SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

The nominees have been announced for the 2015 Hugo Awards.

Best Novel
Ancillary Sword
The Dark Between the Stars
The Goblin Emperor
Skin Game
The Three-Body Problem

For the full list of all categories go here: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2015/04/2015...

Thanks Kim. I've been wanting to read The Dark Between the Stars but I haven't read The Saga of the Seven Suns.

Oh boy. A ridiculous nominee list thanks another sad puppy slate again. Goblin Emperor is probably fine, but the only other good thing on that list is the Leckie. God.

Yeah I threw up in my mouth after looking through that.

Do you guys like the Jim Butcher series?

who decides what novels get nominated for a Hugo? I assume it isn't necessarily the best-selling, so it isn't a total popularity contest.

Samuel wrote: "who decides what novels get nominated for a Hugo? I assume it isn't necessarily the best-selling, so it isn't a total popularity contest."

People who buy membership for WorldCon. A supporting membership costs $50 and is good for 2 years of voting.


After reading http://io9.com/the-hugo-awards-were-a... I think I'm pretty much done with the Hugos.

Sarah wrote: "Do you guys like the Jim Butcher series?"

I do Sarah. I have read them all and hang out for each new one. It seems a lot of people do since Skin Game has a Goodreads rating of 4.56:)

The problem with Skin Game making the list is that it appears it was helped a lot by the right-wing voting bloc organized by Brad R. Torgersen.

Thanks Phrynne. I haven't gotten there yet. Actually, I'm about 15 books behind :)

Here's a little background by Charlie Jane Anders

http://io9.com/the-hugo-awards-were-a...

I do like Jim Butcher too, though :)

Ancillary Sword, The Goblin Emperor, and Skin Game all seem like perfectly reasonable nominations to me. Kevin J Anderson has never done much for me. And I don't know anything about Lines of Departure.

Personally I'm tired of all the controversy. Both sides have credible points to make and both sides have made pretty asinine comments. I've never been to a worldcon and have never voted for a Hugo. I'd just encourage anyone to vote their favorites and leave it at that.

Kim wrote: "The problem with Skin Game making the list is that it appears it was helped a lot by the right-wing voting bloc organized by Brad R. Torgersen."

Oh I see. All these big awards seem to have issues behind them. In the end I guess we all just read what we want to read anyway:)

Phrynne wrote: "Kim wrote: "The problem with Skin Game making the list is that it appears it was helped a lot by the right-wing voting bloc organized by Brad R. Torgersen."

Oh I see. All these big..."

Sometimes they seem rather pointless.

Phrynne wrote: "Oh I see. All these big awards seem to have issues behind them. In the end I guess we all just read what we want to read anyway:) "

Agree...I'm fairly certain I've enjoyed lots of books that other people haven't; and probably will continue to. I like to know what's behind the controversy, but it won't stop me from reading any particular book.

Lines of Departure was an interesting choice I thought only because Marko Kloos is a practical unknown except in indie circles who read military sci-fi (I wouldn't think that a large group, honestly).

I loved Skin Game and I've been wanting to read Goblin Emperor.

I did feel meh when I saw another Leckie on there after the first book got overhyped into all the lists.

I haven't read Skin Game yet but I did really like Goblin Emperor a lot.

I have to admit to loving Ancillary Sword; but again, that's me...:)

Kim wrote: "Samuel wrote: "who decides what novels get nominated for a Hugo? I assume it isn't necessarily the best-selling, so it isn't a total popularity contest."

People who buy membership for WorldCon. A ..."
People who buy membership for WorldCon. A supporting membership costs $50 and is good for 2 years of voting.


After reading http://io9.com/the-hugo-awards-were-a... I think I'm pretty much done with the Hugos."

That's really a shame to see nominations are based on politics and a battle between 'popularity' and 'literary'. It sounds to me like the Hugo just doesn't mean what it used to.

Jim wrote: "Both sides have credible points to make and both sides have made pretty asinine comments."

One side has threatened the other with rape, assault and murder for the crime of being a woman who has won the Hugo.

I for one am greatly cheered by the success of the Sad Puppies campaign, and I am a fan of Correia.

As for the list, I like Skin Game. I am a die hard Dresden fan.

Yeah, that Scalzi, what an asshole, am I right!? Telling people to nominate & vote if they want to see more diveresity in the Hugos. Who does he think he is??

Reopening this thread. I will be paying close attention to it. Anyone who attacks another member is at risk of being banned.

I'm so sad that a bunch of political bullshit has so greatly tainted the Hugos.

I'd planned to join to start voting but now... I'll be giving all the winners of the Hugos the side-eye from now on. I guess Correia and his group achieved something: they made the Hugos something quite dirty.

