Hugo winners?
David T. Bilek
winners? It's been, oh, minutes already and nada!
-David
Shelly
"David T. Bilek" <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qrr2lvklkupke3r9j...@4ax.com...
> Please, some kind con-going person take pity on us and post the Hugo
> winners? It's been, oh, minutes already and nada!
>
> -David
http://www.locusmag.com/2003/News/News08Log3.html
David T. Bilek
<shel...@cinci.take.this.out.rr.com> wrote:
>"David T. Bilek" <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:qrr2lvklkupke3r9j...@4ax.com...
>> Please, some kind con-going person take pity on us and post the Hugo
>> winners? It's been, oh, minutes already and nada!
>>
>
>
# NOVEL Hominids, Robert J. Sawyer (Analog Jan-Apr 2002; Tor)
What a travesty. I've often defended the Hugo awards against
detractors, but I won't be doing it again. This book didn't deserve
to be nominated, much less win. There's not been another winner in
the last 20 years I would have ranked below NO AWARD.
I want to see the vote totals. Ballot stuffing by locals with no
connection to fandom?
-David
Jay Jeong
> What a travesty. I've often defended the Hugo awards against
> detractors, but I won't be doing it again. This book didn't deserve
> to be nominated, much less win.
I can't agree more with you. I think the 'best' choice would have been _The
Scar_, (although I didn't believe they will give Hugo to Mieville)or at
least any other novel EXCEPT _Hominids_. Sorry Mr. Sawyer, but Hugo
is.....well, I'd better just curl up.
Htn963
># NOVEL Hominids, Robert J. Sawyer (Analog Jan-Apr 2002; Tor)
>
>What a travesty. I've often defended the Hugo awards against
>detractors, but I won't be doing it again.
Now you'll know not to say too much what you don't want too see happens.
Hmm, in a way, this situation reminds me of the Farscape newsgroup regulars
who used to like to joke that the show has just been canceled...and finally
got what they (didn't) wish.
> This book didn't deserve
>to be nominated, much less win. There's not been another winner in
>the last 20 years I would have ranked below NO AWARD.
Well, as many people here have deign to eloquently expound to me when I
expressed my personal displeasure with the Potter fiasco: it is sf within the
rules, and the majority of people who participated voted for it, so it won --
deal with it, sucker! Thus, as Eastwood said in _The Unforgiven_, "deserve"
has nothing to do with it.
>I want to see the vote totals. Ballot stuffing by locals with no
>connection to fandom?
Ah, so it was held in Canada, was it?
<Checks other categories>
Looks like Gaiman grabbed himself another one; and so did Swanwick and
Landis. Probably no ballot stuffing in these, but prior rep is likely a factor,
as always.
Once we take over the world, let's do away with all the awards right after
the lawyers.
--
Ht
|Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
--John Donne, "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions"|
Brian Palmer
> > What a travesty. I've often defended the Hugo awards against
> > detractors, but I won't be doing it again. This book didn't deserve
> > to be nominated, much less win.
>
> I can't agree more with you. I think the 'best' choice would have been _The
> Scar_, (although I didn't believe they will give Hugo to Mieville)or
> at
Is there a big anti-Mieville movement or something?
--
I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard.
David T. Bilek
>David T. Bilek wrote:
>
>># NOVEL Hominids, Robert J. Sawyer (Analog Jan-Apr 2002; Tor)
>>
>>What a travesty. I've often defended the Hugo awards against
>>detractors, but I won't be doing it again.
>
> Now you'll know not to say too much what you don't want too see happens.
>Hmm, in a way, this situation reminds me of the Farscape newsgroup regulars
>who used to like to joke that the show has just been canceled...and finally
>got what they (didn't) wish.
>
...
>>I want to see the vote totals. Ballot stuffing by locals with no
>>connection to fandom?
>
> Ah, so it was held in Canada, was it?
>
'Twas held in Toronto, home of... Robert Sawyer. The "home field"
advantage must have been the deciding factor. Quality certainly
wasn't.
> <Checks other categories>
>
> Looks like Gaiman grabbed himself another one; and so did Swanwick and
>Landis. Probably no ballot stuffing in these, but prior rep is likely a factor,
>as always.
>
The Gaiman and Swanpick probably won because they're by Gaiman and
Swanwick. The Landis absolutely deserved its win, though. "Falling
Onto Mars" is excellent.
But yes, overall I am Not Happy. Too many people are winning Hugos
beacuse of who they are rather than because of their work. If Gaiman
writes a shitty story, it shouldn't win just because it's by Neil
Gaiman. Not that "Coraline" is shitty by any means... it's not an
embarrasment the way _Hominids_ winning is.
-David
Mike Dworetsky
"Brian Palmer" <bpa...@rescomp.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:0whisoe...@rescomp.Stanford.EDU...
> "Jay Jeong" <jay@[nospam]jay.pe.kr> writes:
>
> > > What a travesty. I've often defended the Hugo awards against
> > > detractors, but I won't be doing it again. This book didn't deserve
> > > to be nominated, much less win.
> >
> > I can't agree more with you. I think the 'best' choice would have been
_The
> > Scar_, (although I didn't believe they will give Hugo to Mieville)or
> > at
>
> Is there a big anti-Mieville movement or something?
>
>
I'm wondering too, because he is a solid writer with interesting settings,
situations, concepts and characters, and writes highly entertaining stuff.
I really liked _Perdido Street Station_ and am looking forward to _The Scar_
(in my "to-read" pile).
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Fred Perry
"Htn963" <htn...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030831004455...@mb-m11.news.cs.com...
> Once we take over the world, let's do away with all the awards right
after
> the lawyers.
>
like to win.
Richard Horton
wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 03:59:56 GMT, "Shelly"
><shel...@cinci.take.this.out.rr.com> wrote:
>>"David T. Bilek" <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:qrr2lvklkupke3r9j...@4ax.com...
>>> Please, some kind con-going person take pity on us and post the Hugo
>>> winners? It's been, oh, minutes already and nada!
>>>
>>
>>http://www.locusmag.com/2003/News/News08Log3.html
>>
>
># NOVEL Hominids, Robert J. Sawyer (Analog Jan-Apr 2002; Tor)
>
>What a travesty. I've often defended the Hugo awards against
>detractors, but I won't be doing it again. This book didn't deserve
>to be nominated, much less win. There's not been another winner in
>the last 20 years I would have ranked below NO AWARD.
Seconded. What a disgrace. This is a black mark on the history of
the Hugos.
The other fiction awards are OK -- none of them are the stories I
actually voted for, but two (the Gaiman and Landis) are stories I
seriously considered placing first on my ballot, and the other is a
decent story that anyway gives Swanwick a consolation for not winning
the Novel award.
--
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)
GSV Three Minds in a Can
person Fred Perry <saq...@bellsouth.net> said
I just want there to be =some= Science Fiction novels of =decent
quality= coming out. 8<,
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Nicholas Whyte
<rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 04:10:12 GMT, David T. Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 03:59:56 GMT, "Shelly"
>><shel...@cinci.take.this.out.rr.com> wrote:
>>>"David T. Bilek" <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:qrr2lvklkupke3r9j...@4ax.com...
>>>> Please, some kind con-going person take pity on us and post the Hugo
>>>> winners? It's been, oh, minutes already and nada!
>>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.locusmag.com/2003/News/News08Log3.html
>>>
>>
>># NOVEL Hominids, Robert J. Sawyer (Analog Jan-Apr 2002; Tor)
>>
>>What a travesty. I've often defended the Hugo awards against
>>detractors, but I won't be doing it again. This book didn't deserve
>>to be nominated, much less win. There's not been another winner in
>>the last 20 years I would have ranked below NO AWARD.
>
>Seconded. What a disgrace. This is a black mark on the history of
>the Hugos.
Is this worse than _The Quantum Rose_ winning the Nebulas?
Mark Watson
>actually voted for, but two (the Gaiman and Landis) are stories I
>seriously considered placing first on my ballot, and the other is a
>decent story that anyway gives Swanwick a consolation for not winning
>the Novel award.
Landis was good in my books, Swanwick was 'standard Analog fayre'
IMHO.
So as Hominids was an Analog serial, then Analog has been the source
of 3 out of the 4 winners. Is this pertinent viz the actual voting do
you think?
Mark Watson
Best SF - www.bestsf.net
Best SF reviews: classic and current short SF
Best SF Gateway: online short SF
Richard Horton
Whyte) wrote:
[_Hominids_ winning the Hugo]
>Is this worse than _The Quantum Rose_ winning the Nebulas?
I think so. Mind you, I don't think _The Quantum Rose_ was a good
Nebula winner at all! But its competition (once _Declare_ was
declared (heh-heh) ineligible) was not very strong -- though the more
I think of it the happier I'd have been to see _The Collapsium_ win.
Note that both stories were serialized in Analog (only partly, in the
case of _The Quantum Rose_). So were _Falling Free_ and _The Terminal
Experiment_. What do they all also have in common? They were
surprise Hugo/Nebula winners. I think that Analog serialization
confers a perhaps surprisingly strong benefit to award-seeking
writers. I suspect this may be because Analog readers may be
unusually well-represented among the populatoin of award nominators
and voters. (So too may be readers of other magazines, but other
magazines generally don't do serials)
Richard Horton
<mark....@bestsf.net> wrote:
>So as Hominids was an Analog serial, then Analog has been the source
>of 3 out of the 4 winners. Is this pertinent viz the actual voting do
>you think?
I suspect that Analog readers tend to be likely to be Hugo
nominators/voters.
David T. Bilek
<rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:51:40 +0100, Mark Watson
><mark....@bestsf.net> wrote:
>
>>So as Hominids was an Analog serial, then Analog has been the source
>>of 3 out of the 4 winners. Is this pertinent viz the actual voting do
>>you think?
>
>I suspect that Analog readers tend to be likely to be Hugo
>nominators/voters.
For this theory to hold we must also accept that Analog readers have
truly dire taste. Even had I read none of the nominees save
_Hominids_ my ballot would read:
1. No Award
2. Hominids
-David
Arwel Parry
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com> writes
Unless the rules have been changed in the last few years, it's _very_
difficult for a book which was first published in the UK to win the Hugo
-- usually they don't have a big enough readership in the UK to swing
the vote, and by the time it's published in the US, usually next year,
it's no longer eligible... China's only chance is probably to publish a
damn good book next year to pick up a Hugo in Glasgow in 2005!
--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/
Lawrence Person
Arwel Parry <ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Unless the rules have been changed in the last few years, it's _very_
> difficult for a book which was first published in the UK to win the Hugo
They have been. A work published outside the U.S. can be given an extra
year of eligability at the judges discretion; if that hadn't been the
case, Perdido Street Station wouldn't have been on the ballot last year,
since it came out in the UK in 2000.
Jim Bailey
>In message <bisjck$e9a$1...@titan.btinternet.com>, Mike Dworetsky
><plati...@pants.btinternet.com> writes
[snippage re: Mieville and _The Scar_]
>>I'm wondering too, because he is a solid writer with interesting settings,
>>situations, concepts and characters, and writes highly entertaining stuff.
>>I really liked _Perdido Street Station_ and am looking forward to _The Scar_
>>(in my "to-read" pile).
>
>Unless the rules have been changed in the last few years, it's _very_
>difficult for a book which was first published in the UK to win the Hugo
>-- usually they don't have a big enough readership in the UK to swing
>the vote, and by the time it's published in the US, usually next year,
>it's no longer eligible... China's only chance is probably to publish a
>damn good book next year to pick up a Hugo in Glasgow in 2005!
