Inaugural Dragon Award winners named

[ekbell]

In any other field one would expect a 'best of' reward to be familiar to people who follow that field (say baseball). I find the idea that 'best of' rewards should be given to unfamiliar names very, very odd.

Better to live with the fact that the main purpose of these awards is not to provide a recommended reading list but to honor those who write good books. The fact that the field is large enough that 'best of' equates to best book(author) that enough of the voters have read(heard of) is problematic enough without asking for voters who have read completely different books then you have.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

If participation and coverage of the awards are limited to Puppies circles, can you really say that they gamed by a clique?

It's not their fault that everyone else defaulted.

It is if they did such a crappy job of promoting their new awards that most of the DragonCon attendees were unaware of them, or how to nominate and vote for them. We don't know how many voted yet, and there's probably no way to actually correlate the emails used in nominating/voting to DragonCon attendees. Furthermore, if the voting were to show that like in the Hugo voting, that 70% of the voting is with a wide spectrum of divergent voting over all the nominees, and 30% vote in near identical slates in all categories, the slates are just about always going to win. across the board. Since it's so easy to create thousands, if not millions of valid emails, unless DragonCon has ways to prevent the spambots, a few dedicated trolls can distort the results of their award voting.

I skipped on them because most of the nominees I had not read, nor had time to read them. I'm not a DragonCon attendee, but the main reason I knew of the awards is because of all the negative comments over at File770.

I wish them well, but if anyone thinks that this year's voting is likely to be a broadbased canvassing of the F & SF communities (assuming that's even possible), I think they are sadly mistaken. On the other hand, if you have similar tastes to Vox Day, you'll probably like this year's Dragon winners.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

If participation and coverage of the awards are limited to Puppies circles, can you really say that they gamed by a clique?

It's not their fault that everyone else defaulted.

I think you can if the unpopular VD self-promotions still win. I think that's still a defeat for the ideology the puppies claim to espouse - that left to their own devices, the majority of real fans will go for something more action-packed and politically conservative. You can't really prove that thesis if you don't leave the fans to their own devices.

It's kind of funny that their paranoid delusion that the Hugos were dominated by a clique and won by unpopular political works is pretty much definitely true of the Dragons.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

David Weber likes infodumps too much and needs a good editor, and I'm not going to pick up the 8th book in a series when it's not standalone. I feel the same way about Naomi Novick's Dragon book being the 7th or 8th of a series except I've read most of the series and liked them, so I'll add it to my TBR list.

Interesting take because I'm just the opposite. I have read each of the previous volumes in Weber's series and I don't find the infodumps overly annoying. I do agree, however, that he could use a much better editor than he has -- or perhaps his editor is excellent but Weber is not following the editor's advice, a not uncommon phenomenon, especially with established successful authors. (James Patterson is notorious among editors for throwing tantrums if anything more than a spelling error is suggested as a correction.) Anyway, I've had on preorder for months the new volume in the series and am looking forward to receiving it in a few weeks.

In contrast, I've read most of Novik's Temeraire series and while I found the first few books good -- not great, just mediocre good -- I found I rapidly grew tired of her writing style. Where Weber may go too much into detail, Novik's writing is superficial and simplistic. I find I care about some of Weber's characters but about none of Novik's. I haven't bothered with the last couple of her books as I find they lack "personality."

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It's certainly possible, on the other hand, I've purchased some 200 books so far this year and more than a few of those are authors that I've run across this year. I'm pretty willing to take a chance on new authors. I've been reading SF&F since the early 70's, so I've seen a lot of new authors come and go. If I wasn't always on the look out for new authors, I wouldn't have much to read.

It's pretty rare for new authors to make best of lists simply because it's tough for a new author to build up enough of a fan base to win against the name authors. As an example, Django Wexler had his first hit about 3 years ago. Think about some of the recent big hits by new SF/F authors and how many of those actually made the awards lists.

