Tremendous Pushback Against Barkley YA Award Name Proposal

Since Chris Barkley released his “Proposal to Re-Name the Young Adult Book Award” yesterday it has been heavily criticized, and five of the nine signers have removed their names —  Juliette Wade, Melinda Snodgrass, Pablo Miguel Alberto Vasquez, and Shawna McCarthy, and Vincent Docherty, who says his name never should have been included to begin with.

Last year, the Worldcon 75 business meeting finalized creation of a new YA Award for the World Science Fiction Convention, ratifying it by a vote of 65-27, and a motion naming it the Lodestar award received first passage. (For a complete explanation of how the committee chose that name, read the YA Award Full Report.)

Barkley’s proposal urges the award be given a different name — though just what name he planned to keep embargoed until the start of this year’s business meeting. (“There is very good reason why the name will not be revealed at this time and that explanation will also be given at that time.”)

However, when Melinda Snodgrass told Facebook readers why she was no longer a signer, she also revealed the proposed name.

So I have apparently inadvertently stepped into the middle of a science fiction fandom/Hugo/Worldcon hornet’s nest. So do pass on to anyone who might care that this was done innocently and was me attempting to not seem to be slighting Ursula K. Le Guin who was one of our greatest writers.

How this all happened — I had the vague memory that we now have a YA award of some kind and when I got a request to put my name on a petition to have it named for Le Guin it seemed churlish to refuse. I thought it was another make nice sort of honorary thing so I said sure even though it didn’t matter to me one whit.

But apparently this process has consumed fandom and worldcon like a wildfire for the past several years, and I have apparently been pulled into this fight when I didn’t even know there was a fight.

So consider this me stating that I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not taking a side because I didn’t know there were sides to be taken, I’ve requested my name be removed and I’m backing slowly away from the whole thing so I can get back to writing and working to get Wild Cards on the air.

Once this whole thing gets settled I will be happy to vote for a YA novel because I really enjoy YA novels. And I don’t care what they call the award.

Chris Barkley sent File 770 this comment “on the record”: “I do not have any comment at this time. If anyone wants to know what name will be officially revealed, they are welcome to attend the Preliminary Business Meeting at Worldcon 76.”

Also, Ellen Datlow, although not listed in Barkley’s post on File 770, announced on Facebook that she has removed her name from the petition.

Renay of Lady Business has made the most thorough critical response to the motion. Jump on the thread here:

At another point she underscores how the proposal disrespects the process used to create the award —

She is not the only one to see the proposal as demeaning people’s work on the award:

While the name was still unknown, Brian White voiced his deepest fear….

However, it needs to be made clear that the Worldcon was not the author of this idea —

Stacy Whitman satirized the proposal in a thread —

And a writer who knows something about the years of debate behind the award wryly suggested another new name:

[Thanks to Mark Hepworth, JJ, and Chris Barkley for the story.]

112 thoughts on “Tremendous Pushback Against Barkley YA Award Name Proposal

  1. I’m going to say it again:

    I think that Barkley has (deliberately) given people the mistaken impression that the name of the award is still “up for grabs”. It’s not.

    The name Lodestar was chosen by the membership last year and is up for final ratification this year. Yes, there is always a possibility that they won’t ratify it, but that is extremely slim. The question of it being named after a person was pretty much put to bed last year. And based on the vast majority of the reactions I’ve seen on the part of Worldcon members, it’s still firmly tucked into bed.

  2. Laura: Love Alex’s tweet!

    I read it in my dad’s voice, and I still haven’t stopped laughing. The mental image of the WSFS Business Meeting attendees as a recalcitrant bunch of kids stuffed onto a bus on a long road trip is perhaps a shade too close to the truth. 😀

  3. While I think it shouldn’t have been done so sloppily, and if it was decided democratically not to then that should stand, I am very sentimental about Le Guin and don’t think naming something after her should be entirely ruled out just because she might turn out posthumously fallible in some way in the distant future (like in 2566, when I write this).

