© 2003-2006 David Moles
Chrononautic Log |
|
Main |
|
Nebs (updated again)10 o'clock, July 25, 2005update (25 July 2005): The new one is out — and you (except for those of you who don’t) continue to disappoint me! Is it not passing brave to be a nominee, and ride in triumph through Tempe? Get nominatin’! There’s a new Nebula Awards Report out — sorry, Nebula Awards® Report, I mean. Through April 30th. Live on sfwa.org. And you — you know who I mean — you haven’t been doing your job, getting out there and co-nominating the stuff I’ve nominated. Or even reading it, maybe. Some of it’s right on the bubble! Come on, folks. Remember, Making These Awards Mean Something Begins With You.P.S. Anyone remember what the - and ? and % mean, exactly? (They really ought to have a key on there, the way they do on the printed version.) P.P.S. I keep thinking I ought to be able to come up with some sort of play on N.A.R. and D.A.R. So far, no dice. Anyone? Update: And I just filed, like, four more nominations. So pthfbbbbbbbbt. |
Comments |
|
Yeah, the interactive report should have the key on it somewhere: Q This work is qualified for the latest Preliminary ballot. 0-9 The number of recommendations an unqualified work has. % Author will send copies of work upon request. * This is the first listing in the NAR for this work. - This work's eligibility is over. V This work is verse. FU This work will never receive the Nebula no matter how many recommendations it receives, because of some long-nurtured feud that no normal organization would care about. Paul |
|
Paul, you're movement is spreading! |
|
I recced about a dozen stories this weekend, based on my reading from all year. So I'm doing my part! Though I didn't go look to see which ones were on the bubble or anything, just recced the ones I dug the most. |
I just filed four more myself. And it's true. The award is only good if the members are actively participating, nominating works that need to be considered.