The Sword and Laser discussion
Wheel of Time and the Hugos
I think it goes against the point of best novel. But maybe they could add a best completed series of the year category, wouldn't that be fun?
Each WorldCon can create a unique Hugo category specific to that convention. I know "best series" has happened at least once before. I think Asimov won.
I personally wouldn't vote for the series. I've read the first 11 novels in the series and for the most part, I've found the series to be entertaining but nothing I think that is deserving of a Hugo. I don't know the rules for the different Hugo categories, but the name Entire Body of Work makes me think that it would be Jordan's entire body of work, including the Conan novels he wrote, that would need to be taken into consideration, not just the WoT novels he wrote. I started reading The Conan Chronicles once upon a time..I didn't like it at all.
Mark wrote: "I think it goes against the point of best novel. But maybe they could add a best completed series of the year category, wouldn't that be fun?"That depends on how you define "novel". If you consider a novel to be single book, then sure it wouldn't qualify. But wikipedia (and a lot of other people/places I've heard of) say this: "A novel is a long prose narrative that describes fictional characters and events, usually in the form of a sequential story." The Wheel of Time as a whole fits that perfectly.
Also, it's allowed by the Hugo rules. A 2 book novel (Connie Willis' Black Out/All Clear) actually already won the best novel Hugo a couple of years ago.
I think it's a splendid idea myself.
"Books" are really arbitrary units anyway. The Lord of the Rings was written as a single "novel" divided in six "books" that were released (for publishing reasons) in three volumes.
Sure but if you're going to call Wheel of Time a giant novel, then there needs to be cutoffs like novella vs novelette, therefore you can do novel vs series just as easily I would think
Robert Jordan didn't even write all of the books, so putting the whole series down as a single body of work is insulting to both authors.
Other collaborative works have been nominated and won Hugo awards? Why should that make WoT out of the running?Not saying it should be, just wondering what your thought process is on that one.
For it to be fair, there needs to be other series to vote for - what would the WoT run against? Some kind of honorary lifetime achievement award for him personally, granted by the commitee is one thing, but just arbitrarily making up a new category because you liked his series and he died is something else.
I liked some of the WoT series (I did read the entire thing just recently), but I think it had some serious issues overall, was lacking in quality in several of the books, and of course he didn't write all of it himself so Sanderson would have to be added. Depending on its competition, I would very likely vote for something else.
So, he had 14 chances with each book to win awards, why create a special category designed just to give him one posthumously?
I would wager that there are enough series being completed every year to field a healthy group of nominees. Especially 3rd books in trilogies
Darren wrote: "Robert Jordan didn't even write all of the books, so putting the whole series down as a single body of work is insulting to both authors."Brandon Sanderson would be included as a collaborator of course. I really fail to see how giving one of the genre's most prestigious awards to two authors for their combined work would be insulting to either of them.
***
Anyway, there is no need for a special category: the people proposing the nomination of the Wheel of Time are basing it on the following rule in the Hugo rulebook:
3.2.6: Works appearing in a series are eligible as individual works, but the series as a whole is not eligible. However, a work appearing in a number of parts shall be eligible for the year of the final part.
So Wheel of Time (or, say, A Song of Ice and Fire when the time comes) is eligible. Stuff like the Dresden Files would not be.
On the article about this on Tor.com the person responsible for writing that section of the rules has responded in the comments that he agrees with that interpretation of the rule.
Can somebody put forth an argument for why The Wheel of Time deserves a Hugo. Do you think the repetitive (he sniffed) writing is actually good? Do you think the Faile-held-captive and Mat-escapes-from-Ebou-Dar plots really needed to be stretched across five books with only minimal progress in each volume? Do you think the subtle-as-a-two-by-four commentary on gender relations makes a profound statement about humanity?I mean the series was entertaining for the first four volumes, but even those books didn't deserve an award, let alone the crap that came later.
