The nominees for the Retro Hugos were announced yesterday. If you aren’t familiar with them, they are given for the best science fiction or fantasy for the previous year, only for a year 75 years prior. In this case, it’s the 1945 Retro Hugos for the works from 1944. Here are the fiction nominees. I’m not going to worry about editors, artists, fanzines, or any of the other categories. I’ll have a few things to say below the list, as well as a question for you.
Best Novel
- “Shadow Over Mars”, Leigh Brackett (Startling Stories Fall ’44)
- Land of Terror, Edgar Rice Burroughs (Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc.)
- The Golden Fleece, Robert Graves (Cassell)
- “The Winged Man”, E. Mayne Hull & A.E. Van Vogt (Astounding Science Fiction 5-6/44)
- The Wind on the Moon, Eric Linklater (Macmillan)
- Sirius, Olaf Stapledon (Secker & Warberg)
Best Novella
- “The Jewel of Bas”, Leigh Brackett (Planet Stories Spring ’44)
- “A God Named Kroo”, Henry Kuttner (Thrilling Wonder Stories Winter ’44)
- “Trog”, Murray Leinster (Astounding Science Fiction 6/44)
- “Intruders from the Stars”, Ross Rocklynne (Amazing Stories 1/44)
- “Killdozer!”, Theodore Sturgeon (Astounding Science Fiction 11/44)
- “The Changeling”, A.E. van Vogt (Astounding Science Fiction 4/44)
Best Novelette
- “The Big and the Little”, Isaac Asimov (Astounding Science Fiction 8/44)
- “Arena”, Fredric Brown (Astounding Science Fiction 6/44)
- “No Woman Born”, C.L. Moore (Astounding Science Fiction 12/44)
- “The Children’s Hour”, Lawrence O’Donnell (C.L. Moore & Henry Kuttner) (Astounding Science Fiction 3/44)
- “When the Bough Breaks”, Lewis Padgett (C.L. Moore & Henry Kuttner) (Astounding Science Fiction 11/44)
- “City”, Clifford D. Simak (Astounding Science Fiction 5/44)
Best Short Story
- “The Wedge”, Isaac Asimov (Astounding Science Fiction 10/44)
- “I, Rocket”, Ray Bradbury (Amazing Stories 5/44)
- “And the Gods Laughed”, Fredric Brown (Planet Stories Spring ’44)
- “Desertion”, Clifford D. Simak (Astounding Science Fiction 11/44)
- “Huddling Place”, Clifford D. Simak (Astounding Science Fiction 7/44)
- “Far Centaurus”, A.E. van Vogt (Astounding Science Fiction 1/44)
Best Series
- Pellucidar, Edgar Rice Burroughs
- Jules de Grandin, Seabury Quinn
- The Shadow, Maxwell Gibson (Walter B. Grant)
- Captain Future, Brett Sterling
- Doc Savage, Kenneth Robeson/Lester Dent
- Cthulhu Mythos, H.P. Lovecraft, August Derleth, and others
Leigh Brackett
OK, some observations. First, it’s good to see some of my favorite writers with multiple nominations. I’m talking about Henry Kuttner, C. L. Moore, and Leigh Brackett.
It’s almost impossible to separate Kuttner and Moore since they collaborated on pretty much everything by this point in their careers. However, my understanding is that “No Woman Born” is pretty much a solo work, so she has the most nominations on the list, with Kuttner sharing the other three nominations with Moore.
Brackett comes in third of this group with 3 nominations, one for novel, one for novella, and one for a nonfiction piece in Writer’s Digest (which I didn’t list).
A. E. van Vogt also has three nominations, a short story, a novella, and a novel coauthored with E. Mayne Hull. While I’ve enjoyed some of van Vogt’s work over the years, I can’t say he’s my favorite. Some stuff I’ve loved, and some I found almost unreadable. I’ve read “Far Centaurus”, and it’s deserving of its nomination. Can’t say about the other two works. I haven’t read the novel, and if I’ve read “The Changeling”, I don’t remember anything about it.
Clifford D. Simak
I like that Simak has two nominations from his series that was collected into City. He’s another favorite.
I also find it interesting that Asimov only has one story on the list and Heinlein none. And this brings up an issue which is why I have something of an issue with the Retro Hugos. Reading tastes and socials mores seventy-five years ago were different than they are today. In some cases very different. I have to ask: If the Hugos had been given in 1945, would the final ballot look anything like the Retro Hugo ballot?
I’m not sure it would. Granted Asimov and Heinlein were both involved in the war effort, as were L. Sprague de Camp and L. Ron Hubbard and other top tier writers, which is why they aren’t represented much in this list. But at the time they were quite popular. My point is that it’s become fashionable to hate on certain writers who were once highly regarded. In some cases, this is somewhat justified because of their behavior.
On the other hand, the Retro Hugos provide an opportunity for writers and works that have been neglected to get some attention. I’m in favor of that.
Henry Kuttner
So here’s my question. I’ve read most of the fiction on the list, with the exception of the novels. In fact, I reread “The Children’s Hour” a couple of days ago for a Kuttner post I’m going to do in a few days. I am also planning on rereading “When the Bough Breaks”, one of my favorite Kuttner stories for a different post.
If I were to read all the short fiction (novella, novelette, and short story) plus at least some of the novels, would you be interested in my doing a series of posts about them? I’m going to post about some of them anyway, and others I have written about. The only story I don’t have a copy of is the Ross Rocklynne, but I think I can get my hands on one.
As far as the novels go, I would read the Brackett, the van Vogt/Hull, and the Burroughs. And maybe the Stapledon if I can find a copy.
Would such a series be of interest?
Finally, although I have no intention of trying to read the entire series, what do you think of the Shadow going up against Doc Savage in the Best Series category?
Yes.
I don’t have the time these days for series of any sort, and I wouldn’t try to read all the Hugo nominees again, but if I had the time I would love to read and review Retro Hugos nominees.
There’s only one author on the Hugo list I would read. At least half of them are on my DO NOT READ list. The Retros, though, are full of writers I actively read.
Yes, definitely. Without hesitation.
As for Doc Savage and the Shadow, they are the forerunners of later superheroes. One could say Doc Savage is the original Superman while the Shadow was not unlike Batman. It’s a difficult one. I’d say Doc Savage might get it, but then, I have a soft spot for ERB’s Pellucidar and would want that series to get it. It’s not easy.
I agree with you about forerunners of later superheroes, but I ain’t touching which one will win.
All interesting picks.
In regards to the Shadow versus Doc Savage, I would have to give the edge to Doc Savage, as the Shadow had always been written primarily for adults to enjoy, but Doc started out being written for teenagers, but by the war years, the Street and Smith editors had made the decision to start having Lester Dent write the series for adults, so you were getting really good stories that are still readable today in this time period. That should give Doc the edge for most changed series over the Shadow.
And I would definitely be interested in your take on the novels.
I am shocked, shocked, to find
gambling on these premisesthat you support Doc, John.It’s a fair cop, and I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for those meddlin’ kids and their dog!
I don’t pay attention to any of the awards these days, retro or not, but I would be interested in coverage of those stories. As far as Heinlein, though, I forget the exact span but it was something like ’44-’46 that he didn’t really write anything so probably didn’t have anything eligible. And Asimov’s actually on there twice, for “The Big and the Little” and “The Wedge.” “The Big and the Little” is superb but, Asimov maniac though I am, not even I see the reason for nominating “The Wedge.” It’s a fine story but it’s the one detachable Foundation story and nothing especially special. I think the only single-nominations were Sturgeon, Leinster, Rocklynne and some of the novel/series people. I actually have a problem with that because I would favor more, ah, diversity in the nominee list. Some very good stories that might have won may lose from vote-splitting (though “No Woman Born” will likely win regardless and, while I’d probably vote for “The Big and the Little,” I sure wouldn’t complain either way.) Not sure what the eligibility issues are with “Series” because that’s an odd looking list. Taking the list as is, I don’t see anything beating the Cthulhu Mythos. (Then again, Lord of the Rings was nominated in ’66 and lost.)
Still, my big take away from that list is that, even with today’s people doing the nominating, that’s still a staggeringly good list that the present era can’t touch. No wonder so many of today’s authors and fans attack the Golden Age of John W. Campbell – if you can’t top it, tear it down.
You’re right. Asimov is on there twice. I don’t know how I missed “The Big and the Little”. You are also correct that Heinlein didn’t do any writing and so had nothing eligible that year. He wrote so much in the early 40s that I was thinking some of those stories came later.
I agree that “No Woman Born” is a strong contender, even with vote splitting.
You raise a very good point about it’s a, to use your tern, “staggeringly good list”. Some of the works on there are rightly regarded to be classics or near classics. I also agree with you about attacking Campbell. Which is why I don’t expect the Mythos to win best series. As fashionable as it is to hate Lovecraft these days, I can’t see anything connected with him winning, certainly not with the Worldcon crowd voting.
Also, I don’t pay much attention to awards these days, either, which is why I didn’t post anything about the current year nominees. A few of the names I didn’t recognize, but of the ones I did, there was only one writer I would choose to read. There’s a second I’m probably going to give a try, but based on what I’ve heard, I’m not optimistic.
Ah, you’re right – I was thinking that the Mythos is one of the most influential things ever created but you’re probably right that Lovecraft’s an Unperson now. I wonder if that makes it possible for my “vote” to win? (I’d vote for Pellucidar.)
If you’d rather not say, certainly don’t, but I’m curious who you would read/try. I hadn’t even looked to see who’d been nominated but you got me curious, so I did. For me, the only author on the list I like is Chiang and there’s no one I’ll be exploring further that I can see. There are actually a few who have managed at least one good story (though i haven’t read any of this year’s works) and one or two who might have been decent if they’d started writing in the past or future rather than in this era but (ignoring the two or three I’m not familiar with) most of them are either already not good or were getting there.
I don’t mind saying. I’ve met Ted Chiang and liked him. I’ve read enough of his work to know that I like it. I haven’t read any in recent years, but that’s mainly due to time constraints. I bought A MEMORY CALLED EMPIRE by Arkday Martine and THE DEEP by Rivers Solomon earlier this year when they were Kindle deals of the day but haven’t gotten to them yet. May not. I’ve got enough stuff I know I’ll probably like to read as it it. The other authors I’ve either not heard of, am ambivalent towards, or avoid like the plague.
I do think it’s interesting that there are no nominees from Analog, Asimov’s, or F&SF even though they have the (AFAIK) the biggest circulation numbers. Tor dot com and Uncanny have five and three nominees, respectively. All the other short fiction nominees that weren’t published in an anthology/collection or as a standalone were the only nominees for their publications (Beneath Ceaseless Skies, Lightspeed, Event Horizon, Nightmare). I have to wonder if that’s because the Hugos are getting more insular.