On Slates

[ann_leckie]

There’s a sort-of conversation happening on Twitter this morning, sparked I think by Elizabeth Bear’s post at Charlie Stross’s blog.

First off, I deplore slates. In the context of the Hugos, they are an asshole move. Just don’t slate.

Second off, I am saying unequivocally that I do not agree to be on anyone’s slate, do not approve of my inclusion in any slate, and anyone who slates a work of mine is thereby demonstrating their extra-strong motivation to be seen as an asshole.

Now, there’s some concern that assholes making up a slate for next year would deliberately include the work of people they hate, in order to force those people to withdraw any nominations they might get. This might be a genuine concern for some writers. It is not one of mine.

Look, let’s be real. I was largely an unknown writer when Ancillary Justice swept the awards last year. It made the Hugo ballot because quite a lot of voters thought it was worthy of the award, and for no other reason. This year, well, look at the nominations stats. At first there was a single, non-slated work in the novel category, before withdrawals started. It was Ancillary Sword. So even with a second book in a trilogy being less thrillingly new, I had enough readers want to nominate my book that the slate could not stop it.

If (this is a huge “if” and not something I am depending on in any way) IF I were so fortunate as to find that Mercy was nominated for the Hugo, I’m pretty damn sure it wouldn’t be because of any slate. I know for certain that I have a lot of readers who not only enjoy my work but think it’s award-worthy. I have no need to decline a nomination that I know pretty well came from my fans. Or, you know, what Bear said:
 

First of all, I’m going to state up front that I will never willingly participate in a slate. If I learn that I have been included on a slate, I will ask to be removed, and I will bring as much force to bear on that issue as I legally can.
 
Additionally, I’m going to rely on the discretion of readers and fans of goodwill, who I think are pretty smart people. If you see my name on a slate, please assume that it’s being done by ruiners to punish me, and that whoever put it there has ignored my requests to remove it. I have nothing but contempt for that kind of behavior, and I’m frankly not going to do anything to please them at all.
 
My colleagues, of course, are free to deal with the situation as they see fit, up to and including refusing nominations. As for me, well—while I reserve the right to turn down an award nomination at my discretion, I’m not about to be forced into it by the action of trolls and reavers. I expect my readers to be able to make up their own minds about my work, and decide for themselves if it’s worthy of an award or not, and vote accordingly in a fair and sportsfanlike fashion.

I’ll add that I, personally, would find it hilarious to see certain parties suddenly declare they love my books. I would laugh and laugh and laugh. After all the noise made about how the Ancillary books are nothing but message fic and somehow lacking in spaceships and adventure (seriously?) and my readers only pretend to like them because social justice points or whatever, blah blah the writing is crap, blah blah Affirmative Action blah pronouns blah messagefic blah blah–after all that, now they’re going to turn around and with a straight face declare that Mercy is actually deserving of the field’s highest honor and everybody nom it?

Hilarious. And I already get a good laugh out of the no adventure or spaceships thing, and the affirmative action thing–really, you’re just making yourself look ridiculous when you say stuff like that, you might as well put on a clown nose–so it would just be whipped cream on top of that comedy sundae.

Other folks will make other decisions, and that’s as it should be. But I strongly suspect any attempt at “punitive slating” will backfire spectacularly. I mean, it’s not like it wouldn’t be absolutely transparent what they’re doing.

And I think the conversation about “but it would be hypocritical not to withdraw because you’ve said you hate slates!” betrays a somewhat un-nuanced approach to such things. I find it a bit concern-trolly, in fact, though I don’t doubt some of the people saying it are entirely sincere, I’m just talking about my impression of it. But honestly, if you’re not a concern-troll, maybe spend some more time thinking about how things actually stand before you keep going on about how disastrous it would be if assholes slated my work next year.

Mirrored from Ann Leckie.

Comments

[c-maxx.livejournal.com]

Pardon the Qs, is this a slate: "A list of affiliated candidates for an election"?

