WLF Prize 2022 - Javier Marías

[Patrick Murtha]

^ Please stay and continue to offer your insights! I second your thoughts on sarcasm and snark (even though I have some history with them ? ).

 

[Cleanthess]

I apologized before and said I was just joking.

I apologize again, I didn't know my comment was going to give this much offense, but that is no excuse. I'm deeply sorry and I will not do it again. Please stay in the jury, I'll take myself out of it for this year and all future years since I'm the one who's in the wrong.

I greatly respect your opinions and value what you bring to the forum, so I regret that a poor joke on my part was this hurtful. I hope we can put this behind us, but if you cannot forgive me, I understand. Please just notice that there was no malicious intent on my part.

 

[Stevie B]

I apologized before and said I was just joking.

I apologize again, I didn't know my comment was going to give this much offense, but that is no excuse. I'm deeply sorry and I will not do it again. Please stay in the jury, I'll take myself out of it for this year and all future years since I'm the one who's in the wrong.

I greatly respect your opinions and value what you bring to the forum, so I regret that a poor joke on my part was this hurtful. I hope we can put this behind us, but if you cannot forgive me, I understand. Please just notice that there was no malicious intent on my part.

I appreciate the apology and understand there was no ill intent. It can be especially challenging to read tone in short posts which is why I asked for clarification. I assumed you were being playful, but without emojis as a hint, I wasn't completely sure. In the end, I hope we can move past this misunderstanding so that both you and errequatro remain on the jury and share your valuable opinions.

 

[Stevie B]

I don't normally appreciate sarcastic condescencion when not warranted. ("A true match for the ages." Was that really necessary?)
The situation is very peculiar. We didn't nominate a dead writer (he was alive when we made the choice), he died a few days before any decision was going to be reached and, more importantly, we have spent a whole year evaluating his work.
Plus, it's easier (and unfair) to win against someone one is competing against when that person died.
If one of the other candidates died, would we award the "last person standing" just for the sake of it? Would that truly reflect the deliberation, and thought process behind the decision? Would it, alas, be representative?
If my first choice was Marias, am I forced to give 3 points to a writer I don't think deserves it?

So, no, it's not the same.
Even the Nobel Prize allows for such an occurance. (A writer can still be awarded if he/she died after he/she was chosen.)

For a literature forum, I am suprised that we re taking things with such a lack of nuance. Literature does not mean literally.

I honestly think he could remain in contention, but because there is a rule, I understand it is complicated. So the solution suggested elsewhere was to award an "honorary" WLF Prize and decided between the other two. Seems like a good compromise.

On a side note:
I don't come to the forum to vent petty sarcastic comments or to show off or anything of the sort. I participate simply because of my love for literature and the otherwise friendly environment most members create here. To exchange opinions and views. To learn. To discover new writers.
If I wanted to be condescended to, I certainly would not choose this forum.

Granted, you are entitled your opinion. But if this is how you choose to manifest it, I can always resign from coming here.
In fact, you just achieved my retracting from voting on the WLF prize. I will not be coherced in these terms.

Consider myself out of the "jury".
My apologies to the rest of the community.

I share your line of thinking. I know we agreed at the outset only to nominate living authors, but I don't recall that we planned for the possibility of a finalist passing away over the course of our deliberations. Given the proximity to the announcement of our award, and the lack of adequate time to name an alternate, I don't necessarily think Javier Marias should be dropped from consideration, but I also see the honorary Wolfie as a reasonable compromise.

 

[Liam]

I suppose what makes it so complicated is the fact that Marias died literally two weeks before our final voting began. Had it happened earlier in the year we could have reshuffled the deck, so to speak, but it is what it is. I am fine with whatever most of you decide.

As I said before, there is no issue with keeping him under consideration if most people have already made up their minds about who they think should win (I know I have, and I am ready to cast my vote).

But please remain objective about this, and don't let the author's sudden passing cloud your judgement.

 

[Liam]

I also see the honorary Wolfie as a reasonable compromise.

We could, of course, issue Javier Marias an honorary Wolfie regardless,

I repeat: we can still keep his name in the general category as well, as long as most people are done with reading him at least (you can still take your time finishing the other two), how does that sound?

