Watch the Skies!
Science Fiction Awards Watch has jumped into the blogosphere in a big way, coming just before this year’s Hugo announcements. Aside from my own hand-wringing about His Majesty’s Dragon and an impressive list of awards and award-resources, they’ve also just posted a link to author Jay Lake’s defense of the existence of these awards. I should probably clarify that my own criticism of the JWCMA arises out of a belief that there is a deep need for awards, and especially for awards that can represent cogent thought about the genre, which large constituency awards like the Hugos cannot hope to articulate.
So yes to awards as positive incentives for writing. That said, I’d be interested to see some of this sneering at awards as wank. I think most award criticism derives from the feeling not that awards are unimportant, but that individual awards are losing legitimacy by making choices that they will not and cannot defend.
This certainly makes for an interesting topic, especially when the wankery side of things makes an appearance. When art is a matter of taste (and should I even say beliefs, to a certain degree), can an award really have legitimacy? What makes any piece of art legitimate? Is art really just a craft, fitting into a supply and demand equation?
Having read just the first chapter of Ian Watt’s The Rise of the Novel. . ., I can see legitimate arguments for and against awards and also for and against the current state of things for the system of this one award. Is it a piece of empty bubble gum being awarded or is it something that simply goes against someone’s set of values being awarded?
The one thing that irks me from what I’ve read, though, is the “confidentiality” factor given to judges. If the point of an award is to legitimate something by giving it recognition, wouldn’t it be good to know why that something is legitimate? Not being so exposed to the “theory of awarding stuff,” I really don’t understand much other reason except for wankery and validating individuals for work, whether good or bad (which, I guess, would make it a form of mediocrity and/or “nepotism” — can’t think of a better word there).
Comment made by The_Lex on August 28, 2007 @ 10:48 am