
This Year's Hugo Nominees Chosen 171
wrinkledshirt writes "They've announced this year's nominees for the Hugo Awards. Wonder who the next Asimov, Brin, Gibson or [shudder] Rowling is going to be? Find out at Conjose."
The trouble with being punctual is that nobody's there to appreciate it. -- Franklin P. Jones
ouch (Score:3, Interesting)
The ones I knew are dying off (Zelazny, Herbert, Asimov, Heinlein . .
Re:ouch (Score:1)
Re:ouch (Score:2, Insightful)
Careful, you're dangerously close to sounding like your father. Especially that bit about the music. All you have to do is deride the way kids of today dress and cut their hair and you'll officially qualify for your AARP [aarp.com] membership card.
Try reading something new with an open mind, you'll find the books are just as good as ever. I for one am glad SF isn't what it used to be. Why would you want the same ideas recycled by a new generation of writers? I have many favorite books from the past, but the very concept of Science Fiction suggests that as time advances, so should the ideas behind the writing. Your favorite writer may no longer be putting out books, but don't confuse that with the idea that there is no longer any good Science Fiction. A good book is still a good book, no generation has a monopoly on them.
By the way, 20 years from now they'll be some old guy complaining that the current state of Science Fiction is no where near as good as it was back in the good ol' days of 2002.
Re:ouch (Score:1)
Only 28 and already I'm feeling old.
Re:ouch (Score:1)
Those are the writers I like as well. But, I hate to break it to you, but they aren't dying off they are dead.
Re:ouch (Score:2)
Maybe you should try a few new ones...how about Connie Willis (forget Passages though, get Book of the Dead, very good, plus in paperback...used even!). Allen Steele is also quite good, I remember "discovering" him in the mid-90s. I have heard Neil Gaiman is quite good, so that will be the new author I'll be trying next...so maybe someone can recommend one of his books...plus it is likely anyone nominated for a Hugo has produced fine work.
Re:ouch (Score:2)
if you like it, read the "American Gods" which was excellent (and quite a bit longer)
Re:ouch (Score:2)
Curse of Chalion (Score:1)
Re:Curse of Chalion (Score:1)
Of course, "Curse of Chalion" was really excellent--but the end of that scene in "Memory" where Miles wrestles with temptation, two falls out of three, consistently leaves me in tears from the sheer breathtaking magnitude of it all. Nothing in Chalion even comes close.
"The Spirit Ring" really was sub-par, though.
Re:Curse of Chalion (Score:1)
Now to wait until Diplomatic Immunity [baen.com] comes out in May.
Re:Curse of Chalion (Score:3, Informative)
This is Slashdot! Why are you waiting for the dead tree edition? The no-evil-DMCA-protections WebScription edition [webscription.net] is already fully available (and loaded into my Palm V...).
Re:Curse of Chalion (Score:1)
; - )
Re:Curse of Chalion (Score:1)
On the other hand, I did suffer a nasty divorce (that's a tautology, I think) a while back, so I have to admit, Komarr and ACC really resonated.
I've read DI on Baen's website. It's truly awesome. And, yes, even though I paid for the webscription, I'm planning on buying it in hardcover, too. :) What can I say? I'm a Bujold junky.
Re:Curse of Chalion (Score:1)
Please don't know Rowling... (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyways, Harry Potter is very entertaining, despite its main-stream nature. One can hardly argue that the books are for childeren due to the use of Magic and Witchcraft. These are clearly meant for adults, although i would let, and I understand why childeren love them so much.
Re:Please don't know Rowling... (Score:3, Interesting)
Screw everything I said about Rowling, GO BUFFY!!
Sarah Michelle Gellar deserves an emmy or a Hugo, or my hugo... if you know what I mean.
Re:Please don't know Rowling... (Score:3, Interesting)
That said - up until five months ago, I thought it was a cheesy, stupid Xena/90210 show, while having never really watched it. I despise Xena (love Rami though, go figure). I had friends telling me it was great, and I finally got around to watching it. Seriously - if you like good classic literature, bite the bullet and watch four or five episodes. The dialogue is often up there with Dumas, the plot twists are those of Bradbury... it is really an incredible show.
