annoyedThe Hugo Awards are given annually at the World Science Fiction Convention, which moves around the world (although statistically, it mostly moves around North America, and it's always exciting when it actually goes somewhere else) according to the votes of the membership. These awards represent the best of the science fiction and fantasy world, or at least the best things that a) attract the right kind of attention ("Hugo bait"), b) get enough votes to be nominated, and c) get enough votes to win. (Sometimes I wish we called the award "So You Think You Can SF/F," said "most popular," and let Cat Deeley host the award show.) Items b) and c) are not always the same thing, because of the migratory nature of Worldcon; a book that is vastly popular with the residents of San Francisco, California, may not win when it's voted on in Volgograd, Russia, even though it made the ballot.
The Hugos are both nominated for and voted on by the members of the World Science Fiction Convention, attending or supporting (this is an important distinction, and we'll be coming back to it). This means that if, say, you can't fly to Russia, but you really want to have a say in the Hugos, you can buy a Supporting Membership for a reduced rate, and still cast your ballot into the uncaring wind. Historically over the last ten years, Supporting Memberships have generally been between $40 and $60, and this revenue is important to the operation of the Worldcon. But it's still a lot of money. I know there were years when I did not pay for voting rights, because I couldn't afford it. There have been some suggestions in recent years that we institute a "Voting Membership" tier, where you pay less, don't get any of the physical perks (like the program book), but do get voting rights.
There are some people who really don't like that idea. Follow the link to see Cheryl Morgan's beautiful deconstruction of the proposal to forbid Voting Memberships from ever becoming a thing, but here is the bit that spoke most honestly to me:
"Without cheaper supporting memberships, it might seem that Hugo voting cannot get any cheaper, but that’s not the case. There is nothing in the WSFS Constitution that would prevent a Worldcon from adopting a new class of membership: a Voting Membership. It would carry with it no rights other than voting in the Hugos, and would therefore be pure profit for the Worldcon. If it was priced suitably, it could result in a significant additional source of income, as well as increasing participation in Hugo voting.
The purpose of this new motion is to prevent Worldcons from ever creating this sort of membership.
"That is, its purpose is to prevent the 'Wrong Sort of Fan' from participating in the Hugos: young people, poor people, people from countries where $60 is a huge amount of money, and so on.
"The commentary on the motion is a piece of ridiculous sophistry. A membership is a membership. There is no reason why creating a new type of membership would be a 'distortion,' unless you have the sort of mindset that holds that allowing people who are poorer than you to vote is a 'distortion.'
This motion is an attempt by people who already have voting privileges to prevent those privileges from being extended to others."
But that's not all the fun that's happening right now. There is also a motion to do away with the Best Fanzine, Best Fan Writer, and Best Fan Artist categories. John Scalzi has beaten this suggestion with a stick to see what would fall out; what fell out was a bunch of wasps. Because look.
I started organizing conventions when I was fourteen. I have worked every level, from grunt to chairperson. I have stayed awake for three days solid to help people have a good time. I have elevated masochism to an art form, and I enjoyed it, because I am a fan. Fans are the lifeblood of this community, and one of the things I have always loved and respected about the Hugos is the way that they recognize people for their fannish accomplishments. Yes, they're all creative fannish accomplishments, because the Hugos are a creative award, but they are still being held up with the greats of our genre, as greats of our genre, for being fans. If that is not one of the most devastatingly inspiring notions ever, I don't know what is.
Jim Hines winning Best Fan Writer last year did not in any way reduce the honor of Betsy Wolheim winning for Best Editor (Long Form). If anything, it elevated them both, because here is our industry saying "we need you both to survive." Mark Oshiro's nomination for Best Fan Writer this year did not in any way reduce the honor of my being nominated in several professional writing categories—and whether we win or lose, we will always have shared a ballot, we will always have this in common. We are of the same community. We elevate each other.
Please, if you are attending this year's Worldcon in San Antonio, Texas, join me and others at the WSFS Business Meeting to help us vote these measures down. The first will be Friday morning at 10am.