  4. JJ,
    Hee, I’m actually picturing Alex at the podium of the meeting with a steering wheel instead of the mike!

  5. jayn: I am very sentimental about Le Guin and don’t think naming something after her should be entirely ruled out just because she might turn out posthumously fallible in some way in the distant future

    I absolutely agree. But I also absolutely feel that the Worldcon YA Award is not the right vehicle to honor her legacy.

  6. I note that Shawna McCarthy, one of the previous co-signers, seems to be a bit misinformed. In a comment on Ellen Datlow’s post, she writes:

    “For my part, after reading the 30 page committee report, it seemed to me that the majority of the respondents (54%) wanted to use a writer’s name, and LeGuin’s name was the most popular.”

    In fact, Madeleine L’Engle got 243 suggestions, Diana Wynne Jones got 128 and LeGuin got 90. This is all in the report.

  7. I may be wrong about my interpretation of the rules, but if the proposer of this amendment is not prepared to give notice of his amendment and have it on the agenda, then it must be raised from the floor during the debate on the ratification of the name Loadstar. This takes place at the main meeting, and any announcement at the preliminary meting would be out of order.

  8. My guess is that if Barkley has handled it this bad with his fellow signatories, then he has not been wholly straightforward with the LeGuin estate either. Which makes this even worse at this time of grief.

  9. I’d favour naming the Nobel Prize for Literature after Le Guin, as that would be commensurate with the whole body of her work.
    Doubtful I could sell that to the Committee, of course.
    P.S. Happy International Women’s Day!

  10. JJ on March 7, 2018 at 8:26 pm said:
    But I also absolutely feel that the Worldcon YA Award is not the right vehicle to honor her legacy.

    Same here. Most of her career was spent writing “grownup” SFF and even Earthsea isn’t what people think of as YA. Why relegate her to a less critically respected part of the genre?

  11. Msb: Based on the not-a-Nobel economic Prize, they MAY be on board with a “Ursula K. LeGuin’s Prize for Young Adult Literature in the memory of Alfred Nobel”. But that would require approximately an imperial buttload of money.

  12. My brain is hurting just reading this comment thread

    I couldn’t make it to Finland for the last vote on the YA award. I REALLY REALLY REALLY love the idea of the WSFS giving an award to a deserving author in this category. Don’t you?

    Aren’t we all vain enough to yell at people, “READ THIS BOOK!”? I can’t believe the award itself is coming under attack. Again.

    Frankly I can’t imagine having many accomplishments prouder than, “I nominated in the first round of WSFS Lodestar (or whatevs, except L’Engle) Award for YA in sff in 2018 and I LOVE the book that won”.

  13. Yes… no one is objecting to the YA award (I’m sure there must be someone who doesn’t like the idea, because there’s always someone, but they seem to be keeping it to themselves in this particular flap.)

    For that matter, I don’t think anyone (except someone, because there’s always someone) would particularly mind if it was named after Le Guin… except that there was a well-managed process for coming up with a name, and that’s not the name it came up with.

    It’s the attempt to do an end-run around that process that people don’t like… I can’t say that I care for it much, myself.

  14. If you needed a name for the awards based on longevity and acknowledgement, influence and style, it would (or should) need to be named after E. Nesbit.

    Some people seemed to over react. Name it after HPL? What children’s story did he write? Get real.

  15. Steve Wright on March 8, 2018 at 2:27 am said:

    Yes… no one is objecting to the YA award (I’m sure there must be someone who doesn’t like the idea, because there’s always someone, but they seem to be keeping it to themselves in this particular flap.)

    Not quite. I’ve seen a couple of people (including on F770) objecting to the concept of the award itself. I’ve pointed out that were I presiding officer over the debate (I’m not), I’d rule their comments out of order as not germane.

