And about those Hugos. I never cared about them, for to me, they only exist to prove that success earns success--the Hugos being awarded for popularity, not some undiscovered gem. I don’t know how lobbying of fans happened in Paleolithic days, but now, who hasn’t been lobbied tackily, imo, for any of the prizes which are ‘democratic’? That we have a case that is more blatant now than ever before, of block voting based on a ticket put forward by people who themselves wouldn’t get anywhere at all, if every eligible voter voted, shows one of the downsides of democracy where participation is so low that the result can be utterly a shock, it so much doesn’t reflect what it would if the thoughts of every eligible voter were channeled into the election results.
Instead, in democratic elections in say, Australia, ‘branch stacking’ takes the place of voter apathy, to drum up candidates. And because the most active people in politics in the USA are those like the ones most active in this Hugo mess this year, the US has a shattered donut for a political outcome, no center; only edges. And worst of all, there has already been a big win, without the Hugos even being announced, one way (no winner) or other. As Entertainment Weekly has covered the story, with the logo up top of not the Hugos, but one of these dangerous groups, they have won so much notoriety that they might even be able to look forward to a career at Fox, or as politicians.
As Esther Addley wrote about Katie Hopkins in the Guardian,
“There have always been outspoken columnists whose career thrived on provocation, but rarely quite to this extent. Hopkins calls herself a ‘columnist, broadcaster and businesswoman’, but she might equally be described as a professional troll, a self-styled pantomime villain for the online petition generation. It is a new phenomenon, notes Peter Mountstevens, managing partner of the PR and branding consultancy Taylor Herring. ‘Ten years ago, it would be hard to imagine such a meteoric rise. Social media has undoubtedly been her greatest asset, and the single biggest factor in helping her to create such a successful brand.’ ... She may be highly objectionable to many, but her success relies less on the neglected majority on whose behalf she claims to speak than on the swift and indignant outrage of those whom she so carefully offends. Perhaps the truth is that we rather like being trolled. ”So, given that democracy of the organised has been most effectively used this year, by people who do not, we can only hope, reflect the views of The People--that ‘community’ composed of the eligible voters; and given that some of the shortlisted have already pulled out, I would suggest that if a simple majority of shortlisteds pull out, then the Hugos can be cancelled this year. There is another lobby for people to join just enough to vote (paying US $40), for the purpose of voting for No Award Given. To me, this just perpetuates the problems of democracy of the organised--even though the people who want this are good, and the people who are bad are truly bad. If the same process is used by both, then almost always, the most extreme will be the winner, for decent people leave in disgust, not having the energy nor the rewards, for fighting--and so evil will almost always win, for it’s soo much fun.
I hope that the bulk of thought and discussion extends from outrage, to reform of the system of voting for all these ‘democratic’ awards, with their shortlists. Even though this Hugo had more votes than any previous one, they are a fraction of the eligible electorate. There are prestigious awards given out with a ludicrously low number of votes, though somehow this number is like deodorant--more evaporative than is good for health. If the election had to receive a percentage, and I would say 51, of the eligible voters, before being validated as an election, then it would have both more accuracy of results, and be far less able to be taken over by any lobbying effort. If this results in many comfits never given out because of apathy, then so be it. Either there will be a renewal of interest or a realisation that there is a lack of.
And a btw, although there has been a lot of embarrassment, and Entertainment over this, with Joe Abercrombie’s “The Hugo Awards have never looked less like the future of anything,” quoted in EW, I am surprised. What the fuck do the World Fantasy Awards look like, with Lovecraft still being the Award?