{"id":1042,"date":"2015-04-06T15:13:09","date_gmt":"2015-04-06T22:13:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/galencharlton.com\/blog\/?p=1042"},"modified":"2015-04-07T04:21:31","modified_gmt":"2015-04-07T11:21:31","slug":"preserving-the-usefulness-of-the-hugo-awards-as-a-selection-tool-for-libraries","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/galencharlton.com\/blog\/2015\/04\/preserving-the-usefulness-of-the-hugo-awards-as-a-selection-tool-for-libraries\/","title":{"rendered":"Preserving the usefulness of the Hugo Awards as a selection tool for libraries"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Hugo Awards<\/a>\u00a0have been\u00a0awarded by the World Science Fiction Convention for decades, and serve to recognize the works of authors, editors, directors \u2013\u00a0fans\u00a0and professionals \u2013 in the genres of science fiction and fantasy. \u00a0The Hugos are unique in being a fan-driven award that has as much process \u2013 if not more<\/a> \u2013 as juried awards.<\/p>\n

That process has two main steps. \u00a0First, there’s a nomination period where members of Worldcon select works to appear on the final ballot. Second, members of the upcoming Worldcon vote on the final ballot and the awards are given out at the convention.<\/p>\n

Typically, rather more folks vote on the final ballot than nominate \u2013 and that means that small, organized groups of people can unduly influence the nominations. \u00a0However, there’s been surprisingly few attempts to actually do that.<\/p>\n

Until this year<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Many of the nominations this year match the slates of two groups, the “Sad Puppies” and the “Rabid Puppies.” \u00a0Not only that, some of the categories contain\u00a0nothing\u00a0<\/em>but Puppy nominations.<\/p>\n

The s.f. news site File 770 has a comprehensive\u00a0collection of back-and-forth<\/a> about the matter, but suffice it so say that the Puppy slates are\u00a0have a primarily political motivation \u2013 and one, in the interests of full disclosure, that I personally despise.<\/p>\n

There are a lot of people saying smart things about the situation, so I’ll content myself with the following observation:<\/p>\n

Slate nominations and voting destroy the utility of the Hugo Award lists for librarians who select science fiction and fantasy.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Why? Ideally, the Hugo process ascertains the preferences of thousands of Worldcon members to arrive at a general consensus of science fiction and fantasy that is both good and generally appealing. \u00a0As it happens, that’s a pretty useful starting point for librarians trying to round out collections or find new authors that their patrons might like \u2013 particularly for those librarians who are not themselves fans of the genre.<\/p>\n

However, should slate voting become a successful tactic, the Hugo Awards are in danger of ending up simply reflecting which factions in fandom are best able to game the system. \u00a0The results of that… are unlikely to be all that useful for librarians.<\/p>\n

Here’s my suggestion for librarians who\u00a0are<\/em> fans of science fiction and fantasy and who want to help preserve a collection development tool: get involved. \u00a0In particular:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Join Worldcon<\/a>. A $40 supporting membership suffices to get voting privileges.<\/li>\n
  2. Vote on the Hugos this year. I won’t tell you who the vote for, but if you agree with me that slate nominations are a problem, consider voting accordingly.<\/li>\n
  3. Next year, participate in the nomination process. Don’t participate in nomination slates; instead, nominate those works that you think are worthy of a Hugo \u2013 full stop.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Share this:<\/h3>