Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hugo Awards)   After all the controversy, the 2015 Hugo Awards were finally presented last night. Well, some of them anyway, as the "if our people didn't get nominated, no one should win anything" crowd succeeded in their temper tantrum   (thehugoawards.org) divider line
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

3394 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 23 Aug 2015 at 10:46 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



301 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2015-08-23 12:29:18 PM  
it's an awards show
no one cares
if you care
start your own
 
2015-08-23 12:31:49 PM  

PanicMan: Seriously though, a lot of scifi is bad. Really bad. And boring. And sooo predictable.


I think Theodore Sturgeon had something to say about that.
 
2015-08-23 12:33:57 PM  

PanicMan: Seriously though, a lot of scifi is bad. Really bad. And boring. And sooo predictable.


BTW, the plot summations I posted were the plot summations of four of the five books the Sad Puppies nominated for Best Novel.
 
2015-08-23 12:41:25 PM  

theorellior: PanicMan: Seriously though, a lot of scifi is bad. Really bad. And boring. And sooo predictable.

BTW, the plot summations I posted were the plot summations of four of the five books the Sad Puppies nominated for Best Novel.


Hahaha, I didn't realize that!  I thought you were making an over-exagerated point for dramatic effect.  Oh man, that's even worse.
 
2015-08-23 12:51:36 PM  
Did we stick it to the libs??
 
2015-08-23 12:53:37 PM  

EngineerAU: Awards like these made sense in the pre internet era when it was difficult to find reviews of many science fiction books, or anything for that matter that wasn't a New York Times bestseller. But now what's the point? Amazon will have dozens, if not hundreds, of reviews for any book you're considering reading. In addition, if you wants to play the game of ideological blindness, there's surely several blogs that match your values that will happily tell you what is considered good for members of your tribe. Being able to put 'Hugo Award Winner' on a book cover (for those who still buy hardcopies) has very little value compared to the days of Mom and Pop independent bookstores filled with unfamiliar titles in the 1980s.


Probably still useful for school teachers and librarians and parents who look for that sort of thing to nudge people in the right direction. Some people don't know they like a genre enough to dive into online reviews.
 
2015-08-23 12:55:17 PM  

PanicMan: Oh man, that's even worse.


Read the plot summary on Amazon for "Monster Hunter Nemesis" by Correia. It's loltastic. True Hugo material. I can't believe no one voted for it.
 
2015-08-23 12:58:52 PM  

PanicMan: cirby: TuteTibiImperes: Subby has it a bit confused.  The rightwing fools who tried to game the system to push their ideology were shut out, which was a very wise move from the WSFS.

This is so the leftwing folks who have been pushing their ideology for the last few decades can show just how petty they can be when they start to lose to people who actually deserve to win for good writing, as opposed to being handed awards for telling the "correct" message.

When you hear about how the folks running the Hugos were acting before and during the awards, it's pretty plain who the petty people really are.

The best Sci-fi challenges current norms, and encourages change for the better.  You shouldn't win an award for re-writing the same type of story that has already been written a hundred thousand times.


While we're at it, anyone feeling generous enough to send a few recommendations my way? I always liked soft science fiction--political stuff that focused on human nature--but never had much luck when I tried to dive in further. Obvious stuff like The Handmaid's Tale, The Giver (and Messenger, Gathering Blue, Son), Farenheit, 1984, Vonnegut, etcetc. When I tried to find more like it I couldn't find writers who focused on the human side of their story (which is the whole point of what-ifs to me), or the writing style would feel painfully clunky and technical.
 
2015-08-23 1:06:48 PM  

LarryDan43: Did we stick it to the libs??


No, sadly the libs stuck it to you.
 
2015-08-23 1:13:08 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: I always liked soft science fiction--political stuff that focused on human nature--but never had much luck when I tried to dive in further.


Le Guin is pretty solid: "The Left Hand of Darkness" is a very human look at gender identity, and "The Dispossessed" is the only examination of a libertarian society I can think of that pulls no punches, all wrapped up in a sci-fi wrapper.
 
