There’s a comment to the most recent Open Thread at Making Light asking why there isn’t more handicapping of the Hugo Awards. The commenter, Kathryn from Sunnyvale, makes reference to a comment on John Scalzi’s “Please Vote” thread, that suggested there was a clear favorite in the balloting:
There is a certain book on the short list that had more preorders than the rest of the books had sales combined — by a factor of 10, most like.
This certain book’s author has a fan community that meets up at each Worldcon and throws the biggest and best parties. This year, over 100 members are expected, not counting spouses and friends. That is a lot of votes.
This book is also the only fantasy novel on the list. Fantasy has been kicking the crap out of SF at the Hugo’s all decade. The SF votes will be split among a few very good books, but the fantasy votes will be concentrated in one single volume.
The topic failed to take off at Making Light, and John cut it off because he thought it was unseemly to have a vote-handicapping thread on the blog of a nominated author. I’m not up for any awards, though, so I’ll post some thoughts here. I’ve talked previously about who should win, but below the fold, I’ll talk about who I think will win.
I’m actually a little surprised at the suggestion that A Feast for Crows is a clear, runaway favorite. For one thing, it’s just not that good a book (Quoting Kate: “A whole book of the Lannisters, and no Tyrion? Bleagh.”), and even fans of the series have been somewhat cautious in their praise of it.
Beyond that, though, I think there are two other problems with the argument: first, I think it’s a mistake to assume that the recent success of fantasy novels means that there’s a large fantasy-only voting bloc out there that far outnumbers the science-fiction-only voting bloc. The former, if it exists, is probably only comparable in size to the latter (which, sadly, I know exists)– I think most voters probably read both science fiction and fantasy, and vote for whatever they liked best in any given year. And, beyond that, the voting protocol used for the Hugos lessens the effect of ticket-splitting– the science-fiction-only crew is free to put Martin’s book below “No Award,” and any of the SF options can pick up a lot of second and third place votes.
I also think it slightly overstates the power of the cult of personality. Which is not to say that it doesn’t exist– some fairly weak novels have won awards in the past primarily because their authors are well-liked– just that I don’t think George R. R. Martin really has a decisive advantge in this area over, say, Charlie Stross. I’m not exactly sitting here with my finger on the pulse of fandom, though, so take that for whatever it’s worth.
My honest expectation is that Charlie Stross’s Accelerando will win, and I’m not just saying that because it was far and away my least favorite of the nominees, and the universe is a perverse place. My low opinion of the book is not widely shared– quite the contrary, it’s generated a great deal of excitement, and been hailed by many people as the most exciting thing in the field since whenever. On top of that, Charlie is pretty active and well-liked in fan circles.
I would expect that most of the science-fiction-only vote will coalesce around Accelerando, in the end. The MacLeod doesn’t seem to be as widely read, Spin is too consciously literary, and Scalzi’s book is a little too light, plus he’s up for the Campbell, which gives people a way to vote for him in one category and Charlie in the other.
The wild card factor here is probably the fact that Accelerando is a fix-up of a bunch of stories that were published a while back. People might not be willing to vote for a fix-up over a new novel. But I expect Stross to win.
So, there are my thoughts. Disagree? There’s a handy comment box just a little further down the page…
I would be disappointed if _Feast_ won, and not because I dislike the book or the series. On the contrary, I love what Martin’s doing with his epic, and I’m avidly awaiting future installments. The trouble is, Feast was such a transitional, unfinished effort, and if it wins when the clearly superior _Storm of Swords_ didn’t, it will just rub me the wrong way. Perverse, I know.
I am eligible to vote for the Hugos(but won’t tell how). We should add that the Hugos are voted on by the relatively small number of people who attend the World Science Fiction Convention. Shall I post pictures of the Worldcon?
I’ve read three of five (not Learning or Accelerando), and so far I’d vote none of the above first. OMW is quite good and fun, but as stated by Chad not ‘special’ enough to get the Hugo. Feast was by a large distance my least favorite of the series, and definately not worthy of the Hugo. And Spin just frustrated the hell out of me. A brilliant central conceit, which I loved. Supporting characters who were well-written, fleshed out, and memorable. And a core group of three characters who I thought were completely artifical, whose every action and personality trait existed only to advance the plot, and who were totally unlikeable.
I’m not a Worldcon member, but I’d vote for Spin. I’d say it’ll win, except that Accelerando got so much buzz that people are more likely to have read it, which is very important when it comes to Hugos.
I’m always struck by how different reactions can be to the same work. I thought Spin was terrifically well done, and I thought the central characters worked pretty well. But I’ve seen people blast it for having “cardboard” characters, while singing the praises of Accelerando, which I thought featured characters who not only struggled for two-dimensionality, but also had a whiff of Mary Sue about them. Another data point for the infinite variability of tastes.
I would have enjoyed Spin more if I hadn’t read it when it was called The Chronoliths.