Difference between revisions of "1960 Hugos"

From Fancyclopedia 3
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Text replacement - "Best Novel Hugo|Best Novel Hugo]]" to "Best Novel Hugo|Best Novel]]")
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Awarded September 5, 1960 by [[Pittcon]].  The [[Hugo]] categories changed yet again, dropping to six categories -- as [[P. Schuyler Miller]] explained,  "for the simple reason that [[Ben Jason]] had six of the original Hugo rockets left and let us have them."  Whatever the reason for choosing them, [[Pittcon]]'s  set of [[Hugos]] categories became the standard for a time.
 
Awarded September 5, 1960 by [[Pittcon]].  The [[Hugo]] categories changed yet again, dropping to six categories -- as [[P. Schuyler Miller]] explained,  "for the simple reason that [[Ben Jason]] had six of the original Hugo rockets left and let us have them."  Whatever the reason for choosing them, [[Pittcon]]'s  set of [[Hugos]] categories became the standard for a time.
 +
 +
[[Elinor Busby]] became the first woman to win a Hugo this year.
  
 
Besides the six [[Hugos]], [[Pittcon]] gave a [[special committee award]] to "[[Hugo Gernsback]] - The Father of Magazine Science Fiction".  This was also a [[Hugo trophy]] -- the prohibition against using the [[Hugo rocket]] for non-[[Hugos]] did not yet exist. (And we do not as yet have an explanation for the ''seven'' Hugo trophies which were apparently handed out and [[P. Schuyler Miller|Miller's]] statement that there were only six rockets available.)
 
Besides the six [[Hugos]], [[Pittcon]] gave a [[special committee award]] to "[[Hugo Gernsback]] - The Father of Magazine Science Fiction".  This was also a [[Hugo trophy]] -- the prohibition against using the [[Hugo rocket]] for non-[[Hugos]] did not yet exist. (And we do not as yet have an explanation for the ''seven'' Hugo trophies which were apparently handed out and [[P. Schuyler Miller|Miller's]] statement that there were only six rockets available.)
  
 
* [[1960 Best Novel Hugo|Best Novel]]: ''Starship Troopers'' by [[Robert A. Heinlein]]
 
* [[1960 Best Novel Hugo|Best Novel]]: ''Starship Troopers'' by [[Robert A. Heinlein]]
* [[1960 Best Short Fiction Hugo|Best Short Fiction Hugo]]: "[[Flowers for Algernon]]" by [[Daniel Keyes]]
+
* [[1960 Best Short Fiction Hugo|Best Short Fiction]]: "[[Flowers for Algernon]]" by [[Daniel Keyes]]
* [[1960 Best Dramatic Presentation Hugo|Best Dramatic Presentation Hugo]]: ''[[The Twilight Zone]]''  by [[Rod Serling]]
+
* [[1960 Best Dramatic Presentation Hugo|Best Dramatic Presentation]]: ''[[The Twilight Zone]]''  by [[Rod Serling]]
* [[1960 Best Professional Magazine Hugo|Best Professional Magazine Hugo]]: ''[[The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction]]'' ed. by [[Robert P. Mills]]
+
* [[1960 Best Professional Magazine Hugo|Best Professional Magazine]]: ''[[The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction]]'' ed. by [[Robert P. Mills]]
* [[1960 Best Professional Artist Hugo|Best Professional Artist Hugo]]: [[Ed Emshwiller]]
+
* [[1960 Best Professional Artist Hugo|Best Professional Artist]]: [[Ed Emshwiller]]
* [[1960 Best Fanzine Hugo|Best Fanzine Hugo]]: ''[[Cry of the Nameless]]'' ed. by [[F. M. Busby]], [[Elinor Busby]], [[Burnett Toskey]] and [[Wally Weber]]
+
* [[1960 Best Fanzine Hugo|Best Fanzine]]: ''[[Cry of the Nameless]]'' ed. by [[F. M. Busby]], [[Elinor Busby]], [[Burnett Toskey]] and [[Wally Weber]]
 +
 
 +
==Controversy==
 +
There was a kerfluffle associated with the 1960 Hugos.  In ''[[Axe]] 25A'' (April 1, 1962, ed. [[Larry Shaw]] and [[Noreen Shaw]]) [[Dirce Archer]] wrote:
 +
 
