![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hugos 2022
Sep. 25th, 2022 09:09 pmThis year, when the Hugo nominee lists came out, I considered my life, and I considered my choices, and I noped out of reading the Hugo nominees or voting.
I did watch the awards ceremony, and read the nomination and voting stats, which this year included some retrospective numbers on nominations and voting, 2010 - 2022.
Looking at those numbers, there seem to have been two responses to the Puppies action of 2015: the "E Pluribus Hugo" weighting change to break bloc nominating / voting; and a surge of participants in Hugo nomination and voting, starting with 2015 voting. Combined, these seem to have accomplished the opposite of the Puppies' 2015 goals: instead of bringing back "the good ol' SF/F", the ballot has swung hard in the direction of LGBT and queer representation, increased racial diversity in the protagonists and nominees, and a flavor of speculative fiction that prioritizes emotions over narrative tension.
This is good, because the field is modernizing and diversifying, but I'm also seeing some speculative fiction community participants and groups who I think are being over-represented in nominations. Some are correcting this by declining nominations, giving others a spot in the limeligh; some are on the ballot more often than Lois Bujold in the '90s. It's the "popularity contest" aspect of the Hugos are coming out in ways I find displeasing. Nominations are based on what fandom participants love most, possibly without reflection on whether it's a representation of the best, or highest quality work, of the year. There are authors we love and who will never get a Hugo (ahem Mercedes Lackey at her peak, ahem) and that's okay! Sometimes the axis of evaluation is one those authors are not excellent on! Maybe we need a "it touched my feelings" award! ..that would be kind of awesome, actually. And maybe it would help with complaints that the Hugo tail is wagging the Worldcon dog. Huh.
The other weakness is the novella category, which has gotten strongly biased toward novellas that are free and freely accessible online (tordotcom). That's worked to the benefit of Tor authors, but I wonder which non-Tor authors are getting shut out of Best Novella nominations because the majority of nominees and voters never see their work.
My pettiest complaint is perpetual: the Best Series award is the worst. Authors should have to pick between Best Series and Best Whatever-Got-Series-On-the-Ballot, rather than double-dipping on nominations. But, since I sat out the nominations and voting this year, this is very much a "didn't participate, no one cares about your complaints" situation.
We'll see if I care enough to nominate and vote in 2023. Well, for something other than Nona the Ninth and The Golden Enclaves, which are making September a Good Month For Me As A Reader.
I did watch the awards ceremony, and read the nomination and voting stats, which this year included some retrospective numbers on nominations and voting, 2010 - 2022.
Looking at those numbers, there seem to have been two responses to the Puppies action of 2015: the "E Pluribus Hugo" weighting change to break bloc nominating / voting; and a surge of participants in Hugo nomination and voting, starting with 2015 voting. Combined, these seem to have accomplished the opposite of the Puppies' 2015 goals: instead of bringing back "the good ol' SF/F", the ballot has swung hard in the direction of LGBT and queer representation, increased racial diversity in the protagonists and nominees, and a flavor of speculative fiction that prioritizes emotions over narrative tension.
This is good, because the field is modernizing and diversifying, but I'm also seeing some speculative fiction community participants and groups who I think are being over-represented in nominations. Some are correcting this by declining nominations, giving others a spot in the limeligh; some are on the ballot more often than Lois Bujold in the '90s. It's the "popularity contest" aspect of the Hugos are coming out in ways I find displeasing. Nominations are based on what fandom participants love most, possibly without reflection on whether it's a representation of the best, or highest quality work, of the year. There are authors we love and who will never get a Hugo (ahem Mercedes Lackey at her peak, ahem) and that's okay! Sometimes the axis of evaluation is one those authors are not excellent on! Maybe we need a "it touched my feelings" award! ..that would be kind of awesome, actually. And maybe it would help with complaints that the Hugo tail is wagging the Worldcon dog. Huh.
The other weakness is the novella category, which has gotten strongly biased toward novellas that are free and freely accessible online (tordotcom). That's worked to the benefit of Tor authors, but I wonder which non-Tor authors are getting shut out of Best Novella nominations because the majority of nominees and voters never see their work.
My pettiest complaint is perpetual: the Best Series award is the worst. Authors should have to pick between Best Series and Best Whatever-Got-Series-On-the-Ballot, rather than double-dipping on nominations. But, since I sat out the nominations and voting this year, this is very much a "didn't participate, no one cares about your complaints" situation.
We'll see if I care enough to nominate and vote in 2023. Well, for something other than Nona the Ninth and The Golden Enclaves, which are making September a Good Month For Me As A Reader.