On his blog, Staffer’s Book Review, Justin Landon describes the Hugo Awards as utter twaddle. I understand the frustration. One look at this years ballot and you can’t but be overcome by a feeling of deja vu. The titles of the novels or stories might be different, but the names look awfully familiar. Yes, there’s the odd surprise – Saladin Ahmed and Tansy Rayner Roberts – but overall it’s a ballot you could have picked in your sleep.

Landon’s response is to give-up on the Hugos all together and never discuss them again. Like I said, I can appreciate where he’s coming from. But I take the opposite view. I want to discuss each category. I want to kick up a fuss where a fuss might be required. Or acknowledge the awards when, in my humble, it gets things right.

And why do I bother? Because I love the Hugos. Even when it keeps disappointing me.

There’s lots of categories and my thoughts are lengthy so I’m splitting them into three parts.

(1) I haven’t read any of the Best Novels, though I intend to rectify that over the coming months (well at least with the three standalones. I might use this as an opportunity to catch up with Seanan’s Newsflesh series).

(2) 2312‘s appearance comes as no surprise – it was the most hyped SF novel of last year and harks back to the WOW! GOSH! engineering roots of the genre. Bujold, Grant and Scalzi are populist nominations due to having strong fanbases (and not a SMOFdom conspiracy as some have suggested). The appearance of Throne of The Crescent Moon is a genuine surprise and its great to have diversity of voices.

(3) But does this Best Novel category fill me with love? No, it doesn’t. Granted I haven’t read the nominated books (or for that matter many 2012 novels), but I do wonder whether any of these novels will have a lasting legacy on the genre. Maybe 2312?

(4) I’ve now read three of the novellas, and unless the Grant and Sanderson are something special, Aliette de Bodard should romp home in this category. The Kress is an enjoyable page turner, and the Lake is the best thing of his I’ve read (though it’s got a number of problems) but the de Bodard is the sort of crunchy writing, filled with ideas and world building, that should be winning Hugos. Also, seeing Aliette’s story on the ballot gives me hope that the Hugos are more than just measuring who has the most popular fanbase.

(5) I’ve only read the Valente and I thought it was brilliant. As I haven’t read the other four it’s hard for me to pass judgement. But I thought very highly of the novelette Nebula nominees, so these four stories (two by Seanan McGuire) have a high benchmark to reach. Again, I’ll be reading these over the coming months.

(6) The big controversy for this years ballot was the fact that only three short stories feature on the ballot. I understand why people have cracked the sads over this. The optics don’t look good, as if the Hugo voting public doesn’t give a shit about short fiction. But we all know there’s no conspiracy here. The 5% rule, whether you like it or not, has been around for ages.

(7) Of course all this babble about 5% rules means that we’re not paying attention to the excellent fiction that was nominated. I haven’t read the Johnson, but the Liu and de Bodard are two wonderful stories, both worthy of appearing on any ballot. (It’s a crime that Mono No Aware didn’t appear on the Nebula short list). For me it’s a toss of a coin choice, but I”d probably pick the Liu over Aliette’s excellent piece.