2004 Hugo Winners
David Bilek
2004 Hugo Awards at Noreascon Four:
Best Novel - Paladin of Souls by Lois McMaster Bujold
Best Novella - "The Cookie Monster" by Vernor Vinge
Best Novelette - "Legions in Time" by Michael Swanwick
Best Short Story - "A Study in Emerald" by Neil Gaiman
Best Related Book - The Chesley Awards for Science Fiction and Fantasy
Art: A Retrospective by John Grant, Elizabeth L. Humphrey, and Pamela
D. Scoville
Best Professional Editor - Gardner Dozois
Best Professional Artist - Bob Eggleton
Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form - The Lord of the Rings: The
Return of the King
Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form - Gollum’s Acceptance Speech at
the 2003 MTV Movie Awards
Best Locus - Locus, Charles N. Brown, Jennifer A. Hall, and Kirsten
Gong-Wong, eds.
Best Fanzine - Emerald City, Cheryl Morgan, ed.
Best Langford - Dave Langford
Best Fan Artist - Frank Wu
Not much to say from me except that, once again, I'm disappointed in
the voters. It isn't the absolute travesty that Sawyer winning was,
but people are clearly voting on name recognition alone. I mean...
the Bujold, Vinge, Swanwick, and Gaiman? Come on... you could
probably have predicted those winners without even having read any
fiction last year.
I'll especially single out _Paladin of Souls_ as clearly an inferior
novel to _Ilium_, and Bujold won because she is Bujold. Note: I am
in no way saying _Paladin of Souls_ is a bad book in the way that
_Hominids_ is, but it isn't a Hugo winner.
The Hugos shouldn't be a High School Class President popularity
contest. Of course people are free to continue voting like it is, and
they probably will. And I'll keep feeling free to, uh, RANT ABOUT IT
ON USENET!
Hooray for voting for our buddies even if other people write better
fiction..
-David
Keith Soltys
>Best Novel - Paladin of Souls by Lois McMaster Bujold
>Best Novella - "The Cookie Monster" by Vernor Vinge
>Best Novelette - "Legions in Time" by Michael Swanwick
>Best Short Story - "A Study in Emerald" by Neil Gaiman
Pretty much a popularity concept. The Vinge story was slight, the Gaimain
story a pastiche, I haven't read the Swanick, or if I did, it didn't stick.
I am really disappointed that Wilson didn't win for Blind Lake.
Keith
Htn963
> As I have not seen them posted, the following are the winners of the
> 2004 Hugo Awards at Noreascon Four:
>
> Best Novel - Paladin of Souls by Lois McMaster Bujold
> Best Novella - "The Cookie Monster" by Vernor Vinge
> Best Novelette - "Legions in Time" by Michael Swanwick
> Best Short Story - "A Study in Emerald" by Neil Gaiman
<snip who-cares-about-the-rests:)>
> Not much to say from me except that, once again, I'm disappointed in
> the voters. It isn't the absolute travesty that Sawyer winning was,
> but people are clearly voting on name recognition alone. I mean...
> the Bujold, Vinge, Swanwick, and Gaiman? Come on... you could
> probably have predicted those winners without even having read any
> fiction last year.
>
> I'll especially single out _Paladin of Souls_ as clearly an inferior
> novel to _Ilium_, and Bujold won because she is Bujold. Note: I am
> in no way saying _Paladin of Souls_ is a bad book in the way that
> _Hominids_ is, but it isn't a Hugo winner.
I thought *you* would be delighted to also have your precious
Bujold win, since she's now, what, ahead of Heinlein in the Hugo novel
count? And I can envision a resurgent of rampant Bujold cheerleading
gossips here in the future. <sigh>
As for me, I'm snorting in disgust of course, not the least
because yet another fantasy work has won the Hugo award. Why don't we
just not bother putting science fiction as an eligible category for
the Hugo anymore?
> The Hugos shouldn't be a High School Class President popularity
> contest.
Like the presidential race? Get real.
> Of course people are free to continue voting like it is, and
> they probably will. And I'll keep feeling free to, uh, RANT ABOUT IT
> ON USENET!
No, just don't take the Hugo seriously anymore, like youse said
you wouldn't after Sawyer won last year.
> Hooray for voting for our buddies even if other people write better
> fiction..
Hey, hey, bud, that's the Nebula! Only stupidity is at work
*here*.
--
Ht
Nightfall
contest.
Your right. It's whets popular with the fans that vote. Always has been and
hopefully always will be.
Rande...
r.r...@thevine.net
wrote:
>The Hugos shouldn't be a High School Class President popularity
>contest. Of course people are free to continue voting like it is, and
>they probably will. And I'll keep feeling free to, uh, RANT ABOUT IT
>ON USENET!
Why aren't they simply a popularity contest? The nominees are
selected by fans, and then voted on by fans. And, not too amazingly,
what people vote for is probably going to be what is popular. It gets
back to that critical divide between "good" and "popular". The Hugo
doesn't ask what's the most critically important, or best-written, or
socially significant, or most literate story written, it asks what's
the _best_. I have, during my life, read socially significant,
literate, critically important books. But it doesn't mean that I
liked them, and I surely wouldn't point to them as the best story I've
ever read.
Rebecca
Peter D. Tillman
Keith Soltys <ksoltys@-NOSPAM-rogers.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 06:25:39 GMT, David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
<http://www.noreascon.org/hugos/>
> >Best Novel - Paladin of Souls by Lois McMaster Bujold
> >Best Novella - "The Cookie Monster" by Vernor Vinge
> >Best Novelette - "Legions in Time" by Michael Swanwick
> >Best Short Story - "A Study in Emerald" by Neil Gaiman
>
> Pretty much a popularity concept. The Vinge story was slight, the Gaimain
> story a pastiche, I haven't read the Swanick, or if I did, it didn't stick.
>
The Swanwick is pretty darn cool:
<http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0406/legionsintime.shtml>
> I am really disappointed that Wilson didn't win for Blind Lake.
>
Well, PALADIN was slight, too ("B", imo), butI didn't think BLIND LAKE
was really Hugo-caliber, either ("A-"). Nominees:
<http://www.noreascon.org/hugos/nominees.html>
**NB: this site has links to all the short-fiction nominees. Some will
expire soon. A word to the wise....
Best Novel (462 ballots) * = winner
*Paladin of Souls -- Lois McMaster Bujold (Eos)
Humans -- Robert J. Sawyer (Tor Books)
Ilium -- Dan Simmons (Eos)
Singularity Sky -- Charles Stross (Ace Books)
Blind Lake -- Robert Charles Wilson (Tor Books)
Huh. A weak year. My clear fave was the Stross (rhymes with Ross, "A-"),
but it had first-novel rough spots. At least Sawyer didn't win!
Best Novella (215 ballots)
"Walk in Silence" -- Catherine Asaro (Analog, April 2003)
"The Empress of Mars" -- Kage Baker (Asimov's, July 2003)
"The Green Leopard Plague" -- Walter Jon Williams (Asimov's, Oct.-Nov.
2003)
"Just Like the Ones We Used to Know" -- Connie Willis(Asimov's, Dec.
2003)
*"The Cookie Monster" -- Vernor Vinge (Analog, Oct. 2003)
"Green Leopard Plague" would have gotten my vote....
Best Novelette (243 ballots)
"The Empire of Ice Cream" -- Jeffrey Ford (Sci Fiction, scifi.com,
Feb. 2003)
"Bernardo's House" -- James Patrick Kelly (Asimov's, June 2003)
"Into the Gardens of Sweet Night" -- Jay Lake (Writers of the Future
XIX, ed. Algis Budrys, Galaxy Press, 2003)
"Hexagons" -- Robert Reed (Asimov's, July 2003)
"Nightfall" -- Charles Stross (Asimov's, April 2003)
*"Legions in Time" -- Michael Swanwick (Asimov's, April 2003)
I'm happy here. But I'm not totally impartial re Swanwick ;-]
Best Short Story (310 ballots)
"Paying It Forward" -- Michael A. Burstein (Analog, Sept. 2003)
*"A Study in Emerald" -- Neil Gaiman (Shadows over Baker Street, ed.
Michael Reaves & John Pelan, Del Rey, 2003)
"Four Short Novels" -- Joe Haldeman (Fantasy & Science Fiction,
Oct.-Nov. 2003)
"The Tale of the Golden Eagle" -- David D. Levine (Fantasy & Science
Fiction, June 2003)
"Robots Don't Cry" -- Mike Resnick (Asimov's, July 2003)
Huh. Just one nominee from Asimov's!: the obResnick (which is
unmemorable). Haven't read the Gaiman, a mock-Victorian S. Holmes
pastiche:
<http://www.neilgaiman.com/exclusive/StudyinEmerald.asp>
Happy reading!
Pete Tillman
Damien R. Sullivan
>Not much to say from me except that, once again, I'm disappointed in
>the voters. It isn't the absolute travesty that Sawyer winning was,
>but people are clearly voting on name recognition alone. I mean...
>the Bujold, Vinge, Swanwick, and Gaiman? Come on... you could
>I'll especially single out _Paladin of Souls_ as clearly an inferior
>novel to _Ilium_, and Bujold won because she is Bujold. Note: I am
Name recognition? It's not like no one's heard of Dan Simmons. In my SF
group I'd say more people have read _Hyperion_ than Bujold -- I get the
impression almost all of us have read _Hyperion_ at some point, while the
Bujold readers are still a pushing minority.
(I don't remember my own opinion of _Hyperion_; I do remember that one of the
next two books fried my tolerances and I haven't touched Simmons since.)
Actually, I read _Singularity Sky_ just recently, and it seemed pretty good,
more so than I expected. I wonder if I'd have voted for that over Paladin,
had I voted. I'd need to re-read Paladin. Bujold wins almost any
characterization contest, but Stross didn't suck; I'm not sure which had more
ideas. Bujold extended her "science fiction writer thinks about religion and
magic" kick, while Stross put his own twist on the modern post-Singularity
wave, and the other wave of people juggling "FTL, relativity, causality, pick
two".
>The Hugos shouldn't be a High School Class President popularity
>contest. Of course people are free to continue voting like it is, and
It shouldn't be about what more people read and liked?
-xx- Damien X-)
David Dyer-Bennet
> I'll especially single out _Paladin of Souls_ as clearly an inferior
> novel to _Ilium_, and Bujold won because she is Bujold. Note: I am
> in no way saying _Paladin of Souls_ is a bad book in the way that
> _Hominids_ is, but it isn't a Hugo winner.
Eh; I doubt I'll eve bother to read another Dan Simmons novel. What I
heard from the fans about _The Fall of Hyperion_, and what I observed
myself about _Phases of Gravity_, makes me totally uninterested.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
David Dyer-Bennet
> Actually, I read _Singularity Sky_ just recently, and it seemed pretty good,
> more so than I expected. I wonder if I'd have voted for that over Paladin,
> had I voted. I'd need to re-read Paladin. Bujold wins almost any
> characterization contest, but Stross didn't suck; I'm not sure which had more
> ideas. Bujold extended her "science fiction writer thinks about religion and
> magic" kick, while Stross put his own twist on the modern post-Singularity
> wave, and the other wave of people juggling "FTL, relativity, causality, pick
> two".
I just read SS myself. It's only my second Stross, so I didn't have a
lot of expectations either way. In fact, I was mightily impressed; I
liked it much better than any of the stories in TOAST.
John S. Novak, III
>>The Hugos shouldn't be a High School Class President popularity
>>contest. Of course people are free to continue voting like it is, and
>>they probably will. And I'll keep feeling free to, uh, RANT ABOUT IT
>>ON USENET!
> Why aren't they simply a popularity contest? The nominees are
> selected by fans, and then voted on by fans. And, not too amazingly,
> what people vote for is probably going to be what is popular. It gets
> back to that critical divide between "good" and "popular". The Hugo
> doesn't ask what's the most critically important, or best-written, or
> socially significant, or most literate story written, it asks what's
> the _best_.
I think he meant author popularity, rather than book popularity.
If I understood the post correctly, his thesis is that Vinge won
because he was Vinge, not because his work was better than the others
in his category, for instance. And there's probably something to
that, since I went out of my way to read the Vinge work, but not any
of the others. (I don't vote for Hugo awards, but it wouldn't
surprise me if this effect played in for at least some voters.)
And, while I agree that it should be *books* voted for, not *authors*,
I'm not sufficiently surprised by this to be outraged. Or even
annoyed. Instead, I just don't take the Hugo awards that seriously
any more.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
The Humblest Man on the Net
James Nicoll
Htn963 <Htn...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
snip
> As for me, I'm snorting in disgust of course, not the least
>because yet another fantasy work has won the Hugo award. Why don't we
>just not bother putting science fiction as an eligible category for
>the Hugo anymore?
