CCBC-Net Archives
Re: "Marginal" Awards
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Christine Taylor-Butler <kansascitymom_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 01:38:24 -0600
Charles,
I think you've really summarized the problem well on a number of fronts - including choice of subject matter relative to the reading preferences of in the marketplace and a limited stable of people being recognized.
Krya Hicks has done an interesting job creating a statical look at CSK here for several years, but stopped as doing it after this post - I suspect because the dismal numbers were barely changing from year to year.:
http://blackthreadsinkidslit.blogspot.com/2013/01/coretta-scott-king-awards-statistics.html
As of 2012 she calculated that 26 authors had won 67% of all the CSK awards and 17 illustrators had won 75% of the awards granted since 1970.
She goes on to say there were five years in which CSK was not able to name ANY new talent for writing or illustration.
Unfortunately, this also seems to validate what authors and illustrators of color are saying. Once a manuscript is acquired, the authors don't visibility or marketing dollars even if they earn an award. One agent was told by publishers "We already have an African American on the list. We don't need another." More telling is the fact that publishers won't support travel for those same authors to literary festivals or conventions even as they support other "mainstream" authors in the same venues.
Again - we get what we measure, and what we attached importance to - both at book acquisitions and in award committees.…….Christine
On Feb 4, 2014, at 1:54 PM, Charles Bayless wrote:
> Christine,
>
> I can't speak to your other points but I can provide some empirical meat
> regarding broadening CSK. A couple of years ago I was looking at a range of
> adult and children's literary prizes in terms of how effective they were
> predicting commercial success and book longevity (years continuously in
> print). CSK had the worst performance of any of the prizes. Books went out
> of print much sooner, there were fewer editions produced in the US, and
> there were many fewer foreign editions and foreign translations.
>
> Part of this, as you say, is probably a correlation with topical issues
> rather than race. Foreign markets are unlikely to have the same level of
> interest in US Civil Rights history or slavery and therefore fewer
> translations. Similarly in the US. If there is a high correlation between
> AA authors and books about Civil Rights history, and there is declining
> interest in new titles about that history, then an observed decline in AA
> authors is not so much about an antipathy towards AA authors but instead
> would be about a decline in interest about their chosen subject. The
> direction of causality can sometimes be obscure.
>
> The CSK numbers were so markedly different than other prizes, that I dug a
> little further. One thing that I suspect is also a likely contributor to
> the reputation issue is not just narrowness of focus but also insularity.
> The CSK had a far higher rate of multiple repeat winners. Basically there
> were a handful of authors winning the prize year in and year out. Don't
> know if that was a function of few authors or something in the judging
> process but it was notable.
>
> The upshot is that, for a variety of reasons, the CSK is currently an award
> with a narrow focus of topic and a constricted pool of talent which I
> suspect is what is contributing to the low numbers in terms of duration,
> editions and translations.
>
> Charles
>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 01:38:24 -0600
Charles,
I think you've really summarized the problem well on a number of fronts - including choice of subject matter relative to the reading preferences of in the marketplace and a limited stable of people being recognized.
Krya Hicks has done an interesting job creating a statical look at CSK here for several years, but stopped as doing it after this post - I suspect because the dismal numbers were barely changing from year to year.:
http://blackthreadsinkidslit.blogspot.com/2013/01/coretta-scott-king-awards-statistics.html
As of 2012 she calculated that 26 authors had won 67% of all the CSK awards and 17 illustrators had won 75% of the awards granted since 1970.
She goes on to say there were five years in which CSK was not able to name ANY new talent for writing or illustration.
Unfortunately, this also seems to validate what authors and illustrators of color are saying. Once a manuscript is acquired, the authors don't visibility or marketing dollars even if they earn an award. One agent was told by publishers "We already have an African American on the list. We don't need another." More telling is the fact that publishers won't support travel for those same authors to literary festivals or conventions even as they support other "mainstream" authors in the same venues.
Again - we get what we measure, and what we attached importance to - both at book acquisitions and in award committees.…….Christine
On Feb 4, 2014, at 1:54 PM, Charles Bayless wrote:
> Christine,
>
> I can't speak to your other points but I can provide some empirical meat
> regarding broadening CSK. A couple of years ago I was looking at a range of
> adult and children's literary prizes in terms of how effective they were
> predicting commercial success and book longevity (years continuously in
> print). CSK had the worst performance of any of the prizes. Books went out
> of print much sooner, there were fewer editions produced in the US, and
> there were many fewer foreign editions and foreign translations.
>
> Part of this, as you say, is probably a correlation with topical issues
> rather than race. Foreign markets are unlikely to have the same level of
> interest in US Civil Rights history or slavery and therefore fewer
> translations. Similarly in the US. If there is a high correlation between
> AA authors and books about Civil Rights history, and there is declining
> interest in new titles about that history, then an observed decline in AA
> authors is not so much about an antipathy towards AA authors but instead
> would be about a decline in interest about their chosen subject. The
> direction of causality can sometimes be obscure.
>
> The CSK numbers were so markedly different than other prizes, that I dug a
> little further. One thing that I suspect is also a likely contributor to
> the reputation issue is not just narrowness of focus but also insularity.
> The CSK had a far higher rate of multiple repeat winners. Basically there
> were a handful of authors winning the prize year in and year out. Don't
> know if that was a function of few authors or something in the judging
> process but it was notable.
>
> The upshot is that, for a variety of reasons, the CSK is currently an award
> with a narrow focus of topic and a constricted pool of talent which I
> suspect is what is contributing to the low numbers in terms of duration,
> editions and translations.
>
> Charles
>
---
You are currently subscribed to ccbc-net as: ccbc-archive_at_post.education.wisc.edu.
To post to the list, send message to: ccbc-net_at_lists.wisc.edu
To receive messages in digest format, send a message to...
ccbc-net-request_at_lists.wisc.edu
...and include only this command in the body of the message:
set ccbc-net digest
CCBC-Net Archives
The CCBC-Net archives are available to all CCBC-Net listserv members. The archives are organized by month and year. A list of discussion topics (including month/year) is available at http://www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc/ccbcnet/archives.asp
To access the archives, go to:
http://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/ccbc-net
and enter the following:
username: ccbc-net
password: Look4Posts
Received on Wed 05 Feb 2014 01:38:50 AM CST
