The Hugo Award Winners...

[fajrdrako]

Neil Gaiman's blog has a link to this years's Hugo Award Winners. I have been eagerly awaiting the results.

The best news: The Doctor Who story "The Empty Child" and "The Doctor Dances" by Steven Moffatt won the award for the best "Dramatic Presentation: Short Form". Since these are my favourite episodes of my currently-favourite show, I am chuffed. Especially since the other nominations were of high quality - at least the ones I've seen were - including the episode "Dalek", and especially the Battlestar Galactica episode "Pegasus". Much as I liked "Pegasus", there were other episodes of BSG I liked better - but any episode of that show has been first-class. Doctor Who, however, means more to me; if the Moffatt story hadn't won, I'd have been rooting for "Dalek" or "Father's Day".

Equally, it's good to see that Serenity won for "Dramatic Presentation: Long Form", because even though I don't think it was the best movie it could have been (it needed more characterization, more quietude, less action), it was the fitting end of an amazingly wonderful, beautiful, doomed TV series, and it was Mal Reynolds and his gang, my favourite spacefaring rogues ever.

I would not have been disappointed if Batman Begins had won, since I thought it a good movie, though flawed. "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" was fine, but Harry Potter movies mean much less to me, and never stick in my head for long. "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" bored me just as the book did when I was ten years old - I really can't see the appeal of Narnia. "Wallace & Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit" is wonderful, but less dense, articulate and original than Serenity - though my high opinion of it may be coloured by the fact that I saw it in Malta with rosiespark and that enhanced the experience.

Of the books nominated, the only one I have read is A Feast For Crows by George R.R. Martin, and I think it the weakest of his series so far. I am irrationally pleased that another Canadian won - and that shouldn't please me, I don't like to think of myself as a Canadian chauvinist, but I can't help thinking it's gratifying. My friend Tasia has strongly recommended that book. I think I even went as far as to to get it out of the library once, and read the first page. Must try it again.

Comments

[omnivorously.livejournal.com]

"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" bored me just as the book did when I was ten years old - I really can't see the appeal of Narnia."

I don't get it. You don't like Narnia? That, that doesn't make any sense! Aaaahh! All sense and logic has left my universe!

Ahem. Well, I didn't see the movie for a reason - the LotR movies sort of ruined the books for me, and Troy did the same for Brad Pitt - so I can't speak for it. But Narnia is the bedrock upon which the landscape of my imagination if built, and I must admit I have trouble grokking how a ten year old could *not* get some pleasure out of it. Did I really need more evidence that, as they say on the Lois McMaster Bujold list, mileage may vary?

Interesting fact: I didn't notice the Christian imagery in the Chronicles until I was in high school. But I went to a Jewish day school until I was 13, which probably accounts for that.

[(Anonymous)]

You don't like Narnia?

No.

That, that doesn't make any sense! Aaaahh!

I take it you're a Narnia fan?

All sense and logic has left my universe!

The universe does that from time to time just to keep us off guard, just to keep us from being complacent, and to prove we never really know what it's all about. (Now I'm channelling Alfie. Ignore that.) I can't recall exactly why I disliked the Narnia books as a kid, but I found them dull and generally icky. I suspect it was style as much as content that I didn't like. I found the movie very boring, and didn't like the religion in it.

I didn't come to like C.S. Lewis at all until I read "Till We Have Faces", which I loved, and some of the Screwtape Letters were sort of interesting. But I'm still really not much of a C.S. Lewis fan.

the LotR movies sort of ruined the books for me

As you say, mileage varies. I loved the LOTR movies almost as much as the books.

[(Anonymous)]

*eyeroll* That was a *rhetorical question*

Oh. I thought you were expressing the sentiments found in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Which is where I picked it up from. (I liked Alfie. Esp the ending, bc I like a nice downer.) Re: style. C.S. Lewis' writing style is one of the main reasons I like the Narnia books so much, and for me writing style is very important; and I definitely am an Anglophile that way, I tend to like English writers, but not Americans. I haven't read enough Canadians, but I like Mowatt and Robertson Davies, so far.

Somehow I still havne't read _Till We Have Faces_; I have read his space trilogy, and as so many have already said much more eloquently, I liked the first, the second was ok, but the third ...