Fantasy has always been eligible. Fantasy is winning lately
because SF is losing or has lost the battle for the hearts and minds
of the readers. For reasons I have gone into before, it's not reasonable
to expect positively futuristic fiction or an appreciation for it from a
nation addicted to thinking it just missed the good times*. Note that at
the novel length, there was -one- SF novel by an American out of five
nominees**, and that was half a book.
Happily, there's comparatie advantage, so US authors can focus
on their strengths and writers from other nations can focus on theirs.
James Nicoll
* There's actually a word for this, but I forget what it is.
**At least I think Wilson is now a Canuck. He's certainly lived here most
of his life, but so did my mother and she never became Canadian.
--
"I mean, you don't seem like a bad guy to me..."
"I don't? I got a death touch, an army of killer robots and a skull
drawn on my chest and I don't look like a bad guy to you? I think
you could be in the wrong business."
Louann Miller
>David Bilek:
>> Not much to say from me except that, once again, I'm disappointed in
>> the voters. It isn't the absolute travesty that Sawyer winning was,
>> but people are clearly voting on name recognition alone. I mean...
>> the Bujold, Vinge, Swanwick, and Gaiman? Come on... you could
>> probably have predicted those winners without even having read any
>> fiction last year.
>(snip for length)
> I thought *you* would be delighted to also have your precious
>Bujold win, since she's now, what, ahead of Heinlein in the Hugo novel
>count? And I can envision a resurgent of rampant Bujold cheerleading
>gossips here in the future. <sigh>
So here's a question -- has there ever been a Hugo award session that
_didn't_ start a "we wuz robbed" discussion among fans of at least one
contender and/or a ferocious debate about whether the rules needed
changing?
And another: am I right in thinking that "For Us, the Living" is
eligible to be nominated next year? If so, what are its chances?
Louann, the bystander.
James Nicoll
Minuses: It's an example of a subgenre that's pretty much
dead, the utopian* romance. Also, I don't think it is that good,
althoguh lord knows it's better than Mack Reynold's forays into
the field.
Pluses: RAH fans are numerous, energetic and fanatical***,
although poorly armed with soft cushions and comfy chairs. If
the RAH fans organize to get out the vote for FUTL, it could well
be a slam dunk, esp since a Heinlein campaign is unlikely to
draw the sort of negative attention and paranoia that e.g. Hubbard
campigns have. 500 votes would do it.
James Nicoll
* Utopian for Americans. Europeans are consigned to hell on Earth, in
part because the Free Lovers of the future seem a little weak on trade
issues**, because they are _Social Credit_ Free Love types. Perhaps if
more polyamorists used the phrase 'comparative advantage' and read
passages from _The Wealth of Nations_ and _The Principles of Political
Economy and Taxation_ to each other when wooing? But here I descend into
utopianism myself. It's hard enough to get dates with the phrase "price
elasticity" or even "Velben good".
** Also because they blowed themselves up real good.
*** ten quatloos says at least one leaps up to angrily defend FUTL.
Mark Reichert
> I thought *you* would be delighted to also have your precious
> Bujold win, since she's now, what, ahead of Heinlein in the Hugo novel
> count? And I can envision a resurgent of rampant Bujold cheerleading
> gossips here in the future. <sigh>
You should be delighted. You'll be able to smugly dismiss anybody who
has even the slightest positive view of Bujold's writing as being
inferior lifeforms.
In the recent thread on Brust, I was struck on how smugly dismissive
the anti-Bujold crowd was. "I read one the early Bujold books and I
proud that I've never bothered to read any of that crap again. The
people who like her books must be completely loony tunes and should be
committed."
David Bilek
>On 5 Sep 2004 07:55:34 -0700, Htn...@peoplepc.com (Htn963) wrote:
>
>>David Bilek:
>>> Not much to say from me except that, once again, I'm disappointed in
>>> the voters. It isn't the absolute travesty that Sawyer winning was,
>>> but people are clearly voting on name recognition alone. I mean...
>>> the Bujold, Vinge, Swanwick, and Gaiman? Come on... you could
>>> probably have predicted those winners without even having read any
>>> fiction last year.
>
>>(snip for length)
>
>> I thought *you* would be delighted to also have your precious
>>Bujold win, since she's now, what, ahead of Heinlein in the Hugo novel
>>count? And I can envision a resurgent of rampant Bujold cheerleading
>>gossips here in the future. <sigh>
>
>So here's a question -- has there ever been a Hugo award session that
>_didn't_ start a "we wuz robbed" discussion among fans of at least one
>contender and/or a ferocious debate about whether the rules needed
>changing?
>
_A Deepness in the Sky_, Vernor Vinge.
People, including me, have said that the year in which it was
nominated was extraordinarily strong, but I believe it's a nearly
unanimous verdict that it was Hugo-worthy.
-David
David Bilek
>In article <41413738...@news.thevine.net>, r.r...@thevine.net wrote:
>
>>>The Hugos shouldn't be a High School Class President popularity
>>>contest. Of course people are free to continue voting like it is, and
>>>they probably will. And I'll keep feeling free to, uh, RANT ABOUT IT
>>>ON USENET!
>
>> Why aren't they simply a popularity contest? The nominees are
>> selected by fans, and then voted on by fans. And, not too amazingly,
>> what people vote for is probably going to be what is popular. It gets
>> back to that critical divide between "good" and "popular". The Hugo
>> doesn't ask what's the most critically important, or best-written, or
>> socially significant, or most literate story written, it asks what's
>> the _best_.
>
>I think he meant author popularity, rather than book popularity.
>
>If I understood the post correctly, his thesis is that Vinge won
>because he was Vinge, not because his work was better than the others
>in his category, for instance. And there's probably something to
>that, since I went out of my way to read the Vinge work, but not any
>of the others. (I don't vote for Hugo awards, but it wouldn't
>surprise me if this effect played in for at least some voters.)
>
Yes, exactly. It has become an author popularity contest rather than
a fiction popularity contest. People vote for an author they know
even if the particular work they are nominated for is sub-par.
>And, while I agree that it should be *books* voted for, not *authors*,
>I'm not sufficiently surprised by this to be outraged. Or even
>annoyed. Instead, I just don't take the Hugo awards that seriously
>any more.
I'm not sure that posting a rant to Usenet constitutes me going out of
my way to be outraged, though. Is there anything less likely to make
a difference than ranting on Usenet?
-David
David Bilek
>David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>The Hugos shouldn't be a High School Class President popularity
>>contest. Of course people are free to continue voting like it is, and
>
>It shouldn't be about what more people read and liked?
>
Of course it should be, but it isn't.
It's "I'll vote for this author who wrote something I really liked a
while back since I haven't even read most of the nominees"
-David
John Pelan
Robert Bloch's Hugo for "That Hellbound Train" called to say "hello".
;-)
Seriously, once one gets past the idea that "SF" means "speculative
fiction" and as such may embrace fantasy and the supernatural, then
the Hugos have been generally speaking, pretty solid choices.* I too,
would have opted for BLIND LAKE, but then I've been banging the Wilson
drum for many years. I obviously can't comment on the Gaiman story as
I'm a little to the subject (and pleased as punch, I might add), but I
wouldn't dismiss any of the selections this year as bad ones.
I'd much rather rant about Theodore Cogswell getting the shaft on the
RetroHugo. ;-)
*No, I wouldn't have voted for Harry Potter, but it was by no means a
bad choice, either contemporarily or from a historical perspective. I
suspect that in my twilight years I'll be buying lots of stories from
authors whose introduction to fantastic fiction was Harry Potter.
Cheers,
John Pelan
aRJay
<dtb...@comcast.net> writes
>j...@panix.com (John S. Novak, III) wrote:
>>In article <41413738...@news.thevine.net>, r.r...@thevine.net wrote:
>>
>>>>The Hugos shouldn't be a High School Class President popularity
>>>>contest. Of course people are free to continue voting like it is, and
>>>>they probably will. And I'll keep feeling free to, uh, RANT ABOUT IT
>>>>ON USENET!
>>
>>> Why aren't they simply a popularity contest? The nominees are
>>> selected by fans, and then voted on by fans. And, not too amazingly,
>>> what people vote for is probably going to be what is popular. It gets
>>> back to that critical divide between "good" and "popular". The Hugo
>>> doesn't ask what's the most critically important, or best-written, or
>>> socially significant, or most literate story written, it asks what's
>>> the _best_.
>>
>>I think he meant author popularity, rather than book popularity.
>>
>>If I understood the post correctly, his thesis is that Vinge won
>>because he was Vinge, not because his work was better than the others
>>in his category, for instance. And there's probably something to
>>that, since I went out of my way to read the Vinge work, but not any
>>of the others. (I don't vote for Hugo awards, but it wouldn't
>>surprise me if this effect played in for at least some voters.)
>>
>
>Yes, exactly. It has become an author popularity contest rather than
>a fiction popularity contest. People vote for an author they know
>even if the particular work they are nominated for is sub-par.
>
earliest Hugos. I can see a way round it but it would be difficult (at
best) to set up and unlikely to be popular (with anyone).[1]
>>And, while I agree that it should be *books* voted for, not *authors*,
>>I'm not sufficiently surprised by this to be outraged. Or even
>>annoyed. Instead, I just don't take the Hugo awards that seriously
>>any more.
>
>I'm not sure that posting a rant to Usenet constitutes me going out of
>my way to be outraged, though. Is there anything less likely to make
>a difference than ranting on Usenet?
>
Of course ranting to yourself alone.
[1] My suggestion is that at the 2006 Worldcon fans vote for the judging
panel for the 2008 Worldcon. Actually they would be voting amongst
several short listed judges in four categories, written, dramatic
presentation, neutral and general. The neutral panellists would be
respected (hopefully) reviewers not especially attached to the SF genre.
This panel would then have to undertake not to read or watch any SF
until they receive their copies of the works nominated for the 2008
awards. Their copies of these works would be stripped of all identifying
marks so that as far as possible the judges only have the work itself to
judge.
Obviously there is no way this would work even if it was implemented but
it does indicate just how big a problem it would be to eliminate the
author effect.
--
aRJay
"In this great and creatorless universe, where so much beautiful has
come to be out of the chance interactions of the basic properties of
matter, it seems so important that we love one another."
- Lucy Kemnitzer
David Eppstein
"Peter D. Tillman" <til...@aztec.asu.edu> wrote:
> The Swanwick is pretty darn cool:
> <http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0406/legionsintime.shtml>
I hadn't read that, but now I have and I'm glad I did.
Is there a name for the subgenre that includes this and "The Gernsbeck
Continuum"? I'm not referring to the time travel idea, but more to the
nostalgic retro feel, deliberately writing as if it were 1954 instead of
2004.
--
David Eppstein
Computer Science Dept., Univ. of California, Irvine
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Damien R. Sullivan
>Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>So here's a question -- has there ever been a Hugo award session that
>>_didn't_ start a "we wuz robbed" discussion among fans of at least one
>_A Deepness in the Sky_, Vernor Vinge.
>People, including me, have said that the year in which it was
>nominated was extraordinarily strong, but I believe it's a nearly
>unanimous verdict that it was Hugo-worthy.
Tangentially, I'm wondering again what I think of the Hugo results. Let's
check Wikipedia, which has better lists than worldcon.org.
2004: Liked Paladin and Sky, haven't read the others. Not unhappy.
2003: Didn't read any of those, though heard the anti-Sawyer reaction.
2002: Read and liked American Gods, Chalion, and Cosmonaut Keep. Suspect one
of the latter two would have been a better win, and certainly seemed more
novel in worldbuilding.
2001: At the time I'd only read The Sky Road, and voted for it. Have since
read Harry Potter, which wasn't bad; I probably prefer MacLeod, but am not
sure I can manage "robbed".
2000: Deepness trumps Cryptonomicon and Civil Campaign, but yeah, a strong
year. Except I suspect for Darwin's Radio, not that I've actually read it.
1999: Only one I've read is _To Say Nothing of the Dog_. Light fun I don't
remember much of.
1998: I read some later Haldeman with loathing, not sure if it was Forever
Peace or Forever Free or both. I suspect the Swanwick or the Walter Jon
Williams would have been better; I just read "The Green Leopard Plague" and
liked it, my first Williams.
1997: I read Red Mars, which didn't give me the desire to read more of that
trilogy, so I'd have had to vote for Memory. I note that Sawyer has been
nominated a few zillion times.
1996: The Diamond Age was a fine win.
1995: Mirror Dance was a fine win. My first Bujold, too.
1994: Like 1999 and 1998, I'd feel robbed at the nomination stage. Or maybe
the publication stage.
1993: Vinge, yeah! Beats Red Mars, sure. Didn't finish China Mountain Zhang.
1992: Barrayar vs. Xenocide and All the Royalties of Pern? Easy win there.
