Thanks for doing this comparison! I was also surprised when I found out about this a few years ago, and then decided to vote in the Hugos for fun. I've also attended Worldcon, so I think I can speak to some of your points. I don't have numbers for the demographics of Worldcon, but it seemed to trend older. And based on some of the panels that were offered, and that were popular, the readership trends away from epic fantasy and more towards sci-fi and sci-fantasy. I think that's why you don't see a lot of Martin/Sanderson/etc. I'm not sure if it's because the perception of epic fantasy is pulpier even amongst SFF fans so they don't get nominated, or if the attendees truly don't read epic fantasy, but epic fantasy definitely felt underrepresented. Also, grimdark felt super underrepresented, which again seems to be what's most popular in other fantasy circles. I think that they also latch onto particular authors, so you see a lot of repeat nominees. As far as voting goes, you talked a lot about the nomination process (which I also don't fully understand), but you didn't really talk about the actual voting process, which is ranked choice. I think that's the real thing that prevents voting blocs - a small group of people can get something nominated, but everyone else can just put it in last place (or put No Award ahead of it), so it won't win. Also, can confirm that you do get a packet with the works, but there's no check to see if you've read them. I think it would be impossible to actually go through all the works in the time you have if you're including the awards for best series, best editor, etc. In the end, I think my tastes in fantasy align pretty well with the Hugos for the past 5-6 years, but beyond that, not so much. I look at it as a "recommended reading list", but it's not really different for me than getting recommendations from booktube or reddit or other places. I think it's fun to nominate and vote, and it gets me reading new releases more often, and I think it's cool that it boosts visibility for the author. I totally agree that the perception of it seems really different from what it actually is. I also did not know how the World Fantasy Award does it, and that's super cool. Might have to check out a bunch of those winners next!
This is some EXTREMELY insightful information, thank you. I didn't find anywhere that it was "Ranked choice", which is weird, because that's a super important detail that does make a huge difference for limiting bloc voting. Also super interesting about the general demographics of worldcon, and your conjectures make a ton of sense. Hugo's really started as more sci-fi anyway, so makes sense that it still skews heavily in that direction.
I'm guilty of selecting titles based on awards...mostly because this year I challenged myself to read a bunch of Hugo's LOL. But occasionally if I see a cover of a book I really like at a bookstore but know nothing about it, but it says "hugo winner for short story" or something on the cover, I"m like "well guess it has to be decent". However, I def never care about books not winning as a way to not read them, if that makes sense. It only just gives a book a boost.
For any type of awards ceremony, the first requirement to make something official would be requiring anyone voting to have read every nomination. The fact that any award might be considered prestigious without that super simple baseline period should essentially deem them nearly useless.
@@slothrob How about we do it standardized testing style? Put them in a monitored room for set times every day and make them write a book report about each chapter and have the author verify the information is accurate? Obviously I kid, but if you actually want the awards to hold any *real* prestige there needs to be some actual levity given to the integrity of the process.
Agreed. North American works are heavily over-represented. But that is in large part due to the sheer size of that market. Also, we (North Americans) tend to not get much exposure to overseas works. I see the distribution of awards as a symptom of the lack of representation and distribution of those overseas works. It is much, much better than it was just a decade ago, but there is still a very long road ahead to get a truly representative sample of works to North American readers.
Brandon Sanderson mention in a video that he thought longer books had trouble winning Hugos. If you are given a packet of reading materials for all the nominated works, his 400k word epics are simply less likely to have been read by as many people because of there size. Which is why his short story was able to win.
I did actually know about this, but I was involved in the book industry for a pretty long time. As it goes I really don't place any import on awards in any industry. In the wine and spirits world, as an example, most of the awards are utterly meaningless as well. Producers have to pay to get their product entered, multiple products multiple payments and they also have to pay for every category they want it entered into. Pretty much every product entered wins an award, typically a gold or silver. Any idea why? Because the producers then have to pay the award body to buy the stars to put on their bottles. No awards given, no stars sold, no income. So yeah, merit doesn't really come into it.
The more awards I look into no matter the industry, it seems that EVERYTHING falls prey to this. Like...there just hasn't been a good way to do it, and so many fall into "how well did you advertise your thing".
I've known how the Hugos were done for a very long time and at the time I first learned, I had a reaction much like yours. However as the years have gone on and I've read a lot of the nominated works, I have felt less of that. Most of the works I've read that won, really were great books, even if they weren't 'for me'. So, now I tend to do what many here have said and use it as a recommendation list for books I normally never would have read. I do think it's a seperate problem that some really well loved books are never going to get nominated, kind of like the Oscars for film. Maybe there needs to be a SFF award that is more of a 'People's Choice' type award?
Yeah that's what I was thinking! It would be cool to have two well known awards, one that perhaps awards extremely popular or well selling things/ or a popular vote for real, and then one that is a panel of judges and awards creativity and pushing boundaries. Because one thing I'll say about reading the hugos, I may not like them all, but they did at least push boundaries in some way, which is important to award.
@@Bookborn The Dragon Awards were started as an attempt at a "people's choice" award. Not sure how that's going for them. It would be interesting to see the number of nominations and votes that they get compared with the Hugos.
I read less than I used to and use these awards as a go for a new read which has been a reasonably good filter for me. Have not DNF an award publication yet.👍
Some of the controversies you mentioned aside, it's always been my impression that the people who vote on the Hugos take it very seriously. They try to read the nominees and truly consider them. They abstain from categories they don't know, etc. And yes, you should vote!
Hugo uses ranked choice/alternative vote/instant runoff voting. In voting theory it’s fairly well regarded if you need a voting system. It’s a bit complicated to go into the details on why this is a decent system but the maths behind it are pretty interesting (it’s one of my personal favorite voting systems!). I think the awards are fun to look at and talk about but that’s about it. I don’t mind the paying to vote thing, as you were saying at the end the ‘experts’ could be anyone anyway.
It’s weird because I read their constitution in entirety and the part on voting says nothing about the ranked part. So I find it weird that they didn’t go more into it!
@@Bookborn The WSFS Constitution doesn't use the words "Ranked Choice Voting" or "Instant Runoff Voting" (two different terms for the same voting system), but the technical definition of the voting system (Currently starting at Section 6.4 of the Constitution) is RCV/IRV. The reason that it is in Article 6 rather than as part of Article 3 (the Hugo Awards definitions) is the WSFS has elections for things other than the Hugo Awards, and so rather than technically define RCV/IRV for each election, we define it generally in Article 6 and then apply it to all WSFS elections (with specific provisions for various types of elections).
Fun video! Remember, the award is primarily for science fiction (given out by the World Science Fiction Society), so no one should be surprised that fantasy rarely gets nominated. Some of the greatest stories of all time have been Hugo winners like Hyperion, Ender's Game, and Dune (although that one was a tie!), but there are also plenty of head-scratchers. Another commenter mentioned that politics have at times skewed the choices, which does seem to be the case. My goal for this award would be "best sci-fi book of the year" no matter who wrote it or whether it sold a lot or a little. At the end of the day, awards are subjective, and you're probably better off finding a good booktuber that shares your taste!
Yeah I find it interesting that most of the books I picked up on my own (not knowing they were winners but were) I absolutely loved. Like enders game/speaker, HP, Jonathan strange, dune, etc etc. but many of the ones I’ve read or the recent that I picked up just because they were winners… haven’t been as impressed
This is a really fascinating deep dive - thank you for doing the leg work! I generally don't find myself gravitating towards books that win these types of awards - Oscars, Hugos, etc - because through experience the kinds of books I love and the books that win the awards are not necessarily correlated in any way. Before discovering BookTube over the past year I would most often go off of authors who endorsed the book (for example I picked up the Powder Mage Trilogy because Brandon Sanderson had a cover endorsement, suggesting as a fan of Sanderson I might like that book; this is usually, but not always, accurate). Now I tend to listen to enough reviews on BookTube to get a sense of the book and make a decision from there.
That's so interesting about cover endorsements - I want to do an entire video on those. I DON'T TRUST THEM, they've led me astray too many times LOL. Sanderson's I feel like are pretty legit, he barely every does them. But some authors I think get paid by their publishing companies to do endorsements, or are asked to....idk that's a topic for another time lol
@@Bookborn That's a great point - authors certainly ARE incentivized to do them, either paid or (I would guess more often) expected to do a certain number of them for a shared publisher or agent in return for reciprocity. I NEVER trust "Fans of Game of Thrones will love" or "In the spirit of Tolkien and Robert Jordan" because that's just marketing, but I tend to give my favorite authors the benefit of the doubt when they choose to endorse a book personally. Perhaps that's a little naive of me
I have used the Hugo winners as a reading list for books (novels) I might not normally read - i.e. scifi. There have been some great books that have won. There have been some not-as-great that have won. There have been some popularity contest winners. I would say for the most part, the winners are very good to great most years (but not all). I’m not a member and have never voted (I’d like to go someday), so as an outsider it does seem that “politics” have affected to process the last 10 years.
Yeah, so far in my hugo reading challenge for myself, I've liked about 50% of them I'd say. Nothing I absolutely HATED though, which is saying something at least (yet, anyway lol).
