Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

2006 Nebula Awards

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the in-the-news-today dept.

Embedded Geek writes "Locus is reporting on the winners of the 2006 Nebula Awards (as determined by voting by fellow SF authors). Joe Haldeman picked up the Novel award for Camouflage while Kelly Link took home both the Novella ("Magic for Beginners") and Novelette ("The Faery Handbag"). Off the printed page, Joss Whedon beat out Battlestar Galactica with his script for Serenity. You can check out the final ballot here or look at past winners here."

18 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. Meh. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2

    Unexciting year, imho. Look at the winners, look at the ballots...Meh.

    Glad Joss Whedon got something for Serenity.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      Both stories by Kelly Link are IMHO excellent. I'd even say that they are among the best I've ever read.

      They are also available online:
      - Magic for Beginners
      - The Faery Handbag

  2. Haldeman stories in COMICS. by gedeco · · Score: 2, Informative

    Based on the novel "The forever war" of Joe Haldeman
    Marvano is responsible for the artwork.

    http://www.bibliotheek.haacht.be/Mijn%20afbeelding en/eeuwige%20oorlog.jpg

  3. Haldeman deserves it for sure... by danigiri · · Score: 3, Informative
    Haldeman is a very good writer (read Forever War) and I think quite 'underrated' as well. I will definitely buy 'Camouflage' to read what this fuss is all about. I wondered at the content of the Forever War novel until I knew he is a Vietnam veteran (if anyone is interested, you can read a bio here and at the usual places).

    Reading the finalist listing though, I've seen that there is the damn fine novel 'Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell' by Susanna Clarke. Very amazing book, superbly written, it even has annotations in essay style, definitely a contender which I recommend to anyone interested in reading a good novel and as a fantasy genre initiation (though I would never define it as 'fantasy').

    Even though I put off my judgement until I have read Camouflage, if S. Clarke lost to Haldeman, then it must be a damn fine novel indeed.

    (Speaking of runners-up, John C. Wright is also quite good, his Golden Age series give some needed fresh-air to the hard-sf speculative fiction genre.)

    1. Re:Haldeman deserves it for sure... by Goncyn · · Score: 4, Informative
      Reading the finalist listing though, I've seen that there is the damn fine novel 'Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell' by Susanna Clarke. Very amazing book, superbly written, it even has annotations in essay style, definitely a contender which I recommend to anyone interested in reading a good novel and as a fantasy genre initiation (though I would never define it as 'fantasy').

      I recently finished reading this novel, and it was outstanding. I highly recommend it. Incidentally, it won several other awards, including the Locus Award, the 2005 World Fantasy Award, and the 2005 Hugo Award. You can find out more about it here: http://www.jonathanstrange.com/

      --
      Goncyn
      Lurker Extraordinaire
    2. Re:Haldeman deserves it for sure... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't get it. Are you implying that young science fiction authors must be better than new? Or that age somehow makes one a poorer writer? Honestly, I just don't understand your point. Personally, I would think age would bring a certain amount of perspective, particularly in the science fiction arena. Not to mention the additional time to refine one's writing style.

    3. Re:Haldeman deserves it for sure... by Jett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try Chasm City - I think it's his most polished novel (if not Century Rain). Reynolds is one of my favorite authors but he seriously does need a new editor, I'm convinced his current editor only edits every other 10 pages or so because way too many mistakes are getting through but then big chucks of the book are completely error free). His short stories are consistently excellent so you may want to check those out too.

  4. I wonder about the Nebulas by edremy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I look over the list and see two contenders that shouldn't even be on an awards list, much less win (Haldeman and McDevitt, the former is slipping and the latter hasn't had a decent book since The Hercules Text), yet another in an unending series (give it a rest Terry), and one that's so obscure that even Amazon doesn't carry it (Ryman).

    I haven't seen Wright's fantasy anywhere (despite living in Virginia about an hour from his home), although I'd buy it based on the wonderful Golden Age, so I can't speak to it.

    At least to me the only entry on that list worthy of the award is Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, but I suspect it's simply too strange for most of the folks to vote for. But it's everything an award like this *should* recognize- beautiful world building, wonderful characters and a prose style that really sets the tone for a different world. (I can't remember the last piece of fiction with laugh-out-loud footnotes). It's not an easy read, but it's a *great* read nonetheless.

    There's simply so many other good books published in the last year to have this list. If you want fantasy, where's The Prince of Nothing series? I don't know if Banks' The Algebraist is eligible since it was published in England earlier, but even though it's not Banks' best it still outclasses almost the entire list. Olympos wasn't perfect, but again should have been up there.

    --
    "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    1. Re:I wonder about the Nebulas by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not an easy read, but it's a *great* read nonetheless.

      And in this sentence, we have everything I dislike about literary criticism in a nutshell.

