The Ursa Major Awards are mostly for the benefit of us, the Furry fans. It is undoubtedly true that the corporate winners in the motion picture, TV, and gaming industry could not care less whether they win our award or not. On the other paw, Amazon.com has just posted a 9-page "So you'd like to ... Support the Ursa Major Awards" guide: http://makeashorterlink.com/?P57F251F7 Two pages explain what Furry fandom and the Awards are, and the other seven list Ursa Major winning and nominated books and DVDs that Amazon.com is selling. Amazon.com's purpose is obviously commercial; but hey, it's a better presentation of Furry fandom to the public than another "Vanity Fair" article or "CSI" dramatization.
I agree that none of the corporate winners are expected to come to C-ACE to accept in person. Even nominees who are in Furry fandom are unlikely to go to the expense of travelling to Ottawa just on the chance that they might win the Award. Any winners who will be at C-ACE will doubtlessly be fans who would attend anyway. But I would expect the fannish winners who cannot be at the presentations to appreciate it when they receive their trophies later in the mail.
The trophy is an illustrated certificate printed on pseudo-parchment in a wood-&-glass frame. It costs about $50, which is not much; but there are ten trophies (one for each category) which is a $500 expense, and that is considerable for a fannish project with no funding except for donations. We will consider a statuette when we can afford something fancier.
In addition to being something positive about Furry fandom to show to the general public, the Awards honor our own creators. They are deliberately open to entries both inside and outside the fandom, to make the point that we are not just patting ourselves on the back. A novel published inside Furry fandom has to compete against novels published by mainstream publishers. An illustration on a Furry fanzine or book cover has to compete against professional cover art. The Awards are also a handy guide to Furry fans who want to know what books and short stories and comic strips are worth reading and where to find them; what movies are worth watching; what games are worth playing; and so on.
The Awards are designed to be FAN-CONTROLLED; not dominated by a panel of experts. There have already been changes during the three years they have been in existence, because of fannish suggestions. The Best Anthropomorphic Comic Book or Strip category was split into two separate categories because of so many criticisms that comic strips and comic books should not have to compete against each other. Best TV Series was renamed Best Dramatic Series to open the category to direct-to-video releases too short to be eligible for the Motion Picture category. Bair's suggested new categories are all possible if enough fans think they are good ideas and should be adopted.
The final ballot is composed of the titles that the fans nominate. If the Best Motion Picture nominees are all animated films, that is what was most popular with the fans who sent in nominations. When we were setting up the Awards, we felt that the surest way to turn fandom AGAINST them would be to try to set limits on what was "good enough" or was "Furry enough". Should vampire or werewolf novels be considered Furry? Let the fans decide!
The accusation of conflict of interest is unfortunately correct. In fact, it is worse than it looks. I am not only the editor of "Best in Show", I am a regular columnist in "Yarf!" and I just became a volunteer staff assistant for Sofawolf Press which publishes "Anthrolations" and "The Art of 'Herbie'". Others on the Awards Committee include Gene Breshears, who has a short story in the Short Fiction category and is the editor/publisher of "Tales of the Tai-Pan Universe" (he also has a story in "Best in Show"); and Chakat Goldfur, the editor/publisher of "South Fur Lands", which is both a Best Fanzine nominee and has one of its covers nominated in the Best Published Illustration category. In practice, practically the only fans interested enough in volunteering to help organize awards for excellence in anthropomorphic literature & art are those who are producing it themselves.
When it became clear that these were getting enough nominations that they might become finalists, the Committee held a serious discussion about whether we should declare these works ineligible because of the conflict of interest situation, or whether we should resign or take a leave of absence from the Committee instead. But the Committee is already understaffed (we are still looking for more volunteers), and if we dropped out, there would not be enough people to do the work. Contrariwise, if we ruled ineligible all of the titles with which we were personally involved, this would eliminate many of the most popular nominees. We lack the money to hire a commercial service to conduct the voting. It was a no-win situation. Going ahead despite the conflict of interest seemed better than either declaring all nominees to which we have personal connections ineligible (which would raise doubts as to whether the remaining nominees really represented the best of the year), or take leaves of absence which would decimate the Committee and result in the Awards grinding to a halt unfinished.
Several of your suggestions have serious difficulties. Have a "real award ceremony" like a dinner? Who will pay for it? How many fans will attend if it costs extra? Hold the ceremony only at a major convention? If the Awards are to be for the best of the previous calendar year, January through December, the only "major" convention available would be Anthrocon in July. There would not be time between the closing of eligibility on December 31 to call for nominations, determine a final ballot, send out the final ballot, count the votes, and have the trophies made in time for presentation at Further Confusion at the end of January, less than a month away. What if Anthrocon does not want to host the Awards presentation?