Lots of people like Bone Dance, though, and I think I liked the Summer Queen
years ago, so a decent year.
Okay, running out of steam. New game: what years have actually read all, or
at least the most, nomineese for? At all, never mind ahead of time.
2004: 2
2002: 3 (of 6)
2001: 2
2000: 4
1999: 1
1998: maybe 1?
1997: 1
1996: 2
1995: 1
1993: 2.5
1992: 4 of 6
1991: 3
1990: 1, maybe 2?
1989: 2
1988: 1
1987: 1 (got robbed there, Realtime trumps Speaker for me -- though Speaker
wasn't bad)
1986: 2
1985: 4
1984: 4
1983: 3
1982: 2
1981: 4
1980: 1
1979: 2 of 4
1978: 2
1977: 1
1976: 2
1975: 2
1974: 2
1973: 1 of 6
1972: 3
1971: 2
1970: 2
1968: 1
1967: 1
1966: 3
1964: 1 (Vonnegut)
1962: 1
1961: 1
1960: 2
1959: 1
Retro 1954: 4
Retro 1951: 3
So, no year has complete coverage. Some years, I've at least heard of all the
books; other times I don't know anything about them, or haven't even heard of
them or their authors at all. And I read a lot, or think I do.
-xx- Damien X-)
Martin Wisse
R. Sullivan) wrote:
>David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Not much to say from me except that, once again, I'm disappointed in
>>the voters. It isn't the absolute travesty that Sawyer winning was,
>>but people are clearly voting on name recognition alone. I mean...
>>the Bujold, Vinge, Swanwick, and Gaiman? Come on... you could
>
>>I'll especially single out _Paladin of Souls_ as clearly an inferior
>>novel to _Ilium_, and Bujold won because she is Bujold. Note: I am
>
>Name recognition? It's not like no one's heard of Dan Simmons. In my SF
>group I'd say more people have read _Hyperion_ than Bujold -- I get the
>impression almost all of us have read _Hyperion_ at some point, while the
>Bujold readers are still a pushing minority.
_Hyperion_ is over a decade ago and inbetween it and _Illum_ Dan Simmons
did nothing much of sf/fantasy interest. [*]
Bujold on the other hand has been constantly writing books that lie
comfortably in the heart of traditional science fiction; Hugo voters are
usually somewhat on the conservative side...
You do the math.
Martin Wisse
--
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is
about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion,
English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious
and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary. --James Nicoll
Richard Horton
<til...@aztec.asu.edu> wrote:
>In article <2g5mj01gdi3krdmsj...@4ax.com>,
> Keith Soltys <ksoltys@-NOSPAM-rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 06:25:39 GMT, David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
> <http://www.noreascon.org/hugos/>
>
>> >Best Novel - Paladin of Souls by Lois McMaster Bujold
>> >Best Novella - "The Cookie Monster" by Vernor Vinge
>> >Best Novelette - "Legions in Time" by Michael Swanwick
>> >Best Short Story - "A Study in Emerald" by Neil Gaiman
>>
>> Pretty much a popularity concept. The Vinge story was slight, the Gaimain
>> story a pastiche, I haven't read the Swanick, or if I did, it didn't stick.
>>
>
>The Swanwick is pretty darn cool:
><http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0406/legionsintime.shtml>
>
For whatever reason I didn't really get on with the Swanwick story. I
didn't think it bad, but not really Hugo worthy. To be sure, I have
not read the story it's based on -- a Van Vogt story from the 40s, I
seem to recall.
>> I am really disappointed that Wilson didn't win for Blind Lake.
>>
>
>Well, PALADIN was slight, too ("B", imo), butI didn't think BLIND LAKE
>was really Hugo-caliber, either ("A-"). Nominees:
><http://www.noreascon.org/hugos/nominees.html>
>**NB: this site has links to all the short-fiction nominees. Some will
>expire soon. A word to the wise....
>
>Best Novel (462 ballots) * = winner
>
> *Paladin of Souls -- Lois McMaster Bujold (Eos)
> Humans -- Robert J. Sawyer (Tor Books)
> Ilium -- Dan Simmons (Eos)
> Singularity Sky -- Charles Stross (Ace Books)
> Blind Lake -- Robert Charles Wilson (Tor Books)
>
>Huh. A weak year. My clear fave was the Stross (rhymes with Ross, "A-"),
>but it had first-novel rough spots. At least Sawyer didn't win!
>
My vote ended up going to _Ilium_. For all its failings, I think
_Blind Lake_ ended up my second choice, though I wavered between any
of the other besides Sawyer as a second choice.
As you say, a weak year.
>Best Novella (215 ballots)
>
> "Walk in Silence" -- Catherine Asaro (Analog, April 2003)
> "The Empress of Mars" -- Kage Baker (Asimov's, July 2003)
> "The Green Leopard Plague" -- Walter Jon Williams (Asimov's, Oct.-Nov.
>2003)
> "Just Like the Ones We Used to Know" -- Connie Willis(Asimov's, Dec.
>2003)
> *"The Cookie Monster" -- Vernor Vinge (Analog, Oct. 2003)
>
>"Green Leopard Plague" would have gotten my vote....
>
And it got my vote, with "The Cookie Monster" second and "The Empress
of Mars" third.
>Best Novelette (243 ballots)
>
> "The Empire of Ice Cream" -- Jeffrey Ford (Sci Fiction, scifi.com,
>Feb. 2003)
> "Bernardo's House" -- James Patrick Kelly (Asimov's, June 2003)
> "Into the Gardens of Sweet Night" -- Jay Lake (Writers of the Future
>XIX, ed. Algis Budrys, Galaxy Press, 2003)
> "Hexagons" -- Robert Reed (Asimov's, July 2003)
> "Nightfall" -- Charles Stross (Asimov's, April 2003)
> *"Legions in Time" -- Michael Swanwick (Asimov's, April 2003)
>
>I'm happy here. But I'm not totally impartial re Swanwick ;-]
>
I voted for "Hexagons" in a very close decision over "The Empire of
Ice Cream", with "Nightfall", and "Into the Gardens of Sweet Night" in
the next two spots, in which order I don't remember. "Legions of Time"
was next I think.
(To some extent I admit I think it's about damn time Robert Reed got a
Hugo!)
In case people haven't read "Into the Gardens of Sweet Night",
probably the most obscure of the nominees, let me assure you it's a
fine piece of work, a worthy nominee. I'd recommend looking it up on
Fictionwise, or perhaps better still, finding it in Jay's new
collection from Wheatland Press, _American Sorrows_, which contains
three other long stories (a novella and a couple novelettes), one of
which is a reprint from a 2004 issue of _The Third Alternative_ and
the other two of which are original to the book.
>Best Short Story (310 ballots)
>
> "Paying It Forward" -- Michael A. Burstein (Analog, Sept. 2003)
> *"A Study in Emerald" -- Neil Gaiman (Shadows over Baker Street, ed.
>Michael Reaves & John Pelan, Del Rey, 2003)
> "Four Short Novels" -- Joe Haldeman (Fantasy & Science Fiction,
>Oct.-Nov. 2003)
> "The Tale of the Golden Eagle" -- David D. Levine (Fantasy & Science
>Fiction, June 2003)
> "Robots Don't Cry" -- Mike Resnick (Asimov's, July 2003)
>
>Huh. Just one nominee from Asimov's!: the obResnick (which is
>unmemorable). Haven't read the Gaiman, a mock-Victorian S. Holmes
>pastiche:
><http://www.neilgaiman.com/exclusive/StudyinEmerald.asp>
>
The Gaimain is very good, though I ended up voting for "Four Short
Novels". I'd have been OK with the Levine story winning too. I'd have
been very unhappy if either Resnick or Burstein won.
In summary, an OK result of the balloting, I think. Not in any case my
choice, but no story that I think a terrible choice won either.
Congratulations too to Jay Lake for his Campbell win, and to Cheryl
Morgan for Emerald City's fanzine win. (It's a very good fanzine that
is well worth checking out.) Congratulations to all the other
winners, too -- those are just two cases where I felt to some extent
knowledgeable enough to comment.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Endy9
what I read I like like
Ilium by Simmons and
Bernardo's House by James Patrick Kelly
But when you've not read the other nominees, how can you say they weren't
better than the one story you did read. I wonder how many of the voters had
read all nominees? Most times it is years before I get around to reading
most or all of the best novel entries.
--
Dennis/Endy
http://home.comcast.net/~endymion91/
~Dancing us from darkest night is the rhythm of love
Powered on by the beating of hearts~ -XTC
--
how...@brazee.net
On 5-Sep-2004, jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> Fantasy has always been eligible. Fantasy is winning lately
> because SF is losing or has lost the battle for the hearts and minds
> of the readers. For reasons I have gone into before, it's not reasonable
> to expect positively futuristic fiction or an appreciation for it from a
> nation addicted to thinking it just missed the good times*. Note that at
> the novel length, there was -one- SF novel by an American out of five
> nominees**, and that was half a book.
The funny thing is that a SF novel won the Nebula, but wasn't even nominated
for the Hugo.
David Bilek
>The problem I have is that I have read very few of the nominees. I know
>what I read I like like
>Ilium by Simmons and
>Bernardo's House by James Patrick Kelly
>
>But when you've not read the other nominees, how can you say they weren't
>better than the one story you did read. I wonder how many of the voters had
>read all nominees? Most times it is years before I get around to reading
>most or all of the best novel entries.
>
All of the shorter forms were put online this year, linked from the
Hugo Nominee page of the Noreascon Four website. My feeling is that
if you are going to vote, you should read all of the shorter nominees
and at least four of the five novels.
I usually make it a point to at least start every nominee. Except
this year where I will admit to having dismissed _Humans_ out of hand.
But when it is so very easy to read the short stories there isn't much
excuse for voting on name recognition. How long does it take to read
a novelette or short story? You could have read every short story
nominee in one sitting.
-David
Charlie Stross
as <dtb...@comcast.net> declared:
> As I have not seen them posted, the following are the winners of the
> 2004 Hugo Awards at Noreascon Four:
>
> Not much to say from me except that, once again, I'm disappointed in
> the voters. It isn't the absolute travesty that Sawyer winning was,
> but people are clearly voting on name recognition alone. I mean...
> the Bujold, Vinge, Swanwick, and Gaiman? Come on... you could
> probably have predicted those winners without even having read any
> fiction last year.
Now that it's over, I can 'fess up: I thought that "Bernardo's House"
was a *way* better contender for best novelette than either the Swanwick
one (although I thought that was still quite good) or my own. And I'm
relieved that "Singularity Sky" didn't win -- if it had, the pressure to
write more sequels would have been extreme, and I'm happier moving on to
new pastures. (I mean, I came up with the universe for it in 1994-96;
these days it feels dated, quaint, and horribly flawed to me.)
> I'll especially single out _Paladin of Souls_ as clearly an inferior
> novel to _Ilium_, and Bujold won because she is Bujold. Note: I am
> in no way saying _Paladin of Souls_ is a bad book in the way that
> _Hominids_ is, but it isn't a Hugo winner.
Not read _Illium_ yet (I'm hideously backlogged) but I agree, I'm
surprised about _Paladin of Souls_. As fantasy yarns go, it's very well
constructed; I just don't see it as a classic that will be re-read
in its own right decades hence.
-- Charlie
David Goldfarb
Damien R. Sullivan <dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>Okay, running out of steam. New game: what years have actually read all, or
>at least the most, nomineese for? At all, never mind ahead of time.
>
I'll play.
2004: 2, with a third on my "to-read" shelf. (Of course, there are things
on my "to-read" shelf that have been there for years, so that's no guarantee
that I'll get to it soon.)
2003: 4 -- all but _Kiln People_. (That'd be 3 if _Hominids_ hadn't
been serialized in Analog, of course)
2002: All 6. As I recall, I even read them all before I voted.
2001: 2, with a third on "to-read". (I'm trying to wait on the Martin
series until they're all out.)
2000: 3
1999: 2, with a third on "to-read". (I'm starting to sense a pattern here....)
1998: 1
1997: 4
1996: All 5, and in time to vote.
1995: 1, with a second on "to-read".
(Hey, Damien, you left out 1994? For me, 4.)
1993: 5, again in time to vote on them.
1992: Either 5 or 6, I can't recall for sure if I've read _All the Weyrs
of Pern_. I think I have.
1991: 4 (would have been 5, but I bounced off _Queen of Angels_.)
1990: 4
1989: 4 (all but the winner -- I find Cherryh unreadable)
1988: 5
1987: 3
1986: 4
1985: 5
1984: 5
1983: 5 of 6 (all but the Cherryh, again.)
1982: 2 (a Cherryh nominated again, and I somehow never read any Julian May)
1981: 5
1980: 4
1979: 4 of 4. (The one Cherryh I have actually read!)
