The Theory of Related-ivity: Segment XVI

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 4: Conclusions

4.1 Thoughts on Categories and Eligibility

4.2 Summary

Part 4: Conclusions

4.1 Thoughts on Categories and Eligibility

Reviewing the history of the Best Related category as a whole, and especially the interactions with other categories and eligibility considerations, several topics emerged that might warrant further discussion.

Categorization and Media Types

In several areas, works that would otherwise appear to form a natural set based on Media type are treated differently either due to Hugo eligibility requirements or due to the ways in which nominators view the works. This derives, in part, from how the Hugo Awards approach questions of scope in general, for example in distinguishing professional and amateur work in various areas.

One clear example is the case of Podcasts and similar Periodicals. When Best Fancast was established as a distinct Hugo category, defining it as a non-professional category meant that individual shows must be evaluated for professional status—something that isn’t always apparent to nominators.[1] From a different angle, the question of the appropriate categorization of Fiction Podcasts has largely been left unexamined. Most Fiction Podcasts nominated for a Hugo are connected to a text publication eligible under Best Semiprozine and are recommended by the publication to be nominated as such.[2] Such Podcasts sometimes have slightly different content from the related text version, which could raise the question of separate eligibility, avoiding the requirement that a work not be eligible in more than one category. This issue does not appear to have arisen in practice.

Should Fiction Podcasts be classified consistently as Semiprozines for nomination purposes? For that matter, the constitutional definition of Semiprozine doesn’t specify that the content be Fiction, it specifies “devoted to science fiction or fantasy, or related subjects.” So should all Podcasts (or Video Periodicals) that are not eligible for Fancast be classified under Semiprozine rather than Related Work? But at least one professional Fiction Podcast has appeared on the Long List in recent years, creating the potential for a hypothetical three-way split for fiction podcasts: Fancast for completely amateur shows, Semiprozine for shows meeting the semi-professional requirements, and Best Related for professional/commercial shows. This would then create a venue for commercial fiction periodicals when appearing in audio form that is not available to print magazines. Is this a desirable situation? If not, is there any way to resolve it that doesn’t overly complicate—or do logical violence to—the overall principles of Hugo categories?

A similar question with different parameters arises for Video works. The prototypical Video nominee under Best Related is a work of commentary, criticism, or biography, while the prototypical nominee under Dramatic Presentation is a fictional work. But non-fiction has been nominated (and won) under Dramatic Presentation. What is the optimal dividing line between Videos that belong in Dramatic Presentation and Videos that belong in Best Related? Under what circumstances should a Video work be deemed ineligible under Best Related under the clause that a work cannot be eligible in another category, given the precedent that non-fictional Videos clearly are eligible in Dramatic Presentation?[3]

Another area where precedent is split between more than one Hugo category is that of musical productions. Two types of musical productions have appeared as Hugo nominees: those consisting of a collection of independent songs, and those representing a single coherent story-narrative. But these two types have not correlated with distinct Hugo categories. Both types have appeared under Best Related, while only the story-narrative type have appeared under Dramatic Presentation. As the story-narrative work did not make the Finalist threshold in Best Related, no precedent has been established regarding eligibility. In contrast, while the “collection” type of album makes a less natural candidate for a Dramatic Presentation, there’s no logical reason to exclude it, should the occasion arise. While the prototypical Dramatic Presentation work involves both audio and video, the two Clipping albums were nominated in Dramatic Presentation based on an audio-only format and are the most natural precedent for categorizing the Epic concept album.

Alternately, given that the WSFS constitution specifically establishes audio as an acceptable format for Fiction nominees, should all musical works consisting of a fictional narrative be considered works of Fiction with eligibility assigned accordingly? (There is no Hugo category in which fictional anthologies or collections of stories are eligible, so this approach would disenfranchise the “song collection” type of album.) If the “coherent story-narrative” type of album is judged to properly belong in Dramatic Presentation (based on prior precedent), leaving only the song-collection type of work to sort out, is there a genuine need to settle the question, given that  it only applies to 2 works (and only 1 Finalist)? An alternative approach to recognizing musical performance would be through an Artist category. This wouldn’t work for the Professional Artist category, which specifies “an illustrator” but could be read into the definition of Fan Artist via the wording “an artist…whose work has appeared…in…public, non-professional display (including at a convention…).” Although the definition does make reference to an “image,” precedent has been established to include creators of non-image artwork, including jewelry and sculpture.

