There is such an opinion! - Who needs it, this Nebula?

                      THERE IS SUCH AN OPINION!

                         Michael BISHOP
                WHO NEEDS IT, THIS "NEBULAH"?

   Along with the Hugo Award, the Nebula Award, awarded with
1965, is the most prestigious award for achievements in
areas of fantasy. Readers (fans) vote for award winners
"Hugo", writers - more precisely, members of the Science Fiction Writers Association
America (SFWA) - awards the Nebula Awards.
   Many members of the Association argue that if "Hugo" gets
Usually the most popular novels and short stories of the year, the Nebulas
works that most harmoniously combine the inter-
fresh fantastic ideas and excellent literary execution
tion. In other words, a Nebula-winning novel may not
be the most popular among readers, but its advantages
so great that he certainly deserves a high professional
nal assessment. After all, this prize is awarded by the writers themselves.
whether - and who, if not they, knows what qualities should be present?
cabbage soup to first-class fiction?
   Really, who? In Peter's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction
Nichols says about the Nebula Awards: “Some critics have argued
give that this award at times reflects the political situation
to the same extent as literary... And although "Nebula"
sometimes awarded to significantly more controversial, experimentalworks that would never receive a Hugo are more often than not
There was and is no significant difference between the awards. It was possible
would expect that the Nebula, awarded in accordance with the opinion-
mi professional writers, pays tribute to high literary
merits of the works, but it is not at all obvious that this
really so." And it goes on to say that many consider
awarding awards more as a promotional event than as a
consistent balanced assessment of the significance of certain events
buildings.
   Even Robert Silverberg in his introduction to issue 18
anthology "Nebula Awards" (1983) wrote: "In a number of cases
awarding the prize to those works that received them,
seemed completely unexpected to a sophisticated observer and explained
invisible only from the point of view of probability theory."
   Others are even more direct. In the issue of the Bulletin
SFWA" on the 21st Nebula Awards, Norman Spinrad
placed a paid advertisement on an entire page, entitled
"On the question of literary principles and author's pride"
ty", which contained the following dramatic passage:
  "WHEREAS, for a long time, premiums
The Nebula was awarded to both masterpieces worthy of admiration and
and trivial opportunism, without following any consistent
new literary criterion, which I could at leastunderstand not
not to mention approving -
  I've come to believe that Nebula is only part of the problem.
not part of her solution.
  And therefore I declare that I am withdrawing all my future work from
course to receive the Nebula.
   Spinrad's decision was decisively influenced by the fact that his novel
"Child of Fortune" did not make it to the final vote. Spinrad stated,
that "the literary standards of the Association as a whole are so strongly
disagree with my own on what to accept in the future "Nebula"
It would be a manifestation of cynical hypocrisy on my part."
   Is Nebula hurting the Association's cause? (Namely - fight-
be for its member-writers receiving greater opportunities, respect-
marriage and money?) And shouldn’t the Association stop walking around
Round the bush and just cancel the award?
   Let's look into this issue.

