The Theory of Related-ivity: Segment II

The Theory of Related-ivity:

A History and Analysis of the Best Related Work Hugo Category

by Heather Rose Jones

(This is a serialized article exploring the history of the Best Related Work Hugo category in its various names and versions. If you’ve come in at the middle, start here.)

Contents

Part 2: Methodology

2.1 Administrative History

2.1.1 Introduction

2.1.2 Summary Timeline

2.1.3 Best Non-Fiction Book

2.1.4 Minor Rewording

2.1.5 Best Related Book

2.1.6 Digital Study Committee

2.1.7 Best Related Work

2.1.8 Changes to the Nomination Process

2.1.9 Subsequent Relevant Discussions

---

Part 2: Methodology

2.1 Administrative History

2.1.1 Introduction

In order to trace how nominators have understood and interpreted the Best Related award, it’s necessary to understand the history of its establishment and changes. The available commentary on those actions also provides valuable insight into the intent of the award (even if that intent wasn’t explicit in the resulting text and even if that intent was not carried out by the nominating body).

The evolution of Hugo categories can best be traced through the minutes and summaries of the World Science Fiction Society (WSFS) annual business meetings. These historic documents are variable in detail (and some are missing from the archives) but typically include summaries of discussions and arguments made for and against proposals. The business meeting covers many other topics besides the administration of the Hugo Awards. Meetings have historically been conducted in person at the annual Worldcon convention, under Roberts Rules of Order (Revised).[1]

The following history is documented from materials archived at the official WSFS web site (www.wsfs.org) unless otherwise noted.

2.1.2 Summary Timeline

To orient the reader, here is an overall outline of Best Related history.

• 1980: Best Non-Fiction Book is created as a special Hugo category by the convention committee. A proposal to create the constitutional category of Best Non-Fiction Book is approved in the business meeting.
• 1981: Best Non-Fiction Book is again created as a special Hugo category by the convention committee. The proposed category is ratified by the business meeting, establishing it as a constitutional category going forward.
• 1986: A minor change to wording is proposed, changing “any non-fictional work related to the field…” to “any non-fictional work whose subject is the field…”
• 1987: This change is ratified.
• 1996: A change is proposed to rename the category to “Best Related Book” with the accompanying change “any work whose subject is related to…and which is either non-fiction or, if fictional, is noteworthy primarily for aspects other than the fictional text.”
• 1997: This change is ratified.
• 2008: A change is proposed to rename the category to “Best Related Work.” There is no substantial change to the eligibility definition other than the addition of “and which is not eligible in any other category” (a clarification added to several categories at this time).
• 2009: This change is ratified.

The effects of these changes on what types of works are nominated will be a significant focus of this study.

2.1.3 Best Non-Fiction Book

The Best Related award was first given in 1980 under the title “Best Non-Fiction Book.” The official WSFS website has no archived business meeting records from 1976 to 1979, therefore details of any prior discussion are not immediately available. Typically, there are informal discussions about the desirability and viability of proposed categories before they are established. Often this has involved a trial run using the allowance for each Worldcon committee to hold one special category at their discretion. For the 1980 award, the decision to hold a special category “Best Non-Fiction Book” is documented in Noreascon Two[2] Progress Report 3, p.16.[3]

Acting under the provisions of Article II, Section 12, of the WSFS Constitution, we have added a special additional Hugo category for the Best Non-Fiction Book of the year. Eligible are works of criticism, history, bibliography, art, etc., provided only that they must related to SF or fantasy. We were moved by the considerations that such books are growing in number and quality, but are ignored by the existing structure of the Hugo Awards. We hope that this will serve as a test to indicate the membership’s interest in such a category.

For an award category to be established permanently, an amendment to the WSFS constitution must be approved and then ratified in the subsequent year’s business meeting. The minutes of the 1980 (Worldcon 38, Noreascon Two) business meeting lists the following item under New Business[4] :

ITEM 5 (to make permanent the Non-Fiction Book Hugo.)