2015-08-23 1:15:18 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: PanicMan: cirby: TuteTibiImperes: Subby has it a bit confused.  The rightwing fools who tried to game the system to push their ideology were shut out, which was a very wise move from the WSFS.

This is so the leftwing folks who have been pushing their ideology for the last few decades can show just how petty they can be when they start to lose to people who actually deserve to win for good writing, as opposed to being handed awards for telling the "correct" message.

When you hear about how the folks running the Hugos were acting before and during the awards, it's pretty plain who the petty people really are.

The best Sci-fi challenges current norms, and encourages change for the better.  You shouldn't win an award for re-writing the same type of story that has already been written a hundred thousand times.

While we're at it, anyone feeling generous enough to send a few recommendations my way? I always liked soft science fiction--political stuff that focused on human nature--but never had much luck when I tried to dive in further. Obvious stuff like The Handmaid's Tale, The Giver (and Messenger, Gathering Blue, Son), Farenheit, 1984, Vonnegut, etcetc. When I tried to find more like it I couldn't find writers who focused on the human side of their story (which is the whole point of what-ifs to me), or the writing style would feel painfully clunky and technical.


I really love Ancillary Justice.  Very political, very science fiction, and it tells very a very human story from the perspective of someone who is very much _not_ a simple human.  It is set as a space opera though, and that might weird you out.

Huh, it's hard to point to actual comparative stuff.  The Goblin Emperor is about a "human story" set in a fairy kingdom.  Three Body Problem is more of a traditional sci-fi book set in China (seeing as how the author is actually Chinese).

I don't want to recommend Scalzi.  He's a bit too light, as in light-hearted, and his primary universe is a space marine space opera.  His people are good, but it doesn't come across like Handmaid's Tale or 1984.

I mean, there's always tons of Le Guin.  You could go read The Lathe of Heaven or The Left Hand of Darkness if you haven't read them already.  Those are really fantastic and remind me a lot of the 1984 and Handmaid's Tale set, but they're not recent.
 
2015-08-23 1:16:20 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: While we're at it, anyone feeling generous enough to send a few recommendations my way? I always liked soft science fiction--political stuff that focused on human nature--but never had much luck when I tried to dive in further. Obvious stuff like The Handmaid's Tale, The Giver (and Messenger, Gathering Blue, Son), Farenheit, 1984, Vonnegut, etcetc. When I tried to find more like it I couldn't find writers who focused on the human side of their story (which is the whole point of what-ifs to me), or the writing style would feel painfully clunky and technical.


Have you read Hyperion?  It definitely focuses a lot on the human side of the story.  I'd strongly recommend it.  The rest of the series is OK - the second book in particular wraps up most of the plots the first book left open - but the first book is the best of the bunch.
 
2015-08-23 1:19:44 PM  
big night for Noah Ward
 
2015-08-23 1:20:01 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: While we're at it, anyone feeling generous enough to send a few recommendations my way?


Oh, duh!  Try Connie Willis . . . To Say Nothing of the Dog and Doomsday Book are excellent.  Do  not read Doomsday Book first though.  It may be one of the best books ever written in Science Fiction, but it's also . . . well, I'll just let you read it for yourself.
 
2015-08-23 1:25:16 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: PanicMan: cirby: TuteTibiImperes: Subby has it a bit confused.  The rightwing fools who tried to game the system to push their ideology were shut out, which was a very wise move from the WSFS.

This is so the leftwing folks who have been pushing their ideology for the last few decades can show just how petty they can be when they start to lose to people who actually deserve to win for good writing, as opposed to being handed awards for telling the "correct" message.

When you hear about how the folks running the Hugos were acting before and during the awards, it's pretty plain who the petty people really are.

The best Sci-fi challenges current norms, and encourages change for the better.  You shouldn't win an award for re-writing the same type of story that has already been written a hundred thousand times.

While we're at it, anyone feeling generous enough to send a few recommendations my way? I always liked soft science fiction--political stuff that focused on human nature--but never had much luck when I tried to dive in further. Obvious stuff like The Handmaid's Tale, The Giver (and Messenger, Gathering Blue, Son), Farenheit, 1984, Vonnegut, etcetc. When I tried to find more like it I couldn't find writers who focused on the human side of their story (which is the whole point of what-ifs to me), or the writing style would feel painfully clunky and technical.


I grew up reading a lot of Asimov, he wrote a lot of short stories that are easy to read but have some real depth.  The I, Robot stories are a personal favorite.  All his stories about robots are really about humanity.  A lot of his stuff was written around WWII, and has a related political flavor to it.  I haven't found anything new I really liked in a while, so I am open to suggestions as well.
 
2015-08-23 1:25:54 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: While we're at it, anyone feeling generous enough to send a few recommendations my way? I always liked soft science fiction--political stuff that focused on human nature--but never had much luck when I tried to dive in further. Obvious stuff like The Handmaid's Tale, The Giver (and Messenger, Gathering Blue, Son), Farenheit, 1984, Vonnegut, etcetc. When I tried to find more like it I couldn't find writers who focused on the human side of their story (which is the whole point of what-ifs to me), or the writing style would feel painfully clunky and technical.


There are some literary writers you might like. Le Guin, as mentioned, is excellent. Also Theodore Sturgeon, Gene Wolfe, and Octavia Butler would fit that mold.

A lot of Cyberpunk actually also fits that description of real people dealing with the impact of technology. You can start with William Gibson and Neal Stephenson, of course, but then there are lots of roads from them to other places.
 
2015-08-23 1:28:18 PM  

theorellior: doloresonthedottedline: I always liked soft science fiction--political stuff that focused on human nature--but never had much luck when I tried to dive in further.

Le Guin is pretty solid: "The Left Hand of Darkness" is a very human look at gender identity, and "The Dispossessed" is the only examination of a libertarian society I can think of that pulls no punches, all wrapped up in a sci-fi wrapper.


No.  The Dispossessed was an examination of a communist society, not libertarian.  If the author called it a libertarian society, then the author is a farking idiot.
 
2015-08-23 1:34:28 PM  

cirby: When you hear about how the folks running the Hugos were acting before and during the awards, it's pretty plain who the petty people really are.


One of the Sad Puppies' nominees reported David Gerrold to the Spokane police as "a public danger and needs to be watched when the convention is going on".

Who, again, is being "petty"?
 
2015-08-23 1:36:16 PM  

OgreMagi: The Dispossessed was an examination of a communist society, not libertarian.


LOL. It was anarcho-syndicalist, which is far closer to libertarianism than Communism, but you keep looking for Reds under the bed, Comrade.
 
2015-08-23 1:36:53 PM  
The depressing thing about the Hugo controversy is that the Puppies actually kind of had a point....and then completely wasted any credibility they might have had by using it for a right-wing ideological tirade and promoting only authors who passed their purity test regardless of the fact that most of their stuff was crap (Jim Butcher being a surprising exception, maybe they had to include one good writer in an effort to be taken seriously).

Literary criticism in every genre today, not just SF, has become excessively ideological and focused too much on the author and not enough on the work itself. But the Puppies are completely full of shiat about their slate being any different. They have just as slavish a devotion to picking apart an author's pedigree and the message of the work as their opponents, they're just either completely blind to their own bias or being totally disingenuous about it.

10 to 1, the Puppies would never nominate an action-heavy space opera where the protagonist was gay, or a monster-slaying story featuring disaffected urban black youth (okay, actually a story about gangbangers fighting vampires would be kind of awesome). Or a swashbuckling fantasy by an author with prominent liberal views.
 
2015-08-23 1:42:04 PM  

theorellior: OgreMagi: The Dispossessed was an examination of a communist society, not libertarian.

LOL. It was anarcho-syndicalist, which is far closer to libertarianism than Communism, but you keep looking for Reds under the bed, Comrade.


You don't understand the most basic concepts of libertarianism.
 
