Tag: worldcon

Categories
worldcon

Brief(?) Summary and Commentary on Saturday and Sunday WSFS Meetings

As before, here I’m going to be free with my commentary instead of limiting myself to mostly parenthetical statements. Amendments will be referred to by name. For details and summary, please see the Sasquan agenda.

Liveblog for Saturday here.

Liveblog for Sunday here.

Playlist for all segments of the business meeting here.

Saturday Meeting

This meeting was relatively short, because the room was needed for other programming at 1300, and plus they wanted to have the WorldCon chairs photo session. Important points:

  • The meeting started off with the official site selection for 2017. Helsinki won, and presented the con heads and their website. They received a check for $23,000, passed on from the last of Millenium Phillcon’s funds.
  • The “Story by Any Other Name” amendment from LonCon 3 was passed and added to constitution. This will close the audiobook loophole, for example, allowing stories that originally appeared as audiobooks to be considered with their fellow works of fiction instead of as podcasts or related works.
  • “WSFS Membership Types and Rates” amendment from LonCon 3 passed without objection and was added to the constitution.
  • “Hugo Finalist” amendment from LonCon 3 passed without objection and was added to the constitution. This was just a word term change.
  • Starting on new business for this year–this is stuff that if passed will go on to be ratified (or not) next year in Kansas City. This is where things started getting contentious.
  • The 5% Solution passed. (Thank fuck.)
  • The Multiple Nominations amendment passed.
  • Nominee Diversity was laid on the table to be taken up on Sunday after EPH was considered.
  • Tom Monaghan (apologies, I believe I have been spelling his last name wrong this entire time in my liveblogs, mea culpa) attempted to permanently adjourn the business meeting for this year and thus kill all remaining business. I found this personally very aggravating, as it seemed to be a very transparent attempt to get rid of all potential discussion and fixes with regards to the Hugo issues. Monaghan had already made it pretty clear to anyone who could overhear him arguing that he was a “puppy” of some stripe, including complaints about people defaming puppies in debate, which were for the most part not supported by the chair. The motion was ultimately disallowed due to arcane parliamentary stuff, but I think that it would have failed anyway if put to a vote.
  • The meeting ended with a motion, unanimously approved, that when the business meeting did finally adjourn on Sunday, it would be in memory of Bobbie DuFault and Peggy Rae Sapienza.

Sunday Meeting

This is where things got really contentious.

  • E Pluribus Hugo was taken up immediately via suspension of the rules. Passed via serpentine.
    • Ramez Naam, who is a writer, made the point beautifully about why slates are pieces of shit (my words, not his) by naming a sampling of works and authors who got screwed by the slates this year.
    • The point was made again and again that it’s total bullshit that 10-15% of the electorate can entirely control who shows up on the ballot.
    • Dara Korra’ti (I hope I spelled her name right) made the point beautifully across EPH and 4/6 that in a system without parties, an organized party will prevail. And she had every right to indicate that this was political because it’s been made so explicitly political by the people who started it.
    • A lot of people complained that EPH is complicated and that will alter how people vote. Considering it is about how nominations are counted, not indicated by members, I don’t really buy this argument. Also, the current system is complex in its own right as well. If you asked me to explain preferential voting to someone, I don’t think I’d be able to do a good job of it.
    • Anyway, I’m glad EPH passed. What I’m really hoping is that once they’ve got the nomination data they requested, we’ll get a good presentation about how it would have changed things this year, and we can move forward.
    • Also a point to consider: anything we voted affirmatively on this year is not yet part of the constitution. Nothing changes unless and until these are ratified next year. So by the time we take up this business at next year’s meeting, we’ll be well aware if the Hugos are once more covered with puppy shit.
    • I still believe that if EPH stops Doctor Who from dominating short form drama, that is a feature and not a bug.
    • EPH has a built-in five year sunset clause by amendment.
  • 4 and 6 also passed on a serpentine vote. This one made me kind of crazy because we spent a ridiculous amount of time noodling about if we’d use the numbers 4 and 6 or something different, and then just used 4 and 6 anyway. Much like how 90% of the time we just use the chair’s suggested debate time after 10 minutes of arguing about allowing more or less. Hrngh.
    • So noted that supposedly, this system can work in conjunction with EPH just fine. Though in my opinion, if we were to ratify EPH next year, I’ll feel a lot less compelled to ratify this one as well unless someone makes a compelling argument as to the contrary.
    • Just another shout-out to Dara, whose points on this as far as 4 and 6 doing nothing to discourage slating, were totally on point. This method could defeat one slate if it didn’t have great discipline. But if we start getting in to slates and counter slates (very likely if things continue in this year’s melodramatic style) it’s going to be a fucking mess for anyone who doesn’t want to slate.
    • This one lacks a sunset clause. I think at this point, everyone was getting pretty tired and we just didn’t manage to get the timing right on amending it.
  • Nominee Diversity passes on a serpentine vote. Not much to say here other than I was in favor of it because I’m in favor of anything that spreads the love, so to speak.
  • Best Series, by request of its originator, was moved to a committee, to report back next year. (I think he realized that everyone was getting very tired and cranky and things were not looking that friendly for a contentious subject.)
  • Electronic Signatures returned with new language from the committee. This then became a giant clusterfuck that took 30 minutes to resolve and I still don’t know why. Eventually, this too passed. It should be noted that this allows the use of electronic signatures but the means are at the discretion of the WorldCon.
  • Meeting was then adjourned in memory of Bobbie DuFault and Peggy Rae Sapienza.

