Sandy’s Take
Results are in and the dust is settled.
The headline for me is I had fewer WTF reactions than in previous years. Still:
- No Blue-Eyed Devil? Are they kidding?
- Ditto Linda Howard’s Death Angel?
- Are they absolutely certain they didn’t somehow get the names and titles mixed up in the It Happened One Night anthology because the stories nominated are the exact two that general consensus around here found w-a-a-a-a-y less worthy than the Hern and Balogh entries?
- I’m all about spreading the love, but three nominations for Stephanie Laurens? Reports are the author has never been nominated before, but, geez, some control here, people!
- Why was The Spymaster’s Lady included in the historical category and not Regency historical?
- I can’t help wondering if Rita voters get stuck in the same old ruts that Emmy voters do because…well, honestly, some of those perennial names on the Rita list seem to be stuck in ruts, too.
Now, what am I happy about? The historical nominees contain every single title I wanted to see there and I honestly can’t remember the last time that happened. It’s going to be a battle of titans (titanesses?) and I can’t wait to see who triumphs. I’m delighted for Sherry Thomas who scored in both the historical category and Best First Book for Private Arrangements.
But I’ll also consider it a victory that I wasn’t WTF-ing every ten minutes yesterday.
-Sandy AAR
Lynn’s Take
In the past, I’ve read over RITA news in passing, but this year, I was at my desk as nominees were being announced and I found myself getting sucked into it as RWA posted nominees in little bits and pieces. I plan to actually go to RWA this year(my very first conference – yay!), so I wanted to see who would be waiting for the big announcements at the RITA ceremony.
Sandy and I both read historicals, and like some of the same authors. However, our tastes diverge somewhat from there. Sandy could have a very intelligent conversation with you about contemporaries, for example. I, on the other hand, consider it an accomplishment if I can contribute something to the conversation beyond the occasional Nora Roberts read. My reading interests are varied, but most of my contemporary settings tend to come with series numbers on the spine.
So, while Sandy is noticing the absence of books like Death Angel and Blue-Eyed Devil, I’m scratching my head and wondering, “Where’s Your Scandalous Ways? And why the hell isn’t Broken Wing listed under Best First Book? And why all the babies and ding-dong dillionaires for series books – what about Nocturne or the Steeple Hill Historicals and Suspense lines? There were some good books there last year.”
When I got to the historical categories, I couldn’t help feeling a little confused. RWA has a category for historicals, but they also have one for Regency-set historicals. That’s all well and good, but then they go and stick books with Regency settings in the regular historical category. That made little sense to me – plus I happen to be a champion of the “ANYTHING but the Regency” setting, so I didn’t entirely like seeing Regency England take up so many slots when it already has its own category. Still, I was happy to see some books I really enjoyed, such as The Spymaster’s Lady, To Seduce a Sinner, and Mr. Cavendish, I Presume all get nominations in the various historical camps.
After the historical lists, I found that with other categories, I felt happy for some of the authors who made it even as the rest of the list left me scratching my head. For instance, I was thrilled to see Nalini Singh’s book on the paranormal list and one of Karen Rose’s on the romantic suspense list, but I have to admit that I haven’t read most of the other books that made it on those lists – and two of the ones I tried I found…well..very putdownable, let’s say. Now I will own that my reading tastes are idiosyncratic, but I was somewhat startled to find myself familiar with so few of the RITA books.
Ah well. Just as the Oscar nominations make me put together a Netflix list of things I haven’t seen, I suspect that the RITA nominations will have me putting together a reading list – not to mention mining my TBR pile. I’ve already found 2 RITA nominees in there. So, what’s your take on the RITA nominations?
-Lynn Spencer
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.
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.
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.
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.
“”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??)
Amanda, I, too, noticed the heavy presence of women’s fiction on the contemporary list. And no Blue-Eyed Devil either.
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.
“”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.
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.
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.
Jody, thanks for the kind words.
You’re right, THE WINTER SEA hasn’t yet been picked up by a US publisher, but luckily we Canadians still count as North Americans so the book still had the required 2008 North American publication date for RITA eligibility, and after double-checking and triple-checking this with RWA headquarters, I went ahead and entered it…
Believe me, I was as amazed as anyone to learn that it had finaled! :-)
Jody, you have some facts wrong. While an author entered in the Ritas is required to judge, an author cannot judge in a category for which s/he is entered. Period. This has always been the case. So Stephanie Laurens for example, since she obviously entered in Regency Historical, Historical and Novella, would not judge in any of those categories, Instead she would have nominated other categories in which she was prepared to judge. Having judged in the Ritas myself in the years I have had a book entered, I know this to be the case. As for the Kearsley book, it has been published. There is no requirement for it to be published in the US to be eligible for the Rita. In fact authors have been known to use a Rita nomination to pressure publishers for a US release. Same with other US contests. I finalled in the HOLT with my third book and that was enough to get me a US release. This is one advantage of a contest where authors enter their books because it can give a chance for books that have not been widely read for one reason or another, to get some publicity and recognition. 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?? Surely not. Here’s how it works; each judge is sent a parcel of books in categories she has agreed to judge. She then reads them and scores them – and here’s the important bit – without discussing her books with anyone else. No ringing another author and saying, “”Hey, I got so-and-so’s book. Gave it a nine. What about you?”” Apart from the books in your package you don’t even know what other books are entered. I am not sure about this, but I suspect that even if you were judging in both Regency Historical and Historical, that you would be unlikely to be sent two books by the same author. The organisers do try to mix it up. The idea of some panel checking over the potential finalists in order to make sure no one is nominated more than once, or maybe twice, is counter-productive. If an author is good enough to garner several nominations, then good luck to her. As far as I know from general discussions with other authors, everyone tries to mark as honestly and fairly as they can. I agonised over one book last year that I found confronting. It was too hot for my tastes and I really struggled with it. I tried very hard to focus on style, writing, characterisation and plot – not my dropped jaw reactio