IIRC, the rules have been changed with exactly this in mind. If a work is
first published outside the US (or perhaps North America), it can either be
nominated that year, or the first year of its US publication (there may be a
clock running on this). It can't double dip, though, so if it gets nominated
as a non-US publication and loses, it can't get nominated again, and there may
be a mechanism for an author to turn down or declare the work ineligible that
first time.
Somebody will now come along and provide the *correct* details to things I've
misremembered, as I'm too lazy to Google up a copy of the current rules. :-)
Best,
Jim Bailey
--
Elysian Fiction (Fantasy short story e-zine)
http://www.elysianfiction.com/
T. M. Wagner
David T. Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
> # NOVEL Hominids, Robert J. Sawyer (Analog Jan-Apr 2002; Tor)
>
> What a travesty. I've often defended the Hugo awards against
> detractors, but I won't be doing it again. This book didn't deserve
> to be nominated, much less win. There's not been another winner in
> the last 20 years I would have ranked below NO AWARD.
Truly. HOMINIDS is perhaps the least-deserving Hugo nominee -- much less
winner -- to hit the ballot in recent memory. I can recall that in the
mid-80s there was some fear that Scientologists would ballot-stuff for
Battlefield Earth. If that had actually happened, I can imagine a
situation as being worse. But I can't think of any other situation being
worse. Maybe the latest Xanth novel....
T. M. Wagner
http://www.sfreviews.net/
Book Your Journey Here
Richard Horton
<ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Unless the rules have been changed in the last few years, it's _very_
>difficult for a book which was first published in the UK to win the Hugo
>-- usually they don't have a big enough readership in the UK to swing
>the vote, and by the time it's published in the US, usually next year,
>it's no longer eligible... China's only chance is probably to publish a
>damn good book next year to pick up a Hugo in Glasgow in 2005!
The rules HAVE changed. Books published outside North America can
gain extended eligibility. Indeed, that's what has happened with
Mieville's last two novels, both Hugo nominees. Both were nominated in
the year after their first American publication.
So indeed Mieville had a perfectly fair shot at winning the Hugo each
of the last two years.
Richard Horton
<t...@nospam.sfreviews.net> wrote:
>In article <51t2lv04t1h1ukm4d...@4ax.com>,
> David T. Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> # NOVEL Hominids, Robert J. Sawyer (Analog Jan-Apr 2002; Tor)
>>
>> What a travesty. I've often defended the Hugo awards against
>> detractors, but I won't be doing it again. This book didn't deserve
>> to be nominated, much less win. There's not been another winner in
>> the last 20 years I would have ranked below NO AWARD.
>
>Truly. HOMINIDS is perhaps the least-deserving Hugo nominee -- much less
>winner -- to hit the ballot in recent memory. I can recall that in the
>mid-80s there was some fear that Scientologists would ballot-stuff for
>Battlefield Earth. If that had actually happened, I can imagine a
>situation as being worse.
Well, they did get _Black Genesis_ on the 1987 ballot, surely a result
of nomination-stuffing. Fortunately, it didn't win the Hugo.
Also, I would argue that one of Sawyer's previous Hugo nominees,
_Starplex_, is far worse even than _Hominids_.
Steve Coltrin
> For this theory to hold we must also accept that Analog readers have
> truly dire taste. Even had I read none of the nominees save
> _Hominids_ my ballot would read:
>
> 1. No Award
> 2. Hominids
If I understand the Hugo balloting system, that is nearly equivalent to
1. Hominids
The proper way to shitcan a candidate is to list _every_ other candidate,
then No Award.
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org WWVBF?
"Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product."
- Ferenc Mantfeld
Nick Ryan
and moan that if I don't like the results I should go and try to change
the process, but I shouldn't have to do this. It's Worldcon's job to
keep the process tuned in such a way that the Hugo awards DO justly
recognize works that have some intrinsic quality above and beyond the
political skill of their authors. The Hugos no longer WORK. I will now
no longer purchase a book because it is a Hugo nominee or winner, and I
will now no longer even pay attention to who these winners are - and
from the responses I see on this newsgroup, I will have lots of company.
And to Worldcon, all I can say is - I don't care what it takes, FIX THE
PROCESS. If this means making it less democratic or whatnot, then so be it.
David T. Bilek wrote:
--
Nick Ryan (MVP for DDK)
Christopher Pound
Nick Ryan <nr...@nryan.com> wrote:
>The Hugos have now lost all credibility, in my opinion. People may bitch
>and moan that if I don't like the results I should go and try to change
>the process, but I shouldn't have to do this. It's Worldcon's job to
>keep the process tuned in such a way that the Hugo awards DO justly
>recognize works that have some intrinsic quality above and beyond the
>political skill of their authors. The Hugos no longer WORK.
If I'm reading it right, _Hominids_ only beat _The Scar_ by 27 votes:
http://www.torcon3.org/ballots/index.html (click Voting Breakdown PDF).
Only 660 people voted in the novel category, though there were 4735 Worldcon
members. Can it really be true that only 14% of Worldcon members cared to
read 5 books and vote on the Hugo? OK, I have said before that the Hugo
winner is basically just a symbol selected by a tiny subculture to help them
believe they share a common taste. It's funny that it doesn't even represent
Worldcon, but I'd have to agree that the con organizers should investigate
reasons why so many people aren't participating in a significant con event.
It may be typical of past cons, but it's worth asking why the con fails
to enlist 86% of the SF fans on hand to read a little recent SF and vote.
There are some more interesting details in the voting breakdown too.
People who voted for _Hominids_ tended to give it either 1st or 4th place.
That is, its biggest jump in votes to win came when every other book but
_The Scar_ was removed. So the winner was decided by the 195 people who
loved _Hominids_ ganging up with the 98 people who hated _The Scar_. The
139 people who loved _The Scar_ gradually gathered up 127 people who
thought it was better than _Hominids_, but it wasn't quite enough to win.
You can also see what people who put _Hominids_ first thought about the
runners-up. They contributed 65 votes to _Kiln People_, 36 votes to _Bones
of the Earth_, 26 votes to _The Years of Rice and Salt_, a mere 18 votes to
_The Scar_, and 5 votes to No Award. But 34 of them abstained from all
further contests. I guess they didn't care to decide between the other
four books, knowing that their vote would always fall in place to help
_Hominids_. But I'm amazed that 34 people voted, "Either _Hominids_
wins, or I just don't care what wins." Did those people not read any of the
other novels? Since it's a number larger than the margin of victory,
it's kind of a big question.
Paul F. Dietz
> But I'm amazed that 34 people voted, "Either _Hominids_
> wins, or I just don't care what wins." Did those people not read any of the
> other novels? Since it's a number larger than the margin of victory,
> it's kind of a big question.
I was not a Torcon member and could not vote, but _Hominids_ is the only
book in that list that I've read. The others just didn't interest me.
_Hominids_ is clearly bad (I'd say 'horrible', but I reserve that word
for the sequel) but maybe the competition lacked something as well.
Paul
Keith Soltys
(Christopher Pound) wrote:
>In article <vl5ssro...@corp.supernews.com>,
>Nick Ryan <nr...@nryan.com> wrote:
>>The Hugos have now lost all credibility, in my opinion. People may bitch
>>and moan that if I don't like the results I should go and try to change
>>the process, but I shouldn't have to do this. It's Worldcon's job to
>>keep the process tuned in such a way that the Hugo awards DO justly
>>recognize works that have some intrinsic quality above and beyond the
>>political skill of their authors. The Hugos no longer WORK.
>
>If I'm reading it right, _Hominids_ only beat _The Scar_ by 27 votes:
>http://www.torcon3.org/ballots/index.html (click Voting Breakdown PDF).
>Only 660 people voted in the novel category, though there were 4735 Worldcon
>members. Can it really be true that only 14% of Worldcon members cared to
>read 5 books and vote on the Hugo? OK, I have said before that the Hugo
>winner is basically just a symbol selected by a tiny subculture to help them
>believe they share a common taste. It's funny that it doesn't even represent
>Worldcon, but I'd have to agree that the con organizers should investigate
>reasons why so many people aren't participating in a significant con event.
>It may be typical of past cons, but it's worth asking why the con fails
>to enlist 86% of the SF fans on hand to read a little recent SF and vote.
I'm oneof those who's a member (I attended the con) but didn't vote
for the Hugos. I've been reading SF since the age of 13, my first
convention was Torcon 2, and most of my fiction reading is still SF.
But I can't afford to buy very many hardcover books and by the time
they come out in paperback, I just don't have time to read them before
the voting period ends. Out of the five Hugo nominees, I've only read
Robinson's book, which I got from my library.
Ditto for the fiction - I read a few of the stories online, but again
lack of time prevented me from reading very many of them.
From the numbers, I suspect there are a lot of other people like me.
I haven't paid much attention to the Hugos in many years. I don't have
time to go back through the list of previous winners, but I do recall
that there were several that were at least as controversial as
Hominids.
Best
Keith
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Soltys -- kso...@rogers.com -- http://www.soltys.ca/
------------------------------------------------------------------
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest
of places if you look at it right - Grateful Dead/Scarlet Begonias
Sea Wasp
Yep. Moreover, from what I see of the Hugos, many of the voters are
looking for things entirely different from myself, and my addition to
the voting wouldn't necessarily help things on any side. I don't read
novels just so I can vote on them, that's for sure. I have better
things to do with my time.
>
> I haven't paid much attention to the Hugos in many years. I don't have
> time to go back through the list of previous winners, but I do recall
> that there were several that were at least as controversial as
> Hominids.
Harry Potter. 'Nuff said. I think HP is a good choice, but the number
of people having apoplexy just because it was nominated, let alone
won, was huge.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>The Hugos have now lost all credibility, in my opinion. People may bitch
>and moan that if I don't like the results I should go and try to change
>the process, but I shouldn't have to do this. It's Worldcon's job to
>keep the process tuned in such a way that the Hugo awards DO justly
>recognize works that have some intrinsic quality above and beyond the
>political skill of their authors.
And it's your job to buy a Worldcon membership if you care about the
Hugos.
>And to Worldcon, all I can say is - I don't care what it takes, FIX THE
>PROCESS. If this means making it less democratic or whatnot, then so be it.
You're addressing an abstract concept and making demands?
David T. Bilek
(Christopher Pound) wrote:
>There are some more interesting details in the voting breakdown too.
>People who voted for _Hominids_ tended to give it either 1st or 4th place.
>That is, its biggest jump in votes to win came when every other book but
>_The Scar_ was removed. So the winner was decided by the 195 people who
>loved _Hominids_ ganging up with the 98 people who hated _The Scar_. The
>139 people who loved _The Scar_ gradually gathered up 127 people who
>thought it was better than _Hominids_, but it wasn't quite enough to win.
>
>You can also see what people who put _Hominids_ first thought about the
>runners-up. They contributed 65 votes to _Kiln People_, 36 votes to _Bones
>of the Earth_, 26 votes to _The Years of Rice and Salt_, a mere 18 votes to
>_The Scar_, and 5 votes to No Award. But 34 of them abstained from all
>further contests. I guess they didn't care to decide between the other
>four books, knowing that their vote would always fall in place to help
>_Hominids_. But I'm amazed that 34 people voted, "Either _Hominids_
>wins, or I just don't care what wins." Did those people not read any of the
>other novels? Since it's a number larger than the margin of victory,
>it's kind of a big question.
Shills perhaps? Can the administrators match votes to the memberships
that cast them to check for vote manipulation? There is precedent, as
with the first time the clams tried to rig the system.
