My, do I enjoy the anger in this. (Seriously, when do the Hugos end anyway?)
"Why am I reviewing the five short stories nominated for this year’s Hugo Awards? That we must even ask that question is a sign of how far we have fallen. Usually it would not be at all surprising to read a review of the world's most prestigious SF awards in the world's most prestigious SF magazine (okay, I know, but allow me a little pride in my work). This year, however, saw the return of organised slate voting under the banner of Sad Puppies—spearheaded by 2014 Hugo nominee, shit writer, and dumbass Brad Torgensen—and Rabid Puppies, spearheaded by 2014 Hugo nominee, shit writer, and total fucking scumbag Vox Day.
They have loudly proclaimed that the 2015 Hugo shortlists represent the very best fiction that this wing of fandom has to offer, so it seemed only fair to take them at their word. What unexpected delights would I find amongst this treasure trove of under-acclaimed fiction? If you've read anything that any of the Puppies have ever written, I think you can see where this is heading; I intended to read all three short fiction categories but I gave up after Best Story.
Now, I'll happily admit that writing a short story (defined here as less than 7,500 words) is difficult. Reading previous year's shortlists as well as those for the BSFA Awards, I've been struck by how weak the shortest stories are. You need to really focus in order to execute a meaningful idea in that amount of space. Instead, too often writers skimp on the premise and trust in "writing" to carry them over the line. The result, no matter how "well-written," is rarely an award-worthy story but rather a superior type of wallpaper. That's bad enough but what this year's Hugos offer us is wallpaper paste."