I think you have to concede that the simple fact that so many people still love the books after all this time warrants at least consideration. A lot of people hate the books it's true, but I think any argument against it's simple nomination in a category it qualifies for, boils down to, I don't want it there because it might actually win.
Christopher wrote: "I think you have to concede that the simple fact that so many people still love the books after all this time warrants at least consideration."Do they? Most people I know only finished the series because they had too much time and money invested to back out.
basically its not eligible. and that's it.
Sean O'Hara wrote: "Christopher wrote: "I think you have to concede that the simple fact that so many people still love the books after all this time warrants at least consideration."Do they? Most people I know only..."
Yes, they do. You know I wish that for once there could be a WoT discussion without someone coming in and being a condescending ass from upon their literary pedestal.
You don't like it? Fine. Its influence on the genre, however, is undeniable, from sheer number of sold copies alone. It broke open the market for big book, multi-volume epics and there're plenty of authors now writing who were inspired by WoT, either by following its tradition or by actually reacting against it.
Why do I like it? For its tight plotting? No. For the great characterizations? No. I like it *because* it's a sprawling epic that meanders in all directions. There are almost 2000 named characters. It follows dozens of narrative threads, some of them hardly consequential to the main plot. They don't move the story forward, but they widen it. I like that. There's one villain character who has 3 or 4 scenes spread out across 2 or 3 books. Then he gets killed, the protagonists never even knowing he existed, let alone that he was a threat. I like that. It's one of the few stories I've read that truly manages to capture the sense of scale from an entire world at war, from an entire world moving towards its end. I like that.
Is it perfect? No, of course not. Are there places where it could've been tighter? Yes, sure. Is it a book that hits you with its profound insights? No, not for me anyway. At least not in the way you seem to want. It did, however, make me realize how very much I enjoy big epic stories.
If Jordan hadn't died, there would've been more books set in the WoT world. More prequels. More side stories focused on lesser characters. A sequel trilogy were Matt and Tuon went and reconquered the Seanchan Empire. Knowing that that will never happen now fills me with sadness, because I would've loved that.
Yes, I'm cranky. Deal.
Ben wrote: "basically its not eligible. and that's it."Both precedent and the rules say it is.
I don't think the wheel of time should be eligible each book had its chance to be nominated and win an award and so far none have. That's just the way it works sometimes. Heck even after 40 discworld Terry Pratchett hasn't one a single Hugo. He's gotten an OBE but no Hugo.I think an award for best series could be interesting but are there enough series ending each year to make it worthwhile?
Without doing an official count, I would say that based on going through upcoming books each month there are plenty that wind up being concluding books in a series. Now if those series are like Wheel of Time, and each book doesn't stand alone, that I can't say
Kevin wrote: "Yes, they do. You know I wish that for once there could be a WoT discussion without someone coming in and being a condescending ass from upon their literary pedestal."If you're going to discuss whether the series should be nominated for an award, you should expect people to discuss whether it actually deserves it.
Its influence on the genre, however, is undeniable, from sheer number of sold copies alone. It broke open the market for big book, multi-volume epics and there're plenty of authors now writing who were inspired by WoT, either by following its tradition or by actually reacting against it.
No it didn't. Door stopper fantasy trilogies had been around for decades -- and in fact WoT was originally supposed to be one before Jordan lost control of the story -- and we were already seeing a shift to unending series with Eddings, Brooks and Donaldson writing sequel trilogies to their original door stopper trilogies.
In any case, the Hugos are supposed to be for the best work, not the most influential, and by no metric does the series qualify.
M Todd wrote: "Other collaborative works have been nominated and won Hugo awards? Why should that make WoT out of the running?Not saying it should be, just wondering what your thought process is on that one."
