![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Apr. 9th, 2015 10:33 pmSigned up to review romance novels for the RITA Awards at smartbitches.com, but alas all the good ones were taken, leaving crappy ones. I have a feeling I'm going to end up reading and reviewing a book that may not be my cup of tea? We shall see. I like writing book reviews. As a writer, I find it helpful, because through the review process, I'm able to figure out what works and what didn't and apply that knowledge to my own writing.
I honestly don't believe you can become a good writer without reading a lot of books, good, bad, etc. You need to know what works structurally, why it works, why it doesn't, and how.
Also why write, if you don't love to read? Seems sort of counterproductive.
Speaking of awards, The HUGO Awards controversy continues. GRR Martin has written several lengthy and I do mean lengthy posts on the controversy. The latest Where's the Beef sort of goes into depth on the controversy, which I first read about in Abigail Nussbaum's blog.
The whole thing reminds me a bit of the World Sci-Fantasy Awards a while back, and the Booker Prize controversy. Also, apparently, according to Martin, there was one on the Nebula's.
Keep in mind, writing is a lonely gig. And it's thwart with rejection. Also writer's by nature tend to be rather sensitive to criticism. Readers are rather ruthless with it, at times. Plus there are billions of books published each year - if you win an award - this provides you with free marketing. More people become aware of your book. It pulls your book into the limelight. Same deal with movies and television series, if you are below the radar - an Emmy or Oscar nomination can provide you with a wider audience.
But you don't get nominations if you aren't advertised and people aren't interested.
And people nominate books and writers they happen to like. Yes, it is at the end of the day little more than a popularity contest.
That said, I find the Hugo controversy absurd. In part because, if the Sad Puppies (aka the right-wing conservative white male coalition) gets its way, The Hugos will lose its allure and prestige. People like myself will cease to take them seriously or use them to select books from. Not that I took them that seriously to begin with, but I admittedly have used the awards in the past to find good sci-fi/fantasy novels. In past few years, I've been using live journal and good reads to find fantasy and sci-fi novels.
Also the name - "Sad Puppy" is hilarious. From now on, I'm calling people like Orson Scott Card - Sad Puppy. (I have never read Orson Scott Card. Tried Ender's Game, but the appeal was lost on me.)
I honestly don't believe you can become a good writer without reading a lot of books, good, bad, etc. You need to know what works structurally, why it works, why it doesn't, and how.
Also why write, if you don't love to read? Seems sort of counterproductive.
Speaking of awards, The HUGO Awards controversy continues. GRR Martin has written several lengthy and I do mean lengthy posts on the controversy. The latest Where's the Beef sort of goes into depth on the controversy, which I first read about in Abigail Nussbaum's blog.
The whole thing reminds me a bit of the World Sci-Fantasy Awards a while back, and the Booker Prize controversy. Also, apparently, according to Martin, there was one on the Nebula's.
Keep in mind, writing is a lonely gig. And it's thwart with rejection. Also writer's by nature tend to be rather sensitive to criticism. Readers are rather ruthless with it, at times. Plus there are billions of books published each year - if you win an award - this provides you with free marketing. More people become aware of your book. It pulls your book into the limelight. Same deal with movies and television series, if you are below the radar - an Emmy or Oscar nomination can provide you with a wider audience.
But you don't get nominations if you aren't advertised and people aren't interested.
And people nominate books and writers they happen to like. Yes, it is at the end of the day little more than a popularity contest.
That said, I find the Hugo controversy absurd. In part because, if the Sad Puppies (aka the right-wing conservative white male coalition) gets its way, The Hugos will lose its allure and prestige. People like myself will cease to take them seriously or use them to select books from. Not that I took them that seriously to begin with, but I admittedly have used the awards in the past to find good sci-fi/fantasy novels. In past few years, I've been using live journal and good reads to find fantasy and sci-fi novels.
Also the name - "Sad Puppy" is hilarious. From now on, I'm calling people like Orson Scott Card - Sad Puppy. (I have never read Orson Scott Card. Tried Ender's Game, but the appeal was lost on me.)