Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Did you know that Michael Moorcock during his writing life has one only one Nebula and no Hugos for his written work? Meanwhile, Joanna Russ has won nine, three in the novel, six for six different shorter works. Eric Frank Russell, ever hear of him? Me neither, but he's won Hugos and/or Nebulas for five of his works. While Moorcock has but one for his writing. Where's the justice?

I blame US supermacism! *sarcasm*

Seriously, authors from outside the US are seriously underrepresented by these 'world' awards even if such authors originally write in English.

Meanwhile, Joanna Russ has won nine, three in the novel, six for six different shorter works."

You probably meant to say she was nominated for nine works, she won only one Nebula for one of her short stories.

Dan wrote: "Eric Frank Russell, ever hear of him? Me neither, but he's won Hugos and/or Nebulas for five of his works"

Some of the works by Eric Frank Russell are pretty famous, namely Next Of Kin, Wasp (a fun read) and Sinister Barrier which was eligible for this year's retro representation. Oddly enough he is also one of the (few?) sci-fi authors who wrote for Weird Tales magazine, so I figured you'd at least have heard of him. In either case, he was only nominated for three of his works and won only a single Hugo for his short

Dan wrote: "While Moorcock has but one for his writing.."

Though I have no idea who that is, I suppose getting a win with his first nomination is not too bad. Was there anything you could recommend by him?

As for injustice, imagine how Mike Resnick feels with 48 H&N nominations and only 6 wins or Gene Wolfe with 29 nominations and only 2 Nebulas (0 Hugos) behind the belt.

Oleksandr wrote: "I blame US supermacism! *sarcasm*
Seriously, authors from outside the US are seriously underrepresented by these 'world' awards even if such authors originally write in English."

For what it's worth, Eric Frank Russell was from UK irc.

***

In any case, what website did you get that info off, Dan? Just so I know not to ever visit it, hehe.

For me, being nominated is as good as winning, even if it is fourth or fifth place. It means the work came ahead of perhaps dozens of others that received fewer votes for consideration.

The information came from my own spreadsheets on the Hugo and Nebulas. I took what was available from the group spreadsheets and then made corrections (only a few were needed), and reformats (many of these) to make the information more wieldy. I'm adding sheets of other awards like the Alternative History one you pointed out.

You want me to assume you know enough to know the definition of alternative fiction, that you're familiar with Eric Frank Russell, and then state you never heard of the author of Elric of Melnibone?

Total number of GoodReads ratings of works by author:
Russell: 14,188 ratings
Russ: 27,508 ratings
Moorcock: 229,243 ratings

Dan wrote: "You want me to assume you know enough to know the definition of alternative fiction, that you're familiar with Eric Frank Russell, and then state you never heard of the author of Elric of Melnibone? "

There's no need to assume, asking would suffice.

As for Eric Frank Russell, we nominated his novel Sinister Barrier for 1944 Retro Hugos, part of WorldCon 2019. Besides that, EFR was inducted into the Science Fiction Hall of Fame (looking it up I learned that he made it on the 5th year). I'm not a fan, but I've read his work for the first time about two decades ago and I did not hate it. I thought Wasp was witty, light read.

Dan wrote: "The information came from my own spreadsheets on the Hugo and Nebulas"

Sorry, no offense meant, it's just it all was pretty inaccurate.

Art wrote: "Sorry, no offense meant, it's just it all was pretty inaccurate."

No offense taken, but the only inaccuracy was that in message one I should have put the word "nomination" after "Hugo" and "Nebula", and wrote "had" in place of "won." I explained how I made the mistake in the first paragraph of message 4.

Here are the works I refer to:

NW 1968 Michael Moorcock Behold the Man

N 1969 Joanna Russ Picnic on Paradise
N 1971 Joanna Russ And Chaos Died
N 1976 Joanna Russ Female Man, The
HW/NN 1983 Joanna Russ Souls
NN 1971 Joanna Russ The Second Inquisition
NN 1972 Joanna Russ Poor Man, Beggar Man
NN 1983 Joanna Russ Mystery of the Young Gentleman, The
HN/NW 1973 Joanna Russ When It Changed
NN 1980 Joanna Russ Extraordinary Voyages of Amйlie Bertrand, The

H 1956 Eric Frank Russell Call Him Dead (AKA Three to Conquer)
HN 1944 Eric Frank Russell Symbiotica
HN 1951 Eric Frank Russell Dear Devil
HN 1956 Eric Frank Russell Legwork
HW 1955 Eric Frank Russell Allamagoosa

My primary point was and still is that Moorcock deserved more nominations. BTW, I'm still rather amazed I'm the one introducing you to Michael Moorcock as an author. But you asked, so there is a really great website called the Science Fiction Encyclopedia. They have enough there about Michael Moorcock to suffice anyone:

Dan wrote: "Art wrote: "Sorry, no offense meant, it's just it all was pretty inaccurate."

No offense taken, but there was no inaccuracy. Since you must be unable to (or maybe don't know how to) access the gro..."