I'm with you. I have purchased more than 100 books so far this year as well (although most are nonfiction and in hardcover; every so often I list my book purchases at my An American Editor blog under the title On Today's Bookshelf) but I find it difficult to find good, new fantasy authors. I like certain styles of writing (David Weber, Terry Brooks, Robin Hobb, LE Modesitt, Jr come immediately to mind) and it is difficult to know whether a new author will rise to my expectations. I have found a couple, however, including Brad Beaulieu and Sabaa Tahir. I also discovered about a year ago Django Wexler and wondered how I missed him.

My biggest disappointment has been Patrick Rothfuss. Not disappointment with his writing but with his productivity. I'm still waiting for the next book in the Wise Man Series.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I think you can if the unpopular VD self-promotions still win. I think that's still a defeat for the ideology the puppies claim to espouse - that left to their own devices, the majority of real fans will go for something more action-packed and politically conservative. You can't really prove that thesis if you don't leave the fans to their own devices.

It's kind of funny that their paranoid delusion that the Hugos were dominated by a clique and won by unpopular political works is pretty much definitely true of the Dragons.

Just to play devils advocate

If the puppies claim the majority of fans will go for puppy type books and the dragon con mostly awarded to puppy type books and there is no proof of any gaming of the system, isn't it possible they were correct?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Interesting take because I'm just the opposite. I have read each of the previous volumes in Weber's series and I don't find the infodumps overly annoying. I do agree, however, that he could use a much better editor than he has -- or perhaps his editor is excellent but Weber is not following the editor's advice, a not uncommon phenomenon, especially with established successful authors. (James Patterson is notorious among editors for throwing tantrums if anything more than a spelling error is suggested as a correction.) Anyway, I've had on preorder for months the new volume in the series and am looking forward to receiving it in a few weeks.

In contrast, I've read most of Novik's Temeraire series and while I found the first few books good -- not great, just mediocre good -- I found I rapidly grew tired of her writing style. Where Weber may go too much into detail, Novik's writing is superficial and simplistic. I find I care about some of Weber's characters but about none of Novik's. I haven't bothered with the last couple of her books as I find they lack "personality."

Supposedly the last couple of Novik's Temeraire series have been pretty good. I went ahead purchased the rest of the series, but haven't gotten around to reading them yet.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I'm with you. I have purchased more than 100 books so far this year as well (although most are nonfiction and in hardcover; every so often I list my book purchases at my An American Editor blog under the title On Today's Bookshelf) but I find it difficult to find good, new fantasy authors. I like certain styles of writing (David Weber, Terry Brooks, Robin Hobb, LE Modesitt, Jr come immediately to mind) and it is difficult to know whether a new author will rise to my expectations. I have found a couple, however, including Brad Beaulieu and Sabaa Tahir. I also discovered about a year ago Django Wexler and wondered how I missed him.

My biggest disappointment has been Patrick Rothfuss. Not disappointment with his writing but with his productivity. I'm still waiting for the next book in the Wise Man Series.

Yea, I have to wonder what's up with Rothfuss. He has an awful lot of territory to cover in that last book. There was a rumor that it was suppose to have been done last year, but right now there is no indication that I've seen that it's been finished, much less that it's coming out in the near future.

Hum, hadn't tried Beaulieu or Tahir. Thanks for the pointer. Went ahead and grabbed the first of their two series.

[jjmgreen]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Just to play devils advocate

If the puppies claim the majority of fans will go for puppy type books and the dragon con mostly awarded to puppy type books and there is no proof of any gaming of the system, isn't it possible they were correct?

A puppy-type book isn't necessarily an action-oriented book with a conservative backdrop. At least as far as Sad Puppies. A Sad Puppy book
provides an entertaining story, which might or might not also promote a
specific worldview.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Just to play devils advocate

If the puppies claim the majority of fans will go for puppy type books and the dragon con mostly awarded to puppy type books and there is no proof of any gaming of the system, isn't it possible they were correct?

I would suggest that they quite often didn't go to puppy-type books, but rather to books that VD said his followers should vote for. Some of which he publishes, and have almost no goodreads ratings (a reasonably decent barometer of actual popularity, I would guess.)

If I were to play devil's advocate myself, I'd say this was an experiment in how a small clique can still dominate an award with an open vote.

[DrNefario]

Just to roll up a couple of replies into one post:

I enjoyed Naomi Novik's Temeraire series, but the quality dropped off after the first few, as it became a bit of a travelogue and diverged more widely from actual history, so I haven't actually read the last few. They were always lightweight and kind of fun.

I guess we're talking Safehold for Weber? Not a series I've read, since it sounds like the bits I didn't like about the Honor Harrington books writ large. I did enjoy the HH books (not that different to Temeraire, when you get down to it, both owing a big debt to CS Forester), but again they went downhill after a while and I'm several behind.

I have the first-in-series by Beaulieu and Tahir, but haven't got around to reading them yet. Nice to hear positive word about them.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I would suggest that they quite often didn't go to puppy-type books, but rather to books that VD said his followers should vote for. Some of which he publishes, and have almost no goodreads ratings (a reasonably decent barometer of actual popularity, I would guess.)

If I were to play devil's advocate myself, I'd say this was an experiment in how a small clique can still dominate an award with an open vote.

Given the winners though,
John C Wright, Larry Correia, Terry Pratchett, David Weber, Naomi Novak, Nick Cole, Brian Niemeier.
Which of these have anything to do with Vox?

Had a quick search before posting and the Nick Cole one was published by Vox (Had him mixed up with Myke Cole in my head) but seems to have a pretty solid goodreads rating.

I don't know Brian Niemeier and I don't like John C Wright's stuff, but everything there seems pretty popular.

[DiapDealer]

I enjoyed Beaulieu's short fiction quite a bit, so I was excited when The Winds of Khalakovo was released. I was quickly disappointed as well. Two separate forays into the first book of that series never saw me past the one-third mark (and only part of my difficulty had to do with the "sound" of gunfire "lighting up" the sky). "Awkward and lumbering" would be my two-word review.

I DO want to try his second series (The Song of Shattered Sands), though. The short fiction of his I enjoyed was based on a desert culture as well. Perhaps I'll have better luck with that.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Given the winners though,
John C Wright, Larry Correia, Terry Pratchett, David Weber, Naomi Novak, Nick Cole, Brian Niemeier.
Which of these have anything to do with Vox?

Wright's Best SF Novel winner (Somewhither: A Tale of the Unwithering Realm) was published by Castalia House--founded by VD. As was Nick Cole, as you discovered. Larry Correia (though quite popular in his own right) is the founder of Sad Puppies (though he's since turned over the day-to-day reigns of that campaign).

Brian Neimeier was on the Sad Puppies' "Recommended Reading List" for the 2016 Hugos. Which may or may not be relevant since their 2016 Reading List contained many "mainstream" titles that were going to appear on a lot of award shortlists with or without their endorsement.

As it stands, having three authors in the winners circle that ONLY seem to appear in Sad Puppy/Vox Day discussions (Wright, Cole, and Neimeier) is enough for me to smell a hint of rat. *shrug*

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

It is if they did such a crappy job of promoting their new awards that most of the DragonCon attendees were unaware of them, or how to nominate and vote for them.

The majority of DragonCon attendees went there for reasons other than books, and includes many categories of fandom.

And the awards were open to all, not just DragonCon attendees, so the real question is how and whether the rest of SF book fandom learned of the new awards.

And the answer is they could not - not when the establishment roundly ignored the Dragon Awards. Tor.com, for example, covered the Hugo Awards twice this year but never mentioned the Dragon Awards once.

There was in fact very little coverage of the Dragon Awards.

Since it would be stupid to suggest that news sites which covered SF fandom might miss that bit of news or that they would deem an SF con's new awards as not being newsworthy, it is pretty clear that many sites were deliberately ignoring the Dragon Awards for political reasons.

Originally Posted by DrNefario

It's kind of funny that their paranoid delusion that the Hugos were dominated by a clique and won by unpopular political works is pretty much definitely true of the Dragons.

Again, if the WorldCon clique deliberately ignored the Dragon Awards, how is it the fault of the Dragon Awards winners that their competition stayed home?

And just so we're on the same page, I'm not saying there was or was not cheating; I just see that there are multiple issues at play.