PLEASE NOTE: I am now going to start going through my previous liveblogs and try to correct some name misspellings. Please bear with me.

I also have some thoughts on the Hugos, and maybe I’ll type those up at some point. But this post is already 1K words long, and my liveblog from today was almost 3K. I’m getting pretty worded out, here.

See you in Kansas City next year, space cowboys.

Categories
worldcon

WSFS Meeting #4 (Sunday): Liveblog

1334: Freedom indeed. This is Rachael, signing off.

Continue reading “WSFS Meeting #4 (Sunday): Liveblog”
Categories
worldcon

WSFS Meeting #3 (Saturday): Liveblog

1153: Meeting is adjourned until 1000 tomorrow.

Continue reading “WSFS Meeting #3 (Saturday): Liveblog”
Categories
worldcon

Brief(?) Summary and Commentary on Thursday and Friday WSFS Meetings

Just what it says on the tin. As a note, for my liveblogs I generally try to keep my commentary to standalone statements or parenthetical statements. I do my best to summarize fairly from what I can hear and process while pressed for time. This post is all me.

I have no intention of reproducing the summaries of the resolutions and amendments here. Please see the Sasquan agenda, I will refer to them by name.

Playlist of all the 2015 meetings on youtube is here.

Preliminary Business Meeting (Thursday)

Liveblog here.

So the entire point of the preliminary meeting is to set the agenda and debate times for the main meetings, which is actually extremely powerful and should not be discounted. This is a great place to strange resolutions and amendments in the cradle, so to speak.

The big take-homes:

  • The two year eligibility amendment got killed
  • All other proposed amendments (E Pluribus Hugo, 4 and 6, the 5% Solution, Best Series, Nominee Diversity, Multiple Nominations, Electronic Signatures) made it through with varying amounts of debate time set
  • All amendments originally voted on at LonCon last year were assigned debate times, to be ratified or not in the main business meetings.
  • The electronic signatures amendment, which is supposed to make remote site selection easier, got referred to a short-term committee to come up with language that didn’t suck.
  • E Pluribus Hugo (referred to hereafter as EPH) and 4 and 6 (4/6) were specifically assigned to be debated and voted on for Sunday. This is unusual because there isn’t normally a Sunday meeting. But this takes the two most contentious amendments (the ones that will affect Hugo nominating/voting) and attempts to give them a day of their own. Assuming we manage to get everything else done by the end of business on Saturday.

This meeting was pretty rowdy for a preliminary meeting. I expect things are only going to get more energetic as time goes on.

