Entertainment versus artistic merit?

[Hobbit]

Thought I would open this one up to debate. There’s been a bit of discussion on t‘ Internet about the value of Awards such as the David Gemmell Legend Awards (DGLA) and what seems to be the re-emergence of the ‘if it’s popular it’s not good’ debate.

The anti-argument (as I see it from sites such as Speculative Fiction ) is this, I believe, in a nutshell.
1) The books nominated for the DGLA are voted for online globally.
2) This is a bad thing.
3) It is a bad thing because it is open to misuse.
4) The results are skewed by on-line fan groups organising themselves in packs and voting
5) The results may also be biased by big corporate business throwing its weight in.
6) And therefore the results cannot be trusted.
7) Popularity does not equal artistic merit.
8) The nominees therefore, being populist rather than artistic, are bad.
9) Therefore, being populist, the Awards are bad for the genre.

For the record, I am involved in the DGLA Awards, though I have not voted. Like others, I am a volunteer who gives up their time to help out, as I do at SFFWorld. More importantly here I also have no particular position to defend. This is not necessarily a diatribe in favour of the Awards, defending them against all comers. It is how I see it and, as such, I totally accept that it may be blinkered, limited or misguided. Instead, I am interested to see whether the viewpoints such as given above are typical, or the views of an active minority.

Though I would like to see discussion about the books as well, I’m interested in whether people actually have a view on such matters. Perhaps even whether it does matter.

Here are my thoughts. Rambling, perhaps. And by no means the views of anyone else other than myself. Certainly not necessarily the others involved in the Awards.

OK. Let’s start to look at some of those points.

Firstly, the idea that popularity is bad. The usual argument here is to point at works of popular genre authors such as JK Rowling and Stephenie Meyer and basically say ‘I didn’t like it, they are so not what I like. They are what others will judge the genre by and that is a bad thing.’

I have done that myself. I have read such comments and such authors. BUT, even when they are not my personal cup of tea, and I am happy to say so, I also realise that they are just what many do want. I can see why they are popular, though perhaps not my thing.

Here’s the thing, as I see it. All Awards – Hugos, Nebulas, Golden Globes, Oscars, whatever - are popularity contests.

Even the Nebulas, awarded by a select group, namely the published SF writers of America. Writers vote on what (or who) they like. Oscars can be awarded not just for a particular film or role but because it is that particular member’s time. The Hugos started as an Award created by a group of fans who wished to collectively vote on books they liked.

In that respect, the DGLA are similar, though in these travel-shrinking days the voting, like the Hugos, is no longer in one place but potentially global.

One difference between the Hugos and the DGLA is that Hugo voters pay for their opportunity to vote: either as a Supporting Member or through their attendance fees. The DGLA is open to every fan, including those who cannot afford to pay but wish to be involved. I thought this was quite exciting last year. As such, it makes voting less parochial and subject to the whims of local culture. There were people who voted on the DGLA last year who voted in places as far apart as the USA, the UK, Poland, Asia and Australia. I think that makes the result a little less predictable and perhaps less easy to sway.

The DGLA makes no excuses for its view. I understand it feels that there is an area of the genre that has up to now been perhaps overlooked and that there should be opportunities for readers to express their interests. It is an attempt to celebrate the genre, not deride it. It is populist, because it is the opinion of the Committee, many of whom worked with and knew him, that that is what David Gemmell would prefer. David was a popular genre writer who was clearly loved by many readers and was rarely given a good review. Loved by fans, shunned by reviewers. Even SFX Magazine’s editor at one time, Dave Golder has admitted to wrongly seeing David as ‘just’ a sword and sorcery writer at first.

