Blog

Even more than Mary Read's "origin story," the backstory given for Anne Bonny's birth is complicated, farcical, and implausible. Similarly to Read, she is given an excuse for later cross-dressing in having been disguised as a boy at an early age. (This motif shows up in other cross-dressing biographies and is a way of absolving the woman of deliberate gender transgression. But the details of Anne's pirate career include massive contradictions, especially around her gender presentation and the timelines of her supposed pregnancy(s). I mean, if your pirate boyfriend drops you off in Cuba to give birth to his baby, doesn't that rather imply that the entire crew would know you were a woman? Anyway...

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

2.2 Overlapping Categories

2.2.1 Introduction

2.2.2 Fancast

2.2.3 Graphic Story or Comic

2.2.4 Games

2.2.5 Special Categories

2.2.6 Non-Fiction Outside Related Work

---

Part 2: Methodology

2.2 Overlapping Categories

2.2.1 Introduction

In addition to shifts in the scope definition for the Best Related category, several other factors can affect what gets nominated in this category.

One of the features of Best Related is that it has always been treated as a “catch-all” category for works that people considered worthy but that didn’t have an obvious specific category for nomination. Even when the category was officially “Best Non-Fiction Book,” Finalists included such things as a Graphic novel (The Dark Knight Returns), Convention Ephemera (Noreascon 3 Souvenir Book), and Photography albums (The Faces of Fantasy). But this means that when a new category is created for work that previously might have been nominated under Best Related, works of that type can be expected to be nominated in that new category and not in Best Related.[1]

Even this dynamic has not always been straightforward. Typically, a new category has received a “test run” for one or two years as a special Hugo category, where we would expect to see nominations for that type of work decrease under Best Related during the test-run years. Sometimes a special one-time category isn’t picked up for permanent inclusion and we might expect to see a return of works of that type in Best Related.

However, it has happened that works continue being nominated for Best Related even when a more specific category exists. Sometimes (as in the Fancast category, see below) additional eligibility restrictions on the specific category mean it isn’t always clear whether a work can be eligible there. If a nominee doesn’t meet the threshold for becoming a Finalist, questions of category eligibility may not be ruled on.[2]

Sometimes a new category is created for works that could have been nominated (in theory) under Best Related, but where few or none actually appeared (as for Best Game, see below).

So the wide-open scope of the category under Best Related Work hasn’t exactly operated as an experimental lab for new categories to propose. The broad scope may, in fact, work in opposition to this function, as it would be difficult for any particular type of work to gain sufficient visibility in Best Related to be used as evidence for a new category.

This section looks at the history and behavior of nomination patterns where there are ambiguous or overlapping categories. A few categories not discussed here have too little data or too little interaction with Best Related to provide meaningful interpretation, or are discussed in relation to specific nominees later.

2.2.2 Fancast

Podcasts such as Writing Excuses began appearing as nominees in Best Related as soon as the category name and scope was revised to Best Related Work, effective 2010. Interestingly, Writing Excuses continued to appear on the final ballot for Best Related Work in 2012-2014, and won in 2013 despite the existence of the more specific Fancast category. Therefore, it makes a complicated case study for the interaction of the two categories. The Fancast category shows some of the most interesting dynamics with respect to the nuances of overlap and eligibility, how those are interpreted, and how (and whether) they affect how people nominate.

In 2012, the “Best Fancast” category was established. The category was first proposed at the 2011 business meeting (Worldcon 69, Renovation).[3] The proposal was part of a revision to establish that the Best Fanzine category should be for text works only.

Creation of the Best Fancast Category

Two competing proposals were considered at the 2011 business meeting.

Proposal #1:

Best Fan Audio or Video Production. Any generally available non-professional audio or video production devoted to science fiction, fantasy, or related subjects which by the close of the previous calendar year has had four (4) or more episodes or podcasts, at least one (1) of which appeared in the previous calendar year.

The commentary on the proposed amendment quoted a definition of “non-professional” as applied to Best Fanzine.

For the purpose of this proposed change, “non-professional” is defined as only monetary payments FROM the publication to contributors and/or staff; monetary payments TO the publication (e.g., from subscribers and/or advertisers) do not necessarily result in the publication being defined as a “professional” one.

Although the commentary on the proposed Best Fan A/V Production category did not include a specific explanation of what was intended by “non-professional,” it’s reasonable to assume that the intent was parallel. I.e., that payment to the work (such as to support production and hosting costs) would not disqualify the work, while payments to staff or contributors would disqualify it. But this was not spelled out in the proposal.

Proposal #2:

Best Fancast. Any generally available non-professional audio or video periodical devoted to science fiction, fantasy, or related subjects that by the close of the previous calendar year has released four (4) or more episodes, at least one (1) of which appeared in the previous calendar year, and that does not qualify as a dramatic presentation.

This second proposal again was in the context of stipulating that Best Fanzine would not include non-print works, and creating a new category to capture audio/video periodicals. The proposed text of this one was functionally identical to proposal #1.[4]

The commentary on this proposal notes that fan Podcasts had previously been nominated under Best Fanzine, thereby establishing interest, and there was a desire not to simply disenfranchise Podcast/Video fan publications, while still retaining the text format for Fanzine. (See the discussion below of prior nomination of audio/video periodicals.)

The reason for using the invented term “fancast” rather than “podcast” was discussed (i.e., the swiftly changing nature of the online media ecosystem that could easily make “podcast” an irrelevant or overly specific term). The discussion also noted a potential overlap between Fancast and Dramatic Presentation, but felt that this distinction would either be obvious or irrelevant in the context of individual items.

The commentary notes that the Podcast StarShipSofa won the Best Fanzine category in 2010. SF Signal won Best Fanzine in 2012 and 2013 but had both text and Podcast arms of the project. SF Signal Podcast was also a Finalist in Best Fancast in 2012-2014. The degree to which the two formats of the overall entity reinforced each other in popularity might be hard to determine.

