Thoughts on the * * * Award
I suppose I want to write down some of the swirling thoughts that have been swooping in and out of my noggin just so I don’t forget them.
Name of the Award. We aren’t probably going to have a consensus, so I hope everyone holds their ideas loosely and won’t boycott the proceedings because their favorite isn’t chosen. Not that I have any indication of any such thing. It’s probably more a reflection of me than anyone else! 
We might try to set up an informal vote to get the name that most people would like. I’m thinking of paring down the offering to the ones that have been mentioned more than once (and not by the same person. 
)
Nominations. I think we’ve pretty much settled that—readers nominate the books they like. The books that are eligible are Christian worldview science fiction/ fantasy/allegory/furturistic/supernatural novels published in English by a royalty paying press between January 2006 and December 2006. There are other titles that have not yet been nominated. I don’t know if I should suggest them or not. So far, I think we’ve only had nominations from three people. Perhaps we need to spread the word that we’re currently taking nominations.
Judging. I’m thinking we should have two rounds. I’d like to see the first round be the volunteers—people with experience as reviewers or judges in other contests. Once the top three are chosen, then we can have a final judge or two judges select the winner.
Timetable. We already have nominations, but could wait another week or so to garner more as the word gets out about this award. We already have some volunteers for judges—almost enough. That means, we could start the first round of judging within the month. That round could be finished by August. Then the final judges could go to work. We could have the results by October. If this catches on and continues, I’d like to see this timetable moved up so that we could announce earlier so the winner could maybe capitalize on the status at ICRS, but that’s just an idea.
Judge Sheets. I’d like to develop something that utilizes much of the ECPA’s Gold Medallion standards, but include a section for worldbuilding/setting, an important element in speculative fiction, surely.
Organization. I think we’d need to establish an organizational structure—maybe a member from any of the sponsoring organizations: CSFF Blog Tour, Lost Genre Guild, The Sword Review/Double-Edged Publishing, Christian Fandom, Infuze—whoever wishes to get behind this. Someone needs to be a decision-maker and it needs to have some stability to be credible.
OK, I think I’m out of thoughts now. What have I forgotten? What do you think could be different/better? What other books would you like to nominate?
Becky,
Hello, again!
My vote for name of award: The Visionary.
Nominations: I’m cool with the books that have been mentioned already.
Judging: Maybe I’m confused. Are you saying that there will be a team to prescreen the books (the first round of judges), and they will make recommendations which will then get passed to the “real judges”? If so, I agree with a slight alteration: I’d prefer a team that selects the top 3-7 books, this number of books then gets passed to the judges for review. I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask the publishers of the books for free review copies. I get free review copies at the magazine all the time, with no stipulation that I have to feature them. All of these publishers will get free PR from this venture. For them, it’s a win-win situation.
Timetable: I’m cool with your decisions.
Judge Sheets: Great idea.
Organization: Are you talking about putting together a “board of directors” so to speak? One member from each organization, with someone leading the team? If so, I agree, but I vote you the leader.
Other thoughts: Just a reiteration of what I’ve stated in previous blogs. My marketing background says this needs as much creative publicity as possible. I still think high profile judges (in the final round) are crucial. Joining with other organizations is a fabulous idea. I also think that we are going to need someone with a publicity background to help with press releases, et. And any radio coverage we can get would help immensely.
I love your proactive approach to all of this, Becky. I can’t wait to see what happens next!
Comment by Merrie — May 18, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Hah. I posted a similar thing when I got back from the dentist. (Five rounds of numbing goo and I still wouldn’t numb. After 2.5 hours, we rescheduled. Sigh. I’m hard to numb.)
I like Chrysalis and Visionary best. I don’t like Lewis at all. Urp.
I like the idea of a first round of judges sending top THREE to a final judge to put in a final order. The simpler we make it for the final judge(s), the better.
I think if we have a larger preliminary voting group (say all the CSFF and Lost Genre Guild, plus regular posters/commenters/reviewers), they should narrow the choice to five (or six) novels for the first round judges, who narrow it to three for the final judge(s). With such a short time frame, we cannot overwhelm folks with a lot of books to read and judge.
Were you thinking of “name” folks for final judges? I think this would be tough to do on this ad hoc basis.
