Candy’s Note: Edited a couple of things for clarity. Bad blogger! No cookie!
Robin mentioned that one of my favorite authors, Barbara Samuel, posted an entry on Romancing the Blog about why readers should care about the RITAs. One of the reasons given is that “the RITA is the Oscar or Pulitzer Prize of romances novels.”
My immediate reaction was “HAHAHAHAHAHAHA,” closely followed by “What. The. Fuck.”
I don’t take the RITAs seriously. In fact, I don’t take ANY of the romance awards seriously. While the RWA has awarded the RITA to some books that were actually good, those works are few and far between. Of the books I’ve read from the complete list of RITA winners, I can count maaaaaybe ten books that actually deserved to win in their categories, most of them going to Barbara Samuel/Ruth Wind, Laura Kinsale and Jennifer Crusie.
And before y’all get all het up about how I’m being unfair, because “good” is entirely subjective, I’d like to point out there are plenty of objective standards to writing, which Beth pointed out with great verve and eloquence a little while back, and which I then expanded on in a much more silly manner. But if you don’t want to wade through those two long-ish pieces, here it is in short: I separate craft from personal preference. There’s what I think is genuinely good, and there’s what I enjoy reading, and sometimes the two don’t intersect, and that’s OK—not loving something that was technically perfect doesn’t make me a cretin, and neither does enjoying something that was sloppily made.
The RITAs? Like I said to Robin, the motto for the vast majority of the winners seems to be “Hi, we’re mostly competent. Mostly.†Even authors who have written genuinely good books, like Lisa Kleypas and Connie Brockway, end up winning for books that were sub-par.
I don’t treat the other awards in such a dismissive fashion. The winners of the the Pulitzer, Booker, Guardian, Whitbread, Hugo and Nebula awards have quite reliably provided me with excellent, entertaining reads. But most of these awards tend to skew towards the more literary end of the spectrum, which might make these rather unfair comparisons for the RITAs. That leaves the Hugos and Nebulas, which are genre fiction awards. So why do I perk up and take notice when I hear a book has been awarded the Hugo or the Nebula?
The only reason I can think of is the Geek Factor. My tastes are a lot more in sync with the average geek than they are the average romance reader, and geeks are more plentifully found in SF than romance, and geeks are the ones to vote on the Nebulas and Hugos. To be honest, the average SF/F novel isn’t written that much more skillfully than the average romance novel; however, I tend to find the ideas and plots in SF/F a lot more interesting, and I will forgive a lot of clunkiness if the story grabs me. Neal Stephenson is an example who immediately comes to mind; he does some absolutely maddening things with his prose and characters, but his stories are so compelling that they drag me along. I even find his massive infodumps fascinating, God help me.
So until mainstream romance tastes begin to align themselves more closely to mine (unlikely), or until romance novels start playing with prose, structure and medium in the same interesting ways that literary fiction does (even more unlikely, and frankly, not necessarily desirable), or until the RITAs stop awarding most of their prizes to the literary equivalent of Thomas Kinkade paintings (unlikely, but very highly desirable), I’m going to keep on blithely ignoring the RITAs as a source of good reads while keeping an eye out for recommendations by people whose tastes I tend to trust a bit more, like Beth, or Robin, or Evil Auntie Peril.
I can’t imagine that (in general) most romance readers know anything about the Rita. I don’t know anything about the Hugo or Nebula, who judges them, what the difference is, all I see is “Blah, blah, blah Award-Winner!”
The Rita is meaningful to the author because it is judged by her peers. It would also be meaningful to me because my books would then say, Rita Award Winning Author, and I have to assume that most readers would see Blah-Blah Award Winning Author and that would be super.
~Ms. Roberts stated that she could not include a mystery that was well written because there were no romantic elements. Using the same adherence to the guidelines, if the book has sexual fulfillment outside of marriage, you have to grade it down, no matter how good the story is, right?~
First, you’d have to explain why I should include a cozy mystery, without any romance elements, in judging a romance novel contest. And I said the book was competent.
I wouldn’t grade down a Traditional for pre-marital sex, if the writer made it work within the storyline. Mostly, there isn’t premarital sex in a Traditional. Might some judges grade it down for that? I can’t say, but imo, they’d be wrong.
I’ve been out of the category end for a long time now, but back when, this area was for books like Silhouette Romance and Harlequin Romance, and the award category reflected the publisher guidelines. I don’t know if that’s changed.
