HOME | CATALOG | DOWNLOADS | LINKS | EDITORIALS | DISCUSSION | CONTACT

awards

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Log Out | Edit Profile | Register
Night Shade Message Boards » Shepard, Lucius » awards « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 08:29 pm:   

Appalled to see that Murakami, who couldn't care less, won the WFA... Give it to someonne who cares, I say. Ditto with the Saunders. Not that CommComm or whatever it was was a bad story...it was a terrible story. Minimaliat trash. It's official now. Anyone who gets a MacArthur flat out sucks. Did the judges just want to hang out with these mucky mucks and so thought to award them the accolade? I kinda thinks so.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 08:47 pm:   

Other awards...I won the Grans Prix Imaginaire this wknd, which may mean sone bucks in french sales.

And oh yeah, the lifetime achievemnt award to Crowley...excuse me while I cut a noesgay for my champagne cocktail. LITTLE BIG is the biggest bunch of overripe grammer to ever wear the Emperor's New Clothes.

Miss Me?

Well, I'm, off again.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

PM
Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 08:57 pm:   

Congrads! Here's to French sales!

Methinks that there's more than a few readers who vibe a Crowley, Shepard, Wolfe connection.

I've always favored BEASTS and especially ENGINE SUMMER.

"is the biggest bunch of overripe grammer"

someone has to step up and use the big constructions :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike McLatchey
Posted on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 09:06 am:   

Congrats on the Grand Prix, Lucius. Looks like it was for Aztechs, yes?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 09:37 am:   

Yep, Aztechs the French collection. Thanks, PM. Mike.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Deborah
Posted on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 10:14 am:   

Congrats on your award, Monsieur.

The WFA judges did pick a collection from The Little Press That Could, though. And the Publisher is very happy about that. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 10:55 am:   

Thanks, Deborah. My cheeks are chafed from being kissed. :-) I learned the distinction between the French two-cheek approach and the Swiss three-cheek technique (right-left-right). A;so met my translator, Jean-Daniel Brecque, a great guy, andlots of other terrific folk.

and Congrats, yourself. Formidable!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ben peek
Posted on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 07:15 pm:   

haha.

welcome back, lucius. cool on the french cash!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 01:55 pm:   

Thanks, Ben.....I'm not exact;y back, yet.... :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff VanderMeer
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 01:10 pm:   

Hey, Lucius. Wow. What the fuck? Give it to someone who cares? Sorry, that's not what it said in the instructions. We weren't told it was being renamed the World People Who Care Award.

You're entitled your opinion of the decisions, but not the motivations of the deciders, which you know fuck-all about. Disagree all you like, but you ought to know better re the motivations. I mean, there's a clear disconnect between "give it to someone who cares" and the pretty clear message that you don't think the winners were deserving. In other words, you wanted a different agenda. Well, that's why they have a different judges panel every year.

None of the judges had *any* agenda--if we had, we'd clearly have thought about whether or not we'd piss people off with the decisions. And, for the record, "CommComm" is a great story. Don't mistake your private prejudices for a lack of taste on the part of others.

I don't know what's gotten into you lately. You're acting like a jerk.

JeffV
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 04:43 pm:   

Hey, Jeff V

thanks for dropping by.

See, here's what I was doing by posting what I did. I was just shooting off my mouth and I sure as hell didn't expect anyone to take it seriously, to go off on some kinda bs about my agenda versus who won, and about how I don't know fuck all about the judges agenda, etc. etc, etc.

First of all, when I posted I didn't know who the judges were. Terribly sorry for having offended you, but since I did...what the hell. Let's go all the way. I think it is butt-stupid to give a genre award to a mainstream work for obvious reasons, but it hardly matters since all awards are a freaking joke. Like Tom Disch said, every child must go home with a prize. Second, I do think I have some clue about the judge's agendas. I mean, you're a pretty transparent guy, right? :-) And I heard from someone who attended the judgges panel that the word "literature" was bandied about pretty freely. That kinda puts it in perspective for me.