 

[Leseratte]

I appreciate the apology and understand there was no ill intent. It can be especially challenging to read tone in short posts which is why I asked for clarification. I assumed you were being playful, but without emojis as a hint, I wasn't completely sure. In the end, I hope we can move past this misunderstanding so that both you and errequatro remain on the jury and share your valuable opinions.

I second Stevie, and ask that both of you remain in the jury.

 

[errequatro]

I apologized before and said I was just joking.

I apologize again, I didn't know my comment was going to give this much offense, but that is no excuse. I'm deeply sorry and I will not do it again. Please stay in the jury, I'll take myself out of it for this year and all future years since I'm the one who's in the wrong.

I greatly respect your opinions and value what you bring to the forum, so I regret that a poor joke on my part was this hurtful. I hope we can put this behind us, but if you cannot forgive me, I understand. Please just notice that there was no malicious intent on my part.

Apologies accepted. As Stevie B said, it is difficult to detect sarcasm when it comes with no indication that it is indeed sarcasm. It doesn't work in the written form.
It sounded blunt and condescending. It certainly didn't sound like a joke. The quip "a true match for the ages" sounded mean as it implied that I was the one being elitist and condescending and it felt as a direct response to my "different calibre" classification of Marias (I stand by this and I will explain when voting properly). As if I was stupid and was showing off a reverential emotional reaction rather than actually having put thought into it.
As if my opinion was a something that can be dismissed easily by simply swating it into the "yeah, sure, lol" category.
It was nasty, simply put.

Sarcasm is lovely... but it's like pepper. It gives flavour when used but if you use too much of it, it spoils everthing.

But yes, apologies accepted.
I don't anyone to quit the decision process. And I am willing to come back.
We do have a curve ball on our hands.
If we dismiss Marias, this (imho) would be unfair. I feel we should have a rule covering this... For instance: if a given wiriter has been nominated and passes away close (say, 1 month) before we reach a conclusion, that writer should stay in contention.

For me, this makes sense. I don't see it happening very often, but it would cover the possibility.
My reasoning is tied with the fact that I think it would be representative to attribute maximum points to a writer that originally would be second on the list.
On this occasion, my choice is:
1) Marias
2) Jaeggy
3) Murnane

And I actually need to think more about numbers 2 and 3. It's that close this year.
What is not close is Marias being the number 1 choice.
He is my favourite, regardless.
It would be so even if he was alive. So to whom do I give my 3 points now?

Additionally, consider the scenario:
3 writers are in contention. Writers who would be number 1 and 2 (by regular voting), would die whilst in competition.
Would we give writer number 3 (last place) the prize? Even though he/she would be the least favourite?
Just think about it.

Also... giving a writer an honorary Wolfie is problematic.
Is it a consolation prize?
Is every single writer who dies whilst in contention (even though I think it unlikely to happen again) getting one?
I don't know. Seems like a good idea, but it invites more questions than it actually provides answers.

We need to take a breather.
But yeah, I am back.

 

[Leseratte]

I feel that we must discuss that better and maybe put up some rules, @errequatro. These last years so many unforeseen things have happened.
As the honorary title is my view, a means of acknowledging the importance of a writer, who dies during the process of choice, I don´t see any problem in awarding it to all authors who pass away while on the running. But I confess the matter would be much more complicated if it involved a money prize.

But if you or any one feels that by giving Xavier Marías an honorary title we are taking away his chance to win the contest from my part we can go on as if he didn't die.

 

[Ben Jackson]

I don't normally appreciate sarcastic condescencion when not warranted. ("A true match for the ages." Was that really necessary?)
The situation is very peculiar. We didn't nominate a dead writer (he was alive when we made the choice), he died a few days before any decision was going to be reached and, more importantly, we have spent a whole year evaluating his work.
Plus, it's easier (and unfair) to win against someone one is competing against when that person died.
If one of the other candidates died, would we award the "last person standing" just for the sake of it? Would that truly reflect the deliberation, and thought process behind the decision? Would it, alas, be representative?
If my first choice was Marias, am I forced to give 3 points to a writer I don't think deserves it?

