I must again ask why there is no Hugo for fiction written in languages other than English. The Oscars have awards for foreign films, why must the SF community remain so inward looking? Science fiction is supposed to be a genre that celebrates the exploration of the unknown universe or the unknowable future. Why must this exploration be done in English? Or more to the point, why can the ultimate prizes in the genre be awarded only to explorations in English? During the cold war science fiction was hugely popular in Eastern Europe as it was about the only forum in which you could freely express political views that diverged in any way from that of the party line. Consequently there is still a vibrant science fiction scene in Eastern Europe that has failed to impact upon the broader English-speaking community. Perhaps it is time to begin making changes.
One could also make the observation that non-US English language writers might as well be foreign language writers when it comes to the Hugos. It seems to take a Worldcon in the UK or elsewhere in Europe or in Australia for non-US writers to get a look in.
It is worth noting that English language publication is not a requirement for competition in the Hugos. If a work in say Spanish, or Japanese, or Russian were to get enough votes then it could win.
The reason this doesn't happen is that the voters are overwhelmingly English-speaking, and mostly North American. If we had cheaper memberships and more involvement from non-English-speaking fans than all sorts of interesting things could happen.
There must be some way of encouraging a variety of countries to bid to host a Worldcon. I checked the Worldcon site and there is a tentative bid for Zagreb in 2013 but it doesn't even have a site to link to. I know that Finncon (in Finland) gets up to 5000 attendees - mainly because entry is free due to some government (?) funding deal. But doesn't Finland sound far more exciting than yet another visit to the heartland of the USA. Yet again!
Oops! My last comment was with regard to foreign language hugos and I forgot to make the linking point. At least at a con in a country with a non-English first language, and particularly one in Europe, you would be likely to get a diverse mix of attendees and therefore a more even spread of nominations and votes for stories/novels in other languages. At Worldcon in Glasgow in 2005 (funnily enough) a larger propotion than usual of the awards went to UK based writers - Susanna Clarke and Charlie Stross taking the major writing honours.
Various people in Finland have been contemplating a Worldcon bid, but they have an issue with facilities. A 2-day con with most of the people being local is OK, a 5-day con with thousands of overseas visitors requires a convention center, hotels and an international airport.
(And the free attendance is not a single deal, it is a lot of hard work to get many small sponsorships, only some of which are government.)
Vince has been trying to find a site in the Netherlands for the next European bid, but from the sound of what came out of Eastercon that has fallen through.
What we need is the Germans or the French to step up. They have big local fandoms, and cities that can host the event. But they also tend to stick to themselves. Like the Brits, only a few go to Eurocon.
As to where the awards go, the majority of voters in any year are American, no matter where Worldcon is held. If local writers win, that's as much to do with the sentimentality of US fans as it is to do with local support.
A few weeks back,I saw that there was a project to abolish the Hugo for semi-prozines. My first reaction was anger. WHY not give all those excellent magazines, some of them so long on the market, many of them clearly more innovative than the BIG THREE, a chance to win a Hugo? Last week-end,I was at Eastercon at Bradford. I talked with some editors of very good British magazines to know their reaction to this. I was quite surprised to see that they did not seem concerned by this new "threat". Their reaction was equivalent to a polite shrug. Their argument being that most of the "semi-prozines"never seem to win a Hugo, anyway. The prestigious award goes, more often than not, to LOCUS. The editors seem more interested in pursuing their efforts to produce excellent and innovative material in their magazines, rather than struggling to keep an award, which is not meant for them anyway, never mind how good their magazine might be. Exactly like the editors of Albedo One, who try to promote new writers, discover original stories and encourage European collaboration. My own opinion shifted as well. I am now convinced that the only one susceptible to be wronged by the sordid decision to exclude the semi-prozines as Hugo candidates will be...the Hugo award itself! And this will not take long to happen either.I am sorry to have to write this, but already, I was extremely disappointed to the stories awarded by the Hugo last year (I have not read the book, just the stories). Limitation in an award or whatever else- has never proved to be a clever or beneficial strategy. Remember the alcohol prohibition in the USA in the 20ies? The most favored by the prohibition were outlaws selling alcohol clandestinely. Of course, magazines are not outlaws. But does a magazine REALLY need a Hugo award to prove its quality? I don't think so. Maybe Albedo One, where the editors managed to create their own award, now also opened to European SF/F writers, is the best answer to the Hugo-dictatorship. After all, NO European has ever right to the Hugo,which excludes many, many excellent writers. Not to mention the long list of wonderful British and American writers who were never awarded by the Hugo. To mentin but a few: Stephen Baxter:rewarded by numerous British awards. No Hugo. Alastair Reynolds:A Clarke award-no Hugo. And -the most unacceptable: Ian Watson, one of the best SF writers, the one who writes maybe the most clever and literary SF of all (I don't want to be absolute, but I think there is little discussion on Ian Watson's literary level): NO HUGO!
I am co-editor in French magazine Galaxies where I write under the name of "Gillian Gray". I have, by no means, the intention to hide my identity. The Google just refuses to let me write under the name "Gillian". My apologies about this.
Extremely valid comments, Gillian, and I tend to agree with you. It's just that it would be nice if what is generally considered to be the primary SF award was more open and genuinely reflected the very best in SF worldwide. As it is, the Hugo seems to draw from a very small pool. This is the same with some of the Year's Best anthologies, one in particular.
Gillian: Just like any other award, the Hugo goes to people who are known to those who vote. So if you want your favorites to win you have to vote, and get your friends to vote. Last year the Best Artist Hugo went to a Frenchman, albeit one who currently lives and works in America. It isn't impossible.
As to Ian, he has been nominated for a Hugo twice, so the voters have noticed him. Sadly he finds it hard to get published these days, which doesn't help. I'm annoyed about this too.
