It appears I unfairly lumped Alan Heuer in with the rest of the spineless Torlings yesterday. He commented:
I see that one of my Tor.com posts is quoted in this post. It seems that my post is being lumped in with the posts of people who are declaring that they will vote against certain works because of the political views of their authors. This is not my stance at all.
My post states that I will be voting “No Award” ahead of THE WHEEL OF TIME in the Best Novel category. I know nothing of what Robert Jordan’s politics were or what Brandon Sanderson’s politics are. I simply think it is ridiculous that a 14-book series published over the span of 23 years is being allowed to compete for a Hugo for best novel of the YEAR. I do not see it as a legitimate nominee.
This will be my 41st consecutive year of Hugo voting and, as always, I will judge the works, not the authors.
I don’t agree with Mr. Heuer’s perspective, since the fact that the rules may be ridiculous is not sufficient to make THE WHEEL OF TIME’s nomination illegitimate, but it is a perfectly reasonable and defensible one. Not that I will be voting for THE WHEEL OF TIME myself, as Rand al’Thor is the most loathsome protagonist I have ever encountered in fantasy, I lost interest in both the story and the characters, and I wound up failing to make it past the fifth or sixth book in the series.
I have removed Mr. Heuer’s comment from the post and I apologize to him for the erroneous implication that he lacks integrity in the manner of the other quoted individuals.
And speaking of the Hugos, at the Castalia blog Daniel Eness has a post comparing past Best Novel winners in which he shows that there is a long tradition of a) forgettable works beating out superior ones, and, b) ludicrous No Award votes.