1978: 3
1977: 4
1976: 4 (all but the Bester)
1975: 3
1974: 5
1973: 5 of 6 (all but the Simak)
1972: 5 (plus also the one that was withdrawn, so really all 6)
1971: 4 (only read the Tucker this year)
1970: 5
(Where's 1969? I had 3.)
1968: 3 (_The Butterfly Kid_ was nominated? I hadn't known that! And I
think that's not a bad score for the year I was born. :-)
1967: 5 of 6
1966: 4 (Hey, how did _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ get nominated this
year and win the next?)
(missing 1965. 4 of 4 here.)
1964: 4
(missing 1963. 4 here. They nominated _The Sword of Aldones_?? Sheesh.
There's my pick for worst nominee ever, and I'm speaking as someone who
used to be a big fan of Darkover.)
1962: 1 (only the winner)
1961: 5
1960: 4 (including the "Mark Phillips" :-)
1959: 3
--
David Goldfarb <*>| "When the cat calls at midnight, your shorts
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | will ignite."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- J. Michael Straczynski
David Goldfarb
Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> wrote:
>Not read _Illium_ yet (I'm hideously backlogged) but I agree, I'm
>surprised about _Paladin of Souls_. As fantasy yarns go, it's very well
>constructed; I just don't see it as a classic that will be re-read
>in its own right decades hence.
Just like those classics that are re-read in their own right _The Wanderer_,
_Foundation's Edge_, and _The Forever Machine_? I think you're setting
the bar just a wee bit high.
--
David Goldfarb <*>|"I'm imagining a BDSM-oriented Christianity,
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | in which God is the ultimate top, and "Jesus"
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | is everyone's safeword."
| -- Avram Grumer, on rec.arts.sf.fandom
Niall Harrison
> Best Novelette - "Legions in Time" by Michael Swanwick
This is the one I'm most miffed about; I don't think it's even in the same
league as most of the others on the ballot, and certainly not up there
with 'The Empire of Ice Cream'.
For the others, I think the Vinge is the right winner, the Gaiman is the
wrong winner, and I haven't read most of the novels.
Niall
--
Verbing weirds language.
John S. Novak, III
>>And, while I agree that it should be *books* voted for, not *authors*,
>>I'm not sufficiently surprised by this to be outraged. Or even
>>annoyed. Instead, I just don't take the Hugo awards that seriously
>>any more.
> I'm not sure that posting a rant to Usenet constitutes me going out of
> my way to be outraged, though. Is there anything less likely to make
> a difference than ranting on Usenet?
That wasn't directed at you; there have in the past been posts that
approach the froth stage about Hugo Awards that should have gone
elsewhere. I think last years' going to Sawyer was a big one.
Ben Crowell
> I am really disappointed that Wilson didn't win for Blind Lake.
I like Wilson, but what was so great about Blind Lake? It seemed
completely forgettable to me, and from what I remember, it didn't really
pose any interesting questions (about the characters, or the situation)
and then answer them (in any satisfying or interesting way that would make
you glad you finished the book).
Peter D. Tillman
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > I'll especially single out _Paladin of Souls_ as clearly an inferior
> > novel to _Ilium_, and Bujold won because she is Bujold. Note: I am
> > in no way saying _Paladin of Souls_ is a bad book in the way that
> > _Hominids_ is, but it isn't a Hugo winner.
>
> Eh; I doubt I'll eve bother to read another Dan Simmons novel. What I
> heard from the fans about _The Fall of Hyperion_, and what I observed
> myself about _Phases of Gravity_, makes me totally uninterested.
Huh. I haven't read ILIUM, and probably won't, but I liked PHASES a lot
-- my favorite Simmons, from the small selection I've read [1]. For
those who've not read it, PHASES is a fictional bio of an astronaut
going through a midlife crisis. Not really SF, but very nicely done.
FWIW, I consider PALADINS Bujold's weakest book since, er, the Quaddies
one.... Ah, FALLING FREE. Which isn't bad, either[1], and which also won
a Hugo, ims. Is there a pattern here? The new Connie Willis?
Anyway, far worse books than PALADINS have won the Hugo and/or Nebula.
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
[1] Simmons just doesn't ring my chimes, and I've never quite figured
out why. And am definitely too lazy to do so now....
[2] It's really pretty good, and I preferred it to PALADINS, but have no
desire to reread either.
Damien R. Sullivan
>(Hey, Damien, you left out 1994? For me, 4.)
I set out intending to leave out years I hadn't read any books from, thinking
there'd be a lot. So, the missing years were 0.
You're a better, or at least better-Hugo-read, fan than I!
>1966: 4 (Hey, how did _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ get nominated this
>year and win the next?)
There's a question mark on the Wikipedia page; apparently someone else
wondered the same thing.
-xx- Damien X-)
Damien R. Sullivan
>_Hyperion_ is over a decade ago and inbetween it and _Illum_ Dan Simmons
>did nothing much of sf/fantasy interest. [*]
Missing a [*]. But what about all the sequels: Fall of, Edymion, Rise of?
Bujold's produced more books, yes; I don't know who's had more readers.
-xx- Damien X-)
Damien R. Sullivan
>relieved that "Singularity Sky" didn't win -- if it had, the pressure to
>write more sequels would have been extreme, and I'm happier moving on to
>new pastures. (I mean, I came up with the universe for it in 1994-96;
>these days it feels dated, quaint, and horribly flawed to me.)
While I thought the Eschaton's world was kind of cool. The Eschaton concept
itself -- super-AI ascending and achieving breakthrough physics in a few hours
-- I don't take too seriously, but the acceptance of causality risk was nice.
And by contrast I just read "Nightfall" and it didn't do too much for me.
Seemed like "they upload into alien device, deus ex AIneko happens, they
download out with a passenger". I haven't read all the prior stories, though.
-xx- Damien X-)
David Goldfarb
>one.... Ah, FALLING FREE. Which isn't bad, either[1], and which also won
>a Hugo, ims.
No, it didn't win a Hugo (nor deserved to, IMO); it won a Nebula. (And
didn't deserve that either.) I'm not unhappy with _Paladin_ (singular!)
winning, though.
--
David Goldfarb <*>| "Justice or immortality. An intriguing choice."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Babylon 5, "Deathwalker"
David Goldfarb
>>1966: 4 (Hey, how did _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ get nominated this
>>year and win the next?)
>
>There's a question mark on the Wikipedia page; apparently someone else
>wondered the same thing.
My guess would be a change in the eligibility rules, but I'd love to
hear if anyone knows for sure.
--
David Goldfarb <*>| "You do it. I'm bitter."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- MST3K
James Nicoll
John S. Novak, III <j...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <nnrmj0lj1eo4rjvvj...@4ax.com>, David Bilek wrote:
>
>>>And, while I agree that it should be *books* voted for, not *authors*,
>>>I'm not sufficiently surprised by this to be outraged. Or even
>>>annoyed. Instead, I just don't take the Hugo awards that seriously
>>>any more.
>
>> I'm not sure that posting a rant to Usenet constitutes me going out of
>> my way to be outraged, though. Is there anything less likely to make
>> a difference than ranting on Usenet?
>
>That wasn't directed at you; there have in the past been posts that
>approach the froth stage about Hugo Awards that should have gone
>elsewhere. I think last years' going to Sawyer was a big one.
k*ds f*ct**n and f*nt*sy as well. Huh, both years when I attended
Worldcon. I think there was grumping about _Crouching Tiger, Hidden
Dragon_, even though CTHD is clearly SF [1], in as much as all the
nifty stuff was just things any obsessive could learn to do, hobbled
by a rather silly guild system. I bet when that universe invents the
scientific method, interesting things will follow in the martial
arts.
BTW, saw _Hero_. The teens behind me were _very_ confused when
they left, in particular by the fact that the same character died at
least three times. I think _Roshamon_ would have made their heads explode.
Unfortunately the existance of China was a bit of a spoiler for the film.
--
"I mean, you don't seem like a bad guy to me..."
"I don't? I got a death touch, an army of killer robots and a skull
drawn on my chest and I don't look like a bad guy to you? I think
you could be in the wrong business."
John S. Novak, III
>>That wasn't directed at you; there have in the past been posts that
>>approach the froth stage about Hugo Awards that should have gone
>>elsewhere. I think last years' going to Sawyer was a big one.
> And the Harry Potter two years earlier, because it is
> k*ds f*ct**n and f*nt*sy as well. Huh, both years when I attended
> Worldcon.
It's been a growing phenomenon in recent years-- it feels like we're
just done with one when the next one starts. Perhaps that's because
it spikes up around nominations time, too.
I really didn't mean to slap at the original poster, although I can
see I wrote clumsily enough that I did so by accident. Sorry 'bout
that.
> Dragon_, even though CTHD is clearly SF [1], in as much as all the
> nifty stuff was just things any obsessive could learn to do, hobbled
> by a rather silly guild system. I bet when that universe invents the
> scientific method, interesting things will follow in the martial
> arts.
A singularity of wuxia techniques?
Heh. Heh heh.
That's just so subversive-- it could not only be a good story, if
handled right, but a nicely scathing commentary on the anything-goes
singularity stories that are their own genre today.
> BTW, saw _Hero_.
Bitchin' bitchin' film.
Not quite the production values of CTHD, but very enjoyable
regardless.
> The teens behind me were _very_ confused when
> they left, in particular by the fact that the same character died at
> least three times. I think _Roshamon_ would have made their heads explode.
> Unfortunately the existance of China was a bit of a spoiler for the film.
A lot of youngsters laughed at the wrong times in the movie.
(Actually, were there any intended laugh points in there?) Total
unfamiliarity with the conventions. Apparently, they missed CTHD
_and_ "Iron Monkey" (among others) and couldn't quickly see the
smiliarity between this genre and modern comic books.
How odd.
The only downer is that I really have to wonder (obsessive foreign
policy reader that I am) how much the central method of Chinese unity
was meant to be a message to Taiwan.
David Bilek
>In article <chgk2d$iik$1...@panix3.panix.com>, James Nicoll wrote:
>
>>>That wasn't directed at you; there have in the past been posts that
>>>approach the froth stage about Hugo Awards that should have gone
>>>elsewhere. I think last years' going to Sawyer was a big one.
>
>> And the Harry Potter two years earlier, because it is
>> k*ds f*ct**n and f*nt*sy as well. Huh, both years when I attended
>> Worldcon.
>
>It's been a growing phenomenon in recent years-- it feels like we're
>just done with one when the next one starts. Perhaps that's because
>it spikes up around nominations time, too.
>
>I really didn't mean to slap at the original poster, although I can
>see I wrote clumsily enough that I did so by accident. Sorry 'bout
>that.
>
Nah. I ranted about Sawyer winning even more frothily.
The Hugo Awards are about the only time I really feel justified about
engaging in a serious rant. I'm starting to look forward to it.
I rant about other things, but I feel bad about it later. Not so with
the Hugo Awards!
-David
David Bilek
The question isn't who has more readers, it's who has more *fans among
Hugo voters*. Bujold is a regular con-goer and is extremely popular
among fans likely to be Hugo voters. Even more than Connie Willis.
I bet Bujold could win with "Some Doodles I Scribbled On A Brown Paper
Bag" unless she's up against Vinge or the like.
-David
David Bilek
>Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
>as <dtb...@comcast.net> declared:
>
>> As I have not seen them posted, the following are the winners of the
>> 2004 Hugo Awards at Noreascon Four:
>>
>> Not much to say from me except that, once again, I'm disappointed in
>> the voters. It isn't the absolute travesty that Sawyer winning was,
>> but people are clearly voting on name recognition alone. I mean...
>> the Bujold, Vinge, Swanwick, and Gaiman? Come on... you could
>> probably have predicted those winners without even having read any
>> fiction last year.
>
>Now that it's over, I can 'fess up: I thought that "Bernardo's House"
>was a *way* better contender for best novelette than either the Swanwick
>one (although I thought that was still quite good) or my own. And I'm
>relieved that "Singularity Sky" didn't win -- if it had, the pressure to
>write more sequels would have been extreme, and I'm happier moving on to
>new pastures. (I mean, I came up with the universe for it in 1994-96;
>these days it feels dated, quaint, and horribly flawed to me.)
Your newer stuff also improves on it. Hell, even _Iron Sunrise_ is
markedly more focused and better written and that's pretty much a
direct sequel! How long after SS did you write IS?
Looking forward to the Accelerando fixup. I'm wondering if we'll be
able to see the same improvement over the course of the "novel".
-David
James Nicoll
>
>>>That wasn't directed at you; there have in the past been posts that
>>>approach the froth stage about Hugo Awards that should have gone
>>>elsewhere. I think last years' going to Sawyer was a big one.
>
>> And the Harry Potter two years earlier, because it is
>> k*ds f*ct**n and f*nt*sy as well. Huh, both years when I attended
>> Worldcon.
