james_davis_nicoll: (Default)
[personal profile] james_davis_nicoll
Scalzi tries to put as nice a face on the current situation, which I guess he has to because it was the normalization of blatant self-promotion that got us here and he played a significant role in making it acceptable.

Anyway, since we're stuck in a situation where organized slates enjoy an advantage (at least as far as nominations go), the next step would seem to be formal parties, each offering a different slate of candidates. How many of those do you think are viable in a system like the Hugos?

In a word, eh.

Date: 2014-04-20 06:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] seth ellis (from livejournal.com)
Congrats to all the noms; the bottom half of the list has a lot of good stuff, and there are good things elsewhere as well. But I have to say, in terms of my interest in the writing and how seriously I take the Hugo fiction awards, the presence of Day/Correia etc. differs from the supersaturation of Seanan McGuire only in degree. Not that I'm accusing McGuire of the same kind of malicious intent; just that the Hugo seems less worth paying attention to every year.

Date: 2014-04-20 07:53 pm (UTC)
avram: (Post-It Portrait)
From: [personal profile] avram
the supersaturation of Seanan McGuire

So we can dip strings into the Hugos and grow more Seanans like rock candy?

Date: 2014-04-21 01:01 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nathan helfinstine (from livejournal.com)
Or, if we strike the container holding the Hugos, a bunch of Seanans will suddenly precipitate out.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] lydy.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-21 08:41 am (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2014-04-20 07:03 pm (UTC)
seawasp: (Poisonous&Venomous)
From: [personal profile] seawasp
I can't quite bring myself to do the promo that Correia et. al., do, but what's the alternative? I don't see a good one. You can't very well start saying people can't mention their eligibility, and once they can, then you're on your way to people self-promoing.

Date: 2014-04-20 07:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] graydon saunders (from livejournal.com)
Since you have to pay to vote, Hugos are effectively an auction. It's really, seriously tough to produce an auction you can't game.

My take is the Hugos aren't a very effective popularity contest and could be abolished without net social loss.

Date: 2014-04-20 07:46 pm (UTC)
eagle: Me at the Adobe in Yachats, Oregon (Default)
From: [personal profile] eagle
I've found a lot of great stuff from reading the Hugo shortlist. Some of it I would not have found via other means, like reading the Nebula shortlist. I think it all would have been caught by the Locus shortlist, but the Locus shortlist is much longer.

I know I'm not the only one who makes a habit of reading all of the Hugo nominees every year (although I may give a couple of them a pass this year). I think that has some value in creating a common conversation.

I'm highly dubious of the theory that people like Scalzi and McGuire mentioning their eligibility is having a significant skewing effect on the results. I think that argument has a causality problem. The reason why those posts get so much attention is because those authors are very popular and have devoted fans... which would also lead to those fans voting for their books regardless of whether there was any campaigning or not. (And I do think that calling Scalzi and McGuire's posts campaigning is overstating the matter a wee bit.)

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] graydon saunders - Date: 2014-04-20 08:49 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] nancylebov.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-20 10:51 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] graydon saunders - Date: 2014-04-20 11:30 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] fridgepunk.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-21 02:28 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] graydon saunders - Date: 2014-04-21 02:31 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] seth ellis - Date: 2014-04-20 11:52 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] iainjcoleman.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-21 02:53 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-21 04:07 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] elusis.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-21 04:57 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] seth ellis - Date: 2014-04-21 05:10 am (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2014-04-20 07:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tandw.livejournal.com
It's not so much the self-promoting that's at issue, though once you start with that it's not a very great leap for an author to recommend other authors' books to support. I'll grant that recommending people *read* works by other authors is a fine thing; e.g., I found out about Hannu Rajaniemi from [livejournal.com profile] autopope, and quite enjoyed _The Quantum Thief_. From there, the subtle hint that "work x is eligible for a Hugo this year, you know..." isn't that much of a jump.

