2002 Nebula Awards
Nicholas Whyte
* Best Novel: American Gods by Neil Gaiman
* Best Novella: "Bronte's Egg" by Richard Chwedyk
* Best Novelette: "Hell is the Absence of God" by Ted Chiang
* Best Short Story: "Creature" by Carol Emshwiller
* Best Script: "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring"
This goes a long way to restoring my confidence in the Nebulas after
the extraordinary choices of recent years. I'd read three of the Novel
nominees, and certainly found the Gaiman the best of them (by a hair
ahead of Perdido Street Station). The Chwedyk and Chiang stories were
clearly the best of their categories.
I'm a bit puzzled by the Emshwiller win, but I suppose the obscure
humour of the Swanwick entry in that category must have damaged its
chances, and the Nebula voters, given the chance of honouring a
genuine Venerable Author, took it.
As for the Fellowship of the Ring; I have a strong sentimental
attachment to Buffy, but I can see how "Once More, With Feeling" may
not have the same staying power as the Jackson epic...
Nicholas
Htn963
>For those who haven't heard, the winners were:
>
>* Best Novel: American Gods by Neil Gaiman
Gaiman seems to be the flavor of the month right now, like Simmons during
his Hyperion heydays. Hmm, how long has it been since a novel took both the
Hugo and Nebula?
--
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"|
Jeroen
> As for the Fellowship of the Ring; I have a strong sentimental
> attachment to Buffy, but I can see how "Once More, With Feeling" may
> not have the same staying power as the Jackson epic...
Spike: "First I'll kill her, then I'll save her! No, first I'll save her,
*then* I'll kill her!"
Willow: "I think this line's mostly filler..."
Jackson vs. BTVS: so close-cut you could lose fingers.
"Fool for Love" just makes ya go "Oooh!"
Regards,
Jeroen (It's all my flatmate's fault. *She* got me into bloody Buffy, and
now I'm hooked...it's like televisual heroin, or something!)
Nicholas Whyte
> Nicholas Whyte wrote:
>
> >For those who haven't heard, the winners were:
> >
> >* Best Novel: American Gods by Neil Gaiman
>
> Gaiman seems to be the flavor of the month right now, like Simmons during
> his Hyperion heydays. Hmm, how long has it been since a novel took both the
> Hugo and Nebula?
Four years, _Forever Peace_. And only two pieces of short fiction have
managed the double since 1996 - "The Ultimate Earth" last year and
"Hell is the Absence of God" this year.
Nicholas
Christopher Adams
>> attachment to Buffy, but I can see how "Once More, With Feeling" may
>> not have the same staying power as the Jackson epic...
>
> Spike: "First I'll kill her, then I'll save her! No, first I'll save her,
> *then* I'll kill her!"
>
> Willow: "I think this line's mostly filler..."
>
> Jackson vs. BTVS: so close-cut you could lose fingers.
>
> "Fool for Love" just makes ya go "Oooh!"
SUBSCIRBE
--
Christopher Adams
SUTEKH Dysfunctions Officer 2003
Remove obvious spamblock to e-mail me.
What's the difference between you and a mallard with a cold?
One's a sick duck . . . I can't remember how it ends,
but your mother's a whore.
- Sean Connery, SNL Celebrity Jeopardy
Second World War - Russian Front, not a good idea.
Hitler never played Risk when he was a kid . . .
- Eddie Izzard, Dress To Kill
David Bilek
I thought "Hell is the Absence of God" was one of Chiang's weaker
stories. This must be like the Oscar voters rewarding someone for
their body of work rather than the specific movie they actually win
for.
-David
Frank
Whyte) wrote:
>The Chwedyk and Chiang stories were
>clearly the best of their categories.
You really thought the Chwedyk was best? I liked the Duncan story,
although I can understand the argument that it's not SF.
Frank
wrote:
>I thought "Hell is the Absence of God" was one of Chiang's weaker
>stories. This must be like the Oscar voters rewarding someone for
>their body of work rather than the specific movie they actually win
>for.