Mir
Comment by mirtika — May 18, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Visionary is cool, sounds prestigious too. The rationale for “Chrysalis” is cool, but the word’s a little cumbersome…doesn’t roll off the tongue as easily. My .02
Comment by Wayne Thomas Batson — May 18, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Would this be a One Winner thing, or would their be categories like: Best Debut Novel, Worldbuilding, etc.??
Comment by Wayne Thomas Batson — May 18, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
A lot of good suggestions. Becky, are you interested in coordinating this?
Chrysalis and Visionary are both excellent names. Chrysalis was the name of a series of science fiction short stories published in the 70s(I think). It was one of my favorites. Does anyone remember it?
I think that Visionary might be the better name. It is more descriptive of the books that will be considered.
Comment by Jim Black — May 18, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
I like Visionary the best too.
I don’t know if these have been nominated yet or not, but here are a couple more books:
Eye of the Oracle by Bryan Davis
Shadow in the Deep by L.B. Graham
I hope I’m doing this right. If not, please tell me.
Becca Johnson
Comment by Becca Johnson — May 18, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
One more! Does House, by Frank Peretti and Ted Dekker, count?
Comment by Becca Johnson — May 18, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
Sorry. I remembered one more.
It’s my favorite of these, so I don’t know how I managed to forget it until now.
Saint by Ted Dekker
Comment by Becca Johnson — May 18, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
I appreciate the symbolism, but Chrysalis sounds like an entomology award. Visionary is what spec-fic is all about. This has it all.
Comment by Frank Creed — May 19, 2007 @ 3:02 am
I would like to add The Fall of the Nephilim by Douglas Hirt, a 2006 publication. It’s the third in his Cradleland Chronicles, a retelling of the Flood story with a very interesting take on the society/culture!
Comment by Kathy-E — May 19, 2007 @ 6:53 am
I’ve added the suggestions to the list in the last post. We can keep the nominations open for another week or so, I’d think, while we solidify the number of judges we have. Thanks so much for your participation.
I agree that we should get name judges for the finals. I was thinking along with Mir that the first round would cull the field to the final three, and our final judges would then order them as first, second, third. I think we need the books to be judged in the first round by experienced reviewers, editors, writers—obviously with no conflict of interest.
I agree with Merrie that promoting this award will make or break it. One of the things we’ll need in the organizational committee (or board of directors, if you’d rather) is someone with promotion savvy.
Becky
Comment by Rebecca LuElla Miller — May 19, 2007 @ 9:13 am
Visionary would work fine. Chrysalis, you probably wouldn’t know how to spell it if you said it, or how to say it if you read it…lol.
Oh Rebecca, you haven’t included my link on the Sword Review blog tour. Are you able to get in touch with me? I’m planning a post on my blog for the tour Monday.
Comment by Jason W. — May 20, 2007 @ 10:40 am
If a writer doesn’t know how to write or say Chrysalis, I’d worry, frankly, about their verbal abilities and prose skills.
Mir
Comment by mirtika — May 20, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Sue Dent brought up NEVER CEESE at Spec Faith. I suppose it was a nudge-nudge that she ought to be nominated. Now, I haven’t read teh book, and she says it’s not a CBA publisher (anyone familiar with Journey Stone Creations?), so depending on whether we limit this to CBA published novels, that makes a difference. If we don’t limit, then it doesn’t.
So, does anyone who has read the novel and enjoyed it and considered it well-written want to add their thumbs up to adding it to the nomination list. I did so at Spec Faith, but, really, it should be someone who read it and can vouch for it’s merit.
Mir
Comment by mirtika — May 20, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
I mean, “its merit”. Geesh. I need to go to bed.
Mir
Comment by mirtika — May 20, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
I’m with you, Mir. I welcome nominations (see note to the last post where the growing list is located), but I think the nominations should come from readers who think the book is deserving of an award—not publishers or authors. Well, I suppose an author or an editor could nominate a book they are not associated with, as long as there’s no back room deals. After all, we are such a prestigious award, I can see why people might be tempted to pull strings to get on our list.
Becky
Comment by Rebecca LuElla Miller — May 21, 2007 @ 6:43 am
I read it. It has merrit, but there are some craft issues. However, I feel the same way about House. That book was horrid with character issues and POV flaws–but maybe that’s just me.
