Electronic OtherRealms #21 Summer, 1988 Part 12 Hugos & Other Forms [This is a bit of a change in the LetterCol. I was unhappy with the definition of the Other Forms Hugo category, and wrote a quick essay about it on USENET to generate a discussion and (hopefully) find ways to improve the category and clean up some problems I see with some of the other Hugo Awards. An edited (greatly shortened, for space) transcript of the discussions follow, with my suggestions for changes and improvements to the Hugos at the end. I don't believe my suggestions are perfect. Far from it. Complex situations don't boil down to simplistic answers. I make this material available here, not as the final resolution, but as another step in discussing the situation and finding ways to improve it. -- chuq] For those that don't know, the Nolacon people decided to create a special category to handle material that wasn't able to be cleanly dealt with in the existing Hugo categories. The result was the "Other Forms" award. The definition of "Other Forms" is any Science Fiction or Fantasy related item that doesn't fit into any other category. The specific things they're trying to deal with are books like the Hugo winning Science Made Stupid which won a Hugo as an art book in the non-fiction category; Dark Knight which lost as an art book in the non-fiction category and the likelihood of both Watchmen (another graphic novel) and Harlan Ellison's I, Robot script both needing a home in the upcoming Hugo elections. Unfortunately, I think the Nolacon people blew it. The wording is poor and ambiguous. Worse, "Other Forms" has the potential for of abuse. It's going to be a lightly nominated category -- I expect that we'll see a large number of votes for I, Robot, Watchmen and then there will be three things that happen to have gotten more votes than all the other things. What kind of random things qualify? I nominated two entries in "Other Forms" -- A.J. Budrys for his book review column in F&SF and Thomas Easton for his book review column in Analog. Both write genre related columns, and the columns don't qualify for any other category. After mailing off my ballot, though, I started thinking about the implications of "Other Forms". It's such a wide open category that it cries for abuse. Like Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine? You can nominate Dozois for Best Professional Editor, but not the magazine. So nominate it for "Other Forms" as best genre fiction magazine. How about nominating Clarion as the best genre related writing conference? Or Writer's of the Future for best writing contest? They all qualify based on the wording of the award. I could go on, but I think you get the point. One discussion I'd like to start up is what to do with the Hugo's that might improve this situation. Should Graphic Novels be specifically added to the Best Novel category, irregardless of words? Should they have their own category? Nothing at all? Are there any other categories that need adjusting? Tom Galloway (galloway%elma.epfl.ch@CLSEPF51.Bitnet) Should Graphic Novels be specifically added to the Best Novel category, irregardless of words? Should they have their own category? Nothing at all? Heck, this opens up almost as large a can of worms as the Other Forms category. Namely, how do you define a graphic novel? The first pass would probably be something like "A work of fiction in which the narrative is substantially conveyed by either illustrations or a combination of narrative and illustrations such that removal of the illustrations would substantially effect the narrative itself" The somewhat convoluted wording is necessary to rule out the novel which merely has text illustrated. But the big question is how one further defines this. Should there be a difference between the Far Side and Bloom County comic strips and an issue of, say, X-Men? What about something like Cerebus, which has been announced to be a 300 issue "novel", but which is made up of a number of self-contained stories which are further divided into individual issues. Like other serialized works, is it not eligible until the year in which issue 300 is printed is considered? Or are the trade paperback partial compilations eligible for the year they're published? Are individual issues eligible? Is the Worldcon ready yet for a graphic story Hugo? To be honest, it's only in the last few years that there's been material out that I'd consider worth giving a Hugo for the most part. Does this track record justify making this a permanent category yet?There is certain to be argument against this based on awarding comic books rather than "real" fiction. Comic book fandom has pretty much split off from sf fandom in the last 20 or so years. It's unclear whether the idea of a graphic story Hugo is politically feasible. Delete the Best Semi-Pro magazine category To be honest, while I don't have a copy of the regulations under which a semi-pro magazine is defined, I suspect that the only reason Locus is in this category is due to its circulation being just under the 10,000 which SFWA (yes, I know SFWA has nothing to do with Hugos) defines as a pro fiction magazine. It's clear to me that Locus is a professional magazine with no semi- about it; the thing provides the sole or vast majority of livelihood for several people. It