SF Furore Part 2: Defending the Indefensible

I'm gonna go ahead and say this for the cheap seats: What's the necessity for the Retro Hugos again...? It's not as if these titles don't already dominate discourse making it difficult for us newbies to ever achieve 'classic' status. Because I'm tired of racists and bigots. from Tade Thompson's Twitter feed.

Well... my first response to seeing this Tweet was:

We're all tired of opinionated people who think that their opinions are more important than being kind to others.

By-the-by Tade, if you're chasing classic status, I suggest you'd be better off writing another story. I would also add, that if any writer thinks they're work is worthy of being labeled a 'classic,' it will become so on its merits.

It's also well to remember that all great writers were once 'newbies.'

Also, it's almost impossible to discuss the topic of 'classic' works of the past, when people who are offended by them label the creators as racist and bigots. Any discussion becomes mired in controversy, because the topic is seen as defending the indefensible.

However, hold on a moment, here's my take.

I know the movement started by calling out 'recent' problematical writers, editors, and artists (and by recent anything with the last century), but I've got to ask, when are we going to stop? Also, worth asking, what makes anyone qualified to cancel artists, and or the people who like that artists work, which only leads too more questions?

But if you cancel creators who offend you, who gets canceled next?

And, when does the 'cancel movement' stop? By this I mean, both when as in how long the canceling goes on, and when as in the historical cut-off date.

What those promoting cancel culture seem to have forgotten, is that labeling past SF authors as racists and bigots, by suppressing their work, is the first step of turning people into 'things.'

I would also argue that this is made worse by those who support the labeling living people who like older works as racists and fascists too. I mean, labeling people as things is arguably what leads to bigotry.

This may sound a touch polemical, but I would argue is even worse, because the dead no longer care, whereas the living do. Think back to the Puritans as one example where their desire to cancel the culture of their time led nowhere good.

And one more thing, Tade; the Hugo's didn't come into existence until 1953, and if you think that SF didn't start before that date, then you're sorely deluded.

SF Furore Part 1: The 2020 Hugo's

Jeanette Ng would cancel both of the men here, and anyone reading their work.

Another year has passed. Another set of Hugo's have been won. And another row has broken out in fandom. What a surprise. Not!

For those who aren't up on the history of science fiction, let's just say that the roots of SF, as a genre, began circa 1921 (give or take), as a way of justifying literature that wasn't aimed at improving the reader, but rather providing some entertainment.

Exciting stories featuring new technology.

Hugo Gernsback coined the term "scientifiction*," for scientific based fiction, which later became science fiction. Or, as Forrest J. Ackerman later called it, Sci-Fi.

The SF genre started in the pulps as mere "entertainment," that has arguably evolved over the years into a literature that examines the impact of technology on the human condition.

Arguably, because a genre is just a marketing category. Whether or not stories have to comment on the human condition versus just being entertaining is arguable; an opinion, not a fact.

A reminder, last year Jeanette Ng won The Campbell Award for best new author, which I commented here, resulting in it being renamed The Astounding Award (technically not a Hugo, but awarded at the Hugo ceremony).

This years row is over various faults like: how dare George R. R. Martin's mispronounce authors names; the time that the virtual award ceremony ran with his waffle; then the final straw, GRRM mentioning the names of people who won this years Retro Hugo awards, promoting their importance to the genre, despite having been deemed unmentionable, after Jeanette Ng canceled them.

Arguments over these issues that have been all across SF&F social media.

Comments from both SF&F fans and professionals, commentary that frankly beggars belief. It's like children calling each other names in the playground, except these people aren't children, and an an awful lot of them want to cancel writers who they find problematical.

Please don't get me wrong on this, one has to face the fact that neither were nice men, but what they brought to the world has value beyond their faults.

Both of Lovecraft's parents died while confined in a psychiatric hospital, and as a child he had chorea minor, and later what appears to have been atypical depression. He also died at age 46; health outcomes back then were poor, and today we know that both genetics and the environment can affect how people grow up to become who they are.

None of which forgives his bigotry.

But, to deny his contribution to SF&F for being a bad person is just plain wrong.  He wrote within a modern tradition of existential nihilism, explored the delusions of living in an anthropomorphic universe, and addressed mankind's insignificance in the cosmic scheme of things.

