一月到了，大婶说是要蹲家里写书的。
估计是扯了。
前一段是金球奖晚宴，然后又是超级碗，现在更博客更得那叫一个勤。。。
这段雨果奖的提名开始了，于是大婶也针对雨果奖列出来了2011年他的几本推荐书目，可以说是他的提名吧。



大婶的年度最佳科幻小说：

LEVIATHAN WAKES
利维坦苏醒
太空歌剧，by James S.A Corey
这本老早就买了，还木来得及开看。。。

插

大婶的奇幻推荐：

the dragon's path by Daniel Abraham
马丁和作者是亦师亦友的关系。
这本书是DA新的四部曲《金权游戏》的首部，结构和写法都和冰火非常相像。里面的角色能让人看到小恶魔、小指头、山姆等的影子。
背景设定有点像中世纪后期至文艺复兴时期的地中海沿岸，pov数量远少于冰火，但是写起来也更加紧凑。
世界构建还是花了功夫的，上十个种族，各大港口和城邦，还有神秘的古代历史。总的来说确实是佳作，只是稍显平淡了一点。。。期待后续！！！

大婶的奇幻推荐之二：

The Heroes by Joe Abercrombie
前一段推荐的作家。最近在看他的书。不过还没看到这一本。
大婶说这本很棒，整本书很有颠覆，创新的感觉，整本小说围绕着一场战争展开。

大婶的年度最佳奇幻小说：
The Wise Man's Fear by Patrick Rothfuss
弑君者三部曲的第二卷，《智者的恐惧》，紧承前卷《风之名》的故事继续深入展开。该小说也在去年年初的时候荣登纽约时报畅销书排行榜的第一名。
游离于传统和创新之间，语言诗化，萌点超多的小说。强烈推荐！！！
不过也是个大坑。。。三部曲估计是一个更大的系列的开端。。。第二本的写作时间据说也长达5年。。。

插

史蒂芬.金的科幻小说11/22/63也在强烈推荐之列。。。
穿越小说。。。某个教语文的老师穿越回上个世纪60年代阻止肯尼迪的暗杀。。。
为毛国内的穿越都是宫斗且都那么雷呢。。。
马丁说这是金十年来最好的作品～～


关于大婶在自己的博客上推荐Joe Abercrombie的新作，Joe马上采取了回应。。。
这是在他博客上摘的一段：
Also fitting into the satisfying arena of respect of ones peers (alright, great superiors) is a mention from the doyen of gritty fantasists, GRRM, in his Hugo Recommendations (I know, I’m not holding my breath), where he calls The Heroes, “an action tour de force”. OK, I admit, he preferred Patrick Rothfuss. But those big-beards always stick together. Maybe I need to get some small-beard fantasy author buddies to take ‘em down, like my old mates Peter Brett and Brent Weeks:）

然后，有粉丝不满意了，说这才不是2011年最好的奇幻作品呢！2011年最好的奇幻作品应该是R. Scott Bakker和Steven Erickson写的书！！（前一个代表作是《已来的黑暗》、《乌有王子》，后者的代表作是《马拉赞英灵录》）马丁你太不行了，推荐这些已经火了的作家或者和你有裙带关系的作家，真正的好东西不管不理。那些才是真正值得关注的东西！！！！你的《魔龙的狂舞》根本就算不上2011年最好的奇幻，差得远呢！！！《冰雨的风暴》还行，不过那年它也木有拿到雨果奖，总之你给我推荐那两个人！！！
结果马丁居然长篇大论地回复他了！！！
大婶你真好啊！！！
大婶你还是回去写书吧，表玩博客了。。。

实况如下：
Ma Rc（粉丝）：Hm, I wish Martin would endorse writers that deserve more exposure.
2011 was the year Steven Erikson delivered the final book to his Malazan series. These sort of "events" are never given consideration in prizes like the Hugo because reading a long series is a huge commitment and the establishment, mainstream or not, never commits to anything. Not considering this series as a significant event, disregarding the themes and problems it rises, it's a loss for the whole genre and the result of short-sightedness.
The same for R. Scott Bakker, who is writing something unique and ambitious in the genre and that definitely needs and deserves more exposure. Yet Martin decides to have the spotlight on Rothfuss, who doesn't need any more publicity and is writing a rather conservative work.
Praising guys like Abercrombie and Rothfuss is all fine. But they are quite a bit famous already and write stuff that is popular and accessible. The Heroes is great, but it does nothing new or relevant, or even different from the rest of his books. Nothing wrong with that, but it's sad to see works that try to be more ambitious being left at the margins and completely ignored in certain circles.
Fantasy discriminating itself.


