Moaners
My fellow World Fantasy Award judges and I have now completed our six-monthly task of ploughing through the hundreds, if not thousands, of books and stories published in the genre last year, and after much debate and discussion the list of nominations in the various categories have finally been made public.
And already - perhaps inevitably - people have started to moan and complain and criticise. Here's what author Jeff Vandermeer had to say:
"Locus has posted the list of World Fantasy Award finalists. There are many fine selections here - including much deserved praise for John Klima's efforts - but I can't help but note a lack of daring on the part of the judges. This continues a trend, in my opinion, within core genre, towards the more conservative. Here, for example, is the list of best novels:
Fangland - John Marks (Penguin)
The Gospel of the Knife - Will Shetterly (Tor)
The Servants - Michael Marshall Smith (Earthling)
Territory - Emma Bull (Tor)
Ysabel - Guy Gavriel Kay (Viking Canada; Roc)
'Territory' is one of my favourites from last year, and I'm happy to see it on the list. I also think the others are solid, solid novels. But I'd put Michael Cisco's 'The Traitor' up against any one of them. Or Ekaterina Sedia's 'A Secret History of Moscow'. Or Hal Duncan's 'Ink'. Or, perhaps most criminally, Dan Simmons' 'The Terror', a novel that in scope and execution dwarfs everything just mentioned. David Anthony Durham's 'Acacia' is missing from the list. Nor does the intricate second volume of Catherynne M Valente's Orphan's Tales, 'In the Cities of Spice and Coin', get any love. Great novels by Daniel Abraham, Nalo Hopkinson, John Crowley and Paul Park also apparently didn't strike the judges the right way. Or Patrick Rothfuss. Just for example.
Granted, the final ballot includes voter choices as well, but the judges have the ability to add a sixth or even seventh choice to a category in cases where they don't agree with those voted-in choices. In the major categories, however, there are only five finalists this year.
Another striking omission is the lack of any content from online sources. With online magazines now providing some of the strongest and most original fiction, this seems somewhat reactionary. Or an oversight.
It's hard to complain when the job of judging is so thankless, but I do find some of these choices puzzling. The great thing, though, is you get to make your own lists. If there's something that I've mentioned or is on the ballot and you haven't read it, pick it up. Let us know what you think of it. Be your own judge."
Now, I'm not generally in the habit of responding to criticism - everyone is entitled to their own opinion, in my view, even if that opinion is wrong - and I'm certainly not going to answer every criticism which will undoubtedly be directed at this year's WFA nominations (not because the nominations are wanting in any way, but simply because everyone's tastes are different), but as Jeff Vandermeer's comments were the first to be brought to my attention, I thought I would offer some response in this instance, at least.
I'm not entirely sure what Mr Vandermeer means when he describes this year's choices as "conservative". I'm sure none of the nominees themselves would regard their work in this way. On the contrary, I think that many of the choices that we've made - The Gospel of the Knife, Tiny Deaths, Five Strokes to Midnight, Cafe Irreal, Ruan Jia and Mikko Kinnunen, for example - might well be considered unexpected in some quarters. And what, may I ask, is particularly daring or innovative about many of the novels that Mr Vandermeer himself champions? For the record, I will state that Dan Simmons' 'The Terror' was my own personal favourite novel of all those I was sent to consider, but for various reasons none of my fellow judges thought the same way, and so that particular novel was rightly vetoed. As for the other titles, I recall simply not being personally enamoured by most of them - not because they were too different or innovative or wacky or daring for me, but merely because they didn't grab me or engage me or impress me enough to encourage me to fight for them to go on the list.
As for Mr Vandermeer's comment that stories from online sources were largely ignored, can I just say that for the six months or so of the judging process my fellow judges and I were receiving literally dozens of packages of books and manuscripts, comprising thousands upon thousands of words, every single day, and we were all absolutely busting a gut to keep up with what editors and writers and publishers had taken the time and trouble to send to us (and all this while trying to make a living too!). Does Mr Vandermeer honestly expect us, therefore, to have expended even more time and energy scouring the internet, seeking out books and stories we hadn't been sent? If online editors and magazines had bothered to print out the stories they had published and had sent them to us, then we would happily have read them. But they didn't, which suggests to me that at the end of the day they perhaps didn't consider a possible WFA nomination worth the minimal time and trouble it would have taken to try and procure one - which is entirely their choice.
When all is said and done, I believe the crux of Mr Vandermeer's criticism is simply that we didn't pick the books and the stories which he wanted us to pick. In short, we didn't pick his favourites. But there's a very simple solution to that, Mr Vandermeer. If you haven't already been a WFA judge, then offer yourself as one for next year. Then you'll get to spend many thousands of hours wading through hundreds of books you don't like in order to find the few that you do.
