Why I've Withdrawn Nobility From Award Consideration
Right now I'm too upset to write anything but a short post. But know this:
I had the honor of seeing Nobility included in the list of finalists for Best Novella in the efestival of words this year. But the high that arose from that honor crashed fast when I received an email from a relative of another finalist in a different category. They were thinking of voting for Nobility...and wondered if I was thinking of voting for his book.
The wording was subtle and careful but the message could not have been clearer: vote for us, we'll vote for you.
Well, my book is called Nobility and my vote is not for sale. I'm here to write, not to engage in literary politricks. I won't name the writer or say a word against him. But, to my way of thinking, this festival's been compromised and I can't be a part of it this year. Not with my novel and not with my votes.
I had the honor of seeing Nobility included in the list of finalists for Best Novella in the efestival of words this year. But the high that arose from that honor crashed fast when I received an email from a relative of another finalist in a different category. They were thinking of voting for Nobility...and wondered if I was thinking of voting for his book.
The wording was subtle and careful but the message could not have been clearer: vote for us, we'll vote for you.
Well, my book is called Nobility and my vote is not for sale. I'm here to write, not to engage in literary politricks. I won't name the writer or say a word against him. But, to my way of thinking, this festival's been compromised and I can't be a part of it this year. Not with my novel and not with my votes.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Liz
(new)
Jul 14, 2013 02:41PM
Good for you I'd say.
reply
|
flag
Thanks for your support, Liz. I believe that I learned is only the tip of the not so niceberg.
There is a difference between genuinely loving another authors work and them loving yours, and therefore writing mutually beneficial reviews and writing a good review in some kind of quid pro quo. As an avid reader and blogger I know it happens. As of course the issue some authors face where some unknown someone manages to get several people to write a bad review in an attempt to influence readers one way or another. What I would say as an experienced reader is trust that most of us can tell the difference. I ALWAYS know when a review is genuine and the reviewer has genuinely read the book. I also am quick to understand when a review is what I call a "blind" review where not a word has been read but the review is posted for more nefarious shall we say reasons. Nothing wrong with bad reviews - if you genuinely feel a book is bad then say so! Sorry rambled a bit there :)
I'm glad you're able to tell the difference between real and false reviews. As long as the enthusiasm's genuine, and no deals have been made, I have no problem reviewing books that I've loved by writers I admire. The golden rule is critical: no pressure of any kind...and no complaint if I or they pass on a particular book. Readers are rightly suspicious if thirty 5-star reviews come appear the day a book's published. Reviews are important. Temptation abounds. But it's easier to stay on the right path if we respect our readers.
I am the organizer of the eFestival of Words. As Reb has chosen to publicly smear the festival, I feel obligated on behalf of ALL the finalists to state the following.Every single nomination was vetted by our team to make sure they were peer nominations. We disqualified dozens of ballots for self-nomination and for violations of the nomination terms. It was an enormous undertaking, as we had over 500 ballots to process.
Each finalist was selected by our team of volunteers NOT because of literary politricks, but because after looking at the nominees the finalists were those we felt best illustrated the wonderful talent being produced by indie authors. Out people went and read previews, reviews, sampled books, visited websites, and made every effort to make sure they selected the books that really deserved to be finalists.
When you contacted me and told me what happened, I was furious. I have been diligent about deleting sock puppet accounts and reducing the chances of fraud while keeping the voting open for all. I even send an email to all registered members of the site reminding them of the voting rules. I take the integrity of the awards and the festival seriously. I was furious that you had a bad experience. I asked you to send me a copy of the email so I could deal with the offending party, You refused because you didn't want to cause problems. I respected your decision. I did not expect you to then make it a point to go around the internet causing problem by claiming the entire festival was compromised.
Frankly, I am more furious that you took the actions of a single person as an opportunity to smear the entire festival. Every single finalist deserves more respect than you have shown by publicly playing the martyr. The majority of finalists have been so thrilled just to be acknowledged for their efforts. Because unlike other awards, this is not a pay-to-play. The finalists are finalists because they truly earned it. And every finalist has a right to be proud.
The person whom emailed you outed himself to me and told me his side of the story. I already gave him an earful as well. Because while his version of events provides context, it doesn't excuse the email you got. And I told him as much. I completely understand why you read the email the way you did. But you have overreacted and are playing a drama queen now. And I will have none of it.