-David
Mark Watson
wrote:
>For this theory to hold we must also accept that Analog readers have
>truly dire taste.
From the stories in Analog, and the science articles, and the letters
page, I get a feeling that what Analog is providing is 'scientist
fiction' - that is, fiction in which scientists play a leading role.
Is it the case that Hominids features scientists prominently?
Paul F. Dietz
> Is it the case that Hominids features scientists prominently?
Oh yes, on both sides.
Paul
Nicholas Whyte
(Christopher Pound) wrote:
>I'm amazed that 34 people voted, "Either _Hominids_
>wins, or I just don't care what wins." Did those people not read any of the
>other novels? Since it's a number larger than the margin of victory,
>it's kind of a big question.
Probably all 34 were Canadians.
Nicholas
William December Starr
l...@sff.net said:
>> And to Worldcon, all I can say is - I don't care what it takes,
>> FIX THE PROCESS. If this means making it less democratic or
>> whatnot, then so be it.
>
> You're addressing an abstract concept and making demands?
Hey, the U.S. government fights was on abstract nouns...
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
David T. Bilek
<mark....@bestsf.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 23:02:31 GMT, David T. Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>For this theory to hold we must also accept that Analog readers have
>>truly dire taste.
>
>From the stories in Analog, and the science articles, and the letters
>page, I get a feeling that what Analog is providing is 'scientist
>fiction' - that is, fiction in which scientists play a leading role.
>Is it the case that Hominids features scientists prominently?
>
Yes, most of the main characters are scientists.
Still... to me the most obvious explanation for the win is that the
con was held in Sawyer's hometown. Disappointing, but there it is.
-David
J.B. Moreno
> You're addressing an abstract concept and making demands?
Absoutely -- Good should deliver my breakfast and Evil my supper.
Lunch should be served by Rock'N'Roll.
--
JBM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg
Nick Ryan
money in this day and age. Worldcon wants my money and attention (which
I happily gave last year in San Jose), otherwise it can't survive. And
the publishers and authors who prominently boast about their Hugo awards
want my money and attention as well. They're not going to get it unless
they EARN it by keeping the awards relevant.
I care enough about science fiction fandom to feel sad that a respected
awards process has fallen from grace, but fandom is not and never will
be a moving force in my life. However, I DO feel that as long as the
community/business around the Hugos is asking for my economic attention,
I have the right to criticize them from the sidelines. The day
publishers stop listing 'Hugo award winner' on their jacket covers to
sell books, and the day Woldcon stops charging for the right to vote for
the Hugos, is the day I lose my right to bitch about the Hugos from my
armchair.
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
--
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>I have no job to do here. I have lots of demands on my attention and
>money in this day and age. Worldcon wants my money and attention (which
>I happily gave last year in San Jose), otherwise it can't survive. And
>the publishers and authors who prominently boast about their Hugo awards
>want my money and attention as well. They're not going to get it unless
>they EARN it by keeping the awards relevant.
Publishers and authors don't give Hugos.
"Worldcon" isn't an entity.
Dan Goodman
news:vl7uv95...@corp.supernews.com:
> I have no job to do here. I have lots of demands on my attention and
> money in this day and age. Worldcon wants my money and attention
> (which I happily gave last year in San Jose), otherwise it can't
> survive. And the publishers and authors who prominently boast about
> their Hugo awards want my money and attention as well. They're not
> going to get it unless they EARN it by keeping the awards relevant.
Let me explain: For the Worldcon committee to "keep the awards relevant"
would be dereliction of duty.
Nominations are made by members of the previous and current Worldcon. If
the nominated novels are, for example, an extremely bad soft porn book, a
ripoff of _Slaves of Sleep_, and the rest really, really, really bad --
the Worldcon is not authorized to do anything to raise the quality. In
practice, every Hugo ballot has at least one book on it which I don't
think is worth reading.
The nominees are then voted on by members of the current Worldcon. Again,
the Worldcon committee is not authorized to stuff the ballot box.
The Nebulas are different. They're voted on by people considered to be
knowledgeable about the sf field -- that is, full members of SFWA. When
the Nebulas were set up, some writers were pleased that there was now an
award which wouldn't be subject to the logrolling associated with the
Hugoes.
Are the Nebula winners of higher quality than the Hugo winners? I don't
think so.
> I care enough about science fiction fandom to feel sad that a
> respected awards process has fallen from grace,
No, it hasn't. I won't say flatly that the Hugo winners have never been
non-controversial; but for every year I know enough about to tell,
there's been controversy.
One year, someone I generally respected began complaining about one fan
Hugo's winner _right after the nominations were announced_. Repeat -- the
nominations.
--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://dsgood.blogspot.com or
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Mike Schilling
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bj0b0u$ss8$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <bivqnl$tn$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> l...@sff.net said:
>
> >> And to Worldcon, all I can say is - I don't care what it takes,
> >> FIX THE PROCESS. If this means making it less democratic or
> >> whatnot, then so be it.
> >
> > You're addressing an abstract concept and making demands?
>
> Hey, the U.S. government fights was on abstract nouns...
And attacks fictional characters (Murphy Brown, Bart Simpson, etc.)
Davian
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ySU4b.8700$hC....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:bj0b0u$ss8$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> > Hey, the U.S. government fights was on abstract nouns...
>
> And attacks fictional characters (Murphy Brown, Bart Simpson, etc.)
>
Heh. And you thought producing the corpse of Saddam Hussein was hard....
Nick Ryan
could have addressed my argument in addition to my terminology.
Does there not exist a symbiotic relationship between the authors and
publishers whose careers and finances benefit from the receipt of Hugo
awards, and the WSFA whose existence depends on being able to sell
Worldcon memberships based on the attendence of well-known authors at
said Worldcons? These authors would not have the freedom to do what
they're doing if people like me weren't around to buy their books. Since
there are far more buyers of science fiction novels than there are
yearly paying Worldcon attendees, so it's in the best interests of the
WSFA (as far as one can pin down this amorphous blob called the WSFA) to
amend their constitution in whatever way is necessary to make the Hugos
relevant again.
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
--
Nick Ryan
how the Hugos are decided, there is no dereliction of duty, it's just a
change in process.
Your point on the Nebulas is well-taken. "The Terminal Experiment" by
Robert J. Sawyer? "Slow River" by Nicola Griffith? Gack.
The Locus awards are no better, polluted with Connie Willis books and
gaseous Kim Stanley Robinson ruminations. But to its credit there are
Neal Stephenson novels on the list.
If you consider all three awards together, the prospects look
brighter... it's much harder to find a year in which there wasn't at
least one qualified winner out of the three novels who'd won each
respective award.
Dan Goodman wrote:
--
Dan Goodman
> OK, you win. From now on I'll say WSFA instead of Worldcon, although
> you could have addressed my argument in addition to my terminology.
>
> Does there not exist a symbiotic relationship between the authors and
> publishers whose careers and finances benefit from the receipt of Hugo
> awards, and the WSFA whose existence depends on being able to sell
> Worldcon memberships based on the attendence of well-known authors at
> said Worldcons?
Since the Worldcon doesn't depend on such attendance, the answer is "No".
> These authors would not have the freedom to do what
> they're doing if people like me weren't around to buy their books.
> Since there are far more buyers of science fiction novels than there
> are yearly paying Worldcon attendees, so it's in the best interests of
> the WSFA (as far as one can pin down this amorphous blob called the
> WSFA) to amend their constitution in whatever way is necessary to make
> the Hugos relevant again.
What makes you think they're any less relevant than they used to be?
And no, it's _not_ in the best interests of Worldcon runners to make the
Hugoes conform to your specifications.
Dan Goodman
> If next year's Worldcon decides to amend the WSFS constitution to
> change how the Hugos are decided, there is no dereliction of duty,
> it's just a change in process.
Can't be done in one year. Proposed at the business meeting one year,
adopted or turned down the next.
> Your point on the Nebulas is well-taken. "The Terminal Experiment" by
> Robert J. Sawyer? "Slow River" by Nicola Griffith? Gack.
_Slow River_ was good, in my opinion -- though it wasn't to my taste. The
Sawyer book -- I've never gotten very far into any of his novels.
> The Locus awards are no better, polluted with Connie Willis books and
> gaseous Kim Stanley Robinson ruminations. But to its credit there are
> Neal Stephenson novels on the list.
Robinson's books are fine, if you don't demand a plot.
> If you consider all three awards together, the prospects look
> brighter... it's much harder to find a year in which there wasn't at
> least one qualified winner out of the three novels who'd won each
> respective award.
I suspect most book buyers figure out fairly quickly that "Won the __
award!" isn't a guarantee of anything.
Bruce Baugh
<nr...@nryan.com> wrote:
> Does there not exist a symbiotic relationship between the authors and
> publishers whose careers and finances benefit from the receipt of Hugo
> awards, and the WSFA whose existence depends on being able to sell
> Worldcon memberships based on the attendence of well-known authors at
> said Worldcons?
Not particularly, no. The course of sf professional publishing would
not hcange significantly if the Hugos disappeared.
--
Bruce Baugh <*> bba...@mac.com
Writer of Fortune, Gamma World Developer
http://bruceb.livejournal.com/
wth...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu
The corpse of Bart Simpson can be found every Sunday
on Fox.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Andrew Wheeler
>
> I have no job to do here. I have lots of demands on my attention and
> money in this day and age. Worldcon wants my money and attention (which
> I happily gave last year in San Jose), otherwise it can't survive. And
> the publishers and authors who prominently boast about their Hugo awards
> want my money and attention as well. They're not going to get it unless
> they EARN it by keeping the awards relevant.
Relevant...to *you*? Are you honestly that self-centered that you think
a) the Worldcon, b) the Hugo Awards and c) fandom in general will all
fall into rack and ruin if they don't take immediate steps to please you?
(ObSF: the Total Perspective Vortex.)
If you took greater care to speak as a member of some kind of group --
however defined -- you would be taken more seriously. Demanding that the
world change to suit you and only you is the viewpoint of a toddler. (My
five-year-old son has mostly grown out of that.)
> I care enough about science fiction fandom to feel sad that a respected
> awards process has fallen from grace, but fandom is not and never will
> be a moving force in my life. However, I DO feel that as long as the
> community/business around the Hugos is asking for my economic attention,
> I have the right to criticize them from the sidelines. The day
> publishers stop listing 'Hugo award winner' on their jacket covers to
> sell books, and the day Woldcon stops charging for the right to vote for
> the Hugos, is the day I lose my right to bitch about the Hugos from my
> armchair.
Oh, we all have the right to bitch. (I was doing it a bit myself, this
weekend.) But I haven't seen you put forth any specific problems besides
"books I think are bad are winning awards," or any solutions besides
"fix this or I'll hold my breath until I turn blue." This is why I (and
others before me) am making fun of you.
If you *do* have an idea to get more people -- thousands of them,
preferably -- to either read more SF/Fantasy novels and nominate them,
or to read the five nominees each year and vote on *them* (always,
assuming, of course, that if more people voted, the results would be
closer to your own taste -- and that's very much an open question),
please tell us about it. A lot of people are concerned about the Hugos,
and tinkering with the rules (or attempting to do so) to make things
"better" (witness this year's division of the "Best Dramatic
Presentation" Award) is quite common.
--
Andrew Wheeler
--
Success taps softly on the back door in the middle of the
night..._never_ rings the bell...disaster comes through the living room
picture window with headlights on and SIRENS blaring!
