![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ajrTaking it as axiomatic that the Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story is broken, the following questions arise:
Can it be fixed? How can it be fixed? Should we even be trying to fix it?
Broadly speaking, there would appear to be three answers.
Change the rules
The central reason that Best Graphic Story is broken is because it is built around a definition that is not used anywhere outside of the Hugo awards. To put it simply, no-one knows what a 'graphic story' is. On the one hand, one can understand how the award is attempting to be a 'broad church' award, and so be open to webcomics as well as print comics and so on, yet the evidence of the past two years would show it's not working.
Looking at the nominations that made the ballot for the past two years, every one of them is a trade paperback collection - that is, in book form. People have shown, to a certain extent, that they know what they are and thus are comfortable with nominating them. Indeed, they're so comfortable with nominating TPB collections that they don't seem to notice when a collection contains more than one story.
While I haven't seen the full released nominations for this year yet (obviously), I did have a look at the numbers released last year (PDF link). The majority of nominations that made the cut-off were TPB collections. Other forms barely made a showing, indeed, the highest webcomic, Freakangels, with 11 votes, would've been disqualified had it made enough votes to appear on the ballot due to not being a story, rather the webcomic as a whole, which hasn't finished running yet. Girl Genius gets another eight votes just as that too.
It's clear that having the category 'open to all' isn't resulting in 'all' turning up. It's clear that 'Graphic Story' in ambiguous enough that a number of people effectively made wasted votes - and let us not forget the semantic mess that possibly lead to Paul Cornell being denied a nomination.
Thus, I'd change the rules in roughly the following way:
This improves things in these ways:
First, it makes it clear that the award will be for a single book. It takes away any ambiguity over whether Fables should be nominated for a story in a volume or for the whole volume, or whether a manga series can be nominated book by book or as a series as a whole once it has ended. I'd feel a lot more comfortable knowing that if I nominate something, then if other people don't nominate it, it's because they don't like it, not because they did like it but couldn't manage to nominate it in the exact same way I did (my key example last year wasY: The Last Man. Should the last issue be nominated, the last volume, or the series as a whole? I consider the entire series to be the story, but I couldn't count on others to think the same way.) Thus, removing ambiguity is, I believe, vital.
Secondly, given that I've said the award will go to a book, the eligibility dates have to be changed. That would be to cover any series which ends in one calendar year and then has the collection published the following year. Without making it clear that eligibility is linked to the collected edition, people would either have to nominate something that wasn't published yet, or something people might nominate might fall through to the cracks.
Thirdly, why the book publication? Not just because that's what most nominations were, but because that's how the vast majority of Hugo voters will encounter their 'graphic stories'. It's vitally important, I believe, that the material that's eligible should be that which is available in bookshops, as that's where the vast majority will look to see what's out there, and where the vast majority will go to when they hear about something that they should try. Bluntly put, the comics market is tiny. The vast majority of Hugo voters would not be a part of that market - that is, I believe any crossover between 'SF fans who buy comics' and 'Hugo nominators' is small. Look at me, here I am, a self-confessed expert on the Best Graphic Story award, and even I don't buy comics. Only the TPBs.
Fourthly, the change above would not deny any of the webcomics nominated so far the chance to make the ballot. Both Girl Genius and Scholck Mercenary were nominated for material that later appeared in print collections, and Freakangels is similarly collected in print by Avatar, so if people knew they could nominate those then they wouldn't be wasting their votes.
Finally, having such an open category is as absurd as having a 'Best Text Story' category, where this year, say, a voter would have to pick between The City and the City, Palimpsest, One of Our Bastards is Missing, and Non-Zero Probabilities.
Regrettably, changing the rules so they make sense to people would appear to be hugely unlikely, as both Kevin Standlee and Cheryl Morgan have made it clear to me that they can't see anything wrong with them. Which leads us on to option two.
Endeavor to influence the public perception
It's a bit of a woolly way of phrasing it, but what I mean by that is if the letter of the law can't be changed, then some kind of mass-publicity programme could be carried out to the idea that 'this is what is eligible for the 'Best Graphic Story' category. Get people used to thinking in terms of nomination the TPBs, and it's an improvement.
It's fair to say, I think, that this has already been carried out on a small scale. Both Girl Genius and Schlock Mercenary got their votes by using their websites to declare that they were eligible, and, most importantly, what was eligible. Similarly, this year Paul Cornell used his blog to tell people how to vote for his comic if they wanted to vote for it, in an attempt to avoid last year's mess. In all three cases, the publicity has clearly worked as they all got nominations.
Spreading the word wider, though, may prove trickier. The above worked because they were targeting existing fans. Trying to inform and educate (and possibly entertain) people who may not be terribly interested might not work so well. Proof of how ineffective it is may well lie in how few of Paul Cornell's Thirty Comics for Hugo Voters were nominated. I applaud Paul for trying to do something (indeed, up until this point it's a damn sight more than I did), but I think it's fair to say it didn't work.
Perhaps the chief reason it didn't work in this case was because Paul tried to provide something resembling a broad overview, with a short paragraph dedicated to each comic. My own personal feeling is that presented this way, it's just a list with no reason for anyone to be particularly interested in an item on it. What is perhaps needed more is actual advocacy about particular books. By telling someone "I care about this book, and here's why", that's what will grab them to be interested and maybe give it a chance.
Of course there's the question of 'why would anyone listen'? The obvious answer then would be 'if the advocacy is coming from a place they trust'. So, in internet terms, prominent bloggers (they know who they are, I'm sure) should review more SF comics, while in broader terms, magazines (or websites serving the purpose) should look to publish more reviews of SF comics. Broadly speaking, it's all about raising general awareness, and hopefully if a lot of these places are saying "These comic books are really good", then it might give more and different comics a chance of appearing on the ballot.
The main question mark left over the effectiveness of this would be the question of 'but just how influential are reviews/bloggers?' After all, In Great Waters didn't get a Best Novel nomination despite being pushed from several quarters. On the other hand, the barrier to entry for Best Graphic Story is much lower. Last year it was 13 nominations, this year 19. Even if it's 25 next year (which I doubt it'll reach), there still might be a much better chance of influencing things.
The only other way voters could be influenced without actually changing the rules would be if, when nominations were collected, then as well as sending out the voting form, an information sheet on "All about Best Graphic Story" was included to educate voters about the new category. Again, this would seem unlikely, for similar reasons to those given at the end of changing the rules. Those involved seem to prefer voters to 'work it out for themselves' without any 'official' guidance.
So, what's option three?
Fix the 'Best Graphic Story' Hugo? Fuck the 'Best Graphic Story' Hugo!
Perhaps I've put it a bit strongly there. But if Best Graphic Story is broken, and if impetus to fix it is lacking from within those who can, then why waste time and energy trying?
Why not, perhaps, put time and energy into coming up with an alternative instead.
A juried award of some kind, perhaps. One that casts a broad net and aims to highlight the very best of SF comics and manga published in a year. A juried award would perhaps be able to overlook the populist crap (and not-so-crap) in favour of finding undiscovered or overlooked gems that would deserve greater recognition. Don't forget what I said way back up earlier; people don't read comics, and with a popular award a comic has to find readers in order to stand a chance. A juried award would give comics like that their chance. Certainly, I think if a jury were to be presented with SF comics from 2009, they'd come up with a very different shortlist to the Best Graphic Story Hugo nominations.
But, hell. To do it properly wouldn't be easy. In order to work, it'd have to have some weight behind it. Not just be, say, a website that puts a little .GIF up as an award. Rather, a proper one, with some kind of ceremony behind it. But who's going to set up one of those awards? Who's got the time, the experience - hell, the money? Where would the jury come from? It's a nice idea, and part of me would love to see it happen. But it is, I fear, as unrealistic as hell.
So, three different options. All with things for and things against. It's a most vexing situation.
Can it be fixed? How can it be fixed? Should we even be trying to fix it?
Broadly speaking, there would appear to be three answers.
Change the rules
The central reason that Best Graphic Story is broken is because it is built around a definition that is not used anywhere outside of the Hugo awards. To put it simply, no-one knows what a 'graphic story' is. On the one hand, one can understand how the award is attempting to be a 'broad church' award, and so be open to webcomics as well as print comics and so on, yet the evidence of the past two years would show it's not working.
Looking at the nominations that made the ballot for the past two years, every one of them is a trade paperback collection - that is, in book form. People have shown, to a certain extent, that they know what they are and thus are comfortable with nominating them. Indeed, they're so comfortable with nominating TPB collections that they don't seem to notice when a collection contains more than one story.