Comment by pixy — May 21, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
HOUSE got some really critical reviews about the quality. Well, I guess I withdraw my Spec Faith nomination and call for someone who really thinks it was great to nominate it. Only fair.
Pixy, are you nominating it?
Mir
Comment by mirtika — May 21, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
I checked with Becca who nominated it on behalf of her dad. He really liked it and I’m sure others did. I haven’t read it and was also swayed by the reviews. But if we want the readers to have a hand in this award, it should be in the nomination process, I think.
Becky
Comment by Rebecca LuElla Miller — May 22, 2007 @ 10:14 am
Just one point. I didn’t nominate Never Ceese and I think the nomination process should go much like the nomination process for any awards I’ve been involved in. That is the board checks out the validity of the publisher, making sure it’s not POD etc . . . I do think that setting the standard for only CBA publishers is putting speculative fiction writers right back where they’ve been all along. Most can only get publishers who aren’t CBA because CBA publishers haven’t exactly warmed up to speculative fiction yet. Brian Davis slid in by first publishing something that wasn’t so edgy. So did the others who have CBA publishers or they proved themselves with a slightly secular publisher first. You want to solve the problem, you’re going to have to open that up. There are lots of Christian publishers out there who aren’t CBA. Also as for the craft of my book, it’s a debut novel and it got nominated for a Bram Stoker Award for Superior Achievement in a First Novel. This means that despite some minor flaws, it did pretty good. This also means that you don’t have to nominate it for the fact that it was short-listed but it would be wise to pay attention to something that was short-listed for any prestigious award. And like it or not, a Stoker is prestigious. Oh and so is the ACFW and I’m up for book of the year there. But hey, don’t listen to me. I’ll let the readers speak. Though they pretty much already have.
And don’t think I don’t appreciat it!!!
Comment by Sue Dent — May 27, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
And yes, there were some flaws in that last post. LOL I think that was supposed to read, “appreciate it.”
Comment by Sue Dent — May 27, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
_Never Ceese_ is the work of a master storyteller and amazingly, a first-time novelist! Short of placing a full blown review here when they are available elsewhere, I would just like to say that this book is well worth the honor of the book award your group is contemplating (and well worth reading!).
I think that the fact that Dent has been shortlisted for the “secular” Bram Stoker and is also a finalist for the ACFW Book of the Year speaks to the fact that a. _Never Ceese_ is an exceptionally entertaining novel, and b. the novel’s strength comes from the writer’s seeming unwillingness to compromise her convictions: the Christian faith element is evident throughout the novel and is there for all the world to see; and, at the same time, this dark fantasy is as superbly crafted as any secular horror story. If Dent did cull out scenes or descriptions during the editing process in order to straddle the fence between Christian/ secular fiction, there are no lapses nor instances of apparent “dilution” that I detected. (I include the latter statement because I have felt cheated over and over again at how many of the CBA published novels I have read, sadly do contain this dilution (most likely at the insistence of publisher) and the lapses are evident).
So, without further ado, I would like to nominate _Never Ceese_ by Sue Dent for the *** Award.
–cyn
Comment by Cynthia MacKinnon — May 28, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
And ooops, I just realized it sounded like I said that you said I nominated Never Ceese. I now realize this and want to make sure Mir realizes that I ralize she was only pointing out that I brought it up in a nudge-nudge sort of way.
But it sounds like you guys want to start something good and I just thought my input might be helpful. (I realize ya’ll might think otherwise and well, that’s okay I guess) You’re going to possibly get a lot of nominations from books with legitimate publishers whom you’ve never heard of (ahem, like Journey Stone Creations) Nevertheless, they are legitimate royalty paying publishers. I couldn’t have submitted for a Stoker Award if Jorney Stone weren’t. You see, when I submitted it for consideration, I was asked this up front and I supplied the information that proved it. For instance my advance check which was over a certain amount of money.
That’s how all legitimate Award systems work. I got a little worried when ya’ll questioned my publisher and then to check, you ask others if they’ve heard of Journey Stone. My! I doubt it. And Journey Stone won’t be the only legitimate publisher you haven’t heard of.
But then I guess if you stick with CBA publishers, you won’t have to worry about that headache. Of course, if you stick with CBA publishers you won’t have to worry about many nominations either because, in case you haven’t heard, most good speculative fiction is coming from non-cba publishers. I suspect this is why the visionary category was eliminated.
