One of the recipients of the 2007 World Fantasy Lifetime Achievement Awards was beloved writer Diana Wynne Jones. Her acceptance speech, read by Firebird editor Sharyn November, was moving and awesome and I immediately wanted to post it everywhere on the Internet. Lucky for those who could not attend, Ms. Jones published the speech on her website.
There was one part that particularly struck me:
I am really very grateful for this Award. [...] When I first started getting work published, I used to have wistful thoughts at the way all important awards were given to men. Women, I used to think, could be as innovative, imaginative and productive as possible – and women were the ones mostly at work in the field of fantasy for children and young adults – but only let a man enter the field, and people instantly regarded what he had to say and what he did as more Important. He got respectful reviews as well as awards, even if what he was doing — which it often was — was imitating the women. But you have changed all that.
Thank you for being so enlightened.
Go read the whole thing.
This year’s World Fantasy Award judges were all male, but were aware of how problematic that was. In the end, they delivered an amazingly balanced ballot (amazing only when compared to, say, the Hugos.) Of the eleven awards, seven went to women. So this year, at least, some of the important awards went to women, too.
Not all, though. Compare the 2007 Hugo and Nebula ballots and winners. There were only six women nominated in the thirteen Hugo categories, and only two of those women were nominated for their writing. The rest were either editors or artists. Only one woman won — for non-fiction. (A woman won the not-a-Hugo Campbell award as well.) The Nebulas fared better, with fourteen nominations for women in six categories,including the Andre Norton Award for young adult fiction. Three of the eight winners were women.
Does the disparity of male vs. female writers on these ballots have anything to do with who is responsible for the nominations and picking the winners? For the Hugos, it’s the members of Worldcon, many of whom are fans. The Nebulas are nominated and voted on by SFWA members, the genre’s professionals. The World Fantasy Award ballot is a mixture of jury selection by professional writers and editors and WFC member nominations.
Given this data, and looking at other awards in the field, do people still feel that male writers are getting more attention and awards for doing what women writers have always done and (possibly) did better? Is this year’s Hugo ballot just an aberration and not the rule?
Is this year’s Hugo ballot just an aberration and not the rule?
That’s really up to you.
You bring up some good points in that post, but I’m going to mock YOU now for saying that people who complain about the gender disparity should be mocked
The problem was (and still is, I’m sure) a knowledge gap amongst those who can nominate, which is, technically, anyone with at least $40 to spend. Not a lot of people know that this is the case. IF they know that members of Worldcon can nominate, they may not know that non-attending members can, or that members of the previous year’s con can nominate for the next. I went to Worldcon for three years before I was aware of any of this. So until the Hugo ballot discussion of earlier this year, there were plenty of people unaware that they could participate. The kerfuffle resulted in many more people knowing, so it’s good in that way.
But beyond just knowing that you can, there’s the added layer of having enough disposable income to participate. It’s not just the $40 — though for some that is a lot of money to spend on something that isn’t necessary, vaguely entertaining, or useful — but also the cost of reading books and/or magazines put out in the current calendar year. We had a huge discussion about this when I first proposed the SFBookswap. The economics are not in everyone’s favor. I don’t think it’s useful, then, to (fake) mock folks who find the gender disparity disturbing but don’t necessarily have the means to do anything about it.
It is totally uncool that I am one of the ones who could not attend. Especially because Sharyn November read the speech! I might cry. And … YOU’RE WELCOME FOR MY TICKET.
I want it to be known that Nivair is THE most awesome person in the world for giving me her ticket (which she could not use) to go the banquet.
The solution to knowledge gaps is to talk loudly about the fact that people can vote. Recommendation lists also help. So if you want some women to get nominated for the Hugos (and other awards), pop over here and recommend some.
Well, what do you suggest? Every Worldcon mails ballots to its members. Almost every year since we made the previous year’s members eligible to nominate, someone has mailed those members a copy of the nominating ballot. Now if you throw away the “junk mail” from Worldcons, whose fault is that?
But you bring up a good point. There are thousands of potential nominators out there who are already eligible with no further investment — they’re already Worldcon members — and who don’t nominate or vote. Certainly more people attend the Hugo Awards ceremony than vote or nominate, and every one of those people is an eligible nominator for the following year. As a former Worldcon chair and a three-time Hugo Awards Administrator, it disappoints me that so few of our existing members seem to care sufficiently to nominate and vote.
Here via SFAwardsWatch with a few comments:
We get out of the Hugo Awards what we (as fans and professionals) put into them. It’s up to us to spread the word.
Some of us regularly mention Hugo nomination/voting and Worldcon site-selection voting as being a reason to buy a supporting membership in a Worldcon we can’t attend.
Some science fiction clubs (mine included) schedule a regular “Hugo Nomination” discussion for the January meetings.
And, as Kevin Standlee says, even if you registered at the door for your first three Worldcons, each following spring you should have received nominating ballots.
As for the expense, yes, I get that $40-50 is a lot of money for some people. You don’t have to read everything in the field, though, to nominate.
