I read 4/5, all except Eifelheim, and felt myself competent to vote. My vote went to Blindsight. I'm not really sure what His Majesty's Dragon is doing on this ballot, it is fun, fun, fun, but I feel like a Hugo novel has to at least reach for more.

Posted by Jason M. Robertson on Monday April 09, 2007 at 8:47 AM at 8:47 AM

I believe that few of the Hugo voters (as a percentage of overall votes) read all the works. It means the Hugos are a popularity contest influenced by the strength of the book companies PR. Sad, but there you have it. I still like the Hugos despite all that.

Posted by scottsh on Monday April 09, 2007 at 3:29 PM at 3:29 PM

I did not vote because I did not read any so didn't feel qualified. If I had at least read one and really liked it, I might have voted. Given that I am a self-admitted sci fi snob, the chances are very slim I'd ever read anything titled His Majesty's Dragon.

I've heard good things about Blindside so I am pleased with the results of your poll. I've heard about all of the others too though except for the oforementioned His Majesty's Dragon which I oppose on the general prinple that it's fantasy.

Posted by Kat on Monday April 09, 2007 at 4:59 PM at 4:59 PM

Anybody read the commentary at Bookslut regarding the "...very penis-heavy..." list?

Posted by Fred Kiesche on Monday April 09, 2007 at 6:00 PM at 6:00 PM

I just did. URL below for those who didn't bother hunting it down.

I certainly understand the sense of disappointment with the gender skew. I'm not convinced the gender skew is a result of a Hugo gender bias though. Or at least, not in the area of the novel list. The most oft cited potential female novel nominations seem to be Privilege of the Sword and Farthing, both of which feel slight from their descriptions. And of the list as it exists, His Majesty's Dragon seems to come from a world with very different values than the other nominees, which all seem to be fairly serious works.

http://www.bookslut.com/specfic_floozy/2007_04_010912.php

Posted by Jason M. Robertson on Monday April 09, 2007 at 7:11 PM at 7:11 PM

There has been much mention of the gender-bias elsewhere in the blogosphere. One blogger questions the validity of the dissent. I'm with him. Should nominees be chosen just because of their gender? I just don't see that as something voters would (or should) consider when picking their favorites. It's the work that being judged, not the kind of genitalia of the writer who produced it. And, has anyone tallied the percentage of female writers vs. male writers? Perhaps there is a much larger percentage of male writers so the "skew" is less pronounced as people make it out to be?

Posted by John on Monday April 09, 2007 at 8:09 PM at 8:09 PM

The claim:

The Hugo nominees for 2007 indicate a gender-bias.

Does not directly imply:

We command the voters to consider gender when voting.

There is clearly some sort of skew. It is entirely possible that skew is largely due to factors that precede the decisions of Hugo nominators, not an indication of bias from Hugo nominators. The gender-disparity is an indication of ill-health in the field.

It is also likely that there are correlating biases which individual voters express as taste that are linked to gender-representation by sub-genre.

Sadly, I don't know much at all about the short fiction this year, so all my own thoughts on this revolve around the novel selections.

Posted by Jason M. Robertson on Tuesday April 10, 2007 at 10:06 AM at 10:06 AM

Didn't we have an "all-British" slate for the Hugos last year? I recall some hue and cry about the demise of American SF.

Personally, I think the entire Hugo selection/voting process is broken. And has been, for years.

Posted by Fred Kiesche on Tuesday April 10, 2007 at 12:18 PM at 12:18 PM

I've only read two of these novels, Rainbow's End and Blindsight. I wanted to read Glasshouse as well, but just never got around to it. Based upon what I am familiar with however, I'd definitely say that Blindsight deserves these particular poll results.

Posted by Nikolas on Thursday April 12, 2007 at 9:41 PM at 9:41 PM