Hugo & Campbell Short Lists Announced

[akirlu]

The first raw list I saw from the SMOFS feed was in, get this, alphabetical order without reference to category. Alphabetical by first name. I hope that wasn't how the administrator released it, but it's been a bad year for Hugo Administration fans.

A normal, by-category list can be found at Making Light.

I have to admit, John Scalzi's presence on the fanwriter short list bothers me. Not because he's a pro. Not even because he has a big damn' microphone of his own, plus the enthusiasm of the Granddaddy of Faux-Libertarian Warbloggers. But because I've never seen any evidence that John Scalzi is actually a member of fandom.

And since we can't easily define fanwriting by content -- that's always been all over the place -- and can no longer define it by presence in fanzines, since blog content is and should be eligible -- then the only way I can see to delimit the fanwriter category is by establishing that the writer is, in fact, a member of fandom. Otherwise, presumably the entire blogiverse is eligible.

Now, I'm not the world's closest Scalzi watcher, though I've been known to read his blog from time to time, so there's a lot I can have missed. Maybe he's a filk-singing, Regency dancing, Dorsai Irregular who collects the works of ATom and D. West and Dan Steffan, knows three different recipes for blog (remember blog?), and owns a full run of Hyphen AND Apparatchik. But I'm guessing not.

As far as I know, he's only attended conventions since going pro, does all of his writing in his own blog, and does not read the writings of other fans-qua-fans (i.e. ones who don't happen to qualify for professional networking points) at all. But fandom is a many-to-many conversation, not just about Important People getting the mic to tell us humble masses What Important People Think. So at the moment I'm wondering if there's any evidence that Scalzi ever participates as just another fan, rather than just in ways that are All About the Scalzitude.

Suggestions of evidence eagerly solicited.

Edit: My thanks to John Scalzi, Macadamia, and Jay Lake for slashdotting me their links. At this point I imagine I'm not going to be able to keep up with replies to all individual comments, but welcome to those of you here for the first time.

On further consideration of my own méthode for categorizing fannishness, John Scalzi's or anyone's, I had a few observations to add: first, if he thinks he's a fan, he probably is one, and I'm willing to go with that. Second, John-Scalzi-fans aside, it seems that a number of members of fandom seem to think John Scalzi is participating in fandom, which, too, probably means that he really is. So okay. For that matter, if you're here arguing with me about it, odds are you're a fan too. Regardless, my opinion can't make anyone else a fan or not a fan -- my powers aren't that extensive yet, alas. All I can do is talk about my own views of the matter. If my views on the matter are important to you, you may feel you need to dissuade me. If not, then not.

But if Alison thinks this entry and the response to it qualifies as Plunging All Fandom Into War, then I gotta say, Plunging All Fandom Into War really ain't what it used to be. And thank ghu for that.

Comments

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

You do count as a fan. But what was the subject, if I may ask?

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

Time to start making up the T-Shirts with a picture of Scalzi with a bar sinister through it and the phrase "Not One Of Us!"
to be worn prior to voting. I guess.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

I'm not claiming Scalzi definitely isn't One of Us. I'd be perfectly happy to believe he is One of Us; I just haven't seen any evidence of it.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Scalzi has a strong non-producing interest in things like really old SF films. It's not Regency dancing, but it's an obsessive geekitude in an at least related area.

I don't know. I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that people should have attended cons before going pro to count as fans -- a lot of people I know just didn't find out about fandom early enough (because they started writing very early), didn't have the opportunity, or didn't understand how very little opportunity is required. (I had been to several conventions before I understood the phenomenon of packing a gajillion fans who barely know each other into a hotel room and surviving on consuite snacks, so I would have assumed that I would have to have the budget for transportation, at least half a hotel room, and three square meals a day.) That doesn't mean they don't have a genuine affection for and interaction with fandom as fans.

But while I'm dubious of my own value in professional networking points, I have to admit that I do qualify as a pro writer, so scalzi conversing with me quite congenially at cons and in my own lj probably doesn't count as any kind of evidence. And other than the timing point as a general question, I don't really have a horse in this race, a dog in this fight, or any other animal in any other athletic activity. Saying that he is, in person, the sort of guy you would call to help you move, helpful, friendly, and unpretentious, not at all "All About the Scalzitude," does not make him a fan. Nor does it make him not a fan. So, in summary: dunno.

