I truly believe it does come down to "there's no accounting for taste".

I liked the Chabon well enough, but as soon as someone explains to me
why it's a science fiction/fantasy
novel, I'll understand why it belonged on the ballot. I know the claims
of alternate history, but I didn't see
it that way.

I *hated* Brasyl - period. The amount of time it took me to read that
book is time that I regret not spending
reading something else.

I enjoyed Rollback as well as the Stross.

Yep - there's no accounting for taste.

Joe

Helge Moulding wrote:
> I'm always surprised to see what other people like. For example, last year
> I found Chabon's book to be far superior to Sawyer's book, not to mention
> Scalzi's, almost tied with McDonald's Brasyl. I liked Stross's book, too, but
> in terms of what I look for, his was clearly in third place (as far as I ws
> concerned).
>
> Yet the voting results were very different. Even though Chabon did win, the
> rest were different. I don't know if "number of first place votes received" is
> a measure of how choices are ranked in the Hugo voting system (Barry
> might know), but it certainly didn't rank those stories the way I would have.
>
> I know why I like a book. I don't know if there's an objective way of making
> decisions like that, but clearly most people (probably myself included)
> decide on a subjective basis, or if they use objective measures, everyone
> has their own, based on, again, subjective decisions.
>
> Is it all down to "there's no accounting for taste"?
>