Creating the Mythos alone, argues that Lovecraft's influence transcends his feet of clay. That and the fact that he is still being discussed till this day, inspiring writers to create cosmic horror, says it all.

Campbell's contribution to SF&F are twofold: he wrote (Who Goes There, which became the film The Thing); and his editorship of Astounding Magazine.

He died at the age of 61, which would now be considered young. And I couldn't help but notice that his pictures show him smoking. We now know that smoking affects the respiratory system, and blood circulation to the brain.

I mention this, because as Charlie Stross once observed, isn't it funny how men of a certain age tend to have changes of personality from health issues (high blood pressure). Again, none of this forgives his bigotry but, those times were not our times.

Things were different then. To deny that Campbell totally reshaped the genre, transforming SF from its Pulp roots into a discussion of how technology will affect the human condition, and cancel him, is again just wrong.

By all means have an opinion. But stating opinions to generate arguments, which are not facts, is pointless. 

One doesn't need to subscribe to the values of creators to see that their creations add to the richness of the human condition. Not withstanding the fact that both Campbell and Lovecraft were both crazy nut jobs, men with feet of clay, doesn't mean the good they did should be thrown out with the bad.

Jeanette Ng, and those who support canceling people are doing more damage to the genre than either Lovecraft or Campbell.

NB: *1915 according to Pulp Librarian @PulpLibrarian

#OtherOpinionsAreNotMyConcern

And So It Begins

It's the beginning of the Hugo Wars where the forces of lawful good versus chaotic evil.  Oh sorry, that was the plot-line of Babylon 5.  My bad.

Looking at the works there's a lot to like and my feeling remains the same: read the stories and if you like it vote for it.  If not, then vote no award and ignore the political machinations.  I can't help but pull on my cynic goggles and say that the only real winners here are those that benefit from the column inches in what passes for the mainstream press.

Anyway, a pick of some of my favourites on this years Hugo list.

First the Retro Awards

Novel: Slan by A.E. Van Vogt (Astounding Science-Fiction, Dec 1940).

Best Dramatic Presentation: The Thief of Bagdad written by Lajos Bíró and Miles Malleson, directed by Michael Powell, Ludwig Berger, and Tim Whelan (London Films, United Artists).

Hugo 2016 Nominees

Novel: Ancillary Mercy by Ann Leckie (Orbit)

Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form): The Martian screenplay by Drew Goddard, directed by Ridley Scott (Scott Free Productions; Kinberg Genre; TSG Entertainment; 20th Century Fox).

Star Wars: The Force Awakens written by Lawrence Kasdan, J. J. Abrams, and Michael Arndt, directed by J.J. Abrams (Lucasfilm Ltd.; Bad Robot Productions; Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures).

And separately I'm pleased to see.

John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer: Andy Weir.

As for the whole brouhaha over who nominated what and why all I can say is that after four years of discussions by various people on the internet ranging from the famous to the obscure (I include myself in the obscure) I fail to see anyone changing their minds about their positions, which I take as a cue for saying, "we'll all have to agree to disagree."

Hugos Where?

And who says that Americans don't do irony?

Reflecting on the 2015 Hugo Awards over the course of the last week I see that my conclusion that ninety percent of what I'll read will never win a Hugo award remains true (that's meant to be a joke or at least like a joke, if not very funny).  While I sympathize with the Anti-Puppies slate, I do think such things are a very blunt tool, which may produce the desired results, but result in unintended consequences.  As an aside, what appears to be a serious analysis of the numbers can be found here.  My view remains pretty much the same, as I prefer de-escalation of conflicts rather than escalation.  Arguably research and history supports the former rather than the latter.

From my perspective I was disappointed that the Edge of Tomorrow aka Live. Die. Repeat didn't win the Hugo for best film.  I thought it was by far the best SF movie of the year, though I would acknowledge in my heart that Captain America: The Winter Soldier was more likely to win.  I was surprised to see Guardians of the Galaxy win, given it was a Sad Puppy slate nominee.  What this means is anyone's guess.  Mine would be that no one who is heavily invested in the Worldcon and the Hugos has any real interest in films, or people figure that the studios don't care if a film wins the Hugo.  Take your pick.

I was saddened to see my friend Ken Burnside's work The Hot Equations: Thermodynamics and Military SF getting burnt by the Anti-Puppy slate.  Likewise the editors going down too, but recognize that YMMV, and probably does where this is concerned.