Useful, I realize.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

In my opinion, obsessive geekitude is a trait that fans may have, not one that makes one a participant in fanac. I know any number of obsessive geeks who are not in fandom. It's what I like about academia, really.

I don't actually think you have to have attended conventions before you go pro to qualify as a fan, but if you start going to conventions after turning pro, it isn't by itself much good as external proof of being a fan. I'm not saying the timing disqualifies Scalzi from being a fan, I'm saying it doesn't help make the case that he is a fan. If he were going to conventions before going pro, it would be positive external evidence of fannishness, is what I'm saying.

And yah, Scalzi may be in many ways a swell human being -- I'm not saying that as a person he's all into himself -- but what I am seeing is that I haven't seen John Scalzi do anything that might qualify as fanac that didn't also qualify, even primarily, as career-building professional self-marketing. I haven't gone through the whole list, but I'm not seeing anybody on the Whatever blogroll who has nothing to do with SF, pro writing, or publication.

[netmouse.livejournal.com]

hmm, so if I hear you right, the fact that Scalzi is obviously *wildy* a fan of other writers, whom he promotes all the time and discusses with the other fans on his blog, doesn't qualify him as a fan unless he's also a fan of other fans?

(Or at least goes out of his way to enter written discussions with people who don't have industry cred. (by which you tend to disqualify other fans who've managed to get involved in this thing they love from *being fans*, for this purpose, which croggles me a bit. I mean, there's a reason ConFusion honored David G. Hartwell as our Fan GoH one year, though of course it it a source of perpetual debate. Or am I reading you wrong that you're saying it's not that scalzi's a pro that bothers you, but that his social group is also mainly pros?)

I mean, if you can be nominated as a fan writer for writing a perzine, why not for mainly having your own blog? (and what's wrong with saying the whole blogiverse is eligible, at least for the part of it that from time to time reflects sf fannishness? Is it the knowing about, and pursuing participation in, particular brand name fanac that makes one a fan?)

I have probably an odd angle on this, since I'm a friend of his, and I also have some tie-ins to industry, but I'm mainly a conrunner and faned, and I met Scalzi at one of my cons (ConFusion - and I can call it my con because I chaired it that year, I'm not generally so possessive), where he sat and kibitzed with all kinds of people, danced enthusiastically on the dance floor, and thus set himself up for both helping teach "Dancing for geeks" at Penguicon and for facing my rommate, also a conrunner, in a Dance, Dance, Revolution duel that Scalzi rather sportingly lost. I mean, even if he has only attended conventions since going pro, I dare say he does it fairly fannishly, if not in costume (unless one counts that tiarra).

(and yes, I remember blog. If it's what I'm thinking of, I'm the one who posted the recipe for it in the hitchiker's guide to the galaxy. - it's in The ultimate cocktail list)

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Yes, being a fan of other writers does not qualify you as *participating* in *fandom*. There's a sense of the word "fan" in which one can be a fan of the Cubs or a fan of Hawaii Five-O or a fan of Bugatti automobiles which has nothing whatsoever to do with being a member of a particular culture, i.e. the one that dates back to people swapping correspondence based on finding each other's addresses in the lettercols of the old pulps.
One can absolutely be an avid fan in that first sense, even of writers who write in the genre, and still not be a member of the culture. My mother is an example of a reader who is not a fan. Lots of people are, in fact, the majority of people who buy genre books are.

The difference between a perzine and a blog is that a perzine exists because it is push-distributed to a mailing list of people, and if those people are fans and the list duplicates other fannish mailing lists, then sending out the fanzine is an explicit act of fanac. If the perzine is distributed to a bunch of people who have nothing to do with fandom (and given the size of the non-fannish zine community, I'm sure there are many like that), then it's not a fanzine. A blog has no necessary or particular constituency, and is available to anyone who stumbles across it. Therefore, by itself, it doesn't *participate* in anything. Fandom is about participation. What's wrong with saying the entire blogiverse is eligible is that the Hugo awards, particularly the fan awards are from and about the science fiction community of fandom, not just any random bozo who may never have heard of us. The blogiverse has its own awards.

