Not just cash
February 1, 2007 5:29 PM Subscribe
I've been asked to fund a literary prize and I want to be more involved than just sending a check.
I agree with the head of the press that it would be inappropriate for me to have anything to do with editorial or judging--but just giving the money doesn't feel right to me.
In the past, the foundation which initially backed the prize had been responsible for organizing the events connected with it, and a relative of the person who originally set up the endowment (my understanding is that the funds no longer exist) consulted with the editors about their top three choices.
I'd like to know if any other mefites have done something similar and in which ways they were involved.
I agree with the head of the press that it would be inappropriate for me to have anything to do with editorial or judging--but just giving the money doesn't feel right to me.
In the past, the foundation which initially backed the prize had been responsible for organizing the events connected with it, and a relative of the person who originally set up the endowment (my understanding is that the funds no longer exist) consulted with the editors about their top three choices.
I'd like to know if any other mefites have done something similar and in which ways they were involved.
What desuetude said. It's great that you want to participate more, but the editors, who have presumably years of expertise in this area, absolutely require freedom and autonomy when making their selection. Bad Things happen when this is not the case. Why don't you channel your energy into the actual event, and the associated publicity?
posted by hot soup girl at 10:08 PM on February 1, 2007
posted by hot soup girl at 10:08 PM on February 1, 2007
That's wonderful. I hope you do fund the prize.
I once underwrote the production of a recording of some new music for cello and piano. I wanted public anonymity, but I also wanted some connection with the final product, as opposed to just tossing a satchel of cash into the musicians' arms. So I sat in on the recording sessions, eating potato chips with the spouses (safely soundproofed) and fingering the nearly illegible manuscript scores and gossiping about long-gone composition classes and cheerleading and generally having a fine old time. I became part of the recording process without actually interfering.
For a literary prize, I like desuetude's dinner suggestion.
posted by goetter at 11:24 PM on February 1, 2007
I once underwrote the production of a recording of some new music for cello and piano. I wanted public anonymity, but I also wanted some connection with the final product, as opposed to just tossing a satchel of cash into the musicians' arms. So I sat in on the recording sessions, eating potato chips with the spouses (safely soundproofed) and fingering the nearly illegible manuscript scores and gossiping about long-gone composition classes and cheerleading and generally having a fine old time. I became part of the recording process without actually interfering.
For a literary prize, I like desuetude's dinner suggestion.
posted by goetter at 11:24 PM on February 1, 2007
Make sure your tastes are not too far from theirs or you'll come out feeling as if you're throwing money away. Be sure you have faith in the editors as readers. Be sure you have really looked at their past work and liked it. If you aren't going to be anonymous, be sure they do things you would be proud to be associated with.
If you can get that far, then let them decide how to spend the money.
posted by pracowity at 2:56 AM on February 2, 2007
If you can get that far, then let them decide how to spend the money.
posted by pracowity at 2:56 AM on February 2, 2007
Make sure your tastes are not too far from theirs or you'll come out feeling as if you're throwing money away.
Oooh, this reminds me of another point. Work on your desired selection criteria. And the have your bestfriend/spouse read it and explain it back to you. And then solicit feedback from the organization doing the admin. and listen to their concerns. The best thing a funder can do is have well-defined criteria. You get a cherry on top if it's also relatively realistic.
At least once every year we get funding for an award or grant for which the funder seems to be operating by a "I'll know it when I see it" idea of what the award/grant should represent. This leads to a lot of the interference I mentioned above. It also makes it difficult to sucessfully market/publicize the opportunity.
posted by desuetude at 6:14 AM on February 2, 2007
Oooh, this reminds me of another point. Work on your desired selection criteria. And the have your bestfriend/spouse read it and explain it back to you. And then solicit feedback from the organization doing the admin. and listen to their concerns. The best thing a funder can do is have well-defined criteria. You get a cherry on top if it's also relatively realistic.
At least once every year we get funding for an award or grant for which the funder seems to be operating by a "I'll know it when I see it" idea of what the award/grant should represent. This leads to a lot of the interference I mentioned above. It also makes it difficult to sucessfully market/publicize the opportunity.
posted by desuetude at 6:14 AM on February 2, 2007
I am the prize coordinator of a literary award. The man whose father the prize honors and the man responsible for the budget are involved in the initial nominations (as well as three or four other people), and then they whittle that group down to three or four finalists; from there we send the finalists to three outside judges.
I think it is more fair to ask that your influence to be an early contributing factor, but not a ultimate deciding factor, along the lines I mentioned above.. Can you ask to be involved in the early nomination process? That way you get to be supportive and feel like you have a say in the potential direction that the award follows, without imposing.
And it is perfectly aboveboard to do your own research and seek candidates that you think are worthy of the award and ask that they be contacted about submission. That should be perceived as helpful, because the more submissions an award receives, the more people pay attention to the results, increasing the visibility of the whole affair. As long as you can do so without being miffed if your selections don't happen to win.
Ditto on desuetude's advice for having well-defined criteria. Often someone will back a specific entry because they love it, but it's valuable to be able to point to xy and z in the criteria to draw people back into what the essence of the award is and what exactly you are to be honoring. The best-written book is not always the best example of what you have chosen to celebrate.
posted by hermitosis at 7:22 AM on February 2, 2007
I think it is more fair to ask that your influence to be an early contributing factor, but not a ultimate deciding factor, along the lines I mentioned above.. Can you ask to be involved in the early nomination process? That way you get to be supportive and feel like you have a say in the potential direction that the award follows, without imposing.
And it is perfectly aboveboard to do your own research and seek candidates that you think are worthy of the award and ask that they be contacted about submission. That should be perceived as helpful, because the more submissions an award receives, the more people pay attention to the results, increasing the visibility of the whole affair. As long as you can do so without being miffed if your selections don't happen to win.
Ditto on desuetude's advice for having well-defined criteria. Often someone will back a specific entry because they love it, but it's valuable to be able to point to xy and z in the criteria to draw people back into what the essence of the award is and what exactly you are to be honoring. The best-written book is not always the best example of what you have chosen to celebrate.
posted by hermitosis at 7:22 AM on February 2, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
Wanting to be personally involved is good. Organizing events for winners is good. Sitting down at a dinner with the winner and talking to them about their work would be awesome.
Being involved with the process at all, even in the "consult about the top three" way, is less good.
Oh sure, you're a reasonable person. You just want to put a more personal touch on the thing. But then your foundation grows and the new representative, long after you've retired, constantly criticizes the process because we won't let him meddle or hand pick the winner, so he gets increasingly passive-agressive and agressive-agressive and actually throws something at one point and finally we say to hell with you and your fucking money! This example is not fictional.
posted by desuetude at 6:47 PM on February 1, 2007