Loved this book; not only is it an in depth guide to the Hugo winners all the way back to 1952 but includes digressions on who was also up for the Nebula and other major awards, along with essays on the winners for most years.
As a compilation of material that originally appeared online, the format car occasionally be a little jarring, but the affection and enthusiasm that the editor brings to the subject is utterly charming. It also got me to compile a 50+ item wishlist, so I think my reading for this year may take on a bit of a theme. Recommended; I wish she did a companion for the Nebulas as well. ( )

I wasn't keeping up with Tor's online presence when these essays were first run, and I probably wouldn't have been that interested until I read Walton's "What Makes this Book so Great," and basically wanted more. As for whether Walton achieved her mission of putting each year's Hugo slate into context, and considering whether the award presented a reasonable snapshot of the field, I think that was accomplished. If anything is the bane of the award, it's when a beloved old hand of the field puts out something that gets anointed as just as wonderful as the work they did in their prime; and it isn't. Also, what really really gilded the lily is when knowledgeable folks, particularly the late Gardner Dozois and Rich Horton (a long-time reviewer for "Locus" and an anthologist in his own right) chimed in with useful commentary. ( )

This was such a fun read. I felt like I was peeking behind the door. I discovered so many novellas and short stories to read. The reviews were informative. ( )

I got a lot of book recs out of this, which is what I wanted, but it's definitely a bunch of blog posts and not a book. I skimmed a lot of it, especially the endless litany of Locus award nominees. ( )

Walton's book collects a series of blog posts she made on Tor.com from 2010 to 2011, where in each post she examines what the short list of Hugo Award finalists was for that year, and considers how well the award did at picking out the "best" books, through some combination of 1) has she read them, 2) did she like them, 3) and do they represent the state of sf at that time. I had read some of the blogs, though not systematically; usually, I have just dipped in to get a take on a year I am interested in. Walton's thoughts are interesting, but the book is somewhat overrun by lists: lists of finalists, many of which she doesn't say much about (she mostly comments on Best Novel, with a little commentary on the short fiction categories), as well as lists of books that did not make the finalists, usually culled from other award nominees. I like her comments, and thus I wanted more of them. Thank goodness the book has some extra essays stuck in where she rereads and reviews finalists in depth. I'm currently reading all the old Best Novel winners, but she's made me want to read the other finalists, too. (I'll keep my undertaking to a manageable size, though.)

The book also includes some of the comments from the blog posts, usually those by Rich Horton and the late Gardner Dozois. Dozois's are insightful, particularly once the book gets to the point where he is editing Asimov's. Horton's started out as more lists (of eligible short fiction), but as the book goes on, he gets better about providing commentary, which is usually interesting. Sometimes Dozois and Horton get more interesting than Walton. Anyway, I liked it well enough, but 500+ pages when so much of it is lists you can get on the Internet is too much, and I got to read it for free in the Hugo voter packet; I probably would have been less into it if I'd shelled out the inane $32 list price for a collection of free-to-read blog posts where much of the best content isn't always by the author.