On March 26, the list of RITA finalists will be announced online at www.rwanational.org. Will the television stations and newspapers across the land be waiting to rush out and spill the news? Will romance readers be waiting for the dawn so they can fire up their computers and make a list of their favorites, and the ones they have not read? Will there be RITA pools forming at chapters and bookstores and book club groups? Will knots of eager fans be cheering on their favorites in July, when the winners are announced?
Sadly, no.
And why? Because romance readers are woefully uninformed about the RITA and how important the award is.
I’ve noticed a disturbing trend over the past few years—how little the romance community, within RWA and even more so without, seems to understand about the RITA award. I’ve read the oddest sorts of comments about it, ranging from bloggers who say things like, “I have never heard of any of these writers, so the award must not mean anything,” to “well, judging is subjective, so this contest doesn’t mean anything” to the self-esteem builders that run to: “these books all got published so everyone should feel fine and not worry too much if you don’t make the finals—you’re all great writers.”
Why should you care about the RITA?
Quite simply, the RITA is the Oscar or Pulitzer Prize of romances novels. It is romance writers standing together to measure excellence among ourselves. The RITA is our professional gold star, a mark of excellence and honor given by professional romance writers to their peers.
There are other awards, of course, most of them reviewer awards, for which a single reader—often a very experienced, long-time reader of a particular kind of book—chooses her panel of favorites of the year. There are contests all around the country, mostly fundraisers for various RWA chapters, that judge a smallish panel of books and choose winners. There are magazine awards and blogger awards. All of them are wonderful ways for readers to find good books to read.
None of them are the RITA.
In the interest of full disclosure, I feel obliged to say that I have won the RITA, more than once. If I tell you to buy RITA-winning books, I’m including my own in that tally.
But my wish for the prominence of this award goes far beyond my own self-interest. I take romance novels seriously. Not in a heavy, maudlin, humorless sort of way. I’m not a militant who writes letters about every media comment or joke about romances–that makes us look insecure and silly. Instead, I take romances seriously by believing in them as a valid and particular form of novel, a genre almost entirely shaped by women to our own tastes. Currently, romances are still not measured by the same standard as other genre fiction—by the parameters set up by the genre itself, not something outside of it—so we must be our own academy.
The RITA is designed to recognize excellence according to the parameters we’ve set up for ourselves. Here is our community saying, year after year after year, in more than a dozen categories: here are some books we found to be well-written, compelling, and powerful romantic reads, according to our own standard of what a romance should be.
Many readers may not be aware of how rigorous the selection process is.
It begins in the fall of each year, when hundreds and hundreds of published novels are entered into 14 categories. In January, these books are divided into small panels of around 6-8 books, which are then mailed to volunteer judges, all published romance authors themselves, who have about two months to read the books, and give each one a score between 1-9. Each book in the preliminary round is read by five judges.
The scores are returned to the contest coordinator, who tallies the scores. The top percentage (I think it’s ten percent, but am not completely sure) of books in each of those 14 categories are then announced as RITA finalists.
And believe me, RITA day, as we fondly call it, is a day when cyberspace and telephone lines are afire. None of us get much work done. I think it’s one of the most exciting days of the year and I still cry when a friend who has been aching for that nod calls me screaming, or I read on an email loop that book I adored has made the lists.
By the end of the day, bitter tears are sometimes spilled, too. Because this matters desperately to us—making the RITA finals has meaning and power. Trust me when I say that it might feel great to make other favorites lists, but we don’t weep over not making them.
The process is not over with the announcement of finalists. The finalist panels are then sent to a second panel of five judges who read all the books and rank them against each other. The book with the lowest score (a 5 is the lowest possible score) is then the RITA winner, which is announced on Saturday night of the RWA conference, which this year will be in Dallas.
That means that a finaling book has been chosen to be very good by five readers. A winning book has been through ten readers, all published authors. All trying to do their very level best to be fair, objective, and honorable.
That’s a pretty high recommendation.
Is the process 100% objective and fair? No. There’s no such thing as 100% objectivity in art. Tastes do cycle through fashions, and books that win one year might not have won in another. There are plenty of good book every year that don’t make the cut for whatever reason.
But you know, it’s as fair as humanly possible. I do believe in the judges, in their honor and fairness. Sometimes, sour grapes or enmity or just plain meanness might creep through. Sometimes, a judge thinks she’s being fair when she has a blind spot. Again, we’re all human. I believe in the honor of the judges and the process.
What has that to do with readers? The RITA finalist and winner lists are a great way for readers to find great books.
This morning, I’ve just turned in the scores for the panel of books I read for the preliminary round. Because I’m sworn to judge anonymously, I can’t tell you what they were, but I can tell you that three of them were excellent, two others good, only one did I find average. They were startling and different and homey and warm and everything in between. I don’t know the authors of any of the books (surprising, honestly, given how long I’ve been in this world—it’s not, after all—a very large pool of humans), though I have had a passing acquaintance with one of them.
Here’s the thing: on my own, as a reader—even a fairly well-informed romance reader—I wouldn’t have chosen any of them. I wouldn’t have realized that these would be my cup of tea, meaty romances of depth and heart, because there was absolutely nothing to let me know they were—the covers and back cover copy all pandered to some idea marketing has of What Sells. I’ve not heard at all of a couple of the authors, including the one who ended up being my favorite (believe me, I’ll seek out her work elsewhere). So how would I have found these books except for through this democratic process?
I wouldn’t have. Neither can you, I bet, sometimes. But this process will also help you find books you’ll enjoy.
Now, to those weird comments I’ve read about the web:
“I have never heard of any of these writers, so the award must not mean anything.”
You might not have heard of all of them, but you’ve heard of a lot of RITA winners: Jennifer Crusie, Jo Beverley (Hall of Fame), Kristin Hannah, Jill Marie Landis, Susan Elizabeth Phillips (Hall of Fame), Nora Roberts (a gazillion and Hall of Fame in at least a couple of categories), Laura Kinsale, Karen Marie Moning (I still remember the dress she was wearing for the ceremony one year!). For an astonishing list, go here.
You haven’t heard of every winner because fame takes time and a special sort of luck. The RITA process is designed to be democratic, to illuminate books that might get overlooked otherwise.
“Well, judging is subjective, so this contest doesn’t mean anything.”
Everything in life is subjective. Luckily, so are you, and you might find something to your pleasure if you read those lists.
“These books all got published so everyone should feel fine and not worry too much if you don’t make the finals—you’re all great writers.”
That’s very nice. It’s probably true on some level. But just because some people don’t win doesn’t mean that winning means nothing. Quite the opposite, in fact.
If I had my way, the television stations and newspapers across the land would be waiting for the news of RITA finalists on March 26th. Romance readers would be tapping their fingers waiting for the lists to go up so they could rush to the bookstores and online sites to order the ones they hadn’t read. I’d like to see chapters and book clubs and knots of online reading groups making pools and taking bets, and readers eagerly waiting the news of the winners.
In the meantime, I’ll hope the readers here will take a few minutes and go read the list when it goes up, paying particular attention to books in the categories you like to read, then go buy some of them and read them, especially by writers you might not have tried, or even heard of.
When searching out romance writers I haven’t read — and I haven’t read 99% of them — I use two search engines: Pat, owner of Pat’s Paperback Exchange, and the RITA lists. So far both have been very useful. I’ll be looking for the RITA finalist list on the 26th.
On the related topic of industry-specific awards: This year the International Association of Media Tie-In Writers has announced the finalists for the first annual Scribe Awards, given for excellence in media tie-in writing. I had the pleasure of being one of the preliminary judges in one category. Taking our cue from the history of the Edgar and the Shamus, we figure it’s going to be at least a decade before anyone outside our association takes the Scribe seriously. But whether or not the general public recognizes what it means, to those in the industry they’ll carry a lot of weight.
I’m at least two years — and probably three or four — from being eligible for a RITA, but I have always regarded the award with the greatest respect.
by KeVin Killiany March 16th, 2007 at 8:12 am:grin:The RITA is important to me for two reasons:
1) As a reader, I know that finding a book which succeeds on every level is hard to do. Lots of novels get published which are deficient in one or more ways. When you grab a RITA book, you know it’s been screened by a panel of judges and your odds of getting a good return on your investment is high.