Geoffrey A. Landis
> ,,,
> The Gaiman and Swanpick probably won because they're by Gaiman and
> Swanwick. The Landis absolutely deserved its win, though. "Falling
> Onto Mars" is excellent.
Thanks!
--
Geoffrey A. Landis
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis
Andrea Leistra
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
[The Hugo awards]
>Nominations are made by members of the previous and current Worldcon. If
>the nominated novels are, for example, an extremely bad soft porn book, a
>ripoff of _Slaves of Sleep_, and the rest really, really, really bad --
>the Worldcon is not authorized to do anything to raise the quality. In
>practice, every Hugo ballot has at least one book on it which I don't
>think is worth reading.
>
>The nominees are then voted on by members of the current Worldcon. Again,
>the Worldcon committee is not authorized to stuff the ballot box.
The problem is that, while this is true, the Hugos are made out to be more
than just "what the Worldcon members liked". They're billed as the best
SF novels[1] of the year, as voted on by science fiction readers. But
Worldcon members are a very small fraction of science fiction readers. I
understand that allowing non-Worldcon members to vote for the Hugos would
diverge from the original intent of the awards. I'm not convinced that
this would be a bad thing -- is someone here who read all the novels
somehow less qualified than someone in Toronto who shelled out the
<google> $200 to go to the con and vote for the hometown author, or even
than someone who shelled out the $40 to vote [2]? $40 buys a lot of used
paperbacks. I generally don't trust the results of elections where votes
are purchased, though this is slightly better since one person isn't
likely to buy multiple memberships.
[1] And short fiction, and various fan awards; but the novel is the one
that gets noticed the most, and the one that gets blazoned on the cover
of reprints of the book and future books by the author.
[2] I assume that's what a "supporting membership" is.
--
Andrea Leistra
Geoffrey A. Landis
> Mark Watson <mark....@bestsf.net> wrote:
>
> >So as Hominids was an Analog serial, then Analog has been the source
> >of 3 out of the 4 winners. Is this pertinent viz the actual voting do
> >you think?
>
> I suspect that Analog readers tend to be likely to be Hugo
> nominators/voters.
Historically, this hasn't been true-- in fact, _Analog_ writers often
remark that the proportion of Hugos going to _Analog_ stories is
disporportionately low. Checking http://dpsinfo.com/awardweb/hugos/,
I see that in this decade, prior to this Hugos, Asimov's stories won
five short-fiction Hugos, Analog stories one, F&SF stories one, and
original stories in anthologies two.
However, I think that there is a tendency for stories that are
serialized in Analog to be more likely to win a Hugo-- quite simply,
serialization gives it exposure to a different subset of readers.
In regards to the discussion of _Hominids_, let me remind people that
Rob Sawyer was very much the hometown hero at Toronto. If you'd heard
the cheers when he was announced, you would have had no reason to be
surprised at the award.
wth...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu
He has won other awards. Why is it that this time it
must be local prejudice? Or do you consider his neblula
winner to be worthy or more worthy than "Hominids"? I
have read neither.
Perhaps "hominids" is horrible, but 195 first round votes
hardly seems like a massive conspiracy. About 100 more
people voted in the novel category than in the categories
in which he was not nominated. I have no idea whether
this is unusual.
"Kiln People" finished second. It was fun, but not what
I would think of as nearly a Hugo winner, given that
ending.
Nick Ryan
Browsing over the list of novel winners of three of the major sci-fi
awards over the past decade or so - Hugo, Nebula, and Locus - it becomes
immediately apparent to me that the Hugos are more on the mark than the
Nebula or Locus awards.
That said, it seems to be the opinion of a wide swath of generally
intelligent members of the sci-fi community (as judged by the
time-honored method of lurking rec.arts.sf.written), that some recent
Hugos picks have been substandard to a degree as to indicate a problem
with the process. It seems that most of us agree that the Sawyer novel
is unobviously unworthy, but there is a great deal of opinion that the
Potter and Gaiman novels represent an unhealthy drift as well, away from
solid, groundbreaking sci-fi/fantasy picks toward blander fare.
So then we must ask why are the unworthy picks coming through? The
reason for the Sawyer pick I'd say is because of regional politics. It
may be to the WSFS's advantage to separate administration and promotion
of the Hugo voting process into an entity less closely identified with
an individual Worldcon. Let's say that if someone wishes to vote on the
Hugo, instead of having to hunt for the next Worldcon's web page and
purchase a supporting membership through there, he could just go to
worldcon.org and renew his membership via a central mechanism year after
year. In summary, I'd say that more centralization is needed.
The reason for the other unworthy picks seems to me that people just
aren't reading enough of the nominees. I cannot believe that "A Storm of
Swords" wouldn't have won over Potter in 2001 if both books have been
equally as well-read by the voters, or "Perdido Street Station" or even
"The Chronoliths" over "American Gods". I'm going to make the radical
proposal that we demand proof from potential voters that they actually
have purchased and/or read all nominees before voting. How to enforce
this, I don't know. Maybe demand photocopies of receipts or copies of
original book reports? No, I'm not joking.
Andrew Wheeler wrote:
--
Htn963
>If you took greater care to speak as a member of some kind of group --
>however defined -- you would be taken more seriously.
I don't take *you* and SFBC seriously now, but then you probably already
know that.
<snippety>
>If you *do* have an idea to get more people -- thousands of them,
>preferably -- to either read more SF/Fantasy novels and nominate them,
>or to read the five nominees each year and vote on *them*
Sure. SFBC could issue a lump set of all the nominated novels at a
discount as soon as they are announced for each year. This will help induce
more people to read all the nominees since the cost and time factor has been
reduced. And this is by no means a charity act on your part -- as if that
would ever occur to you anyhow -- since you'll do brisk business for people
about to go to the con or are just interested as armchair voters.
And BTW, it's *your* turn to suggest changes to better the Hugo award
process.
--
Ht
|Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
--John Donne, "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions"|
Sea Wasp
It seems that most of us agree that the Sawyer novel
> is unobviously unworthy, but there is a great deal of opinion that the
> Potter and Gaiman novels represent an unhealthy drift as well, away from
> solid, groundbreaking sci-fi/fantasy picks toward blander fare.
Of course, there's a great deal of opinion in the other direction. I
think almost all awards are BS in terms of whether they actually MEAN
anything. Sure, I'd love to have a Hugo, but it means little; it may
say that I have done something pretty neat, but it's only going to
impress a specific, rather small audience, and for every one person
who finds it interesting or impressive, there's probably another
person who finds it laughable, irrelevant, or simply wrong.
Now, if the Hugo came with a six or seven figure cash award, THAT
would mean something! ;)
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
David Dyer-Bennet
> Andrew Wheeler wrote:
>
> >If you took greater care to speak as a member of some kind of group --
> >however defined -- you would be taken more seriously.
>
> I don't take *you* and SFBC seriously now, but then you probably already
> know that.
>
> <snippety>
>
> >If you *do* have an idea to get more people -- thousands of them,
> >preferably -- to either read more SF/Fantasy novels and nominate them,
> >or to read the five nominees each year and vote on *them*
>
> Sure. SFBC could issue a lump set of all the nominated novels at a
> discount as soon as they are announced for each year. This will help induce
> more people to read all the nominees since the cost and time factor has been
> reduced. And this is by no means a charity act on your part -- as if that
> would ever occur to you anyhow -- since you'll do brisk business for people
> about to go to the con or are just interested as armchair voters.
It would be "difficult" to get permission to do that, since the
Hugo-nominated novels are mostly still in print and hence under
exclusive license to one publisher already.
It *would* be nice; but it's not Andrew or SFBC that's at fault for
not doing it. It's not possible within the way the publishing
industry works (exclusive licenses for a work in particular
territories), and it's not something that SFBC is at all in control
of, either.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd...@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
Elisabeth Riba
> The reason for the other unworthy picks seems to me that people just
> aren't reading enough of the nominees. I cannot believe that "A Storm of
> Swords" wouldn't have won over Potter in 2001 if both books have been
> equally as well-read by the voters
Well, maybe the fact that fewer people wanted to read "Storm of Swords" is
an indication of its quality -- or, at least, its accessibility.
So far, the only WorldCon I attended was MilPhil, and I didn't vote in the
Hugos because I didn't/couldn't read most of the books.
Here were the nominees and results: http://www.milphil.org/hugos/2001novel.html
I had already read HP4, and went out of my way to read "Calculating Gd"
but "Storm of Swords" which you use as your example, was book THREE of a
series. Sorry, but I'm not going out of my way to read three thousand-page
books in order to cast my ballot.
"Sky Road," one of the other nominees, was also part of a multi-book
series, which had the same effect on my desire to read it.
And so, I didn't vote at all.
I've written elsewhere about my annoyance with trends in SF/F towards
series and away from standalone works, and don't feel like rehashing that
argument here.
For me, it's gotten so bad that aside from certain authors who have proven
themselves to me, I barely read adult SF/F any more, and have my tastes
have shifted to YA books.
So, that may be part of what you saw in the HP4 nod -- accessibility matters.
> I'm going to make the radical
> proposal that we demand proof from potential voters that they actually
> have purchased and/or read all nominees before voting. How to enforce
> this, I don't know. Maybe demand photocopies of receipts or copies of
> original book reports? No, I'm not joking.
A) I do most of my reading from public libraries.
B) Purchase does not equal reading, as I've got shelves of books I've
bought but haven't completed.
C) For books that are part of a series, do you also propose that people be
required to read all the prequels to the nominees, too?
Here's an alternate radical proposal:
Maybe there should be separate categories for standalone books and series
(defined as interconnecting books that tell one story and cannot be read
independently or out of sequence (LOTR); in contrast to sequels: multiple
books in the same universe that may refer to events in previous books but
are not dependent upon them, like most Discworld titles)
--
------> Elisabeth Riba * http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/ <------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
Dan Goodman
news:bj326p$919$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu:
> In article <Xns93E9E852399...@209.98.13.60>,
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> [The Hugo awards]
>
>>Nominations are made by members of the previous and current Worldcon.
>>If the nominated novels are, for example, an extremely bad soft porn
>>book, a ripoff of _Slaves of Sleep_, and the rest really, really,
>>really bad -- the Worldcon is not authorized to do anything to raise
>>the quality. In practice, every Hugo ballot has at least one book on
>>it which I don't think is worth reading.
>>
>>The nominees are then voted on by members of the current Worldcon.
>>Again, the Worldcon committee is not authorized to stuff the ballot
>>box.
>
> The problem is that, while this is true, the Hugos are made out to be
> more than just "what the Worldcon members liked". They're billed as
> the best SF novels[1] of the year, as voted on by science fiction
> readers. But Worldcon members are a very small fraction of science
> fiction readers. I understand that allowing non-Worldcon members to
> vote for the Hugos would diverge from the original intent of the
> awards. I'm not convinced that this would be a bad thing
Then the remedy is to set up an award which works the way you'd like the
Hugoes to work.
> -- is
> someone here who read all the novels somehow less qualified than
> someone in Toronto who shelled out the <google> $200 to go to the con
> and vote for the hometown author, or even than someone who shelled out
> the $40 to vote [2]? $40 buys a lot of used paperbacks. I generally
> don't trust the results of elections where votes are purchased, though
> this is slightly better since one person isn't likely to buy multiple
> memberships.
>
> [1] And short fiction, and various fan awards; but the novel is the
> one
> that gets noticed the most, and the one that gets blazoned on the
> cover of reprints of the book and future books by the author.
>
> [2] I assume that's what a "supporting membership" is.
>
--
Mike Schilling
"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m2smnea...@gw.dd-b.net...
