From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: HUGO Awards?
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 09:25:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <1Q9PBD82@cc.swarthmore.edu> jhildeb1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Jeff Hildebrand) writes:

>brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>> 
>> And she is right, Barrayar is her best work to date.

>	I would argue that that isn't saying all that much. The Vor Game was
>a lightweight, minor, and generally forgettable read. I was entertained
>for the two hours it took me to read it, but there was absolutely nothing
>memorable about it. It was just the same old standard space opera plot
>reworked yet again.

Sheesh!  Y'all would think that these people think that writing
"standards" with grace and skill was easy or sumpin'.  Lemme clue you
in:  it isn't.  There's a reason that Bujold was first recognised and
awarded by her peers, not fen.  Her peers *know* how difficult it is to
master the "simple" art of telling a simple story well.

_The Vor Game_ may have been lightweight, but it was definitely not
minor, and was only forgettable by people who prefer flashy stylistic
"tricks" over fundamental writing skills.  There *is* plenty of bad
space opera out there, so it's easy to dismiss *all* space opera as bad.
Especially if you don't have enough savvy to distinguish the good from
the bad.  Much easier to proclaim that only the new-wave-cyber-abstract-
decadent-art-school-dropout writers "truly" deserve awards and
recognition.  After all, if it was hard to read, but you managed to read
it, *and* to figure out what the heck the author was *trying* to say,
this must *prove* your intellectual superiority!  As Nero Wolfe would
say, "pfui!"  :-)

>	Barrayar was at least slightly better.

Hmm, well, I thought that The Vor Game was better than Barrayar, but
tastes do differ.  In any case, consider the competition.  This was not
a landmark year for novels.  I was about ready to vote for the only
nominated novel I haven't yet read, _The Summer Queen_.  After all, its
predecessor was better than any of the other nominees.  Last year, there
were three novels that I thought worthy of a Hugo--this year, there were
none.  If only we could get these damn authors to coordinate on when
they release their novels!!  :-)

(And just so no one thinks that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool traditionalist,
or any such thing, let me mention that my pick for the best book of last
year was Greg Bear's _Queen of Angels_, which was just about *the* most
eccentric, arty, oddball, new-wave-abstract-cyber-weird book on the list.)

>> Bone Dance came in second, to my surprise (but not regret, it was
>> a good novel.)

A decent novel that stands out from most of its competition, but only
because the competition was so weak.  Speaking of standard stuff, is
anyone else as tired of cyber-voodoo as I am?  This is a plot gimmick
that has been worked to the bone and beyond in the last several years,
IMO.  (Even my favorite of last year, _QOH_ succumbed to the temptation,
and threw in the voodoo references...)

What the heck--I'll confess that this was my favorite of the nominees I
had read.  Although I preferred *both* of Bull's earlier novels...

>I thought the award was going to be an exceedingly
>close race between Barrayar and Xenocide.

Aack!  Now, if Xenocide had won, I would have been *exceedingly*
unhappy.  *That* might have been enough to make me lose faith in the
Hugos (ignoring the fact that I haven't *had* any faith in the Hugos
since the early seventies).  As it was, my two favorites came in second
and first, which not too bad.  Although I still haven't read _The Summer
Queen_, and I still suspect that it might be the best of the bunch.  I
wonder if maybe it lost simply because it hasn't appeared in paper yet? 
(Which is why I haven't read it.)

Maybe I'll wait till I read it before I pass judgement--sequels are
always an iffy proposition...
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.written:11792 rec.arts.sf.science:2829