info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The greatest year ever?
0 views
Skip to first unread message
John Hall
Feb 4, 2022, 4:41:05 PM2/4/22
to
I was just browsing the list of Hugo-award-winning novels as given on
Wikipedia. In 2004 "retro-Hugos" were awarded for novels published in
1954. The winner was Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451", and the four
runners-up were Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End", Hal Clement's
"Mission of Gravity", Isaac Asimov's "The Caves of Steel" and Theodore
Sturgeon's "More Than Human". That surely has to be the greatest-ever
year for SF novels.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)
Wikipedia. In 2004 "retro-Hugos" were awarded for novels published in
1954. The winner was Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451", and the four
runners-up were Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End", Hal Clement's
"Mission of Gravity", Isaac Asimov's "The Caves of Steel" and Theodore
Sturgeon's "More Than Human". That surely has to be the greatest-ever
year for SF novels.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)
Alan Woodford
Feb 5, 2022, 2:20:02 AM2/5/22
to
On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 21:32:23 +0000, John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>I was just browsing the list of Hugo-award-winning novels as given on
>Wikipedia. In 2004 "retro-Hugos" were awarded for novels published in
>1954. The winner was Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451", and the four
>runners-up were Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End", Hal Clement's
>"Mission of Gravity", Isaac Asimov's "The Caves of Steel" and Theodore
>Sturgeon's "More Than Human". That surely has to be the greatest-ever
>year for SF novels.
Someone was watching Pointless, last night, weren't they? :-)
>I was just browsing the list of Hugo-award-winning novels as given on
>Wikipedia. In 2004 "retro-Hugos" were awarded for novels published in
>1954. The winner was Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451", and the four
>runners-up were Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End", Hal Clement's
>"Mission of Gravity", Isaac Asimov's "The Caves of Steel" and Theodore
>Sturgeon's "More Than Human". That surely has to be the greatest-ever
>year for SF novels.
I was surprised that Bradbury and Heinlein were pointless answers!
But yes, that was a very good year.
Alan Woodford
The Greying Lensman
Andy Leighton
Feb 5, 2022, 4:36:00 AM2/5/22
to
On Sat, 05 Feb 2022 07:20:00 +0000, Alan Woodford <al...@thewoodfords.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 21:32:23 +0000, John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I was just browsing the list of Hugo-award-winning novels as given on
>>Wikipedia. In 2004 "retro-Hugos" were awarded for novels published in
>>1954. The winner was Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451", and the four
>>runners-up were Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End", Hal Clement's
>>"Mission of Gravity", Isaac Asimov's "The Caves of Steel" and Theodore
>>Sturgeon's "More Than Human". That surely has to be the greatest-ever
>>year for SF novels.
>
>
> Someone was watching Pointless, last night, weren't they? :-)
>
> I was surprised that Bradbury and Heinlein were pointless answers!
Me too - mainly because they are (or were) writers people might have
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 21:32:23 +0000, John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I was just browsing the list of Hugo-award-winning novels as given on
>>Wikipedia. In 2004 "retro-Hugos" were awarded for novels published in
>>1954. The winner was Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451", and the four
>>runners-up were Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End", Hal Clement's
>>"Mission of Gravity", Isaac Asimov's "The Caves of Steel" and Theodore
>>Sturgeon's "More Than Human". That surely has to be the greatest-ever
>>year for SF novels.
>
>
> Someone was watching Pointless, last night, weren't they? :-)
>
> I was surprised that Bradbury and Heinlein were pointless answers!
heard of. Heinlein probably surprises me a little bit more due to
the various films.
My guesses were Mark Clifton*, Fritz Leiber and Joan D. Vinge.
Although I was tempted by Vonda McIntyre as well.
I think it was one of the easier final questions as I got a few
pointless answers (including Pratchett) in the Wodehouse Prize category
too.
* I guess Frank Riley would have been even better but I couldn't
dredge his name up in time.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams
John Hall
Feb 5, 2022, 5:38:40 AM2/5/22
to
In message <6q8svg58umhhq94nl...@4ax.com>, Alan Woodford
<al...@thewoodfords.uk> writes
>
>I was surprised that Bradbury and Heinlein were pointless answers!
Me too. I suppose it shows how much of a niche interest reading SF - as
opposed to watching films or TV series - has become.
In the 60 seconds I came up with Herbert, Roger Zelazny and Ursula Le
Guin as my three answers, but we weren't told whether the last two were
pointless.
>
>But yes, that was a very good year.
I've read and greatly enjoyed the first four of those five books. I've
not read "More Than Human", apart from a short extract in an anthology,
but I know it's very highly regarded.
<al...@thewoodfords.uk> writes
>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 21:32:23 +0000, John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I was just browsing the list of Hugo-award-winning novels as given on
>>Wikipedia. In 2004 "retro-Hugos" were awarded for novels published in
>>1954. The winner was Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451", and the four
>>runners-up were Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End", Hal Clement's
>>"Mission of Gravity", Isaac Asimov's "The Caves of Steel" and Theodore
>>Sturgeon's "More Than Human". That surely has to be the greatest-ever
>>year for SF novels.