When is Mercy coming out; will it be in soft cover immediately?

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

Pardon the Qs, is this a slate: "A list of affiliated candidates for an election"?

That is, indeed, a slate. They're a way to leverage a smallish number of voters, when the rest of the voting is diffuse, and so we end up with political parties and party slates. I wish we didn't, but there's no getting around that right now, at least in the US.

The Hugos, of course, are not an election in the same way, and treating them like a political campaign would essentially destroy them. IMO, of course.

When is Mercy coming out; will it be in soft cover immediately?

October 6, and yes, trade paperback.

[c-maxx.livejournal.com]

I see G RR Martin is on Lj and commented (perhaps extensively) aboot the Hugos. And found J Scalzi's comments on the slate business so em a little more informed these days. J.S. never hesitates to say what he's thinking.

So us readers get to vote if we're registered? Well, keelhaul me for an ex-oilfield hand, i gots opingnions too, and grew up with sisters. Hmm...

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

Yep! Any member of this year's worldcon.

Or, it's sort of complicated. Members of Sasquan and members of Midamericon can nominate for next year's Hugos. (And I'm sort of maybe thinking members of Helsinki worldcon can too? Not sure) Only members of Midamericon can vote.

The reason I'm not clear on this is that since I discovered how to become a Hugo voter, I just buy a supporting membership every year and nominate and vote.

But, yes, for something like forty dollars a year you can be a Hugo voter. It is remarkably gratifying, even if (IME) you don't always see many or any of your nominations end up on the final ballot, and your faves don't always win.

[damerell.livejournal.com]

I think I'm hoping that some of them give it a rest - particularly, and this may be overly optimistic, that Beale's merry men in Gamergate aren't all willing to drop $40 a head when they can be odious on Twitter for free; and they're both the nastiest and the least interested in SFF.

If they don't I suppose we can console ourselves with the idea that they're paying large sums of money so filthy SJWs like us can have more fun at conventions.

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm not putting any money on them not kicking up again this year. But as you say, if they do fork over, really all they're doing is making it easier for Worldcon to show me a good time while I'm there!

[damerell.livejournal.com]

Mmm. I'm sure the Sads will be back - misguided as they are, they do read SFF and have actual views about it. I'm more optimistic about the 'gaters, who don't necessarily read SFF at all.

See you in Helsinki? :-)

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

I actually don't mind the idea of voters with SP tastes voting for books they genuinely love. I'm less happy about the idea of another slate (call it what they want, it's still a slate). I figure any SFF fan with opinions about books and stories can and should vote for what they love.

Of course, that's not what's going to go down this year. As for the others-I am personally not convinced of the supposed difference between the Sads and Rabids, and I suspect they'll be back, too. I would be exceedingly happy to be proved wrong.

As it happens, in August of 2017 there will be a total eclipse of the sun, and totality will be viewable about forty miles down the road from my house. So in the balance between Helsinki and the once-in -a-lifetime total eclipse, well...

But I voted for Helsinki and am totally pumped it won! I think it will be fabulous!

[damerell.livejournal.com]

No, neither do I, think I may have been unclear. Anyone who wants to play fair can like whatever they like.

I think they're misguided because the false dichotomy between square-jawed Heinlein action adventure and "message fiction" is, well, false; because they want a return to the glorious days when no-one wrote about boring old gender issues and LeGuin kept sweeping the awards with er, no, wait; because SF has always written about social issues, even in the 30s some magazines and writers were very clear they didn't just want "cowboys and indians with martians and rayguns"; because even Heinlein wrote message fiction (albeit that sometimes the message was "if you are an immortal time traveller you should probably go back in time and have sex with your mother")... and not least because a grown man complaining he can't judge a book by its cover is particularly absurd if one remembers the decades where (at least in the UK) the cover art on SF was quite plainly "next one off the stack" and if you were lucky the blurb bore some passing resemblance to the book.

I realise I'm preaching to the vicar here.