I’ve got a topic I’m interested in starting a discussion on. It’s something I’ve been wrestling with in my mind for a while, and one which was stirred up by articles such as this one. This is sort of two-pronged, so go with me here.
When the Morris Awards list was unveiled a couple weeks ago, I saw more than one post discussing how this was one of the most balanced lists put out by an awards committee in a long time. We’re talking balanced in the sense of genre and topic, rather than by author’s gender right now. I don’t disagree with this assessment at all; in fact, I think it’s a pretty spectacularly balanced list, except for the lack of a real romance-y title. We have a historical fiction, two contemporary titles (which are themselves worlds different from one another), a paranormal, and a fantasy.
But then discussions popped up like the one I liked to above regarding gender balance and it got me thinking.
As a reader, I don’t think too much about the gender of the book’s author. For me, it’s not really that important. It’s something I think about a bit when it comes to the main character and how well done I think he or she may be — one of my sticking points in many books is authenticity of male voice — and so when one is particularly well done by a female, I take note. I want to read more of their titles to see this strong voice since I do think it’s hard to nail down. Rarely, though, do I consider the author when I’m reading their work. Their backgrounds, experiences, heritage, and gender play little into my reading experience. I don’t think it’s fair. It puts that author in a place where they’re representative of something bigger than themselves, their experiences, and their creative abilities.
When awards lists come around, it fascinates me to no end how discussions of the author’s background and experience can even come into the equation. How something not related to the text can possibly be relevant to the work as written. I think discussion of character voice and gender is entirely relevant — and something we’ve talked about in Cybils discussion — but the authors themselves? It has no place in discussion of the book itself.
This brings me back to my point earlier about the Morris’s extremely balanced list.
I think it’s also unfair to become obsessive about balance. It’s a bonus, though I think it becomes a bit of a clutch in many situations. I don’t think we always need to be balanced in the world, nor do we always need to be balanced when it comes to something like awards. I don’t think we need to have this balanced pointed out, either. I almost find it a bit pandering.
Some books are just stronger than others, and some genres produce stronger books in any given year than others. To exclude books from consideration for an award because another book is in that genre or because it’d make the list unbalanced just feels wrong to me. I don’t think there is obligation for fairness in art or literature.
I’m not writing this to bash the hard work of any awards committee in the least, but instead to raise a discussion about balance and fairness. Thinking back to this year’s National Book Award titles, too, you see sort of what I’m talking about: all of the contenders this year were heavily issue-driven and often dark. There were outcries for how unfair that list was because it leaned so much one way. You can’t make people happy one way or another, and something will *always* get excluded.
What I want to know and hear from you about is this: can we ever be truly fair and balanced? Should we ever? What should be part of consideration for awards lists and what shouldn’t? Where do we draw the line on awarding books for being superb books and creating a list of balanced and representative works for consideration?
I think that desire to be fair is all well and good until it gets in the way of meeting the criteria. You're not supposed to be looking for the best historical fiction book or the best romance novel or whatever. It's supposed to be the best ILLUSTRATED book or book for teens or the best contribution to children's literature. And if you start discounting things because "well, it's not by a MAN" or "a non-fiction title hasn't won the Newbery in YEARS," then it becomes a problem.
Okay, I think that for literary awards and short lists, it is detrimental to the field to think about balance too much. These books should be the best of the best! However, I do think that it's important to make sure that the committee that chooses them is diverse – representative of people of different ethnicities, genders, etc. After all, that's why we choose things by committee, right? To get many different points of view! (This is not at all directed at any specific committee – I have no idea how diverse the Morris committee or any of the award committees are this year…)
I think when it comes to larger lists like BBYA, etc. it's more important to consider balance because there's room for inclusion of a greater number of titles.
I guess another point I want to make is that award short lists aren't selection lists the way many longer lists can be. While librarians, teachers, etc. probably do purchase short listed books, it's not fair for that to be any kind of a factor when selecting award winners and short lists.
I say all this, but I am definitely one of the ones that whines when there are no funny books short listed for awards. 🙂
@Abby: I 300% agree on BBYA, displays, and other reader advisory tools we SHOULD be diverse and inclusive. Just…not necessary for awards. And you're right – that's why it's by committee. But I still think there is a fixation on balance in these things and no one comes out happy.
And I agree on the humor side, too. IT IS ALWAYS OVERLOOKED.
I don't think it matters whether the list is "balanced", particularly, but it occurred to me that the only way to make it so would be to have a system analogous to the Westminster Dog Show. First they'd judge best of breed – historical, fantasy, humour, whatever – then the best of breeds would compete for best of show. But see, that still wouldn't achieve gender balance.
@Rachel: teeheeee.
The whole thing that gets me is how the idea of balance is a crutch. Like, we should be excited things are balanced on awards lists. I just don't. I didn't necessarily agree with all the NBA picks this year, but not because of the balance issue. So what they were all dark, issue-driven novels?
I'm with Abby on this. It's a best of the best award and list for a reason and if we start making sure we have appeal for all readers, genders, genres, it's not really going to be the best is it? Instead it will be the best written by a male author, the best in this genre, etc. For the shorter awards, I want what really is deemed the best book. For RA tools like BFYA, I want a diverse list. Does that make sense? I think if we start to worry too much about balancing we'll loose the true best of the best shortlists and awards. But for longer lists, it has room to represent everything.
And I think it's unfair to say the Morris is all women-although yes, it has been. But it's been around three years! It's still a new award-too early to really make that call yet I think.
I think the single most important factor for awards is the criteria. If that means that every book shortlisted is contemporary or fantasy or dystopian so be it. I also don't think the author should factor into it at all. I'm sure I'll get lambasted but frankly I don't pay attention to whether a book I loved was written by a man/woman/Asian/Italian it just doesn't matter to me at all. So to factor in any of that in in an effort to make the awards "balanced" seems unfair.