2003 Nebula Awards 106
seattlenerd writes "The 2003 Nebula Awards were awarded late Saturday night in Seattle (for the first time ever) by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. Winners: The Speed of Dark by Elizabeth Moon, Coraline by Neil Gaiman, "The Empire of Ice Cream" by Jeffrey Ford, "What I Didn't See" by Karen Joy Fowler (the previous two both published on the SCI FICTION site), and the script for Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Noteworthy were comments made by GrandMaster honoree Robert Silverberg and Harlan Ellison, who introduced Silverberg, along with guest speaker Rick Rashid of Microsoft Research. To say nothing of Cory Doctorow's acceptance speech he didn't get to make, but has made available for "alternate historians."" I was at Penguicon this weekend, along with Neil Gaiman - congrats to him on the win, and to all the others.
mmm....Ice Cream (Score:2, Funny)
Re:mmm....Ice Cream (Score:5, Informative)
Hmmm, I was unimpressed by it in high school, but with the advantage of maturity -- I still don't like it.
Anyone else read that as 'Nebulon'? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Anyone else read that as 'Nebulon'? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Anyone else read that as 'Nebulon'? (Score:1)
Did you do any fact checking before you turned this in?
Coraline? Pfft (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Coraline? Pfft (Score:5, Informative)
Taken in that context, it's highly enjoyable, quick read for adults too. I thought it was a fun little book.
If you want Gaiman fantasy made more for adults, check out Neverwhere [amazon.com] (1997). It was one of the best books I read last year.
Neverwhere (Score:1)
Re:Neverwhere (Score:1, Funny)
alternative Gaiman...Pullman? (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I've read a lot of Gaiman, so whats vaguely uninteresting to me, may be new to other readers.
If we're going for younger fare, I've enjoyed
hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
Nebulas are given for works released during the previous year (i.e., the 2003 awards go to 2002 works, etc.) When the work was written doesn't matter -- remember these are primarily literary awards, and it's not uncommon for a book to take several years to be written, and then several more to be published. (I would assume the same is true of scripts, in general, though of course LOTR is kind of a special case.) For those interested in the process, it works like this:
So this is why it takes so long, and why the 2003 awards are given for 2002 works in 2004.
Book scripts (Score:2)
Does "script" cound as just the acting cues etc, or is storyline included. I'd imagine that the latter has a seperate award - but if that isn't the case then it doesn't make much sense for a book-based-movie to win a script award?
Re:Book scripts (Score:2)
Also, some people have noticed some differences between the books and the movies...
Re:hmmm (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:hmmm (Score:2)
"If I wanted to be frivolous, I might say that everything that precedes editing is merely a way of producing film to edit." - Stanley Kubrick (Some of his movies sure could
Re:hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe they were working from at least a week of raw footage, yes. On any film you're going to have a LOT more stuff shot than will find its way into the final product.
What did you think was involved with editing, th
Re:hmmm (Score:2)
When I was in the theater the first time seeing the movie, I thought.."This feels like The Two Towers, but I don't quite remember it this way...". So i re-read the novel. I was frustrated by the end of it -- so many departures, supposedly for 'dramatic pacing' and 'constraints of the medium'...what a bunch of horsepucky!
The divergences from the text are legion...
Re:Microsoft is taking over the world!!! (Score:1)
Coraline is really freakin' creepy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Coraline is really freakin' creepy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Coraline is really freakin' creepy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Coraline is really freakin' creepy (Score:1)
Audio CD Of Coraline is Great! Unabridged Too. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Coraline is really freakin' creepy (Score:2)
did they? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:did they? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:did they? (Score:4, Funny)
A swift kick to the nuts, in the hopes that inspiration of the type that spawned Gigli will not be passed on through the bloodline.
Re:did they? (Score:1)
Speed of Dark is about an autistic social failure (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Speed of Dark is about an autistic social failu (Score:2)
You know. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You know. (Score:5, Funny)
I haven't written my book yet, but I've just about finished my acceptance speech.
Re:You know. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You know. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You know. (Score:2)
Both ways... (Score:3, Insightful)
I took it the other way. It is that the artist called himself out. In a way, after winning a Hugo (already recognized once) it's not out of the ordinary to imagine himself having won another award.
It's embarrassing enough that he thought that he could have won, but couldn't make it anyway. But to go as far as finding someone to read the acceptance speach by proxy...and then NOT win. My goodness. Well may as well tell the whole world himself.
The other way to take it? He thought his short speach to wi
Re:You know. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think he just really wish he could have said "holy fuck, I've won a Nebula" after winning a Nebula. And thank the people who have helped him, which deserve thanking either way. It is weird on the face of it, but I'm not seeing the arrogance.
Re:You know. (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe arrogant wasn't quite the right word, but the man, after NOT winning an award, went right ahead and published the "This is what I would have said if I'd won that award".
No, I'd say arrogant is the right word.
Re:You know. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You know. (Score:1)
I call that arrogant, not the writing it. Writing it is sensible. Publishing it after he lost is arrogant.
Re:You know. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, it was on his 'blog.
Blogs are a place where people often post their casual musings, like what they'd say if XXX happened. It's not really any more arrogant than posting what you'd do if you won the lottery on slashdot.