Re: LotR. Traitor. That's all. Though PoTC2 has gotten me to actually not hate Orlando Bloom, which I find amazing. But I'll never like that guy who doesn't look like a hobbit at all but who was cast as the leading hobbit, and whose name I will not speak. Or type. ; )

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I love answering rhetorical questions.

C.S. Lewis' writing style is one of the main reasons I like the Narnia books so much, and for me writing style is very important

Well, yes. I think those of us who go for style above (almost) all else tend to react strongly to what we read, and in ways that sometimes can't be expressed. It's hard for me to say why I didn't like his style when I read the books 45 years ago; I wasn't sure if I'd like the movie or not, but I didn't much.

I tend to like English writers, but not Americans.

I tend to prefer British writers, though there are some exceptions. Some signifcant exceptions. (Raymond Chandler, J.D. Salinger, John Steinbeck, Earnest Hemingway, Greg Rucka, Sue Grafton, Robert B. Parker, for a few examples.)

I read Lewis' space trilogy, I think, but have no memory of it whatsoever. Hmm. Maybe I never read it.

Though PoTC2 has gotten me to actually not hate Orlando Bloom, which I find amazing.

That is amazing. I actually liked him better in 2 than in 1. He was almost okay. After Kingdom of Heaven and Troy I'd pretty much given up hope.

I will not mention He Whom You Find Unspeakable.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I didn't notice I wasn't loggged in there - I'm on a friend's computer. Sorry! All those outrageous opinions are mine!

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

The only Narnia character I really liked was Jadis/the Witch: I fell in love with her in Baynes's illustrations, especially in The Magician's Nephew. The Christian proselytising pissed me off even as a child, and by the last book in the series, I wanted to kill Lewis, if he hadn't already been dead. Aravis in The Horse and his Boy started off fine, but sold out and was domesticated in the end.

Was amused to discover in my old Latin dictionary (perhaps Lewis found the name the same way?) that Narnia was an Umbrian town on the Nar.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

The Christian proselytising pissed me off even as a child

I didn't like it either, though I don't think that was really my problem with the books - I'd have overlooked that if I'd like the characters or the plot more.

I wanted to kill Lewis, if he hadn't already been dead.

LOL.

Was amused to discover in my old Latin dictionary...that Narnia was an Umbrian town on the Nar.

Well, he didn't mind using classical references. I always think of him as a classicist (no doubt "Till We Have Faces" made a big impression when I read it) while Tolkien was the post-classicist. My heart was with Tolkien all the way, and yes, I did see it as a big Tolkien-Lewis divide.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Lewis did write a now rather dated work on the courtly love tradition, The Allegory of Love. He was more High Mediæval in interests than Tolkien, who was Dark Age Norse/Anglo-Saxon. His Calormenes are meant to be sort of Saracen-y. But in his universe, only one of them is fit to to be 'saved' at the end.

I found his child characters and talking animals erred on the wrong side of twee.

Tolkien

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm with Tolkien - the Dark ages are generally more interesting to me than the High Middle ages, which is why I only studied the period before 1200. Don't get me wrong - I don't mean to imply that the 12th century was a dark age by any means! Or that the following centuries were uninteresting, just less my focus.

I like Tokien's interests more than those of Lewis.

I read The Allegory of Love long ago and thought it was mostly hogwash. I thought he was arguing from an erroneous conclusion, though I don't now remember now what that conclusion was. I was not in the least impressed.

Re Tolkien: I usually skip the twee bits, though I've learned to be tolerant of them, by association. That's why I dislike The Hobbit. Hobbits in general are too cute, and not very interesting; I tend to think the story begins in Bree (halfway through The Fellowship of the Ring) with the arrival of Aragorn. It's the Gondorians and the Riders of Rohan I most love. I also love his stately language - there's most of it in The Return of the King. As far as I am concerned the real title of The Lord of the Rings is The Adventures of Aragorn, Son of Arathorn, and I'm happy with that.

Re: Tolkien

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I agree with you entirely! It's the Men and the Elves that I like best in Tolkien!

Re: Tolkien

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Uh-huh. I'm particularly found of Aragorn but I do quite like Legolas and the Rivendell set. Not so fond of Celeborn and Galadriel... but Lothlorien was pretty in the movie.

