Topic 2: Awards
November 14, 1999
5:42 p.m.
 Why do you say 7:37?   That was my first thought when I looked at the clock this morning. I'm here in Orlando, and I set the clock last night to get up at my normal 4:30. Luckily, the conferencce didn't start until 9:00, so I had plenty of time for that. But it threw my plan for the day off, and I was not happy. I lept out of bed, cursing the damned clock to no end, then started the coffee machine and jumped in the shower. Between the heater not working well last night, my room not being fully clean when I got here, and now this defective clock, I was upset enough at the hotel room to think about complaining. I spent much of the shower carefully chosing the words I would use to get maximum attention at the front desk. Lisa (the wife-copyeditor, not the writer-friend) can tell you exactly how rare it is for me to really do much complaining, so you can use that to judge exactly how mad I was. By the time I got out of the shower, though, I was moderately coherent. I looked at the derelict clock. It glowed the time back at me, its cold red interface like a threat. "Do you feel lucky?" it said. Troubled, I stepped over to it and pushed the "wake" button. You can probably guess. I set it for p.m. Okay. Awards. I can certainly relate to the feelings that lack of attention brings with it. Awards can be a double edged sword. But I've made my opinion of awards known before. I think they're great. I'm not going to change that. Yes, they're often subjective. Yes, popularity has a piece in them. Yes, "the best" is often impossible to quantify. I've spent a couple days thinking about Linda's original entry, and about several people's responses. Those responses are so uniform in their sympathy to the idea that awards cause more pain than they're worth that I've thought about how, and even if, I should talk about them here. In the end, I figured I would. And to make it worse, I'm going to be blunt about my thoughts--nothing personal, you know. But it's just too hard to tenderfoot around about it. So take it as you will. My instinctive response to the comment that awards are subjective is "Of course they are. So what?" Someone (was it Sam?--I'm hurt here because I'm not at a place where I can easily jump on-line and check it out, so I apologize for any errors) said that the Oscars are a popularity contest because they are voted on by the academy insiders. Well, of course. But that doesn't really make the winners less worthy. There's a dynamic to the Oscars. People win awards for a variety of reasons. But look at the list of "winners" and one gets the opinion that the process generally turns up pretty good people who are generally worthy of being awarded. Should the Oscars be discontinued because they are voted on by insiders? I don't think so. Again, I think it was Sam who compared the Oscars to our own Hugo. Not to pick nits, but the comparison is only directly valid if you make the comparison between the Oscar and the Nebula (which is voted on by SFWA membership, and lo and behold tends to go primarily to SFWA members despite its more global title of "Best X story" of the year). Hugos are voted on by the fans, hence the comparison should be Hugo to "People's Choice". But I digress. Bottom line: A lot of my favorites lose in award processes, but there are very few "stinkers" that win. Rather than attributing those that I think are "stinkers" to anything sinister, I think it's healthier to just say that tastes vary and leave it at that. Of course, among the problems bandied about when it comes to awards is the hurt feelings and depression they can leave behind in those who see themselves as "losers." I'm not going to go bare my soul here, but take it on faith that I understand how cruel people can be. The "last picked for dodgeball" scenario does a grand job relating the undertone of anxiety related to some of these things. My gut response to the idea of ignoring awards or any other event because you can't stand the pain they bring is "Sounds like as useful of an idea as any." After losing a close playoff game, a reporter once asked Michael Jordan if he felt bad. Now, Michael would be in his right to be pretty miffed after such a loss. But he calmed himself a little and said "Yeah, I feel bad. But you ask that question like you it's the end of the world. Am I supposed to get so depressed that I can't play my best tomorrow? Heck, everyone needs a defense mechanism to despondency. Despair gets in the way of progress. Michael Jordan looked at the world and picked a way to deal with his depression in such a fashion that he came back the next night and (as I remember) lead his team to its last NBA title. If it takes reminding yourself that awards are affected by more than quality, or if it takes totally ignoring the events to keep yourself happy and productive, then those are things you should do. But my response to turning your back on any awards that may be bestowed upon you is "Jeeze. What is that all about?" An award is a compliment. It's a comliment whether it be a Web thing or a Nebula or a Noble. Someone was concerned that the Nobel shouldn't be based on popularity. Get serious. I would be really, really surprised if at least a little of it wasn't--I mean, NO ONE WORKS IN A VACUUM--I bet there are a lot of stories the Nobel people can tell you about criteria for, let's say, the Nobel prize for literature, or the Nobel prize for journalism, or ... well, you get the idea. Or, how about the Pulitzer? What's so different about that prize over the Nebulas or the Stokers, or the Oscars, or the Webbies, for that matter? Does the Pulitzer have a quantifiable equation guarded by Arthur Anderson (or maybe Guido the killer pimp? ... Okay, that's a cheesy rip off from a line from "Risky Business" sorry -- I don't think that one won any wards, though, so I hope I can be forgiven) that removes all subjectivity from it? Anyway. Like I said, an award is a compliment. Dale Carnegie, and a panel of American mothers say that the proper response to a compliment is "Thank you." Anything else is being abrupt and anti-social yourself. Now, the reason I'm running at the mouth here is that I think the majority of people that read my page are probably newer writers like myself. I think many, if not most of them, would dearly love at least part of their career to be made in the publishing industry, and, bottom line, I've made no secret about my desire to be successful in this area. Let me bold this, okay? Like it or not, WE ARE IN (OR TRYING TO GET INTO) THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY. Awards are a fact of life. We need to learn how to deal with them on our own terms. Declaring a site a "no award" zone probably feels pretty good for a little while. But it's just a barrier between you and the public, and can be interpreted like a slap in the face. If that doesn't sway you, think of it this way. Does this mean your stories are a "No Nebula/Hugo/Crawford/Spectrum/Sturgeon/Stoker/et al Zone?" If so, you've just hurting yourself. Sorry to be blunt. But that makes absolutely no sense. Beyond the concept that the proper response to a compliment is "Thank you," the fact of the matter is that people in entertainment industries use awards to build and augment careers. By all means, remind yourself that you can make a career without ever receiving an award. But to turn your back to them is really, well, it's just kind of stupid. Again, sorry. Maybe tomorrow I'll get back to something more entertaining. Maybe I'll skip the bit I was planning on about Raising and Awarding Kids ... then again, maybe not. [grin] Have a very good one, okay? Many Thanks to Shannon Wendt for her award   You're easier to get along with when you get less sleep, Ron. Daily Persistence is © Ron Collins |
|
"It's a virtual Monday but a physical Sunday." Laura Reeves Instructor at TDWI's Data Warehouse conference |
BACK TO 
|