That would certainly explain the Hugo, which Chiang had never won
before despite multiple nominations, but it doesn't really explain the
Nebula, which he had already won twice before.
Nicholas Whyte
wrote:
Yes, I do rate "Bronte's Egg" ahead of "The Chief Designer". My main
complaint about the latter is that not a lot happened that I didn't
already know about. I still think it's a good story, though. And it
will probably have more staying power.
Nicholas
Nicholas Whyte
wrote:
>nichol...@hotmail.com (Nicholas Whyte) wrote:
Well, it's Chiang's third Nebula (out of only seven published
stories!) so it seems unlikely that the SFWA voters were moved by pity
for a vast body of work which they had previously insufficiently
recognised...
Nicholas
Allan Griffith
nichol...@hotmail.com says...
> Hmm, how long has it been since a novel took both the
> > Hugo and Nebula?
>
> Four years, _Forever Peace_.
But was it any good? I gave up on Haldeman after _The Forever War_ and
_The Long Habit of Living_ (aka _Buying Time_).
Al
Nicholas Whyte
Since you're not interested in reading Hugo-winners anyway, there's no
need for you to change your policy with this one.
Nicholas
Jeroen
>>> Four years, _Forever Peace_.
>>
>>But was it any good?
>
Which is putting it mildly, to say the least...
--
"Fuck this. I want a better world."
--Jenny Sparks
David Cowie
> In article <7b33cc41.03042...@posting.google.com>,
> nichol...@hotmail.com says...
>> Hmm, how long has it been since a novel took both the
>> > Hugo and Nebula?
>>
>> Four years, _Forever Peace_.
>
> But was it any good?
Read it up to the bit near the end where people start exploding, and
then TEAR OUT THE REMAINING PAGES and make up your own ending. Do all
that and it's very good. If you read Haldeman's ending, you may come to
hate the rest of the book by association.
--
David Cowie david_cowie at lineone dot net
Mike Schilling
"David Cowie" <see...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.04.21....@lineone.net...
Haldeman's ending isn't particularly original, either. It's very
reminiscent of the endings of _Venus on the Half-Shell_ or _So Long, and
Thanks for All the Fish_, but more disappointing, since we weren't led to
expect anything so pointless.
Nicholas Whyte
<jonme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:14:10 GMT, Allan Griffith
><agri4042@REMOVE_THIS.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>In article <7b33cc41.03042...@posting.google.com>,
>>nichol...@hotmail.com says...
>>> Hmm, how long has it been since a novel took both the
>>> > Hugo and Nebula?
>>>
>>> Four years, _Forever Peace_.
>>
>>But was it any good?
>
>No.
I disagree. But I've explained why at length elsewhere, at
http://explorers.whyte.com/sf/forpeace.htm and on this group back in
December.
>What was competing against it that year?
Other novels shortlisted for 1998 Hugo: _City on Fire_, by Walter Jon
Williams; _The Rise of Endymion_, by Dan Simmons; _Frameshift_, by
Robert J. Sawyer; and _Jack Faust_, by Michael Swanwick.
I haven't read any of those. Everyone advises me that the Endymion
books are not as good as the Hyperion books (which I did enjoy,
though). I was underwhelmed by Sawyer's _Calculating God_ and I note
disparaging comments about him on another thread. I like Swanwick's
short stories and have just order _Bones of the Earth_. I've found
Walter Jon Williams' short fiction not to my taste.
So tell me, which of those would *you* have voted for ahead of
_Forever Peace_?
Other novels shortlisted for 1998 Nebula: _The Last Hawk_, by
Catherine Asaro; _Moonfall_, by Jack McDevitt; _How Few Remain_, by
Harry Turtledove; _The Death of the Necromancer_, by Martha Wells; _To
Say Nothing of the Dog_, by Connie Willis.
Of these I have only read To Say Nothing of the Dog, but I really
liked it (more than I liked _Forever Peace_). Asaro and McDevitt do
nothing for me. I've enjoyed Turtledove's short fiction but find his
alternate history novels tedious. I've never read anything (that I can
remember) by Martha Wells but was sufficiently interested in the
interview with her in this month's _Interzone_ to keep an eye out for
her work from now on.