We have the power to keep this from happening. It's not the power of Grayskull, but I still think it's pretty damn neat.
Let's keep these awards for everybody.
ETA: Here's a great historical perspective on the "Fan Hugo" argument, from Chuq Von Rospach.
August 9 2013, 21:04:39 UTC 3 years ago
The "price of voting" motion is more complex (declaration of interest: I am a seconder of the motion). I think it's important to recognize some deeper questions here: IMO a lot of people are making some significant assumptions in jumping straight to an advocation of low-priced "Hugo rights" memberships. Some quick thought experiments help to bring these assumptions into the open where they can be properly debated. But before I start - I see a lot of quoting of the LoneStarCon 3 $60 supporting rate. This is actually anomalously high. The average is around $50, and for Loncon 3, it's $40. Just something to bear in mind when deciding what "fair value" would/should be here.
REDUCING THE COST OF PARTICIPATION
I see many posts arguing that we should lower the cost of participation to raise inclusiveness. Let's take that to a logical conclusion. A pure Hugo rights membership could be FREE if administered properly.
Would this be a good thing? If $40 is better than $60, and the aim is to maximize the interest / participation in the awards, why not $20, $10, or ZERO. I would argue that if we really want to minimize the barrier, we should remove it. In fact I would argue that anyone who argues for a much lower rate to encourage participation and would not want a zero cost rate if it was possible, is being somewhat inconsistent.
Which means the Hugo Awards would no longer be the awards given by Worldcon members but an award administered by Worldcon on behalf of the whole SF community - something closer to the Locus Awards, say. Which leads to ....
WHO OWNS THE HUGOS?
The Hugos originated as awards given by the Worldcon member - a group coming from a particular heritage, which has its core built around Worldcon attendance. Worldcon membership evolves (slowly, but it evolves) and so do the Hugos. Anyone can pay the fee, join the convention and participate - but the current model and the way it is promoted provides a degree of resistance which tends to keep the Hugos oriented towards the will of Worldcon members. For me the fundamental questions here are (1) should the Hugos continue to be the "Worldcon members awards" or have they outgrown the Worldcon and (2) do the members of the Worldcon have the right to say "no, these are our awards - anyone can participate, but it's our right to set the (reasonable) terms." After all, I'm not a writer, so I can't vote on the Nebulas - should I have the right to demand a say in those?
My personal take on this is that I do feel the Hugos are given by the members of Worldcon; and we make it easy for anyone to participate through supporting memberships. Those memberships provide publications, contact with the convention, the right to vote on the future Worldcon sites, as well as the Hugo voting rights and Hugo Packet.
I welcome anyone who wants to "join the family" and be a part of Worldcon - and I've actively promoted the constitutional changes which enabled London to take the Supporting membership cost back to $40. But I feel that the Hugos do belong to Worldcon and it's reasonable that we ask people to invest a little in that (intellectually and emotionally, rather than financially!) when they participate. I'm concerned at a line of argument that confliates a simple recognition that these are awards selected and awarded by the Worldcon members, with an attempt to exclude. I simply see that recognition as respecting the origin and history of the awards. It may be that the Hugos could become an independently managed genre award, no longer connected to Worldcon, with massive online participation and 10000s of votes cast per year - but if that is what we want let's be clear that (a) that's not really the Hugos any more and (b) I don't think one can demand from the outside that the Worldcon membership has some obligation to go down that route, or to cast a resistance to that direction as elitist or excluding.
Colin Harris
August 9 2013, 21:42:33 UTC 3 years ago
"intellectually and emotionally, rather than financially" is what I was thinking. But how would you measure that?
August 9 2013, 21:57:11 UTC 3 years ago
But, as Colin notes, asking that someone invest to the extent that they pay the basic "supporting" membership rate is not out of line. The "supporting" memberships were designed to let someone who could not attend continue to be part of the Worldcon community, by reading the publications, participating in the Hugos, and so on. They continue to do that.
