This Sunday, August 9, the 2009 Hugo Awards will be revealed at Anticipation, the 67th World Science Fiction Convention, which is being held in Montreal, Canada.
Regardless of whether you believe the Hugos are a time-honoured and venerable award or a waste of time and effort, alongside the Nebula Award, they represent the pinnacle (on paper, at least!) of achievement in science fiction and fantasy literature.
Most of the attention at the awards will be squarely focused on the flagship best novel award. Since 1953, when the first Hugo Award was handed out, the list of winners of this award reads like a who’s who, primarily of the science fiction world, with names like Robert Heinlein, Phillip K. Dick, Ursula K. Le Guin, Frank Herbert, Roger Zelazny, Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov, William Gibson and more.
There has been a fair amount of debate about whether this year’s nominee list is up to the huge benchmark set in previous years; just making the nominee list is a significant plaudit in itself.
For example, science fiction author Adam Roberts posted a massive rant in mid-July about why he was disappointed with this year’s list. Some choice words:
“Science Fiction Fandom: your shortlists aren’t very good. I’m not saying the works you have shortlisted are terrible. They’re not terrible, mostly, as it goes. But they aren’t exceptionally good either. They’re in the middle. There’s a word for that. The word is mediocre.
Widely publicised shortlists of mediocre art are a bad thing. What do these lists say about SF to the multitude in the world—to the people who don’t know any better? It says that SF is old-fashioned, an aesthetically, stylistically and formally small-c conservative thing. It says that SF fans do not like works that are too challenging, or unnerving; that they prefer to stay inside their comfort zone.”
Roberts’ post prompted quite a lot of follow-up discussion, among the better ones this excellent rant from Steve Davidson, and then another follow-up response from the OF Blog of the Fallen.
There’s also been debate about the decision to eliminate the best Semiprozone Hugo.
Over at Tor.com, it looks like Arachne Jericho is tired of what they call “the Perennial Hugos Ballyhoo”.
Well, whether you love them or loathe the, here they are, the 2009 nominations:
Best Novel
* Anathem by Neal Stephenson (Morrow; Atlantic UK)
* The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman (HarperCollins; Bloomsbury UK)
* Little Brother by Cory Doctorow (Tor Teen; HarperVoyager UK)
* Saturn’s Children by Charles Stross (Ace; Orbit UK)
* Zoe’s Tale by John Scalzi (Tor)
Best Novella
* “The Erdmann Nexus” by Nancy Kress (Asimov’s Oct/Nov 2008)
* “The Political Prisoner” by Charles Coleman Finlay (F&SF Aug 2008)
* “The Tear” by Ian McDonald (Galactic Empires)
* “True Names” by Benjamin Rosenbaum & Cory Doctorow (Fast Forward 2)
* “Truth” by Robert Reed (Asimov’s Oct/Nov 2008)
Best Novelette
* “Alastair Baffle’s Emporium of Wonders” by Mike Resnick (Asimov’s Jan 2008)
* “The Gambler” by Paolo Bacigalupi (Fast Forward 2)
* “Pride and Prometheus” by John Kessel (F&SF Jan 2008)
* “The Ray-Gun: A Love Story” by James Alan Gardner (Asimov’s Feb 2008)
* “Shoggoths in Bloom” by Elizabeth Bear (Asimov’s Mar 2008)
Best Short Story
* “26 Monkeys, Also the Abyss” by Kij Johnson (Asimov’s Jul 2008)
* “Article of Faith” by Mike Resnick (Baen’s Universe Oct 2008)
* “Evil Robot Monkey” by Mary Robinette Kowal (The Solaris Book of New Science Fiction, Volume Two)
* “Exhalation” by Ted Chiang (Eclipse Two)
* “From Babel’s Fall’n Glory We Fled” by Michael Swanwick (Asimov’s Feb 2008)
Best Related Book
* Rhetorics of Fantasy by Farah Mendlesohn (Wesleyan University Press)
* Spectrum 15: The Best in Contemporary Fantastic Art by Cathy & Arnie Fenner, eds. (Underwood Books)
* The Vorkosigan Companion: The Universe of Lois McMaster Bujold by Lillian Stewart Carl & John Helfers, eds. (Baen)
