Gaiman's American Gods Wins Hugo 194
H.I. McDonnough writes "Neil Gaiman won this year's Hugo for his novel American Gods.
A much better choice than last year. " If you are a curious, check out the review I did on it.
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
Narrow-minded bigots (Score:1, Offtopic)
A much better choice than last year.
Would you like some cheese with your whine?
It amazes me how narrow-minded scifis are about what is pure and what is not.
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:5, Insightful)
It amazes me how narrow-minded scifis are about what is pure and what is not.
American Gods is no closer to being "pure" science fiction (whatever that may be) than last year's winner, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. So it's possible that he just thinks it's a better book, and isn't pursuing some purist political agenda.
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:5, Insightful)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - according to Arthur C Clarke, anyway. The line dividing science fiction and fantasy is a *lot* narrower than some purists would like us to believe - while there are plenty of sci-fi books/shows in which the science is an integral part of the story, there are just as many where it really is indistinguishable from magic, and where you could substitute the rayguns and spacecraft with wands of lightning and flying ships without really affecting the story.
You've mentioned one example yourself, which you're trying to excuse just because it falls under the 'sci-fi' banner - Jedi have mystical powers. So why on earth is it fine when Luke summons his lightsaber to his hand, but evil when Harry Potter summons his broomstick to his? Jedi even experience a life-beyond-death that is firmly set outside the Christian world view - but that's okay because it's science fiction?
And frankly it's sheer arrogance to say that you haven't read a book and then try to make value judgements on it. You refuse to read Harry Potter books because they're fantasy? Fine, your loss. But don't go telling me whether they deserve a Hugo award, because you don't know.
Oh, and don't check out American Gods. It's full of terribly un-Christian things - gods from a variety of pantheons, magic, that sort of thing. I'm sure you'll be able to tell us how good it was without reading a single page anyway.
And while you're at it, you'd better steer clear of C S Lewis and his Narnia books, because fantasy is bad, right? Don't let the fact that he's probably one of the most convincing Christian authors of modern times get in your way.
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:2)
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:5, Interesting)
Ben Bova
"1. Science fiction stories are those in which some aspect of future science or technology is so integral to the stroy that, if you take away the science or technology, the story collapses...
2. Science fiction writers are free to extrapolate from today's knowledge and to invent anything they can imagine -- so long as no one can prove that what they have 'invented' is wrong."
Isaac Asimov
"In my view, the best science fiction, the only valid science fiction and the science fiction I try to write depends on legitimate science rationally extrapolated. If something is wrong, distored and illogical, it cannot be categorized as science fiction, any more than noise can be called music or a used paint rag a painting."
So by these definitions, Harry Potter ain't SF. Then again, neither is American Gods.
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:1)
Skroz has it completely right. I used to work in a bookstore, and to keep it simple, we used to differentiate using the terms hard and soft SF, hard being things that fit into the Ben Bova definition, like Orson Scott Card or (my personal favorite) Stanislaw Lem, and then the soft was the majority of the Star Wars books, and the like. I thought of it as "space fantasy". Not that that's bad in any way, there is some great space fantasy.
American Gods is pretty soft, although it does kind of submit at least a rational system in which gods could exist on our planet, with mindshare as their ultimate power gauge, etc. And it was an excellent book, which certainly softens the blow from the fact that it is not "hard" SF. The Harry Potter vote seemed like a sellout to me and a lot of other folks (at the store I worked at, our SF Shelver stomped around the store, clutching his press release and swearing profusely).
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:2)
One thing that bothered me a little about American Gods... if each god's power is based on his/her mindshare, shouldn't Jesus/Buddha/Krishna/etc be stomping around the planet like Godzillas? (erm... no pun intended
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:3, Interesting)
"What if?" is the basic question asked by most of the science fiction I enjoy. What it is asked about can be almost anything: "What if dragons not only existed, but could become partners with selected humans?" is an example, as is "What if we had faster than light travel and met up with an interesting alien civilization?"
- Robin
in the eye of the author (Score:2)
Should we be snobs and disdain fantasy? Of course not. I would consider "Perdido Street Station" the most intellectual of the nominees, and it's clearly not SF (Mieville calls it "weird fiction"). But it's a useful distinction even if it can be difficult to make. Should we throw away the specualtive-fiction super-genre entirely simply becuase Vonnegut and Crighton are difficult to place? (by my rule, of course, neither are SF)
As for the Asimov quote, he's haldly pure. The premise of humans originating from aliens (the Pak, in his Known Space books) is about as "illogical" as can be. But he's trying to write SF, and so that's what it is.