So tell me, which of those would *you* have voted for ahead of
_Forever Peace_?
Current sales ranks of the above ten novels on Amazon.com:
_To Say Nothing of the Dog_: 5,131
_The Rise of Endymion_: 5,587
_Forever Peace_: 12,441
_How Few Remain_: 34,823
_Moonfall_: 46,779
_The Last Hawk_: 46,796
_Frameshift_: 69,179
_The Death of the Necromancer_: 77,935
_City on Fire_ (out of print): 111,169
_Jack Faust_ (out of print): 172,217
Hmmm, perhaps I should get hold of _Endymion_ and _The Rise of
Endymion_ after all.
Nicholas
James Nicoll
Nicholas Whyte <nichol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Other novels shortlisted for 1998 Hugo: _City on Fire_, by Walter Jon
>Williams; _The Rise of Endymion_, by Dan Simmons; _Frameshift_, by
>Robert J. Sawyer; and _Jack Faust_, by Michael Swanwick.
>
>I haven't read any of those. Everyone advises me that the Endymion
>books are not as good as the Hyperion books (which I did enjoy,
>though). I was underwhelmed by Sawyer's _Calculating God_ and I note
>disparaging comments about him on another thread. I like Swanwick's
>short stories and have just order _Bones of the Earth_. I've found
>Walter Jon Williams' short fiction not to my taste.
>
>So tell me, which of those would *you* have voted for ahead of
>_Forever Peace_?
_City on Fire_, hands down, granting that I have yet to read
_Jack Faust_.
>Other novels shortlisted for 1998 Nebula: _The Last Hawk_, by
>Catherine Asaro; _Moonfall_, by Jack McDevitt; _How Few Remain_, by
>Harry Turtledove; _The Death of the Necromancer_, by Martha Wells; _To
>Say Nothing of the Dog_, by Connie Willis.
>
>Of these I have only read To Say Nothing of the Dog, but I really
>liked it (more than I liked _Forever Peace_). Asaro and McDevitt do
>nothing for me. I've enjoyed Turtledove's short fiction but find his
>alternate history novels tedious. I've never read anything (that I can
>remember) by Martha Wells but was sufficiently interested in the
>interview with her in this month's _Interzone_ to keep an eye out for
>her work from now on.
>
>So tell me, which of those would *you* have voted for ahead of
>_Forever Peace_?
Huh. Not sure anything on that list is Nebula worthy. They don't
have to grant it -every- year, do they?
--
"About this time, I started getting depressed. Probably the late
hour and the silence. I decided to put on some music.
Boy, that Billie Holiday can sing."
_Why I Hate Saturn_, Kyle Baker
Htn963
>Huh. Not sure anything on that [1998] list is Nebula worthy. They don't
>have to grant it -every- year, do they?
Didn't the Hugo skip several years during the 50's?
But methinks it's a bad idea to set up an award and not grant someone
that every year. It lowers morale among the writer ranks and make the award
committee look like a bunch of pompous asses, ultimately resulting in lowering
the value of that award. It's not that there aren't anything award-worthy in
any given year...you just have to have a better selection process to look for
it. Which the Nebula could use right now.
Steven H Silver
the ether:
>James Nicoll wrote:
>
>>Huh. Not sure anything on that [1998] list is Nebula worthy. They don't
>>have to grant it -every- year, do they?
>
> Didn't the Hugo skip several years during the 50's?
>
> But methinks it's a bad idea to set up an award and not grant someone
>that every year. It lowers morale among the writer ranks and make the award
>committee look like a bunch of pompous asses, ultimately resulting in lowering
>the value of that award. It's not that there aren't anything award-worthy in
>any given year...you just have to have a better selection process to look for
>it. Which the Nebula could use right now.