* What It Is We Do When We Read Science Fiction by Paul Kincaid (Beccon Publications)
* Your Hate Mail Will be Graded: A Decade of Whatever, 1998-2008 by John Scalzi (Subterranean Press)
Best Graphic Story
* The Dresden Files: Welcome to the Jungle Written by Jim Butcher, art by Ardian Syaf (Del Rey/Dabel Brothers Publishing)
* Girl Genius, Volume 8: Agatha Heterodyne and the Chapel of Bones Written by Kaja & Phil Foglio, art by Phil Foglio, colors by Cheyenne Wright (Airship Entertainment)
* Fables: War and Pieces Written by Bill Willingham, pencilled by Mark Buckingham, art by Steve Leialoha and Andrew Pepoy, color by Lee Loughridge, letters by Todd Klein (DC/Vertigo Comics)
* Schlock Mercenary: The Body Politic Story and art by Howard Tayler (The Tayler Corporation)
* Serenity: Better Days Written by Joss Whedon & Brett Matthews, art by Will Conrad, color by Michelle Madsen, cover by Jo Chen (Dark Horse Comics)
* Y: The Last Man, Volume 10: Whys and Wherefores Written/created by Brian K. Vaughan, penciled/created by Pia Guerra, inked by Jose Marzan, Jr. (DC/Vertigo Comics)
Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form
* The Dark Knight Christopher Nolan & David S. Goyer, story; Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan, screenplay; based on characters created by Bob Kane; Christopher Nolan, director (Warner Brothers)
* Hellboy II: The Golden Army Guillermo del Toro & Mike Mignola, story; Guillermo del Toro, screenplay; based on the comic by Mike Mignola; Guillermo del Toro, director (Dark Horse, Universal)
* Iron Man Mark Fergus & Hawk Ostby and Art Marcum & Matt Holloway, screenplay; based on characters created by Stan Lee & Don Heck & Larry Lieber & Jack Kirby; Jon Favreau, director (Paramount, Marvel Studios)
* METAtropolis by John Scalzi, ed. Written by: Elizabeth Bear, Jay Lake, Tobias Buckell and Karl Schroeder (Audible Inc)
* WALL-E Andrew Stanton & Pete Docter, story; Andrew Stanton & Jim Reardon, screenplay; Andrew Stanton, director (Pixar/Walt Disney)
Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form
* “The Constant” (Lost) Carlton Cuse & Damon Lindelof, writers; Jack Bender, director (Bad Robot, ABC studios)
* Doctor Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog Joss Whedon, & Zack Whedon, & Jed Whedon & Maurissa Tancharoen , writers; Joss Whedon, director (Mutant Enemy)
* “Revelations” (Battlestar Galactica) Bradley Thompson & David Weddle, writers; Michael Rymer, director (NBC Universal)
* “Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead” (Doctor Who) Steven Moffat, writer; Euros Lyn, director (BBC Wales)
* “Turn Left” (Doctor Who) Russell T. Davies, writer; Graeme Harper, director (BBC Wales)
Best Editor, Short Form
* Ellen Datlow
* Stanley Schmidt
* Jonathan Strahan
* Gordon Van Gelder
* Sheila Williams
Best Editor, Long Form
* Lou Anders
* Ginjer Buchanan
* David G. Hartwell
* Beth Meacham
* Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Best Professional Artist
* Daniel Dos Santos
* Bob Eggleton
* Donato Giancola
* John Picacio
* Shaun Tan
Best Semiprozine
* Clarkesworld Magazine edited by Neil Clarke, Nick Mamatas & Sean Wallace
* Interzone edited by Andy Cox
* Locus edited by Charles N. Brown, Kirsten Gong-Wong, & Liza Groen Trombi
* The New York Review of Science Fiction edited by Kathryn Cramer, Kris Dikeman, David G. Hartwell, & Kevin J. Maroney
* Weird Tales edited by Ann VanderMeer & Stephen H. Segal
Best Fanzine
* Argentus edited by Steven H Silver
* Banana Wings edited by Claire Brialey and Mark Plummer
* Challenger edited by Guy H. Lillian III
* The Drink Tank edited by Chris Garcia
* Electric Velocipede edited by John Klima
* File 770 edited by Mike Glyer
Best Fan Writer
* Chris Garcia
* John Hertz
* Dave Langford
* Cheryl Morgan
* Steven H Silver
Best Fan Artist
* Alan F. Beck
* Brad W. Foster
* Sue Mason
* Taral Wayne
* Frank Wu
The John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer
* Aliette de Bodard*
* David Anthony Durham*
* Felix Gilman
* Tony Pi*
* Gord Sellar*
*(Second year of eligibility)
Thanks for linking to my “rant” – which wasn’t so much a rant as it was a very preliminary floating of a hypothetical.
As the OF Blog pointed out, there are things in my argument that bear further investigation. I may or may not get to such since blogging thoughts of the day are far different than writing a treatise that would stand up to academic review.
I do, however, still maintain that there is a major difference between works written as “genre science fiction” (perhaps all genre fiction) and works written as “literary fiction” (whatever that may mean).
Roberts (and some of his followers) apparently make a routine of spasming annually during Hugo awards time. They have never explained their reasons for doing so and I find that much more interesting, because when it comes down to it, attacking one award in favor of another is an absolutely ridiculous and seemingly “unacademic” activity: the presence or absence of one award has virtually no impact on another: author’s are (usually) keen to collect as many as they can, regardless of the origin or intent (simply because it looks good on the book jacket and the website and the promo sheets); arguing against an award that you yourself might one day be nominated for is just plain stupid. And, no matter how reasoned and (possibly) correct your argument may be, if you are attacking an award for which you have never been nominated, in favor of one for which you have been nominated on multiple occassions, there really is only one conclusion that anyone can come to about your motivations (whether they are correct in their assumptions or not) and anyone with half a brain can figure out in two seconds that it’s just better to keep quiet.
However – back to the main subject. To my mind, and in my fledgling theory, there is a divide between genre science fiction and literary science fiction, one which expresses itself in both presentation and intent. Genre science fiction evolved from the ‘just tell a decent story and collect a paycheck’ pulp markets into something very specific that puts story telling and sense of wonder first, one which does not concern itself or worry about whether or not it has achieved high literary values as that is of secondary concern. While literary science fiction starts from the premise of utilizing those things that make for good literary convention and then adds SF tropes somewhere along the way. I’ll have to pick a few examples and strip them down to see if that contention bears any fruit – but I suspect that you could substitute any window dressing for the SF and still have a “literary” novel.
Not worth wasting a bunch of time on though – the only real reason to “study” literature is to figure out how that author put something together that sold. We can heap up the history of literary critiquing and make up all the schools of thought and nifty-sounding names for things we want to – but no matter how deep it gets, its still an entirely subjective enterprise that results in various very small groups of people agreeing that something is good or it isn’t. I don’t know about you guys, but I make those kinds of decisions for myself.
Hey Steve,
it sounds like the age-old debate about whether “literary” books are better than just “normal” books is very much alive and well in the science fiction world.
I suspect it is very much a false dichotomy.
The real question is, do the readers enjoy the book?
I think the best authors in any genre are able to make their works complex enough and are aware enough of what came before them, and do something to move the genre forward (I guess you could call these literary techniques), while still making the work easy enough to read that the less patient reader will not have to work hard to read the book (think Ulysses).
I would put Ursula Le Guin, Frank Herbert in this category.
Renai