  16. I said, last year, that I thought “Astrid” was a good name for the award, based on a person writing works for children aged 0-99, whose books include people with super-strength, straight-out fantasy, and people who have flight due to propellers implanted in their backs. And who is the fourth most translated author of children’s literature (after in random order, the Brothers Grimm, HC Andersen and Enid Blyton) and teh 18th most translated author overall. And, in this inclusive world, crucially was not an Anglophone.

    But I am OK with “Lodestar”.

  17. I’m a bit worried by this:

    I’m sick of men at the Worldcon Business meeting pulling nonsense like this, especially when they probably don’t give two shits about modern YA.

    This seems to ignore the fact that it was Barkley who first promoted the idea of a YA Hugo, and his pushing for it over a number of years was what led to the creation of the committee in the first place.

  18. I advocated against the YA award for what I considered good reason. I totally accept that this was not the prevailing, nor majority viewpoint. I said my piece, I argued a little, but it was also more important for the advocates than it was to me, so I was happy to see the issue finally decided.

    Lodestar is a fine name…at least as good as any other.

    For a host of reasons, I believe it would be inappropriate at this time to re-name the Lodestar in honor of Ursula: it’s too soon, the path to the YA award has been fractious, Ursula is deserving of an award in her name that reflects her totality, not one aspect of her career, it’s an emotional issue, the YA award should be given an opportunity to settle in &c.

  19. Ah, thanks folks. I was starting to feel like this was a stall tactic on the award itself, thanks for getting me out of my nerd tree.

    I know there was / is some pushback on the award. The process of defining YA is tough and I know that a lot of work went into even that aspect of getting the Lodestar approved. I want to say one more time that as an observer that did NOT have to address all of the community’s concerns for the last several years, I am so grateful for all of the hard work that has been done.

    Also, I woke up really happy and bemused this morning to be part of a community that cares about books as much as I do (SO MUCH). My hat’s off to all y’all today. I know I don’t have to tell everyone what it means to me to have fen to talk to about NERD STUFF. I hope to see everyone in San Jose. <3

    Thanks again file770 team for bringing the news. WHAT AM I GONNA WEAR TO THE AWARDS????

  20. @Andrew M–

    This seems to ignore the fact that it was Barkley who first promoted the idea of a YA Hugo, and his pushing for it over a number of years was what led to the creation of the committee in the first place.

    He advocated for it, and is now bitching and moaning because the open and democratic process didn’t produce exactly what he would have given us if he were Boss of the Fannish World, and his attempt to manipulate us into “fixing” it, instead of making an open and direct case for it, has gotten pushback instead of acquiescence.

    Why did he think it was a good idea to try to prevent fandom from openly discussing it? I have no idea. He won’t even acknowledge what his ex-co-signatories have said, that Le Guin is the name he intends us to adopt.

    His clever plan forgot to factor in normal human reactions to being manipulated and to having hard work brushed aside as worthless.

  21. @JJ

    The question of it being named after a person was pretty much put to bed last year.

    I was at the meeting and voted for the award and the Lodestar name as well. I’ll just say that the topic of whether to name it after a person or not was barely touched on, other than a motion to rename it after Madeleine L’Engle, which was argued against on the basis of various objections and with an awareness that there had been a corporate-encouraged campaign that people felt inappropriate.

    For my part, with the knowledge of the difficult road that the YA Award has had, I at least had an apprehension that efforts to prevent a name from being put forward for ratification this year would potentially damage the future existence of the award. So that’s why I voted for the Lodestar name, not because I was wedded to it or even particularly liked it but because it showed support for the underlying existence of the award. Possibly others there at the meeting, who voted for it, did so for similar reasons.

    I’ve said this elsewhere, but Barkley has tainted his proposal with the way he’s gone about it and really should withdraw any involvement in it because it will surely prejudice people.

