Articles and OpinionCulture

“Votes: A Literary Pandemic” — An Article by Zoe

There’s no greater cruelty than this modern abysmal escapade. Shakespeare laments in his grave, should he be opportuned to see his reaction towards this literary blunder. Or what do we call this bunch of biasness whose relatives are now landlords in our own houses?

As literary contests continue to be, their essence and plausibility cannot be overstated; they have helped and placed writers on the spotlight, promotionally and financially. However, the present anomaly that has crawled into literary contests is becoming unbecoming and it is swiftly eating up the creativity of creatives like cancer.

An art should only be credibly judged by literary criteria issued by people who aren’t only efficient, but qualified to judge, but what happens when participants are selected according to the number of votes and not by reasons of creativity and artistry? What happens when literary contests have become campaigns?

When the sensibility of an art is determined by the majority of votes, sometimes, it is cancerous, because “the majority” could be wrong. It is like forfeiting the manifesto of a politician to electing him, because he’s a man of the people.

Most writers are introverted and socially awkward. It’s abnormal to make them canvas for votes or even list voting as part of the criteria to winning literary contests. Here is where the partiality comes in: if someone, who has thousands of followers on Instagram is in a contest with another, who has less than a hundred followers, who is most likely to win the contest, when it’s based on voting? 90% of people who vote these literary works do not even read them; they vote the works based on the fact that they know these writers and not based on the creativity or artistry of the piece. You see the insanity in it, right?

The norm is becoming “the kwashiorkor of social media, is the deficiency of winning a literary contest”. This is absolute cruelty and a global literary pandemic!

The evil has even gotten to buying votes for specific amount and the contestant with the highest vote, wins. I have sympathy for literary brands and organisations who involve or sponsor this act of cruelty. If people were to vote, it shouldn’t and mustn’t be a (100%) winning factor.

The literary space is one of the agents of change, world wide, and it should be used to drill writers and readers, and not to spill irrelevant contest criteria at them as though they were dogs.

This defective presence of “voting” taking over literary contests has started to slowly eat up the statute of fairness like termites, and soon, we just may not have any creative in our society. People won’t see the need to write creatively, because they’d not win contests according to their creativity, but by the reason of the majority of votes.

If this epileptic anomaly is continued, the creativity of creatives would be damaged and half-baked literary icons would be numerous in our society. What else is more demeaning?

Why not share?

Related Articles

One Comment

  1. I love the article because it is speaking about something paramount, but I have a problem with the word “Cruelty” and a little more the writer’s tone.

Leave a Reply

Check Also

Back to top button
error: Content is protected !!