Culture Shock
Jul. 19th, 2004 12:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
coalescentSo on Friday evening, as advertised, Geneva and I went to the British Fantasy Society Awards Showcase, which took place in the sandy-floored cellar of a pub just north of Charing Cross station. When I got there, about twenty-five fannish types were gathered, milling between the bar and a long table displaying the nominated books. I didn't recognise any of them, but they didn't seem any more threatening than your usual fannish types. I went to get a drink, at which point someone announced that they would like to take some photographs, so would all those with titles nominated please group in front of the table in an orderly fashion.
It was when I suddenly realised that there were only two other people left in the vicinity of the bar, and that one of those was the one taking the photos, that I realised the BFS might be a little different to the BSFA. Anyway, I successfully located Geneva, just in time for the start of the discussion, which was compered by Stephen Jones. Through the whole evening, I got the distinct impression that the majority of people there were writers or publishers or editors. There seemed to be few others who were simply fans.
The discussion itself was interesting, if not exactly what I'd expected from the blurb. Jones started with an overview of 'major awards in the field', from the Hugos to the BFS awards. There was no mention of the BFSA awards, although they did come up later on; and in his description of the Clarke Award, Jones said that publishers had to pay to have their books considered for the prize, which doesn't seem to be strictly accurate.
From here the discussion moved to a general consideration of the value of awards, and then to how the BFS awards work, and whether the way that they work should be changed. There is concern, apparently, that BFS members may be nominating and voting for their friends rather than completing their ballots strictly on grounds of merit. Various alternative schemes were suggested - this is where there was some mention of the BSFA awards - and in general I found it fairly interesting. There were contributions from Les Edwards/Edward Miller, Liz Williams, Cherith Baldry, KJ Bishop, Andrew Hook of Elastic Press, Christopher Fowler (I think) and others.
What it wasn't, though, was a discussion of the recommended titles for the BFS awards, which I thought was a bit of a shame. Perhaps they didn't think that any non-BFS non-professionals would turn up, particularly given the short notice for the event. Alternatively, maybe it's just too hard to have meaningful discussion of a shortlist when two-thirds of the people in the room are on the shortlist. I did get a recurring feeling that I was in some strange, parallel version of fandom; not unpleasant, exactly, but less casual, perhaps. Still, there was a table of free books - Geneva picked up a copy of The Etched City; I really, really must get around to reading the copy I've had since January - so it was far from being a wasted evening.
It was when I suddenly realised that there were only two other people left in the vicinity of the bar, and that one of those was the one taking the photos, that I realised the BFS might be a little different to the BSFA. Anyway, I successfully located Geneva, just in time for the start of the discussion, which was compered by Stephen Jones. Through the whole evening, I got the distinct impression that the majority of people there were writers or publishers or editors. There seemed to be few others who were simply fans.
The discussion itself was interesting, if not exactly what I'd expected from the blurb. Jones started with an overview of 'major awards in the field', from the Hugos to the BFS awards. There was no mention of the BFSA awards, although they did come up later on; and in his description of the Clarke Award, Jones said that publishers had to pay to have their books considered for the prize, which doesn't seem to be strictly accurate.
From here the discussion moved to a general consideration of the value of awards, and then to how the BFS awards work, and whether the way that they work should be changed. There is concern, apparently, that BFS members may be nominating and voting for their friends rather than completing their ballots strictly on grounds of merit. Various alternative schemes were suggested - this is where there was some mention of the BSFA awards - and in general I found it fairly interesting. There were contributions from Les Edwards/Edward Miller, Liz Williams, Cherith Baldry, KJ Bishop, Andrew Hook of Elastic Press, Christopher Fowler (I think) and others.
What it wasn't, though, was a discussion of the recommended titles for the BFS awards, which I thought was a bit of a shame. Perhaps they didn't think that any non-BFS non-professionals would turn up, particularly given the short notice for the event. Alternatively, maybe it's just too hard to have meaningful discussion of a shortlist when two-thirds of the people in the room are on the shortlist. I did get a recurring feeling that I was in some strange, parallel version of fandom; not unpleasant, exactly, but less casual, perhaps. Still, there was a table of free books - Geneva picked up a copy of The Etched City; I really, really must get around to reading the copy I've had since January - so it was far from being a wasted evening.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-19 04:57 am (UTC)I am outraged that Jones is publicly claiming that publishers have to pay to submit their books for the Arthur C Clarke Award. This is not true and never has been true. Asking the publishers to pay money towards advertising their own books when shortlisted for the award was actually done at the suggestion of the publishers, and the Clarke award still spends more on advertising than we receive in contributions from the publishers. And that is the full extent of any financial contribution that publishers make towards the Clarke Award.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-19 06:30 am (UTC)There is a place for an organisation like that, I think, it's just that their website suggests they're something else.
I am outraged that Jones is publicly claiming that publishers have to pay to submit their books for the Arthur C Clarke Award. This is not true and never has been true.
I didn't think it was, but unfortunately I wasn't confident enough about it to correct him.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-19 08:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-20 01:33 am (UTC)Award Misconceptions
Date: 2004-07-21 08:15 am (UTC)