Not related to previous post

[james_davis_nicoll]

Who's been saying the Hugo process is corrupt?

Comments

[seth ellis (from livejournal.com)]

Starting towards the end of your comment: Attacking the legitimacy of the results by "only around half the eligible voters bothered to vote" is similar to saying, "The US election results aren't valid because only a small fraction of the people eligible to vote actually did so."

Yes it is. On the other hand, defending the proportion of voters by saying "well, it used to be even worse" doesn't prove anything either.

Now some people will make that argument, but they aren't likely to be taken seriously.

I didn't make that argument. I also didn't bring up the fee amount at all; you're importing a lot of arguments that seem to be sensitive points to you, and that other people have presumably brought up in the past, but I haven't made them.

Neither did I "attack the legitimacy of the results;" I'm commenting on the apparent difference, that a lot of people seem to be commenting on lately, between the affect of the Hugo in conversation and the method by which the Hugo is chosen. I certainly agree that you can't represent all fans all the time, but the "only some fans" point becomes relevant because I've never seen anyone refer to the Hugos in conversation as the WorldCon award; the reference is always to "fandom." The Hugo is called "science fiction's most prestigious award" on the website, administered by WorldCon. What is it, structurally, that makes it so prestigious? How is WorldCon defining the authority inherent in that claim, especially as readership changes?

The whole transparency thing is a distraction; I didn't mean to make you defensive, and I'm happy not to pursue that point any more. Let me just say that, as it seems to me, the Hugo is trying to have it both ways: when we're celebrating the winners, it's fandom speaking to itself; when the process is commented on, it's a club award. It ends up being neither fish nor fowl. I am genuinely unclear what the Hugo is meant to represent as an award nowadays, and I don't think I'm unique in this. My "critique" of the process isn't necessarily a critique at all; the process is fine, if it's just a club award. In that case, the popularity contests etc. that Nick Mamatas hypothesizes are no big deal; who cares if a club rewards its most popular members? It's kind of sweet.

[rosefox]

Let me just say that, as it seems to me, the Hugo is trying to have it both ways: when we're celebrating the winners, it's fandom speaking to itself; when the process is commented on, it's a club award. It ends up being neither fish nor fowl.

Very well said, and linked from the top of a new thread because otherwise no one's going to see it buried over here in the margins.

[seth ellis (from livejournal.com)]

Thanks! I think it's both too marginal and too late to make much impression, but I'm glad you liked it.

[scentofviolets.livejournal.com]

Replying very late, but I think you were spot on as well.