Redshirts wins Hugo for Best Novel

[Datepalm]

I wouldn't call it hard SF as such, but it's some sort of hard-ish SF / space opera / military SF blend. Is "authors like Heinlein/Niven/Brin/Card/Bujold" at all meaningful as a label to anyone but me?

I'm honestly not sure. Those sound like a fairly broad range of authors, to be honest - some characteristics in common, sure, but that's a spread should be fairly handily encompassing, say, Kameron Hurley or Hannu Rajaniemi. Besides, the actual David Brin had an actual new book out this year, with all the spacey, military exploration and tech stuff you could wish for (that was also actually pretty good) and that didn't make the ballot.

And where does Connie Willis', who writes nothing like that style, vast popularity comes in? Not to mention McGuire/Grant, who I haven't read but know writes pranormal romances and books about zombie blogging, and who's online presence, (at least what i'm aware of) is very liberal-feminist-pc. That would seem to be miles away from the assumption that the Hugo is all old Heinlein fans voting for other old Heinlein fans?

[mormont]

His nominations were all quite some time ago and the 2005 WorldCon was in the UK, which was the point I was making ;)

Um, I'm not sure it was. If so, it would have been better to say it quite differently: what you actually said suggested that Priest was ignored by the Hugo voters, which ain't true. Lots of them like his work. There are many excellent writers whose works are ignored by the Hugo crowd and this is a legitimate criticism: but Chris Priest is very much not among their number.

Like with Banks being nominated in 2005, the awards actually have to be held in the UK (which they are only once per decade or so) for most British authors* to get a look-in, no matter if British SF authors are actually doing a lot better than American ones (as they are at the moment).

Again, not sure this is actually borne out by the facts. I agree that many good British writers are ignored, but the Brits don't do too badly, as a rule. Picking a year at random (2010, Aussiecon) I find Mieville up for Best Novel, Ian McDonald up for best novella, Paul Cornell and Charles Stross up for Novelette, Gaiman and Cornell with nominations for Graphic Story, and Farah Mendelsohn up for Best Related Book - twice. (To say nothing of the Doctor Who nominations.) Looking at 2008 (Denver), McDonald and Stross are in for novel, Stephen Baxter and Ken MacLeod up for short story.

I'd say that next to the US, the UK probably do better than anyone else in Hugo nominations. (And I don't think we can knock off the Gaiman/Stross/Rowling nominations either, since by that argument the likes of Harry Harrison and Lisa Tuttle shouldn't count as American authors.)

[felice]

The City & the City:

IMAO it's science fiction where the fictional science is in the field of psychology rather than the more standard physics (eg time travel), biology (eg aliens), engineering (eg spaceship), etc.

[Gigei]

I had not realized that Scalzi had built up such a reservoir of rage among some you. I think the phrase "Lighten up Francis" applies here all too well.

Lol, nah its just a few people.

Stop the press, John Ringo has explained precisely why Scalzi won:

Well, that clears that up then.

John Ringo, the writer whose name is used in a meme for misogyny and homophobia? Not sure what kind of point he is trying to make there.

[Seli]

Lol, nah its just a few people.

John Ringo, the writer whose name is used in a meme for misogyny and homophobia? Not sure what kind of point he is trying to make there.

It is a point similar to the one Larry Correia was going for with his Hugo Nomination campaign. Liberals (or another set of wrong people) control most of publishing and the big prices. And they suppress (a specific subset of) conservatives, who actually form the backbone and the majority of the field.

Of course there is indeed a set of authors within that flavour of conservatism that sells well, and don't get much other recognition. But some of them seem to see the rest of the industry as opponents, trying to keep them down. Which to me, but I am probably biased, seems to be a familiar pattern.

eta: or basically Ringo makes things a bit clearer in his follow-up post https://www.facebook...151615965422055

[Darth Richard]

Oh, John Ringo, no!

You beat me to it!

[peterbound]

I'm not going to re read all this shit, so if it came up, forgive me, but how the fuck does Mira Grant/Maguire keep winning/nominated. I liked her stuff, but fuck, it's not that great.

Same for Scalzi.. how the fuck does this happen?

[Sci-2]

I'm not going to re read all this shit, so if it came up, forgive me, but how the fuck does Mira Grant/Maguire keep winning/nominated. I liked her stuff, but fuck, it's not that great.

Same for Scalzi.. how the fuck does this happen?

Seems to be the problem of any award based on popularity. Now maybe instead of best novel you had "Best Prose", "Best Characterization", "Best Worldbuilding" and so on popular vote might result in the cream of the crop getting awarded.

eta: That said I don't think popularity is necessarily a bad thing so long as people accept that is what the award represents. But the issue here seems to be that some people want the Hugos to indicate a certain level of quality.

[peterbound]

Seems to be the problem of any award based on popularity. Now maybe instead of best novel you had "Best Prose", "Best Characterization", "Best Worldbuilding" and so on popular vote might result in the cream of the crop getting awarded.

eta: That said I don't think popularity is necessarily a bad thing so long as people accept that is what the award represents. But the issue here seems to be that some people want the Hugos to indicate a certain level of quality.

But, who is she popular with? I don't know any fucking geeks that are that fucking hard for her. If that was the case, wouldn't George win every year. Not to mention, her book sales pale in comparison to some of the other guys on the ballot. I don't' get it.

