Hugo Nominees for Best Novel
Apr. 22nd, 2014 04:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jack1. The Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson
A series is eligible to be nominated if none of the previous books have been. Despite some people's objections, I think it makes eminent sense for Wheel of Time -- despite being ridiculously long, it clearly is one ongoing serialised story, rather than a series of connected novels. And much better to have it nominated once than to have lots of individual books nominated, cluttering up the ballot for decades. And the strength is in the whole thing, not in any individual book -- the first is probably the best, but the accumulated story is what most people love.
People also object to a popular book with evident flaws. But I think the best books very commonly are popular and flawed -- look at Tolkien! I don't want the popular book to always win, but I also think people are wrong to point to the series many flaws, while ignoring its many strengths: more memorable characters than hundreds of other novels put together; a coherent story over dozens of novels; a fascinating cosmology; many different engaging and rich (if annoyingly stupid) characters with a mix of social stations, genders and ages.
I wish it had won a hugo ages ago, because it's famous enough now it probably doesn't need it, and because it doesn't represent what I want to see more of in the immediate future. But I think it's the best novel, and should win.
2. Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie
This is the entry most interesting to me. Distributed intelligences. Sentient warships. Exploration of gendered and gender neutral pronouns. Morally complex dictators with metaphysically provocative history. More books like this please!
However, the book itself felt a little unfinished: the different strands were somewhat difficult to reconcile, and I didn't find the main characters memorable as characters at all. I love that it exists, but I feel it will be enjoyed and forgotten. I vote for it above everything else, but if the story had been better I would have put it above GoT too.
3. Parasite by Mira Grant
I've not read this yet. By default, I expect it to be similar to the Feed trilogy, which it sounds similar to (but is unrelated to). I hope someone can compare back if it seems to be a significant improvement.
On that basis, I rate it as "pretty good, but not the best". The flaws of those books REALLY, REALLY ANNOY ME (the plot only makes sense if everyone off-screen freezes in place until the Eye of Plot swings back and examines them again), but by the same logic as above, I don't hate these books for being flawed, even if the flaws annoy me a lot personally. I think some people hate them unfairly because they have a devoted fanbase, and come from an author more from an urban-fantasy-ish culture more than traditional-sf culture. I think the strengths (good characters, good disability awareness, interesting worldbuilding, etc) deserve recognition, and are as good as some hugo winners, but not as good as the best ones.
4. Neptune's Brood by Charles Stross
I've not read this yet. By default I expect it to be similar to "Saturn's Children", which it is set in the same universe as, and which I couldn't get into at all. I hope someone with similar tastes to me can report back if it's likely to show more of the parts of Stross I like best.
I wish I could give Stross a hugo award for Atrocity Archive or Accelerando, which he richly deserves. If it's that good, then I'll vote for it first, but I want to vote on the basis of the best novel, not the best author.
INF. Warbound, Book III of the Grimnoir Chronicles by Larry Correia (Baen Books)
I've not been following the politics here. It seems Larry Correia has been complaining for years about how the Hugos work, with some valid complaints (it's really hard to get urban fantasy into best novel), some complaints everyone already agrees on (many of the smaller categories are somewhat incestuous), and some personal complaints (everyone refuses to give him a hugo because he's not liberal enough, rather than because they didn't especially like his books). And encouraged everyone to "stick it to the man" by getting him nominated, and if they didn't, puppies would be sad.
Regarding the books themselves, they seem to be the sort of retro urban fantasy steam-punk monster-hunters I like if they are well written, but I'm not very hopeful the books are especially good, rather than just written by someone who became a poster-child of a segment of anti-liberal fandom. I would be pleased to hear otherwise, but unless they're a LOT better than I think I vote this below "no award".
I would just leave it there, but he's also somehow associated with a much worse guy, a misguided shithead nominated Vox Day in one of the blogger categories who's actually pro-Nazi (yes, really), so I just don't want anything to do with this.
A series is eligible to be nominated if none of the previous books have been. Despite some people's objections, I think it makes eminent sense for Wheel of Time -- despite being ridiculously long, it clearly is one ongoing serialised story, rather than a series of connected novels. And much better to have it nominated once than to have lots of individual books nominated, cluttering up the ballot for decades. And the strength is in the whole thing, not in any individual book -- the first is probably the best, but the accumulated story is what most people love.