With regard to the level of nominator interest, the commentary specifically notes that “in 2011, we have Podcasts nominated both in Best Fanzine and Best Related Work” and for the latter cites “the professionally-oriented writer’s Podcast Writing Excuses.” This would seem to indicate that Writing Excuses was understood to be within the intended scope of the proposed Fancast category, at least by some people.

When the two proposals were actually voted on in 2011, the proposers had conferred and created a joint proposal which passed with the following wording:

Best Fancast. Any generally available non-professional audio or video periodical devoted to science fiction, fantasy, or related subjects that by the close of the previous calendar year has released four (4) or more episodes, at least one (1) of which appeared in the previous calendar year, and that does not qualify as a dramatic presentation.

Associated discussion touched on the question of “semi-professional” fancasts and whether there should be a distinction made between non-professional and semi-professional for Fancast as it is for text publications. This discussion occurred in the context of clarifying dividing lines for Fanzine and Semiprozine and adding parallel stipulations in Fanzine and Semiprozine that a nominee in those categories “does not qualify as a … Fancast.” The stipulation was approved for Fanzine but voted down for Semiprozine, leaving open the option for audio/video “magazines” to compete in Semiprozine rather than Fancast, with the implication that there would be a need to distinguish levels of professional status for audio/video productions.[5]

The Best Fancast category was held as a special category in 2012.[6] In 2012 (Worldcon 70, Chicon 7) the minutes of the WSFS business meeting[7] document that the Best Fancast amendment was ratified with no debate. The discussion before ratification included preliminary nomination data for the category (no specifics, just numbers) to establish its viability.

The WSFS Constitution as of 2012 (i.e., including items ratified in that year)[8] has the following to say regarding the definition of “professional”:

3.2.11: A Professional Publication is one which meets at least one of the following two

criteria:

(1) it provided at least a quarter the income of any one person or,

(2) was owned or published by any entity which provided at least a quarter the income of any of its staff and/or owner.

Applied to a Fancast, this means a production would be excluded (and need to be nominated under a different category) if that specific project provided at least a quarter of the income of any one person (potentially possible for highly popular YouTubers) or if the project was owned or published by an entity that did so.

This would exclude, for example, Podcasts sponsored by major publishers or by professional broadcasting companies. But there’s potential for debate around specific situations. What if someone has a Patreon that provides at least a quarter of their income and they have a Fancast that mentions the Patreon as a way to support the show? What if a Fancast is produced by a fabulously successful author who happens to employ a personal assistant, providing 100% of that assistant’s income, but where the assistant is not involved in any way with the Fancast?

These are some of the considerations behind the nomination history for the Writing Excuses Podcast, which has been nominated under Best Related and Fancast, with the former continuing to be the predominant category even after the Fancast category was created. In order to understand how the nominators understood this issue, the question was asked in the comments for the File 770 Pixel Scroll post for 2025-06-20 and received the following opinion from Cora Buhlert:

“I’ve been told that it doesn’t count as a fancast, because it is a professional production. However, since we have no Best Procast category, it goes into Best Related, since there is no other place for it to go.”

A similar question was asked of Mary Robinette Kowal, one of the Writing Excuses hosts, during an informal conversation at Worldcon on 2025-08-14. She noted that the Podcast was originally sponsored by Audible and supported monetarily by co-host Brandon Sanderson, which they understood to disqualify it under Fancast, which required that no one be receiving income from the Podcast.[9] The Podcast had communicated to listeners that the appropriate nomination category was Best Related. (But, of course, they had no way to prevent people from nominating under Fancast.)

The question of whether Writing Excuses is, in fact, not eligible under Fancast has never been formally tested as it has never reached the Finalist threshold under Fancast (coming closest when it placed 6th in nominations in 2012).

In contrast, in 2024, two projects with enough nominations in Fancast to make the final ballot were determined to be professional publications and disqualified (in one case, on the basis that it was owned and produced by a company that had several full-time staff). One of the projects that was moved up to Finalist in Fancast due to these disqualifications had also received nominations under Related Work. Because of achieving Finalist status under Fancast, it was necessarily evaluated regarding its status as a non-professional production and considered eligible.

Based on the 2024 disqualifications, it seems plausible that a project sponsored by an author who is productive enough to have employees would be determined to be professional, regardless of whether those employees worked on the project specifically.

Prior Nomination of Podcasts

Nomination of audio/video periodicals in the Best Related category prior to the establishment of the Fancast category had been marginal. Writing Excuses was on the Long List in 2010 and was a Finalist in 2011, while Geeks Guide to the Galaxy made the Long List in 2011.[10]

A review of the Fanzine long lists starting in 2006 is inconclusive about the extent to which audio/video periodicals were being nominated in that category before the establishment of Best Fancast.[11] Several works that had both text and audio components appear on the Long List (SF Signal in years 2007-2011 inclusive, Strange Horizons in 2007, Beneath Ceaseless Skies in 2009) however it is likely that these were nominated on the basis of the text version. Two titles appear that were audio-only. Starship Sofa was a Finalist in 2010 and on the Long List in 2011. The Coode Street Podcast was on the Long List in 2011.

After the establishment of the Best Fancast category, only three Podcasts have been nominated under Best Related: Writing Excuses (Finalist in 2012, 2013, 2014 and Winner in 2013), Levar Burton Reads (Long List in 2022), and Imagining Tomorrow (Long List in 2025). All three have professional sponsorship and therefore would most likely not have been considered eligible under Best Fancast or Best Fanzine.

Other than 2 Tropes versus Women episodes (Long List in 2014 and 2015) and Science Fiction Fans Buma (Long List in 2024), Video works nominated under Best Related have been isolated productions and therefore would not be eligible under Best Fancast, which requires a periodical structure. An extensive review has not been performed of whether Video periodicals are regularly nominated under Best Fancast. A brief scan of the Finalists (as listed in Wikipedia) identifies Claire Rousseau’s YouTube Channel (in 2020 and 2021), Kalanadi (in 2021 and 2023), and Science Fiction Fans Buma (in 2024, when it also made the Long List under Best Related).