2) As a writer, I know it’s important to study success. By studying the career of a RITA winner or finalist in my subgenre, I could learn something vital for my own.
Yea, RITA winners! And finalists too!
by Kimber An March 16th, 2007 at 8:46 amGreat topic!
Honestly, as a reader, I didn’t really know what the Rita meant and if you asked me prior to reading this post to name a winner, I couldn’t.
Which sounds like a shame.
So what can we do about it?
Why don’t publishers re-release the Rita winners (similar to how movie studies re-release Oscar nominated movies)? With enough support, I suspect the bookstores (both traditional and online) would put together a Rita section/table/webpage. I know that as a reader, I would pop into a bookstore to check it out.
Heck even a poster or flyer sent to bookstores would be beneficial, merely for staff education alone. I bet if I walked into a bookstore tonight and asked about winners of the Rita, none of the staff would know.
Why don’t the winning authors make the rounds (blogger, website, traditional media) doing interviews and promoting the award (as Oscar winners do)? The media, at first, didn’t approach Oscar winners. Oscar winners approached them. Its only now that the media chases winners.
Any other ideas?
by Kimber Chin March 16th, 2007 at 8:57 amI’ve always been impressed by any romance author receiving the RITA award or being a finalist. I feel like they have to be great writers to achieve this honor.
by Diane Craver March 16th, 2007 at 9:02 amI’ve known about the RITAs for a long time and readers have often discussed the awards privately and on various message boards. I think that I can sum up several fan viewpoints of RITAs and why they are discounted.
1) They are often not reflective of reader tastes.
by Jane March 16th, 2007 at 9:12 am2) They are often the same individuals who win making the awards seem political.
3) There are two many awards given making it seem like romance writers are kindergartners who must have an award for everything.
4) Authors have come out and spoken about how their books were not judged fairly because of the judge’s bias. i.e., some judges simply won’t read some books because of their sexual content.
5) Judging is subjective and the idea that “everything in life is subjective” is not a very convincing argument. Because we don’t know who is judging the books and on what criteria, because we can’t measure those marks against marks in the past, we don’t have any guidelines as to whether we can trust the recommendations of the judges.
6) What an author deems interesting or good writing can often be very different for what appeals to a reader. I know from being on various author’s yahoo groups that the writers talk about layering and theming and so forth and readers just talk about their gut level reaction. There is a disconnnect between what readers and authors think makes a great book, imo.
“There is a disconnnect between what readers and authors think makes a great book, imo.”
This is interesting — I do think that the RITAs would be more interesting to readers if they were judged by readers — say, booksellers and panels of romance readers (who were not writers or aspiring writers) as opposed to authors. For instance, in my husband’s world, magazine publications, many of their highest awards aren’t judged by each other, but by editors, publishers, and readers. That puts a different spin on it. They have internal awards, too, but those are different.
I’ve heard people, even in chapters I’ve belonged to, for instance, say things like “if an author POV shifts, that’s an automatic low score for me” etc. I mean, seriously — this is not reading like a reader, this is reading like a writer, and it’s two entirely different things. It doesn’t mean it’s not valid, but you don’t usually come across non-writing readers who would make judgements of that sort.
I think there are some big Reader’s Choice contests, right (you can see how in the know I am about contests here), but Barbara, while I think you make a lot of good and valid points, very convincing points, I think the breakdown in why writers get more excited about RITAs than readers is because it’s a sort of “insider” contest — even though romance writers are readers, obviously, and we love the genre, I think it’s a different mindset for a writer to judge another writer, as opposed to readers judging writers. Would be interesting to see how the RITA results would be if authors were not the ones judging…
I think the RITA is meaningful in an internal way — we’ve been judged by our own, and that’s very important. On the other hand, I can understand how that becomes rife with politics and does sour people, as well.
