I read the Hugo nominees - Introduction

Behind the cut tags you will find:
First, a brief history of previous years' Sad Puppies campaigns. I will not speculate here as to the motives of the campaigners, but limit myself to the facts as I understand them.
Next, the current Hugo ballot.
Finally, what I'm going to do next.

( Puppies past )

( Puppies present )

( The nominees are ... )

Why have I devoted so many lines to this mess? For context, mostly. I'm a supporting member of Sasquan and thus get to vote on this year's Hugo awards. I'm hugely opposed to the slate-nomination tactic used by the Puppy slates, and am utterly appalled that Vox Day would push himself and his personal publishing house (Castalia House) so heavily. The obvious way to punish such tactics is built into the voting process: No Award is automatically on the ballot in each category, and voting No Award over Puppy nominees would be a pretty clear signal that slate nominations are unacceptable. On the other hand, what's on this year's ballot got there in a perfectly legal manner and arguably should be evaluated on the merits of the individual works rather than the meta-narratives of the slates.

Based on my reactions to the individual works, I've decided that I will vote No Award above:
- any non-Puppy nominee that was not, in my opinion, at least good enough for a Hugo nomination in a "normal" year
- any Puppy nominee (apart from the Castalia House nominees) that was not, in my opinion, truly great
- any Castalia House nominee that was not, in my opinion, utterly and mind-blowingly excellent

I'm planning on following this up by posting reviews of at least the short fiction nominees.