Lifted from yendi
British genre author Christopher Priest is not entirely pleased with the short list for the Clarke Award. Anyone who thinks my comments on the Clarke short list were cranky should check this link to see what true cane-shakery looks like. I am mildly surprised he did not work his way to demanding the entire jury be shot (which for the record I think would be an over-reaction).
He is inexplicably a fan of the idiotic The Testament of Jessie Lamb, which is the sort of Life Boat Rules novel where the characters eventually decide to take the daring step of addressing a leaky life raft by drilling a large hole in the bottom of the boat for the water to flow out. I understand there's a great sympathy in SF for people making hard decisions in bad situations; I just wish the situations did not tend to be contrived and the solutions ludicrous.
Anyway, you can tell he matters far more than I do because while I got comments on More Words, Deeper, he gets replies across the web.
Damien Walter tries the The sour grapes gambit; Priest is displeased because he desired accolades. No attempt is made to deal with Priest's complaints because to do so would be to give credence to them.
Claiming that Priest is motivated by award-jealousy is a jolly daring gambit, given that (as Dan Geiser pointed out), Priest is no stranger to the doleful burden of nominations and wins:
BSFA: 3 Wins, 3 Nominations
Clarke: 1 Win, 2 Nominations
Dimar: 1 Win
Hugo: 1 Nomination
World Fantasy Award: 1 Win
It's also fairly hard to come up with a come back to
heri S. Tepper’s The Waters Rising (Gollancz) – how can one describe it? For fuck’s sake, it is a quest saga and it has a talking horse. There are puns on the word ‘neigh’.
I am bit sad Priest didn't manage to work in a dig at Tepper's apparent fondness for eugenics.
John Scalzi on the other hand goes for more disappointed than angry. He also suggests sticking Priest on next year's jury for the Clarke, out of what I am going to assume is an abiding dislike for the four other jury members.
Mea Culpa: I missed Charles Stross' response. Or rather, I saw it before I saw the context.
I also failed to note that this had made fandomwank.
Also posted at Dreamwidth, where there are
2012-03-29 02:48 pm (UTC)
2012-03-29 02:55 pm (UTC)
We'll get Best in Show for you yet!
2012-03-29 02:58 pm (UTC)
2012-03-29 02:49 pm (UTC)
2012-03-29 02:51 pm (UTC)
(Not trying to say he does know. I don't remember the book much, having read it and thought the movie was a lot better.)
Edited at 2012-03-29 02:51 pm (UTC)
2012-03-29 03:08 pm (UTC)
You accidentally a word? ;-)
2012-03-29 03:37 pm (UTC)
Re: Priest ... Many, nay, most of his criticisms are every bit as valid as his mathematics (see Point 3 of his -- yes, he really said it -- "a modest proposal"). Admittedly, he does have a point about Tepper's quest tale, which was fun enough but really might have played more comfortably as YA. But did anyone else notice how he derides Mieville for creating insufficient sense of place, then Stross for the opposite? (I enjoyed both of these very different books.) Apparently, both failed to use the Priestly template.
As for the tone if his comments -- forget a lynching, which I would not be surprised to hear he is considering, I'm surprised he didn't work his way up to a stroke.
2012-03-29 03:42 pm (UTC)
2012-03-29 04:00 pm (UTC)
Also, can't decide what is the most amazing bit---the amazing audacity of "Internet puppy" [1], the amazing, amazing audacity of calling Mieville an underachiever, or about Greg Bear's book, "The paragraphs are short, to suit the expected attention-span of the reader. The important words are in italics. Have we lived and fought in vain?"
I don't know. My last sentence is only three words long because I used an abbreviation. Have we lived and fought in vain?
[1] Pixel-stained technopeasant, anyone?
2012-03-29 04:18 pm (UTC)
2012-03-29 04:22 pm (UTC)
2012-03-29 05:32 pm (UTC)
ETA: beaten to the punch!
Edited at 2012-03-29 05:32 pm (UTC)
2012-03-30 10:58 am (UTC)
2012-03-29 05:21 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous)
2012-03-29 05:34 pm (UTC)
I suggest Priest, Tepper, Stross, Mieville and, of course, Harlan Ellison.
-- Paul Clarke
2012-03-29 05:42 pm (UTC)
2012-03-29 05:34 pm (UTC)
2012-03-30 02:56 am (UTC)
2012-03-29 05:46 pm (UTC)
Shamefully, I haven't read any of the books yet, so I can't really comment--except that Melville, much as I enjoy his books, has a kind of super-productive density to his prose that could be a kind of laziness. Kraken would have been a very fun minor work at 170 pages, but it read as though it was just too much trouble not to keep on writing once he was in the groove.
I just noticed the tags on this entry. Could we arrange a Tiptree judges-Clarke judges face-off? Would Priest be the referee or the ball?
2012-03-29 05:56 pm (UTC)
Also, I meant the *other* Tiptree judges rocked.
Edited at 2012-03-29 05:57 pm (UTC)
2012-03-29 06:32 pm (UTC)
2012-03-29 06:36 pm (UTC)
Nice back-hander there.
Well, HE certainly puts the ... codger ... in Scunthorpe.
2012-03-29 06:32 pm (UTC)
"... this pathetic plot, this dearth, these wasted reams, this shortlist"
2012-03-30 03:01 am (UTC)
2012-03-30 11:47 am (UTC)
http://www.ninaallan.co.uk/?p=381
(Although she does confuse the Gregs Bear and Egan.)
Stephen Shevlin