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

[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.