>
>It's been a growing phenomenon in recent years-- it feels like we're
>just done with one when the next one starts. Perhaps that's because
>it spikes up around nominations time, too.
>
>I really didn't mean to slap at the original poster, although I can
>see I wrote clumsily enough that I did so by accident. Sorry 'bout
>that.
>
>> Dragon_, even though CTHD is clearly SF [1], in as much as all the
>> nifty stuff was just things any obsessive could learn to do, hobbled
>> by a rather silly guild system. I bet when that universe invents the
>> scientific method, interesting things will follow in the martial
>> arts.
>
>A singularity of wuxia techniques?
>Heh. Heh heh.
>
>That's just so subversive-- it could not only be a good story, if
>handled right, but a nicely scathing commentary on the anything-goes
>singularity stories that are their own genre today.
Feel free to use it.
I've mentioned before that I had an rpg setting where someone
discovered the mental disciplines behind all superhuman abilities, and
put them up on the web. Wacky hijinks followed*.
You know, there are at least two singularities out there
that people (not the same people**) seem to expect: the Nerdvolution,
where some brains get very mighty and eat the rest of us, and the
Rapture, where some of us, not me, get to tell G*d what a very fine
fellow he is***. I wonder what people do when they get the wrong
singularity?
* Note to self: idea for Tri-Stat adventure: shortly after the de-
segregation of the Federal superhuman agency, Truman decides to make
an example of a group calling itself the Regulators, who are not
_officially_ sanctioned by their state but generally known to given
the benefit of an official blind eye [kind of like Batman and Gotham,
with more lynchings].
** But what if they were?
*** Which is the reason for all the horrific regimes in history: G*d
has been breeding sychophants.
>> BTW, saw _Hero_.
>
>Bitchin' bitchin' film.
>Not quite the production values of CTHD, but very enjoyable
>regardless.
Well, I liked it, but there was one scene that was too CTHD,
and another (the splashing scene) that just went on to long.
>> The teens behind me were _very_ confused when
>> they left, in particular by the fact that the same character died at
>> least three times. I think _Roshamon_ would have made their heads explode.
>> Unfortunately the existance of China was a bit of a spoiler for the film.
>
>A lot of youngsters laughed at the wrong times in the movie.
>(Actually, were there any intended laugh points in there?) Total
>unfamiliarity with the conventions. Apparently, they missed CTHD
>_and_ "Iron Monkey" (among others) and couldn't quickly see the
>smiliarity between this genre and modern comic books.
>
>How odd.
Most memorable question, asked just before the credits
rolled: "Did he survive?", asked during the pan.
>The only downer is that I really have to wonder (obsessive foreign
>policy reader that I am) how much the central method of Chinese unity
>was meant to be a message to Taiwan.
Hmmm.
I did wonder how the cental moral of the story would be seen by
Western audiences.
James Nicoll
James Nicoll
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <2q23l1F...@uni-berlin.de>,
>John S. Novak, III <j...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> BTW, saw _Hero_.
>>
>>Bitchin' bitchin' film.
>>Not quite the production values of CTHD, but very enjoyable
>>regardless.
snip
> Most memorable question, asked just before the credits
>rolled: "Did he survive?", asked during the pan.
>
>>The only downer is that I really have to wonder (obsessive foreign
>>policy reader that I am) how much the central method of Chinese unity
>>was meant to be a message to Taiwan.
snip
What I meant to add was: what was the intended meaning of the
fact that the thousands of advisors appear to speak with the same
voice? Unity in Our Land or a hegomonizing swarm? Because it was
creepy as hell and the King of Qin seemed to find it off-putting as
well.
One wonder what the plan was if anyone had advanced beyond
100 paces from the King, since I didn't see any guards in the hall
and later events suggest reaction times were not minimal.
John S. Novak, III
>>I really didn't mean to slap at the original poster, although I can
>>see I wrote clumsily enough that I did so by accident. Sorry 'bout
>>that.
> Nah. I ranted about Sawyer winning even more frothily.
Oh. Uh, Bad David. Very bad.
Although, I think Sawyer is vastly overrated, too.
David Goldfarb
>
>>(Hey, Damien, you left out 1994? For me, 4.)
>
>I set out intending to leave out years I hadn't read any books from, thinking
>there'd be a lot. So, the missing years were 0.
>
>You're a better, or at least better-Hugo-read, fan than I!
The legacy of a misspent youth; a good chunk of which youth was spent
hanging out (and later working part-time in) an SF bookstore.
--
David Goldfarb <*>| The views and opinions expressed here are my own.
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | They do not reflect upon Microsoft Corporation or
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | its employees in any way because, well, I don't
| work for Microsoft.
David Goldfarb
David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>The question isn't who has more readers, it's who has more *fans among
>Hugo voters*. Bujold is a regular con-goer and is extremely popular
>among fans likely to be Hugo voters. Even more than Connie Willis.
>
>I bet Bujold could win with "Some Doodles I Scribbled On A Brown Paper
>Bag" unless she's up against Vinge or the like.
Is it raining on your parade to point out that _The Curse of Chalion_
*lost* to _American Gods_? Neil Gaiman is a very nice fellow, but
he's not terribly active in convention fandom.
Gaiman is on quite a streak at the moment -- three wins in three
successive years! -- but at the time he had never won one.
(Who can forget "Fuck! I won a Hugo Award!"?)
--
David Goldfarb <*>|"Given enough time and the right audience,
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | the darkest of secrets scum over into
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | mere curiosities."
| -- Neil Gaiman, _Sandman_ #53
Michael S. Schiffer
news:chgnqp$30n$1...@panix2.panix.com:
>...
> One wonder what the plan was if anyone had advanced beyond
> 100 paces from the King, since I didn't see any guards in the
> hall and later events suggest reaction times were not minimal.
The King of Qin seemed to be capable of dealing with any intruders
who weren't one of four people (and possibly with some of them--
IIRC, only Broken Sword and Nameless actually put him to the test).
Admittedly, having a situation where an intruder is going to be
between a million billion archers (too distant to quickly closer for
melee) and the King strikes me as asking for an unfortunate accident
a la William Rufus.
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Michael S. Schiffer
>...
> BTW, saw _Hero_. The teens behind me were _very_ confused
> when
> they left, in particular by the fact that the same character
> died at least three times. I think _Roshamon_ would have made
> their heads explode. Unfortunately the existance of China was a
> bit of a spoiler for the film.
If you don't know the history and don't get the message (as, one
suspects, was the case with said teens) then it arguably doesn't
telegraph more than the existence of the EU does about the end of a
Napoleonic Wars or WWII movie.
(Which in turn might raise some questions about "Hero"'s central
theme, what with quashing various brutal tyrants' attempts to unify
an area not proving necessarily incompatible with later,
nontyrannical moves towards unification. Certain characters may
have given up too easily.)
James Bodi
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>In article <chgmij$l3o$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <2q23l1F...@uni-berlin.de>,
>>John S. Novak, III <j...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> BTW, saw _Hero_.
>>>
>>>Bitchin' bitchin' film.
>>>Not quite the production values of CTHD, but very enjoyable
>>>regardless.
>
> snip
>
>> Most memorable question, asked just before the credits
>>rolled: "Did he survive?", asked during the pan.
>>
>>>The only downer is that I really have to wonder (obsessive foreign
>>>policy reader that I am) how much the central method of Chinese unity
>>>was meant to be a message to Taiwan.
--- Better yet: the words translated in English as 'our country' sounded
awfully like 'tian xia' to me, and I believe that actually means 'all-under-heaven'.
So perhaps it was a coded message to us all ...
> snip
>
> What I meant to add was: what was the intended meaning of the
>fact that the thousands of advisors appear to speak with the same
>voice? Unity in Our Land or a hegomonizing swarm? Because it was
>creepy as hell and the King of Qin seemed to find it off-putting as
>well.
--- Well, hell, he hired them in the first place ... I thought it was intended
to convey the totalitarian nature of the Qin Legalists.
>
> One wonder what the plan was if anyone had advanced beyond
>100 paces from the King, since I didn't see any guards in the hall
>and later events suggest reaction times were not minimal.
>--
>"I mean, you don't seem like a bad guy to me..."
>"I don't? I got a death touch, an army of killer robots and a skull
>drawn on my chest and I don't look like a bad guy to you? I think
>you could be in the wrong business."
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Jeff & Ann Smith
David Goldfarb wrote:
> In article <chgh8u$f43$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
> Damien R. Sullivan <dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>>gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>>
>>>1966: 4 (Hey, how did _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ get nominated this
>>>year and win the next?)
>>
>>There's a question mark on the Wikipedia page; apparently someone else
>>wondered the same thing.
>
>
> My guess would be a change in the eligibility rules, but I'd love to
> hear if anyone knows for sure.
>
It was serialized in IF, and the first issue with the serial was in 1965
-- so it was just barely eligible that year. There weren't much in the
way of rules back then, so it got nominated again for 1966 when the bulk
of the serial and the hardcover came out.
Jeff Smith
David Dyer-Bennet
> "Endy9" <endym...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>The problem I have is that I have read very few of the nominees. I know
>>what I read I like like
>>Ilium by Simmons and
>>Bernardo's House by James Patrick Kelly
>>
>>But when you've not read the other nominees, how can you say they weren't
>>better than the one story you did read. I wonder how many of the voters had
>>read all nominees? Most times it is years before I get around to reading
>>most or all of the best novel entries.
>
> All of the shorter forms were put online this year, linked from the
> Hugo Nominee page of the Noreascon Four website. My feeling is that
> if you are going to vote, you should read all of the shorter nominees
> and at least four of the five novels.
I agree a voter should have a pretty darned good idea about all the
nominees to vote. I will, however (not that I've been a member much
lately) vote if I feel I have good reason to believe I won't like
certain of the books (the most blatant case being book n of a series I
haven't liked) that I haven't read, and have read the rest. Sometimes
if I have a strong enough opinion about the author, too.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
David Bilek
>In article <l3nnj0pdhg5ob9b80...@4ax.com>,
>David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>The question isn't who has more readers, it's who has more *fans among
>>Hugo voters*. Bujold is a regular con-goer and is extremely popular
>>among fans likely to be Hugo voters. Even more than Connie Willis.
>>
>>I bet Bujold could win with "Some Doodles I Scribbled On A Brown Paper
>>Bag" unless she's up against Vinge or the like.
>
>Is it raining on your parade to point out that _The Curse of Chalion_
>*lost* to _American Gods_? Neil Gaiman is a very nice fellow, but
>he's not terribly active in convention fandom.
>
Well, I would put Gaiman up there with Vinge in terms of how his work
is revered by a lot of fans, but I realize that could start looking
like special pleading.
Too bad, too. _The Curse of Chalion_ was a better book than _Paladin
of Souls_ and more deserving of a Hugo.
-David
David Bilek
>In article <d0nnj0tkrciintver...@4ax.com>,
>David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>The Hugo Awards are about the only time I really feel justified about
>>engaging in a serious rant. I'm starting to look forward to it.
>>
>>I rant about other things, but I feel bad about it later. Not so with
>>the Hugo Awards!
>>
> I have to ask: did you vote?
Things changed on September 11th and we must face this changed world
with a whole new outlook. The threat of terrorism is constant and
prevents us from doing things in the same old way. We require a new
paradigm as we move forward into a bright future.
-David
John S. Novak, III
> Is it raining on your parade to point out that _The Curse of Chalion_
> *lost* to _American Gods_? Neil Gaiman is a very nice fellow, but
> he's not terribly active in convention fandom.
It rains on *my* parade, since tCoC was a good book with no glaring
flaws, while AG was a several hundred page violation of the "write
what you know," dictum. That being my roundabout way of saying the
Gaiman doesn't know America from beans. This is not an unpardonable
sin, but nor is it Hugo material. That's when my disillusionment with
the Hugo Awards crystallized, and I just stopped taking them
seriously.
Christopher Adams
(Re: "Hero")
> --- Better yet: the words translated in English as 'our country' sounded
> awfully like 'tian xia' to me, and I believe that actually means
> 'all-under-heaven'. So perhaps it was a coded message to us all ...
>> snip
I watched a Region 2 Chinese disc of the film, with subtitle translation done by
competent folks, so it was indeed translated as "All Under Heaven".
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
Alvaro G
>
> This is the one I'm most miffed about; I don't think it's even in the same
> league as most of the others on the ballot, and certainly not up there
> with 'The Empire of Ice Cream'.
I agree. The Empire of Ice Cream was clearly above the rest. What a
wonderful story. One of the best I have read in a long time.
> For the others, I think the Vinge is the right winner, the Gaiman is the
> wrong winner, and I haven't read most of the novels.
In short stories, I liked The Tale of the Golden Eagle best, closely
followed by Four Short Novels. I can't understand why most people
voted for the Gaiman story (unless it's because of the writer).
