redhead
Blahblahblah
Why not? I liked having four the first year and wanted us to have four last year
WLF Prize in Literature 2024
- Thread starter Bartleby
- Start date
Why not? I liked having four the first year and wanted us to have four last year
tiganeasca
Moderator
Ah. Understood. (Although unless "jet" is a typo for "jest," I'm lost.) I would like to see him make the cut but am pretty well convinced that if he didn't make the cut a couple years ago, he's only gonna slide down the list and more and more members increase the pool. Not a complaint: just an observation--and possibly one that explains why he's never gotten the prize in "real life" either.
tiganeasca
Moderator
We can always vote on that...as I recall, we did vote on the number of finalists, didn't we?
Last edited:
hayden
Well-known member
errequatro
Reader
We'll have 4 if necessary due to the number of votes. Otherwise next year we can have 5 and so on and so forth... I mean, even the Nobel gets the same names year in year out. I think the rule of not being able to nominate the candidate in consecutive years guarantees freshness. AND it would be super unfair. If Kadaré or any other "repeat offender" is again on the list, their chances are actually lowered with an extra competitor... so they'll be punished for making it to the shortlist twice, is that it? Isn't this a form of devaluing their work?
Last edited:
Cleanthess
Dinanukht wannabe
Voted for:
Frankétienne
Rita Indiana
Esther Kinsky
Frankétienne
Rita Indiana
Esther Kinsky
Ludus
Reader
She's gonna be a lecturer on a masters degree I'm studying, and I'm very excited for that class!
namelesshere
Reader
I don't really understand why not. There are plenty of reasons why you would. To ensure there remain a good dose of fresh names, because it gives old names a chance again, because arguably most people would already have read the books of the previous nominee so it's not a significant addition to the reading pile...
tiganeasca
Moderator
This baffles me. Is the point to make an award to a deserving writer or to get "a dose of fresh names"? How does it give "old names a chance again" if the list gets larger, reducing their chances (as errequatro pointed out above)? And I never thought of reading the works of nominees as a simple means to making "a significant addition to the reading pile." If you want to read someone's works, read someone's works; there's no need for them to be a nominee for anything in order to add their works to your reading list.
Last edited:
namelesshere
Reader
Well, if you can't see how having an extra name on a list helps to achieves making an award to a deserving writer, or think it conflicts with that aim, then I cannot help you.
And if you've not observed some of the commentary in the past from people who are concerned about the commitment involved, then I cannot help you either.
Leseratte
Well-known member
I think the main objective is form a yearly reading corpus of new and of course deserving writers to select the Wolfie. But if one old name, that has already been selected in a former contest but didn´t win, turns up, oh well...It wouldn´t be ideal as part of the reading programm for the Wolfie, but one has to keep in mind that the Noble itself often selects the winner from names that have turned up several times. So, as long it is done according to the rules, it is ok with me.
errequatro
Reader
Surely, adding a new name will do nothing to ameliorate the commitment. It will actually increase the need/pressure to read more instead of truly assess the impact of a writer in one's life. If a writer shows up again on the list it's a wonderful opportunity to read more works by that same author and/or to reread some others.
I sincerely think this is a false issue becuase even if one writer shows up on the list again, you will still have 2 new ones to consider from. The need for freshness should not be the point of the award as it does not serve a commercial endeavour of any kind.
Plus some writers have, sadly, passed away (Marias) which already "creates space" for new names.
As I have mentioned before, it is actually punishing for a writer to suddenly have to compete with 3 and not 2 others just because he didn't win the first time.
Moreover, are we passing up truly deserving writers (examples are plenty) just because of the artifical need for "freshness"?
If I was a writer and this criteria was presented to me, I would actually wihdraw from competition because it is disrepectful towards one's work.
Slow and steady is, in this case, better than fast in furious. I think.
redhead
Blahblahblah
Re: commitment, is four writers really that much more work than three? We had four the first year and I don’t recall it being much more time consuming than, say, last year.
Anyway, I view this forum prize as just a bit of fun, and I think that adding an additional writer in the mix makes it more fun. Just my two cents.
Anyway, I view this forum prize as just a bit of fun, and I think that adding an additional writer in the mix makes it more fun. Just my two cents.
redhead
Blahblahblah
As Bartleby said, at the end of the day it should be the good old democratic vote that finally gets to decide on the magic number,
I'm just campaigning for my preference
nagisa
Spiky member
As Bartleby said, at the end of the day it should be the good old democratic vote that finally gets to decide on the magic number,
IIRC, there was a tie, and then we voted on whether to keep 4 or not.
Done
I'm not a fan of having 4 for its own sake. I don't think it favors past candidates; and perhaps the 1-year cool-off period for them is punitive, as @errequatro points out. But on the other hand, we are constituting our own pool of perennials, and perhaps in future years we'll have people stumping for them in their 3 choices. I can see @redhead's point about it being fun to read more, but agree with @tiganeasca that if you want to read someone, read them for that reason, not because of a nomination (to some internet forum prize no less, haha)
Bartleby
Moderator
Also, we don't know the results yet (I mean, I do, but you don't ?), and whatever the current situation is it's still liable to change (I'll try to find people who nominated last year and haven't yet this time around and remind them to do so), so let's just wait a bit before we lose our minds ??As Bartleby said, at the end of the day it should be the good old democratic vote that finally gets to decide on the magic number,
Liam
Administrator
Yeah, a little late for that, doll,