[awards] A new Hugo category
Because I have so little to do with my time, I am taking on a new project. In so many words, I'm planning to propose a new Hugo award category at next year's WSFS business meeting in Denver.
Here's the very preliminary scoop. When![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
kenscholes, lasirenadolce and I were speaking with Tom Doherty this last fall at the palatial Tor world headquarters, Tom asked why there wasn't a Hugo for people like Betty Ballantine. He observed that Judy Lynne Del Rey had won a Hugo posthumously, and wasn't it a shame we didn't have a Hugo to recognize the people who'd spent their lives bettering our field.
He had a point.
Fast forward a couple of months. I've been discussing the process with some folks who understand the ins and outs very well. With their advice, I have an action plan on how to develop the formal proposal and some timing on when and how to roll it out. I'm throwing this flag mostly to see if anyone is interested in helping me pull and prod this along (along with my general rubric of public openness). The basic vision is to propose a Hugo Award for Lifetime Achievement. It could be won once and only once, by a nominee who was still alive, at least at the time of balloting. It would be for whoever the Hugo electorate wants to honor — lifelong fans, conrunners, writers, editors, publishers, critics, etc.
Obviously there's a lot of logical and procedural holes to be filled before this makes any real sense, but I welcome preliminary comments. I'll be working on this proposal for some months to come, and paying much closer attention to WSFS processes than I have in the past. I'll carry the ball during the long, quiet hours which slowly unwind through my empty days.
Here's the very preliminary scoop. When
kenscholes, lasirenadolce and I were speaking with Tom Doherty this last fall at the palatial Tor world headquarters, Tom asked why there wasn't a Hugo for people like Betty Ballantine. He observed that Judy Lynne Del Rey had won a Hugo posthumously, and wasn't it a shame we didn't have a Hugo to recognize the people who'd spent their lives bettering our field.He had a point.
Fast forward a couple of months. I've been discussing the process with some folks who understand the ins and outs very well. With their advice, I have an action plan on how to develop the formal proposal and some timing on when and how to roll it out. I'm throwing this flag mostly to see if anyone is interested in helping me pull and prod this along (along with my general rubric of public openness). The basic vision is to propose a Hugo Award for Lifetime Achievement. It could be won once and only once, by a nominee who was still alive, at least at the time of balloting. It would be for whoever the Hugo electorate wants to honor — lifelong fans, conrunners, writers, editors, publishers, critics, etc.
Obviously there's a lot of logical and procedural holes to be filled before this makes any real sense, but I welcome preliminary comments. I'll be working on this proposal for some months to come, and paying much closer attention to WSFS processes than I have in the past. I'll carry the ball during the long, quiet hours which slowly unwind through my empty days.
shmoozingprofessional activities.I also believe the proposed award is ill-considered. Can you imagine the arguments over the five nominees each year for Lifetime Achievement? Or are you considering an entirely new process of nomination and voting, which would make the proposed change far more complex and much less likely to pass? Should previous winners be disqualified? How would it feel for someone to be nominated and then condemned by all, much, or even some of fandom as being unqualified for the award? How would it feel for someone to be nominated repeatedly for a Life Achievement Hugo and never win (remember, there are four losers every year but only one winner)? What would people think and say if such a person died before receiving the award?
All in all, I think it's far preferable for lifetime achievement awards to be handled as they have been handled in the past, and as they are handled at the Nebulas and the Oscars, as separate awards that are given out irregularly and at whim by the committee rather than nominated and voted every year by the general membership.
They do have the "big heart award" just for fans who have contributed greatly.
On a side note, have you been thinking about my "task" you assigned? I may be able to get mock ups over the holidays...uh huh.
Edited at 2007-12-14 05:47 am (UTC)
Dave
Kevin and I actually raised the idea during a panel item on the Hugos at the recent SMOFcon. The results of that discussion, and some follow-on commentary, are reported here. As you will see, the assembled SMOFs were not enthusiastic, but neither could any of them come up with a good reason why the new category might not work.
I dunno how much or what I could help with otherwise. But I am for the basic idea.
