January 2015

Recently, I had a Twitter discussion* with Nerds of a Feather about the “Best Fancast” category for the Hugos.**  Briefly, Nerds’ Hugo Nominations Draft Ballot contained several podcasts which I had thought weren’t eligible because of their association with a pro site (Tor.com).  This discussion continued today with Justin Landon’s comments about nominations, which I’ll discuss farther down on the page.  First, some factual bits and pieces: The Hugo Award categories page lists the following definition for Fancast:  “Awarded for any non-professional audio- or video-casting with at least four (4) episodes that had at least one (1) episode released in the previous calendar year.”  Most podcasts would be eligible for this category if not for the word “non-professional.”  According to the Hugo rules, [the] definition of what is a “professional” publication is somewhat technical. A professional publication either (1) provided at least a quarter the income of any one person or, (2) was owned or published by any entity which provided at least a quarter the income of any of its staff and/or owner. Basically, this means that any podcast hosted by a professional publisher or a professional website is considered a “pro publication” even if the individual creating that podcast does not individually qualify in either category.  Tor.com podcasts, in other words, appear to be ineligible.  A lot of podcasts, in fact, are out, since they use sponsors that pay upfront or are funded by donations that go to pay staff, etc. There’s a reason for this, of course.  The fan categories, as archaic as they might seem, are designed to preserve the space that separates strictly “fan” activities from the professional (i.e., paid work) activities on the other side.  In principle, that’s fine, but in practice, it’s questionable.  While fans are right to be concerned about the “invasion” of their space by professionals, the fancast category is already one where that is true anyway.  Professionals are producing “fancasts.”  And they are winning awards (or not, as the case may be).  So the rules don’t actually prevent this, but they do prevent the “mega podcasts” (The Nerdist, etc.) from dipping into the fan well.  And that sounds nice, except the writing of the rules also means legitimately “fannish” efforts are ignored simply because they are associated with non-fan entities.  Tor.com podcasts are, I’d argue, fan endeavors, but they appear to be out of the running simply because Tor.com is a professional market.  Other fannish podcasts may be excluded for similar reasons.  This is almost like “guilt by association,” and it’s that unintentional thematic which rubs me — and others, I suspect — a little raw. But the rules are as they are.  Their intent may be noble and their practice seriously flawed, but they will still affect the makeup of the upcoming final ballot anyway.  This leads me to the next part: Change:  A Beast That Bites Way Too Much Nerds and I had a long discussion about the need to correct the absurdity of the categories in the Hugos.  I noted that we tried talking about this in 2013, but to little effect.  The way the Hugos function on a “legislative” level are such that change is almost impossible, or just downright ugly.  And you’re unlikely to make headway on creating a Pro and Fan Podcast category given that so many people in the Hugo voting pool literally want the Fancast category to die (or because getting involved requires an extraordinary amount of effort and patience, which most of us probably don’t have a lot of, to be honest). Yes, the Hugos need to be changed.  They need better categories, updated language, and more inclusion.  But to get there requires a lot of effort that I suspect most fans won’t put in, not because they don’t care about their favorite whatever, but because they’ll just go elsewhere when they realize how much easier it is to celebrate their favorite whatever in a space where their opinions aren’t routinely rejected.  The people who want change tend to be from that younger generation or outside of traditional fandom, and short of the fluke that was LonCon3, they’re just not going to Worldcon or giving as many shits about the Hugos as those of us who have something invested in it (myself:  a podcast).  Exceptions, of course, exist. That creates a lot of tension.  I spoke with someone at a con last year who lamented the disdain members of the older generation(s) have received from the younger generation — in general, undeserved.  The notion that the older generation(s) should get out of dodge and make room for new ideas came up a number of times.  I mentioned that the coin works the opposite way, too, a fact that becomes apparent when one looks at the 2013 Hugo Awards fiasco.  But the tension that exists between these generations has produced a massive divide in which two fandoms with a lot to offer one another are frequently found doing the mystical game of avoidance (intentionally or otherwise).  I noted as much at LonCon3 during a panel on conventions, because it seemed to me that older fandom were just not as engaged in the same spaces as younger fandom, sometimes because the two had decided they didn’t get along and shouldn’t bother. This is a critical mistake for the sf/f community, and it will have serious impacts on how the Hugos and any other traditional sf/f space develops over time.  One cannot create respect for a tradition on the basis of having been static for so long; that creates resentment, not love.  And in a rapidly evolving geek culture, it’s so much easier to discard those traditions for other spaces, ones where a newer fandom can get what it wants without compromise.  Hopefully, we can see the potential for a cycle here. Your Vote Matters:  Eligibility and Vote Value While I wish more people of the newer generations of fandom were interested in the management of the Hugos, I think it’s unlikely they will