I will not sit on my hands while you la-di-da across the internet calling the entire festival corrupt because of ONE email. We have worked our butts off to make this festival a fun event for everyone, and I will be damned if I allow one person to flush that down the toilet over a single email from a person who is not even a part of the event staff.
I am so beyond angry at the both of you. Him for the original email, and you for making a public spectacle of it. Your fellow finalists deserve so much better.
Indie authors do deserve a lot of help -certainly awards and festivals such as the one you organise Julie Ann are brilliant - if it helps, I never looked at what Reb was saying as being a particular smear against the efestival of words specifically - just that generally this sort of thing (quid pro quo reviews) go on which I know they do! Not just when it comes to awards but generally speaking..its been talked about a lot in the book world over time...You have obviously taken a lot of steps to ensure that your process is fair, its a real insight into how difficult these things must be. I wish you luck and good luck to all taking part!
Thanks again, Liz. I thought I'd made it very clear that I wasn't trying to smear the event. I objected to an email and expressed my concern that it might have gone out elsewhere. I never named the sender, who has already named himself: John A A Logan. There's no way to respond to John, whose email goes on for pages. The only thing that matter is: an email was sent from Deborah Logan/aka Leila Smith/Aine/OLeoghain. The email was inappropriate and I objected to it. All I wanted to do was pull my book without naming anyone. But after contact with Julie of the efestival, I've had to update my position to avoid hurting other writers first...and to clarify that no smear was intended against the festival. I never had anything to say about Logan and refuse to respond to an email that goes on at that length. He/Deborah sent an email that shouldn't have been sent. I objected. Period.
Julie Ann wrote: "I am the organizer of the eFestival of Words. As Reb has chosen to publicly smear the festival, I feel obligated on behalf of ALL the finalists to state the following.Every single nomination was ..." Your comment on my blog was accidentally deleted--seriously, I'd even responded to it and thought your comment and mine were published. Not so. I've responded in brief below to Liz and will update my position on my blog and Facebook, clarifying that my intention had never been to smear the festival.
Unbelievably, misinformation is still being spread about this.I did not send the email to Reb MacRath.
My friend did not word the email more carefully, because she believed she was writing to an old friend/acquaintance who would not publicly use words against her.
She understood that, where five-star reviews had already been written last year for both books in question, and published, by all parties...what would be the problem in asking whether Reb was thinking of voting, for a book he'd already given a good review?
It never crossed her mind, or mine, that this could be interpreted the way it has been.
I repeat, my first concern had been whether he even knew yet he had been nominated, though I did Tweet that to him also, to let him know.
This does not seem to be taken into account in either what Julie or Reb are saying here...never mind the fact that Julie is stating mistakenly that I sent the email to him, which I did not...and Reb seems to be jumping on the error to quote it instantly...so more error enters in.
In any case, this is more about the accusations made, by Reb to Julie, behind the scenes, which then surfaced on Kindleboards when Julie made them public...allegations of emails being sent out by my friend to OTHER finalists...and, of course, as Julie has pointed out, Reb's public attempts to then tie this in to "other shennannigans" at the eFestival...multiple votes etc.
This is where the defamation lies, and I decided not to stand for it any longer today, when I posted the above account on Kindleboards.
I was surprised that Julie did not pick up on this earlier, regarding Reb's defamation and allegations against the eFestival, rather than seeming to accept his allegations about others without proof and repeat them on Kindleboards.
There was no way for me, or Deb, to know that Reb or Julie had no intention of naming names...so I decided to make a public defence against these false allegations before the Witch-hunt had time to gather real momentum.
John, behave. I did not allege that the email was sent to others. I expressed my concern that it might have gone out to others. Might have. Julie herself pointed out that exchanging votes would make no sense since we can only vote once--and I'd be gaining two votes for your one. Next: Julie's Kindleboard post described the shenanigans I referred to. You and Deborah had both cut off contact with me around New Year's...and Deb had sent me a couple of rude emails about a post of mine on AE. So why would she assume she was writing to an old friend? I did give Storm Damage a five-star review. But the email's a different story. No defamation. No intent to name you. No intended smear against the festival. An announcement that I wished to withdraw my book. The email was wrong. It should not have been sent. And my wish to pull my book was entirely natural.