I'm not sure what you mean by "NO European has ever right to the Hugo".
Gillian - With reference to the Hugo situation - just because most small magazines believe they cannot win does not mean they should not enter the contest. And the fact that great writers have not won one does not diminish the award, nor does it render it invalid. Perhaps the best known entertainment awards in the world are the Oscars. In most lists of best pictures ever Citizen Kane comes in the first one (to paraphrase the great English football manager Brian Clough - kind of like Yogi Berra with an education). But in its Oscar year the film that won Best Picture was How Green Was My Valley, which was by no means a masterpiece. The problem with the semi-prozine Hugo as I see it is in the definitions. The market has changed drastically. Virtually no magazines qualify as pro due to falling sales. So why not redefine the qualification rules to reflect the current state of SF rather than the scene of thirty years ago. Or possibly have a three hits and out rule? But what small press editor would not rejoice in a Hugo win? There are few enough crumbs for us poor schlubs (apologies if this is incorrect in spelling or usage) in the small press. Why take away the tiny possibility of glory? Why not begin to lobby for a small magazine to challenge Locus. It wins mostly because the same core people vote for it every year without ever considering the disservice they are doing to the broader genre. Just because you subscribe to Locus doesn't mean you should vote for it. Worldcon attendees should check out some small magazines - see what's happening in the genre they are supposed to love - before casting a vote. Or is that too much to ask? Does everybody only vote for stuff that gets lobbied to death or for their friends? Is this how we wish the genre to continue? Does anyone really care?
Waow! I never expected to get so many comments. Thanks to all of you. John, you are right.The most prestigious SF award in the world ought to be more open and reflect the VERY BEST of SF worldwide. Honestly, I didn't have the impression that this was the case with the Hugos of last year. Moreover, IF the Hugo does not become more open and does not reflect the very best of SF, what is the remaining solution? Well... Why not to create new, more appropriate awards? Which brings me to Cheryl: yes, the award goes to those known by the voters. Somehow, this argument does not convince me why so many excellent writers have never received the Hugo. I don't think that Stephen Baxter or Al Reynolds are unknown in the world of SF. Or some wonderful younger writers like Chris Beckett or Will McIntosh, who didn't have a right even to a nomination up to now. I don't care about how many difficulties Mr Watson may have to get published now, you will never convince me that his work, even now is not BY FAR superior to the novella and the novelette rewarded by the Hugo last year. At least, for those who knows something about literature... By "no European has right to the Hugo", I just mean that the Hugo is always given to Americans, SOMETIMES to British NEVER to a European writer. As far as I know, no French SF writer has ever won the Hugo. And the French do have excellent SF. The same is true for East European SF writers. Mr Neilson, I agree with you. Of course the award is not invalid or insignificant because some great writers have not won it. However, this fact gets you to start wondering what goes on. You mention a very good example of the "dark and unknown paths of the awards"in the film industry. I will not comment further on this. Yes, maybe definitions ought to be changed. A thing that you haven't mentioned is that there is, at this moment, NO European magazine able to pay the authors what the Big 3 pay. For the simple reason that European magazines don't have 40 to 60 thousand readers so as the 3 Big. Now, for your argument that "a small magazine ought to have the right to challenge LOCUS", well, this is a fighter's argument! I will not object to this and I hope that, in the future, more people will think like you.
Part of the reason I launched semiprozine.org was to help illustrate the diversity and quality of semiprozines. One of the arguments being used to rationalize the elimination of this Hugo is that there aren't enough good SPZs to warrant it. That really bugs me because I *know* it is wrong. It also says to me that we (as a group) aren't good at making sure people know about us. Time to change things.
Yes, magazines published in other languages have a huge obstacle when it comes to winning a Hugo award, but I do hope that some of them look past this and take the opportunity to show people what they are missing. I'm certainly willing to work with them.
By the way, the big three have had readerships below 40K for years now. More recently, it has been below 30K. None of them are the top 3 paying genre magazines. It's quite likely that they have the best paid editors, but that isn't something anyone publishes details of.
Answer to clarkesworld/from Gillian I am very happy to see your comment in this site. I didn't know about this argument that "there are not enough good semi-prozines to warrant it", but that is definitely NONSENSE. I have been enough busy with SPZ to know that they are the bold ones, they are launching new writers, they are the ones to take the risks with the stories as well, promoting new genres. The stories in magazines like Clarkesworld or Strange Horizons or Albedo One are much more interesting than the ones in the Big Three. There is a new British magazine called "Murky Depths". It has an extremely bold "line"as it publishes graphic novels and short stories associating SF, dark fantasy or horror with very beautiful illustrations. I don't know what the great experts of the Hugo awards say, but people, especially young ones, seem to adore this magazine. Many SF readers agree also that the stories in magazines like Clarkesworld, Strange Horizons or FLURB seem to be much more interesting than the stories in the 3 "professional"magazines which seem rather boring as people stop their subscriptions in those magazines or get the magazines - out of habit?- without reading them. How good can a magazine be if it fails to sustain the interest of its readers? Good luck and best regards from a supporter of yours
Of course the award is not invalid or insignificant because some great writers have not won it. However, this fact gets you to start wondering what goes on. You mention a very good example of the "dark and unknown paths of the awards"in the film industry. I will not comment further on this.Oh yes you damn well will. You are very clearly accusing someone of fixing the results. I want to know what evidence you have for that, other than the fact that your favorite writers don't win. You are making a very serious allegation about a prestigious award, about many friends of mine who have involved with the administration of the award, and indeed about many people who have won the award. I am not prepared to let you get away with being so insulting in public. Explain what you mean!
