The 2010 Hammett Prize Nominees

From Janet Rudolph comes the nws that the International Association of Crime Writers has just announced its final flight of five for the Hammett Prize, awarded for literary excellence in crime writing:

Megan Abbott, BURY ME DEEP (Simon & Schuster)
Ace Atkins, DEVIL'S GARDEN (Putnam)
Jedediah Berry, THE MANUAL OF DETECTION (The Penguin Press)
Walter Mosley, THE LONG FALL (Riverhead)
George Pelecanos, THE WAY HOME (Little, Brown)

The prize will be presented during the Bloody Words X Mystery Conference in Toronto, Canada, held from May 28-30. Congratulations to all the nominees! And I wholeheartedly agree with J. Kingston Pierce's assertion that the shortlist is "both a strong and interesting list of nominees."

Comments

[John Sullivan]

Sarah,
I just don't get Megan Abbott. To me, it's derivative, wannabe twaddle. Help me out here!

[Charles Ardai]

Look -- I don't like Faulkner and can't read most of Joyce, but that doesn't make their books "twaddle" or any other cruel, dismissive, insulting term I might use to describe them. It just means their writing style doesn't happen to appeal to me. It doesn't mean it's not good.

I happen to like Megan's writing quite a lot. I find her use of language lyrical and beautiful, so much so that at one event where I was asked to read from an anthology in which she and I both had stories, I chose to read from hers rather than my own because her words were just so delicious to read out loud. Her voice is like no one else's who's writing today, and in fact I think you'd be hard pressed to find an author from the past who sounds like her. I think of her as akin, in some ways, to Billie Holliday -- she sings the old songs in a voice that's all her own.

Now, does that mean you should like her books? Not at all. You like what you like, and are entitled to dislike what you dislike. But you should be aware (and I guess you are, judging by your obvious frustration) that many people disagree with you and are finding great pleasure where you're stewing in gall.

[Sarah]

John's comment reminds me of a review I wrote a few years ago for the Baltimore Sun, early in my tenure there. It was, as I recall, a fairly blistering pan of Thomas Cook's RED LEAVES, which ended up being one of the most highly decorated crime novels of that year. And while my opinion of the book and my problems with Cook's writing style haven't changed, I regret that (admittedly short) piece because in hindsight, it failed to articulate my visceral reaction in context with a larger consideration of Cook in the genre.

In the end, de gustibus non es disputandem.

[dix]

I'm happy to fess up as a cynical bastard so I wouldn't want anyone to take what I have to say too seriously (not that anyone would) but I thought that last comment by Sarah was an excellent example of the social component of criticism. I doubt very much that Sarah would have regretted her piece if other critics had agreed with her.

I dislike the use of latin phrases. If you're in the business of communication you must understand that most people don't understand latin. So when you use a latin phrase you must ask yourself are you trying to make yourself understood or are you showing off your learning. Of course, I know people who like to see latin used within a text. But, as the fellow said, there's no accounting for taste.