While I haven't seen the full released nominations for this year yet (obviously), I did have a look at the numbers released last year (PDF link). The majority of nominations that made the cut-off were TPB collections. Other forms barely made a showing, indeed, the highest webcomic, Freakangels, with 11 votes, would've been disqualified had it made enough votes to appear on the ballot due to not being a story, rather the webcomic as a whole, which hasn't finished running yet. Girl Genius gets another eight votes just as that too.
It's clear that having the category 'open to all' isn't resulting in 'all' turning up. It's clear that 'Graphic Story' in ambiguous enough that a number of people effectively made wasted votes - and let us not forget the semantic mess that possibly lead to Paul Cornell being denied a nomination.
Thus, I'd change the rules in roughly the following way:
Define the award as being for the graphic novel (collected or original) published for the first time in English. Eligibility will be determined by the date the first book collection is published, disregarding any single issues or prior serialisation.
This improves things in these ways:
First, it makes it clear that the award will be for a single book. It takes away any ambiguity over whether Fables should be nominated for a story in a volume or for the whole volume, or whether a manga series can be nominated book by book or as a series as a whole once it has ended. I'd feel a lot more comfortable knowing that if I nominate something, then if other people don't nominate it, it's because they don't like it, not because they did like it but couldn't manage to nominate it in the exact same way I did (my key example last year wasY: The Last Man. Should the last issue be nominated, the last volume, or the series as a whole? I consider the entire series to be the story, but I couldn't count on others to think the same way.) Thus, removing ambiguity is, I believe, vital.
Secondly, given that I've said the award will go to a book, the eligibility dates have to be changed. That would be to cover any series which ends in one calendar year and then has the collection published the following year. Without making it clear that eligibility is linked to the collected edition, people would either have to nominate something that wasn't published yet, or something people might nominate might fall through to the cracks.
Thirdly, why the book publication? Not just because that's what most nominations were, but because that's how the vast majority of Hugo voters will encounter their 'graphic stories'. It's vitally important, I believe, that the material that's eligible should be that which is available in bookshops, as that's where the vast majority will look to see what's out there, and where the vast majority will go to when they hear about something that they should try. Bluntly put, the comics market is tiny. The vast majority of Hugo voters would not be a part of that market - that is, I believe any crossover between 'SF fans who buy comics' and 'Hugo nominators' is small. Look at me, here I am, a self-confessed expert on the Best Graphic Story award, and even I don't buy comics. Only the TPBs.
Fourthly, the change above would not deny any of the webcomics nominated so far the chance to make the ballot. Both Girl Genius and Scholck Mercenary were nominated for material that later appeared in print collections, and Freakangels is similarly collected in print by Avatar, so if people knew they could nominate those then they wouldn't be wasting their votes.
Finally, having such an open category is as absurd as having a 'Best Text Story' category, where this year, say, a voter would have to pick between The City and the City, Palimpsest, One of Our Bastards is Missing, and Non-Zero Probabilities.
Regrettably, changing the rules so they make sense to people would appear to be hugely unlikely, as both Kevin Standlee and Cheryl Morgan have made it clear to me that they can't see anything wrong with them. Which leads us on to option two.
Endeavor to influence the public perception
It's a bit of a woolly way of phrasing it, but what I mean by that is if the letter of the law can't be changed, then some kind of mass-publicity programme could be carried out to the idea that 'this is what is eligible for the 'Best Graphic Story' category. Get people used to thinking in terms of nomination the TPBs, and it's an improvement.
It's fair to say, I think, that this has already been carried out on a small scale. Both Girl Genius and Schlock Mercenary got their votes by using their websites to declare that they were eligible, and, most importantly, what was eligible. Similarly, this year Paul Cornell used his blog to tell people how to vote for his comic if they wanted to vote for it, in an attempt to avoid last year's mess. In all three cases, the publicity has clearly worked as they all got nominations.
Spreading the word wider, though, may prove trickier. The above worked because they were targeting existing fans. Trying to inform and educate (and possibly entertain) people who may not be terribly interested might not work so well. Proof of how ineffective it is may well lie in how few of Paul Cornell's Thirty Comics for Hugo Voters were nominated. I applaud Paul for trying to do something (indeed, up until this point it's a damn sight more than I did), but I think it's fair to say it didn't work.
