When Someone Criticizes An Award

This is a follow-on entry from yesterday’s post concerning Adam Robert’s screed regarding the Hugo’s, some of the comments in that entry.

Full disclosure: I’ve yet to read any of Mr. Robert’s works.? In looking at reviews and comments on it (blurbs & whatnots) I am somewhat intrigued.? Response seems to be running about 50/50 (favorable/unfavorable) which proves that he’s got an audience.? But I’ll not be addressing his works here – at least not until I’ve read something by him.

Observations:

1. Some of the same net addresses associated with last year’s (2008) criticisms of the Hugo Awards are present and vocal this time around.? This may indicate that there is something of a “cabal” that has taken up an anti-Hugo position, though the reason for doing so remains elusive.

2. Perhaps a cheap shot but still worthy of mention: anytime someone who has not received a particular award criticizes said award, many will come to the conclusion that the criticism is nothing more than a “I didn’t win” tantrum.? This can be the same dynamic in effect when a sports team complains about the officiating after not winning a game.? The referees were biased is a frequent complaint – but only amongst the losers.

3. Finding fault with a subjective art award on the basis of the art awarded is, from the very get-go, a meaningless argument which parses to: I like this, what I like should win, since what I like did not win the award is flawed (and or the people who give the award are flawed and or the people who were nominated/won are flawed and or the works voted on are flawed).

This is a meaningless and wasteful exercise (and a potentially harmful one*).? Since the argument is based on subjective criteria, the only real rejoinder is a subjective one as well. Who wins?? No one.? All we end up doing is shouting ‘am too! am not!’ at each other.

4. criticizing the Hugo’s themselves on the basis of looking only at the shortlist denies the truly egalitarian and democratic process that the awards really are.? Many more works are voted for than are indicated by the short list.? Anyone in the world is eligible to vote, so long as they purchase at least a supporting membership in WSFS (prior to the voting cut-off date).? Yes, having to purchase a membership is a barrier to participation and one can argue the merits of “popular” awards versus juried awards all day long but this is, again, a meaningless argument.? Apples and oranges both have color. They’re both essentially round and belong to the class of fruit – but are entirely different animals. The expression about comparing them was invented just for this kind of situation.

Which has the greater “barrier to participation” – an award requiring membership in the organization that gives out the award, or a juried award in which one must be selected from amongst a very small, specialized community?? The Hugo’s offer participation.? Juried awards offer NO participation.

Juried awards presumably bring a greater degree of expertise and experience to the issue.? They also potentially bring a greater degree of political influence.? I’m absolutely not accusing anyone of anything here, but:? it is easier to exert influence over three, or five individuals than it is over hundreds; it is easier for personal concerns about one’s future career to influence thinking when only a handful of? votes are cast by individuals in the industry concerned and it is easier for friendships, personalities and past relationships to come in? to play.

“Popular” awards have their potential flaws also; a heavily promoted work, one which receives better marketing and/or distribution, a work by an individual who themselves is popular can all have undue influence over the final outcome.

I have yet to see a publisher or author who, having won multiple awards, both of the popular and juried variety, FAIL to mention ALL of them when hawking their works.

5. Looking only at the shortlist shortchanges the breadth of the awards.? For example:? in 2004 a total of 15 novels by 14 different authors were nominated; 15 novellas by 14 different authors; 17 novelettes by 17 authors and 17 short stories by 14 authors. A total of 64 different works by 45 different authors.

The interests, experience and depth of the nominating members of WSFS becomes much more apparent when looking at the original nominees.? Indeed, the authors represented by the above reads as a virtual survey of the field, even if one forgets awards and only looks at production, or review reception.

6. Fixing things.? Personally, folks who’s “solution” to a problem is to ignore it? ought to just STFU before offering their criticisms.

You can’t just join a juried award – everyone but the small group of judges is sidelined and, after the voting is over and done with, all you can say is you agreed or disagreed with their picks.

The same is absolutely not true for the Hugos.? The numbers voting remain relatively small (making the breadth of the original nominations even MORE remarkable), the price? for participation is also relatively small (and becoming less so considering the voter packet championed by Scalzi and other things that are no doubt in the pipeline).? Again, looking at the 2004 votes: THREE votes separated the winner from the runner-up in the novel category: 13 votes in novella, 22 in novelette and 12 in short story.

THREE votes.? Had we a time machine, the complainers command more than enough votes to have been able to change the outcome of the Best Novel Award in 2004.? 48 Votes was all it took to make the short list for novel that year.? If you are all that “popular” – you ought to be able to muster 50 motivated fans.

The fact is, the Hugo Awards are far more subject to change and? participation by a small number of fans than just about any other award out there these days.? The only reasons not to participate are:? true disinterest or an honest lack of funds.? When the solution to your complaint is so readily at hand, the only reason not to take advantage of it is because you believe it is in? your best interest to remain on the sidelines and snipe and that – with the exception of initial outrage – is easily ignored and discounted.

*harm is introduced when those who might be inclined to participate are swayed by the argument