August 9 2013, 22:00:22 UTC 3 years ago
August 9 2013, 23:07:10 UTC 3 years ago
August 10 2013, 07:31:53 UTC 3 years ago
August 10 2013, 12:04:34 UTC 3 years ago Edited: August 10 2013, 12:10:26 UTC
Your words here: "while I am sure and regret that some people are put off by the price..."
Someone saying "well, it's food or a supporting WorldCon membership" isn't being "put off by the price." Being "put off by the price" is someone saying, "$50 for a supporting membership? And I don't even get to attend the con? Screw that; I'll go to my local con that costs $40 for the whole weekend."
I don't take kindly to your tone argument up there, either.
ETA: Crap, I meant to address your "it includes $150+ of books etc" point by quoting from
And there is absolutely no guarantee that a Hugo Voter Packet will always be there. It takes a whole lot of work by every Worldcon to organize it, and it requires the goodwill of the publishers, authors, artists, and other rights-holders to provide it. They don't have to do it.
So you can't say that a $50 supporting membership will always be a bargain because of the voter packet.
August 10 2013, 15:47:00 UTC 3 years ago
I like the idea of the voter packet, definitely; it is a convenient way to have everything in one place for people who are planning to read it in that format, or for people who have a hard time laying hands on some types of entries. But I think it is a bit of a stretch to paint it as always a bargain.
And I probably fall into the category of someone who finds the price "off-putting;" I tend to swallow hard when I shell out that kind of money, but I *can* do it, depending on what else I'm willing to give up. But there are people a damn sight poorer than I am--for whom it is not off-putting but genuinely out of reach, and leaving the option open to welcome them to the family strikes me as just a good idea.
I mean the suggestion here is not even "let's have a cheaper-than-supporting membership that allows voting" it's just "let's not actually *forbid* doing it later if we decide that is a good idea."
August 10 2013, 20:43:14 UTC 3 years ago
I have not supported the BM motion because I want a higher priced supporting membership, it's because I don't want to start pulling apart the interconnected things that make up Worldcon. I think the increasing popularity of the Hugos is a very good thing but it IS undoubtedly creating a tension - and I believe that it's THAT tension that underlies some of this discussion.
Higher up the thread,
The Hugos were created as the awards given by people who attended the physical Worldcon event. We had supporting memberships so people who couldn't attend this year could still get the pubs and be part of that community.
I see people who don't really give a damn about Worldcon - perhaps have never attended, and don't want to - but who have learned about the Hugos as the field's top award, wanting to take part just in that vote. If we opened up that much I really don't think it would be the award given by Worldcon any more.
As I say, if that's the debate we want to have, let's have it openly and honestly. But let's not try and cast that discussion as the evil SMOFS and Worldcon runners pricing things up to stop participation. That is really not the issue here.
August 10 2013, 23:02:43 UTC 3 years ago
And a $60 supporting membership is anomalous now but I wonder whether it will still be anomalous in four years or if it will seem cheap because now the supporting memberships are $75. In my experience prices of these things go up. Prices going down would be wonderful--and I'll be very happy if it happens. But I hesitate to depend on it.
I agree that one solution might be to either formally detach the Hugos from Worldcon, or to create a different set of awards, intended to do exactly what the Hugos do, except voted on by a more inclusive body of science fiction fans. The problem I see with the former proposal is that Worldcon created the Hugos, may not want to give them up, and may have a point about that. But if they're okay with it, great. The problem I see with the latter proposal is the Hugo name is now an advertising benefit, in a way that "The Inclusive Fantasy & SciFi Awards" (we could call them "The Ifs") won't be for a while. But maybe we can overcome that.
I won't be going to WorldCon (my god; the membership alone is nearly one whole normal con worth of expenditure and then a week in a hotel room on top of that; I could go, if I didn't go to *any* other con this year, but I don't think I want to give them all up) so I won't have a voice in this decision. But if I did, I would still start by voting against the proposal to forbid, so as to keep the options open while we explore these other possibilites; they seem good now, but finding out if they would work will probably take some time, and I wouldn't want to put all our eggs in one basket only to discover it wasn't a basket; just a basket shaped clump of reeds.