I’ve known how the Hugo’s work for a long time. I’m fact a few years ago I voted. I have only ever used awards as a good list for interesting books and use them to put books on my TBR. And the one time I went, a good time to visit another country and hang out with friends haha. All awards for art is problematic in its own way, as you said. Finding the prize that suits you is like finding a reviewer? Things have to match before you trust them
Interesting video. I knew about how the Hugos worked because I follow a couple of sff booktubers who take part in the voting and it seems, despite the relatively low barrier to entry, there aren't a lot of people taking part in the voting. I thought about taking part myself but I know I won't be reading all the nominees and voting regardless seems unfair to the other books (and just as worthwhile as the GR awards) so I haven't yet. I totally think you should take part! I think you do read a lot of new releases.
Yes, that's what has shocked me the most - it is a relatively low barrier so you'd think more people would vote. If I voted I'd probably only vote in a few categories - like best book and novella - since I could actually commit to reading all of those in time for voting lol
Great video and commentary. And yes, you should vote in the Hugos! (Fun fact: Members of SFWA don't refer to the organization as "S.F.W.A.", they call it "sif-wah." Which will always sound strange to me.)
I was aware of the process , but only in the most broad-brush way. Thanks for the deep dive! I don't have a problem with any of the processes. All three awards seem to have participation broad enough to achieve, in a statistically valid way, the one thing they measure: the consensus at that time (among those who are generally well read) of what most deserves to be read. Hugo gives us the fan consensus, Nebula the professionals opinion, World Fantasy a little of both. Multiple awards means we can test the validity of that consensus by seeing if it's repeated. What does any of that ultimately mean? Good question! At one point, the fans and professionals were overwhelmingly white men, so it's possible that either (a) the works nominated were of less interest to other groups, or (b) equally interesting works created by other groups were not nominated. Ultimately, any particular readers taste may be out of step with the general consensus. In which case, the awards might actually serve as a guide for what to avoid for some readers.
Very interesting video. I always mistrust awards. But for some reason I thought the Hugos and the Nebula where somehow more legit. I don’t know where I got that notion. The academy awards for example I don’t take seriously at all.
I've been to a Hugo ceremony and have been a voting member for a few years (back around 2015). Hugo voting is A HOT MESS!!! It is essentially a popularity contest. Now that shouldn't take away from the prestige of that award. When done right it is an excellent guage of what the FANS think. It is still a highly flawed system susceptible to unsavory manipulation, but the more fans that participate in good faith, the less susceptible that system is. It depends on fan interest and interaction. For those that are interested and able to do so, I strongly recommend participating. ESPECIALLY if WorldCon is ever in a location near you! Every attendee is automatically an eligible voter! And every attendee automatically has a literal seat at the Hugo Award ceremony! It is an amazing experience and well worth all of the little benefits.
2016 Hugo voting was inflated due to the "Sad Puppies" controversy. You can look it up, but it was about politics, gatekeeping, representation, etc. You know, all the fun things we like to deal with in our escapist literature.
Sanderson blogged some about the Hugos back when WOT was nominated as a whole series (and then again when it didn't win). I believe those posts are still on his website.
It was just this year, I discovered the Hugos were voted on by pretty much anyone. I was thinking about doing a Hugo Award winning reading list, and upon looking up the past winners, I saw that I could vote on Hugo Awards as long as I attended Chicon 8 this year. And you are correct, a non-attendee could still vote online as long as you paid a $50 fee. Well, that explained why the last 35 years of the past winners list appears to be driven by popularity. The prestige I was giving this award immediately went down the toilet. Here's your 2017 controversial nominee for Best Novelette: Alien Stripper Boned From Behind By The T-Rex, by Stix Hiscock (self-published) was beat out by The Tomato Thief. The year before that ballot stuffing brought Space Raptor Butt Invasion by Chuck Tingle (Amazon Digital Services) to the table as a nominee in the Best Short Story category. More prestige down the toilet. But yes, I'd still like to see you vote next year.
Learned a lot from this video (ie specifics) but simultaneously nothing (because all award nominations tacitly annoy me). Could be worse though, they could be the Grammys instead. Just wait for some crazy thing to happen like The Lost Metal winning a Hugo for "Best Vampire Novel" and then you'll understand the deep-seated confusion and loathing that I feel about the Grammies 😅 Also yes you should vote!
Yeah like I have never cared about the awards. And then I decided it would be fun to read all the winners. And then I found out how absolutely meaningless the awards were and now I’m like… ok cool ??? The way the Grammies sorts things is so bizzare lol and I know that without even being entrenched in the music scene.
I'm a slow reader. A few years back when I was working two jobs I restricted my reading award nominated books only. I read a lot of good books for a couple years.
@@Bookborn Some favorite award winners include The Anubis Gates by Tim Powers, The Doomsday Book by Connie Willis, Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie, The Falling Woman by Pat Murphy. I could go on.
I think, with subjectivity in reading, there will be subjectivity in voting, regardless of whether it's a formal panel or a pay-to-participate voting committee. I try to not take too much into account when people say this book got so many awards or that book got this particular award, because an award, no matter how it's decided, doesn't determine my enjoyment of the work. With that said, I think you should totally pay for the membership to vote in next year's Hugos!
I do try to read many of the nominees for each of the Hugo, Nebula, and WFA because I’ve found that overall the writing is better than the so-called open voting lists like Goodreads Fantasy, which is so heavily skewed towards romance it’s a waste of time to even look at now. The Hugos can certainly get into some weird territory, having included slip-stream fic and magical realism in some of their nominees and winners (I’m looking at you, Palimpsest 😣). Are the only books worth reading the ones that get nominated? No. But overall I find the quality and breadth worth spending my time and money on.
Something related to this and video recommendation : In the UK/Europe they have a publishing line called SciFi Masterworks,Fantasy Masterworks, and many like these What constitutes a classic/masterwork? A good work? A popular work? Old Age?
Ugh that question is such a good one but SO hard to answer. Do classics have expiration dates? Does something meaning a lot at the time mean it should mean a lot now? I have no answers for that.
Incidentally, you don't buy a "ticket" to join WSFS (i.e. join the World Science Fiction Convention). You buy a "membership." The $50 you mention (the actual rate is set annually by each Worldcon Committee is your membership to the World Science Fiction Society itself, and gives you the right to vote on all WSFS elections, most notably the Hugo Awards. It also generally gives you the right to receive the publications from that year's Worldcon. The difference in price between the Attending membership and the $50 is currently called the "Attending Supplement" (the name changed as of after the 2022 Worldcon in Chicago), but both of these include a membership in WSFS. Indeed, the definition of the membership of the World Science Fiction Convention is " all people who have paid membership dues to the Committee of the current Worldcon." Now regarding getting copies of the finalists: For the past decade or so, Worldcons have organized a "Hugo Voter Packet" that includes most (but not necessarily all) of the shortlisted works in a packet accessible electronically to all WSFS members. Nobody is obliged to make their work available for this packet, and not all works are included -- the rights-holders to those works have to agree to make the works available, and not all of them choose to do so, for various reasons. It's a lot of work to organize, and it's not guaranteed, but it's been happening for years now, and every Worldcon since the practice first started has done their best to organize it. Every Worldcon is run by an independent entity. There is no "central office" of WSFS. So all of the functions of putting on the Worldcon and organizing the Hugo Awards is done by a new group of volunteers every year. The first Worldcon was in 1939, and the first Hugo Awards were presented in 1953. It has been going on in this self-organized, new-group-every-year method since then. Imagine if ComicCon International was in San Diego this year, then dissolved and a completely new group ran ComiCon International in London the next year, then repeated that process indefinitely. Also, imagine if the members of that convention could vote on where the future conventions would be held, based on proposals by people who wanted to hold it. That's how Worldcon works. I know it sounds crazy, but it's been running this way now for more than eighty years.
Genuinely had no idea that your average joe could vote in the Hugos. I think an interesting factor to consider is that anyone paying to vote in the Hugos or the World Fantasy Awards (was that what it was called?) is passionate enough about literature to have discovered that they can vote, and to pay to do so. Not saying that makes it necessarily more reputable or anything, just something to consider. Also you should absolutely vote in the Hugos, just so you can say "I helped pick this year's Hugo Award winners" in a very pretentious way XD
Yeah I think they probably take it seriously but I would be super interested to also know the demographics. Like age, race, gender, etc - I wonder how that shakes out.
I don’t tend to react quickly very often. My style is to really dive in and research. So I have thoughts on the Sanderson thing - that I’ll probably be presenting next week or two - but it takes quite a bit of research, and that takes time :)
Completely off-topic, but sin e you (naturally) bring up both Rothfuss and Sanderson in the discussion... Patrick's most consistent critique/complaint about Brandon has been "Dude, please just slow TF down! No writes that much that fast!" I *really* want his (and your, of course) reaction to Brandon's "Oops I accidentally wrote 4.5 unscheduled and unannounced novels in the past 2 years" Kickstarter, as well as it breaking $7mil in 6 hours, and currently sitting at $17mil after 24 hours (with 29 days to go)
when a series get 3 awards (Broken Earth) in a row i just think its momentum, cuz having read other books from the same year, sequels didn't really hold up in comparison
Yeah I"ll have a lot to say about that in my Hugo's video. While I absolutely LOVED the fifth season, and def think it deserved it's award, it always really surprises me that it is THE trilogy that has won for all three. As a trilogy, I don't think it's as strong as that first one.
lol right with you. I put a lot of stock into it previously and now I'm trying to take it with a grain of salt (isn't stopping me from reading all the winners this year tho lol)
I'm kind of the opposite of many people commenting. When I see a book won an award I am less likely to want to read them because I figured it would be pretentious. I mean, if the book sounds interesting to me, I will pick it up whether it has an award or not. Maybe it isn't as pretentious as I thought since anyone can pay to vote.
