I suggested this on my blog and now I'll do it here. We'll see how it goes. Here's my thought: What if a person could only win an honor or win twice or three times - I think twice would be enough actually. Then this would leave room for new artists to win instead of the same people winning over and over again. This is not a comment on the winners' talents or anything like that... I just think the awards would be more vibrant and fun if there was a limit.
What do you think?
22 comments:
If the award is for the best in the field, it should go to the best in the field. Limiting it would always make me question if the award was really going to the best. If people start second-guessing it, it loses meaning.
Yeah, but what I''m saying is that if the person already got the accolade of "best in the field" several times then I don't see why they need to keep getting it. They already got the award, know what I'm saying? If they changed their style then I'd be for them winning again but that's why I'm not saying it should be limited to a one time win. I just don't see how with all of the amazing illustrators out there today that the same small group keeps winning over and over again. It's a huge enigma to me. Then there's that one surprise thrown in the mix to "wow" everyone. It's like some sort of formula the ALA does.
Well yes realistically if the award is for best book in the field, not best illustrator or author, then you can't limit who is eligible... but it really does seem odd how many repeat winners there are.
When debates are going on behind closed doors one of the recurring rules is that past books can't be used as a comparison. You can only compare the books from that year, and choose the one that is the most distinguished. New author awards (like the Coretta Scott King -John Steptoe Award) recognize new talent, but the biggies would lose their honor if you knew that the books chosen might not really be the "most distinguished" books of the year.
I'm not saying the process is perfect. Nothing is perfect when you are trying to have 15 people make a decision. But what I like about the ALA awards is that every year the slate is wiped clean and everybody begins with a fresh chance. (In 2011, the Caldecott AND Newbery winners were both debut books!)
I agree with you, Meghan. It does seem a bit unfair to have repeat winners.
Yes, it is supposed to be the best in the field; however, I think that some of the bigger names (and previous winners) may have a slight advantage going into the voting process. There is the expectation that their work is Caldecott-worthy, and I think this favorable view can only help. Not saying that it definitely happens (or that those illustrators are undeserving), just that it is a possibility.
I think if you brought in all the books for the year to an art school or say the society of illustrators and had artists or art teachers judge then there would be a very different outcome. This makes me think that sometimes the people on the committee have the past winners on their mind because they were previously "told" they were good so those artists are picked again. I don't know what goes on behind closed doors, but from an artists' perspective I have to wonder.
This reminds me of the debate we had awhile back about whether reviewers should be have any kind of art training when evaluating picture books. I think it would help, but I also think that librarians have a perspective on the way picture book art functions that an artist might not have, so I wouldn't want to see this kind of award process handed over to an art experts per se (not that there is any risk of that happening).
I agree that it is good to know how the art of the how the text and illustration mesh is good but when people see the award and think of it they think of it as the "art" award and for ""the best illustration" and therefore it might help, as you say Anna, to have some art training or art background. Why not have a committee that is a mix of librarians and artists? Say half and half? That would make things a little more balanced. Then I wouldn't be left scratching my head every year.
Or... okay... in my fantasy world wish there was THE BIG ILLUSTRATION AWARD judged by the art world.
A librarian's POV:
The Caldecott is for the best "picture book," not the best illustrations. It is not an art award. It is a book award. Yes, it is awarded to the artist, but art is only one of many factors that are discussed when evaluating books for the medal.
I'm more concerned with the limitations that are put on new artists and authors BEFORE their work goes into print. With celebrity books, TV spin-offs, etc. a new artist's chances of getting in print and getting a publisher with distribution seem abysmal.
I guess I wonder if it's for the best picture book then why does it only go to the illustrator? Obviously for the award the illustrations are the MAIN concentration with other factors that play into consideration. The buying public doesn't know any of this, that's for sure! Maybe this doesn't matter.
Things are getting more dismal. I worry about what will happen to picture books with the rise of digital devices and bookstores closing and that sort of thing. I"m not so sure it's a bad thing for it to be harder to get published because I think the market was too flooded with too many books that were just okay and a few that were kind of bad. I may live to regret this when I can't get published anymore either!!!! Maybe there are some people out there who think my books belong in the bad category - who knows. This is why I should keep my big trap shut.
