Earlier this year the storySouth Million Writers Award completed its seventh straight year of recognizing online fiction and the great literary magazines and journals which embrace the digital medium. Overall the award has been very well received, with large numbers of editors, writers, and readers participating each year as stories from across all literary genres compete for top honors. And thanks to our very supportive donors, we've given away over $2500 in money and prizes to the winning writers.
But now I wonder if we still need the award. And if it is needed, should the award change with the times?
Before I explain why I'm asking these questions, let me give a little background on the award. When I helped found storySouth in 2001, I quickly discovered that many people didn't see online magazines as legitimate publications. This attitude was summed up by the editor of one of the well-known "year's best" anthologies, who claimed he couldn't consider anything from our journal. To him, storySouth wasn't a real publication because we didn't print a paper edition.
In response, I created the Million Writers Award. I saw the award as a way to give online publications and authors the attention and recognition the literary establishment had arrogantly decided we didn't deserve.
But the publishing landscape has changed dramatically over the last decade. Today, few dispute online publications can be the equal of print publications. In fact, while print magazines and journals have seen declining circulations in recent years--and are betting their future on electronic distribution via the Kindle and other ebook readers--online magazines are stronger than ever.
One thing I've loved about running the Million Writers Award is giving recognition to new and upcoming writers. Even though print magazines are embracing e-publishing out of necessity, many are still not overly receptive to new and emerging authors. As a result, purely online magazines and journals have continued to be the fertile ground on which many of tomorrow's big name authors gain their first publications and recognition. It's no coincidence that the authors highlighted by the Million Writers Award are often emerging authors. The award reflects the reality that online publications are very receptive to new voices.
That's the background. Now I return to my initial question...is the Million Writers Award still needed?
As I mentioned, many print magazines are now transitioning to electronic distribution via the Kindle and other ebook readers. Even those magazines which retain a print edition are now often also distributed in an electronic format. Where does this leave an online fiction award? Is an online fiction award even relevant in a world where most fiction is either available online or can be downloaded from an electronic system?
Or perhaps the award simply needs to change. Should it exclusively honor new and emerging authors who are published online? Should it allow any e-published magazine to compete, even if that means allowing The New Yorker in the mix via their Kindle edition? Or should the Million Writers Award simply go away, happy to have done its little part in raising the profile of so many authors and online publications?
I honestly don't know the answers to these questions. Since the online writing and publishing community has been so receptive to the award, I hope people will let me know their thoughts on this issue by either posting below or contacting me.
Personally, I don't think the Million Writers Award should simply fade away just yet. It's still, as far as I'm concerned, an important source of recognition for online publications. Although a lot of print publications are moving into the online market, I still think that prejudices exist against those which are purely online, and which have only ever been online.
I think, to that end, that the Million Writers Award is still important in giving due recognition to those publications which, to put it in an almost childish way, were here first. I might be wrong here (and if I am, I'm sure the weight of subsequent comments will make that abundantly clear), but I don't think we're at the stage yet where the online market has become entirely the norm, rather than an extra add on- itself only indicative of the old guard dipping their toe into the waters of the internet.
Posted by: Matthew S. Dent | October 05, 2010 at 07:17 PM
The Million Writers Award is still plenty relevant, in my opinion. And by this time, it has become an institution. If you were to close it down, Jason, that would be like shuttering the Super Bowl.
Posted by: Robert Laughlin | October 05, 2010 at 07:31 PM
There's a big difference between a Kindle edition of a print magazine and a proper online magazine. The Kindle printing is to increase their sales while online zines actually showcase short story writers. I say long live The Million Writers Award!
Posted by: Sandra Seamans | October 05, 2010 at 07:44 PM
Selfishly, I want to see the the Award continue. I've had more than 35,000 words accepted this year by emerging online journals such as, eFiction Magazine ( http://www.efictionmag.com/ ) and Evolve ( http://www.evolvejournal.org/ ). I was hoping that something that was accepted might make the nominations.
Unselfishly, you have a good thing going. Seven years seems like long enough that you'd be able to collect a "best of" anthology that included both winners and your personal favorites, publish the anthology via Lulu, Smashwords, Create Space, or where ever, and use the proceeds to support the Award (or yourself and the authors).
However, your writing is really taking off, I mean, an interview and three stories in one upcoming issue of Interzone. Wow! So, if the Award is too much of a distraction and causes you to stop writing for long stretches of time, you might (perhaps should) let the Award expire, or at least recruit help.
Posted by: Aaron M. Wilson | October 05, 2010 at 10:24 PM
Thanks for the kind words about my writing (and I encourage everyone to look for that issue of Interzone, due out later this year).
I'm really not concerned about how much of my time the award takes up. I already have a number of judges who help me out and I'm also considering adding a few more volunteers next year. But if the award isn't really doing much for online fiction...that would, of course, change the equation.
Thanks to everyone for the comments. As I mentioned, I haven't decided what to do with the award. But whatever I do I want to do it in response to the desires of the online fiction community.
Posted by: Jason Sanford | October 06, 2010 at 07:17 AM
I think it should evolve somewhat, develop a new focus. However, if you only concentrate on new writers, that would change it so much I think it would need a new name, too.
Maybe if the award is for online-only. If a publication produces a print edition, it doesn't qualify. It would be great if it could somehow focus on magazines that don't get much recognition, but I'm not sure how to do that, since it's such a subjective category.
Posted by: Jeff Crook | October 06, 2010 at 08:32 AM
Mr. Crook's suggestions are spot on. If it's not exclusive to the net, do not abet. You might break the award into categories as well such as "virgin publication" and "old hat" or something thereabouts. Even age brackets, maybe. Regardless, a change will do you and the MWA good.
Posted by: Steve Hansen | October 06, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Personally, I like the MWA the way it is.
Posted by: Robert Laughlin | October 06, 2010 at 01:14 PM
My thoughts are: the award should be for online publications that are strictly that. A magazine that publishes an e-version is not participating in online culture, per se, but in digital mobility. The ebooks are not accessible in a web-format, and, thus, not an online magazine (just a magazine you can buy online and transfer electronically to a device).
So, that's how I see it. With that in mind, the award is still important, since there are very few awards that pay attention specifically to online magazines.
Posted by: SMD | October 06, 2010 at 06:21 PM
I think it is valuable for readers. I chanced upon it, then sought out many of award winners to read.
Posted by: SVourvoulias | October 07, 2010 at 03:18 PM
Thanks to everyone for the feedback. I think I will try to narrow the award to online-only magazines and journals. Otherwise the award risks being diluted from its original purpose. I'm also going to think about this some more, being sure to take into account all the ideas and opinions raised here.
Posted by: Jason Sanford | October 08, 2010 at 08:07 PM
How would this work, Jason? Do you plan to disqualify just those magazines whose print and online contents ape each other? Or will you also disqualify online magazines with different contents from sister print publications?
Posted by: Robert Laughlin | October 08, 2010 at 10:45 PM
Not sure. I'll have to think on it.
Posted by: Jason Sanford | October 12, 2010 at 09:43 PM