I sincerely doubt—sincerely—that any Wiccan books have been entered in the Inspirational category. If they have, they certainly should, imo, be qualified and judged like any other in that category.
I agree with you that the SAG awards are a more realisitc comparison than the Oscars. As I said on RtB, if I use the Oscar comparison, it’s as a kind of short hand. Mostly people think: Oh, movies’ big night, when you say Oscar. Rita is RWA’s big night.
It is a peer award—I agree with you there, too. No argument from me. I don’t see any reason for readers to be invested in it. Interested, sure—depending on their interests.
Category books can be entered against single titles. That would be up to the entrant. In that they can and are (and have won) in categories against singles in romantic suspense, paranormal and so on.
Could the categories themselves be tuned up? Probably. They have been before, and probably will be again.
I think the live blog’s a wonderful idea.
Um, just to clarify, I see nothing wrong with entertainment in general or in books. Entertainment = good. And of course popularity does not necessarily indicate quality, but it doesn’t contraindicate it, either. I avoided the Simpsons for years because it was (a) popular and (b) annoying (all the Bart shirts…eek), but when I finally watched it I realized it was (c) good. Cold Comfort Farm (the movie, haven’t read the book yet) is entertainment. It’s good entertainment. It’s funny, intelligent, and answers that age old question we Americans have been asking for years, “Where the heck did hillbillies come from?”
No, “entertainment” does not equal “worthless” to me. Far from it. Or “we must not judge it.” I’ve followed Roger Ebert and recently Joe Bob Briggs because I think they do try to highlight quality movie entertainment. (They don’t always succeed, because they’re (a) male and (b) older than me.) I have been sure to share my opinions on bad entertainment (like On the Way to the Wedding -book- or The English Patient -movie-) with others. I think we all can and should do better for entertainment than this stuff. (I know Julia Quinn can and does do better. I’ve read eight books of hers so far, and the other 7 all made B-grade at least.) Of course, that sometimes leads to arguments with those who, for no apparent reason, think that bad entertainment is good entertainment. And then we have to have a little “fireside chat” a la Dave Barry. “Could you think better if Ernst and Victor moved you even CLOSER to the fire?” 😀
Also, I have the sudden urge to say that other than the Three Sisters Island trilogy, I don’t care for Nora Roberts’ work. Or Laurien Berenson’s at all. And Ernest Hemingway and Alistair McLean? Lousy, lousy, lousy. Don’t even mention Rick Copp, either. But worship Carol Lea Benjamin and Loretta Chase, for they art Goddess, or at least durn good authors.
We still think Nathaniel Hawthorne and George Eliot are fantastic
—But we think Jane Eyre sucks, because it does.
Sorry. I had to. The cover artist suckered me into reading Jenna Starborn, which just emphasized how much Jane Eyre sucked because everything that wasn’t Eyre-born was interesting and I wanted to know more about it, while everything that came from the original was stomach-turningly awful.
And don’t get me started on Billy Shakespeare, either, though I admit he’s far better in production as a play than as a read-only author.
Making the categories more trim and not including the very silly requirements about when sexual tension and sexual fulfillment can or cannot appear in the story.
Except those silly requirements are a direct reflection of what is required by the publishers of the various imprints, series, etc. And which is why judging short series against long series against traditional series can be an apple/oranges/peaches comparison as they are all fruit, but they all have individual flavors based on what the publisher requires.
Same on the inspirational category. Most inspirationals (as I said elsewhere) are published by CBA publishers, meaning you’re not going to have great numbers of anything beyond what the CBA will publish entered in the contest. They are allowed; of course, they are. But first they have to be published, which they are not in any significant numbers.
~essentially the rationale is that five authors like this book and so should you~
I just don’t want to go back and read the original column again, but if this was said, I disagree.
I do agree that for some of us it is The Award. And I do agree that this particular award isn’t about the readers. That doesn’t say, to me, that readers shouldn’t be interested. Nor does it say to me that readers should rush out and buy books nominated—or those that win. But if they were interested, they could use the list as a springboard to selecting something to read. Or not.
I can’t agree it’s a popularity contest. I’ve judged many, many times and popularity has never been a factor for me. I know others who’ve judged, and same goes. Does that mean none of the judges ever factor in popularity, or writers they like personally? I’m sure it doesn’t. But by and large I think most of us try.
