Home

http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2015/04/ill-casting-final-hugo-vote/

 

And here was our exchange: 

 

Mike Williamson  Apr 2 (12 days ago)

to Info
I intended no "Disrespect for the institution" by my accidental early announcement, which I deleted once I was aware of the matter.

I did not receive the full email, and was not aware of the tradition of waiting for public announcement, which I support.

I apologized to the committee, who assured me it wasn't a problem.

Had you, or any other offended party, informed at once, I'd have removed it at once. As it was, I heard from a friend about 24 hours later.

Your actions are a textbook example of the problem. Rather than communicate, you'd rather rage in public. You did nothing to address the matter, but only used it for clickbait.

The SP slate included quite a few liberal authors, had you bothered to actually look at the proposed authors, rather than scream and leap.

I, for one, am nowhere near "conservative," and disdain the association.

It is unfortunate that rational discourse has become impossible with certain elements of fandom.

As to TNH's ridiculous and egotistical assertion that only certain fans are really fen:

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/who-s-a-real-fan

I would hope for more mature behavior from people with such credentials.

Thanks

Mike



Steve Davidson - Amazing Stories
Apr 2 (12 days ago)

to me
Mike,

I mentioned the circumstance, I did not name any names.

I have looked at the slate. My argument clearly states that it has nothing to do with the individuals involved or the works in question. It addresses the methodology.

I do not believe that the Hugo Awards are a proper venue for political action.

I'm sorry you got caught in the cross fire. I do however believe that you should have checked before announcing.

I made a distinction between fans and "politicized fans", nowhere did I suggest that the people involved are not fans.

Nowhere did I mention Teresa Nielsen Hayden.


steve



Mike Williamson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Apr 2 (12 days ago)

to Steve
If you see "politicized fans," it says more about you than about others.

And what "Checking" was I supposed to do? My point stands--bunches of people, including you and TNH, apparently started twitstorm about how I was ruining things. None of you took the time to send a polite reminder, which I would have heeded. It was 24 hours later when a friend more familiar, having been nominated before, made mention to me.

[EDIT:  NOTE: I BELIEVE THE OTHER EARLY ANNOUNCER WAS A NON-SP WRITER WITH TOR. SOMEHOW, THAT WRITER GETS BOTH A PASS, AND THEIR WRONG ASSIGNED TO SP.  THIS IS WHAT PASSES AS JOURNALISM IN THIS DEBATE.]

You speak in similar tones, I assume you are similar in outlook.

I don't believe anyone is trying to ruin, usurp, or otherwise damage the Hugos.

Again, that, to me, says more about you than others.

I would actually have preferred one of my other works of the year, which I feel was a story with serious merit. But then, it is a popularity award, and always has been. The Nebulae are the professional award. This is a fan award.


Steve Davidson - Amazing Stories
Apr 3 (11 days ago)

to me
Mike,

and its obvious to me that you read things through heavily tinted glasses.

Who should you have asked? How about the awards committee?

I think its pointless for us to trade emails.

steve



Mike Williamson
Apr 3 (11 days ago)

to Steve
To ask them, I'd have had to know to ask them. I assumed such info would be in the email--and it was, just buried.

But, you likewise could have asked me, as a courtesy, rather than assuming my intent was to "denigrate" the awards.

There's your tinted glasses.

It is indeed pointless. You have labeled me a villain without knowing me, and are uninterested in polite discussion.

In any case, the awards committee, whose opinion matters, assures me it's not a problem.