I thought it was pretty clear that I took issue with the phrase "single body of work". It isn't one. Maybe it's all those years studying Latin, but I'm not sure how much I would consider it a collaboration, either, given that Jordan died never having met Sanderson, afaik. Had written and spoken frequently of intending to finish the books by himself, until it became clear he could not. And I'm not trying to slam Sanderson or his work there. It's still closer to a collaboration than a single body of work. Even the books Jordan wrote alone... it'd be hard to argue for them being a single body of work, without a certain willful blindness. It's clear to the close reader that before his diagnosis, Jordan had made the decision to stretch the plot out as long as possible (Crossroads of Twilight the example par excellence), had stopped the main sequence to write one prequel, and had plans to write others before moving on in the main story. Does New Spring count, when you bundle the Wheel of Time together as a single body? If so, then what of the unfinished but openly discussed other prequels? If not, why not?
Sean O'Hara wrote: "If you're going to discuss whether the series should be nominated for an award, you should expect people to discuss whether it actually deserves it."I never said you couldn't, but you don't have to be an ass about it. Contrary to some people's opinions, tone does matter in discussions.
No it didn't. Door stopper fantasy trilogies had been around for decades -- and in fact WoT was originally supposed to be one before Jordan lost control of the story -- and we were already seeing a shift to unending series with Eddings, Brooks and Donaldson writing sequel trilogies to their original door stopper trilogies.
Trilogies and sequel trilogies are not the same as 10 volume series telling a single story.
In any case, the Hugos are supposed to be for the best work, not the most influential, and by no metric does the series qualify.
Not by any of your metrics maybe. For plenty of people "best" just means "had the most fun while reading". IMO that's still the most important one.
If it makes you feel any better, if I were eligible to nominate my top 3 picks would be: Ancillary Justice, The Golem and the Djinni and Necessary Evil (Or you know what? I'd nominate the entire Milkweed Tryptich.) I'd like to see either of those 3 win. WoT would still be on my ballot though.
I think Connie Willis' case was legitimate with Blackout/All Clear, and I think if you're going to apply the same to a 14 book mega-series it's a big streeeeeeeeeetch. One was a duology which clearly had a "to be continued" marker and the other had designed beginnings and ending spots. It might be eligible under the letter of the law but I don't think it is in spirit
I'm not sure I can personally make the argument that the entire WoT series is worthy of an award. It did have its issues and seemed to get lost in the middle. That said, I personally would feel comfortable nominating A Memory of Light and would be OK if it won. I thought it was a good end to the series and brought it together nicely for the most part.I guess my thing with the Hugos is that they always end up being somewhat a popularity contest. Nothing against John Scalzi, but I really didn't think Redshirts was anything special, but it won last year. I didn't read 2312, but from what I've seen, that was a more groundbreaking and deeper book that probably would have been more "worthy" in my opinion. And though I didn't personally enjoy Throne of the Crescent Moon, I could have also seen it winning for the things it did for the genre, including setting and bringing in rarely-used mythologies/cultures into the mainstream.
I'll be a Hugo voter again this year and depending on what gets nominated, if A Memory of Light is nominated, I could see voting for it.
Kevin wrote: I never said you couldn't, but you don't have to be an ass about it. Contrary to some people's opinions, tone does matter in discussions.I asked a serious question -- do people really love the series? I came into WoT fandom almost twenty years ago, and everyone I knew from the early days besides Leigh Butler decided the series had turned to shit more than a decade ago -- hell, there were already people who felt that way when I first started posting to rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan. That's a pretty big mark against the supposed quality of the series.
"Trilogies and sequel trilogies are not the same as 10 volume series telling a single story."
I don't see why the three trilogies of Thomas Covenant novels are less of a "single story" than Wheel of Time, which was entirely episodic for the first three books, and mostly so for the next three until Jordan lost control and couldn't find a way to wrap up the main storylines of each volume.
Not by any of your metrics maybe. For plenty of people "best" just means "had the most fun while reading". IMO that's still the most important one.
This is an argument for treating the Big Mac as haute cuisine.
Yes, there are people who love the series. I personally haven't made it past book one, and I know people who gave up on it, but I also know several who enjoyed it to the end. (Well, one didn't like Sanderson as well, but was still hooked all the way through.) I think you can't have a series where every novel hits the bestseller lists without a devoted audience.