In its initial stages it was felt that there was room out there for a Fantasy based award ‘in the spirit of David Gemmell’. And this has caused some debate. Many have seen it as having to be Epic Fantasy, for that is mainly what David wrote. Personally I don’t think there’s a need to get too hung up on this. I think this can be fairly broad – for example, David has written historical tales and fantasy with an SF element, thank you, Jon Shannow – that there’s enough out there for people to choose from. The reason for the long list is that they are books nominated that readers have the choice from. They are not expected to read all, nor would they be able to. I have heard horror stories from members on panels who, having received hundreds of books to short list, have used quite odd criteria to choose their short list from. Instead, voters are asked to vote on what they have read and liked.

Books voted on by people who are not swayed by critics’ viewpoints, who have no agenda or (ha!) axe to grind, who vote simply because they like a book.

Clearly there is a risk. Fans may get their mates to go and vote. They may vote for the one book they have read all year. They may even vote for books they haven’t read. They may vote for the author rather than the book. They may vote for them because they are friends of the author. All of these things have happened in Awards in the past and will no doubt happen in the future. The point is, I believe, whether their influence is big enough to make a difference.

From my perspective, many of these things are a risk, but in reality less than we might imagine. The situation is that usually it can take a bit of effort to vote, and many can’t be bothered. If there was that big a risk then everyone would be doing it and Awards would stop. I have not seen publishers throwing out freebies to DGLA voters in the hope of persuading readers to vote for their particular book/s. I have not seen fan groups organising themselves to bomb the voting with their particular choice. In fact, most of the views I’ve seen have been against ‘rigged voting’ and remarkably well mannered.

One of the points being made is that the DGLA are bad for the genre because the Award winner will be popular and that that will in some way devalue the genre. My personal take on it is that any exposure is good for the genre. Ultimately any choice is value laden, based on my, or your, preferences. If the book that wins isn’t to your taste, then do like we do at SFFWorld and point out other books that are similar but, in your opinion, better. The person may not agree but alternatively may find something else that they enjoy just as much or, indeed, better.

There is room for all tastes. Books with artistic merit can be popular. The point here is that they do not necessarily have to be and that just being popular may not always be a bad thing. Sometimes all a reader wants is entertainment, and sometimes that can be good enough. There are some awards that focus on the style and literary merit of what is written. Others prefer the fun, the excitement, the complex twists and turns, goblins, dragons, elves and magic. As a reader, my tastes are broad and often not one at the exclusion of the other. I may be perhaps complex but I like all shades. I am sure there are others, perhaps not with my tastes but with a similar view. There is room for both, something I was reminded of at the SFX Weekender I went to in February this year.

One of the nicest things that I have found from my experience of the genre is that pretty much most of the writers are nice people who love what they do and get on with each other, and also that fans are FANS, who enjoy what they read with a passion and are prepared to damn the rest.

I would be disappointed if we go down the route of genre snobbery (though we are often all guilty of that at times) like many other fiction genres.
But a bit of healthy debate is often good. I’m also aware that as fans with a passion and an interest we can live in a somewhat limited world of our own devising. What seems as important to a few of us may not actually matter in the general scheme of things.

So: over to you. Am I misguided in my view?

Mark

 

[ElinIsabel]

So: over to you. Am I misguided in my view?

Short answer: No.

I think the things that makes Speculative Fiction unique among the genres are its huge scope, the creativity it taks, and its range from the very literary to pure entertainment. It makes sense for different awards to have a different focus.

Even though a lot of crappy books are popular among the "masses", I think most serious SFF readers, the type who would vote for awards, are intelligent people who have as little tolerance for bad books as literary critics. They might be more appriciative of the stuff that leasn towards entertainment, but entertaining people in an unpredictable and creative way is an artform as difficult to achieve, and as worthy as being awarded, as the intellectual and artsy stuff. (although I do like the artsy stuff )

And popularity and artistic value are not always at odds...Neil Gaiman is an obvious example.

 

[Bastard]

These online polls, particularly ones that invite foreign choices, are always a bad idea. Just look at the NBA All-Star Voting... there's no need to go further than that to understand how these types of polls are bad as constructed.

I love online polls, but some sort of restrictions and controls need to be in place to make it as valid and representative as possible.

