Vox Populi, Vox Dei?

To be fair, I think your interpretation of my comment is accurate, but on the other hand, I really enjoyed the radio plays that you did, and they worked well the way they are written. I'm more interested in seeing some sort of justification, even if it is a metaphorical one, for why can't these characters be human.

Case in point: I one time took it upon myself to take a standard erotica story (which had some editing issues) and convert it into a furry story, with a just few changes. I even included some changes with the way the characters reacted (tail swishes, ears coloring, etc.). My feeling is that it is too often how many "furry" writers approach their work, which I include my impression of Gold's work based on the summary you provided.

And like you, I don't feel like I can write erotica with a darn. I also know that I hold a rather uncommon view among furry writers, so you take my comment with a pile of salt pork.

The biggest problem with the Ursa Majors is that they're publicly voted on, and if someone is doing the right things to build fanbase, and has a route to encourage that fanbase to get out and vote, they have a major benefit over others. Sofawolf is *the* publishing company right now, with a specialty serving the gay/bi male demographic that makes up a large part of the fandom; their stuff comes with a built-in fanbase, and their artists/authors/etc. will win every time in a popularity contest.

I'm going to write the folks who operate it and point out that they have some major flaws in the current methodology and suggest finding a way to rebalance the selection process so it's actually, y'know, *fair*.

It's measuring popularity. How else would you do it, and why would that way be any better?

If you want a award that is based on the quality of a work as determined by (say) a panel of experts, then you need to set that one up yourself. The UMA is purely about how much support you can drum up, at least for nominations.

And you wonder why I'm sticking to trolleys and Tali pics on FA these days? At least that way I get some appreciation from the public...

So, I just wanted to chime in here for a bit. I'm the author of Thousand Leaves, one of the works that's up for an Ursa in the Novel category, just to get that out of the way as an initial disclaimer.

Sofawolf, an outfit that specializes in "m/m" stories

Absolutely not the case. While Sofawolf does indeed publish erotic fiction, a quick look at their catalog is enough to prove that it is not the bulk of what they produce (and certainly not to the point to say that they 'specialize' in it). It's true that the works by Kyell Gold are among their better-selling works, to be sure, but that's just the reality of the dynamics of the furry fandom purchasing base.

Case in point: my own book is not an adult novel, and has assuredly never been marketed as such.

(And honestly, if you look at other furry publishing houses, like FurPlanet and BadDogBooks, those guys do have a large chunk of their catalog taken up by gay porn; accusing Sofawolf of being some glorified m/m-centric publisher is misinformed at best and an outright lie at worst.)

1 of the 2 finalist nominations in the novel category that were earned by Sofawolf (out of 5 total)

To be fair, it's not like there are dozens upon dozens of furry publishers out there putting out novels.

Moreover, how is Sofawolf somehow at fault for happening to publish two works in the same year that readers liked enough to nominate for a possible award? Are you calling shenanigans on the publisher for that?

And as the author of one of those two novels, I'm going to say that I did the bulk of the groundwork in promoting my novel by myself. Furry publishers don't have a huge marketing budget, so that sort of thing falls upon the writer (as it does in many circles, really). I'm proud of the story that I wrote, and I went out there and made sure that people knew that it was out there to be read.

I'm trying to figure out whether something is strange about the Ursa Major awards (and whether such a rash of m/m fiction nominations is going to turn off readers), or whether I am the problem, in which case I should probably find another line of fiction for whatever talents I possess (such as they are).

Are you somehow surprised that gay-related content is popular in the furry fandom?

Recall that these awards are (by their own admission) a fan popularity award. It's not the Ursa Majors' fault, it's not Sofawolf's fault, and it's not Kyell Gold's fault that the majority of fans out there are going to cast votes for the work that interests them.


Also--and I'm kind of surprised that no one else has brought this up yet--with all this clamoring about Sofawolf having nabbed so many of the nomination slots this year (and that this somehow involves some sort of sinister plot), it's worth pointing out that in 2007, the award for Best Novel went to the guy who runs the Ursa Major Awards.


I do sympathize with you, when it comes to the world of furry writing, and seeing how sex sells while I'm sitting here, trying to promote my own non-erotic novel. And especially in the face of that, I'm incredibly flattered that I was able to get a nomination for my book in the face of such competition.

Is it easy to be resentful? Sure, I can see that. But what you're looking at, here, is just a snapshot at what a group of fans on the internet decided to cast digital votes for when it came to the things they read in the past year. It's not some end-all, be-all condemning indictment about the face of furry writing and all hope for the future.

Honestly, what bugs me most about this is your quickness to vilify Sofawolf Press for what's going on, here, when a) they have nothing to do with what works fans nominate for the Ursa Majors, b) they're not gay erotica specialists like you seem to want to believe, and c) they're one of the few big-name furry publishers that the furry fandom has at all, which in my opinion is something to be thankful for.

