Literary awards often spark controversy due to their subjectivity. The decisions reflect the tastes of a small panel of judges, who can be influenced by their cultural backgrounds, personal experiences, social environments, and even their emotional or psychological states. Since tastes vary, it’s no surprise that different panels select different winners for the same set of books.
Could AI be the key to fairer judgments in literary awards? Here are some reasons why AI might be the best alternative to human judges in literary competitions.
Literary Awards: A Privilege for the Elite
One of the most controversial aspects of literary awards is that decisions are often based on a small selection of books from the thousands published each year. While the winner may be the best among the limited pool of nominees, it is not necessarily the best among all the year’s publications, raising significant questions about the credibility of the results and the rationale behind declaring a single book as “the best.” With thousands of titles published annually, many deserving works are unfairly excluded from consideration. In their article titled “Who Cares About Literary Prizes?”, co-authors Alexander Manshel, Laura B. McGrath, and J. D. Porter emphasize this issue, noting that “The Booker Prize judges announced their shortlist for 2019, selecting just six novels out of the more than 100,000 new titles published in English so far this year.” Such statistics underscore the limitations of the selection process, casting doubt on the validity and representativeness of literary awards based on only a handful of nominations. Utilizing AI judges could address this problem, allowing all published books to have a fair share of participation in awards competitions.
AI Judges Cover Every Page, Human Judges Don't
One common criticism of literary award panels is their inability to read a large number of books within a limited timeframe. This has raised concerns that not all entries are being thoroughly reviewed. The Guardian highlighted this issue in a December 2019 article, revealing that “a judge of one of Scotland’s most prestigious literary awards has resigned over its choice of winner, claiming that her fellow judges had not read all of the books.” This was not an isolated case. Thuy On, Literary Editor of ArtsHub and a judge in numerous literary competitions, echoed this concern. In response to whether literary award panels read every single page of every manuscript, she explained, "Certainly not; that would be an impossible task, given the tight timelines granted. Most judges read several chapters to gauge the writing quality. If the prose or poetry piques interest, then they read on. Remember, this is a competition. If the writing does not appeal for whatever reason, it is unlikely that the reader will continue. There are many other works to get to, after all."
Unlike human judges, AI can read faster and with greater consistency, ensuring a thorough and unbiased assessment of each book. This positions AI as a promising alternative for judging book award competitions, capable of delivering more reliable and comprehensive evaluations.
Enhancing Book Assessment through Online Reviews
Online book reviews play a crucial role in identifying the best books available, providing valuable insights into readers’ attitudes and opinions. Reviews offer feedback on literary works and present diverse interpretations, helping to reveal what resonates with readers and where improvements may be needed. They can also serve as a rich data source for assessing a book's impact.
This is where AI technology comes into play. With the ability to quickly read and evaluate thousands of books, AI can also process large volumes of online reviews and related information, allowing a book to be assessed not only by the tastes of a few judges but by the views of millions worldwide. By considering the collective opinions of the global reading community, AI helps ensure a broader and more inclusive assessment of a book’s worth.
AI Offers Solutions for the Award Panel Selection
The selection process for literary award panel judges has long been a subject of controversy. Typically, judges are appointed by a governing body without a democratic selection process, and disagreements about the selected individuals are common. These panel judges come from diverse spheres of industry and include novelists, poets, critics, booksellers, agents, magazine editors, and press publishers. Inevitably, they often disagree about which works should be selected. As Thuy On noted, “In cases of tense disagreements between the panel, they (Chairs of the Judging Panel) will step in to make the final decision. Often, there is plea bargaining going on. So, you’ll say, ‘Okay, if you agree for me to nominate this book for the shortlist, then I will (reluctantly) agree to let your favorite book be on there as well.’”
In an article titled “A Judgement on Literary Judging,” Steven Herrick, who was asked to serve on the judging panel for the 2014 NSW Premier’s Literary Awards, wrote: “By what criteria should I be placed in such a position? Just because I’ve written twenty-odd books and won a few awards? Don’t they know I have an editor and a publisher who fine-tune my rambles to such a degree that sometimes I can’t recognize my own writing? Can we have an award for editors, please? I’ll be first in line to judge that.”
AI Judges Solve Conflict of Interest in Literary Competitions
One significant challenge faced by literary awards panels is the potential for conflicts of interest, particularly when a judge and a candidate share personal or financial connections. With the rise of social media, these relationships have become both easier to form and more visible, exacerbating the issue. As Beth Driscoll highlights in her article “How Prizes Work in the Literary Economy,” “often such a field is highly insular and interconnected: people in different positions are likely to know each other, and the same person might occupy a variety of positions over time.” This interconnectedness can lead to situations where judges assess the work of close friends, colleagues, or compatriots, creating a clear conflict of interest.
Driscoll’s observation is echoed in the Arab literary world, where there have been cases of judges evaluating books by friends and associates from the same publishing houses. Such instances reveal flaws in the selection process, where organizers may not sufficiently vet the judges' suitability. These practices ultimately undermine the credibility of the awards. To address this, AI judges could offer a viable alternative, as they lack personal connections and would ensure that all candidates are evaluated fairly and impartially.
The Subjectivity of Literary Awards Decisions
In literary awards competitions, human judges are often influenced by their own backgrounds, opinions, and personal preferences, leading to subjective decision-making. As Isabel Costello noted, “Literary merit is not an absolute – it’s a question of taste and opinion; just look at the vastly differing reviews J.K. Rowling’s The Casual Vacancy has attracted.” This subjectivity was further highlighted by author Tessa Hadley, a recipient of the Windham-Campbell Prize, who remarked that “it was wrong that so much emphasis was placed on the Booker when the winner was decided by the ‘taste, personality and character of the judges.’”
Unlike human judges, AI judges are free from personal feelings, emotions, or background influences that can affect their judgments. This allows them to make impartial decisions based solely on the merit and quality of the literary works, transcending individual biases and potentially delivering fairer outcomes in literary awards competitions.
AI Judges Can Eliminate Gender Bias in Awards
Gender bias has long been a contentious issue in literary awards. British fiction reviews editor Sara Veale points to “gender bias in literary prize-giving,” stating, “data shows a preference towards not just male writers—16 women in total have won the Booker in its 45-year history; it’s the same with prizes like the Pulitzer and the Nobel Prize—but also looks specifically at not just who’s writing the books but who they’re writing about. It examines who the protagonists are and what their gender is, which speaks to the broader bias within the industry toward narratives about men.” Veale concludes, “It’s hard to escape the conclusion that... those who judge literary worthiness find women frightening, distasteful, or boring.”
The issue of gender bias extends beyond award winners to the composition of judging panels themselves. Veale observes, “And you have to think about who’s picking the prizes as well. I mean, are panels balanced? With the Booker, it was two women and three men—it’s not equal, it’s not terribly unequal, but that’s where our biases come in when you’re considering experimental fiction and what’s considered substantial and what’s considered insubstantial.”
Incorporating AI judges in literary competitions could help ensure a fairer evaluation process, as AI operates without inherent biases and has no gender, focusing solely on the literary quality of submissions.
In conclusion, the advantages of using AI judges in book award competitions are significant and far-reaching. AI can read and assess books with unparalleled efficiency, draw on online reviews for comprehensive evaluations, and ensure transparent and objective selection processes. By eliminating conflicts of interest, emotional biases, and gender bias, AI judges offer the promise of a more inclusive and fair literary awards system. Embracing this technology could revolutionize book awards, recognizing literary excellence purely on merit. As technology continues to evolve, adopting AI judges in literary competitions may pave the way for a more transparent, equitable, and forward-thinking literary future.