Business Meeting Number One (Friday)

Liveblog here.

The start of this meeting was devoted to taking care of business that should have gotten done at the preliminary meeting and didn’t. Here are the highlights:

  • The YA Hugo Committee reported that a YA-focused award is a proper request and necessary, but a YA award may not fit in with the normal Hugo methodology. So we should think perhaps something more Campbellian. The committee wants to continue study of the topic for another year and was granted permission.
  • All of the eligibility extensions were passed.
  • The resolution requesting anonymized nomination data for this year’s Hugo’s be provided was passed and Sasquan’s Hugo administrating team expressed their intention to comply with the resolution, which is technically non-binding. Hard data for this year’s clusterfuck will be provided before the Sunday meeting to the people (presumably EPH) who requested it. Other people can request the data, but it will not be simply posted publicly.
  • There was a “Committee on the Whole” regarding EPH and 4/6. This wasn’t for substantive debate, but rather consideration of technical issues. EPH presented their methodology and I was honestly impressed. They’ve converted me to their side and convinced me that they can help deal with the administrative issues; the 2016 Hugo administrator stated that he would also be working with the EPH people no matter what to help them refine their method. For 4/6, it was decided that the actual numbers (number of nominations you make versus number of nominees per category) would be decided on Sunday by fill in the blanks voting rather than burn the limited time today.
  • Just as a note, I consider the potential of EPH to break accidental Dr. Who domination slates a feature, not a bug. I am really fucking tired of seeing one show completely dominate a short form category that should rightfully even have podcasts in it.
  • Millenium Philcon (2001 Worldcon) finally has distributed the last of its funds and been formally discharged from duty.
  • We took up the Popular Ratification amendment from LonCon3 for voting. This amendment would have put WSFS business up for popular ratification (vote by all members of WSFS, which literally means all members of Worldcon, attending and supporting) after passing two rounds of the Worldcon-based WSFS business meetings.
    • This would have made amending the WSFS constitution a three year process, which I wasn’t wild about, but also had a five year sunset clause, after which it would have required re-ratification.
    • One of the main concerns about this seemed to be the power of mob voting by supporting members, thanks to the ample demonstration by the puppies this year. This is not a fear I’m that convinced about, considering popular ratification doesn’t allow for anything passed by the business meeting to be modified, etc. Just voted up or down. Word case scenario, nothing gets done for five years if the trolls are that dedicated.
    • It should also be noted that anyone has a right to present new business to the WSFS meeting, whether they are in attendance or not.
    • Kevin Standlee made the point that it’s time for supporting members to get treated like actual members. I tend to agree with this.
    • This would also have been, in my opinion, an important measure for keeping the WORLD in WorldCon; it would have given power to people remotely and internationally. There are plenty of reasons people can’t make it to the WSFS meeting even if they attend WorldCon; there are many more people who would like to participate in the community who are continually blocked by the stranglehold that America holds on the convention.
      • ETA: Point well-made to me by David Clements just now. One problem that does need to be considered is the language barrier. Having voting on resolutions available is not really inclusive if people can’t understand what they’re being asked to vote on. Even a “plain language” explanation of an amendment would be American English. So this is something that needs to be addressed by another attempt at this kind of proposal.
    • Also, one would hope that this would encourage broader involvement by making voting more accessible. The harder you make participation, the fewer people participate. We see that again and again. Make it easier, you’ll get more people who will become interested and get involved.
  • But anyway, you’ll note that all this is in past tense, because Popular Ratification got voted down in the business meeting, 69 for to 99 against. Which I am, as you might imagine, very unhappy about.
  • The open source software resolution failed after a lot of linguistic nitpicking.

What I’m most disappointed about is the failure of the Popular Ratification. I also really, really didn’t like a sort of implied insult to all non-attending voters; people brought up again and again that these resolutions were just too complicated, etc. People just wouldn’t care. While I admit there’s an argument to be made there (please see voter ennui in the US) the implication that no one could possibly care of understand what’s going on at the business meeting so it’s okay to exclude them is pretty upsetting to me. Particularly because if we want to continue to pretend we are an internationally-minded body, it behooves us to make the proceedings accessible internationally. And not just to people rich enough to attend.