I'm also saying that as far as I can see, the people Scalzi pursues the company of at conventions, and online, are also pros. This doesn't disqualify those people as fans at all, but it does rather cast a pall on the thesis that Scalzi is in it for the sake of participating in fandom. His post just now on his thoughts about the fanwriter nomination do not read at all like those of someone who considers himself a part of, or an active participant in, a community of fans. Fandom is "you guys out there" not "us" to him.

Scalzi may be a great guy, and a good sport, but that doesn't qualify him as a member of fandom, and the way he talks about that group of people signals to me that he doesn't consider himself to be one of them.

[lauriemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I have to say John Scalzi's presence on the fan list doesn't bother me at all.

Yeah, some of his blogging does promote his work as a pro fiction writer. But an awful lot of it does not. Many people talk about their work in their fan writing - should free lance writers be prevented from doing so?

I don't think it matters if you were a pro first then a fan or vice versa. I only think it matters if you are doing interesting writing and NOT GETTING PAID FOR IT. And that's at the heart of being a fan writer.

Heck, Patrick or Teresa could have been on the list this year and they're both SF pros by anyone's definition.

Likewise, seeing Dave Langford on the Best Fan Writer nomination list doesn't bother me either. His fannish writing is entertaining, as is his pro writing. Should we never nominate him for Best Fan Writer again?

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

You're missing my point. Patrick and Teresa and Dave participate in fandom. I'm looking for evidence that Scalzi does.

[ratmmjess.livejournal.com]

There's nothing in the definition of the award ("Any person whose writing has appeared in semiprozines or fanzines or in generally available electronic media during the previous calendar year.") that says the nominee has to be a member of fandom.

Besides, if that's a requirement, who gets to decide who is fannish enough? What's the minimum number of conventions attended? And is simply attending enough? Does someone who just wanders around and mutely attends a few panels a fan?

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

No, there's nothing in the definition of the award that says the nominee has to be a member of fandom. I don't think it can reasonably be written in as a requirement, precisely because there is no reasonable litmus test. But the explicit contents of fannish award definitions is seldom, if ever, all there is to what is generally understood to define them. And it doesn't mean that membership in fandom isn't implicit in the idea of a fan award in the first place, nor that the idea of what makes one eligible to receive a fan award shouldn't be discussed in the voting community. Discussion and consensus -- it's all part of the process.

[prusik.livejournal.com]

Are you sure this isn't a "pros can't be fans" argument by proxy?

What does filk-singing, Regency dancing or working conventions have to do whether or not a body of unpaid genre-related writing is good enough to merit nomination? (And as someone else pointed out, where is the blog entry asking the same of Dave Langford?) Shouldn't we award the Hugo to the person who has created the best body of non-paid genre related writing? (I'm not saying that this is Scalzi or Langford, although it has historically been Langford. I'm just saying that the other things you've brought up don't seem like relevant factors to me.)

As near as I can tell, the entire blogverse is, in fact, eligible, not just for Best Fan Writing but for any category. I think the qualification for Best Fan Writing is that the body of writing must be genre related. There is a discussion about this, a while back, at John Scalze's blog. (http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/004838.html) Ostensibly, it's about the false dichotomy between fans and pros. However, Patrick Nielsen Hayden also points out "If the Hugo voters wanted to give the Best Novella Hugo to something published in a mimeographed fanzine or on a public LiveJournal, they'd be entitled to do so."

So I don't think the "or else the entire blogosphere is eligible" argument is a very good one for justifying additional criteria.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

Scalzi looks to have the fan nature to me. And, given how poor the writing of some of the fan writers on the list has been over the years, I'm entirely sanguine to see Scalzi, who writes well and interestingly on subjects of general fannish interest, on there. Whatever looks like fan writing to me.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

I think Dave Barry exhibits the fan nature too. Should he qualify for the best fanwriter category?

[dhole.livejournal.com]

Well, on the Dave Langford, I find that the Dave Langford of what qualifies a Dave Langford for the best Dave Langford catagory seldom reaches much of a Dave Langford.

