Finalists: 2015 Hugo Award

[mgbino]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I thought it was still pretty good, myself.

Seconded, I liked it too.

[Rev. Bob]

Quick note, while I'm still conscious and thinking about it...

WorldCon posts a lengthy PDF after each year's Hugos are awarded. Not only does it list the ranking within each category, but it does so with full numbers and shows how the ballots were counted in each round. Each category gets a page for that treatment, but that's not the REALLY interesting part.

Y'see, after all that data about how people voted on the nominated works, we also get to see the nomination numbers, in similar detail. Not just the numbers for the works that made the ballot, either; I'm sure there's a cutoff somewhere, but it appears to be around the "dozen votes" range.

So, after the ceremony, if you want to know how much weight the Puppies put on the scale and see what the ballot might have looked like without their shenanigans, I believe you only need to look at three numbers. First, check the two Editor categories and see how many nominations Vox Day received. (I'll be surprised if they're very far apart.) That gives you a decent estimate of the Rabid slate. Second, check the Fanzine category and look at the numbers for "The Revenge of Hump Day." That's an excellent way to weigh the Sad slate.

In both cases, these are situations where people who previously haven't even made the longlist (except for VD last year) have suddenly been catapulted onto the final ballot. The zine has been around for YEARS, with the publisher/editor regularly reminding his readers at Hugo time that the newsletter's eligible in the category, and it has a surprisingly wide (and quite conservative) readership. Yet, in the years I checked, he couldn't even muster a dozen votes to get on the longlist. That's why I'd lay serious odds that all his nominating votes this year came from the SP slate.

It will be interesting to see those numbers when they're finally released. When they are, and you start to hear estimates of how many ballots were affected, remember that I made my prediction this early.

[pwalker8]

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.

I think you fall into the classic art verse entertainment trap. The most extreme form of your argument is that anything that the masses might like can't be art because art doesn't exist to be liked. You seem to imply that a intellectually stimulating book can't be fun and that angst ridden philosophical debate is the only literature that can be intellectually stimulating. That might be a slight exaggeration, but the idea really at the core of your argument.

While a work may not be intellectually stimulating from the stand point of what your freshman literature professor declaimed in literature 101, but for the most part, the great literature of the past was originally fun filled fluff at the time. Much the deep philosophical meanings of Shakespeare, Defoe and Dickens were added later by generations of literature critics. Shakespeare in it's original was entertainment for the masses. Defoe was adventure fiction at it's finest, while Dickens was pure soap opera.

For much of history, story telling was designed to entertain and instill moral truths in the people. I would argue that a fun book, as you put it, could not be fun unless it touched on moral truths. Part of what makes a fun book fun, is that the reader is drawn in to the story. He or she cares about the protagonist and other characters.

For me, a great book is a book that I want to read over and over. To give an example, I read Scalzi's book "Red Shirts". I thought it was interesting, I liked the plot twists and it made some thoughtful philosophic points, yet I have zero interest in going back and re-reading it. It may have been great literature, but it wasn't a great story. The flip side is that I've read Correia's Monster Hunters, International many times. MHI may be fluff from a literature point of view, but it also is classic story telling which embeds many important moral lessons. Sometimes the best is the one that the audience likes the most, not what the critics like the most.

[tompe]

So what was the moral lessons? I seem to rembember that it was entertaining in spite the bad moral arguments...

[tompe]

Three Men in a Boat is one of the most fun books I have read but I really did not care about the characters in it.

[tompe]

Literature? I am talking about SF and SF having ideas that are intellectually stimulating and that you remember. Why read SF if not for the ideas?

[murg]

Originally Posted by tompe

Literature? I am talking about SF and SF having ideas that are intellectually stimulating and that you remember. Why read SF if not for the ideas?

For the laser beams!

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by tompe

So what was the moral lessons? I seem to rembember that it was entertaining in spite the bad moral arguments...

Be loyal to your fellows was the big one that I saw. Never give up would be another. Simple moral lessons, of course, but sometimes those are the most important.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by tompe

Literature? I am talking about SF and SF having ideas that are intellectually stimulating and that you remember. Why read SF if not for the ideas?

Why read anything? As far as remembering, if you look at the books that people remember, it isn't the intellectually stimulating ones that become classics and read for generations (well, except in narrow groups of "intellectuals"). We are still reading Homer's after thousands of years. Kids still grow up with the tales of Robin Hood, King Arthur, et al. Dickens, Verne, Defoe and Doyle are still read a hundred years later (note, my 13 year old nephew is currently reading/listening to 20,000 Leagues under the Sea). We still study Shakespeare, but not for the intellectually stimulating ideas.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by tompe

Literature? I am talking about SF and SF having ideas that are intellectually stimulating and that you remember. Why read SF if not for the ideas?

For the story?

Shari

[DrNefario]

I think tompe's point is: what makes SF different? What are SF fans looking for in SF rather than any other genre?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I think tompe's point is: what makes SF different? What are SF fans looking for in SF rather than any other genre?

I read SF for the same reason I read any other book: an interesting plot and engaging characters. The best thing for me about SF is that it has the potential for a wider range of plots than other genres.

[dickloraine]

There is one additional thing to plot and characters: How the story is told. And that one is important. If we talk about "art" this is what makes the difference (I am simplifying here a bit). For example look at good and bad poetry. It is of course just one theory about art, but a very popular one. Kants philosophy is very important for this line of thought. Unfortunately the popular vs good thing comes from there too, from his definition of art as purpose less.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

There is one additional thing to plot and characters: How the story is told. And that one is important.

Certainly. Any story can be told well or badly. Eg, personally I'd regard David Weber as a mediocre writer, but an excellent story-teller. His book are full of cliches, but are nonetheless engaging because Weber knows how to tell the story well.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Certainly. Any story can be told well or badly. Eg, personally I'd regard David Weber as a mediocre writer, but an excellent story-teller. His book are full of cliches, but are nonetheless engaging because Weber knows how to tell the story well.

Exactly this. I will always value a good storyteller who is a mediocre writer over a great writer who is a mediocre storyteller.

Shari