|
|
I know my role will be minimal — and even that may be giving it too much credence. Still, I get a little bit of a kick out of the fact my membership in the National Book Critics Circle gives me a small voice in selecting its annual book awards. How small? Well…
NBCC voting members get to vote for up to five books of their choice in each of the following categories: autobiography, biography, criticism, fiction, nonfiction, and poetry. While those votes are left entirely to the member’s discretion, a committee assigned each category and made up of members of the NBCC board has been working to come up with a list of about 10 books each. Those lists are given the voting members “merely as a starting point” and reference for our votes. Member voting began Monday and ends January 9. Any book named by 20 percent or more of the voting members automatically becomes a finalist.
Shortly thereafter, the committees meet to create a shortlist of four finalists in each category. Thus, how many finalists the members pick and how many the committees pick depends on how many, if any, of the books in a category are named by least 20 percent of the voting members. The ultimate winners are decided from amongst the four finalists by the NBCC board in March.
Thus, like any NBCC voting member, anywhere from none to four of the books I select could make the shortlist. I know I will not vote in the poetry category and likely will not in the criticism category. In addition, I may cast less than five votes in some or all of the remaining categories because the book must have been published in 2006. Still, this at least creates the chance that my analysis of the books of the year might actually be a productive mote in the awards universe, making it a bit more relevant this year than in the past.
In the case of good books, the point is not to see how many of them you can get through, but rather how many can get through you — how many you can make your own.
Mortimer J. Adler, “How to Mark a Book”
It’s always interesting to see how people respond to criticism, constructive or otherwise. Some authors who feel stung publicly blast reviews of their work. Or you could be like Michael Crichton, who has set the book blogging world abuzz. Reportedly, his new book gives a child rapist with a small penis the same name as someone who wrote an article critical of Crichton’s views on global warming, views that were expressed in his last book. I, too, occasionally hear from authors after reviewing their work. While some aren’t happy, none have gone to the those extremes. In fact, I’ve found most are at least as fair and honest as I try to be in reading and reviewing their work.
For example, a relatively recent review was posted verbatim on the author’s blog. One of his introductory comments? “I thought it was fair and honest and I can’t ask for more than that.” Likewise, about a year and a half ago, an author posted a comment on a brief (five paragraph) somewhat critical review I did of his book. His opening comment: “Can’t say as I disagree with much the ‘review’ has to offer.”
Others are appreciative of the time I take to read and review their work. One author e-mailed me earlier this year saying she appreciated my “open-mindedness. I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to read my book.” Other authors don’t respond directly to a review. They simply add you to their e-mail lists after the review has appeared.
Then there’s the authors who get a mixed bag. One author started sending me various e-mails following a favorable review of one of this books. When I didn’t view his next one quite as favorably and both my review and subsequent e-mail to him with the hyperlinks to the review indicated I thought it was a weaker effort, he didn’t say a word. Yet I still continue to receive occasional personal e-mails from him on various subjects that are as friendly as they were before the more negative review.
Of course, there’s also those authors who strongly disagree. Here’s the core of an e-mail I got several months ago from one author:
You did . . . mention the dialogue, which in your judgment was “contrived and unnatural.” Actually, the dialogue was quite engaging and thought provoking. At least this is what I’ve been told by several published authors whose opinions I respect. But you’re a second-shelf reviewer and not a published author, are you, Tim? But I bet you’d like to be.
Perhaps one day you will be. In the meantime you should be a little more generous to your fellow writers. What goes around comes around. I, too, have written book reviews. And even if I hate a particular book, or think it’s substandard, I always give the author one or two lines that he can use in a blurb for publicity — especially if his book comes from a progressive or independent press.
My response was simple. I told the author I was sorry the review offended him but that I gave my honest opinion about the book. I also told him I had no problem being “a second-shelf reviewer” if making the top shelf meant that “the quid pro quo for accepting a book for review is not to give your true opinion but to provide ‘a blurb for publicity.'” I actually thought long and and hard before responding. There was so much more I wanted to say, including certain criticisms that didn’t make it into the review. I thought it best to simply address the core issue — whether I owed the author anything more than my honest assessment of his book.
