Books from award lists

[catsittingstill]

 So recently I saw some posts about books listed for this or that science fiction or fantasy award.  I haven't been keeping very careful track of which awards; I think it was the Hugo and the Nebula, but I don't remember and can't be bothered to look it up, because the exact award doesn't matter to my point.

 

I thought "people must generally think these books are good, or they wouldn't be on these lists; I should get them out of the library and read them, because I will probably enjoy them."

 

This has not been working out the way I expected.  I am a genre reader, and a lot of these entries seem to be trying to push the boundaries of literature rather than just concentrating on, you know, plot, characterization, dialogue, possibly theme, that kind of thing. I feel a bit as if I went to judge a clam chowder contest and some of the entrants expect me to sample their entry from the back of a live crab, or while hanging by my knees from the chandelier.  It does indeed make their entry memorable, but not in any kind of way that makes me likely to think it is the best clam chowder.

 

I have just given up on _The Drowning Girl_, halfway in.  It is the kind of thing my husband, the college English professor, at ease with avant garde and postmodern work, would probably enjoy.  *I* feel like the book was so self-consciously meta I couldn't for two consecutive pages forget about the physical book I was holding and get into the story.  It is like trying to get comfortable with someone who is so uncomfortable with you they can't stop fidgeting.  I also feel like--where is the SF?  Where is the fantasy?  This is a story about a mentally ill woman who knows she can't figure out what is actually happening, and even the bit about ghosts seems to be basically entirely metaphorical.  Where is the tech?  Where is the presence of working magic?  What is this doing in this category?  Was it misfiled?

 

If you like this kind of thing; go for it; as far as I am able to tell it's good at it.  And it does have a gay character and a trans character who seem to be portrayed in a sympathetic way, which I like, and thoroughly approve of.  But I am reconsidering these lists as a guideline to books that I, hardened SF and Fantasy reader that I am, will enjoy.  On the other hand I've had somewhat better luck with other books on the list.

 

I read 2312, and it was, I dunno.  It was interesting and clever, and I'm glad I read it, but I didn't like it the way I liked _Captain Vorpatril's Alliance_ (whose inclusion on the list first gave me the idea.)  I got about halfway through _The Hydrogen Sonata_ and stalled.  Arguably even more interesting and clever but I liked it even less--in part because the author can radically re-imagine society but not the sterotype of mother-daughter relationships.  _Redshirts_ was good, if a little experimental in structure, but given its setting it would be hard for it to be otherwise.  _The Killing Moon_ was pretty good; again, interesting and clever and I had an easier time liking the characters--I think I am seeing a theme here; maybe I should be looking for award lists for "like-able characters."  Caliban's War is... I'm not very far into it, so I'm not sure.  Battle pron isn't my thing, and it is handicapped by the fact that I haven't read the preceding book, but I still find it a lot more understandable than _The Drowning Girl_.  (Though I think I would have been happy to like the characters in _The Drowning Girl_ if the book had just quit waving itself in front of my eyes when I tried, so maybe I should be looking for "likeable characters *and* conventional story structure.")

 

Anyway; I don't know if any of this will be helpful for anyone else--I just felt the need to get it off my chest.  Libraries are great resources for trying out books in a low-committment way; I would not have been able to read this many of these listed books without them, so I'm grateful to my library, and I don't feel unhappy about the books in this list that I didn't care for.

 

Comments

[kay_brooke]

Almost my entire genre reading list is works that have appeared on various awards and "best of" lists in recent years, and I'm finding something similar. Some of the books really are very good, but just as many if not more I find merely mediocre or simply just bad. The bad ones tend to be, in my mind, the "clever" ones that forget to tell an actual story. I'm pretty sure it's possible to both push literary boundaries and actually entertain readers, but those books seem to be few and far between.

[markbernstein56]

I'm working my way through the Hugo nominees in an effort to get them all read in time to vote by the 7/31 deadline. Of the novels:

I haven't yet read 2312.

I'm halfway through Throne of the Crescent Moon, and aside from the Middle Eastern setting, this is classic adventure fantasy, with magic users, shapeshifters, undead, and more. It might be to your taste. I'm enjoying it so far.

I liked Captain Vorpatril's Alliance, but consider it a bit lightweight, especially compared to Bujold works like Memory.

Blackout, like Feed and Deadline, is a near-future SF thriller, where the science just happens to lead to the creation of zombies. Good, clear storytelling, great world building, and interesting characters are the strengths, as with most of Seanan's work.

Redshirts was, for me, a pleasant surprise, as I've been critical of Scalzi's books in the past. Yes, it's extremely meta, but I'm OK with that, and liked the way he handled it.

I've found that the Nebulas and the various juried awards do tend to be more literary in their choices.

Just curious, have you read last year's winner, Among Others by Jo Walton? I loved it, but the fantasy element is fairly muted.