August 11 2013, 04:49:15 UTC 3 years ago
August 11 2013, 11:59:03 UTC 3 years ago
August 11 2013, 04:52:24 UTC 3 years ago
That may sound flippant, but it's not intended to be. Frankly, setting up awards is Hard Work. The Hugos don't happen without a whole lot of work and a fair bit (but not a truly vast amount, thanks to all of the unpaid volunteer labor) of money, and WSFS has spent over 60 years "building up its brand," to use marketing-speak. As a director of the SF & F Translation Awards, founded several years ago, I'm painfully aware of the work that goes into starting new awards and making them successful.
August 11 2013, 11:57:17 UTC 3 years ago
It does mean that "we could detach the Hugos from WorldCon" is not a serious argument in favor of forbidding cheaper Hugos-only memberships, though.
I can well believe that starting new awards, continuing to administer them, and getting them into the public eye to be taken seriously is a lot of work, and, for that matter, probably doesn't always pan out. Which means "we could set up a separate, more inclusive, Hugo-like award" is not actually a given either.
August 11 2013, 09:11:14 UTC 3 years ago
Your third para hits to the heart of the point I've been trying to get across, and I thank you for that. I see a lot of hostility directed at Worldcon over this pricing question and I really think it starts from people having different perspectives. I believe that many people believe the Hugos are the awards for the community as a whole, and therefore that Worldcon / WSFS is OBLIGATED to make them as universally accessible as possible, and that if the Worldcon runners are not doing so, then they are to be shunned and attacked for pricing people out, etc.
But these are NOT the People's Choice Awards. They were created to be given by the people who attended Worldcon - that's a very specific group. You say it's a problem that "Worldcon may not want to give them up" and you're right - and part of my answer (and this is not meant to be rude or confrontational) is "and why should they?".
The analogy here is that we all line up and picket the Kodak Theatre because AMPAS doesn't let us all vote in the Oscars, or SFWA because we don't get to vote in the Nebulas. I think that it's not Worldcon's FAULT that the Hugos have wide popularity and it doesn't make the Worldcon attending membership bad people that they feel they want the awards to continue to be THEIR awards.
I don't object to people making a case for turning the Hugos into the People's Choice Awards, but I am very unhappy when people paint the Worldcon runners (including myself) as elitist/excluding/unpleasant/a secret cabal, because I think that we have two perspectives here and BOTH are legitimate.
I think it would help if both sides here tried to walk a mile in the others' shoes here. I certainly have no problem understanding the case for broader participation and making this a true community award - I would hope that the people who start from that position could try and understand why the people who created the awards feel some ownership and would like to feel that these will continue be THEIR awards representing the work that THEY want to recognize.
Simple stats: go back 10 years and I estimate that over 80% of final ballot votes would be from attending members. Today I think it's about 60%. Open the awards up widely (let's assume a $10 voting fee, and we get 10,000 votes from the community) and it might be 10%.... I am not clear why people feel Worldcon is OBLIGATED to just "hand over the keys to the kingdom" by doing this.
As you say, there's nothing to stop people creating a new People's Choice Awards. Of course they won't have prestige immediately - it's taken the Hugos 60 years to get here. But I'm increasingly frustrated that people seem to be trying to make out that a failure to the Hugos over means that the Worldcon people must be implicitly bad / wrongly motivated.
August 11 2013, 12:19:05 UTC 3 years ago
Seanan is going to WorldCon. She's a member of the WorldCon community and she has every right not just to vote on this issue but to address fellow WorldCon attendees regarding what she sees as good and bad points of the proposal. Many of us are not going to WorldCon but we have a right to make our opinions known too.
For instance if I hadn't voiced my opinion on the issue "detach the Hugos from WorldCon" might have continued to look like a viable strategy, possibly influencing some people's votes on the matter. It turns out on closer examination to be very unlikely, and understandably so, so it's good that non-WorldCon members weighed in on this. This refinement of possible alternatives, writ large, is what is going on as the larger F&SF fan community discusses this issue.