:(

The Martian didn't get nominated? I am surprised. Out of curiosity without trying to set off a bomb here, what is the problem with any of the nominations except you do not like the list? I have no dog in this fight because I have not read any of these titles. Another question, is the Sad Puppies a joke? I took a quick look at their website and it looks like some kind of a joke to poke fun at the Hugo's. One last question. Is there a problem with having both right wing and left wing novelists work nominated?

I am not trying to stir the pot, but I am having a hard time understanding what the problem is with this awards year.

Can somebody take two minutes and enlighten me and please be non-disparaging. It does not help for an intelligent conversation.

Papaphilly wrote: "The Martian didn't get nominated? I am surprised."

The Martian was first released in 2011 and then rereleased in 2014. It was only eligible back in 2012.

I should clarify my above statement because I do like Jim Butcher. Skin Game is a decent enough book, but it's not exactly the best representation of the Dresden Files, like Changes for example.

Regarding The Martian, when the book was Book of the Month here, Weir said in the Q&A thread that when he posted the book in pieces online that the last part was put up in 2013 so the book isn't eligible for the Hugos this year.

Also, the Sad Puppies are extremely serious. If you'd like some background on the whole thing, this bit does a good job explaining everything. http://fosteronfilm.com/thoughts/the-...

Kim wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "The Martian didn't get nominated? I am surprised."

The Martian was first released in 2011 and then rereleased in 2014. It was only eligible back..."

Thank you for that update. I came across it just after the first of this year.

Yeah, too bad about The Martian. Sounds like almost nobody had heard of it before the 2014 rerelease. I'm still including it on my personal list of Favourite 2014 SF, along with Europe in Autumn, The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet, Station Eleven, Cibola Burn, World of Trouble, and My Real Children.

Benjamin wrote: "I should clarify my above statement because I do like Jim Butcher. Skin Game is a decent enough book, but it's not exactly the best representation of the Dresden Files, like Changes for example. ..."

I read the link and thank you for it. I do not know how to respond except to say that there is always somebody trying to muck about. I end up tired from the constant culture war from both sides. If this is true, then the award is worthless all because there is some point than needs to be made.

Kim wrote: After reading http://io9.com/the-hugo-awards-were-a... I think I'm pretty much done with the Hugos.

People who buy membership for WorldCon. A ..."

Personally I don't think this is the time to give up on the Hugos, especially for people who care about science fiction/fantasy or have been active in the voting process in the past. Not all the people on the Sad Puppy or Rapid Sad Puppy slates knew what was planned. I not been one to nominate but I have both attended and voted. Some of this is about the culture war but to a large degree it is about people being poor losers. It is also worth noting that Vox Day / Theodore Beale has a great deal of animosity towards John Scalzi because Scalzi was the president of The Science Fiction Writers of American when Beale was kicked out for openly racist remarks on SFWA's Twitter feed. Scalzi has won several Hugos, so this is about revenge. To roll over is to give Beale what he wants and he is really quite extreme (e.g. he OK with women having acid thrown in their face). I plan on at least looking at this year's ballot and voting if I can on the merits of the work. My only line in the sand is that I will not vote for Beale or his Castalia House because his stated purpose is to destroy the Hugos if he cannot control them. That kind of crazy hatred is just not something I will support.

George R.R. Martin has been blogging about this issue. I am attaching one of his several posts below. He is trying to be reasonable and did some analysis. He is also trying to get some hard data from the Sad Puppies because of their claims of black listing and conspiracies.

http://grrm.livejournal.com/418285.ht...

I have Kindle Unlimited. Lines of Departure lost me on page 30 because of the protocol of using atomic weapons on one's colony if the invading species is setting up shop. I only made it through a few paragraphs of Jason Cordov 's Kaiju Apocalypse. I have read some good military SF (Walter Hunt, Elizabeth Bear) but Cordov is not writing the type I like. I need to have a connection to the character before some massive battle scene. Wisdom from the Internet is nothing more than 1 line political comments, really not appropriate for the Hugo short list.

After thinking about it all, and reading all of George R.R. Martin's posts I've put my money where my mouth is and purchased a membership. Just a supporting one so I can vote, although it's being held only a couple hours drive from me so I may even upgrade and go.

I've just begun attending Scifi conventions in the last year, here in Australia. One of the things that's struck me most, is the inclusive nature of Australian fandom. It's very inclusive, and very friendly. I've just come back from Swancon in Perth, which was super fun and very welcoming.

Here, being described as a social justice warrior (at least in my circles!) is an accolade. I've read quite a bit of the debate, and I really don't get why there's been such an issue. I like GRRM's post - even though I haven't read ASOIAF (I know, sacrilege) - because it's moderate, and appears to look at the facts. Some of the others are much less so.

Surely if people are truly interested, it's up to the individual to purchase the relevant membership, nominate the relevant stories (based on their own personal preferences and not someone else's 'slate') and then vote as they wish, rather than orchestrating any kind of campaign.