However, Orphan Black: By Means Which Have Never Yet Been Tried, winning a Hugo was nice.  I thought the series should have won a Hugo last year, so the unintended consequences of the Sad Puppies resulting in an award for this show was a welcome outcome.

The only other thing I have to say is that as a British person I find some of the things I'm reading in the aftermath rather puzzling.  For instance, the stuff being said about Terry Pratchett that only make sense if you think that the world revolves around America, which for me shows how much the Worldcon is at heart an American institution rather than something representing World SF.

The best thing I've read about what came out of this whole debacle is George R. R. Martin's Hugo Losers party.  Rock on George.  Him and Eric Flint, have impressed me throughout by just being plain professional.

Hugo Reflections: Part 7 The Future

Summary

Part 1 link
Part 2 link
Part 3 link
Part 4 link
Part 5 link
Part 6 link

So what if anything can I draw from this series of posts that reflected on the books I've read during the course of my life?

Adding up all the books I've mentioned in my posts I see that I've read 43 of the 62 Hugo award winners, and 91 of the 227 works that were nominated.  This adds up to 153 out of a total of 289 books.  Sheesh I've given away or sold off more books than that during this time.  Even taking this into account the total number of books is less than 10% of the total number I've ever read.  Also, the problem is that back in the day (circa 1953 of thereabouts) 150 books were published in a year, and since then this has risen to a peak of about 1500 books releases over the same period.  That's a ten fold increase.

Meanwhile the Hugo nominees have remained around five over the entire period.  Perhaps this needs looking at in light of the changing volume in the genre?

However, I think I need to point out is that anecdote is not data.  While the numbers of books I've read can be quantified, I'm a single point.  Or put in other words a data set of one.  Therefore one cannot draw any real conclusions about the state of the Hugos from my narrative.

But here's the thing; you knew this was coming, because otherwise why would I spend all this time talking about the Hugo awards.  My point is very simple.  The Hugos have been awarded to sixty-two books, and yes that makes them a thing worth winning, but it doesn't mean that all the other books that didn't win weren't good books.

So yes it sucks not get a Hugo, because it always sucks to lose.

But voting and stuff is not a simple problem.  One only has to look at the arguments around first past the post versus proportional representation, and whether or not instant run off voting is best, to realise that this is the case.  If it were not the case we'd already have a perfect answer that was fair.  But, like lots of things in life, things are not fair.  Not because we don't want them to be, or because we don't think it's worth striving to be fair, but because some things are just difficult to achieve, and subject to forces one cannot control.

I always tell people who complain that life's not fair that I'm glad it's not fair, because if life were fair then everything bad that happened to me would have happened because I deserved it.  Therefore, by analogy, if the Hugo awards could be made to be totally fair, and you deserved to win and lost, then you would have been were robbed, which would be totally unfair.

So in short; cue Highlander meme, there can be only one!*

And finally, in relation to people on either side of the puppy debate getting angry because other people were angry.  No matter how angry one gets about something, venting one's feelings doesn't help.  It's worse than that.  Venting your anger will reinforce what you're feeling, and increase the intensity of your anger, not reduce it and leave you feeling better.  Furthermore, getting angry just makes it more likely you'll become angry again, which is why I wrote this piece the way I have.  Better to look at the positive side of things.

In this case the positive thing to take away from the Hugos is the years of  pleasure I've had from reading books, where 90% have never won an award.  And no-one can take that away from me.

* Sometimes two if there is a draw.

Hugo Reflections: Part 6 - 2003 to 2014

After going Conjose we started going to other SF conventions, and have now been to nine more; mostly those that are in or near London.  You can read about three of them by clicking this link.

Again the link for the Hugo Wikipedia page is here.
  
2003 to 2012

In this decade have I well and truly passed the peak of reading Hugo award winners and nominees.  In fact it looks like I've fallen off the map.  The only Hugo award winner that I read was Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge.  I really like his work, and I bought the hardback as soon as I saw it on the shelf at Forbidden Planet.

Of the nominees I've read nine of the forty works.  Old Man's War by John Scalzi, Blindsight by Peter Watts, The Last Colony by by John Scalzi, Halting State by Charles Stross, Cryoburn by Lois McMaster Bujold.  For the record Scalzi, Stross and Watts were all new to me authors that I discovered either by word of mouth or through the internet during this period.

