More SemiProzine Musings
03. Apr, 2009 
12 Comments
OK.? Cheryl properly chastised me:? the (Enormous) list of magazines qualifying for this Hugo Award category can be found on the site by clicking the menu tab for ’semiprozine directory’ at the top of the page, which produces a list that looks like this:
- Abyss & Apex
- Ansible
- Albedo One
- Apex Magazine
- Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine
- Baen?s Universe
- Clarkesworld Magazine
- Fantasy Magazine
- Futurismic
- Greatest Uncommon Denominator
- HUB Magazine
- Interzone
- Internet Review of Science Fiction
- Lady Churchill?s Rosebud Wristlet
- Locus Magazine
- Neo-Opsis
- New York Review of Science Fiction
- On Spec
- Orson Scott Card?s Intergalactic Medicine Show
- Postscripts
- Shimmer
- Strange Horizons
- Talebones
- Tales of the Unanticipated
- Weird Tales
I will now wait as you all visit each and everyone of those sites, click on the subscription/donation tabs and copy down their submission guidelines.
The interest generated in this category by Cheryl’s and others’ recent postings is growing exponentially;? I’ve already been asked whether I think a particular publication is eligible and whether or not it ought to declare itself to be an SPZ (Ray Gun Revival) – which led to the following advice:
Yes, it certainly qualifies.? Yes, it belongs in then category.? Just consider, however, that the category has been dominated by Locus for at least the past 25 years.
There used to be a time when Locus shared the spotlight and traded the award on a regular basis with The Alien Critic (as well as fan writer award); that was more than 25 years ago though and I think that the record for a ’single generation’ is more than enough data to illustrate certain trends – trends that indicate that something is going on with the semiprozine and fanzine categories.
Consider that in that past 25 years, only four publications hqave taken the honor – Locus (20 times), Ansible (twice), Science Fiction Chronicle (twice) and Interzone (once).
Consider also that during that same period, Ansible has also been nominated for (and won) the best Fanzine category several times – 11 times nominated or won – close to 50% of the past twenty-five years.
And finally, consider that of all of the winners of the Best Semiprozine during that period, with one exception, have primarily been news oriented publications, while the material provided by the fanzine nominees during the same period of time have covered a much wider range of subject matter – traditional fanzine material (whatever that is), fiction, news, etc., etc.
Ansibles’ movement between fanzine and semiprozine, as well as its wins in BOTH categories CLEARLY indicate that the issue is not whether there should be one or two categories for “amateur” publications – but rather one of definition.
In fact, the data from a quarter-century demonstrates that there really ought to be as many as four such categories: semiprofessional fiction publication, semiprofessional non-fiction publication, amateur fiction publication and amateur non-fiction publication.
The ’split’ amongst these categories is at least 50% self-defined and 50% perception, so the first thing that needs to be done is to develop a set of perceptual guidelines for each and, once those paragraphs are written, to present them to the list of past nominees, ask them to elect one (or provide commentary as to why nothing fits what they do) and, once that has been massaged into place, publish them somewhere so that any potential future nominee will have to go through the step of self-selecting a category for which they would like to be nominated.
Further, (although somewhat problematic), they must remain within that category for at least two years following election, which could mean that they might be deemed ineligible for a single year if their focus changes dramatically.
There are other possible solutions that have been used by other award systems:? 1 – a winner is ineligible the following year; 2 – define a publication by its circulation and the categories by circulation groups (of course this would get in to making various pubs reveal how many on-line subscribers they have, which I understand some might be reluctant to do); 3 – offer more than one ‘winner’ each year by allowing two, or three publications to take the honors. 4 – create levels, based on criteria hammered out in the blogs and at business meetings, much like intramural sports – A, AA, AAA and award in each of those.
This mess is going to get even more complicated – and very soon.? Some eligible publications are all electronic only and therefore, in their own cases, the number of online subscribers they have is a critical component of whether they qualify for a particular category or not – which of course then begs the question – why does it not count for other potential nominees?? (Hint, because this alone might disqualify some publications from certain categories.)
We could of course divide things further: electronic non-fiction amateur pub, non-electronic non-fiction amateur pub, electronic fiction amateur pub…
In the end, getting rid of the semi-prozine category is NOT going to solve the problem that many perceive and are attempting to address: we give the awards away to recognize good work AND to honor friends and compatriots.? If the purpose of the Hugo was only the former, then fairness dictates that we create much finer rules of definition; if the purpose is only the latter, then there is no reason not to expand the number of categories.
Either case suggests, strongly, that rather than diminishing the number of publication awards, we really ought to be expanding them.