Serendi wrote: "I think you can't have a series where every novel hits the bestseller lists without a devoted audience."Sure you can. How many people bought A Dance with Dragons in the foolish hope that there would actually be some hint of an ending? Guarantee it wasn't just me.
Granted some are hopers, but c'mon, SOME have to be devoted!
Serendi wrote: "I think you can't have a series where every novel hits the bestseller lists without a devoted audience. "No one's questioning whether people were devoted to the series. The issue is, were they devoted out of love, or were they like the Star Trek fans who stuck by Voyager no matter how bad it got.
I think the Amazon ratings of the last few Jordan-penned books speak volumes:
#8 - 2.9 stars
#9 - 3.4
#10 - 1.8
#11 - 3.4
When 1500 fans give a book one star, we aren't talking a beloved series.
I adored the series and have read it in its entirety multiple times. I've been reading and rereading it since I was a teenager. So yes, there are people who love the series. I even love the books where Jordan lost his way. That being said, I understand why someone might dislike it. There are definite problems. But it was such a vast, epic, sprawling series with interesting characters and great worldbuilding. It really captured my imagination. I would love to see it nominated to honor Jordan for his contribution to epic storytelling and to recognize Sanderson for what he accomplished.
The hugo process is not simply a case of what gets most nominations. That is true for something that meets the catagory requirements in this case "best novel". They have awarded best novel before to books that were published in parts such as the recent connie willis but that has been because they have deemed them to be part of the same novel. For the whole wheel of time series to win "best novel" they would need to feel that 14 odd books were really more like one novel than a series of novels. This seems to me to be not just unlikely but such a bizarre interpretation that to do so would make a mockery of what the award stands for.
I have nothing against people nominating A Memory of Light and I have nothing against it winning but thinking the whole series could win best novel is adding 2 and 2 together and getting 5.
I too loved the series. There were some books in the middle that were not the best. The last 4 books were pretty amazing leading up to the end. Everybody is different.I agree thought he whole series winning is kind of dumb. They do it all the time in movies though, just giving the third in a trilogy all the awards. Lord of the Rings comes to mind. That is kind of dumb also.
Heather wrote: "I adored the series and have read it in its entirety multiple times. I've been reading and rereading it since I was a teenager. So yes, there are people who love the series. I even love the books w..."How refreshing to read this after this thread started to discourage me a bit.
I have also read this series 7+ times and am rereading it again now to finish off the last book (NO SPOILERS PLEASE) and I have been reading this for almost 20 years, I was 13 I think when I found Great Hunt in a thrift store. I fell in love with the characters and the world and its history and haven't been able to quit it. I think there are literary weaknesses in his writing but I also think there are incredible strengths.
I would vote for it. But I am biased. But, shouldn't we all be?
I shall not be adding this to my nominations list. Sorry to those that are fans, but I read book 1 and did not bother starting book 2.
I wonder how many people would become WorldCon associate members just to get the entire series in the Hugo packet.
I think it makes sense in theory to nominate the work as a complete work - because it's clearly one story, and after the first few volumes there stop being even hints of episodicness. It's perfectly true, I think, that in an extended work like this the whole might deserve an award that no individual part deserved.On the other hand, nominating series isn't what's usually done, so it feels a bit unfair to make an exception in this case. Then again, maybe this could se a precedent.
But it shouldn't win. It's just not very good. Even at its best, while it did some things very well (and I was a massive fan back in the day), it did other things very badly. I don't that's enough to merit a Hugo. And then there's the whole issue of the decline in quality - I think that even those who might argue that, say, The Shadow Rising deserved a Hugo, only a tiny tiny fraction of those would say the same of Crossroads of Twilight.
That said, Jordan definitely does deserve lifetime achievement awards and the like. Because he WAS a transformative figure in the genre. The bestselling fantasy writer of his generation by several miles, he massively increased the popularity of the genre as a whole, as well as shifting that popularity both in structure and in tone. He wasn't alone, of course - Williams, Goodkind, etc - but he has been an epochal figure in the genre, and worthy of recognition.