I should add that in general I'm reading Hugo award winners and nominees years after their original publication date.  Also, I have on my to be read pile one other Hugo nominee novel Mira Grant's (a pseudonym of Seanan McGuire) Feed, which I picked up recently to try.
 
2013 & 2014

So now we enter the beginning of the seventh decade of the Hugos, and soon my fifth decade as a reader of science fiction.  This may well make me a boring old fogie or not, depending on how one sees such things (get off my lawn!)  At the end of 2012 I had a change of career, in that I decided to take a sabbatical from working in mental health care.  I started writing again, after more than a twenty year break by restarting work on a novel I began in 1988.

In this time I've read both Hugo award winners (Redshirts & Ancillary Justice), and two of the eight nominees: Captain Vorpatril's Alliance by Lois McMaster Bujold, and Warbound by Larry Correia.  If my writing career takes off I imagine that the number of Hugo winners and nominees will rise.  It's kind of inevitable really as one wants to keep abreast of what people are reading.

I've also read two of this years nominees, which as far as I'm concerned puts me ahead of the curve.

Addendum

Tomorrow I will sum up my thought about the Hugos and the debate that has been causing a storm across the internet.  But the first post I started this series with had a list of a few authors whose work I'd read, but whom had not been nominated at the time for a Hugo or won the award.  So I thought I'd like to end with a few random books by authors I love that I would have liked to have seen in the running for the Hugo (year of publication, so they would be in the following years award).

1985 Wizard of the Pigeons by Megan Lindholm aka Robin Hobb.
1989 A Talent for War by Jack McDevitt.
1990 The Ring of Charon by Roger MacBride-Allen.
1990 Good Omens by Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett.
1990 Angel Station by Walter Jon Williams.
1991 Hardwired by Walter Jon Williams.
1992 Grunts! by Mary Gentle.
1994 The Engines of God by Jack McDevitt.
1996 Excession by Iain M. Banks.
2000 Ash: A Secret History by Mary Gentle.
2000 Storm Front by Jim Butcher.
2002 The Praxis by Walter Jon Williams.
2002 Altered Carbon by Richard Morgan.
2003 Spin State by Chris Moriarty.
2004 Century Rain by Alistair Reynolds.
2010 Truth of Valor by Tanya Huff.
2011 Children of the Sky by Vernor Vinge.
2012 Silence by Michelle Sagara.
2013 The Coldest Girl in Cold Town by Holly Black.
2014 Maplecroft by Cherie Priest.

As I compiled this list what I found it harder for me to add books that I've read the closer I got to the current date (big gap between 2004 and 2010 for example).

I think this is indicates that I'm always reading behind the curve, except for those few authors I will buy in hardback as soon as something appears from them.  Reflecting back for a moment, when I started to read I could on occasion manage three books a day.  My average, I guess, was more like a book a day.  But nowadays  I'm only reading a book a week, at most, sometimes less.  This sort of change in volume means there's no way I can keep up with all the new novels coming out in a year.

So it's no wonder I'm behind the curve, which probably makes me a boring old fogie.  Anyway, see you tomorrow for my summary.

Part seven link.

Hugo Reflections: Part 5 - 1993 to 2002

Now I'm into my fourth decade of reading SF.  I went to Helicon in 1993, but after this I didn't go to another convention again until 2002 when I return to fandom by attending ConJosé the 2002 Worldcon in San Jose, which was the first convention my partner ever attended.  Talk about being thrown in at the deep end.

Again the link for the Hugo Wikipedia page is here.
 
1993 to 2002 

Looking at the awards I have managed to read five of the eleven winners in this period, and only four of the forty nominees.  Given how few of the Hugo award winners and nominees I've read it's easiest for me to list them, rather than trying to encapsulate all the books I haven't read (check out the link for all the books).

The award winners I've read were: A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge, Mirror Dance by Lois McMaster Bujold, Forever Peace by Joe Haldeman, A Deepness in the Sky by Vernor Vinge, and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J. K. Rowling.  However none of these were bought because they were Hugo award winners, assuming that makes sense.  I was blown away by A Fire Upon the Deep and I've just snapped up anything by Vernor Vinge ever since.  Likewise for Bujold's work, and Rowling's books were read mostly so that I could talk to my clients at work who were enjoying the stories.

