Bick, BBB141, does the change in the Hugo solely reflect manipulation, or does it reflect a diversifying field?
By "diversifying," I mean first, a broader audience and base of writers (ethnically, racially, culturally) than there was in the past; second, subject matter that once would have been shied away from, that maybe the mainstream (whatever that is) would have approached but not s.f. or that some s.f. readers would see as fantasy.
My understanding is that some of the manipulation of the Hugos stemmed from resistance to the field changing -- as though s.f. had always been this monolith that never changed and here's these darned newcomers chipping and eroding our sacred screed!
Thanks for the thoughtful response Randy. I think there are several things going on with the Hugo's and it's quite complex what has happened, but I'm not sure they have lost value for me as a result of diversification. They might have for some, I suppose, and I can only speak for myself. It's probably worth saying at the outset that the
only criteria I consider important when considering Hugo's and Nebula's is
quality. I'm perfectly happy to see diversity in the subject matter, and couldn't give two hoots what an author's background is, so long as the quality is there.
Change has always occurred in SF, but this has not previously had overt and unreasonable influence (I believe) on the awards circuit. The New Wave came along, and did indeed reward a new swathe of 'New Wavers', but old guard authors from the golden age still won awards if and when their work was good enough. The same could be said for other era changes in SF, some of which I've liked and some I haven't. I guess what I'm saying here is that, yes, you're quite right, there has been a broadening of the fan base, the author base, and the story content, following an increase in the acceptance and celebration of diverse groups (including the new - and welcome - inclusiveness of LGBTQ+ authors and fans). I would expect this ought to mean that the short lists and winners for major awards now would now include the
best works that represent this new diversity - works that should still be of Hugo and Nebula quality.
This is not the reality though, in my opinion. The new diverse fanbase and author base does not simply contribute to the landscape of the major awards, it has supplanted the old, almost completely. I read all the story, novelette and novella nominees for the Hugo last year. They did not represent a cross section of SFdom, as they were almost entirely from LGBTQ+ and other minority authors, which would be fine except that, importantly, they were simply not that good. They did not, in the main, deserve Hugo recognition. I don't pretend to be a writer of course, but I like to think I'm probably quite a good
reader. I have a decent ear for words (as Nancy Kress would say), and I'm reasonably confident I can judge whether stories have especial merit or not. Much of the written work springing from the 'new diversity' (and I read an awful lot of it in reviewing for
Tangent) is simply not very good. It makes no sense to me to push for diversity of the one hand, and then, come awards season, completely ignore all the most popular SF authors, and the traditional print magazines, and only reward works from what is a non-diverse set. I can only presume the most popular, older, authors are being ignored because they don't meet the Zeitgeist. Ironically, this is of course counter to celebrating diversity.
Which might make you think I'm claiming gross manipulation, but I wouldn't necessarily go that far - I think that the new, diverse, fanbase is active, interested, has found a voice and wants to celebrate its literature. That leads to lots of award nominations of a certain kind of story. The end result, however, are Hugo awards that are highly skewed, and because they are skewed, the Hugo is of little value for me now - quality is no longer guaranteed, thus my initial answer on this thread. The Nebula's of course are not voted for by the fanbase, but by SFWA authors. This leads to an award that still has a little more value to me as an indicator of quality (hence my answer to Extollager), but if you take a look at the current board of SFWA, you'll see a large number of folk who are, let's say, 'highly sympathetic' to the new fanbase, and I suspect there is
some 'manipulation' or at least bias, here.
Could this be true of s.f.? (And I'd widen that out to fantasy.) The scale might be smaller, but then the audience is somewhat smaller, too, and trying to take in all that's available is impossible except in random samplings. Therefore, an award like the Hugo may just be reflecting a large chunk of the audience, but not really reflective of the entire audience for s.f.
Indeed, a good point, and for the large swathes of online fans who are reading and enjoying the literary freedom of this 'new diversity', which they can now find in many of the more liberal magazines (Strange Horizon's, Tor, Lightspeed, Uncanny, etc.), the Hugo's are perhaps a better yardstick for what they enjoy. I would argue they are being pointed toward stories that are simply not very good, and that they might be better rewarded by widening their focus, but that's not my concern, especially.
However, for me, as a more 'general reader' who wants to read well written, insightful SF, the Hugo's being a yardstick for LGBT/diverse literature with little concern for quality, doesn't help me much. My view only reflects what I would like awards to represent, of course. Others may want them to do something else.
Anyway, we have to make our own minds up whether to pay much attention to awards, and for these reasons, I now don't.
Incidentally, I recently posted a list of the
10 best SF stories I've read this year (from hundreds read and reviewed) on my website. It will be interesting to see if any of these crop up in short lists for the major awards or not. (For those who may harbour thoughts that I'm on some sort of crusade on behalf of old men, please note that many of the stories I recommend are by young women.)
