2003 Nebula Awards

seattlenerd writes "The 2003 Nebula Awards were awarded late Saturday night in Seattle (for the first time ever) by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. Winners: The Speed of Dark by Elizabeth Moon, Coraline by Neil Gaiman, "The Empire of Ice Cream" by Jeffrey Ford, "What I Didn't See" by Karen Joy Fowler (the previous two both published on the SCI FICTION site), and the script for Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Noteworthy were comments made by GrandMaster honoree Robert Silverberg and Harlan Ellison, who introduced Silverberg, along with guest speaker Rick Rashid of Microsoft Research. To say nothing of Cory Doctorow's acceptance speech he didn't get to make, but has made available for "alternate historians."" I was at Penguicon this weekend, along with Neil Gaiman - congrats to him on the win, and to all the others.

Comments

mmm....Ice Cream

[kronak]

The Empire of Ice Cream....I want to live there

Re:mmm....Ice Cream

[Otter]

FYI, the name is a play on The Emperor of Ice Cream, by Wallace Stevens.

Hmmm, I was unimpressed by it in high school, but with the advantage of maturity -- I still don't like it.

Anyone else read that as 'Nebulon'?

[qedigital]

Anyone else read that as the "Nebulon" Awards? As in "get out of here Nebulon, no one likes your style." -- S.B.

Re:Anyone else read that as 'Nebulon'?

[Seth Finklestein]

"Nebulon" is mentioned in this cartoon on the Homestar Runner web page. Please note that you'll need to have Macromedia Flash installed in order to view it.

hmmm

[spangineer]

I could be mistaken, but wasn't the script for The Two Towers written long before 2003? And even the film itself opened in 2002, right? How then does it win the 2003 award?

Re:hmmm

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Nebulas are given for works released during the previous year (i.e., the 2003 awards go to 2002 works, etc.) When the work was written doesn't matter -- remember these are primarily literary awards, and it's not uncommon for a book to take several years to be written, and then several more to be published. (I would assume the same is true of scripts, in general, though of course LOTR is kind of a special case.) For those interested in the process, it works like this:

1. At any time, a SFWA member may nominate a work published a year ago or less at the time of nomination.
2. At the end of the year, works with sufficient numbers of nominations are placed on the preliminary Nebula ballot.
3. Early in the following year, SFWA membership votes on the works on the preliminary ballot; in each category, up to a certain maximum number of works -- 5, IIRC, but don't quote me -- are qualified for the final ballot.
4. The membership then votes on the works on the final ballot, and the awards are determined.
5. This being science fiction writing, you'll notice there is no "Profit!!!" step in the list. Er, unless you're Peter Jackson. <1/2 g>

So this is why it takes so long, and why the 2003 awards are given for 2002 works in 2004.

Re:hmmm

[MenTaLguY]

Remember, this trilogy includes an Oscar under its belt for best editing. Read that again: the (complete) film is twelve and a half hours long. And it apparently was the best edited film in 2003. Does this make any sense? What was it before they edited it, twelve and a half days long?

I believe they were working from at least a week of raw footage, yes. On any film you're going to have a LOT more stuff shot than will find its way into the final product.

What did you think was involved with editing, though? As someone who's actually done film editing, the hard part is not just cutting down a lot of material. It's selecting just the right pieces and fitting them together seamlessly (or as seamlessly as possible ... sometimes you have to make compromises).

As you may know, each scene in a film is typically filmed multiple times, from many different angles. Most of the time the scene you see on screen has been pieced together from many different such takes. Since actors aren't machines, each one is subtly different and you have to pick your cuts carefully so the separate performances blend together (this is called continuity).

Usually you have to live with some mismatches (e.g. Morpheus' hands shifting behind hs back in long shots in the first Matrix, or Gandalf's staff strap shifting about in FotR) because those are the best takes you had to work with (bonus editor points for cutting in places that distract the eye from necessary discontinuities).

Another factor in chosing cuts is pacing -- when to linger, when to move on, to heighten the intended dramatic effect. This can even have a radical effect on the actors' apparent performances. Sometimes entire scenes are reshuffled relative to the shooting script during editing.

There are a lot of other issues too -- matching this mixture of different cuts to consistent-sounding music and sound tracks in effective ways.

But the point is that editing in film isn't just about how much was or wasn't cut away. Oftentimes the unsung editor deserves just as much credit for the finished product as the director.

Coraline is really freakin' creepy

[fingerbear]

I read Coraline for the first time this weekend. The book says it's for ages 8 and up, but this would have freaked the hell out of me when I was that young. It is definitely worth picking up if you like Gaiman's other stuff.

Re:Coraline is really freakin' creepy

[joeyGibson]

I loved Coraline, but I can't imagine reading that when I was eight. "Creepy as hell" doesn't really describe the case of the screaming meemies I got from reading it when I was 32...

