First, let me just state I haven't read any of the nominated novels, and indeed have never read any novels by any of the authors (I've read short fiction by Jemisin). I say this because I want it to be clear that I have neither any information nor any bias here.
What I am concerned with is the level of the discourse, especially when it comes to these forums. I have several things to say:
- Just because you think the Willis novel (and the Bujold novel) is a lesser work, doesn't mean that everyone agrees. Since you seem to be stating subjective opinion as fact, then already none of your argument works.
- Your first post said people voted for Willis because she is nice. In your second post you say people voted for her because she is famous. That's not the same thing.
- Most importantly, I can't see why it matters. Every poster here is welcome to give their opinion, but the
one rule of these forums is that these opinions need to be given in a respectful manner. That includes being respectful of Hugo voters. There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying that Willis's book was among her least succesful, or saying why you thought that, or saying that it's the weakest of the nominees. But there's no reason to cast aspersions at the Hugo voters based on anything but hard evidence.
