To me, not overly much. I like works that I like. I am not entertained by awards, and neither would I hold consideration of placing it at the head of a manuscript.
The last thing I want is for my readers to have to waste moments of their lives scanning a list of awards that my books or scripts have won before getting to the actual story. An editor more so, as an editor has enough burden reading the entire thing to begin with. They have many other documents to read. Why should I bore them with awards?
It is just a waste of metal, paper or bytes anyway.
I don't really care. To me, it's like judging someone by their grades in school. Art is so subjective that we can't say something is universally good or bad. I've read award winning books that everyone said were amazing and absolutely hated them. I've also read many underrated books that I've loved so I don't feel any different knowing it has won 5477209 awards.
Almost every resource I've found, online or in print, recommends to list your literary achievements. However, I agree with neurotype in that DDs and DLDs are not, in the context of the literary world, "achievements." Sure, it's nice that an admin on dA thought your piece deserved more exposure, but that's about all it amounts to
This is utterly standard submission practice. It would be lovely to think that editors very attentively read every submission they receive, but the reality is that they simply can't if they're running anything beyond very small. So, yes, it's a matter of proven track-record. If the editor knows what they're doing, mention of prizes and publications can also help them work out what tradition/genre/etc the writer in question is coming from. Furthermore, it pays courtesy to those venues mentioned and provides them a minor stream of attention.
I would see a DD as showing their are able to make things that are popular in some way on this site, so that is relevant to mention in an immediate and concrete way--not just for being some generic "prize" showing their overall goodliness. It is like a query to a literary mag mentioning previous publication in literary mags--it shows they know how to play that specific game and are less likely to be some delusional time-waster.
I don't think it is generically reassuring, I think it just tells a widget shop that you know what widgets are and have made at least one fo them before. It does not, for example, say anything about whether the author is or is not a stark raving mad diva from hell.
One person's opinion that an existing piece of writing deserves more exposure than it currently has does not any sort of 'achievement' make. Especially when said person doesn't even necessarily have a background in literature - I'm not the only CV/GM whose major course of study, and career, had nothing to do with it.
And, add to this that dA is somewhat of a bubble when it comes to trends in writing. Viewed from the broader context of publishing, I would absolutely not trust a dA vote of confidence to represent the potential for real-world success, even if it sometimes happens. Hell, I think there's maybe three works I featured that I would also publish as-is, but of course I'm not an editor right now.
It's gratifying, and I would certainly call it a vote of confidence, but that is as far as I would go.
"It's gratifying, and I would certainly call it a vote of confidence, but that is as far as I would go."
That, my friend, is the answer I was seeking. Thank you.
I like the direction you're taking this conversation as far as dA against the broader context of publishing. I believe you have tapped into a greater discussion of what exactly things like features, DDs and DLDs truly mean in regards to success.
TBH, I don't think there's a greater discussion because what counts for success on dA...if you look at Popular > Literature, it is not in the slightest what appears in journals. And in terms of awards, how many people with predominantly real-world success are handing them out? Again, it doesn't mean that you're necessarily a bad writer, but in general the yardstick for print success needs to come from other print sources, and you can plug in any other descriptor there (commercial, literary, etc).
I believe that the greater discussion is exactly what you are saying.
What is a DD or a feature worth in terms of real-world success?
You're opinion (and you are more than okay to correct me if I am wrong) is that they hold little value in contrast to a more traditional form of publication. I cannot disagree with this on any level.
Are social writing sites sandboxes for our future careers in the field of literature? Are some writers too focused on the social status of obtaining these features and losing focus on the goal as a writer (becoming published)? I find these interesting, personally. And completely understand if you do not find any further discussion in them.
Thank you for the insight, neuro. I truly appreciate it.
Not necessarily, I don't believe that anyway. Awards can be given for a unique concept or idea, but the writing style could be mediocre. Awards are a fancy title given to people to say 'hey, you've done something different' but doesn't necessarily reflect the quality
And awarded pieces aren't 100% bad, but also not 100% brilliant. there is always an aspect of quality, whether it's the idea, the style, narration, etc, just some don't deserve an award to be given to them.
A really bad piece can't win. (Though I wouldn't be surprised if there is one with an award) For me, I don't think LOTR is that awesome, (it's not bad , no, just not brilliant as everyone keep praising it) Eat, pray, love as well.
i'll put it this way as it pertains to me.. none of my DDs and DLDs ultimately matter. i don't have any more or less readers, even with what i have "accomplished" here. it's nice to be recognized and i care a lot about those who have taken their time to like/fave/read/comment/etc, but there's been no real measurable real-world benefit to a DD/DLD. i sure as hell can't list it on a resume or use it as a talking point to get my foot in the door to publication. i'd be laughed right out the door.
I'll make it easy, though. Our submissions are not made bias by awards or achievements. Good work is good work in our eyes. perfect strategy is perfect
How do you feel when you see a writer's work who has won an award? Like I picked the best apple. Seriously, it brings a smile to my face. Especially if I buy it before it wins the award. I bought All the Light We Cannot See, by Anthony Doerr, about a month ago. At the time it was a National Book Award finalist and the New York Times Book Review listed it as one of the 10 best books for 2014. Last week, it was awarded a Pulitzer. The Daily Deviations here have not yet let me down, either; the staff knows how to pick good reading.
Does it really matter if they have or have not won an award before? Not really. There are some great books out there that don't have awards. And awards can't be given to every single great book there is.
The overall prestige of the award, the fact it made it through so many editors and was accepted, allows you to take pride in your decision or feel as if it is worth the time to read and see for yourself.
Good choice, by the way!
Could we say that awards are simply markers for good works noticed? What do you think?
Could we say that awards are simply markers for noticed works? Well, yes and no. While not all great works are given an award, the ones that are, usually have something about them that makes them stand out from the others that were not awarded. If I collected and read all the books on the NYT top 10 list for 2014, I'd probably find that the one which was awarded a Pulitzer stands out a bit above the others. The award winners are definitely top of their class - although sometimes the decision of who to award is likely extremely difficult.