  22. If Le Guin deserves an Award in Her Name and she certainly does, then it should reflect everything she’s done as a writer, artist, musician and really great person. Yes she’s done YA, but some of her most challenging work came far outside that writing genre. My favorite work by her is Always Coming Home, her ethnographic look at a matriarchical society in what is 5he possible future iotehion of California. It was a fantastic work told in a storytelling telling structure really not used that often.

  23. As an observer totally outside the fan and writer communities, I wonder why the same kinds of arguments that were made at Worldcon against naming the new YA award for a person (mentioned above) weren’t raised when the proposal to append Damon Knight’s name to the SFWA Grand Master Award was made after his death. I have nothing at all against Knight (whose story “Babel II” still keeps me supplied with password candidates), but putting someone’s name on a preexisting award just rubs me the wrong way.

  24. To All,

    “Failure is not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts.”
    – Winston Churchill

    While I welcome your criticisms of my recent actions regarding the YA Award, I also want you to know that been though I anticipated some harsh comments, doing nothing was never an option as far as I was concerned.

    I still believe that changing the name is in our best interests. Say what you will about me and the way events have unfolded but I am quite certain many of you who have known me during my forty-two plus years in fandom, that I have NEVER done anything regarding the Hugos or the YA Award for my own personal gain or notoriety.

    Everything I have done is because I believed it was the right thing to do.

    Furthermore, I would not have proceeded in issuing my statement without due diligence or obtaining certain permissions. Anyone claiming such a thing is embarrisingly and totally wrong.

    I also fully acknowledge that we all could have been spared a lot of controversy had the press releases worded a bit differently to covey certain information that may alleviated the concerns of several co-sponsors, who subseqently withdrew their support. To them, I offer my most sincere apologies.

    To the parties that pressured these co-sponsor to relent or second guess their actions, I offer my strongest condemnation. They gave their support in good faith for a noteworthy and historic action and did not deserve to be targeted and harassed.

    I fully expect to explain myself and my actions one day (and who knows, that might be today, the way are going) but until I receive the word from certain parties and and freed to do so, I continue my present course action: I will neither confirm or deny the name to be used nor comment any further, either here, online or in any other social medium about this subject.

    Cheers (or Seinfeld)
    Chris B.

    Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

  25. To the parties that pressured these co-sponsor to relent or second guess their actions, I offer my strongest condemnation. They gave their support in good faith for a noteworthy and historic action and did not deserve to be targeted and harassed.

    Citation needed.

  26. @Chris Barkley

    For example, this appears to be when and how Melinda Snodgrass was informed of the situation and changed her mind

    https://twitter.com/Yagathai/status/971271709599952896?s=19

    I think that thread makes it quite clear that she withdrew because she hadn’t known the full details of how the current name came about – and that she considered that to be on you. That’s not harassment.

    Vincent Docherty says he should never have been included to start with. That’s not harassment.

  27. @Chris–

    While I welcome your criticisms of my recent actions regarding the YA Award, I also want you to know that been though I anticipated some harsh comments, doing nothing was never an option as far as I was concerned.

    How brave you are! How noble, to boldly face the terrifying dangers of disagreement, to save the fannish world from the horrors of a YA award with a name that wasn’t you choice!

    Or something.

    I still believe that changing the name is in our best interests. Say what you will about me and the way events have unfolded but I am quite certain many of you who have known me during my forty-two plus years in fandom, that I have NEVER done anything regarding the Hugos or the YA Award for my own personal gain or notoriety.

    Except it’s hard to see what the supposed awful consequences of leaving the Lodestar name in place are, other than “Chris doesn’t like it and he’s determined to make us change it.”

    Furthermore, I would not have proceeded in issuing my statement without due diligence or obtaining certain permissions. Anyone claiming such a thing is embarrisingly and totally wrong.

    Wrong? Maybe.

    Embarrassingly wrong?

