Neil Gaiman's American Gods takes home the Hugo

5 views
Skip to first unread message

T. M. Wagner

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 2:40:00 AM9/2/02
to
Personally I think there were worthier nominees, but as Gaiman's a fan
favorite it's not surprising his name came up when the fans spoke.

It's interesting how Hugo and Nebula winners are drifting farther apart.
I seem to recall a time when Hugo and Nebula nominees were roughly
similar, and there was a reliable consensus every year on which books
were that year's strongest. This year's Nebula win for Catherine Asaro's
Quantum Rose, a book that didn't even make the final Hugo ballot, shows
fans and the SFWA are literally no longer on the same page. And who can
forget the furor over Harry Potter winning last year?

And is it just me, or is there any point in having a "Best Semiprozine"
award when it just automatically gets handed to Locus every year? And in
what way is Locus a "semiprozine" anyway? It's how C.N. Brown makes his
living, it's distributed to newsstands and major bookstore chains...what
more does it need to be called what it is: pro?

T.M. Wagner
http://www.sfreviews.net/

Nicholas Whyte

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 7:30:21 AM9/2/02
to
T. M. Wagner wrote:

> Personally I think there were worthier nominees, but as Gaiman's a fan
> favorite it's not surprising his name came up when the fans spoke.


The other winners being:

NOVELLA "Fast Times at Fairmont High", Vernor Vinge

NOVELETTE "Hell Is the Absence of God", Ted Chiang

SHORT STORY "The Dog Said Bow-Wow", Michael Swanwick

RELATED BOOK The Art of Chesley Bonestell
DRAMATIC PRESENTATION The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
PROFESSIONAL EDITOR Ellen Datlow
PROFESSIONAL ARTIST Michael Whelan
SEMIPROZINE Locus, Charles N. Brown, ed.
FANZINE Ansible, Dave Langford, ed.
FAN WRITER Dave Langford
FAN ARTIST Teddy Harvia
WEB SITE Locus Online, Mark R. Kelly, editor/webmaster

Well, I'm personally gratified that I predicted the winners in three out
of four written fiction categories, and only missed Vernor Vinge because
I hadn't yet read "Fast Times...". It's a shame that _Curse of Chalion_,
which I liked more, didn't win, but on the whole the nominees were
worthy. (see http://explorers.whyte.com/sf/Hugo2002.htm )


> It's interesting how Hugo and Nebula winners are drifting farther apart.
> I seem to recall a time when Hugo and Nebula nominees were roughly
> similar, and there was a reliable consensus every year on which books
> were that year's strongest. This year's Nebula win for Catherine Asaro's
> Quantum Rose, a book that didn't even make the final Hugo ballot, shows
> fans and the SFWA are literally no longer on the same page. And who can
> forget the furor over Harry Potter winning last year?


Agreed. And it's quite a recent phenomenon. The similarities between the
two awards was much closer in the past. If you compare the 20 Nebulas
awarded for the years 1975-80 with the 21 Hugos awarded for 1976-80 in
the written fiction categories there are no less than 13 works which won
both. In the last five years there have been precisely two - Joe
Haldeman's _Forever Peace_ and Jack Williamson's "The Ultimate Earth".
(See my list at http://explorers.whyte.com/sf/nebhug.htm .)

The divergence seems to have come about in the mid-1990s. For the first
three decades of the Nebula Awards' existence there were only two years
(1969 and 1988) when there were *no* works that won both Hugo and
Nebula. Since 1996 there have been only two works that *did* win both.
And while it's perhaps less surprising that Harry Potter didn't make it
to the Nebula shortlist, I'm rather surprised that _A Storm of Swords_,
the only other worthy Hugo nominee last year, was overlooked by SFWA in
favour of the much inferior _Darwin's Radio_.

And I have to say that I have found my own reading tastes poorly served
by reading the Nebula shortlist in recent years, and much better served
by the list of Hugo nominees, at least in the novel category. SFWA has
of course an absolute right to give its awards in whatever way it likes,
but I am a little troubled by the divergence.


Nicholas


Konrad Gaertner

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 10:18:01 AM9/2/02
to
"T. M. Wagner" wrote:
>
[Locus]

> it's distributed to newsstands and major bookstore chains...

I've never seen a print copy of Locus before... which chains carry it?


--KG

Kate Nepveu

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 11:58:23 AM9/2/02
to
Nicholas Whyte <expl...@whyte.com> wrote:

>The other winners being:

And Jo Walton won the John W. Campbell. Yay, Jo!

--
Kate Nepveu
E-mail: kne...@steelypips.org *new*
Home: http://www.steelypips.org/
Book log: http://www.steelypips.org/weblog/

John Pelan

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 12:15:05 PM9/2/02
to

B & N, Borders, most major indy stores.

