35 replies to this topic

[ogbebaba]

vote here


vote at work
vote on your phone
force your friends to vote
sneak into you neighbor's house and vote from his computer
its not cheating its just casting other peoples vote for them...

[Larry.]

No. Just, no.

[Humble Asskicker]

I voted for Abercrombie. Voting against BSC is like announcing to the world "I have shitty taste in books! Yes, that's right, look at me. This is the face of someone who doesn't have any taste. Go ahead, touch me. It's not contagious."

TGS was all kinds of awesome but it still doesn't equal BSC. Although so much promise has been built up for the last two WoT books that I'm not sure how Abercrombie will beat Sanderson next time.

Warbreaker was good but not classic, and as for Empire and TCB...no. Just no.

[Larry.]

Considering that I think none of the finalists in the main category (and only Bullington's in the newcomer) is anywhere near most of the Hugo novel nominees, any vote would be merely for a work/author that was only less crappy than the others. I think a non-vote is best in those cases, however you put your screen name in Latin characters

[Humble Asskicker]

What book would you vote for this year?

ETA: Dylan, I'm not sure it matters to you, but I didn't give you the negative rep. I don't see why your post would get one when mine was much more abrasive.

I hate Jews.

Maybe that will do it (if it doesn't get me banned).

Edited by 対同志論者, 12 April 2010 - 03:56 PM.

[Theodor]

Sorry, but my vote went to "The Gathering Storm"

All of the nominees that I've read have been good though:

The Gathering Storm - 9/10 (Fantastic)

Best Served Cold - 8/10 (Very Good)

Warbreaker - 7/10 (Good)

And speaking of the Hugos... Call me simple, but I think I like this award better, in this one I have at least read and heard of some of the nominees. And correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't the Gemmell awards voting system make it a little more in touch with what the more common fantasy-reading crowd enjoys?

Edited by Theodor, 12 April 2010 - 03:20 PM.

[MattL86]

Voted for Joe, not sure I can clearly say it was better than TGS, but I liked it better personally. I actually thought TGS was one of the crispest and best written novels in WoT, but BSC was just too much fun. Plus, I doubt Sanderson is going to need the extra vote.

[Larry.]

対同志論者, on 12 April 2010 - 02:58 PM, said:

What book would you vote for this year?

ETA: Dylan, I'm not sure it matters to you, but I didn't give you the negative rep. I don't see why your post would get one when mine was much more abrasive.

I hate Jews.

Maybe that will do it (if it doesn't get me banned).

I pay little mind to those things, seeing that I hold having such things in greater contempt than I do any online popularity poll

As for books that I would have voted on, none outside the Bullington for what the Gemmell Award is intended. For best overall works, I listed Jeff VanderMeer's Finch, A.S. Byatt's The Children's Book, Caitlín Kiernan's The Red Tree, Terrence Holt's In the Valley of the Kings and Brian Evenson's Last Days as my five favorite 2009 books. Most of those are/have been up for multiple awards, both in and outside SF/F genres.

[Humble Asskicker]

I've read...none of those. Or heard of them, in fact.

I'll give them a go, though. I'm still working through The Long Price Quartet and The Last Unicorn, but those will be next on the list. Which one would you recommend I start with?

[The Evil Hat]

I wouldn't recommend starting VanderMeer with Finch. It's not a true series, but each book adds enough depth to the others to warrant reading them in order. The first is City of Saints and Madmen.

[Larry.]

True, as I was naming that book as an example of the best of 2009 for me. But his City of Saints and Madmen is a mosaic novel that might be interesting...and which might drive you mad to distraction The others are all independent of any of the authors' other writings. Byatt's is a historical novel of the Edwardian age and of the griefs of a family during the period leading up to the first World War. Holt's is a story collection, one that doesn't fit in a single, neat genre category. Kiernan's is a psychological/horror novel par excellence. Evenson's is a dark, twisted tale of murder, mystery, and of a cult of the voluntarily dismembered/mutilated. None of them are anything approaching epic/heroic fantasy.

[Wastrel]

I'm not sure I see the point of an award that's more 'in touch with the common fantasy-reading crowd'.

There already ARE awards for the novels most in touch with the common crowd - they're called bestseller lists. They come with a rather larger cash prize attached than most awards!

To me, literary awards should provide an alternative voice to that of bestseller lists, not just echo them. A writer like Sanderson can already put "bestseller" on his adverts, he doesn't need "winner of the legend prize" as well. It's the people who don't have the massive sales and the endorsements by famous novelists on their back covers who need the prestige and attention of an award.

[Shryke]

Wastrel, on 12 April 2010 - 05:55 PM, said:

I'm not sure I see the point of an award that's more 'in touch with the common fantasy-reading crowd'.

There already ARE awards for the novels most in touch with the common crowd - they're called bestseller lists. They come with a rather larger cash prize attached than most awards!

To me, literary awards should provide an alternative voice to that of bestseller lists, not just echo them. A writer like Sanderson can already put "bestseller" on his adverts, he doesn't need "winner of the legend prize" as well. It's the people who don't have the massive sales and the endorsements by famous novelists on their back covers who need the prestige and attention of an award.

Because Bestsellers aren't exactly accurate and, more importantly, because the things that top of the Bestsellers list are often shit like Twilight.

Every time "Book Award Season" comes around, I'm left looking at alot of the lists thinking "Ok, where's the list for SFF books that your average SFF fan will have actually heard of?".

[Poobah]

The problem is in a straight our popularity contest dross like Twilight wins. But I do agree with you that the SFF book award lists always come out with crazy esoteric stuff I've never heard of.

[Ran]

There's no bestseller list which can really get let you see the sort of works these awards are aimed at. Oh, fine, The Gathering Storm is there, so arguably that's this year's winner... but I think this award appeals to a somewhat different subset of readers than just the general fantasy audience. It's primarily British, internet-savvy, very genre-interested readers. A bit different. One may find that those who vote for this couldn't care less for TGS, despite it being the biggest seller by a significant margin.

I threw in my vote for Joe. He's entertaining.

Edited by Ran, 12 April 2010 - 07:39 PM.

[Poobah]

Well I voted for Joe, but I did appreciate TGS.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

I voted for Abercrombie which I think is quite good. I agree this year list is rather weak though - decidedly weaker than Hugo and Nebula lists, while in previous year it was actually better, IMHO. (Even if I would still take Sanderson over Sawyer, any day).

Open Internet voting awards will always go to the authors with the most numerous dedicated fanbase, though; and it looks to be a major flaw in the system. I suspect we may see the repetition of previous year resultsand award will go to Pevel, if only French fans manage to support him the way Polish fans supported Sapkowski.

[Theodor]

Wastrel, on 12 April 2010 - 05:55 PM, said:

I'm not sure I see the point of an award that's more 'in touch with the common fantasy-reading crowd'.

There already ARE awards for the novels most in touch with the common crowd - they're called bestseller lists. They come with a rather larger cash prize attached than most awards!

Well, just because many bought a book doesn't mean they all liked it. So I can't agree with you, sry...

[Werthead]

I'm not sure why people are so convinced Pevel is going to win versus Sapkowski last year. Sapkowski is an extremely popular author who has literary superstar status in many mainland European countries, where he is far more well-known than Martin or Jordan. He's been published for over 20 years, has an extremely iconic character who's crossed over into (very bad) movies and (very good) computer games and does very well with both the critics and fans. Of course he was going to be a major contender for an international award.

Pevel OTOH is a relative newcomer. The Cardinal's Blades only came out in France in 2007 and several of my French fantasy-reading friends had never heard of him prior to the first few reviews of the English-language version came out last year. He's done pretty well, and it's a damn good book, but he isn't batting anywhere near Sapkowski's level. Certainly within France itself I imagine Jordan is much better-known, maybe Abercrombie as well (don't know if Sanderson has a French publisher).

Ran, on 12 April 2010 - 07:37 PM, said:

There's no bestseller list which can really get let you see the sort of works these awards are aimed at. Oh, fine, The Gathering Storm is there, so arguably that's this year's winner... but I think this award appeals to a somewhat different subset of readers than just the general fantasy audience. It's primarily British, internet-savvy, very genre-interested readers. A bit different. One may find that those who vote for this couldn't care less for TGS, despite it being the biggest seller by a significant margin.

I threw in my vote for Joe. He's entertaining.

Last year, one of the smallest national groups voting was British, less than 10% the total IIRC. They were outnumbered by Americans by a wide margin, although the European mainlanders outnumbered both combined (hence Sapkowski's crushing victory).

[needle]

Quote

To me, literary awards should provide an alternative voice to that of bestseller lists, not just echo them. A writer like Sanderson can already put "bestseller" on his adverts, he doesn't need "winner of the legend prize" as well. It's the people who don't have the massive sales and the endorsements by famous novelists on their back covers who need the prestige and attention of an award.

So the awards should be given to those who need it, rather than what people like best? hmm....

Just to be contrary, I remember when John grisham was given an award a couple of years back (by Galaxy book awards, a very low-brow Uk affair) he was absurdly touched. He doesn't get many awards, because he writes porpular fiction, he said, so it meant a lot. I don't see why populist writers shouldn't be given a nod now and again - their books may not be cerebral, but they give a lot of people a lot pleasure and I'm not sure why that's something to sneer at.