Based on this review, it appears that the Best Fancast category was proposed just as the genre had achieved enough popularity that people were looking for places to nominate Podcasts. Non-professional audio and video periodicals then appear under Best Fancast, while professional periodicals and one-off Video productions have been appearing under Best Related. Therefore, Best Fancast did not so much “draw off” potential nominees from other categories as reflect an emerging interest in real time.

One could argue that some of the Video nominees in Best Related could reasonably have been nominated under the appropriate Best Dramatic Presentation category, according to length. For example, the professional documentary Worlds of Ursula K. Le Guin (Long List in 2019 and then, with an extension based on limited distribution, a Finalist in 2020) would have been eligible as a dramatic work. However, it’s likely that nominators think of the Dramatic Presentation categories primarily as fictional categories.[12] There have been no Video works in Best Related that are fictional in nature, though it isn’t clear that fictional productions would be ineligible, given that Books containing a combination of Art and Fiction have regularly been Finalists.

2.2.3 Graphic Story or Comic

Nomination of Graphic Works in Best Related

Graphic novels appeared as Finalists in Best Related as early as the 1987 appearance of The Dark Knight Returns during the Non-Fiction era. This is an interesting interpretation of “non-fiction” and it would be fascinating to know the rationale for considering it eligible. (Was it on the basis of being an “art book?” Were the Hugo administrators taking an extreme position of “let the nominators decide? As no eligibility decisions are documented from that era, it could be difficult to discover reasoning from almost 40 years ago.)

The category Best Graphic Novel was first awarded in 2009, one year before the change to Best Related Work, therefore the interaction of these two changes may be difficult to distinguish. Based purely on the constitutional definitions of the Best Related category and the fact that Graphic novels can reasonably be considered “Books,” there seems no reason to consider that Graphic works would be more eligible under Related Work than Related Book. So any question of impact of category changes on nomination behavior should focus on the change from Non-Fiction to Related Book and on the creation of the Best Graphic Novel category.

Establishment of the Graphic Story Category

In the 2008 (Worldcon 66, Denvention 3) business meeting minutes[13] the following amendment was proposed.

Moved, to amend the WSFS Constitution by adding the following:

3.3.X: Best Graphic Novel: A science fiction or fantasy story told in graphic form, of at least sixty-four (64) pages in length, published in book form or as a series of consecutive, continuous issues through an online medium as a complete story. Eligible works for nomination are to be any publication devoted to graphic science fiction or fantasy themes, whose story lines end and are published or distributed by the end calendar year.

Moved by Chris M Barclay and Steve Barber

A committee was formed to address the wording, and the actual version debated on was:

Moved, to amend the WSFS Constitution by adding the following:

3.3.X: Best Graphic Story. Any science fiction or fantasy story told in graphic form appearing for the first time in the previous calendar year.

Debate covered questions of format (magazine versus trade book, single panel versus longer works, etc.) and the sense was that this should fall to “let the voters decide.” It was pointed out that Graphic works of sufficient merit had been nominated under Best Related (though see the discussion above regarding eligibility questions) and therefore the category wasn’t needed. It was suggested that the category should be trialed as a special category at the next year’s Worldcon and a representative of that committee indicated willingness but wanted the business meeting to craft a specific definition.[14] A proposal was advanced to substitute the following resolution for the proposed amendment:

Resolved, that the WSFS Business Meeting requests that Anticipation use its authority to create an additional one time category for Best Graphic Novel using wording as follows “Any science fiction or fantasy story told in graphic form appearing for the first time in the previous calendar year.”

However, this was split into an independent motion and eventually passed, expanding the request to the next two years (the time it would take for establishment of a constitutional category). It was noted that, as a resolution “requesting” action, it was not binding on the committees and therefore did not interfere in their ability to decline to hold a special category or to select some other topic for a special category.

The original proposed amendment for the creation of the Graphic Story category was approved, after including a sunset clause requiring re-ratification in 2012. (After two years as a special category, then two years as a constitutional category, there would presumably be sufficient data to decide whether to continue.)[15] This version received its second ratification at the 2009 (Worldcon 67, Anticipation) business meeting.[16]

The title of the category was changed to “Best Graphic Story or Comic” in 2020, however as this change doesn’t affect the current analysis, details are omitted.

Graphic Works Nominated under Best Related

By the time the Best Graphic Story category was created, there was a long tradition of nominating Graphic-format stories, collections of single-panel cartoons, and informational works illustrated with “cartoon” style art, sometimes in the form of sequential “panel” art. Taken as a whole, it’s easy to see how works of this type fit into the larger context of Art Books or illustrated informational or instructional works. The following items that are coded as “Graphic works” have been nominated under Best Related.[17]

Best Non-Fiction Book Era (1980-1997)

• 1986 (Finalist) Science Made Stupid by Tom Weller
• 1987 (Finalist) The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller, Klaus Jenson and Lynn Varley
• 1992 (Finalist) The World of Charles Addams by Charles Addams
• 1996 (Long List) Oi, Robot: Competitions and Cartoons from The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction Edward L. Ferman, editor

Best Related Book Era (1998-2009)

