Novel: The Calculating Stars, Mary Robinette Kowal
Novella: The Tea Master and the Detective, Aliette de Bodard
Novelette: “The Only Harmless Great Thing,” Brooke Bolander
Short Story: “The Secret Lives of the Nine Negro Teeth of George Washington”, Phenderson Djèlí Clark
The Ray Bradbury Award for Outstanding Dramatic Presentation: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, Screenplay by: Phil Lord and Rodney Rothman
The Andre Norton Award for Outstanding Young Adult Science Fiction or Fantasy Book: Children of Blood and Bone, Tomi Adeyemi
Lela E. Buis 
May 19, 2019 @ 14:08:05
Note: Mary Robinette Kowal is the incoming president of the SFWA, the organization that gives the Nebula Award. Presumably she was installed at the Nebula Convention. I hope it was after the awards; otherwise she would be in violation of the Nebula rules.
LikeLike
May 19, 2019 @ 14:33:17
” I hope it was after the awards; otherwise she would be in violation of the Nebula rules.”
I haven’t read the rules as a whole, but I’d be surprised if she would be violating anything as long as she was installed after voting was ended.
LikeLike
May 19, 2019 @ 16:29:03
Everyone know she was an incoming officer. Still looks like a breach of ethics.
LikeLike
May 19, 2019 @ 16:32:48
@Lela —
“Everyone know she was an incoming officer.”
So what?
“Still looks like a breach of ethics.”
I asked you weeks ago, but you never did answer: what are the relevant rules governing officers/board members in other awards-granting organizations? If other groups bar officers from winning awards, then you might have a point. If they don’t, not so much.
If you have a problem with SFWA policies, that’s where you need to start.
LikeLike
May 19, 2019 @ 16:56:04
Ok. Here are the rules for a local writers guild:
“Contests are open to all individuals above the age of 18 with the following exceptions: Members of the … Board of Directors and Contest Committee members may not submit entries to the … Guild contest. Previous first prize winners are barred from submitting to the 2019 category in which they won in 2018.”
How’s that? Disallowing officers/board members is fairly common because of their administrative access to the ballot and the results.
>If you have a problem with SFWA policies, that’s where you need to start.
I did.
LikeLike
May 19, 2019 @ 17:07:14
@Lela —
“Members of the … Board of Directors and Contest Committee members may not submit entries to the … Guild contest.”
“How’s that?”
That’s a start, but it doesn’t fit either the Nebula or Hugo — because authors don’t “submit” anything to either contest. They are nominated by readers, not by the authors themselves.
Keep looking.
LikeLike
May 19, 2019 @ 21:42:03
I’m not going to waste my time. If I think it’s unethical, then I think it’s unethical. The high proportion of board members in the finalists makes the Nebula look like a service award.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 19, 2019 @ 21:48:53
@Lela —
“I’m not going to waste my time.”
If you’re not willing to make the investment in digging up info about standards of practice, then don’t expect many people to take you seriously.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 19, 2019 @ 22:17:39
A quick search locates a number of award systems with rules that define conflict of interest. That suggests it’s standard practice. However, all of these are I located right off are juried, which you’re disallowing, right? Why do you think there should be different standards for fan versus juried awards?
LikeLike
May 19, 2019 @ 22:52:03
@Lela —
“Why do you think there should be different standards for fan versus juried awards?”
That’s pretty obvious, surely? It’s the same principle as our political system. We don’t block the US president from running for president, because his vote isn’t the vote that’ll make the difference in his election.
Now, I agree with you that the board members accepting such awards has the potential to raise questions — but if it is standard practice to allow such awards under similar circumstances, then you don’t have a leg to stand on. That’s why you need to do some research if you want to be taken seriously.
LikeLike
May 19, 2019 @ 22:43:33
The fan awards don’t seem to be posting their processes and practices. That suggests they don’t want people in their business.
Did you read my blog post that started off the evaluation of the awards? Regardless of posted rules for literary contests, ethical standards are generally poor. If no one calls out the issues, then standards continue to slide.
LikeLike
May 19, 2019 @ 23:22:34
See above.
LikeLike
Some Reactions to the 2018 Nebula Award Winners and a Postmortem on the 20Booksto50K Issue | Cora Buhlert
May 23, 2019 @ 22:32:59
May 25, 2019 @ 02:36:56
The deadline to vote in the Nebulas was March 31st. The election results were announced May 06th, so no one who voted in the Nebulas would’ve known that Kowal would be the new SFWA president.
LikeLike
May 25, 2019 @ 09:20:15
Everyone knew she was the incoming president on February 16 when the candidates were announced. She was running for the office unopposed.
LikeLike
May 25, 2019 @ 15:49:52
You’re right. I forgot that. I still wanted to be able to vote for Kowal’s book, as it was both my favorite of the ones I read last year, and, I believe, legitimately ground-breaking.
It would be impossible to eliminate all concerns about outside factors that might affect someone’s voting. We’re often voting for or against good friends, or at least acquaintances, as well as writers who are also editors who have accepted or rejected our work, or who we hope will buy it in the future. I don’t think there’s anything to be done about all those factors.