[rosiespark.livejournal.com]

The best news: The Doctor Who story "The Empty Child" and "The Doctor Dances" by Steven Moffatt won the award for the best "Dramatic Presentation: Short Form".

That is good news!

I found Serenity a bit disappointing, so I wouldn't have minded if Wallace and Gromit had won. I saw W&G again with my mum not long after the first time and thought it was just as good, so I don't think I was unduly influenced by the company when I saw it with you. In fact, I think I was a bit distracted by worrying that you wouldn't like it...

I love the Narnia books, ever since I read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe when I was seven - so I think we'll have to agree to disagree there. A rare fannish divergence. *g*

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I found Serenity a bit disappointing, so I wouldn't have minded if Wallace and Gromit had won.

No, I wouldn't have minded that either. And of course I liked it.

Yes, I know most of the world - especially people who like fantasy - like the Narnia books. I'm the one that's out of step there. We all have our anomalies!

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Not just you - me too!

[(Anonymous)]

Fated to be two of a kind!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Oops - I forgot I'm not on my own computer. I am, in fact, at a class to learn Dreamweaver MX Intro. I had to log in. And didn't. That comment was mine.

[isagel.livejournal.com]

I have to say that I'm extremely happy that Steven Moffatt got the award, for a bunch of reasons. Firstly, because both plot-wise and dialogue-wise "The Empty Child"/"The Doctor Dances" is some of the best sf writing I've ever seen on tv. It's so tight, so completely without dull moments, so creative, so scary, so funny and so moving. Secondly, because while Russell T. has vision and humour and amazing amounts of emotion, I think Moffatt is the writer who brings the real depth and subtlety to Doctor Who. His "The Girl in the Fireplace" was by far my favourite episode of the second season, as "The Doctor Dances" was my favourite of the first, and, apart from the pure skill of the writing, this is because of the beautiful way in which these episodes deal with difficult subject matter - there's some heavy stuff going on here, but the end result is almost feather light. I have huge admiration for the skill needed to achieve that. Thirdly, Captain Jack and the risk involved in introducing such a character. And finally, no tv episode with such a blatant use of so many phallic symbols should go unrewarded. *g*

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

because both plot-wise and dialogue-wise "The Empty Child"/"The Doctor Dances" is some of the best sf writing I've ever seen on tv

I agree. There's hardly and extraneous word or concept in there - some of the tightest writing I've ever seen on TV. All the things you say it is, I agree, and I would add 'clever'. None of the witticisms are cheap, and everything is so perfectly in character.

I think Moffatt is the writer who brings the real depth and subtlety to Doctor Who. His "The Girl in the Fireplace" was by far my favourite episode of the second season

It was fascinating in many ways, and again, exquistitely (and subtly) written. I don't know if it was my favourite - there were a couple of other stories I liked enough to compete, though it was the most striking and original. Visually as well as conceptually. High-tech clockwork robots in 18th century France - the horse - the historical confusion of the concepts, the window on the past - it's absolutely brilliant and so original for SF on TV.

because of the beautiful way in which these episodes deal with difficult subject matter

Oh absolutely! And without ever being obtrusive - numerous rather complex relationships and interactions, questions of loyalty and fidelity, strength and weakness, lots of interesting things that don't get mentioned (let alone considered with sympathy and subtlety) on TV, and this on a kid's show that doesn't ever get blatant about issues of sexual orientation, polyamory or social norms. Yes, the result is feather light, but not at the expense of the depth of the subject matter. Amazing that it should be done at all, let alone, here, on a mass-market TV show.

I have huge admiration for the skill needed to achieve that.

As do I. He's a remarkable writer. Makes me curious about him. According to IMDb he's a Scottish schoolteacher. Hmm. Not an average schoolteacher, I would say.

Thirdly, Captain Jack and the risk involved in introducing such a character.

Pulled off with absolute aplomb. So deftly no one even notices the bomb that was dropped. (No pun intended, considering the plot. Or was it a metaphor all along? Heh.)

Thinking also of the (unpreposessing) householder who's getting extra food because he's getting it on with the local butcher - there's a delightful lack of heterocentrism in that episode.

no tv episode with such a blatant use of so many phallic symbols should go unrewarded. *g*

I absolutely agree. The banana lines alone....