Re:in the eye of the author (Score:2)
It was Niven [larryniven.org], not Asimov [asimovonline.com], who gave us "Known Space." I'm trying to think of an example from Asimov that might make your point, but nothing's coming to me at the moment.
Regardless, I agree that authors should be able to employ a McGuffin here and there without losing their "Certified SF" seal of approval. It should be done well, and sparingly, however. I've read a number of novels where the authors took things too far and completely lost my interest/respect because of their illogical and impossible devices. Suspension of disbelief is something that you have to earn, not expect, from your reader, IMHO.
Re:in the eye of the author (Score:2)
Darned brain fog. Um...ok...hmmm...well, I think I can safely accuse of "Fondation and Earth" of being illogical, though in much more than just science (no doubt a case of an author trying to write a book in one sitting). And I'd be happy to poke holes in "Nemisis."
Ok, I'm going to stop now.
Irrelevant (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:2)
Get your authors/worlds straight, folks... (Score:2)
Sigh... Incarnations of Immortality is a series by Piers Anthony, not Roger Zelazny. Zelazney is best known for the Amber series, which would actually form a better example for your first category, since the Amber multiverse is a superset which contains our mundane little universe within it.
Thus, although the stories are full of magic, this isn't contradicted by the lack of overt magic in our particular piece of Shadow; you could therefore make the case that it is science fiction, just barely. In Incarnations magic is an integral part of the world, which puts it firmly in the fantasy camp; it does not follow the known structure of our universe.
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:1)
And just you watch come late 2002, early 2003 when Harry Potter 5 comes out. Then you will hear about it in the media. Unlike Britney Spears, Harry Potter is a book so there isn't much news except when something comes out. Harry Potter does not flick off reporters, skip concerts or strip off its clothes.
Do you believe in witchcraft? Kind of sounds like you do. I mean "witchcraft connotations"? The word 'witchcraft' is used in the book ('Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry' I believe). How is it a connotation? A connotation to the real deal? I think its sorta funny the people you hear speaking out againist Harry Potter are those who actually believe in that stuff to some extent, though I guess it makes sense.
I agree though that Harry Potter is not Sci Fi, and probably shouldn't have gotten the Hugo award. I was actually planning on modding up your comment until I read the rest of it.
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:2)
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:2)
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, in a very roundabout way, it is.
The line between what is "science fiction" and what is "fantasy" is often a moot point. They're both books about worlds that are not and probably never will be, and have (almost) identical target audiences. It used to be that they were just one catagory, but then fantasy broke off on its own--although they still carry the same stigmas, and they still are stocked in the same sections in some stores.
As for the so-called witchcraft in Harry Potter... there's no more real withcraft in there than there was in Star Wars or anything C.S. Lewis ever wrote. In fact, there's more anit-Christian moments in American Gods.
You should give Harry Potter a chance. It's a fun book, with more than a few christian or nearly-christian themes, even if God is a bit absent. But if you refuse to give "Harry Potter" a chance because of its "witchcraft" themes, can you at least be consistent and stay away from Star Wars, Star Trek, American Gods, Babylon 5, everything Asimov wrote, and just about all the other avenues of Science Fiction ever written? They ALL have rather blatant anti-Christian messages, and are filled with blasphemy, aside from a very small minority.
As for Harry Potter being a fad... there's still two or three books in the pipe, as well as another movie coming out next year. You don't see anything in the media about Harry Potter now because (1) it's not longer news and (2) the next movie/book isn't out for awhile, so advertising would be moot.
(Oh, and on a side note, I'm rather certain that seeing the future, preaching, guided-action, levitation, and telekinesis are all historically "witchraft" activiites, while shootling lightning bolts from one's hands didn't get there until D&D and its contemporaries entered print.)
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:1)
I'm confused here. Mind explaining those "anti-Christian" messages held with Star Wars and Star Trek? Last time I checked, Star Trek was just a massive metaphor for today's world.
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:2)
ST is not so much anti-Christian as anti-religion. There have been quite a few comments by characters in the newer series (not classic, that I'm aware of) that humankind is "enlightened" and no longer indulges in "primitive superstitions" such as religion.
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:2)
I don't see anything anti-chrisitan in Harry Potter or D&D either, but I can see the possiblities.
Star Trek: God doesn't exist, and the universe is ruled by capricious powers called "Q" that are more akin to the deacent roman gods than anything in the Christina mythos.
While I will agree that Star Wars had some witchcraft connotations they are just that....connotations. And with the release of The Phantom Menace and other prequels we find out that Jedi's aren't as mistifying as they seem. There's a scientific reason they can do the things they do....even if it's made up (midichlorians).
Anakin was concieved by the midicholorians, and is referred to many times as "the chosen one." If you're going to count anything in media as "witchcraft" or "anti-christian", you had better count Star Wars in it.
Harry Potter is blantant. It comes right out and screams we are witches and worlocks. To me ANY form of that is evil. There's no such thing as a good witch. Now I am not going to go on a witch hunt because the ones who say they are are being fooled by satan.
Why, exactly, is witchcraft evil? The most damning thing I've ever seen in the bible about it is it being listed along with other "desires of the flesh" like sex and anger. Hardly a "damn on name" thing, if you ask me.
One of the most interesting books I have read was a comparison of the Jedi to Christians. It was a really compelling book albiet small.
I saw a website not too long ago that laid out a "Jedi" wicca tradition. Notwistanding the obvious similarities between wicca and our own faith, I don't think Jedi are any closer to Christians than they are to Witchcraft.
I am not closed minded. I believe that there's one god and there's noone more powerful then him. I cannot accept that there are any more gods than the only god I know.
Why not? God said not to worship them. He said don't obey them. He said be wary of them--he never said "there aren't any other gods but me."
They do exist. They shouldn't be given any more respect than a mortal soul (at best--some are doubtless as bad as fallen angels), but they do exist.
Telekenesis is not really an indication of god either. You think god is going to come down and make thing levitate to prove he's god? That's laughable in this day and age.
I didn't say it was an indication of God. It is, however, one of the feats that modern-day witches aspire to.
Dogma is nothing more then legalism and it's not what is preached at my church...
I am not condeming you if you read Harry Potter. I am saying I will not read it because it's counter to all of my belief system. If that's closed minded, well, so be it. At least I have the guts to try to stick to my beliefs rather then roll over and submit to satan's whims like most folks do.
You believe in an unwavering, judgemental dogma that brands "witchcraft" as satanism. This is simply not the case. I know a whole slew of witches, and they're not satanists--they're not christians either, but they're certainly not satanists any more than christians of a different denominations (or Jews or Muslims) are.
There's nothing evil or automatically damning about Harry Potter, Star Wars, Star Trek, or any other story. Every question raised about our faith can be answered, and every act of God understood with enough knoweldge. Our religion is not one of hidebound route and routine--it's one of love and forgiveness, and the God I know isn't someone who will damn someone who just reads a book.
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:2)
While a literal translation would read "poisener". I.E. one of the people who tried to assassinate kngs with poisen in the glorious days that the bible was written in.
It was changed to "witch" sometime in the middle ages, as a political tool to allow arbitrary enforcement of the death penalty against people that the Church didn't like.
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:2)
So many people are fooled by Satan believing if it feels good or is entertaining, that it's a good thing to watch. Of course Satan wants you to see something evil as good. That's how he tricks you down the slippery path. This PROVES my arguement that Harry Potter should just not be shown to kids. I am sorry. No Harry Potter in my house. I am going to try so hard to make the money so I can afford to send my kid to a Christian school so I can be certain he'd never be asked to read this. Sure, it's fun. That's what Satan wants you to think. If I just let my son watch immoral and imitate immoral things then what will become of him?
As against witchcraft as I am, I still let my son particpate in Trick or Treat. Trick or Treats origins are from the druids (Celebration for Samhain I think....) and are satanic, but I personally let my son dress up in good things. No scary stuff, no monsters. Sorry. He can dress up as his favorte NASCAR driver or something like that. I plan to put tracts in with my treats too this year. Basically we celebrate Halloween (or Harvest Festival or whatever you want to call it) by bringing god into a holiday that there usually isn't. Bible says to go where your enemies are and not to avoid them. Everyone trys to remove god from Christmas (those that do call it Winter Festival or maybe Saturnalia yet they have the same images we do (snowmen, Santa Claus)), so why can't we bring god into a fall celebration?
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:2)
Well, which is it? If you were presented with incontrovertible evidence of other gods besides yours, would you accept it or not? If not, you're closed minded.
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:1)
whitchcraft, blasphemy ? Hello ? 11th century here we come...
Re:Narrow-minded bigots (Score:2)
It's like trying to convince a hard SF fan to read Harry Potter... or a Linux user to load MS Windows. Hmmm... maybe zealot is perfect.
In honor of Hugo Gernsback (Score:2, Informative)
Re:In honor of Hugo Gernsback (Score:4, Interesting)
Ralph 124C 41+, chapter 1 [twd.net]
chapter 2 [twd.net]
chapter 3 [twd.net]
Iain M. Banks. (Score:1)
I have to say the Vernor Vinge books are wonderful and if you haven'r read them you are in for a treat.
