Once upon a time I was a professional

[howeird]

...writer. I worked for newspapers in Oregon and Washington State, my main job was laying out the paper and writing headlines. I have a degree in this, which was earned by not only taking classes, but by writing for the campus paper, working as a proofreader and layout editor and photographer/darkroom tech.

I mention this in light of a recent posting on his blog by Tom Veal which kevin_standlee was kind enough to link to, in which Veal claims a blog's writing quality is going to be poor, as it is usually a "zeroth" draft (not even a first draft). He uses this argument to defend professional writers being nominated for and winning Best Fan Writer Hugo awards. I'm here to say that in my professional writer days, my zeroth draft was better than any amateur writer's "polished" essay. Besides, a professional writer won't be posting what first comes out his fingertips, he will always proofread and edit on the fly, which is something most amateurs will not.

I wonder, if I join WSFS, what I can do to change their constitution to make the Fan Writer Hugo into a "best fiction by a non-pro in a non-pro medium" award. Because, IMHO, they need to do this both to recognize the fen writers, and to make this award more credible.

Comments

[edith-mf.livejournal.com]

I think that is a guy arguing for his own specialness. It is hard to get past that kneejerk reaction until we become older in spirit, aged by being hit upside the head enough times so it becomes obvious there was and will always be people better somehow than us at any one thing we might attempt to excel.

[howeird]

In his defense, sort of, the nominations come from the members, so if a pro author is nominated in the fan writer category blame the fans, not the author.

[yourbob.livejournal.com]

"...what I can do to change their constitution..."

Ask Kevin what it takes to change the constitution. At the very least it will require your presence at two (at minimum) consecutive Worldcons. Then you have to argue the business meetings at both cons to support your position and vote for it.

In addition to those basics, it'll take some dilligent campaigning, without pissing anyone off.

FWIW, the business meetings are highly conservative (to say the least). The default position is "all change is bad".

[howeird]

Oy. Sounds to me like a windmill not worth tilting with. I don't know why I even got into this topic - I don't put much store by awards anyways.

[yourbob.livejournal.com]

And that's part of what the process is meant to do - discourage changes that are flights of fancy.

[bovil.livejournal.com]

"Best Fan Writer" is an award for someone who does fanwriting. Some pros engage in fanwriting. Some fanwriters have "gone pro" without giving up fanwriting.

How is that possible?

The Hugo rules define fanwriting in terms of where it appears. It's a very broad and inclusive definition. It's not perfect, but it's very inclusive.

I'd prefer to see fanwriting defined in terms of what it is: writing about science fiction and fantasy, about fandom and about the people involved. It's still a broad and inclusive definition. It's also not perfect.

Langford's The End of Harry Potter would qualify under those terms (not that he's a good example, he always writes tons for non-commercial work). One could, I suppose, add on a clause "appearing in non-commercial and semi-pro venues" but that opens the can of worms of "is an ad-supported website a commercial venue?"

[howeird]

Thanks. As I posted a few minutes ago on kevin_standlee's pages, I have never met a professional SF writer who isn't a fan (though I suppose there are some heartless bastards out there who just do it for the $$, like they do porn). Journalists tend to be fans of other good news writers, mystery writers also have their fannish doings. We're in agreement - the definition in the constitution is not well-written. How's that for irony?

Even with the understanding that pro writers are also fans who write fannish things, I'm uncomfortable with them being included as eligible for the award. People who write for a living tend to be better writers than those who don't, and the name recognition thing also gives an (IMHO) unfair advantage. In other circles, they calls these folks "ringers".

But as written, if Ray Bradbury or Harlan Ellison had blogs which talked about fannish things, they would be valid nominees, as long as the blogs were not sponsored by a pro publisher, I guess.

[yourbob.livejournal.com]

By the implications of your definition then, Chris would be inelligible too - part of his job as a historian includes writing (any historian has part of their job in writing). So, since he's being paid for some of his writing, he's a professional writer and therefore not eligible.

Unless you want to start limiting to pros in the genre. So - is Micheal Chabon eligible (if he should write something eligible)? He's just written "The Yiddish Policeman's Union" which is sworn up and down not to be genre fiction - yet, it's about what happens when the jews settled in Alaska instead of Palestine in 1949.

Saying a professional writer is automatically better, any more than saying a professional writer is automatically excluded, has many more implications than you have yet shown awareness of. (just critiquing, not critisizing).

Oh- and Harlan has written plenty that could be considered fan writing. He's just not gotten enough nominating votes to find himself on the ballot.

[howeird]

By the implications of your definition then, Chris would be ineligible too
Nah, I'm implying professionally published for the trade. These days almost every white collar worker is paid to write, but not so many are paid to write something which is intended to show up for sale in a bookstore.

And you're absolutely right that being a pro doesn't necessarily mean being better. I suppose I'm thinking more along the lines of "step aside and let the non-published have their 15 minutes of fame".

[bovil.livejournal.com]

The odd thing is that most fiction writers don't "write for a living." Yes, they're paid for some of their writing, but they only make a fraction of what it takes to support themselves. The edge comes from writing constantly, and having editors who help them hone their works and their skills.

There are plenty of non-pro fanwriters who write as constantly, and who work with faneds just as skilled as any professional editor (unless you're writing for johnnyeponymous). In some cases, they're working with professional editors who are faneds on the side. They've done coursework in English, or rhetoric or journalism. They understand that writing is a craft.

There are definitely SF writers who are not fans. They usually claim to "transcend the genre." There are plenty SF writers who are fans, but who have no interest in fanwriting. There are great SF writers who are mediocre fanwriters.

BTW, Harlan Ellison has a quasi-blog.

I don't think I'd vote Scalzi a preference in this Hugo ballot. I still see some real value in his nomination shaking people up.