Hugo 2020 Award Winners

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by leebase

Not correct. Looking for the best book will produce the best book. (of course, what makes a book "best" is subjective).

Putting ANY other qualification on "best book" -- will thus likely NOT produce the "best book" but the "best book that is also <insert other criteria here>".

It is adding those other criteria to "best book" that explicitly assumes that <list of criteria> members aren't winning on "best book" merits.

Have a look on Goodreads, You;ll see some have rated a book 5 stars and some 1 star. That proves what we like is subjective. Not everyone will like everything. Even the most popular books will have those who dislike them.

[JSWolf]

I've found that a lot oa award winning books have not been to my liking. Just because a book wins an award does not mean I have to like it. I've not heard of some of the authors in the novels and novellas category. I've not heard of most of the books.

What I am going to do is read all the novels and novellas nominated so I can make my own decision how good the nominations are to me.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by leebase

[snip] I can only say "Hugos should be given to the best book" [snip]

I completely agree that "Hugos should be given to the best book".

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I completely agree that "Hugos should be given to the best book".

But what is the best book? Is there a way to find out that's not opinion based?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But what is the best book? Is there a way to find out that's not opinion based?

Best is subjective, of course. I mean that those voting in the Hugos should vote for the book that they think is best of the ones nominated. (And in nominating, should nominate the book that they think is the best of the ones that they have read that are eligible.)

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Best is subjective, of course. I mean that those voting in the Hugos should vote for the book that they think is best of the ones nominated. (And in nominating, should nominate the book that they think is the best of the ones that they have read that are eligible.)

But how do you vote if you've read none of the books that were nominate?

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But how do you vote if you've read none of the books that were nominate?

This line of thinking does not stop actual adults from voting for people they know nothing about in REAL elections.

But this is a problem inherent in any kind of entertainment voting. All Academy voters get sent copies of all the nominated movies, but they may or may not watch them before voting.

[Gandulf]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Have a look on Goodreads, You;ll see some have rated a book 5 stars and some 1 star. That proves what we like is subjective. Not everyone will like everything. Even the most popular books will have those who dislike them.

I don't trust Goodreads ratings, how can they rate books that are not even out yet, found a few books.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Gandulf

I don't trust Goodreads ratings, how can they rate books that are not even out yet, found a few books.

Goodreads should not allow comments and ratings before the book is released unless it's a real rating with a proper review for an ARC copy or an advanced final version. Allowing ratings and conversation in the reviews mucks up the works.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But how do you vote if you've read none of the books that were nominate?

Those eligible to vote in the Hugo awards usually receive ebook versions of the nominations free of charge.

If someone hasn't read the nominations, they should not vote. (But there's no requirement to have read the nominations.)

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Gandulf

I don't trust Goodreads ratings, how can they rate books that are not even out yet, found a few books.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Goodreads should not allow comments and ratings before the book is released unless it's a real rating with a proper review for an ARC copy or an advanced final version. Allowing ratings and conversation in the reviews mucks up the works.

No point in trying to hang more weight on Goodreads’ ratings and reviews than they can bear. It’s a useful tool and pretty transparent at that. It also helps to remember the ultimate beneficiary of all that activity, i.e., Amazon. Not that it’s easy to forget, given how promotions have taken over the home page to the exclusion of most of the useful information for the user.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The Hugos are "dominated by a clique of writers and voters" who actually join the Worldcon.

But they're not a clique. They're just the people who like to join in. There's nothing exclusive about Worldcon membership.

You can join the next Worldcon now. DisCon III. Only $50 for a supporting membership, giving you nominating and voting rights in the Hugos, and a vote in the selection of the location of the 2023 Worldcon.

That, of course, is what the sad puppies did. The Hugo committee promptly changed the rules to avoid having such riff raff crash their party.

I've found that it's quite common for cliques to form in a small group of people who just like to join. One sees them in a lot of groups. They have ways of discouraging people who don't fit in from sticking around. That's pretty much the definition of a clique.

[DrNefario]

I've read all of the Hugo Best Novel winners since the beginning of time. (Not actually true: I haven't read all the Retro Hugo winners.)

I don't think this year's winner is particularly out of line with the history of the award, and I think the last decade has actually been pretty strong. It's quite hard to point to particular low points, in my opinion, because weak books tend to be surrounded by strong ones wherever you look.

It's also hard to think of anything that was severely overlooked in this year's field. Looking at the long list and other awards, there's nothing massive that has missed out.

Quite a few of the "controversial" "PC" recent winners are actually kind of throwbacks. A Memory of Empire is basically a C J Cherryh novel. It's all about galactic empires and someone trying to get by out of their depth. I didn't love it as much as others did; if anything it was too much like too many other books. Ancillary Justice, which I did love, was another galactic empire space opera. I find it weird when people reject stuff that's exactly what they say they want just because it has a different angle. (And it has to have a different angle, for my money, because the old books still exist.)

From this year's nominations I have also read The Ten Thousand Doors of January. It's another one I was lukewarm on compared to others, but also one that I have seen a lot of buzz about. It doesn't feel like it was nominated because of some PC quota-filling.

I think I agree, though, that information is much more available now, and all awards are a little bit superfluous for an engaged audience. In the past I probably wouldn't have read two of the nominees before they were even nominated. In the past, they probably wouldn't have been available in the UK until they'd already won.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

That, of course, is what the sad puppies did. The Hugo committee promptly changed the rules to avoid having such riff raff crash their party.

That's not quite a fair summary.

The sad puppies gamed the nominations, most successfully in 2015, and the Hugo voters reacted by voting for No Award in the categories they gamed.

To prevent small (ca 20%) numbers of nominators controlling the selections, the rules were changed for the 2017 Hugos

[hildea]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

Read the amazon reviews of the first three. Sound dreadful. Politically correct and dull. One described as lesbians in space.

You know, if you quote the whole of Stross' blurb, it sounds very different. "Lesbians in space" makes it sound as if the only notable thing about the characters is their sexual orientation. But the full blurb is:

“Lesbian necromancers explore a haunted gothic palace in space!” ―Charles Stross

which, to me, seems pretty interesting.