2015-08-23 1:42:38 PM  

SuperSeriousMan: I would say stubby hit the nail right on the head. The whole "vote no award" movement was pure politics and utterly childish.


And what would you call the practice of bringing in people who don't read science fiction to buy voting memberships just so they could nominated and vote for your slate of candidates?  Nine of the Hugo nominees were published by the same small vanity press operating out of Finland that no one had heard of until this thing hit the fan(s); doesn't that seem the least bit suspicious?
 
2015-08-23 1:44:11 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: (okay, actually a story about gangbangers fighting vampires would be kind of awesome).


Wasn't that an episode of Angel?
 
2015-08-23 1:46:03 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: 10 to 1, the Puppies would never nominate an action-heavy space opera where the protagonist was gay, or a monster-slaying story featuring disaffected urban black youth (okay, actually a story about gangbangers fighting vampires would be kind of awesome). Or a swashbuckling fantasy by an author with prominent liberal views.


I would be totally down with Eazy-E, Vampire Hunter.
 
2015-08-23 1:47:59 PM  
The whole debacle reminds me of the Polish elections of 1989. The fix was in and communist candidates were running unopposed for many seats- and still went down to overwhelming defeat when the voters picked no one. It just wan't fixed as well as they thought.
 
2015-08-23 1:48:13 PM  
This is depressing.

I was a Nebula finalist a couple times, but never a Hugo hopeful.  There is some truth to the idea that the Hugo is a popularity contest, but it's so sad that a bunch of jerks have debased it even further (I'm referring to the sad puppies.)
 
2015-08-23 1:49:11 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: a story about gangbangers fighting vampires would be kind of awesome


The closest I can get you is gangbangers reenacting Arthurian myth.
 
2015-08-23 1:51:38 PM  

SuperSeriousMan: And I thought the puppies slate was idiotic, and am far from their politics, but I also agreed with them that the pendulum had swung  way too far to the left.


I think we found our first Hugo Independent(tm).
 
2015-08-23 1:52:44 PM  

OgreMagi: You don't understand the most basic concepts of libertarianism.


The most basic concept of libertarianism being, take the same side on an issue that the Republicans do and come up with some tortured logic to justify it.

The logic that  "libertarians" spin to explain their opposition to gay marriage, reproductive choice, or domestic violence prevention, or their support for requiring citizens to carry ID or for giving taxpayer money to churches is so non-euclidean that Lovecraft could base a story on it.
 
2015-08-23 1:54:13 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: The depressing thing about the Hugo controversy is that the Puppies actually kind of had a point....and then completely wasted any credibility they might have had by using it for a right-wing ideological tirade and promoting only authors who passed their purity test regardless of the fact that most of their stuff was crap (Jim Butcher being a surprising exception, maybe they had to include one good writer in an effort to be taken seriously).

Literary criticism in every genre today, not just SF, has become excessively ideological and focused too much on the author and not enough on the work itself. But the Puppies are completely full of shiat about their slate being any different. They have just as slavish a devotion to picking apart an author's pedigree and the message of the work as their opponents, they're just either completely blind to their own bias or being totally disingenuous about it.

10 to 1, the Puppies would never nominate an action-heavy space opera where the protagonist was gay, or a monster-slaying story featuring disaffected urban black youth (okay, actually a story about gangbangers fighting vampires would be kind of awesome). Or a swashbuckling fantasy by an author with prominent liberal views.


Please tell me Butcher wasn't directly involved with the Puppies. Please.
 
2015-08-23 2:02:17 PM  

Arachnophobe: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: The depressing thing about the Hugo controversy is that the Puppies actually kind of had a point....and then completely wasted any credibility they might have had by using it for a right-wing ideological tirade and promoting only authors who passed their purity test regardless of the fact that most of their stuff was crap (Jim Butcher being a surprising exception, maybe they had to include one good writer in an effort to be taken seriously).

Literary criticism in every genre today, not just SF, has become excessively ideological and focused too much on the author and not enough on the work itself. But the Puppies are completely full of shiat about their slate being any different. They have just as slavish a devotion to picking apart an author's pedigree and the message of the work as their opponents, they're just either completely blind to their own bias or being totally disingenuous about it.

