For those /not/ at WorldCon....

[juliansinger]

List of Hugo winners. (Thank you pleonastic. The list of nominees is hereConnie Willis won yet another one, for Novella this time. Haven't read it. Don't know. Just think she has too many On Principle. I'm peculiar, I know. People who've read it, was it Hugo-worthy? Mind you, I have an ulterior motive, I was rooting for Kelly Link, so you can

Comments

[pir_anha]

john scalzi won the campbell, you mean, not charlie stross. :)

i definitely think truepenny should have won; mélusine is IMO superior to old man's war. which isn't bad by any means, but ... just not ... yeah.

[juliansinger]

Errr. Yes. Brain-o there. Thanks.

I haven't read Old Man's War, honestly, but what I have read of Melusine, well... I enjoyed it a lot. The Hugos don't tend to be gospel.

(Oh, and thanks for the link in the first place.)

[pir_anha]

the hugos are more of a popularity contest than anything assessing real quality. i am often in disagreement with the choices. :)

[rosefox]

We just bought Mélusine; I shall have to make a point of reading it now.

mélusine is IMO superior to old man's war

Ah, but is Monette a better writer, and a better first-time novelist, than Scalzi? At least in theory that's a different question.

[rosefox]

I'm thrilled that Beagle is still writing award-worthy work, and getting recognized for it. And Hartwell! Fantastic, well-deserved, and fascinating given the recent debate over Best Editor Hugos.

"Inside Job" is cute, but it didn't at all strike me as Hugo-worthy. Who else was nominated? Oh, heh, okay, probably just wanting to not be yet another award for Kelly Link. Mind you, I didn't love "Magic for Beginners" either, though I seem to be alone in that.

Thank heaven A Feast for Crows didn't win. I would have been very put out with the voters if it had, regardless of whoever else was nominated. That was one of the more disappointing books I've read in quite a while. I've heard excellent things about Spin and look forward to reading it someday.

[mrissa]

Not alone in that.

The novella award is often pretty weak, in my opinion. People go on about how it's the ideal form for SF, but if it is, it's certainly not living up to its potential.

[juliansinger]

Yeah, and I only just realized this is his first Hugo! (I mean, he's won other things, obviously.)

*dancies*

[mrissa]

I love both truepenny and her books to bits, but scalzi is a stand-up kind of guy, and his books have a really broad market appeal. This is not an accident -- it's deliberate craft.

The rules for the Campbell are very specific for a reason. If truepenny had been picking up a little extra cash in grad school by writing encyclopedia entries or SAT prep books, I doubt that you'd think that should disqualify her for the Campbell, and I think Scalzi's in the same boat. How many SF fans really know who wrote sections of the Uncle John's bathroom readers? I mean, they do now, because it's Scalzi. But can you name other Uncle John's writers? I doubt it. If you can, it's probably just you and their moms.

Go ahead and be annoyed that your choice didn't win; I seem to be the only person in the world who wasn't rooting for Spin, so I know how you feel. But it's not because Scalzi should have been disqualified for the Campbell on the grounds of writing too much before.

[juliansinger]

No, yeah, I do get that the Campbell rules are that way for a reason. It was seriously that I thought he'd written more novels than he has. Once I looked up his actual bibliography, it all made sense.

And I was only very mildly annoyed, and that briefly.