Moved, to amend Article II of the WSFS Constitution by adding the following new section: Best Non-Fiction Book: Any non-fictional work relating to the field of science fiction or fantasy appearing for the first time in book form during the previous calendar year. (Submitted by Mike Saler and Gail Hormats.)

This proposal passed (the minutes say “apparently unanimously”) and was passed along for ratification the next year.

The minutes of the 1981 (Worldcon 39, Denvention Two) business meeting show that the amendment was ratified with no additional comments recorded.[5] Based on this action, Best Non-Fiction Book was established as a permanent Hugo category starting the following year (1982).

As Best Related was not permanently established until 1982, but a Hugo was awarded in the category in 1981, we can assume that it was once again a discretionary special category authorized by the Denvention committee.[6]

2.1.4 Minor Rewording

The minutes of the 1986 business meeting[7] include a long presentation by Lew Wolkoff titled "The Hugo Awards: A Discussion with Proposals" analyzing various trends and patterns in Hugo award data and making four specific proposals for amendments.[8]

• A proposal to prohibit repeat Winners (not including awards for specific titled works), which would disqualify the previous year’s Winner from being eligible for nomination in the same category, failed on an “Object to Consideration” vote.
• A proposal to replace the Best Professional Artist category with two new categories “Best Cover Art” and “Best Interior Illustration” failed on an “Object to Consideration” vote.
• A proposal regarding notification of Hugo Finalists was passed along for debate.
• A proposal for revision of the Best Non-Fiction Book category was passed along for debate and is discussed in detail here.

The discussion opens with a catalog of Hugo awards given for non-fiction works or authors prior to the creation of the Best Non-Fiction Book category.[9] Wolkoff then considers the six books that had won Best Non-Fiction Book so far, pointing out that Carl Sagan’s Cosmos was a science book rather than a science fictional book. The wording of the category at that time was “any non-fictional work relating to the field of science fiction or fantasy.” Wolkoff is questioning how “related” something should be. Wolkoff offers the opinion that:

[T]he category should be limited to books that DEAL WITH science fiction and fantasy, rather than simply have some loose connection to the genre. This restriction would include histories of the genre or of fandom; biographies of writers, editors, or artists; works of literary or artistic criticism; sociologic studies of SF or of fandom, etc.

Wolkoff then reviews the other Finalists in those six years, noting that the list includes material he considers inappropriate for the category, such as “picture books” presenting speculative fiction in illustrated form (such as Barlow’s Guide to Extra-Terrestrials) and an album of photographic portraits of SFF authors.[10] Wolkoff therefore proposes that the section defining the Best Non-Fiction Book be revised as follows (underlined material is the proposed addition, strike-out text shows deleted material):

Best Non-Fiction Book: Any non-fictional work relating to whose subject is the field of science fiction or fantasy or fandom appearing for the first time in book form during the previous calendar year.

Wolkoff suggests that this “stronger language” will better serve the purposes of the category.[11] The motion was passed “with little dissent” and passed on to the 1987 business meeting at which it was ratified in the same form.[12]

2.1.5 Best Related Book

In 1996 (Worldcon 54, LA Con III) the following amendment to the WSFS constitution was submitted for consideration, as documented in the meeting minutes.[13]

Best Related Book

MOVED, to replace Section 2.2.5 of the WSFS Constitution ("Best Non-Fiction Book") by the following:

Best Related Book. Any work whose subject is related to the field of science fiction, fantasy, or fandom, appearing for the first time in book form during the previous calendar year, and which is either non-fiction or, if fictional, is noteworthy primarily for aspects other than the fictional text.