Therefore it's no surprise to find that of three the books nominated for the Hugo were by two of the authors in the award winning list: Memory by Lois McMaster Bujold, Brightness Reef by David Brin, A Civil Campaign by Lois McMaster Bujold, and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban by J. K. Rowling.

This seems to indicate a complete collapse in the number of books I'm reading, except I bought and read a whole bunch of books, even though I will qualify my statement by saying I wasn't reading as much during this period as I used to.  In this case mostly because I had a shed load of text books to read for the diploma in mental health studies I was studying for.  The job I then went into was quite demanding, which also had a considerable impact on how much I read. Still, saying that my book collection kept growing.

Part six link.

Hugo Reflections: Part 4 - 1983 to 1992

Beginning my second decade of reading SF, which ends around the time my life became more interesting than I really care to talk about.  I had been writing stuff on and off for a number of years, and selling some non-fiction work to magazines, but an enforced change career meant I put everything on hold.  The harsh reality of needing to be able to afford to have somewhere to live and food to eat.  Boring real life stuff, which resulted in me gafiating from SF Fandom.

During this period I attended Seacon in 1984, and even did some gophering, and as I've said I was Doris Lessing's minder during the con.  I even published a fanzine,and I was also a member of P-APA for a while.  I know I went to both Yorcon 3 in 1985, and Albacon3 1986, followed by Conspiracy, which was the 1987 Worldcon.  So definitely this period reperesent my peak involvement with SF Fandom and its effects on my reading choices.

Again the link for the Hugo Wikipedia page is here.
  
1983 to 1992 

There were ten winners during this period, and forty-one other novels that were nominated.  I've read nine of the ten winners, and fifteen of the forty-one runners up. This is the first decade where I haven't read all the nominees in any of the given years.  The only Hugo winner I've not read was Hyperion by Dan Simmons.

Given that now I have more nominees that I've not read, rather than listing them all I shall just list one's that I want to comment on.

First off is Friday by Robert A. Heinlein,  which for me probably marks peak Heinlein, because I stopped reading any of his new books after Time Enough for Love.  I still enjoy re-reading his earlier works, but once he started writing big fat doorstops I walked.  I think this may mean I have an aversion to reading big fat doorstop books, which would also include his Job: A Comedy of Justice.  However, I will note for the record that I've re-read quite a few of Heinlein's novels since then, Double Star being one of my favourites along with The Moon is  Harsh Mistress, and Starship Troopers.

Robots of Dawn by Isaac Asimov, didn't grab me, and this again probably indicates I've reached peak Asimov.  In this case it was more a matter that I missed the book at a time when I had other stuff to contend with, and I wanted to read different books.  Again I've re-read a couple of his books since then.  The End of Eternity, because it's my favourite novel of his, and I recently bought another copy of The Gods Themselves to re-read, because it deals with parallel universes.

I have also not read Integral Trees by Larry Niven.  The concept didn't grab me, and again I think this means I've reached peak Niven.  However, while I've not read Footfall by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, I may well read it someday, because alien elephants.  Again I've re-read The Mote in Gods Eye and The Moat Around Murchison's Eye aka The Gripping Hand between then and now.  Clearly some stories appeal to my tastes, which when you think about it is obvious.  It's what defines our tastes; what we like and dislike.

The real surprise for me from this period is how little of Greg Bear's work I've read.  This may be down to senility, and being unable to tell Bear, Brin and Benford apart (that's a joke).  So that's all I have to say today, more tomorrow.

Part five link.

Hugo Reflections: Part 3 - 1973 to 1982

I went to my first convention in 1976, which if my memory serves me correctly was called Lunicon, where I saw Arthur C. Clarke talk, amongst other things (the editors of White Dwarf were there and I bought a subsciption to the magazine).  It was a tiny one day, and I mean really tiny as an event held in one room.  From there it was one small step to take my first step into UK SF fandom, and I attended Skycon in 1978, which was the British national SF Eastercon, which as it's name suggests is traditionally held over the Easter weekend.  The next year I attended my first Worldcon, Seacon.

This I guess marks my entry to SF Fandom, rather than just being a fan of SF.

I remember going to at least one of the Albacon's in Glasgow, but can't remember if it was the 1980 or 1983 one.  I certainly went to Yorcon 2 in Leeds 1981, and I think Channelcon in Brighton 1982.  But apart from attending conventions, reading any fanzines I got given, I wasn't particularly active in fandom, for example producing a fanzine or helping to run conventions.

