For the first time, Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America is making its Nebula Suggested Reading List publicly available.
The list is compiled from SFWA member suggestions made throughout the year, providing a list of notable speculative novels, novellas, novelettes, short stories, and dramatic works from the year.
Meantime, Nebula Award nominations are being accepted from Active and Associate SFWA members through February 15, 2016. The votes will be tallied and the final ballot will be released on or before February 20 for voting on by the membership.
Winners will be announced during Nebula Awards Weekend, to be held May 12-15 at the Palmer House in Chicago. The banquet and awards ceremony will take place the evening of May 14. Other awards presented at the weekend include the Grand Master Award, the Kevin O’Donnell Jr. Service to SFWA Award, and the Solstice Award.
Nebula Commissioner Terra LeMay says “Even before I became the Nebula Awards Commissioner, I’ve always thought the Suggested Reading List was one of the best resources I’ve ever encountered for finding the most exciting new science fiction and fantasy works each year. It is a great privilege to have helped bring this list out to the public where any reader may benefit from it.”
SFWA President Cat Rambo notes, “Every year there’s plenty of terrific stuff to read. I hope that providing a list that draws upon the wide spectrum of tastes represented in the SFWA’s membership of professional writers helps up the discoverability of great writing that should be considered for awards. For me the Nebula Awards remain the most meaningful in the field, chosen by writers working in the genre, who understand and appreciate craft and who possess an understanding of the works that have shaped our field. SFWA has had a productive year in 2015, and it’s a pleasure to share yet another result of our members working together.”
[From the press release.]
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
For me, having the number of recommends is informative (and so is useful).
It is only a problem if people nominate based on number of recommendations without reading the works and forming their own assessments. As most of the Hugo nominating population are not canines, I don’t see a problem.
(I mean, just look around here for the number of instances where a Filer has bounced off another’s beloved work or felt indifferent toward it. We are honest readers & nominators)
[Some outspoken canines will attempt to spin regardless. I roll my eyes in their general direction.]
As for the ordering, you can easily sort by any column simply by clicking the heading for that column. Changing the default might be nice, but hardly seems a high priority, since anyone who wants to know which works have the most votes can still find out easily with a single click.
Honestly, I like the interface.
However, I note that sorting by publication date doesn’t seem to work correctly.