People also object to a popular book with evident flaws. But I think the best books very commonly are popular and flawed -- look at Tolkien! I don't want the popular book to always win, but I also think people are wrong to point to the series many flaws, while ignoring its many strengths: more memorable characters than hundreds of other novels put together; a coherent story over dozens of novels; a fascinating cosmology; many different engaging and rich (if annoyingly stupid) characters with a mix of social stations, genders and ages.
I wish it had won a hugo ages ago, because it's famous enough now it probably doesn't need it, and because it doesn't represent what I want to see more of in the immediate future. But I think it's the best novel, and should win.
2. Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie
This is the entry most interesting to me. Distributed intelligences. Sentient warships. Exploration of gendered and gender neutral pronouns. Morally complex dictators with metaphysically provocative history. More books like this please!
However, the book itself felt a little unfinished: the different strands were somewhat difficult to reconcile, and I didn't find the main characters memorable as characters at all. I love that it exists, but I feel it will be enjoyed and forgotten. I vote for it above everything else, but if the story had been better I would have put it above GoT too.
3. Parasite by Mira Grant
I've not read this yet. By default, I expect it to be similar to the Feed trilogy, which it sounds similar to (but is unrelated to). I hope someone can compare back if it seems to be a significant improvement.
On that basis, I rate it as "pretty good, but not the best". The flaws of those books REALLY, REALLY ANNOY ME (the plot only makes sense if everyone off-screen freezes in place until the Eye of Plot swings back and examines them again), but by the same logic as above, I don't hate these books for being flawed, even if the flaws annoy me a lot personally. I think some people hate them unfairly because they have a devoted fanbase, and come from an author more from an urban-fantasy-ish culture more than traditional-sf culture. I think the strengths (good characters, good disability awareness, interesting worldbuilding, etc) deserve recognition, and are as good as some hugo winners, but not as good as the best ones.
4. Neptune's Brood by Charles Stross
I've not read this yet. By default I expect it to be similar to "Saturn's Children", which it is set in the same universe as, and which I couldn't get into at all. I hope someone with similar tastes to me can report back if it's likely to show more of the parts of Stross I like best.
I wish I could give Stross a hugo award for Atrocity Archive or Accelerando, which he richly deserves. If it's that good, then I'll vote for it first, but I want to vote on the basis of the best novel, not the best author.
INF. Warbound, Book III of the Grimnoir Chronicles by Larry Correia (Baen Books)
I've not been following the politics here. It seems Larry Correia has been complaining for years about how the Hugos work, with some valid complaints (it's really hard to get urban fantasy into best novel), some complaints everyone already agrees on (many of the smaller categories are somewhat incestuous), and some personal complaints (everyone refuses to give him a hugo because he's not liberal enough, rather than because they didn't especially like his books). And encouraged everyone to "stick it to the man" by getting him nominated, and if they didn't, puppies would be sad.
Regarding the books themselves, they seem to be the sort of retro urban fantasy steam-punk monster-hunters I like if they are well written, but I'm not very hopeful the books are especially good, rather than just written by someone who became a poster-child of a segment of anti-liberal fandom. I would be pleased to hear otherwise, but unless they're a LOT better than I think I vote this below "no award".
I would just leave it there, but he's also somehow associated with a much worse guy, a misguided shithead nominated Vox Day in one of the blogger categories who's actually pro-Nazi (yes, really), so I just don't want anything to do with this.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-23 09:05 am (UTC)I've got a request in at the library for Neptune's Brood and the first of the Wheel of Time books. The library doesn't have Parasite or Warbound in the catalogue, so I helpfully suggested them as purchases of Hugo nominees.
As I've not read Mira Grant/Seanan McGuire, Larry Correia or Robert Jordan before, I've got Kindle samples of all three novels to read on my phone - if I bounce off before the end of the sample then that's an easy decision.
(Yes, I know there may be a "reader packet" but I have time to read now, and I don't know how long that will last. Also I think it will be a Challenge to get all the way through WoT by the deadline even if I start now.)
On the politics of it, I'm really not sure that there's much objective difference between Correia's fans nominating him for political reasons, and me making a point of nominating works by women and nonwhite people for political reasons. I know I didn't nominate anything that I didn't consider worth getting a Hugo and I'm sure the people who nominated Correia feel the same way.
At this point, I'd like to try to read the books and make a fair decision on quality of books, not on how much I dislike the author's reputation.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-23 03:08 pm (UTC)