And the shortlist is:
End of the World Blues, Jon Courtenay Grimwood (Gollancz)
Nova Swing, M. John Harrison (Gollancz)
Oh Pure and Radiant Heart, Lydia Millet (Heinemann)
Hav, Jan Morris (Faber)
Gradisil, Adam Roberts (Gollancz)
Streaking, Brian Stableford (PS Publishing)
EDIT: the official announcement is now up on the Clarke Award website, Paul Kincaid has linked to some reviews of the nominated books here, and there are some reactions here, here, and here.
January 21, 2007 at 1:44 am
Wot no Icarus? :-(
January 21, 2007 at 6:11 pm
That is a damn fine list Niall.
Do you have any desire to reveal to us who was bubbling under?
January 21, 2007 at 6:36 pm
I was another of the judges; I’m afraid that talking about the books that didn’t quite make it is verboten. But there were several other books that we really regretted being unable to shortlist.
January 21, 2007 at 8:33 pm
[...] calendar year. As is not uncommon because it is a British award, I have not read any of the books on the shortlist. Perhaps it is, that high achievements demand some other unusual qualification besides an unusual [...]
January 22, 2007 at 12:28 am
What Graham said. I now intend to mostly shut up about the Clarke for a while, wait (impatiently) for other people to start reading and discussing the nominees, and turn my attention to the queue of overdue reviews I’ve accumulated …
January 22, 2007 at 3:21 am
[...] – The 2007 Arthur C Clarke Award Shortlist Well, ‘Icarus’ didn’t make it. I’ve read two of the ones that did, and I [...]
January 23, 2007 at 11:09 am
I’ve just realised; this means Adam Roberts will be dissecting himself for Infinity Plus this year.
January 23, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Martin: chance would be a fine thing. (‘There is one, and only one, standout title on this year’s Arthur C Clarke award shortlist … where the other five are embarassing and total failures, one novel will surely come to be seen in future centuries as the defining literary work of our age’ etc etc).
January 26, 2007 at 9:01 am
Roberts, Harrison, Reynolds, Stableford: not a very adventurous
list is it?
January 26, 2007 at 10:47 am
I think the Stableford is a pretty adventurous choice actually. He might be a grand old man of British sf but he is hardly seen to be at the forefront of the modern genre. It is also pretty unusual for a small press novel to be shortlisted.
January 26, 2007 at 3:19 pm
“Roberts, Harrison, Reynolds, Stableford: not a very adventurous
list is it?”
Reynolds isn’t on the list. I’d agree with Martin that it is actually quite adventurous to shortlist Stableford; and that it’s refreshing to see a small press acknowledged … some of the best work published in the genre these days comes out of small presses. Moreover, Millet and Morris are hardly SF stalwarts, so they seem to me to be pretty interesting names to put on the list. Actually, I’d say it’s adventurous to nominate me (I never get nominated for prizes). But on that I’m hardly in the best position to say. I daresay you’re right, I constitute an unadventurous sort of shortlisting. But that aside the list seems to me very intriguing.
January 26, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I suspect Martin W meant ‘Grimwood’ when he said ‘Reynolds’.
Personally, I would say that the list is more adventurous than last year, where only Ishiguro is really outside what one might describe as ‘the usual suspects’. I think you have to go back to 1999 to find a shortlist that’s more adventurous than this one, though you could make an argument for 2005′s. (Fortunately, the shortlists, while not, as far as I can see, yet up at the official site, are still to be found at the old official site – http://www.appomattox.demon.co.uk/acca/shortlists.htm – and also show that Adam’s ‘I never get nominated’ suggests he’s forgotten the 2001 shortlist ;-) )
But in any case, the criticism seems to me to be beside the point. The Clarke jury’s job is to pick what they feel to be the best sf books published in the preceding year, not necessarily to come up with the most adventurous or eclectic list of same. That they sometimes do produce adventurous or eclectic shortlists (though not nearly as often as those who criticise the award for pandering to mainstream literary fiction imply) is a fortunate byproduct, but not their raison d’etre.
July 29, 2007 at 8:02 pm
All want to hurt zack, told me how sarah michelle gellar lesbian kiss hot cock.
July 29, 2007 at 9:03 pm
You know, egmiwidpewl, I’m not sure that’s totally relevant to the discussion in hand.
July 30, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Perhaps its a cipher for a more meaningful post that hasn’t been written yet.