&quot;Seems pretty clear&quot;? Maybe you should give some examples of what you&#x27;re talking about? The Hugos reflect some kind of merit (plot, worldbuilding, plausibility) but it&#x27;s in areas that the literary establishment places very little value on, and winners IME often have less of the literary virtues - less characterization, much less exploration of characters&#x27; mental states, often even less polished prose - than other works of (nominal) SF, simply because there isn&#x27;t time for both.<p>Foundation&#x27;s Edge is possibly the least literary book I&#x27;ve ever read; I don&#x27;t think Asimov wrote a deeply-characterized human in his life. The same applies to most Heinlein, a lot of Dick, A Canticle for Leibowitz, and IME most Clarke (though it seems I haven&#x27;t read either of his Hugo-winning works); it&#x27;s true of David Brin and Kim Stanley Robinson and Vernor Vinge. I&#x27;ve heard Neuromancer described as an &quot;obvious first novel&quot;, and while there&#x27;s something distinct about the Ender series, I certainly wouldn&#x27;t call it literary.