Hugo best novel nominees 2013

[naath]

I read books...

I have thoughts about books; these thoughts are trying hard not to be spoilers but maybe they are.
Have a cut


2312

Kim Stanley Robinson

I found this a compelling read (as in "hard to put down"); but also in some places very irritating (eg he uses "bisexual" to mean "has functioning ovaries and testes"; fine as a concept but THIS WORD ALREADY MEANS SOMETHING PICK A DIFFERENT ONE). Expansive world-building and exploration; some interesting concepts.


BLACKOUT

Mira Grant

This was eligible this year? I read it last... anyway; the third in a trilogy (all three Hugo nominated). Bloggers of the Zombie Appocalypse do less blogging and more investigative journalism. I *adore* these books (I'm not normally a Zombie fan either); and Grant has my vote. I suspect they are a bit Marmite though.


CAPTAIN VORPATRIL'S ALLIANCE

Lois McMaster Bujold

Ivan is an idiot; watching him be an idiot for a whole book was a bit less fun than I might have hoped. Also he's more fun when you aren't in his head.

REDSHIRTS: A NOVEL WITH THREE CODAS

John Scalzi

I like the idea, a lot. The execution is decent. And yet... it didn't really grip me like a grippy thing. And I recently hoovered up all of the OMW universe books; so it's not as if I hate Scalzi.

THRONE OF THE CRESCENT MOON

Saladin Ahmed

Eh. This just. Failed to grab me. I have no idea why. Oh I am such an awful useless reviewer. It's nice to have a fantasy world that isn't Ye Olde Englande (resemblance to actual Medieval/Early Modern England close to nil; at least I can't spot the infelicities in Ye Olde Caliphate on account of my ignorance) and it's nice to have a Hero who isn't a Strapping Knight In Armour rescuing a Damsel In Distress. And some ethical grey areas around the edges. But still... not grabbing me; sorry.

Comments

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Yeah, pretty much all that, except I was a bit more annoyed by the zombie bloggers -- I loved the 90% it did well, but I was frustrated when the author suddenly decides they have to do X, but forgets to have the characters actually give any reasons for it other than "that's what happens in this bit of the story".

[angoel.livejournal.com]

Weird - I've actually read three of those - Blackout, Captain Vorpatril's Alliance and Redshirts. That doesn't usually happen.

I feel I should probably actually provide some content. Ergo, I will. Of those three books, I don't think any of them fall under the 'great' category.

* Blackout's a competent and compelling thriller, but on completing it I wasn't thinking 'Wow - so that's what it was all about. I must reread it and see all the clues I missed'. Instead, my thoughts were more of the 'But if that's the case, when why did they do that? Authorial fiat, I guess...' ilk. Which isn't ideal.

* Captain Vorpatril's Alliance was great up until half way through, at which point the change in focus broke my suspension of disbelief, and the interesting tension which the book had, up until that point, maintained. However, it's the only one of the three which I was interested enough in to have reread.

* Redshirts is probably the least flawed of the three, pulling off it's conceit surprisingly coherently. The third coda, in particular, I found delightful. However, it does feel somewhat one-trick-ponyish, lacking the resonance which is required to list it to greatness.