@@Bookborn you should! I haven't mainly because I wanna be surprised if you ever make a part 2 ;) Plus, books that win have their covers ruined with that medal on paper
I like awards in general. There are not perfect but serve a purpose. I think a lot of the problems around awards have to do with what the specific award aims to do/ why is it given and what the public thinks the award is given for. Not every award can please everyone. Like the Goodreads awards, so many people complain that Sarah J Mass wins because she is so popular. Then when the Hugo/Nebulas/Locusts awards get presented a common complaint is that nobody has ever heard of the books that were shortlisted lol. I often see people complain that these so called "experts" choose books that nobody reads when its actually a popular vote. Nobody is happy. I use to not pay attention to the big awards when a first started reading. After a few years, I noticed that lots of my favorite authors and books had been past nominees or winners. Authors like Ted Chiang, Susanna Clarke, Martin, Bujold, etc. Then I started wanting to expand what I read and started looking at current publishing trends. And through these awards I have been introduced to so many of my favorite new authors like Alix E Harrow, Nghi Vo, P Djélí Clark, Katherine Arden, and Ken Liu just to name a few. Now I am always on the look out on who makes the shortlists for these awards because they tend to include a good bit of new authors. And through booktube, I have found many booktubers who submit their own ballets and make their own suggested readings and predictions for these awards. Through these booktubers, I have found many books that have been excellent but don't seem to be known to thr greater public. So for me, these awards have directly and indirectly helped me broaden my reading horizons.
Excellent take. I find that I tend to love the authors that don't win but are nominated LOL. Like every year there are always a few authors nominated that I absolutely have fallen in love with, but they never seem to win. So I do think nominations can highlight some up-and-comer's that really mean something. (Like you, I discovered Vo and Harrow because I had heard their short fiction had won awards, and so I read their novels and loved them before they were nominated the next years).
Yeah I had seen he was nominated but was just talking about wins! I mean I think a HP book deserved to win a Hugo, I mean they changed children’s publishing forever. But that’s how I feel about like GoT and SA too so I wish that was represented
@@Bookborn yeah it stings because I think Storm of Swords is the best ASOIAF book but Goblet of Fire isn't the best Harry Potter book. Plus I just like ASOIAF better than HP 😅
i also think that having a paying feature being an aspect of voting excludes a whole group of readers who are of a lower social economic status which is mostly minorities. So if that are just going to have average people basically have a popular vote they are really having really only mostly middle to upper class white individuals vote which is unfortunate
I knew how the Hugo worked, but think all art is subjective, so that picking the "best" is meaningless. But if you really want to award the "best" in publishing, you need to realize that writing and publishing is a business. Books are a product and the best products are those that make the most money. The best books then would be the most profitable books for publishers and authors. But book profits are kept secret, so how can anyone say which is the best book? In the end, these awards are simply an industry promotional events -- something to put on the book covers to sell more books.
Your comment about Brandon Sanderson and GRRM exemplifies the point. For me, these awards don't represent fantasy and science fiction well at all. The Nebulas just follow the Hugos, and the Hugos typically are interested in propping up a small group of authors that don't write stuff most fans read. The nominees for the world fantasy award are so far from the mainstream of the genre that the awards are useless. I mean really: go read the Hugo finalists for best short story in 2014. They're not science fiction or fantasy. Some of them aren't even stories. I'm encouraged by the Dragon Awards, but awards in general seem kind of pointless.
Yeah and that’s where I think it would be more interesting if these awards had a mission statement. If you’re trying to give voice to new voices in fantasy or overlooked fantasy, that’s a great goal! But it’s also different then representing the height of fantasy and sci fi right now, you know?
You forgot Dragoncon 😉 I am more sci fi than fantasy, but I have enjoyed a few fantasies. Spinning Silver was awesome. I do not trust any award. Instead I follow them all. Every year I download the best list from Locus, Recode, Goodreads, and whoever else I can find. I read through the book reviews and make a few choices. The Hugo, Nebula, and Dragoncon will come out of these lists. Dragoncon is supposed to be a populist Hugo, but instead you think the Hugo is populist. I think you might like Locus manazine or Escape Pod podcast. Both are at the literary end of the reviewers. Dragoncon is closer to the Amazon best seller list.
Yes - very surprised that they are pay-per-vote. I also assumed that a panel of "experts" read the nominees and then voted/ debated. The Nebula seems more realistic with members having to be actual authors themselves,. However, as to the question of meaning- I find that prize winning books - wether Sci-Fi or not (like Booker prize) are rarely enjoyable. I feel with the Booker that the judges are looking for something that is technically (in terms of story telling) inventive or unusual. For most leisure readers those technical details barely matter.
Yeah that's pretty weird that the Hugos can be voted on by anyone who pays $50. I may actually look into doing this. I don't really let award nominations influence what I read. I may take note of it if the award is mentioned on the cover or the Amazon page, but it doesn't mean that much to me.
That's exactly how I Feel. If it's mentioned on an amazon page and I'm already inclined to buy it, it will push me over. But something not having an award means nothing to me.
Honestly, I've never really paid much attention to these awards. The only time I hear about them is when the controversies pop up which to me are just a bunch of people whining about their favorite dog in the fight. BTW, if I am looking at an unknown author, to me the cover art makes/breaks the deal. If a publisher has invested in interesting or compelling art work then I'll give it a try.
Victor Hugo would be appalled....if he is the namesake! Oh wait, it’s Hugo Gernsbacher, publisher of Amazing Stories! I say go for Locus (readers) and Nebula (SFF writers non profit association)!
Hugo is talked about so much because they have reputation. Despite the fact that anyone can vote they successfully highlighted great memorable books each year. It does feel like an award given by professionals rather than general public, right? Otherwise so many people wouldn't be confused about it. I've never participated in worldcon or voted for Hugo, so I can only guess how people managed to achieve this. I suspect it was just the way they thought about it: not a trophy to win for your favorite book, but a community of fans coming together to recommend great works of sci-fi and fantasy. And there seemed to be a consensus on what "great" means: something novel, unique or memorable. I've used past tense in the previous paragraph because recent years felt like a popularity contest and were a big disappointment to me. Also, I don't think you should vote in the next Hugo. From the way you phrased the question it is obvious that you haven't decided for yourself what this voting means for you or why you should vote for this or that book. Basically you'll throw away 50$ to cast a vote that means nothing to you.
I wouldn’t say it means nothing to me! I read a lot of sci fi and fantasy and being a part of big things in the community always interests me. What would be my hesitation, rather, is if I feel my voice is important enough to contribute. If anything, I’m taking it seriously. I do like your description of the voters - it’s nice to think that people are taking it that seriously as a whole n
@@Bookborn Sorry that I misinterpreted your question about voting in Hugo! If you have your reasons to do it, then it is not my place to tell you not to.
In my experience there's very little correlation between what gets awards and what I like, so I stopped caring about it. Maybe you could make a video about if getting awards lead to more sales; I suspect it doesn't add much.
Yeah that's would be a really intersting thing to chart. I wonder how I could find that information. I'm reading through the Hugo's this year as just a fun project, and I've found that I pretty much only like roughly 50% of them.
They made a difference for me in the past, I would tend to look at award winning novels as a indicator of good writing; if it's a "pay to vote" thing, won't influence me anymore
On one hand, I don't want to be rude or mean, but if there's one thing nerds love, it's correcting people, so um, actually... At 0:50, you say you did a "deep dive," but: 1) 1:43: "The first Hugo Award was given out in 1939." The first Worldcon was in 1939, but the first Hugo Award was given out in 1953. Retro-Hugos were introduced in 1996 for past years in which Hugos were not awarded. The earliest Retro-Hugo has been for 1939, awarded in 2014. 2) 6:19: "There was also a random high in 2016 with almost 4,000 voters, so I don't know what made that year special. Maybe 2016's Worldcon was particularly special." You talk about exactly what made 2016 special at 12:28. It was the Sad/Rabid Puppies. After three years of varying success, this alt-right bloc voting campaign received a ton of pushback in an attempt to take back the Hugos. Then, as you say at 4:14 and 4:35, the voting calculations were changed in 2017 to avoid things like this. The Puppies still tried to take over, and while they were less successful than in previous years, it's true that a writer with the first name of Stix was a finalist for Best Novelette. A similar finalist for Best Short Story appeared in 2016 for the same reason. 3) 7:25: "Brandon Sanderson won for a novella and George R.R. Martin [...] won for a bunch of, like, shorter works. None of them have won a Hugo." Did Sanderson and Martin win Hugos or not? You're right that they didn't win for Best Novel, but even ignoring Sanderson's win for his podcast and Martin's wins for the "Game of Thrones" TV show, the two writers have a combined five Hugos for novellas, novelettes, and short stories, which you yourself said at 1:16 was what you would focus on. In fact, Martin won in two of those categories in one year! He's won every Hugo he's been a finalist for EXCEPT Best Novel! Personal view: The Hugos are voted on by readers of science fiction. The Nebulas are voted on by writers of science fiction. One is voted on by fans. The other is voted on by peers.
I had no idea how the Hugos worked, but I also didn't care at all about them, lol. I honestly couldn't name any Hugo nominees or winners. Awards in general don't mean much to me. I read what I'm interested in, and simply being nominated for an award doesn't make me interested.
Honestly I never cared either! When I got into booktube, I thought it would be interesting to read all the Hugo winners just to be “up on my knowledge”. So finding out it really means nothing is sort of hilarious to me
Sounds like that by reallocating the vote after removing the bottom place, they're trying increase the number of nominators who have a nominee in the final.
I've been a librarian for over 20 years and served on several award committees. There is no perfect system. The Nebula carries more prestige because it is the fiction equilavent of peer reviews. However, it too is flawed. Lots of books have won the Hugo that are, to be honest, bad books. If folks are looking for recommendations, social media is the best way to find books that they will like. The Awards are interesting but not reliable indicators of what is "good."
wtf bruh Hugos are just a glorified popularity contest then, by a super selective group of people who happen to live where the convention is held (mostly in western nations) they absolutely do not deserve the high regard they are attributed to, thanks for highlighting this information
All of these awards mean exactly nothing to me, much like any 'best of' lists you find anywhere. I'm sure these books are liked by some people to end up on such lists or receive nominations, but that doesn't mean they are great - or to my tastes. I've picked up exactly one book ever based on an award; Apocalypse Cow which won the Terry Pratchett First Novel Award. And even then, if I hadn't liked the premise of the book I probably wouldn't have picked it up.
Honestly I never cared either! When I got into booktube, I thought it would be interesting to read all the Hugo winners just to be “up on my knowledge”. But for the most part I find the winners are only 50% to my taste and it’s better to just find books they way you said - or through trusted reviewers.
I really understand your doubts about Hugo. However, I trust whoever votes for books every year in Hugo for the following reasons: 1) Yes, it's whoever pays can vote, BUT - in my opinion it's not just whoever, but those readers who love sci-fi and fantasy and truly want to contribute to the common cause of promoting the most interesting books for people who like this genre. 2) Even though there is no way to check the accountability of the people who vote (like you said, do they read all books or just one book and vote for it?), but I believe they are nerds like you and me, just a little bit more pro-active. So I would think they read all books worthy of the award. 3) Sci-Fi community of readers is rather tiny (I made this conclusion from the number of views of videos of sci-fi books reviewers - its' small), so I really believe that most people who are united by the love of sci-fi and fantasy have more or less the same taste in books. 4) I've read many Hugo winner books and did not regret reading a single one.
haven't read that one but I stumbled upon two books recently which won Hugo "Redshirts" and "Ancillary Justice" - didn't like them at all :( So I guess my point doesn't make too much sense haha@@thelastcube.
@@aleksandrlukin565 oh nooo, I've heard good thing about those books 🥲 But I meant about Hugo's credibility, and the revelation of the unfair way the 2023 awards were manipulated by the organisers, not a book named Revelation 😅
It's called Ranked choice voting, meaning that every one of votes has "Weight," think of it in terms of politics, You like Candidate A the most, and candidate C the least, but you don't mind Candidate B, and You Absolutely can't stand D, but D is a favorite by a small margin So you cast a ballot from one to three. On the first ballot, Candidate A wins 50 votes Candidate B wins 60 votes, and candidate C wins 100 votes, Candidate D gets 130 votes but no one has 50%+1 votes, so the ballots are recounted your vote is then moved to the second person (candidate B) and retabulated, with yours and everyone else who voted for A now going to their second preferred candidate, and after the second Ballot candidate B Won enough votes (171) to become your nominee. Now with regular voting you'd be forced to hold your nose and votee for candidate C, because "At least they're not Candidate D" So in book terms Book A is fine, and book B is terrible, and you're the only one who likes Book C, and in order for you to not let Book B win you'd have to vote for book A, even though you prefer C. (here's a video that explains it better ruclips.net/video/3Y3jE3B8HsE/видео.html&ab_channel=CGPGrey)
Nope! Fantasy books have won Hugo’s and are nominated every year. For example this year, Legends and Lattes was nominated and there is zero way to twist that novel into sci fi :)
@@Bookborn I feel like the Hugos was originally a science fiction award, and then it changed later on. The official Hugo FAQ covers this question, although the link to the charter is broken.
Who cares what authors, librarians and publishers think? Awards like the ones you covered are all about what the fans like. For my money, I stopped paying attention to award winning books as the single reason to read a book about 20 years ago. In my opinion, six of the best Science Fiction/Fantasy books of the last decade or so won none of these awards. 1. Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky 2. The Martian by Andy Weir 3. House of Suns by Alastair Reynolds 4. Piranesi by Susanna Clarke 5. The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet by Becky Chambers 6. Station Eleven by Emily St. John Mandel
For me WFA is the most questionable, which is sad as they are the only fantasy-only. I looked up 2 separate years of judges and their bibliographies do not inspire confidence in their ability to pick a winner or nominees. 3/10 werent even writers...
I mean in fairness, I don't think only writers should nominate these. Writers look for something specific, and I think it's good to have a wide variety there. Maybe agents, really respected literary critics, etc. That being said, I will say the WFA selection can be confusing sometimes haha
What really makes anyone an expert when it comes to entertainment? Seriously. Awards in any entertainment field are pretty meaningless. They are people patting themselves or other people on the back for being part of some clique. Almost by definition that's pretty meaningless if you're not in that clique. Long ago I learned to either ignore or scoff at any such awards.
Hi! I've known how the Hugos worked for about 45? years - since my first Worldcon. I'd like to address one of the things that seem to confuse you about the Hugos. As you noted, the Hugos are a popular vote. What you may not have taken into account is that the Hugos are voted on by the fans who attend or support the Worldcon. The Hugos represent the taste of a very specific subset of SF fandom. So those block votes you see as missing, are missing because this is not their environment. If you have liked previous Hugo winners, you will very likely like new Hugo winners. The voting block is self-selecting; only people who care tend to vote, and even fewer of those nominate. I find it bewildering that you question the validity of the process without ever talking about the quality of the winners. And if you agree that, except for the Puppies slates, the quality is consistently good, I am also bewildered that you question the validity at all. Also, you left out my favorite part of the Puppies debacle. When the Puppies stuffed the ballot to the point that there were no non-Puppy options in several categories, the attendees of Worldcon that year took a stand for that quality and voted No Award in those categories. So, yes, anyone can vote for the Hugos. All it takes is $50, and a desire to vote in the Hugos. But the core voters for this award have been voting for the Hugo for decades. They have years and years of experience in reading and reviewing SF. They passionately debate the shape of their organization and the merits of the nominated works, and in regional literary based conventions throughout the year you will find panels on nominating works for the Hugo, voting for the Hugo, and fans eager to introduce new blood into this community. This is a robust and successful process, and if it doesn't work for you now that you've seen the sausage made, I wonder what you think you've been missing?
Completely misrepresented the sad puppies group. Their whole complaint is that racism had become a part of the award giving process. You weren't even trying to be neutral here.
penelope lively and neil gaiman have better books than every one of these us-centric awards. I don't enjoy US sci fi ir fantasy - should be a UK and US award as we don't understand / appreciate one-another
Gaiman, Pratchett, Clarke, Rowling and other UK authors have all won these awards lol these awards absolutely aren’t US centric, and it feels a little silly to say you don’t like an US fantasy or sci. Not even Octavia butler, and absolute legend in the space?
Thanks for doing this comparison! I was also surprised when I found out about this a few years ago, and then decided to vote in the Hugos for fun. I've also attended Worldcon, so I think I can speak to some of your points.
I don't have numbers for the demographics of Worldcon, but it seemed to trend older. And based on some of the panels that were offered, and that were popular, the readership trends away from epic fantasy and more towards sci-fi and sci-fantasy. I think that's why you don't see a lot of Martin/Sanderson/etc. I'm not sure if it's because the perception of epic fantasy is pulpier even amongst SFF fans so they don't get nominated, or if the attendees truly don't read epic fantasy, but epic fantasy definitely felt underrepresented. Also, grimdark felt super underrepresented, which again seems to be what's most popular in other fantasy circles. I think that they also latch onto particular authors, so you see a lot of repeat nominees.
As far as voting goes, you talked a lot about the nomination process (which I also don't fully understand), but you didn't really talk about the actual voting process, which is ranked choice. I think that's the real thing that prevents voting blocs - a small group of people can get something nominated, but everyone else can just put it in last place (or put No Award ahead of it), so it won't win. Also, can confirm that you do get a packet with the works, but there's no check to see if you've read them. I think it would be impossible to actually go through all the works in the time you have if you're including the awards for best series, best editor, etc.
In the end, I think my tastes in fantasy align pretty well with the Hugos for the past 5-6 years, but beyond that, not so much. I look at it as a "recommended reading list", but it's not really different for me than getting recommendations from booktube or reddit or other places. I think it's fun to nominate and vote, and it gets me reading new releases more often, and I think it's cool that it boosts visibility for the author. I totally agree that the perception of it seems really different from what it actually is.
I also did not know how the World Fantasy Award does it, and that's super cool. Might have to check out a bunch of those winners next!
This is some EXTREMELY insightful information, thank you. I didn't find anywhere that it was "Ranked choice", which is weird, because that's a super important detail that does make a huge difference for limiting bloc voting.
Also super interesting about the general demographics of worldcon, and your conjectures make a ton of sense. Hugo's really started as more sci-fi anyway, so makes sense that it still skews heavily in that direction.