[submitted by George Flynn and Mark Olson]

The Non-Fiction Book category was originally intended as a means of honoring "miscellaneous" books, i.e., any book that was not a novel or a story collection. The imprudent choice of the term "non-fiction" has led to repeated arguments over whether particular works are fictional or not, and books with much voter support have sometimes been ruled ineligible. This motion would replace "non-fiction" by "related", in an attempt to make the category’s definition match the kinds of works that people have actually tended to nominate.[14] (Note that the term "related" is already included in the Best Fanzine definition, and its inclusion in Best Dramatic Presentation is up for ratification.)

The "noteworthy primarily for aspects other than the fictional text" clause is intended to embrace art books like Dinotopia, in which the fictional text is primarily a vehicle to support the art (and which would otherwise be orphaned if the Best Original Artwork category is abolished). Here and elsewhere, the intent is for the voters, not the administrators, to decide which works are appropriate.

Note that this language splits the difference between the 1980 “relating to the field” and the 1986 “whose subject is the field” by including both wordings. The rationale behind this proposal is clearly indicated in the quoted discussion from the minutes. This approach might be called “let the nominators decide.”

A second proposed amendment at the same meeting conflicted with this one and appears to represent Lew Wolkoff’s returning effort to narrow the scope of the category, rather than revising it to more closely reflect what people were actually nominating:

Revised Best Non-Fiction Hugo

[MOVED, to] amend Section 2.2.5 of the WSFS Constitution by substituting the phrase "history, biography, autobiography, or critical study"[15] for "non-fictional work", as follows:

Best Non-Fiction Book. Any history, biography, autobiography, or critical study whose subject is the field of science fiction, fantasy, or fandom appearing for the first time in book form during the previous calendar year.

[submitted by Lew Wolkoff, Sara Paul, Rebecca Kaplowitz, and Ira A. Kaplowitz]

The possibility was discussed to substitute the second proposal as an amendment to the first. During debate, a revised version of the second proposal was considered (with more detail specifying what types of works would be included). An initial vote was held to choose between the two proposals and the first was chosen for consideration and was approved.

Note that while the first proposal was explicitly intended to expand the types of content eligible under this category, the second proposal (in the form above) appears to be intended to further narrow eligible content. As will be seen in the analysis of nomination data, books falling outside the scope of “history, biography, autobiography, or critical study” had been Finalists in the category, including art books, works of fictional humor, convention ephemera, a graphic novel, and a cookbook. The first proposal notes “books with much voter support have sometimes been ruled ineligible,” however specifics of these exclusions are not currently available.[16]

As approved and passed on for second ratification, the amendment was as follows (per the Business Passed On document)[17]. By implication, Wolkoff’s narrowing proposal was not approved.

Item 9: Short Title: Best Related Book

MOVED, to replace Section 2.2.5 of the WSFS Constitution ("Best Non-Fiction Book") by the following:

2.2.5: Best Related Book. Any work whose subject is related to the field of science fiction, fantasy, or fandom, appearing for the first time in book form during the previous calendar year, and which is either non-fiction or, if fictional, is noteworthy primarily for aspects other than the fictional text.

This motion would widen the scope of the Best Non-Fiction Book Hugo (a) by including books that are "related to", rather than "whose subject is", SF, fantasy, or fandom; (b) by including books that are fictional, as long as they have significant aspects other than the fictional text (e.g., fictionalized art books such as Dinotopia); (c) by renaming the category.

In the 1997 (Worldcon 55, LoneStarCon 2) WSFS Minutes[18] the second consideration of this amendment was debated as follows:

MOVED, to replace Section 2.2.5 of the WSFS Constitution as follows:

2.2.5: Best Non-Fiction Book. Any non-fictional work whose subject is the field of science fiction, fantasy, or fandom appearing for the first time in book form during the previous calendar year.

Best Related Book. Any work whose subject is related to the field of science fiction, fantasy, or fandom, appearing for the first time in book form during the previous calendar year, and which is either non-fiction or, if fictional, is noteworthy primarily for aspects other than the fictional text.

