My Read-Through of the Hugos: 1976

I’m a huge science fiction fan, and, having read a list of what are alleged to be the top 200 science fiction novels, I decided to next tackle a read-through of all the Hugo Award winners and nominees for best novel. Let me know your thoughts and favorites. I’ve marked the winner as well as my own choice for which novel would win, had I the choice among the nominees.

Inferno by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle- Grade: D
I thought this book was gimmicky from the start. The plot follows a science fiction author who’s been nominated for a Hugo Award multiple times without ever winning one (eg. Pournelle). The author then travels through hell basically trying to analyze things scientifically, apparently for comedic effect? I’m not sure. It just all fell quite flat for me. It read a bit like a Mary Sue character, and I wasn’t much of a fan of any aspect of the book. The parallels with Dante’s work of the same name are there, but it’s not clear if they’re to be appreciated, mocked, scorned, enjoyed, laughed at… what? I don’t know. And frankly, it didn’t make me care. Definitely my least favorite of their collaborations that I’ve read.

The Forever War by Joe Haldeman (Winner)- Grade: C-
I know. This book is an all-time classic, considered by many to be the cream of the crop, the best literary science fiction ever. I have to admit: I find basically anything related in any way to the Vietnam war depressing. It’s supposed to be. I get that. But I’ve read this book 3 times now and at no point did it draw me in. It reads like a bunch of generically unlikable characters thrown together into an unlikable place doing unlikable things. Maybe that’s the whole point; I’m supposed to get some transcendent message out of all of this painful, sloppy morass that makes me realize entirely new things about the world, myself, and my place in the world. I just didn’t. I don’t think the prose is particularly great, either. I find the whole book entirely forgettable and bland.

Doorways in the Sand by Roger Zelazny- Grade: A-
Zelazny’s wit is on full display in this romp about a lost alien artifact and a student-in-perpetuity. Fred Cassidy is staying in college because his uncle left him a wonderful stipend… so long as he remains a full time student. Whilst dodging guidance counselors determined to make him graduate and climbing around window sills, he gets embroiled in the theft of an alien artifact that is being sought by a number of parties. Hijinks ensue and don’t really let up throughout the book. Zelazny’s turn of phrase yields numerous hilarious lines throughout, even while the occasional more serious moment serves up some thoughtful pieces. It’s a delightfully fun book. 

The Computer Connection by Alfred Bester- Grade: D+
Bester is an acknowledged master of the genre, but this book didn’t stack up to the other works I’ve read from him. One major is that strongly exhibits the problematic prose of its era. Huge sections of the book are just single lines back and forth from people talking to each other without even any exposition of what they’re doing, how they reacting, etc. Character descriptions are vague and uninteresting. The whole plot is a bit of a letdown. It reads like a vessel for some ideas Bester wanted to explore rather than a novel. It never gets legs under it, and basically remains boring and bland throughout. 

The Stochastic Man by Robert Silverberg- Grade: B+
I found this a fascinating take on a time travel novel. Okay, it’s not actually a time travel novel, but as I got nearer the end I realized that I would categorize it alongside that subgenre. The story centers around Lew Nichols, who uses statistics to very effectively predict the future in broad terms. Later, he meets Martin Carvajal, who can actually see portions of the future–his own–but is quite lackadaisical about it. Nichols enlists Carvajal to help him win the Presidency for his chosen candidate, but as the two work together, questions of the unchanging nature of the future abound. Is Carvajal right in that they can’t change the future? Is Nichols ushering in a horrible future where his chosen candidate becomes a dictator? Are they, together, bringing about the future rather than predicting or seeing it? These questions are asked around a central pillar that is so subtle it might almost be missed: what would it be like to have time travel or foresight only to know that nothing can possibly be changed? It’s a question that looms large in works on time travel, but Silverberg’s spin by playing the question out in a much different way, by having a hyper-focused scale instead of expanding it out over major events in a timeline. Along with this, he addresses it in the unexpected way of having it not be true time travel involved but rather future prediction and statistical projection. This makes it a fascinating way to play ask the question, and of course Silverberg leaves readers with it as an open ended question, ready to debate on their own.
There are a few hiccups in the content, though. Silverberg’s major strengths of tight plotting and fascinating character pieces are there, but there are really only two characters that are anything more than foils for plot elements. No women are given any significant role. Nichol’s wife is used to show some sex dynamics that are very 70s (shifting marriage-like relationships for the sake of sex, so far as I can tell). There’s a definite sense of her being the “exotic” woman because she’s non-white, which smacks of some misogyny or at least being quite creepy. She’s also used to introduce a kind of pseudo religious element into the book with a play on some Eastern philosophy. I’m not sure what it would have read like during the 70s, but now it feels much more dated and possibly even colonial in its treatment of the rise of an Eastern-inspired religion. Overall, The Stochastic Man is a fascinating book that is focused almost entirely on the central questions traditionally associated with time travel. 


(All links to Amazon are Affiliates Links)


Science Fiction Hub– I have scores of reviews of Hugo nominees, Vintage Sci-Fi, modern sci-fi, TV series, and more! Check out my science fiction related writings here.

Be sure to follow me on Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies/scifi/sports and more!


5 thoughts on “My Read-Through of the Hugos: 1976

  1. […] 1976– A weaker year, but I had one fun, hilarious read stand out from the pack. […]

  2. cherylllr says:

    Ouch, nothing for me this year. And thank you for calling out on Forever War… it didn’t work for me, either.

  3. socrates17 says:

    Not a great year. The Zelazny is minor Zelazny, which were to become more and more frequent. I would have gone with the SilverBob as best of this bunch. Fully agree on the Niven/Pournelle & the Bester. I might have graded the Haldeman a little higher, like B-. In any case, my favorite books and the Hugo nominees were drifting farther and farther apart. Norstrilia by Cordwainer Smith & The Female Man by Joanna Russ were both heaps better than any of the 5 nominees. This will continue to be a kvetch from me for a while.

  4. […] 1976– A weaker year, but I had one fun, hilarious read stand out from the pack. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.