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 10 2013, 21:05:27 UTC 3 years ago
I constantly see on email lists "Go to URL [URL] and vote for my cover/my book!" for the promo sites and blogs and websites. Some even have directions on Hogu-type voting early and often--generally that is not from writers, but from fans enthusiastic about books by their favorite writers--about how frequently one can log in and vote! Some offer "premiums" to people who have gone and voted, presumably for them, in the competitions for who gets the most votes and gets the promotion thereby..
There is nothing external stopping anyone from setting up their own awards with their own particular categories and rules for entry. If someone dislikes how much it costs to join a Worldcon as a supporting member, which membership includes nomination and voting rights for Hugos, publications, rights for voting for the Worldcon two years in the future, and -supporting- the Worldcon which is expensive to put on and operate and organize, they can organize their own SF/F awards/organization set up for making awards. Again, lots of people have done exactly that.
The Hugos didn't come into permanent existence until rather more than a decade after the establishment of the Worldcon--that is, the Worlcon existed for years before it started awarding Hugos. The Worldcon did not come into existence as a consequence of there being Hugo Awards, the Hugos exist because the Worldcon members decided there should be awards, given out by the Worldcon, as community awards. Opening up the Hugos up to a fee level where generally it's noise level for the majority (yes, there are people who are in red ink territory. At the moment, $40 - $50 in the USA is the about the price of filling a car with a tank of gasoline) means that 'stake" in the outcome likely will be missing--anyone can join, and what criteria other than "I want my favorites to win and who cares about the Worldcon community?. There have been outright cases of fraud, even, in the nomination phase, even back before the Internet, when people had to actually mail in checks for membership, and when the price of a supporting membership was more than the cost of a tank of gasoline.
August 11 2013, 16:14:23 UTC 3 years ago
This is, unfortunately, the unsquarable-circle when dealing with access for people with less financial means. If you lower the price enough to ensure the poorest people have access, it becomes so low that large numbers of more (financially) average people will see the price is trivial and will act accordingly. And I do think the price is meaningful - if you send a message that something has little value, people will treat the thing that way.
I believe that about $25 is the lowest we can/should go on voting rights before they get devalued.