I Guess I'm One of Them

[kevin_standlee]

As we approach Worldcon, it's once again time for Silly Season with the Hugo Awards, where people trot out the same old tired lines (and lies) about how the Awards actually work. Cheryl has an excellent report on one such story, particularly the comments that perpetuate the assumption that there really is a shadowy group of Secret Masters who Control The Hugos and who plot to prevent Real Fans (which is to say include "anyone who thinks like me" and exclude everyone else) from participating. Like Cheryl, I'm insulted by people who basically say that everything she, I, John Scalzi, and all of the other people who have been working to improve the visibility and viability of the Hugos is rubbish and of course the Awards are terrible because they don't reflect their personal interests.

Well, guess what? I'm one of Them. I'm one of those people who works behind the scenes with the Hugo Awards, chairing the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee, staying heavily involved in WSFS business, and so forth. I'm pretty much Mr. Insider. But you'll probably be surprised to find that the Hugo Awards don't always reflect my tastes. Doubtless this would really surprise the Conspiracy Theorists, who would, if they had the Power that they imagine people like I have, ignore those stupid voters and give the Awards to the Right People. On the other hand, I'd rather have the awards reflect the voters' tastes and have the process be as open and transparent as possible.

Complaining that the voters have bad taste is one thing. Saying that the awards are illegitimate because Your Favorite Work didn't win or get nominated is just stupid. Want to make a difference? Get involved yourself. Don't let "Them" do it.

Note that the main article to which Cheryl is reacting does criticize the voters. But the author carefully states that he doesn't have voting rights. (He puts it in such a way that implies that someone is preventing him from having those rights, rather than him simply being unwilling to buy a WSFS membership.) I would, however, ask the author of that article "Why aren't you a voter? It's not hard. Why aren't you out there telling people what works you think should be nominated before the voting deadline instead of complaining about the choices after.

But if you're happier just sitting back and whinging, don't expect to be taken seriously. Remember, the only Secret of the Secret Masters of Fandom is that there isn't anything Secret about them.

Comments

About the complainers

[(Anonymous)]

It is not just the Hugo Award. I am involved with a different SF award (the Prometheus Award) and we get similar complaint usually just after the winning novel is announced. And usually the person doing the complaining is not a member of the organization and has not put any effort into the process. As you mention there are many people doing a lot of work often behind the scenes to keep any award program running and I think that you and the others involved with the Hugos deserve praise not vilification.

What I have done when someone complains that they think that a secret group is manipulating the results is to tell them to go start their own award. I have not problem with someone else starting another award. Usually they wilt away. Although one person a few years back blustered that he had contacts and would start a new award; then silence; all bluster but no action.

So my suggestion is tell the complainers to start their own award. Hopefully after they see how much effort is involved that they will stop complaining so much.

Fred Moulton

Re: About the complainers

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Quite true. But of course few if any of them could actually be troubled to do anything like that. It would require work. It's so much easier to carp about other people's work than to actually do anything yourself. And they know that any system that doesn't reward their personal favorites is obviously a flawed process.

This isn't limited to Fandom. Just look at our election system, where we have people who lose the election, but are so convinced that they cannot be wrong that it must be a failure of process or their opponent was technically ineligible (look at the people still claiming Obama isn't a native-born American) or there were technical flaws in the balloting -- anything other than admit that Sometimes You Lose.

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

Well, guess what? I'm one of Them.

I've long been convinced that the "secret" in SMOF meant that if we knew who was *really* behind things, they weren't. Clearly, there is a group of dark, shifty characters who pre-print the Hugo Award plaques before the nomination ballots go out.

Time to face up to it, Kevin: There is a cabal, and they just haven't invited us to join.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

What? They haven't? But I chaired a Worldcon and did all of that other stuff. You mean I've been a dupe of the Really Secret Masters of Fandom all along? Say it ain't so, Aunt Deb!

[cries, then craws under bed]

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

Oh, don't get that upset. They haven't invited me to join, either.

Do realize that if they really hated us, they'd make us run Childcare.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

*blanches* Oh, my, you're right.

The Hugo Myth

[dinogrl.livejournal.com]

I say let's get Mythbusters to deal with it!
Seriously!