Other than that, hey, this a a place where I feel free to say what I like, wrong or right, but thanks for letting me know that I'm entitled to do so. As for my agenda, I'm proud to say that I did't read but a couple-three of the nominated works this year, one of which was the Saunders, which was as smelly a goosefart as I've smelled in many a season. See, I'm limited to big print books for my reading matter -- otherwise I have to beg electronic mss, as I did in the case of your recent publication.

Stop by again when you have a mind (I don't mean that literally, as an insult, but in the sense of the southern colloquialism, you dig),

Lucius
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 05:24 pm:   

PS--I mean seriously. what do you care what I think about this? My god.

And re, acting like a jerk and I don't know what's gotten into you.... I think it's an attack of the I-don't-give-a-shits.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Byron Bailey
Posted on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 05:49 pm:   

Maybe there needs to be a new category to the WFA called the "Don't Give A Fuck" award. Maybe break it down into short fiction and novel categories.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 06:54 pm:   

Maybe we oughta do away with award entirely. so people wouldn't get their panties in a bunch about the whole absurd mess.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Byron Bailey
Posted on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 07:59 pm:   

"Maybe we oughta do away with award entirely. so people wouldn't get their panties in a bunch about the whole absurd mess."

If you want to do away with awards, I suppose that might not be a bad idea. As far me, I'm more inclined towards the other alternative: doing away with panties.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff VanderMeer
Posted on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 08:19 am:   

Lucius:

You are the one who posted a completely irresponsible comment about judge motivations. You don't get to do that and then come back and say you didn't mean it and that I'm the one somehow in the wrong here while you continue the assault. Not without losing my respect.

In short, you do have a responsibility for your comments about that kind of thing.

I would also note that your private email to me has a lot less bravado in it than your posting here. It came a lot closer to an apology, so I don't know if you just think you have to put up a front here or not, but I'm finding your macho bullshit harder and harder to take seriously.

I will say this: I'm a lot less likely to want to be a judge for a genre award after hearing the moaning and whining from various power blocs within genre about not winning this year. It was disgusting to an extreme. I think I heard every rumor in the book about how the voting went down or who influenced or what and the fact is no one influenced anybody and everybody pretty much agreed on the winners in every category. And the finalists. It was a rich and varied year for the genre and I am frankly to the point of just walking away from the genre community as a whole after all of the crap that happened after the awards community. I love a lot of individuals, but the cliques are just becoming a relentless source of bile and gossip.

JeffV
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff VanderMeer
Posted on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 08:21 am:   

after the awards ceremony, I mean.

In any event, this is the last thing I plan to say publicly about the awards.

JeffV
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 02:48 pm:   

Well, Jeff, your email to me was less aggressive -- in this forum you called me a jerk and were condesending to a fault, saying you were disappointed in me. I merely responded in kind.

What i posted was nothing til you made it a big deal. Hardly anyone noticed my comment and then you escalated.

I don't know why you consider it macho to speak one's mind, but that's a twist I leave to you to analyze.

As for cliches, yeah, I agree, and that's why the whole awards business is such a joke....BBut surely you knew that about cliches going in?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 03:09 pm:   

I meant cliques..
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff VanderMeer
Posted on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 03:41 pm:   

No, I guess I was naive. I thought we were all in this together. Sorry for the personal attack part. For some reason your board brings that out in me. Not your fault.

JeffV
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gordon Van Gelder
Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 06:47 pm:   

Jeff---

I hope you won't mind my revisiting this dead thread, but I'm wondering if you saw this article:

http://www.calendarlive.com/books/bookreview/cl-bk-wiggins26nov26,0,2207756.stor y?coll=cl-bookreview

Specifically, I noted this section:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thomas Pynchon's 1,000-page doorstop came in after deadline owing to last-minute rewrites, but by the first week in September, we had five books we all more or less liked.

And we were uniformly underwhelmed.

There were no women on the list, and the titles themselves read like an anti-feminist haiku "White Guys," "The Echo Maker," "Everyman," "The Law of Dreams," "The Zero." After months of thinking that we had to find individual books we endorsed, we suddenly realized that we needed to start thinking about a list we endorsed.