On the other Dave Langford, it seems that Dave Langford of your frustration is with the Dave Langford of the catagory itself, rather than the particular Dave Langford or lack thereof in Scalzi's writing. When you say "And since we can't easily define fanwriting by content -- that's always been all over the place -- and can no longer define it by presence in fanzines, since blog content is and should be eligible, [. . .]" you seem to be implicitly Dave Langfording that in its ideal state, the Dave Langford should have more of a focus than "someone who Dave Langforded stuff that fans liked".

The Dave Langford is that Scalzi is pretty clearly a fan. That is to Dave Langford that he's clearly interested in Science Dave Langford and fantasy, both of older material and what's being Dave Langforded today. What he may not be is a fannish fan. And I don't think that there's anything about the Dave Langford that does (or should) require a nominee for "Best Dave Langford" to be a fan of the regency dancing, Dorsai Dave Langford sort. Scalzi is being Dave Langforded for a blog that's about SF on a fundamental level -- it's clearly what he's Dave Langford about, and it's what people who read him are Dave Langfording there for.

Also, there's something else about that catagory which makes arguing particular nominees merits a bit Dave Langford, but I can't seem to quite put my Dave Langford on what that is.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Uh, are you trying to compare Scalzi's fancred to Langford's? Really?

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

I am nothing if not Quixotic.

[firebyrd.livejournal.com]

I must say that your very narrow definition of "fan" makes me uncomfortable. I don't have the money or health to go to conventions. I don't filk. I don't Regency dance, whatever that is. I've just, you know, been reading SF most of my life, think about it all the time, dress up as a Jedi to go to movies, plan cosplay costumes, that sort of thing. I absolutely consider myself a fan, but if fandom is so narrow and restricted as you're making it sound, it's not something I even feel welcome to bring my contributions to.

The man fanboys authors (yes, ones he knows, but I've been reading his blog for years and there have been plenty that he's only come to know /after/ he fanboys them). He dispenses writing advice (that actually has some authority because of his experience). He goes to cons and does silly things like get his head kissed. He's a fan, and one that seems a lot more open-minded and likely more fun to be around than someone who is trying to exclude people from the definition rather than include them.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

People who never participate in the community of fandom and want to all themselves members of it remind me a lot of American-born descendents of imigrants who have never left the country and yet want to be referred to as "Swedish" or "Scottish". Sooner or later there has to be a limit to what qualifies as a member of a group.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Go back to your original question. What is "fandom?" I attend two Cons a year (both within 20 miles of my house), don't wear hall costumes (unless a knit shirt counts) and thought Regency Dance was related to 1700s England. Am I a fan?

In a more serious vein, I think the title of the award "best fan writer" is probably unclear. It seems that the category should be more like "best unpaid commentary on SF," or "best SF booster."

Just my two cents worth.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

You think changing the fanwriter Hugo to either "unpaid commentary" or "best SF booster" actually captures any part of what the fan Hugos are about? Maybe Ted White is right and we should eliminate the category entirely.

why scalzi deserves it...

[uglybadbear.livejournal.com]

fannish work = work unpaid, with enthusiastic promotion of the object of fanitude (that's a barbarism, i know, but you all know what i mean). scalzi's whatever musings and his author interviews and his promotion of his fellow writers does qualify as fan writing, in my opinion. although, as i've already said in a comment to his hugo nominations announcement, i would have rather seen him as a strong candidate for the best novel category, with the ghost brigades. anyway, next year's nominations will most surely see him as a nominee for best related work, with his "laptop to the coffeeshop" book...
why is it so hard to accept that he's good, so good that he outranks other people in the fan writer competition (too)?

Re: why scalzi deserves it...

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

It's not hard to accept that Scalzi is a good writer, I just don't think it's sufficient reason to give him a fan Hugo. I think fan Hugos should go to fans, not just good writers who don't happen to be up for any pro Hugos that year.

fannishness

[unsub13.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that you are trying to turn the Best Fan Writer into Best Fan, who happens to be a writer, rather than simply best writing by a Fan. Or perhaps, Best Fan Writer who also happens to be Fen... The award, as best as I can tell, is meant to reward writing by writers who are working in an area where they don't receive tangible rewards for their work.