F34nor
Re:Iain M. Banks. (Score:1)
Re:Iain M. Banks. (Score:1)
Re:Iain M. Banks. (Score:1)
Unlike most posting here, I've actually read it. (Score:2, Informative)
Having read most of the nominated books (Score:2)
I would have picked the Chronoliths, just ahead of Cosmonaut's Keep.
Speculative Fiction (Score:3)
I've come to like the collective term "speculative fiction". It nicely describes the whole range.
Re:Speculative Fiction (Score:2)
I find it interesting that Alternate History has its own award (The Sideways Awards [uchronia.net]), and that the Libertarian Futurist Society sponsors a href="http://www.lfs.org/awards.htm">The Prometheus Awards for Libertarian SF. Doubtless there are scads more, but these, at least, are awarded alongside the Hugos. It rather feels like 1996, when every schmuck with a bookmark list felt completely justified in hacking together a crappy little gif and awarding other web sites [slashdot.org] for being cool or useful or whatnot.
Let's do this interesting "what if" (Score:2)
Given how amazingly well put together LoTR is, I'm sure LoTR (had it been published in 2001) would likely have garnered both Hugo and Nebula nominations--and probably would have won both awards for Best Novel this year.
Re:Having read most of the nominated books (Score:2)
I'm with you on Cosmonaut's Keep, however. Ken MacLeod is one of the finest authors to emerge in a long time, imho. I note that further down the page, Locus cites MacLeod as having been awarded the Sideways Award for best short-story ("The Human Front," which I've not read).
Excellent Giaman Goodness (Score:2)
- The old god's interaction with the current world
- The mythos of the new "gods" of America
I also find it interesting that some of the elder gods fall victim to the allure of "The American Dream(tm)". The promise of prosperity didn't apply to them when their followers came over here and now they are bitter. The want a piece of the pie too.
Re:Excellent Gaiman Goodness (Score:1)
I've always thought that the fundamental conceit in American Gods, as you state above, was one that was appropriated from Douglas Adams in The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul. I don't have the exact quote to hand, but it was something like 'The Gods still continued to exist long after the people stopped believing in them'.
I think that Gaiman took this good idea, half-developed it in Good Omens, and then fully fleshed it in the current Hugo winner.
Does American Gods deserve to be a Hugo winner? Did Harry Potter? They deserved it as much as Cryponomicon deserved to be nominated in 2000.
Re:Excellent Giaman Goodness (Score:1)
Isn't the new gods of America what Neil Stevenson has been hammering away on in Snow Crash, Diamond Age and Cryptonomicon? The whole Athena/Coyote thing. God gives man tech. Tech makes man weaker and more dependant on tech. e.g. Instead of building Menumonics to memorize things like Homer (the poet) you just abdicate your mental powers to a computer to remember for you. The total density of information may be higher in some respects in the computer but it is still a mental crutch.
Coyote is THE American God. He makes you think you're free by giving you Linux, PDA's and Internet Porn but he's the trickster god, so in reality it all just makes you into a fat pasty nerd who's easier to eat. Kill your computer be a Mentat or a Navagator not a technican for some god of obfuscation.
Just goes to show that we do need the Butlerian Jihad. "Thou shat not make a machine in the image of a human mind."
Opinions (Score:1)
Audio Format (Score:4, Informative)
If you're not familiar with this book, I will make a suggestion: Make sure you get at least half way through before you decide to quit. You won't regret it.
You can pick this up on Amazon, from your local library, or from your local audiobook store if you have one.
A blowaway book (Score:2)
- Robin
Re:A blowaway book (Score:1)
Why does it deserve the Hugo, then?
That's a little bit like saying 'it wasn't a cat, in fact, it was a dog, but it deserved the first prize at the cat show, because it was so beautiful.'
American flatheads ? (Score:1)
Neverwhere (Score:4, Interesting)
I enjoyed "American Gods" well enough, but I thought it was not up to the par with his earlier work, "Neverwhere."
With the Norse pantheon and American tourist attraction motifs of "American Gods," I kept feeling like it was trying to be too serious for its airy fantasy blend of Douglas Adams' Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul (the second Dirk Gently book), and LucasArt's Sam and Max Hit the Road graphical adventure game. The narrative is just disjoint enough that reading this book aloud would just lose some of the punch, I think.