Perhaps the chief reason it didn't work in this case was because Paul tried to provide something resembling a broad overview, with a short paragraph dedicated to each comic. My own personal feeling is that presented this way, it's just a list with no reason for anyone to be particularly interested in an item on it. What is perhaps needed more is actual advocacy about particular books. By telling someone "I care about this book, and here's why", that's what will grab them to be interested and maybe give it a chance.
Of course there's the question of 'why would anyone listen'? The obvious answer then would be 'if the advocacy is coming from a place they trust'. So, in internet terms, prominent bloggers (they know who they are, I'm sure) should review more SF comics, while in broader terms, magazines (or websites serving the purpose) should look to publish more reviews of SF comics. Broadly speaking, it's all about raising general awareness, and hopefully if a lot of these places are saying "These comic books are really good", then it might give more and different comics a chance of appearing on the ballot.
The main question mark left over the effectiveness of this would be the question of 'but just how influential are reviews/bloggers?' After all, In Great Waters didn't get a Best Novel nomination despite being pushed from several quarters. On the other hand, the barrier to entry for Best Graphic Story is much lower. Last year it was 13 nominations, this year 19. Even if it's 25 next year (which I doubt it'll reach), there still might be a much better chance of influencing things.
The only other way voters could be influenced without actually changing the rules would be if, when nominations were collected, then as well as sending out the voting form, an information sheet on "All about Best Graphic Story" was included to educate voters about the new category. Again, this would seem unlikely, for similar reasons to those given at the end of changing the rules. Those involved seem to prefer voters to 'work it out for themselves' without any 'official' guidance.
So, what's option three?
Fix the 'Best Graphic Story' Hugo? Fuck the 'Best Graphic Story' Hugo!
Perhaps I've put it a bit strongly there. But if Best Graphic Story is broken, and if impetus to fix it is lacking from within those who can, then why waste time and energy trying?
Why not, perhaps, put time and energy into coming up with an alternative instead.
A juried award of some kind, perhaps. One that casts a broad net and aims to highlight the very best of SF comics and manga published in a year. A juried award would perhaps be able to overlook the populist crap (and not-so-crap) in favour of finding undiscovered or overlooked gems that would deserve greater recognition. Don't forget what I said way back up earlier; people don't read comics, and with a popular award a comic has to find readers in order to stand a chance. A juried award would give comics like that their chance. Certainly, I think if a jury were to be presented with SF comics from 2009, they'd come up with a very different shortlist to the Best Graphic Story Hugo nominations.
But, hell. To do it properly wouldn't be easy. In order to work, it'd have to have some weight behind it. Not just be, say, a website that puts a little .GIF up as an award. Rather, a proper one, with some kind of ceremony behind it. But who's going to set up one of those awards? Who's got the time, the experience - hell, the money? Where would the jury come from? It's a nice idea, and part of me would love to see it happen. But it is, I fear, as unrealistic as hell.
So, three different options. All with things for and things against. It's a most vexing situation.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-04-12 09:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-12 04:23 pm (UTC)For the same reason they don't have a crime category, or a romance category, or a superhero category. They hand out their awards mostly based on format rather than content. It's an egalitarian approach, and it seems to work for them.
Adding a category to the Eisners therefore wouldn't work, I believe, as it wouldn't fit in with the general make-up of their awards. After all, it has already been demonstrated that SF&F comics have done very well in being nominated this year - why, then, create a ghetto for them to get shoved back into?
or do you envisage a standalone award coming from within the sf community?
I think an award from within the sf community, standalone or spun-off from/connected to an existing one, would be what I would like to see succeeding. Rightly or wrongly, I think having a body from within SF saying "These comics are good SF" would hold more weight than having the Eisners add a category saying the same thing.
[There is, perhaps, more to consider here. Probably around the issue of how 'we' see science-fiction compared to how 'they' see sci-fi. But I've typed and deleted several paragraphs multiple times, so I've had to give up. I think I need to unpack my thoughts on some areas a little more first.]
no subject
Date: 2010-04-12 01:33 pm (UTC)I need to mull over what you are saying here.
A few quick thoughts.