.......求马丁回击的那一段

大婶的回复：
Bakker and Erikson have plenty of fans who champion their work. I don't think it's accurate to say they are being "completely ignored."
And maybe you don't think Abercrombie did anything new in THE HEROES, but I sure do. Has there ever been another fantasy novel that was entirely devoted to a single battle? Imagine if Tolkien had devoted not a couple of chapters, but rather an entire book, to the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. War is an important subject, and one seen in almost every fantasy, but few have ever done it as well as Abercrombie.
I admitted going in that I had not read all the fantasies published last year. There are just too many. My recommendations are my favorites from the books that I have read. I suspect that's true for 99 per cent of other Hugo votes as well.
You toss around words like "popular" and "accessible" as if they were bad things. They're not. Rothfuss wrote a terrific book. Are we supposed to pass it over for awards consideration because it sold too many copies?
If you would sooner give awards to books that are obscure and unpopular rather than popular and accessible... well, we have the World Fantasy Awards for that.


Ma Rc继续进攻：
I was arguing something specific. The emphasis is not much on "completely ignored" as it was on "certain circles". And the problem I rise is not about which book comes ahead, but that certain books don't get to participate at all.
What I mean is that, generalizing, I do expect you and others I clump in those "certain circles" to completely ignore the works of Bakker or Erikson. What I'm criticizing is that these kind of works fall completely off the radar, they simply aren't read and not considered. Written off on prejudices and misrepresentations. And not that they are disliked or not considered worthy of a prize like the Hugo.
So I'm criticizing the fact that, for example, you went and read Rothfuss or Abercrombie, but ignored Bakker or Erikson. It's consequent that at the end of the year you'd nominate Rothfuss. While I understand it's ridiculous to criticize what one decides to read in his free time, my point is that the works that Bakker or Erikson write have zero chances of even being EVALUATED for a prize like the Hugo.
Now, if we have to be honest, and I hope you will follow me to the end of this reasoning, ADWD does not deserve to win the Hugo. The reason is that the great majority of your readers, if not all of them, do not think ADWD is the best book you wrote. ASOS instead absolutely deserved to win the Hugo in 2001. It did not.
Yet, this year you have many more chances of being shortlisted, and I do believe you have real chances of winning. Why is it so? Because during this year you got the attention of the media and you reached an even biggest public. It was the year you released ADWD, but it was especially the year of the TV series. You do deserve to win, but because of incidental facts that are unrelated to the book you wrote and released this year.
So that's why when it comes to encourage readers to pay attention to this or that, I wished that the attention would be drawn to those work that aren't already under the spotlight and that deserve it for doing something relevant and precious. Because certain works that aren't directly commercial and accessible risk of being ignored.
"Popular" and "accessible" aren't bad things. Rothfuss shouldn't be taken off the list for the Hugo because he sold too much. The problem is not about what's under the spotlight, but that outside the spotlight there are works that deserve better. Read what Bakker and Erikson released in 2011, and I'd have nothing to argue if by the end of the year you still decided that Rothfuss comes ahead.
I think it's unjust that you have better chances to win with ADWD than you had with ASOS. The quality of the work is not considered.
The purpose of a prize is to turn on the spotlight on some book, so that it gets considered by a wider public. Certain works are already popular and well known, reaching a wide public, winning the Hugo just makes their light stronger, while there are other works that barely get any light at all and have to stay in their niche of a niche. I'm not saying that they should WIN, but they should be given a chance to participate, you know.
This year you nominate Rothfuss and Abercrombie, and next year, as consequence, Rothfuss and Abercrombie will have better chances if they publish something. Because it's this exposure that creates a cumulative effect. And the Hugo, as most other prizes, will just be about the same names slapping each other shoulders, recommending each others.
It's a sad self-preserving mechanic, and that's why I wished you turned on the spotlight on some other names that, in certain circles, are ignored.