Thanks to Strange Horizons for posting a robust collection of links to commentary about the 2011 Hugo Award winners.
Some of it is harsh enough to make you feel like not winning isn’t such a bad thing. (Did Abigail Nussbaum blog about the winners in 2008? I’m afraid to look.)
Reading all the linked posts at one time hammered home the polar extremes of affection and disdain inspired by Connie Willis’ novel Blackout/All Clear. While Abigail Nussbaum asked “is this the very worst best novel decision ever made by the Hugo voters?”, Jamie Todd Rubin affirmed it as “one of the best novels I’ve ever read, regardless of genre.”
It makes sense that anybody who feels passionately about the outcome would write about it. What prompted some others who didn’t really care to pass their palsied hands over the keyboard? There are several links to shallow analysis from jaded gnostics offering the ignoble reasons they conceive to be the true explanation for each victory – unwilling to believe that anything ever wins just because people think it’s good.
Kat Howard addressed this better than anyone:
But if you hated the results, if you feel they are a travesty, or a joke, or nothing but a popularity contest, or whatever has made you so grumpy that you do nothing but complain for paragraph after paragraph (yes, I’ve seen this. No, I’m not linking to it. The sad thing is, examples aren’t hard to find)…
No day is an appropriate day to try and cast tarnish on the shiny rocketship trophies.