Final note: Even the Worldcon chair acknowledges I am dapper as fuck. Thank you.

Categories
worldcon

WSFS Meeting #2 (Friday): Liveblog

1247: Meeting is adjourned.

Continue reading “WSFS Meeting #2 (Friday): Liveblog”
Categories
worldcon

WSFS Meeting #1 (Thursday): Liveblog

As a note, all the business (amendments and motions) I’m talking about can be found here.

Continue reading “WSFS Meeting #1 (Thursday): Liveblog”
Categories
science fiction worldcon

Looking forward to WSFS meetings

I ended up browsing a bit on File770 and saw the latest collection of news, which included this astounding example of hollering before you’re hurt from David Pascoe writing on Sarah Hoyt’s blog:

While there’s a good deal of speculation over whether such a motion will even get approved (what then, would supporting members get for their hard earned filthy lucre? How could WorldCon possibly garner any kind of diverse, international support by shutting out anybody who can’t afford to fly across an ocean to come to the majority of conventions?), that it’s not reduced to backroom rumor mills is a sign of how strong the desire is to keep out the undesirable types.

A few points after reading the post:

  1. As a queer pinko liberal SJWer hell bent on destroying everything that makes America great(TM) I would stand against that kind of resolution so fast that the air displacement would break the sound barrier. In reality, I (and I surmise a lot of my filthy brethren and sistren) want supporting memberships to be cheaper. Because greater accessibility to voting is a good thing, always.
    1. I don’t have a problem that the self-named puppies want to nominate things they like. I never have, because I’m an actual adult human being who isn’t threatened by people disagreeing with me. It’s okay to not like things as long as you’re not a dick about it!
    2. I do have a problem with the fact that the puppies aren’t acting like puppies–they’re acting like seagulls. As in making a lot of noise and shitting all over everything. Which is, by the way, a classic example of being a dick.
    3. It’s also okay if things I don’t like get awards! Things I don’t like get awards all the time! Almost nothing I ever think should get an Oscar gets an Oscar, for example. I might grumble, but I haven’t made it my mission to personally destroy the Academy Awards because it’ll make people who have sinned by disagreeing with my taste upset.
    4. Considering the go-to whinge on the puppy side seems to be the ceaseless butthurt over If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love, the hypocrisy is just astounding.
  2. As a note, I’ve heard a couple suggestions that there should be some kind of test to force people to prove they’ve read the works they’re nominating/voting for. I would also vote against that so fast I might injure myself. Making voting less accessible doesn’t help anyone. Or at least not anyone I’d want to help.
  3. If there is a more lovingly self-pitying way to characterize those who disagree with one’s position than calling them “puppy kickers,” I have yet to hear it. Barf.
  4. Speaking of making life hard for anyone who can’t fly across the ocean to attend a convention, how about we stop holding so many WorldCons in the US? Helsinki in 2017. Just sayin’.

If I wasn’t clear enough, the ego-stroking conspiracy paranoia about limiting voting memberships? Appears to be just paranoia. The lovelies at File770 helpfully provided the supporting link for current business on the WSFS agenda for this year, and destroying all those who dare disagree with my taste in escapist fiction being a giant dickbag about voting memberships isn’t on there as of yet. Since there’s some new items on there, a quick run through of thoughts:

