Since I was quick enough to criticise the Nebula Preliminary Ballot that was recently released, I feel like I should be just as quick to applaud the newly published Nebula Award rules. There has been a lot of comment over the past few years about how the Nebula rules seemed to make little sense, with rolling eligibility and so on. These new rules are a massive improvement, and as an Associate Affiliate Member I applaud them and will be nominating etc when I can be following the Awards with interest.
Note:Amended to reflect that I’m not an Associate Member, but an Affiliate one, which gets me the novelty coffee cup, but not the right to nominate/vote.
That’s another rule that needs amendment. A person like you (and Ellen Datlow, and Rich Horton) really should be allowed to make recommendations and vote. After all, you read far more stories than almost any of the writing members, and you are obviously responsible for some of the most important short SF books that come out. Gardner Dozois is obviously a writer, so he doesn’t have the problem. And I think Kathryn Cramer as well, but her husband loses out. It’s all a bit artificial. And it has been pointed out that one of the problems with the Nebulas is that the members don’t really read widely in their own field, and they overlook some of the best work for nominations. We need to involve the editors who read hundreds, even thousands, of stories a year.
Speaking only for myself of course, I guess I personally don’t mind that as an affiliate I don’t get to nominate/vote for the Nebulas. I think it’s a good idea that they remain a “writers award”. Mind you I would nominate/vote if we affiliates were allowed — and I have twice been a member of the Short Fiction Jury and was proud to help bring some excellent stories to the attention of more people that way — but I think it’s fine that only full members (and maybe associates, can’t recall) get nomination rights.
As a long-time critic of the Rolling Eligibility rules, and other aspects of the previous Nebula setup, I also applaud these changes. (As a result, probably some worthy 2008 stories will never get their turn at bat, so to speak, but that’s a small price to pay.)
It is still important that members do participate in the process, and more widely than they apparently do now, in order to make the Nebulas stronger.
—
Rich Horton
I imagine there are good arguments for giving editors Nebula voting privileges, but I’m not sure that “they read a lot” is one of them. Some book editors, for example, read very little outside of submissions they receive; conversely, there are fans who read as much as anyone. Why should the former be allowed to vote while the latter are not? The editors who edit best-of-the-year anthologies already have a means of expressing their opinions: by choosing stories for reprinting. Arguably they already have more sway than any individual Nebula voter.
I think that if the Nebulas are to regain respect, it should be through getting the membership reinvigorated, not by changing the composition of the voting pool.
I was being glib when I amended the post and mentioned the novelty coffee mug. I can see why only members and associate members can vote. The SFWA Nebula Awards are supposed to reflect the views of members, and the members are writers. That’s perfectly valid. I am slightly conflicted, though, as to what membership offers to affiliate members. I joined this year for the time and received the Directory (which is fine) and the magazine (which I don’t find overly interesting). Nebula voting privileges would probably persuade me to renew my membership next year, but otherwise it doesn’t offer much to attract me. Now, I’m not a writer so it doesn’t have to, and I’m not criticising SFWA. I’m just saying, is all.
And, Ted: I agree. The critical thing here is to energise the voting base. It’s true for all awards, and especially true for the Nebulas. Rules changes are fine (and these mostly are excellent ones), but it doesn’t get past the fact that the SFWA members of 1966 were reading and voting in a way that members today do not appear to be.
Yes, Ted’s point is a good one. I only wish the members would crank up their involvement a bit.