The Edgar Award Nominations Open Thread

It figures that the MWA would announce the nominees for the Edgar awards as I was on a bus out of town, where internet is sporadic and nature is in rather close proximity. So look for the nominee list here and before I sign off and open up the backblog to comments (and I expect there will be comments) here's my take.

Best Novel seems a rather beautifully fucked up list. Or perhaps as wide a cross section of the spectrum between literary and mystery. Yeah, let's go for that. There's John Banville and Michael Chabon on one side, Ken Bruen and Reed Coleman on the other and John Hart smack in the middle. And before the argument about the lack of women on the list, as there inevitably will be, can we chalk it up to the luck of the draw?

Best First Novel has its quirks as well. I'm glad I managed to sneak in a read of Tana French's IN THE WOODS, which certainly deserves to be there (and bulks up the Irish crime quotient. Someone gather everyone at Murder Ink in Dublin or No Alibis in Belfast!) Again, there's a literary feel to this group of five, not just with French but also Goffard, Nikitas and in terms of structure and narrative arc, Craig McDonald. Campbell's legal thriller may be the most "traditional" of the lot but even it isn't quite that. A surprising, but also encouraging list.

Best Paperback Original is a ridiculously strong list. And will this finally bring Kevin Wignall to America? I sure as hell hope so. (Also, I thought Russell Hill was a debut novelist, but I guess not...)

Best Short Story not only includes a debut writer but the Robert L. Fish winner, too. Wow. Yay for A HELL OF A WOMAN and for Daniel Woodrell, who I hope will show up as well. Those who question why Laura Lippman was left off the Best Novel list should cheer at her short story nomination. And once again, small press anthologies do incredibly well at the Edgars.

I think it's a good bet that Barbara Seranella will win the Mary Higgins Clark Award on the sentimental vote, but I hope that's not the only reason it got picked for the list.

So if I have to boil this list down to a few words I'll go with: Literary. Irish. Small Press (especially Bleak House.) Strange and weird but wonderful dynamics.

Comments

[JDRhoades]

Women, shwomen. WHAT THE DEAD KNOW was one of the best books of ANY kind by ANYONE released in 2007. Its omission here is baffling.

[Charles Ardai]

Russell Hill published the novels LUCY BOOMER in 1992 and THE EDGE OF THE EARTH in 1986, and the poetry collection LETTERS FROM THE MINES in 1978, as well as eight or nine other books.

Agreed that it's a very strong category. I can't argue with any of the picks.

[Sandra Scoppettone]

No, I don't think we can call it "the luck of the draw" because it isn't. I agree that Lippman's book should've been there as well as other women. What John Hart is doing there I'll never understand. So I'm being specific...I don't care. Five men. Some things never change.

[David J. Montgomery]

Couldn't disagree with you more, Sandra. John Hart's book is the one of the five that I would argue most belongs on there. I hope it wins. But Laura's book would certainly have been on my list as well.

I'm curious to see if the people who protested against the ITW's selections a few years back will be as vociferous in their opposition to this list.

[Anon]

If the Edgars list had no women nominees in any of the categories, I'm sure you would hear some protests.

[Ali]

Hmmmmmmmm 'No Comment' on the books

On the Screenplays - gotta give a ClapClapClapClap! for seeing EASTERN PROMISES on the list -

Excellent film because of an excellent script

Ali

[Sandra Ruttan]

"I'm curious to see if the people who protested against the ITW's selections a few years back will be as vociferous in their opposition to this list."

I doubt it.

And I don't believe women should be nominated just to have women nominated... but I did expect Laura Lippman to be nominated. Then again, I'm also surprised James Lee Burke wasn't nominated for Tin Roof Blowdown.

Which just goes to show that when it comes to the awards, what do I know? No Sakey for best first, or Chercover... We'll never all agree.

[Marcus Sakey]

I wish Laura had been nominated. But I gotta disagree with you on John Hart. He's great writer, and deserves the nom.

[Donna]

David wrote: "I'm curious to see if the people who protested against the ITW's selections a few years back will be as vociferous in their opposition to this list."