LikeLike
May 25, 2019 @ 16:20:52
@Dave and @Lela —
“I still wanted to be able to vote for Kowal’s book, as it was both my favorite of the ones I read last year, and, I believe, legitimately ground-breaking.”
I didn’t especially like the book, and it won’t be near the top of my list. But nobody can seriously say that it got nominated for the Nebula just because Kowal is involved with the organization.
Everyone needs to remember that it was also nominated for the Hugo — and it’s currently selling at #3,604 on Amazon. It’s a very popular book.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 25, 2019 @ 22:37:42
Contrarius, are there any particular reasons you didn’t like it?
LikeLike
May 25, 2019 @ 22:55:14
“Contrarius, are there any particular reasons you didn’t like it?”
Wow, didn’t we spend enough time discussing that book? Go look at the original thread, I know I explained at least some of the reasons there.
LikeLike
May 25, 2019 @ 23:14:59
I thought most of your posts were challenging the negatives I posted about it. I think my objections have settled around a feel the book is some type of propaganda.
LikeLike
May 25, 2019 @ 23:50:41
Sigh. And you wonder why people think you don’t pay enough attention to the things you read….
—–
Mar 24, 2019 @ 13:04:02
“I didn’t particularly care for this book, but mostly for different reasons than your complaints.”
….”One of the things I disliked about the book was that it did seem so reminiscent of Hidden Figures in some ways. OTOH, I am told that it was actually written before Hidden Figures was published. I dunno the accuracy of that claim.”
….”Nonetheless, I also rolled my eyes at her anxiety attacks. In fact, I didn’t much like her character in general — I found her to be a really annoying Mary Sue.”
—–
Mar 24, 2019 @ 15:21:01
….”One of the things I didn’t like about the book was that Kowal made the patriarchy look TOO stupid — I thought she hammered on it much too hard and much too obviously. And yes, this was probably part of that. I can believe that the issue would have been there — the men in power not wanting to include the women — but I can’t believe they would really have been as obtuse as Kowal depicts them, given that situation.”
—–
Mar 24, 2019 @ 23:08:17
….”As I said before, I didn’t much like the character myself.”
—–
Mar 25, 2019 @ 16:24:50
….”As I mentioned in an earlier post, I agree 100% that MRK hammered on her theme too hard. That was one of the things I disliked about the book.”
….”Ehh. As I also said before, I think her characters’ reactions are probably more intransigent than they would be in real life. ”
—–
Mar 26, 2019 @ 22:52:21
….”I will give you no argument about Elma being annoying and petulant. ”
—–
You’re welcome!
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 01:45:50
Contrarius, thanks for summarizing. 🙂
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 00:09:02
Contrarius, I certainly believed that the men in the book would’ve been that obtuse, given that in the real world the first American woman in space, Sally Ride, didn’t go up until 1983. That’s in spite of some determined efforts by women to be included in the program.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 01:45:17
You have to be careful to separate the events in this book from reality. The blurring of facts and events is why it’s approaching propaganda status.
In actual reality, jobs in the space program were opened to women and minorities through Kennedy’s 1961 Affirmative Action Executive Order, extended in 1967 to include “sex”. It took a while for this to have an effect, but by the late 1970s, NASA had an integrated astronaut corps including both minorities and women. By the 1980s, NASA was actively promoting women into management and reserving contracts for woman-owned businesses. I agree this should have happened faster, and that there was plenty of foot dragging from the military culture within NASA, but Kowal can’t deny that Affirmative Action happened in 1961. Women were pretty much guaranteed eventual astronaut positions after that.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 11:01:43
@Lela —
“You have to be careful to separate the events in this book from reality. The blurring of facts and events is why its approaching propaganda status.”
LOL.
Yes, I’m rolling my eyes at you again, Lela.
“The blurring of facts and events” is this thing we call FICTION, Lela. That’s what fiction DOES — especially alternate history stories. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature!
“In actual reality, jobs in the space program were opened to women and minorities through Kennedy’s 1961 Affirmative Action order.”
Since this book takes place in the 1950s, that’s 100% irrelevant.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 11:03:41
And so of -course- the tiresome propaganda won the Nebula, and of -course- MRK being the incoming Grand Poobah had nothing to do with it. Or her status as Grand Wizard of the SJWs. Entirely coincidental! Nothing to see there!
No, this is all about the -quality- of the writing. ~:D
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 11:42:08
@Phantom —
“And so of -course- the tiresome propaganda won the Nebula, and of -course- MRK being the incoming Grand Poobah had nothing to do with it. Or her status as Grand Wizard of the SJWs. Entirely coincidental! Nothing to see there!”
Aaaaaaaaand yet again —
1. Kowal has been nominated for and won multiple awards prior to this, including winning the Campbell and three Hugos;
2. The Calculating Stars was nominated for the Nebula **and** Hugo **and** Locus awards;
3. The Calculating Stars is a very popular novel, currently selling at #4,226 on Amazon.
Let us know if you ever decide to enter the real world, okay?
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 11:24:09
>The blurring of facts and events is why its approaching propaganda status.”