AG
how...@brazee.net
On 6-Sep-2004, David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Too bad, too. _The Curse of Chalion_ was a better book than _Paladin
> of Souls_ and more deserving of a Hugo.
But they weren't competing against each other. They were competing against
the other nominees.
James Nicoll
the events in the caligraphy scene, since he was nearly a match for
Broken Sword, and Broken Sword was said to be more than a match for
Flying Snow, who could pull that trick off. In fact, that scene really
only makes sense if the King could (or if all the archers wanted to
be a head shorter the next day). Only problem is, the other character
in the caligraphy scene with Flying Snow was Nameless.
Given the depiction of the earlier attempt on the King
by Broken Sword and Flying Snow, it seems possible that the guards
didn't expect to survive trying to stop Nameless, but were compelled
by duty to try.
Charlie Stross
as <dtb...@comcast.net> declared:
>>Now that it's over, I can 'fess up: I thought that "Bernardo's House"
>>was a *way* better contender for best novelette than either the Swanwick
>>one (although I thought that was still quite good) or my own. And I'm
>>relieved that "Singularity Sky" didn't win -- if it had, the pressure to
>>write more sequels would have been extreme, and I'm happier moving on to
>>new pastures. (I mean, I came up with the universe for it in 1994-96;
>>these days it feels dated, quaint, and horribly flawed to me.)
>
> Your newer stuff also improves on it. Hell, even _Iron Sunrise_ is
> markedly more focused and better written and that's pretty much a
> direct sequel! How long after SS did you write IS?
"Singularity Sky" was written in 1996-97 (actually ending January '98).
It was edited somewhat later -- 2000 -- but it's basically a 1998 novel
with 1995-6 world-building. "Iron Sunrise" ... I began it in 1998 then
hastily shoved it in a draw following an attack of sanity (it is a Bad
Idea to write sequels to unsold novels). I then went away and wrote "The
Atrocity Archive". I picked up "Iron Sunrise" again in 2001, after
selling "Singularity Sky", and threw most of it away: the first three
chapters date to 1998, but the rest was written in 2001-2002. It relies
on the same 1995-96 world-building, though, which is basically the
problem with continuing to write more books in the series -- it doesn't
matter how much better I can structure plot and characterization if I'm
hobbled by a flawed setting.
> Looking forward to the Accelerando fixup. I'm wondering if we'll be
> able to see the same improvement over the course of the "novel".
It's been substantially changed. If you consider the stories to be a
first draft you'll get the picture -- it's not a simple "string 'em
together and publish them" job.
-- Charlie
Mike Ward
It annoys me that these awards frequently go to works that cannot
objectively be said to be the best, but what really bothers me is the
effect it has on the awards themselves.
The Hugo should be the premere SF award, instead it's nothing.
Mike
Louann Miller
(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>Is it raining on your parade to point out that _The Curse of Chalion_
>*lost* to _American Gods_? Neil Gaiman is a very nice fellow, but
>he's not terribly active in convention fandom.
>
>Gaiman is on quite a streak at the moment -- three wins in three
>successive years! -- but at the time he had never won one.
>(Who can forget "Fuck! I won a Hugo Award!"?)
Best reply overhead in fandom afterward: Let's hope this man never
wins a Philip K. Dick Award.
Louann Miller
(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>In article <l3nnj0pdhg5ob9b80...@4ax.com>,
>David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>The question isn't who has more readers, it's who has more *fans among
>>Hugo voters*. Bujold is a regular con-goer and is extremely popular
>>among fans likely to be Hugo voters. Even more than Connie Willis.
>>
>>I bet Bujold could win with "Some Doodles I Scribbled On A Brown Paper
>>Bag" unless she's up against Vinge or the like.
She hasn't, though. "A Civil Campaign" was IIRC nominated but didn't
win. "Diplomatic Immunity" was (also IIRC) not nominated. Rightly, in
my opinion; it was a readable book but definitely a minor Bujold.
>Is it raining on your parade to point out that _The Curse of Chalion_
>*lost* to _American Gods_? Neil Gaiman is a very nice fellow, but
>he's not terribly active in convention fandom.
Those were the only two nominees I read of that year's batch, and I
was very surprised AG won. Can't say whether one of the other nominees
was better than Chalion, for obvious reasons, but to me "American
Gods" read less well than the similar "Expecting Someone Taller" by
Tom Holt.
Louann
James Nicoll
Mike Ward <m@d.w> wrote:
>I find the Hugos as well as the Nebulas to be meaningless "honors."
>
>It annoys me that these awards frequently go to works that cannot
>objectively be said to be the best
Just out of curiousity, what objective criteria are you
using?
how...@brazee.net
On 6-Sep-2004, Mike Ward <m@d.w> wrote:
> It annoys me that these awards frequently go to works that cannot
> objectively be said to be the best, but what really bothers me is the
> effect it has on the awards themselves.
Frequently? So sometimes the awards do go to works that can objectively
said to be the best? Do you have any examples of a work that is
objectively the best of the year?
Peter D. Tillman
>
> The question isn't who has more readers, it's who has more *fans among
> Hugo voters*. Bujold is a regular con-goer and is extremely popular
> among fans likely to be Hugo voters. Even more than Connie Willis.
>
> I bet Bujold could win with "Some Doodles I Scribbled On A Brown Paper
> Bag" unless she's up against Vinge or the like.
>
Hey, I'd read Lois's brown bags before a lot of the literati drivel that
clutters the shelves these days....
Cheers -- Pete Tillman, Bujold fanboy
Michael S. Schiffer
news:Xns955C5E87...@130.133.1.4:
>>> Unfortunately the existance of China was a bit of a
>>> spoiler for the film.
> Was this before or after the Three Kingdoms period?
Before. There were also other periods of disunity, foreign rule,
etc. And by the same token, Europe and the Near East had much the
same idea that things should all be unified (and that the existence
of warring states was an unfortunate and illegitimate situation
that would hopefully be resolved eventually) due to the Romans and
Islam respectively. (It would be possible to do a Chinese-style
history of medieval Europe, describing kings and nobles etc. as
warlords, pirates, and revolted governors as appropriate and the
Holy Roman and Byzantine Emperors as representing various
dynasties. In some cases, that would arguably present a more
accurate picture than the common tendency to treat any kingdom
whose borders are similar to today's as an incipient nation-state.)
But the idea weathered better in China in the long run and remains
more central to its foundation, despite occasional implementation
problems.
>...
>> The only downer is that I really have to wonder (obsessive
>> foreign policy reader that I am) how much the central method of
>> Chinese unity was meant to be a message to Taiwan.
> Good question.
Everyone I was with was talking about the same thing. Though the
message that the alternative to unity was constant warfare would
seem belied by the lack of Taiwan-PRC combat in the last several
decades, with the only threat of war stemming from the
aformentioned desire for unification. (AFAIK, Taiwan's government
gave up its own pretensions to being the government of all of China
years ago.)
Peter D. Tillman
dasu...@cs.indiana.edu (Damien R. Sullivan) wrote:
> cha...@antipope.org wrote:
>
> >relieved that "Singularity Sky" didn't win -- if it had, the pressure to
> >write more sequels would have been extreme, and I'm happier moving on to
> >new pastures. (I mean, I came up with the universe for it in 1994-96;
> >these days it feels dated, quaint, and horribly flawed to me.)
>
> While I thought the Eschaton's world was kind of cool. The Eschaton concept
> itself -- super-AI ascending and achieving breakthrough physics in a few hours
> -- I don't take too seriously, but the acceptance of causality risk was nice.
> And by contrast I just read "Nightfall" and it didn't do too much for me.
> Seemed like "they upload into alien device, deus ex AIneko happens, they
> download out with a passenger". I haven't read all the prior stories, though.
>
Well, you should. And I think you'll get the chance RSN... when (&
where)'s the book due out, Charlie? RTFFAQ, you say?
"Accelerando is a family saga that follows three generations of a
dysfunctionally postmodern lineage right through a Vingean singularity,
as recounted by the family's robot cat. It's much, much weirder than
that, though. Completed, and due for publication by Ace in July 2005."
<http://www.antipope.org/charlie/fiction/faq.html>
God grief --7-05?? OK, OP, rustle up some old Asimov'ss....
And that Aineko's just too cool for words. Modelled on one of Stross's
cats, IB -- but I can't find the page. Here's (the late) Sekhmet's:
<http://sekhmet.antipope.org/>
Oh, and belated congrats on going legal with Feorag, Charlie. Took me &
Kathleen about as long, ims.
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
--
"One cat just leads to another." --Ernest Hemingway
Peter D. Tillman
David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
> jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> >In article <d0nnj0tkrciintver...@4ax.com>,
> >David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>The Hugo Awards are about the only time I really feel justified about
> >>engaging in a serious rant. I'm starting to look forward to it.
> >>
> >>I rant about other things, but I feel bad about it later. Not so with
> >>the Hugo Awards!
> >>
> > I have to ask: did you vote?
>
> Things changed on September 11th and we must face this changed world
> with a whole new outlook. The threat of terrorism is constant and
> prevents us from doing things in the same old way. We require a new
> paradigm as we move forward into a bright future.
>
Heh. And what about that Purple Heart, David, for shooting yourself in
the foot? <g>
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
--
Ship's Bosun to Ensign, when asked what
he was going to do after retirement: "I'm going to Wyoming and lick
buffalo scrotums for a nickel a pop, just so's I can get my self
respect back."
Richard Horton
(Damien R. Sullivan) wrote:
>Tangentially, I'm wondering again what I think of the Hugo results. Let's
>check Wikipedia, which has better lists than worldcon.org.
I'm starting a new thread with my stats, and [very brief] comments on
what I think of each award. The Wikipedia list, which is missing _The
Big Time_ for 1958, is at
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Award_for_Best_Novel>.
I include a column for whether the book is F of SF. Note that 3 of the
last four winning novels have been fantasy: and NONE before.
2004: read 4 of 5; winner rank: 3 or 4; OK award; F
2003: read 5 of 5; winner rank: 5; very bad award; SF
2002: read 6 of 6; winner rank: 4; OK award; F
2001: read 4 of 5; winner rank: 3; OK award; F, YA
2000: read 5 of 5; winner rank: 1; Excellent award in a strong field;
SF
1999: read 4 of 5; winner rank: 2; Decent award; SF
1998: read 0 of 5; winner rank: ?; award doesn't seem well regarded;
SF
-- I nominated 5 worthy novels this year, none of them made it (my
favorite
-- is probably _Signs of Life_ by M. John Harrison) -- for reasons of
pique
-- I have never read any nominee, but I will surely eventually read
at
-- least _City of Fire_, and probably _Jack Faust_ and _Forever
Peace_)
1997: read 4 of 5; winner rank: 2; Good Award (any year _Starplex_
loses is good!); SF
1996: read 3 of 5; haven't read winner; award seems well-regarded; SF
1995: read 1 of 5; liked the winner; award seems well-regarded; SF
1994: read 1 of 5; liked the winner; award is controversial but I
approve; SF
1993: read 4 of 5; liked both winners; Very Good Awards (though
_Doomsday Book_ is controversial as a winner) -- EXTREMELY strong
field; SF
1992: read 5 of 6; winner rank: 2; Very Good Award; SF
1991: read 4 of 5; winner rank: 4; Weak award to a good writer; SF
1990: read 1 of 5; liked the winner; Very Good Award; SF
1989: read 3 of 5; shockingly, haven't read the winner; well-regarded
award; SF
1988: read 3 of 5; winner rank: 2; Good Award; SF
1987: read 3 of 5; winner rank: 3; OK Award that seems to me
diminished over time; SF
1986: read 4 of 5; winner rank: 2 to 4; Good Award; SF
1985: read 4 of 5; winner rank: 1; Excellent Award; SF
1984: read 4 of 5; winner rank: 1; Very Good Award; SF
1983: read 5 of 6; winner rank: 4 or 5; weak award; SF
1982: read 4 of 5; winner rank: 3; Decent award in a strong field; SF
1981: read 5 of 5; winner rank: 1; Good award in a weakish field; SF
1980: read 4 of 5; winner rank: 2; Very Good Award; SF
1979: read 2 of 4; winner rank: 2; OK Award; SF
1978: read 3 of 5; winner rank: 1; Very Good Award; SF
1977: read 4 of 5; winner rank: 2; Good Award in a weakish field; SF
1976: read 5 of 5; winner rank: 1 (though I have more "affection" for
_Doorways in the Sand_); Very Good Award; SF
1975: read 4 of 5; winner rank: 1; Excellent Award; SF
1974: read 4 of 5; winner rank: 1; Decent Award; SF
1973: read 5 of 6; winner rank: 1 (barely); Decent Award; SF
1972: read 3 of 5; haven't read winner; award seems well-respected;
SF?
