|
Criteria for Judging
I had no formal instructions as to what criteria
to apply to this task, so I followed my own lights. I should explain that I
am a narrativist above all things. I can, and do,
excuse quite obvious stylistic shortcomings if it appears to me that a story
is operating. For it to operate, it must involve characters I care about and
believe in, performing possible (albeit difficult) action, in a struggle
against interesting problems, to some effect. In achieving this effect, the
characters must use credible means that were part of the setting from the
first. Lacking these narrative elements, I become resistant and far more
critical. For that reason there are
some stylish and interesting pieces that do not appear on the award list, and
conversely there are others with obvious flaws that do. I make no apology for
this.
|
|
Open Section
Fifty-five entries in this section were read,
brief notes taken and a short list of seven selected. These stories were then
read again more critically, and further notes were taken. From these, after
some internal debate, a winner and runner-up were decided, and a commendation
list compiled.
To check my own perceptions, I asked my wife Sally Beasley to read the short
listed stories and comment. She selects and edits for ASIM,
and has read on the order of eight hundred SFF
submissions in the last three years for this magazine alone. We found that we
agreed on the ranking. The winner was clear, and the choice for second lay
between the same two stories. I have, of course, followed my own judgment as
to which one I selected.
Winner: “The Healing”
Runner-up: “The Chance”
Highly commended: “Surrogate”
Commended:
“Uptoun Welles”
“Deathwatch”
“Dog Luck”
“Trillion Dollar Baby”.
|
|
Comments
In my opinion, the winner would meet professional
standards, with editing to correct some overwriting and to provide some
narrative elements. However, the problems are not structural, the story
displays very fine characterisation and a powerful realisation of setting, with a working narrative, and the
conundrum it poses is a profound one. I would encourage the writer to cut
unnecessary description and to prefigure an actual mechanism for the
operation of the plot, canvassing the necessity for sacrifice. Lacking that
understanding by the protagonist (and the reader), the protagonist’s actions
become less sympathetic, because they require far less courage, while the
resolution becomes merely arbitrary. But this is only a matter of some
rewriting.
Although the runner-up and the other stories on the shortlist have definite
merits, unlike the winner they have structural problems that cannot be
overcome by editing or a minor rewrite.
“The Chance” handles action and
character very well, with strong narrative elements, including a working
denouement, but the setting is not internally consistent. In this
post-apocalyptic near-anarchy, metal would necessarily be scavenged and a set
of simple machine tools and a working forge would be much-sought-after
treasure trove. Someone would have found them - it’s not as though
they’re hidden. For that matter, the protagonist and her brother have been
actively trying to repair the railway equipment, for which they needed scrap.
It’s impossible to believe that nobody has ever investigated a nearby shed
large enough to contain a steam locomotive and a workshop, and it ruptures
suspension of disbelief when this is demanded of the reader.
”Surrogate” is powerful and
dramatic, but it consists entirely of the exposition of the frightful
situation into which the protagonist has been put - and has put herself - with the
resolution consisting only of her decision to commit suicide to escape it.
But a catastrophic ending requires a hero of tragic stature, and the
protagonist does not achieve this, being merely acted on, rather than acting.
Her travails, dreadful as they are, well- realised
as they are, are therefore inconsequential.
“Uptoun Welles” is sharp and witty, with a satirical bite and
some genuinely black-funny moments. Dialogue is handled well, and the
argument of the plot is very interesting, and asks the classic SF question,
what happens if this goes on?”. But the denouement is so weak as to hardly
exist. The story would be a good one, if it had a completely different
ending.
“Deathwatch” has an interesting
protagonist with interesting problems. It is somewhat purple in parts and
rather overweight, but the interaction between the protagonist and the
computer is well done, with a genuine ability to convey a quality of alienness that is very valuable in this genre. But again,
it doesn’t have a resolution, and it cries out for one. The equivocal ending
the writer supplies, wherein none of the issues of the narrative are
addressed, is not satisfactory.
”Dog Luck” has the fine attributes
of sharp observation, some excellently managed prose and a well-realised apocalyptic urban setting. What it doesn’t have
is a plot. A post-human character - a mutated dog - finds by pure chance
a valuable relic of humanity. He sells it for a high price, blows it all on
the equivalent of sex, drugs and rock’n’roll, and
wakes up the following morning to find that nothing has changed. There is no
development, conflict or resolution. It’s stylish, but style alone is not
enough.
”Trillion Dollar Baby” has
well-drawn, sympathetic characters and an interesting setting but a contrived
central conflict. It relies on the reader suspending disbelief in an unlikely
idea: that a bearded woman is incredibly fascinating, to the point where her
beard constitutes a passport to wealth. This, I think, overtaxes the reader’s
goodwill. Again, the resolution is weak, involving a means that was not
canvassed - nor even hinted at - earlier.
Generally, nearly all entrants need to be far more concerned with plotting
and narrative development, rather than with exposition of an idea or setting
or character. Most pieces were simply static character portraits or
descriptions of setting, though some read like excerpts from novels, and
others like lectures. There was a near-universal difficulty in finding a
satisfying resolution. The shortlist contains most of the entries with
operating narratives.
Stylistically, many of the pieces were written at the equivalent of an
unvarying scream. Toning down so that emphasis can be used for effect would
improve matters considerably for most of the entrants.
In sum, the task before the writer of narrative fiction is not to find yet
more novel and outré descriptive techniques, nor even to use words in
interesting and original ways. It is to create narrative.
|
|
Shire of Mundaring
National Young Writers Award
Thirteen entries were read in this section, with
one disqualified on grounds of insufficient word count. In this section, the
winner was even clearer, but again the choice for runner-up was difficult.
The decision I made reflects two considerations: one, the requirement for
narrative mentioned above; and two, that the ages of the writers concerned
should be taken into account, all other things being equal.
Winner: “The Succubus”
Runner-up: “The Day of Reckoning”
Commended: “Unfolding Plots and
Storylines
|
|
Comments
I consider the winner of this section to be the
best story I read on either list. It does need cutting, but the idea is a
very good one, and it is well-handled, with a real sense of narrative and an
ability to build sympathy -
even tragic stature - and the resolution is
fully satisfying. Pacing is the only real problem, and that could be fixed. I
congratulate the writer, whose further career I shall follow with interest.
The runner-up needs a lot of work with a good editor, but the bones of a good
story are here, and the writer should be encouraged to develop it, especially
to exploit the pathos of the character and to emphasise
his inability to think evil of humanity, despite the evidence. (I noticed
that two of the entries, from writers of the same age, used precisely the
same idea in the same general way - a protagonist to whom it comes as a
revelation that he is a robot - and I wonder if there is a teacher
somewhere who has inspired this. If so, my congratulations.)
The commendation is given for a luminous and engaging prose style, and sheer
joyous invention. This story is of the New Weird subgenre, with the
supernatural simply blended in as part of the style, not as a single
estrangement, and yet placed in a society that is recognizably our own. The
difficulty here is the resolution, as is often the case. It simply doesn’t
happen.
In this section I noticed a greater tendency to lecture than in the Open
section. Apart from that, although these entries showed, as one would expect,
less advanced and developed language skills, there was a somewhat stronger
commitment to narrative than the average for the Open section. I applaud
this.
Dave Luckett
|