And already - perhaps inevitably - people have started to moan and complain and criticise. Here's what author Jeff Vandermeer had to say:
"Locus has posted the list of World Fantasy Award finalists. There are many fine selections here - including much deserved praise for John Klima's efforts - but I can't help but note a lack of daring on the part of the judges. This continues a trend, in my opinion, within core genre, towards the more conservative. Here, for example, is the list of best novels:
Fangland - John Marks (Penguin)
The Gospel of the Knife - Will Shetterly (Tor)
The Servants - Michael Marshall Smith (Earthling)
Territory - Emma Bull (Tor)
Ysabel - Guy Gavriel Kay (Viking Canada; Roc)
'Territory' is one of my favourites from last year, and I'm happy to see it on the list. I also think the others are solid, solid novels. But I'd put Michael Cisco's 'The Traitor' up against any one of them. Or Ekaterina Sedia's 'A Secret History of Moscow'. Or Hal Duncan's 'Ink'. Or, perhaps most criminally, Dan Simmons' 'The Terror', a novel that in scope and execution dwarfs everything just mentioned. David Anthony Durham's 'Acacia' is missing from the list. Nor does the intricate second volume of Catherynne M Valente's Orphan's Tales, 'In the Cities of Spice and Coin', get any love. Great novels by Daniel Abraham, Nalo Hopkinson, John Crowley and Paul Park also apparently didn't strike the judges the right way. Or Patrick Rothfuss. Just for example.
Granted, the final ballot includes voter choices as well, but the judges have the ability to add a sixth or even seventh choice to a category in cases where they don't agree with those voted-in choices. In the major categories, however, there are only five finalists this year.
Another striking omission is the lack of any content from online sources. With online magazines now providing some of the strongest and most original fiction, this seems somewhat reactionary. Or an oversight.
It's hard to complain when the job of judging is so thankless, but I do find some of these choices puzzling. The great thing, though, is you get to make your own lists. If there's something that I've mentioned or is on the ballot and you haven't read it, pick it up. Let us know what you think of it. Be your own judge."
Now, I'm not generally in the habit of responding to criticism - everyone is entitled to their own opinion, in my view, even if that opinion is wrong - and I'm certainly not going to answer every criticism which will undoubtedly be directed at this year's WFA nominations (not because the nominations are wanting in any way, but simply because everyone's tastes are different), but as Jeff Vandermeer's comments were the first to be brought to my attention, I thought I would offer some response in this instance, at least.
I'm not entirely sure what Mr Vandermeer means when he describes this year's choices as "conservative". I'm sure none of the nominees themselves would regard their work in this way. On the contrary, I think that many of the choices that we've made - The Gospel of the Knife, Tiny Deaths, Five Strokes to Midnight, Cafe Irreal, Ruan Jia and Mikko Kinnunen, for example - might well be considered unexpected in some quarters. And what, may I ask, is particularly daring or innovative about many of the novels that Mr Vandermeer himself champions? For the record, I will state that Dan Simmons' 'The Terror' was my own personal favourite novel of all those I was sent to consider, but for various reasons none of my fellow judges thought the same way, and so that particular novel was rightly vetoed. As for the other titles, I recall simply not being personally enamoured by most of them - not because they were too different or innovative or wacky or daring for me, but merely because they didn't grab me or engage me or impress me enough to encourage me to fight for them to go on the list.
As for Mr Vandermeer's comment that stories from online sources were largely ignored, can I just say that for the six months or so of the judging process my fellow judges and I were receiving literally dozens of packages of books and manuscripts, comprising thousands upon thousands of words, every single day, and we were all absolutely busting a gut to keep up with what editors and writers and publishers had taken the time and trouble to send to us (and all this while trying to make a living too!). Does Mr Vandermeer honestly expect us, therefore, to have expended even more time and energy scouring the internet, seeking out books and stories we hadn't been sent? If online editors and magazines had bothered to print out the stories they had published and had sent them to us, then we would happily have read them. But they didn't, which suggests to me that at the end of the day they perhaps didn't consider a possible WFA nomination worth the minimal time and trouble it would have taken to try and procure one - which is entirely their choice.
When all is said and done, I believe the crux of Mr Vandermeer's criticism is simply that we didn't pick the books and the stories which he wanted us to pick. In short, we didn't pick his favourites. But there's a very simple solution to that, Mr Vandermeer. If you haven't already been a WFA judge, then offer yourself as one for next year. Then you'll get to spend many thousands of hours wading through hundreds of books you don't like in order to find the few that you do.
posted by Mark M at 12:12 PM
0 comment(s)
