Charlie ([info]ccfinlay) wrote,
@ 2007-02-24 16:59:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
The Norton Award Ballot
As I've blogged about before, I served as co-chair of the Andre Norton Award jury this year. We saw a lot of great books, more than I expected, and while I recced at least a dozen for the award as a private member of SFWA, in the end the jury, as a group, could only put forward three selections. They are three excellent books, and I hope that all of you who are eligible will consider them before you turn in your final Nebula ballot this year.

Below is our official statement.

* * *

The jury members for the Andre Norton Award for Young Adult Science Fiction and Fantasy were impressed by the number of outstanding books published in 2006, far too many to give all of them their proper due. We found that many of the books marketed to young adult readers were not only appropriate for that age but also satisfying in every way to us as old adult readers. We considered well over a hundred novels total, and even our first short list contained almost twenty books. Although we eventually narrowed our choice down to three books, in addition to the three excellent novels already on the ballot, we want to point out that the Young Adult category of fiction is currently rich and varied, and includes some of the best science fiction and fantasy books being published for any age group.

Three novels qualified for the ballot through the process of recommendations made by members of SFWA (Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America). Those three books are:

MAGIC OR MADNESSS - Justine Larbalestier, Razorbill (Penguin Young Readers Group), 2005

MIDNIGHTERS #2: TOUCHING DARKNESS - Scott Westerfeld, (Eos) 2005

PEEPS - Scott Westerfeld, Razorbill (Penguin Young Readers Group), 2005

The jury is empowered to add up to three additional books to the ballot, which is voted on by the members of SFWA in conjunction with the Nebula Awards. This year, the three novels we added to the ballot are:

DEVILISH - Maureen Johnson, Razorbill (Penguin Young Readers Group), 2006

THE KING OF ATTOLIA - Megan Whalen Turner, Greenwillow Books (HarperCollins), 2006

LIFE AS WE KNEW IT - Susan Beth Pfeffer (Harcourt), 2006

The jury was charmed by Maureen Johnson's DEVILISH, a contemporary fantasy set in a Catholic girls' school in Providence, Rhode Island, surely a place where weird and supernatural things seem likely to happen. Jane, the narrator, is a smart girl who is not a cliche. She has a sharp and compelling voice that is a pleasure to read from the very first page. The pervading sense of weirdness sets up the escalating revelations of the fantastic without ever losing the elements that keep the novel grounded. We also liked what the novel has to say about the nature of evil, despite being so much fun to read.

THE KING OF ATTOLIA is the third book in Megan Whelan Turner's trilogy that began with Newbery Award winning THE THIEF (1996) and continued with THE QUEEN OF ATTOLIA (2000). It's a riveting story full of twisty characterizations, action, romance, political intrigue, and the meddling of the gods in human affairs. At the center of the books is Gen, the Thief of Eddis, who is both an obnoxious boy and a brilliant political player in countries that are gearing up for war against the Medes, who have imperial ambitions. Gen is a wonderful character: he's irascible and conniving and smart, and he's completely compelling. Turner shows exactly what can be done with YA fiction by trusting her readers to be smart. This is a book that will reward rereading.

Susan Beth Pfeffer's LIFE AS WE KNEW IT is a post-apocalyptic science fiction novel about the effects of a meteor strike that drives the moon closer to earth's orbit with disastrous effects for the climate. It stands out for us because it features a parent figure who isn't absent, incompetent, or stupid. Equally significant, Miranda, the main character, isn't someone with amazing special powers or even someone destined to save the world, but just an everyday person who learns that she can survive a catastrophe. Along the way she makes sacrifices she could never have imagined and grows in ways that resonate far beyond the surface of the page.

For more information on the Andre Norton Award, please visit: http://www.sfwa.org/awards/nortonguide.htm

Submitted on behalf of the 2006 jury for the Andre Norton Award:

Charles Coleman Finlay, co-chair
John G. Hemry, aka Jack Campbell, co-chair

Jury members:
Tracina Jackson-Adams
Sandra McDonald
Victoria McManus
Sarah Prineas
Guy Stewart



(Post a new comment)


[info]cassiphone
2007-02-24 11:07 pm UTC (link)
Hi - this is really interesting, but I'm confused about how the award works. Why are the 3 novels from the SFWA from 2005, and the others from 2006?