  • 4 and 6: still in favor of this
  • The Five Percent Solution: YES STILL IN FAVOR
  • Best Series: They’re no longer trying to destroy novelette to make room for this category. I generally tend to be of the mind that more rocket ships to go around is a good thing, but on the other hand, I have no desire to sign myself up for that amount of reading. On a third hand (because I’m an alien creature) maybe it would encourage people to finish up their goddamn series in a timely manner instead going on and on for like 20+ books. Probably not, but I could hope. On the fence, still thinking about it.
  • E Pluribus Hugo: Still can’t wrap my brain around this. Still think it’s needlessly complex. Still willing to be convinced, but as that might well require a powerpoint presentation, I doubt that will happen.
  • Multiple Nominations: Ensuring that a work can only be in one category? I’m in favor of that. Spread the rocket ships around, etc. I also consider it necessary if Best Series if going to be a thing.
  • Nominee Diversity: I’m so goddamn tired of the dramatic presentation short form being the Best Doctor Who category. Also, whether the author is someone I personally like or not, I don’t think any one person needs to have a lock down on all or most of the slots in a category. Stop being greedy. (Though I think some clarification is likely necessary when it comes to authors, for example, how that works in a co-author situation, etc.)
  • Two Year Eligibility: The part of me that never has enough time to read thinks sure, why not. The part of me that understands math points out that if there’s a two year range of eligibility, you’re really just doubling your field. Not in favor. Could potentially be argued around, but not bloody likely.
  • Electronic Signatures: Seems like a no-brainer. Will hopefully help give site selection another little boost when it comes to trying to diversify Worldcon geographically.
  • I Remember the Future: Sure, why not.
  • Hugo Eligibility Extension for Predestination: Again, sure, why not.
  • Hugo Nominating Data Request: It would certainly cut down on the speculation in all quarters. I’m in favor of more data being available–so long as anonymity is guaranteed.
  • Open Source Software: Sure, why not? Is there a reason to not?
  • MPC Funding: Another sure, why not?

NOTE: I will be attending all of the WSFS meetings at Sasquan unless something actively prevents me from doing so, since it’s been asked a couple of times. And if there is wifi to be had, I will be liveblogging at this space. If there isn’t wifi, I’ll livetweet from @katsudonburi. I just type a lot faster (and more coherently) than I can swype tweets into being, so keep your fingers crossed for wifi that won’t make my wallet cry.

Categories
worldcon

…best saga? Seriously?

Guess I missed some WSFS excitement while I was at Weddingpalooza over the weekend. (Weddingpalooza, ie two weddings in one weekend) went swimmingly, by the way. I looked dapper as fuck and danced (including the Time Warp) until I could dance no more because my back wasn’t being an asshole this weekend. Shocking, considering I spent three nights on a fold-out couch bed belonging to my best friend, which she fondly calls “the iron maiden.”

Geek weddings are the best, by the way. Just in case you forgot.

Anyway, these amendments. I was already planning to get my ass to all the WSFS meetings at Worldcon this year–and if there is wifi to be had, I will liveblog them. Otherwise, expect a lot of tweeting. Some of the proposed amendments are really interesting, but let me get this one out of the way:

Best saga? Are you fucking serious? And this is worth killing the novelette category over? WHAT?

Honestly, I wouldn’t even care if the proposal was to just add this “best saga” category. Hell, I’d probably even vote for it then, as long as the eligibility process made sense. (Which I’m not convinced it does as worded, by the way.) I’d think hey, that’s fun, and probably then never cast an actual vote in the category because I don’t have time to read an entire goddamn series, let alone multiple ones, in the time between the nominees being revealed and voting closing. And that’s fine. If you have more time than me to read, more power to you. Hell, I’d also support a Best YA Hugo and Best Interactive Story (ie video game) as well because I think there’s some great art going on that’s not getting recognized. (And while I’m writing a wish list, I’d also like a puppy and for someone to fix the Best Fancast so it’s just Best Podcast.)

But why the fuck is this proposed at the expense of the novelette? Was someone savaged by a novelette as a child or something? Supposedly this is to reflect changes in publishing, but I honestly don’t buy that premise at all. There are a lot of series today, sure. But there are also a lot of novellas and novelettes being published stand alone by people trying to hold on to the cutting edge of electronic publishing. The industry is still shifting, and we know not where it’ll end up.

