POLL RESULTS: Which Novel Should Win the 2007 Hugo Award?
Here are the results of the latest SF Signal poll.
QUESTION
Which of the 2007 Hugo nominees for best book should win?
RESULTS
| (69 total votes) |
Confession time: this was less of a poll than a social experiment. That fact that we got about half the usual number of responses says to me that people couldn’t choose one — probably because they did not read all (or any!) of the choices. That was expected. (This was the first SF Signal poll in which I didn’t participate!) But this leaves me wondering, did all of the people who voted read all of the books before they voted? Should they have? I ask because I wonder how many actual Hugo voters read all the books before they vote.
OK, enough of treating our readers like lab rats. Be sure to vote in this week’s poll on The Best SF Film Ever!
Related posts:
- POLL RESULTS: Hugo Award Winning Novels
- POLL RESULTS: The Most Underrated Space Opera Novel
- POLL RESULTS: My Favorite Heinlein
- POLL RESULTS: Favorite Futurama Character
- POLL RESULTS: Reading Quantity
Filed under: Polls
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
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.
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.
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.
Anybody read the commentary at Bookslut regarding the “…very penis-heavy…” list?
:-$
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
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?
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.
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.
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.