But I’m not offended by his criticisms or anyone else’s. My opinion of a book is simply that — my opinion. Take it for what it’s worth, which probably is not be a heckuva lot. Besides, if you’re going to hold your writing out for public view (even on a blog), you gotta expect some people may not like it. While I don’t recall where I first read it, I’ve remembered an adage for decades. Even if someone says they hate what you’ve produced, they have at least acknowledged your existence.
The artist doesn’t have time to listen to the critics. The ones who want to be writers read the reviews, the ones who want to write don’t have the time to read reviews.
William Faulkner, interview in Writers at Work, First Series
This post initially started as a result of my review of search terms for the recent installment of search follies. But the public announcement that Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth is engaged makes it more timely.
I’ve always been suprised by how many people come here via Herseth web searches. As you’ll see, virtually all deal with her sexual orientation, marital status or something else related to sexuality. Granted, Rep. Herseth is a young, attractive woman. But it’s almost frightening that interest in her seems more motivated by an obsession with sex and sexual orientation than what she is doing as a member of Congress or as a role model for young women.
Here’s the Herseth web searches (including misspellings) that, in descending order of frequency, brought people to this blog recently:
- stephanie herseth hottie
- “stephanie herseth” lesbian
- “stephanie herseth” gay
- stephanie herseth nude
- stephanie herseth lesbian
- stephanie herseth
- stephanie herseth naked
- stephanie herseth babe
- herseth gay
- herseth hottie
- stephanie herseth sexual history
- stephanie herseth patriot act
- stephanie herseth married
- stephanie herseth lesbain
- stephanie herseth husband
- stephanie herseth gay
- stephanie herseth boyfriend
- is stephanie herseth a lesbian
- herseth lesbian
- does stephanie herseth of south dakota have a boyfriend
- “stephanie herseth” nude
- “stephanie herseth” married
I’m not sure whether that says more about how the internet is used or the level of political interest in this country. Either way, it’s a fairly sad commentary. In any event, congratulations to Rep. Herseth. A hat tip should also probably go out to PP for beating the “real media” on the story and from the other side of the political aisle.
That our popular art forms have become so obsessed with sex has turned the U.S.A into a nation of hobble-de-hoys; as if grown people don’t have more vital concerns, such as taxes, inflation, dirty politics, earning a living, getting an education, or keeping out of jail.
Anita Loos, Fate Keeps on Happening
First off, a big tip of the hat to Chris at his new Western College Hockey II blog for leading me to Hockey: Canada’s Royal Winter Game. Published in 1899, it is thought to be the first book ever written about the sport. And the author, Arthur Farrell, came with pretty good credentials for time. He was a forward for the Shamrock Hockey Club of Montreal, which won the Stanley Cup in 1899 and 1900.
Farrell provides not only a brief history of the game but also recommendations for training, equipment, playing style and strategy, as well as listing the rather limited rules that existed at the time. Being a latecomer to hockey fandom, I found it a fascinating insight into the game. I won’t go into all the differences in the game and rules between now and today (e.g., 7 players then as opposed to 6 now, no substitutions except in the event of injury, and requiring the goalie to “maintain a standing position”). Instead, it is intriguing to see how the philosophy of the game has changed since Farrell wrote the book. In fact, if two of Farrell’s attitudes had remained a majority view, hockey today would be entirely different.
So long as it remains free from the taint of professionalism [hockey] will remain dear to the hearts of all true sportsmen, all good athletes, but as soon as this vice creeps in the knell will sound for its death as a popular pastime. Because when a monetary consideration depends upon the result of a match in which professionals figure as participants, roughness, brutality, will characterize it, to the disgust of the spectators, whose attendance sustains the interest and provides the sinews of war which keep the game alive. Moreover, the athletic vice of professionalism should be stamped out for this reason, especially, that when a young man sees his way clear to earn a livelihood at sports, he will seldom fail to throw away on them the most valuable time of his life, by neglecting the duties that his age demands.
That would certainly mean no NHL, AHL or any type of professional league today. Yet there are undoubtedly many who would agree that the development of professional hockey (and other sports) teams has led many young men to neglect other important areas of life.