Re: The Hugo Myth

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Considering that they've been hanging around with Neil Gaiman this week, maybe we could figure out an angle with them. :)

Re: The Hugo Myth

[bovil.livejournal.com]

It would probably have to involve launching Hugo rockets and blowing up losing nominees...

Re: The Hugo Myth

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

*laughter* You're probably right.

Launching an actual Hugo rocket would be difficult -- they are heavy, being cast from zinc and all. I'm also not sure just how well they'd fly even if you did hollow one out and put a good-sized rocket engine in them.

Re: The Hugo Myth

[bovil.livejournal.com]

<adam-savage>Now that's Mythbuster thinking!</adam-savage>

[nojay.livejournal.com]

You may be over-reacting, at least in this case.

The article in question seemed to be putting forward the case that the Hugo Awards don't choose good-quality works very often because they are (in effect) a popularity contest with a lot of low-information voters involved. There is no indication the article's writer was theorising the existence of a Shadowy Cabal that decides who will be nominated and who will win the Hugo in a particular year. I know this has happened before and I can well understand your reaction to such claims but I do not think it applies here.

If anything the article seems to be supportive of Secret Cabals, suggesting that juried awards (the Clarkes etc.) select better quality works than the Worldcon members do as the juries are more expert and more focussed in their deliberations. The selection of said juries is done in the shadows and smoke-filled rooms with no public accountability or input unlike the open accessibility to a Hugo ballot for all.

The Hugos are a popularity contest, a Delphic election similar to the Oscars where large numbers of people vote on what they like. A juried award is an academic operation more focussed on intrinsic quality; award jury members often come forward and explain publicly afterwards why they chose a particular work, something that is not applicable to the shotgun Hugos.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

There is no indication the article's writer was theorising the existence of a Shadowy Cabal...

No, but that assumption was there in some of the comments, where the implication was that the Administrators actually control the content of the Awards, not just the counting of them.

If anything the article seems to be supportive of Secret Cabals, suggesting that juried awards (the Clarkes etc.) select better quality works...

Unless they don't pick works the writer likes, in which case they are Terribly Flawed.

Actually, I have no objection to juried awards either. What annoys me is people saying, in effect, "You should change your prestigious award that you've spent decades developing into something that picks my favored works, so that I can reap the benefit of your accumulated goodwill instead of my going out and working to develop some other award."

[nojay.livejournal.com]

Oh, I've had an argument with someone on Usenet who faulted the Hugo award system because his favoured auteur didn't win the rocket he so obviously deserved for being so Wonderful because too many ignorant and uncaring peasants voted for the wrong guy. I'm pretty sure that in that particular case a jury would not have gone the way the Hugo voters did and his favoured nominee might well have gained the rocket he was so unjustly denied. Tough tits. I do admit I enjoyed tweaking my disputant's nose a little -- actually a lot.

[ceemage.livejournal.com]

What's interesting is the implicit (or sometimes explicit) assumption in these sorts of debates that, if there were more Hugo voters, the kind of authors that the person making the criticism thinks ought to be winning would be more likely to do so. Surely this is a 50:50 bet at best? If the sole purpose of the Hugos is to maximise the chance of your personal favourite winning, in theory the optimum strategy would be to attempt to put everybody else off voting...

(I don't really need to add a smiley at the end of this, do I?)

[lesliet-ma.livejournal.com]

I don't really have much to say about the substance of either the complaint or Cheryl's response. But I do have to say I was a little shocked by the angry and belittling tone of one of Cheryl's replies in the comments section. When acting even the slightest bit as a representative of the Worldcon and Hugo administration, I think we should try to maintain a more even tone when responding to criticisms, even when we think the criticisms are ill-founded. Just my two cents.

[tanyad.livejournal.com]

Hi there,

I popped over after reading Scalzi's blog and the offending article in question. It really sounds like all this guy wants to do is whine about the Hugo list not matching his tastes, and for good measure call out Scalzi's work in particular.

It came across like he has a beef with particular authors getting recognition than any kind of credible and well thought out criticism of the Hugos. I say this as someone new to the whole Hugos and Worldcon process but that's my two cents.

Great commentary over there by the way.