Conversely, "Neverwhere" seemed to have fanciful influences from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland and Mary Poppins, where the delusional whimsy was a cover for the sinister trappings of a far more grave underworld that is best kept out of view. The bounds of the action are easily tracked and scenes segue smoothly, making Neverwhere a great story to read aloud to an older child or a spouse.
But that's just my opinion, and surely, both are quite palatable, and congrats to Neil Gaiman on his well-deserved accolades.
Re:Neverwhere (Score:2, Interesting)
A.Gods was great, but Neverwhere?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
American Gods, on the other hand, was a fabulous book. Lots of Gaimanesque details and twists, but felt like it hung together much better. Anyhow, differences of opinion I suppose.
Congrats to Gaiman. It is well deserved.
Re:A.Gods was great, but Neverwhere?!? (Score:2)
Re:A.Gods was great, but Neverwhere?!? (Score:2)
I also heard that a bigger-budget version was being done, but that was only one rumor. The rumors seem a bit more solid for Good Omens. (By what's-his-name, the Baron Munchousen, Time Bandits, Brazil, Fisher King guy - HE could do it.) One can only hope.
Re:A.Gods was great, but Neverwhere?!? (Score:1)
You mean its a rumour? [imdb.com]? The guy is Terry Gilliam [imdb.com] of Monty Python fame.
By the way, did Terry Pratchett ever get a Hugo for his works of art?. This is a guy, who really knows where his towel is.
Re:Neverwhere (Score:2)
Re:Neverwhere (Score:2)
Personally I think it's because London (with its 3000 years of history) provides a much more interesting canvas on which to paint...
American gods? Cable TV and Fords. (Sorry, that was unnecessary, but you get the point)
Re:Neverwhere (Score:2)
As an aside, has anyone read Coraline? I'm tempted to buy it even though it's meant to be a kid's book
a crime! (Score:1)
Mieville's Perdidot Street Station [amazon.com] was a brilliantly creative and original book. sooo well written and intelligent. dark humanist tale of adventure and science in an authoritarian world.
gaiman's book was a poorly written & unoriginal reworking of Sandman.
Re:a crime! (Score:2)
Very good choice (Score:1)
Cocteau
Remember these are the Hugos, (Score:3, Informative)
We're not talking about a serious statistical sample here, folks.
As a side note, were the Hogu and Black Hole awards presented this year?
Article trolls again (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, ignoring the Usenet bit, tell me the poster wasn't trolling with this:
(Referring to Harry Potter).
Slashdot editors and story submitters really need to start restraining themselves from editorialising in the story itself. That's what the comment section is for. That's what would be professional.
This isn't intended to be a troll. Now mod me into oblivion.
Re:Article trolls again (Score:1)
I read the Sandman comics, when they were coming out. It's good work, though I think Gaiman now suffers from a little bit of 'genre literary chic' (you know, being so associated with those smarmy 'masquerade' sorts who hang out at Cons.)
His current work isn't as good.
I completely agree (Score:2)
My Thoughts on American Gods (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on!!!! (Score:1)
What bothered me most about this novel was that Gaimen started with an amazing concept, spent three chapters reeling me in, and then it just fell flat. I was under the impression that he was more in the mood to take a road trip across america and wanted his publisher to foot the bill. He meanders for nearly three fourths of the book, only truly returning to his style for the last two or three chapters, as if he has realized "Oh shit, I need an ending"
I will continue to buy and read just about anything he puts out. He is by far and away one of the better literary craftsmen of our times. I am completely blown away with his lyrical command of the language! But to give this book the Hugo? Surely there were others in the genre that actually fleshed out an entire plot from start to finish???
Ok, I'm done. You can ignite the flame throwers now.
I really wanted to like the book (Score:1)
I did like the story of the Norsemen interacting with the Indians (the woo woo kind, not the one's with the Bomb)
Magic Realism (Score:5, Informative)
It's nice to see Fantasy moving forward beyond the niches in which it had languished for so long. Not that there weren't brilliant Fantasy authors or stories that broke out of the standard molds of the genre, but let's face it: science fiction has roamed far and wide from hard science speculation to space opera to the new wave SF of the 60s to the alternate histories of the 90s. Fantasy has maintained a fairly narrow range during that time, focusing mostly on European mythology in various forms (here I include purists such as Tolkein and origial mythologies such as Moorecock's) and the Horror Fantasy that was pioneered in the late 1800s and early 1900s by Poe and Lovecraft among others.
Fantasy is now re-discovering its vast potential, and I could not be more thrilled. Authors like Ian Banks, Jonathan Lethem and others of the genre are well worth checking out. Hopefully this is only the beginning, and we'll have another three or four sub-genres of Fantasy sprouting in the coming decades!