The difference between ignorant and educated people is that the latter know more facts. But that has nothing to do with whether they are stupid or intelligent. The difference between stupid and intelligent people—and this is true whether or not they are well-educated—is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. They are not baffled by ambiguous or even contradictory situations—in fact, they expect them and are apt to become suspicious when things seem overly straightforward. – Neal Stephenson
Can I hear an AMEN!
Except those silly requirements are a direct reflection of what is required by the publishers of the various imprints, series, etc.
I wondered about that, Alison. It’s strange to me, as a reader, that these guidelines are used in actual judging, because they feel to me more like *qualifying* criteria rather than part of a rubric for evaluation past the initial tier of judging.
I left this until the morning, so I could write coherently. Of course, the thread’s massively expanded overnight, and what I wanted to respond to is waaaaay up there now…
There’s another element in the self-selection by authors towards entering the “safe” books rather than what they might consider to be their best books. Note that the entry barrier includes more than the entry fee. The person entering the book is required to supply five copies of the book initially (and a further five copies if the book makes it to the final round. However, the rules also include:
“Electronic and audio books may be entered in the RITA contest. Such books must be presented in English, in print-book format produced by the publisher, complete with copyright page, in perfect or case binding, and printed on both sides of the page. “
Taken as it’s written, what that means is that any book published in electronic or audio format may only be entered if the publisher also produces a print edition. If it’s ebook or audio only, you’re out of luck. An author can’t do a print edition of the official ebook through Lulu and use that for the required hardcopies.
Now, it’s reasonable to expect hardcopy to be provided—not everyone wants to read off a screen, and not everyone even has the facilities to do so. But the way that rule is currently worded, it explicitly excludes any book that has been released only in electronic format. Remember that we’re talking here about books from RWA-recognised publishers, not just anyone who’s slapped together a website and a few pdfs.
Even if that’s just poor wording on the rules, and what is meant is “you will send us something that looks and handles like a published book, not an unbound manuscript”, it’s an additional cost barrier for individual authors. We get our author copies, but they’re in the format that the books are sold in. If I have to provide print copies of my ebooks, a book that was released in both print and ebook format is going to cost me just the shipping on a parcel of books. A book that was only released in ebook format will cost me another fifty dollars or so in getting the required print copies made.
Obviously I’m biased—I can’t help but be, being an epub author in a niche genre. But the way the rules are currently set up, yes, there’s an element of self-selection, and it’s stronger for some authors than authors.
~because they feel to me more like *qualifying* criteria rather than part of a rubric for evaluation past the initial tier of judging.~
I think this is precisely what they are. Criteria to guide the entrants, and for the initial judging.
It’s been a long while since I judged the finals, but I can’t remember ever getting a book at that stage that didn’t fit its category.
If, for instance, I’m judging the finalists in Traditional, and one of the books had the h/h having much hot sex outside of marriage, it would give me some pause. I’d think: How did this final in Traditional? I would also no doubt note that this book was—for instance—a Blaze, which wouldn’t be a Traditional.
I’d probably check with the contest coordinator to make sure there hadn’t been a mistake in the shipment to me. If not, I’d do my best to judge the book on its own merits, against the other finalists.
But, no question, it would throw me off.
It’s strange to me, as a reader, that these guidelines are used in actual judging, because they feel to me more like *qualifying* criteria rather than part of a rubric for evaluation past the initial tier of judging.
Robin – The argument a lot of judges make is that they can’t fairly judge a work if they’re not familiar with that particular subset of the genre, what it requires from a story, etc., and so prefer to judge only what they know. If they don’t read paranormals or traditionals for pleasure, etc., then how do they know how to judge what they’ve received in their packets?
(received59, heh)
Sarah F is correct in saying that Nora Roberts is a better writer than Rousseau. His grammar and sentence structure, word choice and overly fulsome descriptions of nature were archaic even for his time! (Don’t mind me, I’m cranky—I hated the whole century except for Voltaire and some of the libertarians.) But that’s not what I said. I said LaNora is the best storyteller. I have read excellent writers whose story lines were not engaging. I would rather be engaged than just watch the book go by. Nora writes interesting stories. Oh, and I think some of the In Death did win a RITA or two.
Ack, you guys are bursting my bubble! So many well-written and logical arguments on why the RITAs are flawed, irrelevant, why readers and booksellers don’t care about them.
