Is SF dying?

[catsittingstill]

"The Martian" is unlikely to win the Hugo just because of the unusual way it was published. To be eligible for the next Hugo Awards, a book must have been first published in 2014. The Martian was self-published a year or two earlier, then brought out by a major publisher in 2014. Thus it was (probably) eligible the year it came out, but didn't have enough readers then to have a good chance to make it on the ballot.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Ah, yes, I could have guessed. I think the YA genre as a whole has been pushed much harder since Harry Potter. It's not just because of Harry Potter and the direction it went, but there's also a tendency to write more sex in YA today than there ever used to be. In the past I'd read YA to get away from the violence and the sex themes, but in the last five to ten years, that certainly hasn't worked. Not only is there more of all of that stuff, it has the angst that I hate. Twilight pushed a lot of darker themes as well and much of it has become the norm for YA.

I guess I'll start reading middle grade... (I actually like middle grade and read it on occasions and it has nothing to do with themes--but it is lighter and more fun than many other genres and age-groups!)

What YA contains sex? I thought Twilight was clever in that its very plot-core disallowed sex, though the bang inevitably came, but that was much later in the series. Harry Potter contained lots of adolescent snogging, but it was innocent.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I return to the point that the Hugo ignored The Hunger Games. This was clearly a very readable book. The sales prove it. The biggest SF award totally missed the biggest selling SF book of the decade. That says something. And Hugo should be embarrassed and taking a good look at itself.

Originally Posted by Rizla

And what about The Martian and Ready Player One, both great books. Have they been recognized by the Hugo? If not, bin the Hugo as irrelevant.

But these two works and others I have mentioned do show that great works of SF do still appear and that the genre is far from dying. But for conventional SF as headed by the Hugo and other traditional deciders of what is good, the future is not so good.

You appear to believe that the Hugo is administered like the Oscars, in that there is a static, shadowy group that decides the winners by fiat in a smoke-filled room. This is not the case. Anyone who wants to vote on the Hugos can do so, merely by paying for a supporting membership to Worldcon. I'm sure there are people who've been doing just that for years, just as any convention has its regulars, but it's open to everybody.

That's precisely why I find the whole idea of some conspiracy that awards the Hugo to "the right people" so bizarre. The voters are average fans. I don't see how much more open the process could get.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

You appear to believe that the Hugo is administered like the Oscars, in that there is a static, shadowy group that decides the winners by fiat in a smoke-filled room. This is not the case. Anyone who wants to vote on the Hugos can do so, merely by paying for a supporting membership to Worldcon. I'm sure there are people who've been doing just that for years, just as any convention has its regulars, but it's open to everybody.

That's precisely why I find the whole idea of some conspiracy that awards the Hugo to "the right people" so bizarre. The voters are average fans. I don't see how much more open the process could get.

Sure, I acknowledge that it's voter-based. But at no point did I suggest there was some kind of conspiracy. What I have said is that the Hugo's lack of recognition of the greatest works of SF in the last decade makes it irrelevant as a commentator on what is good in SF.

Perhaps the people that vote for the Hugo are an increasingly marginal group (i.e. nerds) who have little connection to what the majority of people enjoy. I suspect this is the SF that is dying, and not the true and energetic SF (& F) that has been emerging over the last ten years or so, and that the Hugo had failed to recognize.

I think if you want to defend the Hugo, you have to accept its faults, and progress from there. Otherwise it cannot repair its obvious mistakes.

[FTL]

There seem to be a lot of misconceptions in this thread about how the Hugo Awards work. Essentially, they are a popularity contest, open to any science fiction fan who wants to participate in the process that year by nominating or voting.

Unlike almost all other awards, the Hugos have no juries, no nominating committees, no backroom meetings to decide what gets on the ballot and what wins the awards. The people who nominate and vote on the Hugos are you, me, anyone who's interested enough to become at least a supporting member of the World Science Fiction Convention (Worldcon) for the appropriate year. That's it.

Here's the summary at the official site:
http://www.thehugoawards.org/about/
And more details:
http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-faq/

Note that the Hugo Administrators (who are appointed by the current Worldcon and thus change from year to year) have no control at all over what gets nominated or voted on. Their only function is to make sure that the nominating process and the final voting are run in accordance with the Hugo rules. Here's the short version, and the detailed rules may be seen at the link on that page:
http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-categories/

The Hugo administrators also do not make the rules for the awards. Changes and additions are proposed and voted on at the Worldcon each year, and again this process is open to all members of the convention, at scheduled open meetings during the course of the event.

The only decision the administrators can make on nominees is on eligibility. For example, something nominated in the wrong year will not be accepted (the awards are for works first published in the calendar year prior to the convention at which the awards will be presented). On the other hand, something nominated in the wrong category will simply be moved to the correct category - the administrators do their best to ensure that anything nominated will be counted. The top five nominations in each category then appear on the final ballot, to be voted on by the entire membership of the convention - you do not need to attend the convention to vote.

Note also that the Hugo administrators and the entire World Science Fiction Convention committee and staff are, without exception, unpaid volunteers. And as has always been the case since the first Worldcon in 1939, the guests and program participants (all the way up to the Guests of Honor) are also unpaid. There are no appearance fees, meeting fees, autograph fees, or any other payment to participants. The only exception to this is that the GoHs are generally compensated for travel expenses and receive a free hotel room and a food & drink per diem.

So what's behind the claim that the Hugos are controlled by some mysterious liberal gang, as the Sad Puppy clique would have us believe? Nothing at all, unless this mythical organization pays off hundreds or thousands of Hugo nominators and voters each year. The Sad Puppy clique itself appears to be trying to game the awards by suggesting that sympathizers should sign up for the convention and nominate and vote as a bloc, regardless of whether they have actually read or seen the works on the approved list, behavior counter to everything the Hugos have stood for for almost sixty years.

For anyone who's read this far and is still interested, I have no connection with the Hugo Administrators nor with the current or previous Worldcons (except that some of the individuals involved in running these functions are friends). I've been attending Worldcons since 1967 and have nominated and voted in the Hugos many times. It's very discouraging to see a small group trying to politicize these awards.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I return to the point that the Hugo ignored The Hunger Games. This was clearly a very readable book. The sales prove it. The biggest SF award totally missed the biggest selling SF book of the decade. That says something. And Hugo should be embarrassed and taking a good look at itself.

Originally Posted by Rizla

And what about The Martian and Ready Player One, both great books. Have they been recognized by the Hugo? If not, bin the Hugo as irrelevant.

But these two works and others I have mentioned do show that great works of SF do still appear and that the genre is far from dying. But for conventional SF as headed by the Hugo and other traditional deciders of what is good, the future is not so good.

Again -- you have yet to provide compelling evidence that anyone who doesn't appreciate/recognize your master list of awesomeness is inherently flawed.

if the Hugos were nothing but a popularity test based on sales, then they really would be irrelevant -- as in, redundant and duplicative and unnecessary.

Apparently, people have different tastes than you. That doesn't come as a fundamental shock to me.



I am open to the theoretical possibility that the Hugos are indeed flawed, and the phenomena you name are a symptom. But I know darn well they aren't the cause.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by catsittingstill

If you are looking for humor, allow me to recommend Terry Pratchett's Discworld books.

Ben Aaronovitch's books also have funny parts, though the funny is more the "voice" of the POV character than the situations. The first one is "Rivers Of London" in England and "Midnight Riot" in the US.

"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.

I found Pratchett to be okay--I think I'd have loved them when I was younger. The humor is good, it's the several POV that gets me. I love to be immersed with a character or two and I read the Witch ones (wyrd sisters? or wyrd witches?) and I was so frustrated when the POV kept moving.

I've also read Midnight Riot. I'm not sure I'd classify those as humor although the main is quite perplexed at the goings on/supernatural.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Sure, I acknowledge that it's voter-based. But at no point did I suggest there was some kind of conspiracy. You put those words into my mouth. Please stop. What I have said is that the Hugo's lack of recognition of the greatest works of SF (in my opinion) in the last decade makes it irrelevant as a commentator on what I like in SF.

Perhaps the people that vote for the Hugo are an increasingly marginal group (i.e. nerds) who have little connection to what I enjoy. I suspect this is the SF that is dying, and not the true and energetic SF (& F) that has been emerging over the last ten years or so, and that the Hugo had failed to recognize.

I think if you want to defend the Hugo, you have to accept its faults, and progress from there. Otherwise it cannot repair its obvious mistakes.

Corrected.

[Rizla]

Deleted.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Rizla

What YA contains sex? I thought Twilight was clever in that its very plot-core disallowed sex, though the bang inevitably came, but that was much later in the series. Harry Potter contained lots of adolescent snogging, but it was innocent.

I should have stated that there is a FOCUS on sex. I honestly don't read much YA anymore unless I can find it with a plot that does not involve love triangles (whether those involved choose or not, whether they be vamps or weres or just regular guys/gals) high school angst (some cliques I can deal with but an entire book on whose nail polish rules the world is not for me. A focus on who dates or has sex with whom is also not for me) and/or an entire book where the plot is buried under popularity contests and "Oh, I didn't know I was special" themes is not for me.

Just like any of the fiction I read, I require a plot--mystery or quest or survival or SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHO IS IN WHOSE PANTS. I like the characters to have concerns and problems other than whether they will be chosen/noticed by "hero 1." And sadly, MUCH of the YA I find today involves Twilight type themes were there is a triangle and sparkles and angst. In other fantasy ones, there are the "popular girls" the "mean girls" and that kind of thing.

I guess I like my YA to have nothing to do with high school.

All that said, I do like romantic subplots.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by Rizla

And what about The Martian and Ready Player One, both great books. Have they been recognized by the Hugo? If not, bin the Hugo as irrelevant.

The popular version of The Martian ought to be eligible this year, and I believe will pick up a lot of nominations. I'm not sure it actually is eligible, though, because of the original self-published edition. I think some sort of rule change might be required to catch these kinds of situations (assuming this is correct and it isn't eligible).

The Hugo is for new(ish) books, and will always miss books that take time to become popular.

I don't personally feel that Ready Player One was good enough. Again it's one of these books, like Hunger Games, that are pretty gripping and fun to read but aren't really doing anything special. That's my feeling. I love to read these kinds of books, but it's rather like eating fast food instead of a quality meal.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I should have stated that there is a FOCUS on sex. I honestly don't read much YA anymore unless I can find it with a plot that does not involve love triangles (whether those involved choose or not, whether they be vamps or weres or just regular guys/gals) high school angst (some cliques I can deal with but an entire book on whose nail polish rules the world is not for me. A focus on who dates or has sex with whom is also not for me) and/or an entire book where the plot is buried under popularity contests and "Oh, I didn't know I was special" themes is not for me.

Just like any of the fiction I read, I require a plot--mystery or quest or survival or SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHO IS IN WHOSE PANTS. I like the characters to have concerns and problems other than whether they will be chosen/noticed by "hero 1." And sadly, MUCH of the YA I find today involves Twilight type themes were there is a triangle and sparkles and angst. In other fantasy ones, there are the "popular girls" the "mean girls" and that kind of thing.

I guess I like my YA to have nothing to do with high school.

All that said, I do like romantic subplots.

You didn't actually mention one work that includes sex, which was my question. But no matter. I get your gist, and I agree. I don't mind love as a sub-plot, but I'm not into romance-centered work, especially teenage romance, lol.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

The popular version of The Martian ought to be eligible this year, and I believe will pick up a lot of nominations. I'm not sure it actually is eligible, though, because of the original self-published edition. I think some sort of rule change might be required to catch these kinds of situations (assuming this is correct and it isn't eligible).

The Hugo is for new(ish) books, and will always miss books that take time to become popular.

I don't personally feel that Ready Player One was good enough. Again it's one of these books, like Hunger Games, that are pretty gripping and fun to read but aren't really doing anything special. That's my feeling. I love to read these kinds of books, but it's rather like eating fast food instead of a quality meal.

Okay, but if you look at the number and score of reviews for those books on Amazon, I fear you'll find yourself in the minority. Nothing wrong with that. But if the Hugo doesn't reflect the majority of SF readers, then who does it represent? And what does it represent? Not the majority of SF readers, I would argue.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I return to the point that the Hugo ignored The Hunger Games. This was clearly a very readable book. The sales prove it. The biggest SF award totally missed the biggest selling SF book of the decade. That says something. And Hugo should be embarrassed and taking a good look at itself.

And that does not mean that people voting the Hugo thought it was a good book. It says that the price is something more than just looking at sales figures. It says that the Hugo awars might be worth caring about.

It was a readable book that had the best selling qualities but it was definitely not among the top sf books that year.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Robert Asprin is a bit like Anthony Piers in that the first several of a series can be a lot of fun, but he just keeps riding the series until people stop buying, long after he's run out of fresh ideas for the series. Loved the first four or five of the Myth Adventures and the Phule series. Funny, original and clever. Those are definitely on my list of books that I eagerly await to buy as ebooks, even though I have them in paper. I vaguely recall reading that, like Roger Zelazny, his ex got the rights to his works.

I kind of agree. But I seem to remember that it was every second Myth book that was good and funny. I read 9 of them before giving up.