As for entertainment vs. artistic merit? Well, I'm of the opinion that a book's main goal should be to entertain or be interesting. If the book accomplishes one of those two goals, you're set.

About a book becoming popular? Well, that has more to do with marketing and fortunate opportunities more than anything. There are many books built of the same mold as ones that become popular but for some reason they don't become as known, even they're easily better. Money comes to mind, and with money comes international reach, etc.

As for artistic? I really could care less about a book being artistic. If it can be either entertaining or interesting while being artistic, well good for it. Otherwise, it's just crap as far as I'm concerned (for me personally as a reader). But, I do realize that some read for the artistic aspects of the written word, and that's all well and good, but that it is artistic it doesn't make it any better than some book that's just pure entertainment... it simply means that it's more artistic. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Also, let's not make the mistake of assuming that popular online opinion is the same as popular opinion. The internet is not a good representation of the population. We often get caught up in the Internet Hype, then we leave the comforts of our rooms and computer to learn that no one around you really gives a rat's ass about what you've just debated quite heatedly with a couple of internet peers.

This is why you can see author's like Goodkind, who's hated pretty much all over the internet, yet keep selling as he does.

And last, but not least, it's really a shame when crap becomes popular. And I'm thinking of reality shows when I say this. As far as books goes, well I really don't care much other than a feel for the authors that get neglected for some reason from reaching their intended audiences, people who could've liked their books and make it popular, but just didn't get the opportunity and support to make it so.

But then we fall into the dilemma of popular books misrepresenting a genre, at times because they don't fall really in the genre they're representing. I think Urban Fantasy has been hit the hardest through this phenomenon, but at the same time, has some popular books, even while misrepresenting it also made that genre more accessible to other readers? If not mistaken Urban Fantasy is doing quite well in sales figures, even with all the misconceptions of the genre that might be around... in part because of the similarities, marketing wise with books that are considered Paranormal Romances.

Well, I hope that this post has addressed what this thread is about.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Boy, Hobbit, you certainly like tackling the big questions, don't you. This is an issue that has puzzled the world of art since man first drew paintings on cave walls.

There was probably one particular cave man whose sketches and drawings were more "academically" praised. His work was probably viewed by other cave drawers as "the best" professionally speaking. But he probably was not as popular as another cave man artist who used gaudy colors and techniques that appealed more to the larger, more uneducated audience.

Hence, the fight over ART began and we are still waging it today.

I try not to begrudge bad writers their fame and popularity, if they garnish such. I realize that my standards as a reader are not employed by everyone else. And I absolutely loathe artistic arrogance. There is nothing inherently wrong with writing a story, or series of stories, that gain mass appeal. As a matter of fact, there is an argument to be made that if your work only appeals to the smartest one percent of the audience, then it is somewhat lacking in value because of its exclusive appeal. Maybe, maybe not. That is probably an entire different debate altogether.

But what I find disturbing is when I read a book or listen to a song or watch a play or movie, or whatever art I observe/experience, and it is obvious that the artist/writer/songwriter has created the work with the seemingly sole intention of generating money/interest through mass appeal.

Now, I am sure there are examples of artists who set out solely to make money and they still created some quality art. For example, the Rolling Stones immediately come to mind. My understanding is that Mick Jagger was an economics student who started a rock-n-roll band because he wanted to make money. It turns out, the Rolling Stones have made some quality music that many think have some legitimate artistic value/merit. But I suppose there are always going to be the exceptions that prove the rule.

In the end, if nothing else, there is obviously a certain value/quality in being able to appeal to a greater number of people and impact them, in being able to speak to them, if you will. Some of that value/quality is muted, however, when an artist focuses solely on appealing to a mass audience, at least for me it does when it becomes sorely obvious that is what the artist is doing.

 

[Werthead]

There's certainly nothing wrong with being popular.

