I don't like fandom awards, because I don't see how the benefits outweigh the costs. That said...
* If your problem with the SV awards is the nomination process--that you think deserving stories are being overlooked--then perhaps you should consider that (a) nominations are open to all and (b) it would be inappropriate for other people to nominate stories that they didn't think qualified. Therefore, if you don't like the list of potential nominees, the person you should be blaming...is you. Only you can nominate the stories you think are deserving, and no one is stopping you from doing it. It may be widespread in fandom to assume that you're entitled to have someone else magically produce what you want and that if you don't get it, you're the victim of a clique/conspiracy, but that doesn't mean it's any less silly.
* I looked at the stories-by-category nomination post. There were at least fifty authors nominated (I got bored and quit 2/3 of the way through the post, when I hit that number). Fifty. Do you really think fandom is even capable of sustaining a homogenous clique of fifty people?
Posted by Sarah T. at June 25, 2003 02:56 AM | TrackBackWhat I wanna know is, when did we let Jenn, Slodwick, Tara and Celli into the cabal?
No, seriously. I've seen a couple of comments about the smaller number of het nominations, and how it obviously shows that het is ignored and overlooked and blah blah blah. The way I see it? If het stories aren't getting nominated, that says more about het fans than it does about slash fans.
Perhaps people would've been happier if het stories had been excluded from the nominations altogether?
Posted by: Livia at June 25, 2003 02:39 PMWell, you know, obviously if people post het or gen nominations, they would be mocked and shunned! Oh, the unbearable peer pressure the clique can exert!
Posted by: Sarah T. at June 25, 2003 03:17 PMYou know, you might not agree that reality actually matches perception, but we both know that perception does count for a lot in fandom. I mean, I thought it was pretty nutty that the entire fandom kept getting called mean or unwelcoming or whatever because (a) people had issues with specific *fans* within the fandom and/or (b) the former admins of ClarkLex wouldn't enforce some shadowy, unspoken-of set of 'rules' related to list civility, but that really didn't have any bearing on people's perceptions wrt what was making them uncomfortable about the fandom as a whole or the list specifically.
I don't think it's ever unreasonable to say, at a minimum, that something has "the appearance of being improper" or comments along those lines, as long as room for disagreement and/or clarification is allowed. I particularly don't think it's unreasonable to say in connection with something that has or claims to have, as one of its aims, a representative quality. You may not *agree* with a given perception about The Treasury or any other fandom awards (any more than I didn't agree with a lot of the criticisms that got thrown at the fandom as a whole or ClarkLex specifically), but the perceptions do exist and I don't really see an actual problem with people at least commenting on that fact.
Posted by: LaT at June 26, 2003 02:55 PMThe problem I have with it, LaT, is that the nominees were not handed down from on high. It's an open nomination process. Under those circumstances, complaining that the awards are not representative of what I think is the best work in the fandom is simply complaining that the fandom doesn't happen to exactly share my tastes and so hasn't done my work for me. People seem to be assuming that they're *entitled* to have their favorite stories nominated, or else the awards are bad. Well, no. If you want the nomination process to reflect your opinions, then you need to participate.
Posted by: Sarah T. at June 26, 2003 04:40 PM