Addenda to Today’s Editorial

0
212

I agree, in general, that the naming of awards can be unexpectedly and unintentionally problematic;  we went through this with the Lovecraft award and the Lodestar was named not for an individual for essentially the same reasons – concern that the individual so named would prove to be a problem for some folks who might be its recipient.

Plenty of folks have already said “lets stop naming awards for people” and avoid the whole mess in the first place, and that’s a pretty decent solution.  (The day that “Lodestar” begins to have negative connotations though….)

There’s a strike a balance alternative as well.

Have the naming of the award be an additional aspect of the award.  Each year a committee would select people to be honored by putting their names on a certain award in a non-persistent, one time only manner.

So, for example –  “This year the Best New Writer Award has been named in honor of Travis Tea.  Presenting the Travis Tea Best New Writer Award for 2019 is…”

And then it changes to someone else the following year.

IF the selection committee does due diligence, it should not be too difficult to find someone who’s contemporary reputation is acceptable and, since the award only carries that name one time, and as an adjunct to boot, should not cause ripples for future generations.

(Yes, I’m aware that the Best New Writer award presented at the Hugo Awards ceremony is managed by Dell and not subject to anyone but their decision making process.)

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.