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

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

It's also getting us away from the point, which is: you think the characters in the show don't fit their world; I'm baffled by this because their world is the characters.

See other comment. The world does come first, I'm afraid.

And let's not underestimate the importance of the fact that the characters are boring in my apathy. And it is apathy not outright dislike--I'm only halfway through the season, after all, and I don't like leaving things unfinished.

And Tim done gone left me. But he fixed my router first (eventually).

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

See other comment. The world does come first, I'm afraid.

Or to put it another way: focusing on the characters can't construct the world, but it should reveal the world. The trouble with Deadwood is that the world implied by the characters doesn't match the world the show actually gives us.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

The trouble with Deadwood is that the world implied by the characters doesn't match the world the show actually gives us.

I simply do not understand this. Because they speak in iambic pentameter? That seems a terribly dogmatic quibble. How does Al not fit in his world? How does Bullock?

It doesn't help that you're defense of TWW's similar sin is entirely unconvincing - sure, TWW was clearly set in a parallel world. So is, erm, Deadwood. I don't understand the difference, except you like TWW but not Deadwood. For subconscious reasons other than those you're stating. Or something. :P

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

The world does come first, I'm afraid.

Of course, but only implicitly by necessity. That is, if the characters behave in X way, then the world produces people who are X. Whereas you prefer if the world is explicit - not that we learn about it through the characters, but that we learn about it and then place the characters in that context.

Did you go see your film? Did you share a box of Maltesers?