Though, as I'm writing this down I remembered I did start a fan group with my friend Dave Harwood, an under appreciated comic artist, while I was living in Southend-on-Sea.  It was really David and Ashley go drinking and talk about SF books, films and comics.  Alex Stewart aka Sandy Mitchell was a regular attendee, driving all the way down from Colchester, and usually bringing friends with him like Susan Francis and John Murphy.

Those were the days when we were young and full of energy, and would do crazy stuff like drive to Wales for the chance to attend a party.  Anyway, again I've put the link for the Hugo Wikipedia page here.
 
Third Decade 1973 to 1982 

There were ten winners during this period, and forty-one other novels that were nominated. I've read eight of the ten winners, and twenty-three of the forty-one runners up.  The only year where I read all the contenders was 1975.

The two Hugo winners I've not read were: Dreamsnake by Vonda N. McIntyre, and The Snow Queen by Joan D. Vinge. Both of these rather shocked me, because again I remember reading other books from both these authors, which only goes to illustrate that one doesn't necessarily read everything by a given author or remember what you've read. In this case I've read a lot of Vonda N. McIntyre's tie in novels, being a big Star Trek fan who wanted to read well written books in this universe. The only book I've read by Joan D. Vinge was her Star Wars tie in novelization.

Of the runners up the one's I haven't read are: There Will Be Time by Poul Anderson, The Book of Skulls, and Dying Inside (two nominations in one year) by Robert Silverberg, A Choice of Gods by Clifford D. Simak, The Man Who Folded Himself by David Gerrold, The Stochastic Man by Robert Silverberg, and Shadrach in the Furnace also by Robert Silverberg, The Forbidden Tower by Marion Zimmer Bradley, Dying of the Light by George R. R. Martin, The White Dragon by Anne McCaffrey, Blind Voices by Tom Reamy, Titan by John Varley, Jem by Frederik Pohl, Harpist in the Wind by Patricia A. McKillip, On Wings of Song by Thomas Disch, Lord Valentine's Castle by Robert Silverberg, Wizard by John Varley, The Many-Colored Land by Julian May, Project Pope by Clifford D. Simak.

Clearly I haven't read as much  Robert Silverberg or for that matter as much Clifford D. Simak as I thought I had, or at least what I've read didn't make the Hugo shortlist;  I did check and I guess I must have mostly read their shorter works.  I'm surprised by the inclusion of the David Gerrold story, and while I've read a fair bit of Anne McCaffrey I stopped reading the dragon books after the second novel in the series.

Of these I think I will try to get hold of a copy of  Blind Voices by Tom Reamy, who I've never heard of, and when I checked the link on the wiki I discovered this was his first and last novel.  He died just before publication, slumped over the first seven pages of his next novel. The review suggests he was a promising writer who may have had a substantial career in the genre.

So not only can you not win, but you can win and not see that you've won.  It sucks sometimes, and sometimes it really sucks.

Part four link.

Hugo Reflections: Part 2 - 1963 to 1972

Towards the end of this period we enter the time when I began to read voraciously, this being a typical reaction of those who find SF and fall in love with the genre.  In my case I remember picking up two of Robert A. Heinlein's juveniles from a shop while on a seaside holiday in Ilfracombe.  It was one of those wet summer's, which meant we couldn't go to the beach, and I was bored.  The books I bought were the Red Planet and Farmer in the Sky, followed by me picking up the two other books of his that the shop had on its racks: Tunnel in the Sky and Time for the Stars.

From this point on I pursued books by him and other authors like him: Andre Norton, Alan E. Nourse and Hugh Walters.  And that is how this SF fan was born.  As for the Hugo awards, my eleven year old self would have been too deep into reading books to have taken any notice of some boring event where you had to sit and watch been adults wearing fancy clothes being given prizes.

As before I shall be referencing the Hugo Wikipedia page here.

1963 to 1972

There were eleven Hugos awarded during this period (one year had two winners), and thirty-nine nominated novels.  I've read all eleven winners, and twenty of the thirty-nine nominated runners up.  Again I note that I've read all the contenders for the award in both 1966, 1970.

