Jump to content

Brandon Sanderson on the Hugos and the Wheel of Time nomination


MisterOJ

Recommended Posts

I know we have plenty of Sanderson threads and Hugo threads. But I loved his blog post so much, I felt like it deserved it's own thread.



You can like or dislike Brandon's work as an author, but he is so dead-on with his opinion here on sff fandom in general. I think more than maybe any other author, he "gets it" when it comes to being a sff fan.



Thoughts?



(And if the mods decides this is better off folded into another thread, that's cool.)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent post. As you say, Sanderson clearly speaks from the mindset of a longtime fan of the genre, and he gets that aspect of these arguments better than most. His last point is the one I always come back to, the idea of such hostility within the genre fans towards works they don't personally like, and the attempts to trump their own tastes as somehow superior while refusing to accept that some people may just like other things in their sff than they do.



Now, a lot of that has to do with the nastiness of the internet in general, and the overall dickishness an anonymous forum seems to generate in people, but there is a very real irony to sff fans looking down their noses at other sff fans.



I love WoT, it's by a wide stretch my favorite thing I've ever read. I also understand why it may not appeal to everyone. But the idea that someone not liking it as much as me would make me rail on those people as having "awful" tastes and being objectively "wrong" seems silly in the extreme.



There is a mantra on the Appalachian Trail. Hike your own hike. It just means that you should hike the trail the way you want, and appreciate that your fellow hikers are doing the same. There's no need to tell someone their cook set is too heavy, or their backpack is too large. Just talk about the scenery and experience, and enjoy the company of others who enjoy the same things you do.



That's fitting here too I think. Read your own books.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely liked Sanderson's post. He also does make a good point about the distinction between an author and their work, and regardless of how good his stuff is (I love it, but would never nominate any of it for an award like this), it's things like this which make me respect him and feel others should do the same, with the quality of his works being part of a seperate discussion.



I try not to do what he warns against, but admittedly, I have been known to hold similar attitudes to works like Twilight, so I'm far from blameless.



Edit: And Joe's response got a genuine and hearty laugh from me.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post by Sanderson. I especially liked his observation that one shouldn't vote for the Hugo without reading all of the nominations. Sanderson does seem like a genuinely good guy and I wish him all the best, despite my disappointment with his handling of the ending of the Wheel of Time and uncertainties about his own new series.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy really is a fan at heart who just so happens to have a couple of bestsellers to his credit. I liked the post.

And as Migey says, I'm just as guilty of looking down my nose when the gals at my front desk read Twilight. :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post, thanks for sharing.



I loved where he stated:


"It is not shameful to like the Wheel of Time. No more than it should be shameful to be the kid who read Dune in middle school while others snickered. We should never have to feel embarrassed for honestly expressing our taste in fiction."



IMO, a great book is a great book, no matter what the genre.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy really is a fan at heart who just so happens to have a couple of bestsellers to his credit. I liked the post.

And as Migey says, I'm just as guilty of looking down my nose when the gals at my front desk read Twilight. :dunno:

You mean they're not reading 12 Shades of Grey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Wheel of Time unsullied, I have no idea what this is all about. I certainly wasn't aware of any "campaign" to have it nominated. Yes, George has a huge fandom, but he didn't receive the Hugo for Dance with Dragons, so popularity doesn't always cut it with the Hugos. They have also not seemed to go for a "whole Game of Thrones season being nominated collectively as a single entry into the dramatic presentation category." We have nominated him every year, and every year, this concept has been ignored, at least for GoT. George himself seems to be befuddled by this, as he has written in his "Not a Blog". Oh well. I voted for him in other categories, and he didn't make the cut. I'm happy with the one episode and for his and Raya's nomination for Meathouse Man. Last year, we defeated two episodes of Dr. Who. Maybe this year we can beat two episodes of Dr. Who again. Really, if the Red Wedding doesn't win, I don't know what can.



I did like what Mr. Sanderson said.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean they're not reading 12 Shades of Grey?

That came next.

One of the gals back then seemed like she would be totally open to ASoIaF, so I let her borrow the book. Weeks went by and she hadn't read it. She has a bachelor's from Baylor in Russian Lit and speaks the language fluently. So one day I made the offhand comment, "I bet if I got it for you in Russian you'd read it!" "Yeah, probably."

So for her birthday that May, I got her Russian language editions of AGoT, ACoK, and ASoS. Probably the best birthday gift I've ever given to someone I wasn't dating and had no intention of dating. :lol:

As a drawback, she went with me and another friend up to the ADWD signing that summer in Lexington. As typical, GRRM had no time to talk to people in line... too many things to sign. But Jennifer gets up there with her Russian AGoT edition which he had apparently never before seen and it started a real conversation. Me, as a longtime fan, got really jealous that the newb got more facetime with George. :tantrum:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have also not seemed to go for a "whole Game of Thrones season being nominated collectively as a single entry into the dramatic presentation category." We have nominated him every year, and every year, this concept has been ignored, at least for GoT. George himself seems to be befuddled by this, as he has written in his "Not a Blog".

Game of Thrones season 1 did win the long-form Dramatic Presentation Hugo in 2012. I'm a bit vague on how they decide which category it goes in to, since it ended up in short-form the next year (and this year).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Game of Thrones season 1 did win the long-form Dramatic Presentation Hugo in 2012. I'm a bit vague on how they decide which category it goes in to, since it ended up in short-form the next year (and this year).

Oops! I thought that it wasn't considered a long form, which was disappointing to GRRM. They must have changed it after. I don't understand why it can't be. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Game of Thrones season 1 did win the long-form Dramatic Presentation Hugo in 2012. I'm a bit vague on how they decide which category it goes in to, since it ended up in short-form the next year (and this year).

I think it depends on how many nominations it gets in each category - it gets put in whichever one gets the most that year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on how many nominations it gets in each category - it gets put in whichever one gets the most that year.

It isn't just that-- there were half again as many nominations for season two as a whole as there were for "Blackwater" (164 vs. 95). but the latter still wound up being the nominee. The full season also get a greater percentage of the total nominations in its category: 20.84% vs 15.91%.

The statistics pdf for that year says the Long Form nomination was "declined in favor of the single episode 'Blackwater' in BDP-S," which suggests they might have asked someone associated with the show which they'd rather go with. If not, the only rationale I can see is that while there were more total nominations in Long Form, the episode was a clearer favorite in Short Form, getting more nominations than anything else (though the gap between most and least among nominees was only six-- 95 vs 89), while in Long Form it was only the fourth most-nominated (with less than half the nominations received by The Avengers-- 383 and 164).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't just that-- there were half again as many nominations for season two as a whole as there were for "Blackwater" (164 vs. 95). but the latter still wound up being the nominee. The full season also get a greater percentage of the total nominations in its category: 20.84% vs 15.91%.

The statistics pdf for that year says the Long Form nomination was "declined in favor of the single episode 'Blackwater' in BDP-S," which suggests they might have asked someone associated with the show which they'd rather go with. If not, the only rationale I can see is that while there were more total nominations in Long Form, the episode was a clearer favorite in Short Form, getting more nominations than anything else (though the gap between most and least among nominees was only six-- 95 vs 89), while in Long Form it was only the fourth most-nominated (with less than half the nominations received by The Avengers-- 383 and 164).

Yes, when it says it was declined in favor etc., that does mean someone associated with the show is the one who did the declining.

Also, when a nominee is notified of a nomination, they're not told what the other nominated works are in their category, or what the nominating numbers were. Everyone finds out those things at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, when it says it was declined in favor etc., that does mean someone associated with the show is the one who did the declining.

Also, when a nominee is notified of a nomination, they're not told what the other nominated works are in their category, or what the nominating numbers were. Everyone finds out those things at the same time.

Interesting. Sounds complicated. Sometimes you don't want to know how the sausage is made. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the attempts to trump their own tastes as somehow superior while refusing to accept that some people may just like other things in their sff than they do.... I love WoT, it's by a wide stretch my favorite thing I've ever read. I also understand why it may not appeal to everyone. But the idea that someone not liking it as much as me would make me rail on those people as having "awful" tastes and being objectively "wrong" seems silly in the extreme.

I feel like with these kind of fandoms, criticizing the work is not seen as different from attacking the fans. That is, if one says that WoT is bad literature, is that actually substantially different from saying that if your favorite books are WoT then your tastes are awful?

I don't think someone can be "wrong" in choosing their favorite books, but I think that a claim that WoT has, for example, eloquent prose and a good sense of pacing can be argued against on semi-objective standards. Both consistencies and inconsistencies can be proven. I think that there's such a thing as objectively superior literature. I think that one person can have preferences for better literature than another person. I agree that trying to hold up your own tastes as superior is obnoxious, but on the other hand, I think it's ridiculous to pretend that all tastes are equal. If someone solely reads books that are simplistic, predictable, cliche, misuse words, have gaping plot holes, etc., they aren't "wrong". They aren't bad. They may be very intelligent in other areas. But they have inferior tastes in literature. Oh well.

ETA: I pretty frequently post book reviews that say "this was not a very good book but I liked it" or "this was a well written book but I hated it". I wouldn't nominate either type for an award.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone solely reads books that are simplistic, predictable, cliche, misuse words, have gaping plot holes, etc., they aren't "wrong". They aren't bad. They may be very intelligent in other areas. But they have inferior tastes in literature. Oh well.

I strongly disagree with the bolded.

If you instead said "they have a taste for inferior literature," then I would agree. But a taste cannot be superior. Liking objectively bad things is not a character flaw; it's just character. If you make it out as a flaw then you are criticizing the fans, not the work.

I also submit that books that are simplistic, predictable, cliche, have plot holes etc. and are popular are often doing something right that speaks to their particular market - e.g. relentless pacing, a Happily Ever After escape, a particular flavor of main character, a particular mood evoked well. If you find this hard to believe, I suggest reading some slush. Dan Brown doesn't look so bad when held up against amateur imitations of Dan Brown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...