Awards are another problem. A nomination or win is nothing else than advertisement. So I’m sure, that some nominees are somehow “pushed” to be on the list. Too complicated or sophisticated stories are not always the bestsellers even if they are great reads.
Most of the time, let’s talk about HUGO, WFA, BAFTA, the winners are good books, unique stories in very different manners. For me, a winner has to show me more than an idea and a little story in his world. There must be more to it to be a “winner”. And therefore I need examples of authors or books of whom/which I’m impressed in every way.
Sometimes the best books of the year are not nominated at all even if they are written by good-selling authors.
On the other hand sometimes there are books on top of that list that seem too easy, too normal, feel like thousand times heard and still: they win an award.

I’ve just finished “Ysabel” by Guy Gavriel Kay, also a winner of the WFA, i guess 2008. Hm, cool story, nice historical research, good and fluent writing, everything easy to understand and imagine. But also, not really a candidate in my eyes to win that award. It also (as Boneshaker) felt like a little wonderful movie to watch but as a book it was just good, not more. The calibre is not big enough, it is in no way important or special.
Ok, I can’t read that much so I don’t know which books were really better in the mentioned year except those I’ve read. I can’t be the jury who nominates books, who on their part gets those nominees from 100s of specialists who themselves judge over those books they know or got recommendations for to build a selection.
Boneshaker is for sure a good read because of the nice idea of combination of genres, we have not yet often heard about. But it feels too small, too insignificant, let’s sum it up, not enough to win the most important awards in SF/F. But who am I to say that?

I try not to be a fan when criticising literature (I can’t even be a critic). But in some cases you cannot escape that “fan-trap”. So am I when it comes to Steven Erikson. In my eyes every year the winner of the WFA by all means. This is a half fan boy half conviction opinion. I have the feeling never having read anything like it – brilliant, outshining, millions of ideas, sophisticated, unique, in prose and statement very way ahead of … average.

These days I sniff into another genre again, mixing between all styles of SF/F, and read Vernor Vinge “A Fire Upon the Deep”. What can I say after 38 pages? I read something unique, with ideas, with meaning, with the risk to foresay future technologies even if they are overtaken by todays inventions… and that’s a good sign
A Hugo award winner also but it feels big.

But to come back to Boneshaker. I LIKED it, but is is nothing that hooked me day and night, nothing outstanding, therefore the story that developed to a real great mystery and and an ending with a few threads converging degenerated itself somehow. I can’t explain it exactly, hoping you understand. I conclude: it is a lightweight with a brilliant idea as background and at least two characters that seem to be well developed. The rest of the characters, some extensions to some ideas Priest has just scratched on the surface, some new viewpoints to the Blight-problem may shine in upcoming Priest novels.

“Boneshaker is a nice read. I have just a problem with this, in my opinion, average book, to win awards. I don’t understand that. But this is not the only case in many years of reading experiences.”

Again, another really interesting point. I have had intense back and forth conversations about book awards with friends in the past few years, about their merits and their faults. While I think some of the major awards for genre fiction have the ability to be hijacked by the popularity police, I also feel very strongly that books that win awards ‘almost always’ have some merit to them to garner the nomination and then win the big prize. I think it is completely valid to feel strongly about which novel in a nomination group wins, especially if a person is a big fan of one of the stories in the group that loses out to a story that person feels is a lesser work.

You are right. Not all books are entirely up to a matter of tastes. Some books have huge problems if viewed objectively and still people like them. I have novels like that which I really enjoy. I often call them my ‘guilty pleasure’ reads because, despite their flaws, there is something about the story that engages me in a positive, sometimes profound way.

“But you are right, reading is a matter of taste in some aspects. But not in all. My thinking is: if I don’t like Mozart I have to admit that he was a genious and his music was good. LIKING is different from what is GOOD.”

