OMGimpostingonLJ!

[bovil]

Is it just me, or is there a hypocritical hipsterish vibe from a chunk of the "book blogger" community's complaints about this year's Hugo awards and discussions?

This is by no means universal, but I've seen quite a few book bloggers complain about

• The popular selections in the fiction categories, including dramatic categories, and the big names in

Comments

[daveon]

It is not just you.

[daveon]

There's a disconnect here, being less glib. That no matter how you try to game the Hugo Awards they're a vote by a jury of people and that is going to yield 'odd' results.

But what defeats me is the idea that more nominations or magically 'better' nominations are going to help. My gut till says that there will be a standard deviation of the selection and the end results will be something that looks a hell of a lot like what we already get.

[bovil]

I think a larger pool would augur to more popular nominees and winners. They may end up different popular nominees and winners, though. Probably more mainstream popular nominees and winners.

Now if the Hugos could make the top-5 "also ran" nominations in each category a big deal, perhaps releasing them right after the voting deadline, that might change things up a bit...

...or not.

[daveon]

Yeah. I suspect that a wider pool would actually yield worse results myself.