Indeed, one criticism levelled at many genre awards that works that no-one's ever heard of keep winning and works with large fanbases are ignored. It is interesting to note that Song of Ice and Fire's award nominations and prospects at the Hugos and Nebulas seem to have declined inversely to the series' growth in profile and popularity, whilst many popular, widely-read books rather sniffily don't even get a look-in. Both the Hugos and Nebulas also suffer from localism: both are American-focused awards, overtly in the Nebulas' case so fair enough, but the Hugos claim to be the most important SF awards in the world whilst not being representative of the wider genre. Non-American-published books rarely get nominated and some authors get nominated every year despite producing solidly MOR works (like the fun-but-lightweight Scalzi) simply because they go to Worldcons and are friends with a lot of industry insiders.

That said, the online voting aspect of the Gemmell Awards is undeniably problematic. Not because Sapkowski won last year per se - I think that it is actually healthy for a non-English language author unknown in the UK and USA but hugely popular elsewhwere to win a profile-boosting award - but because the works with the biggest fanbases will simply win year after year (I can see WoT dominating this and the next two years in a row due to this) based on the whole body of their work, not just the one novel by itself (this particularly was the case for Sapkowski and was one issue with his victory) ranged against its peers. That's the other problem, that with a popular vote there is no guarantee that the voters will have read every book on the shortlist. Did all of Sapkowski's mainland European-only voters read the other books on the shortlist, few of which had been translated into German or Polish or whatever by that point? Highly unlikely.

For that reason a popular vote for the shortlist followed by a switch to a jury might be a stronger approach, combining the best of both approaches.

 

[Mithfânion]

Bastard

We often get caught up in the Internet Hype, then we leave the comforts of our rooms and computer to learn that no one around you really gives a rat's ass about what you've just debated quite heatedly with a couple of internet peers.

That's funny isn't it? I have that all the time. Nearly everyone in my circle has no interest in genre books, and only a few are interested in books at all.

In any case, speeding to Mark's points, or rather, his array of points, for surely that was the most expansive of Hobbit's posts that I can recall in some time

I've been reading James' blog post that Hobbit linked to. I know James posts here, so maybe he will chime in. I agree with the Pro Gemmell Award camp here.

I will reply as follows:

The anti-argument (as I see it from sites such as Speculative Fiction ) is this, I believe, in a nutshell.
1) The books nominated for the DGLA are voted for online globally.
2) This is a bad thing.
3) It is a bad thing because it is open to misuse.
4) The results are skewed by on-line fan groups organising themselves in packs and voting

Ok, so what we have is a popularity contest of sorts. I think this serves to make this award something of a counterpoint to what James calls the literary awards that "should provide an alternative voice to that of bestseller lists, not just echo them". So what James and those of like mind want is precisely what some of these awards are offering, namely that they show a blatant disregard, deliberately, for a very popular subgenre. Apparently, the fact that there is now an award that also acknowledges popular epic fantasy books is a thorn in the eye of those who prefer tea parties about small press books, or anything else that is being ignored by " The Plebs ".

What is the solution for the problem to online voting? It's not ideal, we can take for granted that many voters are simply voting for what few books they read and liked, rather than having had an extensive amount of reading done on the books listed. Additionally, the longlist is far far too long to have done such a sampling anyway.

On the other hand the more exclusive awards are usually made up of a by a couple of insiders with particular tastes leaning decidedly away from epic High Fantasy. They are not interested in providing that broad overview either, and are thus not an imporvement on the DG Award.

As for the Hugo, that's a couple of hundred people voting each year. An astoundingly small group indeed, and when you take that into consideration, it's value as an award becomes less impressive indeed ( it certainly did to me). The only thing the Hugo says is those people coming each year to to the convention liked those books. It has no other value than that. It's not a meaningless award, it does tell us which new books were poplular with that particular group of fans, but it's hardly more meaningful than the Gemmell Award.

And what about the Locus Award? You can vote for that online as well, and yet oddly, it does not come in for the amount of criticism that the Gemmell award does? Why would that be?

The answer to that of course is that the results of the Locus Award still tends to include a lot of "left field" literary books as well, far less epic Fantasy than the Gemmell Award. And thus the Gemmell Award is "bad for genre" but the online poll done by the established SFF magazine Locus is fine. Ahum.