Kevin Standlee and Cheryl Morgan do not control the Hugos. In actual fact, Kevin has helped me bring issues to the Business meeting, as I occassionally have a desire to effect change, and was very neutral. (not Hugo, but worldcon related)
They may have an opinion on this award, that's fair enough.
But there is a forum, where rules can be changed, there is a way to effect change, it is actually not 'that' bad, and ultimatley it is totally democratic.
I can see some of the sense of the 'Graphic Novel' suggestion, but as a comic reader, fear that it may miss many titles, worthy titles, that never get collected.
It's really hard to figure why people vote, and everyone has their own motivation, I think that for a catagory that is relatively new, there will be tweeks and also the award will become more noticed and preveleant to that given industry with time.
(have you ever read what Dave Gibbons wrote about recieving a Hugo in 1988 in the other forms catagory for Watchmen?)
I do not think that there is a lack of impetus to ensure the awards work, and work well. I saw your previous post, and noted the administrator was going to deal with the matter, and I think that given it is not an easy job, that some breathing room be allowed. The administrators may even have recomenedations themselves.
I would be happy to help try and effect change, if its for the better, and makes sense. I would be very sorry to see the demise of this catagory, so quickly after it's inception. Awards can take time to settle, but I am pretty sure people really do care. I do.
Anyhow, this are quick thoughts, I need to look at what you are saying in more detail in you 'change the rules' section and consider them against whats in the rules currently.
cheers.
James
Reply - part 1
Date: 2010-04-12 05:24 pm (UTC)Anyway, on with the show!
I need to mull over what you are saying here.
No worries. If I'd add one thing to the above which I didn't do when I wrote it, it's that a large part of it is me thinking out loud, so if I wander at points, or (god forbid) appear to contradict myself at any point, that'll be why.
Kevin Standlee and Cheryl Morgan do not control the Hugos. In actual fact, Kevin has helped me bring issues to the Business meeting, as I occassionally have a desire to effect change, and was very neutral. (not Hugo, but worldcon related)
They may have an opinion on this award, that's fair enough.
It may help if you go back and read this related post (http://ajr.livejournal.com/203112.html) and its comments, which I wrote last year in the immediate aftermath of finding out what the nominations were for the inaugural Best Graphic Story award. I would add that my views now aren't exactly the same as my views as stated then (it was somewhat in the heat of the moment), so if anything there contradicts the above post here, then go with this one.
The specific comments I was referring to from Kevin Standlee and Cheryl Morgan are:
here (http://ajr.livejournal.com/203112.html?thread=840552#t840552) ("However, the category clearly isn't unworkable, because we have a slate of nominees, all of which are eligible under the current rules. That's a success." - er, what?, and "the perfect is the enemy of the good" - which I read as 'what we have is good, so shut up and stop trying to make it perfect', which was, and is, a million miles off where I am),
here (http://ajr.livejournal.com/203112.html?thread=844904#t844904) ("don't assume the voters are fools" - given potential voters discussing the issue were saying "we're confused", was Standlee saying we were assuming we were fools?),
here (http://ajr.livejournal.com/203112.html?thread=844392#t844392) (again, "what's the point of having popularly-voted awards if one assumes the electorate are fools" - again, apparently, I'm a fool for finding the rules too vague. I, and others, were saying "We have trouble working this out", not "Other people could have trouble working this out), and
here (http://ajr.livejournal.com/203112.html?thread=848744#t848744) ("Here's an idea: Why not allow the individual voters, by casting their nominating ballots, to decide whether they think something is a "story" or not. Oh, I'm sorry; that would mean they might make a decision that you personally disagreed with, and That Would Be Bad, since we all know that any time the rules produce a nominee or winner that you personally dislike, it is a Failure of Process." - this I present without comment)
While I did find Standlee's initial comments fairly neutral, the later ones appeared to be less so. In any case, I ended up feeling patronised and rather slapped down, which demoralised me enough I gave up, for a long time.
(edited to break up what turned out to be a large single block of text, that's all.)
Re: Reply - part 1
Date: 2010-04-12 07:07 pm (UTC)I contradict myself all the time, so thats cool, and speaking ones mind is helpful at times.
Gosh that was some discussion.
How did I miss that.
