I have just read Seanan MacGuire’s post here and it’s a little depressing:
The main flush of angry kvetching over the Hugo ballot has passed; we're on to complaining about other things, like the Clarke Award short list and whether or not "fake geek girls" really exist. (I have a guest post about fake geek girls and why they're a fiction that makes me want to set everything the sun touches on fire coming up later this month, so I'm not going to go into that now.) And to be honest, I'm really glad. Sure, it's nice to have everyone you've ever met in a friendly capacity saying congratulations for a couple of days, and it's an honor to be nominated—nothing can change that. But the personal comments got to be a bit much within the first twenty-four hours, and by the time the primary articles stopped, I was basically just hiding under my bed and waiting for it to be over. [Read on …no really do because its a good discussion]
And while Jonathan McCalmont certainly doesn’t accuse Seanan of excessive self promotion he did criticize a group of authors/nominees for not “spreading the love” so to speak. Seanan being one of those authors.
My issue is not with the people engaged in the grinding and socially awkward task of being a professional writer but with the people who remind others of their eligibility whilst conveniently failing to acknowledge the existence of works other than their own. [Read the full article]
There is an issue with certain segments of the writing community not being acknowledged for reasons of race, gender and sexuality. I don’t think you’d find many who’d disagree with that claim. I’m not convinced however that it’s fair, to expect authors in particular to commit to the sort of Hugo posting that McCalmont would like. Even if they did, I wonder if they wouldn’t cop flack for the choices they made. That is, being accused of nominating friends and acquaintances or perhaps of not being sincere in their discussions of who should be nominated. If I had a choice between a “ya’ll should check out the other nominees, I ‘ve heard good stuff about them” and nothing - I’ll go nothing.
I think the sort of broad discussion posts that McCalmont was hoping to find more of, are the purview of bloggers and commentators. Indeed it looks to me if that first group he highlights is essentially made up of those.
I just don’t know if authors have the time to read and critically examine enough of the current works on offer. I know several authors at the top of their game in Australia that don’t read heavily in the field they write in for a number of reasons, chief among them being time and wanting to have a break from the genre.
So I agree with McCalmont that there should be more discussion well ahead of the nomination period, but I think that it’s not really an author’s responsibility. When it comes to sites that have staff/multiple volunteers then I’m on the fence. They have more individuals and a wider reading experience to draw on.
Thoughts?
Logging you in...
raventracks 46p · 622 weeks ago
I am still waiting to see the Chronos short list and I dare say I will list that on my blog and talk about what I've read, even if nothing of mine is up there, but I had a go at promoting while the nominations were open and I see no reason why this should be considered unacceptable.
My recent post Interview With Susan Green
SB Wright 110p · 622 weeks ago
Good luck in the Chronos awards by the way.
raventracks 46p · 622 weeks ago
SB Wright 110p · 622 weeks ago
jmccalmont 19p · 622 weeks ago
On one level, I think it's problematic if someone seeks to benefit from a social process (including the Hugo Awards but really anything based on a popular plebiscite) without also seeking to enrich that process. For example, if McGuire provides a post linking exclusively to her own eligible materials, she benefits hugely from that post but she isn't really helping people to discover new works or think about the nomination process.
On a second level, I think there's an issue with social capital hoarding. McGuire has built a very strong relationship with her fans and using this relationship to secure Hugo nominations has helped McGuire to acquire a good deal of prestige and visibility within the field. Given how much social capital McGuire now has, I would like to see her use her engagement of the nomination process to direct people to people deserving nominations.
Scalzi is another author who has built a very intense relationship with his fans and all Scalzi has to do is link to a Locus poll and his readers ensure that the poll lists Old Man's War as the greatest SF novel of the 21st Century. However, Scalzi has also used his social capital to a) draw attention to rogue publishers who seek to exploit less experienced writers, b) help create the Hugo voters' packet and c) raise a lot of money for projects like Strange Horizons that are a great boon to the field and rely upon reader donations.
I'd be the first to admit that I don't have a great deal of moral force behind these convictions... If McGuire can't possibly spare the time to say "Hey, while you're voting for me, you might want to consider voting for these people who also do awesome work!" then I'm sure she has her reasons. We all have our reasons. I just think it would be nice if people with huge platforms and fan-bases used those things to benefit people other than themselves.
Edited to add:
I should also point out that while I read the first of McGuire's zombie novels, I don't follow her blog or really take an interest in what she gets up to so, for all I know, she's recommending Hugo nominees left, right and centre but I'm just not seeing them. I did cruise her blog when I put up the initial link but it's distinctly possible that McGuire is doing all of the things I ask but I'm just not seeing it :-)
Another point: I think talking about McGuire in these terms is tricky as people invariably use talk of 'voting blocks' to explain away the award successes of female authors while male authors are seen as being entirely deserving of their awards successes. For the record, I don't have any problem with McGuire winning awards... I don't personally read her work but I'm sure she's as deserving of a Hugo award as anyone else.
SB Wright 110p · 622 weeks ago
Like you, I don't follow McGuire's blog and I haven't read any of her work or Scalzi's for that matter so I'm wary of firmly pushing my convictions.
"On one level, I think it's problematic if someone seeks to benefit from a social process (including the Hugo Awards but really anything based on a popular plebiscite) without also seeking to enrich that process. For example, if McGuire provides a post linking exclusively to her own eligible materials, she benefits hugely from that post but she isn't really helping people to discover new works or think about the nomination process. "
Potentially problematic I'd agree, though as you state in your edit, and I would be the same, you don't follow her closely enough to judge what other enrichment she might provide.
I think she'd still cop flack if she were to get behind other authors for using her fan base to promote certain authors or groups over others, and if it's just a "look at these guys I have heard great things about them" she'd probably get criticized for paying lip service to the concept of egalitarian social enrichment. Or criticized as being disingenuous, only appearing to support others to make herself look good. I think women authors especially, in certain segments of the community, will be damned if they do and damned if they don't.
I am not sure that pointing fans to worthy authors is the best or only way a popular author can help other authors. I think collaborative works/ guest postings is probably a better way to get fans to have social/emotional investment in another author. And all these things take an investment of time, time that should be spent first and foremost on the writer's own work.
On social capital hoarding I feel uncomfortable talking about it because we are talking about something that is hard to quantify, and hard to track. I am also uncomfortable with the idea that she has that much influence over her fans( outside of her own works) who are not homogeneous in their likes and dislikes.
On Scalzi, I think there is a difference - he holds an important position on the SFWA and he's been around a little longer too.
In general I am in agreement with you, that those who have influence and social capital have some influence they can apply to make the community better, richer, more diverse. Whether we should expect that of everyone as soon as they attain it (and how does one know when they have attained it)?
My preferred route for pushing for enrichment is through commentary provided by websites/ communal blogs like SF Signal, Podcasts like Coode Street and the bloggers you mentioned. I think it better for the author to point people towards these sources as they have the time, resources, mission.