Literary Awards and Canadian Authors

I started this to post about this year's Commonwealth Book Prize, but I think the thread could be open to any award talk that involves Canadian writers. Here is an article about which Canadians are nominated this year:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/books/story/2011/02/11/commonwealth-region-shortlist...

The Canadians on the list include:

Best book finalists for the Caribbean and Canada are:

* The Sky is Falling by Caroline Adderson.
* Room by Emma Donoghue.
* The Master of Happy Endings by Jack Hodgins.
* In The Fabled East by Adam Lewis Schroeder.
* The Death of Donna Whalen by Michael Winter.
* Mr. Shakespeare's Bastard by Richard B. Wright.

Best first book finalists for the Caribbean and Canada are:

* Bird Eat Bird by Katrina Best. (no touchstone available)
* Doing Dangerously Well by Carole Enahoro.
* Mennonites Don't Dance by Darcie Friesen Hopsack. (touchstone not working)
* Light Lifting by Alexander MacLeod.
* The Cake is for the Party by Sarah Selecky.
* Ilustrado by Miguel Syjuco.

I am surprised that Annabel is not on those lists!

I know! What's up with that?

Thanks for this! I am sad to say the only one I have actually read out of these is This Cake is for the Party which was fun. I don't even have any of the others buried in mount TBR to unbury. Has anybody here read any of the others?

3: Perhaps the jury found Annabel a rather simplistic novel that fails to challenge reader expectations.

That'd be my guess. Before awards season, a lot of people didn't like Annabel, found it half-developed.

Of these, I've read Selecky and MacLeod. Light Lifting is the better of the two, I think.

I haven't read Michael Winter's novel, but it looks to be one of the more interesting Canadian novels of recent years.

Room is on my pile, but I'm not champing at the bit to get at it; some people are put off by the "baby talk," but more importantly, people I trust have said it's a pretty straightforward, simple book.

Illustrado has been considered one of the year's overlooked books.

3: Perhaps the jury found Annabel a rather simplistic novel that fails to challenge reader expectations.

That'd be my guess. Before awards season, a lot of people didn't like Annabel, found it half-developed.

That's so interesting. I read a lot of reviews on Annabel and didn't pick up on that. It certainly wasn't a perfect book, but it was so much better than a lot of other prize winners, in my opinion. Reading both the critical and reader reviews, I didn't see reference to the novel being "simplistic" or failing to "challenge reader expectations." I'd really like to see some of those . . . can you provide the links? I love collecting all sorts of opinions of novels. Thanks.

Eye Weekly had a fiction round table going in the summer. None of the panelists liked Annabel much when it had its turn.

The review in Quill & Quire, as I recall, was also fairly tepid and criticized a biologically implausible subplot.

I guess it's in the eye of the reader, but I didn't find the Quill and Quire review tepid or particularly critical. I thought it was quite balanced, actually. For example, they say "Despite a few plot and pacing stumbles, Annabel is a dramatic, thematically rich novel," and "the novel is thematically sophisticated, particularly in its exploration of travel and aging as ways of escaping social strictures." (see http://www.quillandquire.com/reviews/review.cfm?review_id=6959).

I thought their review of February was much harsher . . . and that novel was nominated for the Booker.

The New Yorker's "Briefly Noted" review, just out, is rather neutral. Praises the writing and the "crystalline landscape," but chides the conventional notions of gender.

It was my feeling that the Globe and Mail gave Annabel a very good review - here - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/books/review-annabel-by-kathleen-winter...

Personally, I very much enjoyed Annabel and thought well of it.

double post - sorry!

but chides the conventional notions of gender.

Uh, did they miss the point? Hello, the novel explores the issues of an intersex person living in Labrador. Do you have a link to the article so I can read it in context?

Their point was that it does so using entirely conventional notions of gender, which is true and an entirely valid criticism of Annabel. Men hunt, women rule the home, hunting dogs are for boys, girls sing, and -- most damning -- if your son is interested in synchronized swimming, it's probably because he's not a normal boy. Boys are slugs and snails and puppy dog tails, girls are sugar and spice and everything nice. Winter is, of course, entirely free to choose whatever gender tokens she wants to make the story work, but they're open to criticism.

The review is behind a paywall, but it's brief anyway. It's little more than a plot synopsis capped with the points in post 9 above.

You got all of that out of a brief plot synopsis, huh. Hmm, when I studied gender performance at uni it was a little too complex to fit into a paragraph or two. I have internet access to the New Yorker, so if I have some spare time this week, perhaps I'll look it up.

I just read the brief review of Annabel at the New Yorker -and I have to say - all it said was that Winter used conventional notions of gender to make her point. I did not take that as a criticism - merely as an observation. Other than that , I thought the review was positive. . I did not see anything about sychronized swimming, boys are slugs and snails etc in the review. The fact that Winter draws so called conventional notions of gender would be a point of arguement for me, as that is not what I read into the book.I found it to be much more complex.

At any rate, as the story took place in 1968 in a very rural part of Canada, where, as the brief article in the New Yorker points out -" Nature governs Life "- one would expect convential notions about gender to be the norm in the time and place.

The synchro swimming, etc, is my explanation of the complaint that Winter's treatment of gender is entirely conventional. There is a difference between conventional treatment of gender in the novel's setting, and conventional treatment of gender by the author. I made the same complaint in an article in Quill & Quire, if you're looking for critical reviews of Annabel. You might also check Eye Weekly for a group of people who didn't like it much.

Some people here obviously feel there is no valid criticism of Annabel, that it is an objectively perfect novel, and that it should be shortlisted for every award in the world. All I can say is that many people disagree, and you should hardly be surprised that the occasional jury passes it over. I didn't feel Annabel is a bad novel, but I do believe that it panders to its audience, and I'm surprised that it received the awards attention it did.

If you'd like to argue that Winter's treatment of gender is not conventional, go right ahead. But I'm not sure how you think you can do it.

16: What I see here is a discussion of the strong/weak points of Annabel and a discussion of whether or not they are strong/weak points. I don't see how reading primary sources and having a discussion makes a person 'unreasonable' or that a person believes that the book is perfect.

Tone can be hard to interpret on the internet. What I saw when I was reading this thread was a very fun in depth discussion. The type of discussion I wish I saw a lot more of on LT (One of the reasons I joined LT for actually).

I wish we could continue with it. Just my 2 cents.

17: What puzzles me is that people are shocked that Annabel was not shortlisted for an award. My point is simply that people should not be shocked. People should not be shocked, in fact, that any particular book misses a shortlist.

Shortlists and awards have very little to do with merit. They measure the tastes and horse-trading abilities of jury members. And jury members often have agendas of their own.

Everyone expected the GG to go to a western writer this year, for example. Annabel didn't have a chance, because Aritha van Herk was on the jury, and she is known for a pronounced western regionalist agenda. The surprise was that it was Diane Warren and not Sandra Birdsell as many expected.

Similarly, I didn't expect Annabel to win the WT award. Reason: both Micheal and Kathleen Winter were on the shortlist, and both happen to be close friends (and writing group partners, I understand) of Lisa Moore, who was on the jury. It would not have been inconceivable for either book to win an award, but it is not difficult to imagine the jury's thinking on that one. Nobody, least of all Moore, would want to be associated with that kind of apparent conflict of interest.

As for the Giller, that jury inexplicably passed over Annabel and three other books for The Sentimentalists, which is arguably the worst book of the five.

So my point is that you can't reasonably expect every jury to love Annabel. I have run into several objections to it. Again, Eye Weekly did a week-long (five-person?) round table discussion in the summer, and they didn't like it much.

All you need is one person on a jury who strongly objects to a book, and it won't make it onto the shortlist. In the case of Annabel, I'd suggest that the reason it was so widely shortlisted is that it addresses a "taboo" subject but does so in such an unchallenging way that very few jurors would say "absolutely not" to shortlisting it.

If you'd like to argue that Winter's treatment of gender is not conventional, go right ahead. But I'm not sure how you think you can do it.

Ah, . . . where did anyone say that Winter's treatment of gender isn't conventional? I agree with what Deb says in post 15, and I think that Winter used conventional notions of gender purposefully. Sure, she could have done something different, but then it would have been an entirely different novel.

This argument reminds me of a thread somewhere here on LT where someone argues that Jane Austen was just another conventional writer because she didn't have her characters marry someone from another race (sorry, I've looked for the thread but there are too many Austen threads for me to look through). In both cases it seems to be missing the point. However, if I read a well-reasoned and supported piece on why conventional ideas of gender weakened Annabel, and how the novel would have been stronger had Winter been more experimental in her approach, I'd be very interested indeed.

Ajsomerset, you seem to be reading a lot into both the published reviews and the posts here that I'm not seeing.

Some people here obviously feel there is no valid criticism of Annabel . . .

Well, I try to be a careful reader, and I haven’t picked up on anyone saying that at all. In post 5 you stated that “a lot of people didn’t like Annabel, found it half-developed.” I responded that I’d read a lot of reviews and hadn’t seen that, so asked you for some references so I could explore further. (By the way, when you are trying to make a point, especially such a strong one, it’s both polite and helpful to include links to the article you are referring to. Sure, we can all google it, but it gives your case credibility if you can link to your source). I looked up the Quill and Quire review and all I said that I didn’t think the review supported your statement.

that it is an objectively perfect novel, . . .

Where does anyone say that? Personally, I don’t think an "objectively perfect novel" exists, but that’s beside the point. Nobody here has said it’s perfect. For myself, I rated it highly because I found it entertaining, not because I thought it was perfect.

and that it should be shortlisted for every award in the world.

Okay, now you’re pulling our legs, because I’m pretty sure that didn’t cross anyone’s mind.

All I can say is that many people disagree

This has been my point all along. You have said it, but haven’t shown that “many people disagree.” That’s what I asked for back in post 6, and I was trying to draw that out in my subsequent posts.

From reading this thread, you seem to have a real hate-on for Annabel, although, curiously, your review of the book is complimentary. Personally, I found the book to be a very enjoyable read. And that’s about it. If other people hate it, I honestly don’t care. However, I am interested in why they hate it. Readers' different opinions are what makes book discussions interesting.

Later this spring I am participating in a panel discussion of Annabel, and I could add to the conversation with some valid, fleshed-out critical points. Bold black and white statements that are unsupported don’t add to the conversation, unfortunately. I do have some criticisms of my own, but I’d like to hear more. It would be a pretty boring conversation if all we did was fawn over the book.

. . .and you should hardly be surprised that the occasional jury passes it over . . . and What puzzles me is that people are shocked that Annabel was not shortlisted for an award. My point is simply that people should not be shocked. People should not be shocked, in fact, that any particular book misses a shortlist.

Well, you can relax. If you’re talking about this thread, I don’t think anyone had such violent feelings as conveyed in the word “shock.” In post 2, Torontoc says she was “surprised,” which is a significantly milder word. I agreed, more in conversation than anything. I can’t speak for her, but I was thinking about how the novel had received so much critical acclaim—more than the books listed for the Commonwealth awards. “Surprised” is probably even too strong a word. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say “interested.” A far way from “shocked.” I don’t think anyone is walking around in a daze believing that Winters was robbed of some rightful praise.

Thank you for your “insider scoop” on the award juries, but please rest assured that no one here is twisted over Annabel’s exclusion from this or any other award. And on that note, I think I’ve exhausted this topic for myself.

OK.

I responded that I’d read a lot of reviews and hadn’t seen that, so asked you for some references so I could explore further. (By the way, when you are trying to make a point, especially such a strong one, it’s both polite and helpful to include links to the article you are referring to.

I, too, read a lot of reviews, and I don't bookmark them for future reference. Why should I spend 15 minutes hunting down old reviews, just to participate in the discussion? I'm not writing an academic paper here, and I don't have to cite my sources.

I would call the Quill review tepid, referring to plot and pacing stumbles, authorial intrusion, etc. It devotes two whole paragraphs to complaints.

I also pointed to Eye Weekly. Looking at part of that discussion (it ran for several days) again, it isn't as negative as I remember. Still, I have the strong impression that Bronwyn Kienapple complained that the book never really develops into anything. Part of that discussion is here:
http://www.eyeweekly.com/arts/popfiction/article/98809

The National Post, in a generally positive review, also included some sharpish complaints.

The question is not whether any of these reviewers thought it was a bad book, but whether they'd have put it up for an award. Quill & Quire didn't give it a starred review, and none of the participants in the Eye Weekly discussion named it their favorite of the books they'd discussed that year. I don't think the Quill review, the Post review, or the Eye Weekly discussion (which I haven't re-read to find the strongest complaints) read anything like an awards citation.

The fact of the matter, as can be demonstrated by reference to the reviews, is that prior to awards season Annabel did not receive critical "acclaim." Reviews overall were moderately good, praising good writing but making various complaints at the same time. When people talk about critical acclaim for Annabel, they're guilty of mistaking awards citations for criticism.

Stepping away from reviews, I know a number of people who read it before awards season and strongly disliked Annabel. I talk to a lot of people about books, and almost without exception, people I discussed this book with last fall actually liked it less than I did. I can't cite those people for you, obviously.

You have noted that my review of Annabel was generally kind. Without getting into it too deeply, I set aside my reservations and wrote about what I found good in the book. I felt I should studiously avoid writing an "owl review" ("this book is about owls, and I do not like owls") and so should leave out my views on Winter's endorsement of conventional gender stereotypes and the book's gender bias. But based on comments Winter made since, I now feel I should have included those complaints.

I don't have a hate-on for Annabel; I simply feel it is a rather overrated. It's a mid-grade novel, to me, neither brilliant nor particularly bad. If I seem to be bashing it, that's because I'm positioned as its lone critic in this thread. If I seem to be bashing you, I'm sorry. I could equally complain that some of your responses are sarcastic, although of course you may not have intended them that way.

If you want to discuss Annabel, rather than who said what in which post about whom, let's have at it and discuss Annabel. I'm all for that.

On to the next award . . . the Orange Prize longlist was announced yesterday: http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/books/story/2011/03/16/orange-prize-long-list.html?r...

The two Canadians on the list are Kathleen Winter for Annabel and Emma Donoghue for Room.

Thanks, Nickelini. I thought Room was brilliant; devoured it in a couple of sittings. Annabel I can't wait to read; I'm in queue at our public library for that one. Let's hope one or both of Donoghue and Winter make the shortlist.

I also have read Room, my first Donoghue and has encouraged me to read more of her books. Annabel is on my TBR pile after all the great discussion and comments here and elsewhere on LT. Will try to slot it in for Orange July reading.

As for the longlist, ironically, I just came home with books I had on hold at the library and just realized that The Memory of Love by Aminatta Forna was in the pile. Talk about a hefty novel! Now, if only I can find time to read it before it is due back ......

I think I mentioned earlier that I am participating in a panel discussion on Annabel. I just heard from one of the participants, and he really didn't like it at all. He is a doctor, and he says he found many medical inaccuracies. This should prove to be an interesting discussion! I will post here with the link once the conversation is published.

If anyone has any questions about the book that they'd like me to ask the doctor, please post them here. I can't promise they'll make the final cut, but I will try my best. I know the story definitely raised some questions from me.

Shane Neilson, who is a doctor when he's not a poet, had similar complaints about medical inaccuracies in Annabel. The Quill & Quire review also raised that issue.

The question is, to what extent is accuracy necessary in fiction? Nobody questions, for example, whether Billy Pilgrim could actually become unstuck in time. I don't think Winter concerned herself with being entirely accurate, yet when a novel doesn't declare itself as a departure from reality, people seem to be less willing to accept what they see as "mistakes" or "errors."

Is this fair? Should we view Wayne's medical emergency as more symbolic than anything else, and therefore accept it?

Good questions with no easy answers!

Here is the panel discussion on Annabel:

http://www.belletrista.com/2011/Issue11%20/features_7.php