Arthur C Clarke award shortlist 'dreadful', says Christopher Priest

[DrNefario]

Based on reading one book by each, I had developed a bit of an irrational dislike of Stross and Mieville (Accelerando and Perdido Street Station, respectively). They both seem to be flavour of the month, and get nominated for awards for almost everything they write, which I think makes it quite likely they will eventually win just by weight of numbers and possibly with the wrong book.

Some might say this already happened with The City & the City, for Mieville, but actually that kind of made me revise my opinion of him. I liked it quite a lot more than Perdido Street Station, and am less disposed against him now.

I haven't read any of the Clarke shortlist, but there was widespread muttering on Twitter that Priest's own The Islanders didn't make the cut.

I'm not sure I have ever had that much respect for the Clarke award, though. Jury prizes can often be pretty leftfield.

[scottken]

I haven't actually read any of the shortlisted books, but reading about the kerfluffle has certainly been entertaining.

The Strange Horizons Blog today posted a page of links of reactions to Priest's column. I found the Scalzi, Valente, Mamatas, and Vandermeer reactions particularly worth reading.

http://www.strangehorizons.com/blog/...duty_ctd.shtml

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

Based on reading one book by each, I had developed a bit of an irrational dislike of Stross and Mieville (Accelerando and Perdido Street Station, respectively). They both seem to be flavour of the month, and get nominated for awards for almost everything they write, which I think makes it quite likely they will eventually win just by weight of numbers and possibly with the wrong book.

Some might say this already happened with The City & the City, for Mieville, but actually that kind of made me revise my opinion of him. I liked it quite a lot more than Perdido Street Station, and am less disposed against him now.

I haven't read any of the Clarke shortlist, but there was widespread muttering on Twitter that Priest's own The Islanders didn't make the cut.

I'm not sure I have ever had that much respect for the Clarke award, though. Jury prizes can often be pretty leftfield.

I think Priest's book The Islanders was published in 2012, so not eligible for the shortlist in any event.

[scottken]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I think Priest's book The Islanders was published in 2012, so not eligible for the shortlist in any event.

It was published in Sept 2011 in the UK. Ursula K. Le Guin reviewed it in The Guardian on Sept 30, 2011.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by VaporPunk

Criticism is fine, send a private message to the author that ya think he screwed up...

Publically, not so much, imo.

Its not just about being an ass, its basic courtesy.

I disagree. It's not about courtesy, it's about choosing to not be cowardly. Priest has shown that he has standards, and that he is not afraid to speak up when he feels those standards are being violated. This is a good thing, and it's something we need more of, not less of.

These are all successful, well-known authors. They can deal with the criticism, and if they can't, they should be in another field. (And Stross is taking the Internet puppy title and running with it, so he's clearly able to take it).

No one is well served if people withhold criticism on an important matter because they don't want to look like an ass. If Priest believes that the Clarke prize is going in the wrong direction, he has a *duty* to speak up, which, happily, he has.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by scottken

I haven't actually read any of the shortlisted books, but reading about the kerfluffle has certainly been entertaining.

Same here. I just wish I could've been one of the shortlisted books, and gotten a little PR ruboff from the rants!

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I disagree. It's not about courtesy, it's about choosing to not be cowardly. Priest has shown that he has standards, and that he is not afraid to speak up when he feels those standards are being violated. This is a good thing, and it's something we need more of, not less of.

These are all successful, well-known authors. They can deal with the criticism, and if they can't, they should be in another field. (And Stross is taking the Internet puppy title and running with it, so he's clearly able to take it).

No one is well served if people withhold criticism on an important matter because they don't want to look like an ass. If Priest believes that the Clarke prize is going in the wrong direction, he has a *duty* to speak up, which, happily, he has.

But when the subtext is that his book wasn't included in the list, any rant like this is going to seem like sour grapes, and that maybe he is the one who can't take the criticism.

[bill_mchale]

Just general thoughts on this tempest in a teacup.

1. His entire case is undermined by suggesting a novel be short listed that he has only read 80 pages of! There have been plenty of books that have had great starts only to be ruined by what happens in the latter half of the book.

2. His critique about short paragraphs in Greg Bear's book frankly has echos of Faulkner's critique of Hemingway's writing.

3. His critique of The End Specialist just is not valid in my mind. Just because an idea has been explored before in Science Fiction does not mean it shouldn't be explored again. Some great science fiction novels have resulted when authors have revisited old (even cliched) ideas and brought new life to them.

--
Bill

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

Based on reading one book by each, I had developed a bit of an irrational dislike of Stross and Mieville (Accelerando and Perdido Street Station, respectively). They both seem to be flavour of the month, and get nominated for awards for almost everything they write, which I think makes it quite likely they will eventually win just by weight of numbers and possibly with the wrong book.

Haven't read Rule 34 yet (waiting to read _Halting State_ first) but Stross's Laundry books are a hoot.

[DiapDealer]

To me, Priest's rant was just another pointless salvo in the even more pointless war between "Art" and "Entertainment."

"Your drivel isn't worthy of an award!"
"Oh yeah? Well you're pretentious and inaccessible!"

Both of you just shut up and write books.

Somebody always manages to loose their $h!t over nominations and preserving some sort of perceived "sanctity" of said awards. Whether it's an author, a critic, or a reader. I find that especially ironic considering that the namesake of the Arthur C. Clarke Award hasn't exactly become immortalized and revered because of his unparalleled "literary" chops.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

But when the subtext is that his book wasn't included in the list, any rant like this is going to seem like sour grapes, and that maybe he is the one who can't take the criticism.

Suggesting that this is just sour grapes is an easy way to dismiss Priest's points without having to think too hard about them, but it's probably not accurate.

[VaporPunk]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I disagree. It's not about courtesy, it's about choosing to not be cowardly. Priest has shown that he has standards, and that he is not afraid to speak up when he feels those standards are being violated. This is a good thing, and it's something we need more of, not less of.

These are all successful, well-known authors. They can deal with the criticism, and if they can't, they should be in another field. (And Stross is taking the Internet puppy title and running with it, so he's clearly able to take it).

No one is well served if people withhold criticism on an important matter because they don't want to look like an ass. If Priest believes that the Clarke prize is going in the wrong direction, he has a *duty* to speak up, which, happily, he has.

Well, we just differ on this. The only novel that Priest gives a valid work-over of is Mieville's Embassytown. The rest of the picks get a paragraph at most and just come across as dismissive.

Sheri S. Tepper’s The Waters Rising (Gollancz) – how can one describe it? For f*ck’s sake, it is a quest saga and it has a talking horse. There are puns on the word ‘neigh’.

Is that well-reasoned, thoughtful criticism? Does it come across as anything else but petty?

Firing the judges, cancelling the competition, etc...Really?

Maybe I'm being too categorical by saying that all criticism should be private, I'll concede that. Speaking out has its place. But not like this.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Suggesting that this is just sour grapes is an easy way to dismiss Priest's points without having to think too hard about them, but it's probably not accurate.

If you read my post, I didn't actually do that.
It doesn't matter whether it is sour grapes, it will seem like it to a significant number of people, and so whatever point he is trying to make will be lost.