The idea behind the award, to my mind, is to encourage fan writers, who are writing about Science Fiction and/or Fantasy to either continue what they are doing, or to branch out and take a run at one of the other awards, both of which improve the world of Science Fiction and Fantasy writing.

I've been religiously reading Science Fiction and Fantasy for over 20 years, but according to the qualifications you propose, I would be completely ineligable for a fan writer award. I've never attended a convention, I don't Filk, and I have no idea what Regency Dancing is. So am I a fan? I doubt that I am fen, but the award isn't the best Fen Writer, but best Fan Writer, so I would assume that the quality of my writing, taking into account the subject matter, would decide the question.

Now if the voters want to exclude people like myself, and to discourage them from becoming fan writers, perhaps there should be some sort of litmus test - x number of conventions attended, y number of filks created, membership in z number of organizations.

But I've never viewed SciFi as the type of culture that is exclusionary - one of the abiding tenets of SciFi, at least in my experience, has been the inclusionary nature of it, both of the fans and as a theme in the literature. I understand the impulse to say 'this award is for US - we've earned it' even as I disagree with it.

Tor

Re: fannishness

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

You don't have a lot of familiarity with the history of the fan Hugo, do you?

[scarypudding.livejournal.com]

Perhaps echt fandom needs an awards process more selective than that provided by the votes of thousands of casual Worldcon attendees.

I don't get it.

[zeekar.livejournal.com]

I'm a convention-going, costume-wearing, FILKING-by-Ghu Fan, and I totally don't see what any of that has to do with the fan writer award. I interpret "fan writer" as "writer who is a fan". Period. This is a whole lot of heat and light signifying nothing. A tempest that wouldn't survive a full second in a teapot... maybe a sake cup...

What exactly are you trying to accomplish with this (re)definition?

[stevegreen.livejournal.com]

Under "writer who is a fan", Arthur Clarke would qualify.

At least some awards have clearer rules.

fans and fandom

[flowmytears.livejournal.com]

In the 21st century, the attitude that SF/F fans have to be members of "fandom" is frankly absurd. At one point in the history of SF, it probably made sense that "fen" were qualified to win the Best Fan Writer Hugo since they were a close-knit group united by the mimeograph. But with the advent of the Internet and this newfangled thing called "blogging," it is much easier for someone to write informally about anything regardless of where they are.

For example, I've been reading tons of SF/F for 24 years now and started dabbling in conventions 4 or 5 years ago until the music bug bit me again. Are you telling me that I am not a fan? No I am not a member of "fandom" but I can talk as good a game as any I betcha....

[zhaneel69.livejournal.com]

and does not read the writings of other fans-qua-fans (i.e. ones who don't happen to qualify for professional networking points) at all.

That one, as far as I can tell, is off. He's read me (and I'm really not pro) and the blogs of many other people who comment on his blog and those that he finds interesting from Making Light, Elizabeth Bear's Blog, Jay Lake's blog, etc.

As for the rest of it: I don't know. I dont' think he's a filker, but if that is a requirement to be a fan of SF/F please kick me out.

Zhaneel

[johnnyeponymous.livejournal.com]

You know, I've got a bit of an interest in this whole Best Fan Writer thingee, and I've said that Pros in the category isn't my favourite thing, such as if Neil Gaimen were to be nominated on the basis of his blog, I'd think that wasn't the right thing to have happening, but I can see folks who are fans and pros being nominated as being legit.

Now, when I saw Joe's name on there, I was a little surprized, but if it had been Jay Lake, I would have been going 'Yeah, that makes sense' because I've fan-ed with Jay and I know that though he is a pro, he's also very much a fan. I've never fan-ed with Scalzi, so I'm a little removed, but I've been told that he is, in fact, a fan and one that I should probably go out of my way to meet and get to know. And I'll make sure to do that. It's rough, I know.

For me, a fan is whoever shows up and calls themself a fan. It's what happens.

