I did not initially realize the Hugos worked this way, so I really felt compelled to check out the Broken Earth trilogy.
Now, I'm one of the last people to cry "woke", but those books were awful IMO. There is no way the award went to those books based on quality (again IMO). It's not hard to imagine what other factors might have affected the outcome.
In case anyone else is thinking about picking up the Broken Earth trilogy, I'll offer another opinion. The Fifth Season still stands out to me as one of the best sff novels I've read in many years and I recommend it wholeheartedly. I remember feeling sorry for authors who had novels published the same year, because The Fifth Season was so obviously going to sweep the awards (on merit).
Had a similar reaction to R F Kuang's Babel, but different outcome there, obviously.
Ok fine... these replies are making me feel like I should read some more NK Jimison. Broken Earth did not land for me at all, but I hear all the enthusiasm and I'll keep an open mind.
The awards went to those books because people voted for them. They may or may not have voted based on the books' quality, and they may evaluate quality differently to you. But that is how voting works.
To put it another way, yes, the Hugos often recognise shit work, and have done for decades, but they do so fairly.
Mileage varies a LOT. I don't always love the Hugo (or Nebula) winner, because I think people who only read SF tend to value SF concepts over prose and narrative and that's sometimes reflected in the winners, but holy hell I loved both Broken Earth and Inheritance. The Great Cities twofer is mighty fine, too.
Not for nothing, but Jemisin is also a MacArthur fellow.
They're good books, but IIRC there was heavy discussion on how her... Dragon Age fanfic winning was political, especially with the Hugo hattrick. I enjoyed the books, but her wins were definitely... contentious along the expected culture war drama.
Yes, and that was the only evidence supplied to why they were 'awful'. The post should have been ignored on that basis alone, but because it wasn't its easy to see why GP might have extrapolated their response.
I read all three and had enough hope at the beginning to push through. I really hated the second person, the stream of consciousness prose, the random all-caps, and the relentlessly bleak tone. I think NK Jimison may be a talented writer but the style drove me nuts and the story went nowhere.
Reading the replies is making me rethink my initial comment. There a lot of people rushing to defend the books, so maybe it's just not for me. Perhaps I overestimated the impact of the social context on the outcome.
Now, I'm one of the last people to cry "woke", but those books were awful IMO. There is no way the award went to those books based on quality (again IMO). It's not hard to imagine what other factors might have affected the outcome.