This motion would widen the scope of the Best Non-Fiction Book Hugo (a) by including books that are "related to", rather than "whose subject is", SF, fantasy, or fandom; (b) by including books that are fictional, as long as they have significant aspects other than the fictional text (e.g., fictionalized art books such as Dinotopia); (c) by renaming the category.

A change was then proposed:

2.2.5: Best Related Book Work. Any work whose subject is related to the field of science fiction, fantasy, or fandom, appearing for the first time in book form during the previous calendar year, and which is either non-fiction or, if fictional, is noteworthy primarily for aspects other than the fictional text.

This was ruled to be a “greater change” that would require (per Roberts Rules of Order) re-ratification the following year. The proposed change was therefore withdrawn, though it could have been re-submitted as new business. After debate, the existing form of the amendment was approved[19] and the change to the name and category became effective as of 1998.[20]

No archived business meeting documents are available for 1998. The minutes of the 1999 business meeting[21] show no business to be passed on to the next year, therefore no additional amendments to the Best Related category were approved in 1998. No other mention has been identified in the minutes or business-passed-on documents for any action relevant to Best Related until 2005.

2.1.6 Digital Study Committee

The minutes of the 2005 (Worldcon 63, Interaction) business meeting[22] include a discussion that appears to relate to creating a committee to study the viability of some way to have Websites be eligible for a Hugo.[23] The specifics of the wording aren’t included, only the informal title of the proposal (Taming the Digital Wilderness) and transcription of commentary (summarized) that includes the following.[24]

Peter Wilkinson (For): Has proved popular when run in the past. There seem to be plenty of eligible candidate websites. There aren’t really other Hugo categories in which they can be nominated.

Vince Docherty (For): The Website Hugo having been created twice by Worldcons shows a lot of interest.[25]

The motion passed narrowly and it appears that a committee was created.

The 2007 business meeting minutes,[26] in the section on committee reports, notes that the “Taming the Digital Wilderness Committee” did not meet during the preceding year due to personal reasons. There is a claim that the committee was created “some years ago” (possibly in connection to the existence of Best Web Site as a special category in 2002 and 2005?) however a review of the business meeting minutes for 2000-2004 finds no reference to this committee.[27] After some questioning of the advisability (for a committee that had taken no action) the committee was extended another year.

However that same year, the following proposal was made:

Best Web Site: [specific language not included]

The following amendment was approved to add to the original proposal:

Best Web Site:

Any website, as part of its acceptance, must indicate to the administering committee the address where a version of the website that existed during the eligibility year exists. The administering committee shall include this information in the final ballot.

Discussion included the following (non-exhaustive) arguments:

Michael McMillan (for): This is not dividing up existing categories, this is recognising entirely new media, new ways of presenting and understanding science fiction and fandom. Websites exist for news magazines, conventions, costumers, filkers, authors, artists. A very democratic, innovative and open medium that anyone can access and be creative in. Some sites are better than others and this Hugo would help point fans to good sites. Not an innovative Hugo, we’ve trialed it twice successfully.

Kent Bloom (against): More work for Hugo administrators, and websites are already eligible in several categories -- we give Hugos for works, not for media. Content of a website is eligible for a Hugo, so might make them eligible in multiple categories.

Susan de Guardiola (against): Laudable, but we're giving a Hugo for a medium for the first time. Some websites aren't eligible under any category, so we should revitalise best semi-prozine and best fanzine, by making sure that those Hugos explicitly include websites.

The proposal was referred back to the Taming the Digital Wilderness committee for further refinement. When we see reference to this committee again, the idea of a separate Best Website Hugo appears to have been dropped.

