Justine Larbalestier

reading, writing, eating, drinking, sport

«

»

Two excellent things

1. I am now officially an award-winning author. Sort of.

Daughters of Earth just won the Susan Koppelman Award for Best Anthology, Multi-Authored, or Edited book in Feminist Studies in Popular Culture which is given by the Popular Culture Association. How cool is that? No book of mine has ever won an award before.

As I didn’t write Daughters—other than the introduction anyways—I’m not sure this qualifies me as an award-winning author. I guess what I am is the editor of an award-winning book. I sure did put a lot of work into it and so did all the contributors. We’re very proud and thrilled that someone else likes it well enough to give it a prize. Woo hoo!

Thank you so much Brian Attebery, Joan Donawerth, L Timmel Duchamp, Andrea Hairston, Joan Haran, Cathy Hawkins, Veronica Hollinger, Josh Lukin, Mary E. Papke, Wendy Pearson, and Lisa Yaszek for writing such fabulous essays. What a fabulous bunch1 of scholars!

2. A bunch of us Young Adult writer types will be doing a reading next Wednesday:

Eireann Corrigan (Ordinary Ghosts)
Erin Downing (Prom Crashers)
Justine Larbalestier (Magic’s Child)
Leslie Margolis (Price of Admission)
Maryrose Wood (Why I Let My Hair Grow Out)
Daniel Ehrenhaft and Adrienne Maria Vrettos (reading from the 21 Proms anthology)
Wednesday, 7 March, 6-8PM
Tompkins Square branch
New York Public Library
331 E. 10th Street (cnr of Ave B)

Hope you New York types will be able to join us. Tis quite the lineup.

  1. What should the collective noun for a group of scholars be? A folio of scholars? A vellum? Footnote? A tenure? (Though that’s harsh on those without and the independent scholars.) A reference? [↩]

Posted by Justine at 17:41, 28 February 2007 under Daughters of Earth, Magic or Madness trilogy, New York City/USA, Praising, Vainglory | 18 Comments »

Comments

  1. Rachel Brown Says:

    congratulations!

    so other than the tezuka, vaughn, and minekura (saiyuki), which manga have you liked best? I’d love to read more raves.

    PS. Minekura has the first volume (mostly set-up, but fun in its own right) out of a new series, wild adapter. Check it out!

    February 28th, 2007 at 5:58 PM

  2. Kelly McCullough Says:

    An argument of scholars?

    A debate of scholars?

    Of course, it doesn’t really matter since the question is academic.

    February 28th, 2007 at 6:07 PM

  3. lili Says:

    hurrah for you! now you can put ‘award winning author Justine Larbalestier’ on a stamp and stamp it on everything you own.

    a tweed of scholars?
    an abstract of scholars?

    February 28th, 2007 at 6:18 PM

  4. Lawrence Says:

    Mazel tov! May it be only the first of many!

    February 28th, 2007 at 7:17 PM

  5. Ez Says:

    A thesis of scholars? A degree of scholars?

    Fabulous introducing and editing, and have a lovely day! :-)

    February 28th, 2007 at 7:33 PM

  6. veejane Says:

    I was going to say a gaggle of scholars. Anything that voluble has got to be a gaggle.

    (Also, gaggle is just a cool word. Gaggle, gaggle, gaggle.)

    I think an award for editing an anthology has got to be, like, the Sisyphus Award. You win points for pushing the rock up the hill, and for not “accidentally” releasing it at such time that it might cream any of your contributors on its way back down again.

    February 28th, 2007 at 8:12 PM

  7. sjh Says:

    That is ever so awesome. Woo!

    (Also, for the record, ZOMBIES!!! Unicorns, pshaw.)

    February 28th, 2007 at 9:18 PM

  8. Little Willow Says:

    Congratulations!

    Have fun next week.

    February 28th, 2007 at 9:27 PM

  9. Little Willow Says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Ben_%28literary_group%29

    Hmm.

    Children of Ben?

    Writers That Rock?

    February 28th, 2007 at 9:28 PM

  10. Dawn Says:

    Congrats! I wish I could go see you, but I couldn’t even get down to Texas. I definitely can’t get to New York!

    February 28th, 2007 at 9:56 PM

  11. Sherwood Smith Says:

    Huzzah!

    February 28th, 2007 at 10:21 PM

  12. Lewis Says:

    scribblers, footnote variety :)

    February 28th, 2007 at 10:44 PM

  13. Sir Tessa Says:

    Congrats, precious gem!

    February 28th, 2007 at 11:46 PM

  14. klages Says:

    Editor! Editor! Editor! Oi! Oi! Oi!

    March 1st, 2007 at 1:11 PM

  15. 15. Justine Says:

    Thank you everyone! I am indeed deeply chuffed.

    Veejane: I think an award for editing an anthology has got to be, like, the Sisyphus Award. You win points for pushing the rock up the hill

    Amen, sister, amen.

    Klages: Tee hee. Twill be my one award for editing so I am enjoying the hell out of it.

