Way over on Mike Glyer’s excellent File 770 blog [1], he has presented
evidence that campaigning for bloc support of members’ favourites for awards at
what was to become Worldcon started way back in 1953, as shown in this report from the Philcon II committee.
The relevant passage:
“There is still time to (a) do a little campaigning to line up a solid bloc of votes for your favorites, (b) get some members---every membership is a potential vote for your favorites, and (c) get your own votes in before our August 25th postmark deadline.”
Now, let us not get too excited: things have changed somewhat since
1953, not least in the fact that there was no nomination phase, and they were
voting directly for the winners (i.e. NOT instant run-off sorting ballots). Also interesting is the practice of
announcing a running tally, something that’s known to influence decisions of
subsequent voters. Did announcing Bester’s
early lead result in more people voting for him later on? We’ll never know (and it’s not as though The
Demolished Man didn’t deserve it).
But this is just the issue: is campaigning for a particular author to
win an award for a particular work really a problem? It doesn’t seem to have raised eyebrows in
the past, and for that matter even today prominent people talk-up books and
stories they think are worthy on blogs and on other social media. Clearly campaigning
isn’t an issue.
How about suggested slates? [2] Are they really a problem?
I know that the current thinking is that they violate some kind of
unwritten rule, but I’m not convinced.
The thing is, it’s not as though anyone can compel others to vote in
exactly the way presented in a published slate – yes, there will be those who blindly vote the slate
without properly comparing the entries, perhaps even without reading them. This is a consequence of the cult of
personality that is both fandom and the internet. But doesn’t this very same
logic apply to any kind of promotion by anyone prominent? Couldn’t we argue
that if a well-liked author says “I think this book deserves a Hugo” some of
his or her adoring fans may well vote for that book on the recommendation
alone?
When it comes right down to it, it doesn’t really matter who is making the recommendation (so
long as they’re a prominent member of the community) there are going to be
people who follow their lead uncritically just because of who they are. A suggested slate is really just an unusually
well-organized way to make recommendations.
Oh, certainly, there are ways in which the whole
recommendation/promotion/slate concept can be abused by people who know they have adoring fans and are
willing to abuse that privilege for some end. But that’s always true and there
are always ways to game any voting system when you have social pull like that –
it's sort of a feature of voting in general. [3]
So what do you do if someone does this? If they make use of social
power to rope in some adoring followers to shore up their opinions in the
ballot box?
Well, it seems to me (and I may be wrong) that the one thing you should
never do is to turn around and try to make changes to the rules every time the
outcome isn’t something you like. By all
means change rules when there’s obviously something wrong with them, but you
don’t punish the system for working as designed – and make no mistake that a
number of like-minded people choosing like-minded options is exactly how any
kind of voting system is designed to work.
In that case, if it turns out that the number of people voting in a way
you don’t much like is more than the number voting in ways you like odds are
good you’re not going to like the outcome much.
Obvious, right?
Well, the responding strategy is equally obvious: you try to get more
people who think like you to vote, and to vote like you.
So what does this mean for the Hugos (or any other literary award for
that matter)?
Simple: odds are good that if there aren’t lots of people voting for
whatever book you thought was the best thing since sliced bread, it’s not
because you’re an idiot. [4] The answer
is almost certainly much simpler: you
haven’t read the same books.
That’s right, it’s probably that simple.
So, here’s the thing, there are two kinds of people who haven’t read
the same books as you: like-minded folks and not-like-minded folks.
People who are not like-minded to you will probably not much enjoy the
same books you do. They might, of
course, but it’s pointless and annoying for you to hound them to read something
they know from experience they’re not likely to like.
On the other hand, people who are
like-minded to you probably do enjoy
the same sorts of books. So if you’ve chosen different books, it’s almost
certain that you haven’t read each other’s selection.
So here’s my solution:
Take a break from pestering people who just don’t want to buy what you’re
selling and instead head off to the swap meet of like-minded folks. Talk about what you’ve read and what you think is
great. More importantly, when someone
else (someone who you know likes similar things) says they think something is
great stop a moment and think whether you’ve read it. No? Then
read it! Yes? Then persuade your
like-minded fellow to read your pick.
Wait, wait, wait.
I hear you scratching your head: “What do we do if we still don’t agree?” you ask.
Well, you argue.
No name calling, no spitting or swearing – you talk books. [5]
You talk about why you prefer A over B, your friend talks about why B
is better than A. You invite other
people to listen to the two of you go at it.
Some of them will agree with A, some with B – and who knows, maybe in
the end lots who preferred B at the beginning will stroke their chins and say “hmm
– y’know, A really is good!” and next
thing you know they’re voting A as well.
This is a process you can rinse and repeat over and over until –
surprise! – you have a list of work that lots of people think is great.
Why not share that list?
Why not invite comment and disagreement?
Why not argue it over again, and maybe discover yet another option that’s even better than what you put at number
one?
No human being can possibly read everything
that gets published in SFF in a given year [6] but human societies can, and if we crowd-source
this task we all win: nominating and voting gets easier, we discover great new
reads, and we get to have enormous fun achieving these lofty goals.
So how about it: is anyone game for an argument? [7]
---
1. Seriously – I assume that anyone reading this is probably already
reading Mike and just happens to have a few spare moments to kill, but if by
chance you found me first I urge you to take a look. The archives are fascinating!
2. Yes, I’m aware that there’s a specific case causing the current
kerfuffle – but let’s speak in the abstract, hmm?
3. There are particular issues I have with the way the Hugos work, but
without a major overhaul that’s the system we’ve got to work with.
4. I offer odds, but no warranty.
5. Kind of what fandom is about, yes?
6. Finagle knows we try!
7. Abuse is next door.
No comments:
Post a Comment