Comments on PaulCornell.com: Casual Fridays: Outlandish Flanking

So under your system there would just be panel-awa...

2012-01-17T06:47:05.426Z

So under your system there would just be panel-awarded awards. Fair enough.

I simply don't see the point of any award give...

2012-01-16T11:43:26.539Z

I simply don't see the point of any award given by an electorate not compelled to have read/watched/listened to/otherwise experienced preferably all the eligible works, but, in cases where that isn't practical, at the very least the shortlist.

How can anyone make an informed choice about, say, which novel should win an award if they have perhaps only read one or two of the contenders, or worse haven't read any but are voting on the basis of which one they assume must be the best based on some extrinsic factor? How can anyone think that the result of such an award tells anything about which is the best novel published that year, when it probably is just the one most people read?

So while I agree that pushy campaigning is distasteful, mainly because it might encourage such partial (in all sense of the word) participation -- and I think that the fact it's impossible to legislate against such campaigning in person doesn't make it okay: things aren't made acceptable simply because they cannot be economically stopped, in the same way that, for example, copyright piracy does not become okay just because it's not practical to stop it -- it doesn't really bother me because I think any award for which it might be worthwhile (ie, ones with an unregulated electorate) is basically, fundamentally, meaningless. Possibly a nice sideshow and an excuse to scrub up and have a bit of a party, and that's not to be sniffed at, but no guide to actual quality.

I'm terribly sorry.

2012-01-15T22:33:00.605Z

I'm terribly sorry.

I guess mileage varies but for me there is a world...

2012-01-14T21:53:01.589Z

I guess mileage varies but for me there is a world of difference between being angry and displaying a truly nuclear level of anger. The phrase jumped out at me to the extent that I thought "wow, who was that?" and checked. All I could see was the conversation between you and Niall and not only does it not fit the bill but if anyone should be sheepish about their behaviour in that discussion I don't think it is Niall. So, whilst it might be water under the bridge, I think it is dishonest to bring it here anonymously (particularly in a post on the benefits of getting everything out in the open).

I certainly assumed Paul was referring to me. I th...

2012-01-14T17:46:36.339Z

I certainly assumed Paul was referring to me. I think our disagreement was robust enough (and I was annoyed enough) that while I wouldn't have called it "nuclear" I can recognise why Paul does. Which also means that while I think Paul really should have named names, linked and cited sources, I'm a little sheepishly grateful that he didn't this time ...

It was indeed Niall, he's a prominent critic, ...

2012-01-14T17:37:19.840Z

It was indeed Niall, he's a prominent critic, and as I've just confirmed by a quick phone call to him, he was indeed angry. So, as that's the only characterisation offered, I don't quite see what you're objecting to. Niall and I are friends, we apologised to each other after the Twitter debate, and I deliberately didn't name him or say anything negative about him, because I didn't want to return to us being at odds. He assures me we haven't. I hope that reassures you.

If you are going to complain that critics of eligi...

2012-01-14T17:04:55.957Z

If you are going to complain that critics of eligibility posts get away "without ever having to define who those terrible people are" then it seems like you should name the "prominent critic who responded to my Twitter posts with a truly nuclear level of anger". Was it Niall Harrison? Because people can quickly look up the conversation and see how massively inaccurate that characterisation is.

Indeed, Eddie. Mucc: relax about that dance, we...

2012-01-14T08:17:17.487Z

Indeed, Eddie. Mucc: relax about that dance, we're fine, and your support is much appreciated. Nick: I don't think anyone had many options at the time. Mark: yes, what I'm urging is 'everyone is engaged' rather than 'one person is'. Graeme: but I think that system is human life, I don't see a way to fix the nature of mankind. Sean: absolutely.

What Paul said largely covers my response. I was o...

2012-01-13T23:10:53.308Z

What Paul said largely covers my response. I was of course aware of the hugos and the nebulas but it wasn't until listening to Coode Street and Galactic Suburbia that I had any real sense on when the occurred or how one might vote.

It's largely through author self promotion that I remember when they are are on.

It strikes me that determining what has "outstanding merit" falls prey to all sorts of biases (including Gender mentioned by Paul).

I think the best thing for the health of awards is that the voting base be increased, so that you get less of a clique determining what's good .

I guess the question I have about all these award ...

2012-01-13T21:38:38.354Z

I guess the question I have about all these award contents is don't they all just boil down to being popularity contests rather than actual awards for outstanding merit?

I mean, most awards are popularity contests I suppose (the Oscars for example) but I thought the self-selecting geeks who make up fan culture would know how troubling popularity contests were from losing them consistently throughout life and find a system that awarded merit rather than whoever had the most friends.

