Full list available at Locus Online. I don’t think anyone will be surprised to learn that I’m thrilled to see In Great Waters in Best Novel, and Helen Keeble’s “A Lullaby” in Best Short Fiction, and Susan in Special Award, Non-Professional; but there’s a lot of other good work on there as well. Congratulations to all the nominees.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
vector-bsfa.com 
Yes, I’m chuffed about those works too, especially given I nominated them for the Hugo and they had no chance of placing there.
Also pleased for Susan but it is for non-professional rather than professional so presumably she will decline it as she would for the Hugo semi-prozine category.
I should have added: the whole professional/non-professional thing is bollocks as this award yet again makes clear.
The definition of “professional” (or even “nonprofessional”) has more to do with whether or not someone makes their full-time living out of what they do. At least that’s how it was described to me.
I’m thrilled to see nods to the Readercon crew.
No Palimpsest or Hundred Thousand Kingdoms, though?
Didn’t Hundred Thousand Kingdoms come out in 2010?
Yep.
The definition of “professional” (or even “nonprofessional”) has more to do with whether or not someone makes their full-time living out of what they do.
Yeah, and I don’t see that as being revelent to an award for a specific achievement. I also doubt they make you show them your bank statements.
That’s how they define it, and that’s their business, I would guess, as all sorts of award systems have their own quirks. Mind you, I’ve actually been asked before, in the past, if I make a significant living from some of my contributions, so they do do their research. As such, it is quite revelant to their requirements for that category. It’s odd, but there it is.
Oops, you’re right about Hundred Thousand Kingdoms. I’m already seeing books for early 2011, so I lose track of what’s published when!
So two of the nominees in each category were picked by fan vote, is that right? Hmmm…
That’s what it says on the Wikipedia page. Are we going to try to guess which is which now? There are a few that look like voter picks — Enge, Baker, Bowes — but in most cases I wouldn’t want to put money on it.
I was thinking about the rules as much in terms of what isn’t listed as what is, at least for novels. But yes, I’m useless at those sorts of guessing games…I’ve never been to a WFC so have no idea of its current constituency, but I also have any familiarity with the reading tastes of only about half of the judges.
It does seem like a slightly odd way of generating a shortlist, yes. On the other hand, most years it seems to work pretty well.
I feel like the professional/nonprofessional distinction is different than the magazine/semiprozine distinction–Strange Horizons doesn’t want to be identified as a semiprozine because we identify as a professional publication. In this case, it wasn’t the magazine being nominated, it was me (although admittedly for my work with the magazine). I haven’t been paid for my work as a science fiction editor since I was an editorial assistant with Cecilia Tan at Circlet, so I think it’s acceptable to put me in the non-pro camp.
But yes, it is a bit of a messy, hair-splitting, ultimately useless distinction. (As I think the magazine/semiprozine distinction is, for different reasons.)