Huh.

First, I want to take a run at something Elizabeth said: “Implicit in all of this is the assumption that the winners should (over time) fairly represent the percentage of each genre that’s published. That sounds right to me, but I wonder whether there’s anyone out there who’s willing to argue with that premise? ”

Me! Let’s take a look at the paranormal and dystopic fiction. The bookstores and the top 10 are full of these books because they are everywhere. Right now, there is no question that these would be a large percentage of titles out in the past year, and while things are shifting some for next year (I have seen a lot of soft scifi at previews), these are still dominant trends. So if the award should reflect the books that are out there (which, btw, the criteria explicitly state is NOT a goal, so there’s that, too), there should probably be at least two recognized titles that are paranormal and/or dystopic every year for the past few years. BUT. But. The trendiest genres are always full of books that we politely term commercial. Many might be conceived by packagers, many are formulaic, and many are published not because the agent or editor or even the author said “this is great literature” but because they thought the book would sell.

I strongly support formulaic, reads-just-like-the-last-five books. They are critical for developing reading fluency, even at the YA level. They are easy and fun. They are the blockbusters, as per Joy’s comments when we talking stars v awards. But I don’t support awarding them honors just because there are so darn many of them. That’s like saying pigeons and rats get some sort of most awesome animal award in NYC, just for being prevalent. And I think this holds true even if we are taking the long view. In the end, awards are about the criteria of the awards and the books that best embody that criteria, and for the Printz, genre is immaterial.

But then, what about the lack of recognition for brilliant fantasy over time? Is there genre bias? Sarah said no. Sophie thinks yes, and hopefully will toss some thoughtful arguments into the mix, because I think she’s thought about this a lot. I’m… not sure. I think that there can be bias in a committee, however hard they try to recognize the bias and move past it. Sometimes, the bias is because there is an uninformed readership, and so there are things that no one catches that are part of the brilliance of a text. Not because the committee has said “we hate mystery, so let’s ignore the mysteries” but because they don’t know the tropes that are being played with (usually, the books that are great do something more with, or completely disregard, the tropes and conventions of genre, otherwise they’d be formula books). I really believe that no committee is biased on purpose. But I do believe that a committee as a whole may have a bias based in previous baggage. You can put your baggage aside, but you can’t make up for having never read a nonfiction book, or a poetry book, or fantasy, or mystery, or whatever, ever before. And certain genres, especially those we call “genre books” — fantasy, science fiction, and mystery — do have a history of a smaller readership, which can result in less recognition as there might be not one person on a committee who can see what makes a specific title exceptional, because everyone lacks some needed context.

Then again, any given committee can also, in the same way, fail to be well versed in a more mainstream genre or style, so over time, I think it will balance, especially as the post Harry Potter world has a lot more people familiar with fantasy books, since we all had to become knowledgeable in order to do reader’s advisory.

So where are the arguments for genre bias? Sophie, Jonathan, anyone else?

I think your numbers seems to argue that there is a genre bias, though. The Printz winners have 53% contemporary, while Kelly’s “best of” lists have only 33% contemporary. The Printz winners have only 11% fantasy and sci-fi, while the “best of” lists have almost 33% fantasy/sci-fi. Thus, it looks like contemporary is over-represented relative to fantasy/sci-fi, at the very least.

Moreover, using the “best of” list as a proxy for how many books are published in each genre might pose a problem: if there in fact is a genre bias in judging literary works, it could already be showing up in a “best of” list to some extent. If this is true, it would mean the Printz winners are even less reflective than they seem of what’s actually on bookstore and library shelves.

Implicit in all of this is the assumption that the winners should (over time) fairly represent the percentage of each genre that’s published. That sounds right to me, philosophically, but I wonder whether there’s anyone out there who’s willing to argue with that premise? (I can think of arguments I don’t believe.)

P.S. And boy are you, Emily, and Kelly right that determining genre is an art, not a science, and that Printz winners are often blends…

I agree that being on a committee opens your ears to what others are saying about the book and a member tends to put their bias aside for the greater purpose. I do that as a school librarian too! If I only bought books I wanted to read, argh, poor students!

Clockwork Angel by Cassandra Clare (Simon & Schuster)
Mockingjay by Suzanne Collins (Scholastic)
Crescendo by Becca Fitzpatrick (Simon & Schuster)
I Am Number Four by Pittacus Lore (HarperCollins)
The Iron King by Julie Kagawa (Harlequin)
Matched by Ally Condie (Penguin)
Angel: A Maximum Ride Novel by James Patterson (Little, Brown & Company)
Paranormalcy by Kiersten White (HarperCollins)
Before I Fall by Lauren Oliver (HarperCollins)
Nightshade by Andrea Cremer (Penguin)

How many are contemporary realistic? Not saying these titles are necessarily Printz-worthy, but it’s clear that teens like genre fiction in a way that their librarians don’t.