Against Awards Shows

Image by Marco Recuay. Filed under Creative Commons. Some rights reserved. Source: Flickr

Another day, another controversy explodes on the Internet. Controversies, and the obsessive social media coverage that they receive have become almost synonymous with award shows. Why, with Kayne's arrogant interruption of Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus desperately trying to shock at the Video Music Awards, Ellen DeGeneres making an awful transvestite joke about Liza Minnelli at the Oscars, or Sofia Vergara's irony at the Emmys taken too seriously, we tend to forget that these shows are about the awards. It seems almost routine that these shows always provoke some controversy to tweet or blog about ad nauseaum. It's just so fascinating that in a post-Madonna age, liberal and conservative alike can still be offended, and even "outraged" (a terribly misused term), by a woman shaking her ass on TV.


I have the misfortune (or fortune, rather) of missing out on these controversies that will distract journalists from otherwise newsworthy stories, because I don't watch award shows. I don't see the point. They're really a waste of time, if you think about it, and I'm briefly going to articulate exactly why.



You're an observer, not a participant

I didn't get to vote in The Dark Knight for Best Picture. I didn't get to nominate Legend Of Korra: Book 2 for a Golden Globe. I'm not getting an award because I wasn't involved in any of the shows, nor are any of my friends and family. These decisions are all made by persons I'll probably never know. Of course, popularity can have an influence on the choices of those in charge, but the verdict ultimately lies with them. So why should I be involved? Why should I care? What good does it do for me?

Is it for validation? Can you only feel justified in liking art if it wins an award? I'll love Breaking Bad, regardless if it wins Best Drama. I'll abhor Gigi, even though it won Best Picture. I'll still listen to the Airborne Toxic Event, even if they never earn a Grammy. You should like art for reasons important to you, not to society, or those who claim to speak for it.

Or do you watch these shows to see artists that you admire finally get their due recognition? Well, that's fine and all, but chances are, you'll see other artists that you don't know or care about get their fair due as well. Think about it, do you really care about who wins Best Sound Editing at the Oscars? In most cases, the person or show you'll want to win, will only catch the spotlight for less than five minutes, and that's even if they win.

Yes, yes, and yes. I know that the People's Choice Awards, the Teen's Choice Awards, and the Kid's Choice Awards allow the public to vote online, and they deserve credit for that. However, that still doesn't fix the problem of sitting through so much boredom. (Well, the Kid's Choice Awards have slime, at least!) It's still people getting awards. No plot, no climax. Not to mention that you can't choose who gets nominated (as far as I know.) That being said, these viewer participation awards don't always select the best of choices, after all, One Direction won Favorite Band for 2014. It is also noteworthy that Whitney Pastorek of Entertainment Weekly suggested that public's participation may be more marginal than advertised,

"Let's be honest: As the very clear post-show disclaimer explained, a complex system of "E-Polls" and market research and extravagant math went into choosing the nominees you saw upon your screen. And that system led to a telecast in which praise was lavished on a crassly commercial cross-section of demographically advantageous properties starring celebrities who were willing to show up." ("The People's Choice Awards: You showed up? Here's a trophy!").

By the end of the day, you're watching people you'll never know hand each other awards for two to four hours. Awards that you, likely, had no real effort in giving.You're only real participation is as a view count.

Much of what's going on might not even be that relevant to you

Kelly Clarkson, Rihanna, Taylor Swift, Robin Thicke, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, and Beyonce are among the musical artists most represented by the Grammys as of late. This is one of the reasons I can't watch the Grammys, I don't listen to any of the new artists. Spinal Tap sounds better than a lot of what reaches Billboard these days. Now I'm not one of those retrophiles who hates new music simply because it's new. I love Nujabes, Airborne Toxic Event, DJ Okawari, and I even think that Kyary Pamyu Pamyu is a little catchy. The singles "Rolling In The Deep" by Adele and "One Engine" by The Decemberists are excellent, while The Foo Fighters' Wasting Light was a great rock album. Simply because I don't particularly like any of the artists who often win Grammys doesn't make me better than those who do, it simply means that the Grammys aren't for me.

I referenced part of this problem earlier. Even if an artist I enjoyed was getting recognition, I'd have to wade through a bunch of other artists who I don't care for just to get there. The Video Music Awards may supposedly represent my generation, but they don't represent all of us. 

This even happens with the high-brow Academy. After all, how many of you actually saw Slumdog Millionaire, Nebraska, An Education, The Reader, or Michael Clayton before they were nominated for Oscars? Though, yes, these awards can help bring public attention to those lesser known films (which is a good thing), but again, is it necessary to watch the show just to get that? I think the press releases, critical reviews, and film festivals can get that much accomplished.

Don't even get me started on the Tony's. I know that I couldn't afford to see all of those shows on Broadway. Could you?

All of the results will be available online after the show.

I've hinted at this point before, but it needs repeating.

It's not as if, if you miss the show or forget to record it that you'll never get the results. You could easily save hours out of your evening and just get the results from Google. That's what it's all about, isn't it? The results: who won and who lost. Still want to see acceptance speeches or performances? Fine, look them up on YouTube. See how much time you've saved.

Again, I don't see the larger point in watching these award shows, you really get nothing out of it, aside from a chance to drool over your favorite celebrities. There's a channel for that, it's called TMZ, but I wouldn't recommend that you watch it.

I recognize that this essay has been rather, well, short, compared to my others, and I suppose it's because I don't feel the need to waste too much ink on convincing the Average Joe that watching celebrities congratulate each other is something that we see every day. No need to turn it into a televised event. That's just masturbation.


Bibliography:

"One Direction Wins Favorite Band At People's Choice Awards 2014" Perez Hilton. January 9, 2014. www.perezhilton.com

Pastorek, Whitney.  "The People's Choice Awards: You showed up? Here's a trophy!" Entertainment Weekly. January 8, 2009. popwatch.ew.com

A Disease Of Invaders

Pandemic has taken Settlers of Catan's place as the foremost gateway into hobby gaming, and with its simple yet challenging design, engaging cooperative theme, and deep market penetration, it's earned it. In an effort to get the game to even more tables, Pandemic's publisher has re-skinned the game in a plethora of different flavors, changing the threat to a flood in Rising Tide or Lovecraftian horrors in Pandemic Cthulhu.

We've only played Pandemic once or twice, and never got around to buying a copy for our game library, so we decided to pick up the Fall of Rome version, which replaces spreading disease vectors with invading armies of barbarians intent on sacking ancient Rome. Since we have little experience with the original Pandemic we can't really compare the two, but that might be better as we can look at this version of the game on its own merits.

It's easy to see why Pandemic has been such a successful game. The rules are simple but allow for a good amount of meaningful decision making, and watching the board fill up with counters representing the barbarian hordes gives the game a great sense of drama. Players can command Roman legions to fight off the barbarians, but the real strategy is in collecting sets of cards that can be turned in to make peace with individual barbarian tribes. This doesn't stop them from attacking, but it makes it possible to convert barbarians into Roman soldiers to help fight off their former allies.

Players are also given a handful of special cards that offer great advantages in the game, but at a price. Each time one of these cards is spent for its more powerful effect, it moves the decline marker closer to the eventual collapse of Roman society from within, which gives the game another clock to race against.

The engaging game play is coupled with some terrific artwork that helps sell the idea that these are cultured Roman citizens fighting off invading armies and their own decline, rather than just colored cubes on a piece of cardboard.

Rating: 4 (out of 5) A robust and well-designed game that we will play often, and it's usually an easy sell to our non-gamer friends and family too.

• Pandemic: Fall of Rome official website
• Pandemic: Fall of Rome on BoardGameGeek