Cheers,

John (Still regretting not buying the lifetime sub to Locus when it
was $210.00)

Peter H. Granzeau

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 1:40:25 PM9/2/02
to
On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 16:15:05 GMT, jpe...@cnw.com (John Pelan) wrote:

>>[Locus]
>>> it's distributed to newsstands and major bookstore chains...
>>
>>I've never seen a print copy of Locus before... which chains carry it?
>>
>B & N, Borders, most major indy stores.

I thought Locus distribution was carefully limited to fewer than
10,000 copies, so it could keep its "semi-prozine" designation?

I have never seen it in B&N here in north side Hampton Roads.

John Pelan

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 1:48:25 PM9/2/02
to

Possibly the local magazine distributor doesn't carry it, wouldn't
hurt to ask...


John

T. M. Wagner

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 4:29:54 PM9/2/02
to
In article <doNc9.34843$Or1.2...@news2.east.cox.net>,

Peter H. Granzeau <pgra...@cox.net> wrote:


> I thought Locus distribution was carefully limited to fewer than
> 10,000 copies, so it could keep its "semi-prozine" designation?

Ah, so Charlie Brown just digs collecting a Hugo every year. Ha ha.

> I have never seen it in B&N here in north side Hampton Roads.

Seen it at my local one.

T.M. Wagner
http://www.sfreviews.net/

Konrad Gaertner

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 4:43:38 PM9/2/02
to
John Pelan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 14:18:01 GMT, Konrad Gaertner
> <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >"T. M. Wagner" wrote:
> >>
> >[Locus]
> >> it's distributed to newsstands and major bookstore chains...
> >
> >I've never seen a print copy of Locus before... which chains carry it?
>
> B & N, Borders,

Hmm, haven't seen it there, but then, I haven't really looked yet.

> most major indy stores.

Isn't that an oxymoron? Around here, the closest thing we have to
an independent bookstore are a couple B Daltons and Waldenbooks.
And even those are dying out.

There are a couple indy used bookstores, but I don't expect them to
last long against Half Price Books.

--KG

John Pelan

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 4:59:11 PM9/2/02
to
On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 20:43:38 GMT, Konrad Gaertner
<kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>John Pelan wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 14:18:01 GMT, Konrad Gaertner
>> <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"T. M. Wagner" wrote:
>> >>
>> >[Locus]
>> >> it's distributed to newsstands and major bookstore chains...
>> >
>> >I've never seen a print copy of Locus before... which chains carry it?
>>
>> B & N, Borders,
>
>Hmm, haven't seen it there, but then, I haven't really looked yet.
>
>> most major indy stores.
>
>Isn't that an oxymoron? Around here, the closest thing we have to
>an independent bookstore are a couple B Daltons and Waldenbooks.
>And even those are dying out.


Sorry, I'm from the Pacific Northwest where we have University
Bookstore, Elliot Bay, Third Place, and the legendary Powell's.

>
>There are a couple indy used bookstores, but I don't expect them to
>last long against Half Price Books.

If the owners are knowledgable specialists, Half Price can't compete.
If they're two-for-one paperback places, they were doomed long before
Half-Price came to town.


Cheers,

John
>
>--KG

Dianne & Brent

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 6:28:25 PM9/2/02
to
On 9/2/02 12:43 PM, in article 3D73CE8B...@worldnet.att.net, "Konrad
Gaertner" <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> There are a couple indy used bookstores

Indianapolis? I think they have quite a few in Indy. :)

aRJay

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 5:27:32 PM9/2/02
to
In article <kh27nuct2do4llkuv...@news.earthlink.net>, Kate
Nepveu <kne...@steelypips.org> writes

>Nicholas Whyte <expl...@whyte.com> wrote:
>
>>The other winners being:
>
>And Jo Walton won the John W. Campbell. Yay, Jo!
>
Whoo HOOOO!

Break out the dancing rodents.

It's Conga Rats time again.

Well done Jo.
--
aRJay
"In this great and creatorless universe, where so much beautiful has
come to be out of the chance interactions of the basic properties of
matter, it seems so important that we love one another."
- Lucy Kemnitzer

Ian Randal Strock

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 6:49:10 PM9/2/02
to
On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 17:40:25 GMT, Peter H. Granzeau
<pgra...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 16:15:05 GMT, jpe...@cnw.com (John Pelan) wrote:
>
>>>[Locus]
>>>> it's distributed to newsstands and major bookstore chains...
>>>
>>>I've never seen a print copy of Locus before... which chains carry it?
>>>
>>B & N, Borders, most major indy stores.
>
>I thought Locus distribution was carefully limited to fewer than
>10,000 copies, so it could keep its "semi-prozine" designation?

Well, that's open to some debate. Does Locus limit its numbers to
fewer than 10,000 to remain eligible, or is Locus incapable of
increasing beyond 10,000 copies? Me, I don't know.

We can, however, recall that inasmuch as its the "Best issue of Locus
award", there have been a few years when Locus didn't win it.