>LOL.
>Yes, I’m rolling my eyes at you again, Lela.
Davecreek is suggesting that the determined efforts by women to be included in the space program is what finally prevailed, but Kennedy actually set this change in motion as part of the government Civil Rights responses. This is an example of confusing fiction with reality.
The danger of propaganda is that people take it for truth. Kowal did a lot of research for this book and it has a lot of details taken from history. However, she’s taken CCAFS, John F. Kennedy and Affirmative Action out of the picture. People who don’t know the history will likely believe her version is real.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 11:44:30
@Lela —
“Davecreek is suggesting that the determined efforts by women to be included in the space program is what finally prevailed, but Kennedy actually set this change in motion as part of the government Civil Rights responses. This is an example of confusing fiction with reality.”
Phhhhhht.
Why do you think civil rights measures became so important in the 60s, Lela? BECAUSE PEOPLE MADE DETERMINED EFFORTS TO BE INCLUDED.
Duh.
“However, she’s taken CCAFS, John F. Kennedy and Affirmative Action out of the picture.”
BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T EXIST YET.
Seriously, how hard is that to understand?
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 12:04:44
So, you think if US women had refused to give up their wartime jobs and worked harder for employment equality at the end of WWII, they would have achieved more? Do you think they should have put off having post-war families and been more politically active in the 1950s? Recall they’d only had the right to vote for about 30 years.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 12:10:46
>Why do you think civil rights measures became so important in the 60s, Lela? BECAUSE PEOPLE MADE DETERMINED EFFORTS TO BE INCLUDED.
Women were actually the tail end of this movement, running six years behind the trend in activism for Affirmative Action and failing in 1972 to successfully push the ERA. Feminism in the US had been very focused on the right to vote, and once that was achieved, it apparently took a while to form more political goals. Domesticity and family were the key words in the 1950s.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 12:17:06
@Lela —
I’m really, REALLY tired of debating this story with you. For some strange reason you keep coming up with completely irrelevant topics to try to slam the story with, as though it’s a fault that a fictional story doesn’t slavishly follow the course of real-world history. At least try to get a few simple concepts through your head: this is an ALTERNATE HISTORY. This story took place BEFORE the great advances in real-life civil rights. The meteor CHANGED THE CONDITIONS of how civil rights gains would proceed from what happened in the real world.
Please, if you don’t even understand how fiction works, PLEASE stop wasting my tie.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 12:29:58
Thanks for making that clear. So, if it’s all fiction, why does davecreek think this is “ground-breaking”?
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 12:33:24
You’ll have to ask him that, not me.
Where’s that eye-rolling emoji when I need it??
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 12:37:22
Ok. Why do you suppose the SFWA membership thought it should be awarded first place?
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 12:49:57
If there were some sort of governing body, that would just push the complaints back one level. People would bitch about the governing body, and if it made a decision someone disagreed with, they would assume the “fix was in.”
As far as this Nebula voter is concerned, I voted for Kowal because I thought hers was the best SF novel I’d read all year, and one of the best in recent years. It portrayed a compelling story of a woman fighting against all the odds and succeeding, which is a common SF trope and one I still enjoy. It also provided a good dose of good ole’ “sense of wonder,” which is my favorite SF form.
Any references to “SJW’s,” by the way, immediately casts doubt on someone’s credibility. Too often it means that women or minorities or gay people were in the story, and the reader can’t handle that. And anyone who watched the original STAR TREK or read Heinlein’s STARSHIP TROOPERS knows that such concerns have always been a part of SF.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 12:58:45
Thanks for checking in on this, davdcreek. I didn’t see that in the novel, as Elma was heavily promoted by her husband and other men. In the face of disaster for the human race, she was annoyed at not being the first woman in space. If self-actualization was the theme, it seemed very confused to me.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 11:34:35
>Or her status as Grand Wizard of the SJWs. Entirely coincidental! Nothing to see there!
Phantom, I’m still planning to do an analysis on this. A quick looks suggests the last three SFWA presidents have been nominated as finalists either just before or while they were in office. This year the board took up a fifth of the available finalists slots–plus, their stories were of varying quality. This pattern suggests a slate and/or cooperation to elect certain people.
For an award of this prestige, the SFWA should be more respectful of ethics and conflict of interest issues.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 12:18:39
@ Lela —
“For an award of this prestige, the SFWA should be more respectful of ethics and conflict of interest issues.”
Again — if you can’t even be bothered to find out what the standard of practice is for other organizations with similar awards, don’t expect many people to take you seriously.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 12:35:43
I looked. There is no governing body, and no apparent standard of practice for SFF fans awards (as opposed to juried awards). However, prestigious awards like the Nebula and Hugo have a certain responsibility to the SFF community. Lack of a universal standard doesn’t mean that the directors of the Nebula and Hugo should do anything they like. This tendency is what has led to recent challenges.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 12:39:31
@Lela —
“I looked. There is no governing body, and no apparent standard of practice for SFF fans awards (as opposed to juried awards).”
So what?