 +
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
 +
It has been reported to me that a certain individual is now claiming that ''[[Fanac (Carr)|FANAC]]'' won PITTCON*s fanzine Hugo, and that he and [[Lynn Hickman]] "''witnessed''" an occasion when a stack of ballots naming FANAC were destroyed "on the grounds that the handwriting is similar".
 +
This story, the last in a series of vengeful attacks upon our group, is entirely and totally false and with no basis whatsoever.
 +
1) I have never met this man to my knowledge and do not even know what he looks like.
 +
2) Lynn Hickman was not in Pittsburgh at any time during the year ''prior'' to the convention and, since ballots must be counted weeks before a convention so Hugo plates can be engraved, he ''could not'' have been present at a ballot counting session. Lynn’s charac­ter is such that it is not even necessary to check as to whether ''he'' had any part in this malicious gossip. [While we agree en­tirely about Lynn’s character, a convenient opportunity allowed us to check with him, and he confirms these statements complete­ly, — [[Larry Shaw|Larry]] & [[Noreen Shaw]]]
 +
3) Even PITTCON committee members' wives and husbands were excluded at ballot counting sessions—as at ''all'' business meetings. It would be ridiculous to share knowledge of the most carefully guarded secret of any convention, the ballot results, with outsiders
 +
4) ''FANAC'', although tops in ''nominations'', did not win a Hugo. In fact until the last seven days before the deadline ''[[SF TIMES]]'' was leading and we expected it to win. In the last seven days four of the five nominees changed places.
 +
5) PITTCON did toss out some ''nominations'' but with excellent reason.
 +
We received 78 ballots—''packaged'', not sent separately—each nominating the same novel, short story and publisher, with an accompanying letter saying, "These are all bona fide nomina­tions, as are attested by the individual names and addresses".
 +
They nominated a single author [later identified as [[R. Lionel Fanthorpe]]] (author of the novel and short story) totally unknown to our committee, whose stories appeared in an obscure British publication (''not'' ''[[Nova Publications]]'') which was nominated for best magazine.
 +
Surely no one could expect us to believe that one English vil­lage of something under 7,000 population contains upwards of 60 bona fide fans, many with identical handwriting, seven with identical addresses and last name (the author’s) and ''ALL'' with identical nominations!
 +
It was our belief that duty required we discard these obvious attempts to stuff the ballot box. We would do the same thing again under such circumstances.
 +
I trust, for his own sake, the fertile imagination of this individ­ual will be kept under control in the future. We deplore legal action and have ignored previous slander, but there is a point of no return in these matters. We could and would take steps.
 +
Dirce S. Archer Chairman, PITTCON
 +
 
  
 
{{award | year=1960 | parent=Hugos}}
 
{{award | year=1960 | parent=Hugos}}
 
[[Category:Hugos]]
 
[[Category:Hugos]]
 
[[Category:World]]
 
[[Category:World]]

Latest revision as of 10:37, 18 December 2022

Awarded September 5, 1960 by Pittcon. The Hugo categories changed yet again, dropping to six categories -- as P. Schuyler Miller explained, "for the simple reason that Ben Jason had six of the original Hugo rockets left and let us have them." Whatever the reason for choosing them, Pittcon's set of Hugos categories became the standard for a time.

Elinor Busby became the first woman to win a Hugo this year.

Besides the six Hugos, Pittcon gave a special committee award to "Hugo Gernsback - The Father of Magazine Science Fiction". This was also a Hugo trophy -- the prohibition against using the Hugo rocket for non-Hugos did not yet exist. (And we do not as yet have an explanation for the seven Hugo trophies which were apparently handed out and Miller's statement that there were only six rockets available.)

Controversy[edit]

There was a kerfluffle associated with the 1960 Hugos. In Axe 25A (April 1, 1962, ed. Larry Shaw and Noreen Shaw) Dirce Archer wrote:

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
It has been reported to me that a certain individual is now claiming that FANAC won PITTCON*s fanzine Hugo, and that he and Lynn Hickman "witnessed" an occasion when a stack of ballots naming FANAC were destroyed "on the grounds that the handwriting is similar".
This story, the last in a series of vengeful attacks upon our group, is entirely and totally false and with no basis whatsoever.
1) I have never met this man to my knowledge and do not even know what he looks like.
2) Lynn Hickman was not in Pittsburgh at any time during the year prior to the convention and, since ballots must be counted weeks before a convention so Hugo plates can be engraved, he could not have been present at a ballot counting session. Lynn’s charac­ter is such that it is not even necessary to check as to whether he had any part in this malicious gossip. [While we agree en­tirely about Lynn’s character, a convenient opportunity allowed us to check with him, and he confirms these statements complete­ly, — Larry & Noreen Shaw]
3) Even PITTCON committee members' wives and husbands were excluded at ballot counting sessions—as at all business meetings. It would be ridiculous to share knowledge of the most carefully guarded secret of any convention, the ballot results, with outsiders
4) FANAC, although tops in nominations, did not win a Hugo. In fact until the last seven days before the deadline SF TIMES was leading and we expected it to win. In the last seven days four of the five nominees changed places.
5) PITTCON did toss out some nominations but with excellent reason. 
We received 78 ballots—packaged, not sent separately—each nominating the same novel, short story and publisher, with an accompanying letter saying, "These are all bona fide nomina­tions, as are attested by the individual names and addresses". 
They nominated a single author [later identified as R. Lionel Fanthorpe] (author of the novel and short story) totally unknown to our committee, whose stories appeared in an obscure British publication (not Nova Publications) which was nominated for best magazine.
Surely no one could expect us to believe that one English vil­lage of something under 7,000 population contains upwards of 60 bona fide fans, many with identical handwriting, seven with identical addresses and last name (the author’s) and ALL with identical nominations!
It was our belief that duty required we discard these obvious attempts to stuff the ballot box. We would do the same thing again under such circumstances.
I trust, for his own sake, the fertile imagination of this individ­ual will be kept under control in the future. We deplore legal action and have ignored previous slander, but there is a point of no return in these matters. We could and would take steps.
Dirce S. Archer Chairman, PITTCON



1959 Hugos 1961 1960
This is an award page. If you know something about it, such as who awarded it, who the winners were, what the criteria were, and when it was awarded, please add it! See Standards for Awards.