But you know that little girl who practices thanking the Academy into her hairbrush? That would be me, but for a RITA instead of an Oscar. I’ve had a picture of the RITA statue on my fridge for years. Go ahead, point and laugh. It’s okay.
I’ll be entering a book in the RITAs at the end of this year. And if five random authors—-all of whom have different tastes and judging priorities—-were all to tap it as a really good book, it would be the highlight of my life.
So I’m curious…if readers respect the other genre’s awards, what kind of awards would romance readers respect? Not RWA’s, not RT’s…so whose?
A book that was only released in ebook format will cost me another fifty dollars or so in getting the required print copies made.
From what I understand, the bound print copy HAS to come directly from the publisher. (Presumably they’re worried about an author taking reviews/criticisms and changing it?) Most epubs aren’t set up to offer something like that, so it’s kind of a black hole. Unless they’ve changed it.
If, for instance, I’m judging the finalists in Traditional, and one of the books had the h/h having much hot sex outside of marriage, it would give me some pause.
and
The argument a lot of judges make is that they can’t fairly judge a work if they’re not familiar with that particular subset of the genre, what it requires from a story, etc., and so prefer to judge only what they know.
Now I am not trying to be difficult but you say this as if it makes perfect sense and it does, probably to all industry insiders, but to me it says that this contest lacks impartiality because a book can’t be judged just on a book. I.e., how does a paranormal differ from a historical? They don’t. The world needs to be fully realized and consistent in order for the setting to work.
I can see judging a novella in a different category as long fiction because there are different types of skills in writing a short story. and there is a difference between non fiction and fiction. a difference between poetry and fiction.
But I don’t see the difference between a Blaze and a Traditional in terms of whether the book is a quality written book. If the judging is truly based on craft and other writerly things, shouldn’t “when” a couple has sex be irrelevant so long as it is organic to the story?
And I don’t mean to devalue the award for authors. I can completely understand how peer rated awards are very meaningful. I am just speaking from a reader standpoint in response to Ms. Samuel’s post. (btw – my below interpretation of the paternalistic message is my interpretation only).
how does a paranormal differ from a historical? They don’t. The world needs to be fully realized and consistent in order for the setting to work.
I totally agree. For me, the argument is bogus, but it’s one many have used since the contest went to mixed panels of books – that they don’t want to judge erotic romance or paranormal romance or historical romance because they can’t tell if it’s a book that works in its sub-genre. IMO, the question should be whether or not the book is well-written, well-crafted, engaging and compelling – even if it’s something I wouldn’t necessarily pick up to read.
From what I understand, the bound print copy HAS to come directly from the publisher. (Presumably they’re worried about an author taking reviews/criticisms and changing it?)
I’m afraid I have a rather more cynical view of the reason, not entirely unrelated to this:
Most epubs aren’t set up to offer something like that, so it’s kind of a black hole.
Yes, I am bitter and twisted, though for me it’s less of a personal issue—I write cross-genre, and I’m actually more interested on a personal level in the minutia of SFWA and WSFA rules about who is eligible for what. But it does bug me that an award that is supposed to be about promoting excellence in pro-published work excludes books from some RWA-recognised publishers.
Ah well. Over in my other genre, we have the politics about getting girl cooties all over the science fiction…
On the Inspirational Category:
The problem in the past is that we volunteered for the categories we were judging, so the published authors who volunteered to judge the inspirational category were inspirational authors who had not entered, and their idea of inspirational was “Christian content over story.” Which I know because I judged that category one year and there was one book that was a great story and that also made me think about faith for the first time in a long time, and three others that were terrible but full of preaching. I put the good story first but it must have gotten clobbered by the other judges because something vile won.
They’ve changed that. One of the great reforms in Rita judging is that the first round is now random. You get a span of books in any categories but the ones you’re entered in. So writers outside the subgenre are judging the books, which means, I think, that they’re getting judged on how a good a story they are rather than on how well they fit or don’t fit the genre expectations. And since there’s no point of comparison, books tend to be judged on their own merits and not compared to the others in the judging batch. The final round is judged in one sub-genre and ranked, but the prelim set-up does just about everything it can to make judges look at the books as stories and not as examples of genre.