There are tons and tons of literary awards out there, both in the US and in other countries. Go look at the organizations that award them, and see what their policies are. If you can’t find the policies written on their websites, write to their administrators and ask them.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to put in the work to find out what the facts are.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 12:55:43
Please point me to them, then. The juried awards post their standards and codes of ethics, but you’ve disallowed these because they’re not awarded by “fans.”
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 13:19:14
Sorry, Lela, it ain’t my job to do your homework for you. Google is your friend!
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 13:20:33
You can start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_literary_awards
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 13:53:37
Thanks for the groundwork, but I’ve already identified the pattern. Juried awards are concerned with ethics and standards, but small-time fan awards, not so much. 😉
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 13:56:47
IOW — You can’t actually be bothered to do the work, you just want people to take anything you spout off the top of your head seriously.
Got it.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 14:10:33
Just parenthetically, here . . . the Nebulas are not a fan award. They’re given by the Science Fiction Writers of America, a professional organization. I’m not saying that’s better or worse, just defining our terms.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 14:28:06
“Just parenthetically, here . . . the Nebulas are not a fan award. They’re given by the Science Fiction Writers of America, a professional organization.”
So what?
You’re the one who has been slinging around the term “fan award”, not me.
But you can’t compare them to juried awards, because — guess what — **they aren’t juried**. There’s an entirely different voting system.
So — for about the bazillionth time — if you want to be taken seriously with your complaint, you need to do your homework. Track down other literary awards with similar voting systems, go find the groups that organize them, and look at their rules. Find out the actual standard of practice for such awards. Don’t just make stuff up off the top of your head.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 14:30:09
P.S. — ha! I thought Lela sent that post, Dave, not you. Rest assured, it was directed at her!
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 16:23:20
Excuse me? Making things up? I’ve already listed the 1/5 of the officers and board that appeared in the Nebula finalist list. You’re asking for a fairly extensive industry survey and I’m busy writing. You’ll have to wait for the results on that.
But what are you expecting I would find? That a small group within each professional organization votes the award to themselves every year? Looking at other organizations doesn’t change my feeling about how ethical award systems are supposed to work. If the Nebula rules described them as only for members of the SFWA, or meant to reward service to the organization, then okay. But if they’re supposed to be an industry-wide award for excellence, lining the finalist list with board members is a serious ethical violation.
P.S. Davecreek, I’ll correct that to “reader” award, as Contrarius has pointed out above.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 16:49:11
@Lela —
“Excuse me? Making things up? I’ve already listed the 1/5 of the officers and board that appeared in the Nebula finalist list.”
The “making things up” I was referring to was your accusation that allowing officers to accept awards is something that outside the standards of practice, when you don’t even know what the standards of practice ARE.
But you added to the “making things up” list with the rest of your message, as I’m detailing below.
“You’re asking for a fairly extensive industry survey and I’m busy writing. ”
I’m not asking for anything. I’m simply telling you what is needed if you expect to be taken seriously.
“That a small group within each professional organization votes the award to themselves every year?”
Nobody within the SFWA is “voting the award to themselves every year”. The awards and nominations are determined by vote of the entire membership, remember? Please stop lying.
“lining the finalist list with board members is a serious ethical violation.”
Nobody is “lining the finalist list with board members”. Again — the awards and nominations are determined by vote of the entire membership, remember? Again — please stop lying.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 17:58:00
Lying? What do you mean by that accusation? These are observations, not something I’ve done. I think you’re trying to equate ethics with standard practice. They’re not the same thing.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 20:41:42
@Lela —
“These are observations, not something I’ve done.”
You don’t seem to understand the difference between “observation” and “accusation”. Let me help you with that.
1. “I’ve already listed the 1/5 of the officers and board that appeared in the Nebula finalist list.”
— This is an observation. You have simply looked up names and numbers. No accusation involved.
2. “a small group within each professional organization votes the award to themselves every year”
— This is an accusation. You are accusing “a small group” within the SFWA of somehow giving themselves awards, in contravention of the normal voting results. This is not just an observation — you have no evidence that this has happened. Your only evidence is that board members sometimes win awards; you have no evidence that they do so nefariously.
— This accusation is factually inaccurate; in fact, it’s perilously close to libel. And you already know that the Nebulas are awarded by a vote of **the entire SFWA membership**, not some “small group” acting as some sort of shadowy cabal, so you already know that your accusation is not true.
— Again, please stop lying.
3. “lining the finalist list with board members”
— This is basically the same accusation as #2. You are accusing someone of intentionally “lining the list” with people who happen to be board members. Again, this is not simply an observation; you have no evidence that anything nefarious has been done to subvert the official voting process.
–Again, please stop lying.
“I think you’re trying to equate ethics with standard practice. They’re not the same thing.”
This is true, they are not the same thing. But standard practice is a good measure of ethical standards across an industry — the industry in this case being the literary awards industry. And if the SFWA’s rules are standard practice across that industry, then very few people are likely to take you seriously if you complain about it.