Oh I DO hope not - because all that does is to take away from what is a very worthy group of nominees, and a very hardworking group of judges. Every time THIS group of judges thought THESE particular books were the best of the year. It's silly saying that someone's book should have been there or should not have been there. It's personal preference. I doubt if you took 100 people that they would all come up with the same top 5 in any category. I love Laura's writing, and I am sure she wouldn't want to be included on any list because she's female. Everyone on the list of nominees - male and female - was chosen because a specific group of judges loved their books/stories. And huge congratulations to ALL of them.

[David J. Montgomery]

Nicely put, Donna.

[Andi]

I've NEVER been so baffled in all the years I've followed this stuff. The Edgars never make sense to me and I admit that 2007 was NOT a good reading year for me, but I honesttoGODS don't know a good many of the nominees in most of the fiction categories. Wonder where i've been or why not.

And any list that does not have the Lippman book on it loses all credibility from me. I just don't get how this happens, or I do and don't want to. I DID have a problem with the ITW nominations and I DO have a problem here. I donm't think it's deliberate but I do think it should be looked at - same as I said back then.

And I think Chabon is an amazing writer but that book was the biggest disappointment to me - SUCH a mess. Well, that's why I don't end up on nominating juries.

I'll take comfort in the Grand Master for my buddy Mr. Bill Pronzini and the Raven for Kate Mattes.

[Dan]

Goodness. When you harshly criticize the choices in one breath and then admit in the next that you "honest to God don't know many of the nominees," you're essentially arguing against yourself.

Having been on just about every side of the prize racket -- judge, winner, loser, and non-nominee (the one i'm best at) -- I can say with limited authority that there really is no substitute for becoming acquainted with each and every one of the hundreds of entries.

So, while the uproar over the exclusion of a much-loved book is quite understandable (hey, I loved it, too), it's unseemly to call for an inquiry, and plain silly to take it as an affront to the author. The list of nominees in each category is the result of the personal tastes of a mere five people. Nothing more, nothing less. That's a good thing to bear in mind whether you win or you're left off.

(And, no, I wasn't on any of this year's judging panels, so don't throw anything at me!)

[Jon Jordan]

I'm familiar with every author nominated in the fiction catagories. I also thought that 2008 had a lot of great books and I know I'm glad I wasn't a judge. It would have been a lot of work and a real stressfull job to winnow this down to 5.

Is it the same list I would have come up with? Of course not. Is it a good list? I think so.

No women in the best novel catagory? It happens. Hardly a plot or a conspiracy.

I am pleased to see some people on here who are not "the usual Suspects"

Cudos to the judges for a job well done, and cudos to everyone nominated as well.

[Nathan Cain]

I think it's a very strong list of nominations. I will say I think its a shame the new rules disqualify Point Blank Press books from consideration because James Reasoner's Dust Devils deserved a nomination for best PBO.

[Elaine Flinn]

How, Andi, can you be 'baffled' by the list if you don't know many of the nominees? But it's reassuring to know that you don't think the absence of women is deliberate. I'm sure the judges will rest easy now. And 'looked at'? What's to 'look at'??

And Sandra's comment baffle's ME. 'Some things never change?' Oh, come on. I mean, really.

[Sandra Parshall]

WHAT THE DEAD KNOW was by far the best of the dozens of crime novels I read in 2007, and I finished it with the certainty that this book would win every award in sight. Well, there are still some awards coming up -- awards given by READERS -- and Laura will walk away with more than one. I was also sorry that Chelsea Cain's stunning HEARTSICK wasn't nominated, but I don't feel the personal attachment to that one that I feel to Laura's book.

[JT Ellison]

Many, many congratulations to all the nominees! Especially Derek Nikitas for best first, and Ken Bruen for best novel. Such an exciting day for Killer Year & Murderati!!!

[Sandra Ruttan]

Nathan, I wholeheartedly agree with you about Reasoner's DUST DEVILS. Fantastic read.

[Cornelia Read]

Many, many congratulations to all the nominees! I, too, expected to see WHAT THE DEAD KNOW here, as I adored it--but I, too, wasn't a judge.

