2008 SUNDAY STAR-TIMES SHORT STORY AWARDS

Last evening I was fortunate to be among those invited to attend the annual Sunday Star-Times Awards event at Hopetoun Alpha in Auckland city and what a special occasion it was.

SST books editor Finlay Macdonald was our MC for the evening and his opening comment that Barack Obama sent his apologies almost brought the house down with wild and unrestrained whoops and cheers. His victory in the US Presidential election had been announced just an hour before.

Finlay spoke of the huge attraction of the short story form to New Zealanders, both readers and writers alike, then acknowledged the sponsors, Dymocks Booksellers, Random House Publishers and the Sunday Star-Times, suggesting this was "the private enterprise side of the cultural fence" , and then went on to pay tribute to the retiring editor of the SST, Donna Chisholm who had made an enormous contribution to these Awards over many years. It is worth recording that the Awards have now been going for 24 years.

Other speakers included Andrew Howard, General Manager of Dymocks NZ, Karen Ferns, Managaing Director of Random House New Zealand, David Hill, author and judge of the secondary school disvison of the awards, (won by Harris Williamson for "A Single Man"), and finally the judge of the open division, NZ novelist Stephanie Johnson who announced the winner.

Stephanie has kindly made her comments available to me and they are reproduced here for your interest:

More than 1,100 entries were received for the Open Division of the Sunday Star Times Short Story Competition.

For the preliminary judges and myself this was a glimpse into the unchartered territory of the New Zealand psyche. This was in many ways a great honour - and in others an alarming experience. We set off as a willing troop through a landscape peopled with lonely old folk, married couples, abused children, mourners, hospital patients, alcoholics, brutish men and perhaps most alarmingly of all, excised wombs. Sex, or at least sex for pleasure, was a rare encounter, as was humour.

There were stories that began brilliantly, then petered out. There were stories written with a love of language that said nothing much, and others that told a grand yarn in words of clay. Then there were the stories that shone and they were the ones that – in the end – victorious – were borne triumphantly home. These are the wonderful stories we’re celebrating tonight.

Te Pou FIRST PRIZE – Andre Ngapo
Te Pou is the story of a young Maori boy in the Waikato, with a talent for carving wooden power poles. Like many of the stories submitted, it is ultimately a sad tale but leavened by the humorous, energetic voice of the narrator and its large cast of memorable, resilient characters. It is rich with metaphor and symbolism, seamlessly sewn into the narrative.

Ladders SECOND PRIZE – Jamie Standin
This is a story that stood out from the others because it is a rare attempt at satire and political comment. It is blackly amusing, plainly told and perfectly formed. It bears some interesting resemblances to the winning story being also to do with climbing, but of quite a different sort. The nameless main character, a wealthy tradesman bent on a political career, is not one often met with in New Zealand literature.

Bender THIRD PRIZE – Ann-Marie Houng Lee
‘Bender’ could easily be accused, after a careless read, of promoting racial stereotypes with its wealthy Pakeha and poor Maori characters. But the story is not only multi-layered and sophisticated; it is also genuinely empathetic with the protagonist’s despair. Like the winning story, ‘Bender’ is intimate not only with the microcosm of the characters’ lives but also our wider society.

Highly Recommended Stories In No Particular Order:

Beyond Pluto by Sue Wootton.
The Maintenance Man by Margot Schwass
Fly away by Trisha Hanfin.
What Davinia knew about love by Gemma Bowker-Wright
The Killing Jar by Jane Swan
On Nevsky Prospekt by Christodoulos Moisa

In the Fields of Electric Light by Thomas Gough

Friday 7 November - just to hand comments from author/reviewer/columnist David Hill who judged the Secondary Schools division:

SUNDAY STAR-TIMES SHORT STORY COMPETITION 2008
Secondary Schools Division – Judge’s Report

There were nearly 400 entries in this division, and I think that’s brilliant. It’s great to know there are so many enthusiastic and able young writers around. Every one of you should feel proud – each of your stories is a work of literature which never existed in the world before, and that makes each one special. After judging, I had sore teeth – I kept grinding them with envy at how good so many of the authors were.