LikeLike
May 27, 2019 @ 00:08:47
Ok. I looked back at my post, and the only thing directed specifically at the SFWA is “lining the finalist list with board members is a serious ethical violation.” So, did this happen or not? Checking again: yes, this appears to have happened. It’s unclear HOW it happened, but there it is, and it raises serious ethical questions about the fairness of the awards. If the board and/or membership don’t want similar results in the future, they can make changes to prevent it. However, if it appears no one noticed, they will continue on the same path.
LikeLike
May 27, 2019 @ 00:13:24
@Lela —
“Ok. I looked back at my post, and the only thing directed specifically at the SFWA is “lining the finalist list with board members is a serious ethical violation.” So, did this happen or not? Checking again: yes, this appears to have happened.”
Bullshit.
“Lining the finalist list” implies nefarious actions taken with nefarious intent. You have no evidence of that whatsoever.
Please stop lying.
LikeLike
May 27, 2019 @ 00:49:17
Contrarius: Implies?
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 23:27:04
“This year the board took up a fifth of the available finalists slots–plus, their stories were of varying quality. This pattern suggests a slate and/or cooperation to elect certain people.”
I think “suggests” is being very kind, Lela. If this type of thing were going on at, random example, the America Medical Association, with incoming president and board members getting nominations for plum awards (and money, there’s always money), there would be eyebrows going up. Questions, as they say, would be asked.
But we’re not to ask. We’re to shut up and clap louder, or somebody will loose a Twitter mob on us.
The notion of a slate certainly explains the disproportionate outrage leveled at 20Booksto50K this year. Also explains how the same people keep getting nominated year after year for work that’s warmed-over propaganda.
The issue is a bit more important now than it was 20 years ago, given the ever-widening split in Western culture. The audience is essentially bifurcating into two audiences. One side gets all the awards, the other side gets no fan service at all. That’s unlikely to continue.
LikeLike
May 26, 2019 @ 23:34:20
Please define “warmed-overpropaganda.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 26, 2019 @ 23:50:48
@Phantom —
“and money, there’s always money”
But Phantom — you’ve told us multiple times that nobody pays attention to these awards anymore, and that winning the awards doesn’t result in any bumps in sales. So how could there be any money involved?
“The notion of a slate certainly explains the disproportionate outrage leveled at 20Booksto50K this year. ”
Ummmm… how?
And how was this supposed slate spread to Nebula, Locus, AND Hugo??
“Also explains how the same people keep getting nominated year after year for work that’s warmed-over propaganda.”
Except that they actually don’t, of course.
Fantasy, thy name is Phantom.
LikeLike
May 27, 2019 @ 00:00:31
I think Phantom is upset that their favorite kinds of stories aren’t nominated or winning awards these days. I understand some of that. My favorite type of SF takes place in space or on other planets, and involves exploration rather than a lot of pew-pew-pew. There isn’t much of that published these days, but I would think that as SF people, we would know that things change.
People who didn’t used to get published are being published now, or are publishing themselves. If they didn’t have an audience, they wouldn’t keep publishing. Maybe you’re not part of that audience, and that’s OK.
LikeLike
May 27, 2019 @ 00:17:54
@Dave —
“I think Phantom is upset that their favorite kinds of stories aren’t nominated or winning awards these days.”
Well, yeah.
The only problem is that, since his favorite kinds of stories tend to not be nominated or win (aside from the fact that he’d probably enjoy some of the stories if he ever bothered to try them), Phantom assumes that there must be skullduggery going on. In his little fantasy world he simply can’t imagine that the field has moved on, and that these are the kinds of stories that are popular and appreciated and sell well these days. Noooooooooo, he imagines in his feverish little brain that somebody somewhere MUST be rigging the votes!
Phantom is not real big on reality-based thinking. You’ll notice that if you spend much time around this blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 27, 2019 @ 00:42:40
Phantom, I do think it’s possible the “notion of a slate” could be one explanation for the SFWA board’s silence in the face of the Twitter storm that erupted over the 20Booksto50K finalists this year. On inspection, two patterns emerged in the list of finalists, not just one, suggesting two slates.
By propaganda above, do you mean political messages?
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 27, 2019 @ 11:21:11
@Lela —
“On inspection, two patterns emerged in the list of finalists, not just one, suggesting two slates.”
Yeah, it was a soooooper seeekrit slate that nobody actually knew about.
Which would kind of put a damper on its effectiveness, of course. ;-D
LikeLike
May 27, 2019 @ 09:46:58
Davecreek said: “Please define “warmed-over propaganda.””
Sorry Dave, were you unsure what the term “propaganda” meant or are you just being unpleasant? If you are unsure, I’d suggest Google.
“Warmed-over” is a regionalism, to be fair. It refers to a meal that has been served before, and the leftovers are being served again. Subtext is nobody ate it the first time, they’re unlikely to eat it this time.
I hope this clears things up for you.
LikeLike
May 27, 2019 @ 09:53:01
Lela said: “By propaganda above, do you mean political messages?”
Everything has “messages” that can be construed as political, particularly these days when haircuts are political. (Seriously, the hair? Come on, people.)
Propaganda is more when the story is a vehicle for delivering the political message, as you describe in this case. Another example is The Nine Negro Teeth story.
