![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On Awards and Controversy
Mar. 29th, 2012 02:12 pmI got home from the BSFA Awards discussion panel last night, groggy from train snooze, fuzzy from red wine, and full of the wibbles you get after the rush of adrenalin has died down, and the slightly shaky feeling from thinking that I may, just may have heaped a whole bucketload of tee-ar-uh-double-burr-ull-TRUBBLE on my head through admitting to things I did or enabled with the BSFA Awards that people may not have liked... only everyone (present) seemed to understand after all. Phew!
Still, I thought, all controversies dealt with, but controversies get people talking, don't they?
This morning no one is talking about me. I'm like a pouty Oscar Wilde.
Duncan Lawie and Dave Hutchinson were extremely pleasant guests and though we did talk around opinions of works on the shortlist, we veered towards the postive and no former or current comedians-who-also-write were injured by the process. Possibly the positivity was helped by one of the shortlistees being in the room, somehow representing (in my head) the aw-pshaws, smiles and blushes of those who could not be there. Comparison with the recently published Clarke Award shortlist was also made, and I was disappointed by the absence of Tom Hunter, because he is quite often in attendance and I thought we could tease him that our shortlist was more Clarke than the Clarkes this time round. Nonetheless, we concluded that we do have a pretty good list with some quite literary aspirations, and both lists offer good stuff to read.
Also, revolutionary fervour was seeded with discussion of my little controversies: the non-fiction award being a bit too general and why we had an extended nominations amnesty. Suggestions were made, people were enthusiastic and my heart was gladdened.
I'm relieved I didn't know about Chris Priest's latest blog before last night, because it could well have coloured the conversation and taken the focus away from what we are trying to achieve with the BSFA Awards. It might have been a lot less pleasant. One of the Clarke shortlistees, Charlie Stross, was brought up by a couple of people as someone people thought was missing from our list, and I pointed out that he had only narrowly missed being so. Just goes to show how subjective opinion can be.
But why would it have changed things, some of you may be asking, if we had known what Christopher Priest had written? All the books on both lists were published last year. The content or quality does not change based on a blog written yesterday. However, the readers are human, and not inured to the temptations of gossip or scandal, and especially in the puddle-splash of the sf community, some of the things that were said concern people many of us know and possibly even like. Oh, and the BSFA actually appointed two of those judges as well!
There is nothing wrong with voicing an opinion. It's okay not to like something and it's fine to explain and justify why you might find a piece of work wanting. I was shocked when I first read the post, but going back through there are only a few points that are hugely shockworthy, or that I can even argue against as I don't know the work in question. For the most part, Priest does go for the work and not the person, although that line is blurred in places. Calling for the cancellation of the Clarkes is more than a tad bombastic and he probably realises this. I feel most sorry for Mark Billingham, and his character Tom Thorne would have trouble identifying exactly what crime he is meant to have committed here. Agreeing to be a pannelist at Oxford Literary Festival? How dare he grace the same stage? After all, his books are only eminently readable and popular crime fiction novels with engaging narratives, rounded characters and squeeze in political topicality to boot. Plus he's a very funny chap. Saying he employs 'heavy-handed' puns in his novels knowing full well that comedy was his first success is akin to pointing to something on him that isn't there and flicking him in the face.
But I do want to make a point, because Eastercon is only round the corner now, and this is when I will get most of the votes for the BSFA Awards. The Islanders is on that shortlist. I'm not sure if Christopher Priest has forgotten how small the pond is, or if he doesn't care, or if his eye was only ever on the Clarkes, but I am hoping that potential voters will remember that they certainly don't have to agree with any of the shortlistees opinions about people, books, politics, or anything. This book is part of the very good shortlist that the BSFA meeting was discussing last night. It is still made up of the same words in the same order. With the BSFA Awards and the Clarke Awards you can discover some excellent science fiction, and with only one book on both lists, you have variety and plenty to form your own opinions on... if you feel so inclined. You can also just enjoy them.
So, my appeal to you BSFA members and Eastercon goers is to be the better man/woman and vote for what you really think deserves your favour.
Still, I thought, all controversies dealt with, but controversies get people talking, don't they?
This morning no one is talking about me. I'm like a pouty Oscar Wilde.
Duncan Lawie and Dave Hutchinson were extremely pleasant guests and though we did talk around opinions of works on the shortlist, we veered towards the postive and no former or current comedians-who-also-write were injured by the process. Possibly the positivity was helped by one of the shortlistees being in the room, somehow representing (in my head) the aw-pshaws, smiles and blushes of those who could not be there. Comparison with the recently published Clarke Award shortlist was also made, and I was disappointed by the absence of Tom Hunter, because he is quite often in attendance and I thought we could tease him that our shortlist was more Clarke than the Clarkes this time round. Nonetheless, we concluded that we do have a pretty good list with some quite literary aspirations, and both lists offer good stuff to read.
Also, revolutionary fervour was seeded with discussion of my little controversies: the non-fiction award being a bit too general and why we had an extended nominations amnesty. Suggestions were made, people were enthusiastic and my heart was gladdened.
I'm relieved I didn't know about Chris Priest's latest blog before last night, because it could well have coloured the conversation and taken the focus away from what we are trying to achieve with the BSFA Awards. It might have been a lot less pleasant. One of the Clarke shortlistees, Charlie Stross, was brought up by a couple of people as someone people thought was missing from our list, and I pointed out that he had only narrowly missed being so. Just goes to show how subjective opinion can be.
But why would it have changed things, some of you may be asking, if we had known what Christopher Priest had written? All the books on both lists were published last year. The content or quality does not change based on a blog written yesterday. However, the readers are human, and not inured to the temptations of gossip or scandal, and especially in the puddle-splash of the sf community, some of the things that were said concern people many of us know and possibly even like. Oh, and the BSFA actually appointed two of those judges as well!
There is nothing wrong with voicing an opinion. It's okay not to like something and it's fine to explain and justify why you might find a piece of work wanting. I was shocked when I first read the post, but going back through there are only a few points that are hugely shockworthy, or that I can even argue against as I don't know the work in question. For the most part, Priest does go for the work and not the person, although that line is blurred in places. Calling for the cancellation of the Clarkes is more than a tad bombastic and he probably realises this. I feel most sorry for Mark Billingham, and his character Tom Thorne would have trouble identifying exactly what crime he is meant to have committed here. Agreeing to be a pannelist at Oxford Literary Festival? How dare he grace the same stage? After all, his books are only eminently readable and popular crime fiction novels with engaging narratives, rounded characters and squeeze in political topicality to boot. Plus he's a very funny chap. Saying he employs 'heavy-handed' puns in his novels knowing full well that comedy was his first success is akin to pointing to something on him that isn't there and flicking him in the face.
But I do want to make a point, because Eastercon is only round the corner now, and this is when I will get most of the votes for the BSFA Awards. The Islanders is on that shortlist. I'm not sure if Christopher Priest has forgotten how small the pond is, or if he doesn't care, or if his eye was only ever on the Clarkes, but I am hoping that potential voters will remember that they certainly don't have to agree with any of the shortlistees opinions about people, books, politics, or anything. This book is part of the very good shortlist that the BSFA meeting was discussing last night. It is still made up of the same words in the same order. With the BSFA Awards and the Clarke Awards you can discover some excellent science fiction, and with only one book on both lists, you have variety and plenty to form your own opinions on... if you feel so inclined. You can also just enjoy them.
So, my appeal to you BSFA members and Eastercon goers is to be the better man/woman and vote for what you really think deserves your favour.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
