A Retro List 2SV Suggestion

The lively discussion at File 770 continues with a detailed proposal by David Wallace that can be read here http://file770.com/rethinking-the-retro-hugos-how-should-we-honor-past-sff/ That article also links to suggestions by Siobhan Carroll http://voncarr-siobhan-carroll.blogspot.com/2020/08/retro-hugos.html

There are aspects of both of the proposals I like and aspects that I’m less keen on. Both of them propose reducing the number of categories, and Siobhan Carroll’s has a strong emphasis on rediscovery. I’m less keen on the emphasis in David Wallace’s proposal on the awards and trophies. Siobhan Carroll is proposing a juried award — which could work but is less Hugo-ish.

I mentioned at the end of my earlier post on the Retro Hugos a comment by Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little at File 770 in a reply to some of my thoughts there.

“This would produce something like a Retro-Hugos Reading List, which would encourage the sort of reflection and discussion and discovery that Cora has worked so hard to promote, without that final vote that so often comes across like a great big “Nah” in response to all that work. Since there would be no final vote, the only thing to focus on would be the reading list and discussion. Which could be the basis of a small series of WorldCon panels, passible.”

http://file770.com/memphis-worldcon-bidders-wont-run-retros-if-they-win-address-diversity-and-inclusion-policies/comment-page-2/#comment-1210347

I’m suggesting three parameters for any Retro proposal. The Retro Hugo Awards should:

• Engender a fun counterfactual discussion about past winners.
• Create an opportunity to critically engage with past works and creators including problematic ones.
• Raise awareness of important but perhaps forgotten or overlooked people within SFF’s past.

A Proposal

The Retro Hugos as they currently are should stop. This doesn’t take a rule change as WorldCons aren’t obliged to run them but as nobody appears to be completely happy with how they currently are, the existing clauses (3.14 http://www.wsfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WSFS-Constitution-as-of-August-1-2020.pdf ) should be removed or amended.

A retrospective Hugo-related process should continue however. This could be done initially by a Worldcon without amending the constitution, so long as the process did not style itself as a Hugo Award. As I will be proposing there’s no final award or trophy, that shouldn’t be difficult. However, amending the rules would have the advantage of making the connection to the Hugo Awards more explicit.

The short version of the proposal is that there would be two stages of voting in no more than two works categories which would result in a short list of works that Worldcon members regard as being of particular historical interest. The short listed works would be featured in at least one event in the Worldcon of the year the voting took place. There would be no single final winner or trophy.

In more detail.

Each Worldcon would have the option of running a Retrospective SFF List (aka a Retrospective Hugo Award List) process. The process would cover no more than two Hugo Award categories that recognise a work of Science Fiction and Fantasy i.e. Best Novel, Best Novella, Best Novelette, Best Short Story, Best Dramatic Presentation Short Form, Best Related Work, Best Fanzine, or Best Dramatic Presentation Long Form, Best Series, Best Graphic Story, Best Fancast, Best Semiprozine [These last five I’m less sure about but rather than exclude them because they might not work, it’s better to let people try them out if they want.] The categories that honour an individual or body of work [Fan-writer, editor categories, artist categories] would not be run but as with the Hugo Award’s proper, a Worldcon could run a special retrospective category.

First stage nominations would run along side the main Hugo Award nomination process. The voting system will be simple approval voting or EPH with members listing up to 10 works in the given categories. [Given the current number of nominations EPH is over-kill for this stage but if the figures improved EPH would make more sense].

Once the nominations are closed, they would be tallied and a longlist of 10-15 works (maybe less) would be announced. That announcement is not required to be at the same time as the Hugo Award Finalist annoucement [obviously, if this is is just a thing people do and not part of the rules, there’s no requirement to do anything].

Members would then have the opportunity to vote on the longlist using the EPH system by picking five works from the longlist or adding a work not listed or adding ‘No Award’. The votes would be tallied using EPH so create the short list of five works [I say five but six or four or three could work. Five+1 seems to be the sweet spot for the main Hugo Awards i.e. the winner is usually in the top 5 from the EPH stage but occasionally the 6th does well.] Because EPH would stop at the point when a definitive short list had been selected, then technically the whole category couldn’t be No Awarded but No Award could shorten the list by one work i.e. if the short list is set at six works and No Award makes it to the final round, then only five works end up on the list. [However, you could add the capacity to nuke-a-category by letting the process run until No Award is eliminated resulting in potentially even shorter lists or no list at all if No Award “wins”.]

The shortlist will form the focus of at least one event in which the works nominated are discussed. The announcement of the short list can happen at or prior to the event. [I can see arguments for both but I think prior is better].

Discussion

What I hope this will do is encourage engagement and participation. Voting is fun and part of the Worldcon/Hugo experience. Using EPH avoids the need for people to rank works and which makes it easier to take part. In both stages what people will be doing is voting on whether they want to see a work included in eventual short list. That genuinely does not require you to have read the work, although it would help. In some ways the process is more like a giant book-club deciding what they intend to read rather than people awarding what they think is good. Indeed, voting for a work you don’t know well but would like to know more about would make a lot of sense in this process.

I’ve focused on the technicalities above but what I would imagine is a process that encourages debate and examination. Having two stages (partly modelled on the 3SV proposal from a few years back for the main Hugo Awards) would allow different degrees of participation. The first stage, in a sense, doing the research for the second stage.

The results are more about highlighting the works rather than honouring them per-se. Unlike an award ceremony, the associated activity can be a warts-and-all discussion of the works on the shortlist. There’s good reason for people to pick famous works or forgotten works.