Sour Grapes

[kevin_standlee]

As usual, there are people out there who feel the need to complain about how unfair it is that you have to pay to vote for the Hugo Awards. Some of them, including the first comment to this blog post, feel obliged to significantly exaggerate the cost by more than 100% to make their point.

Yes, I'm sarcastic in my reply to him, because I'm pretty sure the underlying complaint, like that of many people who criticize awards, is that "You should do what I say, and I shouldn't have to do anything other than run my mouth to make you do what I want. And if the awards don't reflect my personal tastes, then they're obviously Bad Things and the Whole System Is Flawed. And those grapes were probably sour, too."

And what I said in my comment is definitely how I feel: WSFS is a voluntary society -- a club, if you like. Clubs can charge whatever dues they want to their members. The club also gives out a set of awards, and only allows its members to vote on them. What's so wrong with that?

Anyone who thinks that a system where you have to join the club in order to vote on the club's awards is "unfair" is encouraged to go out there and set up their own awards run however they think is "fair." Just don't call them "Hugo Awards" because you don't own that name. And, to be honest, if you use the phrase "Hugo Awards" in a place that Google can index it, eventually someone from WSFS will notice you and make sure you're not mis-using the society's service mark.

(Merely mentioning a WSFS mark doesn't mean you're mis-using it, any more than saying, "I ordered a Coke" is mis-use, assuming you did indeed order a Coca-Cola®. Indeed, using the WSFS marks in their proper context is a good thing. But setting up your own awards and declaring that they are the "Real Hugo Awards," for instance, would attract attention you don't really want. Note that I'm not accusing anyone of doing that; I'm just giving it as an example of something You Don't Want to Do.)

Edit, 9:35: Fixed spot where a couple of words dropped out of a sentence, rendering it less than understandable.

Comments

[kproche.livejournal.com]

Hi Kevin -- I think you've omitted a phrase in your fourth paragraph between "awards" and "is encouraged".

Something like is unfair or is mean and selfish or ...

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Whoops. Fixed. Thanks.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

They're thinking about it the wrong way. You don't pay to vote for the Hugo Awards. You pay to join the WSFS. Members of the WSFS get to vote for the Hugo awards.

In my younger, more enthusiastic days I did indeed keep up my WSFS membership even if I wasn't planning to attend the Worldcon, and I voted too. I still respect that, even if I no longer do it.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

They're thinking about it the wrong way.

Exactly! But I assume that they see no value in any of the other things that come with a WSFS membership (Worldcon publications and site selection voting rights), so $50 membership dues is way too expensive.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

It's not that the other rights of membership have financial value. (If you're going to carp at the "cost" of being a Hugo voter, site selection and publications aren't going to sweeten the deal much.) It's that you're joining an organization, a group of people dedicated to the appreciation and advancement of science fiction. And one of the things that organization happens to do is present awards. It's almost incidental ... after all, we haven't always done it. If you join the WSFS, you're showing your support for and commitment to SF - whether as an art form, as a demonstration of faith in the future, as a catalyst that brings agreeable people together, or whatever.

[danjite.livejournal.com]

Heck- one only need to pay money to vote for a Hugo,

Voting for the Oscars requires signing a contract of conduct, being a paid member and, of course, qualifying to be a member.