--Ian


Ian Randal Strock, Editor & Publisher
Artemis Magazine: Science and Fiction for a Space-Faring Age
http://www.LRCPublications.com

Ian Randal Strock

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 6:52:01 PM9/2/02
to
On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 13:30:21 +0200, Nicholas Whyte
<expl...@whyte.com> wrote:

>T. M. Wagner wrote:
> > It's interesting how Hugo and Nebula winners are drifting farther apart.
> > I seem to recall a time when Hugo and Nebula nominees were roughly
> > similar, and there was a reliable consensus every year on which books
> > were that year's strongest. This year's Nebula win for Catherine Asaro's
> > Quantum Rose, a book that didn't even make the final Hugo ballot, shows
> > fans and the SFWA are literally no longer on the same page. And who can
> > forget the furor over Harry Potter winning last year?
>
>Agreed. And it's quite a recent phenomenon. The similarities between the
>two awards was much closer in the past. If you compare the 20 Nebulas
>awarded for the years 1975-80 with the 21 Hugos awarded for 1976-80 in
>the written fiction categories there are no less than 13 works which won
>both. In the last five years there have been precisely two - Joe
>Haldeman's _Forever Peace_ and Jack Williamson's "The Ultimate Earth".
>(See my list at http://explorers.whyte.com/sf/nebhug.htm .)
>
>The divergence seems to have come about in the mid-1990s. For the first
>three decades of the Nebula Awards' existence there were only two years
>(1969 and 1988) when there were *no* works that won both Hugo and
>Nebula. Since 1996 there have been only two works that *did* win both.
>And while it's perhaps less surprising that Harry Potter didn't make it
>to the Nebula shortlist, I'm rather surprised that _A Storm of Swords_,
>the only other worthy Hugo nominee last year, was overlooked by SFWA in
>favour of the much inferior _Darwin's Radio_.

Haven't done the study myself, but doesn't the split kind of coincide
with the time when the Nebula eligibility period was changed from "the
calendar year of publication" to "one calendar year from date of
publication" (giving all works an equally long eligibility period, but
increasing the chances that the award would be given to works
published two years previously, rather than the previous year).

David Silberstein

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 10:05:23 PM9/2/02
to
In article <H1u7H...@world.std.com>,
Paul Ciszek <pci...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>In article <3D734BCD...@whyte.com>,

>Nicholas Whyte <expl...@whyte.com> wrote:
>>
>>The other winners being:
>>
>>NOVELLA "Fast Times at Fairmont High", Vernor Vinge
>>
>>NOVELETTE "Hell Is the Absence of God", Ted Chiang
>>
>>SHORT STORY "The Dog Said Bow-Wow", Michael Swanwick
>
>Are these online somewhere? I remember being able to read the short
>fiction nominees online last year.
>
http://www.spiritone.com/~jlorentz/hugos/finallist.html

http://www.fictionwise.com/hugo2002.htm
(free registration required)

Richard Horton

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 10:24:03 PM9/2/02
to
On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 22:52:01 GMT, i...@lrcpubs.com (Ian Randal Strock)
wrote:

>Haven't done the study myself, but doesn't the split kind of coincide
>with the time when the Nebula eligibility period was changed from "the
>calendar year of publication" to "one calendar year from date of
>publication" (giving all works an equally long eligibility period, but
>increasing the chances that the award would be given to works
>published two years previously, rather than the previous year)

I think you're right, though I haven't looked at it in much detail
either.

I hate the rolling eligibility even though I understand the rationale,
and even though I'm not sure I can offer a better solution.


--
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)

Tom Jackson

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 10:35:03 AM9/3/02
to
Nicholas Whyte <expl...@whyte.com> wrote in message news:<3D734BCD...@whyte.com>...

>
> Well, I'm personally gratified that I predicted the winners in three out
> of four written fiction categories, and only missed Vernor Vinge because
> I hadn't yet read "Fast Times...". It's a shame that _Curse of Chalion_,
> which I liked more, didn't win, but on the whole the nominees were
> worthy. (see http://explorers.whyte.com/sf/Hugo2002.htm )
>

I'm amazed by all the people who think a likeable but unremarkable
sword and sorcery novel should have won the Hugo for best novel. My
own gripe is that my favorite novel on the ballot, COSMONAUT KEEP,
came in dead last. Anybody have any idea why it bombed? I couldn't put
it down. But I thought AMERICAN GODS was a really good book and a very
creditable winner.


> > It's interesting how Hugo and Nebula winners are drifting farther apart.
> > I seem to recall a time when Hugo and Nebula nominees were roughly
> > similar, and there was a reliable consensus every year on which books
> > were that year's strongest. This year's Nebula win for Catherine Asaro's
> > Quantum Rose, a book that didn't even make the final Hugo ballot, shows
> > fans and the SFWA are literally no longer on the same page. And who can
> > forget the furor over Harry Potter winning last year?
>

I was upset that Harry Potter won, but in general I think the fans
have done a better job of picking the winners than the pros have.
Maybe it's because there is less politics for the Hugo voting than the
Nebula voting?

Tom

Nicholas Whyte

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 3:47:31 PM9/3/02
to
to...@sprynet.com (Tom Jackson) wrote in message news:<56d9e8e4.02090...@posting.google.com>...

