On the irrelevance of awards

[DrNefario]

Personally, I love lists, and awards are definitely lists.

I specifically read all of the Hugo winners a few years ago, and am slowly trying (aka failing) to do the same with the BSFA at the moment. (I was also sort of attempting to do the Locus SF, since I was only missing a few, but last year's winner made me lose the impetus.)

When I'm browsing through crime fiction - a genre I am less at home in - I do find an award nomination or win to be a sign that this book has something going for it.

I also kind of like to try to read something from a literary short-list every now and again. I'm reading Booker-winner Wolf Hall right now. It's good. Also long, and a bit weird.

I guess I'm saying that I do care about awards. Obviously, if an award consistently lets me down, I will stop caring about it, but I feel that they give you a kind of focus. If there's a big stack of indistinguishable books, and one has "Winner of the Mobilereads Award" on it, then that is at least a good place to start looking. Other people are likely to have read it. We can discuss whether it was good or not, whether those Mobilereads voters were a bunch of idiots or not.

I did/do care about the Hugo award. The list of best novel winners form a reasonably decent canon; a fairly good backbone of SF, with few real duffers. I've voted, for the last few years, and nominated for the last two. I'm not bothering this year, because a small group of politically-motivated idiots have come in and smashed the place up*. That's certainly one way to stop me caring about it, and - while I'm a little sad that it might just wither away, given its history - it doesn't really make much difference in the end. I'm still going to be able to find the kinds of books I like. These days it's easier than ever.


*The best novel ballot is probably still going to be OK. I already own the three non-gamed finalists, and honestly probably wouldn't hate the other two (the Marko Kloos book that was withdrawn was actually the only one I'd read).

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

I don't think the public needs awards at all, but perhaps the industry and the authors do. I don't regard awards as a useful guide for my reading, just as I don't regard academy awards as a useful guide to movies' I might watch.

I find short lists to awards extremely useful for keeping up in the field and finding new authors and finding new kind of books to read.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

Personally, I love lists, and awards are definitely lists.

I specifically read all of the Hugo winners a few years ago, and am slowly trying (aka failing) to do the same with the BSFA at the moment. (I was also sort of attempting to do the Locus SF, since I was only missing a few, but last year's winner made me lose the impetus.)

I usually read the Clarke and Hugo short lists. The BSFA short list usually have some overlap with the Clarke short list.

When I'm browsing through crime fiction - a genre I am less at home in - I do find an award nomination or win to be a sign that this book has something going for it.

That is my experience also. I read a lot of crime but are not as familiar with the authors and the reviews of the field as I am for SF.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

*The best novel ballot is probably still going to be OK. I already own the three non-gamed finalists, and honestly probably wouldn't hate the other two (the Marko Kloos book that was withdrawn was actually the only one I'd read).

Still haven't made my mind up about getting a sustaining membership this year, but I've read and enjoyed Goblin Emperor, and own both Ancillary Sword (read Ancillary Justice and liked it) and The Three Body Problem. I had started reading Kloos's Terms of Enlistment just before he decided to withdraw, and while I don't think it was a good (for me) as Goblin Emperor, it was a really fun read. I won't be reading the Butcher book (I'm back about 3 books in the series) and I'm not a fan of Anderson's writing (even before he got involved in SP/RP.

[GA Russell]

Here is a list of crime fiction awards.

http://awards.omnimystery.com/mystery-awards.html

As you can see, the various awards have different criteria. I use them not only as recommendations for books, but also authors.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I did/do care about the Hugo award. The list of best novel winners form a reasonably decent canon; a fairly good backbone of SF, with few real duffers. I've voted, for the last few years, and nominated for the last two. I'm not bothering this year, because a small group of politically-motivated idiots have come in and smashed the place up*.

My approach is that the only way to stop them smashing the place up is to continue voting - especially this year.

[Tarana]

No matter WHAT award is up, it's typically all about politics. What these discussions did tell me though was how the Hugos were nominated and voted on. Just a popularity contest. Most of those voting likely never read most of what was nominated, so it's just garbage in, garbage out. That's not all bad - a lot of good books lose out in 'literary' awards because they don't meet some literary snob's idea of a book should be. Just take the awards with a grain of salt. Most nominated books, short stories and novellas don't suck - they may not be to your taste, but they are at least a reasonably good read.

