[phil_geo]

I think without exception, I enjoy Hugo and Nebula award winners. While I definitely haven't read all of them, I have read plenty, and I am always impressed. Even if it's not exactly my kind of novel, I can still see why it was chosen and what's great about it. Many of my favorite SciFi books are Hugo or Nebula winners.

However, I just finished Falling Free by Lois McMaster Bujold, and was kind of disappointed. It seemed a fairly straightforward, simplistic novel. The characters were very one-dimensional, especially the villian Van Atta. There's really nothing super original in the plot - it's almost a rehashing of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I found myself wishing it was over at several points.

I really like Bujold, too. She's one of my favorite authors - Barrayar (another award winner) is an incredible novel, and her other Miles Vorkosigan books are excellent. But Falling Free left me bored.

Has anyone else read Hugo or Nebula winners that they didn't enjoy? Which ones and why?


<EDIT: December, 2005>
Two years after I started this thread, I tallied up everyone's votes and made this post:

Ok, I just ran a summary count of the most hated award winners! Drumroll please.....


The most hated of the Hugo/Nebulas are:

Red Mars
A Canticle for Leibowitz

Close runners up include:

American Gods
The Dispossessed

And finally, in third place:

The Left Hand of Darkness
Neuromancer
Lord of Light
Healer's War

The mob has spoken. If you previously liked any of these books, you must start hating them now. Anyone who said they liked Red Mars or A Canticle for Leibowitz must immediately read a romance novel as punishment. Anita Blake doesn't count.

[cgw]

Not yet.
A few years ago I started reading some hugo winners because I ran out of ideas on what to read. So far so good and in some cases it has been very rewarding.
I pick up winners when I see them at used book stores and I read them when I have nothing else to start.
I must say that I am working my way down the list in order of what I think will be good. Sooner or later I may hit one that I do not like as much but so far they have been good to great.

I read the first Harry Potter book because it was sitting around the house and I thought I'd give it a shot. I found it to be fairly good book written for kids. So I was supprised when #4 won a Hugo. Is #4 that much better than the first book? Is it more adult orientated?

[Hungry Jo]

All the Hugo or Nebula winners that I've read have been pretty good although some havn't been all that outstanding. Actually now I think about it the only SF books I've read and havn't enjoyed are The Real Story by Stephan Donaldson and Dune Messaih!

[lemming]

cgw, yes, the HP books change significantly in complexity/depth over time, though the language level remains suitable for younger readers. Even so, I was surprised when Goblet of Fire won the Hugo... it was up against an awfully weak field though. I remember reading a couple of the other nominees that year (I'd've never known what they were, but Hobbit posted a list) and being quite bored by them.

[lemming]

To answer the original question: I see that both Dune and Lord of Light (gag!) were Hugo winners, so that'd be a resounding yes... I had no idea, on that last one. How could anyone vote for that thing? Oh well.

Browsing the Nebula award winners turns up nothing I didn't like, except maybe Ringworld. That was one of those "good idea, clunky execution" things though--I didn't hate it.

[scooter13]

Red Mars. I know that I might be alone on this. The first reason I had problems with it was that it's just chock full of science over and beyond what I have ever read before. The second thing that I disliked was how things moved too fast for my liking. The original 50 arrive there, then within 100 pages there's 5000 other people and different cities that are not associated with each other. :confused: And the confusing questioning about if the governments of Earth are involved or not. :confused: (even more) Then the whiny-crying/high school-like attitude of the characters (especially with their relationships) got to me really quick. :mad:

I don't know, maybe I am being too picky. In most cases I'm not. Or it was just me putting too much hype in my expectations of it. I can understand why other's liked this book (and series), but I didn't even finish the first book, I disliked it that much.

I liked the concept of The Forever War, but I think it could have gone off better. Not that it was bad. Just lacked what I thought it might be. Maybe too much hype again.

The fact that Goblets of Fire won shocked me as well. But then so did American Gods, which I really liked. It just didn't seem like award winning material to me.

[raggedyman]

Oh yeah! "Slow River" , "The Terminal Man" and "Enders game". I seem to have better luck with the Hugo award winners because they're chosen by the fans. The only book on the lists I haven't read is "The Healers War" by Elizabeth Ann Scarborough. Has anybody on the boards read it?