It's hard to know what the tone of the conversation was, when it's in text. I have to say that Kevin in person, was anything but patronising when I had dealings with him. Of course, it could be that one reads defensive opinion remarks as attacking. I also think that sometimes exasperation is hard to measure in text. Sorry you felt slapped down and patronised, I hope that wasn't the intent, but then this is a problem with text, which is why chatting in bars will never be redundant. Thank goodness.
I generally agree with the 'Good is Good Enough', but not to the length of failing to attempt to improve something. I have also experienced the 'its not good enough - lets fail making it perfect' a huge amount in various fannish hobbies, and this is a 'real' problem.
But I don't want to talk about last year, if that's OK.
I think that this hugo catagory is not failed, (I am a very optimistic person to a point of naiviety) but that perhaps I and I reckon others like yourself can help to temper it into something stronger, through thought, discussion and ideas. There is nothing wrong with desiring improvement.
I am pretty sure I would not be alone on that, but also know, that implementing change through a democratic process is hard work.
Not that I am afraid of that, I have a totally un-related idea to bring up at this years worldcon already.
I just need to decide in my head what I would think is a good way forward.
Reply - part 2
Date: 2010-04-12 05:25 pm (UTC)This is something I have considered, but ultimately I do believe that missing a few titles this way is worth it in order to reduce confusion. The thing I keep coming up against, is that I want to be in a position where, when people ask me to recommend books they might read with a view to Hugo nominating if they're worthy, I can genuinely just give them the books and let them go, instead of having to say "Well, this is good, but I'm damned if I know how to tell you to nominate it, when you could do so as a single issue, a collection, or the series as a whole" (assuming a finished series). To me, that's not useful, and contributes to splitting the vote in a way that I believe can be entirely avoidable.
I asked myself the question last year, "Is there anything I'd nominate that wouldn't qualify under my suggested form of the rules", and I have to be honest and say I couldn't find anything. Even the webcomics, as I've pointed out, had published editions available that would qualify, so having the rules be 'open' to let webcomics in doesn't appear to be an issue.
I'd also suggest that uncollected material would be unlikely to be read by enough people to garner enough nominations anyway, even if they could work out how to all nominate it the same way. There may even end up something that I'd be sad to see fall foul of my rules, but I'd take the 'good' of clearer rules over the 'perfect' of having the category open to all any day.
Final comment on this point - as a comics fan who just reads things in TPBs these days, I'd be curious to know if you'd have any examples of these worthy titles that haven't been collected.
It's really hard to figure why people vote, and everyone has their own motivation, I think that for a catagory that is relatively new, there will be tweeks and also the award will become more noticed and preveleant to that given industry with time.
I'd like to think that's true, but I'm afraid (and this is clearly anecdote and not scientific) that from what I've noticed, coverage of the Hugos is much reduced in the comics sphere this year compared to last year. I consider this is because the slate simply isn't strong enough to matter to them, and I consider tweaking the rules in the direction I suggest to be the best way of trying to enable the best comics to 'bubble up' to the top again (along with point two, more publicity).
(have you ever read what Dave Gibbons wrote about recieving a Hugo in 1988 in the other forms catagory for Watchmen?)
I recall having read something he wrote about the Hugos, but I regret I don't recall the details of what he said. If you know where he said it, I'll try and get ahold of it and read it again.
Re: Reply - part 2
Date: 2010-04-12 07:51 pm (UTC)My own nominations, were my own, and I may not have applied the rules as stringently as you did. I have to hope that my intentions were clear to the administrators. I think they were.
I am liking your argument for graphic novels a little more as I read your comments.
And has my brain gone blank on comics that should be collected, recent ones at least, I will need to go and check.
But I would love the following Collected; Hitman (all of it), Johnny Red, Cinder and Ashe, Zenith (again), Combat Kelly 1-9, The Demon (Garth Ennis Run, I wish they would collect all of The Hellblazers, in damn order. Electric Warrior by Moench and Baikie, Blitzkreig 1-5 DC.
I was very very pleased to see Blazing Combat released as a collection.
Dave Gibbons
'Althogh Watchmen has probably done as much as any comic to break free from genre and industry constraints, comics fandom does tend to be a littel insular, so it felt particularly good to be noticed in the next ghetto up, namely that of Science Fiction.'
'Science fiction fans have always seemed to consider themselves superior to comics fans (and possibley to the entire remainder of the human race) so to be awarded a hugo, the most coveted trophy in their feild, was a signal honour.'