   There is a debate about bonuses. Candidates whose works did not reach
final vote, attack those who succeeded one way or another
otherwise make it to the finals. Vote losers attack
those who won. Non-candidates during the sacred final
votes fire at all of the above or shout that
the whole process is falsified and they reject it as meaningless
and correctness.
   Awards do not just provoke controversy, they generate envy,
anger, inability to think, lead to the collapse of hopes, birth
have a thirst for revenge,dissatisfaction and headache. Besides everything
other than that, bonuses spread injustice. Again and again they remind
tell us that the Universe - and even its small part, which, as
it is believed that we are able to manage - not necessarily smile-
Fears those whom we consider talented, brave, worthy.
Everyone who is not crowned with laurels is a loser, and a loser....
it's a loser. The universe is mocking him. The audience chuckles.
And the winners - damn them! - secretly gloating. (Or we
we suspect them of this).
   Why then are we so obsessed with awarding prizes? From the point-
From the point of view of psychology, the answer is very simple, and it consists of two parts -
sta. Firstly, people are self-centered, they crave self-affirmation.
Secondly, people feel the need to reify this self-
belief. As a result, bonuses appear. Nobel Prizes. Pulitz
Rovskie. "Oscars". "Tony". "Emmy" And so on, ad infinitum.
(Maybe even to the point of nausea).
   Your logic is bad, the opponent of the prank might say.
literary prizes. You won't justify the unreasonable
knighting on the grounds that you still need someone
dedicate something. If you're going to give out bonuses anyway,
it must be done fairly. And on top of that, you wouldn't be eager
defend any prizes - and, in particular, these prizes - if you
at least once I was not lucky enough to win a pair of luxuriousdoor-
new springs...
   Of course. It would be disingenuous to say otherwise. Besides
However, for those who did not receive a prize, it is easier to ridicule this prize. And,
Of course, the competition process must be fair, we
as much as possible. That is:
  1.The criteria for awarding the prize must be clearly defined and
understandable. The Nobel Prize for shooting from a sarbakan should not
awarded to the one who fires the grenade launcher.
  2. Those who award prizes should understand at least a little
in the area in which they work. Skydivers should not endure
judgments about cavers - at least not about remarkable achievements
achievements in this area - and vice versa.
  3.All works participating in the competition must exceed non-
which is the minimum level so that they can be noticed by those who
children will then award prizes.
   A novel not published due to the fact that its author is not in collaboration
unable to write a complete sentence, should not pretend
for a prize for bold avant-gardeism along with works like
"Finnegan's Awakenings" by Joyce or "The Queue" by Vladimir Sorokin.
   All this is a no-brainer. The stumbling block is usually
Another part of the equation: the literary taste of the jury members.
   And all judges have different tastes. It depends on which authors
are their friends, from their ability to dress, upbringing, education
pain and, to some extent, from physical and emotional
stateon voting day (hungover, confused,
depressed, anxious or in high spirits). And if the judges
demonstrate a taste different from yours quite often,
to arouse your anger, one fine day you, like Nor-
man Spinrad in his advertising, declare the award undeserving
trust - and therefore meaningless.
   However, in case you wish to somehow complete
to fight for the prize to the end, you send it to predictably hopeless
delicious final feast the clown could host
prize in the unlikely event that the idiots on the jury for this
since they voted correctly and gave you this idiotic award, which
which you at the same time deserved and did not deserve - you deserved it,
because you have been left unattended so many times and not deserved
or because the struggle for laurels in art is always untenable.
Anyone who has been left off the list at least once knows this well.
laureates due to the fact that insufficient attention was paid to his work
attention or it is rejected in favor of another, less worthy.
   If you suddenly win, the clown you sent will be able to
bottom to refuse the prize and express his disdain for everything
process.
   What if you lose? Well, having honored the award ceremony,
by your presence, you - or your representative - may
go to the nearest bar and digest your green therewine-
hail surrounded by other clowns who share the same opinion.
Your defeat will clearly emphasize the validity of your pres-
Rhenia.
   But let's be honest. Like many others, I am somewhat
I once imagined myself in this buffoonish role. Not often. But several
only once - yes, it happened, and when it happened, I always felt...
val, what is the public manifestation of my sublime aesthetics and
uncompromising honesty will be as useful as an extinguished
a beacon, for all those who engage in self-deception and believe that their
bonuses are worth something.
   In fact, looking through the list of Nebula Award winners
in recent years, I see a dozen novels for which I did not vote
and, probably, three times more stories that did not receive prizes
chili, but made no less impression on me than their more
successful competitors.
   In 1975, I voted for Thomas M. Disch's 334 over Both
"Great" by Ursula Le Guin. I really like Le Guin, but I
Ren, that a real professional would convincingly prove that from
of these two works, Disha's "334" is more fundamental
challenging, exciting and innovative, and if SFWA members
knew him as the best novel, they would hardly have any reason to be ashamed
to be.
   Well, that was a long time ago. What about more recent winners?
Didn't it happen that having added almost 700 new members,
SFWA has lowered the overall levelcompetence? Doesn't it seem like
for some time now the factor of “militant mediocrity” began to influence
for a prize?
   In moments of irritation, I admit, I myself conveyed this disgust
sensitive hearing. As a corporation, SFWA members consistently vote for
the work that touches them most deeply, either because
that the author has earned great respect, requiring universal recognition
niya, - either because the work itself conscientiously destroys
basics.
   Over the course of 5-6 years, Robert Silverberg created such a good
great work that the Association was forced to recognize his merits,
and in 1971 he received a prize for his novel “Time for Change,” which
ry, in the opinion of many, is inferior to other worthy of mention
Silverberg bots of this period. And I would say Ursula Le's novel
Guin "The Left Hand of Darkness" as an example of a work that was
awarded the prize for its undeniable literary merits.
   The first example perhaps demonstrates a weak point in the
prize award process. Shouldn't the book only win
due to its inherent merits, and not the reputation of its author? Ho-
However, I would still not agree that this weak point is a
essential for recognizing the legitimacy of awarding prizes. Except
Moreover, if any outstanding work had appeared at that time,
me to challenge the indifferent Silverberg, she could
win. (I then chose betweenamong other things, "Touchstone of Heaven" by Ursula
Le Guin, but in this novel, no matter how good it is,
echoes some of the themes and methods of Philip K. Dick).
   Am I saying that mistakes are never made and innovation
which works are always given their due when they are considered on
Nebula competition?
   No. Rewarding is a process carried out by people, it can
lead to errors and abuses. However, Nebula
always reflects the tastes of a large portion of SFWA. If he wins
a bad book or an inferior story, almost immediately
the process of self-correction begins. People are screaming about being fooled.
They write letters. The debate begins. Reviews appear and are printed
articles with analysis. In the most extreme cases, several
members of SFWA publicly announce that they will permanently boycott
awarding prizes. (Norman Spinrad did this, and I experience
sympathy for him for his disdain for badges of honor and envious
admiration for the audacity he showed with his paid
announcement).
   The winners are tin ducks. According to picturesque observation one
many of the 1988 winners are dragged into the “fire zone”,
where they jump naked in front of everyone - in all the glory of their sea-
wrinkles, scars, folds, double chins (and, of course, the undeniable
advantages), increased ten, hundred, thousand times. If you win
lousy work really goes nowhereno good, at least
at least according to one of the possible criteria, you can be sure that
that you will hear about his shortcomings in all the most devastating
details.
   By the way, so that truly wonderful works do not
went unnoticed, SFWA created a jury for the Nebula Awards. Seven
its members try to evaluate as much as they can,
tions published this year. The jury may add for the final
voting on one work in each of the four categories
riy. It does this quite often to correct injustice.
shyness from the standpoint of aesthetics, which sometimes arises due to choice, especially
based on widespread popularity.
   Prevent a worthy work from getting on the voting list
Vania can do a lot. Limited availability of hardcopy editions
cover. Nationality of the author. "Gloominess" of the theme. Style.
   The only non-Americans to have been awarded the Nebula were
Britons Brian Aldiss, Michael Moorcock and Arthur Clarke. Most
SFWA members consider Clark an honorary American - thanks to his
the early appearance of science fiction in our magazines, its international
his status as a scientist and his role in the production of the film
"2001: A Space Odyssey" (cinema is the same American phenomenon)
lations like baseball, apple pie and burglary). Aldiss and
Moorcock became Nebula laureates more than 20 years ago.
   Why didn't Stanislaw Lem receive"Nebula"? Why didn't I receive it?
her Borges?  The Strugatsky brothers?  Italo Calvino?  Josef Nesvadba?
Angela Carter? Perhaps due to the limited availability of production
knowledge of these authors, but rather because many SFWA members
rarely understand things written in traditions different from the usual
fiction, they rarely read anything other than the standard circle of
publications (monthly American magazines and paperbacks) and open
absolutely do not like the “incomprehensible nonsense” that is written by writers
of foreign origin. This is a deafening blow to SFWA. That
that our organization is called the Science Fiction Writers Association
America does not excuse us much, especially because we
We receive membership fees from writers from more than ten countries.