I certainly don't think Joe's nomination was a terrible thing...unless he gets more votes than me. Then it's a freakin' outrage!
Chris

[marykaykare.livejournal.com]

What bothers me more is the startling lack of women on this years list. That's just not right.
MKK

[johnnyeponymous.livejournal.com]

I go by individual instead of gender, but I certainly think that it's a crime that Claire Brialey's not on the list. Or any of my other fave Brits: Guilia, Abi or Tanya.

I have to say, I had Claire coming in second to Dave on my original Handicapping The Hugos list, and then when the list came up, I had to retinker the whole thing!
Chris

[rosefox]

John Scalzi chatted quite amiably with me at Readercon, despite there being nothing at all for him to gain thereby. I've reviewed one of his books, but there's no reason to expect me to review others, nor to expect me to skew my review because of my personal liking for him (I wouldn't have lasted long as a reviewer in this industry if I did that sort of thing). Is one datapoint sufficient?

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

What is it you're claiming it's a datapoint of, exactly? I mean, once at a convention, being a polite human being, while laudable and swell, is not evidence of being a fan. (Certainly, it could be argued all too convincingly that sometimes its evidence of NOT being a fan.)

Did you think I meant that he makes no move, yea down to the micro-level, that isn't calculated to market himself? I did not mean that. I meant that attending conventions is not prima facie evidence of being a fan. Lots of neo pros do it without ever considering themselves to be part of fandom.

If, on the other hand, as I say above, John considers himself to be part of fandom, then that's good enough for me.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

Just wanted to say that I greatly admire your edit, and that I'm also glad that modern Fannish Warfare is no worse than this. Unless someone gafiates, it ain't war! But since when have you been so Orthodox?! Well, sometimes orthodoxy -- and argument -- is just an educational process.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

I think it's been a very long time that I've thought of fandom as requiring participation. I dunno about Orthodox. It's not like he's got to know who sawed Courtney's boat, or who says you can't sit here, or anything like that. The list I reeled off was one of possible ways of participating, not a set of defining criteria.

[hundakleptisis.livejournal.com]

If it's any consolation I think I know exactly what you mean and in that line of thinking I agree with you 98%

S.J.

[annodomini.livejournal.com]

I think that what's going on here is an ambiguity in the word "fan." "Fan" can mean either an enthusiastic consumer of a particular medium or genre, which is a fairly broad sense, or it can mean a member of "fandom," which is a particular community that grew up around science fiction and fantasy but which has almost become an entity of it's own. If you read "fan" as "member of the fandom community," then you might say that someone is or isn't a part of that community based on their participation in that community. If you read it as an enthusiastic consumer of the genre, then it would seem silly to make distinctions based on filk, regency dance, and con attendance.

This is all further compounded by the fact that there's also a professional science fiction community, and it has vast amounts of overlap with fandom. There are some people who are pro only, and a lot of people who are fan only, and then a whole bunch of people who are both. Does being engaged in the professional community mean that one is also engaged in the fan community? Perhaps not, but due to the overlap, it's really hard to define what's what. And of course the fans like to invite the pros to participate in their events which blurs the line even more.

One final distinction that you may be able to make in this case is writing as a fan (in the first sense, an enthusiastic consumer) about the professional genre, and writing about fandom, which by it's connection to the genre includes writing about the genre, but also includes topics particular to fandom.

So, to sum up, it sounds like you are using "fan" in the second sense, as a member of fandom, and possibly also referring to "fanwriter" as a writer about fandom & the genre. I think that while this may be a reasonable thing to expect, it's hard enough to define and clearly mark the lines that I don't think it's particularly fruitful. The only reasonably clear way I can think of for determining eligibility is "is this person writing as an amateur about science fiction," and it seems pretty clear that the answer is yes.

[mjlayman.livejournal.com]

The enthusiastic consumer would be a reader or a watcher. Fandom requires participation.

Re: Hugo & Campbell Short Lists Announced

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

112 comments! don't you feel appreciated, eh? :)

no way am i even gonna read a single one of them. fandom (shaken or stirred) is like a hornet's nest and i like my blood pressure about where it is right now. my userpic shall express how i feel about this tempest in an espresso cup.

i am just replying to say "yay for expressing one's personal opinion on one's personal LJ!". more power to ya.