I also think it’s pretty goddamn unfair to lump novelettes in with novellas, just because there’s a certain amount of detail and complexity of plot one can develop per wordcount, and a story that’s 10k words is going to set about things very differently than a story that’s 30k words. I’ve written (and had published) short stories, novelettes, and novellas. Yes, there’s a sort of spectrum at the borders between the categories (welcome to the hell I experience as a geologist every day, kids), but a 5k story is very different than a 12 k story is very different from a 25k story in structure and technique and let’s not pretend otherwise.

And seriously, if the idea of adding yet another Hugo is impossible and some category has to fall under the ax, why novelette? Why not best long form editor? Most regular readers probably have no idea who edited their books and no good way of finding out.

Finally, it’s a bit bullshit that if series are special and need their own hugo, the individual novels within can still be nominated for best novel. As far as I can recall, there is no other category like that. Spread the love if you’re going to spread the love. Yes, nominating a novel from the middle of a series is a tough row to hoe because a lot of people (like me) will give it a go and then drop it if reading the rest of the series is necessary to understand its supposed good qualities due to the required time commitment; that said, is giving series their own category really going to help that issue out? Or are you just going to basically pit dedicated fans of one series against dedicated fans of another?

Admittedly, I’d pay to watch a brawl between Jim Butcher fans and GRRM fans. Bonus for costumes worn.

(Anyway, yes. I will be voting against this amendment.)

Other proposed amendments:

4 and 6: I really like this one, actually. Allowing fewer nominations than there will be ultimate nominees makes total control of a ballot via logrolling much more difficult, and then expanding out to 6 nominees instead of 5 will hopefully provide for a wider array of nominees! Yes please.

The Five Percent Solution: Getting rid of the fucking 5% rule THANK YOU. This rule has acted to the detriment of the short story category since its addition, and it needs to go. I think we’re getting a mini Renaissance of short stories (and novelettes, THANKS) thanks to a wide array of well-edited paying markets, so vote spread is going to happen. More riches for us to read!

E Pluribus Hugo: This amendment is too complex for me to understand on a Monday morning after only one cup of tea. This does not bode well, but I will attempt to read it over again when I’m not suffering serious post-wedding fatigue.

It’s going to be an interesting WSFS meeting. I better bring an umbrella to shield myself from the intensity of the rules lawyering.

Categories
books worldcon

The Hugo Nomination Problem or, I Am a Bad Reader

[ETA 5/3/15: It seems I was unclear that by a recommended reading list, I mean a large list with things added throughout the year that I can then winnow down myself. Not a short slate of nominees sized specifically to fill or partially fill categories. I have updated the post to reflect my position more accurately.]

I’ve been meaning to write this post for nearly a week, but work has been absolutely batshit and promises to continue to be so for another two weeks. So yay for the lunch break blog post, right? This is to say, if this is not particularly coherent or well-organized, please forgive me.

I was at Penguicon over the weekend, which was a fabulous convention, by the way, marred only by the fact that the assholes in the room next to mine would not shut the fuck up at four in the morning. But everything to do with the actual convention was lovely and full of chocolate glee, and I’m extra happy to have gotten to be on panels and then do karaoke with Steven Saus, Sarah Hans, and Michael Cieslak, to name just three of the many lovely people I met. (I met more lovely people, but their business cards are currently out of my reach and I’m complete shit with names. Sorry, everyone.)

By the way, karaoke? I still fucking kill it when I do Tribute. My demon voice cannot be stopped.

Anyway, on Sunday at Penguicon, I ended up setting off a discussion about Hugo nominations mostly because I was grumpy and wanted to go over what actually happened when the SFWA bulletin blew up (tl;dr version: “Haw haw ladies!” “Could you please not?” “Fuck you liberal fascists!” “No, sirs, fuck YOU.”) as opposed to what’s being incorrectly summarized everywhere, mostly by people fighting about the bullshit puppy slates. But anyway, after I got things going, two gentlemen started arguing about the Hugo nomination process, and I feel like a total asshole because I didn’t catch either of their names, but they both had extremely valid points.