Re:Coraline is really freakin' creepy

[rudbek]

I read it one chapter a night to my 7 yr old daughter. We both really enjoyed it. For what it is worth, she wasn't freaked out by it and it has been several weeks since we finished. (knock on wood).

did they?

[eclectus]

Did the writer of 'Gigli' get anything?

Re:did they?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, I believe they won a special invite for a trip of a lifetime to the next Nebula.

Re:did they?

[Ride-My-Rocket]

Did the writer of 'Gigli' get anything?

A swift kick to the nuts, in the hopes that inspiration of the type that spawned Gigli will not be passed on through the bloodline.

Speed of Dark is about an autistic social failure

[Slashdot Hivemind]

With amazing computer skills. I expect it will go down well with Slashdot readers

You know.

[Kiryat Malachi]

There's something sort of arrogant about publishing your acceptance speech when you didn't even win.

Re:You know.

[outrage98]

There's something sort of arrogant about publishing your acceptance speech when you didn't even win.

I haven't written my book yet, but I've just about finished my acceptance speech.

Re:You know.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Cory Doctorow is like that. Trust me. He's a very clever guy, but not as clever as he thinks he is.

Re:You know.

[patternjuggler]

There's something sort of arrogant about publishing your acceptance speech when you didn't even win.

I think he just really wish he could have said "holy fuck, I've won a Nebula" after winning a Nebula. And thank the people who have helped him, which deserve thanking either way. It is weird on the face of it, but I'm not seeing the arrogance.

Re:You know.

[Kiryat Malachi]

I'd love to win a Grammy for my music, but I'm not expecting to, so I sure as hell wouldn't write and publish an acceptance speech.

Maybe arrogant wasn't quite the right word, but the man, after NOT winning an award, went right ahead and published the "This is what I would have said if I'd won that award".

No, I'd say arrogant is the right word.

Re:You know.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to win a Grammy for my music, but I'm not expecting to, so I sure as hell wouldn't write and publish an acceptance speech.

But if you were nominated for a Grammy, like he was nominated for a Nebula, you'd sure as hell write an acceptance speech, and arrange for someone to give it for you if you couldn't make the ceremony. So "arrogant" is the wrong word. I'd suggest "normal" as a better word.

Re:You know.

[theLOUDroom]

There's something sort of arrogant about publishing your acceptance speech when you didn't even win.

Dude, it was on his 'blog.

Blogs are a place where people often post their casual musings, like what they'd say if XXX happened. It's not really any more arrogant than posting what you'd do if you won the lottery on slashdot.

Re:You know.

[AndroidCat]

And in person, it's a very friendly arrogance. Quite a lot of successful F&SF writers have gone a long way on friendly arrogance. :)

Tee hee.

[gregduffy]

Fanfiction conglomeration heaven - What I Didn't See was the Empire of Ice Cream because The Speed of Dark was too great.

Re:Coraline? Pfft

[rtos]

Um... you do know that Coraline is meant for ages 8 and up, right? It's a kids book... and a damn good one at that. Creepy as hell, but told in classic children's story-book style.

Taken in that context, it's highly enjoyable, quick read for adults too. I thought it was a fun little book.

If you want Gaiman fantasy made more for adults, check out Neverwhere (1997). It was one of the best books I read last year.

Both ways...

[Allen Zadr]

I took it the other way. It is that the artist called himself out. In a way, after winning a Hugo (already recognized once) it's not out of the ordinary to imagine himself having won another award.

It's embarrassing enough that he thought that he could have won, but couldn't make it anyway. But to go as far as finding someone to read the acceptance speach by proxy...and then NOT win. My goodness. Well may as well tell the whole world himself.

The other way to take it? He thought his short speach to witty to deny the world it's creation.

Neil Gaiman

[lurwas]

Congratulations to not only a great author, but also a great person.
If you don't beleive me, read his journal at:
http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/journal.asp
Keep up the good work with your journal Mr Gaiman, in these dire times of terror attacks and economic instability, your journal gives us poor lost souls an interesting and inspiring reading and above all, hope.

For those who hasn't done so already, please consider reading American Gods and the Sandman stories they are great :)

a plea

[moviepig.com]

(Hope this isn't way off-topic...)

Reading the awards-list makes me wish I read more sci-fi.

I recently finished a piece of horror-fiction, Michael Gruber's Tropic of Night, whose literary quality was high enough not to require the reader to make allowances for the genre. In my experience, such a requirement is a pervasive shortcoming of both the horror and sci-fi fields.

If there are astute slashDot readers out there who understand my lament, and who know an elusive sci-fi title (or two) that does manage the rare crossover, please identify.

