response 26 of 41:

Sep 15 00:27 UTC 1999

Well, I like and read Connie Willis.  I just don't think she is anything
like the only game in town - I'd like to see more writers recognized.  I
think part of the reason that she wins so many awards is that she writes
so many short stories - not that many short stories get published and
they don't get very much attention, so I think it is a smallish clique
of people who read them and vote on short story awards.

On the whole I agree that there is a shortage of writers to be
enthusiastic about.  People I'm at least mildly enthusiastic about
include Neal Stephenson, Pat Murphy, Sean Stewart, and Robert Sawyer. 
The last two may be pushing their luck - some of their recent work has
been less impressive.

response 28 of 41:

Sep 17 00:00 UTC 1999

Luke: _All_ awards are nominated essentially by a small group of people, 
though not necessarily a clique (which implies a conscious, self-aware 
group).  I counted three years' worth of Hugo ballots, so I've seen this 
in action.  But fewer people nominate, or vote, for the Hugo short 
fiction awards than for Novel.  Nomination, by the way, is a more 
critical filtering process than the actual voting, because it selects 
from a larger field and because fewer people participate.

response 30 of 41:

Sep 20 14:12 UTC 1999

janc in resp:26 ::  Yes, it's true that working actively in the 
shorter fiction lengths can run up your award totals.  See Harlan 
Ellison, who has never to my knowledge written a science fiction 
novel.
 
The Hugos represent the economic structure of the SF field at the 
time the awards categories were fixed: in the 1950s, the pulp 
magazines were dominant, and there were probably less than 50
full-length novels published each year -- I'm guessing, based on 
things I've read in old fanzines.
 
One might consider revising the awards categories to reflect the 
field in 1999:  Roll together the Novella and Novellette awards,
and then create some new categories for longer works.
Best Short Novel, Best Big Honking Novel, and Best Trilogy, perhaps?

response 32 of 41:

Sep 21 03:39 UTC 1999

  I'm not sure that Ken was literally suggesting a "best trilogy" award..

  I took it as a snide comment on a perpetual trend in the science-fiction
  world..

response 36 of 41:

Sep 22 17:55 UTC 1999

I used to run another award, the Mythopoeic Society Awards, whose rule 
is that only stand-alone novels are eligible by themselves; trilogies 
(or whatever) have to wait until the entire trilogy is out.  This policy 
wouldn't work for the Hugos, since it requires an administrator to split 
the hairs, which would generate too much carping in the Hugo biz.  
Generally, when judging the eligibility of a book I hadn't read, I went 
by presentation: if it had a summary of its predecessor, it probably 
didn't stand alone, and if the t.p. had something like "Vol. 5 of the 
Celts In Space Trilogy", then it certainly didn't.  But many books which 
don't stand alone are published with no indication of that fact.

If I were revamping the Hugos, which I'm not (especially because it's 
impossible to get anything sensible through the Worldcon Business 
Meeting), I'd collapse the 4 fiction categories into either 2 (Novel and 
Short Fiction) or 3 (Long Novel, Short Novel/Novella, Novelette/Short 
Story, though obviously not with those names), replace Professional 
Artist with Original Artwork, and split Dramatic Presentation into 
Series and Stand-alone.

response 38 of 41:

Sep 22 22:22 UTC 1999

  IIRC, "Mostly Harmless" had a blurb on the cover proclaiming it something
  like "The Fifth Book in the Increasingly Inaccurately-Named Hitchhiker's
  Guide Trilogy"

  Do books from the middle of series ever seriously contend for the Hugo?
  Most of the winners I can remember either a) stood apart, or b) sparked
  a series later but weren't clearly "series books" at the time they won..

response 40 of 41:

Sep 28 18:58 UTC 1999

  Oh good, I'm not the only one who thought that the "Ender" books were
  more than a little gagging..