It’s a bit facile to argue that this year’s Hugo kerfuffles remind me of every online social group I’ve moderated that has melted down. But …
The irksome thing is that I really appreciate the accusations that things are considered True Art only if they are controversial or genre-changing. I can appreciate the outrage of folk who quite clearly think that women and gay people and people of color ought to sit on the back of the Hugo bus. I really enjoy the work of Larry Correia. And I really resent people playing power politics with an award that is suppose to represent the best of Science Fiction / Fantasy (although it is actually framed as a popularity contest).
All I know is that arguments about causes vs quality (from whatever direction) are rarely successful in the long run, and that popular votes on aesthetics are rarely about what is best vs what is … well, popular. And I admit that as someone who regularly mocks modern art (coughTateModerncough) even while appreciating diversity in the viewpoints represented in creative endeavors.
As someone with an Historical bent, the Hugos (like most aesthetic contests, e.g., the Oscars) are best appreciated from a decade or two down the line as something worth citing as true art or as something to roll one’s eyes at for their reflection of period enthusiasm.