Answer to Cheryl/by Gillian: Dear Cheryl, I don't understand why you are so angry. I think that you misunderstood my statement about the "dark paths of the awards". The only thing I mean by this is that most people -like myself- have actually no idea how exactly those awards are given;also, Cheryl, please don't forget that writing is art, which means a subjective thing. I think that everyone has a right to have his/her own opinion and to like or not a story awarded by any award, never mind how prestigious it is. You certainly know that even the works awarded by a Nobel Prize in Literature have been objected by a few experts? The same is true for the Hugo. You write that "my favorite writers don't win". This is wrong. Neil Gaiman is one of my favorite writers. He won a Hugo for his "American Gods"and is nominated for the Hugo this year. Charlie Stross is one of my favorite writers. He is nominated this year and has won a (well-deserved) Hugo. I love Kelly Links, who also won a Hugo. I love all those writers, I don' t object their Hugos. I think, however, that as a free individual in a democratic country and in my quality of a person who highly respects literature, I am, sometimes, allowed, to have my own opinion on any literary work. I am allowed thus to wonder why so many wonderful writers - not just MY favorite ones, but writers who are acknowledged by many people around the world, are never rewarded by a prestigious award. I am also allowed to wonder why this award will no more be given to semi-prozines promoting excellent writers and stories. In a free, democratic world, I think that I have the right to object to any work rewarded by awards (everybody does not have to agree with me; FREEDOM is the beauty of art);I may have my favorite writers, no matter if they win awards or not; wonder about any procedure and getting answers instead of being threatened. And after all, don't forget that I am a foreigner coming from a non English speaking country. Why should I be acquainted with the procedures of Hugo awards? What you took for an accusation is merely a question. I would be grateful to you and the other administrators of the Hugo to give some rational answer. Even if I don't agree with it, you may have serious reasons behind your decisions. I believe that threats are a rather bad strategy,though. And not the best advertising for the Hugos...or yourself. All the best
I have no objection to people expressing unhappiness with the results of awards. The books I like hardly ever win. What I object to, and object to very strongly, is people suggesting that the results of awards are not the result of a fair an honest process, but instead are the result of "dark paths". Rather than accept that other people have different tastes to yourself, you deliberately implied that there was cheating going on. That's deeply unfair to people actually running the awards, not to mention to the many fine writers who have won those awards fair and square.
Why should you be acquainted with the procedures of the Hugos? Because they have been openly available online for years. More recently there has been a new web site that has a lot of commentary explaining how the awards work. You can find it here: http://www.thehugoawards.org/
Of course you may not have been prepared to spend the five minutes of Google time necessary to find that site, but the least you could have done was to give the awards the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were fairly administered. You were not prepared to do that. Instead you resorted to dark hints of secret conspiracies and then refused to explain what you meant.
You might think that threats are a bad strategy, but lies are a much worse one, and lies are exactly what you were trying to spread.
As to rational explanations for Hugo results, you have pretty much given that for yourself. The Hugos are fan-voted awards. They go to books that are popular with the voters. That's further limited in that you need to be a member of the World Science Fiction Society (WSFS) in order to vote, so not all fans are eligible to do so. Hugos therefore go to writers who are popular with that group of fans who choose to become WSFS members and vote in the awards.
There are a few obvious consequences of this. Firstly writers who are more literary than populist are unlikely to win. Secondly, because there are lots of Americans, they tend to dominate other English-speaking countries (though probably not to as great an extent as might be expected from their numbers). And thirdly, because so few fans who can read languages other than English participate in the voting, works by non-English-speaking writers rarely do well.
I should add here that the Hugo rules deliberately help works by non-English-speaking writers. Works first published in languages other than English are always allowed an extra year of eligibility when published in English. In addition works first published in English outside the US are generally given an extra year of eligibility when published in the US. So a work by a French or German or Spanish writer can easily get three chances at a Hugo, whereas a work by an American generally only gets one.
There are, of course, problems with the Hugos. The current fuss about semiprozines is one of them. The nature of SF publishing is continually changing, and awards have to change with the. That's actually harder for the Hugos than for some awards, because any changes have to be voted on democratically by WSFS members - they can't be imposed by award administrators. (And the vote has to succeed in two successive Worldcons to prevent any one country imposing its ideas on the rest of the fannish world.) There are, however, a lot of people prepared to give their time for free to help run the Hugos, and to try to fix any problems that arise. I'm generally much more impressed with people who are prepared to give their time and energy to making things better than with people who merely complain and drop dark hints about dishonest processes.