That said, it's up against Fellowship and Shrek. Harry Potter was pretty thin on screen (well, so was the book), and Monsters, Inc was fun, but not great. Shrek almost hit Princess' Bride level of simple fairy tale told well - but only almost, in my opinion. Fellowship could lose some points by over-anal Tolkein fans pissed about certain cuts. That would be a shame, imo, as it really is a fantastic movie in it's own right.
--
Evan
Re:Please don't know Rowling... (Score:2)
Methinks at the rate things are going Joss Whedon won't get his Emmy for the work on this show until they give it to him as a Lifetime Achievement Award.
Re:Please don't know Rowling... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Please don't know Rowling... (Score:4, Interesting)
why not? The Hobbit was written for children(child actually
they are clearly written for children. that doesn't mean adults can't like them. I have read a great deal in my life, and I enjoyed them. Granted I read one a night, but they were still fun.
Before rowling when was the last time you saw so many kids, so excited about reading? for that alone she deserves a prize.
the fact that author said the HP books where geared to kids Harry's age should have probably clued you in.
Re:Please don't know Rowling... (Score:2)
I've only read the first Potter book so far, but my only complaint is that it isn't set in the same "somewhere before WWII" England as Christie, Sayers, Allingham, A.C. Doyle, "Watership Down", and et cetera.
Re:Please don't know Rowling... (Score:1)
Doesn't saying "This British writer wins the Hugo because he is British" inherently indicate "If we actually judged a British author based on his works, he wouldn't win?"
"One can hardly argue that the books are for childeren due to the use of Magic and Witchcraft."
Ah, yes. Just as books like The Indian in the Cupboard and the Chronicles of Narnia MUST be for adults, since they contain magic.
Re:Please don't know Rowling... (Score:2)
But personally, I think that an award like this should given to something truly exceptional -- and that, HP was not (except perhaps in popularity).
These are clearly meant for adults
Um.... no. They were completely filled with themes that seem far more aimed at kids than adults.
Consider: Harry's ignored and oppressed by his parents -- but they're not his real parents; his real parents loved him very much, and gave their all for him. He harbors within him great skills that no one around appreciates, and he basically escapes to a magical castle, where at ever meal he eats plates piled high with his favorite cakes and sweets. He encounters a bully, but manages to show him up. He wins the big match. He wins the respect of all by triumphing over evil -- not so much through hard work or skill, but mainly by hanging on and gritting his teeth (plus a bit of help from those real parents who loved him so dearly -- even though they're dead). etc., etc.
[Well, OK, I could go for all that too, but I'm kinda down there on the maturity scale...]
Re:Please don't know Rowling... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Hugos are a fan-voted award. So they are, in fact, only based on popularity. Always have been, too.
(The canonical "bad example" is They'd Rather Be Right, generally considered the most forgettable Hugo winning novel.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"witchcraft and magic" (Score:1)
Now my mum and pop taught me to be respectful of other people, even when they are being clearly ridiculous, but some of these fundamentally christian sites are quitre quite funny.
On this one though, this struck me as neat
[quote]
God has already condemned everything about Harry Potter in Deuteronomy 18:9-12 as follows: "When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.
[/quote]
Yes, well that's all nice and right up there with the classic 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live'..
However, and here it comes
Does not this quote also say that you shall not use an observer of time ? Which I translate in my sick and twisted heathen mind to mean that you may not use a clock.. And per extrapolation, is a computer not based upon (amongst other things) a clock ?.
So in extrapolation, are not these people who are trying so hard to save me, themselves falling victims to the very things they try so hard to save me from ?
Whereupon I expect them to promptly disappear in a puff of logical smoke.. no?..
Re:"witchcraft and magic" (Score:2)
Re:Please don't know Rowling... (Score:2)
Make no mistake, although Neil Gaiman wrote American Gods and currently lives in the US, he is most certainly a British author. You can read the slashdot review for his book here [slashdot.org].
Re:Please don't know Rowling... (Score:1)
Re:Please don't know Rowling... (Score:2)
After all, how many adults would be caught dead at a Gulliver's Travels movie? The book was certainly written for adults (indeed, at the time I'm not sure that anybody was writing for kids), but it has sort of devolved away from its author's intentions. Dickens thought he was writing searing social criticism (well, OK, he was paying the bills, too), but almost all his stuff is also currently marketed for kids. Same thing with Verne.
As a matter of fact, I'm beginning to suspect that that books that are too difficult for adults get marketed to kids.