10 to 1, the Puppies would never nominate an action-heavy space opera where the protagonist was gay, or a monster-slaying story featuring disaffected urban black youth (okay, actually a story about gangbangers fighting vampires would be kind of awesome). Or a swashbuckling fantasy by an author with prominent liberal views.

Please tell me Butcher wasn't directly involved with the Puppies. Please.


According to this, he is not directly involved with the Puppies, but nor has he made any direct comments refuting them either. (I had to check too - I didn't think he would be, but direct involvement in something like this has turned me off at least one other writer involved.)
 
2015-08-23 2:05:04 PM  
Whether people get childishly angry about something has little to do with whether they are right or wrong. And while I like a few of the Puppy writers and nominees (Not Vox Day, though. Asshole), they were definitely wrong about this.
 
2015-08-23 2:06:13 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: PanicMan: cirby: TuteTibiImperes: Subby has it a bit confused.  The rightwing fools who tried to game the system to push their ideology were shut out, which was a very wise move from the WSFS.

This is so the leftwing folks who have been pushing their ideology for the last few decades can show just how petty they can be when they start to lose to people who actually deserve to win for good writing, as opposed to being handed awards for telling the "correct" message.

When you hear about how the folks running the Hugos were acting before and during the awards, it's pretty plain who the petty people really are.

The best Sci-fi challenges current norms, and encourages change for the better.  You shouldn't win an award for re-writing the same type of story that has already been written a hundred thousand times.

While we're at it, anyone feeling generous enough to send a few recommendations my way? I always liked soft science fiction--political stuff that focused on human nature--but never had much luck when I tried to dive in further. Obvious stuff like The Handmaid's Tale, The Giver (and Messenger, Gathering Blue, Son), Farenheit, 1984, Vonnegut, etcetc. When I tried to find more like it I couldn't find writers who focused on the human side of their story (which is the whole point of what-ifs to me), or the writing style would feel painfully clunky and technical.


Maybe K. J. Parker's "The Engineer" trilogy? It's not really traditional SF, being set in an early industrial era, but it has an engineering theme that keeps it from being fantasy. The entire story is about politics and personal vendettas, so that might be in line with what you're looking for.

I'd also recommend Peter F. Hamilton. He's a more traditional hard SF author, but he goes into a lot of depth in the cultural and political aspects of the universes he creates.
 
2015-08-23 2:08:18 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Literary criticism in every genre today, not just SF, has become excessively ideological and focused too much on the author and not enough on the work itself. But the Puppies are completely full of shiat about their slate being any different. They have just as slavish a devotion to picking apart an author's pedigree and the message of the work as their opponents, they're just either completely blind to their own bias or being totally disingenuous about it.


Yeah, that's basically what I think.  I don't really trust the Hugos much anymore - I mean, Redshirts won a Hugo, and that book was nothing if not mediocre.
 
2015-08-23 2:08:44 PM  
People seeking some "good old fashioned hard SF" might want to take a look at Andy Weir's The Martian, which has been made into a movie staring Matt Damon.  The writing isn't great in terms of characterization and use of metaphor and all that other english-major type stuff, but it is about as nuts-and-bolts as SF can get.  Currently rated 4.6 stars on Amazon.
 
2015-08-23 2:09:54 PM  

Zavulon: I'd also recommend Peter F. Hamilton. He's a more traditional hard SF author, but he goes into a lot of depth in the cultural and political aspects of the universes he creates.


Yeah, I like Hamilton, but man, free up your calendar before starting any of his series.  You'll be reading them for a while.
 
2015-08-23 2:10:56 PM  

Ramien: Arachnophobe: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: The depressing thing about the Hugo controversy is that the Puppies actually kind of had a point....and then completely wasted any credibility they might have had by using it for a right-wing ideological tirade and promoting only authors who passed their purity test regardless of the fact that most of their stuff was crap (Jim Butcher being a surprising exception, maybe they had to include one good writer in an effort to be taken seriously).

Literary criticism in every genre today, not just SF, has become excessively ideological and focused too much on the author and not enough on the work itself. But the Puppies are completely full of shiat about their slate being any different. They have just as slavish a devotion to picking apart an author's pedigree and the message of the work as their opponents, they're just either completely blind to their own bias or being totally disingenuous about it.

10 to 1, the Puppies would never nominate an action-heavy space opera where the protagonist was gay, or a monster-slaying story featuring disaffected urban black youth (okay, actually a story about gangbangers fighting vampires would be kind of awesome). Or a swashbuckling fantasy by an author with prominent liberal views.

Please tell me Butcher wasn't directly involved with the Puppies. Please.

According to this, he is not directly involved with the Puppies, but nor has he made any direct comments refuting them either. (I had to check too - I didn't think he would be, but direct involvement in something like this has turned me off at least one other writer involved.)


I've been doing some frantic googling, and it seems like Butcher may have just been caught up in the whole brouhaha without even being aware of it. I really hope that's the case.
 
2015-08-23 2:16:30 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: Zavulon: I'd also recommend Peter F. Hamilton. He's a more traditional hard SF author, but he goes into a lot of depth in the cultural and political aspects of the universes he creates.

Yeah, I like Hamilton, but man, free up your calendar before starting any of his series.  You'll be reading them for a while.


He does like long books and plenty of them. I read fast, though, so I kind of prefer longer series.
 
2015-08-23 2:16:40 PM  

Arachnophobe: I've been doing some frantic googling, and it seems like Butcher may have just been caught up in the whole brouhaha without even being aware of it. I really hope that's the case.


Well, you can like works even if the author is a dick.  Orson Scott Card and Harlan Ellison come to mind.

Though I agree, I'd be disappointed if Butcher ended up being a jerk, too.
 
2015-08-23 2:17:51 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Literary criticism in every genre today, not just SF, has become excessively ideological and focused too much on the author and not enough on the work itself. But the Puppies are completely full of shiat about their slate being any different. They have just as slavish a devotion to picking apart an author's pedigree and the message of the work as their opponents, they're just either completely blind to their own bias or being totally disingenuous about it.

Yeah, that's basically what I think.  I don't really trust the Hugos much anymore - I mean, Redshirts won a Hugo, and that book was nothing if not mediocre.


I really enjoyed Redshirts, but Hugo-worthy it was not.

/then again, what was it up against in 2013? I don't recall much of anything else being Hugo-worthy either
 
2015-08-23 2:21:35 PM  

SphericalTime: Do  not read Doomsday Book first though.  It may be one of the best books ever written in Science Fiction, but it's also . . . well, I'll just let you read it for yourself.


Oh, man, I remember reading this book like forever ago, and, well...you know.
 
2015-08-23 2:28:56 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: Arachnophobe: I've been doing some frantic googling, and it seems like Butcher may have just been caught up in the whole brouhaha without even being aware of it. I really hope that's the case.

Well, you can like works even if the author is a dick.  Orson Scott Card and Harlan Ellison come to mind.

Though I agree, I'd be disappointed if Butcher ended up being a jerk, too.


It's entirely possible to like a work even though the author is a dick, but there's nothing wrong with not wanting to support continued dickery, either.
 
2015-08-23 2:34:49 PM  

PanicMan: doloresonthedottedline: PanicMan: cirby: TuteTibiImperes: Subby has it a bit confused.  The rightwing fools who tried to game the system to push their ideology were shut out, which was a very wise move from the WSFS.

This is so the leftwing folks who have been pushing their ideology for the last few decades can show just how petty they can be when they start to lose to people who actually deserve to win for good writing, as opposed to being handed awards for telling the "correct" message.

When you hear about how the folks running the Hugos were acting before and during the awards, it's pretty plain who the petty people really are.

The best Sci-fi challenges current norms, and encourages change for the better.  You shouldn't win an award for re-writing the same type of story that has already been written a hundred thousand times.

