Awards discussions

[sartorias]

I usually don't pay any attention to awards, the exception being the Andre Norton, because I made a promise to Andre before she died. Like I said to jemck here, I don't choose my reading according to awards. Actually, I think my extreme skepticism about awards goes back to my childhood library visits, when I discovered that Newbery Award winner! didn't

Comments

thinking about his categories....

[anonymous]

With these prizes, there are a limited number of judges and they all have to read all the works, right? In that respect, I'm surprised, a little, that unfamous works don't do better. If you were awarding a prize based on word of mouth and popularity in the great wide world, that would be one thing, but since it's a limited number of judges, all of whom give the books/short stories a read-through... but I guess maybe the buzz that famous works inpire creates a whole atmosphere around them. But then again, sometimes isn't there backlash against that?

I'm also surprised, with short stories at least, that stories that appeared in print venues are preferred over ones that appeared online (Almost all the short stories I read are online ones).

Re: thinking about his categories....

[asakiyume]

Whoops, that was me--sorry!

Re: thinking about his categories....

[sartorias]

It could be that print stories already have a well-established award vector. Online stories are new enough that that isn't necessarily the case.

Re juries, sometimes it makes a difference, who picked the jurists. Then, is their a jury dynamic--is there someone who establishes themselves as alpha.

Then, not everyone can read everything, so the jury is more likely to check out stuff that one of their members raves about.

Then there are those who have a wide following and who assiduously hound their followers to nominate their stuff, vote for it, yadda yadda.

All this stuff is behavior stuff, and exists alongside the vexing question of "whose standards do we accept as good?"

Re: thinking about his categories....

[asakiyume]

*nods*

à propos of hounding your followers to nominate your stuff, I have to confess to not being much of a fan of even the yearly roundup of stuff eligible for nomination--even though I can see the point (stories published early in the year may slip people's minds, and people do like to be reminded).

[sartorias]

I agree. Jane Austen was pretty much ignored by the colleges until the past 25 years or so, but has she ever been out of print? No.

P.G. Wodehouse, the same.

[mrs_norris_mous]

I would also add that some books are of their time and not all books that a large number of people enjoy need or are great literature.

[mrissa]

One of the scenarios that bothers me, not just in Hugos but in governmental politics etc., is when you and your group can make it to Worldcon and like Y better than X...but nominate X anyway because you think of X as more likely to win.

And I get why this is. Sometimes you like Y better than X but X better than Z, so you want to consolidate X and Y fans to make sure Z doesn't win instead. But sometimes I think this rationale grows out of proportion to its real life impact. The preconceptions become reality. And it frustrates me.

[sartorias]

Just listening to that kind of talk makes me crazy. I tend to have to go gibber somewhere.

[mrs_norris_mous]

I would say that for the Hugo's with the voters pack it makes sense for people with e-readers to get a supporting membership as the nominated books are often given to voters for free.

I have bought a supporting membership for two years running because of this. I personally appreciate posts that remind me what is eligible for the Hugo's.

[sartorias]

This is a good point--if some award consistently matches up with your tastes, then it becomes relevant.