A Brief Reflection On SFF Awards & The Oscars
Tis the season for awards & nominations in the SFFH ‘verse and also in the wider world as the The Oscars (until 2013 the Academy Awards) and Golden Globes etc stand testament.
The award-related reflection prompted by the juxtaposition of the two was this:
From time to time, I’ve heard the merit of SFFH awards such as the Sir Julius Vogels, Hugos and Nebulas questioned because effectively they’re community/reader and/or peer voted rather than being “curated.” Curated in this context means being chosen by a panel, as with the Bookers and—in the case of SFFH—the World Fantasy and Mythopoeic Awards, with the implication of the query being that this process is somehow more worthy.
Yet here we have the Academy Awards, probably one of the most anticipated, watched and yes, prestigious, creative awards in the world, which is overseen by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences — an organisation comprising “almost 6,000 motion picture professionals”, the Board of which “includes representatives from each of the craft branches.” (Source: Wikipedia)
In other words, this is effectively a community/peer voted award, even if Academy membership is by invitation—and although, like curated awards such as the Booker, it undoubtedly has its selection controversies, it nonetheless remains prestigious and of huge public interest.
Interesting, huh?
The important thing, in my opinion, about community / reader / peer voted awards is that everyone who can, should actively participate in the process.
Whether it is in the making of nominations and / or the voting, active participation is important.
Liking a work, and thinking it was worth your time and money spent is a good criteria for making a nomination to an award.
I think having some personal criteria for what puts a work above or below one’s nomination threshold also helps. Voting on a shortlist is a higher bar, imo, but I developed some criteria to guide my reading of the Hugo Award finalists in 2011