It’s important to note that the more difficult to review pieces of the Hugo nominations are the ones that refer to great scopes of work like best editor, artist, ‘cast, or ‘zine. Inevitably people will nominate those that lay within their domain of interest or experience. To then look over all the domains that made it through the nomination process from all the people with all the diverse interests is challenging to say the least.
To make this a little easier on myself I’m going to give it some scope. I’m only going to look at each person’s work as done in the last year. For example: Adventures in Sci Fi Publishing archive 2014 podcasts only. If that proves too daunting or editors too prolific I will do a random sampling and review based on that.
If anyone out there has a “best of” recommendation for the following (below the fold) I would really appreciate the pointer. Only for 2014 though. It seems the best way to be fair as well as smart:
- Specific
- Measurable
- Assignable -> (Me)
- Realistic -> state what results can realistically be achieved, given available resources.
- Time-related -> (Due July 2015)
Continue reading “Hugo Generalities?” →