![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It's a tempest concerning the nominees for this year's Arthur C. Clarke Award.
The Clarke Award is a juried science fiction and fantasy award for novels published in Great Britain during the calendar year. You'll recognize the names of many former winners: Margaret Atwood, Ian R. MacLeod, Pat Cadigan, Christopher Priest, China Miévelle, and Bruce Sterling are all prior winners.
The discussion for award short lists is usually spirited. This year, it's Christopher Priest's turn to pound on the table for attention and vent at large about the selections - as is his privilege. Clearly, he would have chosen other works, and he minces no words.
A concise commentary on this tempest has been offered up by the witty and extremely competent John Scalzi. One nominee, Charles Stross, was called an "Internet puppy" by Priest. Mr. Stross's response, as reported by Mr. Scalzi:
Charlie Stross, whom Mr. Priest referred to as an "Internet puppy," is making t-shirts, featuring the image at the top of the entry, made by his mighty spouse Feòrag NicBhrìde. I'm totally getting one.
A link to the tee shirt has been provided by yours truly.
I know none of the players in this little drama, though I have read some of their books. This one statement by Mr. Priest did catch my eye:
Although Miéville is clearly talented, he does not work hard enough. For a novel about language, Embassytown contains many careless solecisms, which either Mr Miéville or his editor should have dealt with. This isn’t the place to go into a long textual analysis, but (for example) a writer at his level should never use ‘alright’ so often or so unembarrassedly.
Note the sentence in bold type. I know, from my own experience and that of friends, that at least one house in the US changes all usage of "all right" to "alright." Protest how you will, that is the house standard. So I must ask, what is the house standard of the publisher who released Mr. Miévelle's nominated work?
Just thought I would bring that up. Mr. Priest may have a horse in this race, but there's a chance that it's not "alright."
Update: I have been reliably informed that China prefers the more recent "alright" in his books, and STETs (I.E. put it back the way it was) any attempts to change it.
So this nit-pick moved into the "author and publisher's choice -- if it infuriates you, don't read his books" category.
If I haven't been clear -- I think Priest has been deliberately rude venting his displeasure. He could have expressed his bitter disappointment over this year's nominees without becoming abusive. I don't even know him, and already I have a worldview of him that does not flatter. Such is the danger of the Internet.
The Clarke Award is a juried science fiction and fantasy award for novels published in Great Britain during the calendar year. You'll recognize the names of many former winners: Margaret Atwood, Ian R. MacLeod, Pat Cadigan, Christopher Priest, China Miévelle, and Bruce Sterling are all prior winners.
The discussion for award short lists is usually spirited. This year, it's Christopher Priest's turn to pound on the table for attention and vent at large about the selections - as is his privilege. Clearly, he would have chosen other works, and he minces no words.
A concise commentary on this tempest has been offered up by the witty and extremely competent John Scalzi. One nominee, Charles Stross, was called an "Internet puppy" by Priest. Mr. Stross's response, as reported by Mr. Scalzi:
Charlie Stross, whom Mr. Priest referred to as an "Internet puppy," is making t-shirts, featuring the image at the top of the entry, made by his mighty spouse Feòrag NicBhrìde. I'm totally getting one.
A link to the tee shirt has been provided by yours truly.
I know none of the players in this little drama, though I have read some of their books. This one statement by Mr. Priest did catch my eye:
Although Miéville is clearly talented, he does not work hard enough. For a novel about language, Embassytown contains many careless solecisms, which either Mr Miéville or his editor should have dealt with. This isn’t the place to go into a long textual analysis, but (for example) a writer at his level should never use ‘alright’ so often or so unembarrassedly.
Note the sentence in bold type. I know, from my own experience and that of friends, that at least one house in the US changes all usage of "all right" to "alright." Protest how you will, that is the house standard. So I must ask, what is the house standard of the publisher who released Mr. Miévelle's nominated work?
Just thought I would bring that up. Mr. Priest may have a horse in this race, but there's a chance that it's not "alright."
Update: I have been reliably informed that China prefers the more recent "alright" in his books, and STETs (I.E. put it back the way it was) any attempts to change it.
So this nit-pick moved into the "author and publisher's choice -- if it infuriates you, don't read his books" category.
If I haven't been clear -- I think Priest has been deliberately rude venting his displeasure. He could have expressed his bitter disappointment over this year's nominees without becoming abusive. I don't even know him, and already I have a worldview of him that does not flatter. Such is the danger of the Internet.