Ambiguity between Best Related and Dramatic Presentation also applies to the Speech format. There is existing precedent for a Speech to be nominated and become a Finalist as a Dramatic Presentation. Does that mean that all works appearing as Speeches should only be eligible as Dramatic Presentations? What if the Speech is also published in text format—does that change the situation, even if the notability of the work derives primarily from its original presentation format?

The experimental special Best Website Hugo category might have solved some categorization dilemmas while raising others, given how much content is now delivered via the web in comparison to the situation when those categories were tried. Nominated works that exist in the form of a website are a tangle of complications, especially if we drag in the web-based works classified as an Event format. They can be sorted into three types: incremental resources (such as encyclopedias or history sites), structural resources (such as discussion groups, recommendation lists, or hosting sites), and online events (such as virtual conventions). Each type presents its own challenges. For incremental and structural resources, what constitutes “new material” that would provide eligibility for a particular year? If such a work becomes a Finalist, should some equivalent of the requirements for Best Series be applied to require a substantial augmentation for renewed eligibility? If such a work is a Winner, should that make it ineligible in the future (similarly to Best Series)?

For ongoing resource-type projects that are considered to be valuable to the fannish community, might another option be some sort of special achievement award that recognizes their value without creating complex logical questions of Hugo eligibility? (Such an approach is available, but with the disadvantage that there is no context for formal nominator input.)

Are Events a desirable type of work to include in the scope of Best Related? Would a particularly excellent in-person convention be considered in scope? Most in-person Events (such as book clubs or lecture series) are unlikely to be nominated due to the logistical limitations on the number of people who can benefit from them, but large conventions could conceivably attract sufficient support. Conversely, some online Events may benefit from an “ownership effect” where the Event is particularly salient for those who participate, especially if specifically urged to nominate the Event. Do people consider this a problem or a natural aspect of the nomination process? Is the difference from an on-line Event of a similar type purely one of numbers or is there a qualitative difference that makes it more suitable as a nominee? Resurrecting the idea of a Best Website Hugo would not really solve any of these questions.

The eligibility questions around works of Fiction nominated under Best Related are different in nature. What constitutes a sufficient “noteworthy aspect” that qualifies a work of fiction for Best Related? The works that have been vetted (as Finalists) tend to involve translation, accompanying illustration, or being fictionalized take-offs on scientific texts. (Compilations that include fiction among other types of writing need no special pleading.)

Categorization Resolved by New Categories

In some cases, the creation of a more specific Hugo category has evidently settled eligibility and categorization questions entirely in nominators’ minds, as in the case of Best Graphic Story. While there were reasonable questions to be raised about whether Graphic novels were in scope doing the Non-Fiction and Related Book eras (during which they were nominated and appeared as Finalists), after the creation of the specific Graphic Story category, nominators stopped suggesting them under Best Related.

Games represent a similar situation, though only one Game-related work was nominated prior to the existence of the Best Game category (and it was published in Book format, which created fewer questions). The question for Poetry looks to be settled soon, as it is highly likely that the second-year approval for Poetry as a constitutional category will be obtained in 2026. As previously discussed, the Fancast category has shifted most (but not all) Podcasts to that category.

Low-Number Media Formats and Content Categories

Another way to examine what nominators consider to be in-scope, versus of marginal appropriateness, is to review the formats and content types that appear very rarely, suggesting that they have not reached general acceptance or that there has been insufficient context for establishing precedents. Keeping in mind that the categorization tags used in this analysis have no official basis, here is a review of “marginal” subsets.

Media format with 10 or fewer works in the entire data set fall in several groups:

• Formats that are reasonably classified as Books, but were distinguished for analytical purposes. (Dissertation, Ephemera, Periodical)
• Formats that either entirely or largely have moved to a dedicated category. (Game, Podcast)
• Formats where nominated works are associated with a noteworthy context or creator. (Album, Social Media, Speech)
• Complicated and highly diverse formats (Event and Website)

Of all these, the last set (Event and Website) would most benefit from further discussion and consideration.

Reviewed from the point of view of content Categories, the “Less Popular” and “Least Popular” Categories generally are victims of a tendency to be overly specific in the tagging process. Some Categories align naturally with more popular types: Interviews in the Auto/Biography groups, Journalism with History, Reviews with Criticism. Some have shifted (or are expected to shift) to dedicated award categories (Graphic works, Poetry, Games). Others have already been noted as worth further study under Media (Conventions, Experience) or as being the topic of categorization dilemmas (Music). Based purely on numbers, Science might be considered a “marginal Category” even though most commentary would consider it “traditional.”