@@Bookborn Some epic fantasy were recently nominated paranesi and black sun were all epic fantasy novels. But again, a Science Fiction novel won.
I have never once selected (or skipped) a title because of an award. You've basically confirmed that my instinct to ignore them is correct, so thanks.
I'm guilty of selecting titles based on awards...mostly because this year I challenged myself to read a bunch of Hugo's LOL. But occasionally if I see a cover of a book I really like at a bookstore but know nothing about it, but it says "hugo winner for short story" or something on the cover, I"m like "well guess it has to be decent". However, I def never care about books not winning as a way to not read them, if that makes sense. It only just gives a book a boost.
For any type of awards ceremony, the first requirement to make something official would be requiring anyone voting to have read every nomination. The fact that any award might be considered prestigious without that super simple baseline period should essentially deem them nearly useless.
@@slothrob How about we do it standardized testing style? Put them in a monitored room for set times every day and make them write a book report about each chapter and have the author verify the information is accurate?
Obviously I kid, but if you actually want the awards to hold any *real* prestige there needs to be some actual levity given to the integrity of the process.
@@slothrob It has worked for the book charts for as long as I've known about it haha
For """Worldwide""" fantasy awards they also seem to have a VERY narrow scope in terms of countries and languages considered
They absolutely do. Which is obviously another huge issue.
Agreed. North American works are heavily over-represented. But that is in large part due to the sheer size of that market. Also, we (North Americans) tend to not get much exposure to overseas works. I see the distribution of awards as a symptom of the lack of representation and distribution of those overseas works. It is much, much better than it was just a decade ago, but there is still a very long road ahead to get a truly representative sample of works to North American readers.
Brandon Sanderson mention in a video that he thought longer books had trouble winning Hugos. If you are given a packet of reading materials for all the nominated works, his 400k word epics are simply less likely to have been read by as many people because of there size. Which is why his short story was able to win.
Oh man EXCELLENT POINT.
I did actually know about this, but I was involved in the book industry for a pretty long time. As it goes I really don't place any import on awards in any industry. In the wine and spirits world, as an example, most of the awards are utterly meaningless as well. Producers have to pay to get their product entered, multiple products multiple payments and they also have to pay for every category they want it entered into. Pretty much every product entered wins an award, typically a gold or silver. Any idea why? Because the producers then have to pay the award body to buy the stars to put on their bottles. No awards given, no stars sold, no income. So yeah, merit doesn't really come into it.
The more awards I look into no matter the industry, it seems that EVERYTHING falls prey to this. Like...there just hasn't been a good way to do it, and so many fall into "how well did you advertise your thing".
I've known how the Hugos were done for a very long time and at the time I first learned, I had a reaction much like yours. However as the years have gone on and I've read a lot of the nominated works, I have felt less of that. Most of the works I've read that won, really were great books, even if they weren't 'for me'. So, now I tend to do what many here have said and use it as a recommendation list for books I normally never would have read. I do think it's a seperate problem that some really well loved books are never going to get nominated, kind of like the Oscars for film. Maybe there needs to be a SFF award that is more of a 'People's Choice' type award?
Yeah that's what I was thinking! It would be cool to have two well known awards, one that perhaps awards extremely popular or well selling things/ or a popular vote for real, and then one that is a panel of judges and awards creativity and pushing boundaries. Because one thing I'll say about reading the hugos, I may not like them all, but they did at least push boundaries in some way, which is important to award.
@@Bookborn The Dragon Awards were started as an attempt at a "people's choice" award. Not sure how that's going for them. It would be interesting to see the number of nominations and votes that they get compared with the Hugos.
I read less than I used to and use these awards as a go for a new read which has been a reasonably good filter for me. Have not DNF an award publication yet.👍
Some of the controversies you mentioned aside, it's always been my impression that the people who vote on the Hugos take it very seriously. They try to read the nominees and truly consider them. They abstain from categories they don't know, etc. And yes, you should vote!
That’s good to hear! If I do it I’d for sure only vote in categories I was willing to read every entry for.
Hugo uses ranked choice/alternative vote/instant runoff voting. In voting theory it’s fairly well regarded if you need a voting system. It’s a bit complicated to go into the details on why this is a decent system but the maths behind it are pretty interesting (it’s one of my personal favorite voting systems!). I think the awards are fun to look at and talk about but that’s about it. I don’t mind the paying to vote thing, as you were saying at the end the ‘experts’ could be anyone anyway.
It’s weird because I read their constitution in entirety and the part on voting says nothing about the ranked part. So I find it weird that they didn’t go more into it!
@@Bookborn The WSFS Constitution doesn't use the words "Ranked Choice Voting" or "Instant Runoff Voting" (two different terms for the same voting system), but the technical definition of the voting system (Currently starting at Section 6.4 of the Constitution) is RCV/IRV. The reason that it is in Article 6 rather than as part of Article 3 (the Hugo Awards definitions) is the WSFS has elections for things other than the Hugo Awards, and so rather than technically define RCV/IRV for each election, we define it generally in Article 6 and then apply it to all WSFS elections (with specific provisions for various types of elections).
This was super interesting. I also assumed it was some sort of panel of judges. Thanks for breaking it down for us.
Fun video! Remember, the award is primarily for science fiction (given out by the World Science Fiction Society), so no one should be surprised that fantasy rarely gets nominated. Some of the greatest stories of all time have been Hugo winners like Hyperion, Ender's Game, and Dune (although that one was a tie!), but there are also plenty of head-scratchers. Another commenter mentioned that politics have at times skewed the choices, which does seem to be the case. My goal for this award would be "best sci-fi book of the year" no matter who wrote it or whether it sold a lot or a little. At the end of the day, awards are subjective, and you're probably better off finding a good booktuber that shares your taste!
Yeah I find it interesting that most of the books I picked up on my own (not knowing they were winners but were) I absolutely loved. Like enders game/speaker, HP, Jonathan strange, dune, etc etc. but many of the ones I’ve read or the recent that I picked up just because they were winners… haven’t been as impressed
This is a really fascinating deep dive - thank you for doing the leg work! I generally don't find myself gravitating towards books that win these types of awards - Oscars, Hugos, etc - because through experience the kinds of books I love and the books that win the awards are not necessarily correlated in any way. Before discovering BookTube over the past year I would most often go off of authors who endorsed the book (for example I picked up the Powder Mage Trilogy because Brandon Sanderson had a cover endorsement, suggesting as a fan of Sanderson I might like that book; this is usually, but not always, accurate). Now I tend to listen to enough reviews on BookTube to get a sense of the book and make a decision from there.
That's so interesting about cover endorsements - I want to do an entire video on those. I DON'T TRUST THEM, they've led me astray too many times LOL. Sanderson's I feel like are pretty legit, he barely every does them. But some authors I think get paid by their publishing companies to do endorsements, or are asked to....idk that's a topic for another time lol
@@Bookborn That's a great point - authors certainly ARE incentivized to do them, either paid or (I would guess more often) expected to do a certain number of them for a shared publisher or agent in return for reciprocity. I NEVER trust "Fans of Game of Thrones will love" or "In the spirit of Tolkien and Robert Jordan" because that's just marketing, but I tend to give my favorite authors the benefit of the doubt when they choose to endorse a book personally. Perhaps that's a little naive of me
BEEN WAITING FOR THIS!
It's all because of you!
I have used the Hugo winners as a reading list for books (novels) I might not normally read - i.e. scifi. There have been some great books that have won. There have been some not-as-great that have won. There have been some popularity contest winners. I would say for the most part, the winners are very good to great most years (but not all).
I’m not a member and have never voted (I’d like to go someday), so as an outsider it does seem that “politics” have affected to process the last 10 years.
Yeah, so far in my hugo reading challenge for myself, I've liked about 50% of them I'd say. Nothing I absolutely HATED though, which is saying something at least (yet, anyway lol).
I’ve known how the Hugo’s work for a long time. I’m fact a few years ago I voted. I have only ever used awards as a good list for interesting books and use them to put books on my TBR. And the one time I went, a good time to visit another country and hang out with friends haha. All awards for art is problematic in its own way, as you said. Finding the prize that suits you is like finding a reviewer? Things have to match before you trust them
Interesting video. I knew about how the Hugos worked because I follow a couple of sff booktubers who take part in the voting and it seems, despite the relatively low barrier to entry, there aren't a lot of people taking part in the voting. I thought about taking part myself but I know I won't be reading all the nominees and voting regardless seems unfair to the other books (and just as worthwhile as the GR awards) so I haven't yet. I totally think you should take part! I think you do read a lot of new releases.
Yes, that's what has shocked me the most - it is a relatively low barrier so you'd think more people would vote. If I voted I'd probably only vote in a few categories - like best book and novella - since I could actually commit to reading all of those in time for voting lol
Great video and commentary. And yes, you should vote in the Hugos! (Fun fact: Members of SFWA don't refer to the organization as "S.F.W.A.", they call it "sif-wah." Which will always sound strange to me.)