Re:Please don't know Rowling... (Score:2)
Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:5, Interesting)
A)wrinkled shirt never read any and is trying to be cool, or
B)Did read it, but is in such need of attention that going againse popular things is his equivelant of waving his arms in the air and going "look at me".
Jusat because you don't like a book, doesn't mean its not a good book, and just because a book is geared to someone young, doesn't mean its not a good book.
You may not like them, but they are technically sound. by that I mean structure, continuity, plot.
The Hobbit was written for children.
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:2)
To say that it was the best sf novel published that year is something quite different.
Rowling's books, despite being good, are waaaay overrated.
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:3, Interesting)
Rowling's books are, I believe, so popular because they are both accessable and marketed to relative non readers. Books are nifty, and Rowling is a capable writer, and when these people who normally don't read all that much get into them, they think it's the greatest thing ever... and never pick up another book.
I read four to six novels a week across the board in genres. Maybe my criteria for a "great novel" is higher because of that, but when you're judging works, shouldn't you be intimate with the field? I recognize almost every name on that list - hell, I've sat at a table and eaten with some of them.
That said, you'll note that Rowling isn't up for *anything*. Only the movie based on one of her works is, and she didn't write the screenplay. Reread the list - her name is nowhere to be found.
--
Evan
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:2)
She did, however, win the Hugo last year for one of her Harry Potter books, which is what my criticism was aimed towards (I'm surprised you didn't know this, being familiar with the genre as you seem to be). And there is nothing wrong with being a)accessible, or b) marketed towards relative non-readers. There IS, however, something wrong with giving this kind of novel the premiere literary award of the genre. I'd hate to see the Hugos become depreciated (like the Nebulas) because they're given out to Rowling and Buffy.
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:2)
I always see the Hugo nominee list as a "hey, let's see when Worldcon is this year, and how close to Pennsic it is". Since I'm on the west coast for that part of the year, I'll likely go to Worldcon rather than Pennsic this year.
--
Evan
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:2)
The Worldcon voting system has worked surprisingly well in the past, while the Nebula (decided by the SFWA) has lost some of it's lustre, so letting all con-goers vote isn't a bad system, but it's flaws do come out some years (like last year).
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:2)
Wrong person to say that to [google.com]. Actually on the Buffy group we were chatting about the Hugos, and about how comparing a single episode to movies is kinda apples and oranges. Well, I'm moving forward from an idea there, but basically, a series with good story arcs and continuing character development (like Buffy, or you mentioned B5) is a different beast than a two (or even three) hour show.
Really, there should be a category with Andromeda, Buffy tVS, Enterprise, X-Files, Angel, Mutant X and, ghod help me, Earth Final Conflict, listing each appropriate season. (Not that I do not like all those (especially one towards the end), but they are the genre on TV).
--
Evan "I know I missed some - don't flame on just because I forgot some really good show".
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:2)
There is also something deeply wrong with denying the award to the best novel/show/movie because one thinks it cheapens the Hugo.
I don't know if she deserved to win last year, but if Buffy won some year I don't think it would cheapen the award (and if so not by nearly as much as denying it merely because "it's TV", or "it has a funny name")...of corse I don't think it deserves to win this year, not because the musical was bad (it was quite good), but because this year something was better (not sure there was anything better the year "Hush" was out...).
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:2)
Umm....nevermind.
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:2)
No, you deny the award because they're not the best thing out. "Cheapening the Hugo" is just a side effect.
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:2)
There's some of this, I'm sure. Let me give another view. My 10 year old loves Harry Potter. She's just obsessed by all things HP. Now, she was a very active reader before, but Harry Potter has motivated her to pick up a number of similar books. If it hadn't been for Harry Potter, she wouldn't be into Jacques' RedWall or A Series of Unfortunate Events.
The net effect upon the reading public of Rowling has been very positive, I think. I know of some of my daughter's friends who didn't read before Rowling who are exploring other things now. It's not just the one book kids read and never read again. I'm sure some of that goes on, but to generalize that is way too cynical.
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:2)
Oh, I don't disagree one bit. I'm just saying that ease of access isn't necessarily a quality that promotes a book to the "best of the year" level. As I said, they are good books. I agree that many people read them who don't normally read. However, until recently, I was the host of a SF radio show, and everybody who read Harry Potter talked to me about it - I recommended a few other books, but almost nobody read after they read the series.