Kim - I have been hoping to make it as I have friends who will be there. I am starting a new job and need to see if I can get the time off. As odd as it sounds, I do sometimes manage to meet online people in real life. I went riding and bought a saddle from one women. I am currently fostering an elderly pitt bull/lab mix for a women I meet online. Who knows, we may meet face to face.

Novels is the only category that interest me, so I am disappointed I probably won't rely on this year Hugo to have other books to read.

I have already read the Goblin emperor, not a bad book but really too mild, so not really the kind of book I expect from the Hugo and I wasn't either really that impressed by Ancillary Justice, so the second book is a maybe for me.

Well at least, I have a better image of how the Hugo work and how it can be manipulated. Do they release after the other titles that were unsuccessfully submitted ? I am curious to see what novels miss it because of the slates.

As someone who has nominated and voted for the Hugos for 40 years, I know that slate nominating is nothing new. It has become more prevalent since the rise of popular bloggers and podcasters. In recent years people like John Scalzi and Seanan McGuire have benefited from it, as well as things like web comics and Doctor Who. The difference this year is the breadth of it, forcing off almost all the true best-of-the-year contenders from the final ballot.

However, I would not advocate changing the nominating process. It is specifically designed to include as many people as possible in the hopes that the most popular works are nominated, not necessarily the best works (although usually the best works and the popular works overlap quite a bit).

As a result of this year's shenanigans, I will be modifying my nomination philosophy next year. In the past I often refrained from nominating what I thought were sure-bets to make the final ballot, instead throwing my weight behind good, but less popular works. Now I cannot assume anything and will have to nominate only the best works, passing over some of the dark horses in order to help ensure the final ballot carries a more representative spectrum of what's actually good.

Know, too, that if as many people nominated as voted on the final ballot, then special interest groups would have far less power. If you're upset and didn't nominate, you really have no right to complain.

It's a shame-just hearing some of the quotes from Correia and Wright gives me a bad taste in my mouth....seems very hypocritical!

But also, so many conflicting stories are out there, it's hard to even know what is true with this story...

I am thinking I also need to buy a membership so I can put my money where my mouth is!

Maybe I should, too.

But the whole thing does leave a nasty taste in my mouth.

Norman wrote: "As someone who has nominated and voted for the Hugos for 40 years, I know that slate nominating is nothing new. It has become more prevalent since the rise of popular bloggers and podcasters. In re..."

While I do not argue with your opinion about complaining, I want to give the other side of the argument. I read and I read allot. However, I read across a number of genres including lots of non-fiction. I do not have the time nor the inclination to read every science fiction book published every year. I try and avoid what I call (alien, ray gun, and spaceship schlock). There is nothing inherent wrong with these types of stories, I just do not like them and other cheesy science fiction traps.

I use the Nebula, Hugo, and Locus awards as one measuring stick to separate out some of the good stories from the pile. I fully expect to miss out on some very good books because not all of the best are nominated every year. Some years are going to be better than other years. There will be misses over time (2001 was never nominated for best picture as an example). What I do expect is that the process is honest. Now is sounds like it is not. That means I cannot trust the Hugo awards and the award is meaningless due to dishonesty. You yourself wrote that you now have to vote for locks to counter what is happening instead of voting for good books you think deserve attention. You have to change your voting to counter dishonesty and that is just plain bad. Please understand I am not naive about block voting and I figure it happens in all awards from time to time, but that the process is good in general. Now it sounds like the process is corrupted. I might as well watch pro wrestling.

Until last week, I didn't know how the Hugo nominations worked. I also find out the system is busted. I have already noted that I cannot read all of science fiction every year, so even if I was inclined to nominate, I am not educated enough to give an informed opinion. So my question to you is: would you rather have a complaint or uneducated voter?

Excellent points, Papaphilly. I agree, in that I also used the Nebula/Hugo/Locus awards as a criteria in selecting reads. Not THE main criteria, but I have usually considered that the books would be a cut above most in the field, for whatever reason. I kind of consider the authors to be examples of the "best in breed" at dog shows. In my mind I have a list of classic genre authors, some of whom I've read, some of whom I haven't because even though they've won awards, I don't like their style of book. Still, many are on my list to-someday-read as part of a personal attempt to achieve diversity and knowledge of genre classics (say, Silverberg). As an outsider to SFWA, my impression that Hugos were selected by people who were expert/widely-read in the field, so the award used to carry some weight with me (unlike some awards that seem to be mostly representative of a particular club or fan-base). The antics of Day and Correia have tarnished them significantly for me.