> htn...@cs.com (Htn963) writes:
to read the five nominees each year and vote on *them*
> >
> > Sure. SFBC could issue a lump set of all the nominated novels
at a
> > discount as soon as they are announced for each year. This will help
induce
> > more people to read all the nominees since the cost and time factor has
been
> > reduced. And this is by no means a charity act on your part -- as if
that
> > would ever occur to you anyhow -- since you'll do brisk business for
people
> > about to go to the con or are just interested as armchair voters.
>
> It would be "difficult" to get permission to do that, since the
> Hugo-nominated novels are mostly still in print and hence under
> exclusive license to one publisher already.
>
Details, details.
Is it even clear there'd be much of a market for such a thing? I presume
the reason that the anthologies of Hugo-winning short fiction no longer
appear is that no one was buying them.
James Nicoll
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Is it even clear there'd be much of a market for such a thing? I presume
>the reason that the anthologies of Hugo-winning short fiction no longer
>appear is that no one was buying them.
In general anthologies don't sell. The factoid I think I
recall correctly is that a single-author antho will sell 1/5th as
many copies as a novel by the same author. In the general spirit
of blaming people who are not responsible for the situation and
have no legal way to change it, I blame the Land Registery office
on Frederick Street.
--
It's amazing how the waterdrops form: a ball of water with an air bubble
inside it and inside of that one more bubble of water. It looks so beautiful
[...]. I realized something: the world is interesting for the man who can
be surprised. -Valentin Lebedev-
Petrazickis
Do undead corpses that are a shadow of their former sense really count?;)
Leons Petrazickis
import java.lang.disclaimer;
Rich Clark
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93EADA84DAD...@209.98.13.60...
> Then the remedy is to set up an award which works the way you'd like the
> Hugoes to work.
SciFi.com ran a poll, and these were the results:
Bones of the Earth by Michael Swanwick 346
Hominids by Robert J. Sawyer 567
Kiln People by David Brin 10115
The Scar by China Miéville 546
The Years of Rice and Salt by Kim Stanley Robinson 519
I can't explain it, either.
My proposal would be that henceforth, all Hugos will be voted on only by
living previous Hugo winners. I'm not suggesting this would make sense or
produce more laudable results. But I think it would be more fun to talk
about.
RichC
Nick Ryan
people to actually read all nominees, perhaps there should be a separate
category for works that can only be judged fairly by someone who's
familiar with previous works in some 'series'.
But your first argument doesn't click; if one agrees that the quality of
a work cannot be judged fairly unless it is read, then it cannot be the
case that fewer people reading ASoS than Harry Potter implies that ASoS
is of lower quality (unless we say that everyone who read the Potter
novel and not the GRRM novel had read earlier works in BOTH series and
made a judgment whether to continue based on that).
Elisabeth Riba wrote:
--
Ethan Merritt
Nick Ryan <nr...@nryan.com> wrote:
>Let's say that if someone wishes to vote on the
>Hugo, instead of having to hunt for the next Worldcon's web page and
>purchase a supporting membership through there, he could just go to
>worldcon.org and renew his membership via a central mechanism year after
>year. In summary, I'd say that more centralization is needed.
Sounds good to me.
>The reason for the other unworthy picks seems to me that people just
>aren't reading enough of the nominees. I cannot believe that "A Storm of
>Swords" wouldn't have won over Potter in 2001 if both books have been
>equally as well-read by the voters
I cannot speak for other voters, but I for one would certainly take
the HP over the SoS. And besides that, in this case the fact
that the HP books have such a wide readership is a large part of the
reason that Rowling deserved a Hugo. So to say that somehow this
should be normalized out of the equation seems to me to miss the
point entirely.
> or "Perdido Street Station" or even "The Chronoliths" over "American Gods.
Now there I agree with you.
--
Ethan A Merritt
r.r...@thevine.net
>The reason for the other unworthy picks seems to me that people just
>aren't reading enough of the nominees. I cannot believe that "A Storm of
>Swords" wouldn't have won over Potter in 2001 if both books have been
>equally as well-read by the voters, or "Perdido Street Station" or even
>"The Chronoliths" over "American Gods". I'm going to make the radical
>proposal that we demand proof from potential voters that they actually
>have purchased and/or read all nominees before voting. How to enforce
>this, I don't know. Maybe demand photocopies of receipts or copies of
>original book reports? No, I'm not joking.
It seems to me that a lot of people have read the Potter books. Maybe
they didn't read all the other nominees, but I don't think that stops
them from voting for Potter. And, whether you like it or not, the
fact that someone may only read one of the five books does give
credence to the belief that, to that person, that one book is better
than the other 4, since they never found the inclination to read the
others. Which, since the Hugo is basically a popularity poll, is a
perfectly acceptable thing.
On the other hand, I am so far out on the fringes of the normal
distribution that I pay little attention to awards in general, except
to wonder what possessed sane people to pick things so far from what I
would have.
Rebecca
Hervé HAUCK
> Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > Mark Watson <mark....@bestsf.net> wrote:
> >
> > >So as Hominids was an Analog serial, then Analog has been the source
> > >of 3 out of the 4 winners. Is this pertinent viz the actual voting do
> > >you think?
> >
> > I suspect that Analog readers tend to be likely to be Hugo
> > nominators/voters.
> Historically, this hasn't been true-- in fact, _Analog_ writers often
> remark that the proportion of Hugos going to _Analog_ stories is
> disporportionately low. Checking http://dpsinfo.com/awardweb/hugos/,
> I see that in this decade, prior to this Hugos, Asimov's stories won
> five short-fiction Hugos, Analog stories one, F&SF stories one, and
> original stories in anthologies two.
That's also my feeling, but it's also that IMHO, 'typical' ANALOG stories
are less memorable than those in other magazines (I personnaly subscrobe to
ANALOG, Asimov's, Interzone & Spectrum)
> However, I think that there is a tendency for stories that are
> serialized in Analog to be more likely to win a Hugo-- quite simply,
> serialization gives it exposure to a different subset of readers.
Perhaps tied to the fact that the number of readers of ANALOG is (IIRC)
markedly superior to the other sources.
> In regards to the discussion of _Hominids_, let me remind people that
> Rob Sawyer was very much the hometown hero at Toronto. If you'd heard
> the cheers when he was announced, you would have had no reason to be
> surprised at the award.
Yes, the 'home turf' argument is to me quite valid, see the Interzone win
over Locus in Glasgow in 1995.
Hervé
--
Article posté via l'accès Usenet http://www.mes-news.com
Accès par Nnrp ou Web
Niall McAuley
> "Sky Road," one of the other nominees, was also part of a multi-book
> series, which had the same effect on my desire to read it.
All of the novels in that "series" stand alone, though, it's
not a single story chopped into 4 volumes.
--
Niall [real address ends in com, not moc.invalid]
Htn963
>[Htn963 wrote:]
>> Sure. SFBC could issue a lump set of all the nominated novels at a
>> discount as soon as they are announced for each year. This will help
>induce
>> more people to read all the nominees since the cost and time factor has
>been
>> reduced. And this is by no means a charity act on your part -- as if that
>> would ever occur to you anyhow -- since you'll do brisk business for people
>> about to go to the con or are just interested as armchair voters.
>
>It would be "difficult" to get permission to do that,
All worthwhile things to do are "difficult."
>since the
>Hugo-nominated novels are mostly still in print and hence under
>exclusive license to one publisher already.
Eh? Is there a cardinal rule within the publishing business that a book
needs to be out of print to be offered in a book club? I see concurrent
releases of titles in retail and book club all the time -- including many of
SFBC's monthly selections.
And surely there is usually sufficient time-lapse (6 months - 1 year)
between the time an sf book is published and when it is nominated to swing some
deals if one were to make the effort...but, yes, I guess making efforts to get
readers the title they want has never been one of SFBC's main strengths.
>It *would* be nice; but it's not Andrew or SFBC that's at fault for
>not doing it.
Who said they were at fault for not doing it? But if some smug,
patronizing editor starts calling people who are dissatisfied with the Hugo
voting process immature and challenges them for suggestions to improve the
process, then I am only too glad to suggest to him and his employer with a
means relevant to them.
>It's not possible within the way the publishing
>industry works (exclusive licenses for a work in particular
>territories),
And you know this through personal experiences?
> and it's not something that SFBC is at all in control
>of, either.
A 50 years old book club with no serious competition for its niche
shouldn't need too many excuses or apologists.
Sea Wasp
> That's a good point about multi-series works. If we're going to require
> people to actually read all nominees, perhaps there should be a separate
> category for works that can only be judged fairly by someone who's
> familiar with previous works in some 'series'.
>
> But your first argument doesn't click; if one agrees that the quality of
> a work cannot be judged fairly unless it is read, then it cannot be the
> case that fewer people reading ASoS than Harry Potter implies that ASoS
> is of lower quality (unless we say that everyone who read the Potter
> novel and not the GRRM novel had read earlier works in BOTH series and
> made a judgment whether to continue based on that).
Ah, but that "if" contains a number of assumptions. One can also
assume that works are also less likely to be read if they're not good.
In fact, one MUST assume that to some extent, or else all books should
be read equally, regardless of quality.
As anyone who's been around here for a while knows, there's also
virtually no consensus as to what constitutes "good". That's the real
reason the Hugos are not consistently "right" for any individual. In
some years there are books that are really "good" from my POV, and the
voters present share my taste, so those books (e.g., Fire Upon the
Deep). In other years, there may not be many strong contenders from
my PoV, and the voters present are people who DON'T share my taste, so
the selected book is something you'd have to PAY me to read (e.g.,
Left Hand of Darkness).
James Nicoll
Ethan Merritt <mer...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <vlabi0p...@corp.supernews.com>,
>Nick Ryan <nr...@nryan.com> wrote:
>>Let's say that if someone wishes to vote on the
>>Hugo, instead of having to hunt for the next Worldcon's web page and
>>purchase a supporting membership through there, he could just go to
>>worldcon.org and renew his membership via a central mechanism year after
>>year. In summary, I'd say that more centralization is needed.
>
>Sounds good to me.
>
>>The reason for the other unworthy picks seems to me that people just
>>aren't reading enough of the nominees. I cannot believe that "A Storm of
>>Swords" wouldn't have won over Potter in 2001 if both books have been
>>equally as well-read by the voters
>
>I cannot speak for other voters, but I for one would certainly take
>the HP over the SoS. And besides that, in this case the fact
>that the HP books have such a wide readership is a large part of the
>reason that Rowling deserved a Hugo. So to say that somehow this
>should be normalized out of the equation seems to me to miss the
>point entirely.
The Potter books, while part of a larger narrative, feel
like complete stories in each volume. The Martin does not. This
is for me perhaps a more serious issue than it is for other people
since book-fragments continue to sell (and in at least one case
I know of but don't have permission to mention by name, are being
deliberately created by dividing a single MS with a whole plot
and actual -closure- into two or more volumes and not as far as
I know for binding reasons [1]. I was going to ask the editor in
question why but every formulation of the question I came up with
was too impolite) but it means that until the series is done or Martin
dies I am not even looking at the Martin books. I'll read it when
it's finished. If the author or the publisher can't be bothered to present
me with a complete work, I can't be bothered to read them (unless paid
to do so).
James Nicoll
1: I think binding issues are why Linda Resnick's _White Dragon_ and
the sequel weren't one volume and if I recall pnh's comments about
the latest Brust series why it isn't one huge bus-crusher either.