Hmm, so while I completely understand the frustration of seeing the same names repeated, I don't think limiting the times a person can win is the quite fair either. For example, as someone interested in early readers, I think it's rather boring that Mo Willems wins some sort of Geisel award every year. However, I don't think it can be denied that he continually puts out incredibly distinguished work in that category. I know you were talking about the Caldecott, but I don't think you could just change the rules for one without affecting the other awards.
To me, if someone achieves excellence more than twice in the span of their (hopefully) long career, it doesn't seem exactly fair to punish them for that. While no author/illustrator makes books for awards, by limiting the number of awards one can receive it, in a sense, tells an award winner and their publisher that they are "done;" there is no chance for them to achieve greatness again, so why bother? This could be particularly disheartening for a debut author/illustrator award winner who, only after winning the award, finally gets recognition from their publisher. If there is no chance for the previous award winner to win again, is there incentive for the publisher to invest in him/her as an author/illustrator?
As a commenter said earlier, these awards are not a perfect system and there are definitely flaws. But, I think limiting the awards per artist would make it even less perfect.
and, of course, I am coming from it as an award winner who would absolutely love to win again...so I am biased.
I think the comment that the award is for the BOOK (as a whole -- what it says to young readers and how it says it) is worth repeating. The art is part of that. The story is part of it. The words are part of it. But isn't how they all work together what the award is for?
If it's for the BOOK then the writer should win the award too.
I see what you're saying Grace. You don't want an author to be disheartened. BUT I would hope that they are not making books just so that they can win awards! Frankly, it isn't much on my mind when I am creating. What IS is trying to make the best book possible that kids will like. What also is, is trying to top myself - like running a marathon. You're always trying to beat your best time. I do admit to having reviewers on my mind...
But I will say that the awards are on my mind now and now that they're on my mind like I've admitted to the ladies, I fear that winning a big award is the only real way to make a secure living in this field. And how many people actually win one? Not many!!!
Meghan, you don't just tread water on your blog. You have the courage to say it. Maybe we need to reassess our thinking on the awards.
I think the problem is with those editors who, like professors who have to publish for tenure, must look for books that will make money for their company to ensure their own careers. They often compromise talent and creativity for more mercenary concerns. And that's what becomes available on the market. It's a vicious circle, and cycle. Maybe they should take more risks.
I also am more concerned with what the librarian calls "limitations that are put on new artists and authors BEFORE their work goes into print." Yes, I often disagree with the awards -- and yes, I do think famous illustrators (and authors when we're talking about the Newbery!), or those who have won before, have an advantage. But I also agree that it's for the book--how well the illustrations work as illustrations of a story, not as art on their own. There's a difference.
Well, there's another point about the award being for the BOOK--it's not about the author. If a book is the most distinguished of the year it isn't quite right to give the award to another book that might not be as distinguished just because the author has won before. It takes away the validity of the award. I think this very often when it comes to Mo Willem's and the Geisel--like I said, I think it's kind of dull that he wins something almost every year, but his books definitely deserve it.
I guess I have to wonder, though, if THE BOOK in question is always really the number 1 book of the year - or are the judges swayed by other factors such as the fact that the individual has won before, the book has won other awards that year, and so on? Think of other books that have won. Do you guys really think that they were all deserving of BEST BOOK? Really? Also, like I said, if it's for best book then the write needs to be getting that award as well.
Illustrators need to be thinking of that text when they are working on the book and if they are not making the illustrations fit then right then they don't deserve to win a book illustration award but I don't think an illustration award should go much past that and call it a book award unless you want to give it to the writer as well.
Thank you anonymous. It's hard for me to speak my mind. I don't want people to think bad of me! But I think some things need to get out there so that discussions can form.
Illustrators have a rougher playing field than authors, then. They not only must illustrate the book and display outstanding artistic skills, but the book they illustrate must have enough literary merit for the illustrator to win the Caldecott. The illustrator's chances depend on the author's merits. Sometimes, the author is also the illustrator. The award seems to be for the best illustrator-author combo and not just for the illustrator alone. If this is so, Meghan is right: the author should receive part of the award as well.
Post a Comment