The one's I haven't read are: Dark Universe by Daniel F. Galouye, The Fisherman aka Time Is the Simplest Thing by Clifford D. Simak, The Sword of Aldones by Marion Zimmer Bradley, Little Fuzzy by H. Beam Piper, Sylva by Jean Bruller, Witch World by Andre Norton, Dune World by Frank Herbert, The Whole Man by John Brunner, Davy by Edgar Pangborn, Too Many Magicians by Randall Garrett, The Witches of Karres by James H. Schmitz, Day of the Minotaur by Thomas Burnett Swann, The Butterfly Kid by Chester Anderson, Thorns by Robert Silverberg, Rite of Passage by Alexei Panshin, Past Master by R. A. Lafferty, The Goblin Reservation by Clifford D. Simak, Tower of Glass by Robert Silverberg, The Year of the Quiet Sun by Wilson Tucker, Star Light by Hal Clement, A Time of Changes by Robert Silverberg.

What surprised me about the books I haven't read was how many Robert Silverberg novels there were.  He's an author who I thought I'd read more of, but there you go that's what your memory does, it deceives you.  Again there's nothing on this list that makes me want to rush out and buy them, though I may well get around to the Hal Clement at some point.  From this I think I can see some indications of the sort of books I like to read, and those that don't appeal.

I'm rather hard pushed to list alternatives who may have deserved a Hugo during this period, because of the selection of nominated works rather takes away any point in doing so when you consider my criteria:  I must have read the book, and the author hasn't had an award or nomination.

Part three link.

Notes

First thing I want to say is that obviously if any of the books I haven't read struck a chord that would make you recommend them to me, then please leave a comment below.  

Secondly I just wanted to add how I choose the books I read nowadays.  First is through recommendations from friends or from reviews I've read, but the main route is through the bookshops.  When I go into Forbidden Planet I look at their new book selection.  First the cover, then the back page blurb, and finally the first chapter.  This turns new books into the equivalent of a publishers slush pile, which is why word of mouth and reviews are so important.

If the cover has a woman on it with an elf, werewolf or vampire I'll probably pass, because this signals paranormal romance, but I always check the blurb first just to make sure.  Romance books are not my thing.  I've read a bunch, even read some by accident, it's just my taste in stories.  Same goes for horror, unless tentacles as in Cthulhu; I always have time for the Great Old Ones.

Hugo Reflections: Part 1 - 1953 to 1962

As I alluded to in a previous post I've been distracted, dismayed and distressed from reading the current furore over the Hugo's.  This post, the first in a series, is not going to be a diatribe for or against the Sad Puppies, rather it's going to be a reflection on the books that won or were nominated for a Hugo award.  In short just some anecdotes about the books I've read or not that were nominated or won the award, and who didn't.

I shall be referring to the Hugo Wikipedia page here.

1953 to 1962

I note that there were no awards presented for best novel in 1954 or 1957.  So only eight novels won the award during this period, and there are only sixteen novels recorded as being nominated that didn't win.  Of these I've read all but one of the winners: They'd Rather be Right aka The Forever Machine by Frank Clifton & Mark Riley.  I've never even heard of them, and following the wiki links I found that this was a controversial win due to links to Scientology.  However, I see I've read all the books that are recorded as receiving nominations in 1959 and 1961.

Given that I've read twelve of the sixteen books that were nominated, it will be easier to look at what I haven't read at this point.

Those four books were: We Have Fed Our Sea aka The Enemy Stars by Poul Anderson, The Pirates of Ersatz aka The Pirates of Zan by Murray Leinster, That Sweet Little Old Lady aka Brain Twister by Mark Phillips, and The High Crusade by Poul Anderson.

After reading the synopses of the books I haven't read, I can't say I'm curious to go out of my way to try them, except perhaps for The High Crusade.  Why?  Because there are more books that are calling for me to read than these, which really is the long and the short of it at the end of the day.  I will also come back to how I choose books in my last post when I sum up everything.

In case it's not obvious, I was too young to have read these books when they first came out.

My question now, is would I change any of the Hugo award winners for another book from that year? I did a quick skim of the books published over this time period, and I take one from each year that I think was worth reading, and would have made an equally good winner, taken from here, may not be a full list of the books published in each year, I used it because it was quick and easy.

