I don't want to come across as an apologist for the LLF - I'm not at all involved with them and I'm aware that they've had issues in the past though I don't know that much about them.
Oh, have they ever. And I am going to stop there before I get myself into major trouble. *whistles nonchalantly*
But anyway! Mission statement, yeah: bad word choice on my part, to conflate the awards' mission versus the organization's mission. *sigh* I'll edit that in a bit, to make it clearer. As for point two... *rereads* sheesh. Yeah, okay. Heh. Uhm, how did I miss that? Oh, right, sorry, was probably busy letting the steam come out of my ears over the bit just before that, that said "a book that may be the only chance in a career at a Lambda Literary Award" and made me want to chew glass in fury. (Which was part of the knee-jerk reaction that I alluded to at start: this implication that LGBT writers are being implied to only have one good book in them, what, what?) So. Yeah. I went blind. Whoops. Will edit to correct that mistake.
...as for the last, I was being partially facetious (and I'm still having trouble believing you when you say there are folks referencing my post... say what? uhm. you are kidding, right? Because that's just kinda disturbing.) At any rate, a) that part of the post refers to points I didn't have room/time to make in this post and so put off to address in a second part, and b) the realistic chances of retracting are null, anyway. In no small part because of the way the LLF sets up its awards: the publishers pay a fee when they nominate, I'd bet. I would imagine that if the publisher does so, and the book is withdrawn because it violates a revised mission statement, the nominating fee must be returned. Maybe that's an issue for them. I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if it is. Money's tight right now. Might be just easier to let the award stand, y'know?
But it does seem as though changing their rules at the last minute, offering such a paltry excuse for it, turning a simple definition into such a tongue-twister -- and the cherry on top being 'clarifying' the rules such that now it's "all along we were always just content!" -- is really knocking some major damage on their credibility. Which, for all the complaints I do have about them, may get them my empathy, but it does not get them my sympathy.
The LLF could have handled it in the very best way possible... and I'm sure some people still would have reacted the same way.
I think it could have been substantially reduced, to an almost non-existent furor, had the LLF started months ago, been far more transparent, not given us near-legalese in their new terms/definitions for the awards, come up with justification that didn't also sound so freaking defensive... well, just starting about three months ago at minimum would have helped significantly.
It's now October 1st, after all, and nothing riles up the masses quite like rushing to do something at the last minute all while pretending like you totally meant to do that, srsly. There's something about the intarweebs that loves to mock that kind of imperious attitude, not unlike the way we laugh when a cat falls off the bed. Come to think of it, this fiasco is a lot like lolcats, but with sequins.
no subject
Date: 1 Oct 2009 05:13 am (UTC)Oh, have they ever. And I am going to stop there before I get myself into major trouble. *whistles nonchalantly*
But anyway! Mission statement, yeah: bad word choice on my part, to conflate the awards' mission versus the organization's mission. *sigh* I'll edit that in a bit, to make it clearer. As for point two... *rereads* sheesh. Yeah, okay. Heh. Uhm, how did I miss that? Oh, right, sorry, was probably busy letting the steam come out of my ears over the bit just before that, that said "a book that may be the only chance in a career at a Lambda Literary Award" and made me want to chew glass in fury. (Which was part of the knee-jerk reaction that I alluded to at start: this implication that LGBT writers are being implied to only have one good book in them, what, what?) So. Yeah. I went blind. Whoops. Will edit to correct that mistake.
...as for the last, I was being partially facetious (and I'm still having trouble believing you when you say there are folks referencing my post... say what? uhm. you are kidding, right? Because that's just kinda disturbing.) At any rate, a) that part of the post refers to points I didn't have room/time to make in this post and so put off to address in a second part, and b) the realistic chances of retracting are null, anyway. In no small part because of the way the LLF sets up its awards: the publishers pay a fee when they nominate, I'd bet. I would imagine that if the publisher does so, and the book is withdrawn because it violates a revised mission statement, the nominating fee must be returned. Maybe that's an issue for them. I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if it is. Money's tight right now. Might be just easier to let the award stand, y'know?
But it does seem as though changing their rules at the last minute, offering such a paltry excuse for it, turning a simple definition into such a tongue-twister -- and the cherry on top being 'clarifying' the rules such that now it's "all along we were always just content!" -- is really knocking some major damage on their credibility. Which, for all the complaints I do have about them, may get them my empathy, but it does not get them my sympathy.
The LLF could have handled it in the very best way possible... and I'm sure some people still would have reacted the same way.
I think it could have been substantially reduced, to an almost non-existent furor, had the LLF started months ago, been far more transparent, not given us near-legalese in their new terms/definitions for the awards, come up with justification that didn't also sound so freaking defensive... well, just starting about three months ago at minimum would have helped significantly.
It's now October 1st, after all, and nothing riles up the masses quite like rushing to do something at the last minute all while pretending like you totally meant to do that, srsly. There's something about the intarweebs that loves to mock that kind of imperious attitude, not unlike the way we laugh when a cat falls off the bed. Come to think of it, this fiasco is a lot like lolcats, but with sequins.