Lol wish I would’ve known that because saying SFWA is a drag 😂 (although sifwa is weird too lol)
I was aware of the process , but only in the most broad-brush way. Thanks for the deep dive! I don't have a problem with any of the processes. All three awards seem to have participation broad enough to achieve, in a statistically valid way, the one thing they measure: the consensus at that time (among those who are generally well read) of what most deserves to be read. Hugo gives us the fan consensus, Nebula the professionals opinion, World Fantasy a little of both. Multiple awards means we can test the validity of that consensus by seeing if it's repeated. What does any of that ultimately mean? Good question! At one point, the fans and professionals were overwhelmingly white men, so it's possible that either (a) the works nominated were of less interest to other groups, or (b) equally interesting works created by other groups were not nominated. Ultimately, any particular readers taste may be out of step with the general consensus. In which case, the awards might actually serve as a guide for what to avoid for some readers.
The Goodreads Choice award is the one for best selling popular books.
Great topic and amazing research, as always 😊
lmao, the ballad of Chuck Tingle is almost as amazing as the dude himself
His covers/title/activism have been wildly entertaining post-Hugo scandal.
It was wildly entertaining to read about, I wish I would’ve been in the know while it was happening 🤣
I was hoping you would cover this subject
Very interesting video. I always mistrust awards. But for some reason I thought the Hugos and the Nebula where somehow more legit. I don’t know where I got that notion. The academy awards for example I don’t take seriously at all.
I've been to a Hugo ceremony and have been a voting member for a few years (back around 2015). Hugo voting is A HOT MESS!!! It is essentially a popularity contest. Now that shouldn't take away from the prestige of that award. When done right it is an excellent guage of what the FANS think. It is still a highly flawed system susceptible to unsavory manipulation, but the more fans that participate in good faith, the less susceptible that system is. It depends on fan interest and interaction.
For those that are interested and able to do so, I strongly recommend participating. ESPECIALLY if WorldCon is ever in a location near you! Every attendee is automatically an eligible voter! And every attendee automatically has a literal seat at the Hugo Award ceremony! It is an amazing experience and well worth all of the little benefits.
I’m for sure going to do it now that I know I can! Maybe next year since I’ll want to actually read all the books lol
2016 Hugo voting was inflated due to the "Sad Puppies" controversy. You can look it up, but it was about politics, gatekeeping, representation, etc. You know, all the fun things we like to deal with in our escapist literature.
....aaand you just covered it.
😂😂 yes but I do love your description lol
Interesting video 🎥🎬 happy reading to you!! 📖🦋
Sanderson blogged some about the Hugos back when WOT was nominated as a whole series (and then again when it didn't win). I believe those posts are still on his website.
It was just this year, I discovered the Hugos were voted on by pretty much anyone. I was thinking about doing a Hugo Award winning reading list, and upon looking up the past winners, I saw that I could vote on Hugo Awards as long as I attended Chicon 8 this year. And you are correct, a non-attendee could still vote online as long as you paid a $50 fee. Well, that explained why the last 35 years of the past winners list appears to be driven by popularity. The prestige I was giving this award immediately went down the toilet. Here's your 2017 controversial nominee for Best Novelette: Alien Stripper Boned From Behind By The T-Rex, by Stix Hiscock (self-published) was beat out by The Tomato Thief. The year before that ballot stuffing brought Space Raptor Butt Invasion by Chuck Tingle (Amazon Digital Services) to the table as a nominee in the Best Short Story category. More prestige down the toilet. But yes, I'd still like to see you vote next year.
Interesting... This never crossed my mind but it's good to know.
Thanks for explaining
Learned a lot from this video (ie specifics) but simultaneously nothing (because all award nominations tacitly annoy me). Could be worse though, they could be the Grammys instead. Just wait for some crazy thing to happen like The Lost Metal winning a Hugo for "Best Vampire Novel" and then you'll understand the deep-seated confusion and loathing that I feel about the Grammies 😅
Also yes you should vote!
Yeah like I have never cared about the awards. And then I decided it would be fun to read all the winners. And then I found out how absolutely meaningless the awards were and now I’m like… ok cool ???
The way the Grammies sorts things is so bizzare lol and I know that without even being entrenched in the music scene.
I'm a slow reader. A few years back when I was working two jobs I restricted my reading award nominated books only. I read a lot of good books for a couple years.
What were your favorite award-winners?
@@Bookborn Some favorite award winners include The Anubis Gates by Tim Powers, The Doomsday Book by Connie Willis, Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie, The Falling Woman by Pat Murphy. I could go on.
I think, with subjectivity in reading, there will be subjectivity in voting, regardless of whether it's a formal panel or a pay-to-participate voting committee. I try to not take too much into account when people say this book got so many awards or that book got this particular award, because an award, no matter how it's decided, doesn't determine my enjoyment of the work. With that said, I think you should totally pay for the membership to vote in next year's Hugos!
Yeah I’ve never cared if books don’t win awards, but I won’t lie that seeing an award might make me pick up a book I wouldn’t normally!
I do try to read many of the nominees for each of the Hugo, Nebula, and WFA because I’ve found that overall the writing is better than the so-called open voting lists like Goodreads Fantasy, which is so heavily skewed towards romance it’s a waste of time to even look at now. The Hugos can certainly get into some weird territory, having included slip-stream fic and magical realism in some of their nominees and winners (I’m looking at you, Palimpsest 😣). Are the only books worth reading the ones that get nominated? No. But overall I find the quality and breadth worth spending my time and money on.
Something related to this and video recommendation : In the UK/Europe they have a publishing line called SciFi Masterworks,Fantasy Masterworks, and many like these
What constitutes a classic/masterwork? A good work? A popular work? Old Age?
Ugh that question is such a good one but SO hard to answer. Do classics have expiration dates? Does something meaning a lot at the time mean it should mean a lot now? I have no answers for that.
Of course you should become a Hugo voter! We need people who are actually invested in sci/fi and fantasy to vote for quality novels.
Wow this is crazy. I had no idea. Totally shook lol
Incidentally, you don't buy a "ticket" to join WSFS (i.e. join the World Science Fiction Convention). You buy a "membership." The $50 you mention (the actual rate is set annually by each Worldcon Committee is your membership to the World Science Fiction Society itself, and gives you the right to vote on all WSFS elections, most notably the Hugo Awards. It also generally gives you the right to receive the publications from that year's Worldcon. The difference in price between the Attending membership and the $50 is currently called the "Attending Supplement" (the name changed as of after the 2022 Worldcon in Chicago), but both of these include a membership in WSFS. Indeed, the definition of the membership of the World Science Fiction Convention is " all people who have paid membership dues to the Committee of the current Worldcon."
Now regarding getting copies of the finalists: For the past decade or so, Worldcons have organized a "Hugo Voter Packet" that includes most (but not necessarily all) of the shortlisted works in a packet accessible electronically to all WSFS members. Nobody is obliged to make their work available for this packet, and not all works are included -- the rights-holders to those works have to agree to make the works available, and not all of them choose to do so, for various reasons. It's a lot of work to organize, and it's not guaranteed, but it's been happening for years now, and every Worldcon since the practice first started has done their best to organize it.
Every Worldcon is run by an independent entity. There is no "central office" of WSFS. So all of the functions of putting on the Worldcon and organizing the Hugo Awards is done by a new group of volunteers every year. The first Worldcon was in 1939, and the first Hugo Awards were presented in 1953. It has been going on in this self-organized, new-group-every-year method since then. Imagine if ComicCon International was in San Diego this year, then dissolved and a completely new group ran ComiCon International in London the next year, then repeated that process indefinitely. Also, imagine if the members of that convention could vote on where the future conventions would be held, based on proposals by people who wanted to hold it. That's how Worldcon works. I know it sounds crazy, but it's been running this way now for more than eighty years.
Genuinely had no idea that your average joe could vote in the Hugos. I think an interesting factor to consider is that anyone paying to vote in the Hugos or the World Fantasy Awards (was that what it was called?) is passionate enough about literature to have discovered that they can vote, and to pay to do so. Not saying that makes it necessarily more reputable or anything, just something to consider. Also you should absolutely vote in the Hugos, just so you can say "I helped pick this year's Hugo Award winners" in a very pretentious way XD
Yeah I think they probably take it seriously but I would be super interested to also know the demographics. Like age, race, gender, etc - I wonder how that shakes out.
I came looking to see if you had any thoughts on the Sanderson announcement, but nothing.
I don’t tend to react quickly very often. My style is to really dive in and research. So I have thoughts on the Sanderson thing - that I’ll probably be presenting next week or two - but it takes quite a bit of research, and that takes time :)
On another side note - if you want quick reactions, that’s why I have my Instagram ;)
@@Bookborn Ahh. I tend to stay away from most social by personal choice. Look forward to seeing what you say.
Completely off-topic, but sin e you (naturally) bring up both Rothfuss and Sanderson in the discussion...
Patrick's most consistent critique/complaint about Brandon has been "Dude, please just slow TF down! No writes that much that fast!"
I *really* want his (and your, of course) reaction to Brandon's "Oops I accidentally wrote 4.5 unscheduled and unannounced novels in the past 2 years" Kickstarter, as well as it breaking $7mil in 6 hours, and currently sitting at $17mil after 24 hours (with 29 days to go)
Oh trust me, I have THOUGHTS. but… it’ll take some time for me to research and get those thoughts out 😅
Antici...
when a series get 3 awards (Broken Earth) in a row i just think its momentum, cuz having read other books from the same year, sequels didn't really hold up in comparison
Yeah I"ll have a lot to say about that in my Hugo's video. While I absolutely LOVED the fifth season, and def think it deserved it's award, it always really surprises me that it is THE trilogy that has won for all three. As a trilogy, I don't think it's as strong as that first one.