) The results may also be biased by big corporate business throwing its weight in.
6) And therefore the results cannot be trusted.

I don't think there is really any sign of this.

7) Popularity does not equal artistic merit

Agreed, but similarly, obscurity does not equal overlooked masterpiece either. That is something the Anti-Gemmell Award campl likes to turn a blind eye to. Gemmel himself of course was not a favorite of the awards clique, and it's therefore utterly unsurprising that the award celebrating books in his spirit should be equally spurned.

So, in closing, the award should continue to exist, and should not be taken more or less seriously than any of the other ones. That it may not be a subgenre award that some people enjoy is a fact just as much as the disappointment garnered by say the Nebula and Hugo Awards to those less disposed to non-epic fantasy.

 

[Hobbit]

LOL. All for tackling the big questions, me!

I'll tackle a couple of these before I have to dash elsewhere.

I love online polls, but some sort of restrictions and controls need to be in place to make it as valid and representative as possible.

But do they? (Sorry, but the NBA All Star reference means nothing to me.) When we've run the usual end of year Polls at SFFWorld have we done so? Admittedly we have the 'must be published in the year' reference and the voters are the usual SFFWorld members for the main. Usually those who vote are those with an interest in the outcome. I would hate to say that my view is more or less valid than anyone elses - that way lies the 'look at me, don't listen to them because I know best' attitude.

About a book becoming popular? Well, that has more to do with marketing and fortunate opportunities more than anything.

Actually I'm not sure about the importance of marketing in that statement. It does play a part, obviously, and there are some books that get LOTS of it, but there are some books that catch publishers off guard and sell (or at least become noticed) without huge amounts of marketing. For all that marketing can you see Terry Goodkind's The Law of Nines in that list? And that last year saw Juliet Marillier on the Shortlist, who has an established loyal fanbase but (here in the UK as far as I can tell) receives relatively little marketing. Whilst I can take the point that marketing can work up to a point (otherwise why put money into it?) I think there's more at work here. Graham McNeill's Warhammer 40K novel Empire?? Pierre's Cardinal Blades? Not seen a lot of publicity out there for these this year yet they've made it to the list.

If it was all about publicity then the list would just be the well-known authors. And it isn't, though I do take your point.

Got to go but will come back to this later.

Mark

 

[Erfael]

I can't seem to find it anywhere: What is the David Gemmell Legend Award? Is it specifically for epic fantasy? sword and sorcery? heroic fantasy? Is it for any fantasy at all or only secondary world? I'm not clear on that point.

 

[Bastard]

LOL. All for tackling the big questions, me!

I'll tackle a couple of these before I have to dash elsewhere.



But do they? (Sorry, but the NBA All Star reference means nothing to me.) When we've run the usual end of year Polls at SFFWorld have we done so? Admittedly we have the 'must be published in the year' reference and the voters are the usual SFFWorld members for the main. Usually those who vote are those with an interest in the outcome. I would hate to say that my view is more or less valid than anyone elses - that way lies the 'look at me, don't listen to them because I know best' attitude.

What I meant by the NBA All-Star reference is that foreigners have a big incentive to vote for their own. In the NBA it's the Chinese players and since China has a huge population then players that shouldn't even be sniffing the All-Star game, let alone starting it, get there or get very close to getting there.

Americans and the British probably face a similar dilemma, but at the same time there's not one sole book representing their country, so the incentive to vote for a particular author based on nationality only lessens.

You know, it's hard to discriminate... but when the voters are discriminating, what can you do?

As for SFFWorld, do you mean that thread where we list the top 5 for the year? Or is it something else? But already there's a bit of a control in that it's forum members participating, and what that voting those is really show how popular those books were in this community. I don't think anyone would think anything else about it.

But at the same time, one could argue that the way the point system works may be flawed and maybe not capturing the real interest of the community and that maybe by limiting the number of books one can submit it does a disservice to some books while helping others. Worth considering.

