![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Hugo Nominees: Related Works
This year, Related Works has five nominees focused on one person or their body of work, and one nomination which is a speech that reflects back on Hugo / Worldcon fandom.
How does a voter aim for impartiality, giving all works a fair shot based on their own merits, when five have clear similarities and then there's the one outlier?
Well, this year, I'm going to vote with my feelings and biases.
I am voting Becoming Superman number one because I have been stanning for JMS since 1996. Whenever I hear about the latest scandal in SF/F circles, I wonder if this is going to be the day I learn something I didn't want to know about one of my teenage idols. So far it's not, and when that happens, I'm going to have to grapple with that. But here and today, I am giving the nod to the work which I started reading, thinkg, I'll just read a chapter or two so I can say I didn't vote just on rep, and looked up twelve chapters later.
Dethroning the person who created the best escape from the toughest, most miserable years of my teens is the default in this category. I wrote that before I opened Becoming Superman, and twelve chapters later, I actually find myself asking, "is this really how you honor that legacy?" Should I not give the nod to Ng, for pointing out the flaws in our community? Should it not go to Jones, for ensuring Russ continues to be part of the fabric of sf/f fandom? Should it not go to O'Meara, for reviving awareness of those women men actively don't see... but are essential to sf/f, or the Le Guin documentary team, for championing the legacy of one of our greats? What about Mendlesohn's smashing work on Heinlein? ("Do we need more words about Heinlein?" I can hear from the audience. When they're words like this, I say yes!)
In a year when I am looking and the novels and novellas with real questions about whether we've learned anything about single-author voting blocs, I am both disappointed the Related Works are not more diverse in media and depth, and glad to absorb the materials provided in the Hugo packet.
Jeanette Ng Campbell Acceptance Speech: The Hugo packet includes what I assume are the notes she wrote for her speech but I think watching a recording of the speech gives a much better understanding about what nominators might have been thinking. In 2'04", the video captures the emotions the speech displays: a stunned joy and a huge surge feeling about then-current events in Ng's home city of Hong Kong; scathing condemnation of fascism; and look! A hat! A wonderful hat that does a cool thing!
This captures a moment in Worldcon culture in two minutes and four seconds. Does it deserve a Hugo? I don't think it does! This year's Related Works nominees include efforts that were months or years in the making. To see those set aside for a wonderful, moving gig put together in less than five minutes feels off-center. But! It is an important historic moment.
I don't know that it is what I'd be thrilled to see getting the award nod, but if I ask myself, well, if Jo Walton were reviewing this year 20 years down the road, what would be the remarks? I think it would be a miss to give it the award and also a miss to leave it off the ballot. So there.
Joanna Russ (Gwyneth Paltrow): Super dry academic material on a great of the New Wave. I am split: how can I give Becoming Superman my vote, but turn around and say "this single-author academic work is too dry, too narrow-focused, to be the best thing that came out in 2019 related to the field of SF/F?" I can honestly question, how does this impact our understanding of the field? Does it preserve information that would be lost? Does it re-interpret what is known?
The Lady from the Black Lagoon: Hollywood Monsters and the Lost Legacy of Milicent Patrick, Mallory O’Meara: the excerpt, from the intro, is very flavored in pop culture, which is not bad, but makes me think the impact is more in the sum of works like this, rather than this work in particular. I asked, "does it preserve information that would be lost?" and yes, this one does. It's got a narrow focus again, which knocks it down my standings.
The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein, Farah Mendlesohn: I didn't finish the excerpt, but it's academic and readable! There are disclaimers about evaluating the historic impact of Heinlein's work, rather than the literary quality, and I am very glad this distinction was made up front.
Worlds of Ursula K. Le Guin, Arwen Curry & etc: Another area where my bias is significant and evident. It's Le Guin, who is a formative influence! On the other hand, we've, um, given her a lot of accolades. But it's a pleasant documentary, and I would have no shame in pushing it on sundry friends and acquaintences.
How does a voter aim for impartiality, giving all works a fair shot based on their own merits, when five have clear similarities and then there's the one outlier?
Well, this year, I'm going to vote with my feelings and biases.
I am voting Becoming Superman number one because I have been stanning for JMS since 1996. Whenever I hear about the latest scandal in SF/F circles, I wonder if this is going to be the day I learn something I didn't want to know about one of my teenage idols. So far it's not, and when that happens, I'm going to have to grapple with that. But here and today, I am giving the nod to the work which I started reading, thinkg, I'll just read a chapter or two so I can say I didn't vote just on rep, and looked up twelve chapters later.
Dethroning the person who created the best escape from the toughest, most miserable years of my teens is the default in this category. I wrote that before I opened Becoming Superman, and twelve chapters later, I actually find myself asking, "is this really how you honor that legacy?" Should I not give the nod to Ng, for pointing out the flaws in our community? Should it not go to Jones, for ensuring Russ continues to be part of the fabric of sf/f fandom? Should it not go to O'Meara, for reviving awareness of those women men actively don't see... but are essential to sf/f, or the Le Guin documentary team, for championing the legacy of one of our greats? What about Mendlesohn's smashing work on Heinlein? ("Do we need more words about Heinlein?" I can hear from the audience. When they're words like this, I say yes!)
In a year when I am looking and the novels and novellas with real questions about whether we've learned anything about single-author voting blocs, I am both disappointed the Related Works are not more diverse in media and depth, and glad to absorb the materials provided in the Hugo packet.
Jeanette Ng Campbell Acceptance Speech: The Hugo packet includes what I assume are the notes she wrote for her speech but I think watching a recording of the speech gives a much better understanding about what nominators might have been thinking. In 2'04", the video captures the emotions the speech displays: a stunned joy and a huge surge feeling about then-current events in Ng's home city of Hong Kong; scathing condemnation of fascism; and look! A hat! A wonderful hat that does a cool thing!
This captures a moment in Worldcon culture in two minutes and four seconds. Does it deserve a Hugo? I don't think it does! This year's Related Works nominees include efforts that were months or years in the making. To see those set aside for a wonderful, moving gig put together in less than five minutes feels off-center. But! It is an important historic moment.
I don't know that it is what I'd be thrilled to see getting the award nod, but if I ask myself, well, if Jo Walton were reviewing this year 20 years down the road, what would be the remarks? I think it would be a miss to give it the award and also a miss to leave it off the ballot. So there.
Joanna Russ (Gwyneth Paltrow): Super dry academic material on a great of the New Wave. I am split: how can I give Becoming Superman my vote, but turn around and say "this single-author academic work is too dry, too narrow-focused, to be the best thing that came out in 2019 related to the field of SF/F?" I can honestly question, how does this impact our understanding of the field? Does it preserve information that would be lost? Does it re-interpret what is known?
The Lady from the Black Lagoon: Hollywood Monsters and the Lost Legacy of Milicent Patrick, Mallory O’Meara: the excerpt, from the intro, is very flavored in pop culture, which is not bad, but makes me think the impact is more in the sum of works like this, rather than this work in particular. I asked, "does it preserve information that would be lost?" and yes, this one does. It's got a narrow focus again, which knocks it down my standings.
The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein, Farah Mendlesohn: I didn't finish the excerpt, but it's academic and readable! There are disclaimers about evaluating the historic impact of Heinlein's work, rather than the literary quality, and I am very glad this distinction was made up front.
Worlds of Ursula K. Le Guin, Arwen Curry & etc: Another area where my bias is significant and evident. It's Le Guin, who is a formative influence! On the other hand, we've, um, given her a lot of accolades. But it's a pleasant documentary, and I would have no shame in pushing it on sundry friends and acquaintences.