Sean O'Hara: have to take issue with a couple of points. No, doorstopper trilogies hadn't been around for "decades". Modern fantasy didn't kick off until 1977 ("Lord Foul's Bane" and "The Sword of Shannara", plus "The Silmarillion" and AD&D). Before then, fantasy tended toward short novels and series of short stories.
It's hard to overstate the difference in scale. The Shadow Rising alone, for instance, is only slightly shorter than the whole of The Lord of the Rings. The Wheel of Time is about the length of 200 copies of The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe put back-to-back.
I'd also point out that Eddings didn't write doorstopper trilogies. His first two series were pentalogies... "Pawn of Prophecy" is less than 90k, and the entire Belgariad is shorter than any two WOT books put together. Edding's first trilogy only began the year before WOT... and all three books put together were shorter than The Shadow Rising all by itself.
My issue with a 'best finished series' award would be that so many times the series seems finished, but then a few more books come out (Dune comes to mind here; the Earthsea trilogy; the Hitchhiker's Guide) and you still leave out the open ended series, like Discworld and Barrayar (which I expect is finished). My feeling is that Mr Jordan won the award of getting on the best seller lists and selling tons of books more than the B-listers. And sometimes that's enough.
And terpkristin, I have to disagree, Redshirts was the best of a bad crop of books last year. 2312 in particular was a bloated wandering mess IMO. I'm looking forward to this year's list more than last year.
kvon wrote: "My issue with a 'best finished series' award would be that so many times the series seems finished, but then a few more books come outThat's a good point, which I had not considered. But there must be some way to celebrate series annually. Perhaps give it a cut-off like the Campbell award. Three books is all you get to win the award. Then of course more cans of worms are opened. Oh well. Glad I'm not in charge.
Kevin wrote: "... If Jordan hadn't died, there would've been more books set in the WoT world. More prequels. More side stories focused on lesser characters. A sequel trilogy were Matt and Tuon went and reconquered the Seanchan Empire. Knowing that that will never happen now fills me with sadness, because I would've loved that...."I don't think you should be too sad about that aspect because if Jordan hadn't received the diagnosis, I don't think the WoT would ever have been finished. I truly feel that the weight of his creation was crushing his ability to conclude the story.
I am in the group that enjoyed the first few books and enjoyed each subsequent sequel a bit less than the one before until Jordan's health situation brought an urgency to concluding the narrative. Perhaps because I read my first WoT book as an adult, I never fell totally in love with the series.
In any project that massive there is a lot to love and lot to criticize. I would not have thought of any individual book in the series to be a Hugo winner but then I would never have thought Redshirts deserved a Hugo. If Redshirts can win, I see no reason why Memory of Light shouldn't be nominated.
On the issue of nominations to reward a series -- what if there was a biannual award for the best installment of a series? You could judge it based on the book itself and on how well it fit with and deepened the series as a whole. Alternatively, make books that are installments of series not eligible for novel of the year but only eligible for best novel in a series ...
Folks? It's best novel of *2013*. WoT isn't eligible because it wasn't entirely published in one year (Willis' duology was). Regardless of whether it's deserving or not, it's simply not eligible on publication date alone.
Rick wrote: "Folks? It's best novel of *2013*. WoT isn't eligible because it wasn't entirely published in one year (Willis' duology was)."I don't believe the starting date is relevant to the serialization rule. The whole reason the rule exists in the first place is because in Ye Olden Days, when magazines were still the primary method for consuming SF, novels were typically serialized in Astounding or Amazing Stories before getting a book release, and it would've been silly to disqualify something because the first part appeared in the December issue.
How interesting. I stand corrected then... It feels odd to me to have a work spanning years get a Best of [year] but obviously the rules allow it.