Dear Cheryl, Thank you very much for your answer; it clarified many things. I want also to be very clear on one thing: I never NEVER intended to insinuate that the Hugo awards were given by a dishonest process or that there is cheating going on with the awards. I hope that you have understood by now that I am someone who has the courage to give her opinion frankly and honestly. I am not the kind of person who would insinuate something rather than saying it. And I would NEVER insinuate such allegations for the Hugos. The only thing I meant by "dark paths"was "I DON"T UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS SO". Nothing more. My apologies to you and anyone else who got a wrong message out of this metaphor. Maybe an unfortunate one, but you see, Cheryl, I have a passionate temper; sometimes I have a tendency to react to things I like - or dislike- strongly than someone else would do and then wrong messages come out of my statements. The truth is that I mostly admire the writers who win the Hugos. That's probably why I was a little disappointed last year. And if I did not hold Hugos into consideration, I would not be wondering about them. I would remain indifferent. Just for the record: I am Greek. A few years back, two Greek poets won the Nobel Prize of Literature. I ought to be proud about them, but I am not. To be honest, I like neither of them. Why they won a Nobel is " a dark path" in my mind and I hope that it is clear, by now, that I don't mean by this that the Nobel organizers were dishonest by rewarding them. I just don't get why those two had to get a Nobel when some other wonderful Greek poets and writers aren't even translated. The same thing happened in the BSFA awards two weeks ago at Eastercon: I and a few others did not understand why some persons were rewarded. By no means meaning that the BSFA organizers are dishonest; the processus was clearly democratic and honest. The reaction comes just of the frustration that something that you love has not been rewarded and you wonder " WHY, but WHY?" And this remains " a dark path" into your mind. I hope that my explanation leaves no more doubts about my intentions. Sorry about the misunderstanding; I will try to express myself more clearly in the future so as not to let any doubts. Thank you for sending the site. I will spend some time reading what is in there. You are right that I ought to have read this as I am writing in a magazine, but honestly, I didn't even know that the site existed. I was more interested in reading the rewarded stories (or the nominated stories). I hope that I have been clear enough. I hope that nobody will accuse me of " dropping dark hints about dishonest processes"; I NEVER had the intention to do that, once more, sorry for letting out a wrong message. Thank you again for all the information you sent me. And a last thing: I am definitely not the kind of person who spends her time complaining. I want things to be better and I am doing all what I can to help. The fact that I try to learn and understand things that I don't know and - maybe- the fact that I take time to express my opinion in this site are some small proves of this. If I knew I could do more to help, I definitely would. I am sincerely at your disposal in case I can do anything to help you. My thanks and all the best
If you do want to do something to help, the first step on the road is to vote. Yes, it will cost €35, but you get a huge amount of free ebooks in return. This post explains all: http://www.thehugoawards.org/?p=431
Also, you will get nominating rights for next year, so you can nominate Albedo One for Best Semiprozine (assuming we succeed in saving the category) and Bob for Best Fan Writer (because getting beaten by Langford gets boring and I need a change).
You should also check out the nominees for this year's Campbell: one French woman; one African-American man; one Asian-Canadian man; one man who was born in Malawi and lives in South Korea; and one Englishman living in New York. The Internet is helping SF go international very quickly. If the people getting recognized as the best new writers make it to winning Hugos there will be a lot less to worry about.
There are many awards that leave me shaking my head in confusion. Juries are strange beasts. Fan-voted awards are much easier to predict, and are also much more democratic, but obviously they will reward what is popular, and what I like is rarely popular.
Oddly I'm quite happy with the BSFA Awards. Farah's book is one of the best pieces of criticism ever produced in the genre field; Ken is a great writer (though I've not read that book yet) and Ted Chiang is an acknowledged master of short fiction.
By the way, if you want to learn more about awards in general, you should check out this: http://www.sfawardswatch.com/
It isn't as comprehensive as we'd like because Kevin and I don't have the time to devote to it, but it does cover a lot of awards. If you happen to know of any European awards we don't cover then please let us know.
Thank you for all the info you send me, that's wonderful! I will follow your advice and vote for the Hugo. I will probably even be at the Worldcon this year. I'll read the other sites you send as well. Reading what you wrote, I realized that I was rather poorly informed about the awards, especially the procedures. I believe that I am not the only one, especially in European non English speaking countries. It occurred then to me that with all the info you kindly sent to me, and maybe with some more help, I could maybe write an article about all this for Galaxies. At least the French readers of the magazine will be a little better informed about the award. What do you think about this?
Gillian/to Cheryl Oh, for the BFSA awards. There was NO problem, the disagreement was just about a trivial thing. I agree with you that Ted Chiang is a wonderful writer. But, I and some others preferred - a tiny little bit - the story by Paul McAuley "Lost Little Robot". When your preferred writer is not rewarded, you DO complain. Look, I have a very particular preference for the books nominated for the Hugos this year. I really enjoyed this book, which I read at a rather bad moment and it cheered me up. If this particular author does not win, I will be unhappy. I hope that you understand by now: NO accusations. Just personal frustration. Passionate temper... No misunderstanding, I hope. All the best and thank you again for all the info.
I'd be delighted if you wrote an article for Galaxies. Kevin and I do what we can to inform people about awards, but our lack of language skills makes it hard to get the message to people outside of the English-speaking world. Let me know if you need any help.
We are trying to reach out, though. I'll be at Imaginales in May, hopefully interesting a bunch of French people in the Hugos and Worldcon.
I'm trying not to take sides in the Hugos. Way too many of the nominees are my friends. But I really do think it is about time that Mr. Picacio got a rocket.
Many, many thanks Cheryl. I don't know if I will be able to be at Imaginales this year (because of the Worldcon; I can not go to every convention), but Stephanie Nicot, the organizer of Imaginales is a wonderful person and a friend. Pierre Gevart, the redactor in Chief of Galaxies will probably be there as well. I will see if I can manage to come as well, but even if I can not, I think that the article in Galaxies is a good idea and the fact that you go there will prepare the SF fans to be more accurately informed about the awards. And you will have a wonderful time; Epinal is a very beautiful city. Try to visit Le Musee des Images if you have some time. Thank you again, have a nice week-end.
Understood about convention expenses. I have that problem too. But I am very much looking forward to Imaginales, and to meeting Stephanie about whom I have heard a lot of good things. Meeting Pierre would be great too.
I've just had a packet in the mail from the tourist board in Epinal with a flier for Le Musee des Images and it looks wonderful. That looks like what I'll be doing on the Monday morning before my train leaves for Paris & London.
As to the article, why not drop me an email and we can discuss. I'd also like to talk to you about reporting from Worldcon because I'm trying to make sure that people can see fans from lots of different countries involved. My email is cheryl [at] cheryl-morgan.com
One could also make the observation that non-US English language writers might as well be foreign language writers when it comes to the Hugos. It seems to take a Worldcon in the UK or elsewhere in Europe or in Australia for non-US writers to get a look in.