Date: 2014-04-20 08:02 pm (UTC)
soon_lee: Image of yeast (Saccharomyces) cells (Default)
From: [personal profile] soon_lee
I have no problem with a writer letting their audience know which of their works are eligible nor do I have a problem with writer recommending some other writer's work for consideration.

For me the line is crossed when a writer tells me who to nominate/vote.

Shorter me: recommending good, dictating bad.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] scifantasy.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-21 12:18 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] desperance.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-21 12:58 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] scifantasy.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-21 01:00 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] fridgepunk.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-21 01:21 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] scifantasy.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-21 01:22 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-21 04:21 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] soon_lee - Date: 2014-04-21 05:46 am (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2014-04-20 07:49 pm (UTC)
ext_90666: (NeCoRo)
From: [identity profile] kgbooklog.livejournal.com
A comment on Scalzi's post linked to Kameron Hurley's opinions:
“We Have Always Fought” is the first blog post, ever, to be nominated for a Hugo Award. It’s also been read by more people than all of my books and short stories combined, and possibly read more than any single book in the Best Novel category except the collective Wheel of Time.

Date: 2014-04-22 02:31 am (UTC)
ext_3718: (Default)
From: [identity profile] agent-mimi.livejournal.com
Hurley's post is terrific.

Date: 2014-04-20 08:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kla10.livejournal.com

> How many of those do you think are viable in a system like the Hugos?

Can't imagine it going much past the level of half a dozen or so writers all implicitly or explicitly agreeing to flog each others' work. So, up to ten or twenty, maybe?

This being fandom of course, they will doubtless start referring to themselves as political parties, with signs, buttons, funny hats, and all the usual trimmings.

Date: 2014-04-20 08:22 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
The biggest dispute being which party gets to be the Monster Raving Lunie Party.

Date: 2014-04-20 08:51 pm (UTC)
ext_6388: Avon from Blake's 7 fails to show an emotion (Exoticising the otter)
From: [identity profile] fridgepunk.livejournal.com
The OFFICIAL monster raving loonie party pls.

The unofficial "monster raving loonie party" is a different party entirely (one formed from a schism within the OMRLP).

Date: 2014-04-20 08:15 pm (UTC)
avram: (Post-It Portrait)
From: [personal profile] avram
Why are people blaming the authors for “self-promoting”, rather than the voters for having bad taste? The former couldn’t get anywhere without the latter.

Did Connie Willis self-promote to get her Best Novel award for Blackout/All Clear a few years ago? Is Larry Correia’s nomination for Warbound any worse than, say, Piers Anthony’s for Cthon in 1968?

Date: 2014-04-20 11:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nelc.livejournal.com
I think we're all agreed that anyone who votes for Vox Day's fine work has all the taste they're ever going to get.

Date: 2014-04-21 02:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] matt-ruff.livejournal.com
Is he actually that bad a fiction writer?

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] nelc.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-21 04:00 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] xiphias.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-21 04:40 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] agent-mimi.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-21 04:47 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] alienne.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-21 05:47 pm (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2014-04-21 02:30 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] joycemocha.livejournal.com
The cynical side of me is saying that perhaps certain people are trying to game their way into a Hugo, and saw a particular bandwagon that appeals to their people.

I say that knowing damn good and well that I probably never will win such an award because a.) I'm lousy at self-promotion so b.) I really don't care.

Date: 2014-04-21 02:39 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sean o'hara (from livejournal.com)
Look at how the Oscars used to work under the Studio System -- each studio would inform its employees which films it wanted nominated, and those employees in the Academy would put forth the appropriate nominations.

Obviously the Hugos are fan awards, so the publishers can't coerce voters the way studios did their employees, but some publishers have pretty dedicated fan-bases, and their authors certainly do. Tor and Baen could announce the books they want nominated on their sites and then have their authors flog the fan-base into action.

