Ditmars
I received a note about Hugo nominations first thing this morning. This reminded me that it's time to talk about Ditmar nominations. This is not a 'nominate me' post (though if anyone wants to, I'd be delighted, since I have a novel that's eligible). Instead, this is my "Fandom, nominate!" post.
A lot of people write "Nominate me!" posts. I have to admit, I ignore them. I can afford to, for every year a small group of hard-working fans put together a near-complete list of eligible work, to jog memories. It's best for novels, novellas and short stories, and worst for criticism. I check for my stuff and this year I had a good year, especially with the Rethinking History article and no, it's not there. I tried helping out some other years and found out that the problem with the criticism and related list is finding anything that's not by a core group of people. One day I'll find a solution for that, and help out the hard-working fans who compile the giant list. In the interim, I tell people to make sure they nominate stuff not on the list that needs attention, as well as stuff that's on the list.
So, for everything except criticism, we have a wonderfully detailed list thanks to the hard labour of a select few. I did my spot checks for books by obscure authors and for short stories by the same on this year's 'eligible' list, and they were all up there. This doesn't make it complete, but it's probably as good as it gets in most categories.
Anyone active in fandom (no restriction by country) can nominate any number of works. The work can be from this list, or it can be something you know from outside it. It's just a matter of nominating the works.
If you're not 'known' to someone running the Ditmars (and 'knowing' can be as simple as having had a drink with them at a con) then you need to give the name of someone who is, to vouch for you. Me, for instance. Or one of the fanzine editors or a con-runner, or any other 'known' fan you have talked SF with. This works against fans who don't like group activity, but it also means that we don't get nominations from everyone's extended families ie it helps keep the nominations fair. It's still going to be skewed, however, which is why I write this post. We need bigger participation. Very much a "We need your opinions if you love SF" situation.
People should put in nominations for works they've loved, in any category. If you've loved ten works nominate ten. If you've loved one, then nominate just one. Don't say "I haven't read enough" for if you've read something good enough, then this doesn't matter at all. What matters is the Ditmars getting enough nominations for enough works so that the short list (made from the works with the most nominations) reflect what fans think. Then it's over to the national convention and the voters to decide between those works. That's when reading everything counts. It's not reading everything, at that stage, it's reading the short list, which is much easier.
Did I say NatCon? I did. Well, it's early this year. This means we only have until 1 February (Australian 1 February, which means that it closes in January for most of the world) to get those nominations in. That really means nominations ought to be done this week.
How do you nominate something/s? There are clear instructions here http://ditmars.sf.org.au/2015_nominations_open.txt including a link to an online form.
This is the moment when we all get to have our say. If you encountered something wonderful and Australian in 2014, get it seen! Nominate your favourite works this week!
Important note: I'm not involved at all with the Ditmar organisation. The wonderful people of Swancon are. If you have sticky questions, ask them. Ask them soon, however, because nominations aren't open for long at all.
* I thought that we were all too late for the award for SF criticism and related work, for an interesting short list has already been released for that. But the category is in the voting form, so it's worth adding your 5c, despite this. (Or maybe the list I saw wasn't this? Either way, it appears you can still nominate criticism.) Really good critical work tends to go unnoticed in Australia. Criticism and research-based work sometimes gets attention at the Ditmars, but tends to not. This is because not nearly enough people say "I read that fabbo article last year - let me nominate it." And all this is an aside, which is why it's a footnote. Besides, what's a post by me with no footnotes?
A lot of people write "Nominate me!" posts. I have to admit, I ignore them. I can afford to, for every year a small group of hard-working fans put together a near-complete list of eligible work, to jog memories. It's best for novels, novellas and short stories, and worst for criticism. I check for my stuff and this year I had a good year, especially with the Rethinking History article and no, it's not there. I tried helping out some other years and found out that the problem with the criticism and related list is finding anything that's not by a core group of people. One day I'll find a solution for that, and help out the hard-working fans who compile the giant list. In the interim, I tell people to make sure they nominate stuff not on the list that needs attention, as well as stuff that's on the list.
So, for everything except criticism, we have a wonderfully detailed list thanks to the hard labour of a select few. I did my spot checks for books by obscure authors and for short stories by the same on this year's 'eligible' list, and they were all up there. This doesn't make it complete, but it's probably as good as it gets in most categories.
Anyone active in fandom (no restriction by country) can nominate any number of works. The work can be from this list, or it can be something you know from outside it. It's just a matter of nominating the works.
If you're not 'known' to someone running the Ditmars (and 'knowing' can be as simple as having had a drink with them at a con) then you need to give the name of someone who is, to vouch for you. Me, for instance. Or one of the fanzine editors or a con-runner, or any other 'known' fan you have talked SF with. This works against fans who don't like group activity, but it also means that we don't get nominations from everyone's extended families ie it helps keep the nominations fair. It's still going to be skewed, however, which is why I write this post. We need bigger participation. Very much a "We need your opinions if you love SF" situation.
People should put in nominations for works they've loved, in any category. If you've loved ten works nominate ten. If you've loved one, then nominate just one. Don't say "I haven't read enough" for if you've read something good enough, then this doesn't matter at all. What matters is the Ditmars getting enough nominations for enough works so that the short list (made from the works with the most nominations) reflect what fans think. Then it's over to the national convention and the voters to decide between those works. That's when reading everything counts. It's not reading everything, at that stage, it's reading the short list, which is much easier.
Did I say NatCon? I did. Well, it's early this year. This means we only have until 1 February (Australian 1 February, which means that it closes in January for most of the world) to get those nominations in. That really means nominations ought to be done this week.
How do you nominate something/s? There are clear instructions here http://ditmars.sf.org.au/2015_nominations_open.txt including a link to an online form.
This is the moment when we all get to have our say. If you encountered something wonderful and Australian in 2014, get it seen! Nominate your favourite works this week!
Important note: I'm not involved at all with the Ditmar organisation. The wonderful people of Swancon are. If you have sticky questions, ask them. Ask them soon, however, because nominations aren't open for long at all.
* I thought that we were all too late for the award for SF criticism and related work, for an interesting short list has already been released for that. But the category is in the voting form, so it's worth adding your 5c, despite this. (Or maybe the list I saw wasn't this? Either way, it appears you can still nominate criticism.) Really good critical work tends to go unnoticed in Australia. Criticism and research-based work sometimes gets attention at the Ditmars, but tends to not. This is because not nearly enough people say "I read that fabbo article last year - let me nominate it." And all this is an aside, which is why it's a footnote. Besides, what's a post by me with no footnotes?
No comments have been added yet.
