Mary Robinette Kowal put up a great post yesterday about the Hugo voting process, why certain books (creators, etc), get nominated and how she could have easily gotten one of her erotica short stories on the ballot. Mary is brilliant creator and just a delightful person and the post gives insight into the Hugo voting process as well as her integrity as a writer.
This part, on merit, personal preference, and popularity in the Hugo voting process resonated with me:
"... If you enjoyed the work, then it’s good. It might be flawed. It might be technically compromised. It might not appeal to other people, but if you enjoyed it, then it’s working and therefore it’s good....
If a lot of people thought it was good, then it’s popular. And if there are a lot of people who enjoyed a work you didn’t like then… yep. It’s going to wind up on the Hugo ballot, because that reflects the popular vote. And you know what?
That means the work is good. Maybe not to you or to me, but it is to the people who voted for it." ~read more
As a relative newcomer to the nominating process that was good insight for me. Thank you Mary.
In other news, I've been doing some work for Lackington Magazine and enjoying it quite a bit, here's what I created for Rose Lemberg's A City On It's Tentacles published there. More from Lackington's coming next month.