Re:Magic Realism (Score:1)
It Gaiman in many ways seems to be pulling into novel format a theology that seems to be at the core of a lot of British fantasy including many of the DC vertigo line which is that god exists, he is a major wanker, but fortunately he is not the only game in town. Probably the best books in this genre is the His Dark Materials [randomhouse.com] trilogy.
And of course Ursula le Guin is still out there publishing the good stuff. One of the problems with fantasy is that for every author like le Guin who asks a different question every novel you have at least five hacks like Lackey and Salvatore.
Re:Magic Realism (Score:1)
I agree that there are shared tropes between magic realism and science fiction. However, there are big differences as well. A magic realist novel will be pretty much grounded in this world (hence realist), but have some slight quirks of fantasy or otherworldliness (hence magic). With fantasy and science fiction, the world being presented is often an extrapolation of the real world, or a parallel one with significant differences.
Re:Magic Realism (Score:4, Interesting)
exactly, if you want to go back to James Joyce's "Ulysses" and "The Dubliners", 20th century author's have been struggling with ways to mix metaphorical "alternate realities" to so-called "mainstream" writing.
i think there is a fairly direct link from Joyce to Gaiman, and it passes the writers you mention, with Rushdie and Marquez (if you haven't read "100 Years of Solitude", you missing out on a great (if really twisted) book) being the best commercially known.
But, there is also much of this literary approach present, in the Sci-Fi genre, in both the "Dr. Who" series and Doug Adams' "Hitchhiker" series.
You could also make a pretty good case for ELEMENTS of this approach in Heinlein's last few (post-stroke) books; "Friday", "Number of the Beast" and "Cat Who Walked through Walls", as alternative realities abound.
And some of Harlan's short stories like "Repent Harlequin, Said the Tick-Tock Man" (the story ROCKS, BTW), mix reality and fantasy, though are more psychological in approach.
I liked "Neverwhere" and found "American Gods" oddly affecting, but Mr. Gaiman's "Neverwhere" seemed to another of the mixture of the "LOTR, D&D, Snakes & Ladders RPG" type of writing that's been leaking out of Britain/Europe for the last 20 years.
LeGuin does it as well as anybody, "Dispossessed" is a fabulous book, and the gender-bending shows a pretty "alternate" approach to S/F in and of itself. And it was published in 1975.
Re:Magic Realism (Score:2)
"Dispossessed" is a fabulous book, and the gender-bending shows a pretty "alternate" approach to S/F in and of itself. And it was published in 1975.
Are you thinking of The Dispossessed or The Left Hand of Darkness?
Re:Magic Realism (Score:2)
I'd certainly place The Dispossessed in a dual hard-sf/new-wave slot. Hard SF in that it adheres to scientific possibility pretty well, with no 'fuzzy' science like telepathy or super-advanced technology inserted solely for wiz-bang coolness. And of course New Wave for its exploration of an entire world. However, I saw no fantasy elements, so I'd bet that he's thinking of either The Left Hand of Darkness or The Lathe of Heaven. I haven't read either (largely because The Dispossessed took so much effort to slog through: I respect the ideas in the book, but the book was way dry for my taste), but I'm familiar with the basic premise of The Lathe of Heaven and it would seem to fit with the concept of a magical realism, where there are elements (telepathy, magic, precognition, etc) which violate known scientific law, but which is treated according to rational, self-consistent rules within the universe in question. I think today's audience kinda expects some of that. Even Buffy the Vampire Slayer treats magic and the supernatural as adhering to rules which can be understood, even though they are somewhat mystical.
Re:Magic Realism (Score:2)
Here are a couple of referneces:
I'm a huge fan of this genre as it begins to evolve into the mainstream. It's allowing many authors who have been struggling for credibility in the F&SF genres to start to get some real notice for their extraordinary talents (not to mention producing stores like "American Gods" and "Gun With Occasional Music").
Re:Magic Realism (Score:2)
To me it seems, to the contrary, that just as in the '50s much that purported to be SF was actually just a warmed over adventure novel, with a bit of fancy stage setting, during the period since the '70s it's been mainly fantasy, with a bit of stage setting. and during the '60s it was a time of transition.
Genuine Science Fiction has always been rare, and never a pure medium. Even such classics as "Mission of Gravity" or "MacroLife", or anything by Forward are a combination of Science Fiction with something else (usually adventure). Exception might be made for "Ralph 124C41+", but that's really in combination with a travelogue, and is pretty boring, too (but short!).
