On awards and self-promotion

It seems like every year, the SF community has a kerfuffle about promoting one’s award-eligible work with the aim of getting it nominated.  There are those who think it’s unbelievably tacky, but there’s also the point that marginalised groups tend to be overlooked if they don’t put themselves out there.

Have some links!

John Scalzi made a series of tweets, which basically boiled down to “Promote away, don’t be a jerk.”

Adam Roberts writes, essentially, “Sure, marginalised groups are easily overlooked, but self-promotion is really tacky and distorts the nomination process, so don’t do it.”

Scalzi politely disagrees so we don’t have to.

For women, this issue came to the fore last year, when Seanan McGuire was accused of excessively promoting herself.  She had made, in fact, two posts about her eligibility for nominations.

Amal el-Mohtar writes further on that subject.

All of this is to say that the Chronos Awards are now accepting nominations, and No Award is eligible for Best Fan Publication.

Additionally, our individual posts are eligible for nomination under Best Fan Writing.  We are particularly proud of these:

(by Liz Barr)

For Your Bookshelf – The Deep by Tom Taylor

For Your Bookshelf – The Ghost Bride by Yangsze Choo

The Sea and Summer

Pacific Rim, welcome to the blog!

(by Stephanie Lai)

The Exotic Place as Other (and notes on Cinder by Marissa Meyer)

Pacific Rim and the Chinese Jaeger program (and what that means in 2013)

Australia’s Jaeger Program, ps racism and history

It’s a shame, mind, that Stephanie’s series of posts on Serangoon Road don’t count as science fiction, fantasy or horror, because they surely deserve all kinds of awards.  Someone should buy her a bottle of vegan wine as compensation.

Clause 6.4 of the Chronos Awards rules states:

6.4 No Award: “No Award” shall appear last on the ballot for all categories.

So, you see, you’re practically obliged to nominate us!  Right?  RIGHT?

Look, our original purpose here was trolling, and we’re not going to let a little thing like “Liz, that’s a terrible joke” stop us.

Nomination rules:

5.1 Eligible nominators and voters: Nominations will be accepted only from natural persons active in fandom, or from full or supporting members of the event hosting the award. Where a nominator may not be known to the Awards subcommittee, the nominator should provide the name of someone known to the subcommittee who can vouch for the nominator’s eligibility.

5.2 Nominations: The nomination may nominate any number of works in any category. However, the nominator may nominate any given work only once in a category. All nominations must include the name of the nominator. Where a nominated mark does not meet the criteria for its nominated category, the committee may move the nomination to the appropriate category; or where a work does not meet any criteria, refuse the nomination.

5.3 Timing of Nominations: Nominations shall be open for a minimum of 30 days. Postal nominations shall be counted as valid based on postmark or receipt, whichever is earliest, if received before the final deadline set by the committee.

I have some feelings about that “must be active in fandom” bit, and “known to the organisers” and all.  But the first time I nominated someone — hey, I think it was Stephanie! — I said, “I am active in fandom, and here is my blog to prove it SO THERE,” only without the SO THERE.  Alternatively, you can become a supporting member — or even a full member!  Please feel free to come to our convention! — of Continuum.  It’s a great convention!  And I’m the membership officer, and shall think loving thoughts as you are entered into my database.)

More information about nominating, and other categories, and a link to a longer list of eligible works, can be found on Continuum’s website.