So I think there's always something one could tweak here and there as appropriate so that the end results become as representative as possible of the community's opinion you want to be represented by the results.

Actually I'm not sure about the importance of marketing in that statement. It does play a part, obviously, and there are some books that get LOTS of it, but there are some books that catch publishers off guard and sell (or at least become noticed) without huge amounts of marketing. For all that marketing can you see Terry Goodkind's The Law of Nines in that list? And that last year saw Juliet Marillier on the Shortlist, who has an established loyal fanbase but (here in the UK as far as I can tell) receives relatively little marketing. Whilst I can take the point that marketing can work up to a point (otherwise why put money into it?) I think there's more at work here. Graham McNeill's Warhammer 40K novel Empire?? Pierre's Cardinal Blades? Not seen a lot of publicity out there for these this year yet they've made it to the list.

If it was all about publicity then the list would just be the well-known authors. And it isn't, though I do take your point.

Got to go but will come back to this later.

Mark

Well, we're making general statements here. There are always exceptions. And surely, marketing is not the whole of it, but still a very important aspect. In this industry it seems word of mouth is the most important if anything, but how many mouths one needs for finally that book to catch a bit of fire?

But let me just say, when I was talking about popularity I was mainly talking from the perspective of the book being known and selling. Wasn't really thinking of the "liked" aspect. Since, for it to be well liked by the many, it has to first be known by the many also I would think.

As you mention, there are those that take publishers by surprise. But those also probably had a more steep cliff to climb. At the same time, availability can become an issue, distribution can become an issue, reach can become an issue depending on the interest of the publisher in said book. And they all play their part in helping a book become popular and reaching the masses.

About well known author's, well their name is already pretty much a brand, that's already good marketing by itself. As for Warhammer, well doesn't that universe already have a ton of followers? So maybe that specific book doesn't need the marketing, but it doesn't really need it to reach its audience. As for Cardinal Blades, well I hadn't heard much of it, don't really know it. But at the same time I have to wonder if it falls in the problem that I mentioned above, of foreigners voting just to support certain authors of certain nationalities. Really don't know if it's the case here, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is.

 

[Hobbit]

Thanks for all of those points, both pro and counter. As ever, all views that make this sort of thing fun.

I am still dashing between places but again let me dip in a little where I feel I can add.

Easy ones for starters: Erf, the Gemmell Awards website is HERE. The page will tell you that the Award is for Fantasy, and for Fantasy which is 'Traditional, Heroic, Epic, or High Fantasy and/or in the spirit of David Gemmell’s own work.' As I've mentioned in my post above that covers a lot, though there are exceptions: NOT Horror, Slipstream, SF, Urban (‘real world’ i.e. Buffy or Twilight) or purely Historical (as opposed to well-researched Fantasy). For those grey areas (there are always some!) books can be submitted for consideration by the Steering Group.

I can see some having issues with that, but I see it as just being the rules of the Award. It's not as if those exceptions are catered for elsewhere.

for surely that was the most expansive of Hobbit's posts that I can recall in some time

Too little time, too much to do, Mith. I'm also conscious of the fact that such posts intimidate, or at least can come across as lecturing - never my intention. But yes, it's been a while, though THIS POST is perhaps my other most recent rant.

Bastard: thanks for the further explanation - being a non-sporting Brit, that now makes sense. Yes, there are occasions when people vote for their own. Wert has mentioned the Hugos and Nebulas, I've heard similar comments about the British Fantasy Society. Optimistically, or perhaps naively, I must say that in these days of globalisation, my impression is that that can happen less than it has in the past. From my own perspective, I have voted the last couple of years in the Hugos online and never consider the place of origin but whether I've liked the book, film, whatever.

Yes, I did mean the Best 5 list: point taken.

If that was the case though, surely that would mean that the majority of nominees would be American? Biggest number of genre books written in English published each year (I'm ignoring China and India here), most number of interested readers (I'm guessing!)