2.1.7 Best Related Work

In the 2008 business meeting (Worldcon 66, Denvention 3) minutes[28] the Taming the Digital Wilderness committee introduced a group of revisions “to clarify the eligibility of works published in electronic or other non-print forms.” This appears to have been a different approach from the proposal to create a Best Web Site Hugo, which instead explicitly allows web-based content in several existing categories. Note that the requirement proposed in 2007 that there be an “archival” version of the eligible portion of the Website has disappeared. This group of proposals included the following change to Best Related:

3.3.5: Best Related Book Work. Any work whose subject is related to the field of science fiction, fantasy, or fandom, either appearing for the first time in book form during the previous calendar year or, if not appearing in book form, which has been substantially modified during the previous calendar year, and which is either non-fiction or, if fictional, is noteworthy primarily for aspects other than the fictional text.

An ad hoc committee offered various revisions to the parts of this proposal. The version voted on was:

3.3.5: Best Related Book Work. Any work whose subject is related to the field of science fiction, fantasy, or fandom, appearing for the first time in book form during the previous calendar year or which has been substantially modified during the previous calendar year, and which is either non-fiction or, if fictional, is noteworthy primarily for aspects other than the fictional text, and which is not eligible in any other category.

There was energetic debate on the topic of how this would substantially increase the scope of eligible works in the category, and it was confirmed that this was the intent, only limited by the stipulation “not eligible in any other category.” The motion passed this initial vote.

In the 2009 (Worldcon 67, Anticipation 3) business meeting minutes[29], after enthusiastic debate about proposed changes (all of which were deemed to be “greater changes” and therefore would require re-ratification), the proposal was approved in its original form.

Therefore, as of works created in 2009 (to be awarded in 2010) there was a substantial broadening of scope for the types of works eligible, as reflected by the change from “Related Book” to “Related Work.” Based on the discussions documented in the minutes, this broadening of scope was intentional, especially as it applied to works disseminated in electronic form.

2.1.8 Changes to the Nomination Process

In response to concerns around nominating slates (the “Sad/Rabid Puppies” event),[30] the 2015 (Worldcon 73, Sasquan) business meeting[31] entertained multiple proposals to revise the nomination process. While none of these proposals was specifically focused on the Best Related category, the eventual result did have minor effects on the nature of the Long List nominee data. Rather than discussing the entire revision process (as has been done for revisions that involved intentions and understandings of the nature of the Best Related category), only a summary of the outcome and its effects is included.

The primary approach that was eventually approved was a process nicknamed “E Pluribus Hugo” (EPH). The previous method for generating a Finalist list was for each nominator to select up to 5 items in each category, then in each category, the 5 items receiving the most nominations became Finalists (with an allowance for including more Finalists in the case of a tie for 5th place).[32] When each nominator is acting independently based on personal familiarity with the field, this typically results in a “long-tail” distribution.[33] But if a substantial number of nominators are acting in coordination with respect to a slate of preferred nominees, then even a relative minority of nominators can determine the full Finalist list, as long as the coordinating group is larger than the popularity of what would otherwise be the 5 most popular nominees. At the extreme, the nomination distribution of a large coordinated slate will appear as a “cliff” of high-popularity items followed by a steep drop-off to the set of non-slate nominees, which then follow the usual distribution. However, if slate-nominators are not perfectly coordinated, the slated items are also nominated by non-slate nominators, and/or the number of slate nominators is not substantially larger than the top popularity of non-slate works, then the shape of the distribution may be ambiguous.[34]

Under E Pluribus Hugo, a relatively elaborate system of distribution and elimination of nominating votes was devised to reduce the effectiveness of coordinated nomination. The output of this system is a ranked “score” for each work, from which the top 6 items became Finalists. The change from 5 Finalists to 6 was a separate proposal approved at this time. Nominators still chose only 5 items to propose.[35]

These changes had two effects on the long list. Because of the nature of the calculation process, it became much less likely that there would be a tie for any particular place in the ranking, meaning that “extra” Finalists or “extra” Long List items became less common. Secondly, the reporting requirements specified reporting “the results of the last ten rounds of the Finalist selection process.” The interpretation of this isn’t entirely clear. It has typically resulted in 16 items on the Long List, with the exception of 2018 and 2023 when 15 items were reported.