    Don’t kid yourself. People are trying to figure out what would have caused you to think it was reasonable to keep your preferred name for the award secret until the start of the Preliminary Session, thus preventing any advance discussion of it. That is, some reason other than the most obvious, the desire to prevent that advance discussion.

    People are working in an information vacuum that you intentionally created. It’s no one’s fault but yours if no one has successfully read your mind. It’s an especially sad claim, given that the people making that attempt are trying to make your press release look less nakedly manipulative. They are, at least a little, on your side.

    You could have been open and above-board with everyone. That means making sure your co-sponsors knew you were proposing to change an already chosen name, not name an unnamed award, and telling the rest of us what name you’re proposing, instead of telling us we need to wait for the Great Reveal until it’s too late for any real discussion.

    Manipulation is most likely to work when done in private, with the target isolated. Attempted in public, aimed at thousands, almost always blows up in people’s faces.

    To the parties that pressured these co-sponsor to relent or second guess their actions, I offer my strongest condemnation. They gave their support in good faith for a noteworthy and historic action and did not deserve to be targeted and harassed.

    Prove it. Name names, and show your evidence.

    Because baseless accusations against unnamed villains won’t help your case, especially given the fact that none of your ex-co-sponsors seems to have complained about harassment, and I at least haven’t seen any, here, on Twitter, or on Facebook.

    I fully expect to explain myself and my actions one day (and who knows, that might be today, the way are going) but until I receive the word from certain parties and and freed to do so, I continue my present course action: I will neither confirm or deny the name to be used nor comment any further, either here, online or in any other social medium about this subject.

    Sure, go on pretending either that your ex-co-sponsors haven’t let the cat out of the bag, or that they might be lying. That’ll help, for sure!

  28. @Steve Davidson: “I advocated against the YA award for what I considered good reason. I totally accept that this was not the prevailing, nor majority viewpoint. I said my piece, I argued a little, but it was also more important for the advocates than it was to me, so I was happy to see the issue finally decided.” Yeah, exacty. I mean, I like the award and the name, but the principle of the thing. This is what life in a community is like. Sometimes we get precisely what we wanted, sometimes not, and when the latter isn’t imposing any real harm, misery, etc., we can go “okay, then” and move along.

    @Chris Barkley: “I fully expect to explain myself and my actions one day (and who knows, that might be today, the way are going) but until I receive the word from certain parties and and freed to do so, I continue my present course action: I will neither confirm or deny the name to be used nor comment any further, either here, online or in any other social medium about this subject.”. So…you don’t actually have a proposal at this time. You’re talking about making a proposal later, if unnamed conditions work out. In terms of actual substance, that is, you’re trying to make us care about something with less substance than the Puppies’ shit-stirring. This is not a good look for you (or anyone).

    If you can’t accept a loss in any element of something that matters to you, what you’ve got there is not an actual democracy but a democratic gloss on a Barkleycracy.

    @Lis Carey: Right on about the implicit notion of schedule-screwing egoboo hunt as a form of personal gratification and notoriety.

  29. Side note: I would bet money that, assuming the people who have no reason to lie or dissemble are in fact not lying or dissembling, the Le Guin estate hasn’t been properly briefed on how unwelcome Chris’ style of proceeding is, nor how disruptive and unwelcome his proposal will be.

  30. Hmm. For some reason “Lodestar” is growing on me. I think it will actually be a fine name for the YA (notaHugo) award.

  31. @Chris Barkley:

    There’s nothing quite like an aggressively dramatic dude larding a comment thread on a genre YA award with Churchill quotes to move me from “that sounds like a bad idea” to “burn the proposal with fire and take anything I ever hear from this guy with a large pinch of salt”.

    This is a conversation, not a fridge magnet.

  32. “To the parties that pressured these co-sponsor to relent or second guess their actions, I offer my strongest condemnation.”

    That was the final nail in the coffin. Blaming others for your own total mess. This proposal deserves to die as the sponsor is taking every possible opportunity to alienate others.