Conclusions

These questions are highlighted, not to propose any specific solutions, but to point out unresolved issues that have emerged from the data analysis. While strict category definitions that attempt to solve questions of this sort rarely have the intended outcome, it could be useful to collect examples of prior nomination precedents as guidance for future nominations. Alternately, one could view the history of ambiguity and inconsistency as a valuable reflection of cultural shifts and changes.

4.2 Summary

Almost since the beginning of the Best Related Hugo category, it has been the subject of study, debate, and criticism with respect to the appropriate scope. Constitutional revisions to attempt to clarify, restrict, or expand that scope have been proposed regularly—possibly more regularly than for any other Hugo category, at least in terms of concrete changes. Those changes in wording have not always clearly reflected the intent (as indicated by Business Meeting discussions) or been reflected in how nominators interpreted the resulting text. However, to the extent that intent can be identified, the purpose of approved revisions have always been to expand the scope of the category, either in content or in format, moving through three identifiable “eras”: Non-Fiction Book, Related Book, and Related Work. In discussions of the Best Related category—whether the formal discussions of the business meeting or individual discussions within the community—there has been a constant tension between the position that Best Related should function as a catch-all category for worthy works that are not covered by other Hugo categories and the position that Best Related should have a specific focus on formal, scholarly studies and reference works relating to the field of SFF. Both constitutional revisions and nominator behavior have aligned more with the first position, while critical studies of the category have tended to reflect the second position.

The “catch-all” nature of the category has also meant that Best Related has overlapped and interacted with other Hugo categories to a greater degree than any other category. This has manifested in nominations that anticipated the creation of new categories with a more specific scope and the inclusion of nominees that might have found a home in categories that were previously discontinued. The overlap has also raised a number of procedural and philosophical questions regarding appropriate award categorization and eligibility, not all of which have been clearly addressed with precedents.

A chronological review of the nature of nominees, especially with respect to the three different “eras” of the category, has identified some clear trends, as well as apparent trends that are confounded by circumstantial factors, and trends deriving from larger social shifts in the Hugo electorate that are not specific to Best Related.

Nominator interest in the Best Related category has followed certain trends seen for the Hugos as a whole. Across the period when the Best Related category has existed, there has been an overall increase in the number of nominators, with a concomitant increase in the number of different works being nominated. This general trend has been interrupted by specific contexts that drove higher participation levels on a temporary basis. The increase in the number of nominators also appears to have caused a resulting decrease in the proportion of nomination ballots that included Best Related works. It is possible that this effect can be seen in other categories but that question was not pursued. The increase in nominators has also spread the nominations across a larger pool of works, which is the likely cause of a slight gradual decrease in the percentage of Best Related nominating ballots required to meet Finalist and Long List thresholds, even as the absolute number of required nominations has remained static or increased slightly (with the exception of several anomalous years). Again, this question has not been pursued for other categories and may be a general effect of higher nomination numbers.

Although the detailed nominating data has gaps, during the early years of the category (the Non-Fiction era), the work with the most nominations was more likely than not to be the eventual Winner, while the likelihood was balanced during the Related Book era, and during the Related Work era the highest nominee was very rarely the eventual Winner.

Author gender of works has shifted from a strong male dominance of the category to a more gender-balanced presence, with the inflection point of equality occurring around 2017, after which female and non-binary authors predominated slightly. In general, gender representation among Finalists and Long Lists is roughly similar, with a slight tendency for Finalists to be closer to parity than the Long Lists. These gender shifts do not clearly correlate with changes to the category definition, but are gradual and appear to be an overall pattern among Hugo categories rather than specific to Best Related.

The majority of works have a single credited author, but there is a slight tendency for Finalists to be disproportionately multi-author. There is also a trend for more multi-author works in the Related Book and Related Work eras than previously, and for larger numbers of listed authors in the Related Work era specifically. This trend may be related to non-Book formats being more likely to involve larger creative teams, or to a shift in certain categories to given named credit to all members of a team. (For example, Semiprozine has taken the lead in crediting large teams, while categories such as Dramatic Presentation are sticking to small-team lists.)

