Finalists: 2015 Hugo Award

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I nominated this year. I think the only two items I nominated that have made the shortlist are Guardians of the Galaxy and The Lego Movie.

Flash made the shortlist...
...with the "worst" episode of the series.

They should've nominated one of the recent ones, FALLOUT or OUT OF TIME, or at least the mid-season finale.

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I agree, didn't mean to imply otherwise.....the ones I 'recognize' are the 'good guys' is all I'm saying.....and it's not like I'm completely clueless in the SF&F field.

And while Kevin J. Anderson is a good writer, he's also a hack IMO.

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

I think he's a fine writer. Not as good as Timothy Zahn, Norton or Zelazny but definitely one of the better writers out there.

As for Hugos - the whole point of the 'sad puppies' movement was to demonstrate that the Hugos were incredibly easy to sway. Well, that was easy to do. This year, there's another organized group of people who are used to voting for their personal preferences instead of literary merit. It's a battle of 2 entrenched interests instead of just being an echo chamber like the past few years. Nobody is really interested in voting for good writing regardless of content anymore.

[astrangerhere]

+1 for Ann Leckie. I liked Sword even more than I liked Justice.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by Rizla

If you haven't already, try Robert Charles Wilson. And Iain M Banks.

Actually, I've read Ian Banks - especially his 'literary' novels - and very much enjoyed the 2 or 3 I've read.

I haven't read any of his SF, though.

[RHWright]

This is why I've always taken the Hugos, and awards in general for that matter, with a grain of salt. Like reviews, I've learned my tastes are more in sync with some over others.

For SF/F, I tend to watch the Nebula nominee lists more than the Hugos. Often there is some overlap, but the Nebulas work better for what interests me.

Your mileage may vary.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by RHWright

This is why I've always taken the Hugos, and awards in general for that matter, with a grain of salt. Like reviews, I've learned my tastes are more in sync with some over others.

For SF/F, I tend to watch the Nebula nominee lists more than the Hugos. Often there is some overlap, but the Nebulas work better for what interests me.

Your mileage may vary.

Yep, agreed, but the Nebula's are increasingly politicized as well, it's just that it's more of an 'Inside Job.'

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

I think he's a fine writer. Not as good as Timothy Zahn, Norton or Zelazny but definitely one of the better writers out there.

As for Hugos - the whole point of the 'sad puppies' movement was to demonstrate that the Hugos were incredibly easy to sway. Well, that was easy to do. This year, there's another organized group of people who are used to voting for their personal preferences instead of literary merit. It's a battle of 2 entrenched interests instead of just being an echo chamber like the past few years. Nobody is really interested in voting for good writing regardless of content anymore.

A hack being someone who writes almost or completely exclusively for the money.

as Stephen King (who is not a hack) says:

"Writing isn’t about making money, getting famous, getting dates, getting laid, or making friends. In the end, it’s about enriching the lives of those who will read your work, and enriching your own life, as well. It’s about getting up, getting well, and getting over. Getting happy, okay? Getting happy. Some of this book—perhaps too much—has been about how I learned to do it. Much of it has been about how you can do it better. The rest of it—and perhaps the best of it—is a permission slip: you can, you should, and if you’re brave enough to start, you will. Writing is magic, as much the water of life as any other creative art. The water is free. So drink. Drink and be filled up."
- Stephen King from On Writing

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by mgbino

Whaaaaaaaaat? I love every Iain Banks book (other than the first Culture one, which was terrible). Use of Weapons is one of my favorite sf books.

[Consider Phlebos is so bad, it doesn't deserve to be in print or in any format. Because of that, I cannot read any more of his books in a series that starts off awful. So that is why I say he's not print worthy or any format worthy. The thing is, with a first book so bad, I am very much surprised he was allowed to publish any more or even the first one.

I suggest Peter F. Hamilton , Alastair Reynolds, and Karl Schroeder to anyone looking to read some good sci-if.

I agree with this shortlist. Good authors with long books that read well.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Read all five did you?
I'd discourage anyone from prejudging The Goblin Emperor.

OK, since the stupid puppies did not push for The Goblin Emperor, then it too can stand for the award of best novel. But if any of the others win, then it's a sham.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

[Consider Phlebos is so bad, it doesn't deserve to be in print or in any format. Because of that, I cannot read any more of his books in a series that starts off awful. So that is why I say he's not print worthy or any format worthy. The thing is, with a first book so bad, I am very much surprised he was allowed to publish any more or even the first one.

Wow! Just Wow! You are really full of yourself this morning.

While I still haven't been able to get past the first 100 pages of Phlebos, I *have* listened to recommendations and read both Player of Games and Use of Weapons. Both were very good. It's your loss.

[Ginwen]

I don't really like how this all came to pass, but I'm going to read the books and then decide (since I'm going this year, I am going to vote). If I don't think they're worthy of winning, I'll put them below no award, but I'm not going to do that solely based on how they got nominated.

Worthlessness of the awards: As far as identifying the "best" book in a genre, of course they are worthless as there is really no such thing. But I generally read the winners (and now that I vote, I read the nominees as well). And every so often in doing that, I find an author or series I want to read more of. And I really appreciate them for that, because I read a lot, and am always looking for new things to read. Last year, the sad puppies bunch got that Warbound book in there. While it wasn't my pick for the award (that was Ancillary Justice) I enjoyed it (much more than the Stross book which I hated) and read more books by him (even though politically he is pretty much opposite me I can still enjoy the books). He didn't actually get any additional money from me, since I already had the books due to Baen Bundles.

[DiapDealer]

Also keep in mind that being nominated by Sad Puppies does not automatically imply affiliation with them. I know of at least one person who requested their nomination (fan writer) be withdrawn when they discovered that their nomination was part of the S.P. slate. So nomination does not have to equal association.

I'm not going to read something that someone whose tastes run very similar to mine assures me is complete dreck, but just being on the S.P. slate is not going to automatically keep me from checking it out.

Vox Day, however??? He's not getting the time of day from me. Nor are any of the nominated people who publicly support him.

[grumbles]

I need to weigh in here. I've read all (or almost all) of Iain M. Banks' (and Iain Banks) books. While he was somewhat uneven, they range from OK (Song of Stone) to excellent (The Crow Road). His SF ranged from very good to excellent. I, and many others, think that "Use of Weapons" is a great book. The only thing bad about his novels is that there won't be any more. Not everything is suitable to all everyone but sometimes you just have to try harder.

[JSWolf]

For a local book club, we did read Consider Phlebos and most disliked it.

[Rev. Bob]

Here's the "fun" part: the SP4 plans have already commenced. By all available evidence, this isn't a stunt to prove something and then stop - it's an ongoing campaign. It wasn't enough last year to show that a determined group could put something on the ballot. It's not enough this year to utterly control the ballot. What will be enough? Most likely, nothing.

I think it's time for the Hugos to change their nominating process in such a way that no slate - Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies, the supposed Sekrit Libruls, or anyone else - will be able to exert this kind of influence. Off the cuff, two suggestions come to mind, either independently or in tandem:

1. Nobody gets to nominate more than two works in any category. (The shortlist is typically five.)
   
2. Two nomination rounds. The first is wide open, anyone eligible to nominate can toss in any number of eligible works. Those nominations are then reduced to a manageable field that's still much larger than the planned shortlist - say, 25 or 50 that will get pared down to five. Maybe the reduction is just "top X votes to nominate," or maybe there's some anti-slate rule added in, but the second round of nominations pulls exclusively from that pool. If combined with #1 above, this is where "vote for two" comes in - and heck, call 'em "primary choice and alternate" if you wish.

It's not a perfect solution, and I'm not sure what sort of fair anti-slate criteria could be devised, but it's something.