Roth, who has won the award twice, was never the front runner (except with Judge No. 4), and it seemed insulting to keep him on the list knowing he would lose. So we dropped him and allowed No. 4 to place Danielewski on the list instead. "White Guys" and "The Law of Dreams" we replaced with "Eat the Document" by Dana Spiotta and "A Disorder Peculiar to the Country" by Ken Kalfus."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As I read it, she's saying that the judges decided not to take the top five books and opted instead to come up with the best ballot they could manage. (It's not 100% clear. When she says they had five books they all liked, does that mean nobody felt passionate about any of them? Etc.)

Anyway, in light of the discussion that was going here about awards, I wondered about this approach. Is it better for award juries to focus straight on quality, or better to try to to balance and adjust the overall ballot?

I'm not sure where I fall on this subject, and I know that (a) you've judged at least two awards and (b) you're fresh off the WFA experience. (Too fresh? If you don't want to get into it, that's fine. And if you get into it, please don't talk about specific books you judged this past year. I think it's better to leave that stuff behind the closed door, and in fact I'm amazed that Wiggins publicly named books they dropped off the ballot.)

By the way, here's the 2006 NBA ballot:

http://www.nationalbook.org/nbawinners2000.html#six
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 07:54 pm:   

I don't know if Jeff's talking, but here's my take: i remember back in the day when a friend, Russ Banks, was up for the Pullitzer for his novel Continental Drift. He was told by one judge that he ahd won the award by a three-two vote, but then the committee decided that they should give the award to a more "famous" book so they gave it to Larry McMurtree. That sort of says it all for me. And that's one reason why I'm so down on awards and have always been. The other reason relates to a time when Jack Dann hauled me up to Tor and dragooned me into xeroxing our stories for the entire SFWA membership. I couldn't believe we wasted a whole fucking day of our lives over a xerox machine. That was the first inkling I had of awards sickness. I saw normal people who I liked turn into crazed, lustful dweebs all over some hunk of junk with their name on it. Awards are nice to win, they make you feel good for a moment, but anyone who lifts a finger to win one or loses one minutes sleep over whether or not they win is out of their mind crazy. IMO.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ben peek
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 02:22 am:   

yeah, i've seen that same award rush. it's a strange thing to see. people sure can get bent out of shape on them...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 03:09 am:   

Yup. I know some people. really nice people, who I just can't be around at awards time, or else hey start infecting me with the disease. I think it would be better if the various bodies chose to honor the work of a number of writers each year and left it at that. But that's simply not the way the human animal is built.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

PM
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 06:02 am:   

"It was a rich and varied year for the genre and I am frankly to the point of just walking away from the genre community as a whole after all of the crap that happened after the awards community. I love a lot of individuals, but the cliques are just becoming a relentless source of bile and gossip." ---JeffV

Welcome to the human race!

"Genre community"? Hahaha...If you think that it gets any friendlier in the "outside world" then prepare yourself for disappointment.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

PM
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 06:14 am:   

This isn't solely aimed at JeffV. He just happened to provide an opportunity to make what should be obvious observations.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 07:00 am:   

The genre community are pussycats by contrast to the mainstream community. Richard Ford, for example, once responded to a request for a blurb by taking the galley into his back yard and firing a thirty-thirty through it and mailing it to the author. There are massive feuds because, for instance, one writer gave another's protoge a bad reveiw. It's dead nasty out there.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

PM
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 07:12 am:   

and folk need to be able to make and take comments honestly. It's a sad cycle when the expectation is to pat everyone or else to be silent.

If/when negative comments are made it frequently turns personal.

If the comment fits, wear it. If it does not then toss it. There's no need to become upset. There's no need to attack back.

JeffV you were a judge. Rightly or wrongly folk are going to shit all over you. Surely that's obvious...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ben peek
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 03:09 pm:   

pm, i've actually found the genre community to be a lot more friendly than other communities--academic, mainstream. though i've no stories about shooting through books... that's cool. i would've used that blurb.

'richard ford shot this book'.

:-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 03:16 pm:   

I can top that...sorta, but will have to do so off the board. Email me if you want to hear a story.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

PM
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 04:01 pm:   

" i've actually found the genre community to be a lot more friendly than other communities--academic, mainstream."

It's a matter of experience.

But my concern is not with who is the friendliest.