Doubtlessly the Awards do need to be improved. An Awards discussion group was created last year to get suggestions, but it has been largely inactive. The couple of dozen fans on it seem to only want to read other people's input rather than offering any discussions of their own. If anyone wants to participate in this group, please contact [email protected]
The Ursa Major Awards are mostly for the benefit of us, the Furry fans. It is undoubtedly true that the corporate winners in the motion picture, TV, and gaming industry could not care less whether they win our award or not. On the other paw, Amazon.com has just posted a 9-page "So you'd like to ... Support the Ursa Major Awards" guide: http://makeashorterlink.com/?P57F251F7 Two pages explain what Furry fandom and the Awards are, and the other seven list Ursa Major winning and nominated books and DVDs that Amazon.com is selling. Amazon.com's purpose is obviously commercial; but hey, it's a better presentation of Furry fandom to the public than another "Vanity Fair" article or "CSI" dramatization.
I agree that none of the corporate winners are expected to come to C-ACE to accept in person. Even nominees who are in Furry fandom are unlikely to go to the expense of travelling to Ottawa just on the chance that they might win the Award. Any winners who will be at C-ACE will doubtlessly be fans who would attend anyway. But I would expect the fannish winners who cannot be at the presentations to appreciate it when they receive their trophies later in the mail.
The trophy is an illustrated certificate printed on pseudo-parchment in a wood-&-glass frame. It costs about $50, which is not much; but there are ten trophies (one for each category) which is a $500 expense, and that is considerable for a fannish project with no funding except for donations. We will consider a statuette when we can afford something fancier.
In addition to being something positive about Furry fandom to show to the general public, the Awards honor our own creators. They are deliberately open to entries both inside and outside the fandom, to make the point that we are not just patting ourselves on the back. A novel published inside Furry fandom has to compete against novels published by mainstream publishers. An illustration on a Furry fanzine or book cover has to compete against professional cover art. The Awards are also a handy guide to Furry fans who want to know what books and short stories and comic strips are worth reading and where to find them; what movies are worth watching; what games are worth playing; and so on.
The Awards are designed to be FAN-CONTROLLED; not dominated by a panel of experts. There have already been changes during the three years they have been in existence, because of fannish suggestions. The Best Anthropomorphic Comic Book or Strip category was split into two separate categories because of so many criticisms that comic strips and comic books should not have to compete against each other. Best TV Series was renamed Best Dramatic Series to open the category to direct-to-video releases too short to be eligible for the Motion Picture category. Bair's suggested new categories are all possible if enough fans think they are good ideas and should be adopted.
The final ballot is composed of the titles that the fans nominate. If the Best Motion Picture nominees are all animated films, that is what was most popular with the fans who sent in nominations. When we were setting up the Awards, we felt that the surest way to turn fandom AGAINST them would be to try to set limits on what was "good enough" or was "Furry enough". Should vampire or werewolf novels be considered Furry? Let the fans decide!
The accusation of conflict of interest is unfortunately correct. In fact, it is worse than it looks. I am not only the editor of "Best in Show", I am a regular columnist in "Yarf!" and I just became a volunteer staff assistant for Sofawolf Press which publishes "Anthrolations" and "The Art of 'Herbie'". Others on the Awards Committee include Gene Breshears, who has a short story in the Short Fiction category and is the editor/publisher of "Tales of the Tai-Pan Universe" (he also has a story in "Best in Show"); and Chakat Goldfur, the editor/publisher of "South Fur Lands", which is both a Best Fanzine nominee and has one of its covers nominated in the Best Published Illustration category. In practice, practically the only fans interested enough in volunteering to help organize awards for excellence in anthropomorphic literature & art are those who are producing it themselves.
When it became clear that these were getting enough nominations that they might become finalists, the Committee held a serious discussion about whether we should declare these works ineligible because of the conflict of interest situation, or whether we should resign or take a leave of absence from the Committee instead. But the Committee is already understaffed (we are still looking for more volunteers), and if we dropped out, there would not be enough people to do the work. Contrariwise, if we ruled ineligible all of the titles with which we were personally involved, this would eliminate many of the most popular nominees. We lack the money to hire a commercial service to conduct the voting. It was a no-win situation. Going ahead despite the conflict of interest seemed better than either declaring all nominees to which we have personal connections ineligible (which would raise doubts as to whether the remaining nominees really represented the best of the year), or take leaves of absence which would decimate the Committee and result in the Awards grinding to a halt unfinished.
Several of your suggestions have serious difficulties. Have a "real award ceremony" like a dinner? Who will pay for it? How many fans will attend if it costs extra? Hold the ceremony only at a major convention? If the Awards are to be for the best of the previous calendar year, January through December, the only "major" convention available would be Anthrocon in July. There would not be time between the closing of eligibility on December 31 to call for nominations, determine a final ballot, send out the final ballot, count the votes, and have the trophies made in time for presentation at Further Confusion at the end of January, less than a month away. What if Anthrocon does not want to host the Awards presentation?
Doubtlessly the Awards do need to be improved. An Awards discussion group was created last year to get suggestions, but it has been largely inactive. The couple of dozen fans on it seem to only want to read other people's input rather than offering any discussions of their own. If anyone wants to participate in this group, please contact [email protected]
Fred Patten