Date: 2014-04-21 06:11 am (UTC)
ext_3718: (Default)
From: [identity profile] agent-mimi.livejournal.com
The irony of people who for years -- more than a decade each with two specific people I'm thinking of -- who groomed their own audience to achieve maximum popularity and publicity now complaining that authors did something similar with their fanbases is palpable.

Popularity and sales in SF/F has always Always ALWAYS been heavily linked to grooming an audience, creating a persona (irritatingly often, a "gold-hearted asshole who tells it like it is" persona) and playing to it, in order to get fans to latch on and become loyal buyers. Also so they will defend you, support you, keep your name out there as they bring you up in regular conversation.

And let's not forget, the president of the SFWA fucking taunted Vox Day for years. We wouldn't even give a single solitary fuck about that low-talent, bigoted little git if Scalzi hadn't given him so much attention. He might as well have announced to the entire fandom "Vox Day is worth paying attention to."

Now Vox gets the kinds of fan numbers that can be effectively used to promote his brand, along with plenty of SFWA-provided wood to nail himself to in a way that will impress low-information fans. VD also has what will no doubt be a lifelong grudge against Scalzi. Scalzi self promotes? Vox Day's gonna do it, too, and do it better, and beat him at his own game.

And here we are, reaping what we have sown.
Edited Date: 2014-04-21 06:12 am (UTC)

Date: 2014-04-21 03:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dionysus1999.livejournal.com
I think it's pretty clear to anyone with more than an ounce of integrity that VD is a slime-ball, just read one of his many blog posts, if you can stomach it. He's offensive in a way I suspect most values voters would find abhorrant as well.

What kind of audience does that leave him with?

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] agent-mimi.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-21 04:46 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] yamamanama.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-21 11:51 pm (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2014-04-21 02:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] matt-ruff.livejournal.com
Dunno, but I'm pretty sure whichever party captures the Dr. Who fans will pretty much write the whole ballot.

Date: 2014-04-21 02:59 pm (UTC)
ext_6388: Avon from Blake's 7 fails to show an emotion (Exoticising the otter)
From: [identity profile] fridgepunk.livejournal.com
Though that implies the two competing parties won't just be Old!Who fandom vs. New!Who fandom with New Adventures!Who fandom acting as the spoiler/floating voters, thereby leading to all hugo awards boiling down to a fight to see who can heap the most amount of praise upon Paul McGann.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] sean o'hara - Date: 2014-04-21 08:47 pm (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2014-04-23 02:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] unclebyron.livejournal.com
I agree. The cat's out of the bag now. If you want to get nominated you're probably going to have to campaign and rally your fans.
As to how many parties are viable I think 2 are now: Scalzi vs Correia but that can change if Martin or someone as popular as him or Rowling (don't think she wants anything to do with the Hugos) or their fans get involved.
I think SF writers will have to learn not just from the 2 Latin Kings but also from romance writers on how to promote, run campaigns, unleash street teams (I think that's what they are called) etc...

Correction

Date: 2014-04-23 03:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] unclebyron.livejournal.com
re: Latin Kings sorry. I mixed up two movies Mambo Kings and Latin Kings of Comedy. Also didn't know that Latin Kings were a gang until I googled. I didn't mean to imply that either were members of a gang or comedians. :(

Re: Correction

From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-04-24 11:08 pm (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2014-04-23 03:00 pm (UTC)
ext_63737: Posing at Zeusaphone concert, 2008 (Erichsen WSH portrait)
From: [identity profile] beamjockey.livejournal.com
...the next step would seem to be formal parties, each offering a different slate of candidates. How many of those do you think are viable in a system like the Hugos?

Rose Lemberg may already identified two parties:
As I see it, there is currently a split in the fandom. I tentatively think of it as a split between Golden Age fans and Diversity Age fans.

(She also speaks of Golden Age authors and Diversity Age authors.)

Profile

james_davis_nicoll: (Default)
james_davis_nicoll

September 2017

S M T W T F S
      1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 252627282930

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 06:55 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios