Those Awful Awards
June 6th, 2008 by Editors
Arriving in our Google Alerts today was this post by Australian speculative fiction writer, Graham Clements. It is one in a long and predictable history of posts from people who independently come up with the startlingly new idea that speculative fiction awards are a waste of time. The structure of these posts is often so formulaic you could almost suspect that someone has written a “how to diss SF awards” book. We don’t actually know of one, but it seems to be a popular genre so to help other people wanting to get in on the act, here’s a brief outline of the plot structure:
- SF awards are useless because they are voted on by too few people
- You can only be sure that awards will go to the “best” books if lots of people vote
- But awards selected by juries produce better results because the people on juries are experts
- Besides, most awards are voted on by fans, and as we all know fans don’t bother to read the books before voting
- Also fans are deeply patriotic and will only vote for authors who live locally to them
If you have any other suggestions for common plot elements we’d be happy to hear them. We’d also welcome suggestions as to how people come to the conclusion that the problem with SF awards is that the voters are all stupid and dishonest but this can be cured by having more such voters.
You forgot “There are too many overlapping awards, so no one really cares about them anyway” (see the comment about there being three sets of awards for Australian sf).
I think this post deserves an award. Awarded by a jury. Of one million fans. Who live in different cities, around the world. And haven’t read this post.
All 5 of the observations in your bullet list happen to be correct, though they generally apply to all awards, not just SF awards. Graham’s post is mostly focused on the shortcomings of the Australian awards, except for his somewhat off-topic jab at the Hugo and Nebula. Applying his concerns to all literary awards is somewhat more interesting to me.
Fan-based awards are popularity contests. They are influenced, to some extent, by the marketing power of the publishers and, to a larger extent, the momentum of the author who consistently pleases his fans. The voters probably haven’t read all the nominees, but they probably did read the ones that looked enjoyable. In choosing which to read, judgement was employed in evaluating the cover-art and synopsis, renown of the author, etc. In a fan-based award, this type of judgement is as legitimate as a literary critique of the fully-read book.
Jury-based awards require the judges to read each book on the list, but the list must be limited (obviously) to a reasonable number of books. This is usually done using a method eerily similar to that which fans employ: the probability that the judges will favor the book is evaluated by non-judges who, usually, have a commercial interest in the book.
The difference in the end is this: experts look for a refined literary style, and fans look for a sort of unanalyzed stimulation (i.e., entertainment value). The intersection of these two sets is the sweet spot.
Graham’s final thought is that the value of awards is dubious. His unexpressed belief, I think, is that all SF books (every last one of them) should be read and judged by a single panel of experts. I don’t think that will happen until the first, massive AI enters adolescence
Personally, I find tremendous value in book awards. I examine all of the marketing materials on each Hugo nominee. If the cover contains an impossibly buxom babe holding a sword or a snake, I don’t read it. If it has a spaceship or a helix on it, I probably read it. If the author is synopsis spells organization with an “s” (organisation), it goes to the bottom of my reading list. For Literary awards (with a capital “L”), if the synopsis is heavy on ambience and light on plot, I skip it.
These judgements are easily employed in bookstores, but a book on a shortlist has already been judged exceptional by the publisher and other critical readers. How can a list like that be without value?
Having said all that, awards with very narrow restrictions might be without value to readers. A list of the best books written by authors living in Oklahoma probably isn’t worth my time. I’m not too sure about Western Australian authors. Fortunately, the Hugo includes all of them.
You forgot to mention that awards don’t sell books anyway.
Kenny Lucius: When I started reading your well-written post it seemed to cry out for a refutation, then I read the last three paragraphs and it seemed unfair to pick on anyone with your sense of humor.
If I am going to advance a faith-based argument of my own, it won’t be that Hugo voters have looked at or read every finalist, but that the Hugo voting base probably includes a lot of people who have read all the fiction finalists. Free copies of all the short fiction, and four out of five of the novels, are readily accessible to eligible voters (they can get four of the novels via John Scalzi).