> Nicholas Whyte <expl...@whyte.com> wrote in message news:<3D734BCD...@whyte.com>...
>
> >
> > Well, I'm personally gratified that I predicted the winners in three out
> > of four written fiction categories, and only missed Vernor Vinge because
> > I hadn't yet read "Fast Times...". It's a shame that _Curse of Chalion_,
> > which I liked more, didn't win, but on the whole the nominees were
> > worthy. (see http://explorers.whyte.com/sf/Hugo2002.htm )
>
> I'm amazed by all the people who think a likeable but unremarkable
> sword and sorcery novel should have won the Hugo for best novel. My
> own gripe is that my favorite novel on the ballot, COSMONAUT KEEP,
> came in dead last. Anybody have any idea why it bombed? I couldn't put
> it down. But I thought AMERICAN GODS was a really good book and a very
> creditable winner.

Well, sometimes one looks for the zing of new ideas carried off well,
which _American Gods_ had; and sometimes one looks for gripping
characterisation and plot, which _American Gods_ didn't really have
but _Curse of Chalion_ did.

As for _Cosmonaut Keep_, while it's surprising that the only book with
actual spaceships in it didn't do better, the fact is it's by a
left-wing Scot. Noticeably fewer Hugos than Nebulas have gone to
lefties in recent years, and both awards tend to reflect the American
weighting of their electorate. Not always, of course - as we all know
last year's Hugo for Best Novel went to a fantasy by a Scot - but the
trend is quite clearly there.

> > > It's interesting how Hugo and Nebula winners are drifting farther apart.
> > > I seem to recall a time when Hugo and Nebula nominees were roughly
> > > similar, and there was a reliable consensus every year on which books
> > > were that year's strongest. This year's Nebula win for Catherine Asaro's
> > > Quantum Rose, a book that didn't even make the final Hugo ballot, shows
> > > fans and the SFWA are literally no longer on the same page. And who can
> > > forget the furor over Harry Potter winning last year?
> >
>
> I was upset that Harry Potter won, but in general I think the fans
> have done a better job of picking the winners than the pros have.
> Maybe it's because there is less politics for the Hugo voting than the
> Nebula voting?

I have no idea how the Nebula voting works, but I'd love to know a)
how this year's shortlist was determined and b) how the winner was
picked.

I've whined already about how the Hugo shortlist is a much better
reading guide for me personally than the Nebula. I find also that the
British SF Award and the Arthur C Clarke Award seem to be shortlisted
and decide by people whose tastes I share. But I know I can't speak
for everyone.

Just as a matter of interest, is there anyone out there who would
argue that this year's Nebula shortlist was *superior* to this year's
or last year's Hugo shortlist? I feel quite strongly that it was no
better than last year's Hugo shortlist and much inferior to this
year's. Books listed below.

Nicholas Whyte

2001 Nebula shortlist:
The Collapsium, Wil McCarthy
Declare, Tim Powers (withdrawn)
Eternity's End, Jeffrey A. Carver
Mars Crossing, Geoffrey A. Landis
Passage, Connie Willis
The Quantum Rose, Catherine Asaro (winner)
A Storm of Swords, George R.R. Martin
The Tower at Stony Wood, Patricia A. McKillip

2001 Hugo shortlist:
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, J.K. Rowling (winner)
Calculating God, Robert J. Sawyer
Midnight Robber, Nalo Hopkinson
The Sky Road, Ken MacLeod
A Storm of Swords, George R.R. Martin

2002 Hugo shortlist:
The Curse of Chalion, Lois McMaster Bujold
American Gods, Neil Gaiman (winner)
Perdido Street Station, China Miéville
Cosmonaut Keep, Ken MacLeod
Passage, Connie Willis
The Chronoliths, Robert Charles Wilson

David Silberstein

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 7:40:36 PM9/3/02
to
In article <3d738e32....@usenet.cnw.com>,

John Pelan <jpe...@cnw.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 14:18:01 GMT, Konrad Gaertner
><kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>"T. M. Wagner" wrote:
>>>
>>[Locus]
>>> it's distributed to newsstands and major bookstore chains...
>>
>>I've never seen a print copy of Locus before... which chains carry it?
>>
>>
>
>B & N, Borders, most major indy stores.
>

FWIW, my local library system has a subscription; you could
probably request that your local library subscribe, or use
library loan.

Brian Palmer

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 7:40:54 PM9/3/02
to
nichol...@hotmail.com (Nicholas Whyte) writes:

> to...@sprynet.com (Tom Jackson) wrote in message news:<56d9e8e4.02090...@posting.google.com>...

> > I'm amazed by all the people who think a likeable but unremarkable
> > sword and sorcery novel should have won the Hugo for best novel.

Sword and sorcery novel? That phrase to me conjures up stories more
like the Lankhmar series than _The Curse of Chalion_.

> My
> > own gripe is that my favorite novel on the ballot, COSMONAUT KEEP,
> > came in dead last. Anybody have any idea why it bombed? I couldn't put
> > it down. But I thought AMERICAN GODS was a really good book and a very
> > creditable winner.
>
> Well, sometimes one looks for the zing of new ideas carried off well,
> which _American Gods_ had; and sometimes one looks for gripping
> characterisation and plot, which _American Gods_ didn't really have
> but _Curse of Chalion_ did.

And I don't think _AG_ carried off any really new ideas; the element
most striking was 'gods don\'t die, they just fade'. But that's been
present in _Small Gods_ and various role-playing game universes for
years. There were a bunch of very effective scenes in _AG_ (the
assassination, the small town), but it felt more like a collection of
scenes than a large, coherent work.
--
If you want divine justice, die.
-- Nick Seldon

Jonathan Hendry

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 9:45:39 PM9/3/02
to

"Brian Palmer" <bpa...@rescomp.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:0wh1y8a...@rescomp.Stanford.EDU...

> And I don't think _AG_ carried off any really new ideas; the element
> most striking was 'gods don\'t die, they just fade'. But that's been
> present in _Small Gods_ and various role-playing game universes for
> years.

But there's the added bit that Gods follow the believers and manifest
in new locations when believers reach virgin soil. Thus a god might
fade _here_ but another instance over there might be doing better.

Richard Horton

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 11:46:29 PM9/3/02
to
On 3 Sep 2002 12:47:31 -0700, nichol...@hotmail.com (Nicholas
Whyte) wrote:

>Just as a matter of interest, is there anyone out there who would
>argue that this year's Nebula shortlist was *superior* to this year's
>or last year's Hugo shortlist? I feel quite strongly that it was no
>better than last year's Hugo shortlist and much inferior to this
>year's. Books listed below.

This year's Nebula shortlist, in all categories, was a putrid
disgrace. (Yes, there were some decent stories on it. But still ...)

The Nebulas, from here, look broken. The Hugos are by no means
perfect, but they still function.

Htn963

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 1:08:23 AM9/4/02
to
Brian Palmer wrote:

>And I don't think _AG_ carried off any really new ideas; the element
>most striking was 'gods don\'t die, they just fade'. But that's been
>present in _Small Gods_ and various role-playing game universes for
>years. There were a bunch of very effective scenes in _AG_ (the
>assassination, the small town), but it felt more like a collection of
>scenes than a large, coherent work.

I haven't read _AG_ (and I'm not highly motivated to do so), but your
description makes it sound very much like Gaiman's _Sandman_ comic series.
Perhaps the fans are still rewarding him for that.


--
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"|

Pete McCutchen

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 4:17:49 PM9/4/02
to
On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 22:52:01 GMT, i...@lrcpubs.com (Ian Randal Strock)
wrote:

>Haven't done the study myself, but doesn't the split kind of coincide


>with the time when the Nebula eligibility period was changed from "the
>calendar year of publication" to "one calendar year from date of
>publication" (giving all works an equally long eligibility period, but
>increasing the chances that the award would be given to works
>published two years previously, rather than the previous year).

I'm not sure that computes. After all, while it's true that the Hugo
winner for any particular year is competing with twice as many books,
it's also eligible for twice as long. It would even be possible for
a book to win the Nebula the year after winning the Hugo.
--

Pete McCutchen

Htn963

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 4:26:15 PM9/4/02
to
Pete McCutchen wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 22:52:01 GMT, i...@lrcpubs.com (Ian Randal Strock)
>wrote:
>
>>Haven't done the study myself, but doesn't the split kind of coincide
>>with the time when the Nebula eligibility period was changed from "the
>>calendar year of publication" to "one calendar year from date of
>>publication" (giving all works an equally long eligibility period, but
>>increasing the chances that the award would be given to works
>>published two years previously, rather than the previous year).
>
>I'm not sure that computes. After all, while it's true that the Hugo
>winner for any particular year is competing with twice as many books,
>it's also eligible for twice as long.

You mean the Nebula, don't you? Else the above doesn't make any sense.

> It would even be possible for
>a book to win the Nebula the year after winning the Hugo.

--

how...@brazee.net

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 9:44:00 PM9/4/02
to

On 3-Sep-2002, htn...@cs.com (Htn963) wrote:

> On 4-Sep-2002, Randy Money <rbm...@library.syr.edu> wrote:
>
> > If anyone ever finds a copy, I'd like to read _The Invisible Book of
> > Invisibility_.

The Sandman Series was just released in book form. Since I discovered
Gaiman I have been trying to get them, and finally bought the first two.
Not being a fan of comics, that will be sufficient, but I was glad I did so.
I think the voters are rewarding him for American Gods.

Lee Ann Rucker

unread,
Sep 5, 2002, 1:38:48 AM9/5/02
to
In article <20020904010823...@mb-fj.news.cs.com>, Htn963
<htn...@cs.com> wrote:

> Brian Palmer wrote:
>
> >And I don't think _AG_ carried off any really new ideas; the element
> >most striking was 'gods don\'t die, they just fade'. But that's been
> >present in _Small Gods_ and various role-playing game universes for
> >years. There were a bunch of very effective scenes in _AG_ (the
> >assassination, the small town), but it felt more like a collection of
> >scenes than a large, coherent work.
>
> I haven't read _AG_ (and I'm not highly motivated to do so), but your
> description makes it sound very much like Gaiman's _Sandman_ comic series.
> Perhaps the fans are still rewarding him for that.

Actually, having read both _Sandman_ and _AG_, I thought that while
Gaiman does have a Hugo-winning novel in him, _AG_ wasn't it. I
suspect _AG_ appeals more to people who haven't read _Sandman_; it was
as if he'd just done a reinterpretation of it to show people who didn't
read comics what he was capable of.

It wasn't my pick, but it was the one I'd guessed would win if Bujold
didn't.

Vlatko Juric-Kokic

unread,
Sep 5, 2002, 1:44:01 PM9/5/02
to
On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:38:48 -0700, Lee Ann Rucker <lru...@mac.com>
wrote:

>it was
>as if he'd just done a reinterpretation of it to show people who didn't
>read comics what he was capable of.

I don't get this. Isn't AG actually an elaboration of an idea from
_Sandman_? Ummmm ... no, not from "Season of the Mists" ... "A Game of
You"?

If AG was done as a comic, it would've been a spino-ff, just like
_Corynthian_ is.

vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr

Pete McCutchen

unread,
Sep 5, 2002, 11:42:24 PM9/5/02
to
On 04 Sep 2002 20:26:15 GMT, htn...@cs.com (Htn963) wrote:

>Pete McCutchen wrote:
>
>
>
>>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 22:52:01 GMT, i...@lrcpubs.com (Ian Randal Strock)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Haven't done the study myself, but doesn't the split kind of coincide
>>>with the time when the Nebula eligibility period was changed from "the
>>>calendar year of publication" to "one calendar year from date of
>>>publication" (giving all works an equally long eligibility period, but
>>>increasing the chances that the award would be given to works
>>>published two years previously, rather than the previous year).
>>
>>I'm not sure that computes. After all, while it's true that the Hugo
>>winner for any particular year is competing with twice as many books,
>>it's also eligible for twice as long.
>
> You mean the Nebula, don't you? Else the above doesn't make any sense.

The Hugo winner is competing with twice as many books (i.e., two
years' worth) when it enters the contest for the Nebula.
--

Pete McCutchen

Andrew Wheeler

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 9:28:10 PM9/6/02
to

Not exactly, since the Nebulas haven't managed to add any more time into
the equation -- works are just eligible for a longer (and less defined)
time. If it was just the switch in Nebula rules, we'd expect to see a
lot of the same works winning Nebulas and Hugos for different years --
Hugos first, then Nebulas.

I do expect the "that's already *got* one award" effect can explain some
of the difference, especially since it's the Nebulas going second. (The
Nebulas, of course, are given by the writing community, which is...how
can I put this delicately?...both highly opinionated and given to
forming interesting little groups.)

--
Andrew Wheeler
--
Far beyond the moon and stars,
Twenty light-years south of Mars
Spins the gentle Bunny Planet,
And the Bunny Queen is Janet.

Michael Kube-McDowell

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 10:17:26 PM9/6/02
to
On 3 Sep 2002 12:47:31 -0700, nichol...@hotmail.com (Nicholas
Whyte) wrote:

>I have no idea how the Nebula voting works, but I'd love to know a)
>how this year's shortlist was determined and b) how the winner was
>picked.

Active Members may recommend works for the Nebula Ballot by sending a
note to the NAR editor with the title, author, and publishing data.
This used to mean a lot of postcards; the NAR editor now accepts
recommendations electronically. (There is no obligation to take part
in this process, however, and studying the list of recs reveals that
senior members and full-time writers tend not to participate as
heavily as the younger cohort. There is also a strong temptation to
see patterns.)

The preliminary ballot (not the same as what you've called the short
list) is made up of every work which receives 10 or more
recommendations (a) before its eligibility clock runs out and (b)
before the annual closing deadline. The novel and short story lists
can and have gone 30 titles deep, and more. The novellette and novella
lists are generally much shorter.

The preliminary ballot is sent to the Active members, who may vote for
up to five eligible works in each category. There is no provision for
any sort of write-in vote. The votes are not weighted.

The top five (or six, or seven in the case of ties) vote-getters are
placed on the Final Ballot (your short list), and may properly be
called Nebula Award Nominees. The Nebula Award Juries may, at their
discretion, add one work to each category on the Final Ballot; most
juries exercise that option, and most take the 'overlooked gem/obscure
publication' approach to making their selections (though they are not
in fact obliged to, and can add -any- work published in the previous
year, including one which was on the preliminary ballot but didn't
make the top five). Though the jury selections are not flagged as
such, it's usually obvious what the jury picks were, and I believe
it's still true that no jury pick has ever won.