      Not everything that's easy to read is good, of course; most of what's easy to read is crap. But pretty much everything that's hard to read is crap, because if you have to struggle to read it, then its other qualities just don't matter.

      The critical world has pushed for almost a century now the idea that good writing has to be difficult -- which has led to a glut of truly awful, highly praised mainstream fiction, and the marginalization of good storytellers into genre fiction. Folks, the writers who created the literary canon of the 19th century and before weren't trying to show off their distinctive prose style. (For the great stylists, that was just what came naturally.) They were telling stories, and they wanted lots of people to read those stories.

      Now, I haven't read Norrell, but people whose judgement I trust have told me that it's exactly the kind of pretentious crap that has ruined mainstream writing and is now invading SF, thickly layered language games that distract the reader from any virtues the story itself might have. In contrast, Haldeman's prose is always elegant and concise. I voted for Camouflage, and I'm glad it won; it's not his best ever (I'd say that's actually All My Sins Remembered, not The Forever War, as good as that was) but it's very good stuff.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:I wonder about the Nebulas by pavon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, he's not.

      I certainly plan on reading Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell after the recomendations here, and can't speak for it in particular, but I agree with Daniel's sentiment. The foundation of good writing is suspension of disbelief, and anything that detracts from becoming absorbed in a work harms its effectiveness. I don't expect authors to write to a grade-school level, and I don't mind having to look up a word every now and then. But when I am constantly having to reread sentences or passages because they simply don't parse the first time through, then the author is being too clever in his wording.

      "But pretty much everything that's hard to do is crap, because if you have to struggle to do it, then its other qualities just don't matter."

      It's not that the other qualities don't matter, it's that these exercises in verbal complexity don't add any value to the story. Sure a book may be good in spite of the language games, but if so, how much better then would it be without them?

    3. Re:I wonder about the Nebulas by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Doing something that's "fun but challenging" isn't the issue here. Doing something that challenging and *not* fun is just stupid, unless there's some payoff. Pretending that reading something boring for entertainment is somehow rewarding is just that: pretentious.

      Reading a textbook that's challenging and not fun may be worthwhile if it teaches you some valuable skill. Reading (or even worse, writing) "literature" that's a struggle to get through is not "worth doing". It's merely pretending that you're doing something worthwhile - it's neither entertaining nor valuable; it's just stupid.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  5. I'm not so sure.... by supercrisp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I love Haldeman, and I loved the Strange and Norrell novel. BUT, I can't really trust taste when Serenity beats out BSG. That seems so klazy to me. I've read a lot of Haldeman, and his stuff is damn good, but it just seems to lack the psychological depth of the S&N novel. Like a lot of male-written SF, Haldeman's characters often seem to be little more than mouthpieces for an ideology or polemic, but no one is as transparent in that way as Orson Scott Card.

  6. Lost meets the west wing in space != good SF by cargoculture · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd take Serenity over the nonsensical mysticism of BSG any day of the week. Sure the miniseries started out with some interesting SF concepts - I particularly liked the idea that Cyclons put out so much viral spam that any open network is doomed - but subsequently it;s mishandled every single one of them. It's competantly made and everything, but it's SF aspects are it's weakest.

  7. ok I'm stupid what's the difference between... by stry_cat · · Score: 5, Informative

    What's the difference between a NOVELLA, NOVELETTE, and a SHORT STORY?

    From:
    http://www.sfwa.org/awards/faq.htm#6

            * Novel -- 40,000 words or more
            * Novella -- 17,500-39,999 words
            * Novelette -- 7,500-17,499 words
            * Short Story -- 7,499 words or fewer
            * Script -- a professionally produced audio, radio, television, motion picture, multimedia, or theatrical script

  8. You know... by lobotomir · · Score: 2, Funny

    A møøse once bit my sister.

  9. The Nebulous Awards by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Nebulous Awards were also announced today:

    Best Whatever - Whats-his-name
    Best Ya Know - That one guy
    Top Thingamajig - Some hot chick
    Honorable Mention - Whoever

  10. Kelly Link by X_Caffeine · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm thrilled to hear that Kelly Link did so well, maybe this will translate into some new readers.

    For the uninitiated, I like to describe her as a sort of "female Neil Gaiman" for her similar fairy-tale sensibilities. But really I find her writing much more mature and abstract.

    Her first short story collection, Stranger Things Happen, is now available as a free download under the Creative Commons.

    --
    // I will show you fear in a handful of jellybeans.
  11. Serenity by Ponga · · Score: 2

    On occasion, I'll see a movie that was really good. Then, on even a more rare occasion, I'll see a movie worthy of owning.
    Then... once in a blue moon... I'll see a movie... and after the movie has ended... I MUST go and see it again!
    Serenity was this last scenario.
    I have to tell ya, It's been a L O N G time since I have seen a movie that I have enjoyed this much!

    Serenity ROCKS