Today’s award-related post: a roundup of reviews of the nominees for the BSFA Best Novel Award, leading off with the Vector review in each case. For two of the Vector reviews, this is their first appearance: the reviews of End of the World Blues and Nova Swing will be in V252.

Note that the voting deadline is fast approaching: if you’re going to Eastercon, you can vote there, but if not you need to vote by post or by email in the next two weeks. Don’t worry, this won’t be the last reminder I put up.

So, the nominees are:

End of the World Blues by Jon Courtenay Grimwood, reviewed by Claire Brialey:

Depending on where you’re standing, Grimwood’s novels could appear to be noir-ish thrillers in a science-fictional setting, or science fiction novels with all the ambience of crime. Here, each story – complete and, by comparison, straightforward in itself – effectively compliments and lifts the other. The science fiction may be in another dimension, but it’s intruded directly into this world; now the plot can’t be resolved without it.

Other reviews: Paul Kincaid at SF Site; David Soyka at Strange Horizons; Paul Raven at VCTB; Jonathan McCalmont at SF Diplomat; Grumpy Old Bookman.

Nova Swing by M. John Harrison, reviewed by Gary Dalkin:

As Harrison’s The Centauri Device parodied space opera, so Nova Swing parodies the hard boiled detective novel. A second introductory quote offers the idea that “Nostalgia and science fiction are spookily close” (A. A. Gill in The Sunday Times). And this is a book filled with nostalgia, set-dressed with retro recreations of the past. With old forms of fiction, with old objects, old music. Detective Lens Aschemann is nostalgic for New Nuevo Tango. The band in the Surf Café play BeBop. The radio in Len’s 1950’s style Cadillac plays Radio Retro. So much of the novel transpires in a trio of drinking joints it might be called Three Bar Blues. Except Nova Swing isn’t a form of music, but the name of the spaceship Irene the Mona dreams of buying to escape the planet and live her dreams.

Other reviews: John Clute in The Guardian; Abigail Nussbaum at Strange Horizons; Nicholas Royle in Time Out; Andrew McKie in The Telegraph; Brian McCluskey in Scotland on Sunday.

Icarus by Roger Levy, reviewed by Paul Raven:

The core theme of Icarus is the concept of history, and also the mutable and viral nature of truth. The characters all have dark secrets and real human flaws – there are no paragons among them, and this makes it easier to sympathise with their often desperate actions. The echoes of Orwellian dystopia resonate with today’s world of governmental deceit and doublespeak, but have a timeless lesson as their axis. In the societies portrayed and in the writing itself, certainty is a fleeting thing, all the more precious for its scarcity. Near the end of the book, Marten experiences this in a revelatory moment; “Memory and knowledge were two different things, he realised, and neither was necessarily the truth.” (p408) Perspective is everything, and judgements made in a vacuum of information are frequently revealed to be dangerously false. The truth must be mined, dug out from its grave of lies and obfuscation.

Other reviews: Pete Young at Strange Horizons; Victoria Strauss at SF Site.

The Last Witchfinder by James Morrow, reviewed by Dave M. Roberts:

There is a significant cast of real historical figures, whose role is much expanded by our knowledge of these people and what they stood for. We are reminded, for example, that while Newton was the father of modern science and the champion of reason, he never abandoned his religion. The juvenile feud between Newton and Robert Hooke can be seen as triggering the events of the book, the unreasonable behaviour eventually leading to the spirited defence of reason. The historical characters are not there merely as place-markers, but as real people loaded with historical and intellectual resonance.

Other reviews: Farah Mendlesohn at Strange Horizions; Pamela Sargent at Sci Fi Weekly; Ron Charles in the Washington Post; Janet Maslin in the New York Times; Brandon Robshaw in The Independent.

Darkland by Liz Williams, reviewed by Penny Hill:

The depth of the presentation of sexual politics across the four different cultures would make this novel suitable for consideration for the Tiptree award. There are disturbing and provocative messages here about manipulative and destructive sexual relationships and the power they can exert long after the events are over. The history of Vali’s previous damaging relationship with Frey, a Vishtie adept, is gradually revealed to us in flashback. The influence this still has on her psyche permeates the narrative. Her urge to self-harm and the placebo she has found to contain this craving are shown to be coping mechanisms, that hint at the depths of the damage and make it clear that there will be no simplistic healing process available. Likewise Gemaley’s sexual power over Ruan reduces him to the status of an addict unable to reject the source of his desire even when he becomes aware of its destructiveness.