The Final Ballot is sent to the Active members, who may vote for up to
five works in each category, ranked 1-5. No Award is an option.
Detailed voting numbers and breakdowns have traditionally not been
released.

It's getting rather badly out of date, but you might still find
something interesting or amusing in my sidewise look at the Nebs:

http://www.sff.net/people/K-Mac/nebula.htm

Best,

K-Mac


--
Michael Kube-McDowell, author and packrat
New novel! VECTORS, coming October 29 from Bantam Spectra
Preview at http://www.sff.net/people/K-Mac/Vectors.htm

Lee Ann Rucker

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 11:51:36 PM9/6/02
to
In article <3l5fnukesvfmkgguh...@news.cis.dfn.de>, Vlatko
Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:38:48 -0700, Lee Ann Rucker <lru...@mac.com>
> wrote:
>
> >it was
> >as if he'd just done a reinterpretation of it to show people who didn't
> >read comics what he was capable of.
>
> I don't get this. Isn't AG actually an elaboration of an idea from
> _Sandman_? Ummmm ... no, not from "Season of the Mists" ... "A Game of
> You"?
>
> If AG was done as a comic, it would've been a spino-ff, just like
> _Corynthian_ is.

It seems like that to me, but I've never heard that Gaiman has said one
way or the other. It's certainly not presented as if it were anything
other than a standalone independent work.

Brad Templeton

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 4:18:21 AM9/7/02
to
In article <3D79562A...@optonline.com>,

Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>> The Hugo winner is competing with twice as many books (i.e., two
>> years' worth) when it enters the contest for the Nebula.
>
>Not exactly, since the Nebulas haven't managed to add any more time into
>the equation -- works are just eligible for a longer (and less defined)
>time. If it was just the switch in Nebula rules, we'd expect to see a
>lot of the same works winning Nebulas and Hugos for different years --
>Hugos first, then Nebulas.

The time is well defined, it's just differnet for each book. My short
explanation of it is that a book published in May of 2002 can get its
10 recommendations by April of 2003, and then be awarded a Nebula in
May of 2004, 2 years later, while it would get its Hugo in August of
2003.

The Nebulas don't have to worry about overseas books the way the Hugos
do, since it is a U.S. org with a Canadian chapter and some overseas
members, but has no problem defining rules relating to the USA.
--
Brad Templeton's Photography page
http://www.templetons.com/brad/photo

Nicholas Whyte

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 4:44:25 AM9/7/02
to
On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 02:17:26 GMT, Michael Kube-McDowell
<K-...@sff.net.seereplyto> wrote:

>On 3 Sep 2002 12:47:31 -0700, nichol...@hotmail.com (Nicholas
>Whyte) wrote:
>
>>I have no idea how the Nebula voting works, but I'd love to know a)
>>how this year's shortlist was determined and b) how the winner was
>>picked.
>

>Active Members may recommend works for the Nebula Ballot..

Informative post snipped, thanks.

>I believe
>it's still true that no jury pick has ever won.

I think "Goddesses" by Linda Nagata was the first to do so last year.
It was also the first story to win that was originally published
electronically.

>It's getting rather badly out of date, but you might still find
>something interesting or amusing in my sidewise look at the Nebs:
>
>http://www.sff.net/people/K-Mac/nebula.htm

It is a very nice survey, even if the baseball metaphors are lost on
us non-Yanks.

I have done a couple of pages myself on similar lines: by age and year
of birth of each winner at http://explorers.whyte.com/sf/sfages.htm
and a few more bits and pieces at
http://explorers.whyte.com/sf/sfmore.htm

Nicholas

Richard Horton

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 7:20:17 PM9/7/02
to
On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 02:17:26 GMT, Michael Kube-McDowell
<K-...@sff.net.seereplyto> wrote:

>and I believe
>it's still true that no jury pick has ever won.
>

Linda Nagata's "Goddesses", the 2001 Novella winner, was a jury pick,
I'm fairly sure.

It was both the first Online story and the first jury pick to win.

Michael Kube-McDowell

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 12:49:36 AM9/8/02
to
On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 23:20:17 GMT, Richard Horton
<rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 02:17:26 GMT, Michael Kube-McDowell
><K-...@sff.net.seereplyto> wrote:
>
>>and I believe
>>it's still true that no jury pick has ever won.
>>
>
>Linda Nagata's "Goddesses", the 2001 Novella winner, was a jury pick,
>I'm fairly sure.
>
>It was both the first Online story and the first jury pick to win.

I do recall that now. I confess I haven't been following the Nebs very
closely the last few years.

K-Mac


--
Michael Kube-McDowell - author of VECTORS, coming October 29

Pete McCutchen

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 12:43:30 PM9/9/02
to

Yes. That was the point I was originally trying to make, back when
this all started.

>
>I do expect the "that's already *got* one award" effect can explain some

I suppose. Though might not a Hugo add somewhat to a book's
notoriety, making it more likely that the Nebula voters would consider
its merits?