ReplyDeleteIt is worth noting that English language publication is not a requirement for competition in the Hugos. If a work in say Spanish, or Japanese, or Russian were to get enough votes then it could win.
ReplyDeleteThe reason this doesn't happen is that the voters are overwhelmingly English-speaking, and mostly North American. If we had cheaper memberships and more involvement from non-English-speaking fans than all sorts of interesting things could happen.
Hmm... very interesting Cheryl. We could start a revolution if we could just figure out how.
ReplyDeleteThere must be some way of encouraging a variety of countries to bid to host a Worldcon. I checked the Worldcon site and there is a tentative bid for Zagreb in 2013 but it doesn't even have a site to link to.
ReplyDeleteI know that Finncon (in Finland) gets up to 5000 attendees - mainly because entry is free due to some government (?) funding deal. But doesn't Finland sound far more exciting than yet another visit to the heartland of the USA. Yet again!
Oops! My last comment was with regard to foreign language hugos and I forgot to make the linking point. At least at a con in a country with a non-English first language, and particularly one in Europe, you would be likely to get a diverse mix of attendees and therefore a more even spread of nominations and votes for stories/novels in other languages.
ReplyDeleteAt Worldcon in Glasgow in 2005 (funnily enough) a larger propotion than usual of the awards went to UK based writers - Susanna Clarke and Charlie Stross taking the major writing honours.
Various people in Finland have been contemplating a Worldcon bid, but they have an issue with facilities. A 2-day con with most of the people being local is OK, a 5-day con with thousands of overseas visitors requires a convention center, hotels and an international airport.
ReplyDelete(And the free attendance is not a single deal, it is a lot of hard work to get many small sponsorships, only some of which are government.)
Vince has been trying to find a site in the Netherlands for the next European bid, but from the sound of what came out of Eastercon that has fallen through.
What we need is the Germans or the French to step up. They have big local fandoms, and cities that can host the event. But they also tend to stick to themselves. Like the Brits, only a few go to Eurocon.
As to where the awards go, the majority of voters in any year are American, no matter where Worldcon is held. If local writers win, that's as much to do with the sentimentality of US fans as it is to do with local support.
A few weeks back,I saw that there was a project to abolish the Hugo for semi-prozines. My first reaction was anger. WHY not give all those excellent magazines, some of them so long on the market, many of them clearly more innovative than the BIG THREE, a chance to win a Hugo?
ReplyDeleteLast week-end,I was at Eastercon at Bradford. I talked with some editors of very good British magazines to know their reaction to this.
I was quite surprised to see that they did not seem concerned by this new "threat". Their reaction was equivalent to a polite shrug.
Their argument being that most of the "semi-prozines"never seem to win a Hugo, anyway. The prestigious award goes, more often than not, to LOCUS.
The editors seem more interested in pursuing their efforts to produce excellent and innovative material in their magazines, rather than struggling to keep an award, which is not meant for them anyway, never mind how good their magazine might be. Exactly like the editors of Albedo One, who try to promote new writers, discover original stories and encourage European collaboration.
My own opinion shifted as well. I am now convinced that the only one susceptible to be wronged by the sordid decision to exclude the semi-prozines as Hugo candidates will be...the Hugo award itself!
And this will not take long to happen either.I am sorry to have to write this, but already, I was extremely disappointed to the stories awarded by the Hugo last year (I have not read the book, just the stories). Limitation in an award or whatever else- has never proved to be a clever or beneficial strategy.
Remember the alcohol prohibition in the USA in the 20ies? The most favored by the prohibition were outlaws selling alcohol clandestinely.
Of course, magazines are not outlaws. But does a magazine REALLY need a Hugo award to prove its quality? I don't think so.
Maybe Albedo One, where the editors managed to create their own award, now also opened to European SF/F writers, is the best answer to the Hugo-dictatorship.
After all, NO European has ever right to the Hugo,which excludes many, many excellent writers. Not to mention the long list of wonderful British and American writers who were never awarded by the Hugo. To mentin but a few: Stephen Baxter:rewarded by numerous British awards. No Hugo. Alastair Reynolds:A Clarke award-no Hugo. And -the most unacceptable: Ian Watson, one of the best SF writers, the one who writes maybe the most clever and literary SF of all (I don't want to be absolute, but I think there is little discussion on Ian Watson's literary level): NO HUGO!
I am co-editor in French magazine Galaxies where I write under the name of "Gillian Gray". I have, by no means, the intention to hide my identity. The Google just refuses to let me write under the name "Gillian". My apologies about this.
ReplyDeleteExtremely valid comments, Gillian, and I tend to agree with you. It's just that it would be nice if what is generally considered to be the primary SF award was more open and genuinely reflected the very best in SF worldwide. As it is, the Hugo seems to draw from a very small pool. This is the same with some of the Year's Best anthologies, one in particular.
ReplyDeleteGillian: Just like any other award, the Hugo goes to people who are known to those who vote. So if you want your favorites to win you have to vote, and get your friends to vote. Last year the Best Artist Hugo went to a Frenchman, albeit one who currently lives and works in America. It isn't impossible.
ReplyDeleteAs to Ian, he has been nominated for a Hugo twice, so the voters have noticed him. Sadly he finds it hard to get published these days, which doesn't help. I'm annoyed about this too.
I'm not sure what you mean by "NO European has ever right to the Hugo".
Gillian - With reference to the Hugo situation - just because most small magazines believe they cannot win does not mean they should not enter the contest. And the fact that great writers have not won one does not diminish the award, nor does it render it invalid. Perhaps the best known entertainment awards in the world are the Oscars. In most lists of best pictures ever Citizen Kane comes in the first one (to paraphrase the great English football manager Brian Clough - kind of like Yogi Berra with an education). But in its Oscar year the film that won Best Picture was How Green Was My Valley, which was by no means a masterpiece. The problem with the semi-prozine Hugo as I see it is in the definitions. The market has changed drastically. Virtually no magazines qualify as pro due to falling sales. So why not redefine the qualification rules to reflect the current state of SF rather than the scene of thirty years ago. Or possibly have a three hits and out rule?
