Not the Clarkes ...

[tamaranth]

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.

Comments

[ladymoonray.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's fair to judge the author on any criteria other than the book that is on the shortlist. Apart from anything, it would mean the judges would have to read even more books, just so they all had a fair and equal view. I can't imagine that being very popular. My understanding is that it's a book award, not an author award. Am I wrong?

I wouldn't have minded The Gone Away World being on the shortlist for the reason given by Farah, but I'd have been pretty fed up if it won because (in my view) it is deeply flawed. So why not kick it out pre-shortlist? Flood, on the other hand, could've been up there with the best of the current list, and Martin Martin could've made room for it.

[tamaranth.livejournal.com]

My understanding is that it's a book award, not an author award. Am I wrong?

This is how I've always understood it -- but when I hear 'too much like his others', or 'this'll make sense of the short stories', or (in the past) 'a vote for this is a vote for the trilogy / series', then I start to wonder. Agree that it is Unfair if it's anything other than a single work!

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I wasn't at the panel, but my understanding of the "too similar to his others" criticism re: House of Suns is that it's a similarity that is to the detriment of the book. That is, it borrows a narrative structure Reynolds has used before and is comfortable with, but without adapting that structure to the different content of this novel.

So far as I'm concerned, the Award is for the book on the table. Authors' previous form has nothing to do with it. This is why I would, for instance, have argued against the shortlisting of Midnight Lamp or The System of the World -- I don't believe either of them stands alone.

That said, another way "too much like his others" might come into play, conceivably, is simple over-familiarity. An author's ninth novel may well be a perfectly good book, but if to me, as someone who's read the previous eight, it just feels like more of the same, that's going to count against it. There are times when I want a comfortable, predictable experience, but if I'm going to give a book an award, I'm going to be looking for something that surprises and challenges me.