![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Some thoughts on the Hugos
Apr. 1st, 2015 03:14 pmBrought on by a discussion with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lydy and originally posted to james_nicoll's LJ.
I have a different theory about what's wrong with the Hugos. This is a new-to-me theory (involving no dinosaurs whatsoever), and possibly has been voiced before, but it actually does point to a possible fix. The Sad Puppy business, I believe, is a symptom of the problem, and not the problem itself.
My theory is that the problem with the Hugos is that the field is just too damned large. Once upon a time, it was possible to read all the SF published in a given year. Now, the field includes SF, fantasy, urban fantasy, paranormal fantasy, and probably a couple more I'm missing. And there's a lot more published. It's hard to compare the apples and oranges in any case.
When J.K. Rowling won the best novel Hugo in 2001 for HPatGoF, it was up against high political fantasy (A Storm of Swords), near-future SF (Calculating God), a far-future folkloric novel with both SF and fantasy elements (Midnight Robber), and far-future political SF (The Sky Road). None of these things are like the others, and I can't possibly come up with a definition of "best" that works meaningfully to compare them. The best I can say is that I liked one more than the others. As it happens, of the three I've read, the one I found the most readable is not the one I thought was the best novel in any objective sense.
In 1984, there was a new Hugo, best semiprozine. I've never been terribly involved in fannish politics, but my understanding was that this was instituted in large part to give Locus a new category, so it would stop winning all the Best Fanzine awards. It was another "one of these things is not like the others" situation. At the time, there were barely enough other semiprozines to scrape up a reasonable ballot, though that no longer seems to be the case.
I think that if the fiction Hugos, especially the novel category, want to be meaningful in this day and age, they need to recognize the expansion of the field and the balkanization that's already occurred. Break down the Best Novel Hugo into some number of appropriate categories: hard SF, soft SF, modern fantasy, high fantasy, alternate history, whatever. These are almost certainly not the best breakdowns, but I think that trying to shoehorn the entire field into one Best Novel category is a large part of what gave rise to the Sad Puppies slate.
(P.S. I am well aware of the process for creating/changing Hugo awards. I'm not advocating doing anything at that level. I'm more curious about what people think of this general approach.)
lydy and originally posted to james_nicoll's LJ.I have a different theory about what's wrong with the Hugos. This is a new-to-me theory (involving no dinosaurs whatsoever), and possibly has been voiced before, but it actually does point to a possible fix. The Sad Puppy business, I believe, is a symptom of the problem, and not the problem itself.
My theory is that the problem with the Hugos is that the field is just too damned large. Once upon a time, it was possible to read all the SF published in a given year. Now, the field includes SF, fantasy, urban fantasy, paranormal fantasy, and probably a couple more I'm missing. And there's a lot more published. It's hard to compare the apples and oranges in any case.
When J.K. Rowling won the best novel Hugo in 2001 for HPatGoF, it was up against high political fantasy (A Storm of Swords), near-future SF (Calculating God), a far-future folkloric novel with both SF and fantasy elements (Midnight Robber), and far-future political SF (The Sky Road). None of these things are like the others, and I can't possibly come up with a definition of "best" that works meaningfully to compare them. The best I can say is that I liked one more than the others. As it happens, of the three I've read, the one I found the most readable is not the one I thought was the best novel in any objective sense.
In 1984, there was a new Hugo, best semiprozine. I've never been terribly involved in fannish politics, but my understanding was that this was instituted in large part to give Locus a new category, so it would stop winning all the Best Fanzine awards. It was another "one of these things is not like the others" situation. At the time, there were barely enough other semiprozines to scrape up a reasonable ballot, though that no longer seems to be the case.
I think that if the fiction Hugos, especially the novel category, want to be meaningful in this day and age, they need to recognize the expansion of the field and the balkanization that's already occurred. Break down the Best Novel Hugo into some number of appropriate categories: hard SF, soft SF, modern fantasy, high fantasy, alternate history, whatever. These are almost certainly not the best breakdowns, but I think that trying to shoehorn the entire field into one Best Novel category is a large part of what gave rise to the Sad Puppies slate.
(P.S. I am well aware of the process for creating/changing Hugo awards. I'm not advocating doing anything at that level. I'm more curious about what people think of this general approach.)