The Hugos only have skipped one year, 1953. Of course, they had been
presented the year before for the first time as a one-off and picked
up the following year. In the fifties, the categories were
extraordinarily fluid, as well.
--
Steven H Silver
Hugo Nominee, Best Fan Writer
editor, Wondrous Beginnings, DAW 1/03
http://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/wondrous.html
editor, Magical Beginnings, DAW 2/03
http://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/magical.html
editor, Horrible Beginnings, DAW 3/03
http://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/horrible.html
Chair, Windycon XXX, Nov 7-9, 2003, http://www.windycon.org
Richard Horton
<shsi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The Hugos only have skipped one year, 1953.
1954, actually. Though some of the eligible books for the 1953 awards
were from 1952, including, as I recall, the winner. (There was not
the formal nomination system there is today, and as far as I can tell
people voted for books published in the year before the convention, or
something like that.)
> Of course, they had been
>presented the year before for the first time as a one-off and picked
>up the following year. In the fifties, the categories were
>extraordinarily fluid, as well.
Which led to a "sort of" skip in a later year, 1957?, when no fiction
awards were given.
--
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)
Christopher Adams
> someone that every year. It lowers morale among the writer ranks and
> make the award committee look like a bunch of pompous asses, ultimately
> resulting in lowering the value of that award. It's not that there
> aren't anything award-worthy in any given year...you just have to have a
> better selection process to look for it.
This reminds me somewhat of the award process for wines . . . where it's not
uncommon for no gold or silver medals to be awarded in a year in which the
judges feel no wine has been produced that is worthy of those awards.
Not sure that's something worth mimicking for SF.
Joseph Nebus
>This reminds me somewhat of the award process for wines . . . where it's not
>uncommon for no gold or silver medals to be awarded in a year in which the
>judges feel no wine has been produced that is worthy of those awards.
>Not sure that's something worth mimicking for SF.
Seems like it'd be an efficient way of generating the Dresden
of flame wars, though.
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Adams
>> it's not uncommon for no gold or silver medals to be awarded in a year
>> in which the judges feel no wine has been produced that is worthy of
>> those awards.
>
>> Not sure that's something worth mimicking for SF.
>
> Seems like it'd be an efficient way of generating the Dresden
> of flame wars, though.
You're right, what was I thinking? ;)
Evelyn C. Leeper
>> But methinks it's a bad idea to set up an award and not grant
>>someone that every year. It lowers morale among the writer ranks and
>>make the award committee look like a bunch of pompous asses, ultimately
>>resulting in lowering the value of that award. It's not that there
>>aren't anything award-worthy in any given year...you just have to have a
>>better selection process to look for it.
>
>
> This reminds me somewhat of the award process for wines . . . where it's not
> uncommon for no gold or silver medals to be awarded in a year in which the
> judges feel no wine has been produced that is worthy of those awards.
>
> Not sure that's something worth mimicking for SF.
Well, that's what "No Award" is for in the Hugos. Not sure what the
Nebulas do.
(Unfortunately, that isn't always why it's given. In 1977, for example,
"No Award" won for Dramatic Presentation (for DPs from 1976) because
everyone was comparing them to STAR WARS (a 1977 film). There was no
reason why CARRIE or THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH should not have won, and
had STAR WARS not come out, one of them probably would have.)
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
"What appears to be coming at you is coming from you."
--Jack Flanders
James Nicoll
Htn963 <htn...@cs.com> wrote:
>James Nicoll wrote:
>
>>Huh. Not sure anything on that [1998] list is Nebula worthy. They don't
>>have to grant it -every- year, do they?
>
> Didn't the Hugo skip several years during the 50's?
>
> But methinks it's a bad idea to set up an award and not grant someone
>that every year. It lowers morale among the writer ranks and make the award
>committee look like a bunch of pompous asses, ultimately resulting in lowering
>the value of that award.
But granting awards to books whose merit is minimal or non-existant
seems to me even worse. "Your novel didn't make the Long Ballot in 1998?
Gosh, then it must be inferior to Dan Gallagher's _Pleistocene Redemption_
and judging by how awful that was, your novel must be very very bad indeed."
