From: Tom Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Retro Hugos Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:52:27 -0500
Anyway, thoughts . . . Retros good or bad.
Two years ago (almost 3 now, dammit) at MilPhil, Robert Silverberg won the Retro Hugo as Best Fan Writer of 1951. He won mainly because his was the only name on the ballot most of the voters recognized (well, that's not entirely true - Wilson Tucker, James White and Walt Willis were also on the ballot). When he accepted the award, he stated this, adding that he was not, in fact, the Best Fan Writer of 1951.
I don't know. The Retro Hugos don't really mean anything (do the regular Hugos?), so there's no harm in doing them. I suppose you could have a panel of knowledgeable fans award them, but again, they don't mean anything - does anyone even remember that there WERE Retro Hugos given out at MilPhil, let alone who won them? Is any publisher going to reprint _Farmer In The Sky_ and highlight that it won the Retro Hugo for Best Novel of 1951? I doubt it.
You're right of course, a Retro Hugo doesn't really serve a purpose. But it's fun! :) Oh and I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure _Farmer in the Sky_ is still being published. ;)
The Retros are sort of an interesting exercise though. Consider which authors and books are on the ballot this year -- Asimov's _Caves of Steel_, Bradbury's _Fahrenheit 451_ and Clarke's _Childhood's End_. All have become sci-fi classics. I wonder how many true Hugo Award winners have been able to stand the test of time the way those three have.
Jon
Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com
_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
