I do not write in order to win awards. I don't actually know anyone
who does, though I would not suppose it impossible for someone to so
so. That does not mean of course that I should not like to win
awards. I am no more immune to the natural human desire for
recognition than anyone else.
Though any artist would like to produce art for its own sake, unless
you are very self confident it is hard to go on producing work that
you can't sell. You do begin to wonder; if you are the only person
who can see merit in your work, then does it really possess the merit
you suppose?
Writers even cherish that strange publishing phenomenon known as a
personal rejection. Magazine editors and other publishers receive
huge volumes of unsolicited submissions that they call 'slush'. Much
of this they may not even read themselves; they delegate to 'slush
readers' who are often other writers trying to gain experience. All
of us wonder from time to time how many gems are missed in this
sifting process.
If a slush reader refers a promising story up the line to a second
reader or editor, the odds are still against it appearing in the
magazine, but sometimes, if the editor sees promise in your work, he
will write back and tell you why he's rejecting it. This gives you
pointers as to what you should be looking to improve on in future
submissions.
This 'personal' (as opposed to 'form') rejection offers the writer
encouragement to continue. At least one editor thought your work was
not total rubbish.
One stage better is the 'rewrite request'. This is when the editor
tells you the story is good but has, in his or her view, faults which
would have to be corrected for the story to be published. You are
invited to try again with the same story if you wish. As a general
rule, writers struggling for publication credits certainly do wish,
though you could always stand on your dignity and insist that your
work cannot be improved upon. I have already stated as a matter of
public record that my story
'The
Man on The Church Street Omnibus' was much better after the
suggestions that I received from Alison Wilgus of The Sockdolager
than it was as originally submitted to her.
Those of us who have stories published on line may also receive
feedback from reader comments in the publication itself or in some
other forum such as this blog. Every little helps, and positive
criticism in the sense of suggesting how things could have been
better is welcome. Not all of us are robust enough to take negative
criticism, the usual answer to which is, of course, that if you don't
like it you are not forced to read it.
If awards serve any useful purpose it is to praise artistic merit.
There would be no point in an award that simply recognised the
highest sales, since such authors already have their reward.
Sometimes awards are judged by a panel. Panellists have to be pretty
robust because some of the time they are going to face hassle from
those who cannot understand, appreciate or agree with their choices.
Some awards, like the Hugos, the prestigious awards in the science
fiction genre, are voted for by the members of the institution which
instigated them. In this case there is an intermediate 'nomination'
stage to whittle down the qualifying writing to manageable numbers
for voting.
The controversy over that process this year has been loud enough to
reach the ears of dwellers in the wilderness such as myself. Whatever
the rights and wrongs one can only be sorry for
the
outcome.
This is just not the reason we write.