A great list, though - I've read 4 of the 6 and like them all immensely.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]ccfinlay
2007-02-24 11:18 pm UTC (link)
That's a great question -- I wondered how long it would take someone to ask.

The Norton follows the arcane rules of the Nebula, which have a rolling eligibility period for twelve months following first publication. Something published in March 2006, for example, has until March 2007 to collect enough recommendations to qualify for the next awards ballot. The awards period ends officially on Dec. 31 each year, so this was established to give material published late in the year, say in November or December, a fair footing with material published earlier in the year.

The result of the rule, however, has been that most material doesn't qualify until the end of its eligibility period, which bumps it back to the following year. The first three books on the ballot -- the one by Larbeleister and the two by her Westerfeld -- were published in, I think, March, September, and October of 2005. By the time they qualified for the ballot with the recommendation process, the 2006 ballot was already set, so they were bumped back to the ballot issued in early 2007.

As a jury, we can only consider books published during the year in which we serve, so all the books we added were from 2006.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the rolling eligibility process precisely because of problems like this. I would love to see Nebula (and Norton) reform that did away with this and gave awards to material from the immediately preceding year. This is a subject of much debate but little action within SFWA and I'm not sure we'll see changes any time soon.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]cassiphone
2007-02-24 11:24 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for clearing that up! It certainly seems odd that the jury and the SFWA have different periods of eligibility.

It was particularly noticeable for me because Larbalestier and Westerfeld both had books out in 2006 which were not only eligible for awards but were sequels to all the books shortlisted here!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]ccfinlay
2007-02-25 06:54 pm UTC (link)
Yes, and I know that I (and other jury members) liked some of those books and recced them for the Norton independently of the jury.

While an all-Larbalestier/Westerfeld ballot would have been cool for them, I'm not sure that it would have been the best thing for the award.

I think the Nebula process needs reform for just this reason. The award given in 2007 should be for fiction published in 2006, period. If the old way wasn't fair, find a different way to make it fair that keeps the years together.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]sallytuppence
2007-02-25 11:18 pm UTC (link)
I think the Nebula process needs reform for just this reason. The award given in 2007 should be for fiction published in 2006, period. If the old way wasn't fair, find a different way to make it fair that keeps the years together.

Yes. I hope Paul can get some traction on this...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]justinelavaworm
2007-02-26 06:21 am UTC (link)
While an all-Larbalestier/Westerfeld ballot would have been cool for them, I'm not sure that it would have been the best thing for the award.

It's an honour to be nominated, but if we were the only folks on the ballot in a year that's as strong as this one has been, then we would have been embarrassed. Deeply embarrassed.

I've read two of the books you added and adored them both and the Pfeffer is on my list cause everyone's been raving about it. I'd LOVE to know what was on the jury's twenty book shortlist. The new Diana Wynne Jones per chance?

Did you make a distinction between middle grade and young adult? (That would have ruled the Wynne Jones out of contention I suppose.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]magicnoire
2007-02-24 11:53 pm UTC (link)
Life As We Knew It is the bomb-diggity. I'm glad it made the ballot. (I haven't read the others, so I can't comment on those. *heads off to Amazon to look them up*)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]buymeaclue
2007-02-25 02:57 pm UTC (link)
I can't vouch for Devilish, yet, but the MWT books were really, really good. I thought the first two (the second in particular) were stronger than this one, but still. Really, really good.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]ccfinlay
2007-02-25 07:03 pm UTC (link)
If you're eligible to vote, I'm glad we picked out some good books for you. Also, you might want to go and rec any you think we missed -- they could always end up on next year's ballot because of the rolling eligibility thing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ccfinlay
2007-02-25 07:02 pm UTC (link)
I saw your comments over on [info]raecarson's blog -- I think it's that kind of response that makes folks on the jury glad we put in all the time we did.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]magicnoire
2007-02-25 07:49 pm UTC (link)
I'm nothing if not overenthusiastic about the books I like.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]_starlady_
2007-02-25 02:01 pm UTC (link)
Thanks, Charles. Great job! I've promised myself that I'd read all the candidates like I did last year. I just got the Westerfeld books and Justine's, but now I have a few more to pick up and I LOVE IT!

Of course, having a 12-year-old who loved to read genre books helps a lot. My son just finished OSC's Ender's Game and is on Ender's Shadow now. He made fun of Peeps--okay, that was not meant for a kid like him. "They took all the cool stuff about vampires and did away with it!"

Quoted from the back cover, "The main things to remember is there's no magic involved. No flying. No transforming into bats or rats either. We're talking about a disease." "We prefer the term Parasite Positive or PEEPS for short."

:)

Diane

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]buymeaclue
2007-02-25 02:58 pm UTC (link)
>"They took all the cool stuff about vampires and did away with it!"

Heh! I totally agree.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]ccfinlay
2007-02-25 07:05 pm UTC (link)
If you haven't read THE LAST DAYS yet, you might like it. I think he adds some pretty cool stuff back into his own mythology of vampirism.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]buymeaclue
2007-02-25 09:46 pm UTC (link)
Alas: http://buymeaclue.livejournal.com/296841.html

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]ccfinlay
2007-02-25 09:50 pm UTC (link)
Ah, well, I can see that reaction. But I was satisfied by the light-and-breezy and took the worms in the same vein. I don't know enough about music to say whether he got the characters right there, but I enjoyed it enough to rec it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ccfinlay
2007-02-25 06:56 pm UTC (link)
He might like THE LAST DAYS, which is another book in the Peeps world. It may be a disease, but holy cow is there a lot of cool stuff, especially if he sticks with it all the way to the big finish.

And thanks, we did the best we could. It was a great jury and the discussions were a lot of fun.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2007-02-27 04:15 am UTC (link)
I personally liked it better that there was no magic. It made it much more believable. I loved this book, and read The Last Days, (which was also good) but I was disappointed that they switched the main characters. While the previous protagonist was featured in this book, it was not from their point of view, which disappointed me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]blackholly
2007-02-25 04:17 pm UTC (link)
I am so happy with the jury additions. Oh, how I loved King of Attolia!!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]ccfinlay
2007-02-25 07:00 pm UTC (link)
That means a lot, Holly -- glad to hear it!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Andre Norton Award Nomination
(Anonymous)
2007-02-25 07:30 pm UTC (link)
I have no idea if it's appropriate for me to write here, but it's Sunday so my editor and agent aren't around to tell me not to.

I just want to say how thrilled I am that Life As We Knew It was nominated for the Andre Norton Award. I've been on Cloud Ten since I found out (Cloud Nine got wiped out by the meteor).

The response to LAWKI has been so much more amazing than anything I ever could have imagined, but of all the wonderful things that have happened with the book, this nomination is top of the list.

My thanks to everyone who has made this possible. I am very very grateful- Sue Pfeffer

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Andre Norton Award Nomination
[info]ccfinlay
2007-02-25 08:13 pm UTC (link)
Your editor and agent let you out on Sunday unattended?! I think that violates some kind of professional code.

I sent a note to all the other Norton jury members to let them know about your comment here. And I think you made this possible by writing a book that grabs so many readers.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Andre Norton Award Nomination
[info]sallytuppence
2007-02-25 11:21 pm UTC (link)
Congratulations, Sue. Your book is absolutely wonderful.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Andre Norton Award Nomination
[info]oracne
2007-02-26 01:24 pm UTC (link)
Congratulations! It's a great book.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Devilish
(Anonymous)
2007-02-25 11:20 pm UTC (link)
I'm not sure if this is right, either, but thank you so much! Holly and Cecil were kind enough to tell me this news. I'm thrilled to be on the same list as these other books, no matter what the outcome. This is certainly enough of a thrill for me!

-Maureen Johnson

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Devilish
[info]ccfinlay
2007-02-25 11:40 pm UTC (link)
Hi, Maureen. It was a great read, a book I likely wouldn't have seen if it hadn't shown up from your publisher for the award, and one that I now would regret having missed.

Thanks for writing the book and thanks for stopping by.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Andre Norton Award
(Anonymous)
2007-02-26 03:11 pm UTC (link)
Sharyn November already relayed my response on sallytuppence. I am over the moon. I couldn't feel more honored than to be a finalist for an award with Andre Norton's name on it.

~Megan Whalen Turner

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…