Very true, very true. Again the issue of who is the arbiter of what is good rears its head though. As I hope you know from our discussion I have no issue with at all with you not being impressed by Boneshaker. I have no personal investment in the story, have no interest in “being right” (because I do not think either of us is right or wrong, again I see this more than anything as a matter of personal taste). I tend to give books that win awards, or are even nominated for awards (at least the major ones) the benefit of the doubt when it comes to whether or not they are books worthy of that honor, regardless of whether I personally like them or not. But that is not necessarily a correct way to view them, it is just what I have always done. I tend to think that there must have been something there to stir the emotions and intellect of the panel, voters, etc. for the book to get nominated in the first place. Although I cannot recall any situations off the top of my head, I am sure there have been stories I have read and, like your experience with Boneshaker, just don’t get what all the fuss is about. Boneshaker just isn’t one of those experiences. I truly thought it was superior storytelling with engaging characters and a setting that was written well enough that I never felt pushed out of the story. I didn’t feel like the world she created was unreal, it all felt very plausible, despite its implausibility. I’m sure you look at that statement, and Joe’s review here, and cannot help but think we have gone way off the rails! I just hope you know that my personal experience with the book, and I suspect Joe Sherry’s, was not motivated by any popularity or lack thereof of Ms. Priest. We just liked the book and thought it was good.

Would love to talk more about this good vs. liking discussion. You make some great, great points.

I had to search for this site again, lost it

Where I felt lost was not in the sense that it was too complicated a story to follow. I just felt the action parts were not well written, sounded like they were all acting in a living room with randomly appearing and disappearing protagonists – especially the big clash near the end. Running around in the bunker, to the door, out, back, to and fro and so on. Somehow with no real sense to me. It just felt a bit messy.

I see your point with the ratings, how I should not compare the works of two authors but pay more respect to the works of one author her/himself. That is because every author is or should be different. In that matter, compared to real garbage out there, Boneshaker is a nice read. I have just a problem with this, in my opinion, average book, to win awards. I don’t understand that. But this is not the only case in many years of reading experiences.

We two have in common that we read Boneshaker a year ago, that this was our first Cherie Priest.
That is why I can’t give you detailed passages cut out of the book to show what I mean. After reading it I was disappointed. I put the book down and thought, ok, back to the shelf. No more. In many ways, but especially the solution with this ominous underground leader who was not a leader at all in my eyes and just interesting as long as he had the power of mystery on him. I thought “this is it? That’s all? No, not convincing.”
The storyline was parted in two, yes, usually a good idea, but nothing special. I’m a big fan of Steven Erikson where sometimes are 10-15 storylines clashing in one fulminant finale.

I knew from the beginning that Boneshaker is not the final book in Priest’s setting. So I was not disappointed by still open questions such as why the Blight exists, why noone is curious (as scientists are usually) to check it out, why has it not seeped over those superwalls if there is plenty of it? The zombies were not scary at all, maybe that was because there are not many movies or books who can picture them to be really creepy. There are many unsolved riddles.
To my liking her characters were more or less interesting. Many were just scratched, not really characterized well enough to understand their motivations. Just a few, part unique, part common people thrown in the story. And I was not really into mother and son, the father was always the one of interest. But those are my negative points. There are many positive ones as well. That is why I don’t think Boneshaker is shite, just average.

If I have more time, I will read your review soon.
In a few minutes I have to leave for … oh, a reader’s hell … an oculist.

If you really want to experience Mieville, start with the Bas-Lag series, Perdido Street Station, The Scar, Iron Council. The City & the City is not his best work though the idea behind it is as great as 1984 (George Orwell). Kraken is a bit confusing in my eyes, for me English is not my native tongues, Mieville can be a tough one. But Kraken deserves a re-read. To be honest, I wait for him to continue Bas-Lag, because those a masterpieces, especially The Scar. You will know it, when you read about the floating town of ships and shipwrecks.

But you are right, reading is a matter of taste in some aspects. But not in all. My thinking is: if I don’t like Mozart I have to admit that he was a genious and his music was good. LIKING is different from what is GOOD.

Waiting for the next discussion round.

Thx for the detailed answer, Carl.

To be fair it has been a year since I’ve read the book and I have read a lot in between, so I went back and re-read my review:

http://www.stainlesssteeldroppings.com/boneshaker-cherie-priest

If you are interested, please don’t feel obligated as it is not going to change your mind about your experience with the book. Only in the interest of discussion, I am curious as to where you felt lost. My (foggy) recollection of the book is that there were the two story lines, mother and son, but that they were pretty much linear story lines until they converged. Did you feel lost because the story didn’t make sense at points or were you just bored with it, did Priest’s writing not excite you like it did me?

