Beyond the Noise: Why Book Awards and Criticism Still Matter

Updated Oct 2026: this editorial has been rewritten and now cites its sources.

Book awards and criticism are often dismissed as relics, overtaken by star ratings and algorithmic recommendations. The evidence points in a different direction. Prizes still move readers, and serious criticism still shapes how books are received. Both also carry risks that research has documented. This editorial sets out what is known about each and argues that the case for awards and criticism depends on doing them well, not on taking their authority for granted.

Prizes still move readers

The most visible sign of a prize's pull is the attention its selections receive. The Booker Prize 2026 shortlist, announced on 22 September, named six novels, among them books by two former winners, Marlon James and Douglas Stuart. A shortlist announcement of this kind places six titles in front of booksellers, reviewers and readers at the same moment, which is exactly the sort of attention most books never receive.

Endorsements from trusted curators operate in a similar way. A study by BYU economist Richard Butler and two student co-authors, Benjamin Cowan and Sebastian Nilsson, reported by BYU News in December 2004, examined the books chosen for Oprah's Book Club and found that titles that had been far from the bestseller lists entered them after selection and tended to stay longer than other bestsellers. A book club is not a literary prize, but the finding shows how much a trusted act of selection can count in a crowded market. Newer clubs follow the same pattern. NPR reported on Sep 3, 2019 that the 26 picks of Reese Witherspoon's book club had, according to NPD BookScan, sold almost 700% better than the average, and that the first five picks of the "Read with Jenna" club had overperformed the fiction market by about 500%. Vox reported that Delia Owens's Where the Crawdads Sing, a Reese pick, had a first print run of 27,500 copies and went on to sell more than 1.4 million print units.

The documented downside

Attention comes at a cost. Researchers Balázs Kovács and Amanda Sharkey compared books that won major awards with books that were shortlisted but did not win. Their study, published in Administrative Science Quarterly, found that after a win, readers' ratings of the winning books on Goodreads fell faster than ratings of the shortlisted books. Harvard Business Review summarized the result as the price of popularity.

The researchers explain that a prize carries a book to readers who would not otherwise have chosen it, and some of those readers like it less. That is not a case against awards. It is a case for understanding what they actually do. A prize widens a book's audience, and a wider audience is also a more mixed one.

What criticism adds

Criticism does something different from a prize. A prize hands down a verdict; a review explains one. The reception of Emily Wilson's 2017 translation of the Odyssey illustrates the difference. The Guardian's review called it a new cultural landmark and set out the reasons, discussing the translation's verse and its departures from earlier readings. A reader who disagreed could test that argument against the text.

That is the value of criticism that shows its working. A star rating cannot be argued with in the same way, because it records a reaction without the reasons behind it. Criticism that supplies reasons allows readers to weigh the judgment rather than simply adopt it, and it gives authors something they can learn from.

The risks on the open platforms

Open review platforms have widened the conversation, which benefits readers, but they are also open to manipulation. In December 2023 Del Rey dropped debut author Cait Corrain after she admitted using fake Goodreads accounts to boost her own book and post negative ratings of other debut authors. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission's rule on consumer reviews and testimonials, effective 21 October 2024, prohibits businesses from buying, selling or creating fake reviews.

Those cases do not show that crowd reviews are worthless. They show that open systems need rules and enforcement, and that a named critic, accountable for a published judgment, offers a different kind of reliability.

What publishers can take from the research

The studies cited here point to some practical steps. A shortlisting or a major endorsement is a moment to make sure a book is in stock and visible, since the evidence from the Oprah study shows that the effect on bestseller rankings can be large and lasting. Publishers can also prepare for the broader readership that the Kovács and Sharkey study describes, for example by making sure a book's description and marketing set accurate expectations for readers who would not normally pick up that kind of title.

On the review side, the Corrain case and the FTC rule both lead to the same principle: honest reviews are an asset, and manufactured ones are a liability, both legally and for a reputation. Encouraging genuine reader reviews is legitimate. Paying for them or faking them is not.

Why both still matter

Taken together, the evidence supports a measured conclusion. Prizes concentrate attention, and the Oprah study shows how powerful a trusted selection can be. The Kovács and Sharkey study shows that this attention brings in a broader, less predisposed audience. Criticism provides the reasons that ratings leave out, and the review-bombing case shows why accountable judgment keeps its value.

For publishers and authors, the practical point is to treat awards and reviews as tools with known effects, not as guarantees. A shortlisting widens the audience. A thoughtful review explains the book to that audience. Neither replaces the other, and neither replaces the book itself.

Readers interested in the translation discussed above will find that Wilson's translation is available on Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.