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.