> It's not that there aren't anything award-worthy in
>any given year...you just have to have a better selection process to look for
>it. Which the Nebula could use right now.
Yeah.
Htn963
>In article <20030421224039...@mb-m14.news.cs.com>,
>Htn963 <htn...@cs.com> wrote:
>>James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>>>Huh. Not sure anything on that [1998] list is Nebula worthy. They don't
>>>have to grant it -every- year, do they?
>>
>> Didn't the Hugo skip several years during the 50's?
>>
>> But methinks it's a bad idea to set up an award and not grant someone
>>that every year. It lowers morale among the writer ranks and make the award
>>committee look like a bunch of pompous asses, ultimately resulting in
>lowering
>>the value of that award.
>
> But granting awards to books whose merit is minimal or non-existant
>seems to me even worse.
Worse in which way? Artistically or ethically perhaps, but as always, the
market comes first. You see bad movies get nominated for and/or win the Oscars
all the time, yet it still goes on; the act of the award serves as good
publicity for the industry as a whole.
>"Your novel didn't make the Long Ballot in 1998?
>Gosh, then it must be inferior to Dan Gallagher's _Pleistocene Redemption_
>and judging by how awful that was, your novel must be very very bad indeed."
I think most people are perceptive (or cynical) enough to realize that
there's bound to be "questionable" nominees for any award, yet still have faith
that the "worthy" one would win.
>> It's not that there aren't anything award-worthy in
>>any given year...you just have to have a better selection process to look
>for
>>it. Which the Nebula could use right now.
Oops, sloppy grammar on my part here. I meant look for "them", not "it."
I'm sure one can always find a *number* of good books in any given year,
unless the market has shrunk considerably.
> Yeah.
From looking at how the Nebula turned out, at least some of can say that
writers are not the best judge of each others' works.
Richard Horton
>Nicholas Whyte wrote:
>
>>For those who haven't heard, the winners were:
>>
>>* Best Novel: American Gods by Neil Gaiman
>
> Gaiman seems to be the flavor of the month right now, like Simmons during
>his Hyperion heydays. Hmm, how long has it been since a novel took both the
>Hugo and Nebula?
Joe Haldeman's _Forever Peace_ (1997) won both the Hugo and Nebula,
and in the same way that _American Gods_ did -- winning the Hugo
first.
Petrazickis
> Haldeman's ending isn't particularly original, either. It's very
> reminiscent of the endings of _Venus on the Half-Shell_ or _So Long, and
> Thanks for All the Fish_, but more disappointing, since we weren't led to
> expect anything so pointless.
Do you mean SLATFATF or Mostly Harmless? MH is the one with the
disappointing ending.:)
Leons Petrazickis
import java.lang.disclaimer;
Mike Schilling
"Petrazickis" <spamPET...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:nyipa.2188$Zj2.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Mike Schilling wrote:
> > Haldeman's ending isn't particularly original, either. It's very
> > reminiscent of the endings of _Venus on the Half-Shell_ or _So Long, and
> > Thanks for All the Fish_, but more disappointing, since we weren't led
to
> > expect anything so pointless.
>
> Do you mean SLATFATF or Mostly Harmless? MH is the one with the
> disappointing ending.:)
I did mean SLaT. What all three have in common is
<spoiler>
</spoiler>
At the end we meet God (or the Being in charge, anyway) and he's neither
Good nor Evil, just some guy who's not that interested in the universe he
created.
Andrew Wheeler
>
> Christopher Adams wrote:
> >> But methinks it's a bad idea to set up an award and not grant
> >>someone that every year. It lowers morale among the writer ranks and
> >>make the award committee look like a bunch of pompous asses,
> >>ultimately resulting in lowering the value of that award. It's not
> >>that there aren't anything award-worthy in any given year...you just
> >>have to have a better selection process to look for it.
Just a factual note: the Nebulas are nominated for and voted on by the
membership of SFWA. There *are* juries, but their sole function is to
add (at their discretion) one item to the final ballot of whatever
category they're responsible for.