And it’s not a popularity contest. If anything, it’s the opposite. I know some judges who will get down to the final two books and give the score to the author who’s less well know “because she needs it more.” I think this is why Nora doesn’t win more often, although she must have fifty of the suckers by now.
There’s not a lot more you can do when you need as many judges as RWA needs for this contest. The judging instructions do NOT say to judge it on the merits of the genre; there’s a nine point scale with five being “average.” You figure out on your own where on that scale the book falls. They’re even letting you put 7.2 this year, although why is beyond me. It makes me crazy figuring out where it goes in just one to nine.
I really think as far as judging goes, given the constraints of the contest (size and scope), the Rita’s are pretty well organized. Where the contest needs fixed is the categories, many of which are practically archaic now. We need an erotica category, we need a gay/lesbian category, we don’t need the varieties of contemporary and historical categories we have now. I think.
But I still want to know why the Rita doesn’t have the clout that awards in other genres that are judged with equal subjectivity do have. I have friends in SF who tell me that the SF awards are such an old boys club that they only reward the traditional. I have no idea if that’s true, but I know RWA isn’t the only award-giving organization that roils with conflict over their awards or whose choices are controversial. So why don’t the Ritas mean anything to the outside world?
~I.e., how does a paranormal differ from a historical?~
Jane, if you were buying what you were lead to believe was a straight historical romance, and suddenly, there were vampires dancing at Almack’s, I believe it would give you pause.
It might be a wonderful book, one you ended up enjoying, but it would not be a straight historical romance.
In very much the same way you argued regarding labeling books without HEA as romance. It doesn’t mean the book’s not good, but it isn’t as advertised.
There MUST be criteria for the categories, or it’s a different contest. Every one who enters is given access to the criteria. And accepts it when they enter.
Traditional Romances are a different type of book than a Blaze, for instance. Different expectations, different style, different spoke on the wheel.
When I sat down to write a category romance, I certainly sat down to write the best quality book I could—but I knew I was on another spoke of the wheel then when I sat down to write a single title. If I’m going to write a paranormal romance, same goes.
It’s not a matter of one being more or less than the other, but of one being very different than the other.
And I’m just not going to judge a category such as Inspirationals. I don’t understand them on a pretty fundamental level. I didn’t enjoy the few I read. Could I, if I had to, judge an Inspirational strictly on its merits? I certainly could. But I don’t want to. So I—and the majority of judges, I believe—opt for the type of book we understand and enjoy.
And how would you, using Blaze again, judge an Inspirational against one? Why should you? Each has its place.
The structure of the Ritas showcases the diversity of the genre—and the best (agree or not) that the various areas of the genre have to offer.
And
how does a paranormal differ from a historical?
Am I living in some parallel universe where the Ritas are the only awards in the world that are given to different categories? Yes, there is a best picture award in the Oscars, but there is also best documentary, best comedy or musical (huh?), best animated feature, best foreign film. In the Grammys there is a song of the year, and there is also a best country song, best r&b song, best group song, best jazz, etc. And hell if I’d want my country song judged by the jazz afficianados (even if that is what happens).
Seems to me the big difference is that there is not a ROMANCE OF THE YEAR!!! and 90% of people wouldn’t agree with the damn choice anyway, so what does it matter?
IMO, the question should be whether or not the book is well-written, well-crafted, engaging and compelling – even if it’s something I wouldn’t necessarily pick up to read.
I think this goes right back to what the award is and means to authors. There are obviously some unspoken rules here about expectations for Romance books on the part of authors who feel that books need to be separated by subgenre, and I’m not saying they’re wrong, but they are limited. They suggest that excellence in Romance is a somewhat narrow and conditional designation, and that craft as an overall consideration takes a backseat to generic expectations and guidelines. Which, again, suggests that the meaning of the awards is to some degree based on the assumptions that drive the judging. And if most authors share those assumptions, than the award is serving its designated purpose.
At heart, I think this is another variation of that “what is Romance” issues. Is the love story its essential and common element, or do different types of love stories have essential differences? I don’t know what to make of the idea that authors of one subgenre don’t feel comfortable judging something they don’t regularly read or write. On the one hand, I’m reassured in that authors want to be as objective and fair as possible, but on the other hand, am I to infer that the judgments are so strong between authors of different subgenres that their familiarity with the basic rules of the genre would not guarantee objectivity and fairness?