My concern is with those who are unprepared to handle hard knocks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ben peek
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 04:10 pm:   

you can find people who can't handle criticism everywhere. some people do it well, some people don't. i've seen authors who have quite the experience under their belt take criticism real bad, andi've seen new authors take some harsh shit real well. it's all people at the end of the day there.

emailing away, lucius.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

PM
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 04:31 pm:   

"it's all people at the end of the day there."

True. But it bears repeating/reminding as there was at least one person who seemingly did not get the memo.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gordon Van Gelder
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 06:23 pm:   

Wow, I didn't expect this to turn into a thread for roughing up Jeff V. Though now that I think of it, maybe I shouldn't have posted in your message area, Lucius, since I know your basic take on awards. (I think you told me that story about Russell Banks before---either you did, or Steve Wright did.)

I was (and am) interested in Jeff's take because he was a PKD Award judge and I'm mostly asking because it's of interest to me as an administrator of the award. Food for thought, basically.

Who was it who used to demolish books on the last page of SCIENCE FICTION EYE---wasn't it Misha? I remember great pics of her taking a chainsaw to a book . . . an Orson Scott Card novel, I think.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 06:46 pm:   

Roughing up Jeff? I'm not getting that. The last thing I heard about the Dick was when Life During Wartime was up for it and I heard from one of the judges that another of the judges argued vociferously (and apparently persuasively) that LDW was too famous a book to give the award too. Fucking ridiculous, the whole thing. But since you know my feelings, I'll go away.

Yeah, it was Misha. Good stuff.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

PM
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 08:10 pm:   

"Wow, I didn't expect this to turn into a thread for roughing up Jeff V."

As far as I know no one here is adversarial to JeffV. But even if they were there's no need for him to wilt. Folk were trying to help him out.

"I was (and am) interested in Jeff's take"

As am I. I don't think he drops by here that often though.

"Is it better for award juries to focus straight on quality"

Objectively yes. But we all have our predispositions and that's when the popularity contest begins. If everyone were an unknown author with an unknown work then objectivity would stand a chance.

And of course certain works are going to be more popular vis-a-vis whatever is fashionable at the time.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ben peek
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 09:37 pm:   

nah, no roughing up on jeff from me. i just figured people were talking general like. i was, anyhow.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

MarcL
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 11:12 am:   

Maybe we can send Misha books to be trampled by her horses...let the Fjords decide!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 11:26 am:   

I'd be for that. A little of that un-PC science fiction eye stuff would get my vote.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

S. Hamm
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 07:09 pm:   

Xenocide, Hardbound Trade edition:

The initial advantage to the hardbound edition was the glossy DJ. Its slick texture enabled the book to slide around on the pallet, causing the chainsaw to have difficulty in finding a purchase. Once the angle of attack was increased, and the book was pinned under an endless onslaught of metal teeth, this advantage quickly dissipated. Though the hard cover itself confined the blade to a specific path and forestalled the rapidity of demolition, the subsequent denouement of the story was inevitable.

-- Misha, SF Eye #9 (the back cover of which features a nice painting, by Marianne Collins, of an hallucigenia)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 07:38 pm:   

:-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

PM
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 08:14 pm:   

"to be trampled by her horses"

Horses are noble animals.

Even donkeys shouldn't be so burdened.

Give these books the urine of the apathetic, and after sufficient aging, turn 'em over to termites or worms...whatever may be handy.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 08:27 pm:   

...or Misha
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

PM
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 08:56 pm:   

Misha, Misha, Misha!!!

It's always Misha!

Can't you guys defile worthy books on your own? :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

S. Hamm
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 10:36 pm:   

Xenocide, Uncorrected Proofs:

Initially we didn't encounter any of the difficulties of penetration associated with the hardcover. The blade went through the paper like a hot knife through butter. However, by the time we got to the cheap glue binding, combined with the high density of pulp paper, it actually posed more of a challenge than did the binding of the hardback. Which just goes to show that laying out 20 or 30 bucks for the hardback is really a waste of money. The binding is what holds the book together (in some cases more literally than you might think).

-- Misha, SF Eye #9

Wonder what the chainsaw would make of Empire?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 01:44 am:   

Empire might be impervious to chainsaws.

