Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

Roughly 25 years, somewhere over 250 Rita winners and maaaybe ten deserved the win?

Harsh.

I guess I should go back to work and keep writing my literary equivilent of paint my numbers.

Personally, I think the RITAs are much more legitimate than the Academy Awards. The Oscars are and have always been deliberately meant as a publicity scheme. They exist not to award the best movies of the year but primarily to increase box office for the major studios. In fact, until some time during the Second World War, they were controlled by Louis B. Mayer, who made sure MGM movies got the lion’s share of the awards. Sure, there are ‘artsy’ awards like those for the documentaries and short-subject films, but that’s to make the Academy look prestigious.

The Pulitzers, Nebulas, Hugos, and even the RITAs were legitimately created to first and foremost reward talent, even if publicity was a secondary reason. They all deserve much more respect than the Oscars. (And in fact so do the Emmys, which were originally envisioned as technical awards.)

The Ritas have too many categories.  Or rather, it has no blockbuster category like the Best Picture of the Year.  Think about it, movies, contemporary or historical or sf/f, 90 minutes or 180 minutes, religious or borderline erotica, they all have to compete against each other to be Best Picture of the Year.

I think RWA should have a best romance of the year award.  That would help. And carry more prestige than saying you are the winner in the short historical category which is exactly how different from a long historical?

That said, I’m not turning down a Rita for best short historical romance, which I should be getting in 2008.  Right?  Right.

Candy:  you rock.

What I understand about the RITA is this: 

Entrants have to pay to have their books considered, so there’s already a significant element of self-selection.  This may also account for why some established authors win books that seem comparatively weaker (so with you on the Worth Any Price eval—although it wasn’t as low a point as Again the Magic.  Oy, that book hurt to read).

Folks over at RTB insist there is not general criteria by which books are judged (outside of eligibility to actually compete within a category).  Of course, the Pulitzer juries don’t have written guidelines either, but perhaps there’s a common starting point there that doesn’t exist in RITA judging?

IMO there is a serious tension in Romance between the emotional impact of a book and larger issues of craft when it comes to evaluating books.  Like, if a book doesn’t work as a Romance for some readers, it’s not a great book, no matter how skilled a work it might be.  While clearly Romance has a certain emotional element to its evaluation that perhaps is unique to the genre, I don’t think that excludes a stronger focus on the *craft* of writing Romance (in fact, I would argue the opposite is true).  It’s one thing for a reviewer to say that a book was well-written but not romantic for him/her, but is that a legitimate basis for evaluation in a contest that’s supposed to reward the “best” in the genre? 

Candy, you’ve gone and hurt Nora’s feelings. Now maybe she won’t come and play at the Bitchery, and that will make me sad. Oh dear!

Although I suspect Roberts was simply trying to suggest that Candy was engaging in over-generalization and hyperbole, my first thought when I read her comment was, “Wow, that puts Candy in an uncomfortable position, where she now has to decide whether to reassure Roberts, and what are the implications of that, yada yada yada.” Of course, I’m working on a project on what constitutes torture in the “War on Terror,” so I’m feeling particularly cynical right now.

Ditto darling.

We love you Nora!!

The Windflower...yum, must be time for a re-read.

Shit hasn’t been thoroughly stirred here lately, so here I go and stir it with a vengeance.

Heh, I didn’t even realize I made an appropriate, if cheesy, little pun there.

Carol Irvin, whom I don’t know except for her posts on AAR ATBF a couple of weeks ago (apparently she was a reviewer there years ago), was talking about how the RITAs get no mainstream respect, whereas even the HUGO has now crossed over to mainstream recognition.  I wish I could recall the sum of her arguments, because she was very articulate on the matter, and I didn’t really have the same context in which to understand the significance of what she was saying until these conversations.  It was related to how the awards are chosen, how nominees are selected, and the overall quality of books in the genre, but beyond that . . . well the only thing beyond at this point is some stuff about the Geneva conventions, so that’s probably irrelevant.  Anyway, maybe someone else can pick up the point or can remember the argument as Irvin presented it.

Somehow, I feel compelled to go OT here & announce that I happen to be one of those folks who like Thomas Kinkade’s works.  Of course,I’d like them even better if they were done on black velvet....

I think the biggest problem with the RITAs is that they’re very much like the homecoming court… who is the most popular among the authors judging, not who neccessarily is the best.  I can say this now-- because I entered this year but nothing has been announced-- without sounding like sour grapes.  But since all the unpublished contests require you to submit anonymously, the writer holding your entry might not remember you’re the person who vomitted on them at conference last year.  Not so with the RITAs.

I mean, honestly, if you’re judging the RITAs and the OMG BESTEST WRITER EVAH according to sales and general fame is the entrant you end up judging, are you going to have the cajones to put on record that you didn’t like their book?  Similarly, if you’re holding a book by an author who is getting more attention at your publisher than you are, are you going to be objective?

It just seems like this endless spiral of who-is-prettier-than-who.  That’s why the lackluster books show up as being absolutely the best of the best.

These sort of discussions about the Romance world kind of make me glad that I write lesbian romance and therefore have no chance of ever winning one of these contests.

“One of the reasons given is that “the RITA is the Oscar or Pulitzer Prize of romances novels.” “
1. Did she say “romances novels” or did you? If she did, I’d say she undercut her argument right there. If you can’t even properly use English grammar and spelling in your argument that the RITAs deserve respect...well, need I say more?