Most Excellent Dude Number One has several working ideas on ways the WSFS constitution could be amended to de-fang slates so this bullshittery cannot happen again. (As I pointed out, well, in a couple years at best, since you can’t amend the WSFS constitution overnight.) Most Excellent Dude Number Two didn’t think that was any kind of solution, and that the only real way to fix things was some serious get out the vote effort.

Honestly, I’m not sure if either way works. I’d have to see some convincing math on any WSFS amendments and have a good long think about if it’s going to actually fix a problem or just make things worse. (Though I think there could be something to limiting nominations to three per category, say. That would shake things up a bit at least.) And it’s also a fact that the nominating and voting statistics for the Hugos are nothing short of embarrassing.

LonCon3, which I believe is now officially the biggest Worldcon ever, had 8784 attending and supporting memberships, which would be the people who could nominate and vote–and this doesn’t even count the attending members of the previous Worldcon, who could also vote! The most nominating ballots were cast for novel, with a total of 1595, just 18% of eligible members. The rest of the categories had far fewer nominating ballots, coming in at 3.6% to 11.3% of the membership. Actual votes cast tended to be about three times higher than nominating ballots. Still embarrassing, but slightly less so.

So yes, there’s definitely a get out the vote problem, though I’m left wondering just what WSFS can be expected to do about that, other than finding ways to make voting and nominating more accessible. I’d be in favor, for example, of severely lowering the price of supporting memberships, in order to open up the process particularly to people in non-US countries who are already getting screwed by the exchange rate. Education efforts? Maybe.

But as sad as the actual voting numbers are, the real problem is the nominating numbers. And I don’t honestly think that’s something that can be fixed easily by amending the bylaws.

Forgive me if I assume my personal experience can stand at something close to average, but I think the nomination issue isn’t really one of accessibility. There have been many years past when I haven’t nominated for the Hugos at all outside of dramatic presentation, because I quite literally had not read anything that had come out that year. There is a lot of good literature out in the field, and a lot of bad. I have only a very limited amount of time to read. The only reason I’ve been reading much newer stuff lately is because I’ve been trying to help with the occasional podcast for Skiffy and Fanty, or because I have writer friends who have new things coming out, so I make it my business to actually read them. (And I don’t do that nearly as often as I should, sorry guys. I’m such a shit.) But there’s also a very real reason why, on the podcast, you hear me mostly on movie episodes, and why here I mostly talk about movies. Movies are a much smaller time commitment, and I know I can sit down and get through one in normally less than two hours and still be able to have thoughtful opinions.

I’m not going to nominate things I haven’t read. I’d like to think most people who are interested in the Hugos are honest enough to not nominate or vote for things they haven’t read. So I’m thinking what we have is a big blob of voters like me, who have no idea what the fuck we’d even nominate because we haven’t really read that much, and in fact we’re waiting for the list of nominees to come out so we know what we should be reading.

Is that something WSFS can really fix? I guess you could argue for some kind of juried award, but then you’re only as good as your jury.

This is the point where I obviously speak only for myself, but what I need is help, to be honest. I don’t need someone breathing down my neck and telling me I need to nominate when I have no idea what the hell I’d even nominate. Some of it’s a self-actualization issue, where I need to just get off my ass and find the time to read more, and try to read things the actual year they come out. But it’s pretty overwhelming, guys. We are blessed to live in an age where your genre choices are not limited to what you can find on the spinny racks at the grocery store, or on that one shelf in your local library where the dude with the funny-smelling coat always hangs out. Which is awesome! But it also means that there’s so much coming out every day, at some point book mountain gets so high that you’re like fuck this, I don’t even know where to start so instead I’m going to make myself a cup of tea and play World of Warcraft while Captain America: The Winter Soldier plays on the TV in the background.