Sam
by Samantha Hunter March 16th, 2007 at 10:13 amMy own experience with the RITA scoring has been mixed. Some of my books have come close to making the finals but some received wildly varying scores. One got a 2.0 and an 8.2 (out of 9 possible).
Of course, judging can never be completely objective but I am not convinced all the judges are trying to be balanced. Even if something important to me, like historical accuracy, is lacking, I won’t take off more than a point or two for it. That one thing won’t keep an otherwise excellent book from reaching the finals. But I suspect some judges overreact to elements that trigger their pet peeves (like sensuality level). So there’s an element of luck, in getting the right panel of judges.
It explains why some truly wonderful books don’t make the list but also why the books that do hit the finals or win are consistently excellent reads.
by Elena Greene March 16th, 2007 at 10:19 amWhat Jane said.
Purely out of curiosity, does anybody know whether the RWA publishes the final panels for each category?
by May March 16th, 2007 at 10:29 amKimber, those are wonderful ideas! Some of them are already in place–the poster and the announcements, and I’m fairly sure some independent romance bookstores make displays for Rita finalists and winners.
The one I especially loved was this:
“Why don’t the winning authors make the rounds (blogger, website, traditional media) doing interviews and promoting the award (as Oscar winners do)? The media, at first, didn’t approach Oscar winners. Oscar winners approached them. Its only now that the media chases winners.”
Great idea!
by Barbara Samuel March 16th, 2007 at 10:45 amPurely out of curiosity, does anybody know whether the RWA publishes the final panels for each category?
Do you mean the finalists? They sure do! It goes up on the website.
by Kalen Hughes March 16th, 2007 at 11:04 amhmmm interesting blog…
Before I can comment though I would have to ask did RWA change how they send out books yet?
Many a RWA chapter has awards, many of them use booksellers, reviewers and readers to judge the first round. Everyone one I have ever been involved in (6 or 7 now) send out a card requesting for you to rank the ‘type’ of books you would like to read. And all ask if you are willing to read ‘romantic or erotica’.
My first reaction would be to say if you can’t read about sex you have no business judging any type of romance book. But knowing there isn’t an inspirational author out there who would want me judging their books… it makes an odd sort of sense I guess.
Until it can be said people who don’t want to be subjected to those naughty sex books (meaning anything from Brava to Berkely Heat or even that scandalous Blaze line) will not be the ones prejudging their peers I would have to say the question is more why does the award matter to authors than it is why doesn’t it matter more to readers.
by Sybil March 16th, 2007 at 11:05 amI’ll confess to not knowing much about the RITAs at all. After reading the initial post and corresponding comments, I’ll say this: Sounds a lot like the SAG awards for the film community. There’s nothing wrong with this, but I could sortof care less to watch the SAG awards (and nowadays, the Oscars as well!). It sounds political to me. Seems like that’s what the RITAs are like. I think if I were to get published, the RITAs would jump up to having a lot of importance, for sure, but currently as a not-as-yet-published reader these don’t have interest for me. I think this also stems from reading romances that have been characterized as some of the best ever and then after reading them I was disappointed. I didn’t like them.
Perhaps we don’t need to say that the RITAs should be important to everyone, but only to those who are into that style of things. I love Newbery Award-winning books, but I can bet that there are tons who don’t agree with all of the books that win.
by Stephanie Janulis March 16th, 2007 at 11:09 amJane, interesting points.
1) They are often not reflective of reader tastes.
I don’t see that to be true at all. Often, the Rita illuminates an emerging writer–Catherine Mann, Virginia Kantra at early stages for example–who are big reader favorites. Again, I’ll point out the list of mega-reader favorites who have won (often more than one) RITA like Susan Elizabeth Phillips, Jenny Crusie, Lisa Kleypas, Laura Kinsale,Susan Wiggs, Day LeClair, Nora Roberts, Debbie Macomber, Connie Brockway, Rachel Gibson, Suzanne Brockman….etc. All of those writers are major reader favorites.
But maybe you mean something else. Is there a particular kind of book you think doesn’t make the list that should? Or writers you’ve felt were often overlooked?