• 1998 (Long List) "Repent, Harlequin, Said the Ticktok Man" by Harlan Ellison, illustrated by Rick Berry
• 2000 (Finalist) The Sandman: The Dream Hunters by Neil Gaiman and Yoshitaka Amano
• 2004 (Long List) Sandman: Endless Nights by Neil Gaiman
• 2005 (Long List) Marvel 1602 by Neil Gaiman
• 2007 (Long List) Fables: 1001 Nights of Snowfall by Bill Willingham
• 2007 (Long List) Mechademia 1: Emerging Worlds of Anime and Manga edited by Frenchy Lunning (Periodical)
• 2007 (Long List) The Arrival by Shaun Tan
• 2008 (Finalist) The Arrival by Shaun Tan (See the discussion in Eligibility Notes.)
• 2008 (Long List) Alice in Sunderland by Bryan Talbot
• 2008 (Long List) Girl Genius Volume 6: Agatha Heterodyne and the Golden Trilobite by Phil Foglio and Kaja Foglio

2009: Best Graphic Work category is first awarded

Best Related Work Era (2010-present)

• 2021 (Long List) The Return of Hyper Comics by Steve Stiles

During the Best Non-Fiction Book era, some of the nominees are understandable in terms of content rather than format. Science Made Stupid fits with other popular science works (even some humorous ones). The Charles Addams and F&SF cartoons collections align with the popular “Art Book” works. But it’s hard to see how The Dark Knight Returns fits under the category “non-fiction."

In contrast, the works nominated during the Best Related Book era are overwhelmingly “Graphic stories” rather than plausibly overlapping the Art Book format or another similar established Media type. Graphic works appear in 6 of the 11 years of this group prior to the existence of the Best Graphic Work category, and 5 of the 9 distinct works appear in 2007-2008, leading up to the introduction of Best Graphic Work. It is easier to see how people considered Graphic novels to fit once the category was renamed “Best Related Book.” These works would not be eligible under the text Fiction categories, and once “non-fiction” was no longer a criterion, Graphic novels have an obvious “relation” to the SFF community.

Once the Graphic category existed, Graphic works functionally disappeared from the Best Related nominees. The Return of Hyper Comics is more of an “Art Book” or “single-artist retrospective”—content that fits in with trends in non-Graphic nominees.

Overall, the relationship between the Best Related and Graphic categories and nominees is an excellent illustration of the dynamic between catch-all and specific categories. Nominators experimented with trying to fit their favorite Graphic works into Best Related (even when the fit was awkward) with some success, and then increasingly when the change in category definition made a clearer allowance for such works. But with the creation of the dedicated category, there was a clean shift to using it.

2.2.4 Games

In 2021, the “Best Game or Interactive Work” category was established. Prior to that, there was only one nominee in Best Related that was a Game (as opposed to critical studies or histories of games). This was The Monster Hunter International Employee Handbook and Roleplaying Game (Long List in 2014). This was the year before the Sad/Rabid Puppies slates successfully dominated the Finalist lists but was the second year of the Sad Puppies nominating campaign, for which the author, Larry Correia, was a vocal proponent.[18]

As this occurred under the Best Related Work era, it seems perfectly reasonable for nominators to have considered a SFF-related Game to be within the scope of the category, however it is notable that this is the only Game actually appearing in the data set. Thus, the nomination seems much more likely to be attributable to the use of a slate to promote the work of specific authors than to a general sense among nominators that Games were in scope for the Best Related category. This is a contrast to the Graphic Story situation, where there was clear support for the type of work in Best Related prior to the establishment of the more specific category.

2.2.5 Special Categories

As discussed previously, the Worldcon constitution allows for each year’s convention committee to create a special Hugo category, effective for only the one year. As we’ve seen, this has often been used to test the viability of proposed categories and to bridge the gap while a new category is ratified for permanent inclusion. (This is an admirable case of coordination between independent committees, as there is no requirement for a subsequent committee to use their option to bridge that gap.)

But not all special categories demonstrate viability or are repeated after their initial trial. The following special Hugo categories overlap to some degree with material that has been nominated under Best Related but—for whatever reason—were not established as permanent categories.[19] Special categories for individuals are not included here.

Publisher

Best SF Book Publisher (1964, 1965): These categories were held well before the creation of any version of the Best Related category. A publishing house clearly wouldn’t be eligible under Best Non-Fiction Book or Best Related Book, but could plausibly be considered to fall under Best Related Work. In fact, one might consider the nomination of Archive of Our Own (AO3) to be a form of “publishing house,” although this study classifies it as a “Website” for statistical purposes.

Web Site

Best Web Site (2002, 2005): This is an interesting case of a special category being held in two non-consecutive years, as well as an example of a trial category failing to be established permanently. In both cases, the category was held during the Best Related Book era, so there would have been no logical overlap between the two categories. The following items were nominated in this category in 2002 and 2005. (Data taken verbatim from the documents in the official Hugo Website.)

2002 Best Web Site Nominees: The category had the 4th highest number of nominating ballots for the year and the 5th highest number of nominations required to become a Finalist, indicating significant interest in the category.

Finalists

• Locus Online (locusmag.com) Mark R. Kelly, editor/webmaster
• SF Site (site inactive) Rodger Turner, publisher/managing editor
• SciFi.Com (www.scifi.com) Craig Engler, executive producer
• Tangent Online (tangentonline.com) David Truesdale, senior editor; Tobias Buckell, webmaster
• Strange Horizons (www.strangehorizons.com) Mary Anne Mohanraj, editor-in-chief

Long List

• The Fanac Fan History Project (www.fanac.org)
• SF Weekly (possibly see scifiweekly.com?)
• The Official Battlefield Earth web site (presumably battlefieldearth.com)
• Internet Speculative Fiction Database (isfdb.org)
• SciFiction (www.scifi.com/scifiction)
• SFF Net (sff.net)
• Writers of the Future.com (writersofthefuture.com)
• SF Revu (www.sfrevu.com)
• Speculations (site inactive)
• Fictionwise.com (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictionwise)
• Made in Canada (see web.archive.org/web/20091027130406/http://www.geocities.com/canadian_sf/)
• Emerald City (emcit.com)
• SciFi Dimensions (see sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/scifi_dimensions)

2005 Best Web Site Nominees: The category had the 3rd highest number of nominating ballots for the year and the 3rd highest number of nominations required to become a Finalist.