Brandon Sanderson wrote: "This award has a great deal of history and integrity attached to it. It is a Fan-voted award—but I use that capital letter intentionally. It’s not voted on by fans of a specific work, but Fans of the genre. People who want to see science fiction and fantasy progress, succeed, and improve.
I have little doubt that the Wheel of Time community could “buy” this award for their series. In so doing, they would make the award meaningless. The Hugo Award works because such a large portion of the voting audience takes it so seriously. This award really is what we make of it. It belongs to us.
And so, I give a charge to the Wheel of Time fans who might be reading this and considering the Hugo Awards for the first time. We want you to be involved. We love new blood, and new enthusiasm. However, agreeing to nominate and vote for the Hugos is a responsibility that should not be taken lightly. If you decide to join in—and I sincerely hope you will—please nominate liberally. But when it comes time to vote, please vote only in categories where you have read the majority (preferably all) of the nominees. And please vote only for the piece you work is the best work. Don’t vote by author; vote by work.
This doesn’t mean you have use anyone else’s criteria for determining the “best” work. Follow your heart. For some of you, that will mean voting for the work that is the most fun. For some, it will mean choosing the one with the most literary merit. Personally, I try to find the work that walks a line between the two, having a solid and engaging narrative but also advancing the genre or doing something impressive with it. (Redshirts, last year’s novel winner, is a good example of a work that does this for me.)
Pick your own criteria, but read before you vote. The last thing I want to hear about is a ballot box filled with people who listed “The Wheel of Time” or some of my solo works, but nothing else."
http://brandonsanderson.com/regarding...
One of many reason I like Sanderson. I just wish more people would take to heart his exhortation to "Pick your own criteria, but read before you vote." It's anecdotal but every year I see comments from people saying things like "well, I've only read 2 of the nominees, but..." and it drives me crazy. It's also why I can't really take the award seriously.
It's particularly ridiculous since you get copies of all the nominees as a voter.
I had problems myself reading all the material in time, especially since a few of the book were in series
Which brings up another good point, if they put the whole wheel of time series on the hugo packet (which I doubt very much) then just think about how many supporting memberships people will suddenly buy just for that!
I got a supporting membership last year, intending to read everything. Not hardly... The books I hadn't already read didn't look at all interesting to me; I read all the short stories (all three?), several of the novelettes, and pretty much went "Nah, not worth it to me." It was worth doing one year to see how it went. But given that I'd already bought three of the novels and didn't want to read the others, well, didn't pan out.Yes, of course I voted. You vote for what you think should win. A book that I don't even *want* to read is not something I want to win.
The past five or ten years, some people on the Hugo committee have been saying please *don't* feel you have to read everything. No one would ever vote, and if you really liked something, why not vote for it? I found it especially interesting that one of the pro reviewers, who read a HUGE amount, felt he hadn't read enough to nominate. Say what?
Serendi - Sorry, but this is why i can't take the Hugos seriously. Voters who can't/won't read 5 novels (or haven't read them in the source of their reading the previous year)? I mean... 5...it's not a large number. And, well, how can you know which of those 5 is the best without reading all 5? Now, I get not reading everything in all categories. But it's odd to me to cast a Best Of vote in a category where one's not even read all the nominees much less more widely.
In case you're wondering what I'd do, I'd read all of the nominees in the categories I liked. If I couldn't do that in a category, I'd simply not vote in that one.
I imagine what the reviewer was saying is that it's incredibly hard to claim "This is the best novel of the last year" if you've not read very widely from what was released.
Honestly, I wish they'd do what the People's Choice awards do - the awards aren't Best X of the year... they're Favorite X (Favorite Movie,TV Comedy, etc). That captures what these kind of awards are which is really about popularity.
The Sword and Laser
Books mentioned in this topic
A Dance with Dragons (other topics)A Memory of Light (other topics)
Redshirts (other topics)
2312 (other topics)
Throne of the Crescent Moon (other topics)
More...
What do you think of the series as a whole being nominated for one of Science Fiction/Fantasy literature's highest honors?