SFFWorld's Favorite 2007 book is...

[Rob B]

The Votes are tallied and SFFWorld’s favorite book published in 2007 is…

Before They Are Hanged by Joe Abercrombie. However, it was a close race this year because Patrick Rothfuss’s The Name of the Wind was close on Joe’s heels. The gap between #2 and #3 was a bit wider, but our third favorite book was Reaper’s Gale, the latest in perennial favorite Malazan Book of the Fallen by Steven Erikson. The full list is as follows:

1. Before They Are Hanged by Joe Abercrombie (105 points)
2. The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss (96 points)
3. Reaper’s Gale by Steven Erikson (63 points)
4. Renegade’s Magic by Robin Hobb (54 points)
5. The Lies of Locke Lamora* by S. Lynch & The Blade Itself* by J. Abercrombie (41 points)
6. The Children of Húrin by J.R.R. Tolkien (32 points)
7. Red Seas Under Red Skies by Scott Lynch (31 points)
8. The Thousandfold Thought* by R. Scott Bakker (28 points)
9. The Orphan’s Tales: In the Cities of Coin and Spice by Catherynne M. Valente (21 points)

Quick Analyses:

2 books by Scott Lynch and 2 books by Joe Abercrombie; their first books tied and were both on last year's list (#1 and #5 respectively).

The Bakker/Erikson/Hobb trifecta
Bakker was #2 in 2006, #1 in 2005, both #6 and #10 in 2004 (The Warrior-Prophet and The Darkness that Comes Before).

Stephen Erikson and Robin Hobb always have strong showings.
In 2006, Erikson was #3 with The Bonehunters2005, #10 with Memories of Ice, #10 in 1004 with Midnight Tides, #5 in 2002 with Memories of Ice and #2 in 2001 with Deadhouse Gates.

Robin Hobb was #4 in 2006 with Forest Mage, #5 in 2005 with Shaman's Crossing, #1 in 2004 with Fool's Fate, #1 & #4 with Golden Fool and Fool's Errand++ and #4 in 2001 with Fool's Errand

J.R.R. Tolkien is the oldest “rookie” to appear on the list
Newcomer Patrick Rothfuss made a big impression
Catherynne M. Valente didn’t appear on quite so many lists, but was very high those on which she did appear.

After a fairly stron showing last year, Naomi Novik completely disappeared from this year's list. Did people not read Empire of Ivory, were they tired of the "My Dears?"

* Indicates book appeared on last year's list. I'm considering revising the rules a bit, because this has been a trend over the past few years. Specifically this one:

It was published in 2007. This can be either the first Hardcover edition or the first paperback edition (for the paperback to qualify, it has to be the First paperback edition i.e. while In the Eye of Heaven was first published in US Hardcover in 2006, the US paperback was published in January 2007 so it falls within the criteria for a 2007 release).

I don't know whether or not people are voting for the same book two years in a row, or if the books are just that popular because some people wait for the paperbacks, but it is a telling trend. What exactly, I'm not sure. However, since Abercrombie's involved, my suspicions are raised even higher.

Seriously though, I am VERY open to suggestions about possibly changing things up a bit.

For the past results follow the links below:
2006
2005
2004
2002
2001

Here is the Voting Thread.

[Larry]

Interesting list (this was just for the fantasy books and another for SF, right?). While I enjoyed the majority of the books on the list (especially the Valente, as I read the Bakker back in 2005 like you did, Rob), a couple of things struck me as being interesting:

None of the books were standalones and only the Valente was a duology.

With the exception of the Valente, all were epic/heroic/secondary-world multivolume fantasies.

Only Valente and Hobb were female authors.

No urban fantasies or "New Weird" fictions.

Seems like the SFF World contributor's list and the people's votes were more similar than has been the case lately with the Amazon and SF Site Readers/Editors' lists.

Oh, and ask Joe Abercrombie about how much he loves "Big Macs" now

[Power to the J]

Aren't you generalizing a bit? All of them have certain similarities, but if you were to read the top 2 books in order (BtaH and NotW) I don't think you'd say that they were so similar.

[Larry]

Well, when I'm noting general trends...

I have read the authors and I know they are quite different. All I was doing was noting that the readers here prefer epic fantasies of various stripes over the the other subgenres even more than what might be expected. I'm not saying the list is crap or anything (the books I've read on that list I enjoyed), only that it reads more like a best secondary world fantasy list, that's all

[suciul]

Originally Posted by Aldarion

Well, when I'm noting general trends...