Finalists

• Locus Online (locusmag.com) ed. by Mark R. Kelly
• Strange Horizons (strangehorizons.com) Susan Marie Groppi, editor-in-chief
• SciFiction (scifi.com/scifiction) ed. by Ellen Datlow, Craig Engler, general manager
• Emerald City (emcit.com) ed. by Cheryl Morgan
• eFanzines (efanzines.com) ed. by Bill Burns

Long List

• The SF Site (sfsite.com)
• Sfrevu (sfrevu.com)
• FANAC Fan History Site (fanac.org)
• Trufen.net/Victor Gonzalez (trufen.net)
• NESFA (nesfa.org)
• Neil Gaiman's Site/Weblog (neilgaiman.com)
• The Alien Online (thealienonline.net)
• Science Fiction Weekly (scifiweekly.com & www.scifi.com/sfw)
• SciFi.com (scifi.com)
• Infinite Matrix (infinitematrix.net)
• The Internet Review of Science Fiction (irosf.com)

Several observations can be made from these lists. The most critical one is either a failure to normalize nominations or a lack of clarity on what constitutes “a Website.” This is most obvious in the following items:

• SciFi.Com (Craig Engler, executive producer) (2002)
• SF Weekly (2002)
• SciFiction (2002)
• SciFiction (www.scifi.com/scifiction) ed. by Ellen Datlow, Craig Engler, general manager (2005)
• Science Fiction Weekly (www.scifiweekly.com & www.scifi.com/sfw) (2005)
• SciFi.com (www.scifi.com) (2005)

It appears that all of these refer to the same Website: the official Website of the SYFY tv channel (rebranded from scifi.com to syfy.com in 2009). Science Fiction Weekly was a news-of-the-field section of the site, despite also having a separate url. (Currently scifiweekly.com redirects to syfy.com.) There is no trace of a relevant separate Website “SF Weekly”; that name and url is held by a local events website for the San Francisco area. This failure to normalize the various versions doesn’t appear to have been an issue for any other nominees. Only one version of the site was listed as a Finalist in each year, however presumably two other nominees should have been on the Long List in each year if nominations had been correctly normalized.

The second observation is the significant repetition across the two years. This isn’t unusual. Several Hugo categories see significant repetition from year to year (e.g., Professional Artist, Semiprozine, Fanzine). Continuing eligibility relies on new content. This is less easy to determine in the case of a Website than a fixed work, such as a Periodical.[20] Website content may be “dynamic” (i.e., new material is presented in a periodical fashion), or “cumulative” (i.e., new material may be added to an established body of work, but not on a specific schedule).

Other than the SYFY Website(s) which can be assumed to be dynamic due to the nature of television production, the repeat nominees are:

• Locus Online—A selection of material from Locus Magazine (dynamic content)
• SFsite.com—Reviews, columns, Interviews (dynamic content)
• Strange Horizons—A periodical Fiction magazine (dynamic content)[21]
• Emerald City—A periodical with sff book Reviews (dynamic content)
• FANAC—An archive of documents related to fandom. A sister site to fancyclopedia.org. (cumulative content)
• SF Revu—Reviews of sff books (dynamic content)

In other words, for the most part, the repeat nominees were the equivalent of Periodicals and, in fact, could be or were being nominated under Semiprozine or Fanzine. (The SYFY Website would not have been eligible under either of these categories due to its professional status, regardless of format considerations.)

The nominees that appeared in only one of the two years were a bit more varied.

• Reviews, articles, Interviews, news (dynamic content): Tangent Online, The Alien Online, The Internet Review of Science Fiction, Made in Canada
• Fiction (dynamic content): SciFi Dimensions, Infinite Matrix
• Commercial/professional (mixed content): The Official Battlefield Earth web site, Writers of the Future, Fictionwise.com, Neil Gaiman website
• Resources and archives (cumulative content): Internet Speculative Fiction Database, Speculations, eFanzines
• Misc.: SFF Net (hosting and service provider), Trufen.net (forums), NESFA (club Website)

Websites are, by their nature, prone to short lifespans. While many of the sites nominated under Best Website are no longer active, others are ongoing concerns and presumably providing the same value as they did in 2002 and/or 2005. In some cases, the current version has been nominated in a different category (as with Strange Horizons), however eligibility and continued activity considerations cannot entirely explain the lack of overlap between Websites nominated under Best Website and the Websites nominated under Best Related Work.

During the Best Related Work era there have been 8 nominees that are classified as Website under Media. The nominees do not represent a coherent type of content or subject. Rather, they are connected purely on the basis of format.

Reference

• 2020 (Long List) Fanlore by various contributors[22]
• 2021 (Long List) Hugo Spreadsheet of Doom by Renay et al.[23]
• 2022 (Long List) The Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction by Jesse Sheidlower[24]

Other

• 2017 (Long List) The Tingled Puppies by Chuck Tingle (classified as a Website as it was a dedicated satirical work with various content and no other purpose)[25]
• 2014, 2017, 2018 (Long List), 2019 (Finalist) Archive of Our Own by the Organization for Transformative Works[26]

Resource and reference sites such as Fanlore, the Hugo Spreadsheet of Doom, and The Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction correspond closely to a subtype under Best Website. And Websites that function more as a framework or service provider find their comparison in Archive of Our Own (Best Related Work) and SFF.net (Best Website).

Given this, the lack of nominee overlap between the two periods can reasonably be ascribed to some combination of what the nominators are aware of and what they consider of current value. One of the concerns raised in general about the potential scope of nominees under Best Related Work is the perception that nominators value novelty and emotional impact, rather than substance. Current Website nominees are among the types of Media that strongly explore the limits of what nominators consider to be in scope.

