Interesting. I disagree with his last point: that blogs are unrevised and spontaneous by definition. Certainly *some* are, but many others I can point to are basically the electronic equivalent of a regular opinion column. On the other had, much of what I've done that would be considered "fannish writing" -- particularly the things for Mr. Garcia's Little Thing -- are pieces I wrote with almost no editing or revision. (Even my dead-tree published offerings were notoriously f'ing first drafts.)
Either way... surely it's up to the nominators and voters to decide what writing deserves their votes?
Obviously the Scalzi nomination is going to continue to be picked apart from every concievable angle until it hits the "plus he smells funny" level. As someone who spent a lot of time considering her ballot, I'm starting to feel a little patronized.
Many people have no idea how the Hugo Awards are selected. If they know the Award exists at all, they think they're decided by some mysterious undefined "them," not realizing that it's a popularly selected award. Neither Tom Veal nor Mike Glyer are in this group, of course, but some of the other folks chiming in on the debate are.
Tom's complain is with the voters' taste, and he's never said that Scalzi should have been disqualified by the administrator the way some uniformed people have done.
There's an underlying issue here that needs repeating: "Fan" and "Pro" aren't mutually-exclusive conditions.
I have no objections to Tom's concerns -- disagreement with them, yes, but every year's Hugo nominations spawn comments from various people of "well, that didn't deserve to be nominated."
My general complaint is with the "people" awards. I loathe them all uniformly. (Not the people who get nominated for them, btw.)
>Tom's complain is with the voters' taste, and he's never said that Scalzi >should have been disqualified by the administrator the way some uniformed >people have done.
Which is fine, I was equally baffled about Old Man's War getting nominated and said so. I didn't write an editorial saying the author should remove it from the ballot, though
I'm more put off by the tone of the Glyer article which implies that the entire nomination is a devious plot by Scalzi and his rabid supporters. I nominated the man because I enjoy the Whatever. I enjoy his fan writing much more than his novels (Android's Dream may change that). But I don't remember getting a memo from the Whatever Headquarters that Phase II of his takeover of fandom had commenced.
Maybe Scalzi does want to invade all areas of fandom, certainly he's gonna have to run up against Garcia if that's the case ;) ... but suggesting that the Hugo nominators are engaging in some sort of conspiracy on his beha;f seems a little absurd.
Yeah, and I certainly don't want to give the misimpression that I really care that much about the disputed nomination. I'm happy about Garcia being nominated, but I've only attended two Worldcons, and didn't vote at either, have never voted for site selection *or* on the Hugos.
I'd be more likely to get interested in the feminist criticisms of this year's ballot, but even that -- well, not getting excited about it. Cuh-learly, I am a Bad Fan.
But don't worry. I understand that when Cheryl gets back to the USA, she'll be bringing retribution for the Chipotle Vodka, courtesy of the surviving Finns.
Oh for Ghu's sake. I am so tired of this kind of thing. I agree that not all blogs are revised-but I fail to se why that is a bad thing-I imagine that if producing a written 'zine weren't so laboriou I'll bet there would have been a lot more unrevised spontaneous stuff in lots of them...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
kevin_standlee) wrote2007-07-15 10:44 pm
no subject
no subject
Obviously the Scalzi nomination is going to continue to be picked apart from every concievable angle until it hits the "plus he smells funny" level. As someone who spent a lot of time considering her ballot, I'm starting to feel a little patronized.
no subject
Tom's complain is with the voters' taste, and he's never said that Scalzi should have been disqualified by the administrator the way some uniformed people have done.
There's an underlying issue here that needs repeating: "Fan" and "Pro" aren't mutually-exclusive conditions.
no subject
My general complaint is with the "people" awards. I loathe them all uniformly. (Not the people who get nominated for them, btw.)
no subject
Which is fine, I was equally baffled about Old Man's War getting nominated and said so. I didn't write an editorial saying the author should remove it from the ballot, though
I'm more put off by the tone of the Glyer article which implies that the entire nomination is a devious plot by Scalzi and his rabid supporters. I nominated the man because I enjoy the Whatever. I enjoy his fan writing much more than his novels (Android's Dream may change that). But I don't remember getting a memo from the Whatever Headquarters that Phase II of his takeover of fandom had commenced.
Maybe Scalzi does want to invade all areas of fandom, certainly he's gonna have to run up against Garcia if that's the case ;) ... but suggesting that the Hugo nominators are engaging in some sort of conspiracy on his beha;f seems a little absurd.
no subject
I'd be more likely to get interested in the feminist criticisms of this year's ballot, but even that -- well, not getting excited about it. Cuh-learly, I am a Bad Fan.
no subject
no subject
no subject
But don't worry. I understand that when Cheryl gets back to the USA, she'll be bringing retribution for the Chipotle Vodka, courtesy of the
survivingFinns.no subject
Hmmm... where did I leave that ten-foot pole?
no subject
No, really.
no subject