SH Comments
Reged: Feb 16 2004
Posts: 1056
|
|
This thread is for comments about The 2004 Campbell Award, by Greg Beatty.
|
Amy Sisson
Unregistered
|
|
This article was informative, intersting, entertaining... all one could ask for.
I'm curious: Greg describes Jay Lake as in his first year of eligibility, as does Jim Van Pelt's Campbell Award Eligibility site. The Boston Worldcon site, however, originally listed Jay as in his second year, but now does not list year of eligibility at all in their nominee list. (I have a vague idea that they maintained that Jay was in his second year, so I'm guessing that because it did not actually affect his overall eligibility for this year's award, they decided it would be easier to take the years out of the list. I tried to get an answer on this question but was unable to do so.)
If I had to guess, I imagine the question would be resolved by next year's Hugo administrators, when (assuming for the argument that Jay doesn't win this year) people would start nominating him and the administrators would have to confirm his eligibility. I'm also assuming that Hugo administrators are independent of each other from year to year, so it would be a new review/decision.
Anybody have any insight or information? (Like Greg, I believe Jay will win, which will make all this moot.)
-- Amy Sisson
|
David Moles
Regular reader
Reged: Jan 07 2004
Posts: 65
Loc: Basel, Switzerland
|
|
There's something going on there, but from the few pieces of the picture I've seen it looks like one of those things we might all be better off not knowing about till ten or twenty years after the fact.
It's probably moot. If Jay wins this year, it's definitely moot, and if he doesn't, next year's committee isn't bound by the decisions of this year's.
(I'm just glad my Campbell eligibility clock is only starting to tick as we speak, so I've got at least a year of not competing with Jay.)
--------------------
-- David
|
David Levine
Unregistered
|
|
Thanks, Greg, for an even-handed and informative article. And here I was reading an interview with Andy Duncan and wishing I had a theme to call my own. I can't deny that sense of wonder (that's pronounced "sensawunda" where I come from) is an important driver in my writing, or that I grew up on Golden Age SF. But is there anything wrong with that, really, as long as one brings something new to the table? And isn't it appropriate for a writer with "Campbellian" sensibilities to be nominated for an award named after and John W. Campbell? (Though I hope to produce better characterization than Hugo Gernsbach.)
In an interesting case of serendipity, here's an article from today's Guardian on the value of old stories and the fallacy that there was once a time when everything was fresh and new: http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1274216,00.html
Campbell eligibility is a very slippery beast. I was also listed as "second year of eligibility" in my first year, but I was able to get that corrected. Jay's situation is different, but as David M points out, next year's committee isn't bound by this year's decisions.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Quote:
There's something going on there, but from the few pieces of the picture I've seen it looks like one of those things we might all be better off not knowing about till ten or twenty years after the fact.
In an ideal world, people would simply vote for the person they felt most deserving of the award, regardless of any other considerations.
However, the award very specifically allows two years of eligibility, and some people may choose, rightly or wrongly, to take that into account when voting. Since the committee had to make a ruling one way or the other, I'm in favor of knowing the decision and the reason(s) for it. Previous Hugo committees, for example, have explained why they moved a nominee from dramatic long form to dramatic short form (or vice versa; I don't recall).
Sorry, I'm not really as argumentative as I may seem this morning. Perhaps I'm a little sensitive to secrecy in procedures involving voting!
-- Amy Sisson
|
SteveNagy
New user
Reged: Aug 05 2004
Posts: 3
Loc: Ann Arbor, Michigan
|
|
Greg,
Interesting article, and as informative as last year's.
I don't envy you the responsibility of weighing the nominees.
I think you're correct that the issue will come down to either Jay winning (a return, however briefly, to a short story winner) or one of the novel nominees taking home the award. Personally, my vote goes/went for Karin (which reveals my bias and is the reason I haven't commented in MarsDust on the Campbell nominees for the past two years while "picking" other winners). However, having such a wealth of nominees is good for the future and for growth. I can cite the case of Tobias Buckell, another recent nominee, whose first novel comes out next year from Tor. I think this award isn't so much one where the winner matters as much as the longevity/productivity of the nominees as a whole. A signpost pointing toward things to come, as you've noted.
Good luck with your predictions for next year.
Steve
|
SteveNagy
New user
Reged: Aug 05 2004
Posts: 3
Loc: Ann Arbor, Michigan
|
|
As for the question of Jay Lake's year of eligibility, I think the deciding factor is his story "Eglantine's Time," which appeared in Dark Terrors 6 in 2002.
If you used his story "The Courtesy of Guests," which appeared in Bones of the World in September 2001, he wouldn't even qualify for the ballot this year. So the press run for the latter probably was the below the 10,000 mark.
Of course, without knowing the press run for Dark Terrors, the issue is still in doubt.
Steve
|
Jay Lake
Unregistered
|
|
Dark Terrors 6 had a press run of 3000 soft, 1500 hard, FYI.
|
SteveNagy
New user
Reged: Aug 05 2004
Posts: 3
Loc: Ann Arbor, Michigan
|
|
Thanks, Jay. :-)
Whether you're first year or second year, you've definitely earned the honor. Looking forward to the Campbell panel in Boston this year when you're all together in the same room. You're a diverse group of writers.
|
Jay Lake
Unregistered
|
|
Doesn't seem to be a Campbell panel this year, Steve, or if there is, I'm not scheduled for it. (shrug)
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
