On Ditmars... Collected Work

[cassiphone]

Until last year, with the change to the categories of the Aurealis Awards, the Ditmars Collected Work category was the only way to honour the magazines and anthologies which we felt were excellent as a whole

Comments

[jonathanstrahan]

Thanks for the kind words about The Starry Rift. They're really appreciated. There's lots of other stuff eligible. I have ECLIPSE TWO (which I actually think is better than Starry Rift). There's a Greg Egan short story collection. I agree, btw, that CANTERBURY 2100 should have made the short list.

J

[cassiphone]

I keep forgetting that Eclipse Two came out in 2008. Seriously, J, you have to stop this thing with book releases in the last few months of the year!!!

I will have to remember that when using my LSS recs to decide which stories I want to nominate...

[jonathanstrahan]

The good folk at Night Shade pushed it back a bit and there we were. It's been held over for the AAs to next year, but it's 2008 for the Ditmars. I don't mind if no-one votes for it or if it doesn't make the ballot, but I'd hate it to simply be overlooked.

[_fustian]

There's a Greg Egan short story collection.

Which is, of course, not eligible for a Ditmar. (Greg has withdrawn his work on a permanent and ongoing basis.)

[jonathanstrahan]

Is there an actual provision in the rules for withdrawing? I have not looked. I know he has said he doesn't want his work considered, but is that in the rules?

[_fustian]

is that in the rules?

Only in "Section 8" (see http://wiki.sf.org.au/Ditmar_rules), but it's an informal understanding at present. I expect we (ie. the SCNatconBMDitSubCom) will be discussing it during the course of the nominations.

[jonathanstrahan]

In other words, Greg's collection (DARK INTEGERS AND OTHER STORIES), his novel (INCANDESCANCE), and stories for the year ("Crystal Nights" and "Lost Continent") ARE eligible under the current rules? There's nothing in the current rules that allows for a nominee to withdraw work from consideration. So it comes down to a matter of manners?

[_fustian]

So it comes down to a matter of manners?

It always has in the past, yes.

[jonathanstrahan]

Is that sufficient, under the rules, for the subcommittee to invalidate a nomination?

[_fustian]

It's not a matter of invalidating nominations. It's a matter of excluding works form the ballot which have been withdrawn by their authors.

As I've said elsewhere, this is only my opinion. The debate has yet to take place within the sub-committee.

[jonathanstrahan]

Really? Interesting. Is there something in the rules that allows the subcommittee to remove a properly nominated work from the ballot?

[_fustian]

Not to my recollection. (I'd check, but the wiki is currently down.) Given no rules to the contrary, it's up to the committee's collective judgment.

[jonathanstrahan]

Isn't it a case of removing a properly nominated work from a ballot without any authority to do so? I mean, if the rules don't expressly let them do something, aren't they barred from doing it?

In fact, what are the committee expressly authorised to do?

[_fustian]

if the rules don't expressly let them do something, aren't they barred from doing it?

The rules are intentionally minimalist, so no.

what are the committee expressly authorised to do?

Run the Ditmars.

[jonathanstrahan]

Hmm. Does intentionally minimalist mean they can do what they want to/need to, or restrict them deliberately to a narrow course of action? I'd have assumed the latter.

[_fustian]

The former. (I can't even imagine what argument you'd use to support the latter interpretation, other than wishful thinking.)