I've been quiet on the award nominations and shortlists that have been such a hot topic across the blogosphere these past few weeks. It's not that I haven't read any of the contenders, but I haven't read all of them, and short of reposting a list of the nominees, without that base of knowledge I don't know I'd be doing anyone any good by expressing an uninformed opinion.
That said, an awards-related post that went up on Jeff Vandermeer's blog Ecstatic Days yesterday struck me as somewhat telling. Full the whole kit and caboodle, go here. But this is the part that interests me:
"...a few people expressed condolences that Finch wasn’t on the Hugo finalist list. That’s very kind, but not only do I not expect to be on any list, ever, I do not lobby for awards (why would you want something you can influence like that?), and I do not set my goals for success around them, although this isn’t meant as a repudiation of awards. Still, if you need proof of how in the long-term awards don’t always matter much, and I’ve been up for my share of them, City of Saints didn’t win anything it was up for and is in print and remembered far more than many other award-winning books of the period. It’s nice to be up for an award, but it shouldn’t be an expectation (indeed, my fiction has never been up for a Hugo and I’m doing just fine). I am thrilled to be up for a Nebula, would’ve been thrilled for a Hugo or anything else, but not getting something that’s a perk is like crying about not having chocolate sprinkles on your ice cream. And being too wrapped up in stuff like that is detrimental to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The work is the important thing, and making the work as good as humanly possible is the goal."
Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but that sure sounds like sour grapes to me. For the sake of coherence, let's leave to one side the somewhat dubious argument that City of Saints and Madmen is "remembered more than many other award-winning books of the period." Not to be reductive, but Vandermeer's essentially saying that the only reason Finch isn't on the shortlist is because he didn't lobby for it to be. Now I loved Vandermeer's last Ambergris novel - read the full review here to see just how much - and in my opinion, it's certainly more deserving of a place amongst the finalists than the likes of Cherie Priest's Boneshaker, which was fun, don't misunderstand me, in a pulpy, steampunk Stephen King sort of way, but hardly revelatory in the mode of Finch - nor The Windup Girl and The City and The City; which is to say, the other best novel candidates I've read.
But the notion that bother me is that had Vandermeer tried to get Finch on the list, it would be on the list. And I ask you, internet: is that true? Are the Hugos really so easily swayed? Or is Vandermeer just miffed about the oversight?
>>> EDIT TO REFLECT THAT: Popular opinion has deemed this post accusatory, and were it not for the likelihood that some readers would accuse me of backpedalling, I'd gladly reword anything that suggests I genuinely believe Jeff is being elitist or disingenuous. That was not the plan at all. I was, of course, stirring the pot a bit, but I'd meant for the spillage to fall on the Hugos; to engender discussion about how, despite their perceived importance, they're basically the American Idol equivalent of more considered awards, awards less about how thoroughly one author has pimped their qualifying novel over the others and more about objective merit. Bottom line, though, is - as one anonymous commenter observed - I "failed miserably" at that. Apologies to Jeff if I've caused any offense, and indeed I'd extend my regrets to anyone who took what I'd intended to be interesting questions as out-and-out insults. I do not mean to be the Daily Mirror.
>>> EDIT TO REFLECT THAT: Popular opinion has deemed this post accusatory, and were it not for the likelihood that some readers would accuse me of backpedalling, I'd gladly reword anything that suggests I genuinely believe Jeff is being elitist or disingenuous. That was not the plan at all. I was, of course, stirring the pot a bit, but I'd meant for the spillage to fall on the Hugos; to engender discussion about how, despite their perceived importance, they're basically the American Idol equivalent of more considered awards, awards less about how thoroughly one author has pimped their qualifying novel over the others and more about objective merit. Bottom line, though, is - as one anonymous commenter observed - I "failed miserably" at that. Apologies to Jeff if I've caused any offense, and indeed I'd extend my regrets to anyone who took what I'd intended to be interesting questions as out-and-out insults. I do not mean to be the Daily Mirror.
I completely agree about Boneshaker, I enjoyed it and it was a fun ride, but as a critic I think in a great book the plot should always be a hook for some important central idea, and Boneshaker didn't have that for me.
ReplyDeleteAs for lobbying, I don't know how much of an influence it has, but it certainly happens. I saw both Kat and Cherie lobbying for votes on twitter and their blogs, and perhaps that did sway the noms in their direction, there is no real way to know that I suppose.