pays contributors. To me, that means it's a fully pro magazine, not a semi-pro. There were good reasons for breaking the semi-pro out from fan, but I don't think either Locus or SF Chronicle belong here. I decided to get really strange on the Other Forms nomination. I ended up nominating Budrys and Harlan's columns in F&SF, the Hour 25 SF radio show in LA, Harlan's other unpublished script [Flintlock], and something I wish I'd thought of several weeks ago, SF- Lovers. Wilson Heydt (whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM) "Other Forms" also includes filk, and as Chuq noted, the rules are fuzzy in the extreme. The folks at Off Centaur have compiled a partial list of eligible filk for this year. There are some of us that are nominating "Dawson's Christian" (by Duane Elms) for the "Other Forms" Hugo. Jim Freund (jfreund@dasys1.UUCP) First of all, I firmly believe that a form of the Other Form category should most definitely exist. My personal love has always been for sf&f audio drama and well-done dramatic readings. I remember the Hugo nominations for two Firesign Theatre LP's coming in last place each time. And we all know how much Harlan would love one for spoken word. The late Mike Hodel should have enjoyed some recognition for his fine sf radio program on KPFK (Hour 25). (Modesty forbids my mentioning my weekly 2 hour sf radio program on WBAI for over 17 years, Hour of the Wolf)I have produced radio dramas over the years that I might have liked to have considered, and at WBAI alone, other sf radio drama producers over the years worthy of consideration have included Samuel R. Delany, John Lithgow, Baird Searles, and more. Moving outside the US we must take note of the BBC, with such productions as The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Nicol Williamson's reading of The Hobbit, etc. Not one of the above can even begin to compete in popularity (the Hugo is a popularity poll) with even a Grade-Z movie or an episode of V in the Special Dramatic Presentation category. Yet to make a specific Aural Hugo would be sill. So I welcome the premise of this new award. Yet I recognize the validity of your argument. I find the Hugo voting to be too dispersed in taste for serious nominations (due to the vague wording) to come forth. I think SFWA could handle such a category better... o Best Professional Artist. Shift this from a nomination of an artist to nominations of specific works. This would reduce the tendency of a well-known artist get votes on name value even in a year when their output is small or not up to snuff. This seems it could become a double-edged sword. I feel that the Hugo's cite name value popularity so much above all else that they often have not familiarized themselves with a given category. I fear that the people who would vote (and nominate) conscientiously on such an award would be few and far between. A good but not stand-out piece of artwork might win partly on the basis of the work it is depicting. On the other hand, your plan might encourage publishers to use better cover art as an incentive to featuring a potential winner. In fact, all of these specific proposals are close calls, worthy of debate and much fannish quibbling. Mark Waks (justin@inmet.UUCP) Wow. What a can of worms. I've been sitting here for about five minutes, thinking about this, and I can already see some of the problems that are going to be encountered if Graphic Novels (GNs) are given their own award. First, there's the old "what do you call Science Fiction" problem. Do superheros qualify? I mean, I do think that Watchmen is pretty decent SF, but how much of the rest is? The big problem, I guess, with giving GNs their own category in the Hugos is that they would then get an award every year. This is purely subjective, but I have no faith in the ability of the comic book industry to put out even one Hugo-level GN each year. Just because we've done it for the past two years means nothing. I wouldn't want this to degenerate into a simple "best comic" award; I hold the Hugos to a higher standard than that. On the other hand, there really should be some way for a really exceptional GN to be nominated, regardless of length. What if Watchmen had never been collected? For example, I would consider Moonshadow to be high enough quality. If the category were created, it would need to be broad enough that a run of a comic could be included. Otherwise, we're shorting a part of the comic industry. As far as voting for particular works of an artist, rather than the artists themselves: Hear, hear! I think that this is a marvelous idea, and likely to result in far more considered voting. I would seriously suggest this to the Hugo committee. Kathryn L.Smith (kathy@XN.LL.MIT.EDU) You're probably right about there not being a Hugo-quality GN every year, but "No Award" appears on the ballot every year too. If you don't think any of the nominees are of that quality, you can always vote that as your first choice. And yes, there have been several cases of a given category not being awarded every year. The question is basically how much faith do you have in the voting members of the WorldCon. Dan'l Danehy-Oakes (djo@pbhyc.PacBell.COM) Do we need two media awards? Best movie and best other media? Is there enough material out there to justify it? The real