Forum: Author Hangout

I think you need to check those numbers.

Ooops 🫣

My personal take, is that the minimum time to be considered should be at least fifteen years activity on the site. After all, it's a 'lifetime achievement' award. I understand that people could argue that someone who dies at age ten (etc) has had a ten year 'lifetime', but that's more an exception than the norm.

If you go by L/time awards in other professions (film/writing/music/etc), it's normally individuals who have been in the business a long time (like half a century or more). Granted, in this case it's a little harder as the site has not been going for fifty odd years (though to Laz, it may feel that way!).

For me, allowing nominations of people with a site history of a couple of years, lacks gravitas and is much akin to nominating a story with only male characters to the lesbian category.

I can appreciate other points of view and that some may prefer to use the metric of length of time stories have been on the site, rather than the length of the author's participation. However, (and yes, that's technically a 'but'). If, say, an author whose site participation of a couple of years wins over someone whose contributions span a quarter of a century. Then I feel justified in thinking the category is just a joke and wouldn't take it, or the winners of the rest of the categories, seriously. A bit like, say, if the London marathon allowed you to drop out at the one mile mark and still gave you the medal and everything, nobody would treat ownership (or the possessor) of the medal with any respect, because everyone would wonder if the owner had dropped out at the one mile mark. The medal, and the race, would quickly become a joke.

Also, I'm, not discounting the actual stories. If two writers have been here a similar time and both were up for the LT award, then most definitely, the quality of their writing should be used to discern the rightful winner.

Anyway, just my idle thoughts on the matter. "Go away now.." as a certain fellow is want to say...

My personal take, is that the minimum time to be considered should be at least fifteen years activity on the site.

I'm not a fan of his writing but enough readers are to justify the inclusion of Starfleet Carl - it wasn't his fault his writing career ended prematurely.

I think quantity and quality of work should also be considered alongside longevity. The UK Civil Service, for example, is notorious for proposing long serving civil servants for honours even though their principal achievements were not trying to introduce anything innovative or efficient.

AJ

I had a nice long written reply on how other entertainment mediums don't follow the trend of giving early deceased LTA awards, pointing out Heath Ledger, Aaliyah, Brandan Lee, Buddy Holly etc etc. Only to find out on further research, that Buddy Holly received his Grammy LTA award posthumously in 1997, thereby completely destroying my own argument... Damn. LOL

(But I think they did the Buddy Holly one in 1997 because they were short of a living individual worthy of a LTA... 😜 )

I had one job....

My personal take, is that the minimum time to be considered should be at least fifteen years activity on the site.

By that, do you mean their most recent submissions should be at least fifteen years after their first, or that they submitted stories or parts thereof in at least fifteen different calendar years?

The latter would impress me more.

AJ

Yes, the latter.

Basically time served. Someone who pops in once, drops a single story, or a couple of stories in one year, fifteen years ago,never to be seen again, isn't really deserving of a 'lifetime' award. The award is for the individual and their contributions to the site every year, not the story.

Is someone who paints just the one picture a 'Master' or just lucky? The same could be said of one hit wonders in the music business. Yes, they made one song that lots of people liked, but it was just that, one song, hardly befitting of a lifetime accolade.

Just because you scored one goal in a football match for the entire season, doesn't mean you should be player of the year. That goes to the player who has been consistently outstanding over the entire season, not one match.

Those chosen for consideration for a lifetime award, don't need to be the best in a year (There is a separate award for that), they just need to be consistent, over time. Quality of story can be utilised to select a winner if there are several contenders of similar candidacy.

As previously mentioned, the winner in my view is blatantly obvious, with Lubrican being the main contender for next year.

it's a bit insulting to grant a "Lifetime Achievement" award to someone who is still alive.

It's honoring a person for their lifetime achievements in the field. It's best to give it to them while they're still alive.

Again, it kind of implies that they have hit their peak and can't/won't achieve better in the future.

I don't see it that way. It's honoring their accomplishments, not implying there won't be more.

I don't see it that way. It's honoring their accomplishments, not implying there won't be more.

Honouring someone while they're still alive leaves open the prospect of something unforgivable being dredged up from their past, such as liking a JK Rowling post on Twitter ;-)

AJ

It's best to give it to them while they're still alive.

Yes, otherwise it would be necro...Yeah, I'll get my coat... Taxi!

to someone who is still alive.

There are a large number of authors who are not active. How do you plan to prove they are alive or dead?

As sunseeker said, we are honoring their past accomplishments, and are not saying their posting new stories is at an end.

But if you link to stories on other sites the thread is liable to be deleted!

Not on the Clitorides site. There are links to nominations and winners from other sites.

AJ