ReplyDeleteBut what small press editor would not rejoice in a Hugo win?
There are few enough crumbs for us poor schlubs (apologies if this is incorrect in spelling or usage) in the small press. Why take away the tiny possibility of glory? Why not begin to lobby for a small magazine to challenge Locus. It wins mostly because the same core people vote for it every year without ever considering the disservice they are doing to the broader genre. Just because you subscribe to Locus doesn't mean you should vote for it. Worldcon attendees should check out some small magazines - see what's happening in the genre they are supposed to love - before casting a vote. Or is that too much to ask? Does everybody only vote for stuff that gets lobbied to death or for their friends? Is this how we wish the genre to continue? Does anyone really care?
Waow! I never expected to get so many comments. Thanks to all of you.
ReplyDeleteJohn, you are right.The most prestigious SF award in the world ought to be more open and reflect the VERY BEST of SF worldwide. Honestly, I didn't have the impression that this was the case with the Hugos of last year. Moreover, IF the Hugo does not become more open and does not reflect the very best of SF, what is the remaining solution? Well... Why not to create new, more appropriate awards?
Which brings me to Cheryl: yes, the award goes to those known by the voters. Somehow, this argument does not convince me why so many excellent writers have never received the Hugo. I don't think that Stephen Baxter or Al Reynolds are unknown in the world of SF. Or some wonderful younger writers like Chris Beckett or Will McIntosh, who didn't have a right even to a nomination up to now. I don't care about how many difficulties Mr Watson may have to get published now, you will never convince me that his work, even now is not BY FAR superior to the novella and the novelette rewarded by the Hugo last year. At least, for those who knows something about literature...
By "no European has right to the Hugo", I just mean that the Hugo is always given to Americans, SOMETIMES to British NEVER to a European writer. As far as I know, no French SF writer has ever won the Hugo. And the French do have excellent SF. The same is true for East European SF writers.
Mr Neilson, I agree with you. Of course the award is not invalid or insignificant because some great writers have not won it. However, this fact gets you to start wondering what goes on. You mention a very good example of the "dark and unknown paths of the awards"in the film industry. I will not comment further on this.
Yes, maybe definitions ought to be changed. A thing that you haven't mentioned is that there is, at this moment, NO European magazine able to pay the authors what the Big 3 pay. For the simple reason that European magazines don't have 40 to 60 thousand readers so as the 3 Big.
Now, for your argument that "a small magazine ought to have the right to challenge LOCUS", well, this is a fighter's argument! I will not object to this and I hope that, in the future, more people will think like you.
Part of the reason I launched semiprozine.org was to help illustrate the diversity and quality of semiprozines. One of the arguments being used to rationalize the elimination of this Hugo is that there aren't enough good SPZs to warrant it. That really bugs me because I *know* it is wrong. It also says to me that we (as a group) aren't good at making sure people know about us. Time to change things.
ReplyDeleteYes, magazines published in other languages have a huge obstacle when it comes to winning a Hugo award, but I do hope that some of them look past this and take the opportunity to show people what they are missing. I'm certainly willing to work with them.
By the way, the big three have had readerships below 40K for years now. More recently, it has been below 30K. None of them are the top 3 paying genre magazines. It's quite likely that they have the best paid editors, but that isn't something anyone publishes details of.
-Neil
Answer to clarkesworld/from Gillian
ReplyDeleteI am very happy to see your comment in this site. I didn't know about this argument that "there are not enough good semi-prozines to warrant it", but that is definitely NONSENSE.
I have been enough busy with SPZ to know that they are the bold ones, they are launching new writers, they are the ones to take the risks with the stories as well, promoting new genres.
The stories in magazines like Clarkesworld or Strange Horizons or Albedo One are much more interesting than the ones in the Big Three. There is a new British magazine called "Murky Depths". It has an extremely bold "line"as it publishes graphic novels and short stories associating SF, dark fantasy or horror with very beautiful illustrations.
I don't know what the great experts of the Hugo awards say, but people, especially young ones, seem to adore this magazine. Many SF readers agree also that the stories in magazines like Clarkesworld, Strange Horizons or FLURB seem to be much more interesting than the stories in the 3 "professional"magazines which seem rather boring as people stop their subscriptions in those magazines or get the magazines - out of habit?- without reading them.
How good can a magazine be if it fails to sustain the interest of its readers?
Good luck and best regards from a supporter of yours
Of course the award is not invalid or insignificant because some great writers have not won it. However, this fact gets you to start wondering what goes on. You mention a very good example of the "dark and unknown paths of the awards"in the film industry. I will not comment further on this.Oh yes you damn well will. You are very clearly accusing someone of fixing the results. I want to know what evidence you have for that, other than the fact that your favorite writers don't win. You are making a very serious allegation about a prestigious award, about many friends of mine who have involved with the administration of the award, and indeed about many people who have won the award. I am not prepared to let you get away with being so insulting in public. Explain what you mean!
ReplyDeleteAnswer to Cheryl/by Gillian:
ReplyDeleteDear Cheryl,
I don't understand why you are so angry. I think that you misunderstood my statement about the "dark paths of the awards". The only thing I mean by this is that most people -like myself- have actually no idea how exactly those awards are given;also, Cheryl, please don't forget that writing is art, which means a subjective thing. I think that everyone has a right to have his/her own opinion and to like or not a story awarded by any award, never mind how prestigious it is. You certainly know that even the works awarded by a Nobel Prize in Literature have been objected by a few experts?
