I used to really love the Hugo and Nebula awards but over time they seem to be shifting away from the harder science fiction that I like the best, more in the fantasy direction. I miss the days of Hugo winners like Neuromancer, A Fire Upon the Deep, Green Mars, The Diamond Age, The Windup Girl, The Three-Body Problem.
That might be just tracking what gets written nowadays rather than the opinions of the people giving out the awards, though. And I did really like Babel (which won the Nebula this year although I guess was not a finalist for the Hugo) and N K Jemisin's work (three Hugos in the past decade).
Agreed. When I was a kid, I would look for the award winners as a shortcut to find new books to read, but lately its been disappointment after disappointment. I don't feel like the winners reflect what I consider quality (e.g. I loved A Deepness in the Sky, Cryptonomicon, in addition to the books you've listed (minus Three Body Problem)).
With the death of physical stores, I no longer have a way of discovering new science fiction. I wish there was an award or recommendation engine that could find these gems among all of the trash.
Interestingly, I did find one book that was quite enjoyable, from a John Carmack tweet of all places, The Powers of the Earth.
OMG I didn't know there were two more books in the series. Audible is doing a bad job at recommending books. It does not recommend the next books in series I follow.
I haven’t read The Children of Time, but I would highly recommend Tchaikovsky’s Final Architecture trilogy. It’s been my favorite series I’ve read in a few years.
The Hugo Awards have really come to represent the views and tastes of a narrow clique. I don't know to what extent this was always the case -- my impression of the Awards in the 90s and 00s was that they strived for more objectivity -- but it's quite flagrant right now. And it's unfortunate, as they go HARD for very soft science fiction which reads a lot more like fantasy...
Voting is open to all attendees of the World Scifi Convention and they usually get thousands of votes now. It's possible that you find the winners too "mainstream" but accusing them of being cliquey doesn't make sense.
WorldCon is not representative of all readership. Its website even notes: "The Hugo voters are good at finding and nominating good works, and do talk among themselves, so word spreads." [1] They seem to do an awful lot of talking among themselves, I'll give them that.
Besides, it doesn't take a whole lot of nominations to get something onto the ballot. An energetic and motivated clique can capture the whole thing.
And surely it's apparent that they reward a certain type of work, and disregard others. For e.g., Analog Magazine -- which specializes in hard science fiction -- didn't pick up a single short story or novella nomination.
Traditional print magazines like Analog are at a huge disadvantage in popularity contest awards like the Hugos because they are only available to subscribers.
Hugo winners usually come from magazines that make their stories available for free online.
I'm curious, is there some novel that you think was underlooked at this year's Hugo awards, like if you were running the show you would have given them the award? I feel like my tastes probably agree with yours but I am not sure if the problem is the Hugo voters or if there are just very few great books of the sort I most prefer the past few years.
Ah, interesting - I did like The Mountain in the Sea, I forgot about that one. Eversion was decent too. I am going to get Beyond the Burn Line as a result of this comment's recommendation. So thanks!
McAuley's recent output (Austral, War of the Maps, Beyond the Burn Line,) has been very good -- and I'd say that those three books are all equal in terms of literary and entertainment quality.
All of them are, in a sense, the same type of story -- Person Goes on Journey Through Strange Territory -- but that's a solid foundation for a science fiction novel, and McAuley does it well, with more than enough variation to keep things interesting. Austral has near-future climate fiction and crime fiction elements; War of the Maps takes place on a Dyson Sphere around a white dwarf star in an aged and dying universe; Beyond the Burn Line is a middle-distance cautionary tale about AI and, in a sense, religion...
McAuley has a novella in this month's Asimov which is also quite similar, and also very good. "Blade and Bone" is about the sole survivors of an annihilated infantry battalion as they make their way across a hostile Mars -- which has been terraformed but is reverting to a cold and dry baseline.
This kind of engaging hard SF is, emphatically, not appreciated by the people who vote on Hugo awards. So much the worse for them, I think...
The Scholomance series by Naomi Novak is quite good, her best and I've liked all her books. Yes it's a Potter derivative, but doesn't feel derivative but inventive and de-disneyfied.
I loved her previous books but just couldn’t do Scholomance. I don’t mind the Harry Potter derivation, but she tripled down in the life is so unfair vibe that annoyed me in Potter. Still, glad to see her recognized, Spun Silver and Uprooted are amazing books.
I thought the magic system and world building of that series was so great, but it was so stymied by YA bullshit. The cliffhanger at the end of the first book had my eyes rolling out of my head.
I love the Hugo awards, I am almost never disappointed by their best novel nominees and winners. I went on a spree earlier this year and was amazed by some of the books I read, like The Goblin Emporer, A Memory of Empire and its sequel. Going to enjoy checking some of these books out.
Novik doesn't just copy the teen-angst-life-is-so-unfair vibe, but efficiently includes it in her world building. She justifies it. By the end of the series it's clear that the her universe is indeed impressively unfair ... which is core to her protagonists' motivation to do something about it and drives the plot.
Agreed, but from my perspective as very very far removed from adolescence, I had to give up because I found it whiny and predictable. As a teenager I probably would have related more. God knows I was whiny and predictable enough.
Even as a teenager, I knew that "it turns out all your emotional angst is vindicated by objective reality!" was a bullshit fantasy, but even knowing that, I needed it to sometimes be the answer. The older I get, the more I'm able to revisit that stuff without cringing and appreciate that it was just an emotional outlet.
