Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev. Bob
I certainly don't. If all you want is to recognize best-sellers, you don't need (or want) voting. All you need are the sales numbers. Feel free to start your own award for that.
However, boatloads of sales are by no means a reliable measure of quality. All three Fifty Shades of Grey books sold like hotcakes, despite being almost universally panned for bad characters, inaccurate depictions, and generally being badly written. Similarly, The Martian was by all accounts a work of high quality, but it was originally self-published and only got high sales once a traditional publisher picked it up. By your own logic, the Hugos were correct to ignore it; it wasn't a best-seller until 2014, and those awards haven't been given out yet.
Consider the difference between "Greatest Hits" and "Best of" music collections - the former is what the radio played most and/or what sold the most copies, and the latter is what someone thinks is the group's best work. The Nebula is generally the "Best of" award (juried by SFWA members), and the Hugo sits somewhere in between. It's voted on by average fans, so popularity plays an obvious role, but there's also the question every voter has to ask: is this work award-worthy, or simply enjoyable? Nothing says a work can't be both, but returning to Fifty Shades, I know of nobody who would call it award-worthy despite its sales. It's just too poorly written.
|
So you're saying those works are no good because they are popular?