One important difference is that these were adults, from their 20s to their 40s. Children, I think, are much more apt to "discover" something they like. Adults are more likely to try something, and then drop it, going back to their routine. I know two teachers and one librarian who think the books are great to get students to read - similar to the works of Roald Dahl.
As I say, they are good books that have a great impact on getting people to read. Does that, however, make them great works of literature? I'm hardly a traditional literary snob - there are comics out there that are easily some of the finest crafted stories around. But, in the genre, is Harry Potter the finest work?
--
Evan
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:2)
Rowling's books are mostly popular because they are popular. Just like celebrities are well-known for their well-knownness. It's a positive-feedback phenomenon. It's difficult to predict such phenomena. It usually won't happen unless it's something that people like, but the fact that it's 100 times more popular than some other books doesn't mean that it's 100 times better.
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:2)
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:1, Informative)
Section 3.1: Introduction. Selection of the Hugo Awards shall be made as provided in this Article.
Section 3.2: General.
3.2.1: Unless otherwise specified, Hugo Awards are given for work in the field of science fiction or fantasy appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year.
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:1)
<sarcasm>High praise indeed.</sarcasm>
Harry Potter is Fantasy (Score:2, Informative)
None of the other 48 award winning novels [worldcon.org] are fantasy. About the closest are the Zelazny winners (Lord of Light,
Re:Harry Potter is Fantasy (Score:1)
And if fantasy and science fiction are really distinct genres, try to define the boundary. Go ahead. I'll warn you that it's a lot harder than it sounds.
Re:Harry Potter is Fantasy (Score:2)
Has Ron Goulart written anything lately?
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:2, Insightful)
A quick perusal of the list of winners reveals an easy answer. Sure, the Potter books are good, but mostly because, as you said, they're easily accessable. Keeping the list of past winners in mind, giving her the award because she's "technically sound" is crap. Just because someone can manage to tell a decent story doesn't mean they belong on the same list as the forefathers like Clarke, Niven, Heinlein, Dick, and Asimov, or even with some of the newer authors like Gibson or Vinge.
Check the list of winners at Amazon.com [amazon.com] and see if it doesn't put her winning in a new light. Personally, this year, I'd like to see Gaiman win, just for overall contribution to the genre.
And as an aside, yes, The Hobbit was written for children, and the differences between it and the full trilogy, for which Tolkien is better known, are astounding. The full trilogy deals with issues of philosophy and delves far deeper into the ideas of good vs. evil than does The Hobbit.
Mark
Hugo history (Score:1)
The Hugo ain't the Nobel.
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:2)
Most of it is utter crap. From "I Will Fear No Evil" onwards, he rejected professional editors and churned out proof after proof of Sturgeon's dictum - 90% of everything is crap.
So don't get all snippy because someone doesn't compare to Heinlein - to my mind, that's a compliment.
"The Hobbit was not written for children" (Score:2)
He called his books "adult faery tales" and were written for adults. Of course people still call it a "children's classic" and have every right to do so.
But for me, a book where there was a bloody battle at the end where quite a few of the main characters died is not exactly Cinderalla'ish.
Re:Whats wrong with rowling? (Score:2)
Just because it's a "children's book" is no excuse: it's certainly possible to write one and avoid these mistakes (take Lemony Snicket's, for instance).
That said, in the balance it's a good, gripping novel. But Rowling's genius seems to me a derivative one, of weaving together well-worn elements into an exciting narrative with a vivid, feature-film feel. In my view, the above flaws stop it far short of being the be-all and end-all of children's literature.
Missing nomination (Score:2, Funny)
Douglas Adams (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
...
Cosmonaut Keep by Ken MacLeod (Orbit (UK)(2000); Tor)
Curiously enough, Slashdot is actually mentioned in this book. Has a nice scene with a bunch of old-time linux hacks sitting in a bar talking 'bout the good ol days. If you can handle non-linear storytelling, pop-culture references, and Scottish pessimistic pride in your sci-fi, I highly recommend Ken MacLeod. Plus, the cover art is usually pretty cool.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
The bar in question is "The Guildford Arms" in Edinburgh, yours trully features in that sequence under his own name
The reason for this mess is that the SF writing field in Scotland is very small, and the number of Scottish SF writers who have an interest in weird politics and extropianism [extropy.org] is even smaller.
Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
I agree with your summary, but would add that his characters often have extremely interesting politics, varying from Marxism through Libertarianism, however they seem to grow in a very interesting way across the books.