I think we get award fever (myself included) and get a bit too caught up in awards, which are really just a consensus vote by proxy, not some real sort of definite decision. If we were to take the Hugos as the measure of greatness, then Gene Wolfe isn't a great writer because he has never won one, which is absurd (and I don't always agree with their decisions, the Graveyard Book was the best book of 2008/2009?). I just think the point Jeff was trying to make is he isn't too bothered about the awards, there are many other reasons great books stay in print, and that is more important to him.
It doesn't sound like sour grapes to be and I think you are misreading him. He's not saying Finch isn't on there because he didn't lobby, he's saying a) he didn't expect it to be on there, b) he doesn't lobby and c) he doesn't measure his success in awards. I think that is uncontroversial and entirely in keeping with the way Vandermeer approaches his work.
ReplyDeleteThe comment about City Of Saints is a bit eye-brow raising but it is bloody good and highly regarded. Anyone care to remind me what the other notable novels of the period were?
Are the Hugos really so easily swayed?
ReplyDeleteFollowing on from what Paul said, it is pretty clear that Palimpsest benefitted from some pretty heavy lobbying. And why not? It sounds like a very interesting novel and I can't really fault an author for trying to bring attention to their work (although, in terms of personal preference, I do side with Vandermeer on its desirabilty).
Final comment, I promise:
ReplyDeleteI don't know like I'd be doing anyone any good expressing an uninformed opinion.
That is what awards are for ;)
Oh, you had to go and quote the bit with a typo, eh?
ReplyDeleteSo to get your novel on the Hugo shortlist, all you have to do is persuade your twitter followers to vote for it? Sounds like democracy to me - albeit democracy by social networking - and we all know how well that turned out... :/
Sounds, in fact, like maybe Vandermeer has reason to be so peeved. I won't comment on Palimpsest, but Boneshaker for one does not sit well with the company it's keeping on the award nominations.
LOL! This is what I get to wake up to this morning? Nice.
ReplyDeleteI'm very, very consistent on my approach to awards, and have been for years (as well as highly critical of the Hugos, well before I could ever have had anything nominated, and I've maintained that stance for ages).
It's really pretty perverse when you post something you truly believe and someone else comes along and twists it into the exact opposite of what you said. But, sadly, that's the internet we've got. Next time, perhaps you should try trusting what a person is saying.
JeffV
So to get your novel on the Hugo shortlist, all you have to do is persuade your twitter followers to vote for it?
ReplyDeleteWell, no because most of them probably can't vote. What you need to do is persuade about 40 Hugo voters to nominate it.
I won't comment on Palimpsest, but Boneshaker for one does not sit well with the company it's keeping on the award nominations.
The presence of Boneshaker is probably more down to its impressive sales figures than lobbying. Again, this is the way of popular votes.
Well, Paul, Martin, and Jeff himself have pretty much covered most of what I was originally going to say, but I'll see what I can add before I take a few hours' break from the web. Like they've said, you misread his intent quite badly. It would have helped if you had focused on the first part, which dealt with anthologies and the staying power of some over others, as that was the lead-in that used the recent Hugo nomination bit to drive home the point that it isn't awards (although they certainly can help) that make a story memorable. No sour grapes there.
ReplyDeleteAs for Priest's novel, I've read it and I actually think it's on par with most of the nominees in that field. I've read four of the six (have the Wilson to read later, won't bother with the Sawyer) and Boneshaker, although certainly less ambitious than some of the others, did at least show fewer flaws in execution than what I observed in the Miéville and Bacigalupi books in particular. Valente's I suspect will grow on me with a second read, but that too had some problems in its execution. So I don't know if I could agree with the implication that because the author was letting others know her work was eligible that it was a "bought" work - pretty expensive, at $40+.
I guess that last bit would hold true for most any author, come and think of it. Maybe next time, think through your strong points before trying to have authors, who are going to be proud of their work, painted as being duplicitous in their motives?
Okay, so. Minor furore here while I've been away. Let me clarify a few things.
ReplyDeleteWhen I say Jeff's comments about Finch not making the shortlist "sounds like sour grapes," I'm not - repeat NOT - saying it is. When I ask if he's just miffed about the oversight, I'm asking, not telling. Is that not apparent? I'll grand that this post's title is perhaps a little misleading, in light of my uncertainty, but I can't resist a nice ledeline. Apologies for that - though I'd thought actually reading the article might dissuade such opinions. Clearly not.