My apologies, but what do you mean by the "group files"?

In either case, this info you have provided here is still inaccurate, to the best of my knowledge.

Joanna Russ:
Hugo Awards � for SF/F works, voted by members of annual World Science Fiction Convention
(3 nominations; 1 win)
1996: To Write Like a Woman: Essays in Feminism and Science Fiction (Indiana University Press) � nonfiction book � nomination
1983: “Souls� (F&SF Jan 1982) � novella � winner
1973: “When It Changed� (Again, Dangerous Visions) � short story � nomination
Nebula Awards � for SF/F works, voted by SF & Fantasy Writers of America professional membership
(9 nominations; 1 win)
1983: “Souls� (F&SF Jan 1982) � novella � nomination
1983: “The Mystery of the Young Gentleman� (Speculations) � novelette � nomination
1980: “The Extraordinary Voyages of Amélie Bertrand� (F&SF Sep 1979) � short story � nomination
1976: The Female Man (Bantam) � novel � nomination
1973: “When It Changed� (Again, Dangerous Visions) � short story � winner
1972: “Poor Man, Beggar Man� (Universe 1) � novelette � nomination
1971: And Chaos Died (Ace) � novel � nomination
1971: “The Second Inquisition� (Orbit 6) � novelette � nomination
1969: Picnic on Paradise (Ace) � novel � nomination

Eric Frank Russell:
Hugo Awards � for SF/F works, voted by members of annual World Science Fiction Convention
(3 nominations; 1 win) + Sembiotica for this year's Retros
1956: “Call Him Dead� (Astounding Aug,Sep,Oct 1955) � novel � nomination
1956: “Legwork� (Astounding Apr 1956) � novelette � nomination
1955: “Allamagoosa� (Astounding May 1955) � short story � winner
+
1944: Sembiotica (Astounding Science-Fiction, October 1943) - nomination - novellette

Oh, I see. Dear Devil is another retro-hugo novellette (or something short)

I read Behold The Man a long time ago, long before I read Elric. That short little book was enough to convince me the guy was a master.

This confusion I had brings me to a question about nominations. Aren't there typically multiple nominations every year? Maybe 30, 40, a hundred? I have no idea how many. When the Nebulas and the Hugos are awarded, why is it only the top five finishers or so are announced or publicized?

Dan wrote: "Aren't there typically multiple nominations every year? Maybe 30, 40, a hundred? I have no idea how many. When the Nebulas and the Hugos are awarded, why is it only the top five finishers or so are announced or publicized? "

1. there are hundreds,, sometimes over a thousand of eligible works in each fiction category. Just look at Nebula lists for 2018 here: they are huge!

2. only top-5 nominees are announced exactly because as you wrote earlier 'being nominated is as good as winning, even if it is fourth or fifth place'. If there were say 100 nominees then 'Hugo nominated author' on a cover doesn't give a mark of excellence

Any Worldcon member (attending or supporting) can nominate works for Hugo, so I guess there are at least dozens, more likely hundreds, of nominations each year.

It makes sense to publish only the top six, since the full list would be so long to be meaningless, like Oleksandr said.

Hey Dan, I really like Eric Frank Russell. One of his short stories, called "Tieline," is one of my favorite SF stories of all time. And I smiled when I remembered Dear Devil, which I had forgotten about.

I think it must just be that he's an old "golden age" guy, but not one of the really famous ones. Moorcock, I believe, is much newer. I have noticed that time is a factor sometimes--my assumption is there were fewer SFF writers longer ago. But I could be totally wrong about that, it's just an assumption. (On GR, also, time is a factor. Older works have fewer numbers of reviews.)

I love Frederick Brown, too!

And note to Z--that line to the nebula list you have in your post now takes you to the 2019 possibilities--the 2018 list is gone. I'm hoping they are still around somewhere.

My hypothesis is very similat to Kate's: let's assume there are two kinds of writers who get famous for longer than a decade or so:

- The A-list, real shining stars, who write fabulous stuff that will be read decade after decade. Asimov, Heinlein, Herbert, Le Guin &c

- The B-list, not as great as the A-listers, but still pretty good. They will be popular for some decades, but their popularity has a half-life, and after 50 years or so they will have faded into obscurity. Both Moorcock and Russell are B-listers: only reason we remember Moorcock is that he is recent enough to still be on the radar.

Although having said that, I'm not certain how many younger fans have ever heard of Moorcock. Perhaps it's only us who can remember the 20th century who still remember him?

Kateblue wrote: "Hey Dan, I really like Eric Frank Russell. One of his short stories, called "Tieline," is one of my favorite SF stories of all time. And I smiled when I remembered Dear Devil, which I had forgotten..."

Kate, I'll have to give those two a try. Fredric Brown's "Arena" was a favorite story I remember reading from my youth, 1970s not 1940s, but I don't think I've ever read another by him.

On the 2018 books on that link, they're still there. You have to hit that dropdown arrow on the publication year button.