Yow!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

PM
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 05:19 am:   

"Empire might be impervious to chainsaws."

I'll wait for the G. W. Bush audiobook...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 05:33 am:   

God damn, I wish we had the Science Fiction Eye back. Seeing those Misha quotes makes me homesick.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 05:53 am:   

If we did have Eye, there'd be a hell of a lot fewer writers around wearing the Emperor's New Clothes.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff VanderMeer
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 06:50 am:   

I really wish we had SF Eye back, too.

JeffV
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 07:25 am:   

Somebody should give Steve Brown a call, remind him of his responsiilities. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff VanderMeer
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 09:00 am:   

Yeah--I don't know what happened to him.

A great guy, too. When we did The Troika by Chapman through my publishing house, we sold out and wanted to reprint after it won the PKD Award. But didn't have the cash flow because of distributors not paying on timie. Steve fronted us some cash so we could do it.

But this does actually speak a bit to your idea of rating reviewers on a website. Or the idea on one of the threads. More to the point, a new reviewer site with no bullshit might be in order. Although I used to love the look-and-feel of SF Eye, too.

JeffV
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 09:21 am:   

He owns a school supply house in Hendersonville. Steve was a friend--he always had great dope, too.

Yeah, I think the resurgence of eye would satisfy many of my qualms regarding the state of the field.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gordon Van Gelder
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 09:37 am:   

Steve had to fold EYE for family/health/real world reasons. He came out to Readercon a few years ago and seemed to be doing fine.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 09:42 am:   

That's good to hear.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

William Lexner
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 01:35 pm:   

Uh, back to the original point -- Murakami is a great author. But Kafka On The Shore was not a great book. It didn't deserve to win, and it didn't even deserve to be nominated.

I know Jeff has a wide definition of fantasy, as do I, but a lot of times with the WFA, genre books get overlooked for searching outside the genre. I may get jumped all over, but I think it a travesty that The Warrior Prophet by Bakker was not even nominated for the award. It was cliched as all hell and still sublime. Why is that never rewarded?

And Vellum probably should have won.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 02:11 pm:   

Well, I'm not going to jump all over you, and I have no clear idea of what should have won, partly because I read few of the nominated works, and partly because I don't think literature is a competition. except against oneself. Setting up these false competitive circumstances defeats the basic notion underlying writing, and that is, I believe, to say something honestly, as well as can be said, and perhaps illuminate some corner of what's real. No one can tell me that a consciousness of awards does not dilute authorial integrity.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gordon Van Gelder
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 03:02 pm:   

Since Jeff said on 11/22 that he's not going to say anything publicly about the awards, and has posted here since then, I think it's a safe bet that he's not going to say anything more about this year's World Fantasy Awards.

I haven't read KAFKA ON THE SHORE, William, but I did attend the panel at World FantasyCon on which the judges discussed the awards, and I can tell you two things:

1) The judges thought it was a good year overall. I think they said that in almost every category, they had to whittle a lot of high-quality work off their lists to form the final ballot.

2) KAFKA ON THE SHORE was the hands-down favorite novel of the five judges.

Neither of these points has any real bearing on your question about why don't "cliched but sublime" works typically get rewarded, but they're both relevant.

Your question makes me think of a discussion I read on the ASIMOVS board months ago. A troll was calling Gardner a bad influence on the genre of science fiction and a few people were actually treating his blather seriously. They got to talking about all the writers Gardner helped launch. Some of those writers have good careers going now, and others haven't been heard from this century.

It occurred to me that for all the mishigas surrounding the awards, the awards are one of the best ways we have for saying to writers, "Hey, we'd like to hear more from you."

. . . Which is a big reason why I've generally had a dim view of some of the SF awards over the last 10-15 years. I see them going to works of fantasy so often that I don't feel like science fiction is getting enough encouragement. It's one thing when an editor says, "I'd like to see more stories from you." It's another thing when a large group sends the same message.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 04:19 pm:   

A large group? Like five judges? The Locus award gets the largest vote of any award and is among the least prestigious. The Nebs are hotbeds of campaigning and seem controlled by cliques. I mean, it's really not a register of anything but who your friends are. Occasionally, a deserving story wins, but it's generally by a new writer who hasn't had time to make enemies.

