An open letter to an imaginary award committee
CEFR C1468 words
A las personas que integran el comité del Premio de Ensayo Breve: escribo como participante de la última convocatoria. Mi trabajo no fue seleccionado y no solicito que se revise ese resultado. La lectura de los comentarios recibidos me ayudó a reconocer problemas que no había visto. Mi objeción se refiere a una condición anterior al juicio de los textos: la exigencia de presentar una carta de recomendación de alguien que hubiera obtenido el premio en una edición previa.
Comprendo la intención declarada en las bases. El comité desea recibir propuestas cuidadas y evitar que la convocatoria se convierta en una acumulación de envíos improvisados. Una recomendación puede aportar contexto sobre el trabajo de una persona. Sin embargo, restringir quién puede firmarla introduce otro criterio: haber tenido acceso al círculo de antiguos premiados. Ese vínculo no equivale a la atención puesta en un ensayo, aunque en ocasiones ambas cosas puedan coincidir.
Conseguí la carta después de escribir a varios autores que no conocía. Una de esas personas accedió a leer mi borrador y me hizo observaciones generosas; no pretendo negar el valor de aquel intercambio. Lo que cuestiono es que esa oportunidad dependiera de encontrar a alguien disponible para una tarea que el premio no remunera. Otra participante me contó que había desistido tras recibir dos negativas. Su experiencia no permite calcular cuántas personas quedaron fuera, pero sí señala una dificultad que las bases apenas reconocen.
Propongo sustituir esa exigencia por una nota breve en la que cada participante explique cómo trabajó el ensayo y qué decisiones tomó al revisarlo. Sería un documento que el comité podría valorar junto al texto, con una extensión máxima idéntica para todas las candidaturas. No garantizaría la calidad, como tampoco la garantiza una firma prestigiosa. Haría visible un proceso y permitiría discutirlo mediante criterios que no dependan de una relación previa con los ganadores.
La medida tendría límites. Una nota puede estar mejor escrita que el ensayo al que acompaña, y evaluarla añadiría trabajo al comité. Por eso propongo ensayarla en una convocatoria y publicar después una valoración del procedimiento, sin identificar a los participantes. Mantener conversaciones con antiguos premiados seguiría siendo enriquecedor, pero dejaría de funcionar como llave de entrada. No pido que el premio renuncie a su comunidad; pido que pertenecer a ella no sea un requisito anticipado para intentar incorporarse.
Si el comité considera que la recomendación resulta imprescindible, agradecería que explicara qué información aporta y por qué solo pueden ofrecerla antiguos ganadores. Esa respuesta permitiría examinar alternativas con mayor precisión. Mi propuesta puede necesitar ajustes; la pregunta que la sostiene no depende de que sea aceptada tal como la formulo. Les agradezco la atención y, especialmente, los comentarios sobre mi ensayo: conservar esa lectura exigente es parte de lo que me anima a solicitar un acceso menos condicionado.
Words you may not know
- convocatoriacall for submissions
- basesrules of entry
- desistidogiven up the attempt
- candidaturasapplications
- llave de entradakey to gaining entry
- lectura exigenterigorous reading
Questions
You answer them with the text in front of you. It isn't memory: it's understanding.
What does the opening distinction between the result and the entry condition accomplish?
It frames the letter as a procedural criticism compatible with valuing the committee’s assessment. — Evidence: «no solicito que se revise ese resultado» / «conservar esa lectura exigente». “It establishes that the writer would accept the decision if the recommendation requirement were waived retroactively.” — Incorrect: The writer does not request a retroactive exception or revised result. “It presents the committee’s feedback as evidence that the submitted essay deserved a higher ranking.” — Incorrect: The feedback reveals problems in the essay; its value is retained without claiming a better ranking. “It separates the committee from responsibility by locating the problem in previous winners’ conduct.” — Incorrect: The requirement is a rule set by the award; the letter asks the committee to reconsider it. “It frames the letter as a procedural criticism compatible with valuing the committee’s assessment.” — Correct: The writer accepts the decision and comments while challenging the condition for being assessed.
Why is the writer’s positive encounter with a former winner included?