This write-up was intended to engender a discussion of the merits and demerits of the Hugos, one of the industry's leading and most visible awards, not to get Jeff all defensive - if indeed the comment from "JeffV" is indeed the gent in question, and the "LOL!" it begins with gives me reason to suspect it isn't. On the other hand, if that was you, Jeff, I certainly don't mean to be twisting your words "into the exact opposite of what you said," nor, for that matter, am I out to paint you, as Larry suggests, "as being duplicitous" in your motives. I stated nothing, nor did I mean to. As I've said, I'm inclined to agree that Finch should by all rights be on the list. The above post is about why Finch didn't make the cut, not how you're somehow a bad guy.
That said, I get why people might want to cosy up with authors. But tell me, does having written a few books mean you simply aren't capable of duplicity? Again, I'm not in any sense saying Jeff has been; just putting the question.
Come off it, Niall. You said: "Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but that sure sounds like sour grapes to me." That is an accusation of sour grapes; you can't pretend you were Just Asking Questions, it makes you sound like Glenn Beck. If you sincerely wanted people to correct you for being wrong, you should be pleased that they have done so instead of being so defensive.
ReplyDeleteif indeed the comment from "JeffV" is indeed the gent in question, and the "LOL!" it begins with gives me reason to suspect it isn't.
It is.
That said, I get why people might want to cosy up with authors.
Who is this accusation of bad faith aimed at?
But tell me, does having written a few books mean you simply aren't capable of duplicity?
And again, who is this aimed at? You say it is not Vandermeer but if it isn't directed at anyone in particular then it is meaningless.
Niall - I generally enjoy this blog (although I could do with far, far less blogging about blogging), but this post is poorly argued and your subsequent defense sounds downright disingenuous.
ReplyDelete"This write-up was intended to engender a discussion of the merits and demerits of the Hugos, one of the industry's leading and most visible awards, not to get Jeff all defensive ...."
Really? After you characterize him as covetous in the headline and accuse him of "sour grapes"?
Not to mention this passage: "For the sake of coherence, let's leave to one side the somewhat dubious argument that City of Saints and Madmen is 'remembered more than many other award-winning books of the period.'"
And this one: "But the notion that bother me is that had Vandermeer tried to get Finch on the list, it would be on the list."
If you're attempting to stir up controversy by unfairly characterizing a writer's thoughts on SF awards, good job. You nailed it. If you are attempting to present a cogent critic of the awards or genuinely question whether the Hugos can be rigged, you failed miserably. But at least you got to paint Jeff as an elitist. Hope it was fun.
Come off it, Niall. You said: "Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but that sure sounds like sour grapes to me." That is an accusation of sour grapes; you can't pretend you were Just Asking Questions, it makes you sound like Glenn Beck.
ReplyDeleteOne more time, then. I don't want to be like Glenn Beck - not that I have a clue who Glenn Beck is. In any event, I certainly didn't mean to level an accusation. I'm only ever stating an opinon; and that's still my impression, that what Jeff wrote did sound a little like sour grapes. I'm not backpedalling here - clearly I just haven't expressed my opinions as best I could. I'd go back and change my wording to reflect as much except no doubt that'd piss some people off too.
Who is this accusation of bad faith aimed at?
At "JeffV", on the presumption - potentially misguided, I see now - that the gent himself couldn't possibly have written that reply.
And again, who is this aimed at? You say it is not Vandermeer but if it isn't directed at anyone in particular then it is meaningless.
It's directed at Larry, who wrote: "Maybe next time, think through your strong points before trying to have authors, who are going to be proud of their work, painted as being duplicitous in their motives?"
How exactly is asking a question meaningless? Why is questioning the notion that authors might get a free pass to be as duplicitous as they please simply because they're authors somehow accusatory? Larry brought up a subject that interests me. I was responding to it. I'm not saying now, nor was I ever - at the least, I did not intend to - that Jeff is somehow a trickster or a liar.
How exactly is asking a question meaningless?
ReplyDeleteI asked because if you take the question at face value it is pretty pointless:
Q: But tell me, does having written a few books mean you simply aren't capable of duplicity?
A: No, of course not.
I now understand it was a reply to Larry. However, as a reply it doesn't make much sense either; he said you should make sure you have strong arguments before accusing someone of duplicity, not that you shouldn't accuse people of duplicity.
A correction to my earlier comment: apparently it took 63 nominations to get on the Hugo shortlist this year.