> > This reminds me somewhat of the award process for wines . . . where
> > it's not uncommon for no gold or silver medals to be awarded in a year
> > in which the judges feel no wine has been produced that is worthy of
> > those awards.
> >
> > Not sure that's something worth mimicking for SF.
>
> Well, that's what "No Award" is for in the Hugos. Not sure what the
> Nebulas do.
They have "No Award" as well -- it won at least once (Best Short Story,
1970), in a situation my table was actually discussing at the Nebula
Banquet this year...
--
Andrew Wheeler
--
People tell me one thing and out the other. I feel as much like I did
yesterday as I did today. I never liked room temperature. My throat is
closer than it seems. Likes and dislikes are among my favorites. No
napkin is sanitary enough for me. I don't like any of my loved ones.
--from a brain damage reading test by Daniel M. Wegner
Peter D. Tillman
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> In article <3ea45c1d...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
> Nicholas Whyte <nichol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Other novels shortlisted for 1998 Hugo: _City on Fire_, by Walter Jon
> >Williams; _The Rise of Endymion_, by Dan Simmons; _Frameshift_, by
> >Robert J. Sawyer; and _Jack Faust_, by Michael Swanwick.
> >
[snip]
> >
> >So tell me, which of those would *you* have voted for ahead of
> >_Forever Peace_?
>
> _City on Fire_, hands down,
Yes, yes! I'd forgotten that Peace beat Fire. One of the few sequels
that's stronger than the preceeding book [Metropolitan, also excellent].
What were they thinking?
> granting that I have yet to read
> _Jack Faust_.
Well, I wouldn't be in a big hurry for that. Although I do plan to
reread it sometime, to see if I like it better now that I know
Swanwick's works better. But I didn't care for it much the first time.
>
> >Other novels shortlisted for 1998 Nebula: _The Last Hawk_, by
> >Catherine Asaro; _Moonfall_, by Jack McDevitt; _How Few Remain_, by
> >Harry Turtledove; _The Death of the Necromancer_, by Martha Wells; _To
> >Say Nothing of the Dog_, by Connie Willis.
> >
> >Of these I have only read To Say Nothing of the Dog, but I really
> >liked it (more than I liked _Forever Peace_). Asaro and McDevitt do
> >nothing for me. I've enjoyed Turtledove's short fiction but find his
> >alternate history novels tedious. I've never read anything (that I can
> >remember) by Martha Wells... [snip]
> >
> >So tell me, which of those would *you* have voted for ahead of
> >_Forever Peace_?
>
> Huh. Not sure anything on that list is Nebula worthy.
Well, I enjoyed the Willis & the McDevitt more than Peace, but the Dog
is pretty slight, and Moonfall is pretty routine. James calls it right
again.
Still a mind-boggler that Forever Peace won both Hugo & Nebula. What
were they thinking?
Allan Griffith
s...@lineone.net says...
> >> Four years, _Forever Peace_.
> >
> > But was it any good?
>
> Read it up to the bit near the end where people start exploding, and
> then TEAR OUT THE REMAINING PAGES and make up your own ending. Do all
> that and it's very good. If you read Haldeman's ending, you may come to
> hate the rest of the book by association.
So has Haldeman ever written a decent ending for a novel?
Al
Andrew Wheeler
His recent _The Coming_ has a great ending. _All My Sins Remembered_
also ends well, though that's a fix-up, so it might not count. I also
think _The Forever War_ has a good ending, though it may be overly happy
for the book.
Richard Horton
<acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>
>His recent _The Coming_ has a great ending.
I agree, but lots of people HATE the ending. They're wrong of course,
and expecting something the author never promised them.
(_Guardian_, on the other hand, has a bad ending, and indeed a bad
last third, which is a damn shame because it started out very strong.
If it had stayed an historical novel about a woman in the late 19th
Century US, I'd have loved it. Even a mild divergence AH would have
been fine. But the Raven, and that silly trip she took -- feh!)