The good folk over at www.nebulaawards.com have released the latest Nebula Preliminary Ballot released a progress update of the Nebula Preliminary Ballot. There’s some very fine work there, and some odd selections.  The eligibility rules for the awards also continue to have impact, which is unfortunate.  Although I’m now an associate member of SFWA, I’m ineligible to vote for the Nebs. This is cool. There should be benefits to full membership. That said, were I to attend an SFWA meeting I’d be tempted to ask how they could only find ten novels, four novellas, nine novelettes, twelve short stories and one screenplay (presumably the winner) to put on their *long* list. The work on the list is worthy, but a lot of worthy work was overlooked, which is disappointing. The Nebs used to be the champagne award in SF. These days they just look a bit out of touch.
Correction 4 January:
The page actually says “The following works have all qualified for the Preliminary Ballot and will be under consideration for the Final Ballot.” I’d assumed that meant final Nebula Ballot, but it looks like it means the final Preliminary Ballot. i.e. the awards jury can add more works to categories. My observations stand, though I acknowledge the error.
What an odd selection. There is definitely a number of stories that I think are missing from this list. But then, I know people always have different tastes… still, you’d think the Nebulas would have a wider field.
Jonathan,
That’s not the final preliminary ballot though is it? There might have been a lot of last minute recs that haven’t yet been toted up. The date on the post you mention is Dec. 23.
According to the Nebula site the listed works “have qualified” for possible inclusion on the final ballot. But does this mean the list could be expanded? Or is it closed?
I believe that both Ellen and Peter are correct. I think nominations have closed, but this isn’t necessarily the final list of nominees. And the Neb Jury can also add works in categories. I’d stand by my basic point, though. I appreciate your both commenting on this.
I would hope this is some sort of preliminary list when you look and see only one script nominated. Surely there were other scripts that deserve inclusion besides just Wall-E. Guess we can assume that it will be the winner regardless if that is all they could think to put on the preliminary list. I was recently trying to argue that awards still have some merit. I realized at the time it was a pretty naive argument but this list leads me to believe that I’m a fool and things are even worse than the cynical view that my friends have of these awards.
This is not the final long list. It isn’t even the most complete one I’ve seen (at least one more item has qualified). An official preliminary ballot will probably be released in the next week or so. Then there will be a voting period (I seem to remember that it’s about six weeks long) that will bring each catagory down to five entries for the short list. There’s no voting in catagories with less than six entries. At that point the juries can, if they choose, add one more entry to each catagory. The Norton jury can add more than one entry and usually does.
Rick – Thanks for the clarification. It’s genuinely appreciated. I’ll keep an eager eye out for the final Preliminary Ballot. — Jonathan
Actually, this list has very few — maybe no — actively bad stories, which is a distinctive step up from some previous years. The main problem is, as ever, is the really good stories that are missing. And the frustrating thing is that the rolling eligibility makes it so darn hard to compare year for year which stories should have been on the list but aren’t and which might show up next year.