Re:Hmm... Cover art (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing that bothers me about science fiction and fantasy books is the cover art. Very often, it is a picture of the main character holding a weapon or something similarly tacky. Covers like these are one of the reasons why many people do not take speculative fiction seriously. They take one look at the cover and go, "Come on, that's supposed to have insight on the human condition? Riiiight."
For example, Hyperion by Dan Simmons was a fantastic read. John Keats, Chaucer, William Gibson, Philip K. Dick, etc. it's all in there. But what do we get on the cover? A picture of a monster covered with metal spikes.
There are exceptions, and lately it seems publishers are getting the right idea in this area. Neil Gaiman's American Gods has a wonderful cover, in which you don't actually see any gods. It's just a picture of a dark, lonely road, with lightning in the sky. It conveys the right feeling. Another example is Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon-- all black with a sort of cryptic symbol. Imagine if the publishers decided to put a picture of US marines shooting at enemy planes.
Re:Hmm... Cover art (Score:1)
<geek tangent>Also the cover for Hyperion is inaccurate anyways - the Shrike has four arms. Why even bother to put it on the cover with only two?</geek>
As a graphic designer and artist myself I'm really surprised that anyone in my profession would create such poor covers. Where are these self-respecting "artists" creating such trash? I'm betting (hoping) that there is some sort of communication problem between management and the artist and that the person creating the cover hasn't actually read the book.
Re:Hmm... Cover art (Score:2)
Keep reading. My paperback copy of The Rise of Endymion, the fourth and last book in the series, features a four-armed Shrike on the cover.
Not only does it get points for cover accuracy, but it also has the most wrenching and satisfying ending of any book I've read recently.
I think Endymion was the most entertaining of the four, but the last one gets serious credit for being so... right.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Funny)
[The computer started up], showing the familiar Windows 2045 logo, which soon faded away to leave a demonically grinning penguin and the words 'But seriously...'.
Recent interview - and a review (Score:2, Informative)
The Zone website also has a review [zone-sf.com] of Cosmonaut Keep by the same person (me!), who seems to quite like it.
Kids shouldn't read Fantasy? (Score:2)
Yeah. Kids shouldn't read fantasy books or play fantasy games or watch fantasy movies - ever! Might damage their fragile little minds.
Instead, every child should go through weekly viewings of Pulp Fiction and Fight Club, and also read the Fight Club novel no less than once a month.
interesting choice of authors to name (Score:1)
But I should write more science fiction reviews [dannyreviews.com]...
Danny.
Re:interesting choice of authors to name (Score:2)
Asimov? Limited? You mean then gent who's turned out hundreds of nonfiction works on everything from astronomy to religion? The guy who seemed equally comfortable writing a 3-page short story and a 300 page novel? The fellow who wrote something under just about ever conceivable SF sub-genre you can name?
Oh, yah, he's limited.
Yes, limited (Score:2)
Danny.
Re:Yes, limited (Score:2)
In fact, once I started writing and editing, I found Asimov completely unreadable (along with a great many other "Golden Era" writers whom I'd formerly thought were great).
Guess it is time to read more now... (Score:2)
I have loved Dr. Vinge's books that I have read, very provacative, he doesn't try to explain his universes, just sets down a series of rules and follows them... That is cool.
Now I just need to attend one of his classes here in San Diego if he is still teaching
Re:Guess it is time to read more now... (Score:1)
Excellent, extra reading material (Score:5, Interesting)
* A bunch of writers that other people like that I haven't been exposed to yet
Time to head down to the speciality SF bookshop tommorow and check them out (Galaxy, in Sydney Aus)
The biggest problem of Fantasy / Science Fiction at the moment is that people find one writer / style and refuse to read outside it. At it's worst these leads to Bookracks of Star Wars, Star Trek and other licensed works, while new authors cannot get into the 30-foot space that's reserved for "authors that perform"
Don't complain that you don't know the authors, just think of them as favorite authors you don't know about yet.
Re:Excellent, extra reading material (Score:1)
I think a bigger problem is that SF is currently blessed with so few great writers, compared to the giants that came before. I read alot of SF and fantasy and am consistently disappointed because what passes for 'great' nowadays simply isn't up to what 'great' used to mean.
That doesn't mean that there aren't *any* good writers. But during the '60's and '70's these boys seemed to be popping out of the woodwork, building on an abundance that blossomed in the'50's. Very few people have successfully picked up the torch and run with it since then.
Max
I don't believe.. (Score:1)
Re:I don't believe.. (Score:3, Informative)
Clearly American Gods.... (Score:2)
Gaiman is one of the world's most artistic storytellers. The way he brings together world religions creates a world of amazing depth. There are extra chapters in this particular book that do nothing to advance the plot line, but everything to increase the depth. It is an intensely satisfying read.
Gaiman's most successful project to date are the Sandman comics. Reading American Gods, you can tell that he used to work with comics. When Gaiman wrote the Sandman series, he didn't just write the dialogue, he wrote out long descriptions of each frame for the artist. In the same way, Gaiman creates a very visual picture for the reader in every scene. Although American Gods is horror by genre, every scene is beautiful because of Gaiman's description.
You may also know the book he co-authored with Terry Pratchett - Good Omens.
Re:Clearly American Gods.... (Score:1)
Re:Clearly American Gods.... (Score:2)
Here's the link [snafu.de]
Do a search for Gaiman on the page. Apparently his father is real high up, and Neil used to be active. But the site is sceptical about Gaiman's active status.
Re:Clearly American Gods.... (Score:2)
Meghan
Re:Clearly American Gods.... (Score:2)
Well then you really can't say its the clear winner now can you? You should read all of them and then make your prediction.
contemporary sf (Score:2, Interesting)
And when will one of those ceremonies finally give Olaf Stapledon the award he deserves ? I swear, he gets more imagination in three pages than most of our contemporaries get in three volumes.
Btw, if Greg Bear's stuff gets any worse I'm gonna have to write another letter...
Re:contemporary sf (Score:1)
Re:contemporary sf (Score:2, Informative)
So why has no one here heard of Connie Willis? (Score:2)
I have to admit that I'm in the same boat.
A little surprised that no one here (maybe its the male orientation) seems to have heard of Connie Willis, who is a five time (last I looked) Hugo winner.
Re:So why has no one here heard of Connie Willis? (Score:2)
I've read Connie Willis (Score:1)
Re:So why has no one here heard of Connie Willis? (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway, while we're talking about connie willis, can you tell me why "Death on the Nile" one a Hugo for short story? Dreadfully dull story.
Re:So why has no one here heard of Connie Willis? (Score:2, Informative)
21 votes gets you on the ballot (Score:2, Informative)
Amazing to see those "Range" statistics at the end of the press release. This tells the number of votes it took to get on the ballot. In the Short Story category, the nominated story with the least number of votes got 21 votes.
There are SF writers who absolutely live and die based on whether they get nominated. A Hugo Award can jumpstart an entire career. In short fiction it only takes two dozen people to get you the thumbs-up!
Of course, all the nominators have to have supporting memberships in ConJose, and those aren't cheap. Still, it seems like any writer who's two steps above sheer penury could buy memberships for a couple dozen friends and relatives -- under a variety of assumed names, of course -- and then get to wear the fancy "Nominee" ribbon on his convention badge.
Personally, I can think of better ways to spend that kind of money.
Re:21 votes gets you on the ballot (Score:4, Informative)
A supporting membership [conjose.org] in ConJose currently costs $35 (it was cheaper a few months ago), and entitles you to vote on the final Hugo ballot (but you don't get to go to the con). Usually about 2 to 3 times as many people vote on the final ballot as nominate, but that still means only about a thousand people decide which works get Hugos.
So if anyone here thinks the Hugo ballot doesn't represent what they'd like to see winning awards, consider buying a supporting membership in ConJose and voting in this year's Hugos. Even better, consider buying a supporting membership in next year's WorldCon (TorCon [torcon3.on.ca]), so that you can nominate next year.
The more people participate in the process, the more accurate the results.
China Mieville's Perdido Street Station (Score:2)
Re:China Mieville's Perdido Street Station (Score:1)
my input (Score:1)
Go Buffy! (Score:2)
Snow Crash (Score:2, Funny)
I must be getting old... (Score:2)
Anyway, Buffy feels out of place here. I suppose she is, technically, Fantasy. But not the kind you'd expect to find in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science-Fiction [fsfmag.com]. Which, I am pained to note, doesn't rate a single nomination.
The Harry Potter books are OK, but I don't quite see the point of the movies. Except to squeeze a little cash from the kiddies.