Current mood:	blank
Current music:	Schindler's List - Making the List

Hugos for Short Story, 2004
I swear I was reading these before Geneva's post, really.


Michael A. Burstein, "Paying it Forward" (Analog Sep 2003)
Basic premise - an SF writer communicates with his mentor via email. His mentor happens to be dead.
The weakest of the stories to my view. I never really feel much for the central character, and there's an overuse of modern day and internet references which just sticks out in the story. The opening gambit I'm sure has been done many times before and far better, and the ending is ultimately confusing and has a gem of a good idea wrapped up in some obfuscating language. It feels too much like a young writer giving an obvious tribute to the older crowd, and the messages from beyond the grave, while given an original slant by it being email, is still dull.

Mike Resnick, "Robots Don't Cry" (Asimov's Jul 2003)
Basic premise: There's a robot. It can't cry. It's all very sad.
This feels oddly old fashioned, both in ideas and execution. I like the beginning and the promise contained there a lot more than I ended up liking the story. The ending this time is straightforward and more than a little predictable. The Baroni is the most likeable and interesting character, which is a shame since he's only the random alien sidekick.

Joe Haldeman, "Four Short Novels" (F&SF Oct/Nov 2003)
Basic premise: There's these 4 stories all starting with "Eventually it came to pass that no one ever had to die".
There's certainly lots of ideas here. Again it starts strongly, with the first two stories making a good start, the third being a little less good, and then going out with a whimper instead of a bang. But there was something missing I couldn't quite put my finger on, and I think it's the writing. It's all fine, decent prose, but there's less of the elegance than I like.

David D. Levine, "The Tale of the Golden Eagle" (F&SF Jun 2003
Premise: You can connect brains to spaceships to steer them. They connect a golden eagle brain to one. Wackiness ensues.
This is rather good, with a bit more of the fantastical element than the others. The protagonists get proper characters, as opposed to the sketchiness in some of the other stories (pretty much necessary in oens as short as the Haldeman stories, I realise). Again, the ending was a little predictable, but it's nicely done, and the structure of the story leads up to it well.

Neil Gaiman, "A Study in Emerald" (Shadows Over Baker Street
Premise: Ah, just go and read this one. I'm not spoiling it, but I will say it's a murder-mystery, only not quite like that.
I lke this one. I really really like this one. It's by far the best of the shortlist. It's got everything I like in short stories. It's elegantly and beautifully written. It hints at things and leaves them unsaid for you to discover. It's got a great ending, and it's just distant enough from the world we know to make everything a little uncomfortable. And being Gaiman, there's a lovely sense of gothic horror.

I'm tempted to subscribe to a short fiction magazine next year, but if this is the Hugo shortlist I'm less tempted. There's only 3 of the 5 I really liked, and these are supposedly the best of the year.