Your Poll vote for Hugo Award for Best Novel

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Peadar Ó Guilín

I'm half-way through "Graveyard Book" having read all of the others. I think it's a pretty good crop this year and the novellas are even better. I'll have to do a lot of head scratching before I cast my vote.

I have to read Anathem and Zoeś Tale before voting. Now I think The Graveyard Book is first followed by Little Brother. I would like to have Stross winning since he has been nominated so many times and then with better books than Saturn's Children. But his book is not the best one this year (Halting State was the best book last year...)

[Andybaby]

if anything saturns children is probably the worst book this year, I'm supprised it made this list.

Its about hentai robots who have sex with each other. it's the narration of a bad porno, not a scifi book

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Andybaby

if anything saturns children is probably the worst book this year, I'm supprised it made this list.

Its about hentai robots who have sex with each other. it's the narration of a bad porno, not a scifi book

I think you missed the point with the book. I agree that it is a weak Stross book but I liked it. It probably made the list because it was Stross and people nominated it because they had read other books by him.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Andybaby

if anything saturns children is probably the worst book this year, I'm supprised it made this list.

Its about hentai robots who have sex with each other. it's the narration of a bad porno, not a scifi book

....Buh? (goes to read the synopsis on Amazon)

Indeed, it would appear you've summed it up nicely. It sounds like Mirror's Edge meets Heinlein's Friday meets Piers Anthony. Racy cover too (that's what reminded me of Friday).

[tompe]

Originally Posted by queentess

Indeed, it would appear you've summed it up nicely. It sounds like Mirror's Edge meets Heinlein's Friday meets Piers Anthony. Racy cover too (that's what reminded me of Friday).

The US cover is intentional and you can argue that it fits the book perfectly.

Cory Doctorow was very positive about the book:

http://boingboing.net/2008/11/10/sat...ldren-str.html

When Charlie Stross -- the mad, gonzo antipope of science fiction -- told me he was working on a Heinlein-esque novel, I wasn't surprised. Old Robert A. Heinlein's classic fiction was some of the best action-driven sf ever written. Then Charlie told me he was working a late Heinlein-esque novel and my eyes bugged out.

Towards the end of his career, RAH's novels got very long, very meandering, explicitly sexual, and very weird. Turned out, he had a tumor that was blocking the flow of blood to his brain (really!) and after it was removed, his fiction (and, reportedly, his personality) really changed again.

And it was those giant, pervy books that Charlie was setting out to pay tribute to.

[---]

What's more, Stross manages to find the narrative juice hidden in this constrained version of space-travel: to tell a tightly plotted, Maltese-Falcon-esque thriller with reversals and surprises galore, spread out across decades of objective and subjective time.

It's quite a remarkable trick. It's one that neither Heinlein, nor Asimov (the other author to whom the book is dedicated -- as is only proper, given Asimov's prominence in society's conception of what a robot is) managed. This is a fabulous book, a witty and deep critique of the field's shibboleths, and well worth the price of admission.

[sirbruce]

Towards the end of his career, RAH's novels got very long, very meandering, explicitly sexual, and very weird. Turned out, he had a tumor that was blocking the flow of blood to his brain (really!) and after it was removed, his fiction (and, reportedly, his personality) really changed again.

I have to defend RAH a bit here. Cory has some of his facts wrong.

"very long, very meandering, explicitly sexual, and very weird" could cover any of Heinlein's latter works.

Heinlein wrote "I Will Fear No Evil" in 1970, and it is regarded as one of his greatest literary failures. At the time, he was sick with In 1970, he was stricken with a near-fatal case of peritonitis, and was unable to write for 2 years. The manuscript was not edited due to his illness, possibly contributing to it's unusualness.

"Time Enough for Love" is 1973, and would certainly fall under the above description.

Heinlein had a stroke in 1977 and the blockage (not a tumor) was operated on then. While he did recovery in mental acuity afterwards, that leaves only 1 and at most 2 novels that were written while he was suffering from any sort of brain impairment.

The next five novels:

The Number of the Beast (1980)
Friday (1982)
Job (1984)
The Cat Who Walks Through Walls (1985)
To Sail Beyond the Sunset (1987)

The Number of the Beast could certainly qualify under Cory's description, yet it was clearly written post-illness. Some of the others might qualify as well. All of the latter books continue to be "explicity sexual", but this is not something that is any different from before his stroke; the posthumous publication of "For Us, The Living" (written 1938) shows that Heinlein always had these literary inclinations but recognized they were not publishable prior to the 1960s.

[Andybaby]

Originally Posted by tompe

The US cover is intentional and you can argue that it fits the book perfectly.

That's for sure

I probably would have liked it just a little better if I read another one of stross's books before, also books by English Authors tend to have just a slight difference to make reading uncomfortable. (just like british tv shows are uncomfortable to watch for americans)

I did like the 2nd half of the book a bit more, but honestly it was just weird.

[Moejoe]

I've only read Little Brother. I read the first few pages of Anathem and didn't want to read anymore (then again I haven't managed to get through any of Neal Stephenson's books yet). I have the Graveyard Book, but haven't started it yet.

[Andybaby]

and this reminds me, I have read 2 of the 5, and I have a third on the reader. I should go get the other two. yeah that sounds good.

[garygibsonsf]

There's some very strong contenders this year, most of which are likely to stay in print for a long, long time; but ultimately I think it's a toss-up between Anathem and Little Brother. I had a hard time choosing before clicking on Little Brother. If not for Doctorow's book there, I wouldn't even have had to think about choosing Anathem, but Doctorow's book, to me, is more 'important' in the sense that it deals with some very current issues. It's the kind of book that can act as an ambassador for the field in that respect, apart from the obvious fact it's immensely, compulsively readable. Also, that it's freely downloadable vastly increases the pool of potential readers should it win.

[wayspooled]

Need more votes, heh.. it's a virtual tie.

[Dr. Drib]

Well, the results are in for the poll.

By a margin of only 1 vote, participating MobileRead members chose Anathem, by Neal Stephenson as the winner of the Hugo Award For Best Novel.

The other nominated titles were far behind in votes.

Only 32 members voted, so it's questionable if there is much interest in the Awards, which has prompted me to start a thread on Awards and whether they influence buying and reading decisions.

Thanks to everyone who participated and voiced opinions.

Don

[JSWolf]

The only thing the awards do for me is possibly bring these nominated/awarded books to my attention. But as for reading them because of being nominated or awarded, that makes no difference at all.

[Abelturd]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

You have opinions, too, right? At least, that's what my Drill Sergeant once told me! He said, "[My last name], do you know opinions are like a**h****? Everyone has one!"] How does one answer a question like that? -- "Yes, Drill Sergeant!"

I'm pretty sure that what your sarge had in mind was that he doesn't give a crap whether you have opinions or not. Soldiers are not expected to have opinions, they're expected to do as they're told.
But the simile is not entirely wasted, because IMHO opinions on books you haven't read are worth exactly the same as what comes out of those things we're all supposed to have according to your sergeant.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The only thing the awards do for me is possibly bring these nominated/awarded books to my attention. But as for reading them because of being nominated or awarded, that makes no difference at all.

I feel the exact same way. I had planned on reading The Graveyard Book anyway, and the award nomination just got me to read it sooner rather than later. I'd already read Anathem and Little Brother even before they were nominated. I doubt I'll read the other nominees.

The poll is closed, but my vote goes to The Graveyard Book.