Watching The Watchmen,
I must go to bed, as I am driving trains at 5am, but will continue responding tommorow.
J
Re: Reply - part 2
Date: 2010-04-14 05:51 pm (UTC)I have compiled a list of contacts, all comics releated, (blogs, websites, professionals in the business) that I am going to send to the administrator. He may have sent out press releases to these folks, but I am going to suggest he create a Press Release specifically about the comics catagory, to let them know, and also for when the Hugo's are presented and going forward.
It's not a complete list, but its getting there.
Any suggestions where such news should go?
I also think that highlighting the catagory, as part of the actual worldcon programme might be a good idea. I am going to suggest a discussion about the catagory, and also maybe something like about other 2009 comics, that are not nominated. Maybe a discussion about what in the first 8 months of the year, is worth nominating next year, could be a a discussion or a debate, or 5 minutes per person on their favourite story/graphic novel.
These are just ideas, I will need to refine them before I send them in.
Reply - part 3
Date: 2010-04-12 05:25 pm (UTC)I hope you're right, and certainly in the case of what I had to say about Fables, I've thanked the administrator for taking note, and I'm happy to wait and see how that particular matter is dealt with.
I would be happy to help try and effect change, if its for the better, and makes sense. I would be very sorry to see the demise of this catagory, so quickly after it's inception. Awards can take time to settle, but I am pretty sure people really do care. I do.
I know last year I said I'd sooner see the category vanish than carry on in its current form, but I've moderated slightly from that stance. I'd like to see it work, and work well, so to that extent I too would be sorry to see it go - indeed, I was careful above to not make any suggestion of getting rid of it, hence the third option being "Try a competing award" instead of "Bin it and forget comics ever existed". The only thing I'd disagree with is about time. It's the 21st century, we're well into the internet age, and by this point it seems to me that if problems are identified then they should be fixed quickly, not by having a process that drags out over a number of years.
Anyhow, this are quick thoughts, I need to look at what you are saying in more detail in you 'change the rules' section and consider them against whats in the rules currently.
No worries. I hope this comment of mine helps, along with the post I linked to (albeit with caveats) where you can see a few others express similar concerns to mine. And I'm always available for further questions or discussion if you need me to clarify my view on anything (or, indeed, if you think I need to change my view on anything! :) )
Nick
Re: Reply - part 3
Date: 2010-04-14 05:39 pm (UTC)I am going to suggest a discussion at Worldcon, about the catagory, and if a number of us were to be at the Tun, it might be good to chat there as well. Do you go there at all??
Unfortunatley, the democratic process, even in the internet age, can be a long one, and the rules are in place for the HUgo's. I could discuss at length adjusting the way things are done, but would rather think about what changes could be made, using the system to improve the catagory.
Yes, this is all very helpful, but I am also mindful that the administrator will make us aware of what is happening, and I think, that I want to see what that outcome is.
I do think the Graphic Novel idea is growing on me, mostly because I now have to go and seek out comics that are not collected!
Brining something like that to the WSFS meeting, is not that difficult, what would be prefreable, is to see what those currently involved think, see if rather than a total change, some adjustments would be suitable to the catagory currently, and then also float the idea on a braoder forum.
Again though, I think a chat over a beer, or cola, would be needed.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-12 06:42 pm (UTC)OK, I feel that a Hugo award recognising Comics/Graphic Novels and Web comics, is a good thing.
I think all awards have a little grey area, this is where
administrators usual administrate, but I can see the point, relating
to the rules, regarding an Arc/Graphic Novel issue. It's about there
perhaps being more clarity about the grey area, or at least a shared
understanding that is fair to everyone. I can see a number of ways to
adjust the award, slightly, but each time I end up losing an
aspect/potential nominee that I would like not to lose.
I also think that the administrator's response will be important, in my thinking.
I am not saying your Graphic Novel idea could not be the solution, but I wonder if there could be some fine tuning, yet to the catagory that could help.
Although, I sorta secretly wonder what input the authours have.
What I need to do on this, is step back from the idea for a bit, and
perhaps sit down and chat with folks in person, and I need to read the
rules a few more times.
I also think that people both care and are intelligent enough to work this out, and that for a catagory in its second year, it's doing OK.
Sorry that this mulling is inconclusive.