A second consideration (raised above) has to do with what counts as “work in a specific year.” Community discussions around the eligibility of Archive of Our Own demonstrate some of the philosophical questions around nominating an ongoing web-based project. How do we evaluate the work done for eligibility in a specific year for an ongoing project? (There is a separate question of what aspect of Archive of Our Own was under consideration, which is not addressed here.) Is a resource like Renay’s Hugo Spreadsheet of Doom particularly more valuable in any specific year? (See also the discussion about Event as a type of Media in the Media section.)[27] Reference works such as The Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction that might be an obvious candidate for Best Related if published as a static work may have a higher barrier to visibility as an ongoing project.

Art Book

In 2019, the special category of Best Art Book was held but was not repeated. The category had the lowest number of nominating ballots and the lowest number of distinct nominees of any category that year (including the editorial categories which are generally considered to be “low involvement” categories). See the section on Administrative History under Subsequent Relevant Discussions for additional background.

For an analysis of the presence and distribution of Art Books in the Best Related category, see the section on Art Books. In summary: Art Books had been a mainstay of the Best Non-Fiction Book and Best Related Book eras, representing at least 20% of nominees in the data, but in the Best Related Work era only 1% of Finalists and 4% of all data had Art as a component. In 2019, if nominations for the Art Book and Best Related categories had been combined, it’s possible that one of the Finalists and 6 of the 16 Long List nominees would have come from the Best Art Book list. A direct comparison isn’t really possible (or valid) due to the application of the E Pluribus Hugo process and the psychological effect of the specific category, but it does appear that holding a special category for Art Books stimulated a higher level of interest in the genre, though not high enough to justify establishing it permanently.

2.2.6 Non-Fiction Outside Related Work

As noted in the Administrative History section in the Minor Rewording chapter, the minutes of the 1986 (Worldcon 44, ConFederation) business meeting[28] include a long presentation from 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. The full discussion of the proposals is included as Appendix 4 to the 1986 minutes and is exceedingly detailed, however it includes a list of non-fiction works nominated previously under other categories or given as special (non-Hugo) awards.

Note that a formal roster of Hugo Award categories was not established until the early 1960s. When the awards were first presented (as a one-off event) in 1953, Excellence in Fact Articles was one of the seven categories and a similar situation prevailed for Feature Writer in 1956. No awards were presented in 1954 but they resumed and continued consistently thereafter in 1955.[29]

Wolkoff’s list is in two groups.

Science Fact

• 1953 special category Hugo for Excellence in Fact Articles: Willy Ley
• 1956[30] special category Hugo for Feature Writer: Willy Ley
• 1963 special award for science articles in F&SF: Isaac Asimov[31]
• 1967 special award: “The 21st Century" TV show CBS-TY[32]

History/Criticism of SF

• 1956 special category Hugo for Book Reviewer: Damon Knight
• 1962 special award: Handbook of SF and Fantasy Donald R. Tuck
• 1963 special award for book reviews in ANALOG: P. Schuyler Miller
• 1973 special award: L’Encyclopedie de l’Utopie Pierre Versins
• 1975 special award: Reference Guide to Fantasy Films Walt Lee
• 1976 special award: Alternate Worlds: An Illustrated History of SF James Gunn

Note that except for the 1953 and 1956 awards, these are all “Special Awards,” given at the discretion of the convention committee. These are different from a “special Hugo category” and do not appear to have involved a popular nomination or voting process.

These awards presage some of the main themes in the Best Non-Fiction Book era: science writing, collections of reviews, reference guides, and histories of the field. The “science fact” group align with the Best Related nominees categorized under Science, other than being awarded to a person in some instances rather than a specific work, or to a body of work (the Asimov articles) rather than a discrete publication.

The “History/Criticism” group also align well with Best Related content, covering the work of book reviewers (again, in this context, honoring individuals rather than publications) and Reference works documenting aspects of the SFF field. The four publications in this group would be utterly at home in a Best Related nominee list at any point in the category’s history.

The unusual standout is the TV show The 21st Century, a series hosted by Walter Cronkite projecting what life might be like in the future. If the material had been published as a Book, it would have aligned with various “futurism” works nominated in the Best Related Book era and later. The TV show clearly wouldn’t have been eligible under either of the Best Related eras that specifically reference a Book. Under the occasionally loose criteria applied to Best Dramatic Work, the TV show might have been considered under that category, though it wasn’t until 1970, with the news coverage of the moon landing, that a non-fiction work was a Dramatic Work Finalist. That was a clearly anomalous case, so one can conclude that there was no viable context in 1967 to honor The 21st Century except with a special award.

---

(Segment IV will cover Part 2 Methodology, Section 2.3 Data and Eligibility.)

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.)

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.)

Contents

Part 1: Background

1.1 Author’s Preface

1.2 Introduction and Definitions

1.3 Prior Analyses

---

Part 1: Background

1.1 Author’s Preface

I was inspired to do this study when my co-author Camestros Felapton and I were chosen as Finalists for the Best Related Work Hugo award in 2025 for “Charting the Cliff,” our incredibly geeky statistical analysis of the 2023 Hugo nomination data and its discrepancies. Having a personal stake in the question “What is it that fans consider to be a ‘Related Work’ and how has it changed?” I thought I’d apply my love of analysis (which is what got me the nomination) to this question.

In writing this essay, I’ve considered an audience that may know relatively little about the Hugo Awards and their process, so more knowledgeable people will need to have patience. And, in the end, it will probably be an awkward mix of too much information and too much assumed knowledge.

Don’t expect an entertaining narrative history. My forte is the cataloging and organization of data, with a layer of interpretive analysis. The story is not linear and will loop back and jump ahead at various times, with similar topics being discussed in different places depending on greatest relevance. I’ve tried to present data in the manner that presents the analysis most clearly, whether through graphs, tables, or anecdotal discussion.

