jimb@ism780 (03/08/86)
> Mark edits (and Evelyn publishes) the weekly notice of the > Lincroft-Holmdel Science Fiction Club. The club itself is open > to all members of AT&T, but the notice is sent to NJSFS and > NESFA for their libraries. In addition, the Leepers and I > usually post our contributions to the net, typically in > sf-lovers. (I've been *very* busy, and haven't reviewed > anything recently.) > What does that mean? First of all, it means Mark edits the > only *weekly* fanzine I know of. Second, it means that Mark > does everything legally possible to distribute the contents of > that fanzine widely. (If u cn rd ths, u cn gt th cntnts f th > notc.) Mark is an active fan writer, and eligible. As arguments to support a nomination for Best Fan Writer Hugo, these are flawed and, as a well-known person would say, "Highly illogical." The Best Fan Writer award is for a writer's work in a given fan publication. Nominating Mark for his weekly fanzine *on the basis of his contributions to the net* is as silly as nominating SKZB for an award based on *his* contributions to the net. Read and judge the relevant material. Campaigning on the basis of quantity produced also seems dubious to me. As someone else pointed out, Asimov would be in the running with Silverberg, Anderson, and Heinlein in the novel classification. This is reasonable, no? No. > I don't always agree with Mark's reviews. (We don't argue > anymore over the third Quatermass film, for example.-) But he's > usually pretty good at picking the triumphs from the turkeys, > and at separating his tastes from his view of "objective" > quality (let's fight this one out in a separate chain of > articles, shall we?) He's popularized the old Cinefantastique > "minus four to plus four" scale to the extent that many > subscribers to sf-lovers and net.movies call it "the Leeper > scale." [Footnote: CFQ has abandoned it in favor of a "one to > four" scale. Yuchh, blech.] And brother, does he write. He > must have written one or two *hundred* SF-related reviews in > 1985. It's wonderful that you don't always agree with Mark, but that, too, is irrelevant. I often don't agree with Davis Tucker, yet his writing is damned good and his points are defensible. (I just wish he would break up his essays into paragraphs.) The standard of a Hugo award should be How Is The Writing? If you like the +/- four scale fine, but is this a contribution worth an award? <Okay, I'm biased. I HATE that kind of rating scale. I feel that it trivializes the review process by trying to put each work in a nice, neat category. The only thing that is worse is the routine quote of cover blurbs.> The quantity issue I've already addressed. > There's also the "Get a Usenetter on the ballot" issue. > Nominating an sf-lovers member would make the rest of Fandom sit > up and notice its electronic brethren. Personally, I don't feel > discriminated against because I use a mailer instead of a mimeo, > but the recognition wouldn't be a bad thing. Get a Usenetter on the ballot for WHAT? If it's for fanzine work, then it would be as a fanzine writer who happens to be a Usenetter. If it's for Usenet postings, there's the question of Usenet not being a fanzine. I AGREE that electronic media should be recognized; perhaps nominations should be made on Mark's behalf -- for his Usenet postings, NOT his fanzine work -- but ON THE BASIS OF THE QUALITY OF THE WRITING, not because he is a Usenetter. This is such a simple issue. I wouldn't raise the least quibble if the plea for nominations was on the basis of the quality of the writing on Usenet; what is wrong with asking people to do the right thing for the right reason? Or have you succumbed to the ethos of the mass media and Madison Ave. that just getting people to do what you want is important and screw the whys and wherefores? > = the following is excerpted from Evelyn, not Paul. > Mark Leeper has been published (over the past year) in Usenet, > "Lincroft-Holmdel Science Fiction Discussion Group Newsletter" > (for lack of a fancier name), "Lan's Lantern" (published by > George Laskowski, Bloomfield Hills, MI), "The Proper Boskonian" > (published by NESFA), "The Intergalactic Reporter" (published by > NJSFS), and "Matawapa" (small APA published by us). Since most of us don't read/have access to these other publications, it seems as if we must nominate strictly on the basis of the Usenet postings, no? Oh, I get it. If I like Greg Bear's work that I've read, I can nominate EON without bothering to read it. Really! > * Nominate SF-LOVERS' DIGEST for Hugo for Best Fanzine in 1986! * Oh, so now you're claiming that SF-LOVERS DIGEST is a fanzine? Who edits it? Saul Jaffe moderates the digest for the ARPA side (stand up and wave your hand, Saul), but my impression is that he's a yes/no gate on what get's transmitted over there. Don't you blush to put the fanzines that you *do* work with in the same category as a computer-media party line? Or do your fanzines take almost and anything that anybody (including Yahoos like me) writes, with no editing at all? Just how far are you willing to sell out your critical standards? In conclusion, a hearty "Feh!" to all. <stomp up staircase> -- from the musings of Jim Brunet ihnp4/ima/ism780B hplabs/hao/ico/ism780B sdcsvax/sdcrdcf/ism780/ism780B
mike@bambi.UUCP (Michael Caplinger) (03/11/86)
I was under the impression that at least the ARPA side of SF-Lovers (which is the only version that's digested that I know of) isn't supposed to be heavily publicized, because there's a good chance that widespread knowledge of its existence would mean its demise (there was a wine-lovers list on ARPA some time back that suffered that fate). Obviously, the same objections don't apply to the Usenet side, but it's not terribly clear that you can talk about one without mentioning the other. - Mike Caplinger (mike@bellcore.com)