Re:a plea

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Well, you could do worse than to look up Nebula winners of years past. The list is on the SFWA Web site:

Past Winners of SFWA Nebula Awards

I have to say, though, that if your opinion of SF is so low that you think only " an elusive sci-fi title (or two)" will make your cut, I'm not terribly optimistic. As someone who reads (and writes) mostly SF but does read a fair amount of other fiction, I'm of the opinion that the crap-to-good-stuff ratio is pretty much equal no matter what section of the bookstore you're browsing. A lot of readers, OTOH, tend to mark down a book simply because it is SF, rather than judging it fairly on its merits. If you're one of them, nothing I or anyone else says is going to help you.

What was Ellison doing there?

[jet_silver]

He's supposed to be working on "Again: Dangerous Visions"; he hasn't got time for this stuff.

good stuff if old stuff

[mactov]

moviepig.com writes: If there are astute slashDot readers out there who understand my lament, and who know an elusive sci-fi title (or two) that does manage the rare crossover, please identify.

Take a look at some of the books Robert Silverberg wrote in the 1970's; some of them are "Dying Inside," "Son of Man," and "Thorns" -- they are little gems. You have to ignore the dates in SF of that age (the "future" is now, at least chronologically speaking) but there were some interesting people writing interesting stuff back then.

2004 Hugo Award nominations also announced

[Andy_R]

If you follow the nebulas, you might be interested to see the recently announced shortlist for the other big SciFi awards, the Hugos:

http://www.noreascon.org/hugos/nominees.html

The Hugos are voted for by the attendees/supporters of the World Science Fiction Convention, whereas the Nebulas are voted on by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, in case you were wondering what the difference is.

My Nebula report and more on Cory Doctorow

[Jack William Bell]

My Nebula report is here, on the new Slashcode site TruFen.net.

alternative Gaiman...Pullman?

[hcduvall]

Hmm...I think American Gods is better Gaiman book. Neverwhere was adapted from a BBC miniseries he wrote, and while enjoyable, it ended up a bit too loose, it even ends with sequel bait. The plot is straightforward, but it feels like the setting is the star of the show. American Gods, while it has a couple of long digressions, has a stronger showing I think.

That said, I've read a lot of Gaiman, so whats vaguely uninteresting to me, may be new to other readers.

If we're going for younger fare, I've enjoyed what I've read so far of The Dark Materials trilogy by Phillip Pullman. Its not got the straight fun aspect of the Potter books, but the world from the start is a more adult and complex one.

Re:a plea

[moviepig.com]

I have to say, though, that if your opinion of SF is so low that you think only " an elusive sci-fi title (or two)" will make your cut, I'm not terribly optimistic.

My point's not all that elitist. "Great" sci-fi (e.g., Arthur C. Clarke) is usually so deemed for its scientific perspicacity/creativity ...but is (understandably) lacking in the enteratining and/or engaging qualities we tend to demand from "genre-less" fiction. But, very occasionally, a book holds its own in both arenas. Any dearth of such books merely reflects the small intersection of multiple high percentiles.

Arrogance - was Re:You know.

[Jack William Bell]

Dude, the day you are nominated for a major award, by your peers, and don't win, and then don't tell anyone what you would have said, is the day you get to call Cory Doctorow arrogant.

Futurama Vs. LOTR?

[aslate]

When it was announced on PEELified that Futurama was to be nominated for another award (2 years after cancellation now) we were surprised to see that it was in the same category as LOTR and 3 other films, "Best Script".

Does this not show the high-quality of the show, being able to be nominated in the same category as 4 other films? Of course, we weren't surprised when it was beaten by LOTR, but it was reassuring that, try as they might, FOX can't ruin the show's brilliance and reputation.

typography...

[Bambi Dee]

Can somebody tell me why some titles are in boldface whereas the others are double-quoted?

Re:typography...

[seattlenerd]

Book and film titles are normally italicized, but since the whole post is italicized, they're in bold italics. Short-story titles are in quotation marks. AP style, or something like it.

Jeffrey Ford

[Bj�rn]

It's good to see Jeffrey Ford get some more recognition. I really enjoyed his novels; The Well Built City Trilogy (consisting of The Physiognomy, Memoranda, and The Beyond) and The Portrait of Mrs. Charburque. All of which are bizarre surreal fantasies. Don't expect anything like Tolkien. I think a link to Empire of Ice Cream may have been posted on slashdot before, but here it is again. He also has an excellent short story collection, The Fantasy Writers Assistant and Other Stories. And a few of the stories are actually SF. :-)

Oh, and naturally Gaiman is terrific a writer as well.

Audio CD Of Coraline is Great! Unabridged Too.

[Tech Observer]

The audio cd is phenomenal. Look for it used. If you don't want to pay full price. The author reads it really, really well. There is some spooky haunting music that accompanies it. Very nice and worth the effort to track it down. It is unabridged as well. See Coraline CD [UNABRIDGED]