alfreda89 | About the latest SF tempest in a teapot....

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

FYI, China's preferred copyeditor has stated publicly that China prefers "alright" and will stet any changes made to it.

Edited 2012-03-30 15:22 (UTC)

Then Mr. Priest may ride his horse if it offends him, but if China prefers that usage, and his editor and copy editor concur, frankly it's not our business.

Except to natter about grammar differences, of course!

Actually, there was not so much "concurrence" as "the 300 pound gorilla insists."

My discomfort with Mr. Priest's essay is not so much his complaint, but the way he voiced it. There are ways to express displeasure with a jury slate without insulting your peers (above and beyond the works being judged) and attacking the mental competence of the judges. He is a man of some skill with words, and so clearly CHOSE to be offensive in his commentary for the sole value of being offensive.

Disclaimer: two of the judges are friends of mine, and as a former WFA judge I know how hard a job it is.

Edited 2012-03-30 16:20 (UTC)

Actually, yes, that's what I took from this, too. I didn't see any point in being offensive or taking sides when I am so far out of the loop, but I thought it was something that my followers might want to know about. So I mentioned it, with links to Priest's post and to Scalzi's post. As well as a link to Charlie's clever response RE tee shirt.

For the record, I think that Priest was rude, not clever, in expressing his displeasure over the choices. It is a thankless job to choose a juried slate for an award, and this group decided on what they felt would best represent the field, the genre, and the award. I happen to like several of Charlie's works, and much of Tepper's work. Haven't read the new ones.

Priest seems to feel that the books nominated should all be the highest caliber of SF literary works available.

Personally, that's not what comes to mind when I think of Arthur C. Clarke. I say this even though Clarke was a man who wrote several short stories that stick with me today. So I am not sure why Priest is insisting that his interpretation is correct.

Perhaps I need to punch my post -- my amusement may be too dry, here.

I think "literary" is the key term here. It's worth noting that the only book on the list which he admits might belong there (albeit grudgingly) is a lit writer's first attempt at something in the SF genre. And his descriptions of the books HE thinks should have been chosen indicate that they all lean heavily in the "lit crossover" direction.

Personally, I rather suspect that Priest values style over substance -- which is his right, but not (as he seems to believe) the One True Way.

And you're dead right about Clarke. The man was a superb storyteller, but not by any stretch of the imagination a literary stylist! Which, in my opinion, is a large point in his favor. :-)

Agreed. I think that "literary" was Priest's subtext, and other reviews of his work leads me to believe that he values style and idea over character and plot -- especially a plot with a beginning, a middle and an end.

And I'm all about character and plot!

IMO, his dismissal of his mystery/suspense counterpart on the panel, as an opening salvo, revealed his entire agenda. I have no idea who this man is, or what his books are like, but he's now on my "check it out" list, because anyone who rouses such scorn in Priest is immediately of interest.

We've all been jumping over that, but I had the exact same thought. I can't imagine dismissing another writer like that. And I was going to look up his works!

At any rate, I hope that writer gets a swath of new readers out of this. He was definitely sideswiped in a messy encounter.

I'm left wondering if Christopher Priest deliberately stirred up a tempest in a teapot in an act of charity to give us something to rant about as a distraction from current politics.

It would be such a gracious, British thing to do! (Distracting us from our political woes, that is. The WAY he chose to do this was tactless, and poorly thought out at the least.)

Frankly, we really can't think there was any thought behind his post. He just tossed it out there, damn the torpedoes.

Not at all impressed with Mr. Priest.

Edited 2012-03-30 18:46 (UTC)

Since he has dragged my marquis into his mud, I sincerely hope not.

I realize that I do not know who your Marquis is, in his other life. I just chased down your books and put them on my to-read list, and waited for a gradual reveal. Who is the Marquis? (This can be by email of course.)

We can joke that Priest did this to be distracting, but I think he did it out of pique. If I'm being charitable, I think he simply forgot he might end up with a broader audience for his grumbling.

I mean distracting us from our politics -- HOW he chose to do it was tactless at the least.

I've read of none of them, but Christopher Priest seems like an opinionated git.

If this was Facebook, I'd be clicking on "Like" about now...

We are all opinionated gits. I'm the Antichrist on a horse-related fb page right now for saying things certain members did not want to hear.

But what one says in private to one's trusted friends and what one posts on a public blog can, and many cases should, be very different things. Not liking the books nominated, OK. Not thinking they're up to par, also OK. Being a literary snob in the genre trenches? Happens so often it's a trope. Personal attacks and demanding the judges be fired for "incompetence"? Uh. No. Not on the front page of the Daily Screamer where the world can see.

I wonder, would Britain's libel laws apply? Or is he covered under the reviewer's exemption? Not that anyone would or even should sue, but how far over the line was he, actually?

We are all opinionated - true.
We are all gits... maybe not so much.

Good question -- how far over the line? Is he protected by law? If someone wanted to sue in America, I could see this being on the line. After all, he was not reviewing the judges IE as in reviewing a work of art. He was insulting them.

I'd say these were, at the best, very private opinions expressed in a public arena.

Any Brits out there familiar enough with the libel laws in GB to know if Priest has crossed a line?

I did notice that he presented his soi-disant "solution" under the rubric "my modest proposal". This suggests to me that he was hoping for plausible deniability -- obviously, since he was referencing Swift, we are all supposed to have realized that this was only satire, and our failure to have done so is merely more proof that we are uneducated, uncultured proles, unfit to be in the same room with his Infinite Wisdom, much less to actually disagree with it.

As you can doubtless tell, I'm not buying that for any money.

About the latest SF tempest in a teapot....

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject