and WalMart.

Not that he is likely to be nominated as he is pretty much unknown, but under current defs is he a pro artist, as he makes his living off fantasy art (outside the boundaries of our genre-limited awareness) or a fan artist as he sold some prints at a con?

Sorry for picking nits if it seems I am- I am curious how this works.

(Reply to this)(Parent

It's an interesting theoretical question, particularly because it appears to be in the area where a Hugo Administrator might have to try and make a call on a matter of law; however, the decision as to whether the artist in question is pro or fan (or both; remember that it's valid to be nominated in both categories, just not to accept both of them) is actually a matter of fact, and therefore left up to the nominators.

At least, I've never heard of an artist being DQ'd for Fan Artist on the grounds that s/he is a Feelthy Pro and not eligible.

The only way to be "recharacterized out of Fan Artist" is to receive (and accept) a Hugo nomination for Pro Artist.

Alexis Gilliland has had books of his art published. He's still a Fan Artist.

Well, what I was worried about would be nominators, having read some hypothetical new rule that explicitly includes con art show sales as professional, deciding not to nominate someone as Fan Artist "because they sell stuff at art shows and so they are a pro." I suspect Fan Artist nominators are mostly more clueful than that; but getting rid of the "Gaughan" rule and so making it clearer that pro artists can be fan artists, just like writers, would help. So would making the pro art awards be for specific works, making the artist/writer analogy even closer. (Not that I really want to go down that path, since the temptation to start creating multiple categories for color, b&w, 3d, photo, textile, etc. would be great.)

I would say that the Gaughan rule does make it clear that an artist can be both Fan and Pro; by specifying that he can't accept nominations in both categories the same year, it implies that it is possible and permitted to receive both nominations.

It's been pointed out to me repeatedly, especially by some from the east coast, that I cannot be considered a professional without book cover creds.

::boggles::

Having seen some of the horrendous book covers out there, any idiot can get a book cover. What *you* do is far better then a good portion of the book covers out there. Not to mention far more difficult to execute in a lot of cases.

I know that I personally nominated you for the Best Professional Artist Hugo; clearly there weren't enough of us that did so (this year). I also recall the discussion at the WSFS Business Meeting at LA Con IV last year, and there was *no* mention during the discussion regarding the Best Pro Artist being required to have book cover creds to be eligible; just that they needed to have *something* that was first available / printed / whatever during the previous year.

*blush

why thank you! :)

T

Fan fiction is eligible for the appropriate (depending on length) fiction Hugo. There's nothing in the requirements for those about where it was published, or how much (or whether) anybody paid for it, only the length and publication date.

I suppose fan fiction does count as fanwriting, only because it's too hard to draw the line: consider Langford's speculations about Harry Potter.

Fan fiction is eligible for the appropriate (depending on length) fiction Hugo
That's the best argument against my POV I've seen so far. Thanks for pointing it out.

Clearly a 'Best Related Book' nominee, if worthy. Next question?

Assume it didn't appear as a book, but perhaps as a series of blog postings or rasf articles. Then it's clearly fanwriting.

Yes, but it did appear as a book. One of my personal rules of fanwriting is 'If it hurts when you drop it on your foot, it's not fanwriting.'

Actually, if enough other people agree, we could try persuading

kevin_standlee to draft it up for us as an official WSFS amendment - it would certainly exclude the 600-page slash fanfic blockbusters...

I'm chairman of this year's Business Meeting. That means I won't introduce legislation. I will draft any proposal (even ones I oppose) for people who will be at Nippon 2007 and will introduce it. With luck, I can even draft something that won't bog us down in endless technical neepery over wording so there is substantive debate on the proposal.

Well, I wasn't being entirely serious, and appreciate your position as Chairman of the Business Meeting. And in any case, there appear to be some good counter-examples further down in this (ever-expanding) thread...

You're forgetting Bruce Pelz's bound collections of fanzines. Once Bruce was done with a volume, they could hurt your foot...

Warhoon 28... Definitely a fanzine, and IIRC weighed about 9 pounds.

There is a large sub(sub?)culture in current day Fandom that has no knowledge of the history of SF Fandom, such as the people over in the Fanthropology LJ Community (http://community.livejournal.com/fanthropology), who will deny that SF Fandom, and it's offspring STrek Fandom, created and/or popularized things like the term "Fandom", "Fanzine", etc.

ttyl

*boggles* This is like children denying who their parents are.

