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

xoxo
m

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.

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:

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.

Hmm.

Children of Ben?

Writers That Rock?

Have fun next week.

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

(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.

Fabulous introducing and editing, and have a lovely day!

a tweed of scholars?
an abstract of scholars?

A debate of scholars?

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

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!