Mike: My humor inspires pity in many a thinking being, which is why I have far fewer scars than most of my slack-jawed, intellectual equals.
My post contained a few unsubstantiated generalizations, but it accurately reflects the opinions that have accreted during the course of creating the Award Annals. I examine awards en masse. I am certain that my view is skewed, but it’s too funny to correct.
I almost always enjoy all of the Hugo novel finalists, but the process of choosing finalists seems to depend heavily on the commercial success of the book. Who would nominate a book they hadn’t read? Who would read a book that hadn’t been sold to them in some fashion? There are examples of non-commercial finalists that make the list through word-of-mouth, but they seem to be the exception to the rule I perceive. The nomination process in juried awards is very similar.
Even so, I trust the process and voraciously consume its product. Excellent works are overlooked, but those that are recognized and put on the final ballot are always quite good, even when British. I even read the Fantasy books if the cover art isn’t too silly
this is a topic near and dear to my heart. personally, i love the awards. i find them very useful as “a good place to start” when looking for a new book or even a new author. the awards lists tend to weed out the crap. you can usually count on them to be good, if not always, great books. i look for books that appear on multiple lists as an indication of quality. those books have qualified, been selected and voted on, through the various methods employed by the different awards committies to make it onto their lists. no small feat, methinks.
now, are the awards completely fair? no, not completely. they are all flawed to some extent but what award process is 100% fair?
yes there is some favoritism. if you’re a well know author or a past winner or if you have a large fan base you have an advantage. but those guys got on the list at some point without those advantages and so too do many a new author. have you heard of Michael Chabon? The Yiddish Policeman’s Union has alread won the Nebula and been nominated for Hugo, Campbell and Locus. he’s completely new to me but you can bet his book is on my reading list!
do politics play a part in the awards? you bet. some authors/publishers campaign for their books. this is a business folks. these guys are trying to make a living. they’d be fools not to do whatever they can to get their name/product out. some folks don’t like this reality. i accept it and keep it in the back of my mind when i look over the nominees.
nationalism affects the results? of course it does. do people vote based soley on the authors nationality? generally speaking, i’m unaware of nationality and i suspect most others are this way as well.
do fans skew the results? certainly. devoted fans that want to help their favorites is the reward authors earn for the books they write.
have the voters read all the books up for nomination? probably not. in fact that’s the reason i offer as to why i don’t vote. does that mean the results are useless? i don’t think so. we fans share reccommendations on what to read and what to skip. the books that get a lot of buzz get read more and consequently get more noms. this seems fair enough to me.
going a little long now so i’ll wrap it up here. i think we can all agree that there are real issues with the way the awards are handled but they are rather minor in the grand scheme of things. the awards are and will remain a great tool for the industry and especially us readers. if you use them as a guide in choosing your next book you stand a pretty good chance of coming out a winner yourself. just keep in mind that they are not perfect and that there are quality books that don’t make the lists too.
ok, here comes the shameless plug for my SFF awards website. at http://www.WorldsWithoutEnd.com we cover 8 major awards for best SFF novel: Hugo, Nebula, Locus SF, Locus F, John W. Campbell, WFA, PKD and Arthur C. Clarke. visitors can use WWEnd to sort through over 1000 novel nominees and winners for all 8 awards, read synopsies and excerpts, author bios and publisher histories, find tons of useful links to podcasts, magazines and blogs, over 130 author videos, chat it up in the forums etc. etc. etc. you can even use the site to track your reading history with our novel tagging feature. tag the books you’ve read, your favorites, books you want to read and even what you’re reading now. your lists will be personalized and color coded to you so you can see which Hugos you’ve read or which Clarke’s you missed etc. it’s pretty slick if i do say so myself. if you visit WWEnd, be sure to drop us a note in the forum. we’d love to know what you think of the site!
- dave