Is SF dying?

[mbovenka]

Originally Posted by catsittingstill

"A Civil Campaign" and "Captain Vorkosigan's Alliance" by Lois McMaster Bujold have some very funny parts, though if you don't like Bujold's work enough to read the whole series, you're not going to enjoy them as much, I think.

That's Captain Vorpatril's Alliance, of course

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Your opinion is an opinion of one. The sales figures for The Hunger Games are not.

It is not an opinion of one, it is an opinion of many -- for instance, the Hugo voters.
And people here who agree that it was not worthy.

The sales figures are an opinion of NONE, on the other hand -- due to the fundamental illogic of using sales as the metric.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Your opinion is an opinion of one. The sales figures for The Hunger Games are not.

The sales figure is not at all an opinion about how good a book is. It is an indication about how much of the best seller property the book has but that is something totally different from how good a book is.

So my opinion of one is actually more opinion than the bestseller list.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Rizla

So you're saying those works are no good because they are popular?

Some kind of fallacy.

The claim was that just because a book is popular does not imply that it is good.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I'm surprised you like Piers Anthony and don't like The Hunger Games 1 (maybe you didn't mention THG). I read some of the Tarot series, and I don't see much to differentiate it and The Hunger Games. They are both action-packed and fast-moving. They are both fairly superficial works with little character development. But they are both fun. Actually, I'd say the Hunger Games was better written, but I liked them both. But certainly, IMO Ready Player One was a better book.

Asprin wrote the Myth books. Some of the Piers Anthony books are OK and readable. I did not say I did not like The Hunger Game. It was an OK read. But it was not a very good sf book. And Asprin and Piers Anthony do not write very good sf books either.

You do not seem to be able to grasp that just because you think a book is not very good you cannot like reading it. Asprin, Anthony and similar authors are often mind candy. But mind candy is fun to read sometimes but that does not mean that you vote for mind candy for the Hugos.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by tompe

[M]ind candy is fun to read sometimes but that does not mean that you vote for mind candy for the Hugos.

Exactly! Michael Bay's movies may rake in the cash at the box office, but that doesn't make them Great Films.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by tompe

You do not seem to be able to grasp that just because you think a book is not very good you cannot like reading it. Asprin, Anthony and similar authors are often mind candy. But mind candy is fun to read sometimes but that does not mean that you vote for mind candy for the Hugos.

So what does the Hugo Award stand for? When a book wins it, what is that supposed to say about that book? I did look up the Hugo mission statement, but the link led nowhere.

[Rizla]

I'm hearing a lot about what people don't like, or rather, don't consider "good" (and presumably doesn't deserve to win the Hugo). In any case, I invite posters to name books that they do consider "good" (and deserve the Hugo?) and why they enjoyed reading them (presuming that they did enjoy it.)

[dickloraine]

Have you read some of the winners? I'm not a voter and I read it way before the hugo and nebula, but last years book for example is very good. Not only has it an interesting main character, an interesting world but also the playing with our gender concepts was very interesting (and in no way academic or preachy or even overly feminist).
I don't get what you have with your hunger games. With the exception of eschwartz nearly everybody here did like it. But that does not mean everyone also thinks it deserves a price. And that not everytime the books win the price that I or you think deserve the win does not automatically hint to a flaw with the price but that people have different tastes.
Last, if you ask such a question, here my question: which off the winners do you think do not deserve it and why? Not in the way so you think there was a better book that year, but which is by itself unworthy in your oppinion.

[BearMountainBooks]

Not that I care a whit about this argument, but sales figures alone do not denote the number of people who read a book--or the number who thought it was good/excellent/deserving of an award. Sales can be an indicator, but I can testify as a publisher that we authors need a certain number of sales from habitual BUYERS who actually rarely read because hitting that group is very important to rankings and continued visibility.

A popular book being talked about can be a self-perpetuating success--people buy products for many reasons and one of those reasons is to be in the "in" crowd or because the product is familiar to them--they have heard of it, it must be good/quality.

As reported by Kobo in the "How far do people read" thread--note that Gone Girl sold millions but by one metric, was only finished by 40 percent of buyers.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=255556

So while sales is one metric, it is not necessarily a good metric for "this book is good/great" which is why there are awards like the Hugo, etc.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

Have you read some of the winners? I'm not a voter and I read it way before the hugo and nebula, but last years book for example is very good. Not only has it an interesting main character, an interesting world but also the playing with our gender concepts was very interesting (and in no way academic or preachy or even overly feminist).

Yes, Ancillary Justice was very good.

Among Others by JoWalton was a genuinely good book. The Windup Girl was very good mainly because it was good sf very well written. The City & The City that share the price with The Windup Girl also had a very interesting sf idea and as usual with China Mieville it was very well written. Actually two brillliant books won that year when The Hunger Game was current. I remember having a hard time choosing between them since they were so good and much better than the other books on the short list.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

Every award has rules for how it's given. This one's restricted to the Worldcon membership, but one need not attend to vote - just pay your dues and submit your ballot.

I'm just pointing out (for the possible benefit of bystanders) that folks are getting all worked up over an award handed out by a handful of self-selected *fans* willing to pay for the privilege of voting. Many of whom, as you point out, don't even attend the convention and aren't vetted in any way. (After all, there is no politics or corporate money at stake, right?)

I have no objection to the award or how it is dished out.
I just don't think it carries any weight other than "3600 people cared enough to pay for the privilege of being a Hugo voter and a plurality of them chose this".

I do think that nominating an entire series for the regular annual award instead of a special award like FOUNDATION got wasn't consistent with the ostensible goal of the award but, like I said way above, I gave up on the Hugos ages ago, anyway.

Arguing over which book was or wasn't slighted isn't going to give it any more or less significance.

Once upon a time, awards helped draw attention to popular books.
Kinda redundant for these times when you can go online and get an up-to-the minute read on any title's popularity.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by Rizla

So what does the Hugo Award stand for? When a book wins it, what is that supposed to say about that book? I did look up the Hugo mission statement, but the link led nowhere.

In my case, the things I want from an SF novel are: thought-provoking ideas, a good story and decent prose. One of the three would probably do, but all three would be ideal. That's the kind of book I nominate and vote for if possible.

The Hugo, to my mind, represents my preferred genre to the rest of the world. I want it to go to something I can be proud of.

Ultimately it will be self-policing. If the Hugo goes to too many weak books, it will lose its cachet. It won't be shown on the covers of books. People won't be aware of the winners. Nobody will much care about winning it.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I'm just pointing out (for the possible benefit of bystanders) that folks are getting all worked up over an award handed out by a handful of self-selected *fans* willing to pay for the privilege of voting. Many of whom, as you point out, don't even attend the convention and aren't vetted in any way. (After all, there is no politics or corporate money at stake, right?)

You pay $30-$40 and nowadays you get most of the books in the Hugo package. I would say that people that vote are the ones interested in reading the books and voting. And it is still an influential award.

Once upon a time, awards helped draw attention to popular books.
Kinda redundant for these times when you can go online and get an up-to-the minute read on any title's popularity.

Yes, but what Hugo and Nebula do is getting attention for books that are very good and not popular in the way that you can go online and just notice. At least if you are an ordinary reader that just check on Amazon or so.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I do think that nominating an entire series for the regular annual award instead of a special award like FOUNDATION got wasn't consistent with the ostensible goal of the award

You're not alone in that; to say that the Wheel of Time nomination was controversial is something of an understatement, and I share your opinion on that aspect. My understanding was that the rules at the time permitted it (a "serialized work" loophole), but they might be revised to fix that. I don't know if they have been or not; does anyone else in the thread have that knowledge?