And I should be clear. My problem isn't with the authors who do this. My problem is with the system itself.

It seems that in all these cases of 'excessive...

2012-01-13T20:53:27.194Z

It seems that in all these cases of 'excessive self-promotion', the nominee has won by pushing against a tide of electorate apathy and/or lack of promotion for the awards in general. Where potential nominees and voters are actively engaged with an awards system there shouldn't be a problem. I'll be very interested to see how the Eagles pan out this year, for instance, now that the nomination system is so open and widely promoted.

I thought the real Sam Stone problem was less to d...

2012-01-13T19:55:20.158Z

I thought the real Sam Stone problem was less to do with her, and more that her husband/publisher should have had the sense to step back as soonas he realised she was dominating the award. But I wasn't a member, so might have missed some details.
There easily could be excessive self promotion. "Send me a screenshot of your voting for me, and I'll send you an eARC of my next novel." anything short of that strikes me as crazy to object to. If writers have ever been able to just write, and not sell themselves then those days are long gone.

I'm immensely pleased that Demon Knights
2012-01-13T18:36:04.014Z
I'm immensely pleased that Demon Knights is ding so well. It's my favourite comic of the new 52, and I would be very sad to see it go before at least fifteen issues and an annual. It's really nice that DC appears to be running all these new titles for at least a year. I was doing the Dance of Please Don't Be Cancelled every month before I clicked through to the solicits, especially last month with the new arcs starting up. It's great that the smaller titles especially are getting a fair chance.

I don't really have many thoughts about self-promotion past the fact that I appreciate the annual reminder of what an author has written in the past year. Often I'll pick up things I've missed.

Thanks for letting us know about Outland. Hopefully someone in Canada will pick it up. If not, DVDs. Only the one lesbian, I see. Oh well. One is far, far better than none at all. Plus Christine Anu's fantastic.

I use 'we' there to indicate that I'm ...

2012-01-13T17:39:52.777Z
I use 'we' there to indicate that I'm equally vulnerable to that effect.

I actually look forward to the surge of promotiona...

2012-01-13T17:39:14.844Z
I actually look forward to the surge of promotional posts about awards, they build my enthusiasm and interest in the awards, and doubtless add a number of new works and writers to my to-be-read list.
As for "flanking", I noticed a similar outbreak a couple of years ago when everyone decided to used "Schwerpunkt" at the same time.

But wouldn't it be immensely easier for you if...

2012-01-13T17:38:36.783Z
But wouldn't it be immensely easier for you if you were given a big card saying 'you're *allowed* to do this'? I think you're actually agreeing with what I've said, while expressing anger at it. This stuff gets us to that place inside us where we're not sure what side is what. And that works to the advantage of the forces that, historically, oppress women.

I'm not troubled by other writers promoting th...

2012-01-13T17:34:38.322Z
I'm not troubled by other writers promoting themselves. It's not, however, something I'm comfortable with personally and I'm rather horrified by the idea that it should be almost mandatory. I'm not good at talking about my work, I'm not sure that this new world in which writers have to be all-singing, all-dancing road-shows is suitable for all of us. Maybe I'm a dinosaur and deserve to die out. I don't know.
But what really, really troubles me, beyond my own diffidence, is that what is considered 'acceptable' self-promotion by writer A is often labelled 'pushy' or 'over-the-top' when done by writer B -- and the difference between those two writers is often that A is male and B is female. We live in a culture that does not always look well on women acting assertively, and female behaviour is policed far more heavily than male. So what is easy for a male writer can be much harder for a female one. And if we are all having to go out and sell ourselves, the women are probably going to be at a disadvantage just because they're women. So self-promotion and how it's received becomes another stumbling block on a playing field that's already not level. I sometimes feel that this self-promotion culture is yet one more barrier that makes it even harder for women writers, writers of colour, LGBT writers and anyone else is vulnerable to social distaste, reprimand or policing.
Like Anne,what I am happy with -- what I do, in fact, come awards season, is talk about those books and stories that I've read and loved. I'm happy to do so. But promoting myself is a lot harder.

As I said in the blog. (I'm going to be saying...

2012-01-13T17:19:11.959Z
As I said in the blog. (I'm going to be saying that a lot in this comments list.)

I have no problem with authors promoting the award...

2012-01-13T17:14:04.978Z
I have no problem with authors promoting the awards in general and encouraging people to vote, and also clarifying which of their works are eligible if there's any possible confusion. But I think if you're going to be self-promoting, why not be more inclusive? Where's the harm in saying "I read X, Y and Z this year and thought them all excellent. If you liked them too, why not vote - and of course that goes for my own book, W, as well."

There are good, tasteful ways to do this stuff, and an obnoxious "Me! Me! Me!" way :)