Re:You know. (Score:2)
-Cyc
Arrogance - was Re:You know. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Arrogance - was Re:You know. (Score:1, Troll)
How about ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE who got nominated and didn't win? Any of them publishing their acceptance speeches?
Arrogant, arrogant, arrogant. Damn. Did I do it again?
Re:Arrogance - was Re:You know. (Score:1)
Tee hee. (Score:4, Funny)
Elizabeth Moon wrote a good book? (Score:1, Funny)
Neil Gaiman (Score:4, Interesting)
If you don't beleive me, read his journal at:
http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/journal.asp
Keep up the good work with your journal Mr Gaiman, in these dire times of terror attacks and economic instability, your journal gives us poor lost souls an interesting and inspiring reading and above all, hope.
For those who hasn't done so already, please consider reading American Gods and the Sandman stories they are great
a plea (Score:3, Insightful)
Reading the awards-list makes me wish I read more sci-fi.
I recently finished a piece of horror-fiction, Michael Gruber's Tropic of Night, whose literary quality was high enough not to require the reader to make allowances for the genre. In my experience, such a requirement is a pervasive shortcoming of both the horror and sci-fi fields.
If there are astute slashDot readers out there who understand my lament, and who know an elusive sci-fi title (or two) that does manage the rare crossover, please identify.
Re:a plea (Score:5, Informative)
Past Winners of SFWA Nebula Awards [sfwa.org]
I have to say, though, that if your opinion of SF is so low that you think only " an elusive sci-fi title (or two)" will make your cut, I'm not terribly optimistic. As someone who reads (and writes) mostly SF but does read a fair amount of other fiction, I'm of the opinion that the crap-to-good-stuff ratio is pretty much equal no matter what section of the bookstore you're browsing. A lot of readers, OTOH, tend to mark down a book simply because it is SF, rather than judging it fairly on its merits. If you're one of them, nothing I or anyone else says is going to help you.
Re:a plea (Score:3)
My point's not all that elitist. "Great" sci-fi (e.g., Arthur C. Clarke) is usually so deemed for its scientific perspicacity/creativity ...but is (understandably) lacking in the enteratining and/or engaging qualities we tend to demand from "genre-less" fiction. But, very occasionally, a book holds its own in both arenas. Any dearth of such
Re:a plea (Score:2)
Anyway, when you read 'genre-less' (whatever that means) stuff, what do you look for? Are you a characterization guy, er, pig? Can great prose cover all the sins in your world? Do you like Deep Thoughts on Big Ideas? You can always hit rec.arts.sf.written on Usenet or Google groups and say "I like AB&C for their XY&Z qualities, who else writes like that?" They'll be able to give specific and pro
time traveler? (Score:2)
Not if this is still the 1950s. What are you, a time traveller? The "big three" of the '50s and '60s were Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein, yes. But we've come a long way since then (baby). The sixties introduced the first major "literary" movement in the F&SF genre(s), the "New Wave", and gave us Bradbury, Vonnegut and others, whose literary credentials are, I think, unchallenged. While the older, "pulp" style is still around and going strong, the descendents of the
good stuff if old stuff (Score:3, Informative)
Take a look at some of the books Robert Silverberg wrote in the 1970's; some of them are "Dying Inside," "Son of Man," and "Thorns" -- they are little gems. You have to ignore the dates in SF of that age (the "future" is now, at least chronologically speaking) but there were some interesting people writing interes
Re:a plea (Score:1)
Check out Altered Carbon [amazon.com] and Broken Angels [amazon.com] by Richard Morgan.
The first is more sci-fi / noir, although there are some Very bloody torture and violence scenes. Broken Angels is more a sci-fi war story, with elements of vodun thrown in with slow death from radiation.
Both very good, both horrific in their own way. I've never made any allowances for either book based on it's genere.
Prose quality (Score:2)
Re:a plea (Score:2)
I've really liked the Starlight series of short SF collections. I think they're out of print, but $ONLINE_BOOKSTORE should have them.
For the first time ever? (Score:1, Funny)
When and by whom are the 2003 Nebula Awards likely to be awarded next?
Re:For the first time ever? (Score:1)
Re:For the first time ever? (Score:1)
What was Ellison doing there? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What was Ellison doing there? (Score:1)
Re:What was Ellison doing there? (Score:1)
Has Harlan waxed demonic yet on Will Smith in I, Robot yet?
Re:What was Ellison doing there? (Score:2)
2004 Hugo Award nominations also announced (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.noreascon.org/hugos/nominees.html
The Hugos are voted for by the attendees/supporters of the World Science Fiction Convention, whereas the Nebulas are voted on by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, in case you were wondering what the difference is.
My Nebula report and more on Cory Doctorow (Score:5, Informative)
Futurama Vs. LOTR? (Score:2, Insightful)
Does this not show the high-quality of the show, being able to be nominated in the same category as 4 other films? Of course, we weren't surprised when it was beaten by LOTR, but it was reassuring that, try as they might, FOX can't ruin the show's brilliance and reputation.
typography... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:typography... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:typography... (Score:1)
Jeffrey Ford (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, and naturally Gaiman is terrific a writer as well.