I'm fairly sure I remember that the reason why the LOTR trilogy was
done in three volumes way back when was binding issues but unfortunately
it showed people would buy parts of books if they were good and if a
resolution was promised for the future and now readers have been conditioned
to not even need the promise of a conclusion. And arguably not the quality
either. Grumble grumble.
Paul
I think the problem with that idea is that many sf readers will have
already read at least one of the nominated books. Which means that
they either have to buy a book that they've already read, or that they
just don't buy it.
Paul
Randy Money
> In article <Xlc5b.8922$ti....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>,
> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Is it even clear there'd be much of a market for such a thing? I presume
>>the reason that the anthologies of Hugo-winning short fiction no longer
>>appear is that no one was buying them.
>
>
> In general anthologies don't sell. The factoid I think I
> recall correctly is that a single-author antho will sell 1/5th as
> many copies as a novel by the same author. In the general spirit
> of blaming people who are not responsible for the situation and
> have no legal way to change it, I blame the Land Registery office
> on Frederick Street.
But I've also heard writers say this is a self-perpetuating myth. One
author mentioned on another newsgroup that her story collection sold out
and there were requests for copies coming in, so she asked the publisher
(well, a publisher's representative, anyway) to get another printing
out. The publisher rep. said it wasn't worth it since collections don't
sell. But it sold out, the author reminded the rep, and there was a
demand for more. But collections don't sell, according to the rep.
I doubt this happens all that often -- the novel has been pushed harder
than the story collection over the years -- but I seem to know a lot of
readers who like short stories as much or more than novels, so I'm
having trouble believing story collections can't sell, though I have
little trouble believing in a publishing bureacracy too dense to know
how to push them.
Randy M.
Randy Money
> Nick Ryan wrote:
>
>> That's a good point about multi-series works. If we're going to
>> require people to actually read all nominees, perhaps there should be
>> a separate category for works that can only be judged fairly by
>> someone who's familiar with previous works in some 'series'.
>>
>> But your first argument doesn't click; if one agrees that the quality
>> of a work cannot be judged fairly unless it is read, then it cannot be
>> the case that fewer people reading ASoS than Harry Potter implies that
>> ASoS is of lower quality (unless we say that everyone who read the
>> Potter novel and not the GRRM novel had read earlier works in BOTH
>> series and made a judgment whether to continue based on that).
>
>
> Ah, but that "if" contains a number of assumptions. One can also
> assume that works are also less likely to be read if they're not good.
True. Though there are other potential reasons, too.
> In fact, one MUST assume that to some extent,
That "to some extent" leaves this very murky.
> or else all books should be read equally, regardless of quality.
No. I'm not comfortable with that. I'd substitute the word "demanding"
for the word, "good". Books that require more time and attention from
the reader to 'get it' are not inherently worse, just more demanding.
(Demands may come from style of writing, from the construction of the
work, from the themes involved, from any number of other sources.)
Consequently, they are, because of their nature, tougher to get through.
And this, in combination with the nature of the bulk of readers (many of
whom don't like "demanding" because anything that's demanding must be
pretentious; or who don't like "demanding" because they only read for
escape; or who don't like "demanding" because their time and attention
have so many demands on them already that such reading is not
restorative and invigorating but depleting and exhausting; or some
combination of all of the above), adds up to a smaller audience. In this
case, it's much easier for a significant subsection of reader to read,
say, Eddings than to read Tolkien, unless there is an extra-literary
spur, like a movie adaptation, to get the reader to take the time and
effort. [And, in this argument, beyond here lie Dragons! Assuming I
haven't already tip-toed across some scales.]
> As anyone who's been around here for a while knows, there's also
> virtually no consensus as to what constitutes "good". That's the real
> reason the Hugos are not consistently "right" for any individual. In
> some years there are books that are really "good" from my POV, and the
> voters present share my taste, so those books (e.g., Fire Upon the
> Deep). In other years, there may not be many strong contenders from my
> PoV, and the voters present are people who DON'T share my taste, so the
> selected book is something you'd have to PAY me to read (e.g., Left Hand
> of Darkness).
>
I think here is where you hit the real problem with the Hugos. Not just
from decade to decade, but from year to year the voting population
shifts enough that there is no consistent standard for "good." The best
you can say is that in the given year there was a cross-section of s.f.
fandom that liked the work in question (or the author thereof) enough to
vote for it. I think this may have been less of a problem in the past
when the field did not produce as many works and a smaller audience with
a less diverse set of tastes. Then, say prior to sometime in the
mid-'70s, the Hugos may have been a truer representation of the taste of
fandom.
Randy M.
Konrad Gaertner
>
> In this
> case, it's much easier for a significant subsection of reader to read,
> say, Eddings than to read Tolkien, unless there is an extra-literary
> spur, like a movie adaptation, to get the reader to take the time and
> effort.
And yet LOTR was busy winning popularity awards even before the
recent movie versions. How many awards has Eddings won?
--KG
James Nicoll
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
snip
>(and in at least one case
>I know of but don't have permission to mention by name, are being
>deliberately created by dividing a single MS with a whole plot
>and actual -closure- into two or more volumes and not as far as
>I know for binding reasons [1]. I was going to ask the editor in
>question why but every formulation of the question I came up with
>was too impolite)
The research I should have done before shooting my fingers
off reveals that the reason behind the above is that the New Rule
(from sales, I think) is that Long SF Does Not Sell. If you as
God Editor of Dune have in hand a long SF novel, this puts you
in the uncomfortable position of either asking authors to divide
complete books into several volumes or asking them to e.g. cut
100,000 words from a 200,000 word novel. This is me, Viewing With
Alarm in Ontario.
It would seem to me that in some senses we are heading back
towards the constrictions of the 1960s SF market, only without the
sales numbers per title.
Randy Money
1) I was talking about a subsection of readers, not all readers, though
I believe my point may apply to all readers at different times. (I
probably should have said a subsection of the readership at a given time
since someone who was in that subsection say in June might not be in it
in December.)
2) That's only one example. I expect relatively early Zelazny novels
gained more readers than relatively early Delany because, at least in
what I read, Zelazny was more accessible.
3) You can't have been on rasfw and not seen posters who mentioned how
much they preferred the ease of reading Eddings or Eddings-like writing
to the turgid Mr. Tolkien. Remember, too, Tolkien came to his greatest
popularity in the '60s when there were fewer distractions -- DVDs,
electronic games, etc. -- from the written works.
No, I think the point stands that there are always readers who, probably
for a combination of reasons, skip good, solid work not because it isn't
good but because it presents more of a challenge to read than they have
time, energy or attention to cope with -- they don't particularly enjoy
facing the challenge, or life in its demands (work, family, and so on)
makes it difficult if not impossible for them to concentrate sufficiently.
And I don't for a moment think that applies to just s.f. readers. Hell,
it even applies to me sometimes -- I'm reading HP5 because I know that
even at 800+ pages it's not taxing, but I haven't yet tackled Iain
Pear's _An Instance of the Fingerpost_ or the GRRM series or Don
DeLillo's _Underworld_, mostly because, interesting as they appear,
they're also appear too long and complex for the attention and time I've
had to spare over the last few years.
Randy M.
Mike Schilling
"Htn963" <htn...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030903063820...@mb-m14.news.cs.com...
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> >It's not possible within the way the publishing
> >industry works (exclusive licenses for a work in particular
> >territories),
>
> And you know this through personal experiences?
Um, you do know who David's wife is, don't you?
John M. Gamble
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> In general anthologies don't sell. The factoid I think I
>recall correctly is that a single-author antho will sell 1/5th as
>many copies as a novel by the same author. In the general spirit
>of blaming people who are not responsible for the situation and
>have no legal way to change it, I blame the Land Registery office
>on Frederick Street.
I thought it was still Roger Elwood's fault. Doesn't he still
have a patent on it?
--
-john
February 28 1997: Last day libraries could order catalogue cards
from the Library of Congress.
Konrad Gaertner
>
> 1: I think binding issues are why Linda Resnick's _White Dragon_ and
> the sequel weren't one volume
I believe that; _White Dragon_ doesn't (physically) look like half a
book. Let's see what Amazon gives for page counts... 512 for Dragon
and 496 for Destroyer. The hardcover probably would have been fine,
but not the massmarket. And besides, they had a fairly good stopping
point to use (better, IMO, than the one between _In Legend Born_ and
_Dragon_). And as I said in my review, I view the series as a novel
published in three parts (and I wish I could re-edit it so the break
points are more logical and to get rid of the repetition).
PS. Her first name is Laura.
--KG
Konrad Gaertner
>
> The research I should have done before shooting my fingers
> off reveals that the reason behind the above is that the New Rule
> (from sales, I think) is that Long SF Does Not Sell. If you as
> God Editor of Dune have in hand a long SF novel, this puts you
> in the uncomfortable position of either asking authors to divide
> complete books into several volumes or asking them to e.g. cut
> 100,000 words from a 200,000 word novel. This is me, Viewing With
> Alarm in Ontario.
I... I... This is not good....
"I'm sorry, but this month we're not publishing anything over 200k
words. Please re-submit next month."
--KG
James Nicoll
Konrad Gaertner <gae...@aol.com> wrote:
>James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>> The research I should have done before shooting my fingers
>> off reveals that the reason behind the above is that the New Rule
>> (from sales, I think) is that Long SF Does Not Sell. If you as
>> God Editor of Dune have in hand a long SF novel, this puts you
>> in the uncomfortable position of either asking authors to divide
>> complete books into several volumes or asking them to e.g. cut
>> 100,000 words from a 200,000 word novel. This is me, Viewing With
>> Alarm in Ontario.
>
>I... I... This is not good....
Remember to Blame the Readers.
>"I'm sorry, but this month we're not publishing anything over 200k
>words. Please re-submit next month."
>
OK, but on the pollyanna side, consider that in the olden days
of relatively short books (under 100K, say), novels generally contained
within themselves beginnings, middles and ends. In fact my completely
unresearched guess is that mysteries still manage to be complete and
tend to be under 400 pages. So maybe authors will return to producing
complete books. SF authors, I mean, since I had not heard that long
fantasy has issues in this area.
I don't actually have a logical reason why short books would
be complete and long ones meandering and unfinished but that is the
way it looks to me. Maybe if authors have the room to stick a thousand
unrelated subplots they have time to forget why they started draining
the swamp by the time they bred all the plotigators they wanted.
Or maybe SF has just passed its best-by date and should be shut
down until the appropriate point in the next Spenglerian cycle.
James Nicoll
wth...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu
>
> 2) That's only one example. I expect relatively early Zelazny novels
> gained more readers than relatively early Delany because, at least in
> what I read, Zelazny was more accessible.
In my case I was attracted to Zelazny's novels by
some outrageously good Zelazny short stories in
the Wollheim and Carr "best SF 19xx" anthologies.
> 3) You can't have been on rasfw and not seen posters who mentioned how
> much they preferred the ease of reading Eddings or Eddings-like
> writing to the turgid Mr. Tolkien.
I have met people who hold this opinion. I have also met
a Dragonlance fan who claimed that Eddings was too difficult.
I don't think he was kidding, but I live in hope.
> No, I think the point stands that there are always readers who,
> probably for a combination of reasons, skip good, solid work not
> because it isn't good but because it presents more of a challenge to
> read than they have time, energy or attention to cope with
I tend to slip into this mode myself. I will put off
reading something I know to be good but which will demand
close attention and a bit of thinking. Eventually I tire
of tripe, pick up the real book, and berate myself for
my laziness when it turns out to be a great read.
