thegooddoctor
8/24/2025
Review of "Someone to Build a Nest in" by John Wiswell
Wow. I am almost embarrassed to admit that this novel won a Nebula Award. It is one of the very very worst novels to have ever won a Nebula - which is saying something, since there have been some pretty awful winners since 1965, when the awards started. Thank goodness it didn't also win the Hugo Award. It was nominated for a Hugo, but fortunately, sanity prevailed, decent writing prevailed, good taste prevailed - and it was out-voted on behalf of "The Tainted Cup" (by Robert Jackson Bennett) at the Hugo Awards ceremony on August 16, 2025.
I speak as one of those obsessive SF & F fans who has read every single novel that won either a Hugo award or a Nebula award - all 108 of them (up to July 31, 2025). I would like to confess that I am first and foremost a science fiction fan. On the other hand, there are definitely fantasy novels that are among the very best of the best -- novels like "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell" by Susannah Clarke, "Among Others" by Jo Walton and "The Raven Tower" by Ann Leckie. NOT novels like "Someone...
Perhaps I should admit that I am not a romance reader. I have nothing against romance -- the romantic adventures of Miles Vorkosigan as chronicled by Lois McMaster Bujold are entrancing, as are the love lives of Elma York and her friends in "The Lady Astronaut series" by Mary Robinette Kowal. However, I do not agree that a romance novel about a monster is a good candidate for a Nebula or Hugo award. Would romance readers appreciate it if a hard SF won a top romance award? Or if the winner was a Stephen King style horror tale? Romance did win one of the top SF & F awards once before -- way back in 2002, when Catherine Asaro won the Nebula for "The Quantum Rose" (part of her "Skolian Empire" series). It was not a favourite of mine, but it wasn't a one-star book either!
What can I say about why I didn't like Someone to build a Nest in?" Well, I liked it much better than my wife did -- she bailed out after 2 chapters due to inconsistencies. She has read vastly more SF & F than I have, and almost never has a DNF. For example, despite being deathly allergic to certain substances, the monster is somehow able to successfully deal with those substances. Repeatedly. Again and again and again. The writing is not actually very good at all. As for the plot -- it's rather pitiful. Let me rephrase that - extremely unbelievably pitiful. For much of the book, I had the impression (aside from many various inappropriate aspects) that this was really a childrens ' book, by a children's author.
I found that the denouement / epilogue / portion after the main plot wrapped up highly stretched out. As in interminable. As in - are we there yet, and how many more pages of this inferior prose do I have to endure???
I am sure that most of the problem re humour is merely one of taste. Why is something funny or not? Just find authors / novels / short fiction you like, and avoid what you don't like. Trust me, I will follow my own advice here.
When I say "one of the worst" novels to have won the Nebula, I should be more specific. It is marginally better than "The Einstein Intersection" by Samuel R. Delaney from 1968 (which was utterly incomprehensible). I also found "Neuromancer" by William Gibson (1985) incomprehensible, but perhaps my intellect and powers of recollection are simply not up to his dense prose.
-------------------------------------------------------------
My rating system for this website (I have done reviews for over 80 "books"; (including short stories, novelettes and novellas, as well as novels).
Their system is out of 5 stars, and allows you to use half-stars, so highest rating is 5 full stars, next-highest 4 ½ stars, etc. -- and lowest is ½ star. I did NOT want to space these ratings equally, giving just as much precedence to low-quality mush as to really good works. For that reason, I laid out my system as follows:
My rating system: I begin with one star being equivalent to a rating of "C -";. Progressing upwards, I add ½ star for each step, up to the maximum 5 stars, which is equivalent to a rating of "A";+. I reserve ½ star for BOMBS, there being no option of zero or negative stars. As a result, I maximize my rating space for good books, and don't squander half or more of that rating space on books that are of marginal quality.
Even though I have noted that I use ½ star for books that I consider a bomb, and I have ranted about how poor this book is, I did rate the novel 1 star. One star, in my system, should indicate that I would rate the book C -. That is not exactly accurate. My rating for this one would be closer to C - - - - - (ad inifinitum). Pretty close to D+ (which would be ½ star).