LikeLike
May 27, 2019 @ 10:14:36
Ha. Using that definition, three of the four winners might be classified propaganda. De Bodard’s story, I dunno. The theme there seemed to be dealing with PTSD.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 27, 2019 @ 23:13:40
“Using that definition, three of the four winners might be classified propaganda.”
Pretty much. Going by your reviews, most of the nominations were political message vehicles. Take away the message, there’s not much left. Pretty odious messages too.
Let us not forget that these are awarded by the professional organization for science fiction writers in the USA. Its (supposed to be) exactly like the AMA for doctors, the APTA for physical therapists, the Bar Association for lawyers, et cetera. Key word being -professional-, as in the purpose of the organization is to help and support the people who write science fiction for a living. There’s money involved. Writers gotta eat.
How much help and support are writers going to get when the entire awards season is being used by a clique to forward their political agenda? They’re going to get ZIP unless they are very visibly supporting the same agenda.
Fairly disgusting, really.
LikeLike
May 27, 2019 @ 23:26:45
Citation, please on the accusation of a clique controlling the awards. How do you know that?
I’d also be interested in knowing which political messages you consider “odious.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 28, 2019 @ 09:09:07
@Phantom —
“There’s money involved. Writers gotta eat.”
Where’s the money coming from, Phantom? You keep telling us that nobody pays any attention to these awards anymore, and that winning the awards doesn’t result in boosts to sales. So where’s the money?
….crickets….crickets….crickets….
LikeLike
May 28, 2019 @ 00:44:37
davecreek said: “Citation, please on the accusation of a clique controlling the awards.”
If I gave you one that was cast in stone, would it make any difference to you? I think not.
“How do you know that?”
Its blisteringly obvious. See comments above for elucidation.
“I’d also be interested in knowing which political messages you consider “odious.””
Most. Although I do have a special hatred for communism. Over 100 million victims and counting.
If you’re dying to know what I think, go back over the extensive work that Lela has done reviewing the Nebula nominations, my comments are well marked.
To maintain peaceful coexistence on Lela’s page, I am setting you to “ignore.” If you want to talk to me, you may do so at -my- blog. Beware the Iron Finger of Deletion. It bites.
LikeLike
May 28, 2019 @ 09:11:56
@Phantom —
“If I gave you one that was cast in stone, would it make any difference to you? I think not.”
Which is irrelevant, of course, since in reality you have no evidence whatosever to back up your odious claims.
“Its blisteringly obvious. See comments above for elucidation.”
See my earlier comment — “Phantom is not real big on reality-based thinking. You’ll notice that if you spend much time around this blog.”
Thanks for helping to prove my point.
LikeLike
May 28, 2019 @ 09:42:21
At the risk of bringing worse politics into the discussion. References on the issue of cliques and shadow groups that affect the awards come from the Sad/Rabid Pups, including Vox Day, who spent some time in the SFWA inner circle. His comments may not be current, of course, as it’s been some time since he left the organization.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 28, 2019 @ 10:00:12
@Lela —
“including Vox Day, who spent some time in the SFWA inner circle. His comments may not be current, of course, as it’s been some time since he left the organization.”
ROFL!
Vox didn’t “leave” the organization, Lela — he was kicked out for cause.
If you believe a single word that comes out of his mouth about anything, you’re even more gullible than I thought.
LikeLike
May 28, 2019 @ 10:13:34
Before the falling out, Vox Day ran for president, which means he served the required number of terms as an SFWA director to qualify. That means he has intimate experience in how the organization and awards were managed during his service to the organization. Since there’s now considerable bad blood in the relationship, you’d have to take what he says with a grain of salt. However, there often does seem to be evidence what he says is accurate.
You’d think that once he had made these comments, SFWA management would have gone extra lengths to clean up their act, but they don’t really seem to care now this all looks. Presumably, that’s because no one ever really calls them out on it.
LikeLike
May 28, 2019 @ 10:22:37
@Lela —
“Before the falling out, Vox Day ran for president, which means he served the required number of terms as an SFWA director to qualify.”
So what?
Vox has a demonstrated and deeply seated grudge against the SFWA. He also has a long history of lying on multiple topics.
Again — If you believe a single word that comes out of his mouth about anything, you’re even more gullible than I thought.
LikeLike
May 28, 2019 @ 10:37:26
Lela said: “At the risk of bringing worse politics into the discussion…”
Bwaha! I didn’t want to go there, but since you mention there have now been THREE different groups battling the issue of cliques and shadow courts in the SFWA, and complaining about their award process. Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies for Conservatives/Republicans and this year 20Booksto50k for the Indy crowd.
Vox Day, of whom I am not a fan just to be clear, was ejected from a professional association for having an opinion. I seem to recall, but I am not 100% certain, that other people have since been ejected from the organization for having an opinion as well. Last year’s Del Arroz pre-crime expulsion from WorldCon was similar.
This is like kicking a doctor out of the AMA for having a scientifically supported but unpopular opinion about what causes stomach ulcer, and talking about it on Twitter. An organization only does something like that if they have a vested interest in promoting the popular opinion.