Of course you have the right to make your opinions known too--it's just that "please stop mentioning that the price of supporting memberships makes it differentially hard for poorer fans to vote; we're not doing it on purpose" may not get a whole lot of traction here. I accept on faith that you're not doing it on purpose, if that helps. It's still an effect of the policy--and WorldCon members can and should consider it while voting on future policy.
August 11 2013, 14:51:09 UTC 3 years ago
1 - I've seen the case of people who only have $50/week for food being quoted as a sample of people we need to enfranchise? What price do you think a Hugo-only membership should have to satisfy Cheryl, Seanan, yourself and others who feel a Supporting membership is too expensive? Since Supporting for 2014 and 2015 is $40, it seems to be it must be materially less? Perhaps $20, or is lower needed? (If I was really living on the breadline, even $20 would be a lot).
2 - Let's assume we have these new memberships at $10/15/20. Certainly more people will register to vote so we have some extra income. But today we have up to 1000 people joining as Supporters to vote each year, who CAN afford it. Many of them may only join because of the Hugos (there's a good evidence that at least 500 do, probably more). And they would opt for the cheaper membership when it becomes available.
3 - So now you have 500 people who today are paying $40 who in future might only pay $20. So you've now got to find 500 new people who start voting at $20 just to break even on the change. Cheryl's original post claimed that we're not only pricing people out but missing out on a large income stream - I am not convinced. How sure are you that there would be more new voters at $20 than there are existing voters who would take the cheaper option?
4 - Now, there is an additional factor because supporters today get publications, and I hear people pointing out that the new Hugo membership might be electronic publications only. But most of the late-joining Supporters already opt for electronic publications, so you're only really going to save the cost of the print & mail of the Souvenir Book.
5 - In overseas Worldcons thing get even more complicated. In the UK, you are allowed a more favorable VAT (sales tax) treatment of memberships that have physical value delivered in return (product rather than service). So if you do only electronic publications, you end up about 20% worse off on each supporting / Hugo membership as it becomes taxable.
6 - And beyond all of this, as Seanan acknowledged, the Supporting membership has always been a way for people to support the convention financially (that was partly how they originated). Undercut that and the budget becomes more difficult generally.
As I've said a number of times I am very open to having an honest conversation about all of this. But I'd like to see the people throwing the brickbats coming up with a proposal that lets go of the emotion. It's always very easy to criticize the existing approach - the challenge is to put yourself in the shoes of the convention chair and treasurer and come up with something that works.
August 11 2013, 14:56:38 UTC 3 years ago
August 11 2013, 16:03:37 UTC 3 years ago
August 11 2013, 14:59:47 UTC 3 years ago
Said "do not kill this conversation until the honest conversation has been fully had."
August 11 2013, 16:06:29 UTC 3 years ago
"here is the bit that spoke most honestly to me...." then quoted a part of Cheryl's blog which is explicitly about keeping open the option for cheaper memberships.
If you believe that the existing Supporting membership arrangement is appropriate, then surely you would not feel there is a need to introduce lower cost vote-only memberships as well?
August 11 2013, 18:42:17 UTC 3 years ago
The purpose of this new motion is to prevent Worldcons from ever creating this sort of membership.
This is what I object to. This is what kills the conversation.
(As it looks like you have not read further in my journal, which is totally your right and prerogative and go team, I have also said that I am done answering comments, as I need to get work done this weekend. So yes, good conversation, but please read my full position before assuming I meant one specific thing. Apart from "I dislike changing the constitution without damn good reason, and I do not see that damn good reason.")
August 11 2013, 20:20:57 UTC 3 years ago
You will shortly see that I've withdrawn from seconding the "No Cheap Voting" motion, based on the points I've seen online and also the discussions on the SMOFS list, and I am putting forward an alternative motion which I believe addressed my personal concerns better while hopefully also being more acceptable to people such as yourself.
My own preference - not covered in my motion - is that we look at keeping the supporting membership costs down, enabling people to access the Hugos AND other WSFS & Worldcon activities without the need for people to feel a separate cheaper tier is required.
Apologies again for not spotting your other post.