1971: read 3 of 5; winner rank: 2; Good Award; SF
1970: read 2 of 5; winner rank: 1; Excellent Award in a what seems to
have been a strong field; SF
1969: read 5 of 5; winner rank: 2; Very Good Award: only the fact that
it beat one of my all-time favorites, _Nova_, keeps me from saying
Excellent; SF
1968: read 4 of 5; winner rank: 1; Excellent Award in a strong field;
SF
1967: read 6 of 6; winner rank: soft 1 (I like the first 3 about
equal); Very Good Award; SF
1966: read 3 of 5; winner ranks: 1/3; Excellent Award to Dune, not bad
but curious tie to RZ; both SF
1965: read 2 of 4; haven't read winner; award is often listed as a
weak one; SF
1964: read 4 of 5; winner rank: top 3 tie in my mind; Decent if
controversial award; SF
1963: read 4 of 5; winner rank: 1; Excellent Award; SF
1962: read 2 of 5; winner rank: undetermined; very controversial award
in retrospect, but interesting; SF
1961: read 4 of 5: winner rank: tie for 1; Excellent Award -- too bad
_Rogue Moon_ couldn't win too; SF
1960: read 5 of 5; winner rank: 1; Good Award; SF, YA?
1959: read 5 of 5; winner rank: 1; Very Good Award; SF
1958: Good winner
1986: Good winner
1955: Very Bad winner
1953: Good winner
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Martin Wisse
R. Sullivan) wrote:
>mwi...@cloggie.org (Martin Wisse) wrote:
>
>>_Hyperion_ is over a decade ago and inbetween it and _Illum_ Dan Simmons
>>did nothing much of sf/fantasy interest. [*]
>
>Missing a [*]. But what about all the sequels: Fall of, Edymion, Rise of?
>Bujold's produced more books, yes; I don't know who's had more readers.
Well, I was going to say that any rumour of sequels to the two Hyperion
books was just a rumour...
He has written other books, but all these were out of the mainstream of
sf/fantasy. The Hyperion sequels otoh were, not too put too fine a point
on it, crap.
Martin Wisse
--
WWFD?
Play Mornington Crescent.
-Erik V. Olson & Loren MacGregor, in rasseff.
Thomas Womack
David Goldfarb <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> Is it raining on your parade to point out that _The Curse of
> Chalion_ *lost* to _American Gods_? Neil Gaiman is a very nice
> fellow, but he's not terribly active in convention fandom.
Though not terribly active, as far as I believe, for fear of being
mobbed by legions of screaming fans to the great detriment of the
convention he's at.
(and, well, most things would have lost to _American Gods_; it's got
great writing, great style and great scale)
Tom
Thomas Womack
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> I'll especially single out _Paladin of Souls_ as clearly an inferior
>> novel to _Ilium_, and Bujold won because she is Bujold. Note: I am
>> in no way saying _Paladin of Souls_ is a bad book in the way that
>> _Hominids_ is, but it isn't a Hugo winner.
>Eh; I doubt I'll eve bother to read another Dan Simmons novel. What I
>heard from the fans about _The Fall of Hyperion_, and what I observed
>myself about _Phases of Gravity_, makes me totally uninterested.
I think _Ilium_ is at least as good as _Hyperion_; OK, I read it at a
time around which my reading mostly indicated only that I was a fan of
the picaresque, but it does decadent post-singularity better than John
Wright could dream of.
_As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods;
they kill us for their sport_
Tom
Bill Snyder
Whichever one sold the most copies, of course.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
David Bilek
And _Curse of Chalion_ was much more deserving of a Hugo in its year
than _Paladin of Souls_ was this year.
-David
David Bilek
>Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
>as <dtb...@comcast.net> declared:
>
>> able to see the same improvement over the course of the "novel".
>
>It's been substantially changed. If you consider the stories to be a
>first draft you'll get the picture -- it's not a simple "string 'em
>together and publish them" job.
>
I see you have no burning desire to become a Baen author.
-David
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote in
> news:chgnqp$30n$1...@panix2.panix.com:
> >...
> > One wonder what the plan was if anyone had advanced beyond
> > 100 paces from the King, since I didn't see any guards in the
> > hall and later events suggest reaction times were not minimal.
>
> The King of Qin seemed to be capable of dealing with any intruders
> who weren't one of four people (and possibly with some of them--
> IIRC, only Broken Sword and Nameless actually put him to the test).
> Admittedly, having a situation where an intruder is going to be
> between a million billion archers (too distant to quickly closer for
> melee) and the King strikes me as asking for an unfortunate accident
> a la William Rufus.
>
*If* it was an accident.
As in some book by Philip Farmer.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
James Nicoll
Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>I'm starting a new thread with my stats, and [very brief] comments on
>what I think of each award. The Wikipedia list, which is missing _The
>Big Time_ for 1958, is at
><URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Award_for_Best_Novel>.
Oh, well. Have to do something until the muffins are done.
[N/n] N = books read, n = books nominated
Biases: I won't even read book fragments if not paid to do so and
I prefer SF to Fantasy.
Boy, Sawyer seems to have a handle on getting nominated.
Using the url and being too lazy to retype the titles here:
2004: [4/5] Didn't read the winner, would have been happy with either
the Stross or the Wilson winning.
2003: [4/5] Read the winner (*sigh*), prefered _Bones of the Earth_
by Lots^infinity.
2002: [4/6] Thank god the turgid _Passage_ lost. Prefered the Wilson.
2001: [2/5] No comment due to lack of perspective on the candidates.
2000: [4/5] I prefered _A Civil Campaign_, but I can see why The Brave
Little Spider vs the Evil Statists won.
1999: [2/5] incoherent sputtering. Even given the Twist, I prefer the
Wilson.
1998: [3/5] Were the Worldcon voters on _drugs_? Had they been lobotomized?
_City on Fire_, hands down.
1997: [5/5] Eh. Weak year. I hate _Blue Mars_, of course, but I am
unethusiatic even about the skillfully written _Holy Fire_.
1996: [5/5] A choice I can agree with, even if it does have the usual
'veered off the road and exploded' Stephenson plot problems.
1995: [4/5] I would have selected the Bishop.
1994: [3/5] Eh. I hated the entire Mars series, as I may have mentioned once
or twice. On the other hand, any year where the Internation Feminist
Conspiracy keeps Brin from winning two awards is a good one.
1993: [5/5] I understand why what won won, and I don't hate either (My
"burning with the heat of a trillion hypernovas" mild dislike of Willis'
fiction came later) but I'd have picked the McHugh. Who knew it would be
the only book of hers I would be able to finish?
1992: [5/6] Not the Swanwick?
1991: [4/5] The Bear or the Kube-McDowell, from that list.
1990: [4/5] _A Fire in the Sun_, hands down.
1989: [4/5] A reasonable choice, although I prefered _Islands_.
1988: [5/5] _When Gravity Fails_ and a sound beating for the voters
that year.
1987: [4/5] I prefered the Vinge to Card's cloying moralist abuse.
1986: [5/5] Couldn't I just shoot myself? The Bear, if I have to choose.
1985: [5/5] A reasonable choice.
1984: [5/5] This should have gone to _Tea with a Black Dragon_.
1983: [6/6] I would have picked _Courtship Rite_. Amazing what an asset
to being nominated being named Asimov, Clarke or Heinlein is. I wonder why
more people haven't tried it?
1982: [5/5] I respect the winner but I didn't like it.
1981: [5/6] Hey, the original Vinge*! Yeah, of that list that's the one
I'd pick, even with the apparent plot hole.
* Yeah, yeah, I know it's not her maiden name.
1980: [4/5] Wow, strong year. I'd have been happy with any of _Jem_,
_Wings_ or the winner.
1979: [3/4] Why so few nominees? I remember liking _Dreamsnake_ but have not
read it in years (I'm more likely to dig out _Fireflood and Other Stories_).
With the benefit of 25 years, I'd have to say _Blind Voices_ was the strongest
one that year.
Goddamn human mortality.
1978: [4/5] Yeah, that's reasonable.
1977: [4/5] Another strong year. OK choice of winner.
1976: [5/5] How exactly did the Bester get on this list? Was there a
special alcoholics quota? But I agree with the choice made by the
convention.
1975: [3/5] I would have picked _Mote_. I know, terribly conventional of me.
1974: [5/5] OK, I freely admit nothing actually happened in Rama but I
still like it. Good year, though. Say, was this the last year Gerrold
got nominated for the novel hugo?
1973: [6/6] Bob, you dude! I'd have picked _Dying Inside_, even though
I really liked the Anderson when I was a teen.
1972: [2/5] No comment.
1971: [5/5] _The Year of the Quiet Sun_, of course. Not a bad year, though
the Clement is weak and the Anderson didn't age especially gracefully.
1970: [5/5] Was _Slaughterhouse_ that late? I'm torn between _Up the Line_
for wanton Byzantinery, or the Vonnegut, just to hear the bitching and
moaning that a _literary_ work won.
1969:[3/5] I really like _Stand on Zanzibar_ but I think I'd have given
the nod to _Rite of Passage_ instead. Of course, who knew 1967-1968 was
Panshin's Annus Mirabilis and not the beginning of a wonderful career
in SF?
1968: [1/5] (Only counting books I actually remember). Damn it, I _like_
_The Butterfly Kid_. I suspect the concensus still supports the Zelazny
though.
1967: [5/6] Unfortunately for the two books I might consider contenders
that I read, I prefer their original shorter versions.
1966: [4/5] No comment.
1965: [4/4] I must note I read a different version of _the Planet Buyer_.
That said, you morons back there in 1965! What, did you all suffer serious
cranial damage on the way to the con? Were you all forceps babies? Was the
lead content in your mercury a little high? _Neither_ _Davy_ nor _The
Planet Buyer_? Bastards.
1964: [4/5] I think of _Witch World_ as the book that stole Norton from
SF to a type of fantasy I don't like. Otherwise, no comment.
1963: [3/5] Anyone familiar with _Sylvia_? A reasonable choice, although
I found the Clarke has aged pretty well.
1962: [4/5] You know, I'm inclined to go with the White, but it would be for
sentimental reasons: that's the last story in the very first White anthology
I ever read.
1961: [4/5] How did a terminal hack like Harrison keep getting Hugo
nominations? Tough call: I could see _Rogue Moon_ as a serious contender.
1960: [3/5] SST suffers an entirely unreasonable handicap here due to
the subseqent flamewars. Can't say I really care for any of these.
1959: [5/5] Good year. I'd have gone with the Heinlein, though.
1957: [1/1] Was the nomination process very different back then?
1955: [1/1] (Scribbles death warrent on the back of a bridge score scard)
1953: [1/1] Ah, the good Bester.
Retros: Included for completeness only, since they are silly.
1954: [5/5] Strong year. I would have gone with Caves, I think.
1951: [4/5] No comment.
1946: [3/5] Anyone But Van Vogt.
John Pelan
wrote:
This may just be "post of the year".
Cheers,
John
Mark Atwood
>
> Too bad, too. _The Curse of Chalion_ was a better book than _Paladin
> of Souls_ and more deserving of a Hugo.
Are the Hugos becoming like the Oscars, where each award is actually
really for a past work that did not win the award because the when it
should have won, the award was given to someone else (usually for a
past work that...)
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@pobox.com | you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
Peter H. Granzeau
<til...@aztec.asu.edu> wrote:
>> The question isn't who has more readers, it's who has more *fans among
>> Hugo voters*. Bujold is a regular con-goer and is extremely popular
>> among fans likely to be Hugo voters. Even more than Connie Willis.
>>
>> I bet Bujold could win with "Some Doodles I Scribbled On A Brown Paper
>> Bag" unless she's up against Vinge or the like.
>>
>Hey, I'd read Lois's brown bags before a lot of the literati drivel that
>clutters the shelves these days.
OTOH, some of Bujold's stronger books won nothing.
That she won it with a fantasy novel is what amazed me.
Peter H. Granzeau
(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>No, it didn't win a Hugo (nor deserved to, IMO); it won a Nebula. (And
>didn't deserve that either.) I'm not unhappy with _Paladin_ (singular!)
>winning, though.
You and the Nebula jury appear to have a difference of opinion.
Which, of course, is why they have horse races...
Mark Atwood
>
> What I meant to add was: what was the intended meaning of the
> fact that the thousands of advisors appear to speak with the same
> voice? Unity in Our Land or a hegomonizing swarm? Because it was
> creepy as hell
Thus the observation, not original to me, that other countries
routinely accuse the US of their own sins.
What does China call the US?
A Hegemony...
(Also ref all the Chinese emperors who are noted for their "peaceful"
reign, while simultaneously known for "subduing" the "rebellious"
frontiers and expanding the borders.)
