Cheerfully Demented - Problems with just-issued Hugo Award ballot, or Much Ado About Little

There's a bunch of flak flying around about the just-mailed Hugo Award ballots. I'm on the smofs mailinglist (smofs: secret masters of fandom - the people who run conventions and like to argue; the folks who care about the persnicketty details of this sort of thing).

The issues, folks are basically this:

The Editor category has been split into two. One for people who edit novel-length books; one for people who edit short stories (magazines or book anthologies). This split is akin to the Dramatic Presentation being split between long form (movies) and short form (TV shows). It is important to remember that this category is for a body of work, not for editing a particular thing. The confusion lies in that the ballot asks you, if you can, to think of something this person has edited, but doesn't emphasize that this is NOT required, or that the award is for a body of work.

Similarly, the Pro artist category has a similar request to suggest something that the artist did as a pro. Again, the award is not for a particular piece, but for a body of work, but the wording is confusing. [For those who are interested, nothing I did in 2006 really qualifies me as a "pro" - I'm really a semi-pro still, which gets me lumped in the "fan artist" category, which is fine. Oh, and in the fan artist category, please spread the love around and nominate Steve Stiles and Alan F. Beck.]

Basically the messed-up ballot issue is this:

The editor and pro artist categories are for bodies of work, not individual pieces, and if you want, you can but don't have to list something the editor or artist worked on.

IMHO people are making it a lot more complicated than it needs to be.

The issue is with ballots mailed to folks who attended the Anaheim worldcon (other folks who signed up for the 2007 Japan worldcon haven't gotten theirs yet). The online ballot will be changed, but since most people vote online, it doesn't seem like a new mailed ballot will be sent (probably due to expense). Any of the variant ballots will be accepted.

On the SMOFs list, Patrick Nielsen Hayden (editor) raised some issues; Joyce Hooper (lead Hugo Award Admin for 2007) contacted Kevin Standlee (smof) with the following letter, which was posted publicly on the smofs mailing list and elsewhere.

---------

[From Kevin Standlee:] Joyce Hooper, the lead Hugo Administrator for 2007, telephoned me last night and we have exchanged a bunch of messages since then. She told me that messages from SMOFS relating to Hugo Awards _have_ been passed on to her, and she asked me to post this official response from her to Patrick [Nielsen Hayden] here because she's not subscribed to SMOFS. I'm directly copying N2007's Hugo Administration as well. -- Kevin

===================================================

Patrick,

Please be patient, as I will address all your concerns and comments. There are multiple issues that you are mentioning, and I want to address them all.

I have noticed that you have already stated that you were incorrect on the Best Artist Hugo. However, since you posted your original message in a public forum, I do feel the need to take a moment and make sure everyone actually understands the issue you have brought up.

The quote you pulled from Kevin's LiveJournal was "The Best Professional Artist Hugo Administration resolution passed in a slightly amended form, asking future Worldcon committees to request that artist nominees provide references to three or more pieces of artwork."

This request for references actually is not for the voters or nominators, but for the artists nominated (nominees). My understanding of this is that it will provide voters with examples of the nominated artists' works, so that instead of just casting a vote for the artist(s) they are familiar with, they will be now be able to see examples of all the nominated artists. This will enable the voters to make a more informed vote. Though this received a positive vote this year in L.A., it has been sent for ratification at Nippon and is only a suggestion at this point

The way that I currently have this set up with the notation of "If possible, please cite publication..." was to be in compliance with the WSFS business meeting resolution requesting that Hugo Administrators "encourage persons casting Hugo Award nominating ballots for Best Professional Artist to be more proactive in citing current work by the nominated artist" and to "Include sufficient space on the Hugo Nominating Ballot for Best Professional Artist for a nominator to submit at least one reference to a work by each nominated artist."

Now about the Editor issues.

First off, this ballot was not written in a vacuum. This document was viewed by not only a past Hugo Administrator, but also past Worldcon Chairs and other individuals with more experience than I have. However, when it comes down to it, I am the Hugo Administrator for Nippon and I take full responsibility for what appears on the ballot.

Your primary concerns center on the fact that we are giving the Editor awards for bodies of work. This is correct; however the issue that we are trying to address with the ballot is that some of that work has to come from the qualifying year (in this case, 2006) for the editor to be eligible. What we are hoping to accomplish with the current set up is the citation of at least one publication that was produced in the qualifying year.

As you know, the two sections of the Constitution in question read:

"3.3.8: Best Editor Short Form. The editor of at least four (4) anthologies, collections or magazine issues primarily devoted to science fiction and / or fantasy, at least one of which was published in the previous calendar year.

3.3.9: Best Editor Long Form. The editor of at least four (4) novel-length works primarily devoted to science fiction and / or fantasy published in the previous calendar year that do not qualify as works under 3.3.8."

All this stated, I see where the confusion is, however; I do not feel that it invalidates the ballots as the Constitution has been adhered to. While we will revise the online ballot and post an updated PDF on the Nippon website, the original ballot forms will remain valid and be accepted.

The ballot will be revised to separate the editor/title to just editor in the first column and then have the title moved to the second column so that title/publisher or title/publication will be combined. We will also change the text to state the following:

Best Editor, Short Form. The editor of at least four (4) anthologies, collections, or magazine issues devoted to science fiction and/or fantasy, at least one of which was published in 2006. For reference purposes only, please provide a title and publication for qualifying year. Failure to provide such references shall not invalidate a nomination.

Best Editor, Long Form. The editor of at least four (4) novel-length works primarily devoted to science fiction and/or fantasy published in 2006 that do not qualify under Best Editor, Short Form. For reference purposes only, please provide a title and publisher for qualifying year. Failure to provide such references shall not invalidate a nomination.

As the majority of voters participate via the web, the update on the web and the availability of an updated PDF should be sufficient to correct the confusion.

Since this letter will be posted in a public forum. I will also announce that there is no issue with anyone wishing to adjust a vote. They may contact me directly via hugoadmin@nippon2007.us.

I hope this addresses your concerns. Again, I'm sorry for any confusion.

Joyce Hooper

Advertisement

Advertisement