Thread: Hugo 2014 Discussion Thread
View Single Post
Old 07-06-2014, 03:36 AM   #20
Rev. Bob
Wizard
Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Rev. Bob's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,760
Karma: 9918418
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Here on the perimeter, there are no stars
Device: Kobo H2O, iPad mini 3, Kindle Touch
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrNefario View Post
In a way it's not dissimilar to the fan campaign that got WoT nominated. And that's why both of them are going below No Award on my ballot.
As a technical point, if your goal is to see neither work get any points from your ballot, you should completely omit them rather than rank them below No Award. I know it's counterintuitive, but that's how the instant-runoff point allocation system works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrNefario View Post
The simple, quick form, to me, is that there's one book here that obviously deserves to win. If the Hugo doesn't go to Ancillary Justice, then what's the point of it existing?
The Hugo was never supposed to be a "best of" award; that's what the Nebula is for, which is why it's decided by the SFWA membership. The Hugo's a "most popular" award, as nominated by WorldCon members.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrNefario
I kind of have my suspicions that Mira Grant's repeated nominations might be due to similar campaigning, but maybe that's just my personal prejudices.
I disagree, for two reasons. First, I'm a fan and haven't caught a whiff of such a campaign; thus, if it exists, it's ineffective. Second, if her nominations resulted from an organized campaign, it stands to reason that her constituents would nominate one strong work in a category, rather than splitting their efforts between two or even three works...and yet, the latter is what we see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrNefario
Gaming the ballot kind of breaks the award. The award is not about winning the field for your gang, it's about promoting the field outside itself. A good winner is a win for everyone, and a bad winner is a loss for everyone.
I thoroughly agree with this. I mean, if I were Correia and Warbound won under these circumstances, I'd always wonder whether it was good enough to have won on its own merits. The award would haunt me, not make me happy. (But then, I'm not him.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrNefario
I've read Stross and Grant before, and don't get on with them. I'm told that the Grant isn't even as good as her previous nominees, so I think I can rule it out.
I've read the Newsflesh works and Parasite within recent memory, and I think the latter is a more award-worthy book. It's not necessarily a more readable book, but the subject matter and the manner of its approach shows a better mastery of the craft, if that makes sense. It's like comparing Stephen King's It and Christine; the latter tells a faster-paced, more engaging story, but the construction and detail of the former keep me coming back for endless rereads. It is just a better-crafted book.
Rev. Bob is offline   Reply With Quote