His other philosophy toward hockey would have affected far more than the professional ranks.
This practice of body-checking is permissible, and, to a certain degree, scientific, but it is questionable whether it be not a less noble way of overcoming a dangerous opponent, than by expert stick handling. or by some gentler means. It cannot be said to be directly in accordance with the strictest, the highest sense of polished, fair, scientific play. It certainly is a feat, difficult of accomplishment, to stop a man who is rushing towards you with the speed of an express train, and upset him without the slightest injury to yourself, but is this the fairest way of defending your flags? It savors too much of roughness, and can be the cause of a serious accident, because a fall on the ice, at any time is usually painful and dangerous enough, without any additional impetus from without. If it is allowable, it is most unfair to “body” a man into the side of the rink.
Any hockey game today involving players older than 10 without body checking into or against the boards is unfathomable.
Farrell’s training suggestions also tend to reflect the era in which he was living. His included:
- Avoid alcohol, “with the possible exception of an occasional glass of porter.”
- “Warm baths taken too often, or indulged in for too long a time, have a strong tendency to render a man weak and slow[.]”
- Hockey players “should be careful to eat only digestible foods[.]”
- “A hockey player who wishes to put himself into the pink of condition, should, difficult as it may be, avoid eating pies and pastry of any description.”
Plainly, it was a different age and while the sport could still be considered in its infancy, the first Stanley Cup had been awarded six years before the book was published. Farrell’s work reveals and allows the reader to revel in the legacy of the game from a contemporary perspective. I know it is likely to give me an entirely different perspective on and appreciation of tonight’s Sioux Falls Stampede-Sioux City Musketeers USHL game.
[W]hereas we now have only a few first-class teams, we will soon have a hundred, because hockey is a game that fascinates the player and thrills the spectator.
Arthur Farrell, Hockey: Canada’s Royal Winter Game
What began as a relatively brief midweek collection of items that caught my attention morphed into a much longer list as the week progressed.
- A hat tip to Scott Esposito at Conversational Reading for one of the most innovative books of the year lists. Jenny Davidson at Light Reading also gets a nod for starting her list with her favorite unread books of the year. (Although you have to wonder how she manages to read that many books and still have time to write and teach!)
- NPR lets three independent booksellers suggest books for holiday gifts.
- BookTV will be giving viewers an inside look at the operations of the NYT Book Review.
- For the second year in a row Seattle ranked first and Minneapolis second in a study of America’s Most Literate Cities. St. Paul moved from a tie for ninth to third place while Omaha remained ranked 31. Stockton, Calif., finished last for the second year in a row.
- Regret The Error Wednesday released The Crunks, its annual awards for media errors and corrections. Awards go out for correction of the year (which won due to the phrase “no revellers dived into bedrooms in search of drunken romps”) and apology of the year. The site/blog also shows why it was not a good year if you were interested in reducing plagiarism.
- The Science Fiction Book Club blog has picked Vernor Vinge’s Rainbows End as its SF book of the year. As my review indicated, I wouldn’t call it this year’s best. I enjoyed one of the runners-up, Glasshouse by Charlie Stross (review here), much more but am unfamiliar with the other runner-up, Farthing by Jo Walton.
- Project Gutenberg, which provides free e-books, now has a science fiction bookshelf.
- Although not directly SF related, there’s a fascinating site on the anatomy of a black hole. Be warned, though, it is shockwave and flash intensive. (Via Amy on the Web.)
- John Scalzi gives us an updated list of the top 51 personal blogs in science fiction and fantasy. As he notes, it is based solely on Technorati rankings.
- My reviews of two CDs in the Riverside Profiles series — Chet Baker and Bill Evans — both were Editors’ Picks this week at Blogcritics.
If science fiction is the mythology of modern technology, then its myth is tragic.
Ursula K. Le Guin, Dancing at the Edge of the World
|
Disclaimer 
Additionally, some links on this blog go to Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. There is no additional cost to you. Contact me You can e-mail me at prairieprogressive at gmaildotcom.
|