~Where the contest needs fixed is the categories, many of which are practically archaic now. We need an erotica category, we need a gay/lesbian category, we don’t need the varieties of contemporary and historical categories we have now. I think. ~
Yes. Absolutely agree. I would combine long and short contemp. I would keep Traditional as it is. Maybe Regency as well, seeing this as the traditional spoke of historical. I would combine long and short historical. I’d add a category for Erotic Romance, one for G&L (though I think it’ll be awhile before that one happens.)
Am I living in some parallel universe where the Ritas are the only awards in the world that are given to different categories? Yes, there is a best picture award in the Oscars, but there is also best documentary, best comedy or musical (huh?), best animated feature, best foreign film. In the Grammys there is a song of the year, and there is also a best country song, best r&b song, best group song, best jazz, etc.
But do only documentary film makers vote on best documentary? Or do jazz musicians have the only say in who gets the grammy for best jazz album?
It might be a wonderful book, one you ended up enjoying, but it would not be a straight historical romance.
True, but if you are judging for a competition about a best book then shouldn’t the book be about the writing and not about the time period or place setting?
And for categories for the Oscars, there is no delineation between the best historical picture or the best contemporary picture of the best futuristic picture. It’s a contest for the actors, the screenwriters, the producers and directors and so forth, regardless of what place setting for the movie. Which is still another reason why the Oscars are a bad comparison for the RITA (except in terms of importance to the recipient).
If the judges can’t put aside personal biases in judging then, imo, they shouldn’t judge. To have such discrete segmented categories as there is suggests that RWA recognizes that it judges can’t be fair and tries to compensate for that. I am arguing that an author knows about the craft of writing and when judging a book, shouldn’t the craft aspects take up the majority of the consideration? In judging for a RITA, I do expect more out of authors than what an average reader responds to because isn’t that that argument? That authors know better, because of their expertise, what a good book is.
As for new categories:
I suggest a category for best derivative of the Buffy verse. And maybe there should be best vampire book, historical and contemporary. Best werewolf book, with shifting sex and without shifting sex. With and without barbs.
Best romantic suspense with a law enforcement official.
Best historical not set in the Regency time period.
Best historical not featuring a titled member or anyone lower than an Earl.
Best paranormal not featuring a mated fated pair.
Best romantic suspense for
As for why the RITAs aren’t given more gravitas in the oustide world, I am sure that it is based on the fact that romance itself is a genre that is denigrated and viewed as a more menial and pedantic form of writing.
Did the Ritas start before or after the Romantic Times Reviewer Choice awards? As I remember they were fragmented into loads of categories. I am pretty sure that had something to do with advertizing since anything in Romantic Times used to be about making money—Bluegreen algae pills anyone?
Oh, my: Just69
~True, but if you are judging for a competition about a best book then shouldn’t the book be about the writing and not about the time period or place setting?~
If the Rita was structured as a single award for best book of the year, then yes. It would need to work exactly that way. If it was structures as best book of the year and best novella of the year, you’d still be right.
But it’s a judging competition about the best book in its category for that year. You’re describing a different competition from the one that exists.
They did have best book of the year as a category for awhile. And books from all category could be nominated (by the membership at large, and voted on by same.)
There were problems with it, and they dropped it. I wish they hadn’t—had problems or dropped it.
I’m not absolutely sure I could put my biases aside for Inspirationals (and now I feel like I’m picking on them), so I don’t judge them. I don’t think that makes me a bad judge, or one who can’t be objective.
I believe the new categories you suggested might already be part of the RT awards. If not, they may be eventually.
I’m going to say again. One more time. Oscar-Rita. Shorthand. RWA’s big award. Academy’s big award. Both statues are gold and shiny. Both are peer-judged.
People get dressed up for both, and probably consume alcoholic beverages. There are parties after.
That’s about it as far as comparisons.
Okay, here’s a question: could Laura Kinsale’s Flowers From the Storm be considered an inspy novel for RITA judging? How about Gaffney’s To Love and To Cherish?
I guess what I’m wondering is whether the categories reflect a desire to correct for judicial bias or to allow various subgenres some even ground for competition within an incredibly diverse genre. Or both, maybe. Or neither.
It seems that the RITAs are working for the romance industry in the manner in which they are intended – to give recognition for the diverse subgenres within the overall umbrella of romance. It is a contest judging the best book within a category. If anything, it seems that the RITAs could do with a category reworking and maybe that will come in time. Apparently there will be voting on this in July.