Media formats have only expanded during the Related Work era, as previous category definitions specified Books as the format. Within the Related Work era, non-Book formats took a few years to be embraced, with Podcasts and Video appearing first, while the Article/Blog format eventually established itself as a clear but far second in popularity to Books. Overall, formats appear as Finalists and as Winners in rough proportion to their presence on the Long List. Of the 12 formats appearing during the Related Work era, 8 are represented among Finalists and 5 among Winners. If the formats are grouped into the Supercategories of Text, Audio/Visual, and Other, then Text strongly dominates the Finalists, shutting out the other formats in 7 of 16 years and never comprising less than 50% of Finalists. The Long List shows a gradual increase in the proportion of non-Text works, while never reaching as high as 50%. Of the 14 Winners during the Related Work era (2 years had no award), 10 were Books with one additional Text Winner.

In terms of content, the Book and Article/Blog formats behave very similarly, while the “minority” formats are much more variable in terms of content. Nominees in the low-number formats are often associated with specific contexts or authors with high visibility, suggesting that when works “push the envelope” more strongly there is an element of public visibility that may be unrelated to the specific nominated work. These observations are anecdotal, however, and similar scrutiny has not been given to text-based works.

When examining subject matter Categories, the most surprising conclusion is how little the scope expansion in the Related Work era affected nomination and final voting behavior. An argument could be made for much larger shifts between the Non-Fiction and Related Book eras. Examined as a whole data set, the proportions of content types among raw nominations, Finalists, and Winners are roughly proportional. The most popular content types, regardless of how the data is analyzed, are consistently what one might think of as “traditional” content for Best Related: Art Books, works of (Auto)Biography, Criticism, History, and Reference works. The most notable exception to these overall observations is for Art Books, which see a sharp increase in popularity (at all measurable levels) during the Related Book era, then an even sharper loss of popularity in the Related Work era. Less drastic but still noteworthy is the gradual increase in popularity of less traditional types of content (under the Supercategory of Associated), however the behavior of the Associated group is not specifically tied to the scope expansion under Related Work. The largest increase in the Associated group for Finalists occurs in the Related Book era, while Associated Winners during the Related Work era appear at the same rate as in the Non-Fiction era, though with different Media formats.

As noted, Art Books show one of the more dramatic changes in popularity over time. Popularity increases significantly during the Related Book era, possibly due to nominators being more willing to consider them in scope when the category was not named Non-Fiction. However, nominator interest falls precipitously in the Related Work era. It is possible that the loss of a major art book Publisher and a change in management for the popular Spectrum Series contributed, however there is also evidence suggesting a general falling away of nominator interest, or at least a shift of interest toward other subject matter.

Several types of data were analyzed that only apply to a subset of the data. The appearance of specific individuals either as authors or subjects of nominated works shows a “long tail” distribution with respect to repeat appearances. Gender trends over time for the Topic of works begin with extreme male dominance which decreases somewhat over time, but without achieving parity. When works focus on specific media Properties, the most popular subjects are familiar television, movie, and book universes but the types of analysis and presentation are quite varied, including Criticism, Reference, Art, and History. Other types of Topics fall in several general groups: specific textual sub-genres, the craft and business of writing and publishing, issues of representation both in published media and fandom, and the culture of fandom and conventions, with other Topic groups in smaller numbers. Nominees are not dominated by a small number of Publishers, with the strongest concentration occurring for two art book Publishers. When works have been published as part of a Series, there have been a few repeat Series appearances, but other than the Spectrum Art showcase Series the numbers are not significant.

Criticisms of the current scope and performance of the Best Related category most commonly revolve around assertions that inappropriate content is “pushing out” more worthy (or at least, more appropriate) nominees or Winners, but when the big picture is reviewed, the vast majority of nominees continue to be traditionally published Books that focus on the discussion, criticism, review, and history of SFF topics in all their diversity. Are worthy works left off the Finalist and Long Lists? Absolutely, but that is always the case. There is a much larger number of worthy works than can ever be recognized by the Hugo system. Are works sometimes nominated and elevated due to issues of individual popularity (or notoriety) and transient community attention? Absolutely, but that is the case in every Hugo category. Name-recognition has always been at least as significant as objective worth. In any award system that relies on popular input, the first and most important hurdle a work faces is nominator awareness that the work even exists. A work could be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but if an insufficient number of Hugo nominators know about it, then a “less worthy” work is going to rank higher.

This study has not been intended to judge outcomes in the Best Related category, but to map out those outcomes and understand the dynamics that shape them. To some extent, the Best Related category has been the most responsive mirror of shifts and changes in Hugo nominator interests and, as such, it cannot help but be a lightning rod for opinions and discontents.

(This concludes the series.)