problem is that in any given year, there may be a radio show, or a TV show (should TV shows be counted in with movies under "Drama"? How about stage plays? Slide shows (remember "The Capture")? Perhaps "Other Forms" should be used as a Nominating category -- and then categories set up based on what gets nominated in a given year. If two or three art books get nominated, set up an "art book" category for that year. Two or three graphic novels, set up a "graphic novel" category. You'd have to have some threshold -- say, some minimum number of nominations -- for something to make the ballot. For example, suppose Watchmen and Elektra each got 150 nominations this year, and Hairballs got forty. Then I'd say that there should only be two graphic novels on the ballot. Setting the threshold could be a problem, of course; and what do you do when only one item in a given category makes the threshold? Put it and "No Award" on the ballot together, or just award a de facto Hugo? Best Professional Artist I've thought for a long time that people should vote for individual works instead of the Artist's output over a year. I suspect that (for example) Kelly Freas might not have won quite so many Hugos under that rule -- does anybody really go back and look at what this year's Freas, Whelan, Sweet, etc. covers were, or do they vote for their general impression of an artist accumulated over years? Kevin Anderson (kanders@ncis.llnl.gov) Every year I contemplate writing a letter to Charlie Brown, beseeching him to drop his name from the list. Come on, guys -- Locus is in a class by itself and will always win, unless SF Chronicle converts people. But even still, people will perceive it as a two-man race. And that's not true at all. I'm a small press advocate, and I don't agree with Chuq that there are no other alternatives. If Locus and SF Chronicle withdrew from the running, then maybe people could pay attention to marvelous efforts like Weirdbook, Whispers, Shayol, or Eric Vinicoff's Rigel. And ain't it too bad that Fantasy Book didn't win any best semi-pro magazine awards when it was around? Space & Time isn't quite in the same league, but it has been published continuously for 20 years and it's quite well done. These things are not fanzines, and they should be recognized for what they are -- one of my complaints about Locus is that they usually make snide comments about small press magazines because they seem to think that a publication produced by one person out of his or her own savings account should be comparable in quality to Omni. Michael C. Berch (mcb@ati.tis.llnl.gov) Somehow the idea of Locus "stepping aside" to let others cop the Semi-Pro Hugo leaves sort of a bad taste in my mouth; the idea of a award where everybody's not competing equally lessens the meaning of the award, like playing a kid at chess and letting him win. The trick here is to avoid loss of face, and it can be done by realigning the categories into something where Locus no longer gets a lock on a category, but can still compete if it chooses. Something like: The editor awards have always puzzled me, as in trying to find a way to vote for both a favorite book editor (Terry Carr, sigh) and a favorite magazine editor (depends what mood I was in). Don't quite know what to do about that. Jim Brunet (jimb@ism780c.isc.com) Anyway, as to Other Forms. After mulling it over, I don't think that Watchmen or any other graphic novel should be nominated in the novel category, regardless of word count. The forms are completely different, fish and fowl, maybe even fish and conifer. I agree that there needs to be a niche for things as diverse as Watchmen, Science Made Stupid, etc. However, I'm also uneasy as to where it will end. Best SF poem? Best SF make-up job? Best SF album? Very little in jest. On the other hand, I vigorously approve of your suggestion for best SF art, instead of artist. I don't know SF art that well, but when I did nominate and vote on such, I made an effort to look at magazine covers, book covers, etc., from the previous year in order to vote on that year's work instead of general reputation. Even then, I had the feeling that I was in the distinct minority. Brandon Allbery (allbery@ncoast.UUCP) I thought about Chuq's posting and then combined it with various other ideas. I think I've an idea.The basic idea would be to keep Other Forms in a modified form. It is obvious, from the existence of Watchmen/Dark Knight, that new forms of fiction can spring up and that existing forms which are not normally Hugo-quality may be used in Hugo-quality ways. Thus, "Other Forms" can potentially be useful in insuring that deserving works not fitting into other categories earn their just rewards. Also rather obvious, however, is that an anarchic category just won't do. As Chuq said, there are altogether too many possibilities for abuse of the category. My suggestion for the "Other Forms" category is that it be a two-step category. The first step is to select categories; last year and this year, for example, "Best Graphic Novel" would be a good category. This would be voted on the same way that specific works/authors/artists, etc. are voted on for the Hugo ballot. Voting on categories would be done fairly early in the Hugo nomination process. This would be so the winning categories could be selected