But reworking the categories won’t make it more relevant to readers. I am not sure what will but I am thinking that readers have to be invested in it in some way – not necessarily voting in the contest – although maybe there is some way for the RWA to accept some type of fan voting (ie at the nomination stage). All Star events do this – allow fan voting (v Hall of Fame voting which does not).
Essentially, aren’t we arguing about what would change Candy’s title (and every other romance reader blogger who has brought up this topic) to “WHY I CARE ABOUT THE RITAS?”
OK. So RITAs are an industry award, and as such are more valuable to the authors than to readers. No problem with that.
But then, I wonder, what awards ARE useful/important/helpful to readers? Any? None? Do awards that are reader-voted, like the annual poll at AAR, make the award more reader-oriented and thus more meaningful? There are other contests, too—a reviewer’s choice award, the RT awards, numerous smaller contests (often run by RWA chapters) that are judged by booksellers. Do any of these make a bit of difference to a reader? I’m not talking about a difference as in ‘oh, this book won an award, it must be AWESOME!’ but more as in ‘this book won an award, I think I’ll check it out instead of this other book that didn’t win anything.’ Just curious…
Jane, I believe you summed it up perfectly.
But I don’t think readers need to be invested. I think they can choose to be, certainly, or they can choose to be interested enough to check out some of the books. Or they can ignore it completely.
I think, at its base, Barbara’s column was about giving readers information so they knew a bit more and could make that choice accordingly. Obviously, she’s enthusiastic about the Ritas and wanted to share that enthusiasm.
And, Robin, no, I wouldn’t think from the Inspirational criteria either of those books would fall into that category. I doubt if Laura would have considerered hers in that category—and as I know Pat very well, I can state without a single doubt, she wouldn’t have.
It really is, at the end of the day about choice. What we choose to read, to write, to be interested or invested in.
It’s amazing to me—in a good way—that readers would have enough interest, or at least enough to say about a topic like this—esp one headed Why I Don’t Care.
But then, I wonder, what awards ARE useful/important/helpful to readers? Any? None?
Wouldn’t this, like most anything else, depend entirely on the individual reader. No doubt, after reading this one column and the discussion following it, there are many individuals.
Really—and I’m saying this as someone who’s won lots of awards (Ritas and others), and who appreciates and values them all—why should an award influence a reader? Maybe, maybe to perk enough interest to check out the book. But, after that?
It’s all about the book itself, and that reader’s reaction to it.
Candy,
I think you said it all…RITA = Oscars.
Whenever the big hoopla about the Oscars starts, I always flip the channel. The reason why? The movies which I like and should be awarded NEVER are. That’s because it’s all peer-judged and well, politics, politics, politics… In fact, most of the time if a movie wins an Oscar, I avoid it like the black plague…unless it’s something exceptional (which is rare). Because like you, I’ve found that if a movie has won an Oscar, I find it a complete disappointment.
Now, maybe I’m not that harsh with the RITAs because A. I’m a published author, and B. I’m a member of the RWA. But aren’t the RITAs just peer-judged and all politics as well? Now, if I were to when a RITA I certainly wouldn’t knock it, I mean, hey talk about great publicity, and you get to call yourself an “award winning” author. But really, I think the RITAs are more for the industry then for the public. I mean, before I became a member of the RWA, I had seen it mention on Jo Beverley’s novels that she was a RITA recipient, but I didn’t know what that meant, and nor did I care. I liked her books (and still do) and so I read them.
In fact I have to admit, another “aspiring writer” veil was torn from my eyes when I went to submit my first book for a couple of Industry awards and found out you had to PAY to even enter…hmmm…doesn’t sound quite “kosher” does it? But it’s only a small fee to cover postage, etc…still I would much prefer an award which is given for free, and your book is nominated by reviewers or readers, those are the truly important awards…
Having said that, I still wouldn’t mind a RITA, but it’s just for the prestige more than anything…
And, Robin, no, I wouldn’t think from the Inspirational criteria either of those books would fall into that category. I doubt if Laura would have considerered hers in that category—and as I know Pat very well, I can state without a single doubt, she wouldn’t have.
