The Sword and Laser discussion

When people discuss book awards they invariably mention outside factors. For instance, they discuss things like who "deserves" the award.
We like to think of ourselves being fair and unbiased. OK so here's a hypothetical situation. (Hopefully a less emotional example.)
Your asked to judge the best new mystery author/novel of 2012.
Several of the books are good but one is really outstanding.
The problem is that the "best book" is written by some called.
J.K. Rolling. Do you let the identity of the author influnce your decision?

There seem to be a number of false premises in your question. Who really thinks of themselves as an unbiassed judge? By definition, our opinions are subjective, and in arts and literature, at least, people seem willing to acknowledge that. There are a few objective measures in writing - grammatical correctness, say - but even these can be violated for artistic purposes (see ee cummings, et. al.).

As for your example: what's your "problem" with J.K. Rowling?

Whether something is finished or not is subjective, also. :o)

P. Aaron wrote: " Who really thinks of themselves as an unbiassed judge? "
I do. I can vote to acquit a creep or admit that something is well done...even if its not to my taste. I was trying to figure out how they can select a book few people have read and most of the world can't even buy.
I hope Rowlin's book is terrific. It came up in a different discussion. When I asked if her book would qualify her as a "new" mystery author there was a long silence. Back to the basic question- should 'who the author is' matter in the selection process?
PS- this also begs the question should the awards be given based on polls or by "experts."

But would you ever vote for a book to win an award if the way you feel about it is that you admit that it is well done, but just don't enjoy it at all?

To even approach objectivity would first require agreement as to what the goal is. If it is to write a book of 50,000 words exactly, there could be an objective winner (a tie, probably). But if the goal is to write an enjoyable book, or a thought-provoking book, or an exciting book, or all of those put together, I'm not sure objectivity means that much.

Back to your question: should the identity of the author matter? Normally, no. But sometime, yes. For example, a lot of people thought it mattered a lot that James Frey was not the exact person that he seemed to claim he was in A Million Little Pieces. Similarly, in writing something about a major historical event, for example, a war, it probably matters to many readers which side the author was on, if either.

Awards are nothing but snapshots of the faddish tastes of clique-filled groups. To pretend that they actually represent the best of a given year is ludicrous in the extreme.

Jeff wrote: ...Back to your question: should the identity of the author matter? Normally, no. But sometime, yes. For example, a lot of people thought it mattered a lot that James Frey was not the exact person that he seemed to claim he was in A Million Little Pieces. Similarly, in writing something about a major historical event, for example, a war, it probably matters to many readers which side the author was on, if either.

Change one. ;-} I agree on a couple points.
For fiction I don't feel it should matter who the author is.
However for nonfiction your right. It does matter who wrote it and why. Always keep a basket of rotten cabbages and eggs handy for political memories.

Sean wrote: "Awards are nothing but snapshots of the faddish tastes of clique-filled groups. To pretend that they actually represent the best of a given year is ludicrous in the extreme."

Yes, but how would you vote to represent the faddish tastes of your clique-filled group?

Warren wrote: " I do. I can vote to acquit a creep or admit that something is well done...even if its not to my taste...."

So you claim. Yet even a brief glance at your ratings reveals that you have given some low ratings to books others gave rated quite highly. Either you believe that you are uniquely gifted with the ability to judge artistic merit on some objective scale (which, if so, we'd want to know), or you are just as subjectively biased as any other reader. What may seem"obvious" criteria to you may be unimportant to a different reader, and vice versa, until you first agree on the standards for judgment; standards which may include what you consider extra-textual concerns, from author biography to cover design.

My problem is when some people pass off subjective judgment as objective appraisal.

But there are also other factors to consider, such as what the award is known for, its history, etc., in addition to discussion with other judges.

Big name will add it to my reading list, but no guarantee that I'd like it (and can honestly backfire, in the same way an over-hyped book can ruin it for some people).

It is almost impossible to be unbiased about anything you are passionate about.

Our life experiences, reading habits etc will influence our decisions.

We may be more tolerant of our favourite authors and rate a bad book higher because of our past with them. Or we may hold them to a higher standard and mark them lower because they don't meet that standard.

I don't know how to set up a contest "fairly".
(open to ideas) I'm just disappointed to see the discussions revolve
around the authors rather then their books.
It sound more like a popularity contest then literary selection.

Warren wrote: "...I'm just disappointed to see the discussions revolve
around the authors rather then their books.
It sound more like a popularity contest then literary selection."

Why shouldn't the author's background be a point considered in their running? Or the cover art? Or the timing of the book, or any other factor? All of them together generate a gestalt reaction to the work as a whole, so all of them seem valid bases for judgment.

I believe it is possible to objectively determine the quality of a book. Judging its value, however, is subjective.

Case in point: Ready Player One is a lousy book by almost any critical measure, but it holds great value to many readers because of its nostalgic value.

Of course, you may disagree with the first half of that statement. But you'd be wrong :) Bwahahaha!

Mike wrote: "Case in point: Ready Player One is a lousy book by almost any critical measure, ..."

I'm having trouble understanding what these objective critical measures are, can you name or describe them?

Aggregate critical opinions do not add up to "objective truth."

I can talk my self in circles over this one. Which is why posted the question. So far I've found two types of awards committees-
Experts-
Bunch of self appointed elitist All they do is sit around reading books all day.Totally out out touch.
Grumble, grumble, grumble.
Popular vote-
I'm all for the common man but who are all these dreadful people
and why are they allowed to vote? Half of them haven't even read the book.
Grumble, grumble, grumble.
A real Kobayashi Maru

Warren wrote: "Experts-
Bunch of self appointed elitist All they do is sit around reading books all day.Totally out out touch.
Grumble, grumble, grumble."
Out of touch with what, books?
They read more books than the "common man", so they're probably better at comparing and classifying them.
But you touch on an important topic: when you say they're out of touch, you're probably referring to the fact that, many times, books praised by experts are loathed by the rest of humanity.
But is the criterion for a good book being enjoyable by many people? Because that sounds like a "popularity contest"...
So, like many posters said before, its a matter of the criteria you choose, and those criteria may well be a popularity contest.
That's how goodreads functions, by the way: notice that people are encouraged to rate the books they've read, and the classification isn't "its good literature", "its bad literature", but rather: "didn't like it", "it was ok", "liked it", "really liked it", "it was amazing".

Here is the problem with how you have started your discussion. Your OP asked a personal question. You have placed each of us in the role of a judge & have asked us if our personal attachment to an author will affect our decision about whether a book is worthwhile or not; all the while not asking more important questions such as what criteria are we judging the work by, are we discussing the technical skill of the author or their compositional ability?

Why shouldn't an author be the basis for judgment about the quality of a book?
If an author does their job in using effective language, spelled correctly with correct grammar & effective narrative structure to tell a story that has both an internal arc & an arc for their characters...why would those previous successes be a valid basis to begin the judgement of a later work on?

Do we not use previous films or TV series as basis of comparison & discussion of future works by actors? Or other artistic runs of an artist as a basis for comparison of a later piece of art?

I think the author, and their skill with the craft, matters a great deal.

Suppose you read the first novel from some author you know nothing about. You think its a good book.
Now suppose sometime later the author is revealed to be just the pen name of one of your favourite authors.
Probably you'll love the book even more, because you can put it in perspective with the rest of his novels, and it adds to the rich meta-world that is his work.
I accept that as natural.
But is the book better? Has the book gained some new property? No, it hasn't, its the same book, the same printed words in the same order.
That's what objectivity is. That's what being unbiased means.
At least for me.