However, as a reply it doesn't make much sense either; he said you should make sure you have strong arguments before accusing someone of duplicity, not that you shouldn't accuse people of duplicity.
ReplyDeleteAgreed - one should have a good firm foundation before accusing people of being duplicituous, as they should before accusing anyone of anything so egregious. The thing is, as I've said - and as I've now added to the original post - I did not intend to accuse Jeff of being such. I wanted to engage in a debate about the Hugos, and it was Jeff's post on Ecstatic Days that inspired that desire. Because Finch, for my money, clearly deserved a place amongst the finalists. And I went about asking that question by posing two opposing arguments that might be made: "Are the Hugos really so easily swayed? Or is Vandermeer just miffed about the oversight?"
But I see why some readers think I was being inflammatory; my head is appropriately hung.
I fully expect Godwin's law to kick in right about now. :/
But no! Instead of the inevitable invocation of Hitler, we have a comment from Mark Charan Newton - the pot-stirrer himself! - which the Blogger automaton, characteristically considerate, devoured:
ReplyDelete"Vote-lobbying does go on in SFF awards, yes, and has done for years, though I'm not sure about the Hugos. I've heard tell of such things many times before, and very recently, someone genuinely face-to-face asked me if I would mind voting for them (I did mind.) So I wouldn't say it's sour grapes, I think Jeff is just being honest. When you get people who are passionate about books, it will happen (even if it's their own book...)
"Which is a shame, because it distracts from the honest authors who don't do this and whose books are genuinely popular with the con attendees.
"As an aside, on the subject of one of the UK's most prestigious SFF awards, I asked the senior buyer at a chain how many copies they expected to sell across the country in the week following the announcement of a winner, and they said about 50 at the very most. They have minimal direct impact on sales, but I guess it's not about that."
Just to add that, I don't mean authors who lobby are dishonest specifically; it's just the public's perception of such matters aren't in line with how the awards actually function.
ReplyDeleteThen again, the same can be said about the rest of the industry - marketing, cover art and especially the rate cards of WH Smiths or Amazon or whatever chain, that is, the cost of putting books in front of people. People have little about that, and even for me that last point might be taboo.
- Mark
I think the problem is that Niall's astonished my position doesn't fit in with what he perceives as the consensus reality or majority opinion on such things. Therefore, I must be lying somehow or be from an alternate universe.
ReplyDeleteIf it helps, I see myself as the loyal opposition on all of this. My personal beliefs do not in any impact how I cover awards for the Amazon book blog, or my warm feelings for my fellow writers, or anything else. I in particular sent a congrats to Cat Valente, who I thought should've been on the Nebula ballot, and in my mind Palimpsest getting on the Hugo ballot rather than Finch was a fair trade-off, if you have to think in such ways.
I also consider myself a good friend of people involved with the Hugos admin. If that's contradictory, so be it. I'm part of a family that at times disagrees.
Other than that, I guess my main point now would be...no one's day should be ruined by any of this, including Niall's, and we all have more important things to do, like take a long walk or read a book or something. But, at the same time...a true apology sure would be nice.
JeffV
Done. Updated the offending post to say as much, but I'll say again: I didn't mean to misrepresent your views at all, Jeff. Sorry that it came across that way.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a long walk with a book? :)
No worries--and I really appreciated the Finch review you did. Cheers. jv
ReplyDeleteOK, now that I'm awake up to have read (and re-read) all this, time to comment once more.
ReplyDeleteNiall, I know you meant well (having interacted with you a few times), but sometimes it's just a simple matter of considering things through another's eyes. The original post did seem a bit...disjointed, because the title seemed to give at least equal weight to one author's stance (misunderstood, as it was) than it did to anything you may have wanted to say about the awards process. Maybe separate such divergent thoughts into separate posts in the future?
And Martin did represent what I was pointing out well - think twice before shooting. But no harm was done and doubtless the 80s-style family sitcom "moral music" is playing now as we share a bonding moment...or something :P
Oh come on - this is ridiculous. No offense to Jeff, but the line "City of Saints didn’t win anything it was up for and is in print and remembered far more than many other award-winning books of the period." does come off as a bit presumptous.
ReplyDeleteAnd although Alex could definately have phrased it better, I think what he was going for was the blogging equivalent of raising an eyebrow.
And can we all agree, how awesome is the eleventh Doctor ... BOOYAH.