2.1.9 Subsequent Relevant Discussions

In the 2017 (Worldcon 75, Helsinki) WSFS business meeting minutes[36] document a new proposal to replace the Best Related Work category with two categories: Best Non-Fiction Book and Best Art Book. The detailed text of the proposed categories indicates that “book” in the title would be construed as “book or work,” thus continuing to include electronic formats, though the discussion makes reference specifically to “text.” However, the proposed description of what would be covered under Best Non-Fiction Book does appear to be more restrictive than the popular interpretation of Best Related Work. It specifies a work that "is clearly non-fiction or has a basis in fact with the intent to be educational and/or informational in nature.”[37] While many of the non-text items nominated prior to that date would easily fall under “educational or informational,” there had been a steady trickle of Long List (and one Finalist) nominees that were not in the form of “text” and that would fall more under entertainment (humor, music) or community (Archive of Our Own). No specific mention was made in the discussion of an intent to exclude certain types of nominee, rather it was suggested that this proposal would align the Hugos with the corresponding categories of the Locus Award and would highlight art books as a category. Rather than being voted on directly, the proposal was referred to the ongoing Hugo Study Committee.

In 2018 (Worldcon 76, San José), the Hugo Study Committee provided an extensive discussion and recommendations on several topics that had been referred to it.[38] With regard to the proposed split of the Best Related category, the committee concluded that it wasn’t clear that Best Art Book had a viable level of interest as an independent category and that there were potentially complicated interactions with other revisions being considered for the Artist categories.[39] They also felt that the name change returning to “Best Non-Fiction Book” simply didn’t have enough interest to warrant the change. Therefore, no proposed amendments to the WSFS constitution related to the Best Related category were considered in 2018.

In the 2019 report from the Hugo Study Committee,[40] it was noted that the decision by the Dublin 2019 committee to create a special Hugo category for Best Art Book suggested that an analysis of the results of that experiment would best guide any recommendations, and the topic was continued for another year.

The final results of the Hugo Study Committee were reported out to the 2022 (Worldcon 80, Chicon 8) Business Meeting[41]. The discussion concerning the Best Related category was as follows:

The discussion here began with a suggestion that a Best Non-Fiction category might be a useful thing to “pop out” of Best Related Work (“BRW”). Discussion evolved to replacing BRW with Best Non-Fiction, Best Art Book, and Best Other. There was a desire to retain a “catch all” category to allow for outstanding one-off items and also as a way of gauging whether any category of items might be growing as a part of the nominating space enough to consider giving it its own award.

Some discussion ensued of where Documentaries belonged, but we eventually landed on “the nominators will have to decide whether they go in BDP[42] or a hypothetical Other category.”

The Subcommittee did not make a final decision, but it seems likely that we will continue discussing splitting BRW into at least two categories - one for non-fiction works of any length, and one more explicitly a miscellany category. The subcommittee felt that, at a minimum, the original intent of the category (which was originally “Best Non-Fiction Book”) was being increasingly obscured by a number of non-book nominations, which were (and are) hard to directly compare with books. While the Subcommittee felt that it was highly desirable to continue providing an avenue through which to honor such works, the current category has started to become too broad.

There was also some separate discussion by the same subcommittee about splitting out Best Illustrated/Art Book from the rest, but no firm conclusions were drawn. Three main points were drawn. The first is that the trial category for Best Art Book (2019) had a very low number of nominators but a high number of voters. The second is that the category could easily be dominated by one major publication,[43] which would rapidly make the award untenable. The third centered around the difficulty of drawing the line between an Illustrated Book and a Graphic Story. This will require further discussion before the subcommittee is prepared to offer any kind of motion.

The final conclusion was not to recommend any changes to the Best Related category.

---

(Segment III will cover Part 2 Methodology, Section 2.2 Overlapping Categories.)