Both sides are trying to influence legislation. That’s the nature of politics.
It wasn’t the WSFS that excluded us. If anything, you’ve been quite helpful. I think that requiring a rules change like this to pass at two meetings is excellent. It prevents a change from being railroaded through without the other side having a chance to prepare and present their case.
It was the “officially” part that caught my eye. I’m trying to think who would be “officially” inviting anyone. And if the Business Meeting staff issued “official” invitations, they’d be screamed at by other people for attempting to “influence legislation.” Those of us on the head table are often in an un-winnable situation that way. The best we can do is to try and publicize to every member what business passed and what is awaiting ratification. So don’t think you were being deliberately excluded or ignored — not by anyone on the WSFS head table, and not by any deliberate policy decision.
And I was off celebrating my son’s 6th birthday.
Yes, a general they. Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular.
Sorry for the delay in getting back here: it was my wife’s birthday celebration (few days early) and that kind of kept me occupied a bit.
Cheryl – I’ve often filled the role of sacrificial lamb. Seems we often need a bloody alter before change occurs. And to clarify – I wasn’t suggesting that there could ever be a hard definition. I know there can’t be. But I don’t think that the definitions in quasi-use now were adopted with everything that is now out there in mind. If Ansible can so easly cross between two categories (and win), it indicates a problem. If nothing that is not news-oriented has won in semi-prozine for ages, it indicates that somewhere, somehow, folks don’t think that “non-pro fiction pubs” belong in the category.
Kevin, I think Neil was referring to a general ‘they’.
Looks like another post coming
Neil Clarke:
Who is “they”?
Sorry about that. I have to explain web stats so often that I automatically jumped to that conclusion. Bad assumption on my part.
Subscription-only webzines represent a very small percentage of the market. In terms of readership, they appear to have lower numbers than many of the free webzines. That’s not exactly surprising though. The story (readership-wise) changes considerably when you include podcast magazines.
Actually “radical” is Mewsings-speak for “someone even more likely to get lynched by SMOFdom than me.”
As for “that won’t work”, some things won’t, including any attempt to create watertight definitions of categories. But I tend to think of “work” as “does that have any chance of getting past a Business Meeting”, and practicality often has nothing to do with that.
Neil,
quote away. I’m sure that Cheryl has already informed you that I am a ‘radical’ – which is mewsing speak for (and in my own head means) – blue-sky with an open mind. I pounce on statements like – “that will never work” (and more often than not find a way to MAKE it work).
I often get sick and tired of folks who feel they face a crises and who are unwilling to get creative, throw ideas out (for good or for bad).
The practice is supposed to accomplish two things – help you identify the really intractable part of the problem and identify truly non-workable solutions.
But reactions to this exercise (from people who are supposed to be creative and open-minded) are the truly radical element. People so quickly forget that ‘it’s just an idea’. If all you do is stare at the problem, you’ll never find a solution.
I’m sensitive to tradition (duh – the blog is all about that) and respect personal concerns, but the hard facts on the ground are that until and unless the Hugos PROACTIVELY engage with the now, they’ll quickly become irrelevent.
~~~
It only makes sense to me to have the folks who are doing the pub involved – as I said (and I don’t think I’m wrong in the least) ‘what’ a publication sees itself as is at least 50% self-definition. Parenthetically – my paintball website is forced to ‘compete’ with forums and magazines because most folks don’t recognize the difference because they are all ‘websites’ – when clearly we fill a different niche.
~~~
I wasn’t talking about web stats: some magazines/newssites have a subscription process – where you only get certain content by signing up – either signing up or signing up and paying.
That list was just my safe starting point (publications that received votes in 07/08). As editors and publishers get in touch with me, the list will continue to grow. I can think of at least a dozen other markets I would have listed right off, but I need to hear from them that they consider themselves SPZ first.
Most of the people involved in online publications that I have spoken to seem rather open about their readership numbers. That said, I don’t think you can reliably map visitor website statistics to subscription numbers for a print magazine. Happy to explain sometime if you’d like.
I think you might be the first person (that I’ve come across) to suggest that they officially invite semiprozine people into the discussion of definition. (Yes, I know we can all participate already. It just sends a different message.)
I think you’ve just given me another idea for the blog. Mind if I quote you on some of your alternative models?
Thanks!
thanks! as a reward to me for my brilliance, please pass this along to all and sundry (and put my name on the list that automatically gets past the slush pile, lol)
Brilliantly put–and thank you for the link.
That’s a beautiful list to be a part of. I look forward to seeing how things roll out.