Not the Clarkes ...

A couple of thoughts extracted from my overlong write-up of the Eastercon panel re the Clarke Award shortlist:

- are we judging the author, or their complete works, or the novel in question? (A couple of panellists argued, against Reynolds' House of Suns, that it was too similar in structure to one or more of his previous novels. I haven't read those novels: I'm judging the book as a standalone. And Paul McAuley's The Quiet War turns out to fit into a framework of short stories and projected sequel -- again, I was not aware of these. I'm levelling the same charge against Sheri Tepper's The Margarets: a much better novel if you haven't read much Tepper.)

- books omitted: Farah hit the nail on the head about what we want on the Clarke shortlist. "I couldn't stand [book X] but I'd want it on the shortlist -- it's engaging." I didn't note all the suggestions but Banks' Matter, Baxter's Flood and Nick Harkaway's The Gone-Away World were certainly mentioned.

2009/32: Corambis -- Sarah Monette

Corambis -- Sarah Monette

"The most important thing about magic is the metaphors we use to understand it, and a metaphor that is wrong is a metaphor that doesn't work. No wizard who successfully performs any bit of magic can possibly be using a wrong metaphor. There are bad metaphors, dangerous metaphors, destructive metaphors -- but no wrong metaphors. Thaumaturgical theory is about manipulating our metaphors and, ideally, making sure that the metaphors we use are good ones."
"... then what is magic?"
And all I could do was shrug and tell him the truth: "Nobody knows." (p. 302)

( review with mild spoilers )