I too enjoyed this a lot and my wife did too. It's YA material, but well written and well plotted both internally and across the three volume arc. Her protagonist is given an amusing voice so it's not too heavy despite the mayhem.
Obviously you have to be open to the fantasy setting, and I'd describe it more as a bit of a reaction to the cosiness of Potter than a mere derivative.
"Terry Pratchett: A Life With Footnotes" by Rob Wilkins really is excellent. If you enjoyed Pratchett's novels and are interested in his life then you will get a lot out of it. It's much better written than I expected of an authorized biography; not a hagiography at all, it showed his feet of clay as well as his halo. Some of it, of course, is very amusing.
Be warned, however, that it covers Terry's deterioration with alzheimers' without pulling its punches much. There were a couple of points where I had to put the book down for a bit and take a break because it was too sad.
Best Dramatic Presentation categories are borderline meaningless. Hugos are literary awards, not TV or film awards. Voters don't take those categories seriously.
2023 voting details aren't available yet, but for 2022 it only took 26 nominations out of 1368 nominating ballots to make it onto the final ballot for that category.
Barely recognize any of the books or authors there, especially the winners.
I've listened to Travis Baldree narrate Cradle, so I'm probably gonna check out his Legends & Lattes book.
It didn't win, but I read The Scholomance which is listed in the series section. If you're interested in unconventional magic systems then I'd recommend it.
Nettle & Bone was the big winner. Reading the blurb doesn't immediately call out to me. Worth checking out?
T Kingfisher/Ursula Vernon is very good, in a weird fantasy/horror/romance/reimagined fairy tale way. (Depending on the book. One of the romances features severed heads.)
I haven’t read this one, but I’ve read basically all her other stuff apart from the horror, which I’ve noped out from. I’m not sure if this one is more reimagined fairy tale or horror, which is how I made it past release week without reading it.
I've not read "Nettle & Bone" yet - but have read some of T Kingfishers other work, can be quite big on the 'unconventional magic systems' as well (e.g. "A Wizard's Guide To Defensive Baking").
Legends & Latte's is one of my favorite books of the past year. It falls into that Cozy Fantasy genre.
It's very different than the Monk & Robot series but makes me feel a very similar way to those books. Highly recommend. There's a sequel coming out in November called Bookshops & Bonedust. I think it's technically a prequel.
Travis Baldree did amazing with Cradle as well. Going to miss getting new books in that series.
Okorafor hates the Harry Potter comparison, but I'll say it: The Akata series is like if HP had 10x wilder magic, was 100x better written, and was set in Nigeria.
I loved the first two books in the Nsibidi series, Akata Witch and Akata Warrior. I didn't even know this third book was out! Looking forward to reading it.
I didn't know the Hugo Awards has so many award. I naively though it was just best sci-fi book because I would see lists of Hugo award winners by year and see only one book per year and they were all sci-fi.
Good to see Travis Baldree winning Astounding Award for Best New Writer. Legends & Lattes was one of my favorites reads last year - looking forward to the prequel next month.
I think that's the context, though. Going back as far as a decade ago, the Hugo Awards were leaning "inclusive". There were some reactionary campaigns. Regardless, the trend has continued. Not everybody is happy about it, and not everybody sees a Hugo Award as a reliable indicator of quality these days.
It means that Dudester230602 sorely wants you to know that he's a sexually frustrated misogynistic incel pig who women don't want to have anything to do with for good reason, so he deeply resents reading fiction by and about them. So next time you see him post, don't think about that and laugh at him!
The problem is defining “preaching”. In my limited experience, those who complain about feminism usually see having a strong female protagonist as offensive preaching.
I read a LOT of SF. I cannot remember the last book I read that I would consider “preachy” about feminism. What are some examples that bother you?
Not OP, but I've definitely read books by authors I otherwise enjoy which I'd consider to have lecturing segments in them. I'm hesitant to name specific examples though...
I think something similar happens with politics. Some people say they don't want politics in their media, but what they usually mean is they don't want half-assed and shallow political takes. If you're going to take on a serious and important topic then you need to do a great job, otherwise you're just detracting from the experience or trying to farm brownie points from your tribe.
I love strong and complex female leads. But I want the story to focus on their journey and struggles. Not to receive multiple lectures on how women are just as capable as men. It's just bad writing when it fails at the core tenet of "show, don't tell".
I recently read a book which dealt with colonialism as a central theme. The author did a great job with some aspects of the story, but they made all the villains incredibly shallow and one dimensional. This is then used to lecture the reader on why colonialism is bad. I don't even disagree with the points that were being made, but I thought it was a poor vehicle for the message.
I think the expanse series is some of the best sci Fi I have ever read. I suspect it is because the show helped my mind paint a better picture of the universe.
It presented the concepts behind several kinds of societies and governments very well, and presented a world where sexism existed but wasn't pervasive, where women were equal and as capable and likely to have power as men.
Oh, and nom-hetero and poly relationships existed, and even had a small impact on the plot, but it was never presented as some "in your face" message. It just was there.
Expanse makes you think about harsh environments, political ideology, realpolitik dynamics between governments, morality of terrorism (by oppressed and oppressors), ethics of behavior in survival scenarios, the nature of existence/what makes someone themselves, and more.
That might be just tracking what gets written nowadays rather than the opinions of the people giving out the awards, though. And I did really like Babel (which won the Nebula this year although I guess was not a finalist for the Hugo) and N K Jemisin's work (three Hugos in the past decade).