Harry Potter Wins Hugo

H.I. McDonnough writes "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling has won the Hugo for best novel. I'll refrain from commenting." I read the 2nd and 3rd Harry Potter books last week and they are just wonderful stories. I'm looking forward to reading this one. But a Hugo for SciFi Achievement? I have a hard time calling Potter stories Sci-Fi. But then again, since SF and Fantasy are often so blurred together, it probably is worth it. And anything that can get kids to read (or for that matter, get me to read a dead-tree version of anything) is good by me. And if you haven't read any Harry Potter books, then you aren't qualified to complain ;)

I truly enjoyed Harry Potter myself...

[Hitch]

I don't know about a Hugo, though, either. They're entertaining, original, well written stories (even for a "grown up" book). Many of the books I've read that were intended for a much older audience aren't as well written. So I would definitely think that it deserves awards...but I had always gotten the impression that Hugos were for hard Sci-Fi...am i wrong?

A Better Choice

[nlaporte]

As a bookseller, I think that Phillip Pullman's The Amber Spyglass is a much better choice, if you want to pick children's books. When I sell it (and the first two, The Golden Compass and The Subtle Knife) I describe it as being "like Harry Potter, only with depth." The books are much more intricate, thought-provoking, complex, with (gasp!) subplots that seem (gasp!) unrelated at first, until they all come together. Now that is a book that deserves an award.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the Harry Potter books a lot, but they don't have nearly the complexity that a Hugo award winner should.

Re:I guess....

[Jules Bean]

Better how?

Tolkein certainly built a more dramatic and consistent world, paying the most inhuman attention to details (including creating the languages his people spoke...). And LOTR is rather more epic in scope, and takes the good old Wagnerian theme of an immense struggle against an old evil.

On the other hand, the Harry Potter books are more like everyday novels, in that they explore the emotions of the characters and their relationships in a way Tolkein never really bothered to do.

The books are really apples and oranges: I enjoyed them both. I did, in fact, enjoy LOTR more... but I personally enjoy the detail in Tolkein's world which many readers find boring...

I wouldn't be that surprised if, on average, LOTR was more popular with males and Harry Potter with females. (Aha! Cunning controversial point to attract attention to my post)

Jules

Interesting that it was the fourth

[melquiades]

...the cynical side of my nature suspects that at least part of that popularity is due to their safe, harmless nature.

You said you've only read the first, which really is pretty harmless. But the award was for the fourth, which is interesting -- the books in the series get progressively more complex, and much darker. There's a lot more death and unfairness in the world, etc. I think it's not an accident that they chose the fourth for the award....

Re:Overrated?

[ajs]

When I was a kid, I was reading things like [...] Ursula K LeGuin

I have to say you were a very advanced "kid". LeGuin is hard reading for most kids. I started with Douglas Adams and Start Trek books, and then dove right into Heinlein short stories at about the age of 12 or so.

Asimov and Clarke were about as deep as I could go, and no offense to those craftsmen, but LeGuin is a diffferent kind of animal. I'd liken her work to Philip K. Dick (Lathe of Heaven was a tribute to Dick, actually) and more recently folks like Johnathan Lethem. All great authors, but not really what I would point your average kid at.

Potter is great stuff, and I associate it (as fantasy) with kids SF like A Wrinkle in Time, which I have no end of respect for.

Re:Great books, but way out of the genre

[Earlybird]

I can't give you a definition. But for me, in hard sf the plot is focused on, and often dependent on, the science of technological inventions, and in which the science plays a larger role than, say, philosophical or social questions/polemics-disguised-as-story.

Orwell's 1984 told of screens that monitored the population; but the science of that technology was not the issue, the idea of freedom restriction was. The brothers Strugatsky's Roadside Picnic [probably my favourite sf novel] was about the life-changing effects of alien junk upon humans wondering about, and struggling with, their place in the universe. Conversely, Clarke's Rendesvouz With Rama was about the novelty of humans exploring alien technology, and Greg Bear's Eon was about the novelty of humans exploring future technology. (I didn't want to mention the Clarke example alone, as Clarke tends to straddle the worlds of hard/soft sf, as in the case of 2001).