::2) They are often the same individuals who win making the awards seem political.::
If you look at the complete lists, you’ll see there are, in fact, very few repeats. A writer might win several RITAs over the course of a career of many years, it’s true. Jo Beverley has won five. Kinsale has won three (I think). Nora has a zillion, but then, she’s Nora and that’s to be expected.
It’s probably true that some writers do appeal to other writers for reasons readers wouldn’t give a fig about, but that’s the beauty of what we’re doing in these awards, recognizing what we consider to be good writing.
::3) There are two many awards given making it seem like romance writers are kindergartners who must have an award for everything:::
Well, there are thousands of romances published every year. To give 14 RITAs doesn’t seem like overkill to me. I personally enjoy the fact that we recognize there are many different ways to approach a romance, and this way, we can point out the particular TYPE of book a reader might love, from traditional to paranormal to women’s fiction.
::4) Authors have come out and spoken about how their books were not judged fairly because of the judge’s bias. i.e., some judges simply won’t read some books because of their sexual content.::
Actually, I think it’s more difficult for ethnic and Christian romances to get a fair read than it is for erotic novels. Most romance writers are very comfortable with sex and sexual content and even very detailed hot sex. I know I’ve read both erotic and traditional stories in the RITAs and the score of the book has nothing to do with sexual content.
::5) Judging is subjective and the idea that “everything in life is subjective” is not a very convincing argument. Because we don’t know who is judging the books and on what criteria, because we can’t measure those marks against marks in the past, we don’t have any guidelines as to whether we can trust the recommendations of the judges.::
I didn’t quite understand what you meant. The standards haven’t changed, year to year. And you do know who the judges are: the published romance writers in Romance Writers of America.
I’m pretty sure you can trust those judges to have the best interests of readers and the genre at heart. We LOVE romance novels. LOVE them!
::6) What an author deems interesting or good writing can often be very different for what appeals to a reader.::
That’s very true, and readers have no earthly reason to be concerned with the construction of a novel, any more than they wish to be concerned with what makes a beautiful dress very flattering–they know it when they try it on. The seamstresses in the room will look at the dress in another way, turning it inside out to see how the seams were constructed, how the designer put the bodice together to support the bust so beautifully, how she made the skirt flow like water. A consumer puts on the dress and says, “Wow, this is beautiful!” The seamstress says, “Wow, this is beautiful! And this is HOW it was done….look at that design and careful work.”
I don’t see how all these arguments mean the RITAs are a bad way to find books.
Reader awards do exist, too–Readers Choice, for example. The corrollary is the People’s Choice awards. Truth is, there is often a LOT of cross-over. In the end, writers and readers tend to agree what makes a great book.
Barbara
by Barbara Samuel March 16th, 2007 at 11:16 amElena - I think you make a good point regarding the judging. It came up as a topic on a writers list once regarding what others use for a standard of judging. What was interesting is how it varied from person to person. Some said they would never start with a score lower than a 5 others said 5 was average. I remember getting my scores once and they were 8’s and one 9 and I didn’t make the finals. (I think there was a high seven which probably did it.) But I remember thinking WOW I never give a 9 unless to me it’s a “bookself” keeper. But then I realized that my 9 which is considered the ULTIMATE, could be someone else’s Excellent (not necessarily one of the best books they’ve ever read.)
I’ve had to rethink that. If I love a book - maybe I don’t think it’s the best ever - but I now think in terms of do I want to be the one who keeps this book from making the finals?
So I do think there is a little luck in getting the right people scoring your book. That said ANY time you can get 5 people to agree that a book is good - to my way of thinking is a great and marvelous tribute to the work.
I too have heard grumblings that the “same” people are winning over and over again. But the bottom line is that they’re probably writing really consistently awesome books.
Nora has won. A lot. Some say - why does she bother to enter anymore. Why does Meryl Streep enter herself for awards anymore. In our industry she’s tops. And if I did final one year I would want to make sure that the BEST our industry had to offer was among the running. Otherwise it would taint the win imo.
Steph
by Steph March 16th, 2007 at 11:16 am::3) There are two many awards given making it seem like romance writers are kindergartners who must have an award for everything
Actually, this sounds way more like the RT awards.
I just saw another organization give an award for Best Erotic Romance Contemporary/Suspense/Mystery. I would much rather have RWA’s more delineated categories than that sort of hodgepodge/catch-all!
by Alison Kent March 16th, 2007 at 11:29 amMs. Samuels - You are making the argument, are you not, that readers should value the RITAs more. I am giving reasons why readers don’t. To me, it’s a writers award given by writers to writers based on standards that readers don’t know about or don’t apply when making their own decisions.
It’s a matter of fact that most readers appreciate other readers recommendations and the RITAs simply don’t seem reflective of a readers recommendations.
I guess, if they do have power and meaning, in what way? Does it translate to bigger sales or is it just an authorial award that is meaningful within the industry?
by Jane March 16th, 2007 at 11:46 amI should add that I don’t discount the RITA finalists, but I don’t view them any differently than another recommendation from any other source meaning that if I have no background (i.e., I correlate well with Rachel at AAR or Tara Marie) then I am not likely to buy solely based on the fact that the author was a RITA finalist. Generally, I wait to see if other readers would recommend that book. The best that it does is bring the book to my attention and therefore I might seek out discussion of that book where I would have passed over it before.
by Jane March 16th, 2007 at 11:53 amSimply because a movie wins an Oscar, an artist wins a Grammy, or a book wins the RITA, that doesn’t mean that everyone’s going to love, or even like it/him/her. (I thought LOST IN TRANSLATION was a colossally pretentious bore, but that’s just me. :lol:) There’s no such thing as universal taste, or even appreciation. That’s the nature of subjectivity.
To have ten RANDOM authors, all of whom have their own standards for what makes a book great, agree on one book is an amazing feat in itself, but it’s still no guarantee that everyone who reads the book will like it. As Barbara said, a lot of reader favorites have won over the years, but even so, not *everybody* likes SEP, or Nora Roberts, or Jennifer Crusie, or Laura Kinsale. Does that lessen the validity or importance of the award?
I can also almost absolutely guarantee that an author who gives a book a high score also had that gut “wow” reaction. That it often takes MORE for us to have that reaction lends more gravitas to the awards, not less.
by Karen Templeton March 16th, 2007 at 11:59 amRT has way too many
Hell I would say Rita needs a few more, maybe not… but judging from last years list I find it hard to believe the best of the best Long Contemporary Romance came from a Harlequin line.
Don’t get me wrong, I like many a harlequin line but there were no other contemps that fit the ‘long’ format as good as what harlequin was/is putting out? Or is that suppose to be ‘Best Long Contemporary Romance Series’? Then way a short and long?
Otherwise it just reads to me they nominated the books without the messy sex stuff.
by Sybil March 16th, 2007 at 12:16 pmHere are the category descriptions.
by Editor March 16th, 2007 at 12:25 pmOK I take it back… there are too many.
by Sybil March 16th, 2007 at 12:55 pmreaders should value the RITAs more. I am giving reasons why readers don’t. To me, it’s a writers award given by writers to writers based on standards that readers don’t know about or don’t apply when making their own decisions.
Tons of people seem to think an Oscar is worth something, and that’s a film award given by film industry people to film industry people based on standards that viewers don’t know anything about or apply when making decisions about what movie to see. And how do you know what “standards” said writers are basing their decisions on? I’m one of those writers and I can’t claim with any surety to understand the “standards” used by any of my peers.
Using your logic, the People’s Choice Awards (which I always think something of a joke) should be way more influential and important than the Oscars.
Besides, what I think Barbara is saying is that perhaps the industry (writers, publishers, etc.) should get the word out a bit more. I don’t think most readers know what the RITA is, so they have no reason to value it. It’s our Oscar, and thus—IMO—a thing of great value.
by Kalen Hughes March 16th, 2007 at 1:00 pmbut judging from last years list I find it hard to believe the best of the best Long Contemporary Romance came from a Harlequin line.