  33. @Bruce Baugh–

    @Lis Carey: Right on about the implicit notion of schedule-screwing egoboo hunt as a form of personal gratification and notoriety

    Except you said it far more succinctly than I did!

  34. Ingvar on March 8, 2018 at 6:51 am said:
    I said, last year, that I thought “Astrid” was a good name for the award, based on a person writing works for children aged 0-99, whose books include people with super-strength, straight-out fantasy, and people who have flight due to propellers implanted in their backs. And who is the fourth most translated author of children’s literature (after in random order, the Brothers Grimm, HC Andersen and Enid Blyton) and teh 18th most translated author overall. And, in this inclusive world, crucially was not an Anglophone.

    But I am OK with “Lodestar”.

    Hear hear

  35. I do not have strong feelings about the name of this award, so I’m inclined to listen to those who do—and it’s a lot harder for me to do that in the context of a surprise amendment at the Business Meeting than with a more fully hashed-out discussion. (Not that the topic of the YA Award Name hasn’t already received much hashing.)

    I plan to be at this year’s Business Meeting (first time, woo!) and I’m expecting to vote against any amendments to the name. I’m open to being convinced otherwise, but “I have a marvelous name that I won’t tell anybody yet” is not convincing, especially when a necessary by-product is not naming the award for another year. (And I agree with the sentiments above that a Le Guin Award for YA seems misapplied barring some kind of clear indication that Le Guin herself wanted a YA award named after her.)

  36. Chris Barkley: I also fully acknowledge that we all could have been spared a lot of controversy had the press releases worded a bit differently to covey certain information that may alleviated the concerns of several co-sponsors, who subseqently withdrew their support. To them, I offer my most sincere apologies.

    No. Your problem wasn’t the wording of the Press Release, and this is a phony apology, because you’re not apologizing for the actual wrong that you did.

    Your problem was that you intentionally misled the people you persuaded to sign onto the proposal, by not telling them that you were attempt to hijack the naming of an award that had already been named.

    There is no wording you could have put into your Press Release which would have “alleviated their concern” about being deceived by you, and by being placed in a position by you where it appeared to the fandom world that they were also in support of attempting to hijack the naming of an already-named award.

    I didn’t see anyone being harassed about signing it. I did see people asking them things like “why would you support overturning all the years of hard work by the YA Hugo committee?” — which is a perfectly legitimate response on the part of fandom. The signers didn’t withdraw because of pressure, they withdrew because you had deceived them and they did not know what it was that they were signing.

    And WTF were you thinking, adding Docherty’s name without his permission?

    I like you as a person, but I offer my strongest condemnation for your behavior in this matter. You have wronged some good SFF pros with your underhanded behavior, and you have blackened the name of all of us in fandom with your execrable conduct. Facebook and Twitter aren’t saying “Chris Barkley is awful for suggesting this”, they’re saying “Worldcon is awful for suggesting this” and I resent like hell the way that you have made the rest of the Worldcon members look like the assholes here.

    If you had any integrity at all, you would withdraw this utterly ill-conceived proposal, and apologize profusely to the rest of the Worldcon members for attempting to hijack the Lodestar Award to achieve your own personal satisfaction.

    When this amendment is presented at the WSFS Business Meeting in San Jose, I will be one of the many people standing up and saying “OH HELL NO” to it.

  37. “You have wronged some good SFF pros with your underhanded behavior, and you have blackened the name of all of us in fandom with your execrable conduct. Facebook and Twitter aren’t saying “Chris Barkley is awful for suggesting this”, they’re saying “Worldcon is awful for suggesting this” and I resent like hell the way that you have made the rest of the Worldcon members look like the assholes here.”

    I do not think Chris can be blamed because of random people on the internet having no idea of how Worldcon works. I’m more worried about the LeGuin estate being tricked as the other signatories were. That they think that this is something Worldcon is behind or believe that it is a foregone conclusion that his proposal will win (as his behaviour makes this very, very unlikely).