>of the difference, especially since it's the Nebulas going second. (The
>Nebulas, of course, are given by the writing community, which is...how
>can I put this delicately?...both highly opinionated and given to
>forming interesting little groups.)

I suspect that's true. It's interesting that _Forever Peace_ is one
of the few books that actually managed to win both recently, and it's
absolutely dreadful. IMO, of course. I guess the fact that it won
means that there are folks out there who actually like it.
--

Pete McCutchen

Scott Beeler

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 3:33:28 PM9/9/02
to
Nicholas Whyte <expl...@whyte.com> wrote:
> T. M. Wagner wrote:
>
> > Personally I think there were worthier nominees, but as Gaiman's a fan
> > favorite it's not surprising his name came up when the fans spoke.

>
> The other winners being:
>
> NOVELLA "Fast Times at Fairmont High", Vernor Vinge
>
> NOVELETTE "Hell Is the Absence of God", Ted Chiang
>
> SHORT STORY "The Dog Said Bow-Wow", Michael Swanwick
[snip]

> Well, I'm personally gratified that I predicted the winners in three out
> of four written fiction categories, and only missed Vernor Vinge because
> I hadn't yet read "Fast Times...". It's a shame that _Curse of Chalion_,
> which I liked more, didn't win, but on the whole the nominees were
> worthy. (see http://explorers.whyte.com/sf/Hugo2002.htm )

I'm really happy, with the three short fiction winners being my
personal choices. I had actually voted _American Gods_ fairly low,
but that was only because *something* had to go there, and I thought
all of the nominees except _Passage_ were excellent (my personal
favorites were _The Chronoliths_ and _Perdido Street Station_). I
think AG is definitely a worthy winner.

--
Scott C. Beeler scott...@home.com

Nicholas Whyte

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 3:38:28 PM9/14/02
to
Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote in message news:<3D79562A...@optonline.com>...

> Pete McCutchen wrote:
> > On 04 Sep 2002 20:26:15 GMT, htn...@cs.com (Htn963) wrote:
> > >Pete McCutchen wrote:
> > >>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 22:52:01 GMT, i...@lrcpubs.com (Ian Randal
> > >>Strock) wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Haven't done the study myself, but doesn't the split kind of
> > >>>coincide with the time when the Nebula eligibility period was
> > >>>changed from "the calendar year of publication" to "one calendar
> > >>>year from date of publication" (giving all works an equally long
> > >>>eligibility period, but increasing the chances that the award
> > >>>would be given to works published two years previously, rather
> > >>>than the previous year).
> > >>
> > >>I'm not sure that computes. After all, while it's true that the
> > >>Hugo winner for any particular year is competing with twice as many
> > >>books, it's also eligible for twice as long.
> > >
> > > You mean the Nebula, don't you? Else the above doesn't make
> > > any sense.
> >
> > The Hugo winner is competing with twice as many books (i.e., two
> > years' worth) when it enters the contest for the Nebula.
>
> Not exactly, since the Nebulas haven't managed to add any more time into
> the equation -- works are just eligible for a longer (and less defined)
> time. If it was just the switch in Nebula rules, we'd expect to see a
> lot of the same works winning Nebulas and Hugos for different years --
> Hugos first, then Nebulas.

That is, we'd expect to see a lot of the same works winning Nebulas
and Hugos *for* the same years but *in* different years.

52 works of written sf have won both Hugo and Nebula. Leaving aside
the exceptional case of "Flowers for Algernon" (1960 Hugo for Best
Short Fiction, 1966 Nebula for Best Novel) all but two won the Nebula
first and Hugo second *in* the same year but *for* different years, eg
_Dune_ won the 1965 Nebula for Best Novel and then shared the 1966
Hugo for Best Novel with _...And Call me Conrad_ by Roger Zelazny, but
both were awarded *in* 1966.

Between 1966 and 1996, 15 novels and 34 shorter works pulled off this
double, ie on average more than one each year. Since 1996, one novel
(_Forever Peace_ by Joe Haldeman) and one shorter work ("The Ultimate
Earth", by Jack Williamson) have managed to win both awards, in both
cases *for* the same year (1998 and 2001 respeactively) but awarded
*in* different years.

> I do expect the "that's already *got* one award" effect can explain some
> of the difference, especially since it's the Nebulas going second. (The
> Nebulas, of course, are given by the writing community, which is...how
> can I put this delicately?...both highly opinionated and given to
> forming interesting little groups.)

Hmmm. I am partially convinced, but it still doesn't explain why a)
why in general the books and stories chosen by writers for the Nebulas
in the Spring appear to be very far from those chosen by the fans in
Septembner and b) why the only two recent works that did manage to win
both awards are, shall we say, not exactly superb classics of the
genre. (Though I am a heretic who actually prefers _Forever Peace_ to
_The Forever War_.)

Nicholas
Joint winners of Hugos and Nebulas:
http://explorers.whyte.com/sf/nebhug.htm

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages