Active Entries
- 1: Five SFF Books About Oddballs Resisting Conformity
- 2: The Transitive Properties of Cheese by Ann LeBlanc
- 3: People who say they like golden retrievers
- 4: So, there's an employee I dread managing
- 5: Bundle of Holding: Coriolis Mercy of the Icons T
- 6: That was fast
- 7: Five Stories About Time Travel on a Limited Scale
- 8: Five SFF Works About Contests and Competition
- 9: Five Stories About What Happens After You’ve Defeated the Big Bad
- 10: Clarke Award Finalists 2000
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2016-03-31 03:30 am (UTC)This was my assessment last year:
The only conclusion I can draw from the evidence I have--with full acknowledgment that I may be missing something--is that it works the other way around from what I originally thought: WFC exists to make money for hosting organizations, and the WFAs exist to draw people to WFC. The centering of profit gives rise to the belief that anyone who can't afford to attend isn't worth having around, award-nominated or not. Once that belief is accepted, all the rest of the policies make perfect sense.
I have seen no reason to change it since.