Comments on: Checking In: What Have You Read So Far?

By: Tatiana (The Readventurer)

Tatiana (The Readventurer) — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:22:39 +0000

Thanks. It’s an interesting issue to ponder on. It came to my mind after reading an article about a SF A. Clark award which questioned – what does it say about an award if the same author (in that specific case – China Miéville) gets recognized over and over again. And like Elizabeth just mentioned, same goes for Booker and Hilary Mantel. I personally need to think on it some more.

By: Karyn Silverman

Karyn Silverman — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:10:03 +0000

Tatiana– I think it must come up, because it’s one of those things we all think, and really, how do you avoid wondering about fairness? But it’s not something that the Printz committee is permitted to consider, based on the Policies and Procedures, so even if it came up officially, in dialogue with committee members at the table (as opposed to the secret second thoughts kind of wondering), the chair would remind the committee that fairness and balance are irrelevant; that each year’s committee is tasked with looking at only that year and putting aside biases or assumptions about fairness or who deserves recognition that would result in a comment like “John Doe has already won/honored, so let’s recognize Joe Doe instead.”

That said, we’re all only human, so are there times someone has looked at two books at the moment of voting and thought “all other things being equal, faced with two excellent books, do I vote for the known or the unknown”? I imagine there are; I don’t imagine, however, that anyone has ever said “I’ll choose the good book by debut author X over the great book by previous winner Y.”

I also think previous winners/honorees have expectations placed upon them that actually have people looking at their books MORE closely — Mark called this positive bias, but I think it often has negative outcomes for those authors.

By: Elizabeth Fama

Elizabeth Fama — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:41:08 +0000

Obviously that consideration doesn’t bother the Man Booker committee!

By: Tatiana (The Readventurer)

Tatiana (The Readventurer) — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:13:50 +0000

I remember reading about the rules. What interests me more is if the committee ever questions if it’s fair to award one type of writing over and over again, or they are supposed to keep looking for something different each year.

By: Elizabeth Fama

Elizabeth Fama — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:10:22 +0000

Tatiana--Sophie covered the rules about series in this post, and I quote: “The book should be self-contained, not dependent on other media for its meaning or pleasure. The book should not be considered in terms of other works by the author but as complete in itself.” Thus if Drowned Cities stands alone, it's a contender. But if you're talking about personal bias (whether a previous win makes it more likely that an author's work will be taken more seriously)--which is a question that interests me a lot--I feel like we touched a bit on it in, but I can't quite find the post now. This is the closest I can find, where Karyn asks whether knowing an author personally creates bias (a post that she ironically wrote because of meeting Paolo B.). One sort of “baggage” we all bring to our own reading is an awareness of an author’s body of work or past award wins--in other words, a "positive prejudice." But I assume the RealCommittee tries hard to avoid this. This article at The Hub by Sharon Rawlins has a nice analysis of the quality of subsequent books written by Printz-winning authors, and Mark and Sarah Flowers have touched on the topic of ranking the books in an author's body of work in this post on Crossreferencing.

By: Tatiana (The Readventurer)

Tatiana (The Readventurer) — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:30:10 +0000

Speaking of former Printz honorees and winners. Does the fact that an author has already won factor in the committee’s discussions at all? I am curious because, IMO, Drowned Cities IS in fact a better book than Ship Breaker. But they are in the same series. Does it matter?

By: Mark Flowers

Mark Flowers — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:18:01 +0000

I don’t expect to sway Tatiana or Miriam since they’ve both stated they didn’t care for THE DIVINERS, but for me the quality of the year is evident in how many former Printz honorees have outdone themselves (in my opinion):

ASK THE PASSENGERS – better than VERA DIETZ
BRIDES OF ROLLROCK – definitely better than BLACK JUICE, closing in on TENDER MORSELS
DROWNED CITIES – I liked it better than SHIPBREAKER, but this one is close
CHILDREN AND THE WOLVES – every bit as good as PUNKZILLA
DIVINERS – better than anything Bray has written, with the possilbe exception of BEAUTY QUEENS

By: Karyn Silverman

Karyn Silverman — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 02:05:31 +0000

@Miriam, the NBA nod means we pretty much have to add them, because I’m sure the RealCommittee is reading them now if they hadn’t already. More for the ever-growing pile!

By: Miriam

Miriam — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:56:42 +0000

Oh, are the rest of the National Book Award finalists going to be added to the Contendas list? I haven’t read any, but Endangered and Out of Reach look YA. Goblin Secrets does look too young for the Printz, though.

By: Miriam

Miriam — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:11:26 +0000

I may have to reread Seraphina before we discuss it in November, so I can either come around on it or be prepared to defend my meh reaction. But there are so many I haven’t read for the *first* time!

Also, meh is usually the hardest reaction to explain or justify. I can tell you why I hate a book or why I love it (usually), but meh?