Log in

No account? Create an account

The Past | The Previous

Ditmar Nominations

Ditmar nominations are up.

First is first, I picked up a best short story nomination for 'R' which appeared in Agog! Smashing Stories and a nomination for the William Atheling Jnr Award for criticism for my post on Haruki Murakami. Both of them are real nice. Thanks for those who read and nominated.

The Atheling nominations are going to cause a bit of a ruffle, I reckon. The people in charge of the award this year decided to bring the award nominations back for a specific piece of writing, which kind of fucked people who have been building a body of work in reviews, since that has been what has mostly gone on and what has previously been nominated. Hardcore criticism is dead in the local scene, so actually allowing for nominations based off a years work has, in my opinion, made the nominations stronger. It's not a slight upon the writers who are nominated (and I'm one of them) but this year does feel weaker, with Jason Nahrung up for 'Why Are Publishers Afraid of Horror' which was published in the Courier Mail in Queensland, Rob Hood up for his review of Weight of Water and and me for my bit on Murakami. Still, maybe it will inspire some more critical work this year, though where it would be published outside blogs and websites (where both Rob's piece and mine came from a site and blog) I don't know.

Short Stories

q        Deborah Biancotti: Number 3 Raw Place, Agog! Smashing Stories, April
q        Rjurik Davidson: The Interminable Suffering of Mysterious Mr Wu, Aurealis #33
q        Margo Lanagan: Singing My Sister Down, Black Juice.
q        Ben Peek: R, Agog! Smashing Stories, ed by Cat Sparks
q        No award

Novella or Novelette

q        Simon Brown: Water Babies, Agog! Smashing Stories, April
q        Stephen Dedman: The Whole of the Law, ASIM 13
q        Paul Haines: The Last Days of Kali Yuga, NFG Magazine, Volume 2 Issue 4, August 2004
q        Richard Harland: Catabolic Magic, Aurealis #32
q        Cat Sparks: Home by the Sea, Orb #6, July
q        No award


q        Richard Harland: The Black Crusade
q        Maxine McArthur: Less than Human
q        Sean Williams: The Crooked Letter
q        No award

Collected works

q        Agog! Smashing Stories: ed Cat Sparks
q        Black Juice: Margo Lanagan.
q        Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine: ed Lyn Triffitt, Edwina Harvey, Andrew Finch,
Zara Baxter, Robbie Matthews & Tehani Croft
q        Orb 6: ed Sarah Endacott
q        Encounters: ed Donna Hanson and Maxine McArthur, CSFG Publishing
q        No award

Pro Artwork

q        Les Petersen: cover of ASIM 12
q        Kerri Valkova: cover of The Black Crusade, Chimaera Publications
q        Cat Sparks: Agog! Smashing Stories cover
q        Les Petersen: Encounters Book Cover
q        Les Petersen: cover and internal ASIM 16
q        No award

Fan Art

q        Sarah Xu,
q        No award

William Atheling Jnr Award for Criticism or Review

q        Robert Hood: review of Weight of Water at HoodReviews, asking "is this film a ghost story?" http://www.roberthood.net/reviews/index.html
q        Jason Nahrung: Why are publishers afraid of horror, BAM, Courier Mail, 20 March 2004
q        Ben Peek: review of Haruki Murakami's work in the Urban Sprawl Project, http://www.livejournal.com/users/benpeek/231224.html
q        No award

Note that this category was originally conceived and run for a single important piece of work.  There has been drift in this perception towards life work or work over the whole year.  There are, however, other areas for this longer focus writing, such as fan writing, professional achievement or even fan website/zine.  After consultation with others, all persons who made nominations that did not fit within the original conception of the Award had an attempt made to contact them to give them a chance to amend their nomination from a ‘whole of work’ to a single article that best represented the reviewer’s work over the year.  Please vote in accordance with this.

Pro Achievement

q        The Clarion South Team (Fantastic Qld - convenors Robert Hoge, Kate Eltham, Robert Dobson & Heather Gent): negotiating with the US Clarion people, then promoting and establishing Clarion South which gives emerging writer the chance to work with the best in the business.
q        Cat Sparks: editing and writing including winning third place in the writers of the future award
q        Margo Lanagan: for Black Juice
q        Maloney, Geoff: Tales of the Crypto-System, his short story publications
q        Sean Williams for The Crooked Letter and efforts in teaching
q        Jonathan Strahan for work over the year in internationally published reviews and in editing anthologies
q        No award

Fan achievement

q        Super Happy Robot Hour
q        Conflux convention committee
q        Continuum 2 convention committee
q        No award

Fan writer

q        Edwina Harvey
q        Gillespie, Bruce
q        No award

Fan webite/zine

q        Antipodean SF: ed Ion Newcomb
q        SF Bullsheet: ed Edwina Harvey & Ted Scribner
q        Gynaezine: ed Emma Hawkes and Gina Goddard
q        No award

New Talent

q        Barnes, Chris
q        Barrow, Stuart
q        Dugan, Grace
q        Haines, Paul
q        Robson, Barbara
q        Smith, Brian
q        No award