[Darth Richard]

It's because Frodo never actually destroyed the ring. The whole thing was a lie.

[lady narcissa]

But, who is she popular with? I don't know any fucking geeks that are that fucking hard for her. If that was the case, wouldn't George win every year. Not to mention, her book sales pale in comparison to some of the other guys on the ballot. I don't' get it.

She is popular with the people that actually nominate and vote for the Hugos. It doesn't take a lot of votes to get on the ballot and ultimately win a Hugo. The problem, as is being discussed in the other thread, is getting people to actually do so - the majority of people who have the ability to nominate and vote for the Hugos do not do so. But her fans/friends do. And that is the difference.

Before the nominations this year, she posted a list on her blog of the pieces and people she'd like to see nominated. Some were her own but there were others by other people. A big chunk of what she listed ended up on the ballot. You could say it is coincidence or she just thought like everyone else who nominated. However, I look at the fact that the specific episode of Fringe that she listed ended up on the ballot as proof of her influence. Fringe has never been nominated before and that particular episode wasn't necessarily one that so many people would have nominated but for her suggesting it. It didn't ultimately win but she got it on the ballot by recommending it.

[Serious Callers Only]

But, who is she popular with? I don't know any fucking geeks that are that fucking hard for her. If that was the case, wouldn't George win every year. Not to mention, her book sales pale in comparison to some of the other guys on the ballot. I don't' get it.

Livejournal. I like the October Daye series. Anyway, 2312 was a terrible novel structurally so it's not surprising that the hugo went to Redshirts (although Redshirts is terrible but if it went to Bujold there'd probably be a lot of bellyaching for a different segment of readership since it's a romantic comedy). Problem is lame nominations for 'previous books that i read, not the current one'. Why not Nathan Lowell or someone like that if they love Heinlein so much? It's practically Heinlein 2.0 - without silly adventure plots and marginally less sexism this time (there is a harem, platonic this time thou). Not to speak of the fantasy field where new authors are popping like corn on fire.

About the hugo : this made me laugh - they love the 40's-60's stuff so much that they're awarding it retroactively.

[Shryke]

But, who is she popular with? I don't know any fucking geeks that are that fucking hard for her. If that was the case, wouldn't George win every year. Not to mention, her book sales pale in comparison to some of the other guys on the ballot. I don't' get it.

The people who go to WorldCon.

The Hugos are an award given out by the minority of people who vote out of the specific group of people who go to WorldCon.

If you don't know these type of people, it's all completely inexplicable.

[emberling]

But, who is she popular with?

Me, for one. Though the stuff she gets nominated for tends to be the stuff I like least, other than Feed and "In Sea-Salt Tears."

I see Seanan's SF as pretty similar to Bujold and Willis, and we all know how well they do at the Hugos.

[Datepalm]

I see Seanan's SF as pretty similar to Bujold and Willis, and we all know how well they do at the Hugos.

There seems to be a quality of lumping women together here, because Bujold and Willis strike me as nothing whatsoever alike. Bujold and Cherreyh, maybe, who was also a perennial favorite in the 80's and 90's.

[Werthead]

The people who go to WorldCon.

The Hugos are an award given out by the minority of people who vote out of the specific group of people who go to WorldCon.

That's unfair.

Sometimes the Hugo voters will even have an attack of, "Let's get zeitgeisty!" and give the award to a popular novel that people have actually heard of (hence Chabon, Rowling, Susanna Clarke etc) ;)

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

It's still true, though. Look at the Worldcon/WSFS membership compared to general spec-fic readership, and then the number of Hugo nominators and/or voters compared to Worldcon membership.

It's not truly trying to be exclusionary beyond 'buy a WSFS/Worldcon membership to support WSFS', but the voting portions's still (generally) a tiny fraction of the people reading these books.

[Werthead]

I think the age problem has a lot to do with it as well. Looking at the various Worldcon reports, the concerns over the tons of grey-haired people being there were a lot higher this year. The BwB party was praised because it was one of the few events where there were quite a few people under 40 50.

But that goes back to GRRM's point that the various Worldcon organisers seem to be deliberately playing down the appeal of Worldcon and trying to hold the attending membership at well under 10,000. As long as they keep doing that and don't be more welcoming and inclusive, the problem will continue. It would help if Worldcon moved away from DragonCon as well and, apologies to George, but there is zero reason why DragonCon, with its 50,000 attendees, should move away from Worldcon when it's only Worldcon that is suffering from the competition.

[Datepalm]

What's Dragoncon?

[Werthead]

Thusly.

DragonCon is a much more multimedia, multi-stream convention than Worldcon. It embraces multiple media, makes a bigger deal out of cosplay and has dedicated tracks to things like anime. It embraces and encourages younger people to attend. It mostly - though not always - falls on the same weekend as Worldcon, and there's been a lot of grumbling that it divides fandom and audience, with both fans and writers choosing to attend DragonCon over WorldCon because DragonCon is 1) cheaper and 2) has the reputation of being more colourful and raucous. Worldcon has an advantage in that it moves around and different fans have the opportunity to go each year, whilst DragonCon always takes place in Atlanta, though of course that is a benefit for some people.

Reading con-going reports from people who attended the two conventions, DragonCon certainly sounds like a hell of a lot more fun. Going by the reports, most of the things that rocked at Worldcon were down almost entirely to the BwB livening things up as per usual :)