The same is true for the Hugo.
You write that "my favorite writers don't win". This is wrong.
Neil Gaiman is one of my favorite writers. He won a Hugo for his "American Gods"and is nominated for the Hugo this year. Charlie Stross is one of my favorite writers. He is nominated this year and has won a (well-deserved) Hugo. I love Kelly Links, who also won a Hugo. I love all those writers, I don' t object their Hugos.
I think, however, that as a free individual in a democratic country and in my quality of a person who highly respects literature, I am, sometimes, allowed, to have my own opinion on any literary work. I am allowed thus to wonder why so many wonderful writers - not just MY favorite ones, but writers who are acknowledged by many people around the world, are never rewarded by a prestigious award. I am also allowed to wonder why this award will no more be given to semi-prozines promoting excellent writers and stories.
In a free, democratic world, I think that I have the right to object to any work rewarded by awards (everybody does not have to agree with me; FREEDOM is the beauty of art);I may have my favorite writers, no matter if they win awards or not; wonder about any procedure and getting answers instead of being threatened. And after all, don't forget that I am a foreigner coming from a non English speaking country. Why should I be acquainted with the procedures of Hugo awards?
What you took for an accusation is merely a question. I would be grateful to you and the other administrators of the Hugo to give some rational answer. Even if I don't agree with it, you may have serious reasons behind your decisions. I believe that threats are a rather bad strategy,though. And not the best advertising for the Hugos...or yourself.
All the best
Gillian:
ReplyDeleteI have no objection to people expressing unhappiness with the results of awards. The books I like hardly ever win. What I object to, and object to very strongly, is people suggesting that the results of awards are not the result of a fair an honest process, but instead are the result of "dark paths". Rather than accept that other people have different tastes to yourself, you deliberately implied that there was cheating going on. That's deeply unfair to people actually running the awards, not to mention to the many fine writers who have won those awards fair and square.
Why should you be acquainted with the procedures of the Hugos? Because they have been openly available online for years. More recently there has been a new web site that has a lot of commentary explaining how the awards work. You can find it here:
http://www.thehugoawards.org/
Of course you may not have been prepared to spend the five minutes of Google time necessary to find that site, but the least you could have done was to give the awards the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were fairly administered. You were not prepared to do that. Instead you resorted to dark hints of secret conspiracies and then refused to explain what you meant.
You might think that threats are a bad strategy, but lies are a much worse one, and lies are exactly what you were trying to spread.
As to rational explanations for Hugo results, you have pretty much given that for yourself. The Hugos are fan-voted awards. They go to books that are popular with the voters. That's further limited in that you need to be a member of the World Science Fiction Society (WSFS) in order to vote, so not all fans are eligible to do so. Hugos therefore go to writers who are popular with that group of fans who choose to become WSFS members and vote in the awards.
There are a few obvious consequences of this. Firstly writers who are more literary than populist are unlikely to win. Secondly, because there are lots of Americans, they tend to dominate other English-speaking countries (though probably not to as great an extent as might be expected from their numbers). And thirdly, because so few fans who can read languages other than English participate in the voting, works by non-English-speaking writers rarely do well.
I should add here that the Hugo rules deliberately help works by non-English-speaking writers. Works first published in languages other than English are always allowed an extra year of eligibility when published in English. In addition works first published in English outside the US are generally given an extra year of eligibility when published in the US. So a work by a French or German or Spanish writer can easily get three chances at a Hugo, whereas a work by an American generally only gets one.
There are, of course, problems with the Hugos. The current fuss about semiprozines is one of them. The nature of SF publishing is continually changing, and awards have to change with the. That's actually harder for the Hugos than for some awards, because any changes have to be voted on democratically by WSFS members - they can't be imposed by award administrators. (And the vote has to succeed in two successive Worldcons to prevent any one country imposing its ideas on the rest of the fannish world.) There are, however, a lot of people prepared to give their time for free to help run the Hugos, and to try to fix any problems that arise. I'm generally much more impressed with people who are prepared to give their time and energy to making things better than with people who merely complain and drop dark hints about dishonest processes.
Dear Cheryl,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your answer; it clarified many things.
I want also to be very clear on one thing: I never NEVER intended to insinuate that the Hugo awards were given by a dishonest process or that there is cheating going on with the awards. I hope that you have understood by now that I am someone who has the courage to give her opinion frankly and honestly. I am not the kind of person who would insinuate something rather than saying it. And I would NEVER insinuate such allegations for the Hugos. The only thing I meant by "dark paths"was "I DON"T UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS SO". Nothing more. My apologies to you and anyone else who got a wrong message out of this metaphor. Maybe an unfortunate one, but you see, Cheryl, I have a passionate temper; sometimes I have a tendency to react to things I like - or dislike- strongly than someone else would do and then wrong messages come out of my statements.
The truth is that I mostly admire the writers who win the Hugos. That's probably why I was a little disappointed last year. And if I did not hold Hugos into consideration, I would not be wondering about them. I would remain indifferent.
Just for the record: I am Greek. A few years back, two Greek poets won the Nobel Prize of Literature. I ought to be proud about them, but I am not. To be honest, I like neither of them. Why they won a Nobel is " a dark path" in my mind and I hope that it is clear, by now, that I don't mean by this that the Nobel organizers were dishonest by rewarding them. I just don't get why those two had to get a Nobel when some other wonderful Greek poets and writers aren't even translated.
The same thing happened in the BSFA awards two weeks ago at Eastercon: I and a few others did not understand why some persons were rewarded. By no means meaning that the BSFA organizers are dishonest; the processus was clearly democratic and honest. The reaction comes just of the frustration that something that you love has not been rewarded and you wonder " WHY, but WHY?" And this remains " a dark path" into your mind. I hope that my explanation leaves no more doubts about my intentions. Sorry about the misunderstanding; I will try to express myself more clearly in the future so as not to let any doubts.