This says something about the nature of Science Fiction (i.e., it's a better spice than a meal), but it also claims that Fantasy has been the dominant element in what is called Science Fiction for decades. You can point to individual books, both good and bad, that are heavy in Science Fiction, but they are but a small percentage of what gets called science fiction. Consider, e.g., Heinlein. What science fiction did he write? Perhaps the Future history series (up through Time Enough for Love). I can't think of a justification for including The Number of the Beast, or anything, except Friday, that he wrote later. Frank Herbert was clearly working more with mythology than with sociology, and his ecology was all hand waving, inspirational as it might have been. etc,
Re:Magic Realism (Score:2)
Oh, I have to disagree!
The Demolished Man, 1953
The Stars My Destination, 1956
Childhood's End, 1953
I, Robot, 1950
Sure, there were a lot of Robert Heinlein juveniles and the like, but that too was an SF reaction to the powerful ideas of space exploration, computing devices and other influences of the day.
Hugo as Sci Fi/Fantasy (Score:3, Informative)
I am very happy with American gods as their choice. I think Gaiman's writing is lush and well-crafted. While American Gods may thematically reflect the flavor of the Sandman comics/graphic novels as a book it gave Gaiman the space to explore the themes with a lot more depth. Despite having a signature darkness his writing has shown a great range from Stardust to Neverwhere to Smoke and Mirrors and even his children's books. I am glad that he is receving some of the critical acclaim that is his due.
Fantasy is part of the definition (Score:3, Informative)
constitution of the WSFS:
3.2.1: Unless otherwise specified, Hugo Awards are given for work in the field of science fiction or fantasy appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year.
Admittedly, prior to Harry Potter the winning novel has never been fantasy (Lord of Light and To Your Scattered Bodies Go are probably the closest, and few people would characterize those as anything other than SF). But fantasy often wins in the short fiction catagories.
Sheesh (Score:1)
A much better choice than last year [Harry Potter].
Yes, because we know that anything that is popular is automatically bad. And of course we know that anything obscure and unread by the masses is automatically better.
I will never, ever, understand why certain people must hate anything that a lot of other people happen to like (see also: movies, Titanic).
Re:Sheesh (Score:2)
Re:Sheesh (Score:2)
Take a look at the rating breakdown of Titanic [imdb.com] at IMDB. Now, it may not be your favorite movie, but if someone is scoring it lower than, say, a 3 (much less the 10.7% that scored it a ONE), then we know that it's just popularity backlash.
Personally, I thought it was a great movie. Not the best movie of all time (the dialogue WAS a little clunky in places), but it is certainly among the greatest disaster sequences ever filmed.
Re:Sheesh (Score:2)
However, it was terribly annoying to have to put up with that Celine Dion song over and over and the people who saw it 10 times and insisted it was the greatest film ever made and a turning point in their lives.
I think most reactive iconoclasms are that way. It's not so much the thing that's popular itself. It's the utter ridiculous prominence on the landscape that's hard to put up with.
Of course, then there are things like Brittney Spears and O-town, for which there are no excuse...
Re:Sheesh (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because we know that anything that is popular is automatically bad. And of course we know that anything obscure and unread by the masses is automatically better.
You really think American Gods is obscure and unread by the masses? Sorry, but unread and obscure books don't get on the New York Times Bestseller List.
I will never, ever, understand why certain people must hate anything that a lot of other people happen to like (see also: movies, Titanic).
Titanic is a bad movie, period. Has nothing to do with its popularity. Most of the people who liked it have very underdeveloped taste. Star Wars was a good movie, and it was quite popular. Apocalypse Now was a great movie, and it was popular. So was the Godfather. So was Schindler's List.
Let's see: which is better, Power Rangers or Dune? I'd gather that Power Rangers is a lot more widely known. . .
Re:Sheesh (Score:2)
Well, if Power Rangers is a movie, it's probably better than the movie made of Dune.
Re:Sheesh (Score:2)
Well, if Power Rangers is a movie, it's probably better than the movie made of Dune.
Make that "better than both movies made of Dune." Not quite, but close enough to make it funny.
time to buy a copy (Score:2, Funny)
If you don't like the results... (Score:4, Insightful)
Some people take their fun way too seriously. The hugos are a classic example of this. It's just a vote by a group of geeks attenting a yearly international party. Your local mayor probably gets more voter turnout in the local election.
See you at Torcon [torcon3.on.ca].
Re:If you don't like the results... (Score:2)
It always amazes me how people can form an negitive opinion of something they've never experienced based on their own misconceptions.
If you have an interest in Science and Technology, there's enough real science at the worldcon to keep you happy.
