I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I think where Scalzi and his legion of fans take issue is that instead of Roberts just making a statement, he chose to blame the SF/F Fandom for the choices.

I’m guessing that’s why everyone is up in arms. Like I mention in my response, it’s one thing to say you like or don’t like something, but to blame the entire Hugo nominating committee for something is really akin to looking like an elitist bastard. ;)

I’m not sure I read Roberts’ piece as being as critical as its been taken by Scalzi and others. He doesn’t say all of the nominees are bad, he says there are candidates that are better. I see what he’s saying, in other words, as more aspirational than condemnatory, but maybe I’m missing something.

I have to be honest: for various reasons, I don’t think I’ve read any of the current Hugo nominees, though Gaiman’s is on my to-do list. So I can’t say if any of them are great books or not. But I can say that there’s a difference between “good” and “enjoyable,” and that I’ve read plenty of books (and seen plenty of movies and listened to plenty of songs) that I loved despite being able to say they weren’t objectively good. It’s kind of like something a friend recently said about a pulpy movie we were talking about: “It’s not a very good movie, but it’s great,” and I knew what he was talking about. Anyway, the point I was getting around to is that while I don’t know where the Hugo nominees fall, I do have to admit that quite a lot of SF is stuff that’s great but not very good, and I can understand the argument that just because something is much-loved doesn’t mean it should be embraced as “the best.” Indeed, sometimes it really is the opposite: I’ve encountered works that I didn’t necessarily enjoy, but I recognized the creator had done something vital or clever or original and the work represented a legitimate pinacle.

But I dunno: you’re right that nobody ever wins these debates. And I don’t really have a dog in the fight. So, you know, feel free to ignore me and stuff….