Like I said, blisteringly obvious. Makes me idly wonder if they’re getting sub-rosa money from some political org for pushing the SJW agenda. I’m sure plenty of them would do it for free, but the money issue makes it more plausible.
LikeLike
May 28, 2019 @ 11:04:13
@Phantom —
“there have now been THREE different groups battling the issue of cliques and shadow courts in the SFWA, and complaining about their award process. Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies for Conservatives/Republicans and this year 20Booksto50k for the Indy crowd.”
LOL!
Yeah, no.
It wasn’t any “clique or shadow court” that ran the pups out of the Hugos — it was votes by the majority of Worldcon members, who wanted nothing to do with underhanded attempts to game the system. And the reaction against them had a lot more to do with their methods than with their political beliefs.
You keep forgetting that the libertarian SF awards, the Prometheus awards, are given out at Worldcon EVERY YEAR. Have you heard anyone complaining about those? Nope. Duh. Why? **Because they don’t try to disrupt the system**.
And in case you didn’t notice, the 20Booksto50K folks are still SFWA members — and one of the works they slated onto the ballot was written by **an SFWA board member**. As those folks now clearly understand, they went about their PR efforts in the wrong way, however laudable their goals may have been.
Try a little reality every now and then, just for a change.
“Vox Day, of whom I am not a fan just to be clear, was ejected from a professional association for having an opinion.”
Uhhhhh, nope. In fact, he was expelled for misusing the SFWA’s official twitter account in which he posted vile, racist, and misogynistic drivel against two other SFWA members.
“I seem to recall, but I am not 100% certain, that other people have since been ejected from the organization for having an opinion as well.”
Aaaaaaaand wrong again.
In fact, VD is the **only** person who has **ever** been expelled by the SFWA.
“Last year’s Del Arroz pre-crime expulsion from WorldCon was similar.
This is like kicking a doctor out of the AMA for having a scientifically supported but unpopular opinion”
LOL!
Again, nope.
Go check the AMA’s membership requirements. They will clearly state that any member can be kicked out for unprofessional conduct.
Well, guess what? Encouraging twitter mobs against fellow Worldcon members and other long history of bullying behavior **is unprofessional** by any stretch of the imagination.
And remember, four out of five of JDA’s legal complaints against Worldcon have already been dismissed. In fact, the judge basically laughed them out of court. There is only one charge remaining to be adjudicated.
Seriously, Phantom, your rants just keep getting more and more ridiculous.
LikeLike
May 28, 2019 @ 11:35:46
Contrarius, it’s not a good idea to make assumptions based on popular narratives. The question is whether there is evidence to support Vox Day’s charges about corruption in the SFWA awards process. In the US, he should be due protections based on whistleblower laws. This question of corruption in the SWFA should also be considered separatly from the personal use violations he committed. The fracas about that tends to obscure the importance of the charges he’s made.
LikeLike
May 28, 2019 @ 11:45:48
@Lela —
“Contrarius, it’s not a good idea to make assumptions based on popular narratives.”
BWAhahaha!
That’s amazingly funny coming from you right on the heels of the multiple conspiracy-mongering fact-free fantasies you’ve been spinning on this thread.
“The question is whether there is evidence to support Vox Day’s charges about corruption in the SFWA awards process.”
And you haven’t come up with a single snippet of that supposed evidence.
Guess why.
“In the US, he should be due protections based on whistleblower laws.”
LOL!
His many public lies about SFWA and SFWA members haven’t cost him anything. Again, he was expelled from the SFWA because of his misuse of the official SFWA twitter account.
“This question of corruption in the SWFA should also be considered seperatly from the personal use violations he committed. That fracas about that tends to obscure the importance of the charges he’s made.”
There is no “importance of the charges he’s made”, because rational people already know what a dedicated liar he is on multiple topics. He has no credibility, and therefore there is no reason to take him seriously about anything.
LikeLike
May 28, 2019 @ 11:54:01
Board members in 1/5 of the finalists spots?
LikeLike
May 28, 2019 @ 12:04:13
@Lela —
“Board members in 1/5 of the finalists spots?”
Yup. So what?
In Schoen’s case, he made it onto the finalist list because he was on the 20Booksto50K slate. No SFWA skullduggery there.
In other cases, it’s no real surprise. Again, Kowal has won multiple awards and nominations from multiple awarding groups over multiple years, and others have been well-known and well-respected for years as well. And it’s natural that many board members would be well-respected authors — that name recognition feeds into voter recognition and therefore votes.
And no, I’m not saying that being on the board has no effect on award nominations. Obviously, being on the board raises one’s profile amongst SFWA members, if nothing else. But few people outside SFWA either know or care who’s on the SFWA board; for instance, I wouldn’t know who any of the officers were if not for puppy types raising stinks like this.
And, again — this is the same sort of issue we have in US politics. The incumbent president has an increased public profile and public recognition because of his office, but that doesn’t mean we block him from running for president again.
Conspiracy theories really shouldn’t be your go-to assumptions, Lela. There are far fewer conspiracy theories in the real world than some people think.
