oxfordhacker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
oxfordhacker) wrote2009-03-02 08:38 pm
oxfordhacker) wrote2009-03-02 08:38 pm
The OUSFG Award 2008/9 Short List
Back in my student days, I was a member of (indeed, President of) OUSFG, the Oxford University Speculative Fiction Group, a gathering of aficionados of fanciful media of all sorts. I very rarely feel any form of attachment to abstract entities - be they schools, political parties, companies or countries - nevertheless OUSFG earned that loyalty while I was a student and, once earned, my fealty is indefatigable. Now that I am elderly I rarely attend meetings lest I drive off the current generation of students; I fear my haggard features and tales of the ancient past would 'harsh' the 'vibe' as these youngsters would no doubt have it. I therefore find it all the more flattering when I'm ask to run the occasional meeting, and thus both pride and honour demand that I accept.
This term, my task was to help compile a short-list for the OUSFG Award. The aim of this award is to pick the best paperback speculative fiction book published in the previous year. The intent is to give OUSFG members a forum for recommending new fiction to each other, debating its merits, and sharing reading experiences. In this sense, it is much like any other book award and, as with any book award, the winning author reaps the benefits in terms of sales: they are awarded with a copy of the winning book signed by the OUSFG committee.
Our goal was to whittle the long list (loosely, every book eligible, minus spinoffery and other dross) down to a short list of five or six, with the hope that everyone would do their best to develop something approaching an informed opinion on these by next term, when we intend to have a proper discussion followed by a needlessly complicated vote to determine the winner. No-one could reasonably be expected to have read all 70-something of the long list, though, so for this meeting we had to make our picks using other methods: personal experience, hearsay and/or knee-jerk prejudice. As I thought this through before the meeting, it occurred to me that internet acquaintances have already perfected the ideal voting method for making such snap decisions: the GOOD/BAD poll. So, with a bit of tweaking, I produced one in Excel, printed it out onto an A3 sheet and passed it around for completion at the end of the meeting.
Those who bothered to turn up have thus already made their decision, and it's final, but I thought it would be interesting to see what the result would have been if instead made by those who've bothered to read this far and can furthermore be bothered to skim through a huge-ass poll making arbitrary judgements on a shed-load of books. Therefore without further ado (except a reminder that you can skip books on which you can muster no opinion, which is what we did on the night) I present:
[Poll #1358514]
This term, my task was to help compile a short-list for the OUSFG Award. The aim of this award is to pick the best paperback speculative fiction book published in the previous year. The intent is to give OUSFG members a forum for recommending new fiction to each other, debating its merits, and sharing reading experiences. In this sense, it is much like any other book award and, as with any book award, the winning author reaps the benefits in terms of sales: they are awarded with a copy of the winning book signed by the OUSFG committee.
Our goal was to whittle the long list (loosely, every book eligible, minus spinoffery and other dross) down to a short list of five or six, with the hope that everyone would do their best to develop something approaching an informed opinion on these by next term, when we intend to have a proper discussion followed by a needlessly complicated vote to determine the winner. No-one could reasonably be expected to have read all 70-something of the long list, though, so for this meeting we had to make our picks using other methods: personal experience, hearsay and/or knee-jerk prejudice. As I thought this through before the meeting, it occurred to me that internet acquaintances have already perfected the ideal voting method for making such snap decisions: the GOOD/BAD poll. So, with a bit of tweaking, I produced one in Excel, printed it out onto an A3 sheet and passed it around for completion at the end of the meeting.
Those who bothered to turn up have thus already made their decision, and it's final, but I thought it would be interesting to see what the result would have been if instead made by those who've bothered to read this far and can furthermore be bothered to skim through a huge-ass poll making arbitrary judgements on a shed-load of books. Therefore without further ado (except a reminder that you can skip books on which you can muster no opinion, which is what we did on the night) I present:
[Poll #1358514]
no subject
no subject
Obviously it would be possible to click-thru
Re: Obviously it would be possible to click-thru
no subject
no subject