Neuromancer is indeed about technology, but not from the science angle; it is about the dehumanizing, life-consuming impact of technology upon society -- as much as Gibson is enamoured with gadgets, if his books are about anything, it is about how we don't get happier by burying ourselves in techno junk -- and as such joins the proud ranks of soft sf.

Re:From the Hugo rules...

[zaibutsu]

Not only are the awards voted on by fans they also make the rules.

The rules covering the Hugos are determined by the Worldcon business meeting which is open to all attendees who may propose and vote on amendments. Any amendment has to be ratified at next years convention which may be thousands of miles away but that is intended to prevent any local group packing the meeting.

In practice nobody has ever been able to come up with a definition which seperates SF and Fantasy. How, for instance, would you classify 'Jack of Shadows' where magic works in one hemisphere of the planet and Science in the other ?

I voted for the Harry Potter in second place, and I while think it is good enough to get a Hugo, this was a weak year for the novel. Last year I was torn between 'A Deepness in the Sky' and 'Cryptonomicon'.

I think 'Look to Windward ' by Iain M. Banks and the film 'Memento' are eligible next year so I'm going to nominate them if possible.

Re:There is no justice

[dasunt]

So, Ender's Game was written for children under 10? Ender was young in the novels, and most of the other characters were of simular age.

Just a question.

Random Thoughts

[rfisher]

To me, "hard science fiction" is fiction with realistic science/technology in it. For example, almost everything I've read by Arthur C. Clarke qualifies.

The Harry Potter series? Very derivitive, but I try not to hold that against anyone. All great art is derivative to some extent. Personally, Quidditch seems like such an unlikely game (with or without magic) that it detracts from the books. In any case, I've enjoyed them. I also like that the style grows with Harry.

Let the Hugo voters choose whatever they will. Personally, I don't think art is a competition. I'm not ranking all the fiction/authors on my shelf. I just like them all.

Re:There is no justice

[hey!]

I am a children's literature afficianado, and have been even before I had my own kids to read to. Children's literature can be as profound as adult literature in what it addresses, but it is distinct in its forms and techniques. It's language is always spare and simple, although ideally clever and well crafted -- well suited to developing readers. True children's literature also treats ideas the same way, using certain conventions and formulae well suited to young minds.

I would take exception to the idea that Children's literature is somehow inferior, except it's understandable that many adults cannot appreciate it. Children may be inferior readers to adults in almost every sense but one: the average child has powers of imagination stupendously greater than any adult. When they are imagining what it would be like to fly they actually experience flying in the way no adult can. Children's books are as unsuitable for most adults imaginations as adult shoes are for most children's feet.

The Harry Potter books are strange beasts, since they include many elements familiar from children's books, but they are not used in the same way. The language tends to be more complex than true children's books, requiring a more sophisticated capability for turning words on the page into mental images.

One thing that I have heard is that Rowlings is orienting each novel to the age group of Harry Potter in that novel -- meaning that the latest novel is oriented to fourteen year olds and the last novel will be for seventeen year olds. Thus, properly speaking the Goblet of Fire is juvenile literature, not children's literature. More to the point, the whole series must be viewed as a single work that accompanies the reader from childhood (11 years old) to young adulthood (17 years old). Each books is oriented to the concerns and abilities of the person the young reader is becoming rather than is, which makes them a challenging but satisfying read for the young reader, and accessible to older readers.

The characters in GoF have a much more complicated interior life than they did in earlier installments. It introduces children to the idea of people whose character is ambiguous or conflicted. It gently introduces them to death. It sets the stage for more complex, painful and potentially cathartic stories later in the series. I will be curious to see if Rowling can keep the books kid friendly while essentially creating a fully adult novel by book 7 of the series.

I hope she does, because it will be an unique accomplishment -- a work that spans children's literature and adult literature. One thing about a bridge is that you can cross it both ways.