Carol. wrote: "As an outsider to SFWA, my impression that Hugos were selected by people who were expert/widely-read in the field, so the award used to carry some weight with me (unlike some awards that seem to be mostly representative of a particular club or fan-base). The antics of Day and Correia have tarnished them significantly for me. "


^THIS

This is exactly how I feel. The one reason I've never become a Hugo voter was that I'm not always widely read in current releases. I'm often years (if not decades) behind the current releases.

But the Hugos represented a list of "need to read" books that would be added to my TBR.

Now I feel it's tainted and not really as prestigious as I used to believe. And I'm a little pissed that Correia & Co. took that away from me to push a political agenda. I get enough politics dealing with actual politics! I don't want politics to be pushed into my reading!

right-as we've said in the GRR Martin discussion, there is a bit of a contract between writers and fans. In a way, we EMPLOY them, and fund their creative process. It seems like a break in the contract for them to push their political views unto an award that was SUPPOSED to be by READERS!

I too feel like Day and Correia have helped to ruin my reading experience.

THANKS GUYS

Carol. wrote: "As an outsider to SFWA, my impression that Hugos were selected by people who were expert/widely-read in the field, so the award used to carry some weight with me (unlike some awards that seem to be mostly representative of a particular club or fan-base)..."

Well...The truth is that the SFWA has nothing to do with the Hugo. SFWA is the organization that handles the Nebula.

The Hugo Award is the sole baby of the World Science Fiction Convention (Worldcon), run by the World Science Fiction Society (WSFS). Nominations and voting is restricted only to WSFS members...that is, those people who either pay to attend the conference, or pay a nominal non-attending membership fee, which is only like $40 or $50.

So it is, and never has been, an award with professional scrutiny of the nominations. It's all fans. Or should be.

There is nothing in the Hugo rules against slate voting. And, as has been pointed out, slates have been going on for a long time. The real difference this time seems to be that two well organized slates were put forth by people who actively disdain the Hugos and who are on record denegrating the awards over and over. They seem to actively hate the Hugo Award and the organization sponsoring it (using derogatory names for the fans who attend and for those who had put forth slates in the past). Which makes you wonder why they're so eager to push their slates and have their chosen ones win.

Slates in the past, I'm sure, have had political leanings. But I don't think we've seen such vitriol against the Hugos coming from slate promoters before (well...I'll take that back...this is the third year for Sad Puppies, and Rabid Puppies might have been around before as well).

That's what I find ugly.

frim what I understand, some of Day's behavior seems to have stemmed from issues that began in SWFA, and because those he was in an antagonist relationship were nommed for Hugos, he carried his hatred over to there. But I'm just speculating, as, thank heavens, I'm not in his head. Would the Hugo campaigns have blown up like this without his actions? Seems doubtful.

Carol. wrote: "frim what I understand, some of Day's behavior seems to have stemmed from issues that began in SWFA, and because those he was in an antagonist relationship were nommed for Hugos, he carried his hat..."

This is my understanding as well.

we all realize that ANY kind of even that has voting generally has some type of campaigning going on - but this is getting to be more than just a little bit much.


But I don't think Day deserves all the (dis)credit. Correia - for all his writing chops and my husbands' enjoyment - has quite a lot to do with it.

The Nebula nominees for novel are (for 2014 to be presented 2015 June) -

The Goblin Emperor byKatherine Addison
Trial by Fire by Charles E. Gannon
Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie
The Three-Body Problem by Liu Cixin
Coming Home by Jack McDevitt
Annihilation by Jeff VanderMeer

- so some overlap, which is nice. In general I would look to the Nebulas for a more discerning view: there is I believe criteria for membership beyond fees.

As far as the vitriol, it's part of the high volume rants that appear too frequently: mostly people with nothing better to do.

The Three-Body Problem was GRRM's Hugo nomination for best novel.

I disagree about the there being slates before but maybe there is something I am overlooking. I consider a slate the time of list where the books/stories/people is listed for a specific category. The other factor is that when there are only 5 works or people listed for a category it really narrows the choices. Locus and other reading lists often have more books/stories/people listed than there are slots on the Hugo nomination ballot. Of course people can only vote for part of a slate but the problem with the Hugos this year is that their is doubt as to the how much actual reading went on before people cast their votes, especially voters who primarily enjoy gaming or movies but not novels, short stories or novellas.

I also don't have a problem with a specific writer campaigning for their own work if they keep things professional. I DO wish the Nebulas were more transparent.

Personally, I love the SF Worldcon community to just roll over. I plan on coming up with recommendations for next year. I also have a pile of books from the library to read so I can make an informed decision.

What this whole controversy also brought to light for me was how little "society" there really seemed to be to the "World Science Fiction Society". As far as I could tell the only thing it exists for is running an annual convention. If I hear the term "Society" I expect something much more robust: newsletters, online community, regular meetups, maybe scholarships to encourage young writers or professional development workshops. It's rather like finding out Royal Geographical Society only existed to set up an annual ball.