There is unavoidably a great deal of my own personal judgment in how the data is coded, though I have always included explanations of my process. I’ve tried to avoid inserting personal opinions about how the Best Related award ought to behave in describing how it is observed to behave, but I do highlight a number of topics for consideration at the end, and some of my own thoughts will leak through at that point.

The raw data and its coding is too extensive to include comfortably in this publication itself, but a copy has been made available for viewing or download at the following URLs:

Google Drive: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19Sojroh-_1-NRWV5WQxYrAXk1QKugJZM/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=110580997919408742446&rtpof=true&sd=true

Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mfa8wdwxou7z7tjfczg67/Theory-of-Related-ivity-Data.xlsx?rlkey=qj3za4m1xecdpbvudx255gpc6&st=21iyh39p&dl=0

1.2 Introduction and Definitions

"World Science Fiction Society,” "WSFS,” "World Science Fiction Convention,” "Worldcon,” "NASFiC,” "Lodestar Award,” "The Hugo Award,” the Hugo Award Logo, and the distinctive design of the Hugo Award Rocket are service marks of Worldcon Intellectual Property, a California non-profit corporation managed by the Mark Protection Committee of the World Science Fiction Society, an unincorporated literary society.[1]

The Best Related Work Hugo award has had three different names across its lifetime, with accompanying changes in scope. When this study refers to “Non-Fiction,” “Related Book,” or “Related Work,” it means a specific period of time and set of data when it bore that name. “Best Related” refers to the entire history of the award and the full dataset.

As a formatting convention, documentary text quoted from other sources will be formatted as a block quote. The source (usually a website) and date accessed (if relevant) will be cited. Such quotations will be reproduced as-is and may not match the editorial conventions of the overall document.

References to various data subsets and data types that are being analyzed will be capitalized (e.g., Finalist, Podcast, Biography). One point of possible confusion is that “Category” (capitalized) will refer to the content type groupings however “category” (uncapitalized) will be used frequently to refer to “award categories” such as Best Related Work, Best Fancast, etc.[2]

The Hugo Awards are a set of annual awards given by the membership of the annual World Science Fiction Convention (Worldcon) for people and works relevant to the field of speculative fiction and its fans. The awards were first given in 1953 and have been presented (with a few exceptions) every year since then. The award categories and requirements are established via the constitution of the World Science Fiction Society, which is revised and amended via the annual business meeting held in conjunction with Worldcon. Over the years, there have been many additions, changes, and occasionally removals of categories via revisions to the Constitution.[3]

As an unofficial overview, the current set of awards can be classified in several ways. One classification divides them into “fiction awards,” “awards for other types of works,” and “awards for people.” Another way to categorize them is “professional awards” (for people and works aligned with the business side of the field) versus “fan awards” (for people and works aligned with the fan community). Neither of these ways of categorizing are comprehensive and there is often debate over where a nominee should appear.

A general rule is that a work (as opposed to a person) should only be eligible in one award category. Thus, as new categories have been created to reflect growing areas of activity or interest, works that previously had been eligible in one category might shift to a different category. The Best Related award has regularly been affected by these shifts as it has often been viewed as a catch-all for works that don’t fit well into a more specific category.

Some award categories have fixed requirements for eligibility, such as the word-count requirements for the fiction categories and the restrictions on when the work appeared. Other eligibility factors might be better considered to be based on “vibes.” What counts as a Dramatic Presentation? Who counts as a Fan versus a Professional? What types of media might a Fanzine manifest as? Which category should an opera about the history of fandom fall into?

Hugo Awards are given for work appearing or performed in the previous year. For example, awards given in 2025 were for works published or released, or for activities performed in 2024.[4] References in this study are to the award year, not the publication year, unless otherwise noted.

Choosing the Hugo Award Winners is a two-step process. The first round is crowd-sourced nominations by the eligible members of the World Science Fiction Society (WSFS), which is to say the membership of the current Worldcon and the immediately previous Worldcon. People may nominate up to a fixed number of items in each award category. Those nominations are then collated and converted into a Finalist list. At the time the Best Related award was first established, selection of Finalists was based on the total number of valid nominations. At a later point in the award’s history, a significant revision was made to how nominations were processed, in order to mitigate the potential effects of slate nominating.[5]

At a certain point, it was also formalized to define a “Long List” of nominees that included all nominees meeting certain criteria: typically, Finalists plus the next 10 most popular nominees, by whatever system is being used at the time.

Nominees that have been identified as Finalists are then vetted for meeting the eligibility requirements of the award category. If a prospective Finalist is determined not to be eligible, then the next runner-up is made a prospective Finalist and vetted. After the Finalists are identified but before they are announced, a reasonable effort is made to contact the Finalists, both to allow a chance to withdraw if desired and to allow for the identification of any previously unknown information regarding eligibility. Nominees below the Finalist threshold are not necessarily vetted for eligibility. Therefore, the Long List represents more of a raw snapshot of what has been nominated, while the Finalists represent nominees that have been verified as eligible. This is of particular interest for Related Work, as the Long List often includes works where eligibility is questionable or uncertain.

The second stage of the award process is for members of the current Worldcon (in the year the award is given) to rank their choices in each award category (including the choice of “no award”). By a calculation process known as “ranked choice” or “instant runoff” voting, the Winner and ordering of the runners up are determined.

This study primarily focuses on the nomination process (though Winners are also analyzed) and will refer to community participants as “nominators” or some more generic term. If the selection of Winners from among the Finalists is being discussed, then the term “voters” may be used to distinguish participation at the two different stages. The people given named credit for creating the work will be referred to as “authors” regardless of whether they functioned as writers or editors and regardless of the amount they contributed to the work.

There are two types of status for a Hugo award. The fixed award categories, as noted above, are established in the WSFS Constitution. For a category to be added, revised, or removed, a change is proposed and debated in the business meeting and must be approved in two consecutive annual business meetings before becoming effective beginning with the subsequent year’s awards. However, each year’s Worldcon committee also has the right and ability to hold one special award category. Nominees, Finalists, and Winners of a special Hugo award have the same status as those of the “constitutional categories” and official lists (such as those at Wikipedia) often make no distinction. Special categories have often been used as trial balloons for proposed new constitutional categories (as happened for Related Work) but the existence of a special category doesn’t guarantee permanent addition. Not all Worldcon committees have chosen to exercise the option to hold a special category.

1.3 Prior Analyses

This is not the first survey and analysis of the Best Related award. Selected others are presented here.

Lew Wolkoff 1986

In the 1986 Worldcon business meeting,[6] Lew Wolkoff presented an analysis of the first 6 years of Best Non-Fiction Book (the initial era of Best Related), in combination with research into prior awards for non-fiction works. The general thrust of his analysis was to criticize a number of Finalists as being only distantly related to the category definition. In particular he called out books combining art with imaginative text, such as After Man or Barlowe’s Guide to Extra Terrestrials, and photography albums of SFF authors. He categorized the Finalists in his data set into 6 groups: fanzine, photography, picture books with an SFF theme, art books, biography (including autobiography), studies of a particular property or author, and works of SFF history or criticism. More details of Wolkoff’s analysis, along with his conclusions, are discussed in the Administrative History section under Minor Rewording. Wolkoff’s categories remain identifiable topics throughout the history of the award, although he combines groupings that this study classified under two separate aspects: Media and Category.

Nicholas Whyte 2021

In 2021, multiple-time Hugo administrator Nicholas Whyte posted an analysis of the Winners and Finalists in Best Related up to that date.[7] He noted that in 28 out of 41 years, the Winner had been “a published monograph or essay collection about science fiction and/or fantasy or related themes” and that the other 13 years represented a variety of types of works, with art books being most common (5 Winners).

For the most recent decade of his scope (which fell entirely within the Related Work era omitting only the first year) he categorized the Finalists, identifying the topic for books and the format for other types of works. His assessment was that, during those years, only twice had the Winner been “a book about sf.”[8]

Whyte notes that he considers some Finalists to fit the official scope less well than others, singling out a musical album and suggesting that it aligns better to the awards for fictional works and comparing it to two other items that were collections of short fiction, one that was a Finalist in 2004 and one that was disqualified on the basis of being a work of fiction in 2002.[9] In discussing works whose content is of ambiguous relevance, Whyte confirms (as a multi-year Hugo administrator) that the default principle is “let the nominators decide” and how several of the nominees he would have considered marginal had precedent in previous Finalists of similar format. In contrast, two 2019 nominees (a Video Essay and a Convention Event) that had no format precedent were considered uncontroversially eligible by that year’s administrators.[10] Evidently there was more administrative concern of the nomination of an acceptance speech in 2020, with the opinion that the precedent established by an acceptance speech appearing as a Dramatic Presentation in 2012 should establish that as the appropriate award for such works. This approach was stymied by no one having nominated the 2020 speech under Dramatic Presentation.[11]

There is a longer discussion of the 2021 Finalists, with Whyte noting that 5 of the 6 generated eligibility discussions among the administrators, in all cases concluding that there was precedent and argument for considering them eligible. Switching hats from administrator to voter, Whyte then reiterates his opinion that “scholarly or biographical books or works about sf and fantasy” should win the award[12] while assessing his own choices.

The Hugo Award Study Committee 2022

In 2022, the results of the multi-year assessment by the Hugo Award Study Committee (led by Nicholas Whyte) were reported to the Business Meeting (see the Administrative History section under Subsequent Relevant Discussions) however this report operated at a high level and did not include details of nomination trends.

Doris V. Sutherland 2022

Other people have presented assessments of the award category in specific years—too many to track down in full. One example from Doris V. Sutherland (posted 2022/02/03) analyzing all the nomination data for Best Related in 2021[13] is of interest because it specifically addresses the question “just how much scholarly work is actually being nominated for Best Related Work?” Out of the 16 items in the Long List, Sutherland appears to assess 2 of the Finalists and 7 works overall as meeting the definition of “scholarly work” (possibly 2 short Essays should be added, making it 9 scholarly works). Sutherland is unabashedly partisan in asserting which works should not have been nominated, and assigning blame to certain works for “pushing” worthier items off the ballot and off the Long List. She compares the 9/16 scholarship rate to the 2010 published nominees, which she assesses as 22/23 scholarly works.[14] Her assessment concludes with a suggestion to split Best Related into Long Form and Short Form (as is done for Dramatic Presentation) to allow scholarly books more of a fighting chance.[15]

Summary

No doubt other people have done reviews of a particular year’s results, but no prior study has been identified that addressed the full history of Best Related and covered the Long List nomination data. Further, prior studies have generally emerged from a critique of how people thought the award category ought to be structured. The intent of the present study is to be descriptive and explanatory (to the extent possible) and to include all known nomination data, as well as to distinguish trends in format and content.

But these critiques, and other similar ones not quoted here, provide an interesting baseline for a “conservative” or “traditional” take on the appropriate scope of the category. (The term “traditional” will be used later in this study, to avoid political implications of the term “conservative.”) However, note that some types of “non-traditional” work were being nominated very early in the lifetime of the category. While the descriptions of traditional versus non-traditional content in these critiques don’t align exactly with the Categories used in this study, we can identify the following as falling in the traditional group: Art (at least when involving studies of artists and their work), Autobiography and Biography, Criticism and Essays (distinguished in this study based on whether the subject is a specific work or a general topic), History and Reference works (of SFF subjects). The traditional view also prefers Books over other formats, though it’s less clear whether the Article/Blog format is specifically dispreferred. In the analysis of Categories when grouped into Supercategories, the Associated group includes many of the types of subject matter that is called out as non-traditional.

---

(Segment II will cover Part 2 Methodology, Section 2.1 Administrative History.)