“Long Contemporary Romance” basically = category, so it’s pretty much a given that a Harlequin book will win it. It’s not the same as “Best Contemporary Single Title Romance”. Category and Single Title don’t play in the same sandbox, which makes sense to me, since they’re very much apples and oranges (or at least kumquats and oranges).
by Kalen Hughes March 16th, 2007 at 1:06 pmOne thing RITA offers is the opportunity for lesser-known authors to compete on the same playing field with the all-stars. Entry isn’t dependent upon some committee having already read your book, which excludes from most other awards a great number of books that may have received little or no press.
A writer’s idea of good writing is no different from a reader’s, really. A writer simply goes a step beyond “damn, that was a good story” and puts a name to what made it good. There’s an element of taste involved in subject matter, of course (if you’re anti-vampire, you’re not going to like a vampire book no matter how beautifully the words in this one flow across the page), but good storytelling is something everyone can recognize.
I do agree that throwing “theme” and “symbolism” and all that crap into a book discussion outside of a classroom is pretentious and offputting, though. Hell, I hated it in the classroom, too!
by Kerry Allen March 16th, 2007 at 1:45 pmI agree that the RITAS are like the Oscars to the Romance industry, but it’s up to the authors to get the word out about it before readers will see its validity.
As a community, we need to spread the word about the awards. It’s our responsibility not the readers. Unfortunatly though, a find a lot of romance writers couldn’t care less either about them. I wonder why that is? I for one think there seems to be one significant category missing…erotic/romance. One of the fastest growing genres in the past two years.
by Vivi Anna March 16th, 2007 at 1:51 pmUsing your logic, the People’s Choice Awards (which I always think something of a joke) should be way more influential and important than the Oscars.
I don’t equate the RITAs with the OSCARs. I think only authors do that.
by Jane March 16th, 2007 at 1:56 pmJane wrote:
“I don’t equate the RITAs with the OSCARs. I think only authors do that. ”
But the point of the blog is that all of us who love romances should be equating RITA and OSCAR. This won’t exclude other ways of finding good books, but it’s a good way for all of us to point to a standard of excellence.
It’s also a good way for us–romance readers and writers–to declare to a sometimes disdainful world that we think well enough of ourselves to have an award based in excellence, which is exactly what the OSCAR does. It’s also a peer-judged award.
Barbara
by Barbara Samuel March 16th, 2007 at 2:04 pm[...] Author Babarba Samuel, who wrote romance once upon a time and still visits from time to time, guest blogged on Romancing the Blog today. [...]
by The Good, The Bad and The Unread » Blog Archive » An OSCAR wanna be? March 16th, 2007 at 2:07 pmChiming in on the Ritas. Someone in an earlier comment asked about how judges get the books. A couple of years ago, RWA instituted a system where judges “opted-in” for categories that they wanted to judge. We have to pick a minimum of three categories. This year, I judged six books — a mixed selection from the categories I chose. So, if a judge truly doesn’t feel he/she can give a fair read to paranormal or historical or romantic suspense, for example, he/she doesn’t specify them as preferences.
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.
If someone handles lots of POV switches skillfully, they aren’t interfering with my reading enjoyment and aren’t going to get marked down. I only notice a POV switch in a published book if it isn’t smooth and stops me reading so that I have to figure out whose speaking or reacting. Yanking your reader out of the story is a flaw.
Overall, I know when I turn in the scores, I feel that I’ve given each book and author the fair look they deserve and picked the score on the overall level of satisfaction with the work. I believe that the majority of other Rita judges also give the process their very best effort.
by Mary Stella March 16th, 2007 at 2:39 pmI don’t equate the RITAs with the OSCARs.
Clearly. However, they are the equivalent award for their medium (the top industry award whose judges are also industry members). That’s a simple fact. That you don’t understand, accept, or value that fact is exactly the problem Barbara is highlighting.
by Kalen Hughes March 16th, 2007 at 2:43 pmI think the danger is equating the RITAs to the OSCARs. Is that what the industry wants to do?! Nowadays, most people watch the Oscars for the fashion, not for who wins awards. And half of the stuff that wins…people don’t really like. Not to mention, it’s very political which is precisely what many people seem to object to with the RITAs.
by Stephanie Janulis March 16th, 2007 at 2:51 pmJane’s comment about reader standards v. author standards intrigued me, because I’ve picked up a number of RITA winning books and been so appalled by what I view as poor writing, inconsistent characterization, and shallow plotting, that the RITA has failed to convince me that it reflects any coherent standards of excellence. As for the list of the genre’s “masters” who have won the award — well, something would have to be so grossly wrong if they hadn’t won the RITA that the wheels would have fallen off long ago, IMO.
