Awards, Reviews, And Other Things
That Don't Matter
By Scott Nicholson
Let's face
it: for a writer, getting a good review is better than
getting a bad review, and winning an award is better than
losing. Let's get that clear right off the bat. Anybody
who has any sense of patriotism, pride, or passion knows
this. A pat on the head is better than a boot in the
rear.
But, really and truly, winning isn't everything in
writing. Because you never win. You always lose to that
nasty bugger named Time, who swoops down and sink his
claws into you before your life's work is done, no matter
how many manuscripts you pile up. So the trick in dealing
with awards is the same as the one used to deal with the
ticking clock: you keep on keeping on.
The review is a funny animal. In reading reviews of
magazine short stories, I find that fully half or more
stories are skewered by the critic. So if half the
stories getting accepted should not have been published,
not everyone is on the same page, meaning the editors who
choose the stories, readers who plunk down their nickel,
and critics who dissect the work all can't agree on what
constitutes a good story.
Certainly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I
received a fairly harsh review for the first story I ever
sold, and I was a bit stunned at first. Then I realized
that the critic didn't know that the story was my first,
that I was fully aware of its flaws, but was offered $500
for publication rights and had racked up 105 rejection
slips to that point and was desperately in need of a
boost. The critic didn't know anything about the story
behind the story, and rightfully so, since a good critic
is blind to all but the invisible bar that each piece of
fiction must leap or else be left on its backside in
fallen agony.
So I read the review, my cheeks got warm for three
seconds, and then I actually laughed aloud, and the
warmth of anger in my chest subsided into a glow of joy.
The worst had happened, and the worst had absolutely no
affect on my daily writing life. Defeat turned into
victory. The criticism was outside of everything that
mattered to me, which is the story currently on the
screen or meandering through the crippled alleys of my
brain. Two days later, I tried to think of the reviewer's
name, because I wanted to make sure not to send that
person a copy of my forthcoming collection. I couldn't
remember the name. The critic's boot-heel left no lasting
mark.
Truth be told, I'd like to think that a stellar review
would have had the same effect: three seconds of
pleasure, then consigned to the dusty shelves of memory.
My wife says that I don't revel in my triumphs enough,
that I too quickly shed the joy of selling a story. But
I'm always too obsessed with the current project or, just
as likely, the project shortly down the road. That is
where my emotional stability feeds, at least in my
"writing life."
The same goes for awards. It's nice to be a Writer of the
Future and be eligible for a bunch of money and a sharp
spire of lucite. It's a joy to be among the company of a
great, upcoming class of writers. But what writer wants
to be only a writer of the future? I want to be a writer
of the present, and then, when Time takes me, a writer of
the past.
There's a formula for winning most awards, because those
awards are basically popularity contests. Writers select
works by other writers. Peer approval is always A Good
Thing, but it can be tempting to spend too much time
networking, partnershipping, shamelessly self-promoting,
conventioning, and grandstanding to get any work done.
Not that good work doesn't win; it almost always does.
The greatest honor to me would be winning one of those
few awards that are actually selected by readers. Those
are the people that breathe life into work. A moldered
trophy and an elegant parchment sealed in a tomb of
posterity do nothing to advance a single mind, promote a
single idea, or give one person insight into the world or
a brief escape from the rigors of life. Publishing checks
are wonderful, but they don't amortize the debts of the
heart. That's why, in the editor-critic-reader
triumvirate, I would rather kiss the feet of the reader.
No critics, judges, or scathing editors need haul me to
the dungeons. I can't be broken on the wheel of literary
acceptance. I break myself every day, in those grasping
moments when I realize how far I have yet to go, how many
pages are left unwritten, how many stories that God and
the collective unconscious have commissioned me to tell.
And then there's the telling. That's the thing that
matters.
--Copyright
1999 by Scott Nicholson. Contact for reprint permission.
more articles
|