I have read the authors and I know they are quite different. All I was doing was noting that the readers here prefer epic fantasies of various stripes over the the other subgenres even more than what might be expected. I'm not saying the list is crap or anything (the books I've read on that list I enjoyed), only that it reads more like a best secondary world fantasy list, that's all

if you look at the threads and their volume of posts, you notice immediately that epic fantasy IS to a large extent the sffworld forum.

[Larry]

I have, but sometimes pointing out the obvious gets people wondering a bit. Nothing wrong with that either way, right?

[Rob B]

Originally Posted by Aldarion

Interesting list (this was just for the fantasy books and another for SF, right?).

Nope, this tally is for both genres. The voting thread has historically resided in fantasy (with annoucements in all forums) because of the largest volume of traffic.

In the past we've leaned more towards fantasy/epic fantasy in our voting and I would like to see more science fiction-y stuff in the mix. (This coming from the guy who put a bunch of fantasies in his top 5)

[suciul]

As mentioned previously I've been a lifelong big time reader of sf (in my childhood especially J. Verne, in my teens whatever sf I could get hold of living on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain, mostly local or Russian, with the occasional classics like Asimov and VanVogt, and in the past almost 20 years since I moved here to the US thousands of books literally - I probably tried almost any sf author published here in the past 50 years) with very little fantasy once in a while at least until the early 00's (CS Friedman and GRRM basically with a little of R. Hobb), but I have to agree that more and more talent and excitement goes to fantasy these days and I am finding that I am reading quite a lot of it and looking forward more to fantasy releases than sf ones overall.

It's possible that 08 will be the first year I read more new fantasy than sf novels, though I still read a lot of short sf (last year was the first when the count was about 60 sf to 30 fantasy novels not counting rereads of course, usually being at least 5 to 1 sf to f), and right now for 08 I am at 8 fantasy, 9 historical, 4 sf novels fully read, though the historical fiction are accidental to some extent and I do not expect to read many more in 08 - had a period of Victoriana from the Somnambulist and a period of Rome from C. McCullough Antony and Cleopatra both read late last year...

So yes for better or worse fantasy rules so to speak these days in the speculative fiction arena...

[Eventine]

I think this is the first year where nothing I voted for made the top 10. There's nothing special in that list for me. I've read 6, own another 2 and am currently reading the Valente.

Rob mentioned the hardback->mass market impact on voting and having books available mutiple years, but I think the USA/UK divide would also influence it, especially with regards to Joe Abercrombie and Patrick Rothfuss, who each had large gaps between thir UK and US release.

[Rob B]

Originally Posted by Eventine

I think this is the first year where nothing I voted for made the top 10. There's nothing special in that list for me. I've read 6, own another 2 and am currently reading the Valente.

Rob mentioned the hardback->mass market impact on voting and having books available mutiple years, but I think the USA/UK divide would also influence it, especially with regards to Joe Abercrombie and Patrick Rothfuss, who each had large gaps between thir UK and US release.

I think the US/UK think is probably the larger issue (though with Rotfhuss his book was released in US/UK the same year). Hobb's US releases often lag a year behind the UK, same for Abercrombie.

Problem is, I don't know how we can fairly combat that issue.

[Eventine]

I'm not sure you can without either creating a whole lot more work for yourself or making the thing so restrictive as to put most people off. I think it's OK as it is, you just have to be aware of it shortcomings when reviewing the results. We should also be aware of Joe Abercrombie - his internet mass hypnosis techniques are obviously paying off.

[peadarog]

Originally Posted by Rob B

I think the US/UK think is
Problem is, I don't know how we can fairly combat that issue.

I am an interested party, since I had a UK release last September that won't hit North America until June. So feel free to take everything I say with a grain of salt.

Here are some possible solutions, all of which have some problems attached to them, but some of which might be an improvement on the current system:

1) You could have separate lists for North America and UK/Downunder.

2) You could say that a book is only eligible when it has hit the second of the two markets. Usually the US, it seems.

3) You could say that a book is only eligible when it has hit the bigger of the two markets, or the market with the most members on this board.

4) As with the book club, you could say that the novel needs a US paperback release before it's eligible.

5) You could say that a book got #3 overall, but #2 in the UK list and #1 in hardbacks

etc.

Sorry for droning on. It's a slow morning here...