[DiapDealer]

My interest in awards begins and ends with the various longlists/shortlists. I don't really care in the slightest about "The Winner." I can't begin to count how many authors that I currently enjoy reading were first encountered (by me) on one or another award's shortlist. The fact that I already have more than enough unread works (that I already have a pretty-good idea I'm going to like) to last me a lifetime, in no way encourages me to stop using awards nominations to discover even more.

Even if they are strictly a "popularity contest," they tend to include more "sleepers" that didn't win the 5-star super-hype treatment from one of the major publishers. And they're rarely completely devoid of really good books.

The point where things go south is when people start WANTING to win, or start thinking that books that they like not getting nominated can be construed as some sort of personal affront. I call it the "Books I Like HAVE to be Award Worthy, Right?" fallacy.

For me, it's all about finding new books/authors I like. Not about wanting books/authors I already like winning awards. As such, I find award longlists/shortlists an invaluable supplement to best-seller lists, reviews, and recommendations. I think many people do.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Tarana

No matter WHAT award is up, it's typically all about politics. What these discussions did tell me though was how the Hugos were nominated and voted on. Just a popularity contest. Most of those voting likely never read most of what was nominated

And I think you are totally wrong. Nominating a book you have not read was most probably not common. And for voting most people seemed to have read the books they were voting on (and in less optimal cases at least read the author).

[BearMountainBooks]

Thanks for posting the link to the article.

Mildly related:

There is a new song out on Mark Knopfler's latest album (Tracker is the name of the album). The song is called Beryl -- a rather nice tribute to a woman who never got the Booker -- until she was dead. Knopfler mentioned in an interview the wide gulf between Beryl and her upbringing/education and those who were judging her work. Knopfer is a GREAT storyteller. He manages to get so much across in each song. I loved the Beryl song. It kind of captures a bit of the whole "small, elite group voting" thing.

[Apache]

Thank you for the information. I did not know Mark Knopfler had a new album out.
Apache

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Apache

Thank you for the information. I did not know Mark Knopfler had a new album out.
Apache

It's pretty awesome. It's on the "quieter" side, and there are some AWESOME stories in the mix (as expected from MK.) He did some neat things on this album, which, of course, is also expected. You just never know what style he might choose and that is the beauty of his work. Always something a little bit different, but always classy and of the highest sound quality/mixing. He has been doing a lot of interviews for this album and he did a kind of documentary on how each song came about (I think you can find that link from his website. If you can't find it, PM and I'll dig it up). That documentary is worth watching--it's on you tube and not too long. Fun stuff.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

It's pretty awesome. It's on the "quieter" side, and there are some AWESOME stories in the mix (as expected from MK.) He did some neat things on this album, which, of course, is also expected. You just never know what style he might choose and that is the beauty of his work. Always something a little bit different, but always classy and of the highest sound quality/mixing. He has been doing a lot of interviews for this album and he did a kind of documentary on how each song came about (I think you can find that link from his website. If you can't find it, PM and I'll dig it up). That documentary is worth watching--it's on you tube and not too long. Fun stuff.

One reason I love his music is because he is always doing something different. That and he is a hell of a guitarist. Don't you just love a group in which every album sounds the same?
Apache

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Apache

One reason I love his music is because he is always doing something different. That and he is a hell of a guitarist. Don't you just love a group in which every album sounds the same?
Apache

He seems to know his way around the guitar a bit. I think he concentrated on doing some different things with voice this time through. I just LOVE the sequence of harmonies on "SkyDiver." Granted I can't harmonize with a peanut, but that chorus is like listening to a waterfall--and it's not quite the same every time it's done in the song! He has Ruth Moody on parts of it--but the first one is only his voice. I just LOVE it. The "Rivertowns" song just PUTS me right there. You can SEE and walk that song.

Okay, okay. I won't go on and on. But I could.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Thanks for posting the link to the article.

Mildly related:

There is a new song out on Mark Knopfler's latest album (Tracker is the name of the album). The song is called Beryl -- a rather nice tribute to a woman who never got the Booker -- until she was dead. Knopfler mentioned in an interview the wide gulf between Beryl and her upbringing/education and those who were judging her work. Knopfer is a GREAT storyteller. He manages to get so much across in each song. I loved the Beryl song. It kind of captures a bit of the whole "small, elite group voting" thing.

In The Gallery told a similar tale in the art world.

It always makes me think of Robert Service. He was popular at (and hosted many) parties after moving to Paris, yet his poetry was largely dismissed by academia prior to his death.