And I rarely ask questions that are answered in the posts I'm responding to (grin). And I intend to be at the business meetings in Denver.
Have to agree with Mike Glyer with respect to being named a Worldcon GOH already mostly accomplishing what this would seem to do.
The other problem, based on the above, is that the original intent was to honor folk like Betty Ballantine who have massively contributed to the field but have not been honored with a Hugo, along with the case of Judy-Lynn del Rey only getting a posthumous Hugo (and I suspect if Jay'd thought of it, he might have included Jim Baen only getting close to getting a Hugo after he died).
But why should we assume that would happen? Wouldn't the majority of winners of this be people who have won a Hugo or five? For example, why wouldn't almost any of the still living SFWA Grandmasters instantly go to the top of favorites for a lifetime achievement award? Or for art, folk like Michael Whelan who've won multiple Hugos and been a Worldcon GoH?
The only way I see this really working as seemingly intended is to effectively make this an "Other Forms For People" category, where you're not eligible if you have won a Hugo, even if that seemingly lessens the cachet of the category to "Lifetime Achievement Not Otherwise Recognized by Hugo Categories".
[Note: I used not to think the above, but the results of the kid lit survey were astonishing. Men hardly ever cited female writers.]
year one ballot (*=winner):
Writer 1*
Writer 2
Writer 3
Artist 1
Editor 1
year 2 ballot
Writer 2*
Writer 3
Writer 4
Artist 1
Editor 1
year 3 ballot
Writer 3
Writer 4
Writer 5
Artist 1*
Editor 1
Or something similar, with a largely similar ballot each year. In this particular category, which is based on lifetime achievement instead of (theoretically) year-to-year achievement, I think this would be even worse that when it happens in current categories.
If I can help, tag me -- I think it makes a lot of sense to honor our field in this particular way.
response: GOH , popularity; new thought:: Eligibility
____________
It seems that "GOH" is thought of as a Lifetime Achievement Award by a lot of people. Fine, but as pointed out, it's not a Hugo and it can't be a Hugo without a lot more work than making a new Hugo category. As I pointed out in the Awardswatch thread, to be a GOH you also have to be able to attend the convention. That makes some possible Lifetime nominees unfairly (IMO) automatically ineligible. There are deserving people who just can't/don't go to conventions, or couldn't be available for full GOH duties.
And GOHs are not necessarily picked on merit, and most of us should know that. Availability, popularity (as a "draw"), "theme fit" and other non-merit factors intrude. Not all in equal measure, but they contribute.
_____________
Will it be a popularity contest? Yup. Just like all the other Hugos have always been. Just like the Oscars. Just like the Emmys. You think those awards are voted by merit? Then campaigning wouldn't work, or wouldn't be allowed. And the critics favored performances and films would actually win every year, because they're the supposed academics of these entertainment industries. These are necessarily SUBJECTIVE and therefore POPULARITY votes.
And what is "best" anyway? Academics may be able to determine "technical best" but not most of us - we vote on what we like, our favorite, the one we like, not generally the technically most proficient, but what is Popular with us.
I find the idea that it shouldn't be done because it would just be a popularity contest an argument for getting rid of all awards that are voted on by anyone. If you feel that way, just don't vote, or acknowledge it, get over it, move on.
______________
Some thoughts about eligibility.
Taking 30 years as the "Lifetime", there should be some definition of "active in the genre". I attended my first Convention in 1976, attended two or three, then didn't until 2001. But does that date make me eligible as a fan? [eligible, NOT worthy]
J.K. Rowling isn't eligible because she's only been publishing for about ten years, but what if she never writes another thing? Is she eligible in 20 years, after 20 years of non-contribution?
Would an editor be eligible after ten years as an editor, if they were a copy-kid for the previous twenty?
The upshot is, how will the Administrators determine who can be on the ballot? And how can this be easily conveyed to the nominators?
:) I told you I was good at devil's advocacy.
I disagree, I think you would see regional variations from worldcon to worldcon.
I think the key thing is to have a VOTED lifetime achievement award, maybe you could give it to the person with the most nominations and announce the winner beforehand.