While we're at it, anyone feeling generous enough to send a few recommendations my way? I always liked soft science fiction--political stuff that focused on human nature--but never had much luck when I tried to dive in further. Obvious stuff like The Handmaid's Tale, The Giver (and Messenger, Gathering Blue, Son), Farenheit, 1984, Vonnegut, etcetc. When I tried to find more like it I couldn't find writers who focused on the human side of their story (which is the whole point of what-ifs to me), or the writing style would feel painfully clunky and technical.

I grew up reading a lot of Asimov, he wrote a lot of short stories that are easy to read but have some real depth.  The I, Robot stories are a personal favorite.  All his stories about robots are really about humanity.  A lot of his stuff was written around WWII, and has a related political flavor to it.  I haven't found anything new I really liked in a while, so I am open to suggestions as well.


The Last Question is probably one of my favorites. (Someone on the 'net made a FANTASTIC illustratated version recently, I will try to dig it up.)

Also,"The Martian" is, well.
... XKCD has the best summary of it:
imgs.xkcd.comView Full Size
 
2015-08-23 2:36:40 PM  
Anything by Lois Mcmasters Bujold puts people over everything.  Steven Gould writes people oriented stuff as well...
 
2015-08-23 2:36:54 PM  
So, any farkers want to give recommendations about what should have won the awards that were blanked with maybe a why. I'm just interested in finding some good new stories to go through.
 
2015-08-23 2:41:22 PM  

cirby: TuteTibiImperes: Subby has it a bit confused.  The rightwing fools who tried to game the system to push their ideology were shut out, which was a very wise move from the WSFS.

This is so the leftwing folks who have been pushing their ideology for the last few decades can show just how petty they can be when they start to lose to people who actually deserve to win for good writing, as opposed to being handed awards for telling the "correct" message.

When you hear about how the folks running the Hugos were acting before and during the awards, it's pretty plain who the petty people really are.


'Good writing'? Just curious, did you read some of the items that were nominated? Several of them certainly did not deserve any awards...
imho, of course.
 
2015-08-23 2:42:07 PM  

dweigert: Anything by Lois Mcmasters Bujold puts people over everything.  Steven Gould writes people oriented stuff as well...


Plus, she is popular with the faction that the Sad Puppies despise and wrote military SF that was generally popular and well-selling (I stopped paying attention when the Vorkosigan series slowed down; her other stuff may still be popular and well-selling for all I know).
 
2015-08-23 2:51:53 PM  

flondrix: OgreMagi: You don't understand the most basic concepts of libertarianism.

The most basic concept of libertarianism being, take the same side on an issue that the Republicans do and come up with some tortured logic to justify it.

The logic that  "libertarians" spin to explain their opposition to gay marriage, reproductive choice, or domestic violence prevention, or their support for requiring citizens to carry ID or for giving taxpayer money to churches is so non-euclidean that Lovecraft could base a story on it.


Again, you prove you are completely ignorant of libertarianism.  LIbertarians support gay marriage, reproductive choice, prosecuting people guilty of domestic violence, and are against having to present ID and government support of churches.  Libertarians are the polar opposite of what you think they are.
 
2015-08-23 2:52:01 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Literary criticism in every genre today, not just SF, has become excessively ideological and focused too much on the author and not enough on the work itself. But the Puppies are completely full of shiat about their slate being any different. They have just as slavish a devotion to picking apart an author's pedigree and the message of the work as their opponents, they're just either completely blind to their own bias or being totally disingenuous about it.

Yeah, that's basically what I think.  I don't really trust the Hugos much anymore - I mean, Redshirts won a Hugo, and that book was nothing if not mediocre.


I really loved Red Shirts . . . But I wouldn't have voted for it either. It was good, just not that good. IMO.
 
2015-08-23 2:53:02 PM  

GoodHomer: I really enjoyed Redshirts, but Hugo-worthy it was not.


Agreed.  It was a popcorn novel.  Amusing, but no way worthy of the award.
 
Displayed 50 of 301 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.