    March 1st, 2007 at 6:06 PM

  16. Susan Koppelman Says:

    Hi Justine. And let me add my congratulations to those of others. The award is definitely one for editing. If you check out my name at amazon.com you will see the books I have edited and understand my commitment to good editing and to making sure that it is recognized. Here are the criteria by which the award nominated books are judged:
    SUSAN KOPPELMAN
    4375 E. Coronado Ridge Lane
    Tucson, Arizona 85737-8961
    520-825-8765

    FOR JUDGES OF BOOKS ENTERED INTO THE
    Annual SUSAN KOPPELMAN AWARD COMPETITION

    Please: your response to the book(s) you judge is due no later than April 10, 2003

    Remember: This award is for editorial work. Did the editor(s) make good feminist choices and is the editorial rationale for those choices clear to you? Did the editor(s) structure a book competently, imaginatively, cohesively, innovatively, coherently, and responsibly? Is the edited book a creation or a conglomeration? Is the book an important ground-breaking contribution or is it “follow-up” work?
    The following concerns are to be addressed as you consider the book(s) you are reviewing for the contest:

    1. Is the book feminist? (Briefly, what do you mean by that?) The following comes from the original announcement of these awards by the Women’s Caucus for the Popular and American Culture Associations:
    “The committee’s consensus in reviewing the criteria for all of the awards was that the works selected should be feminist rather than merely scholarship by women or even about women. By feminist, we meant interpretations based on an understanding that the history of the patriarchy is the history of a world in which men–as represented by patriarchal institutions, in groups, and as individuals–have unlimited and non-reciprocal access to all of women’s resources–physical, intellectual, spiritual, emotional, creative, reproductive, sexual, economic, and so on. It is rooted in the belief that the future must be different from that history and that the difference must be based on a system in which women control their own resources. ”

    2. Is the book concerned with popular (of any nationality) or American culture? (Do you have a clear idea of what you mean or think “those in the know” mean by “Popular Culture” and/or “American culture?”)

    3. Is the book well done?
    a. is the writing clear, jargon free, and accessible (that, of course, is part of being ideologically feminist). Or is it the kind of jargon-bound writing that might mean tenure this year but in ten years will doom the book either to total obscurity or public ridicule?
    b. is the scholarship accurate, competent, professional? Is the subject matter contextualized if historical?

    4. Is the book useful?
    a. does the book present new material or else old material in a significantly new way?
    b. how does it compare with other (if there are other) works like it? (And what other works like it do you have in mind?) If there are no others,
    c. does this book identify a new field, clarify a hitherto obscured, buried, suppressed, mis-represented women’s cultural tradition, give us something new not only worth having in itself but that will enable us to add to it as we continue with our own work and lives?

    5. Is the personal political and the political personal?

    6. If an edited or co-edited book, is the editorial rationale clear to you as a reader of (1) introductory and/or prefatory materials and (2) the body of material included? In other words, do you understand why that particular bunch of stuff is included in that order, in those juxtapositions? Does the combining of parts enhance each part and create a whole greater than the sum of its parts? Do you know if there was other material that could have been included? If yes, do you understand why these things were included and the others were not?

    7. If a co-authored book, do you understand the reason for the collaboration? Why was the work done by more than one writer or editor? How is the collaboration different from what would have been accomplished by the authors working separately? (Pooling knowledge from different perspectives, different fields of experience, different fields of expertise, etc.)
    Do you, as a reader, feel benefited, enlightened, if you will, by having the collaboration rather than two or more separate works on the subject?

    8. Is it clear who the audience(s) is (are) for this book? Is that audience(s) appropriately, respectfully, addressed?

    9. Does the book pay real attention to the differences among women by representing appropriately the range of women’s races, ethnicities, regional, spiritual, religious, and nationality backgrounds, ages, physical/corporeal realities, sexual preferences/ orientations, class, and so forth.

    10. Is the title appropriate for the scope of the work? Or have the editors/writers chosen a title that is more than could have been accomplished within the covers of a single book? Have the grandiose claims made in the title served to (further) marginalize or silence those excluded in some way from the contents? Does too broad a scope implied by the title mean that other publishers will be unlikely to publish another book on the subject, even if this one covers it inadequately?

    11. Do you recommend this book for a Koppelman award?

    Your name: ________________________________________

    Your email address: ___________________ Your phone number: _____________

    Book Title: ______________________________________________

    Book Editor(s): ___________________________________________

    Publisher: ___________________________________

    Additional Comments:

    March 1st, 2007 at 8:14 PM

  17. 17. Justine Says:

    Susan Koppelman: Thank you so much for explaining about the award! Now I’m even more proud than I already was.

    I’m particularly proud that the judges thought Daughters fit this critierion: is the writing clear, jargon free, and accessible. I was very determined that it meet those standards.

    Thank you for creating such an excellent award.

    March 1st, 2007 at 8:27 PM

  18. Maryrose Wood Says:

    Justine! congrats on this most excellent award!

    Am look forward to reading with you on Wednesday, see you then –

    xoxo
    m

    March 1st, 2007 at 9:48 PM

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

<-- -->