I have already posted to SFAW about Vincent Docherty’s long and carefully considered article concerning the eligibility of online publications for various Hugo Award categories. John Scalzi has now picked up on the story, at least in part because he wanted to state that he does not believe that Whatever is a fanzine:

So I wouldn’t put it forward for consideration as a fanzine, and if it were nominated in the category — which to be clear I would consider a long shot anyway — I would decline the nomination.

John’s reasoning is contrary to general fannish orthodoxy. His original point was that he felt that Whatever was not sufficiently about science fiction to be eligible. It has since been pointed out to him that many SF fanzines have very little (or even no) SFnal content, but he still says he would be uncomfortable with a nomination.

Given that John has made this public statement I feel obligated to note that I don’t regard this blog as a fanzine either. Emerald City was always conceived as a fanzine, regardless of how many people still claim that it wasn’t. It was published in issues, had a clear identity and purpose, and was generally magazine-like in its behavior. It even had proof readers (and I continue to be indebted to Anne and Kevin for all of their help). This blog, on the other hand, is not at all magazine-like in its behavior. Granted there are fanzines that are just as much a random collection of the author’s thoughts as this is of mine, but I maintain that they are mostly not very good fanzines, even if individual pieces of writing in them may sparkle magnificently.

John also briefly mentions the possibility of Whatever being a “related work”, and again I am in general agreement with him. Continuing web sites should not appear year-after-year in the ballot, and a blog like Whatever or Cheryl’s Mewsings does not have sufficient identity to be regarded as a “work”. It is possible that something like SFAW might achieve nomination once, but if it does then it should never be so honored again because it is pretty much impossible for a long-running web site to have sufficient new material in any one year to classify as a “new” work. If John (or I) were to produce an annual anthology containing the best of that year, or several years’, blog entries, that might be different, but John has already done that and I have no intention of doing so (because, let’s face it, no one would buy it).

So when you are filling in your Hugo ballots next year, please try to find some new names to put on them. I have a few good suggestions here.