1952 Mixed Men aka Mission to the Stars by A. E van Vogt (one of 128 books published that year).
1953 Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke (160 books published that year).
1954 Fellowship of the Ring by J. R. R. Tolkien (157 books published).
1955 The Chrysalids by John Wyndham (120 published).
1956 No Blade of Grass by John Christopher (115 published).
1957 Wasp by Eric Frank Russell (104 published).
1958 Non-Stop by Brian Aldiss (139 published).
1959 The Marching Morons by C. M. Kornbluth (134 published).
1960 Flesh by Phillip Jose Farmer (139 published).
1961 Bring back Yesterday by A. Bertram Chandler (130 published).

Note: I've restricted my choices to what I've read, so may have missed other equally good books, and I've elected to only chose books where the author hasn't won or been nominated during these years (just to show some of the authors who missed out on getting a Hugo during this time period).

Part two link.

LonCon 3: Hugo Award Winners 2014

This is not going to be a full discussion of the 2014 Hugos, rather a snippet to comment on a few that I voted on, and if they won.

Best Novel:  Ancillary Justice, by Ann Leckie.  Definitely a yay as far as I was concerned.  I reviewed it here, the first novel I read this year, and I loved it.  It was also great to meet Ann, and exchange a few words, she comes across as a very nice person.

Best Novella:  Equoid by Charles Stross.  I like Charlie's Laundry series, and I enjoyed reading the teaser he put out for this.  I now have a signed hardback, and all I have to do is find the time to sit down and read the story in full.

Best Graphic Story:  Time by Randall Munroe.  I didn't vote in this category, because I failed to remember I had read this strip, and how seminal it was.  So, I was pleasantly surprised by it winning.

Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form:  Gravity written by Alfonso Cuarón & Jonás Cuarón. and directed by Alfonso Cuarón. I've read elsewhere that some people didn't think it was SF, because it appears to be set in the real world of contemporary near Earth orbit space research.

In a word no, it's SF because it's set in an alternative future where the shuttle is still flying, and all the space stations are functioning, and in the same orbital plain.  I won't be pedantic about the science of the orbital mechanics, because shooting fish in a barrel.  Hollywood did hard science better for The Right Stuff and Apollo 13.  So Gravity is SF, and it was a righteous win.

Best Dramatic Presentation Long Form, Short Form: Game of Thrones "The Rains of Castamere" written by David Benioff & D.B. Weiss, and directed by David Nutter.  We was robbed.  In an ideal world I would have like Orphan Black to have won, but really both The Day of the Doctor and An Adventure in Space and Time were better in my opinion.

So disappointed, but on the other hand the Hugos are what they are.  The winner is the one with the most votes, not necessarily the best of anything, just the favourite show of many who took the time and trouble to vote.  In short, the result of a democratic voting system from being part of the franchise from being a member of WorldCon.  So no real grumbles from me.

I will be posting two further pieces on LonCon 3 over the next few days.  One on what and who I saw, the other on what I did on the panels.  There will be pictures.

LonCon Panel 2: 2014 Hugos: Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form

The second panel I am on at LonCon, which I'm acting as the moderator, is the 2014 Hugos: Best Dramatic Presentation Short Form, which is on Saturday starting at 11:00 and finishing at 12:00 noon in the Capital Suite 13 (ExCeL).

The nominees for this year's Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation: Short Form, are:

• An Adventure in Space and Time written by Mark Gatiss, directed by Terry McDonough (BBC Television)
• Doctor Who: “The Day of the Doctor” written by Steven Moffat, directed by Nick Hurran (BBC Television)
• Doctor Who: “The Name of the Doctor” written by Steven Moffat, directed by Saul Metzstein (BBC Televison)
• The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot written & directed by Peter Davison (BBC Television)
• Game of Thrones: “The Rains of Castamere” written by David Benioff & D.B. Weiss, directed by David Nutter (HBO Entertainment in association with Bighead, Littlehead; Television 360; Startling Television and Generator Productions)
• Orphan Black: “Variations under Domestication” written by Will Pascoe, directed by John Fawcett (Temple Street Productions; Space / BBC America)

But which should win? Our panel will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the nominees, try to second-guess the voters, and tell you what else should have been on the ballot.

Panelists

Ashley Pollard (Moderator) with Iain Clark, Abigail Brady, Saxon Bullock, Jacey Bedford and here too, but for Jacey's film reviews see here.

Well, I've been emailing my fellow panelists and reading their blogs, and I seem to have drawn a good team all of whom have a strong interest in media SF.  Just a reminder that I commented on The Day of the Doctor here.