Home

Details

Several years back, when I was still a SFWA member, there was a huge panic over the "Threat" of electronic publishing.

Think about that. In an organization of writers of speculative fiction, there were a large number of people who wanted to shovel back the tide.  The smart ones got into it on the ground floor and are making money. Some of them fought it for years and didn't.

The second part of the discussion was a writer complaining about "pixel-stained, technopeasant wretches" giving work away for free online, thus watering down the paying market for "real" writers.

I had a very polite discussion with Piers Anthony, who expressed the opinion that while online presence was probably marketable, he didn't see how it could compare to a "well-run ad campaign."

Of course, an ad campaign costs money for either publisher or author, and if the publisher, it cuts into their margin for other matters, including paying the writers, which is why it's generally reserved for well-known, big-selling authors.

At the time, I'd written five books in two years, but was still largely unknown.  I pointed out that one of my free satirical pieces had been Farked, and gotten a half million hits in under 24 hours.  There's no way I could have bought publicity like that.  It was off the cuff snark that took me perhaps two hours, for which I might have eventually been paid $200.  Which would you rather have, $200 now, or half a million prospective readers for the future?

Piers was absolutely correct, but he was also speaking from a zone of comfort in an established position.

I attended SFWA functions at Torcon, where I tended bar, Loscon, and then Philcon.  The staff of SFWA knew who I was.  They greeted me on sight by first name. When I pulled out cover sheets of my next book ("The Hero"), one of the officers said, "Oh, a collaboration. Who's John Ringo?"

At that point, John had about ten more books than I did, including three NYT bestsellers with David Weber.

But the in-crowd hadn't heard of him.

And thus it often still is.  The in-crowd goes to the meetings, to the literary conventions, the writer that goes with them gets known, and then gets mentioned by friends, blogged about, and eventually, gifted with suggestions of awards.

Think about winners the last few years.  Are they good?  Generally. Popular? Within a small subsect always.  Not always among SF fans overall.  Can you think of any winners, where you'd think, "This other book that came out that year was better. Why didn't it win?"

George RR Martin laments the "marketing" that has come to the Hugos, that the Old Way is no longer respected. 

That's because an NYT bestseller with 13 books out was unknown to the people who promote the award.

And this is not their fault. When Piers and George started selling, there was no internet, and bookstores, quite common, if they sold SF, had a section with most of the current releases and staff who knew what they were.

It is no longer that time.  There are works that were promoted for the ballot this year that are good works, two of them from friends, and I never knew these works existed.  There's just no way to track the huge disbursement of SF.  We won.  Nerds won the culture war. We're everywhere.

We're so everywhere we don't even know who each other is anymore.

It used to be that the World Science Fiction Convention was THE place in the industry, and everyone knew everyone through no more than two connections.

Now, though, the comic cons, GenCon and DragonCon get more writers, and more readers, than Worldcon.

The only reason the internet wasn't used as a huge pimping and platform tool until now is because so many of the younger fen had no idea what the Hugo was, or how it was decided.

Once they discovered it, these young kids, in our thirties and forties (!) realized the only way to get seen was to make use of technology.

Piers laments free content (or did. That was some years ago).  George laments internet marketing. But both are here to stay, and I doubt most younger fen have any objection at all.

There are rumblings, proposals, and I fully expect that next year, there will be a dozen slates on major blogs promoting works for the Hugos.

So how is that bad?  Works you've not heard of will be mentioned, where you can easily see them. This translates as more sales for the authors. (My piece, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00QZV08SW?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwmichaelzwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00QZV08SW, when promoted, shot back into the Amazon top ten for Political Humor.  It had been #1.  Most of you have never heard of it until now, of course.)  It translates into more visibility for the award, more participation, more works proposed, more slated.

This is not the end of the Hugos. It is the rebirth.

Let us not rally the old guard to protect it from the future.  Let us celebrate it.

Details

So is Worldcon.

