In a move that’s sure to create even more controversy over this year’s Hugo Awards, Tim Holman, the CEO of Orbit Books, has stated that only excerpts of Orbit titles will be provided in this year’s Hugo Voters Packet. I think this is a bad idea for reasons I’ll detail at the end of this post. Continue reading
I was indulging one of my vices (reading other people’s blogs, Sarah Hoyt’s in this case) and noticed in the comments a quote from a different blog. That particular quote had some disparaging thing to say about the Gemmell Awards. I’m not going to bother linking to the quoted blog because I’m not directly responding to the argument there, which concerned the number of white male authors nominated for awards, specifically the Hugos. I will quote the relevant passage, because it’s representative of a pretty common attitude. It also kicked off a train of thought that should be addressed. Namely, the how relevant the Hugos are compared to the Gemmells.
The Gemmell Awards are named after David Gemmell and focus on heroic fantasy. The Hugo Awards are named in honor of Hugo Gernsback, who published the first magazine devoted entirely to science fiction, Amazing Stories. The Gemmell Awards specialize in heroic fantasy, while the Hugos encompass the entire sff field.
Huog Gernsback
Here’s the quote:
“Why not just let the works speak for themselves?”
The issue is that when we let the works speak for themselves, we wind up with the Gemmell Awards: 70,000 votes (several orders of magnitudes greater than the Hugos), and every single nominee for Best Novel is a White Dude. Every best debut novel is a dude, most of them white.
Of course these comments are totally bogus. I’ll explain why in a second. But it got me to thinking, always a dangerous thing.
In case you haven’t been paying attention, in addition to the shortlist for the Gemmell Awards, the shortlist for the Hugo Awards, was announced recently. And the internet has been having a major hissy fit ever since.
Speaking of Worldcon, I’m going to read at least some of the short fiction nominees, as many as time will allow, and give my thoughts. I don’t think I’m going to try to read all the novels. The publisher of two of them put a security code of the ebooks that went out in the Hugo voters’ packet. I don’t appreciate what that implies. I’m not going to upload the books to a file sharing site. I’m not a crook, nor do I care to be treated as though I were. Therefore, I won’t be reading (or voting for) Blackout by Mira Grant or 2312 by Kim Stanley Robinson. I do have some comments to make about this year’s nominees in general.
The Gemmell Awards are a bit later than usual this year to coincide with the World Fantasy Convention. My review copy of Winter Be My Shield by Jo Spurrier arrived the other day. It’s on the long ballot for the Morningstar Award. I’m looking forward to reading it. I’ll post the review on the Gemmell Awards site and a notice here when it goes live. After the awards are given out, I’ll post the review here.
I’ve got a number of titles from Pyr. The ones I intend to review in July are The Doctor and the Kid by Mike Resnick, Kindred and Wings by Phillipa Ballentine, and Wrath-Bearing Tree by James Enge. Then there’s The Scroll of Years by Chris Willrich and The Doctor and the Rough Rider by Mike Resnick. Those I probably won’t get to until August.
I’ve had a copy of the conclusion of Joshua P. Simon’s Blood and Tears Trilogy, Trial and Glory on my ereader for far too long. It’s going to be reviewed within the next four to six weeks.
I don’t know what order I’m going to read them. It will depend on my mood and what I feel like reading. I’m also going to throw in a bit of shorter works, both here and over at Futures Past and Present. There are also a couple of other novels I’d like to read by the end of the summer. And somewhere in there, I’ll be reading things for my column at Amazing Stories (TM).
Congratulations to all the nominees.
Here are a few initial thoughts on some changes I see and potential changes down the road.
First, of the nominees, only two of them have been publishing since I started reading f/sf in my teens. (It wasn’t that long ago, wiseass.) Those would be George R. R. Martin and Mike Resnick. Ryman has been publishing since the early to mid-90s. Walton, Mie’ville, and Scalzi have been publishing for around a decade, give or take a few years. The others are either relatively new or have been around for (I think) less than a decade, with the possible exception of one or two I’m not that familiar with.
