[awards] Commentary on the Hugos continues

I recently posted a link to Cora Buhlert’s roundup of Hugo commentary. [info]james_nicoll did so as well, leading to some extensive commentary on his LiveJournal. [info]kevin_standlee also linked to this piece by Jonathan McCalmont, itself quite critical of the Hugos in general and Kevin in particular. A fascinating comment thread there that dives quite deeply. Cora also provides an update and more links here, along with a discussion of the Clarke Awards.

For my own part, I’m not sure what to say except to note the discussions seem to be a little louder than usual this year. I suspect that’s as much an observer effect based on my paying more attention due to my own Hugo nominee status, as it is a reflection of real controversy. Hard for me to tell.

While I do understand a lot of the objections being raised to the Hugo process, I’m not sure I agree with them, either, as most of what’s being discussed seems to amount to suggesting replacing one form of imperfection with another. We have three major awards in this field, and each one has a distinctly different nominating and voting process, and thus distinctly different biases. I have been a nominee for all three at various times in my career, so my perspective is certainly biased as well.

Disputation is part of what fandom does. It’s part of what writers do. What I don’t doubt is the good faith of everyone involved. For my own part, having as I do a dog in this fight, except for noting the deep passion and manifold directions of the discussion, I will leave it at that.

6 thoughts on “[awards] Commentary on the Hugos continues

Comments are closed.