?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Hugo Awards

One of the people I follow just posted a bit of news about the Hugo Awards: This year, 80% of the nominees in the fiction categories are women. The spirit of the comment seemed to be somewhat triumphalist. But I can't see that there's much occasion for triumphalism in that news.

On one hand, if we suppose this is just a random fluke, and next year 80% of the nominees could be men, then it doesn't mean anything in particular.

On the other hand, if it does mean something, what does it mean?

Are 80% of current science fiction writers female? Having men virtually abandon the field, or be unable to get published, doesn't seem to me to be cause for celebration.

Are men and women present in comparable numbers, but are women writing much better than men? If men aren't learning to write good fiction, that's a problem with their professional education and development, and one that needs to be resolved.

Are men and women writing in equal numbers and equally well, and are women getting a disproportionate share of recognition? That's an injustice, and since the Hugos are nominated by the fan community, of widespread injustice among SF fans. And if that should be the case, it would be understandable that men might be abandoning the field, if they are.

I have no idea which of these is true, but none of them strikes me as occasion for rejoicing.

Comments

( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
selenite
Apr. 3rd, 2019 03:37 am (UTC)
I don't think male writers are abandoning the field. There seems to be a widening split between "WorldCon" SF fans and other parts of fandom.

Whether recognition is being disproportionate . . . it looks like Hugos are on one wide of the split and sales revenue is on the other. Everybody seems to be on the side of the divide they prefer.
whswhs
Apr. 3rd, 2019 04:49 am (UTC)
I make no commitment as to which cause explains the observed datum. I'm just saying that the explanations for it that I can think of don't seem to be causes for rejoicing.
history_monk
Apr. 3rd, 2019 06:00 pm (UTC)
I suspect it's simply being seen as evidence that there is no longer a bias against women writers in the nominating process. That's something that it's hard to be sure about quickly, given the limited amount of data generated each year. So yes, it's a fluke that it's this high a percentage, but the fact that a fluke can go this high means something in itself.
whswhs
Apr. 3rd, 2019 07:30 pm (UTC)
I think that absence of bias was already established last year when at least 67% of fiction nominees were female (I'm not sure how to categorize some of them).
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2019
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel