More Hugo Thoughts So Far
Recency bias is a thing. Turns out everything I’ve read this week has been rereads or excerpts, except for the most recent October Daye novel, which was excellent, but reviewing book 18 seems silly ;).
So, instead, I’m going to talk a bit about how I make my award decisions.
First of all, I don’t claim to be an objective arbiter of quality. I do try to look past my own personal tastes, but they’re going to influence things. For example, The Saint of Bright Doors ended up low on my list. Other people loved it. It’s a very polarizing book, and Chandrasekera tends to be an acquired taste in general.
So, here are the criterion I use:
How much I enjoyed/appreciated the book. I say enjoyed/appreciated, because some books aren’t fun. This year, Some Desperate Glory was definitely the not fun book.
How established the author is. If I can’t decide between two works, I choose the author who has won fewer Hugos. In the Astounding, I favor authors in their second year of eligibility because it’s their last chance.
Whether the author is genuinely, truly problematic. This hasn’t really come up since the Puppies. Most Hugo voters aren’t going to vote for an author who is blatantly transphobic, homophobic, racist, etc. I don’t go by rumors and I don’t penalize somebody just for being, shall we say, a difficult personality.
I try not to use genre/subgenre/theme as actual criteria, but they can play into the first factor. I’m unlikely to vote for hardcore military science fiction in which the author takes the time to specify the range and elevation of the weapon, for example. I try to judge each work as an example of its type.
I do judge how much they provide in the Hugo packet, because I am so not buying or renting everything in there and if they don’t give me enough to fairly assess a work…there’s not much I can do. Same note on works not in English with no translation provided.
Things I don’t take into account:
Author demographics, unless very relevant to the work. I do give a slight boost to own voices, but I don’t penalize people for being old white guys if the work is good.
Who published the work. I don’t care whether it’s Tor, self-published, small press I’ve heard of, small press I’ve never heard of…
Whether I know the author. No, I don’t give a boost to my friends…or a penalty to my enemies. I try to have more of the former than the latter.
Politics. Note that I don’t count bigotry as politics, but I’m not going to penalize somebody for being a libertarian.
I probably read for the Hugos differently from most fans because I’m a pro, and that changes how you read and assess a work, inevitably. My nominations for the Nebulas and Hugos are almost always the same…sometimes something lands on the desk after the Nebulas close and before the Hugos do. I use the same criteria.
Ultimately, I reward works that I appreciate. It’s as simple as that.