All a nominating ballot asks for is up to 5 works/people that you think have enough merit to be considered for the award. All a final ballot asks is which (if any) nominees you believe are good enough to deserve the award, ranked in order of preference.
I don’t read or watch everything in the field. I don’t read much short fiction. I rarely nominate or vote in every category, and I don’t feel guilty about that.
Promote nomination and voting. Then come back and look at the results; you might make a difference.
Kevin said:
Well, what do you suggest? [...] Now if you throw away the “junk mail” from Worldcons, whose fault is that?
I don’t remember ever getting a ballot in the mail, but then it’s been many years since I attended WorldCon. It might help if the ballot mails screamed THIS IS A BALLOT so someone wouldn’t mistake it for another progress report which, personally, I don’t usually read. the fact that people might mistake the ballot for junk mail, and that there can be such a thing as Worldcon junk mail, says that the problem has already been identified — many folks assume that the stuff they get from Worldcon isn’t of any importance. Maybe that’s something for the Worldcon organizers to think about.
Beyond that, though, I would suggest what Cheryl already has — that people should be vocal about the fact that Hugo nomination and voting is open to any member. And that nominations are open to those who attended the previous year — that’s a big one, IMO. One of the good things that came out of the Hugo nomination drama was that more people learned how easy it was to do this.
I agree with everything Andrew said and I am doing some of the same things. This is exactly why I started the FemSFBookswap.
But remember, I am not just talking about the Hugos here. The Hugos were a big issue earlier in the year, but they’re not the only awards in which there may be some issues. The Hugos, I think, are the most easily dealt with because fans are the ones doing the nominating.
Clarke Award datapoint: this year’s jury consists two men and three women, and we will be deciding on a shortlist of six books. We’ve had over 50 science fiction novels submitted so far, representing very nearly all the original sf novels published in the UK in 2007; of that number, one in seven is written by a woman.
Before this turns into “if you didn’t vote, don’t complain,” let me point out something in K. Tempest Bradford’s comment:
but also the cost of reading books and/or magazines put out in the current calendar year
People can’t vote for what they’re not aware of. If there’s bias elsewhere in the field – in what’s published, in what’s promoted, in what’s taken seriously – then there’ll be skewed results in the Hugos.
it was awesome to channel diana for a while. i loved the speech.
People can’t vote for what they’re not aware of. If there’s bias elsewhere in the field – in what’s published, in what’s promoted, in what’s taken seriously – then there’ll be skewed results in the Hugos.
“The field” doesn’t decide what goes on the Hugo ballot — the nominators do. And right now, there are very, very few people who bother to make nominations. This seems like a great opportunity for folks who weren’t happy with last year’s picks, but nobody’s going to take advantage of it for you.
Matt, why do you keep assuming that people are waiting for someone else to take advantage of the nomination process? You assume an awful lot, and I have to wonder about your belligerent tone.
Also, your comment about “the field” not being “the nominators” is disingenuous at BEST. Also disingenuous is the dismissal of the very real impact of what gets marketed and pushed heavier than other things being a big deciding factor in whether something gets nominated. If people are far more aware of book X than book Y because book X gets more attention, how are people who nominate supposed to make up for book Y’s lack of marketing dollars? More to the point, why should they?
And even more to the point than that, you are STILL acting as if this post is just about the Hugos, and I call shenanigans.
I have to wonder about your belligerent tone.
Hey, I’m not the one who posted a casting call for a slapfight.
And I’m not being disingenuous, I’m being practical. Yes, there are larger issues of bias here, but I don’t know how to fix those. I do know how you can get more women on this year’s Hugo ballot. It’s not the world, but it’s a start.
Hey, I’m not the one who posted a casting call for a slapfight.
Wow… I guess I’ll have to tag every one of my sentences with “This is me being cheeky” from now on for you. usually people are able to tell when I’m being silly.
Yes, there are larger issues of bias here, but I don’t know how to fix those.
Yeah well, guess what? Some folks are trying to know and that seems an infinitely more useful route than just dismissing anyone who has a problem with last year’s Hugo ballot. Your solution is to just wave your hands and say “Go nominate!” but others are attempting to be more useful in identifying why people don’t nominate and then attempting to alleviate those issues as they can. You, however, still just stand there waving your hands and acting as if no one is doing anything but complaining, which isn’t practical at all.
Wow… I guess I’ll have to tag every one of my sentences with “This is me being cheeky” from now on for you.
I guess I will, too.
Your solution is to just wave your hands and say “Go nominate!” but others are attempting to be more useful in identifying why people don’t nominate and then attempting to alleviate those issues as they can.
See, but the cool thing about my solution is that it’ll actually work.
And yes, that was me being cheeky.
And yes, that was me being cheeky.
Which is SO helpful!
That was me being sarcastic. If I turn off the sarcastic, it becomes:
That’s not helpful at all! And also: Go you for being cheeky, condescending, and not helpful all at once! *thumbs up*
And people wonder why I’m angry all of the time.
Tempest,
You’re right, those last two posts in particular were completely unhelpful. I apologize.