Hell, at this point in furry fandom history, I'm just glad that written works are getting attention at all. I'm proud that I get to contribute to things, and I'm excited to see what other authors and creators come out of the woodwork as writing becomes taken more seriously.

Chiming in a little late, I just saw this.

Congratulations on the nomination, first off.

Sofawolf might not specialize in gay erotica, but it defintiely has a lean towards gay/bi writing; a look at the covers of Heat - probably their best known work - kind of makes that point: four of the five have romantic poses involving two males, whether or not there's a mix of sexualities inside. Blotch's work skews heavily towards males, Kyell's stuff is all gay all the time... so the perception is understandable,when you look at it.

Having said that, I don't think anyone is really upset at Sofawolf per se; the issue here is that if the UMAs are going to continue to be a popularity contest, allowing entries of stories posted up at Yiffstar et al, then eventually they're going to have a lot of "meh" from people like Michael here and myself who look at the awards, go "These people have a hell of a lot more exposure with fan groups than we do, so what's the point in even trying to get in here?" and tell their friends not to bother as well.

Sofawolf has a *lot* of exposure in the fandom, simply because of their products; therefore, stuff in their products, and the creators involved, have a better "marketing" arm than others might. No sinister plot here, just a simple fact: when you've got a professional publisher putting out your work at all the cons and through the online stores, and you're known for writing m/m erotica, you're going to be in a better position to marshal the voters than someone else writing clean fiction being published on a lesser known site.

I'm suggesting that a juried selection process has to be brought in if they want the awards to continue to grow. I don't mind erotica being involved - that's the majority of my work, though I'm trying to write it either far less detailed or implied lately to avoid being pigeonholed - but there should be a separate category for it. I *really* don't like the fact that all of Kyell's stories were posted on Yiffstar; it'd be better to accept things from edited products - there are more than enough zines, con books, etc. that contain writing, and eventually they'll be overwhelmed by lousy porn if this proves a precedent. Limits on the number of stories that can be nominated by each writer is an absolute must.

All in all, I don't think Michael's concerned about a vast Sofawolf conspiracy - it's a fundamental problem with the structure of the awards that's the issue.

Tony here says it better than I did; there is no conspiracy in my mind regarding Sofawolf. Just trying to come to grips with how I keep getting shellacked every year.

I'm told, by the way, there were a grand total of 203 votes cast in the nomination round, up from previous years. Make of that what you will.

Whoops, a correction: Kyell's work is not exclusively gay, I've read at least one piece that included some m/f. My error.

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to make a new system of awards, rather than try to change the structure of one that's been operating for eight years? There's certainly room for one more, and it might help where the UMA is not designed to (highlighting quality works by completely unrecognized creators).

That's an interesting idea, but I think - judging from the fact that the UMA committee members have been talking about these similar issues amongst themselves - there's a desire to adjust the awards so that they move somewhat away from the "popularity contest" concept. I don't have a problem with popularity contests, but if they want to avoid having blocs of fans push certain publications or writers into the finals, which will eventually lead to people losing interest in the whole concept due to sheer don't-give-a-damn because there's always four or five Kyell Gold stories in the top six, or the potential for negative publicity by having certain entries in the finals, they need to consider some different gatekeeping options.
At present, I'm just watching and waiting to see what kind of ideas come up from the organizers - there's been nothing for a couple of weeks now, so I hope there's some discussions going on behind the scenes. We'll see how it goes.

One thing that came out of that discussion was that (if notified) some authors would be willing to trim their nominations down in order to raise the chance of one them actually getting the award, rather than their vote being diluted. I think this should be a choice rather than mandatory, but it's not a bad idea.

Conversely, I don't think excluding certain groups is really a good idea, or in line with the Award's goals. Let's be honest - we're talking about Softpaw here. Softpaw did $4000 in business at AC '07. They are undeniably popular, something that the UMA is supposed to measure, and have a relatively high-quality product, publishing-wise at least. Excluding them would lead to the slippery slope of deciding what else to exclude ("First they came for the babyfurs . . .").

Besides, any kind of publicity is likely to result in more votes, which is one of their goals. If you feel the nomination is not representative of the fandom, the most sensible solution is to get more people to vote, anyway. If it is representative . . . well, I guess that's just too bad. Working as designed. :-)

I personally think the discussion needs to be somewhere far more public and accessible than a mailing list, and so I'm glad to see that ursamajorawards has been established. I'll be posting there, and I encourage you to as well.

My hope is that the UMAs will move away from a straight popularity contest and start working with a vetting process of some sort, perhaps as the first round and then having the fan voting for the finals, or the other way around.

I've got a lot of other concerns, but I don't think they'll ever get answered, to be honest, so I'll just watch the discussion and hope that it goes in a direction that benefits the fandom.