What I can’t fully discern, though, is whether the difficulty is inherent in awards and judging generally, or in Romance more specifically. For example, I’ve read surprisingly few Romance book reviews that evaluate novels in terms of quality of prose, thematic consistency, innovation in plotting, etc. — that is, in terms of the elements of craft that are common to all types of fiction writing. Instead, evaluation more often seems focused on emotional impact, touching quality of the Romance, appreciation of the particular character or plot type (i.e. reviewers who love or hate cabin Romance or virgin widow heroines).
As we all know, what counts as *romantic* is *fundamentally* subjective. And hearing what I do constantly about how authors are loathe to be critical of other authors’ books, I wonder about the effectiveness of peer judging in an environment that isn’t necessarily comfortable with critical discourse. In the film community, for example, critical commentary is an accepted and expected aspect in and of the community. Maybe that makes a difference when it comes to actually judging the work for recognition.
What I suspect, and I know this is likely to piss a number of authors and readers off, is that until Romance fiction is judged more holistically (as craft + genre mission) on a routine basis, by authors and readers alike, the RITA will not hold anywhere near the power of the Oscars or the Pulitzer.
by Robin March 16th, 2007 at 2:53 pmI’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.
For me, anyway, as a reader with NO ambition to ever write Romance fiction, I would expect judging for an award like RITA as necessarily requiring a *more rigorous* process than that applied to not-yet-published authors. Because it’s not about a baseline for publishing; it’s supposed to be about *the best*. IMO the bar should be much, much, much higher in RITA judging.
by Robin March 16th, 2007 at 2:58 pmI wanted to comment on two things. I judge as both a reader and a writer. And keep in mind first and foremost all romance writers are also romance readers. (If they’re not they’re in the wrong business) so when I get a book I judge based on simply how I as a reader feel about the book. That said there are times where I do give points for what I consider to be “craft” and “execution”.
To to the idea of judging Romance fiction more holistically - I’m all for that. Doesn’t piss me off at all. But think it would also work against assumptions.
For example the commenter who was surprised that a Harlequin novel would hold it’s own against other contempary novels… Evelyn Vaughn won for Novel with Romance elements. Vicki Hinze was nominated for Suspense. Two Harlequin novels against mostly mainstream books.
My point is that there are good books and bad books - packaged in very different ways. I’m all for calling out the bad stuff if only to elminate the idea that a “Harlequin” novel can’t compete.
Steph
by Steph March 16th, 2007 at 3:22 pmMy point is that there are good books and bad books - packaged in very different ways. I’m all for calling out the bad stuff if only to elminate the idea that a “Harlequin” novel can’t compete.
I totally agree, especially because IMO it’s a lot tougher to write a truly great book within the limits of category publishing.
As a reader, I notice craft first. That said, a well-written book that doesn’t move me won’t hold as much power for me as a less deftly handled book that makes a big emotional impact. BUT, I think that for the most part, craft is like the nervous system of a great novel, conveying all the important messages and emotions to the reader through the musculature of the book. Consequently, I think it should be at the center of any judging process that aims at “excellence,” not as mere plus points.
by Robin March 16th, 2007 at 3:45 pmBut why should readers value the RITAs. Just because 10 authors think the book is better than other books? Just because the RWA decides its important? Because its a way for winners to have free publicity? I mean, I just don’t see the need to value it like authors value it.
If the RITA did have power and meaning as Ms. Samuels blogged, then shouldn’t it not matter what Readers think?
And Robin, I don’t think readers should be judging books holistically because readers, each of them, have personal biases and certain books work for them because of the personal bias and some don’t. I don’t th