Richard Horton
>1957: [1/1] Was the nomination process very different back then?
Yes it was, as in there was no nomination process. I think people just
sent in choices to the convention committee, and whichever got the
most votes won. Though I'm not sure. Nothing was codified, as far as I
know -- each of the early con committees probably did it their own
way.
Boy would I like to see a warts and all history of the early Hugos!
GSV Three Minds in a Can
the wonderful person how...@brazee.net said
Ain't no such thing as 'objectively the best', unless you define the
criteria and the measurement methodology. Right now the criteria is
'liked best by fans' and the measurement methodology is 'votes at the
Con'. Works just the same as every other popularity contest, in other
words .. everything from 'miss world' to the Oscars.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Konrad Gaertner
>
> I'm starting a new thread with my stats, and [very brief] comments on
> what I think of each award. The Wikipedia list, which is missing _The
> Big Time_ for 1958, is at
> <URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Award_for_Best_Novel>.
As most folks already know, I generally prefer series fantasy over
the alternatives, hence the shortness of this post. In the rare
cases where I've read more than one nominee, I've ranked them as if
I were voting.
2004: Paladin of Souls
2002: Curse of Chalion
2001: A Storm of Swords(1), Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire(2)
2000: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
1992: Bone Dance(1), All the Weyrs of Pern(2)
1991: The Vor Game
1985: Job
1984: Robots of Dawn(1), Moreta(2)
1983: Foundation's Edge(1), 2010(2), Friday(3)
1981: Ringworld Engineers
1979: White Dragon
1974: Rendezvous with Rama(1), Portector(2)
1973: The Gods Themselves
1972: Dragonquest
1971: Ringworld(1), Tau Zero(2)
1968: Chthon
1967: Too Many Magicians(1), Flowers for Algernon(2)
1966: Dune
1963: Sword of Aldones
[retro]
1954: Caves of Steel
1951: Pebble in the Sky(1), Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe(2)
1946: Mule
Wow, I've read more than I thought. Unfortunately, I don't like
most of these (I read Anthony and McCaffrey because I didn't know
any better).
--KG
Htn963
> In article <bcef0661.04090...@posting.google.com>,
> Htn963 <Htn...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > As for me, I'm snorting in disgust of course, not the least
> >because yet another fantasy work has won the Hugo award. Why don't we
> >just not bother putting science fiction as an eligible category for
> >the Hugo anymore?
>
> Fantasy has always been eligible.
Really, you and I and just about every intelligent and discerning
sf fans know that when the Hugo rules were promulgated, the tacit
understanding for eligible fantasy was "exceptional" fantasy. There
weren't an overwhelming number of science fictional titles then, so,
heck, the more the merrier; and some accommodations were made for
excellent borderline works between the two genres, like those of Jack
Vance. Who would have wanted the peasants to have risen up and
overwhelm the gentry?
Fantasies are already well served by the World Fantasy award,
which I note appears to be a much more consistent indicator of
quality, honoring deserving recipients like Tanith Lee.
> Fantasy is winning lately
> because SF is losing or has lost the battle for the hearts and minds
> of the readers.
Oh, don't be dramatic. More likely it's a cultural trend that's
been helped by several mass phenomenons like Harry Potter and LOTR.
What science fiction just need is an equivalent of Carl Sagan and
Stephen Hawking.
> For reasons I have gone into before, it's not reasonable
> to expect positively futuristic fiction or an appreciation for it from a
> nation addicted to thinking it just missed the good times.*
And what good times would this be? You think you can better sound
the pulse of the American sentiment from Canada? People here (at least
readers) are still interested in science, history, current events, and
a better future, if you just check out what's hot over Amazon.
--
Ht
Damien R. Sullivan
>In article <chgh8u$f43$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
>Damien R. Sullivan <dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>>
>>>(Hey, Damien, you left out 1994? For me, 4.)
>>
>>I set out intending to leave out years I hadn't read any books from, thinking
>>there'd be a lot. So, the missing years were 0.
>>
>>You're a better, or at least better-Hugo-read, fan than I!
>
>The legacy of a misspent youth; a good chunk of which youth was spent
>hanging out (and later working part-time in) an SF bookstore.
Yeah, but I was science fiction librarian at Caltech. OTOH, I'm 29, maybe
you're older. And these days I read more non-fiction.
-xx- Damien X-)
Htn963
> Htn...@peoplepc.com (Htn963) wrote in message news:<bcef0661.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> > I thought *you* would be delighted to also have your precious
> > Bujold win, since she's now, what, ahead of Heinlein in the Hugo novel
> > count? And I can envision a resurgent of rampant Bujold cheerleading
> > gossips here in the future. <sigh>
>
> You should be delighted. You'll be able to smugly dismiss anybody who
> has even the slightest positive view of Bujold's writing as being
> inferior lifeforms.
Aha! do I take it by this that you are admitting that P.O.S.
isn't deserving of the Hugo?
And, please, I never said or even hinted that you and other
Bujold fans were inferior lifeforms. Just too easy to please perhaps.
Bujold is the most overrated writer in the history of sf and
represents the triumph of consistent competency over exalted genius,
which is perhaps a sad reflection on just how filled with incompetency
and schlock the field still is.
> In the recent thread on Brust, I was struck on how smugly dismissive
> the anti-Bujold crowd was. "I read one the early Bujold books and I
> proud that I've never bothered to read any of that crap again. The
> people who like her books must be completely loony tunes and should be
> committed."
See, unlike the intolerant one who made this statement, *I* have
read most of Bujold.
And I think Brust is ridiculously overrated, too, from what I've
read (and tried to read) of him so far.
Anyone who thinks this group is a good representative of all sf
readers' taste out there and (heaven help him/her) try to use it as a
guide will be sorely surprised.
--
Ht
David Bilek
>On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 19:10:32 GMT, David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> wrote:
>>>Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
>>>as <dtb...@comcast.net> declared:
>>>
>>>> Looking forward to the Accelerando fixup. I'm wondering if we'll be
>>>> able to see the same improvement over the course of the "novel".
>>>
>>>It's been substantially changed. If you consider the stories to be a
>>>first draft you'll get the picture -- it's not a simple "string 'em
>>>together and publish them" job.
>>>
>>
>>I see you have no burning desire to become a Baen author.
>>
>
>
Yes, well, I'm feeling rather in a bad mood lately. It still rankles
me that Eric told us right here in this newsgroup that Weber's last
Honor Harrington book was clearly too long and in need of editing but
that editing would take too long so they published "as is".
Oh, and then there was John Ringo including an afterword into the
awful _Hell's Faire_ in which he felt compelled to explain exactly why
_HF_ was sucky. When the author knows his book is sucky and then
blames the book's suckitude on some terrorists knocking a bunch of
buildings down, well, maybe it was time to step back and NOT PUBLISH
THE BOOK YET.
Bah.
Props to George R. R. Martin for taking the time to get his next book
right despite the clamoring hordes bitching at him to just finish the
damn thing already. And, no doubt, the publishers waving money under
his nose. Go GRRM!
-David
Damien R. Sullivan
>1987: [4/5] I prefered the Vinge to Card's cloying moralist abuse.
I was wondering if I might, too. Just re-read all of _Across Realtime_ and
liked it; _Peace War_ was stronger than I thought.
>1986: [5/5] Couldn't I just shoot myself? The Bear, if I have to choose.
* [159]1986: [160]Ender's Game by [161]Orson Scott Card
* [162]Blood Music by [163]Greg Bear
* Cuckoo's Egg by [164]C.J. Cherryh
* Footfall by [165]Larry Niven and [166]Jerry Pournelle
* [167]The Postman by [168]David Brin
Huh. I thought Ender's Game was good, but it was long ago. But I've re-read
Cuckoo's Egg and liked it, so could go with that. Haven't read the other 3.
>1984: [5/5] This should have gone to _Tea with a Black Dragon_.
I liked that (used to have 'Oolong' as a handle) but liked Startide; you seem
to hate all Brin, not just later, unedited Brin. Also I note you'd have
picked a fantasy book.
Huh. 4 of Vernor Vinge's novels have won or been nominated; he's only written
6, and the other two aren't heard much of. Good hit rate. And the novellette
behind one of the other two ("The Barbarian Princess") also got nominated.
No nominations for Brust, Pratchett, or Robin McKinley (I have websites for
Brust and McKinley, which is why I pick them out.) Pratchett's pretty big.
Brin's got a good rate too. Though if I'm counting nominations fairly I have
to give Sawyer credit for something.
-xx- Damien X-)
Mark Reichert
> Not read _Illium_ yet (I'm hideously backlogged) but I agree, I'm
> surprised about _Paladin of Souls_. As fantasy yarns go, it's very well
> constructed; I just don't see it as a classic that will be re-read
> in its own right decades hence.
You sound like those baseball fans and writers who complain that a
current inductee isn't at the level of Willie Mays. Very few players
are at the level of Mays, and if people used him as the standard,
almost nobody would ever get in again.
_Palidin of Souls_ only has to be better than the competition to
deserve getting the award. Was there a nominee, or even a novel, this
year that you do see as a classic that will be re-read in its own
right decades hence?
Richard Horton
Reichert) wrote:
There's the inverse problem, too, however. Those fans who complain
that Favorite Player X isn't in the Hall because he's better than
Roger Bresnahan or Phil Rizzutto or Freddie Lindstrom or [insert name
of favorite undeserving HOF member here].
To be fair, you don't see a lot of folks saying that _Hominids_
deserved its Hugo because it's better than "They'd Rather Be Right".
As for _Paladin of Souls_, I think it's very much a middle rank Hugo
winner (better than _The Vor Game_, to name one!), and no doubt this
was a weakish year for Novels. (I'd have been a lot happier if _The
Light Ages_ had been nominated.) It can't be called a disgraceful
award, and certainly not a horrible choice by the fans, even if it
wasn't my first choice.
Damien R. Sullivan
>In short stories, I liked The Tale of the Golden Eagle best, closely
>followed by Four Short Novels. I can't understand why most people
>voted for the Gaiman story (unless it's because of the writer).
"Emerald" was well done; I liked "Golden Eagle", and "Four Short Novels" was
kicky. I think I'd rank these three above the other two, and maybe "Eagle" on
top, but we're verging on arbitrary decisions here. I haven't read everything
in the other categories yet. "Legions in Time", "Hexagons", "Nightfall",
"Cookie Monster", "Green Leopard Plague". "Plague" was good, I'm not sure
about anything else, though yeah, "Legions" did have a nice retro feel to it.
-xx- Damien X-)
Bradford Holden
>
> You should be delighted. You'll be able to smugly dismiss anybody who
> has even the slightest positive view of Bujold's writing as being
> inferior lifeforms.
>
> In the recent thread on Brust, I was struck on how smugly dismissive
> the anti-Bujold crowd was. "I read one the early Bujold books and I
> proud that I've never bothered to read any of that crap again. The
> people who like her books must be completely loony tunes and should be
> committed."
There is a web board that I frequent where people have taken to
rating deliberately inflammatory posts.
I give you a T2, nice effort.
--
Bradford Holden
"What's the difference between a normal sorcerer and a supreme sorcerer?
Well, a supreme sorcerer comes with fries and a shake." PvP
r.r...@thevine.net
>
>On 6-Sep-2004, Mike Ward <m@d.w> wrote:
>
>> It annoys me that these awards frequently go to works that cannot
>> objectively be said to be the best, but what really bothers me is the
>> effect it has on the awards themselves.
>
>Frequently? So sometimes the awards do go to works that can objectively
>said to be the best? Do you have any examples of a work that is
>objectively the best of the year?
And is there any indication that this (books that are not the best
winning) is a new thing? Were the Hugos in the first 10 years a model
of enlightened voting, or did people complain about the winners just
as much? Of course, as I understand it, the field was smaller then,
so it may have been easier to ensure that everyone had in fact read
the books.
Rebecca
Bill Snyder
wrote:
<Voice = "E--- F----">
You make an important and valid point, which is the last thing I
expected from the elite corps of effete snobs [1] on RASFW. Clearly I
have misspoken in calling the raw sales figure the criterion of merit.
At the very least, we require a correction to _relate the sales to the
author's time and effort_. (And perhaps we should take into account
the publisher's investment as well, so that we have the ROI on the
overall production.)
After all, almost anyone can be an *inefficient* hack. Awards should
be reserved for those of us who are good at it.
</Voice>
1. Speaking for my fellow Boomers, let me make one thing perfectly
clear: [2] Contrary to what you may have been told, we do *not*
regard those with insufficient maturity to appreciate this vital
cultural allusion as worthless, ignorant little gits. There will
always be a warm place in our hearts for organ donors, and the younger
and healthier the better. [3]
2. Or that one, either.
3. Live fast, die young. leave a usable corpse. Head injuries
preferred. Remember, kids, helmet laws are for girlie men.