I think your answer here sums up perfectly why this is very much an authors’ award and not a readers’ award: I wasn’t even thinking about the fact that the author would be the one to make that call, I was only thinking about whether the book could be *considered* categorically appropriate. Everything about this contest is authored by the authors, and if readers do happen to care about it, as Caroline Linden asked, it probably has little to do with the award itself and more to do with how much more visibility a book gets because of it. And on how a reader is influenced by any number of promotional tools (direct or indirect).
IMO some readers *care* about the award even if they’re not invested in its yield because it gives us a chance to talk and kvetch more generally about books and about the culture of Romance. If authors want readers to *respect* the RITA, it seems to me that’s an entirely different conversation—and perhaps a different contest. And FWIW, I think getting readers to respect the RITA is key to getting any kind of currency outside the genre, as well. If that’s important to anyone, of course. I don’t, actually, think that the RITA fails to get broad respect just because Romance doesn’t. I think that’s part of it, but not the whole of it, especially when you consider the fact that Romance readers, in the main, are unbelievably genre loyal, and so few care about the RITA.
I do agree that for some of us it is Nora wrote:
” And I do agree that this particular award isn’t about the readers. That doesn’t say, to me, that readers shouldn’t be interested. Nor does it say to me that readers should rush out and buy books nominated—or those that win. But if they were interested, they could use the list as a springboard to selecting something to read. Or not. “
Which was my only point. It’s a good way to get a list in hand of books you might like.
Good to see the discussion.
Barbara
I have to admit, I mostly ignore the RITAs – and the Edgars, and the Stokers, and the Hugos and Nebulas… I have fairly narrow and specific tastes, and am much more likely to look at book recommendations from people whose tastes I trust (or who are similar to mine) than I am at what wins awards. I mean it’s nice that Lois McMaster Bujold wins both Hugos and Nebulas, but I’d read her anyway.
On the other hand, I mostly inhabit the fringe areas of Romancelandia, with occasional forays into the Big City (this blog and a couple of others I follow). I used to read historical romances, but I got back into reading romances by way of SF => JD Robb books => other books by Nora Roberts => “if you like Nora, you might try…” recommendations.
(parenthetical note: both Nora Roberts *and* Jennifer Crusie posting here? see me do my immitation of a fangirl squee… )
-becca
How would I grade JR Ward versus Patricia Williamson (assuming they were competing for something)? I can technically tell that Williamson has better craft, better technique (and I adored her The Outsider), but Ward really makes me feel warm and fuzzy in all sorts of nice places. I don’t think I could “objectively†grade which book by these two authors are “better†because I would have a hard time knowing what to grade FOR.
It’s Penelope Williamson. Sorry, had to correct, she hits my RFG buttons.
By the way the RITA is judged, you would think it would be a self correcting level: the feeling vs craft. And because it’s not I would think not because the judges have no uniform base of assessment?
I’m not an RWA member, so I have no clue, but that’s the understanding I have from the discussion.
I was going to post a lengthy comment, but then I realized I had more to say about the Golden Heart than the RITA. So instead I made it into two blog entries (it kinda got lengthier as I warmed to my topic). In case anyone is interested, the posts are here:
http://susanswilbanks.blogspot.com/2007/03/golden-heart-time-part-one.html
http://susanswilbanks.blogspot.com/2007/03/golden-heart-time-part-two.html
I’d planned a lengthy comment, but I realized I had much more to say about the Golden Heart than the RITA, so I blogged instead. If anyone is interested, my posts are here:
http://susanswilbanks.blogspot.com/2007/03/golden-heart-time-part-one.html
http://susanswilbanks.blogspot.com/2007/03/golden-heart-time-part-two.html
So sorry for the double post—I didn’t think the original one had gone through at first.
I honestly don’t understand the objection to categories in the Ritas. I. Just. Don’t. Get. It.
I’ve personally been comparing the Ritas to both the Oscars and the Grammys, but it’s much more like a music award in this way: People listen to certain types of music. Hey, it’s all music, right? But the country fans aren’t looking for the big BIG winner of the night. They’re looking for the top country artists. They want to hear those songs and root them on and try those artists out if they win. THAT’S WHY THEY GIVE OUT AWARDS IN EACH CATEGORY!!!
Many, many, MANY romance fans are like this. Someone reads historicals. That’s it. End of story. They might want to read the award-winning historical. They definitely do NOT want the award-winning long contemp. You can put them all in the same category and mix them up if you feel some god-awful need, but the truth is that many readers (most?) don’t cross subgenres.