But then again, anyone who enjoys posting their opinions using the words "dorks", "pretentious", "dumb", etc. probably lives in such a depressing world, that they would have a bad time, simply because they would be looking for one.
Good news, bad news (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the first time in years where some books I have read have showed up as nominations ( I read Chronoliths as well, but it was so-so). American Gods and Perdido St. represent (to me) the best things to come out of the SCI-Fi genre in a long, long time.
My love for these books aside, I think the arguements over whether these books are actually Canonical Science Fiction are ridiculous. The genre will stagnate (if it hasn't already) if authors are limited to space operas or extrapolating the latest sci-tech flavor (hmmm, I got it, nanopunk! or how about genomepunk?). Neal Stephenson has moved beyond the genre for the most part, and his books keep getting better. Gaiman and Mieville's work are obviously pushing the boundaries of what is or is not science fiction and this is something to be embraced.
As a bonus, both of these books have covers that are actually interesting (Perdido more so that AG). It's nice to be able to read a book in public which doesn't have a cover that looked like someone moonlighting from Harlequin Romances designed it.
Thoughts on American Gods (Score:1)
Personally, I thought the story was great and interesting, but that the writing was horrible. It's been a while since I've read it, unfortunately, but I recall thinking several times that it felt like it was written by a sixth-grader. I thought it distracted quite a bit from the actual story.
Apart from that qualm, though, it was an interesting read. Unfortunately, it hasn't convinced me to read anything else he's written and I can't see myself being compelled to in the future.
Other awards (Score:4, Informative)
In horror: Bram Stoker Award [horror.org] (winner)
In fantasy: World Fantasy Award [sfsite.com] (nominated, the winner has not been decided yet)
In sci-fi: Hugo Award (winner)
Look at the tons of other awards in Neil Gaiman's collection [neilgaiman.com].
Well deserved (Score:1)
Congratulations, Neil. (Score:4, Funny)
From Neil's weblog today:
Fortunately, we mere mortals aren't plauged by such concerns.
Whew... (Score:2)
1) I liked American Gods very much when I read it and even felt it was a sort of commentary about current american values. 'Course, I love everything Gaiman has ever written including Sandman, Neverwhere, Good Omens, and so forth.
2) I thoroughly enjoyed Goblet of Fire and all of the other Harry Potter books. They are mere mind candy (not difficult reading) and enjoyable for what they are.
3) Should a Harry Potter book have recieved the Hugo? Well it is good writing for what it is. But in the rampant discussion concerning what is fantasy and what is sci-fi, there are many grey lines. That being said, I believe that Harry Potter is purely fantasy. And if the Hugo is a sci-fi award, then it shouldn't have been awarded to Goblet of Fire. Gaiman's works tend to fall in the grey area and are even similar to the "urban fantasy" works of Charles DeLint. I don't think that I would give DeLint an award in the sci-fi category (even though I really love his stuff and recommend it to everyone) but surely in the fantasy realm. Maybe American Gods should be in that realm too. Then again, I really like Gaiman's work, and since it is in that grey area (an area that theoretical physics is in as well) I'd just as soon not argue at length as to whether it deserves the Hugo or not. Let's just say that I'm glad it got an award.
4) Finally, there are way too many posts under the "Narrow Minded Bigot" subject that are just way off-topic but have been modded up for being "insightful" or similar. People debating what is christian/pagan etc. (though very politely in general, thank-you) is not on the topic of this years and last years Hugo award winner.
Optimist: The glass is half full
Pessimist: The glass is half empty
Doofus: The glass is half full, no, wait, empty, ummm what was the question?
Realist: Hey, I ordered a cheeseburger!
Potter stealing children's Minds (Score:2)
This is special that it goes beyond the myriads of children's book awards that she had already one and why she also wins in adult categories.
Slashdot journal mention (Score:2)
Several hundred congratulatory e-mails came in today. My favourite so far, from my son Mike, just said Well, it is always weird to wake up and read your family news at the top of slashdot, but I suppose I'll get used to it at some point. Congratulations Dad!
Kicks? No. (Score:2)
Re:Links (karma whore) (Score:1)
Whore indeed
Re:CNN doesn't have a CLUE!!! (Score:2)
I wonder is American Gods out in paperback yet.
Re:CNN doesn't have a CLUE!!! (Score:2)
I wonder is American Gods out in paperback yet. :-)
Paperback came out May 2002, according to the CIP data in my paperback copy (HarperCollins; N. American printing).
Re:Always one of my favorite books. (Score:2)
Why I haven't got to it is I've been plowing through Terry Pratchett's works (Night Watch due in November) and have a way to go before finishing warping my mind with those.