2. The Oscars are a popularity contest and nothing more. There were far better movies in 1996 (all of them) than The English Patient, yet it won Best Picture. As another writer pointed out above, the Academy selection process shuts out most movies, especially independent productions and overseas movies, from consideration. If the RITAs are truly like the Oscars, they deserve jeers and sneers, because they’re based on major authors kissing butt, not quality.

3. Pulitzer? Please. I love romance novels. I really do. And I know some of them address real-world, serious issues like spousal abuse. But they aren’t anything close to the world-changing effects that the winners of the Pulitzers have. Mostly, even the most serious romance novel is entertainment first and everything else last. Period. Nothing wrong with that. But I don’t want to see us make the mistake that some people do when they defend an often-maligned genre and say it can cure AIDS and make julienne fries when it’s obvious that it can’t. That’ll just hold romances and romance readers up to more ridicule than we already get.

4. I just recommended Miss Wonderful and Lord Perfect by Loretta Chase to my rather serious mainstream reading mother. It’s the first known “please, read a romance” effort I’ve ever made, and I hope it proves successful.

As a member of the Board of Directors of RWA, as well as a RITA winner, I have zero objectivity when it comes to this blog post.  I will therefore refrain from comment.  But I will pose a question:

If one considers the RITA contest to be broken, how does one propose to fix it?  As a person who has some ability to wield the tools of repair, I would sincerely like to know.

You fix the RITAs by getting new judges.

I know...good luck. :-)

Please disregard my question.  This is not the venue to query for responses.
My apologies.

Ten out of fifty read I can buy. Ten out of fifty read that YOU felt deserved the award strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

My books aren’t everyone’s cuppa. But one day, Candy, one day the scales will fall from your eyes, and you will be mine.

As for comments on the entry and judging criteria. Any member of RWA can enter a book--doesn’t have to be their book. I can’t remember what the entry fee is, and I’m too lazy to look it up, but I’m thinking around $25. To qualify, the entered book has to meet the criteria--clearly outlined--for its category.

A couple of years ago I judged several books in the preliminary round. One of them was a cozy mystery. There was no romantic relationship in it. None. The female protagonist solved a mystery. No sexual tension with anyone, no smoochies, no romantic overtones. Nothing. It was a competent book. It was not a Romance. It didn’t meet the criteria. Should I have judged it on its merits as a cozy mystery? I don’t think so. I was judging a contest for Romance novels for an award given by RWA. Even if it had been entered in the Strong Romantic Elements category--which it wasn’t--it wouldn’t have fit.

There has to be criteria.

Lastly, I believe Candy can handle a comment from me without sweating about reassurance. Just as I can handle one from her. We’re both grown-ups.

Of course, I’m older and wiser, and the time will come when I’m not only her cuppa, but she guzzles me like a wino guzzles Run, Walk and Lie Down.

~I mean, honestly, if you’re judging the RITAs and the OMG BESTEST WRITER EVAH according to sales and general fame is the entrant you end up judging, are you going to have the cajones to put on record that you didn’t like their book?  Similarly, if you’re holding a book by an author who is getting more attention at your publisher than you are, are you going to be objective?~

If you can’t, you shouldn’t judge.

The entrants don’t know who’s judging their entry. Why would it take cajones to judge a book--by anyone--on its merits without worrying about the author’s fame and sales?

I don’t get that.

Entrants who also judge don’t judge in any category in which they’re entered. Obviously that could lead to stickiness.

I’ve lost plenty of times, and since--to the best of my knowledge--I’ve never booted on anyone at a conference, I believe there are many who are able to judge fairly. Though, of course, they were wrong whenever I didn’t win.

Let me just say, Candy, dear, LaNora is the best storyteller in the genre.  If you’d get over your apparent squickie sticky amour for historicals you’d know that.  Ok to be nice, our taste in romance is completely opposite.  Even Sarah’s taste.  I haven’t read Windflower since the 80’s, but I distinctly remember throwing it against the wall, thinking, bad, bad, bad, caca, caca, oooh, yuckie, or maybe even less polite thougts.  First romance I tried outside of Georgette Heyer, Mary Stewart or Jane Aiken Hodge.  The comparison was dismal, I assure you.  I agree that the overabundance of categories makes the RITA useless as a vehicle to legitimize romance for the larger public.  I mean historical inspirational, inspirational history, not-so-romantic romance, too romantic romance.  Don’t give a frick personally.  But if they went to top romance of the year, would LaNora win every year as she is clearly the best, or be like Meryl Streep, who seldom wins because she is so much better than the average Hollow-wood hack?  As for the Hugo and the Nebula, I only read the novels that win BOTH, like Lois McMaster Bujold.  I know I’m only a doctor, but I did major in lit in college, so I read all those famous guys too--like Rousseau in the original French.  But with far less enjoyment than my romance.

IMO there is a serious tension in Romance between the emotional impact of a book and larger issues of craft when it comes to evaluating books.  Like, if a book doesn’t work as a Romance for some readers, it’s not a great book, no matter how skilled a work it might be.

This is where the rubber meets the road, as far as I’m concerned.

A week ago, I stumbled into this conversation over on the Juno blog (check the comments for the important part):

http://juno-books.com/blog/?p=118

So long as a certain segment of the reading population—and I have no idea how large or small that segment is, but I harbor grave fears—buys a “feeling” instead of a story, we’ll always be marginalized in terms of artistic merit. We can hold as many award ceremonies as we like, natter on about craft ‘til the cows come home, but to some, we’ll always be literary Prozac. Emo porn. Crack disguised as ink on paper.

Should we discontinue the Ritas because of it? Nah. But neither should we kid ourselves, because while the folks judging the contest—being authors themselves—may have an elevated appreciation for craft, they began as romance readers and are likely looking just as hard for that “glow” as the next Borders and B&N browser.

Is that a bad thing? I dunno. But it’s a thing.

Another half of a thought.  Sci-Fi is becoming more acceptable, i.e. less embarrassing to admit aloud that one reads it, because of the ascendancy of the geek.  It is now ok to be a geek.  Women are finally on the ascendant as well--a female speaker of the House, a legitimate candidate for President who is demonstrably XX in chromosomal make-up.  Maybe the RITA’s should go to Best Romance of the year.  We would have to have a fan side award too--like the Hugos and the Nebulas--one author voted, one more popular.  Maybe romance readers (OMG, maybe even romance writers) would finally get a little respect.

There used to be a Best Romance of the Year (or whatever it was called).  It was discontinued for lack of voting participation in the final round (I believe).

Anyone could nominate the books to be considered, so oftentimes RWA chapters would “encourage” their membership to submit a title by one of their members, making sure it hit the top ten and then made the final cut for the full membership vote.

As for making a Best Romance of the Year, I would put out there that it would be sticky to say the least. Romance is the most genreized (yes I’m making up words, you can’t stop me!) of all the genres! And there is a lot of elitism among(st) it’s readers:
“I’ll read historicals but I won’t touch that vampire crap.” or “ Prefer to stay in the 21st century when I read all the flubs in historicals it makes me crazy.”
So I can tell you for certain if RWA gave a RITA to saaaaay a Paranormal for BEST of 2008 can you imagine the bitching/whining/knashing of teeth that would insue?  I think it’s a good idea to keep the RITA’s the way they are.
I am I right? or should I cut back on the Diet Coke?

Lastly, I believe Candy can handle a comment from me without sweating about reassurance. Just as I can handle one from her. We’re both grown-ups.

Okay, I’ll admit that my first thoughts weren’t *exactly* as I posted them, because I wasn’t really worried about Candy’s ability to handle anything.

So long as a certain segment of the reading population—and I have no idea how large or small that segment is, but I harbor grave fears—buys a “feeling” instead of a story, we’ll always be marginalized in terms of artistic merit.
[...]
Should we discontinue the Ritas because of it? Nah. But neither should we kid ourselves, because while the folks judging the contest—being authors themselves—may have an elevated appreciation for craft, they began as romance readers and are likely looking just as hard for that “glow” as the next Borders and B&N browser.

I got the impression on the RtB blog that books are basically judged like this for the RITA.  I also get the impression that “craft” is limited to the basic rules of fiction writing, and is not seen as broadly inclusive of all the skills that converge in a masterful book.

One person pointed out that she doesn’t “critique” books in the RITA judging as she does unpublished contest submissions.  As only one reader who has no desire to write Romance, I find that counterintuitive.  Not that the bar for publication shouldn’t be set high—as someone else over there pointed, out, it seems that everyone wants to or thinks they can write a Romance novel.  But if the RITAs are supposed to award excellence or determine the best of the genre (and I think Sarah has a good point about judging within one year’s offerings rather than an overall genre best), why isn’t “critique” part of the evaluation process? 

Although I am very much in agreement with your analysis here, I’m not fully convinced that it’s those readers who crave that “feeling” who ultimately determine the level of respect Romance gets, because that “glow” can exist just as easily in a well-written book as a weaker offering.  But if publishers don’t value and nurture authors as craftspeople, and if editors are continually shortening word count and determining that readers want less heft, and if copyeditors are so overburdened or whatever it is they are to keep from vetting books adequately, then that “glow” is the only criteria loyal genre readers can count on—and Romance readers seem incredibly genre loyal. 

Someone on Dear Author commented recently (after the Celebrate Romance event) that there’s something called the “young editor” syndrome, in which many editors are young and relatively inexperienced, and they believe that readers only want shorter (less attention span—no kidding!) and lighter books.  And apparently they value feedback directly from readers rather than through authors.  Sadly and ironically, though, editors seem to be the most insulated from direct reader feedback, even though it sounds like they need to be reached most immediately.  Then there’s the whole issue that Karen Templeton pointed to about how many big publishing houses use Romance as their “cash cow” to finance riskier, less commercially successful literary ventures—which to me translates to innovation everywhere but where it’s needed most.

So after hearing all that, I’m even more appreciative of the handful of wonderful reads I had this past year, from Pam Rosenthal’s The Slightest Provocation to Meljean Brook’s Demon Angel, to Shana Abe’s The Smoke Thief, etc.  I’m hoping that the more readers talk up these less run-of-the-mill reads, the more people will read them, etc. etc. etc.  And I’m increasingly turning to ebooks, where I’m assured the boundaries are being more routinely pushed.

So long as a certain segment of the reading population [...] buys a “feeling” instead of a story, we’ll always be marginalized in terms of artistic merit. We can hold as many award ceremonies as we like, natter on about craft ‘til the cows come home, but to some, we’ll always be literary Prozac. Emo porn. Crack disguised as ink on paper.

We’ve been discussing the issue of quality in literature at Teach Me Tonight this week. We started by
taking a look at what people might actually mean when they call romance ‘porn’ (because they don’t all seem to be using the term in the same way).

Mostly, even the most serious romance novel is entertainment first and everything else last.

And then we got onto the issue of quality versus popularity. I do think there are some things a writer can get wrong and the most obvious is if they use the wrong words e.g. when characters are flaunting convention by flouting their charms in public. But a lot of other things are a matter of preference. I’m sure, looked at from a modern perspective, some literary classics are full of ‘info-dump’, they tell rather than show and they don’t ‘start when the action starts’.

My intuition would be that while readers may accept a romance which ‘works’ on an emotional level, they’re going to be even more pleased with a romance which works emotionally and also works in other areas. They may not immediately be aware of the mastery of craft or the layering of meaning etc, but it will contribute to the richness of their reading experience.

~Okay, I’ll admit that my first thoughts weren’t *exactly* as I posted them, because I wasn’t really worried about Candy’s ability to handle anything.~

Ooh, ouch. Well, you don’t have to worry about me either.

And next time, you can be right up front from the jump. I can handle that, too.

~Okay, I’ll admit that my first thoughts weren’t *exactly* as I posted them, because I wasn’t really worried about Candy’s ability to handle anything.~

And next time, you can be right up front from the jump. I can handle that, too.

To be honest, I was primarily focused on the implication that that Candy was incapable of responding, and I didn’t really think beyond that point in your latter comment.  In all frankness, my initial comment was in reaction to the combination of your comment and Sarah’s, and the way hers shaped how I read yours (and vice versa).  Actually, your initial comment surprised me more than anything else.

One person pointed out that she doesn’t “critique” books in the RITA judging as she does unpublished contest submissions.

Robin, I haven’t read the original post you’re referring to here, but what she probably means is that in the RITA contest judges only give points and don’t comment on the entries. In most RWA contests for unpubbed authors, by contrast, judges do both; sometimes they’re even encouraged to make comments in the margins of the excerpts themselves.

Candy incapable of responding? Candy? Top snarky uber-bitch Candy might be incapable of making a response to me? You can’t be serious.

I don’t know why you were surprised by my initial response, as Candy herself said she miss-blogged--if that’s a term. (No cookies for Candy)And my response to her response seems to have cleared all that up nicely.

Robin, be straight. You indicated that you felt I couldn’t handle Candy’s comment. Then it’s initial comments and Sarah’s comment and latter comments. There’s really no need for all the backpeddling. It’s the Smart Bitches blog. You took a flick at me. I flicked back.

We’re all Bitches here. We can all handle it.

what she probably means is that in the RITA contest judges only give points and don’t comment on the entries.

You may be right, Sandra.  Here’s what she (Mary Stella) said exactly:

I’ve only been eligible to judge in the Ritas for a couple of years. I’ve been a romance reader for over 30 years. For me, being fair and impartial means reading the books as a reader, reacting to them with my heart and my head. I’m not analyzing them to give a critique, like I am if I judge a writing contest for not-yet-published authors and am asked to comment on things like POV, pacing, characterization, etc.

Now I don’t know this person, so I can’t discern her exact meaning here, but I connected to the “I’m not analyzing” language and assumed she meant internally.  But it could be as you say.

This whole discussion really has me thinking about how as much as I enjoy a number of Romance novels, I don’t know how many live up to what I have as an ideal of “excellence” in the form of an award.  I don’t know whether that has to do with my own assumptions about *other* awards in other media, or about Romance in general, or about specific books.  Maybe some of everything.  But since Samuel’s original post was on why “readers should care about the RITAs,” I’m pretty sure my reasons for doing so would be different than many others, readers and authors included. 

I’ve been following the conversations on Teach Me Tonight about this issue, and at the very least, I think our conflicts over the *mission* of Romance fiction informs some of the dissent around Samuel’s position.  Is it entertainment or art or both?  What constitutes excellence in a book, and what role does emotional impact play (which is both highly subjective and central to reader expectations of the genre)?  Does Romance’s sheer size and profitability impair more traditional measures of literary quality?  Etc., etc., etc.

Candy incapable of responding? Candy? Top snarky uber-bitch Candy might be incapable of making a response to me? You can’t be serious.

Huh?  Now you’ve totally lost me, because I wasn’t the one to make that assertion.  Ever.  But I didn’t want to let your inference (authentic or not) stand as my implication.  And it wasn’t just your comment to which I initially responded—or reacted, for that matter. I think I’ve shown, time and time again, that I can stand up directly to you and to anything you’ve got to dish out.  From where I stand, I haven’t tried to backpedal one little bit, either from what I have said in my comments or what I have chosen not to say.  Even if I’ve cleaned some of it up for public expression.

“Wow, that puts Candy in an uncomfortable position, where she now has to decide whether to reassure Roberts, and what are the implications of that, yada yada yada.”

~To be honest, I was primarily focused on the implication that that Candy was incapable of responding, and I didn’t really think beyond that point in your latter comment. ~

Your comments. Please show mine where I implicated Candy or anyone else was incapable of responding to me. Because as I’m reading this you made the implication.

Please show mine where I implicated Candy or anyone else was incapable of responding to me.

Your response to my comment:  “Lastly, I believe Candy can handle a comment from me without sweating about reassurance.”

If that’s what you took from my comment, then I wanted to make damn sure no one else did.  I don’t care how capable someone is of responding—whether she should be in that position is another thing, IMO, and the intended point of my comment (and not just for Candy’s sake, but for other potential commenters, as well).  Especially since—again—yours was not the only comment to which I was reacting.  That I could not discern whether Sarah was entirely serious led me to split the difference by responding to *her* comment in reference to *yours*.

Let me ask a question here, to any who feel inclined to answer. If I--or any other writer--disagree with a reader here, or one of the big bitches, is reassurance required--or else implications may ensue? If one of the readers here--or one of big bitches--states that my work (or another writer who frequents here) isn’t to her taste, doesn’t like my books or feels they’re crappy, and I respond, does it follow the original commentator’s in a tough spot?

I’ve never felt that way here, which is one of the reasons I enjoy this site.

And what ARE the implications? I go away? I say I don’t like that big bitch meanie and go elsewhere to play? Will, do you think, this action have any effect on this site--which, seems to me, got along fine before I stumbled in the door.

I admit--straight out--it pisses me off that it’s implied I can’t speak my mind to Candy or anyone here--particularly when it’s spoken without viciousness--as any other poster can. That by doing so I’ve put another poster in ‘an uncomfortable position’.

If this is the case, then I’ll apologize, as I’ve obviously misunderstood how things run here.

Please show mine where I implicated Candy or anyone else was incapable of responding to me.

Your response to my comment:  “Lastly, I believe Candy can handle a comment from me without sweating about reassurance.”

All this says is that I believed Candy fully capable of commenting.

You made the implication, Robin. Your words. You said I’d put Candy in an uncomfortable position. Whether it was in response to me or to Sarah, or a combination of both, the statement was yours alone. And I responded to it.

There were plenty of years when the Hugo award did not go to what many SF fans considered the best of the best. The Hugos are voted by the members of the World SF Society (WSFS). One joins WSFS by buying an attending or supporting membership for that year’s Worldcon.  That means, for example, that a Worldcon in Canada may find the awards more skewed to Canadian writers since more Canadian fans are likely to be members that year.

The Nebulas are voted by the members of SFWA, so some readers consider them a better indication of quality.  However, a Hugo and Nebula award winning author told me once he’d rather have a Hugo, since it comes from his readers rather than his peers, and he believes that’s a better award.

Please show mine where I implicated Candy or anyone else was incapable of responding to me.

Okay, I give up.  My only concern was that no one thought *I* made that implication based on your response to my comment.  I can’t clarify this any further.

You said I’d put Candy in an uncomfortable position.

Yup.  That was, and remains *my* opinion—whether, by the way, she felt that way or not.  Yeah, *I* thought your comment came across in part as an invitation for reassurance (especially since Candy’s comment wasn’t directed at you).  And in my opinion, the comment felt more like an invitation than a retort to Candy’s hyperbolic point—whether or not you meant it that way.  And I probably wouldn’t have voiced *my* opinion if it weren’t for Sarah’s comment, which, it seems to me, was ALSO an invitation for reassurance—whether she meant it that way or not. Or whether Candy took EITHER comment that way. 

So I thought both comments were invitations for reassurance—why is than an indictment of your right (or anyone’s) to respond to anyone else here?  That you had every right to call Candy on what you thought was an unfair point, I have absolutely no doubt or complaint.  And you can do so however you want.  But yeah, the two comments we’ve been discussing struck me—ME—a certain way.  I’m sure lots of other people didn’t take them that way.  Frankly, I thought I was pretty gentle in my comment, both to you and Sarah.  Because I wasn’t trying to chill anyone’s speech; on the contrary, it was the thought of chilled speech that provoked my comment.

Well, this is interesting. 

Candy pointed out that there have been a lot of winners she thought were mediocre or worse.  Right there with you, Candy.  But how are you going to fix that?  Somebody said by getting better judges.  The Ritas are already judged by published authors, but we need a LOT of judges because the contest is freaking huge, so coming up with more stringent requirements for judges (and what would those be?) would just shut the contest down.  There are five judges in the first round and five in the last so that’s ten different published authors who score and rank the books.  Of course it’s not a fail safe process, but given the problems inherent in finding enough judges, that’s a pretty good span. 

Do mediocre books get the prize?  All the time.  But that’s my mediocre, possibly not yours.  Plus any judging by committee is going to reward the more middle of the road. The romance genre is incredibly wide and even within the subgenres, reading tastes vary widely.  There are even some romantic comedy readers who can’t abide my books.  I find this inexplicable, but hey, it happens. 

So the books that get the nominations are the ones that pleased ten judges enough to make high scores and rankings, without annoying anybody.  That’s going to mean that nothing too cutting edge wins a Rita. (I’m not surprised that the most traditional romance I ever wrote is the single title that won for me.) Or an Oscar or a Grammy or an Emmy. But what’s the alternative?  Have one judge read 800 single title romances and make the call?  All that’s going to get you (assuming it was possible) is a reflection of the tastes of one person. 

Add to that the fact that all judging of creative work is subjective, and no award is going to make everybody happy.

What interests me is that giving awards to less than stellar entries hasn’t stopped the Oscars or the Edgars or any of the other awards from becoming influential in those fields.  The Rita appears to be the only one that doesn’t have a major impact on careers, doesn’t cause a spike in sales.  Which was Candy’s original argument.

So if it’s not the fact that so many Rita winners are mediocre since the other awards often reward the mediocre, too, what is it? 

I think it’s the breadth of the genre.  Too many different kinds of books with too many different kinds of readers to be able to draw everybody to buy one book the way the Best Oscar draws people to one movie.  The old Ten Best Romances of Whatever Year did boost sales because bookstores used to feature those, but there are so many Rita categories that they don’t do the same for the Ritas.

I think fewer categories would be a big step toward making it easy for bookseller and librarians to showcase the titles and journalists to write about it, especially giving a Best Book of the Year.  But I think it comes down to what we want the Ritas for.  If we want them to have a significant impact on careers, then we revamp the contest to get that impact.  But if we want to make the best effort we can to reward all the different genres in RWA, the breadth of the industry, if they’re for us, not for increasing sales, then what we’ve got is probably our best system.  And I think that’s what they were designed for, for our party, not for commercial purposes. 

I think it’s impossible to compare the Ritas to any other award just because no other award has to cover so many titles, let alone so many kinds of titles.  Unless we’re willing to ignore that, the Ritas aren’t going to have an impact.  I think.

Darlene, Thanks for the clarification on the Hugos and the Nebulas, me I’m just a fan.  And Miri, you’re so right, we can’t get any respect if we read “Vampires in Lurve.” Robin, I notice when you post that you are very thoughtful (both types of thoughtful--kind and also showing that you thought your comments through).  Candy is gonna be a lawyer, she can, I am sure, bend with fate’s little slings and arrows.  But as a fan and only a fan, I love that authors post here, including Nora.  I enjoy reading what they think of their covers.  I smacked a book (not knowing the author posts here) and she smacked me back.  My only thought was, “Cool, I got snarked by somebody who is published!” I don’t like any of the books that Candy and Sarah seem to like, but I enjoy their unique perspectives.  If folks have to start being sweet all the time at Smart Bitches, the only titties that will be left will be the titty-fingered approach we’ll have to take with each other.  And for that I can go to Running with Quills.  I will admit that I’ve only read a few RITA winners--mostly Noras--but I liked the ones I read.  Still don’t give a frick about the RITA’s however because the categories are too nitpicky for me--sorry Stef.

The Nebulas are voted by the members of SFWA, so some readers consider them a better indication of quality.  However, a Hugo and Nebula award winning author told me once he’d rather have a Hugo, since it comes from his readers rather than his peers, and he believes that’s a better award.

I always get a kick out of celebrities who accept a number of different awards, trying to explain how each one is their *favorite*.  I suppose when there are only two in a field, it’s easier to make a reliable choice! 

Your explanation reminded me that one of the things Irvin referred to was the Stoker awards, and, IIRC, how they boosted their status by nominating a more mainstream book.  I don’t have any idea if this would be a good or even workable strategy for the RITA—which more and more seems to me an award given by and for authors—but it may be an acknowledgment that other genres just have more cross-over appeal to begin with, inherently boosting the reputation of their awards.  As large as Romance is, it also seems somewhat insulated, at least in the main.

The Romantic Novelists’ Association has the Romantic Novel of the Year Award. It’s run rather differently from the Rita, as is explained on the page I linked to.

it may be an acknowledgment that other genres just have more cross-over appeal to begin with, inherently boosting the reputation of their awards

The RNA possibly already has more ‘cross-over appeal’ in that they aren’t so focussed on the HEA as is the RWA, but there is that RITA for a novel with romantic elements. I’m also not sure how influential the RNA awards are, though one would possibly have to take into account the fact that the RNA is nowhere near the size of the RWA, so that probably has an effect too.

Seems to me I always here a lot of dish around Oscar time about how the Academy always awards the safe movies, and Oh My God, how ignorant and plebian of them to leave out this movie or that. The Oscars are not cutting edge and neither are the Ritas.

Some of the authors that have been held up as Amazing (in this post and others) are just not amazing for me. Hell, my best friend and I seem to have the same taste, but I don’t agree with her favorites half the time. In other words, I don’t think the contest is broken. It’s just the nature of the beast. And, as you said Candy, if you have MORE in common with the tastes of mainstream sci-fi readers, it stands to reason that you’d be more in agreement on those awards. Doesn’t necessarily make them better, just better for you. And maybe that was the point of this whole damn thing!

Janny Crusie said:

That’s going to mean that nothing too cutting edge wins a Rita.

But all in all, I think the middle-of-the-road analogy generally works.  I always feel like I should read more RITA winners, but just don’t have the time or energy.

Yeah, that would be JENNY Crusie.  I’m only, like, writing an article on Laura’s book on the woman.  ::sigh::

The thing I don’t get about the RITAs (and mind, I have only been eligible to judge them for two years, so my experience and sample space is small) is that five judges determine the finalists. Five. Each book is read by five judges, who each give it a score from 1 to 9, and then the top choices (only five, right?) are the finalists. Then, five *different* judges read the finalist books and give them another score between 1 and 9, and the top scorer wins.

Without wanting to take anything away from those ten judges, or the books they choose as finalists (not mine, but some friends of mine have made it), but that’s a small panel of experts to weigh in on what’s “the best” in a given year. You know some judges get books that are in subgenres they don’t especially like, and they grade accordingly. Some people have issues with certain things that just hamstring a book from page one for them, and they grade accordingly. Why are you getting middle of the road books winning? IMHO, because those are the books that can appeal the most to the most number of judges. That’s what a book needs to do to final, and then win.

So how can you improve it and make it mean more? I dunno. Every panel of judges has some selection problem associated with it. RWA puts subtle pressure on published authors to judge, but there are problems with that. Readers? Can you say “self-selected?” Reviewers? Which ones? It’s a puzzle…

I have to say, though, just as a reader and a shopper, I have never seen a bookseller/bookstore make a big deal (or any deal) of a book being a RITA winner.

I should qualify that “nothing too cutting edge wins” bit.  USUALLY nothing too cutting edge wins. 

And then Sarah gets my name wrong and Rich makes fun of my age.  Where’s the respect? 

I don’t think anybody at RWA thinks the Rita process is perfect.  And I know a committee just sent in a report recommending some changes, although I don’t know what they are or if they have a hope of going through.  But I would argue that ten judges is a pretty big panel, not statistically significant but still not three women with coffee cups and Danish saying, “Well, I don’t like the ones with oral sex, so they’re going down.” So to speak. 

I’m kind of with Stef on this one.  If you don’t like it, identify the specific problems and come up with a better plan.  (Mine is fewer overlapping categories and add a gay/lesbian track.  But nobody ever listens to me.)

One thing that I have always found strange about the RITAs, compared to the Oscars or similar, is that writers in the same area are shut out of the judging. So a short contemp writer can’t judge those books, an inspirational writer can’t judge those books, etc. And this strikes me as strange because I have gotten emails from friends: “I have this historical book I’m supposed to be judging, I think there’s a major historical error in it; am I right? Should I mark it down? Does it matter?”

I would personally prefer to be able to vote on historicals (which I write) because I actually have experience in that area. “Is this a good paranormal romance?” I dunno, I was hoping for witches and wizards, zombies and vampires give me the creeps and I read this book with one eye closed. “Is this a good European historical?” OH, I KNOW something about that! And I don’t mind reading all the finalists, either! It doesn’t seem to me that objectivity would be any lesser, in the finalist round, because there’s a limited panel of books to choose from. “Which of these 5 books is the best? Check one only.” I can answer that.

Well, that’s my humble suggestion.

Something that always puzzled me was the pay to enter thing.  Last I heard there was a charge of $40 for a RWA member to nominate a book and $140 for a non RWA member.  The Nebula on the other hand don’t mention a charge in their rules and no one with a monetary interest in the book can nominate it.  There’s no entry fee for the Edgars.  So why does the RITAs have one?

If you don’t like it, identify the specific problems and come up with a better plan.

Is it logical, possible, desirable, or even wise to have specific criteria for judging beyond category guidelines?  Criteria that would apply to craft as well as emotional success of the novel?  For example: innovation in characterization, plot or theme; freshness of voice; mastery of generic components; internally consistent character development; emotional payoff; readability of prose; compelling characterizations; contribution of secondary characters to overall purpose of the novel; artistic merit beyond basic elements of craftsmanship; appropriateness and consistency of tone; cooperation of character, plot, and theme; clarity of overall vision; contribution to the development of the genre.

There would likely be disagreement on how each book rated in each category, but at least judges would have some common ground and shared criteria.

Jennifer Crusie, Anne Stuart, Ruth Wind and Theresa Weir are some of my favorite authors, and they write contemporaries (Stuart’s written a few fun historicals, too).

Hmm, I haven’t read Weir or the contemporary version of Samuels(Wind), but I like the others on that list, so I think I’ll try.  Recommendations for their best books, Candy?

In regard to more “books we like,” I really enjoyed both of Caroline Linden’s historicals, in part, I think, because they were quiet books that made me care without a lot of pyrotechnics or adolescent behavior on the part of the protagonists. 

And while books under the Roberts name don’t work for me, I do have to say that I’ve really enjoyed the In Death books, at least most of the paperbacks (I really liked the last hardcover, but was ready to abandon the series before that).  You read more SF/F than I do, so you may not enjoy them as much as I have, but I really like Eve Dallas’s persistent defensive bitchiness, and there are some nifty gender role reversals between her and Roarke that are clever and innovative, IMO. If you endeavor to read more of her books, you might want to look there, although I don’t think any of them have won the RITA.

I believe--and I’ve never asked--that the entry fee is supposed to cover the expenses like the paperwork, the shipping the books to judges, etc. I don’t know how many entries there are in any given year, but I’d assume bunches--times five for the number of books each entrant sends in. A lot of books to log in, check, assign and ship out to the (I guess it would be) 70 judges, at least for the first round.

Could RWA suck up the expense? Sure. Should they? I don’t know. For 40 bucks, I don’t really care so much either way.