> And I don't for a moment think that applies to just
> s.f. readers. Hell, it even applies to me sometimes -- I'm reading HP5
> because I know that even at 800+ pages it's not taxing, but I haven't
> yet tackled Iain Pear's _An Instance of the Fingerpost_
A curious coincidence: my most recent example of this
behavior is with Ian Pears' "The dream of Scipio".
I bought it expecting it to be a crackling good mystery
like "An Instance ..." (and by the way, get moving on
that one. You won't regret it) but it is a very different
novel. Once I got into it, though, it became one of only
two novels this year that kept me reading late enough to
lose sleep.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Elisabeth Riba
> OK, but on the pollyanna side, consider that in the olden days
> of relatively short books (under 100K, say), novels generally contained
> within themselves beginnings, middles and ends. In fact my completely
> unresearched guess is that mysteries still manage to be complete and
> tend to be under 400 pages. So maybe authors will return to producing
> complete books. SF authors, I mean, since I had not heard that long
> fantasy has issues in this area.
I suspect I read more fantasy than SF, so notice it there too.
One difference I see is that authors used to use many books to tell
different sides of the story.
Taking Pern as an example, because that's the first one that comes to
mind, the first two Pern books happen more-or-less concurrently with the
first two Harperhall books. But they're also separate, self-contained
stories. Same thing with her Moreta & Nerilka books -- the latter filling
in gaps about minor characters in the former.
Nowadays, there seems to be a temptation that one must completely flesh
out all the characters at once, rather than returning to backfill. So you
get a massively huge book jumping around among lots of subplots involving
every possible minor character, none of which gets resolved adequately
because there isn't enough pagecount for any one to get enough attention.
--
------> Elisabeth Riba * http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/ <------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> >[Htn963 wrote:]
> >> Sure. SFBC could issue a lump set of all the nominated novels at a
> >> discount as soon as they are announced for each year. This will help
> >induce
> >> more people to read all the nominees since the cost and time factor has
> >been
> >> reduced. And this is by no means a charity act on your part -- as if that
> >> would ever occur to you anyhow -- since you'll do brisk business for people
> >> about to go to the con or are just interested as armchair voters.
> >
> >It would be "difficult" to get permission to do that,
>
> All worthwhile things to do are "difficult."
>
> >since the
> >Hugo-nominated novels are mostly still in print and hence under
> >exclusive license to one publisher already.
>
> Eh? Is there a cardinal rule within the publishing business that a book
> needs to be out of print to be offered in a book club? I see concurrent
> releases of titles in retail and book club all the time -- including many of
> SFBC's monthly selections.
The normal contract gives an exclusive license to the publisher while
the book remains in print. Thus the author has contracted away any
right to sell other rights. The publisher could, possibly, sell the
subsidiary rights for that to the SFBC. And as you say, they
sometimes do. I may have overestimated the publishers' resistance to
the idea.
> And surely there is usually sufficient time-lapse (6 months - 1 year)
> between the time an sf book is published and when it is nominated to swing some
> deals if one were to make the effort...but, yes, I guess making efforts to get
> readers the title they want has never been one of SFBC's main strengths.
The important delay is between when it's nominated and when the vote
is -- you can't *start* making the deal until the nomination occurs.
And that delay is pretty short by publishing industry standards.
> >It *would* be nice; but it's not Andrew or SFBC that's at fault for
> >not doing it.
>
> Who said they were at fault for not doing it? But if some smug,
> patronizing editor starts calling people who are dissatisfied with the Hugo
> voting process immature and challenges them for suggestions to improve the
> process, then I am only too glad to suggest to him and his employer with a
> means relevant to them.
If you suggest so somebody that he do something, you seem to be
suggesting that he *could* do it.
> >It's not possible within the way the publishing
> >industry works (exclusive licenses for a work in particular
> >territories),
>
> And you know this through personal experiences?
I've seen a number of contracts, if that's what you mean. And talked
about more, with agents and authors and editors.
> > and it's not something that SFBC is at all in control
> >of, either.
>
> A 50 years old book club with no serious competition for its niche
> shouldn't need too many excuses or apologists.
What's this have to do with anything? The question is whether the
other publishers and the authors will cooperate.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd...@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
Jon Bell
news:vlabi0p...@corp.supernews.com...
> OK, I'll stop bitching and start making suggestions.
> The reason for the other unworthy picks seems to me that people just
> aren't reading enough of the nominees. I cannot believe that "A Storm of
> Swords" wouldn't have won over Potter in 2001 if both books have been
> "The Chronoliths" over "American Gods". I'm going to make the radical
> proposal that we demand proof from potential voters that they actually
> have purchased and/or read all nominees before voting. How to enforce
> this, I don't know. Maybe demand photocopies of receipts or copies of
> original book reports? No, I'm not joking.
>
I was pretty bugged that both "Perdido Street Station" and "The Scar" didn't
win last year's or this year's Hugo Awards; I think both books are
phenomenal. (I'd have given "The Chronoliths" a close second place vote.)
If "Hominids" is as bad as I'm hearing, then I think I'll skip it. I've been
growing increasingly disgusted with the poor quality of science fiction
writing for years now, and am really sick of seeing bookstore shelves
groaning with 800-page sword and sorcery book series, whose authors seem to
be paid by the pound.
-- Jon
Randy Money
> Randy Money <rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> writes:
>
>
>>2) That's only one example. I expect relatively early Zelazny novels
>>gained more readers than relatively early Delany because, at least in
>>what I read, Zelazny was more accessible.
>
>
> In my case I was attracted to Zelazny's novels by
> some outrageously good Zelazny short stories in
> the Wollheim and Carr "best SF 19xx" anthologies.
This may have been a better example because they were both very good
writers. I found Zelazny a bit easier to read because the reading
protocols were closer to the hard-boiled mysteries I'd been reading.
Delany sounded and read more like a mainstream writer.
[ ... some comments deleted because they give me the shivers ... ]
>>No, I think the point stands that there are always readers who,
>>probably for a combination of reasons, skip good, solid work not
>>because it isn't good but because it presents more of a challenge to
>>read than they have time, energy or attention to cope with
>
>
> I tend to slip into this mode myself. I will put off
> reading something I know to be good but which will demand
> close attention and a bit of thinking. Eventually I tire
> of tripe, pick up the real book, and berate myself for
> my laziness when it turns out to be a great read.
Been there, done that. On the other hand, I tried tackling _Cold
Mountain_ a couple of years ago. I'm still not convinced the book was
all that bad, but 40+ pages in I decided the glacial movement of story
and the minute description of ... well ... everything just wasn't for me
at the time. If I'd hit it at a different time, I might have gone
further, if not finished. I really think there are times when we're more
capable of coping with certain works.
>>And I don't for a moment think that applies to just
>>s.f. readers. Hell, it even applies to me sometimes -- I'm reading HP5
>>because I know that even at 800+ pages it's not taxing, but I haven't
>>yet tackled Iain Pear's _An Instance of the Fingerpost_
>
>
> A curious coincidence: my most recent example of this
> behavior is with Ian Pears' "The dream of Scipio".
>
> I bought it expecting it to be a crackling good mystery
> like "An Instance ..." (and by the way, get moving on
> that one. You won't regret it) but it is a very different
> novel. Once I got into it, though, it became one of only
> two novels this year that kept me reading late enough to
> lose sleep.
Pears sounds a lot like a writer I'll enjoy once I work up the steam to
tackle him. Delillo does, too, in a different way, but _Underworld_ is a
break-my-leg book -- when I break my leg and have an excuse to spend
hours a day at home, I'll have time to read it.
Randy M.
James Nicoll
Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> OK, but on the pollyanna side, consider that in the olden days
>> of relatively short books (under 100K, say), novels generally contained
>> within themselves beginnings, middles and ends. In fact my completely
>> unresearched guess is that mysteries still manage to be complete and
>> tend to be under 400 pages. So maybe authors will return to producing
>> complete books. SF authors, I mean, since I had not heard that long
>> fantasy has issues in this area.
>
>I suspect I read more fantasy than SF, so notice it there too.
>One difference I see is that authors used to use many books to tell
>different sides of the story.
>
>Taking Pern as an example, because that's the first one that comes to
>mind, the first two Pern books happen more-or-less concurrently with the
>first two Harperhall books. But they're also separate, self-contained
>stories. Same thing with her Moreta & Nerilka books -- the latter filling
>in gaps about minor characters in the former.
>
>Nowadays, there seems to be a temptation that one must completely flesh
>out all the characters at once, rather than returning to backfill. So you
>get a massively huge book jumping around among lots of subplots involving
>every possible minor character, none of which gets resolved adequately
>because there isn't enough pagecount for any one to get enough attention.
Hrm. Back when I played card based story telling games (Make
up a story on the fly and each time you use something on your cards
in an important way in the story you discard the card. First one out
of cards wins) we discovered there were two schools of rambling stories:
The Right Way: All loose ends tied up and if you pop down N levels, you
pop back up N levels by the end of the game.
The Abominable Way: random wandering to use cards takes you God knows
where, loose ends are left loose and if you pop down N levels, why not
pop down a few more.
You'd think that there'd be Abominable long novels, where the
the author totally lost track of where they started. I can sort of think
of examples but the best is actually a mystery where the detective solved
the red herring mystery and had the solution to the real mystery handed
to her by the author in one of the last chapters.
Actually, _Blood on Moon_, which isn't long, has the two doofus
detectives distracted by a side issue, leaving the crime they set out
to solve to be dealt with by a third character.
Michael S. Schiffer
Just as an observation, I'll note that Brad Templeton somehow
managed a similar feat when he issued the CD-ROM containing all the
Hugo nominees of (I think) 1993. On the other side, the experience
was so harrowing (and the response, in those days of small hard
drives and uncommon CD-ROM drives, so lackluster) that he resolved
never to try anything of the sort again.
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Konrad Gaertner
>
> In article <3F563183...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Konrad Gaertner <gae...@aol.com> wrote:
> >James Nicoll wrote:
> >>
> >> The research I should have done before shooting my fingers
> >> off reveals that the reason behind the above is that the New Rule
> >> (from sales, I think) is that Long SF Does Not Sell. If you as
> >> God Editor of Dune have in hand a long SF novel, this puts you
> >> in the uncomfortable position of either asking authors to divide
> >> complete books into several volumes or asking them to e.g. cut
> >> 100,000 words from a 200,000 word novel. This is me, Viewing With
> >> Alarm in Ontario.
> >
> >words. Please re-submit next month."
> >
> OK, but on the pollyanna side, consider that in the olden days
> of relatively short books (under 100K, say), novels generally contained
> will return to producing complete books.
Maybe, but first they'll have to get used to the idea that shorter
is better. Until then, we'll get more of what you're complaining
about: hardcover serialization.
> SF authors, I mean, since I had not heard that long
> fantasy has issues in this area.
Oh, that makes it much less shocking. (We need to decide on an
acronym for just science fiction.)
> I don't actually have a logical reason why short books would
> be complete and long ones meandering and unfinished but that is the
> way it looks to me.
I'd just call it procrastination: if your contract is for a stand
alone book, you make sure everything gets wrapped up in one volume.
But if you're writing a series, you can keep saying "I'll resolve
that next book" for ever and ever. And while series books keep
selling well, there's no reason not to procrastinate.
> Maybe if authors have the room to stick a thousand
> unrelated subplots they have time to forget why they started draining
> the swamp by the time they bred all the plotigators they wanted.
Plotigators. I like that word.