How many more Nebulas, Hugos,etc, will it take before Connie, say, gets the message that we want to hear more?

So if you don't win the awards, by extrapolation, that's our way of saying we don't want hear more from you? I guess it worked with Tom Disch.

The best way would be to let nominations suffice, give everyone a certificate and be done with it. That would celebrate SF and Fantasy alike...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kelly Christopher Shaw
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 05:21 pm:   

"The best way would be to let nominations suffice" -- That's one reason I enjoy the Locus recommended reading list more than the Locus awards themselves. The former is more a quality judgment from a handful of well-read people, whereas the latter is more like a popularity contest. For instance, while I enjoy Neil Gaiman's work, each year that he publishes a new book he's guaranteed to win a Locus Award.

Of course, I am well aware that popularity and cliques play a role in the recommendation reading lists too.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 05:55 pm:   

I'd be satisfied if the Locus Reading List were the awards standard. Sure there are inequities, but at least it's more inclusive.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

PM
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 06:03 pm:   

"I see them going to works of fantasy so often that I don't feel like science fiction is getting enough encouragement."

This brings us back to popularity. One supposes that SF could get a mandatory award but I'm reluctant to assert that this would increase popularity.

"It's one thing when an editor says, "I'd like to see more stories from you.""

and one supposes that there could be multiple reasons for a lack of response. Seems to me, GVG, that you've done your part.

"It's another thing when a large group sends the same message."

It's not altogether unimaginable that a large group expressing hostility towards an author could influence said author's willingness to write. Or even more likely a large enough group simply not purchasing an author's work.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gordon Van Gelder
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 08:10 pm:   

Lucius, I said SF awards, not fantasy. Most of the Science Fiction awards are decided by large groups. (By and large, I prefer juried awards myself.)

But yeah, your point about Tom Disch is really the crux of the problem. Anything that sets some writers' work above others is going to make the others question themselves more---and often the people doing so shouldn't be doing so.

(By the way, if you haven't seen it, check out Tom Disch's blog "Endzone": It has fun stuff like this: "In my youth I greatly offended Heinlein true-believers and probably the great man himself with an essay outing Troopers as a gay porn fantasy. Now it seems to me a feather in his cap that he could let it all hang out the way he did, even if he only half knew it.")
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 08:17 pm:   

Actually, I once preferred juried awards, but having been apprised of the workings of several such juries, I put more stock in voting.

I check out TD's blog on occasion. He remains a cool head. I'll never stop loving for that review of Streiber's Communion.

I was invited to ALice Turner's for Thanksgiving, a dinner Tom cooked, but I had to get back. I would have loved to have seen him. 311 is the best genre short fiction collection ever. The terrible thing is, so few people are aware of it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

PM
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 08:57 pm:   

Isn't that 334?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 08:59 pm:   

Yep. Right. 334. I'm shitty with names.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

William Lexner
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 09:20 pm:   

*Puts 334 on top of TBR pile*

I loved Camp Concentration.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

PM
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 09:29 pm:   

Just wanted to make sure I had the 411 on 334.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

PM
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 09:32 pm:   

and let's not forget that TD is an above average poet.

Perhaps one day there will be a Tom Disch Neglected Excellence Award...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 09:37 pm:   

They better hurry.

And yeah, Wiliam, if you haven't read 334, you owe it to yourself.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

S. Hamm
Posted on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 11:12 pm:   

Disch is one of the nicest things that ever happened to the genre. His dismantling of Whitley Streiber's Communion, reprinted in On SF, is the single most excruciatingly funny review I've ever read (and trust me, that is no knock on Mr. Shepard's considerable comedic chops).

My only complaint about On SF is that it doesn't contain Disch's brilliant Nation piece on Charles Portis's Masters of Atlantis, in which he discusses conspiracy theory as scholarship for people who don't have the brains, the knowledge or the patience for real scholarship.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Monday, December 04, 2006 - 06:59 am:   

oh, yeah!

"If Whitley Streiber is to be believed, then Communon is the most important book of the years...No, of the century....No, of all time!"

:-)

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Log Out | Edit Profile | Register

| Moderators | Administrators |