Ho-hum.
Well, just in case you guys decide to go with ABA and CBA publishers, I’d like to nominate Light at the Edge of Darkness. Of course, that’s an Independent publisher, The Writers’ Cafe Press, and that opens up a whole new spectrum of possibilities. But hey, they can get into any Barnes & Nobles and Christian bookstores and are doing so. We’re planning a tour to begin here shortly!!!
Long live Speculative Fiction! Or rather plain good story tellin’!
And BTW, I don’t think I’m allowed to nominate but I’m throwing it out there anyway. Light at the Edge of Darkness packs a heavy punch with heavy-weight authors to carry it forward. A.P. Fuchs, newcomer Daniel Weaver and S.M. Kirkland and Frank Creed just to name a very few most of whom I’ve seen doing nothing but supporting speculative fiction. Imagine, if after all their hard work, they couldn’t be considered because their publisher wasn’t CBA.
BTW, Never Ceese just garnished a review from the Bristish Fantasy Society. A resounding one at that! They probably haven’t heard of my publisher either but they did point out it was short-listed for a Stoker!
And it may not sound like it, but I don’t really care if Never Ceese is nominated. I’m more concerned for others who’ve worked so hard who don’t have CBA publishers. Seems a little odd to exclude over 60% to 75% of the speculative fiction market by cutting out ABA and Independent publishers.
Okay, I’m done for now.
Comment by Sue Dent — May 28, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
Cyn, we don’t need any justification as to why a reader wants to nominate a book. Just that there is someone who thinks the book should be considered. Thanks for adding to the list.
Sue, your concerns about books other than those published by CBA houses is unfounded. Here are the qualifications as listed in this post: The books that are eligible are Christian worldview science fiction/ fantasy/allegory/furturistic/supernatural novels published in English by a royalty paying press between January 2006 and December 2006.
As to Light at the Edge of Darkness, this is not a novel and it is a 2007 release, so on both accounts it would not qualify for THIS award, as we are planning it for this year.
Becky
Comment by Rebecca LuElla Miller — May 29, 2007 @ 8:03 am
Becky wrote: Sue, your concerns about books other than those published by CBA houses is unfounded.
I’m not real sure what this means though I suppose it has something to do with my comments suggesting books published by non CBA publishers might be at a disadvantage if only CBA publishers are considered. Other than that, nothing I wrote was unfounded–if unfounded still means not based on fact or sound evidence. Perhaps it was the percentage of speculative fiction books not published by CBA publishers that I threw out there. Okay, that would be unfounded as I just made that up. So just scratch the numbers and say that a lot of books won’t get nominated if CBA publishers are only considered. But in all honesty, it doesn’t look like ya’ll are just considering CBA publishers so it matters little anymore.
Becky wrote: this is not a novel
Sorry, some folks accept anthologies. Perhaps in the future.
Becky wrote: between January 2006 and December 2006.
Yes, this zipped right out of my mind. (But it’s still a GRAND read!)
Comment by Sue Dent — May 29, 2007 @ 9:18 am
I have been following the *** award concept from over there —> at Speculative Faith to here, at your site Becky — and, a very laudable idea it is. I wrote the justification in response to the dialogue about _Never Ceese_ and the subsequent removal of the title from the list. The final comments/ questions on the subject lead me to believe that, since you were not familiar with the novel, that you did want some sort of justification. I apologize.
–cyn
Comment by Cynthia MacKinnon — May 29, 2007 @ 9:56 am
Cyn, nothing to apologize for. It is not “wrong” to explain why you liked the book—just not necessary. With this first go round anyway, we’re taking nominations from whoever read a book and thought it worthy.
At first I think some people were under the impression that we just wanted to name all the Christian speculative titles we could think of. I contacted one person privately to be sure they really thought the nomination was worthy of the award, then wrote something to that affect in the comments section of the other main Award post (where the nominations are).
BTW, these are the same eligibility qualifications that ECPA uses for the Christy award—I think. It is possible, if this award catches on and grows, that we’ll expand the categories, but for this first time, I think we’re looking at first, second, and third novel winners.
So did I see your hand up volunteering as one of the first round judges?
Becky
Comment by Rebecca LuElla Miller — May 29, 2007 @ 1:51 pm