    I would prefer this proposal to be withdrawn for their sake. So that we instead could make a serious proposal for something to honour her in a few years, where we have had time to gather support from the whole of fandom.

    I feel that Chris is damaging any such effort. And that makes me sad.

  38. @ Chris
    To the parties that pressured these co-sponsor to relent or second guess their actions, I offer my strongest condemnation. They gave their support in good faith for a noteworthy and historic action and did not deserve to be targeted and harassed.
    First, you are claiming that there are Nasty People going so far as to harass people you listed as undersigned. You then seriously insult them by saying they were intimidated. But it has occurred to me that instead of tackling your comments all ever again I’ll transcribe my full comment on things before you deleted the entire matter from your Facebook page. Unfortunately I don’t have screen prints of the entire discussion because there was no time to expand parts before you were deleting.

    Chris, you asked me to say no more about this, and that you weren’t going to. Instead you’ve accused people of harassment. Worse, you’ve said that people, one internationally known and respected, have given into harassment. Such a claim . . . I don’t even have words for it.

    You have taken the stand that your intentions are just and noble. For Pete’s sake, it’s just changing the name of the Award.

    You are correct that you wrote in plain English then claim that people don’t understand your plain English. I take that as a personal insult, not just an insult to others who also understood your plain Englisih.

    You promised certain parties NOT [emphisis yours] to reveal the name as if a journalist protecting a source. If people don’t want the name revealed you should have shown them some respect and said nothing. Instead you sent a press release off to File 770.

    Right now I’m too damn angry to say more. And I definitely have a problems: I just crafted several paragraph on File 770 stating your good qualities and that you did all of this in mistaken enthusiasm. Which means that I need to denounce you just as publicly. On a personal level it hurts tremendously that my long-held opion of a friend turns out to be so utterly wrong.”

    Say what you will about me and the way events have unfolded but I am quite certain many of you who have known me during my forty-two plus years in fandom, that I have NEVER done anything regarding the Hugos or the YA Award for my own personal gain or notoriety.

    Earlier I didn’t say what I would about you, I said what I believed to be true. And what I believed was a lie. As for your proposing new Hugos, one becoming the YA Award I seriously wonder. You’re clearly in favor to the things you propose and they’re good ideas. You equally clearly get a serious rush out of it and by now, it seems. want something to be entirely yours, with no connection to the people who do this work. Such a chance for showboating!

    If you do care about the Hugos, as you claim, you’ll do what you said and say no more about all of this. You’re only digging yourself in deeper, which is your lookout. But look at what starts the article: you’ve done serious damage to all of us, the Worldcon, anyone who might be willing to help out, given false impressions all over the place, just when we were getting ahead of them . . .

    You’ve done enough damage so would you please just stop perpetuating the mess you started?

  39. You’re all such kind people. When dude went on about how he couldn’t possibly reveal the name because he waiting for something and it would be immediately obvious why once he revealed at the business meeting, I just assumed he was waiting for some specific author to die, presumably shortly before Worldcon, and then the big reveal would cause an outpouring of fannish sentimentality.

    …I freely accept I may be the only ghoul in the room, but that was where my mind went, because who would possibly think being cagey about LeGuin was a smart move?

  40. RedWombat: who would possibly think being cagey about LeGuin was a smart move?

    Who would possibly think that any of this would be a smart move?

    What a way to spend your Worldcon, with everyone angry at you for pulling a shitty, selfish stunt like this. 🙁

  41. I felt like it was last minute at last year’s business meeting when people were talking about alternatives to the YA committee’s recommendation of Lodestar. Waiting until this year’s meeting is too dang late. Yet announcing anything before you were allowed to reveal the name was a bad idea too. And you obviously didn’t let your former co-signers know that they were suppose to keep quiet about it being Le Guin.

Comments are closed.