Finalists: 2015 Hugo Award

[mgbino]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Sorry. Not buying it. NYT Best Seller list is quite the accomplishment, no doubt about it. But it does not make one a household name (nor even guarantee you can quit your day job). How many one-time best-selling fantasy authors are languishing in obscurity right now?

According to his comment about the Wertzone's "All Time Sff Sales List," Correia estimates that he's sold over 1 million copies of his books.

I have no idea if that's considered good or not (it seems to be working out for him). But if you're interested in hard numbers, that's right from the horse's mouth.

[pwalker8]

Like I said, I tend to take people at their word, unless they give me a reason not to. It's most certainly arguable that this particular internet flame war has garnered him more fame and sales. I rather doubt anyone is going to read one of his books based on this little flap. Those who consider anyone who likes guns and has conservative views with disdain are hardly going to buy his books. He's been around long enough that most people who know what the Hugo is and like that style of SF&F have already heard of him.

[Doonge]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Sorry. Not buying it. NYT Best Seller list is quite the accomplishment, no doubt about it. But it does not make one a household name (nor even guarantee you can quit your day job). How many one-time best-selling fantasy authors are languishing in obscurity right now?

That his recent activities have garnered him even more notoriety and more sales is hardly arguable. Whether or not that is the reason he's doing it is at the very least debatable. Which we're doing. Which takes us right back to; "either you believe his given reasons or you don't." And I don't. I think he's clamoring for attention.

Well okay, let's say you don't believe his given reasons and that I do. How much is it relevant?

He's gaming the system, he's a hacker, he's making a point; and maybe the end result will be that the Hugo awards will take measures to prevent this kind of abuse (if it's to be considered as abuse). Whether or not there were SWJ colluding in the Hugos, there are now guys like him (what's his group name? I've read Mormon, conservative, etc... but is there something maybe more derogatory?) colluding. End result will be that either the Hugos will improve and prevent any collusion, which is a good thing, either he will have made a good point (that someone else would have made anyway since the problem would then be endemic). Either way he deserves the fame, he's doing it openly like a good figther.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by ATDrake

* Including more than half of the 2011 Best Novel nominees, because much as I like and collect both Bujold and Willis' writing in multiple languages and enjoyed their series continuations, those were in no way among the better of their works and Blackout/All Clear especially was an overlong meandering mess (which I happened to otherwise like and was happy to read and find out what happened next to the characters, incidentally) and Hugos shouldn't be for "eh well, if there's nothing else better available, then this is probably good enough" IMHO, so I voted for Jemisin's novel for first place that year since I felt that one was unusually imaginative and interesting and truly excellent from an author I'd never read before.

I really like most of Bujold's books but the one 2011 was very weak. And Blackout/All Clear was a mess and I got very annoyed that it was so long when only parts of it was good. And I did not like Jemisin's novel either. The Dervish House was the only one I really thought was very good and I voted for that one as winner.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by mgbino

According to his comment about the Wertzone's "All Time Sff Sales List," Correia estimates that he's sold over 1 million copies of his books.

I read the three books in the Hugo package last year. Entertaining and kind of fun to read fluff so totally understandable that he sells a lot of books. But definitely not worth a Hugo.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by tompe

I read the three books in the Hugo package last year. Entertaining and kind of fun to read fluff so totally understandable that he sells a lot of books. But definitely not worth a Hugo.

The question is, does the Hugo go to the novel you enjoyed the most (which would include fluff) or does it go to the "best" novel in a literary loved by English teachers and literary critics around the world sort of way (or however you define good literature)? I always thought the best novel was the one that I enjoyed the most. Obviously, different people have different criteria. Nothing wrong with that.

[Ginwen]

I vote on what I enjoy the most, because I want more books I enjoy. I don't really care about worthiness, or how serious things are, I just like to read. Last year I voted for Ancillary Justice because I thought it was the best, but the fact that it had some things in it that were new to me (maybe not to others) definitely moved it up a bit because it increased my enjoyment. I think I had Larry Correia's book second. It was pretty silly, and he and I are pretty far apart on guns and some other things, but I enjoyed it quite a bit, so silly or not, it got to be 2nd on my ballot.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The question is, does the Hugo go to the novel you enjoyed the most (which would include fluff) or does it go to the "best" novel in a literary loved by English teachers and literary critics around the world sort of way (or however you define good literature)? I always thought the best novel was the one that I enjoyed the most. Obviously, different people have different criteria. Nothing wrong with that.

The vote is for best science fiction (or fantasy). So there is also the science fiction/fantasy component.

But I just cannot understand the opinion that if you compare two novels the best one is the one you enjoy the most. And what does "enjoy" mean here? Is it simply that the book was fun? Or how do you compare a "fun" book with a "intellectually stimulating" book? And to be a choose a better sf book an intellectually stimulating book always win over a fun book. A book that is just fun to read can never be the best sf book.

[DrNefario]

I tend to think in terms of how the book could have been better, and what it contains that is actually new.

A book I enjoy can just be a variation on a theme I enjoy. A lazy cover of a Beatles song is still a Beatles song. I am perfectly capable of enjoying books that are badly written and unimaginative. The latter is probably the worse crime in SF/F. I wouldn't want to vote for a book I hated, but you get extra points for exploring new ideas and showing me something fresh.

I can be entertained by a popcorn blockbuster while still being able to see that it's flawed and could have been less dumb.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by tompe

The vote is for best science fiction (or fantasy). So there is also the science fiction/fantasy component.

But I just cannot understand the opinion that if you compare two novels the best one is the one you enjoy the most. And what does "enjoy" mean here? Is it simply that the book was fun? Or how do you compare a "fun" book with a "intellectually stimulating" book? And to be a choose a better sf book an intellectually stimulating book always win over a fun book. A book that is just fun to read can never be the best sf book.

...and in my opinion, a *novel* is worthless to me if it isn't fun to read. I read novels to be entertained. If a novel doesn't entertain me, I would never vote for it, or give it a good review, or recommend it to someone.

Now...that is not to say that an entertaining book can't also be insightful, and that might add to my enjoyment of the book, but in terms of votes, recommendation, etc, entertaining always wins over insightful. Always.

Shari

[DiapDealer]

To be perfectly clear ... I care not a whit for Correia's politics or ideologies. In fact, I had no idea that he "liked guns" until he and others on his "side" started complaining about being picked on and "black-listed" for it. Same with his religious affiliation--had no idea what it was until he claimed persecution because of it. So if there is an insider cabal bent on controlling fandom's perception of authors they deem unworthy, they seem to be fairly ineffective at it. I knew Larry Correia wrote books and that some people really seemed to enjoy them. I (and I'm sure many others) weren't even aware of anything else about him until AFTER he went sad puppy on everyone's asses.

As for the entertainment vs popularity vs literature debate ... meh. That sorts itself out (if the process is allowed to work). Different readers are different; and no one has any inherent right to see the type of books they prefer win awards. But in my personal opinion, popular "entertaining" books already get plenty of awards. They come in the form of sales and best-seller lists. When it comes to the Hugos and other genre awards, I prefer to see books that offer more than just entertainment be nominated. Not because I like those kinds of books better, but because pure entertainment isn't at all hard to find. So I use award nominations to find that something else. That something else that may never make it on my radar otherwise. Besides ... even on the years where the Hugo Best Novel shortlist might not have been "my cup of tea," I never really remember it being completely devoid of entertainment value.

[Doonge]

Well, I'd prefer it too, but I can't help thinking it isn't consonant with "popular". In that, I rejoin shalym perception.

It is hard to set up a popular award that wouldn't be rewarding popular (entertaining) works. I think it requires smaller committees.

I believe that a good avenue for that is following peoples of similar tastes who makes them publics (critics). On youtube and blogs for instance.

I'm not at all knowledgeable about the Hugos and english litterature in general (it is not my mother tongue), but maybe it is the result of both the Hugo awards and the Sci-fi litterature (it is sci-fi?) growing in popularity in general.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by tompe

And Blackout/All Clear was a mess and I got very annoyed that it was so long when only parts of it was good.

I've read Fire Watch, The Doomsday Book, and To Say Nothing of the Dog and I thought there were all good. I've not yet read Blackout. How does it compare to the ones before?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I've read Fire Watch, The Doomsday Book, and To Say Nothing of the Dog and I thought there were all good. I've not yet read Blackout. How does it compare to the ones before?

Badly. I thought the ones you have read was very good to good. I was a bit disappointed by To Say Nothing if the Dog but it was still good.

[DrNefario]

I thought it was still pretty good, myself.