Comments on: Rita Nominations: Sandy and Lynn’s Take

By: AAR Sandy

AAR Sandy — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:08:59 +0000

Elizabeth, not to overstate the case, but we’re going to continue to talk about the nominations whether or not those who judged the Ritas like it or not. Simple as that. And we might say things that you find personally annoying (I’m annoyed too, at this point, just to get it all on the table), but it just goes to show that readers are interested in the Ritas. And that’s good for RWA.

Everyone at AAR understands that readers like different things. We all get that. But sometimes there are general consensual tidal waves amongst those of us who read the same books — and that might be positive or negative. And when nominations don’t make sense to an average reader — and clearly there are some we’re questioning — we’re going to discuss it,

I’m an opinion journalist here at this blog. I expressed my opinion and some agreed with it and others did not. And that’s all cool.

Off to bed now.

By: Elizabeth Rolls

Elizabeth Rolls — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:42:53 +0000

Thanks, Sandy. I’m glad you aren’t suggesting some sort of rule to say that an author can only final once in a year.

I know there is discussion each year about which books made it and which books didn’t. That’s fine. Talking about books is always good. What bothers me is the suggestion that there is something improper about the judging process, because the final list doesn’t reflect an individual reader’s tastes and perceptions, and that it is somehow farcical. For example, plenty of people loved The Spymaster’s Lady, myself among them. Yet there was a lengthy thread on AAR where a lot of people explained why the book hadn’t worked for them and why they thought it was unbelievable. Presumably Joanna Bourne’s double nomination is a “jaw-dropper” for them?

“And, okay, there are a few jaw droppers this year, too. Popularity (in the personal Miss Congeniality sense) can clearly be a path to Rita success.”

Not clear at all. That sort of comment annoys me, because it does suggest impropriety. I’m not saying that absolutely no one would ever mark up a book just because they happened to know and like the author. That would be naive in the extreme. But I seriously doubt that it happens enough for an author to final once, let alone two or three times. As Karen T said; she didn’t have books by anyone she knew this year. And in the several years that I have judged I have only ever had one book by someone I know personally. Sure I’ve had books by authors I read regularly, but it’s a little hard to avoid that.

Reviewers at AAR justifiably take great pride in reviewing books honestly and fairly without reference to whether or not they might happen to know the author. Writers are capable of the same level of integrity.

By: Diana

Diana — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:27:37 +0000

Oh, my. Every year we get the rules and methodology explained to us when we start opining on the nominations.

Since this blog and website is by and for avid readers and lovers of romance, well, of course we have opinions! No one is saying the judging methodology smells fishy. But we are fairly bursting with opinions and questioning judge’s taste is fair.

That’s what we do here. We opine. Yay for us.

By: AAR Sandy

AAR Sandy — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:11:53 +0000

I used the word control in a facetious sense. As in “get a hold of yourselves, people.” It is American slang.

Is this three-fer mystifying to me? Yes, it is. Do I think the system needs changing in order to keep it from happening again? Nope, I don’t.

Readers kvetch about Rita nominations every year and this year isn’t any different. At least we’re talking about the Ritas and that has to make RWA happy.

By: Elizabeth Rolls

Elizabeth Rolls — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:05:06 +0000

“Just got in from seeing Watchmen and this hit me out of the blue. (Ha!) Uber panel? Adjusting scores? I don’t know what to say to that other than no, I’m not.”

Colour me relieved. (Where are the emoticons when you need them?) But what did you mean by control then? It’s highly unlikely that any judges were sent more than one of the Stephanie Laurens entries for example. In fact, authors finalling with multiple books is not all that unusual. Bronwen Jameson a couple of years back had three. Anna Campbell last year with two. I’m pretty sure Anne Gracie had two as well. Memory might be wonky there. Marion Lennox has double finalled a couple of times as well. It happens.

I didn’t mean to suggest that you were advocating rigging the results. (Where the hell are the emoticons anyway??)

By: AAR Sandy

AAR Sandy — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:03:52 +0000

Amanda, I, too, noticed the heavy presence of women’s fiction on the contemporary list. And no Blue-Eyed Devil either.

By: Elizabeth Rolls

Elizabeth Rolls — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:58:40 +0000

Susanna, I don’t think you’re supposed to be able to think clearly any time within 48 hours of getting a Rita nomination! Actually I was a bit shocked when I saw the length of my original post. A preview button, and I would have pruned a bit. Anyway, I hope we cleared up a few misconceptions.

By: AAR Sandy

AAR Sandy — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:44:19 +0000

“As for complaining about “control” in the nominations . . . Sandy, are you seriously advocating that some uber-panel looks at the potential nominations after the judges’ scores are in and “adjusts” them?? ”

Just got in from seeing Watchmen and this hit me out of the blue. (Ha!) Uber panel? Adjusting scores? I don’t know what to say to that other than no, I’m not.

By: Susanna Kearsley

Susanna Kearsley — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:29:01 +0000

Elizabeth,

Thanks for giving a much more complete and clear answer to Jody’s question than my muddled head could manage! And thanks also for the congratulations, they’re very much appreciated.

By: Elizabeth Rolls

Elizabeth Rolls — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:14:28 +0000

Just to clarify, this is what the contest rules say about eligibility:

“Books entered in the 2009 RITA contest must:

*
Have an original copyright date (printed on the copyright page) or a first printing date or a first North American printing date of 2008.”

This means that even if the book has only been published say in the UK or Australia it can still be entered in the year of publication. Or it can be entered in the first year it is published or printed in North America.

If you click on my name above my previous post you’ll find the contest rules. This post has my own website. And Susanna? Congrats! I haven’t read your book, but I’ll be looking for it.