Well, I was in a bad mood anyway...
Friday, March 30th, 2007 09:35 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rolanniThere is an annoying (to me) amount of discussion* on and around the friends list this morning about the striking fact that there is but one female writer on this year's Hugo nomination list.
Now, I agree this is striking, as is the observation that there's not a single Japanese work on the list (WorldCon this year being in Japan, you might reasonably expect at least one work by a Japanese writer to be on the list). Taken together, these two observed facts might lead one to subscribe to a conspiracy theory or two. The Hugos, after all, provide two windows of eligibility for non-English works: The year in which said works were published and the year they are re-published in English translation (if any)**. They provide no such double-window for female writers publishing for the first time in English.
I've been sitting here for a good few minutes now, trying to come up with the name of a single Japanese science fiction author, and -- confessing my ignorance here -- I can't. Not one name.
I can, however, come up with a few fast basketfuls of eligible works by women. Does this then mean that the Hugos (and the Nebulas, and the Campbells, and the PKDick, and, and, and) are controlled by a Sekrit Cabal of Guys Who Only Vote for Guys?
Um, no. It doesn't.
It may mean that the people most likely to nominate and vote for the Hugos (looked at the numbers required to get a work onto the Hugo ballot lately? It's sad. Pathetic, even. Go ahead, take a look at the voting stats for 2006*** And remember when you do that the membership for LACon IV (the 2006 WorldCon) was 6,000 people.) are most likely to read and find Abiding Coolth in, a certain sort of book.
Now, when I look at the numbers referenced, what immediately jumps out at me is that less than 10 percent of the attendees even bothering to vote for the Hugo Awards. What this means, folks, is that 500 people decided what the "best" book/novella/novelette/short story/&c/&c of 2006 were.
Clearly, this is idiotic, if not outright depressing.
So, yanno, rather than being upset about the reading protocols, and using up energy Looking for Conspiracies among those 500 folks who bother to vote for their favorite work, maybe ya'll ought to figure out a way to get more people involved in reading and voting, then see what the stats look like.
*here, here
** Hugo Rules are here
***Hugo Voting Stats 2006:
novels
novella
novelette
short story
Now, I agree this is striking, as is the observation that there's not a single Japanese work on the list (WorldCon this year being in Japan, you might reasonably expect at least one work by a Japanese writer to be on the list). Taken together, these two observed facts might lead one to subscribe to a conspiracy theory or two. The Hugos, after all, provide two windows of eligibility for non-English works: The year in which said works were published and the year they are re-published in English translation (if any)**. They provide no such double-window for female writers publishing for the first time in English.
I've been sitting here for a good few minutes now, trying to come up with the name of a single Japanese science fiction author, and -- confessing my ignorance here -- I can't. Not one name.
I can, however, come up with a few fast basketfuls of eligible works by women. Does this then mean that the Hugos (and the Nebulas, and the Campbells, and the PKDick, and, and, and) are controlled by a Sekrit Cabal of Guys Who Only Vote for Guys?
Um, no. It doesn't.
It may mean that the people most likely to nominate and vote for the Hugos (looked at the numbers required to get a work onto the Hugo ballot lately? It's sad. Pathetic, even. Go ahead, take a look at the voting stats for 2006*** And remember when you do that the membership for LACon IV (the 2006 WorldCon) was 6,000 people.) are most likely to read and find Abiding Coolth in, a certain sort of book.
Now, when I look at the numbers referenced, what immediately jumps out at me is that less than 10 percent of the attendees even bothering to vote for the Hugo Awards. What this means, folks, is that 500 people decided what the "best" book/novella/novelette/short story/&c/&c of 2006 were.
Clearly, this is idiotic, if not outright depressing.
So, yanno, rather than being upset about the reading protocols, and using up energy Looking for Conspiracies among those 500 folks who bother to vote for their favorite work, maybe ya'll ought to figure out a way to get more people involved in reading and voting, then see what the stats look like.
*here, here
** Hugo Rules are here
***Hugo Voting Stats 2006:
novels
novella
novelette
short story
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-01 05:51 pm (UTC)Actually, anyone who cares enough to buy a supporting membership can nominate and vote for the Hugo awards given at that particular Worldcon.
It's a popularity contest among a very small minority of fans, and most people who actually know anything about the Hugos realise that.
It may be worth noting that some of the folks who are complaining -- by no means all -- are Not Exactly Clueful regarding the award process, its "importance" in the larger scheme of things, or about fandom. What toasts my loaf is those who would rather complain and fantasize about Intergalactic Conspiracies constructed for the sole purpose of excluding them from the party than to educate themselves. But that is, I suspect, Just Me.
As for women writers -- I prefer rewarding them with cash by buying their books.
Yep -- "Money will see you through times of no awards far better than awards will see you through times of no money". I don't say that it isn't nice to get recognition; it is. Some of the Liaden books have taken awards, and it's a very pleasant to know that someone thought your work was "best." But it's nicer, I think, to do well enough at the work you love to be able to continue to afford doing it.
Hm... *looks back at the above* I think I may have had too much coffee...