My daughter's first event was at 10 days old.  She's 17, has been to 17 Pennsics, 15 Windycons, 17 Marcons, dozens of Capricons, Libertycons, numerous other cons as one-offs. She runs my booth when I'm on panels.  She runs my booth at Comic and Anime cons, because she speaks that language.  She reads Molly Harper, Tamora Pierce, TA Barron, Piers Anthony, occasional Niven, Heinlein, Burroughs, lots of manga, some comics, she games a bit, cosplays. 

She has probably been to more events and conventions than you.

Today, she asked me, "So how do you get a Hugo?"

I explained that last year's Worldcon members, and this year's, can nominate, and this year's can vote and then nominate for next year, either supporting or attending.

She replied, "That's it?  From a small convention like that?" (She just finished running my booth at Indy Comic Con, with 30,000 attendees.)

Raised in fandom, child of an author who's been published since she was five, a dealer and attendee since before she was born, she:

A) Didn't really know what the Hugos are, and

2: Finds Worldcon to be small, unimpressive and not of note.

I guess she's the wrong kind of fan, too.

Don't worry. In twenty years, all 50 Worldcon attendees can vote each other a Hugo and be impressed with each other.

Details

EDIT:  Didn't get much response because most writers don't actually care what an author looks like. And, I've been busy with writing contracts.  This post is probably no longer of use, but I'll leave it for reference. Possibly after the awards I'll see about adding some stuff.

According to certain...well, all critics, the "Sad Puppies" slate of works are by authors who are all white, conservative males, and probably racist.  It's AN END TO DIVERSITY in the Hugos!

So, I thought, for reference, we should look at what diversity looked like in 2012:

width=

And 2013:

width=

 

Now, there are some decent people there, and some are my friends.

But apart from not discriminating against those with terrible fashion sense, I'm not seeing much ethnic diversity, and if you research the people in question, you'll find little political diversity.

Now, I "look" white, and am, except I'm an immigrant, thus an outsider to America, and have been discriminated against (and if you don't believe immigrants get discriminated against...I don't think any rational discourse between us is possible), and of course, there are various "white" ancestries. Mine includes recent Irish, which wasn't well regarded even a generation back, and Welsh, and "Scotch" as it was called, when my English mother dare marry beneath herself.

As far as politics, which are none of your business, but here goes:  I endorsed allowing gays to serve in the military when I was active duty back in the 1980s, before DADT was even a thing.  I'm areligious.  I think marriage should be a private matter without government definition of participants.  I don't "carefully manage" my blog posts because I support free speech.  I'm not sure where one commenter got "ultraconservative" from that.

I encourage the other nominees this year, whether SP endorsed or not, to post their images and backgrounds in comments, and I'll transfer them into this thread for comparison to the "diverse" Hugos of 2012 and 2013.

width=

Cedar Sanderson, finalist for Best Fan Writer:

Cedar considers herself apolitical. She was a military brat, homeschooled, and is currently a non-traditional student who supports herself largely with her writing while taking a full course load.

Details

width= 

The clown at the top, that is.

Chu's post assumes that the only reason Brad would marry a black woman is to use her for political gain and cover.  If he can conceive of marrying and reproducing with someone for such reasons, it means he's considered them. Racist.

There's no evidence that Brad has ever done so, but Chu assumes this must be the case.  Why? Because he's a racist.

He assumes that the black woman is either too stupid or too gullible to recognize such a fact, and can't divest from it.  Racist.

He seems unaware that she is both liberal, and possessed of a PhD in liberal arts.  Or did he assume that wasn't possible because she's a black woman?  If so, racist.

As a minority himself, he has no doubt experienced prejudice and bigotry, but is quite willing to use it as a weapon.

He's quite willing to use the black woman, AND THE MIXED RACE CHILD, to make his racist point.

That makes him a racist without any honor or decency.

And in fact, in a healthy marriage, the partners ARE each other's shield, sidearm, support and reinforcement.

But then, if you take your cultural advice from a former game show contestant, don't expect deep thought.

I'm not the oly one to see it, btw:    https://twitter.com/shoe0nhead/status/585707429473755136/photo/1

  1. Allegations of Ballot Jacking
  2. Bringing the World to Worldcon

Guns

Shirts

  • You are here:  
  • Home