LikeLike
May 28, 2019 @ 12:33:27
Let’s take a quick look at the present and future board members who made it to the Nebula finalist list this year.
Mary Robinette Kowal:
1. Kowal has been nominated for and won multiple awards prior to this, including winning the Campbell and three Hugos;
2. The Calculating Stars was nominated for the Nebula **and** Hugo **and** Locus awards;
3. The Calculating Stars is a very popular novel, currently selling at #4,226 on Amazon.
Kelly Robson:
1. Has won the Nebula and the Prix Aurora awards, and has been nominated for multiple other awards, including the Campbell, Hugo, WFA, and Sturgeon.
2. Gods, Monsters, and the Lucky Peach has been nominated for the Hugo and Locus as well as the Nebula.
Andy Duncan:
1. Has won the Nebula, the Sturgeon, and three WFAs.
2. An Agent of Utopia nominated for both the Nebula and the Locus.
Lawrence Schoen:
1. Nominated for Campbell, Hugo, and Nebula, won the Cóyotl award.
2. Gamed onto the ballot by the 20Booksto50K slate.
Sarah Pinsker:
1. Nominated for multiple Nebulas and Hugos, won the Nebula, won the Sturgeon, nominated for the Tiptree.
2. The Court Magician nominated for the Nebula, Hugo, and Locus.
Seriously, why would it be surprising to see *any* of these authors on an awards ballot?
LikeLike
May 28, 2019 @ 22:46:50
When I’ve got time, I’m going to compare these wins with the board’s terms. Also check Schoen’s connections at Locus. He’s playing all the angles.
Interestingly, of all the board members on the ballot this year, Schoen seems to be the one that came under real pressure about it. See resignation letter.
LikeLike
May 28, 2019 @ 23:24:40
“Interestingly, of all the board members on the ballot this year, Schoen seems to be the one that came under real pressure about it. “
That’s because he’s the only one who really did get into the finals in a shady manner, even though I didn’t think he himself did anything to instigate it.
Refer back to the authors who were honest enough to turn down their nominations when the puppies gamed them onto the Hugo shortlist.
LikeLike
May 28, 2019 @ 23:47:28
I turned down the Puppies back in 2015 before I ever had a chance to get onto the shortlist. Another writer saw me on the Puppy list and asked me if it was something I wanted to be associated with. I’d never even heard of the Puppies at the time.
Then I looked up their connection with Vox Day, who had, rather infamously, referred to N.K. Jemisin as “not fully civilized” and an “ignorant half-savage,” and knew this wasn’t anything I wanted to be a part of. I asked Brad Torgersen to take me off the list and he did immediately.
(None of this is in reference to Schoen, who is a fine fellow. I have no information on the kerfuffle involving him.)
LikeLike
May 29, 2019 @ 00:10:52
@Dave —
“(None of this is in reference to Schoen, who is a fine fellow. I have no information on the kerfuffle involving him.)”
So far as I know he didn’t do anything to encourage his name being put on the slate, and I’m sorry that he got caught up in the mess. I rather enjoyed Barsk, though I haven’t yet read its sequel. And I didn’t read the short that got him on the Nebula list this year, so I can’t say anything about its quality.
But notice that, of all the board members nominated for the Nebula this year, Schoen is the only one whose story did not also get nominated for either the Hugo or the Locus.
LikeLike
May 29, 2019 @ 09:29:01
Well, I actually rated his story pretty well. Probably his message isn’t rated as highly as some. Plus, his Chinese characters might have been considered cultural appropriation.
LikeLike
May 29, 2019 @ 12:28:55
@Lela —
Or more likely, it just wasn’t as good a story as the others.
LikeLike
May 29, 2019 @ 12:31:29
That’s a value judgement–it’s not as good because it didn’t get as many award nominations? It had flaws, but I thought it was better than some of the others on the ballot.
LikeLike
May 29, 2019 @ 12:35:47
@Lela —
“That’s a value judgement–it’s not as good because it didn’t get as many award nominations?”
No, that’s backwards.
The most likely cause for it to not get as many award nominations is that it was not as good as the others.
And that’s logical, since we already know that it made the ballot due to slating instead of organic, genuine votes.
Same as The Interview, or The Interviewer, or whatever it was called. Simply not as good as the others.
The result of slating shows, as it usually does.
LikeLike
May 29, 2019 @ 18:13:58
Of course, it’s all a matter of opinion, but that doesn’t match my reviews. I thought there were other stories on the ballot that were weaker, less well written, and had less universal messages. What made them seem more award worthy to the SFF community readers?
LikeLike
May 29, 2019 @ 18:16:51
@Lela —
“Of course, it’s all a matter of opinion, but that doesn’t match my reviews.”
So what? You have one vote. The Nebula, Hugo, and Locus voters add up to thousands.
“I thought there were other stories on the ballot that were weaker, less well written, and had less universal messages.”
And yet you yourself insist that Schoen must have gotten onto the Nebula ballot through nefarious means, because he’s a board member.
Watch out, Lela, you’re contradicting yourself. 😉
LikeLike