[FicusFan]

Originally posted by scooter13

The fact that Goblets of Fire won shocked me as well. But then so did American Gods, which I really liked. It just didn't seem like award winning material to me.

I firmly believe that most of the people who voted for American Gods did not read it. I think it was the author's name and his carry-over recognition and popularity for his comics which caused people to vote for him.

Both awards are really popularity contests, one (Nebula) is among authors, and the other (Hugo) is among fans.

The New York Review of Science Fiction did a rather devastating editorial about the Nebulas several years ago. It was called "Things We Like by People We Know". It was mainly about how although the award is open to all works published in English in a certain period, the only people ever nominated or who win are SFWA members. They also maintained that within SFWA there is a lot of vote trading and campaigning (you vote for me this year, I'll vote for you next year - kind of thing). Neither situation allows for the 'best work' to be chosen.

It will be interesting to see for the Hugos this year if Rob Sawyer (Canadian from Toronto) wins, since worldcon is in Toronto.

[emohawk]

Having read all the Hugo and Nebula award winners (and Locus Poll for that matter), I'd have to say that as a general rule the winners of the Hugo tend to be better books. Of them the only book I haven't really enjoyed is Neuromancer, but then lots of people absolutely love that book, and it won the Nebula as well. There has been a few surprise winners lately, like Goblet of Fire and American Gods as you say, but then they've tended to be better than most the other books they've been up against. It interesting to see who wins it this year as the winners tend to be creeping more towards Fantasy.

As for the Nebulas, with the exception of Falling Free, Doomsday Book, Red Mars, Forever Peace, Parable of the Talents, and Darwin's Radio all the winners since Speaker for the Dead in 1986 have been pretty average. Most have been fairly enjoyable, but nothing particularly stand out about them in my humble opinion.

I tend to find the Locus Poll winners are almost always particularly good reads as well.

[Hobbit]

Has anyone else read Hugo or Nebula winners that they didn't enjoy?
I have been quite shocked to realise that i have read all except about half a dozen of the winners since 1953 - Dreamsnake by Vonda McIntyre, Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang by Kate Wilhelm, Speaker for the Dead by Scott Card and the Harry Potter. Nothing against any of these, just haven't got round to them (except Speaker, which I tried, 'didn't get' and put down to try again another time.).

On the whole I have enjoyed them all, though some are more demanding than others - Stand on Zanzibar I remember as 'UnnnH?' at least to start with, but it is a good book. Lots of favourites though - on balance many many more likes than dislikes. Of the winners, I think Forever Peace was my major disappointment.

But there are some. I hate Riders of the Purple Wage by Philip Jose Farmer, won short story for that year (1968?) - never have got it, more a case of style over content IMO. The stories have always been a bit more variable in content and style (and I guess that's how they should be).

I also guess one of the things that happens each year is that the books nominated depends on what has been published that year - a 'weak' year for some, will be a 'strong' year for others. Look at 1966 for example - 'Dune' tied with 'And Call Me Conrad' by Roger Zelazny - a good book too, but I'd be surprised if it's still in print.

The nomination process is quite lengthy - Nominations are as a result of ballots cast by the convention members who vote by mail. They are counted using a weighted method whereby ballot entries, listed by preference, are assigned a value and then tallied. Those who fail to meet the cutoff or have the least number are dropped and the counting is redone until such time as a clear winner appears. As a result, many less mainstream books get weeded out before the final list of nominees. The list ultimately become a 'safe' list. Although it is a good list, I wouldn't see it as an ultimate list - there are lots of good (and possibly even better) books that didn't make it.

Last point - so often the vote is an indicator of the times. As in most things time makes things appreciate or depreciate in worth. It is like comparing apples and oranges, but who knows what people will think of that Harry Potter win in 50 years time, for example?

As a side point I quite like the rather controversial Retro-Hugos (http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/RetroHugo.html) , where books from the Hugos 50 years ago are reassessed. As Locus put it, 'Many are skeptical of the validity, or point, of determining nominations and winners 50 years after the fact. Current reputations influence the results far more than analysis of historical importance'. This is true, but I'm facinated to see how strong some of those earlier works were! It shows how much a good story can last.

Hobbit