I don't deny that what amounts to Fanzine Fandom of the 1930s created the community that can trace itself to Worldcon and the related SF/F communities of today. But Ancestry doesn't equal ownership.

as I'm a guest of honor farther and farther east, I find that I have some problems based on the fact that I'm not aware of regional peeves and preferences...like I have a million years of extra time to read up on every quarrel members of First Fandom have ever had with each other. Like when I was a guest at a con and the toastmaster chastised me for using the term "sci fi" at the meet the guests panel. I had never heard that that was a bad word I wasn't supposed to use before. I'm a west coast media kid...I mean...it's the "sci fi" channel fer chrissakes! I think it comes down to the amount of time those of us 40 and under have to study all the historic Battles of our Elders. It's simply impossible to keep up on these epics and sagas and the actual fannish things that we love at the same time! :P :P

Yep; "sci-fi" means bad science fiction, particularly bad movies, to me. Because that's what I always heard it applied to. It is a vile, ugly, term, anyway. I hate *hate* *HATE* having it applied to the literature I love so much. (Never lived further west than Minneapolis, which is admittedly west of the Mississippi but just barely.)

I usually fall back on "SF" for all the varieties (in any medium) of speculative fiction that show some care for the art and craft involved in creating good fiction.

"Scifi" (pronounced Skiffy) I reserve for the bad and schlocky stuff, some of which I still love but for completely different reasons.

"Sci-Fi" sounds like the gadget Captain Kirk would use to play recordings of his favorite makeout music while scoring with this week's alien babe.

Which is, of course, exactly what Forry had in mind. (Well, maybe a few years ahead of Captain Kirk, but you know what I mean.)

I dunno - I'm most definitely a believer in Sturgeon's Law. The whole idea of arguing this terminology seems to me a serious denial of Ted's Universal Truth.

Is that a grenade? JMO. I have a lot better things to do with my emotions than worry about how people choose to abbreviate.

Fair enough. I tend to just devour it all and then (as in any good digestive process) the part that's good and nutritional is used and the large remainder is left by the roadside. Sturgeon's Law, indeed. :-)

(Of course, I have this perhaps regrettable ability to remember entire passages from the bad stuff as well as I do the good. Handy for trivia, painful for some of my friends)

Sci-Fi...isn't that a brand of brown spread make from ground nuts? :-)

ttyl
Farrell

Among people who want to publish, I consider someone using "sci fi" as someone not in tune with the field, but that's in part because you have to know what's come before so you won't keep re-writing stories that most people in publishing have read before.

Terminology varies from place to place and from time to time. I note that the Lonely Planet Japanese Phrasebook gives the equivalence (English) "sci-fi" = (Japanese) "esu efu".

As clarification, I was never doubting that professional writers are also avid fans. I have not yet met a science fiction writer who wasn't also a fan, and in my years as a journalist most of my peers read widely and were fans of other journalists. Dave Horsey, who has since snagged a couple of Pulitzer Prizes for his cartooning, would routinely toss editorial cartoons from other papers my way when I was layout editor of our college paper. He was a big fan of the genre and Oliphant in particular. Mystery writers also have a strong fandom thing going.

I have no problem with professional writers writing as fans about their genre. In fact, I think it's pretty neat.

Blame the ambiguity of the English language, and the vague wording of the WSFS constitution for my assuming "Fan Writer" meant a non-pro fan who writes science fiction in a non-pro medium. And the fact that the Fan Writer award clause is right near the non-pro artist award clause.

Thanks to everyone for setting me straight.

And, just to be clear, I had no issue with you personally. I was an am only concerned that your formulation of the categories is what a lot of other people are thinking.

We've done almost no research into what the membership thinks about the Hugo Award. Therefore, almost everything we "know" is speculation or at best anecdotal. And can you imagine the protests we'd get if we tried to get additional demographic information about the people who nominate or vote!

Plenty of sf writers aren't also fans. I'm just much more likely to meet the ones who are, almost directly proportional to their avidity.

Aah, I do truly love (civilized) uber-fannish threads like these. Thanks for hosting them Kevin :)

When (as you say) the discussion is civilized, I enjoy them too. Thank you, and thanks to those of you participating for keeping the discussion respectful and in some respects illuminating.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Misinterpretation

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

More recent use of the term

Fan Versus Pro: Fight!

Re: More recent use of the term

Re: More recent use of the term

Re: More recent use of the term

Re: More recent use of the term

Re: More recent use of the term

Publication

Re: More recent use of the term

Fan Versus Pro: Fight!

Re: More recent use of the term

Re: More recent use of the term

Re: More recent use of the term

Re: More recent use of the term

Re: More recent use of the term

no subject

no subject

Langford's speculations about Harry Potter

Re: Langford's speculations about Harry Potter

Re: Langford's speculations about Harry Potter

Re: Langford's speculations about Harry Potter

Re: Langford's speculations about Harry Potter

Re: Langford's speculations about Harry Potter

Re: Langford's speculations about Harry Potter

no subject

no subject

The other extreme..

Re: The other extreme..

Re: The other extreme..

Re: The other extreme..

Re: The other extreme..

Re: The other extreme..

Re: The other extreme..

Re: The other extreme..

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject