Guess it wasn't a consensus opinion after all

So a few little birdies have alerted me to a rather interesting little invective sent over the DorothyL transom by a judge on the Edgar Award committee for Best Paperback Original. In the interests of harmony (and to protect the guilty) I'm redacting the judge's name, but the vitriol and outrage should speak for itself.  The argument isn't new, and I'm sure it'll be one that pops up over and over again, but I do have to question why a judge would so publicly question the merits of a winner -- although I suppose it does demonstrate that someone can hate a book so much and their opinion doesn't end up counting in the end.

Oh yeah, be warned: lotsa spoilers for the book in question as well. Read the full thing after the jump.

Date:    Tue, 3 May 2005 13:25:41 -0500
From:    [Redacted] 
Subject: A Dissenting Edgar Vote

I was on the Edgar's committee for 2004's best paperback original. When my fellow committee members voted for THE CONFESSION to get the prize, I was so appalled by their decision that I lost sleep over it for the next several weeks. The cover art depicted a beautiful woman with her eyes wide and mouth agape in terror is she is about to be strangled with a blue necktie. And that's what the novel is about. The protagonist is a remorseless sociopath who enjoys raping and strangling women, which he does throughout the book and always gets away with it. At the end, he is smirkingly eyeing his next victim.

And that's the story. No mystery is solved here.  No criminal is brought to justice. After the votes were added up and announced among the committee, on January 10th, I wrote my concerns to the other members:

"What constricts my stomach is the concept that fantasies about raping and strangling women are what get rewarded in our field." The other commitee members said they understood my feelings, but believed *The Confession* to be so very well-written that it deserved the Edgar in any case. Yes, the word-smithing was very good.  But at least 12 other PBOs we received were written as well, plus had *real* plots with a mystery, twists and turns, a denouement and closure.  Not just "I killed her, then I killed her, then I killed her, then I killed her..."

Other books had fascinating themes like tracing the geneology of native Americans to establish tribal rights. (JACKPOT BLOOD), ancient Japanese puppetryin modern- day Osaka. (KINKI LULLABY) and the science of arson investigation (WEEPING.) The theme of THE CONFESSION is simply that there's no downside to slaughtering females if you're clever about it.

One member believed it took "courage" for the author to write about "a character who would not be sympathetic". I replied that in a world where men kill their wives and girlfriends every day, and countless others would like to, I wouldn't call writing about someone who gets away with it to be an act of "courage", but rather pandering to the basest instincts. I really believe that if the victims in this book had been black people instead of women, or had been Puerto Ricans, or Jews, or even *alley  cats* then the author's sadistic fantasies would not have been rewarded with an Edgar.  But beautiful women are acceptable targets of atrocities.

Comments

[Graham]

Plenty spoilers here as well.

No mystery? Up until the end of THE CONFESSION, it's never clear that the narrator is a killer. Not a surprise, since this man clearly denies he's the killer, even to himself. No development? Throughout the first half, the book is more about the narrator's deteriorating relationships than anything else.

Unlike most first-person books, which take a just-the-facts approach, THE CONFESSION never lets you forget that you're seeing everything through the narrator's eyes - essentially seeing only what he wants you to see (though sometimes he slips up).

And the idea of judging a book by the uplifting value of the content is pretty shallow. Otherwise ABC's After-School specials, always drearily boring, would be sweeping awards every year.

[David J. Montgomery]

This has sparked quite a discussion on DL, with Jan Burke and I, among others, weighing in.

What's given me the willies is how many people are writing in to praise the dissenting Edgar judge for her courage, to condemn Stansberry's book (without reading it), and to express their horror that books like this are written at all.

So far the most stomach-turning response has been:

"For the first time in my life, I thought, there ARE some books that should simply be BANNED and BURNED. So I took a book of matches to the thing myself. And I'm not alone in thinking this garbage should be banned."

And this is on a list of readers and writers! Scary stuff.

[PK the Bookeemonster]

I've been following it on DL as well. I don't think the judge who posted the dissent had courage, I think she had an agenda, maybe after the fact. What Jan wrote in response - the role of an Edgar judge -- was on target. Whether we agree with the choice isn't the point (does anyone agree with the Academy Awards anymore?), if the judges made decisions in good faith I don't want to hear about the process. Besides, its a done deal, who cares if she didn't agree now? What does she hope to gain?

[David Terrenoire]

I haven't read the book, and I don't need to. I'm appalled that anyone who loves books is willing to burn any novel, even the DaVinci Code.

I've judged advertising award shows and if I were the only person on the panel who didn't like an ad, I figured it was just me and moved on. It's a real jump to go from being a lone dissenting voice to the assumption that you're the only one in the room with any taste or sensibility.

[Ray]

What bothers me most about this is the phrase "the author's sadistic fantasies". Never having met DS, I can't testify to his fantasies, sadistic or otherwise, but this blurring of author and character, coupled with the idea that writing unsympathetic characters appeals to the basest instincts is the kind of cottonminded hokum that I thought had been dispelled sometime in the fifties (possibly along with the word "hokum"). And it makes me question not the morality or value of the author, but what qualifies this person to judge a crime fiction award in the first place.

Then again, I'm probably the kind of writer this judge would despise. Mainly because I'm obviously a murderous, cowardly drunk.

[John]

I guess the dissenter wouldn't like much of Jim Thompson's work either. I haven't read THE CONFESSION yet, but it appears that Stansberry wrote the book in order to take an unblinking look at evil. How can one do that and not expect to see ugliness? To me, that makes for an intersting read. To each his own, I guess.

[Ingrid]

Given the venue, this is very funny.

[John Rickards]

I'm inclined to agree with Ray.

And I'm mildly offended by the judge's use of the phrase "*real* plots" as if the only worthy stories are ones which have vast wider themes or in which the bad guy gets his comeuppance, and everything else is just shite.

Personally, I like the idea of a book where the writer didn't feel required to have some kind of happy ending. I'm rather intrigued by this one as a result.

But then I'm a fan of other immoral garbage like 'American Psycho' and 'Fight Club', so I'm bound to say that.

[Keith]

I guess THE AX sucked, too.

[Lee Goldberg]

The author who wrote that post was Tony Fennelly...and she was wrong to write it (what exactly at you protecting Sarah? Tony had no problem putting her name on her comments, why do you?)

This is the second year in a row that an Edgar judge has come forward and discussed the deliberations of the committee in public. When I read that post, I was enraged but held off saying anything until I could cool down.

Jan Burke was absolutely right when she wrote "the judging process is confidential, should never be discussed outside of the committee, and individual judges' opinions on works under consideration should not be made public." Tony didn't agree with the vote of the committee. Too bad. She shouldn't have agreed to be a judge if she wasn't willing to honor the confidentiality rules. Already her negative comments about the Edgars and Stansberry's books are being picked up here and by other Litblogs. I believe she's done the Edgars, the MWA, and Mr. Stansberry, a disservice.

I'm not debating the merits, or lack thereof, of Tony's opinion (I happen to think the book was terrific and well-deserved the Edgar). As you well know, I have no problem with authors not jumping on another author's bandwagon. But she could have voiced the same concerns about Stansberry's book without disclosing that she was a Judge on the committee or what the other judges had to say.

[Kevin Wignall]

I think this kind of brouhaha (another 50s word for Ray) is going to be increasingly common, partly because the moral landscape is more in flux than it has been for some time (incidentally, John, I think "amoral" rather than "immoral" is the more fitting term), partly because America is involved in a moral conflict with itself that's quite alien to those of us on this side of the pond. As Europe, which has no legally enshrined tradition of free speech, becomes more libetarian in regard to unpopular or unpalatable art, so America, which has free speech as a central pillar of its constitution, seems to be flirting with repression (and I fully accept in advance that this is by no means true of all Americans, but is certainly true of a powerful conservative rump). P.S. Is the book any good?

[Sarah]

Kevin -- well, I thought it was, at least that it stuck with me quite a while after I read it.

Lee -- the reason I redacted Fennelly's name was for two reasons: one, as you mentioned, the judging process is confidential and I was more interested in the opinion expressed than in who expressed it; and two, it seemed like adding fuel to the fire. Especially since this whole business seems to me a way for her to attract attention to herself.

Which sort of brings me to another question: why is it that whenever authors act out, engage in bad behavior or the like, they tend to be somewhere among the murky midlist (or out of print?) Is professionalism something you learn when you're successful, or are the truly successful the most professional?

[Dave Zeltserman]

From what I could tell from the DorothyL list, a person on the Edgar committee found the theme of this book offensive (first person killer getting away with murders, especially offensive to this woman since women were being murdered) and didn't want to be associated with the award going to this book, and a couple of others on the list chimed in - with one brilliant person suggesting that books like this be banned. Not a huge debate, and certainly not worth the discussion it has generated.

[Kevin Wignall]

Interesting question. I suspect it's more about desperate people being prone to desperate measures. But there is also a kind of unwritten rule that you don't openly criticize another author, something which I've only overcome in the last year - because it's silly, really. We can take the knocks from each other, and it's not really meant personally. I'm sure if this judge and DS were to share a bottle of bubbly, they'd agree on a lot of things.... okay, maybe taking it too far there.

[Guyot]

It's nice to know that one need not leave the mystery community to have others try and inflict their morality on you....

[Mary Root]

Read the DorothyL exchange(s) at lunch. Yes, people on a readers and writers list saying books they don't approve of should be banned and burned.

Made an interesting discovery when I looked up the author/judge's website. I would think that in the current climate, someone writing two series, one starring "gay, New Orleans aristocrat, Matt Sinclair" and the other "former topless dancer" Margo Fortier shouldn't be throwing the first stone. Aren't they trying to ban her books in Alabama?

[Charlie W]

This is all great for Dominic, of course. I bet he's sitting there punching the air, going "Yesss!" A little bit of controversy generates a lot of attention. (As we're seeing here.)

[Keith]

This kind of ruckus always seems to me to relate to a confusion about the difference between glorification and depiction.

My best theory--probably not a good one--is that some people raised on the Bible can't see books in any other way.

[Joseph Goodrich]

There's something that those-who-would-censor never seem to understand. I might have read Stansberry's book because it won an Edgar. Now, because of all the ruckus, I know I HAVE to read it.

Thanks, Ms. Fennelly, for pointing me toward what sounds to be a challenging work of art. I might have missed it otherwise.

[Steven]

"Which sort of brings me to another question: why is it that whenever authors act out, engage in bad behavior or the like, they tend to be somewhere among the murky midlist (or out of print?) Is professionalism something you learn when you're successful, or are the truly successful the most professional?"

I don't know that that is a fair assessment. I've heard some stories of terribly unprofessional doings by big money authors.

[Steven]

I've not read DS. Yet. I probably will soon, but not because of the award or the controversy -- I've heard good things from a lot of people I respect. Also, the publisher (Hardcase?) seems to be trying something new with their line, and I'd like to know what it is.

I do agree with what others have said -- if you agree to be part of a committee with certain rules, you should abide by them reagardless of the outcome of the vote.

Which book was found objectionable last year? I don't recall any controversy.

[The Evil J Winter]

Personally, I recommend Fenelly read FAHRENHEIT 451 before she continues her rant.

I haven't read THE CONFESSION, either, but given the comments about it before Fenelly found "courage," I'd say Stansberry wasn't glorifying the slaughter of women. He was giving us a peak inside the mind of a monster. Isn't that what Thomas Harris does? How about Truman Capote with IN COLD BLOOD? How dare he write a book from the POV of two real-life murderers!

I remember the howls of outrage that greeted FIGHT CLUB when it became a movie. Then I saw it. There was a mix of "I GET IT!", "Well, who's fault is that, stupid!", and massive laughing of ass off. At no point did I say, "Tyler Durden's a monster. Palahniuk is an evil man for writing it." Nope. Never happened. I'm sick of the scared sheep mentality in this country. Jesus, when did America go Communist?

[Xavier Lechard]

Kevin Wignall wrote:

"As Europe, which has no legally enshrined tradition of free speech, becomes more libetarian in regard to unpopular or unpalatable art, so America, which has free speech as a central pillar of its constitution, seems to be flirting with repression"

Some binary a vision I think. There are repressive forces in Europe as well, they are just not polarized the same way as American ones are.
That being said, I agree with Dave that this debate amounts to making Mount Rushmore out of an ant-hill.

[Justus]

The Talented Mr. Ripley won an Edgar in 1956 for Best Novel and it is about a remorseless, sociopathic murderer who gets away with it all. There is no mystery, no one is brought to justice.

I barely read any mystery/suspense books but I've heard and read Highsmith. I would have thought an Edgar judge would be even more versed in the genre than me.

[Charles Ardai]

Dear god. THE CONFESSION is not a fantasy about raping and murdering women any more than L'ETRANGER is a fantasy about murdering Arabs or CRIME AND PUNISHMENT is a fantasy about murdering pawnbrokers. And Stansberry (who sat beside me with his young daughter at the Edgar banquet and revealed himself to be a sweet and doting father) is hardly the drooling monster of perversion the morally upright author of THE GLORY HOLE MURDERS imagines.

I suppose it's gratifying to know that a book we published inspired such a profound and intense emotional reaction, when so many books inspire nothing more than indifference; I sometimes even find myself sympathizing with Meursault, who, at the end of L'ETRANGER, takes a defiant pleasure in imagining the "howls of execration" of the crowd calling for his execution. But speaking as someone whose entire family spent the 1940s living in Hungary -- or more precisely someone whose entire family began the 1940s living in Hungary and mostly ended the 1940s in mass graves -- I get very uneasy when demagogues start talking with glee about taking matches to the pages of books.