You should definitely vote for the next Hugos. I’m thinking I should too. But then again I’d probably wouldn’t have read enough of the books.
i bet most of the hugo award voters haven't most of the nominated the books either
Wow. I never knew this. It's fascinating on one hand and disappointing on the other. Given how much stock we ( by which I mean 'I' ) put in awards...
lol right with you. I put a lot of stock into it previously and now I'm trying to take it with a grain of salt (isn't stopping me from reading all the winners this year tho lol)
I'm kind of the opposite of many people commenting. When I see a book won an award I am less likely to want to read them because I figured it would be pretentious.
I mean, if the book sounds interesting to me, I will pick it up whether it has an award or not.
Maybe it isn't as pretentious as I thought since anyone can pay to vote.
Eh idk some of the winners I’ve read still feel very pretentious somehow 🤣
What about awards like the Newbery? Many fantasy books have won that, primarily more for younger audiences. And many other kid awards?
Yeah I honestly have no idea. I should look into newberry and cadelcot
@@Bookborn you should! I haven't mainly because I wanna be surprised if you ever make a part 2 ;)
Plus, books that win have their covers ruined with that medal on paper
I like awards in general. There are not perfect but serve a purpose. I think a lot of the problems around awards have to do with what the specific award aims to do/ why is it given and what the public thinks the award is given for. Not every award can please everyone. Like the Goodreads awards, so many people complain that Sarah J Mass wins because she is so popular. Then when the Hugo/Nebulas/Locusts awards get presented a common complaint is that nobody has ever heard of the books that were shortlisted lol. I often see people complain that these so called "experts" choose books that nobody reads when its actually a popular vote. Nobody is happy.
I use to not pay attention to the big awards when a first started reading. After a few years, I noticed that lots of my favorite authors and books had been past nominees or winners. Authors like Ted Chiang, Susanna Clarke, Martin, Bujold, etc.
Then I started wanting to expand what I read and started looking at current publishing trends. And through these awards I have been introduced to so many of my favorite new authors like Alix E Harrow, Nghi Vo, P Djélí Clark, Katherine Arden, and Ken Liu just to name a few.
Now I am always on the look out on who makes the shortlists for these awards because they tend to include a good bit of new authors. And through booktube, I have found many booktubers who submit their own ballets and make their own suggested readings and predictions for these awards. Through these booktubers, I have found many books that have been excellent but don't seem to be known to thr greater public. So for me, these awards have directly and indirectly helped me broaden my reading horizons.
Excellent take. I find that I tend to love the authors that don't win but are nominated LOL. Like every year there are always a few authors nominated that I absolutely have fallen in love with, but they never seem to win. So I do think nominations can highlight some up-and-comer's that really mean something. (Like you, I discovered Vo and Harrow because I had heard their short fiction had won awards, and so I read their novels and loved them before they were nominated the next years).
GRRM was nominated for A Storm of Swords in 2001 but lost to JK Rowling for The Goblet of Fire, who then didn't even show up to accept the award.
Yeah I had seen he was nominated but was just talking about wins! I mean I think a HP book deserved to win a Hugo, I mean they changed children’s publishing forever. But that’s how I feel about like GoT and SA too so I wish that was represented
@@Bookborn yeah it stings because I think Storm of Swords is the best ASOIAF book but Goblet of Fire isn't the best Harry Potter book. Plus I just like ASOIAF better than HP 😅
i also think that having a paying feature being an aspect of voting excludes a whole group of readers who are of a lower social economic status which is mostly minorities. So if that are just going to have average people basically have a popular vote they are really having really only mostly middle to upper class white individuals vote which is unfortunate
I knew how the Hugo worked, but think all art is subjective, so that picking the "best" is meaningless. But if you really want to award the "best" in publishing, you need to realize that writing and publishing is a business. Books are a product and the best products are those that make the most money. The best books then would be the most profitable books for publishers and authors. But book profits are kept secret, so how can anyone say which is the best book? In the end, these awards are simply an industry promotional events -- something to put on the book covers to sell more books.
Yeah, I'd be super interested to see the boost in sales after a book has won an award and see if it's meaningful...
Your comment about Brandon Sanderson and GRRM exemplifies the point. For me, these awards don't represent fantasy and science fiction well at all. The Nebulas just follow the Hugos, and the Hugos typically are interested in propping up a small group of authors that don't write stuff most fans read. The nominees for the world fantasy award are so far from the mainstream of the genre that the awards are useless. I mean really: go read the Hugo finalists for best short story in 2014. They're not science fiction or fantasy. Some of them aren't even stories. I'm encouraged by the Dragon Awards, but awards in general seem kind of pointless.
Yeah and that’s where I think it would be more interesting if these awards had a mission statement. If you’re trying to give voice to new voices in fantasy or overlooked fantasy, that’s a great goal! But it’s also different then representing the height of fantasy and sci fi right now, you know?
You forgot Dragoncon 😉
I am more sci fi than fantasy, but I have enjoyed a few fantasies. Spinning Silver was awesome.
I do not trust any award. Instead I follow them all.
Every year I download the best list from Locus, Recode, Goodreads, and whoever else I can find. I read through the book reviews and make a few choices. The Hugo, Nebula, and Dragoncon will come out of these lists. Dragoncon is supposed to be a populist Hugo, but instead you think the Hugo is populist.
I think you might like Locus manazine or Escape Pod podcast. Both are at the literary end of the reviewers. Dragoncon is closer to the Amazon best seller list.
Yes - very surprised that they are pay-per-vote. I also assumed that a panel of "experts" read the nominees and then voted/ debated. The Nebula seems more realistic with members having to be actual authors themselves,.
However, as to the question of meaning- I find that prize winning books - wether Sci-Fi or not (like Booker prize) are rarely enjoyable. I feel with the Booker that the judges are looking for something that is technically (in terms of story telling) inventive or unusual. For most leisure readers those technical details barely matter.
Yeah that's pretty weird that the Hugos can be voted on by anyone who pays $50. I may actually look into doing this. I don't really let award nominations influence what I read. I may take note of it if the award is mentioned on the cover or the Amazon page, but it doesn't mean that much to me.
That's exactly how I Feel. If it's mentioned on an amazon page and I'm already inclined to buy it, it will push me over. But something not having an award means nothing to me.
Honestly, I've never really paid much attention to these awards. The only time I hear about them is when the controversies pop up which to me are just a bunch of people whining about their favorite dog in the fight.
BTW, if I am looking at an unknown author, to me the cover art makes/breaks the deal. If a publisher has invested in interesting or compelling art work then I'll give it a try.
Oh man I’m a huge cover reader too. Let’s be honest we all judge books by their cover 😂
Victor Hugo would be appalled....if he is the namesake! Oh wait, it’s Hugo Gernsbacher, publisher of Amazing Stories! I say go for Locus (readers) and Nebula (SFF writers non profit association)!
Hugo is talked about so much because they have reputation. Despite the fact that anyone can vote they successfully highlighted great memorable books each year. It does feel like an award given by professionals rather than general public, right? Otherwise so many people wouldn't be confused about it.
I've never participated in worldcon or voted for Hugo, so I can only guess how people managed to achieve this. I suspect it was just the way they thought about it: not a trophy to win for your favorite book, but a community of fans coming together to recommend great works of sci-fi and fantasy. And there seemed to be a consensus on what "great" means: something novel, unique or memorable.
I've used past tense in the previous paragraph because recent years felt like a popularity contest and were a big disappointment to me.
Also, I don't think you should vote in the next Hugo. From the way you phrased the question it is obvious that you haven't decided for yourself what this voting means for you or why you should vote for this or that book. Basically you'll throw away 50$ to cast a vote that means nothing to you.
I wouldn’t say it means nothing to me! I read a lot of sci fi and fantasy and being a part of big things in the community always interests me. What would be my hesitation, rather, is if I feel my voice is important enough to contribute. If anything, I’m taking it seriously.
I do like your description of the voters - it’s nice to think that people are taking it that seriously as a whole n
@@Bookborn Sorry that I misinterpreted your question about voting in Hugo! If you have your reasons to do it, then it is not my place to tell you not to.
In my experience there's very little correlation between what gets awards and what I like, so I stopped caring about it. Maybe you could make a video about if getting awards lead to more sales; I suspect it doesn't add much.
Yeah that's would be a really intersting thing to chart. I wonder how I could find that information. I'm reading through the Hugo's this year as just a fun project, and I've found that I pretty much only like roughly 50% of them.
They made a difference for me in the past, I would tend to look at award winning novels as a indicator of good writing; if it's a "pay to vote" thing, won't influence me anymore
On one hand, I don't want to be rude or mean, but if there's one thing nerds love, it's correcting people, so um, actually...
At 0:50, you say you did a "deep dive," but:
1) 1:43: "The first Hugo Award was given out in 1939." The first Worldcon was in 1939, but the first Hugo Award was given out in 1953. Retro-Hugos were introduced in 1996 for past years in which Hugos were not awarded. The earliest Retro-Hugo has been for 1939, awarded in 2014.
