2014 Hugo Nominees: Short Stories

A fine ballot. I don't love them all equally, but they all seem like very plausible nominees, there's nothing here that baffles me as to what the Hugo votership was thinking, and, really, I'll be pretty happy with any outcome of the vote. (The only thing I dislike about this ballot is that it only has four things on it, because the story with the fifth-most nominations wasn't on 5% of short-story-nominating ballots, which I think is a stupid rule; there being so many different good short stories nominated, dividing the vote, shouldn't mean we get even *fewer* of them on the final ballot. But anyways.)

“If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love”, Rachel Swirsky. I can't remember now whether I read this before I did my own nominations - I *think* I read it in the time between nominations closing and the ballot coming out. It's cute and sad and has some good lines and I like the structural gimmick but, I don't know, "incoherent" is too strong, but the sfnal elements being explicitly someone's fantasy within the story made them feel a little haphazard or superficial to me.

“The Ink Readers of Doi Saket”, Thomas Olde Heuvelt. I read this when it came out and didn't put it on my long list, but when I saw it on the ballot I immediately said "oh yeah, that story", and re-reading it, I'm surprised I hadn't long-listed it, there's some powerful and neat stuff in here. Although it's also a little weird, and inconsistent in tone. ( content warning note )

“Selkie Stories Are for Losers”, Sofia Samatar. This one I nominated, although rereading it just now, it didn't strike me as being as good as I remembered thinking it was the first time I read it. In some ways, this whole Hugos thing was simpler back when I wasn't actually participating, and was usually reading the five nominees for the first time when the ballot came out (and then snarking about them). Now I'm not sure how much weight to give to my recalled first impressions, vs my re-consideration at the time of my nominations, vs my re-reading or in some cases re-re-reading right now. I mean, I feel like "impact on first read" is a very important quality of a story, and "holds up to rereading" is very different, and the books and stories I reread over and over aren't necessarily the ones I would say are "the best" but are ones I love for how they feel. Also complicating things a little, I nominated this in part because it won the SH readers' poll and I wanted to get something I liked actually onto the ballot and you need 5%, as mentioned, and so I backed this because I thought it might actually have a chance, and, hey, it worked. But now it feels a little weird to consider voting for something else ahead of it that I considered nominating but didn't, because of whatever psychological fallacy that is that makes you stand by your past preferences even if you expressed them for strategic reasons. Anyways, this is probably my #1.

“The Water That Falls on You from Nowhere”, John Chu. This was on my long list and I still think it's a really vivid and lovely story. Probably my #2.

2014 Hugo Nominees: Novelettes

"The Lady Astronaut of Mars", Mary Robinette Kowal. The emotional/relationship aspect of this story is very strong and moving, but the SF aspect doesn't seem essential to it, you could have pretty much that same arc in a realistic or historical story. And what's with the Oz reference? Don't get me wrong, I liked this, and I wouldn't mind seeing it win the Hugo, but it's not my first choice.

"The Truth of Fact, the Truth of Feeling", Ted Chiang. A classic Ted Chiang story, about an interesting new psychological technology and how people relate to it. I really like that sort of thing and this is no exception, but this isn't as strong as his best. It felt a little sprawling and repetitive, with things spelled out that didn't need to be, while paradoxically I felt like we needed a little bit more detail around the central misrecollection, like the voice of the story needed to be a little less objective and more personal, maybe. But I really like the observation that writing is a technology, and the generally non-alarmist perspective, and I think this is my #2 pick.

"The Waiting Stars", Aliette de Bodard. There have been a number of de Bodard stories that haven't worked for me, but this one really did. It won the Nebula, deservedly, and is just generally *good*, well-balanced between its parts, well-constructed, populated by well-realized characters who I cared about. My #1 vote this year.

“The Exchange Officers”, Brad Torgersen. What if you took everything that might be fun or inspiring or gripping in a space adventure story, and then wrote one without any of that? But I shouldn't put it that way, because that sounds like an interesting challenge, and this story isn't. Maybe I'll try headline format: "Man at no personal risk murders 12, sinks own ship, because Amurika."

“Opera Vita Aeterna”, Vox Day. So some people have argued that the nominated works should be judged "solely on their artistic merits" (like Scalzi, here). For me, if I'm taking a walking tour of the gardens of country estates, and I happen to step in something unfortunate, I can see the argument that I shouldn't let that ruin my enjoyment of an otherwise beautiful garden. But if I find out the owner thinks it's really funny to see people ruin their shoes, and deliberately feeds his dogs things that give them diarrhea and encourages them to run all over the paths, such that I have to worry about every step I take? Dogshit has become an integral part of that garden experience, and it is impossible to imagine strolling blithely through without asking myself every few feet if I smell something, even if in the end I don't actually end up encountering any. (And, as it happens, the bushes need pruning, the lawn is threadbare and growing weeds, and there are no flowers or vistas of interest.)