Campbell Awards Trivia
Posted on March 8, 2005 Posted by John Scalzi 34 Comments
(The following post will be of interest only to SF geeks, so the rest of y’all are hereby warned. Geekery ahead!)
I think I may have just been eliminated for consideration for the Campbell Award, thanks to the updating of the eligibility rules of the award. The crux of the issue would be this story, which I sold to Strange Horizons back in 2001. By the Campbell’s previous eligibility rules, it did not qualify as a professional science fiction sale, so Old Man’s War would be my first pro sale in the genre, and I would thereby be eligible for Campbell consideration for the 2006 and 2007 Worldcons. However, under the new rules, it may be a professional sale (it’s unclear at this point), in which case my two-year eligibility for the Campbell ran out in 2003. Which would be, to say the least, an interesting development.
Mind you, I think the updating of the rules is good in a general sense, as it recognizes the increasing fragmentary (and online) nature of the SF field, particularly in short story work. Also, simply as a matter of opinion, I think Strange Horizons and other online sites should be considered pro sites; in the case of Strange Horizons, specifically, it pays pro scale and stories it has published have been nominated for Nebulas. What more do you need? If establishing the site’s pro legitimacy comes at the cost of my own Campbell eligibility, I wouldn’t begrudge SH the elevation.
As for me, well, I did get money for the story. I can’t and wouldn’t deny it was a professional sale, irrespective of previous Campbell definitions, because among other things, I am proud of that sale; it was the first time someone gave me money for writing science fiction. If it is decided that my Campbell eligibility has expired, then that’s the way it goes.
I do imagine the possible Campbell eligibility will come as a surprise to number of writers, however. As SH editor Jed Hartman notes on his online journal, “the Hugo administrators appear to be trying to ease the transition and not cost anyone their eligibility, but it looks to me like the current approach is going to mean some people’s eligibility periods are condensed from two years down to, well, this week.” Or, as I mentioned in my case, the period has already lapsed.
The solution to this is pretty easy: New rules should be effective as of the date they were put into effect; previous rules should be in effect for all work published while they were in effect. Or more simply: No grandfathering. Works that were previously ineligible should remain ineligible.
Naturally, I’m not disinterested in this particular formulation, because, sure, I’d like to have a crack at the Campbell, should someone see fit to nominate me. On the other hand, aside from my plight, disqualifying a certain number of writers and leaving others scrambling to take advantage of eligibility they didn’t know they were burning through doesn’t seem like the smartest publicity maneuver the Campbell Award administrators could make. We’ll have to see how it goes.
Blargh. I’m glad they updated them (I was hounding them this year about Matthew Claxton’s stuff at SCIFICTION). I’ve hated that the online pubs were not qualified for a couple of years now.
But I agree with you: No grandfathering. LA Con will probably work with the award admins next year to try and fix things to be better. I wish they hadn’t managed this with the Hugo noms ending this week. It’s just insane.
Well, if LACon really does inject some sense into this, then John will probably wind up as eligible after all.
Hmm. I seem to be in exactly the same boat, only without a briskly selling novel to ease my pain. C’est la vie.
Hmm. I seem to be in exactly the same boat, only without a briskly selling novel to ease my pain. C’est la vie.
True, Jon, but you do have Tales of the Plush Cthulu. Man, I love that.
Aw, shucks. I’m blushing something considerable here.
Aw, shucks. I’m blushing something considerable here.
I can’t speak for the Interaction Hugo Administrators here, but having been briefly involved in the process I’d like to make a few quick points.
1. This isn’t a sudden decision – people have been working with Dell Magazines for some time to find a definition of “professional publication” that is more in line with what Dell wanted.
2. There’s no intention to exclude anyone. It is just a question of finding the right words to make it clear that people are not being excluded.
3. Those involved would love to be more clear about how the process goes forward, but until L.A. Con IV appoints someone to run the Hugos for them we’ll just have to wait.
I can’t speak for the Interaction Hugo Administrators here, but having been briefly involved in the process I’d like to make a few quick points.
1. This isn’t a sudden decision – people have been working with Dell Magazines for some time to find a definition of “professional publication” that is more in line with what Dell wanted.
2. There’s no intention to exclude anyone. It is just a question of finding the right words to make it clear that people are not being excluded.
3. Those involved would love to be more clear about how the process goes forward, but until L.A. Con IV appoints someone to run the Hugos for them we’ll just have to wait.
“Those involved would love to be more clear about how the process goes forward, but until L.A. Con IV appoints someone to run the Hugos for them we’ll just have to wait.”
Why? Why not simply be clear now? And if one cannot be clear, why change the rules until one could be clear? In other words, what is the value of confusing and annoying people with an ambiguous rule change?
“Why not simply be clear now?”
Because Interaction has no jurisdiction. Each Worldcon is a separate entity, and Interaction cannot stipulate how L.A. Con IV should administer awards. It would be easier if the Campbell were a Hugo, because the rules would be set in stone in the WSFS Constitution and the procedure for changing them would be very clear. But the Campbell is the property of Dell Magazines, not of WSFS.
“why change the rules until one could be clear?”
Because Dell Magazines were unhappy with the rules as they were being interpreted and asked to have things changed. That’s their right, because it is their award.
Note also that the main thing that it not clear is the procedure for dealing with people who are caught in the middle of this. That was always going to be the issue. No matter how carefully you word something like this, someone will find a way to read it that puts them at a disadvantage. Then you have to explain, “no, that’s not what we meant.” Once we get over that, things should be much clearer, because the eligibility criteria have been written down and made public, which they have never been before.
“Dell Magazines were unhappy with the rules as they were being interpreted and asked to have things changed. That’s their right, because it is their award.”
I’m unclear how adding additional ambiguity as to who is eligible and who is not benefits Dell magazines or anyone else, particularly when the nomination deadline is as close as it is. This rule change is poorly-timed at the very least, since it leaves people (both writers and those who would nominate them) confused as toward their eligibility status vis-a-vis the Campbell.
I understand the various Worldcons cannot impose their rules upon other Worldcons; however, as you note, it’s Dell who gets to approve the rules regarding the Campbell, not the Worldcons. Which brings us back to the question: Why not be clear now?
“Note also that the main thing that it not clear is the procedure for dealing with people who are caught in the middle of this.”
Which is to say, the people the award is intended to recognize and promote: New writers. This is not a trivial constituency. I would also suggest there’s a qualitative difference between a minor rule change affects a relatively small number of prospective eligible writers, and a major overhaul like this, which affects the entire nomination pool in a significant way.
It behooves those choosing to make such a significant change to be as clear possible as early as possible, rather than to say, “well, we’ll figure this all out somewhere down the line.” Particularly this close to a nomination deadline.
“Dell Magazines were unhappy with the rules as they were being interpreted and asked to have things changed. That’s their right, because it is their award.”
I’m unclear how adding additional ambiguity as to who is eligible and who is not benefits Dell magazines or anyone else, particularly when the nomination deadline is as close as it is. This rule change is poorly-timed at the very least, since it leaves people (both writers and those who would nominate them) confused as toward their eligibility status vis-a-vis the Campbell.
I understand the various Worldcons cannot impose their rules upon other Worldcons; however, as you note, it’s Dell who gets to approve the rules regarding the Campbell, not the Worldcons. Which brings us back to the question: Why not be clear now?
“Note also that the main thing that it not clear is the procedure for dealing with people who are caught in the middle of this.”
Which is to say, the people the award is intended to recognize and promote: New writers. This is not a trivial constituency. I would also suggest there’s a qualitative difference between a minor rule change affects a relatively small number of prospective eligible writers, and a major overhaul like this, which affects the entire nomination pool in a significant way.
It behooves those choosing to make such a significant change to be as clear possible as early as possible, rather than to say, “well, we’ll figure this all out somewhere down the line.” Particularly this close to a nomination deadline.
Jon Hansen – THE Jon Hansen of Plush Cthulu fame…? WOW… small online world… I love that! It gives me hope that my own plush project will see the light of day – someday! :\
Me, at the risk of being accused of acts of geekery myself, I would like to know what the author of this blog thinks of “the increasing fragmentary (and online) nature of the SF field, particularly in short story work” – is it a good thing (would, say, Martha be proud?) or not? I thought it was… was I wrong?
Cheryl Morgan writes:
“There’s no intention to exclude anyone. It is just a question of finding the right words to make it clear that people are not being excluded.”
Are you, in fact, saying that nobody is actually going to wind up in the position of suddenly discovering that their entire period of eligibility is now past?
Luciano: The fragmentary nature is itself neutral: it’s neither good nor bad, it just is, as content that was previously confined to print magazines migrates toward the Web. It’s good that the Web is being recognized as a legitimate medium.
“This rule change is poorly-timed at the very least.”
Yep, couldn’t agree more. I would much prefer to have seen it announced when nominations opened, or even earlier. But I wasn’t even involved in the process back then. All I know is that there has been a lot of discussion about how to define “professional publication” in as clear and precise way as possible, and I think those working on it have done very well. Then there was a lot of discussion about how to implement the change in such a way as to minimise unfairness during the transistion. And then suddenly you’ve run out of time. It isn’t ideal, but I think we have to live with it.
So what I’m trying to do is make the best of some unfortunate timing. That starts with letting people know what has happened. And it continues with trying to identify where people think that they have been disadvantaged and (hopefully) correct any misconceptions. The final part is to discuss all of this in public so that those responsible for handling things next year can see and hear what new writers have to say.
“This rule change is poorly-timed at the very least.”
Yep, couldn’t agree more. I would much prefer to have seen it announced when nominations opened, or even earlier. But I wasn’t even involved in the process back then. All I know is that there has been a lot of discussion about how to define “professional publication” in as clear and precise way as possible, and I think those working on it have done very well. Then there was a lot of discussion about how to implement the change in such a way as to minimise unfairness during the transistion. And then suddenly you’ve run out of time. It isn’t ideal, but I think we have to live with it.
So what I’m trying to do is make the best of some unfortunate timing. That starts with letting people know what has happened. And it continues with trying to identify where people think that they have been disadvantaged and (hopefully) correct any misconceptions. The final part is to discuss all of this in public so that those responsible for handling things next year can see and hear what new writers have to say.
“Then there was a lot of discussion about how to implement the change in such a way as to minimise unfairness during the transistion. And then suddenly you’ve run out of time.”
No one thought of implementing this rule change after this year’s nomination process? If what one was looking for was a way to make this change non-disruptive, then announcing it one week before nominations were due was possibly the least obvious way to do this. Announcing the rule change after this year’s nominations were in would have given everyone a year to sort out and comment upon the various eligibility issues, rather than a mere week.
I’m not trying to be antagonistic for the sake of antagonism, mind you. But the implementation of this rule change strikes me as amateurish: It’s confusing for the writers and confusing for the fans who nominate, and it’s going to leave a taint on this year’s Campbell, and possibly next year’s as well.
Last-minute rule changes are what you do when you don’t want input; they are inherently antagonistic to a participatory process. I’m not saying this was the intent, but it’s very likely to be the end result.
I’m glad I have a year to get all this squared away, personally, but I don’t think a lot of lot of other writers are in my relatively fortunate position.
“No one thought of implementing this rule change after this year’s nomination process?”
I’m sure they did, but the process has been going on for a long time and Dell may have balked at further delay. Also delaying a year would have meant explaining all of this to the poor Japanese, who don’t deserve having this dumped on them.
“Last-minute rule changes are what you do when you don’t want input”
Nope, when you don’t want input you change the rules without telling anyone and hope no one notices. Interaction could have done that. Instead they were honest about a bad situation and are bravely taking the ensuing flak.
“I’m glad I have a year to get all this squared away, personally, but I don’t think a lot of lot of other writers are in my relatively fortunate position.”
Can you elaborate on that? If you can identify ways in which people are being disadvantaged then maybe something can be done about it.
“Can you elaborate on that? If you can identify ways in which people are being disadvantaged then maybe something can be done about it.”
* People are being disadvantaged if they have stories in markets that were not previously determined to be eligible but now are — they may suddenly find that they have one year of eligibility instead of two, or as Jed mentioned, they may find that they have a week of eligibility when they thought they had two years (up until this week, that is). And some people are no doubt going to find themselves in the position I find myself in, which is that they are likely no longer to be eligible at all.
* People are being disadvantaged if they use the online medium infrequently or not at all, since the news of these changes are largely being disseminated online; some authors may not find out they’ve burned through their eligibility until after it’s over.
* People who *do* find out they have only limited time are being disadvantaged because they have not had time to properly prepare and campaign for a nomination (if that’s something they would have chosen to do). They are at a disadvantage to people who have had time to prepare.
* People who choose to nominate may now no longer be certain if their choices for nomination continue to be eligible, in no small part because the authors themselves may not know.
* ALL of the above are disadvantaged because the rules appear to have been changed without resolving questions of the disposition of previously ineligible material in now eligible markets — and because there appears to be no definitive way to find out.
