Quote:
Originally Posted by Geralt
I don't consider awards to be irrelevant, but I think they are more for the authors benefit than readers. To me they are a nod of acceptance and recognition by the peers for the peers.
.
|
That might theoretically apply to the Nebulas but not the Hugos. They are not even intended to be a peer award. They were originally intended to express admiration by the fen. But as the field has matured and expanded the fen are no longer representative of the readers so an award from the fen tells the author nothing about what their peers think about his work or what the majority of buyers or (more importantly) non-buyers think.
Not to rehash what is being debated elsewhere, but the Hugo nominations were rigged by a gang of less than 100. Last year's winners barely registered more than a thousand votes. Hardly representative of a market of millions of readers.
It's better to be liked by somebody than by nobody but awards committees tend to be fickle, clannish, faddish, and just plain unreliable. Consider the Oscars, where the best indicators of likelihood of winning are being passed over before and time in the business. If you're nominated against an aging star who was passed over before (or Merryl Streep) you're toast.
The Emmys have produced such spectacle as an actress getting nominated 20 years in a row and never winning. (Apparently somebody in the committee doesn't like her.)
Or as Flint pointed out, great and popular authors (and artists) can go entire careers, decade upon decade, satisfying readers, selling books by the million, and going unnoticed by award voters while one-hit wonders and non-entities get voter approval. That pretty much spells irrelevance.