Judging in the category in which you’ve entered is asking for trouble. Seriously, while it’s nice to think people wouldn’t give their own book an edge, many others would be SURE they had. If some of the discussion here leans toward judges not being objective enough to read a book and judge it on its own merits, how much more grumbling would there be if their own books were tossed into their particular judging pool? Not saying judging their own, but judging their competition in the first round.

And why would a valid winner come out of that, if the opinion in valid winners don’t come out of it now?

Judges can request categories. The categories I’ll judge are down on my profile. Mostly I want category--I used to write them, so I get them, and I appreciate them. I don’t want to judge Inspirationals, for instance, so I don’t.

Craft plays a huge part in my personal judging process. Three of the seven I judged this year faired poorly with me because I found them badly crafted.

Does that make it perfect? Absolutely not. But it’s never going to be perfect.

I don’t do boards and committees so I don’t know how they determine the rules and procedures, or even how many times they’ve changed or defined those over the last couple decades. However much they fiddle and tweak, it’s not going to please everyone. And many members--and many readers--will always feel the best books didn’t win.

Anyway, it’s nice to see that old Janny Kruisie stop by.

~The thing is, I expect better from RITA winners in terms of my curve, because they’re supposed to be the best. And the thing is, when I don’t like a RITA winner, I expect it to at least be well-written, but disappointingly, it’s often not.~

Yes, it should be well-written. I’m assuming you’re talking about the writing itself--the structure, the language, blah blah and not your particular likes in style.

I don’t know how many Rita winners I’ve read over the years--and no possibly way I’m going to check the list and try to remember. But I certainly remember being baffled by some. Some because of my particular tastes, some because I didn’t find them well-crafted.

As I said before, craft is an essential part of my judging process. I think it should be in every judge’s. But who’s going to control that one?

And we’ve all read books that are beautifully crafted that sank for us for other reasons. It’s HARD to judge fairly and objectively, and to factor in all the elements. Even when you do, not everyone’s going to agree with your results.

We still think Nathaniel Hawthorne and George Eliot are fantastic, despite their slower pace, insanely huge sentences, info-dumpiness, etc. I don’t know of any scholars--or shit, any readers with even a modicum of education--who seriously attempt to judge the merits of Authors of Yore by modern standards and find them lacking solely based on that fact.

Well, in almost all cases that’s because they really are good. The pacing may not suit a modern reader, but they have an exciting plot, convincing characterisation, fascinating background (social, historical, political), interesting imagery, they don’t make grammar mistakes etc. But sometimes there’s also an element of the Emperor’s New Clothes syndrome. How many people are going to declare that something is badly written if they think that everyone else is sure it’s a Classic? Also, ‘Since the canon as a whole and survey courses in particular necessarily exclude so many individual works, those that remain often appear far more original and far more unique than they in fact are’ (Landow).

I can’t think of very many classics I think are badly written, but I’m not at all convinced by Catcher in the Rye. Admittedly my memories of it are very vague and date from when we were forced to read it at school, but from what I can recall it was written in a style I felt was distinctly unexciting and had a main character who did nothing of interest (to me). I suspect it must have resonated with someone (or a group of people) because they had an emotional connection with it, and they happened to be in a position to convince others that it was objectively Good but no-one is ever going to convince me that it’s a well-written novel. And that could well be because of my tastes, I admit that. In general I think that subjective factors play some part in the process which leads to some works being considered classics.

There are probably lots of women writers whose work should form part of the canon but who’ve been excluded and forgotten for the very non-objective reason that they were women and were writing about subjects that the literary elite didn’t think were Important: ‘The systematic exclusion of authors who belong to identified minorities (racial, gendered, economic) seems to be one of the hallmarks of canon formation’ (Hentschell). Nationality can also play a part. I’ve never read Hawthorne and hadn’t even heard of him until recently, and I wonder if that’s because he’s not considered such a major author in the UK? I suspect that there are many Great Authors who are considered much more Great in their own countries. If that’s the case then it would also tend to support my suggestion that there are subjective factors influencing decisions regarding what’s considered Good.

(Oh, and in case anyone’s wondering, I’m capitalising some words deliberately and I never guarantee that my posts will be typo-free.)

Re readers placing more emphasis on the emotional aspects of the book and not as much on the craft, could it not be that, in general, we’re not giving the author enough credit for *causing* that glow (through their craft)?

And if (returning to the Rita context) a judge had to choose between two books - the one with the yummy love story but some unfortunate stilted dialogue in some places or descriptive tags such as ‘her eyes were moonbeams’; and the one with the yummy love story as well as superior writing - why do we think there’ll be tension between which one to choose as award winner?

Final point: I wouldn’t know if I’ve read RITA books or not because the award is completely beneath my radar. I don’t know when ‘Rita season’ is; I don’t know what categories are up for awards, I know nothing about nothing (yay for the double negative). Romance blogland (or at least the parts I traverse) don’t seem to have much respect for it, but the RtB post and this one will certainly make me take more interest in it.

I do think though, that the lack of respect for the award seems to flow directly from a lack of respect not just for the judging process but the judges themselves. Because some think that being a published author is not qualification enough to judge the work of others. So, I see it as a problem bigger than the awards process and more linked to romance writing standards overall

~And if (returning to the Rita context) a judge had to choose between two books - the one with the yummy love story but some unfortunate stilted dialogue in so