and made public in time for works to be nominated for these categories at the same time as other works are nominated into "standard" categories. From that point, works in "Special Forms" categories may be handled in the same way as for normal categories. This would deal with the changing SF scene with minimal effect on the existing Hugo nomination process; it is flexible while it helps to insure that oddball write-in nominees do not swamp the nominations or final balloting. [And finally, my thoughts on what should be done with the Hugo. First, I'd like to see Other Forms converted to a new type of award, an advisory Hugo. Voters would nominate Other Forms Hugos in the first round, as they currently do. Instead of a final ballot, however, the committee would use the nominations to choose whether there is enough interest to warrant a special Hugo. They could, based on the number of nominations made, award zero or more special Hugos in a given year. To qualify for a special Hugo, certain restrictions need to be made to minimize special interest groups and people with strange senses of humors. First, it has to be genre related. It has to be originally published (or otherwise made public) in the appropriate year for qualification. And there has to be a significant interest in the item in the nominations -- for instance, at least 50% of the ballots that nominate Other Forms nominate the work. If the committee feels a work is inappropriate, it can be disqualified, at the risk of enduring all the screams and yells of those that disagree. This isn't perfect. But I think it keeps the intent of Other Forms while keeping it under control, and trying to guarantee it only is awarded in years when there is a deserving candidate. I don't believe there is enough quality material to guarantee that Other Forms would be awarded every year without cheapening it, and that is one reason why I don't want it to be a normal, nomination/vote award. There are three other areas I'd like to see the Hugo's changed or realigned. First, change "Best Artist" to "Best Artwork" -- a piece of art qualifying if first displayed or published in the nominating year. This does mean that it's possible that Michael Whelan will take all five slots, but if he does, he'd deserve it -- and it strongly removes the name recognition factor from nominating process. The second change would be modification of the "Best Professional Editor" category into two categories: "Best Magazine Editor" and "Best Publishing House" -- the latter instead of "Best Book Editor" because it is very difficult to see who edits which books. Book editing is much more a team effort, and it makes sense to honor the house and the team rather than single out an individual. Finally, the magazine categories need realignment. The primary problem is not the "Annual Locus Award" in the semi-pro category, but that the categories attempt to define contenders by both size and intent. It's almost impossible for a casual reader to understand intent -- OtherRealms, for example, was nominated in both Semi-Pro and Fanzine categories. I would convert the categories into the following three awards: o Best Professional Magazine: for magazines with readership over 7,500. o Best Small Press Magazine: for magazines with readership between 1,000 and 7,499. o Best Amateur Magazine: for magazines and fanzines under 1,000. Magazines of similar size should have, in general, similar resources and generally the same quality level. By decoupling the size of the magazine (the primary limitation on quality, material, etc) from the question of what the magazine does (is it a hobby, a semi- hobby, or are they serious?) you make it easier for a good magazine to compete against it's peers. My big complaint with the current system is that the question of intent skews the voting to heavily. The semi-pro category tries to define what the magazine is -- a definition that is aimed specifically at Locus, but which blurs in too many cases (including today's Locus, and fanzines with delusions of grandeur such as OtherRealms). The numbers I've chosen are somewhat arbitrary. They were chosen to make sure Locus and SF Chron compete as Professional Magazines, which was done to open up the small press category to the many under-appreciated mid-sized magazines in the field. The Amateur cut-off could just as easily be 750, or maybe as small as 500 (although that would convert Lan's Lantern, and almost convert File 770, both of which are definitely fanzines). Somewhere between 500 and 1000 the cost of Xerox or Mimeo starts to outstrip the cost of offset printing, and that's generally the place where I define the difference between an amateur press and a small press. As I've said, these are my best guesses on how to "fix" things. they aren't perfect. Locus can compete fairly as a professional magazine, but I don't believe that SF Chron can, which means that Andy Porter would have to get used to losing in another category. OtherRealms would end up in the Small Press category instead of the Amateur category, which I think would make it harder for me to compete and win against the likes of Grue or Fantasy Book. But these publications are all, in many ways, special cases. I think for the magazine field the categories would be more representative and fair. And I'm always interested