So, no, it's not the same.
Even the Nobel Prize allows for such an occurance. (A writer can still be awarded if he/she died after he/she was chosen.)

For a literature forum, I am suprised that we re taking things with such a lack of nuance. Literature does not mean literally.

I honestly think he could remain in contention, but because there is a rule, I understand it is complicated. So the solution suggested elsewhere was to award an "honorary" WLF Prize and decided between the other two. Seems like a good compromise.

On a side note:
I don't come to the forum to vent petty sarcastic comments or to show off or anything of the sort. I participate simply because of my love for literature and the otherwise friendly environment most members create here. To exchange opinions and views. To learn. To discover new writers.
If I wanted to be condescended to, I certainly would not choose this forum.

Granted, you are entitled your opinion. But if this is how you choose to manifest it, I can always resign from coming here.
In fact, you just achieved my retracting from voting on the WLF prize. I will not be coherced in these terms.

Consider myself out of the "jury".
My apologies to the rest of the community.

Please, your insights and views are very important here, so don't leave the jury.

If this unfortunate incident to Marias had happened around April/May, we could've easily found a replacement with one or two more writers, and we could've covered up (that's read the alternative candidates major works before the end of September). But since it was few weeks before our final decision, we've no choice than to award him with another writer (that's a split choice, as we will have no time to read the alternative candidates works), which will be more fairer.

And since Cleanthess has apologised, we should all forgive him.

 

[Bartleby]

I took the liberty to move the posts exclusively related to the WLF prize concerning Javier Marías from his obituary, so there's nothing but a tribute to him there. Please continue debating about the author here in regards to the prize; I hope you all understand this action is only meant to keeping things tidy

 

[Leemo]

I'm against the idea of awarding Marias or anyone an honorary prize. Plus who's to say Marias won't win outright regardless

 

[Leseratte]

I took the liberty to move the posts exclusively related to the WLF prize concerning Javier Marías from his obituary, so there's nothing but a tribute to him there. Please continue debating about the author here in regards to the prize; I hope you all understand this action is only meant to keeping things tidy

Thanks!

 

[namelesshere]

I'm against the idea of awarding Marias or anyone an honorary prize. Plus who's to say Marias won't win outright regardless

I'm mostly ambivalent but I think my personal preference is to allow events to proceed as normal. I appreciate that the rule is the person has to be alive, and that certainly makes sense, but I think as Liam says the issue is that he died so far into the process. Deciding to award him honorarily regardless is a fantastic gesture, but I would almost rather he won outright if he was going to win, and didn't if he wasn't. Excluding dead writers was a way, I think, of ensuring we were somewhat in step with the Nobel itself, which I think is good thing, but I think cutting Marias out might feel like adhering to a rule for the sake of it, when the circumstances aren't so cut and dried as if he had died months ago (but I also appreciate that's not the spirit in which the suggestion of an honorary award was made, I don't think). That being said, an honorary award feels like a respectful gesture and it's hard to argue with.

Ultimately, I don't think it really matters. I shan't feel grumpy if we give him an honorary award and someone else wins, and I shan't be grumpy if we don't but he doesn't win. Maybe we need another of bartleby's polls/votes?

 

[Bartleby]

Maybe we need another of bartleby's polls/votes?

Sorry, I should have done that days ago...

Anyway, there we have it. The poll is open above, hopefully people will see it and vote for it soon. Let us know everyone what action we should take from now on !

 

[Stevie B]

Sorry, I should have done that days ago...

Anyway, there we have it. The poll is open above, hopefully people will see it and vote for it soon. Let us know everyone what action we should take from now on !

Sorry, Bartleby, but I'm not seeing the poll.

 

[Liam]

It's all the way at the top of the page; maybe you need to log in from your computer? ?

 

[Bartleby]

Sorry, Bartleby, but I'm not seeing the poll.

It's at the top of the page. If it's still not showing, please tell us

It's all the way at the top of the page; maybe you need to log in from your computer? ?

I'm using my phone and I can see it...

 

[Ben Jackson]

I can see the poll with my phone.

 

[Stevie B]

I can see the poll with my phone.

Got it now. Thanks!