>
>
>Someone was watching Pointless, last night, weren't they? :-)
Well spotted. :)
>
>>I was just browsing the list of Hugo-award-winning novels as given on
>>Wikipedia. In 2004 "retro-Hugos" were awarded for novels published in
>>1954. The winner was Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451", and the four
>>runners-up were Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End", Hal Clement's
>>"Mission of Gravity", Isaac Asimov's "The Caves of Steel" and Theodore
>>Sturgeon's "More Than Human". That surely has to be the greatest-ever
>>year for SF novels.
>
>
>Someone was watching Pointless, last night, weren't they? :-)
>
>I was surprised that Bradbury and Heinlein were pointless answers!
opposed to watching films or TV series - has become.
In the 60 seconds I came up with Herbert, Roger Zelazny and Ursula Le
Guin as my three answers, but we weren't told whether the last two were
pointless.
>
>But yes, that was a very good year.
not read "More Than Human", apart from a short extract in an anthology,
but I know it's very highly regarded.
Paul Dormer
Feb 5, 2022, 7:00:15 AM2/5/22
to
In article <aPaN0DEntZ$hFw1G@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,
Hugo's are awarded for things published in the year before the Worldcon
that awards them. (*) So, the 2004 convention in Boston awarded for
works from 2003. The Retro Hugos were actually awarded for works from
1953. (As can be checked in the ISFDb.)
Definitely a great year. It was the year I was born.
(*) There is a proviso in the constitution that for works first published
outside the US, then there is an extra year of eligibility. So a work
first published in the UK in 2002 could still be eligible for the 2004
Hugo.
john_...@jhall.co.uk (John Hall) wrote:
> I was just browsing the list of Hugo-award-winning novels as given on
> Wikipedia. In 2004 "retro-Hugos" were awarded for novels published in
> 1954.
(Speaking as a former Hugo administrator.)
> I was just browsing the list of Hugo-award-winning novels as given on
> Wikipedia. In 2004 "retro-Hugos" were awarded for novels published in
> 1954.
Hugo's are awarded for things published in the year before the Worldcon
that awards them. (*) So, the 2004 convention in Boston awarded for
works from 2003. The Retro Hugos were actually awarded for works from
1953. (As can be checked in the ISFDb.)
Definitely a great year. It was the year I was born.
(*) There is a proviso in the constitution that for works first published
outside the US, then there is an extra year of eligibility. So a work
first published in the UK in 2002 could still be eligible for the 2004
Hugo.
Tim Illingworth
Feb 5, 2022, 9:01:34 AM2/5/22
to
On 2/5/2022 6:59 AM, Paul Dormer wrote:
> (*) There is a proviso in the constitution that for works first published
> outside the US, then there is an extra year of eligibility. So a work
> first published in the UK in 2002 could still be eligible for the 2004
> Hugo.
The extra year is for first US publication, not the next year. So Geoff
> (*) There is a proviso in the constitution that for works first published
> outside the US, then there is an extra year of eligibility. So a work
> first published in the UK in 2002 could still be eligible for the 2004
> Hugo.
Ryman's "Air" still has a year of eligibility left, as it's never had a
US publication.
Tim
Paul Dormer
Feb 5, 2022, 11:28:06 AM2/5/22
to
In article <stlvvt$cfn$1...@dont-email.me>, t...@smofs.org (Tim Illingworth)
wrote:
>
> The extra year is for first US publication, not the next year. So
> Geoff Ryman's "Air" still has a year of eligibility left, as it's
> never had a US publication.
It hasn't? Wow!
It's been a while since I read that part of the constitution.
Wasn't there some discussion as to whether The Hobbit should have been
eligible for the 1939 Retro, even though it was first published in 1937?
wrote:
>
> The extra year is for first US publication, not the next year. So
> Geoff Ryman's "Air" still has a year of eligibility left, as it's
> never had a US publication.
It's been a while since I read that part of the constitution.
Wasn't there some discussion as to whether The Hobbit should have been
eligible for the 1939 Retro, even though it was first published in 1937?
John Hall
Feb 5, 2022, 1:43:56 PM2/5/22
to
In message <memo.20220205...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk>, Paul
Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> writes
<snip>
Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> writes
<snip>
>Hugo's are awarded for things published in the year before the Worldcon
>that awards them. (*) So, the 2004 convention in Boston awarded for
>works from 2003. The Retro Hugos were actually awarded for works from
>1953. (As can be checked in the ISFDb.)
Thanks for explaining that.
>that awards them. (*) So, the 2004 convention in Boston awarded for
>works from 2003. The Retro Hugos were actually awarded for works from
>1953. (As can be checked in the ISFDb.)
0 new messages