What does this mean? I don’t know that it means anything. A lot of the stalwarts from the 70s, 80s, and 90s who got their start in those decades (as opposed to stalwarts who started in earlier decades) are still publishing, in some cases quite prolifically. Alan Dean Foster and Orson Scott Card come to mind off the top of my head, although I don’t know if Card published anything during the period of eligibility. Some of the big names from previous decades have either moved on to other genres, slowed their rates of production, or quit writing entirely.
In short the field is changing. Whether for good, bad, or neutral will remain to be seen and depend on what your tastes are. Except for the novels, I’m going to try to read the nominated fiction by Worldcon. Not that I can afford to attend or anything, but so that I can cheer (or rant) from a position of knowledge after the awards are announced. I intend to read Leviathan Wakes and A Dance with Dragons, just not sure I’ll have them read by the time the awards are given out.
I have to admit I haven’t read any of the nominees this year. That’s unusual. Usually, I’ve read a few, at least. I don’t know if that means that I’m out of step with the rest of the field or that the rest of the field hasn’t caught up with me yet.
The thing that got me thinking about the awards was this post about writers making a living by publishing online rather than through traditional venues. More and more authors seem to be sidestepping New York or at least publishing some stuff on the side. As far as I know, and you can correct me if I’m wrong on this point, none of the major awards recognize indie published works. I’m wondering how long that position is sustainable if the awards are to be taken seriously. If some of the top selling titles in the field aren’t considered for the major awards (Hugo, Nebula, World Fantasy, etc.) , how meaningful are the awards? At that point, I think the awards become an elitist exercise of self-congratulation within a small group. I’m not saying we’re at that point yet, but we seem be moving there fairly quickly, as these numbers and these numbers indicate.
Print still dominates overall sales, but that’s changing. Perhaps it’s time for the field to change how it recognizes quality. I’ll have more to say on this topic at a later date. This has just been a snapshot of the direction my thoughts have been going in the last few hours.
BEST NOVEL
BEST NOVELLA
BEST NOVELETTE
The winners are:
Best Novel: Blackout/All Clear Connie Willis
Best Novella: The Lifecycle of Software Objects Ted Chiang
Best Novellette: “The Emperor of Mars” Allen M. Steele
Best Short Story: “For Want of a Nail” Mary Robinette Kowal
Best Related Work Chicks Dig Time Lords Lynne M. Thomas
and Tara O’Shea, eds.
Best Graphic Story Girl Genius Volume 10: Phil and Kaja
Folio, art by Phil Folio
Best Dramatic Presentation , Long Form: Inception
Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form:
Doctor Who: “The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang”
Best Professional Editor, Long Form: Lou Anders
Best Professional Editor, Short Form: Sheila Williams
Best Professional Artist: Shaun Tan
Best Semiprozine: Clarkesworld
Best Fanzine: The Drink Tank
Best Fan Artist: Brad W. Foster
Also, the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, which is not a Hugo, went to Lev Grossman
Adventures Fantastic/Futures Past and Present would like to congratulate all the nominees and especially the winners. A list of winners and all nominees can be found here.
Congratulations and good luck to all nominees.
I don’t have much to say except I don’t see much in the way of sword and sorcery, at least not that I recognize. I haven’t read nearly as many of the nominees as I should have. A few of the titles I’m not familiar with, so there may be some S&S I’m not recognizing. Disappointing, but not surprising.
The second thing I find interesting is in the short story category. All the other fiction categories (novel, novella, novelette) have five nominees, while the short story only has four. That’s assuming there’s not an error, and one was inadvertently left off. Of those four, only one, “For Want of a Nail”, by Mary Robinette Kowal, was published in a print magazine (Asimov’s, Sept. 2010). The others were published online. All of the novelette and all but one of the novella nominees were published in print venues.