Antti wrote: "...The A-list, real shining stars, who write fabulous stuff that ..."

I think much depends on how wide you make your A-list. If it's only 10 authors or 20 authors wide, then yeah, Moorcock doesn't make that cut. If it's 50 or 60 top authors, Moorcock is on the A-list.

You're free to feel differently, of course. I mean people feel Trump is making America great again too, that the Earth must be flat, and that global warming is non-existent, or a naturally occurring phenomenon. Since anyone can feel (or hypothesize) pretty much anything, I tried to provide one less subjective measurement in message 4. Also, as Oleksandr rightfully points out earlier in the thread, there is a bias against non-American authors. Did you notice all your named A-listers were American?

Russell and Russ are definite B-listers, no argument here. It might surprise you to realize Moorcock has more GoodReads ratings than some certain authors. For example:

Gordon R. Dickson 49,834
Poul Anderson 107,001
Harlan Ellison 164,612
Connie Willis 187,909
Michael Moorcock 229,307

I for one still read Moorcock. In fact, I have one of his short stories in a collection I'm right now reading: The New Weird. It's on my bedstand; I tried to make sense of Moorcock's story last night and think I need to try again when I'm more awake.

I was asked earlier for a recommendation on where to start with Moorcock and didn't reply. He's most famous for his Elric of Melnibone series. I read one short story in it when I was in my 20s and it was okay if antiheroic fantasy is your thing. Preferring SF, I found his The Dancers at the End of Time series to be incredible.

Kateblue wrote: "And note to Z--that line to the nebula list you have in your post .. now takes you to the 2019 possibilities"

There is a year selection on the top right from the table, you can select 2018 there

Dan wrote: "I was asked earlier for a recommendation on where to start with Moorcock and didn't reply. "

Elric ius one choice but My personal preference is to start with The Eternal Champion, as a basis for his multiverse. He was one of the earliest fantasy writers that shifted from hero-dominated fantasy, where valiant heroes straggle with evil like classic Tolkien or Lewis or Howard. Now this 'not-a-hero' trope is widespread so it isn't that striking now.

@Dan

Ratings are overrated. Even the aforementioned Trump has 43,256 ratings and I will not elaborate on this subject any further, because whatever I may say will probably be against GR policies.

@Z

I must disagree with you when it comes to Tolkien, while not revolutionary, his "heroes" almost inevitably had a darker side to them, being in constant conflict with themselves. Some of the characters are very, one might say, "troubled". There's a lot going on among the pages of Tolkien's LotR saga and it in my opinion is far from regular fantasy where good guy bashes the bad guy, the end. Which is the reason I don't particularly fancy fantasy and that in its turn is the reason why I'd never heard of "Elric of Whassname".

Art wrote: "@Dan

Ratings are overrated. Even the aforementioned Trump has 43,256 ratings and I will not elaborate on this subject any further, because whatever I may say will probably be against GR policies.
..."

I'm not saying that ratings equals quality, but rather quantity, or maybe level of interest--how well-known and widely read an author is. Proof GR ratings don't equal quality:

Suzanne Collins 10,375,128 ratings

I happen to think Moorcock and Collins have nothing in common, but I wander into the realm of opinion now.

Ratings only reflect how well a writer is known *in the times Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ has been in existence*.

Lets assume for arguments sake both Russell and Moorcock were equally loved when their career was at its peak, but then their popularity started to steadily sink. Since Russell wrote decades earlier than Moorcock, by the time GR came to existence most of Russell's fanbase was gone, but Moorcock still had fans around. Therefore Moorcock would get lots of reviews, Russell next to none, although they had both been equally popular and loved in their time.

I never cared for Elric books, but I loved Moorcock's Jerry Cornelius books. Final Programme was great, Cure for Cancer even more so. English Assassin was a bit weaker, IMO, but Condition of Muzak was again brilliant.

People go back and read old books and rate them. Look how many ratings Bram Stoker or George Orwell has. Some people on the list precede Moorcock. Others are contemporaries. Connie Willis comes well after. Are you making a case that people are going back to read Moorcock and this ups his ratings? Didn't you say his light faded last century.

Stoker and Orwell are A-listers, naturally. Of course their work still gets read and reviewed.

I'm guessing Moorcock's popularity waned at the turn if the century or so. I'd be surprised if most of the GR reviews don't come from people in thirties or older: people who have heard of Moorcock in the 80's or 90's. But Russell's contemporaries are much older, many dead already. They aren't writing any reviews.

Antti wrote: "Stoker and Orwell are A-listers, naturally. Of course their work still gets read and reviewed."

Movie industry helps. Famous older works which have movie versions made of get considerably more attention on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ.

Look at Fahrenheit 451°, with recent attention its movie adaptation got, the first ten pages of ratings out of 1.5mil are dated between May 10th and May 11th.

Many of the A-listers have multiple movie adaptations, some of which are fairly recent, which boost ratings immensely.