3 ms·

The idea that the Hugos were a "celebration of something deeply unliterary" seems bizarre to me. Looking at the winners over the years it seems pretty clear th

by o_nate 11y ago

The idea that the Hugos were a "celebration of something deeply unliterary" seems bizarre to me. Looking at the winners over the years it seems pretty clear they are generally works with higher than average literary merit within the genre.

lmm 11y ago
"Seems pretty clear"? Maybe you should give some examples of what you're talking about? The Hugos reflect some kind of merit (plot, worldbuilding, plausibility) but it's in areas that the literary establishment places very little value on, and winners IME often have less of the literary virtues - less characterization, much less exploration of characters' mental states, often even less polished prose - than other works of (nominal) SF, simply because there isn't time for both. Foundation's Edge is possibly the least literary book I've ever read; I don't think Asimov wrote a deeply-characterized human in his life. The same applies to most Heinlein, a lot of Dick, A Canticle for Leibowitz, and IME most Clarke (though it seems I haven't read either of his Hugo-winning works); it's true of David Brin and Kim Stanley Robinson and Vernor Vinge. I've heard Neuromancer described as an "obvious first novel", and while there's something distinct about the Ender series, I certainly wouldn't call it literary.
- o_nate 11y ago
  I think you have a limited view of what counts as literary. Well-developed characters are not a rigid requirement. Many classics of literature don't feature them. Have you ever read Kafka or Borges?
  - lmm 11y ago
    I've read a little of both. Regardless of what we label it as, would you agree that some recent winners (specifically I'll say Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, The Yiddish Policemen's Union, The City & the City, Ancillary Justice, and The Three-Body Problem) are in some sense alike, that they form a different cluster from the list of older winners in my previous comment? That these newer winners are more similar to e.g. older Booker Prize winners (so that we don't get caught up trying to objectively define literary) than the older Hugo winners were? That there are qualities that the older Hugo winners have that the newer ones lack?
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  I think you're underestimating Asimov. I agree the final two Foundation books are dire, and not just because of the characters. The characters in his short stories - which I certainly recommend reading - wouldn't be out of place on an old SF TV show like The Outer Limits, but they're certainly not badly written. He's a very deft, economic writer. What he doesn't write are the staple chracters of traditional litfic - intellectual/academic, neurotic, possibly violent or latently so, more or less obvious sexually frustrated, middle class people. Or maybe middle class people looking at working class people. Like a small mammal, a lot of modern litfic has an unexpectedly limited emotional range. It may be cute, but it's not often clever.

by o_nate 11y ago

lmm 11y ago

"Seems pretty clear"? Maybe you should give some examples of what you're talking about? The Hugos reflect some kind of merit (plot, worldbuilding, plausibility) but it's in areas that the literary establishment places very little value on, and winners IME often have less of the literary virtues - less characterization, much less exploration of characters' mental states, often even less polished prose - than other works of (nominal) SF, simply because there isn't time for both. Foundation's Edge is possibly the least literary book I've ever read; I don't think Asimov wrote a deeply-characterized human in his life. The same applies to most Heinlein, a lot of Dick, A Canticle for Leibowitz, and IME most Clarke (though it seems I haven't read either of his Hugo-winning works); it's true of David Brin and Kim Stanley Robinson and Vernor Vinge. I've heard Neuromancer described as an "obvious first novel", and while there's something distinct about the Ender series, I certainly wouldn't call it literary.

o_nate 11y ago
I think you have a limited view of what counts as literary. Well-developed characters are not a rigid requirement. Many classics of literature don't feature them. Have you ever read Kafka or Borges?
- lmm 11y ago
  I've read a little of both. Regardless of what we label it as, would you agree that some recent winners (specifically I'll say Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, The Yiddish Policemen's Union, The City & the City, Ancillary Justice, and The Three-Body Problem) are in some sense alike, that they form a different cluster from the list of older winners in my previous comment? That these newer winners are more similar to e.g. older Booker Prize winners (so that we don't get caught up trying to objectively define literary) than the older Hugo winners were? That there are qualities that the older Hugo winners have that the newer ones lack?
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
I think you're underestimating Asimov. I agree the final two Foundation books are dire, and not just because of the characters. The characters in his short stories - which I certainly recommend reading - wouldn't be out of place on an old SF TV show like The Outer Limits, but they're certainly not badly written. He's a very deft, economic writer. What he doesn't write are the staple chracters of traditional litfic - intellectual/academic, neurotic, possibly violent or latently so, more or less obvious sexually frustrated, middle class people. Or maybe middle class people looking at working class people. Like a small mammal, a lot of modern litfic has an unexpectedly limited emotional range. It may be cute, but it's not often clever.