in more ideas and suggestions on this stuff. One of the things you realize, getting into this, is that there are no easy answers. -- chuq] Book ratings in OtherRealms All books are rated with the following guidelines. Most books should fall into the range [***-] to [**+]. Ratings are modified with - or + to show a half step, with [***-] subjectively better than [**+]. [*****] Ones of the best books of the year [****] An above average book [***] A good book. Recommended [**] Flawed, but has its moments [*] Not Recommended [] To Be Avoided Subscriptions An individual copy of OtherRealms costs $2.85. A one year (4 issue) subscription is available for $11. Please note the new rates, courtesy of our Postal Service. Contributors of published material -- artwork, articles, letters or whatever -- will also receive copies of the issue they are published in. Complimentary subscriptions to members of the publishing industry are available. OtherRealms is available on a returnable basis to specialty shops and bookstores. Please contact me for details. OtherRealms is also available for arranged trades with your fanzine or at the whim of the editor. It is also available at Future Fantasy Books, Palo Alto CA. Is this your last issue? The number on your mailing list is the issue your OtherRealms subscription dies. Negative numbers indicate complimentary subscriptions. If it is zero, this is a one-time mailing, so if you want to see it again, you should Do Something about it. Electronic OtherRealms An electronic, text-only version of OtherRealms is available on many different computer networks and bulletin boards. On the Internet, BITnet, CSNet and UUCP networks, send E-mail to chuq@sun.COM for information. On USENET, it is distributed in the newsgroup rec.mag.otherrealms. It is also available on the Delphi timesharing service. Those funny runes The E-mail addresses attached to some contributor names are like Postal Addresses, only translated into computerese. Computers can use them to find other computers and actually deliver messages to people. Most of the time, anyway. If you don't understand them, don't worry -- neither do many computers. Submissions OtherRealms publishes articles about book length Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror. The primary focus is reviews of books, especially newer and lesser known authors. Other material about books and the people that write them are welcome, including interviews, bibliographies and biographies. Authors are invited to write articles for the Behind the Scene series. These allow you to go into the background and research that went into a book -- the things that make the book special and interesting that don't necessarily show up in the finished product. Please query on all non-review material, due to the limited space I have for these items. OtherRealms does not publishe poetry, fiction or anything about media, fannish or short-fiction works. Submissions can be made on either Macintosh or MS-DOS disk, via E-mail on the networks listed above, or the old-fashioned ink-on-paper format. On the Mac, I can read MacWrite, Word or Fullwrite format files. On MS-DOS, please try to submit an ascii readable file. If you aren't sure about any of this, contact me first. Please include envelope and return postage if you want to see your submission again. Anything submitted without return postage will be discarded. OtherRealms does not prohibit multiple submissions, but please note them as such. I take first serial rights unless other arrangements are made. On artwork, I take non- exclusive one time rights. Art I'm always looking for good genre related artwork, from small clip-art pieces to covers. Originals will be returned after use. I can now handle electronically generated art in EPS format as well. Publishing news OtherRealms is interested in publishing news about the happenings in the field -- contracts, promotions, deals, sales, market needs. If something has happened you want the world to know about, I want to know. The details OtherRealms is published on a Macintosh and a LaserWriter Plus. Software used to generate it include Microsoft Word, FullWrite Professional, SuperPaint, Aldus Freehand, Ready, Set Go! 4.0 and a host of others. The body typeface is Palatino. The Headlines use Univers in various weights and sizes. The cover logo uses Canaith, heavily modified in Aldus Freehand. OtherRealms Science Fiction and Fantasy In Review Editor Chuq Von Rospach Science Editor Laurie Sefton Contributing Editors Dan'l Danehy-Oakes Charles de Lint Rick Kleffel Alan Wexelblat OtherRealms #21 Summer, 1988 Copyright 1988 by Chuq Von Rospach All Rights Reserved One time rights have been acquired from the contributors. All rights are hereby assigned to the contributors. OtherRealms may not be reproduced in any form without written permission from Chuq Von Rospach. The electronic edition may be distributed or reproduced in its entirety as long as all copyrights, author and publication information remain intact. No article may be reprinted, reproduced or republished in any way without the express permission of the author. OtherRealms is published in March, June, September and December by: Chuq Von Rospach 35111-F Newark Blvd. Suite 255 Newark, CA 94560 USENET: chuq@sun.com Delphi: CHUQ CIS: 73317, 635 GENie: C.VONROSPAC