Other reviews: Colin Harvey at Strange Horizons; Cheryl Morgan in Emerald City.

There has been some comment on the BSFA’s decision to provide a recommended reading list of non-fiction, rather than a single award; I thought I’d round it up here, and highlight a couple of points that haven’t yet been made. I am not, in any sense, speaking as The Voice Of The BSFA in this matter. I do welcome letters to Vector on this or related issues.

To recap: this year, BSFA members were asked to nominate any written non-fiction work about science fiction and/or fantasy which appeared in its current form in 2006. Based on these nominations, a recommended reading list of five items was compiled and published. This is different to what happened in previous years. The non-fiction category was first introduced in 2001 as an award voted on by the membership, in the same way as all the other categories. It was suspended for 2004; for 2005, a different approach was piloted, in which nominations were invited as normal, and then a judging panel (of which, in the interests of full disclosure, I was a member) selected a winner and a companion recommended reading list.

Paul Kincaid has said that this was a thoroughly excellent arrangement of which he approved: this is not a consensus opinion. Criticisms of the system for the 2005 award include that it (or at least the way it was implemented) implied that BSFA members at large were not competent to judge a non-fiction award; and, from the other end of the spectrum, that recruiting sufficiently knowledgeable judges on an ongoing basis would be difficult if not impossible.

More generally, any non-fiction award faces the problems outlined by Graham Sleight in a comment on my shortlists post:

I think there are a number of problems built into it as it has stood for the last couple of years, and can’t easily see how they could be resolved. Firstly, it tends to privilege book-length over essay-length (and essay-length over review-length) stuff. Given that this is, historically, a field, where a disproportionate amount of critical work gets done in reviews, how are you going to reward that. (Example: I think David Langford is terribly undervalued as a reviewer – as opposed to a fan writer – and I can’t see anything in the non-fic award set-up that would unpick that.) Second, I think comparing stuff written within the protocols of academic writing and the world at large is not exactly apples and oranges but certainly very difficult. And thirdly, as I understand it, the non-fic award currently (and has always?) excluded stuff published in Vector and Matrix, which is a pretty big gap – Gary Wolfe’s piece in the Storying Lives issue, for instance, is one of the best I’ve read anywhere in the last year.

Graham is right that material published in BSFA magazines has always been ineligible for the non-fiction award, on the grounds that the BSFA should not be giving awards to itself. One suggested alternative to the current situation is to have an award only for BSFA-published material. Graham’s own suggestion is to have an award administered by a body other than the BSFA. (Martin McGrath suggests the sort of inter-organisation approach that the Clarke uses.)

Adam Roberts suggests that:

it’s a bit silly offering a ‘recommended reading list’ of SF criticism, rather than deciding (via bsfa vote, or if it’s thought that too few members are interested enough in crit to have read the stuff, by a panel of experts as was done last year) on a title. I assume the intention is to spread the honour around, but I don’t think it works that way: a ‘recommended reading list’ sounds like something your college professor hands to you, and insists that your read whether you want it or not; it seems, paradoxically, dispraising rather than praising the works themselves. An award makes sense in that it picks one title that deserves closer attention, or merits celebration. Otherwise the award becomes like a primary school sport’s day where everybody is given kojak-lollies just for turning up. My ha’pennorth would be: if the bsfa (I mean members, or committee-on-behalf-of-members) isn’t interested enough in Sf criticism to decide an award it should stop offering one: put out an award for TV, cinema, graphic novel instead perhaps. Don’t get me wrong: I think this would be a great shame, and that SF criticism is very poorly represented in the awards culture. But that would seem to me more honest.

Tony Keen raises one objection to the no-award route:

I think my problem with the Non-Fiction Non-Award is the message that it sends out about criticism, that in the BSFA’s opinion writing about sf really isn’t that important, and doesn’t warrant a proper award. Now, of course, actual original sf creation is always going to be more important than the secondary activity of writing about that creation. But nevertheless, good criticism is important, and I feel that part of the mission of the BSFA is promoting good criticism – that is, after all, why Vector exists in its current form. Now, one can say that the recommended reading list does promote non-fiction, and I suppose it does for someone who has time to read all five. But what of someone who doesn’t? One of the functions of the best novel award is the BSFA as a group saying, “if you’re only going to read one novel this year, we think it should be this”. Now the Association is not going to do this for non-fiction. Given, as Adam rightly observes, criticism is not overly supplied with awards, for the BSFA to pull back in this fashion seems to me to be a retrograde step.

I think I’m right in saying that, excluding graduate or society-specific awards, the only awards for non-fiction are the Pioneer Award for the best critical essay-length work of the year, and the Pilgrim Award for lifetime contribution to sf scholarship. There is also the Clareson Award for “outstanding service activities”, which can include sf criticism, and, in principle (although rarely in practice), the Hugo for Best Related Book.

Edward James raises another objection:

I feel really guilty about not going to BSFA meetings, or, if I go, not making my voice heard. But as someone who produces, occasionally, sf non-fiction and does NOT produce science fiction itself, I feel excluded from the organisation which I first joined 43 years ago… You don’t know why the BSFA abandoned the non-fiction award. OK: two questions — can we find out why they abandoned it, and can we restore it? The BSFA, after all, is only the totality of its members… and probably more of its members write ABOUT sf than actually write sf, so one would think that a majority of the membership did favour a non-fiction award

So, these are the questions: is a non-fiction award something the BSFA should continue to have? Is it practical? And if so, what form should it take? None of which are easy to answer. On the upside, at least one of the people on this year’s list is happy with the current arrangement:

And the nicest thing? There’s not going to be an individual winner. They’re calling it the BSFA’s non-fiction recommended reading list. And the BSFA membership won’t be voting on it. Frankly, I find that much less stressful. No getting your hopes up for a win. And looking at that shortlist, I had buckley’s. Julie’s Tiptree bio is not only the best book on that list, it’s the best book about science fiction in a very very long while.

They’re not quite up on the website yet, but I’ve got permission to post them. From the website: the nominees for the 2006 British Science Fiction Association Awards are:

Best Novel

• Darkland by Liz Williams
• End of the World Blues by Jon Courtenay Grimwood
• Icarus by Roger Levy
• The Last Witchfinder by James Morrow
• Nova Swing by M. John Harrison

Best Short Fiction

• “The Djinn’s Wife” by Ian McDonald (extract; Asimov’s)
• “The Highway Men” by Ken MacLeod (Sandstone Press Ltd)
• “The House Beyond Your Sky” by Benjamin Rosenbaum (Strange Horizons)
• “The Point of Roses” by Margo Lanagan (Black Juice, UK ed., Gollancz)
• “Signal to Noise” by Alastair Reynolds (Zima Blue and Other Stories, Night Shade Books)
• “Sounding” by Elizabeth Bear (Strange Horizons)

Best Artwork

• “Angelbot” by Fangorn (cover of Time Pieces, ed. Ian Whates)
• Cover of Farthing magazine, issue 2 (credited to Vertebrate Graphics)
• “Droid” by Fahrija Velic (cover of Interzone 206)
• “The Return to Abalakin” by Alexander Preuss
• “Ring of the Gods” by Willliam Li (cover of Holland SF 206)

Non-Fiction Recommended Reading List

NOTE: There will be no individual award for non-fiction. The following is a recommended reading list based on nominations from BSFA members.

• The Arthur C. Clarke Award: A Critical Anthology, ed. Paul Kincaid with Andrew M. Butler (Serendip Foundation)
• Daughters of Earth: Feminist Science Fiction in the Twentieth Century, ed. Justine Larbalestier (Wesleyan University Press)
• Great British Comics by Paul Gravett (Aurum Press Ltd)
• James Tiptree, Jr: The Double Life of Alice B. Sheldon by Julie Phillips (St Martin’s Press)
• Polder: A Festschrift for John Clute and Judith Clute, ed. Farah Mendlesohn (Old Earth Books)

Congratulations to all the nominees! The shortlists will be voted on by BSFA members and members of Contemplation, the 2007 Eastercon; the winners will be announced at that convention. I won’t comment on the novel list, for obvious reasons (though I’d love to hear others’ reactions), but I will at least say that I like the look of the short fiction list.

The deadline is midnight tonight. The current list of nominations (which I can pretty much guarantee has grown since the last time you looked at it) is here. The eligibility criteria are here. You can check here to see who’s responsible for cover art, and here to remind yourself of sf novels published in the UK last year. Your own nominations should go to BSFA.Awards@gmail.com. You know what to do!