Ridiculous how?

(Asked in a genuine spirit of enquiry.)

Well--ridiculous is probably an overstatement. And I'm getting as cranky about slipstream these days as I am about interstitial.

But there was the inclusion of a book in the "canon" that isn't actually available yet, and with the bit where items like 5-7 (or whatever) were individual works by Kafka and then item 9 was "the complete works of Kafka." And the inclusion of works that seem to me clearly pure fantasy (the Goss, frex).

Jinx!

Buy me a Coke!

OK, so you mean ridiculous (or whatever) in its specifics, not in the principle behind the whole project. This is a little awkward to respond to because, although we never quite articulated in in this way, I feel that something like collective responsibility obtains wrt the list, and I shouldn't try to distance myself even from the stuff I disagree with/didn't vote for. That said, I am in sympathy with your two core points, about the duplication between individual works and collected works, and about including not-yet-published books (though only one, I think, and that composed of reprints.)

not in the principle behind the whole project.

Well, the whole psuedo-consensus of the voting set up is a bit odd.

I notice that apparently you were the only person to vote for Steve Erickson, the quintessential slipstream writer of the last twenty years.

So you have a copy of the final list, then? Is it available somewhere to download?

Re Erickson, I think the problem is that his good work is spread across a bunch of books (almost all of them), and there's no one definitive career-summation work.

The voting threw up some surprising stuff too, like how much more widely M John Harrison was seen as influential than Christopher Priest. Not sure why that is.

Is it available somewhere to download?

Not that I am aware of.

Re Erickson, I think the problem is that his good work is spread across a bunch of books (almost all of them), and there's no one definitive career-summation work.

That didn't stop our old friend Joseph K. It is for this reason that the canon is skewed towards short story collections. It is more of a key figures list than a core text list.

None of which explains how a minor work by an author of little relevence to slipstream (Changing Planes) makes it so high up the list and Erickson and Barthelme who live and breathe this stuff appear so far down.

The voting threw up some surprising stuff too, like how much more widely M John Harrison was seen as influential than Christopher Priest.

Neither appear on the list though?

PS Aren't you proud of me for not mentioning Perdido Street Station?

Both Priest and Harrison appear on the list, but further down than the core 20-odd. I've emailed the Readercon magi and asked for them to forward/post the whole thing, which should make things clearer. Or, you know, not.

I think they must be on the "Other Important Non-Canonical Slipstream or Slipstream-related Writings" list, rather than the actual list. A weblink would be good.

Both Priest and Harrison appear on the list

No they don't. They're in the complete list of nominations, but not in the canon.

Huh. Memory was tricking me, then. (I certainly wound up talking more about Harrison with my co-panel-ees beforehand.) I should say, though, that I regarded all three lists as being part of the overall canon-y list-y thing. There were, so to speak, three concentric circles of canon-ness. Or something.

Looking at the choices it would appear that, amazingly, yours were some of the least insane.

(For example, I personally feel that Steve Erickson's work is quintessentially Slipstream, that he is the most characteristically Slipstream author—yet only one of his books made it onto the top-115, and that near the bottom.)

I am Ron Drummond.

On many levels, you're not.

As I said elsewhere, the problem with Erickson is that he has a bunch of more or less equally characteristic slipstream-y novels, rather than one career-defining work. I think they're all awesome, but maybe others had only read bits and pieces of his work.

I am, I'm afraid, starting to find listing in general a bit ridiculous, insofar as the lists don't seem to me to illuminate much. Which may again by interstitial bleed on my part, but the slipstream lists, too, strike me as increasingly, "Here are books we like," as much as anything else.

I do admire your solidarity. :-p

And the inclusion of works that seem to me clearly pure fantasy

And the inclusion of works that seem to me clearly pure realism. For example, The Waves, which is experimental in execution but not content.

But if (like Kessel or me) you have an effect-based definition of slipstream, then you can have mimetic slipstream just as an effect-based definition of horror gives you mimetic horror too.

Indeed, indeed, I'm familar with your's and Kessel's effect-based idiocy ;) I was just replying to Hannah that this "clearly falling on one side" issue applies to both sides equally.

I didn't catch any of the pure-realism works, but I am happy to accept equal absurdity.

15. The Metamorphosis (1915), Franz Kafka
16. The Trial (1925), Franz Kafka
17. Orlando (1928), Virginia Woolf
18. The Castle (1926), Franz Kafka
19. The complete works of Franz Kafka

Maybe the list itself is a work of slipstream!

Feeling snarky =/= feeling very strange. :-p