--KG
Elisabeth Riba
> If "Hominids" is as bad as I'm hearing, then I think I'll skip it. I've been
> growing increasingly disgusted with the poor quality of science fiction
> writing for years now, and am really sick of seeing bookstore shelves
> groaning with 800-page sword and sorcery book series, whose authors seem to
> be paid by the pound.
Try the YA section of your library/bookstore.
Seriously.
I don't entirely know why it is (though I have some suppositions) but I'm
finding much better reading material among the recent genre juvies than I
have in the "adult" sections. And, since Harry Potter became popular,
publishers, libraries and bookstores have been heavily promoting YA fantasy,
so if that's your bag, it's a good time for finding it.
Sea Wasp
>
> I think here is where you hit the real problem with the Hugos. Not just
> from decade to decade, but from year to year the voting population
> shifts enough that there is no consistent standard for "good." The best
> you can say is that in the given year there was a cross-section of s.f.
> fandom that liked the work in question (or the author thereof) enough to
> vote for it. I think this may have been less of a problem in the past
> when the field did not produce as many works and a smaller audience with
> a less diverse set of tastes. Then, say prior to sometime in the
> mid-'70s, the Hugos may have been a truer representation of the taste of
> fandom.
Eeeeeehhhh. Maybe. Though I'd also like a definition of "fandom", as
in, who this nebulous "fandom" is that the Hugos are supposed to
represent the taste of. Given the way they're selected, it's always
been a pretty limited number of people. (Can you vote without GOING to
Worldcon? I have the impression you can, yes? If not, it'd be a REALLY
limited group).
Sea Wasp
> In article <3F563183...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Konrad Gaertner <gae...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>>> The research I should have done before shooting my fingers
>>>off reveals that the reason behind the above is that the New Rule
>>>(from sales, I think) is that Long SF Does Not Sell. If you as
>>>God Editor of Dune have in hand a long SF novel, this puts you
>>>in the uncomfortable position of either asking authors to divide
>>>complete books into several volumes or asking them to e.g. cut
>>>100,000 words from a 200,000 word novel. This is me, Viewing With
>>>Alarm in Ontario.
>>
>>I... I... This is not good....
>
>
> Remember to Blame the Readers.
>
>
>>"I'm sorry, but this month we're not publishing anything over 200k
>>words. Please re-submit next month."
>>
>
> OK, but on the pollyanna side, consider that in the olden days
> of relatively short books (under 100K, say), novels generally contained
> within themselves beginnings, middles and ends. In fact my completely
> unresearched guess is that mysteries still manage to be complete and
> tend to be under 400 pages. So maybe authors will return to producing
> complete books. SF authors, I mean, since I had not heard that long
> fantasy has issues in this area.
All that would happen is that you'd select an appropriate breakpoint
for the 200k book and have a cliffhanger so they'll buy the sequel.
Bluejack
>
> I want to see the vote totals. Ballot stuffing by locals with no
> connection to fandom?
>
The opposite, I think: Ballot stuffing by Pan-Canadian fandom.
Whatever his qualities as a writer, Robert Sawyer is *very*
active in the Canadian sci-fi community. He makes regular
appearances in fannish circles all across Canada.
After the Hugos, I spent some time talking to people about
him, because it certainly wasn't my first choice for the
award, and I was surprised -- and disappointed -- to learn
that many Canadians I spoke with had read *none* of the
nominees, including Sawyer, but voted for Sawyer because
"He's a nice guy," or because they had been impressed with
something they had heard him read in their home town, and
similar stuff.
I also spoke with many people who were quite disgusted with
the outcome, and -- surprise! -- many of them had not voted.
Why? Because they hadn't read enough of the nominees.
So to all those people who are talking about 'fixing the
process' even if it requires making it 'less democratic' --
I hope you aren't applying the same lessons to your nation
of origin. Fixing the Hugos is quite simple:
1) Read the nominees.
2) Vote for your favorite.
(If you can't make it to WorldCon, but really care about'
the Hugos, may I suggest a supporting membership, which
is not nearly as expensive, and confers voting rights.)
In fact, a more general application of this principle to
other democratic institutions could also have a positive
effect.
-bluejack
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*\
bluejack -- on the web with reviews of short fiction, author bios,
and other fun stuff. note anti-spam email address. the real thing:
http://www.bluejack.com blunt at bluejack dot com
\*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
Petrazickis
> SciFi.com ran a poll, and these were the results:
>
> Bones of the Earth by Michael Swanwick 346
> Hominids by Robert J. Sawyer 567
> Kiln People by David Brin 10115
> The Scar by China Miéville 546
> The Years of Rice and Salt by Kim Stanley Robinson 519
>
>
> I can't explain it, either.
>
> My proposal would be that henceforth, all Hugos will be voted on only by
> living previous Hugo winners. I'm not suggesting this would make sense or
> produce more laudable results. But I think it would be more fun to talk
> about.
Nightmare scenario:
Robert J. Sawyer always votes for himself. If he outlives all current
Hugo winners, all future Hugo winners will be by Sawyer.;)
Leons Petrazickis
import java.lang.disclaimer;
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
> I was pretty bugged that both "Perdido Street Station" and "The Scar" didn't
> win last year's or this year's Hugo Awards; I think both books are
> phenomenal. (I'd have given "The Chronoliths" a close second place vote.)
> If "Hominids" is as bad as I'm hearing, then I think I'll skip it. I've been
> growing increasingly disgusted with the poor quality of science fiction
> writing for years now, and am really sick of seeing bookstore shelves
> groaning with 800-page sword and sorcery book series, whose authors seem to
> be paid by the pound.
I think the Hugos have bugger-all to do with quality in the field. In
recent years, just in the harder SF area, we've had some of the best
work of Greg Egan, John Barnes, Alastair Reynolds, Wil McCarthy, we just
got new John Varley, Dan Simmons, Alan Dean Foster, Karl Schroeder, Syne
Mitchell's _The Changeling Plague_... I could go on. I'm swamped in
good books.
There's also a metric arseload of crap, fully supporting Sturgeon's
Law, but if the percentage has changed at all, it's only for the better.
The only reason people believe in "the good old days" is because their
brains are rotting out from under them, and they've lost most of their
memories of the crap from the past.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"The computer is incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid.
Man is unbelievably slow, inaccurate, and brilliant.
The marriage of the two is a force beyond calculation." -Leo Cherne
Richard Horton
<rdclar...@TRAPcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@visi.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns93EADA84DAD...@209.98.13.60...
>> Then the remedy is to set up an award which works the way you'd like the
>> Hugoes to work.
>
>SciFi.com ran a poll, and these were the results:
>
> Bones of the Earth by Michael Swanwick 346
> Hominids by Robert J. Sawyer 567
> Kiln People by David Brin 10115
> The Scar by China Miéville 546
> The Years of Rice and Salt by Kim Stanley Robinson 519
>
>
>I can't explain it, either.
There was obviously a ballot-stuffing 'bot of some sort. Several
other categories were also affected.
--
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)
Richard Horton
Landis) wrote:
>Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> Mark Watson <mark....@bestsf.net> wrote:
>>
>> >So as Hominids was an Analog serial, then Analog has been the source
>> >of 3 out of the 4 winners. Is this pertinent viz the actual voting do
>> >you think?
>>
>> I suspect that Analog readers tend to be likely to be Hugo
>> nominators/voters.
>
>Historically, this hasn't been true-- in fact, _Analog_ writers often
>remark that the proportion of Hugos going to _Analog_ stories is
>disporportionately low. Checking http://dpsinfo.com/awardweb/hugos/,
>I see that in this decade, prior to this Hugos, Asimov's stories won
>five short-fiction Hugos, Analog stories one, F&SF stories one, and
>original stories in anthologies two.
>
I'll step right out on a limb and say that's a result of merit, not
any prejudice against Analog stories.
(So far this millennium (OK, decade) I believe there has been one
worthy Analog Hugo winner ("Falling Onto Mars", by, umm, you!), one OK
one ("Slow Life") and one awful one, a clear sentimental choice
(Williamson's "Ultimate Earth").)
>However, I think that there is a tendency for stories that are
>serialized in Analog to be more likely to win a Hugo-- quite simply,
>serialization gives it exposure to a different subset of readers.
Exactly -- and I should have limited my remarks to serials, and not
included all short fiction winners.
Basically, it is my theory (entirely unproven) that SF magazine
readers are disproportionately represented among Hugo voters and
nominators. Thus, a serial, in any of the major magazines, will have
a leg up towards at least getting nominated. But Analog is the only
magazine to do serials with any regularity.
This advantage disappears when you are talking of short fiction,
because for the most part the magazine readers and short fiction
readers overlap (obviously) and any benefit is spread pretty much
across all the major magazines.
Andrew Wheeler
>
> Pears sounds a lot like a writer I'll enjoy once I work up the steam to
> tackle him. Delillo does, too, in a different way, but _Underworld_ is a
> break-my-leg book -- when I break my leg and have an excuse to spend
> hours a day at home, I'll have time to read it.
For god's sake, if you haven't read any DeLillo yet, don't start with
_Underworld_. I'm a bit tougher on it than most (I think it's a
collection of excellent prose, arranged in reverse chronological order
to disguise the lack of a real story), but most smart people [1] don't
think it's his best book.
If you're coming to him from the SF world, I'd suggest _Ratner's Star_
or (my preference) _White Noise_. Alternatively, _Libra_ is a pretty
good starting place for DeLillo. Only start with _Underworld_ is you
*really* love baseball, garbage hauling and attempted tours de force.
[1] Defined, as always, as "people who generally agree with me."
--
Andrew Wheeler
--
Success taps softly on the back door in the middle of the
night..._never_ rings the bell...disaster comes through the living room
picture window with headlights on and SIRENS blaring!
Andrew Wheeler
>
> Andrew Wheeler wrote:
>
> >If you took greater care to speak as a member of some kind of group --
> >however defined -- you would be taken more seriously.
>
> I don't take *you* and SFBC seriously now, but then you probably
> already know that.
Well, yeah, but you hate everything, so it's not like I mind all that much.
> <snippety>
>
> >If you *do* have an idea to get more people -- thousands of them,
> >preferably -- to either read more SF/Fantasy novels and nominate them,
> >or to read the five nominees each year and vote on *them*
>
> Sure. SFBC could issue a lump set of all the nominated novels
> at a discount as soon as they are announced for each year. This will
> help induce more people to read all the nominees since the cost and time
> factor has been reduced. And this is by no means a charity act on your
> part -- as if that would ever occur to you anyhow -- since you'll do
> brisk business for people about to go to the con or are just interested
> as armchair voters.
>
> And BTW, it's *your* turn to suggest changes to better the Hugo
> award process.
You have an...*interesting* view of the relationship of the SFBC to the
Worldcon. Not to mention a whole set of assumptions unrelated to reality
(starting with the idea that we can offer anything we want at any price
we want). Let me just say that what you're asking is impossible, silly,
and additionally would not have the effects you think.
The Hugos are a popularity contest. They have *always* been a popularity
contest. The old winners are "classics" because they were popular at the
time, and so have been reprinted down the decades, and thus been the
inspiration of later books in the field. Not agreeing with a popularity
contest is quite common, but it doesn't mean much -- just that one is in
the minority at that time.
I don't happen to think there's anything wrong with the "Best Novel"
Hugo -- the con-going fans give that to whatever book they liked best
that year, and that's what it's for. As I've said in previous years, the
fact that some other categories tend to go to the same people (or works)
for five or ten years straight is much more problematic to me --
especially when there are a number of equally-worthy candidates who are
left as also-rans for *decades*. Nothing like that happens with the Best Novel.