“Nope, when you don’t want input you change the rules without telling anyone and hope no one notices.”
I hardly see how this is better, because I rather doubt a week is sufficient time to do anything meaningful about any of the issues above. This is very much like a city council slipping in a major bill two minutes prior to adjourning a meeting; even if someone’s around to raise a stink, they’ve got just two minutes to do anything about it. This is not to impugn the members of Interaction; they may indeed trying to make the best of a bad situation. But when the timing for a major rule change is this rotten, one has to question why it is so.
“Also delaying a year would have meant explaining all of this to the poor Japanese, who don’t deserve having this dumped on them.”
I am sure you don’t mean to imply the Japanese Worldcon folks are not competent to handle this sort of thing, inasmuch as they are judged to be competent enough to run an entire Worldcon. So my question would be, again, why? If delaying a year would have helped to avoid a confused and confusing situation now, as I strongly suspect it would have, it’s difficult to see a downside.
I also wonder, if Dell Magazines is truly the motivating factor in the decision to change the rules at this moment, why someone couldn’t have suggested to them that waiting one more week would have saved their Award a lot of potential tarnish, in the form of last-minute nominating confusion.
I really don’t want to sound like a frothing conspiracy theory sort of guy; as I said in the main entry, in the main I applaud the changes to the eligibility rules. This is just another one of those “good idea, really bad execution” things, though, and I guess I just don’t see why the eligibility confusion couldn’t have been avoided. I don’t really like the “the process had been going on a long time” rationale, since it seems to me that if indeed it had been going on for that long, someone might have suggested having it go on just a little longer in order to get it all nailed down.
OK John, I’m beginning to think that there’s nothing I can say that will convince you of people’s good intentions, but I can try to correct some more misconceptions.
First of all to answer Luciano:
“Are you, in fact, saying that nobody is actually going to wind up in the position of suddenly discovering that their entire period of eligibility is now past?”
That is how I understand the intention. I can’t make an official pronouncement, but I’m trying to get one from those who can.
Now John:
“People are being disadvantaged if they have stories in markets that were not previously determined to be eligible but now are — they may suddenly find that they have one year of eligibility instead of two, or as Jed mentioned, they may find that they have a week of eligibility when they thought they had two years.
Again not so. The intention, as I understand it, is that everyone should get their two years in the award. If anyone tries to overturn this next year I’ll be complaining as loudly as you.
“People are being disadvantaged if they use the online medium infrequently or not at all”
That’s certainly true, but then people who don’t use online media are at a disadvantage in campaigning anyway.
“People who *do* find out they have only limited time are being disadvantaged because they have not had time to properly prepare and campaign for a nomination”
Again that’s true, but Interaction made the annoucement as soon as it got permission to do so.
“People who choose to nominate may now no longer be certain if their choices for nomination continue to be eligible”
This one I have no doubt on. Nobody. Absolutely nobody, who was eligible previously is no longer eligible now.
“there appears to be no definitive way to find out”
Of course there is. A lot of definitive material has been posted on the web already. I’m trying to find out where that is unclear and correct misconceptions.
“I am sure you don’t mean to imply the Japanese Worldcon folks are not competent to handle this sort of thing, inasmuch as they are judged to be competent enough to run an entire Worldcon.”
Of course not, but it is their first Worldcon, and this debate is going to be happening primarily in a language that is foreign to them. For their sake I’d like us to get this sorted out before they have to deal with administering the award.
“if Dell Magazines is truly the motivating factor”
If what you are trying to say is that this is some huge conspiracy perpetrated on new writers by Interaction then just come out and say so. I am trying my best to present the facts as I understand them. Could you please do me the courtesy of considering that I might be telling the truth?
“OK John, I’m beginning to think that there’s nothing I can say that will convince you of people’s good intentions…”
You misunderstand me. I don’t think you’re lying, I don’t think it’s a conspiracy, and I don’t doubt in the slightest people’s good intentions. However, I also recall the location of the paving stones made from good intentions. While this contempts doesn’t quite raise (or lower) itself to that standard, it’s still a big mess, and it seems unnecessarily so, good intentions or no.
The crux of the issue quite simply is whether people’s eligibility status is negatively changed due to the changes in the rules — whether people’s “clocks” are reset to give them less time with the advent of the new rules. You say it won’t be, which is nice, but there is nothing in the rules as they’ve been posted that speaks to that one way or another. Interaction’s site says nominees will be accepted under both old and new rules, but that’s not on point to the question, since the new rules apparently turn previously ineligible markets into eligible markets and leave no guidance toward whether previously ineligible work has now been grandfathered in as eligible. Barring placement into Schroedinger’s Box, a piece of work cannot be both eligible and ineligible at the same time.
Since questions of eligibility are at the heart of the nomination process, this is a rather large oversight, and these questions should have been resolved before the new rules were presented, and I’m still confused as to why they were not — or if they were, why the answers were not made clear from the outset. Having assurances that they will be resolved with just a few days left in the nominating process is not exactly comforting.
Since you seem to be in a position to know: When will there be an official statement regarding the disposition of previously ineligible work? As I said in the main entry it seems to me that work that was previously ineligible should remain so, even if the market in which it is published is now newly eligible. But whatever the answer is, the official guidance should come before the nomination process closes, or else despite good intentions, honesty and the complete and utter lack of conspiracy, it’ll still be a big fat screwup.
I certainly don’t want you to think I don’t appreciate the time you’ve invested here explaining things from your point of view. I do believe people acted in good faith; I simply have questions, and apparently pointed ways of asking them. Your answers are indeed greatly appreciated, and I think illuminating for the people reading along as we write.
“When will there be an official statement regarding the disposition of previously ineligible work?”
Well, not immediately. They are all asleep in Europe right now. And I know for certain that one of the people involved is away at a conference and offline until Wednesday night. But I have got someone in the US who has finally got away from work and can address the issue. Take it away, Kevin…
“They are all asleep in Europe right now…”
Stupid Europe! How dare it be four time zones ahead!
At the start, let me categorically say that I can not and do not speak officially for the Interaction Hugo Awards Subcommittee. I’m Events & WSFS division manager for Interaction, and the Hugo Administrator reports to me for administrative purposes, but Interaction irrevocably delegated the administration authority to the Administrators, who are the only ones who can make official statements regarding the administration of the Hugo Awards and related subjects such as the John W. Campbell Award. (Most Worldcon committees do this, per provisions of the WSFS Constitution, so as to not make all of the other members of their committees ineligible for the Hugo Award.)
I would be surprised if there is is an official statement, for the reasons Cheryl stated. I know, from having participated in the behind-the-scenes disucssion on this subjet, how long it takes to get all of the people who have to do or say something to actually do so.
However, I would be surprised if this year’s Administrator rules ineligible someone with any eligible publication in the past two years who has a “small market” publication more than two years ago, and nothing else. (Of course, if the person has a large-market publication more than two years old, they are ineligible, and would have been under the old rules; I hope there’s no disagreement there.)
But the question is moot unless you finish in the top five. If you don’t get enough nominations to be in the top five, then you’ve not been ruled ineligible — you just didn’t make the cut.
Administrators almost never make hypothetical rulings. They have to have actual cases in the form of people with sufficient nominations to be on the ballot before they’ll make a decision. (I was Hugo Administrator in 1993, 1994, and 2002, and we followed that principle then.)
L.A.con IV can’t say anything because they have not (as far as I know) appointed a Hugo Administrator yet. The person to whom that Administrator will report has been advised of the situation. Whoever takes the job will probably have to issue clarifying regulations.
Hypothetically, if the L.A.con IV administrator came out and said, “‘small market’ works published prior to 2004 will not start your Campbell clock,” would that satisfy you? That is, the rule would not be ex post facto, but any “small market” work published in 2004 or later would count, as would any previous large-market work, regardless of date.
Hypothetically, if the L.A.con IV administrator came out and said, “‘small market’ works published prior to 2004 will not start your Campbell clock,” would that satisfy you?
I’d be satisfied with a clear guideline of any sort (including one in which I was disqualified, although of course I’d prefer one in which I was not) — my concern in a general sense has been ambiguity as to what is eligible and what is not. In my opinion, ambiguity is not good iin this particular circumstance.
Administrators almost never make hypothetical rulings. They have to have actual cases in the form of people with sufficient nominations to be on the ballot before they’ll make a decision. (I was Hugo Administrator in 1993, 1994, and 2002, and we followed that principle then.)
I don’t know if I would call a broad guideline for eligibility a hypothetical ruling, and I would suppose most people would prefer to know earlier than later whether they were in good standing for the award. It would be a bummer to make the top five only to discover you don’t qualify.
(Of course, if the person has a large-market publication more than two years old, they are ineligible, and would have been under the old rules; I hope there’s no disagreement there.)”
Nope. That’s pretty unambiguous.
This is all very interesting stuff — if nothing else, I’m getting a better idea of how these things work.
I feel like my quasi-namesake, Luke Skywalker, having been told truisms by my own Obi-Wan… now, though it should be you John, the innovative lure of having Cheryl cast in that role is quite tantalizing indeed… ;)
Yes – unquestionably, the Web being recognized as a legitimate medium is a very good thing indeed – logically, more talents can be discovered that way… eventually… hopefully… surely… right?!? I think it is an agent I hear come a-knockin already… ah, no. Wishful auditive mirage -if such a thing exists- it is merely some chatter on the auld yahoo messenger… :(
As for the whole passionate debate here, well, quite frankly, once the baby is delivered and the pride is evident, eligibility or ineligibility in any award-dispensing ceremony comes as a distant second. The satisfaction of having produced and seen to completion that little bundle of creative joy should truly suffice – and bests recognition by one’s peers every time out – in my book anyway…!
I feel like my quasi-namesake, Luke Skywalker, having been told truisms by my own Obi-Wan… now, though it should be you John, the innovative lure of having Cheryl cast in that role is quite tantalizing indeed… ;)
Yes – unquestionably, the Web being recognized as a legitimate medium is a very good thing indeed – logically, more talents can be discovered that way… eventually… hopefully… surely… right?!? I think it is an agent I hear come a-knockin already… ah, no. Wishful auditive mirage -if such a thing exists- it is merely some chatter on the auld yahoo messenger… :(
As for the whole passionate debate here, well, quite frankly, once the baby is delivered and the pride is evident, eligibility or ineligibility in any award-dispensing ceremony comes as a distant second. The satisfaction of having produced and seen to completion that little bundle of creative joy should truly suffice – and bests recognition by one’s peers every time out – in my book anyway…!
Hypothetically, if the L.A.con IV administrator came out and said, “‘small market’ works published prior to 2004 will not start your Campbell clock,” would that satisfy you?
Well that still seems to be shafting people who made their first sale in 2004 that was ineligible until a week ago – effectively knocking them from 2 years to a single year.
“Dell Magazines were unhappy with the rules as they were being interpreted and asked to have things changed. That’s their right, because it is their award.”
Cheryl commented
I’m unclear how adding additional ambiguity as to who is eligible and who is not benefits Dell magazines or anyone else, particularly when the nomination deadline is as close as it is.
Coming in a little late… Clearly, obviously, and evidently, the intent was not to add ambiguity, it was to clarify the rules. The clarification seems to have three particularly important benefits to the sponsors of the award, and to the Worldcon in Scotland:
1. Novel serials in _Analog_ are now unambiguously eligibility for the Campbell.
2. Publication in _Interzone_ is now unambiguously eligibility for the Campbell.
3. British hardcover publication is now unambiguously eligibility for the Campbell.
It should be clear why this clarification (the last two items in particular) is particularly important to a Worldcon in the British Isles? And that they specifically wanted the clarification *BEFORE* the end of nominations, and not afterwards?
While this is logically reasoned and plausible-sounding, it’s not true. As one of the people who have been in the middle of the discusssions between past and current Hugo Administrators about what needed changing and clarifiying, I can state pretty authoritatively that the location of the administering Worldcon had little to do with the decision.
I’d like to second what Kevin said. As has been mentioned on Jed’s journal, this process began with Noreascon 4, not with Interaction. I know I have been yelling a bit about the idiocy of UK novels from major publishers not counting as “professional”, but I wasn’t asked to contribute to the process until it was almost finished. Aside from the one Interaction Hugo Administrator who was part of the discussions, everyone else involved was an American.
(BTW, that quote attributed to me was not mine. The initial quote was mine, but the response attributed to me was, I think, John.)
I’d like to second what Kevin said. As has been mentioned on Jed’s journal, this process began with Noreascon 4, not with Interaction. I know I have been yelling a bit about the idiocy of UK novels from major publishers not counting as “professional”, but I wasn’t asked to contribute to the process until it was almost finished. Aside from the one Interaction Hugo Administrator who was part of the discussions, everyone else involved was an American.
(BTW, that quote attributed to me was not mine. The initial quote was mine, but the response attributed to me was, I think, John.)