I’m sure this does not reflect on me well as a human being. I also know I used to read a hell of a lot more back before I didn’t have a full time job and a part-time writing gig and a daily commute during which reading tends to give me severe motion sickness. But here it is, the call for help. I seriously need some helpful soul, or maybe some kind of crowd-sourced thing that can tell me what I should be reading as things come out so I’m not floundering under drifts of pages on book mountain when the Hugo nomination period opens. Preferably some recommendation engine where my fellow writers, bless you guys I love you all but damn I know how we are, are not allowed to nominate or push their own books. I don’t want reviews, I don’t even want opinions, I just want a simple but large list of titles and authors and maybe a helpful link where someone can say hey, I think this book should totally get a Hugo and/or other award or is just awesome and you should read it anyway, and then other people who agree can maybe give it a plus one, and that’s it. Let me form my own opinions.

Does something like this already exist and I’ve just never seen it because I’m a failure at google? Is this something a complete computer incompetent like me could set up on her own site pretty easily? I’d do it in a heartbeat if I knew how.

Categories
books worldcon

The United States of Rachael Does Not Negotiate With Terrorists

So this year’s Hugos is basically the same story as last year, but more so. Apparently we have not only the Sad Puppies, we have Rapid Puppies courtesy of that corpulent pustule on the anus of humanity, Vox Day. And I’ve heard mentions of Gamergate? Haven’t been able to easily locate the truth, don’t actually care that much, but it’d certainly be a match made in pathetic teenaged misogynist fantasy wankland.

My response is mostly the same as last year, to be honest. It’s going to be a personal choice how people react to what they are and aren’t willing to read. I’m not going to tell people how to conduct themselves. Everyone has a personal line that they’re going to draw, and it’s not mine to judge or argue.

I am personally, deeply uncomfortable with the idea of sight unseen torpedoing every work in a category because it’s got puppy shit on it, but on the other hand, I also have no leg to stand on to lecture other people on what should or shouldn’t let them sleep at night. Part of this is because I know Lou Antonelli and know him to be a good guy, and I’m definitely going to be reading and considering his stuff. Also, I don’t think blanket voting No Award is going to necessarily discourage this behavior in the future; we’re dealing with nihilistic wankbabies here that are going to play Heads We Win, Tails You Lose. The only ultimate win is figuring out a decent fix for the nomination process for the future, which is a whole other kettle of fish and involves going to WSFS meetings and dealing with the arcane rules lawyering that goes on there.

Yes, by the way, I will be going to the WSFS meetings at Worldcon this year, and as long as there is wifi, I will be liveblogging them. If no wifi, expect tweets.

Anyway, I had my attention drawn to this comment by the Pustule in another post:

If No Award takes a fiction category, you will likely never see another award given in that category again. The sword cuts both ways, Lois. We are prepared for all eventualities.

Well, that’s not threatening at all. It really sounds like “vote for the shit I have presented you, or the Hugos get it.” And sorry. The United States of Rachael does not negotiate with terrorists. Because this is the thing. Other than the Pustule’s story last year (which I actually did read, in its entirety, out loud, whilst drunk, and it was hilaribad) I actually tried to give all the nominees a fair shake. I made an attempt to read each and every one of the offerings. And most of them? I gave up after 10 pages, normally because I was bored, or occasionally offended, but ultimately entirely unconvinced by the work and its worthiness of even being considered for an award.

I’m not going to change that policy this year. If I can’t even fucking get through a story, it has no business being on an award ballot. If I finish reading it, and still have no idea why the hell it should even be considered award-worthy, I’m not going to vote to give it an award. It goes under No Award. Period. No matter who nominated it. You can’t make me.

Really, I’m a little stunned that the Pustule’s somehow managed to hit what I thought was the bedrock of deeply pathetic, then whip out a rotary drill and keep digging down. Look, dude. Forcing us to read your shit isn’t going to make us like it. Threatening to blow up our awards because we don’t like your shit is not going to make us like it. You cannot threaten people into loving or respecting you or your work. I’m sure if you literally held a gun to someone’s head, you could make them say just about anything, but none of it would be true. A compliment forcibly paid under duress does not change the basic facts of the matter.

If the only way you can gain acclaim or success is by cheating or threatening your way to it? You’ve already lost and will remain forever a giant, wanky loser.

Some other good posts about the general Hugos bullshittery: