The Second OUSFG Award

[coalescent]

So, OUSFG has an award. This is its second year. It's voted on by the membership, and given to the best speculative fiction book receiving its first UK mass-market paperback publication in the preceding academic year. This is actually fairly straightforward--it's for books students will be able to find and afford. Last year Coalescent by Stephen Baxter won. The current shortlist is:

Ted Chiang, Stories of Your Life and Others (January 2005)
Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell (September 2005)
David Mitchell, Cloud Atlas (February 2005)
Ian McDonald, River of Gods (April 2005)
Audrey Niffenegger, The Time-Traveler's Wife (January 2005)

Some notes: it's obviously not just for science fiction; it's obviously not just for novels; and goddamn, that's a hell of a list.

I mention this because this evening there is a balloon-debate discussion meeting, starting at 8pm, in the Lady Brodie Room in St Hilda's College, which means I'm going to have to decide how to rank them. And man, that's hard.

(On the subject of St Hilda's deciding to admit men ... I don't know what the reasoning behind the decision was, but I'm somewhat surprised that it happened, and it seems a bit of a shame, really.)

(And just to leave on a controversial note: I've finally got around to watching Deadwood--I'm about halfway through the first season at the moment--and I'm not terribly impressed. I think partly it's how stylised everything is; the dialogue bears as little resemblance to how people actually talk as that in The West Wing or Buffy, but where those shows were consciously presenting its characters as smarter-than-life Deadwood is constantly at pains to tell you how Real it is, how True To Life. The style doesn't mesh with the content, for me, in other words. Of course, that could just be a fancy excuse made up to cover the fact that I find all the characters except Jane excruciatingly boring; the episodes I've enjoyed most so far have been when circumstances have forced them to do something, as in, say, 'Plague'.)

EDIT: the ranking determined by the panel, in reverse order:

5. Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell
4. Cloud Atlas
3. The Time-Traveler's Wife
2. River of Gods
1. Stories of Your Life and Others

And those placings were almost all hotly contested. It'll be interesting to see whether the official result (announced Saturday) is the same or not.

Comments

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

One of the things I rather like about Deadwood is how elaborate the dialogue is: I enjoy the juxtaposition in the way that the lowliest, most foulmouthed denizen of the town has an unconscious poetry in the way they express themselves. It's symptomatic of the series' entire approach: finding the moments of unintended poetry in an otherwise squalid and brutal existence. It's a show that thrives on undermining expectations and stereotypes.

For me the dialogue does ring true in terms of the writing style of the era, albeit pushed to an exaggerated level. But it probably doesn't resemble the spoken English of the era.

As for the characters being dull, I disagree - but I think they sneak up on you slowly. It's the Carnivale approach.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

It's a show that thrives on undermining expectations and stereotypes.

I don't have time to get into this now, but this strikes me as rubbish. It thrives on pretending that it's going to undermine expectations and stereotypes, but doesn't actually do more than gesture vaguely in that direction.

And Carnivale's characters had me at hello, as you know.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

I don't have time to get into this now, but this strikes me as rubbish. It thrives on pretending that it's going to undermine expectations and stereotypes, but doesn't actually do more than gesture vaguely in that direction.

When you get time, you're going to have to explain this further, because it strikes me as pretty much missing the point of the characters if you think that they're stereotypes.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

In my defence, with a cast that wooden it can be hard to tell the difference ...

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

So wrongheaded. So *very* wrongheaded.

I'll let you argue the point with Iain, though, since he's explained your wrongheadedness so much better than I would have done :-p

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

Okay, you're just trying to start an argument now. :-) Never in a million years would I have dreamed of calling the cast wooden. It's true that the characters (and the era) sometimes have a mannered style, but with very few exceptions the cast seem like accomplished actors to me.

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. I think it thoroughly and repeatedly undermines stereotypes at every turn. The good are bad, the bad are good, the soft are tough, the tough are soft. Maybe that technique is in itself hackneyed, but it didn't strike me that way.

[danmilburn.livejournal.com]

And Carnivale's characters had me at hello, as you know.

What, even Ben Hawkins?

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Pretty much. Because his situation was interesting, and because Nick Stahl can act.

[danmilburn.livejournal.com]

His situation might have been, but the character itself was consistently the least interesting on the show for me. As for Nick Stahl's acting, well, certainly he was pretty good at surly and passive, shame he didn't get to do much else..

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

That's probably fair. I think the key for me was that he is forced to face up to the nature of his powers pretty damn quick--'Black Blizzard' may still be my favourite episode of the show. Yes, he broods before and he broods after, but at least you have a good sense of why he's brooding. :) It also helps that there was a big ensemble to look in on.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Ignore him, he's just being wrongheaded again :-p

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

Most wise.