   In the summer of 1986, Charles Sheffield published in the SFWA Bulletin
an essay in which he listed all the reasons he had ever heard
cancel the Nebula Awards. The list looked like this:
  1) "Nebula" is not needed, because in science fiction there is already something...
too many awards.
  2) Real writers don’t have time to read a lot and
recommend works of other authors in the nomination.
  3) Advanced writers consider these awards to be “gold medals”
Special Olympics in Literature" (my favorite quibble).
  4) The Nebula Awards fail to represent real achievements
knowledge in their field.
  5) Sheffield’s rhetorical question: “If it weren’t for this prizesu-
existed, would it be necessary to invent it?
   Sheffield, with good reason, dismisses all this criticism: "We need
to the Nebula for one simple reason: there is no other award
dy (including the John Campbell Memorial Prize), which is awarded to
would be praised for the literary merits of a science fiction story
created not by a small group of individual judges, but by an organization
science fiction writers, including seven hundred (and now all one thousand)
members. And this fact outweighs all the objections that exist
against this award."
   And as I've said throughout, Nebulas are what
they are made members of SFWA. We should blame ourselves if they do us
disappointing. We should thank ourselves if we are proud of their la-
ureates. Every writer, even the most fruitful one,
must either fight for their abolition or work to achieve
very unlikely, obviously hopeless goal - their improvement
vovaniya. I still believe in it, and although I'm starting to think that maybe
perhaps SFWA should sponsor two sets of awards - the former (for
science fiction works) and the second (for fantasy), with
In this case, writers themselves decide which group they should be included in.
works - I, in general, am satisfied with the existing system
topic.
   In conclusion, I will tell you one true story. In the spring of 1974
yes, two of my stories were supposed to participate in the final vote
Vania. I was typingstories for less than four years, and
The submission of my works to the competition made me head in the clouds.
   At this time I taught composition and literature at the university.
Aunt Georgia in Athens, and one of my friends was studying law
skom faculty. I, glowing with simple-minded pride, told
him that two of my stories are competing for the Neb-
spinning top." “Nebus?” he asked. “Nebula,” I answered, and in detail
explained what this award is and why it is so
important.
   My friend stared at me. His face began to twitch. U
he began to burst into fits of loud laughter. Every time he pe-
caught my gaze, burst into laughter, if it began to subside,
mastered it again. I looked at him in amazement. Finally I
I understood the meaning and reasons for his laughter and began to laugh too. He
did not mean that "Nebula" is a "gold medal of a special
Olympiad in Literature. Just in the face of eternity is my concern
about the chances of my two unknown stories looked... comical.

                      Per. by: Amazing Stories, April 1989
                     Published with significant abbreviations
                               Translation (C) Andrey Chertkov, 1994