It distinguishes the benefit of an exchange from requiring access to that exchange as an entry condition. — Evidence: «observaciones generosas» / «esa oportunidad dependiera de encontrar a alguien disponible». “It suggests that the recommendation should be retained if former winners receive payment.” — Incorrect: The letter discusses unpaid availability but proposes replacing the requirement, not merely funding it. “It distinguishes the benefit of an exchange from requiring access to that exchange as an entry condition.” — Correct: The encounter can be valuable while its availability remains an unsuitable gatekeeping criterion. “It shows that the committee’s stated purpose was met and therefore weakens the request for a trial.” — Incorrect: The benefit is acknowledged, but the access barrier remains the basis of the trial proposal. “It presents the writer’s experience as evidence that applicants with careful essays can usually obtain a letter.” — Incorrect: One successful encounter does not establish a general success rate; the letter explicitly limits what anecdotes show.
How far does the letter take the other participant’s account of withdrawing?
It identifies a possible barrier but does not establish how widespread exclusion is. — Evidence: «no permite calcular cuántas personas quedaron fuera» / «sí señala una dificultad». “It establishes that two refusals are enough to prevent a candidate from applying under the rules.” — Incorrect: Two refusals describe this participant’s decision; the rules do not impose that stopping point. “It explains why the committee selected fewer essays than the writer expected.” — Incorrect: No selection count or expected total is supplied, and the account concerns withdrawing before submission. “It identifies a possible barrier but does not establish how widespread exclusion is.” — Correct: The text explicitly separates illustrating a difficulty from estimating its prevalence. “It supports comparing refusal rates between paid and unpaid recommenders.” — Incorrect: The testimony supplies no comparison group or paid recommender data.
What relationship does the proposed note create between fairness and quality?
It offers a shared, discussable account of process without claiming to ensure a strong essay. — Evidence: «No garantizaría la calidad» / «criterios que no dependan de una relación previa». “It offers a shared, discussable account of process without claiming to ensure a strong essay.” — Correct: The note shifts the basis of entry and evidence while its own writing quality may mislead. “It makes quality less important by asking the committee to read the process instead of the essay.” — Incorrect: The note is assessed alongside the essay, not in its place. “It retains the recommendation’s authority by asking participants to describe contact with former winners.” — Incorrect: The proposed note concerns work and revision, without requiring such contact. “It removes the committee’s need to judge process because each applicant certifies their own revision.” — Incorrect: The committee would evaluate the note; self-description is evidence rather than automatic certification.
To what does “llave de entrada” refer in the argument?
Access to the award community operating as a precondition for entering the competition. — Evidence: «haber tenido acceso al círculo de antiguos premiados» / «pertenecer a ella no sea un requisito anticipado». “The committee’s detailed comments serving as a condition for the writer’s next submission.” — Incorrect: Feedback is valued but is not described as an entry requirement. “A process note opening a route to membership without the committee reading the essay.” — Incorrect: The proposal keeps the essay under assessment and does not promise membership. “The former winner’s advice determining which essay will receive the prize.” — Incorrect: Advice may help revision, but the text does not attribute the award decision to the adviser. “Access to the award community operating as a precondition for entering the competition.” — Correct: The figurative key is the required link to former winners, not the value of voluntary exchanges.
What does the final conditional request imply about the writer’s negotiating position?
The replacement can be revised, but the committee is still asked to justify the restricted source of recommendations. — Evidence: «Mi propuesta puede necesitar ajustes» / «la pregunta que la sostiene no depende de que sea aceptada». “The writer will withdraw the concern if the committee restates its intention to encourage careful submissions.” — Incorrect: That intention is already understood; the requested explanation is more specific. “The replacement can be revised, but the committee is still asked to justify the restricted source of recommendations.” — Correct: Flexibility concerns the remedy, while the underlying question about access remains. “The writer accepts retaining the requirement provided the committee changes the result of this entry.” — Incorrect: The opening excludes a review of the result, and the final request concerns reasons for the rule. “The writer wants publication of individual recommenders’ responses before considering alternatives.” — Incorrect: The proposed procedure review protects identities, and no such publication request appears.