Hugos or Nebulas?

[weirdside]

So I want to start reading the books that won these awards from then to now, but which list should I choose? Should I choose what SFWA, a notoriously stale organization, likes? Or should I choose what the fans, who actually determine if an author continues as an author?
Also, which awards do you value more? For me, it's hands down the Nebulas.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well, there are a lot of people in SFWA who don't even vote for the Nebulas (or at least a lot of them didn't when I was a member) and there is a certain amount of politics going on during the nominating process. On the other hand, it is a form of peer recognition and that has value, and also there is an effort by the Nebula jury to seek out books and stories of merit that might be a bit more obscure and bring them to the attention of the voters.

As for the Hugo, while it is an award voted on by fans (though we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that members of SFWA are fans and buy a lot of books, too), but only people who buy a membership to the World Science Fiction Convention can vote, so that limits participation in the process to people who either live in the area where the convention is being held that year, or who can afford a membership and travel and hotel expenses, or can afford to buy a membership just to vote. Which means that Hugo voters don't really represent a cross-section of the SFF community, and who wins the award may be partly influenced by where the convention is held that year.

So I don't think I give more weight to one than to the other. A book that wins both would be worth seeking out.

 

[j d worthington]

So I want to start reading the books that won these awards from then to now, but which list should I choose? Should I choose what SFWA, a notoriously stale organization, likes? Or should I choose what the fans, who actually determine if an author continues as an author?
Also, which awards do you value more? For me, it's hands down the Nebulas.

Eh? The two parts of your post seem to contradict each other. The Nebulas are awarded by the SFWA -- hence by what you call "a notoriously stale organization"; while the Hugos are awarded by the readers (or at least a certain number of them).

There are advantages and drawbacks on both counts, but I'm not sure you really need to make a sacrifice either way, as a rather large number are the same in both lists:

Past Winners of SFWA(R) Nebula Awards(R)

The Hugo Award (By Year)

There are some sterling things there, and also some of considerably less merit. (I find Panshin's Rite of Passage almost unreadable, I must admit.)

However, if you're intending to read both the novels and the shorter fiction, the Hugo winners are a bit easier to track down (overall), as all the short fiction up through the late 1990s or early 2000s has been collected in a smaller number of volumes; while the Nebula winners are more spread out. (And, if you're going to do the Nebulas, I'd suggest getting -- if you don't already have -- the Science Fiction Hall of Fame, volumes One and IIA and IIB, which are rather similar, in that they represent what the writers picked as the best in the field from Wells' The Time Machine until the issuing of the first Nebula awards....)

Either way, you've got a lot of good reading in there; enjoy!

 

[Rodders]

An interesting list. I am quite surprised at how many of those winners i have read or seen.

 

[iansales]

The best reading list would be the Arthur C Clarke Award short lists.

 

[j d worthington]

Ian: While I would agree with you that may be so, the problem is that it doesn't go nearly as far back, either. Still, I would suggest adding it to the list:

Home

 

[Hypnos164]

I did a similar read through of the winners albeit quite a few years ago now (early 90’s).

As I recall generally found that:
- Books that won both awards were generally outstanding works
- Books that won only the Nebula, especially if they weren't even nominated for the Hugo tend towards the clever conceit, the literary, or being simply unintelligible.
- Books that won only the Hugo tend towards either a general appeal or fan favourite authors who are “due” a win even if the current book isn’t actually their finest.

If I had to pick one, I’d say the Hugo is a better indicator of a book that I could just blindly buy and expect to enjoy.

These days I tend to have read almost all of the Hugo shortlist before it’s announced and I always make the effort to fill in the gaps.

The Clarke award shortlist tends to favour books that fit the “Nebula profile” and is always a good place to look for new authors/book that will be challenging and interesting (if not always enjoyable).

 

[Pyar]

Check out this website: The Locus Index to Science Fiction Awards, compiled by Mark R. Kelly

Its the one I use when I want to see which awards books have one. I has a compilation of pretty much every award imaginable there. Recently I've been trying to get through books that have won both the Nebula and Hugo, although I have been reading a few that have just won one or the other. I have to agree with Hypnos164, books that have won both are very outstanding works. Books that have only won one and not the other I have found to be generally pretty good, probably on average better than books that haven't won anything. But then again this is all about comparing personal opinion to a skewed and biased standard, every person has a different opinion, no two people like the same thing. But if forced to congregate many peoples opinions into one consensus the result is obviously going to be a compromise, and thats what these awards are, if that makes sense.

 

[weirdside]

Well thanks everyone who replied! I noticed that I did contradict myself, but it was accidental and I did mean that I respect the Hugos more (hey it was late). I think I will seek out those books that won multiple major awards. Can't go wrong with them.