( 14 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )
Mar. 8th, 2005 11:15 pm (UTC)
Yeah, i kind of agree with your comments on the atheling... I nominated people rather than works, then was asked to nominate specific works, and ended up just not nominating... I tend to agree... most of the criticism I've enjoyed recently has been a body of work, whether through blogging or a number of reviews or (as with Jason) consistent coverage of the local scene, rather than specific articles... academic criticism in the local scene is definitely sparse at the moment...

i can understand the thinking behind the decision, but in practical terms i suspect that both yours and jason's nominations were most likely general nominations that were pushed into selecting a selected text to attach them to... i could be wrong...

i was happy to see the short stories nominations though.... there are some really good stories in there...and a lot of them from "rising stars" of the scene...

i was a bit surprised to see only three nominations for novel.. i wonder if that means a lot of fandom isn't reading local novels?

anyway, congratulations on the nominations!

Mar. 8th, 2005 11:35 pm (UTC)
well, i suspect people will eventually vote for a body of work there, anyhow. they'll vote for rob because he has a huge body of work throughout the years in the scene, or nahrung for his continual work, or me for the years worth of blogging. i really doubt that it'll come down to specific works. the award has changed.

as for general nominations turned specific, you're right. indeed, the haruki murakami piece is what i pointed the guys in charge too when i was asked. so, you know, i suspect it's there just because most people went, well, i liked the whole blog, i don't know what to vote for...

i am pleased to see some new people up for awards (though i guess the winner of the short story is all but sown up, which is a bit of a shame). i do wish the local scene would look outside locally published stories to nominate. ah well.

as for the novel thing... well, i have to admit i haven't read those novels.
Mar. 8th, 2005 11:53 pm (UTC)
I agree about the atheling, I fired off an email to the committee earlier this morning.

I nominated people based on a body of work because the eligibility criteria covered that, and while the committee have leeway to move nominations that they feel fit better in another category, I think it would be worthwhile tackling the eligibility criteria if they want to shift the emphasis back to the original aim of the Atheling.

Did they email nominators or nominees about which piece of work should be nomniated? I didn't get an email about the nominations I made.

It would be kinda cool to have people nominated for a body of work, and then the nominee chooses a single work from their years output to represent them on the ballot. I kinda like that, as it avoids the "three people nominated X for this article, and 3 nominated X for that article, but neither was enough to get X on the ballot, though if we combined the nominations it would" scenario.
Mar. 9th, 2005 12:15 am (UTC)
well, i got an email, and so did payne, so... who knows?

personally, i reckon the award should be for body of work. there's just not the place in the local scene for individual criticism, and it's frankly not happening at a level can single out individual pieces for.
Mar. 9th, 2005 01:35 am (UTC)
I agree that there's no diversity of standalone criticism, and the presence of the award clearly isn't helping to stimulate that, either.

As to what the award *should* be for? I'm not sure I have an opinion.
Mar. 9th, 2005 01:42 am (UTC)
well, the award could help stimulate it. not like this, however.

and sure you have an opinion. you're ust being polite and not saying :)
Mar. 9th, 2005 02:38 am (UTC)
and sure you have an opinion. you're ust being polite and not saying :)

Says you. No, I can see advantages in both.

A body of work award means that nominating is easier, that productive reviewers are likely to get nominated, that everybody is likely to be able to see at least one example of the nominee's work, but that personality becomes a factor.

A single piece award makes it harder to nominate and adjudicate, makes it more likely to be about reputation unless the piece in question is electronically or broadly available, but rewards solid, deep, though out criticism and review of the type that I admire and revere.

I haven't fully evaluated which option I prefer or which option best serves community and science fiction.
Mar. 9th, 2005 05:54 am (UTC)
surely reputation and body of work sort of mingle together, though?

me, i don't particularly care which option serves community or science fiction. to favour one option because of either is a bit of a mugs game, since both will be round long after the individuals in question. so i'll always come down on the side of individual--whether i vote for individual works or the body is down to the strength of each, i guess.

not, of course, that i will be voting this year as i won't be at the con, but still.
Mar. 9th, 2005 08:15 am (UTC)
Congrats on the nominations :)
Mar. 9th, 2005 09:17 am (UTC)
thanks muchly.
Mar. 9th, 2005 02:15 pm (UTC)
woo-hoo. Congrats. You've had a good go the last few weeks, yes? Well except for the whole hacking up brown stuff. :-p
Mar. 9th, 2005 09:44 pm (UTC)
yep. it's been a pretty good last few weeks, writing wise, though i get the feeling people are sick of it. notice how less people offer me best wishes now ;)
Mar. 9th, 2005 10:06 pm (UTC)
They're choking on their jealousy. :-)They... can't... type... out... the... words...

Or everyone's just away from the computer. But that wouldn't be quite as much fun to work with.
Mar. 9th, 2005 10:21 pm (UTC)
heh. no. i think they're sick of it. hell, i'm faintly sick of myself. all this happiness is just not right. i should go and ask some girl out. that'll sort things out.
( 14 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )