IMVHO, the retro-Hugos don't count for much. Like baseball, achievements have to be evaluated in their time, not by later standards. They are interesting, and I was privileged to be there when they were awarded, but still... they're just curiosities.

That's an odd assertion. Awards are subjective to begin with. I don't see why a retro-Hugo shouldn't mean just as much as a contemporary Hugo, whatever one of those means anyway. They're both the product of subjective voting.

Not really. Giving awards to works that have stood the test of time and whose author/creator has had time to gain stature over decades becomes far less meaningful than giving those awards amid open consideration of the work, its competitors, and the contemporary milieu. Of course Heinlein or one of the "all time greats" is going to win over some now-minor work that really excited readers in the day but is now forgotten. The award simply isn't for the same thing or for the same reasons or of the same quality as the contemporary ones. (By 'quality' I mean same overall level, not necessary worser or betterer.)

A good example are the literature Nobels. Look over the list sometime - for every recognizable Great Name, there are two Who The Hell Is That?s... and the list of NOW great names who didn't get one is even longer. Sure, a retro-Nobel would go to Faulkner instead of Harmii Mikkkonneennnenn... NOW. But what would it mean?

See Loewen's discussion of the sasha and the zamani in historical interpretation and you'll get the idea.

I don't get it. Surely the retro Hugos are more meaningful then? The contemporary ones don't have the luxury of hindsight to tell what's going to be enduring and endearing through the ages. Too much temptation to vote for the flavor of the month.

I think you have it exactly backwards. Hugos aren't Nobels or another prize for "lifetime achievement" or a body of work - they are for a limited number of contenders judged within their year of creation (more or less). Awards given on a Nobel or other "grand achievements" basis are one thing; awards given on a Hugo, Nebula, Newbery, Edgar etc. basis for "best/aka/most popular" works within that short genesis time frame are another.

Had the Hugos existed in these years, it's by no means certain that the works being judged 50+ years later are those which would have won in the day. Certainly most retro-Hugo winners are worthy on some basis, but not the basis that the Hugos are judged and handed out. They should have called them something else, at least.

In any case, it's not proper or right (IMVHO) to say Heinlein won 7 Hugos. He won 4 Hugos and 3 Retro-Hugos... different awards.

That they don't mean the same thing doesn't mean they mean nothing. . . just that they mean something else, and (IMHO) something broader than just "career", or even more Heinlein works would have won Retros.

But one does wonder if a novel published as a Scribner's juvenile at the time would have had the right audience exposure to get on the Hugo radar, for instance.

But it does cut both ways. . .there could be Heinlein works that read more dated now, or the themes have been so mined by others in the years since, or cultural values have changed, that a modern voter who isn't as steeped in the history of the field as this audience is, might not give them the consideration that they might have gotten at the time, if there had been an award to give them.

You can't know that one either.

So it means something. . .but not the same thing. . .

Good point, Geo.

The Scribner's juveniles were on sf fans' radar as early as Space Cadet, which got some reviews in the fan press. But the fans hated them and criticized Heinlein for "abandoning sf" (sound at all familiar?) Red Planet might have been the point at which that began to change, but in any case you're right: it's unlikely that would have been given a Hugo in 1951. OTOH Destination Moon was accepted in context with much more positive review than it is given now. I think the novella for "The Man Who Sold the Moon" is probably the only of the three Retro-Hugos for which there has not been significant change in attitude since.

Even if you don't buy Jim's reasoning, however, I think it is probably correct to speak of four Hugos and three retro-Hugos.

I'd agree with that.

I feel relatively confident that he would have have more Hugos (of the non-Retro variety) if they started no later than for 1940 work. . . but I would not care to hazard a guess on just which ones.

More books
from Virginia Edition Updates by LemonPi
Hello All,

I hope those celebrating the North American tradition of Thanksgiving had a very nice one.
On behalf of the VE, we are welcoming in the holiday season with another shipment of books.
This is a smaller shipment, but I wanted to make sure everyone knew we are still here and still making progress (albeit slowly). There will be 5 books in this shipment:

1. Creating a Genre
2. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
3. New Worlds to Conquer
4. Glory Road
5. Puppet Masters

We had a little hold up with some of the icons on the covers - the files the printer had could not be expanded, but kept small they just made gold blocks on the front of the book. We were able to resolve this and the proofs I have seen look good! Hopefully you will be seeing tracking information soon.

We are making progress on the remaining books. I now get to try my hand at transcription since the source file for one of the upcoming screenplays is a scan of a scan of a typewritten manuscript and transcribing software doesn't like it. (10 pages done about 200 to go.)

If you have not received at posted letter from VE recently please email me (leahmccarrick @ virginiaedition . com). The goal was to provide each of our current subscribers with a statement of account and to verify that no one is missing any books (and also to confirm mailing addresses and contact information).

That is all for now.
Let me know when you get your books.