Just about all the entrants wrote about their worlds – real or rearranged or exaggerated, but unmistakeably a young person’s world, with situations, emotions, characters, problems and episodes that felt authentic and convincing. Great. Of course there’s room for fantasy and blood-and-guts and lips meeting in the moonlight (if they’re well written) but it was the stories narrating and examining some aspect of adolescent life or experience in early 21st century NZ that made the most impact.

I had to select 10 top stories. Then I had to select the top 3 of the top 10. Then I had to select the top 1 of the top 3. It was a pleasure and a pain. I read and re-read and made notes. Then I re-re-read and made more notes. Once I got up at 2 am to read a couple of stories for the fourth time and see if they were as good as I’d thought they were. They weren’t – they were better.

So what made some stories stand out?

1. They were long enough to develop a plot, establish a setting, and show characters. A lot of the other stories were promising, but too short to create a situation or world that engaged the reader.
2. They were a story. Not a description. Not an essay or a character sketch. Not an outburst about how sick the world is and how the author was the only person to realise this. They had events and structure and changes and things happened in them.
3. The characters in them were credible, and often developed / changed during the story. They related to other people (and that includes relationships where they decided to be loners).
4. They used spoken dialogue and / or internal dialogue to show what characters were thinking and feeling.
5. They look good on the page. They weren’t just one huge, heavy-looking paragraph after another. They appealed to the eye by using different-sized paragraphs, occasional changes of font (where necessary, not just as a gimmick), dialogue, gaps on the page where the narrative jumped in place or time.
6. They made sense. A few stories were so complicated, so obscure, so tangled, so consciously “look-at-my-amazing-writing-style” that I couldn’t be sure what they were about. Believe it or not, that can be a problem.
7. If they used unusual or exotic vocab, then they made sure they knew what the words meant. I suggest that shoving an unusual word into a story without checking its meaning is a bit like shoving on sneakers without checking they’re laced up. After a while, you trip over.
8. Their spelling and punctuation were good. Does this sound boring? Tough luck. A story is a work of art; it needs care. If I felt a writer hadn’t taken enough care, then s/he didn’t make the top ten.

So – the winners.

FIRST – No 360 “A Single Man” A clever, ambitious narrative that was always tightly under control. The relationship between James and Margaret was complex, always changing, never predictable. It engaged and emotionally affected the reader. The viewpoint was convincing, and techniques such as dialogue, time changes, different viewpoints were used skilfully. The ending was a risk, but a successful and dramatic one. The characters were always credible and the author made an excellent job of showing the different facets of their personalities.

SECOND – No 296 “Tulips”. I found this a haunting, very poignant story. Its study of the relationships between the two main characters was delicate, careful and very moving. It was an excellent example of a story which showed more than it actually said. A closely-observed and very focused little narrative of human behaviour. The imagery of the flowers was most effective.

THIRD – No 82 “Golden Dog” This was a lively, fast, witty story, full of pace and discoveries, with a clever and satisfying ending. The mood alternated nicely between loss and loneliness on the one hand, and joy and relief on the other hand. The setting was authentic, with the author showing a good eye for striking little details. The feelings of the protagonist were convincing, and developed nicely during the story. A nice blend of the external and internal worlds.

And the rest of the Top 10, in numerical order:

No 29 – “A Sensible Girl” A witty, wry story with close observation of details. Steady movement. Main character appealing and real.
No 77 – “That Summer” Very interesting arrangement of episodes. Intriguing and original structure. Good range of characters. Dramatic build up and strong plot.
No 168 – “Lily” An adventurous, ambitious story. Effective blend of good times and bad times. Appealing young central character.
No 297 – “Sunday at the Cinema” Well set-up narrative, with good evocation of characters, setting, situation. Well controlled and keeps moving. Ending is enigmatic and effective.
No 301 – “Dissension” A clever and contemporary idea, and the author made the most of it. Very well-observed details, and a nice sharp tone sustained throughout. Good use of dialogue.
No 313 – “Fingertips” A complex, careful exploration of characters. A clever and ambitious story. Some impressive and powerful symbolism. Thoughtful and impressive analysis of relationships.
No 357 – “Cross My Heart” A fast, focused, dramatic narrative, with a startling – in fact, shocking – ending. Good central confrontation and use of dialogue.

Congratulations to the winners and to the nearly-winners. Congratulations to ALL who wrote. I hope to see a lot of your names in print during the next few years. Just make sure you leave some room for my name......
David Hill
November 2008