“I’ve not yet read Dreadnought, so I can’t allow myself to build a new opinion, but when I read the reviews they sound almost the same as for Boneshaker, be they positive or slightly negative.”

I am only 150 pages into Dreadnought (400 pages long) and thus far it is different from Boneshaker in that it is just one character you are following as she travels across the country in an effort to get to Seattle to see her father, a character who had a role in Boneshaker. This one feels less steampunk thus far and more of a straight forward civil war book, albeit with some alternate history and steampunk elements on the extreme edges.

“The Scar” also has just a few steampunk elements as side effects and yes, I know that usually there should be no copies or one author trying to be like others except maybe in the “Wheel of Time” continuation. But if I rate one book with 100 more ideas, more character depth and very memorable unique ones, more inventions, actions that is pursuable, better writing style (and this is no doubt the case) with 5 stars I cannot give the weaker one also 5 stars. That’s simply not correct even if two books are never the same. It has almost nothing to do with the genre in which it is.

I don’t know that I agree that it is “not correct even if two books are never the same” to give them both 5 star ratings, but I do honestly see your point, which also points out one of the conundrums I ponder off and on throughout the year as I review books. Although I do talk about my opinions as to a writer’s talent, ability, etc. sometimes in my reviews, I am not trying to be a true “critic” and so I blog about my “experience” with a book as much as the quality of the book and base my ratings around that. Still, numerical ratings are often inadequate. I try not to compare books with each other but I do know that I am hypocritical of that on occasions.

But I start now a common “Amazon” rating discussion. Off-topic.Maybe my argumentation has the flaw that I try to compare always the best products with lesser ones.I don’t want to go so far as to say there is a Cherie Priest hype but to me it feels like it.

Part of the problem is the fact that there are often a lot of books that really are great books, but you may hate them and I love them or visa-versa. There is a lot of garbage out there to be sure, but Priest and Mieville, to take the authors we’ve been talking about, are two multiple award-winning, award-nominated authors. The reality is that they are both talented authors. But that doesn’t mean a book of their is going to always strike you or me as good regardless of awards won, what other people say, etc. And perceived hype does affect one’s opinion. I hadn’t read Priest before Boneshaker. Although I had read a great deal of praise she wasn’t on my radar to the point where I felt she was hyped. And I read Boneshaker right when it was release, long before it started getting award buzz. I went through a similar hype thing with Mieville. I read, or tried to, his YA book, Un Lun Dun and just hated it. I couldn’t finish it. I thought he wrote some of the most brilliant passages I had ever read and they would immediately be followed up with what I considered to be piss-poor writing. I felt he was all over the place. By comparison, I have started, but not yet finished, The City & The City and thus far it is an incredible read and I feel he deserves the praise. Again, I think there are a lot of truly awful novels out there. But I also think, particularly in regards to the track record of these two authors, that there are some really good books they have written but we bring our own viewpoints to those reads, they strike us differently, and that is part of the fun of reading and discussing books, especially when one is passionate about reading.

My idea was not the comparison of two authors and their works but the worth of their prose and the art of storytelling. I just felt lost in some parts of the book. There was no good lead by the author, no motivation to be interested in all characters, it felt really messy sometimes when it came to action sequences. Not really done with love. There were no hidden hints as in other works to help along or make it worth a re-read.

I’ve not yet read Dreadnought, so I can’t allow myself to build a new opinion, but when I read the reviews they sound almost the same as for Boneshaker, be they positive or slightly negative.

“The Scar” also has just a few steampunk elements as side effects and yes, I know that usually there should be no copies or one author trying to be like others except maybe in the “Wheel of Time” continuation.
But if I rate one book with 100 more ideas, more character depth and very memorable unique ones, more inventions, actions that is pursuable, better writing style (and this is no doubt the case) with 5 stars I cannot give the weaker one also 5 stars. That’s simply not correct even if two books are never the same. It has almost nothing to do with the genre in which it is.
But I start now a common “Amazon” rating discussion. Off-topic.
Maybe my argumentation has the flaw that I try to compare always the best products with lesser ones.
I don’t want to go so far as to say there is a Cherie Priest hype but to me it feels like it.