To Award or Not To Award
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | To Award or Not To Award |
| Creator: | Linda Frankel |
| Date(s): | February 7, 1987 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | Star Trek: TOS |
| Topic: | awards |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
To Award or Not To Award is an essay by Linda Frankel.
It was published in the second issue of On the Double.
Some Topics Discussed
- awards in general and the pros and cons of them
- K/Star Awards
- Surak Awards
Excerpts
One function of awards that is readily discernible is that it gives recognition to the writers and artists who win. It is true that they can be given encouragement in other ways. There is the tried and true method of writing a LoC to the editor singling out the stories and artwork that are particularly noteworthy,but editors complain that few people write Locs, so that is not an effective method of giving the writers and artists recognition. Reviews would be another way of giving these people recognition, but that's only recognition from fans who write reviews, and not from the audience as a whole. So what is there but awards that represents the readers? Opponents of awards argue that encouraging some writers and artists at the expense of others is not really productive. What about the writers and artists who don't win? Is it necessarily true that these individuals are producing inferior work? Maybe their work is excellent but unpopular, and the awards are no more than a popularity contest. Any awards or contest is open to either the charge of being a popularity contest or of being elitist. When the material nominated is being judged by a panel or supposed experts, the awards are much more open to the charge of elitism. Since everyone who is aware of the K/Stars or the Surak Awards can vote, it is not inherently an elitist institution, even if the small number of votes received may make it so in practice. I do sense a tendency on the part of some people to vote for their friends, or for established writers and artists who have been known to receive awards in the past. At first glance, that would seem to be a problem, if the awards are solely about recognizing quality without prejudice. Yet that isn't their only function.
Another function of awards is to determine what is popular with the audience. If fans are most interested in work by writers and artists who are quite familiar to them, the awards may tell us that. If fans like a particular kind of subject, the awards may tell us that, too. Awards can be a barometer illuminating what the standards of the voting audience are. Should editors guide themselves according to the results? The fact that few fans actually do vote is a telling argument against using awards as a barometer. It is possible to hype the awards and encourage greater participation in them by distributing nomination forms more widely through many more publications or at many different cons. If attention were called to the awards by having panel discussions about them, for example, maybe more people might vote. Nevertheless, there are other barometers of the audience available. The most decisive one is zine sales. If a zine is selling very well, it's fairly obvious that it's popular, and that the editor is meeting the standards of the audience. If an editor wanted to determine specifically what it is that people liked about the zine, the editor could provide a form with the zine listing everything in it, and people could check off what they particularly liked and mail it in. This would give the editor more immediate feedback than awards.
Yet there is still another function of awards. Awards provide perspective. When you look over what has been produced over an entire year, you may notice things that you wouldn't if you were just examining particular zines. That artist has improved markedly over the past year, or this writer has made a definite shift in the sorts of stories that she writes. What has the year been like in K/S, and how does it compare to previous ones? The awards don't in themselves answer these questions, but a conscientious voter will find herself asking them by being placed in the position of evaluating everything that has been pubbed that year. In voting, the perspective one has acquired may be taken into account. Is someone who has recently made a 'marked improvement' more worthy of an aware than someone who has consistently produced good work over a number of years? Are the awards for specific achievement or for a track record? Should we be faced with such a choice? Can't the awards be made to reflect both the short term and the long view? It's probably that they can. New categories can be added and ballots modified accordingly. Nevertheless, there is another way of acquiring perspective. One of the jobs of a critic is to be aware of perspective. If we had a group of critics in addition to reviewers, we might expect to regularly get the critics' ideas of the state of K/S over the year or over the past five years from critical essays. Yet there is something to be said against elevating the opinions of a few people and taking what they say as universal gospel. What is your opinion of the state of K/S? You have the power "to decide on your own, and you can, if you wish, influence the future of K/S through awards.
Should the awards influence the future of K/S? What is their effect on fandom? Proponents would say that those who are rewarded by winning are encouraged to remain and produce more K/S, which is all to the good. Opponents would say that awards may be narrowing the market. They would argue that awards increase sales for a few zines that were already popular in the first place. Their place in K/S is secure without awards,. Meanwhile, more marginal zines are forgotten entirely, and they fade away leaving only the established old favorites. This is assuming that people buy only on the basis of awards, or on the basis of what they know to be popular. I imagine that many fans do in fact have such a buying strategy, though I am not one of them. I also think there will always be people wanting to experiment and try out something new. That was the original impetus behind K/S in the first place. I don't think that spirit of adventure is entirely dead among us. This also applies to the awards. Just as there is no rule that you have to buy the same zines that your friends do, there is none that says you have to vote for the same writers and artists that your friends are voting for. You can deliberately choose people who are trying new things and exploring original concepts. You can nominate new zines rather than established old ones. You can make an effort to upset the status quo. You may not succeed in doing so, but you do have a voice. Essentially awards are what we as readers make of them. The decision as to whether the awards are helpful or harmful is also up to each one of us.