Is SF dying?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

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.

Exactly. And the people voting for the Hugo (like me) still seem to prefer to vote for books they thought was the best book and not a book that was just fun to read. And very many of the people voting actually read all the nominated books in a category before voting.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Rizla

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.

Yes, most people seem to lack the "skill" to distinguish between very good books and books that are very readable. So when you get a bestseller you will see the opinion of people that do not read so many book dominate. So of corse it is not strange that for bestseller books you will see mostly positive reviews.

What you need to do is to look at the reviews in places were people that read a lot of sf books review. And if you check there you will see that the book that won the year The Hunger was possible to nominate or vote for did get much better reviews than The Hunger Game.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Rizla

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.

It seems to represent the mystical *real* SF readers, which apparently discriminates against all those peope I know, where the one (three) book they have ever read is The Hunger Games. I am not sure I blame them either...


(And there goes your popularity claims...)

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by Rizla

My point is that the best-selling works of SF of the last ten years (i.e. The Hunger Games, Ready Player One, The Martian) have not been recognized by the Hugo. Perhaps you don't think that matters.

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.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by Rizla

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.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It seems to represent the mystical *real* SF readers, which apparently discriminates against all those peope I know, where the one (three) book they have ever read is The Hunger Games. I am not sure I blame them either...

The Hugo represents the opinions of the people who were interested enough to (a) pay the Worldcon membership fee and then (b) nominate and/or vote. Where's the mystery?

The Hugo and Nebula, as far back as I can recall, have a sort of yin and yang relationship. Fans decide the Hugo, pros decide the Nebula. In both cases, there's a fee attached (Worldcon, SFWA), but only the Nebula has the additional condition that it only accepts professional members. Thus, there is inherently a higher element of popularity to the Hugo, simply because it is open to a wider voter pool.

[dickloraine]

And there were quite a few books that won both prices. Like last year "Ancillary Justice".

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

The Hugo represents the opinions of the people who were interested enough to (a) pay the Worldcon membership fee and then (b) nominate and/or vote. Where's the mystery?

I was trying to be gentle -- my 2x4 broke the last time I whacked him about the head with a clue.

[fjtorres]

The Hugo Awards are a popularity contest among 3600 voters.

http://www.thehugoawards.org/2014/08...award-winners/

I'm pretty sure SF fandom, to say nothing of SF *readership*, is a wee bit bigger than convention goers.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by tompe

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.

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

[Rizla]

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?

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, most people seem to lack the "skill" to distinguish between very good books and books that are very readable.

That sounds awfully elitist.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The Hugo Awards are a popularity contest among 3600 voters.

http://www.thehugoawards.org/2014/08...award-winners/

I'm pretty sure SF fandom, to say nothing of SF *readership*, is a wee bit bigger than convention goers.

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.

If you want to create a more open award, feel free. I'd be interested to see what you come up with, especially if it manages to include more people and avoid bot-voting and ballot-stuffing. Perhaps the Goodreads Choice Awards are more your style, but they don't have the SF focus of the Hugos or Nebulas. Which, y'know, they're a general site, so I expect that.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by tompe

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.

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.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by Rizla

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

Certainly popular books can be good, and good books can be popular. However, as I illustrated, bad books can also be popular and good books can get overlooked.

This is not a difficult concept.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The Hugo Awards are a popularity contest among 3600 voters.

http://www.thehugoawards.org/2014/08...award-winners/

I'm pretty sure SF fandom, to say nothing of SF *readership*, is a wee bit bigger than convention goers.

Nowadays a lot of people vote without going to the con. An effect of the Hugo voter package.

And I think people voting is representative for the group of sf readers that read a lot of books.