There are two major awards voted each year from work in the field of comic books. One is the Eisners, which are handed out at the Comic-Con International in San Diego. The other is the Harveys, which have lately been given out at the Baltimore Comic Convention. This year, I'm up for two Eisners and the other day, I seem to have been nominated for two Harveys for my book, Kirby: King of Comics.
I say "seem" because one is in the category of "Special Award for Excellence in Presentation" and I'm not sure if that's for me or for the folks who designed the book, one of whom was an uncredited (for that) me. This is not a point that needs clarification; just something I mention to underscore how nebulous these things can be. I am occasionally congratulated because Groo the Wanderer has repeatedly won the Harvey in a category called "Special Award for Humor in Comics" but I don't think that award was for me. It's gone to my collaborator, Sergio Aragonés.
I also don't think the distinction matters because awards, though nice, don't make you any better and the absence of them doesn't make you any worse. They have a slight marketing value and they please certain people in your life. The first time I was up for an Emmy, my father was still alive and the only reason I cared if I won was because I knew how happy it would make him. Oh — and maybe because the statue might (emphasis on the "might") have given me a little more clout on my next project.
I don't mean to disparage anyone's award because winning any such trophy is not at all a negative unless, as a few unfortunates do, you take it as incontrovertible proof you're a genius and needn't listen to others. There's also nothing negative about being nominated unless you overdramatize it to the point where you'll be crushed if you lose. Anyway, I've learned to just say thanks and to otherwise pay no nevermind to awards. The first time I won an Eisner, I carried this to an extreme. I didn't even know I was nominated, didn't attend the ceremony, didn't find out until years later that I'd won and never got the actual trophy, which I think was then a certificate.
Tom Spurgeon and others are making the case that the Harveys are redundant and ill-administered and that they oughta be put to sleep. As a nominee this year (and I believe but am not sure, other years), I'm being asked what I think about this. What I think about this is that I don't think a lot about this. I completely buy any argument that the absolute best work is not being selected but I kinda feel that way about every award in every field. Perhaps given the response to the current list of Harvey nominees — and I hope, not because I'm on it — their process does need some fixing if it's going to retain any credibility.
But really, discussing whether or not to abolish an award is almost treating it with too much seriousness. It's suggesting that the ones you don't want eliminated do a highly efficient job of zeroing in on The Best and the Brightest. Each year, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences doles out a lot of Oscars that elevate one film or contributor above others that do not seem directly comparable or often, to me, less deserving. I don't see it as an injustice that demands correction if the Harvey Awards do this. It also wouldn't change all that much if either set of awards went bye-bye.
We all have a chance to vote on this. We cast our votes with whatever amount of attention we pay to a set of awards. If we afford them none, they'll fade away. And if we get excited about them and talk or write a lot about them, then they probably deserve to continue. It's all blue smoke that means as much as you want it to mean…no more, no less. The administrators of the Harvey Awards may have some problems to solve but we don't, except to decide how much, if at all, we care.