And I think it will be a great day when everyone's bitching because all the best novel noms are for women, with only one guy in the best first list. Maybe after Hillary gets in, you know? :>)

Again, huge and sincere congratulations to all the nominees, and a great big thank you to the judges for their hard work.

[Andi]

I'm baffled becausei haven't heard any discussion of a number of these titles AND because I say that every year. I'm baffled because i haven't seen these books or hear much about several of htem. I haven't heard "buzz" about most of them, i havene't seen them on people's lists. i nmany cases both author and book are new to me. THAT's what I mean and i base my comments on that. I AM NOT SAYING THAY THEY ARE BAD BOOkS - point to where i said that or was harsh. I just am very surprised, as i am every year when books that I excpet to be listed aren't and books i've never heard of are. I spend a lot of time reading about mystery and the books that are out, and assume i am familiar with the genre and the field.

Will I read them? Some of them, yeah, I have several sitting waiting to be read. I don't and can't vote, so I don't feel any pressure to read up. I know that at least in 1 category I really like an author but find his work unreadable. I tried several of those nominated and never got far.

I don't assume that my opinion keeps the judges awake at night and wonder why you feel the need to take such a tone. I defended you and the ITW judges when a similar situation came up that first year of those awards and found that baffling TOO, since apparently many very good books were out that year. I KNOW it's about taste and as Sandra says we'll never all agree, but for at least 10 years i've found the Edgars "baffling" because so often so many excellent books are not nominated. It's a hard job, yeah, I know that too, but year after year, i find it baffling when FOR ME this pattern continues. Okay? Can we perhaps agree that makes sense? Probably not. Oh well.

And it's not so much that it was a "much-loved book" but simply that it was an excellent book. There's a difference.

As for looing at this, I'm not part of the organization hosting these awards. If I were, maybe there would be a way to discuss this. I DON'T KNOW. I don't have a clue how these books are chosen, though I have heard stories from several former judges.

This will not be resolved here, or indeed at all. It wasn't resolved the last time, as i recall, but rather resulted in ugly and name-calling and at times ad hominem attacks and at times ridiculously illogical arguments. I don't think anything has changed.

[Elaine Flinn]

Tone? What tone? Did I use a 'tone'? Hmmm.

And by the way - if memory serves, Andi - you didn't defend me or the other ITW judges. You were quite visibly on the other side - and here, on Confessions.

And as for how books are selected in any contest with a committee of judges - it's quite simple, and after all your years hanging around the biz, I'm surprised you never knew how it was done. The best of the lot are offered, and then a vote is taken. Quite democratic, quite above board, quite non-gender biased - and with only one goal in mind - the best story, voice and excecution.

[Sandra Scoppettone]

Elaine...quite non-gender based? I now could say, oh, come on to you. Of course there's no one saying "don't put any women on the list'" but it's deep in the marrow, and that's why I said "some things never change." Gender is always there, lurking.

BTW, I've been on many judging committees. I know how it's done.

I certainly don't believe a woman should be nominated because she's a woman. But by most of the comments here one can see that Laura's book should've been there. Down River is a better book than What The Dead Know? Not on your life.

[Elaine Flinn]

Well, Sandra - and with respect - I don't know what committees you've been on, but I've been a judge several times now - and I've NEVER EVER seen, felt, or even read-between-the-lines any gender bias whatsoever.

'Deep in the marrow'? Oh, my God! That's the damndest sexist-gender-biased thing I've heard yet! You do many fine and considerate - and yes - objective male judges a sad injustice just uttering that.

[Andi]

I was not "visibly on the other side" and I have the quotes to prove it but do not believe it's the right thing to do here. You folks go back to discussing and I'll get out of here. No point in staying.

Oh so, "I'm sure the judges will rest easy now" was said without malice or sarcasm?

[krimileser]

As far as I remember, no one was grumping and calling it a conspiracy when last years nomination list for the Anthony, Best Book was all female. Seems to me, that it is still a long way to go.

"[...] Maybe after Hillary gets in, you know? :>)"
And if Obama wins ?