That's why Sapkowski was a surprise to me last year, as my money (if I were a betting man) was on Joe Abercrombie. I know of others who said the same about Brent Weeks. I do like the fact that this Award can be a little more random, a little more unpredictable. Makes things interesting.

Since, for it to be well liked by the many, it has to first be known by the many also I would think.

Possibly. But as in the point made above, doesn't always seem to be the case. Some small presses do get in the mix: Myrmidon Press’ “Gladiatrix” made it into the top 20 last year, I think.

In this industry it seems word of mouth is the most important if anything, but how many mouths one needs for finally that book to catch a bit of fire?

Agree that word of mouth is important, but also conscious of the fact that it doesn't always work.

Got to go again.

More later.

Mark

 

[Rulkez]

I can't seem to find it anywhere: What is the David Gemmell Legend Award? Is it specifically for epic fantasy? sword and sorcery? heroic fantasy? Is it for any fantasy at all or only secondary world? I'm not clear on that point.

Edit : beaten to it by Hobbit

Mission Statement

The DGLA aims to:
• Raise public awareness of the Fantasy genre

• Celebrate the history and cultural importance of Fantasy literature

• Appreciate & reward excellence in the field

• Commemorate the legacy of David Andrew Gemmell and his contribution to the Fantasy genre

To contact the DGLA Steering Group, please email:
[email protected]

I read the original thread over at Horizons and thought it was the same old same old.

Genre snobs looking down on an award because it celebrates a sub genre that is for the plebs , and even worse it is voted for by " the public" .

Do genre awards actually mean anything to anyone ( outside of the blog-o-sphere or the hardcore that attend cons) anyway ? I know personally I would never purchased a book because it's had "Winner of the totally awesome fantasy award 2010" if it wasn't already on my radar.

Has anyone else done this, has anyone walked into your book store of choice and bought a book based on a cover blurb about it winning some award ?

 

[owlcroft]

The very title of this thread encapsulates a fallacy: that popularity and quality are opposed qualities. They are, in reality, essentially at right angles to one another--that is, weakly if at all correlated.

I have never really understood threads of this sort, which tend to produce posts that are 1) numerous; 2) long; and 3) fiery. There are qualities that make a book a good book, and there are qualities that make a book a popular book. One can argue about what either set of qualities exactly comprises, but considering them opposed, or even in principle opposable, is like trying to debate the quality of a book versus the color of its cover.

Now the question of the purposes and effects of awards, that's something of a different matter. I agree with the idea expressed in Rulkez's question: do people really buy books wholly or largely because there's a gold seal on the cover naming some award it's won? Short of a large-scale professionally designed and conducted poll I don't suppose we can know for sure, but I'd be somewhere from very surprised to shocked if more than some trivial number of readers make buying decisions on such a basis.

Awards are probably of interest to the people who win them and to the people who hand them out, but not, I strongly suspect, to very many other people.

 

[Erfael]

Has anyone else done this, has anyone walked into your book store of choice and bought a book based on a cover blurb about it winning some award ?

Actually, I have, but only for books that have said "Winner of the Mythopoeic Award for Adult Literature." I just haven't gone wrong with a Mythopoeic winner at any point in the past. I can't say the same for pretty much any other award. But that does bring me to the point I was thinking of getting at and which prompted me to ask what exactly the Gemmell award is awarding (and I still can't find the description on the web site, not the one Hobbit posted, at least.

My point is that I find these things pretty useless unless they're for a narrow slice of the fantasy pie. For a mythopoeic award winner, I can be sure the book was selected from a batch of similar books that are trying to tell a certain story in a certain style. I like that type of story, so I know that I'll probably like anything that wins that award.

The Hugo on the other hand, is selected from the whole range of SFF. I've found stories I like, stories I don't. I've found some works that I can't imagine that they won in any way other than there was no adequately popular competition for them that year. I stress popular in that I'm sure there were much better books, but they didn't sufficiently permeate the reading consciousness to rise to the top of the pile.