2) 6:19: "There was also a random high in 2016 with almost 4,000 voters, so I don't know what made that year special. Maybe 2016's Worldcon was particularly special." You talk about exactly what made 2016 special at 12:28. It was the Sad/Rabid Puppies. After three years of varying success, this alt-right bloc voting campaign received a ton of pushback in an attempt to take back the Hugos. Then, as you say at 4:14 and 4:35, the voting calculations were changed in 2017 to avoid things like this. The Puppies still tried to take over, and while they were less successful than in previous years, it's true that a writer with the first name of Stix was a finalist for Best Novelette. A similar finalist for Best Short Story appeared in 2016 for the same reason.
3) 7:25: "Brandon Sanderson won for a novella and George R.R. Martin [...] won for a bunch of, like, shorter works. None of them have won a Hugo." Did Sanderson and Martin win Hugos or not? You're right that they didn't win for Best Novel, but even ignoring Sanderson's win for his podcast and Martin's wins for the "Game of Thrones" TV show, the two writers have a combined five Hugos for novellas, novelettes, and short stories, which you yourself said at 1:16 was what you would focus on. In fact, Martin won in two of those categories in one year! He's won every Hugo he's been a finalist for EXCEPT Best Novel!
Personal view: The Hugos are voted on by readers of science fiction. The Nebulas are voted on by writers of science fiction. One is voted on by fans. The other is voted on by peers.
I had no idea how the Hugos worked, but I also didn't care at all about them, lol. I honestly couldn't name any Hugo nominees or winners.
Awards in general don't mean much to me. I read what I'm interested in, and simply being nominated for an award doesn't make me interested.
Honestly I never cared either! When I got into booktube, I thought it would be interesting to read all the Hugo winners just to be “up on my knowledge”. So finding out it really means nothing is sort of hilarious to me
Sounds like that by reallocating the vote after removing the bottom place, they're trying increase the number of nominators who have a nominee in the final.
I've been a librarian for over 20 years and served on several award committees. There is no perfect system. The Nebula carries more prestige because it is the fiction equilavent of peer reviews. However, it too is flawed. Lots of books have won the Hugo that are, to be honest, bad books. If folks are looking for recommendations, social media is the best way to find books that they will like. The Awards are interesting but not reliable indicators of what is "good."
So the better question is... how could you NOT vote in the HUGOs. I plan to go.
RIGHT?! just have to clear my reading schedule to be sure I have time to read all the nominations!
wtf
bruh Hugos are just a glorified popularity contest then, by a super selective group of people who happen to live where the convention is held (mostly in western nations)
they absolutely do not deserve the high regard they are attributed to, thanks for highlighting this information
All of these awards mean exactly nothing to me, much like any 'best of' lists you find anywhere. I'm sure these books are liked by some people to end up on such lists or receive nominations, but that doesn't mean they are great - or to my tastes.
I've picked up exactly one book ever based on an award; Apocalypse Cow which won the Terry Pratchett First Novel Award. And even then, if I hadn't liked the premise of the book I probably wouldn't have picked it up.
Honestly I never cared either! When I got into booktube, I thought it would be interesting to read all the Hugo winners just to be “up on my knowledge”. But for the most part I find the winners are only 50% to my taste and it’s better to just find books they way you said - or through trusted reviewers.
I really understand your doubts about Hugo. However, I trust whoever votes for books every year in Hugo for the following reasons: 1) Yes, it's whoever pays can vote, BUT - in my opinion it's not just whoever, but those readers who love sci-fi and fantasy and truly want to contribute to the common cause of promoting the most interesting books for people who like this genre. 2) Even though there is no way to check the accountability of the people who vote (like you said, do they read all books or just one book and vote for it?), but I believe they are nerds like you and me, just a little bit more pro-active. So I would think they read all books worthy of the award. 3) Sci-Fi community of readers is rather tiny (I made this conclusion from the number of views of videos of sci-fi books reviewers - its' small), so I really believe that most people who are united by the love of sci-fi and fantasy have more or less the same taste in books. 4) I've read many Hugo winner books and did not regret reading a single one.
i wonder if this opinion has changed recently after the revelations
haven't read that one but I stumbled upon two books recently which won Hugo "Redshirts" and "Ancillary Justice" - didn't like them at all :( So I guess my point doesn't make too much sense haha@@thelastcube.
@@aleksandrlukin565 oh nooo, I've heard good thing about those books 🥲
But I meant about Hugo's credibility, and the revelation of the unfair way the 2023 awards were manipulated by the organisers, not a book named Revelation 😅
about Redshirts and Ancillary Justice - I guess it's all preferences. Many ppl love them. @@thelastcube.
It's called Ranked choice voting, meaning that every one of votes has "Weight," think of it in terms of politics, You like Candidate A the most, and candidate C the least, but you don't mind Candidate B, and You Absolutely can't stand D, but D is a favorite by a small margin So you cast a ballot from one to three. On the first ballot, Candidate A wins 50 votes Candidate B wins 60 votes, and candidate C wins 100 votes, Candidate D gets 130 votes but no one has 50%+1 votes, so the ballots are recounted your vote is then moved to the second person (candidate B) and retabulated, with yours and everyone else who voted for A now going to their second preferred candidate, and after the second Ballot candidate B Won enough votes (171) to become your nominee. Now with regular voting you'd be forced to hold your nose and votee for candidate C, because "At least they're not Candidate D"
So in book terms Book A is fine, and book B is terrible, and you're the only one who likes Book C, and in order for you to not let Book B win you'd have to vote for book A, even though you prefer C.
(here's a video that explains it better ruclips.net/video/3Y3jE3B8HsE/видео.html&ab_channel=CGPGrey)
Sanderson and Martin not winning an award seems really weird to me
Aren't Hugo's for science fiction only?
Nope! Fantasy books have won Hugo’s and are nominated every year. For example this year, Legends and Lattes was nominated and there is zero way to twist that novel into sci fi :)
@@Bookborn I feel like the Hugos was originally a science fiction award, and then it changed later on. The official Hugo FAQ covers this question, although the link to the charter is broken.
Who cares what authors, librarians and publishers think? Awards like the ones you covered are all about what the fans like.
For my money, I stopped paying attention to award winning books as the single reason to read a book about 20 years ago.
In my opinion, six of the best Science Fiction/Fantasy books of the last decade or so won none of these awards.
1. Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky
2. The Martian by Andy Weir
3. House of Suns by Alastair Reynolds
4. Piranesi by Susanna Clarke
5. The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet by Becky Chambers
6. Station Eleven by Emily St. John Mandel
For me WFA is the most questionable, which is sad as they are the only fantasy-only. I looked up 2 separate years of judges and their bibliographies do not inspire confidence in their ability to pick a winner or nominees. 3/10 werent even writers...
I mean in fairness, I don't think only writers should nominate these. Writers look for something specific, and I think it's good to have a wide variety there. Maybe agents, really respected literary critics, etc. That being said, I will say the WFA selection can be confusing sometimes haha
What really makes anyone an expert when it comes to entertainment? Seriously. Awards in any entertainment field are pretty meaningless. They are people patting themselves or other people on the back for being part of some clique. Almost by definition that's pretty meaningless if you're not in that clique. Long ago I learned to either ignore or scoff at any such awards.
I view the awards as just an excuse to have fun talking about books.
I’d go so far as to say none of the awards matter. Oscars, Grammys, Hugo’s, etc. all of them are just hubris.
Hi! I've known how the Hugos worked for about 45? years - since my first Worldcon. I'd like to address one of the things that seem to confuse you about the Hugos. As you noted, the Hugos are a popular vote. What you may not have taken into account is that the Hugos are voted on by the fans who attend or support the Worldcon. The Hugos represent the taste of a very specific subset of SF fandom. So those block votes you see as missing, are missing because this is not their environment. If you have liked previous Hugo winners, you will very likely like new Hugo winners. The voting block is self-selecting; only people who care tend to vote, and even fewer of those nominate. I find it bewildering that you question the validity of the process without ever talking about the quality of the winners. And if you agree that, except for the Puppies slates, the quality is consistently good, I am also bewildered that you question the validity at all.
Also, you left out my favorite part of the Puppies debacle. When the Puppies stuffed the ballot to the point that there were no non-Puppy options in several categories, the attendees of Worldcon that year took a stand for that quality and voted No Award in those categories.
So, yes, anyone can vote for the Hugos. All it takes is $50, and a desire to vote in the Hugos. But the core voters for this award have been voting for the Hugo for decades. They have years and years of experience in reading and reviewing SF. They passionately debate the shape of their organization and the merits of the nominated works, and in regional literary based conventions throughout the year you will find panels on nominating works for the Hugo, voting for the Hugo, and fans eager to introduce new blood into this community.
This is a robust and successful process, and if it doesn't work for you now that you've seen the sausage made, I wonder what you think you've been missing?
Award shows mean nothing to me 🤪
I literally never watch them LOL but sometimes I"ll look up after the fact out of curiosity.
IMO any Hugo after 2007 is seriously suspect and not worthy of consideration.
Interesting. Why not?
See you after the jump.
WHAT???
Doesnt matter anymore
Completely misrepresented the sad puppies group. Their whole complaint is that racism had become a part of the award giving process. You weren't even trying to be neutral here.
penelope lively and neil gaiman have better books than every one of these us-centric awards. I don't enjoy US sci fi ir fantasy - should be a UK and US award as we don't understand / appreciate one-another
Gaiman, Pratchett, Clarke, Rowling and other UK authors have all won these awards lol these awards absolutely aren’t US centric, and it feels a little silly to say you don’t like an US fantasy or sci. Not even Octavia butler, and absolute legend in the space?