Interpreting Hugo Rules in a Vacuum

[kevin_standlee]

From Making Light, we have the story of a Wikipedia admin who is convinced that his out-of-left-field interpretation of the Hugo Award rules is more better than anyone who actually works in the field or writes those rules or maintains the official lists of winners.

Specifically, while technically a Hugo Award for one of the periodical categories is for the periodical work (Locus, Emerald City, Ansible, or in the case of Kathryn Cramer, The New York Review of Science Fiction) common usage (and common sense) refers to the editor or editors of that work as having been nominated or winning the Hugo Award. So, for instance, while the 2004 Hugo Award for Best Fanzine went to Emerald City, it's perfectly accurate and in keeping with accepted usage within the field to say that Cheryl Morgan won a Hugo Award.

Go read the discussion page on that article for this wiki-editor's somewhat askew opinion of how our awards work. I take it that by his definition, only the five "people" categories (Fan Writer, the two Artists, and the two Editors) are actually won by people. All of the rest are by works and the people responsible for those works aren't allowed to claim credit for them.

Edit, 23:10: Fixed the number and reference to "people" categories after johnnyeponymous pointed out my mistake.

Comments

[sethb.livejournal.com]

Who were the Hugo Administrators for the years in question? If a Hugo Administrator (whose pronouncements of the subject are determinative) says that Kathryn was nominated, then it would take a lot of something (what's the best word for a combination of overwhelming chutzpa and cluelessness?) to claim otherwise.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

This is amazing, because this guy says he has a right to stick his ignorant oar in on the grounds that "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

Anyone, it seems, except someone who KNOWS WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT.

I have waged a lonely, but quiet (maybe I should be louder) campaign for years to have the editors' names added to the Hugo listings for the old Best Professional Magazine Award. I've seen a photograph of John W. Campbell and Evelyn Gold (representing her famously non-travelling husband Horace) shaking hands while holding the Hugos jointly won by ASF and Galaxy in this category in 1953, and I have no doubt that the editor should get the credit.

And if the editors aren't listed, then Campbell won no Hugos. Which is ridiculous.

(The one catch is, who should get the credit if the editorship changed between the eligibility period and the award presentation?)

[(Anonymous)]

If the editorship changed between the eligibility period and the award presentation, I hope that the person who was editor during the eligibility period would get the credit and the award. After all, that's the person who actually did the work.

[johnnyeponymous.livejournal.com]

YOu forgot Best Fan Writer!
Chris

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

*headsmack* Of course I did! Fixed.

[smofbbs.livejournal.com]

When a nominated work with two co-editors or two co-authors wins the Hugo award, do both editors or authors receive a statue at the ceremony? If so, that would be definitive evidence that the award is to the people who win.

[timill]

There is no rule; AFAIK custom and practice has been, at least recently, to provide one rocket per person.

BTW, Kevin, your edit needs re-editing :-)

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Done. It was late and I was in a hurry. :)

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

As timill said, recent custom and practice has been the provide one trophy per co-editor/co-author. This was not always the case, I understand, but in the 1950s and 1960s, I take it that the production costs of the Hugo Award trophies were a significant proportion of the total cost of running the Worldcon. Nowadays, those costs are nearly lost in the rounding, representing less than 1% of the cost of running the convention; therefore, we're less reluctant to build a couple of extras.

[timill]

See http://www.timill.co.uk/smofs/ch08.htm for the Discon (1963) balance sheet.

The "Hugos" line item is roughly $300 of the total $4000 budget (exc banquet tickets).

[timill]

Having just seen MLO's message in another place, it occurs to me that the Constitution uses "nominee" interchangably for the work and the creator. This would seem to me to justify using "winner" similarly for both the work and the creator.

Interpreting Hugo Rules in a Vacuum

[cfmiller.livejournal.com]

This is standard practice for pretty much all awards of this type. Emmys and Oscars for, for example, Best Teleplay or Screenplay are in the name of the work with the writers name listed. The trophies go to the writers. The writers are referred to in print by national publications as being the winners. Novels win all sorts of awards, not just Hugos. The authors are thereafter referred to as [name of award]-winning authors. The Wiki editor has a case of literal-itis with no real-world experience to back him up. And for our Wiki friend who insists on information only from valid sources, I say this as someone who has been a) Chairman of a Worldcon, b) A member of multiple Hugo Award Subcommittees, and c) A Judge for the Emmy Awards.

Craig.

[chocolatescifi.livejournal.com]

Am I the only one who is thinking that "SWATJester" would be better named as "SWATJackass"?

[buddykat.livejournal.com]

No, you aren't. What I especially like is how he hasn't bothered to respond to any of Kevin's comments in the discussion thread. Granted, he hasn't commented in the thread at all since Kevin posted his comments, but given how quickly he was responding to the other comments, I'm guessing that he's likely seen Kevin's comments.

[chocolatescifi.livejournal.com]

Well, if he has any sense, he has realized that Kevin knows more about the Hugos than he could ever possibly hope to know.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I doubt that matters much to him, given that, as far as I can tell, he considers ignorance of a subject an asset, not a liability.