In short, I think the larger the potential pool of starting books, the more something turns into less of a mark of quality (of any kind) than a popularity contest...who can muster the largest numbers.

And really, is there any doubt that sales numbers are driving the short list with Abercrombie, Jordan/Sanderson, and Sanderson on there? Realistically, no matter how good a book is, it can't compete in a poll like this if there's another book on there that 25 times more people read. What are the sales numbers like for Gathering Storm? How much bigger are they for that than, say, Dawnthief, which was finally published in the US last year? Even if a far smaller percentage of its readers liked Jordan/Sanderson's book, there are still so many more of them.

What would be neat would be for one of these awards groups to weight the votes based on sales of the books. I haven't thought out the full implications of that yet, but it seems like an interesting start of an idea.

 

[ElinIsabel]

I'll admit that awards will lead to pick up a book I wouldn't otherwise have looked at. At least it will make me look twice.

A good critical review, or a blurb from an author I like, will do the same. Word of mouth from friends as well.

 

[Hobbit]

The very title of this thread encapsulates a fallacy: that popularity and quality are opposed qualities. They are, in reality, essentially at right angles to one another--that is, weakly if at all correlated.

Good point, owlcroft -the question mark in the title is deliberate, as too the point in my post that I think the divide can be false and that I don't have a problem with either.

The problem may be, as you say, that in the eyes of many it has to be one or the other. My point (or at least one of them!) is that, in my opinion, it doesn't have to be.

Mark

 

[Sparrow]

Actually, I'm fine with genre snobbery.

The problem with awards decided on by the public at large is that it really is a popularity contest. While I may use popular opinion to gage whether or not I want to read a certain novel (and most times I do just that), I don't want folks who aren't professionals or people who aren't very involved in the genre, and most likely have not read all but two or three of the finalists, handing out awards.

It's got to be on artistic merit or it's rather meaningless... and teenagers and most young people have little to go by when it comes to judging on merit. I'm picturing some kid jack'd up on Mountain Dew casting three thousand votes for one of those vampire-romance books... or not.

 

[Sparrow]

Edit :Has anyone else done this, has anyone walked into your book store of choice and bought a book based on a cover blurb about it winning some award?

Sure, I do it all the time when my audible.com credit comes up... I often check out the Hugo and Nebula and other sites to see what strikes my fancy... then I march on over to amazon.com and see what the 'little people' think of the various books on my short list.

 

[owlcroft]

Just so, just so.

. . . My point (or at least one of them!) is that, in my opinion, [such opposition] doesn't have to be.

Indeed.

Tolkien's work is very good and very popular. M. John Harrison's work is very good and not popular. Terry Brooks' work is not very good and popular. And there are uncountably many writers who are neither good nor popular.

As I said, discussions of whether and why books are good can be very interesting (and fiery); and discussions of why books are popular (whether they are is a matter of simple fact) can be interesting. But there is only chance overlap between the points to be made in either discussion.

 

[Palfrey]

My two cents...

First of all, awards mean absolutely nothing to me. I am more likely to choose a book based on the quality of its map than whether are not it won an award. (Yes, I have a map thing).

And because I don't pay attention to awards.... Can you provide examples of fantasy books that are said to have artistic merit? I'm sure I've read some, but I don't read any blogs or such on the genre. I'm only familiar with the "general" literary opinion which is that all fantasy except Tolkien is rubbish.

But on the subject of artistic merit... I'm thinking back to the "literary" books I had to read in high school. While I enjoyed some of them in the end, I likely wouldn't have bothered to finish them if left to my own devices. That to me means those books were failures - The most profound message in the world means nothing if no one is compelled to read it. All that to say that entertainment value can stand on its own, but artistic merit cannot.

 

[TheImp]

both have equal merit, anyone who says otherwise is forgetting what books are really about. both.

and they can be mutually exclusive, obviously. a popular book doesn't have to be devoid of artistic merit or depth or meaning either. popularity doesn't even come into the equation.