The Belt and Suspenders Approach or What Happens When Two Judges Wildly Disagree?
In the world of literature, readers often have differing opinions on the quality and merit of a book. However, it becomes particularly intriguing when two esteemed book award judges, typically considered experts in their field, have drastically opposing views on a book’s scoring.
Each book entered into the Firebird Book Awards is sent to two judges to read and evaluate. All judges work from the same 20-question criteria sheet. Each question is answered using a score from 1-5, which allows for a potential score of 100.
For example: Does the writer engage the senses, making it easy for you to visualize the scene(s)?
5 – Excellent
4 – Very Good
3 – Solid
2 – Okay
1- Needs substantial work
When two judges with differing approaches encounter a book, each assessing its merits through their personal lens, we sometimes witness significant differences in the scoring. On one hand, a judge practicing a more lenient and open-minded approach may appreciate a book’s fresh perspective, innovative themes, or experimental style, attributing it a high score. On the other hand, another judge may find fault in the same book, scrutinizing its prose, character development, or thematic coherence, leading them to assign a significantly lower score.
These divergent judgments are a result of the inherent subjectivity of literary critique. Scoring a book involves personal sentiment, intellectual predisposition, and literary preferences. However, when two judges with fundamentally different approaches assess the exact text, it can lead to conflicting judgments. When this happens, the only fair thing to do is assign the book to two other judges to reach a consensus.
This belt and suspenders approach is advantageous to the author for several reasons.
Employing two additional judges gives a better chance of obtaining a fair evaluation of the book. The initial wild differences in scores could be due to individual biases or personal preferences of the first two judges. Including more judges allows for a broader range of perspectives and reduces the impact of personal biases.
Additional judges provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the book. Each judge brings their own unique perspective, expertise, and literary preferences. This can result in a more balanced and nuanced assessment of the book’s merits and weaknesses.
The bottom line: Including more judges enhances the credibility of the book award process, reinforces the award’s integrity, and lends greater credibility to the final decision.
At the Firebird Book Awards, we’ve got you covered.
PR