Thank you for sending the site. I will spend some time reading what is in there. You are right that I ought to have read this as I am writing in a magazine, but honestly, I didn't even know that the site existed. I was more interested in reading the rewarded stories (or the nominated stories).
I hope that I have been clear enough. I hope that nobody will accuse me of " dropping dark hints about dishonest processes"; I NEVER had the intention to do that, once more, sorry for letting out a wrong message.
Thank you again for all the information you sent me. And a last thing: I am definitely not the kind of person who spends her time complaining. I want things to be better and I am doing all what I can to help. The fact that I try to learn and understand things that I don't know and - maybe- the fact that I take time to express my opinion in this site are some small proves of this. If I knew I could do more to help, I definitely would.
I am sincerely at your disposal in case I can do anything to help you.
My thanks and all the best
Dark Path's Strike again.
ReplyDeleteAs usual I haven't been nominated for a Hugo. I think this is a disgrace.
Answer to Bob/by Gillian
ReplyDeleteNow, AT LAST someone who understands me!
And yes, this is CLEARLY a disgrace.
Gillian:
ReplyDeleteApology accepted. Thank you.
If you do want to do something to help, the first step on the road is to vote. Yes, it will cost €35, but you get a huge amount of free ebooks in return. This post explains all:
http://www.thehugoawards.org/?p=431
Also, you will get nominating rights for next year, so you can nominate Albedo One for Best Semiprozine (assuming we succeed in saving the category) and Bob for Best Fan Writer (because getting beaten by Langford gets boring and I need a change).
You should also check out the nominees for this year's Campbell: one French woman; one African-American man; one Asian-Canadian man; one man who was born in Malawi and lives in South Korea; and one Englishman living in New York. The Internet is helping SF go international very quickly. If the people getting recognized as the best new writers make it to winning Hugos there will be a lot less to worry about.
There are many awards that leave me shaking my head in confusion. Juries are strange beasts. Fan-voted awards are much easier to predict, and are also much more democratic, but obviously they will reward what is popular, and what I like is rarely popular.
Oddly I'm quite happy with the BSFA Awards. Farah's book is one of the best pieces of criticism ever produced in the genre field; Ken is a great writer (though I've not read that book yet) and Ted Chiang is an acknowledged master of short fiction.
By the way, if you want to learn more about awards in general, you should check out this:
http://www.sfawardswatch.com/
It isn't as comprehensive as we'd like because Kevin and I don't have the time to devote to it, but it does cover a lot of awards. If you happen to know of any European awards we don't cover then please let us know.
Gillian/to Cheryl
ReplyDeleteThank you for all the info you send me, that's wonderful!
I will follow your advice and vote for the Hugo. I will probably even be at the Worldcon this year.
I'll read the other sites you send as well.
Reading what you wrote, I realized that I was rather poorly informed about the awards, especially the procedures. I believe that I am not the only one, especially in European non English speaking countries.
It occurred then to me that with all the info you kindly sent to me, and maybe with some more help, I could maybe write an article about all this for Galaxies. At least the French readers of the magazine will be a little better informed about the award.
What do you think about this?
Gillian/to Cheryl
ReplyDeleteOh, for the BFSA awards. There was NO problem, the disagreement was just about a trivial thing.
I agree with you that Ted Chiang is a wonderful writer. But, I and some others preferred - a tiny little bit - the story by Paul McAuley "Lost Little Robot". When your preferred writer is not rewarded, you DO complain. Look, I have a very particular preference for the books nominated for the Hugos this year. I really enjoyed this book, which I read at a rather bad moment and it cheered me up.
If this particular author does not win, I will be unhappy.
I hope that you understand by now: NO accusations. Just personal frustration. Passionate temper... No misunderstanding, I hope.
All the best and thank you again for all the info.
Hi Gillian:
ReplyDeleteI'd be delighted if you wrote an article for Galaxies. Kevin and I do what we can to inform people about awards, but our lack of language skills makes it hard to get the message to people outside of the English-speaking world. Let me know if you need any help.
We are trying to reach out, though. I'll be at Imaginales in May, hopefully interesting a bunch of French people in the Hugos and Worldcon.
I'm trying not to take sides in the Hugos. Way too many of the nominees are my friends. But I really do think it is about time that Mr. Picacio got a rocket.
Many, many thanks Cheryl. I don't know if I will be able to be at Imaginales this year (because of the Worldcon; I can not go to every convention), but Stephanie Nicot, the organizer of Imaginales is a wonderful person and a friend. Pierre Gevart, the redactor in Chief of Galaxies will probably be there as well.
ReplyDeleteI will see if I can manage to come as well, but even if I can not, I think that the article in Galaxies is a good idea and the fact that you go there will prepare the SF fans to be more accurately informed about the awards.
And you will have a wonderful time; Epinal is a very beautiful city. Try to visit Le Musee des Images if you have some time.
Thank you again, have a nice week-end.
Hi Gillian,
ReplyDeleteUnderstood about convention expenses. I have that problem too. But I am very much looking forward to Imaginales, and to meeting Stephanie about whom I have heard a lot of good things. Meeting Pierre would be great too.
I've just had a packet in the mail from the tourist board in Epinal with a flier for Le Musee des Images and it looks wonderful. That looks like what I'll be doing on the Monday morning before my train leaves for Paris & London.
As to the article, why not drop me an email and we can discuss. I'd also like to talk to you about reporting from Worldcon because I'm trying to make sure that people can see fans from lots of different countries involved. My email is cheryl [at] cheryl-morgan.com