The increased psychomotor motion in returning awards shows an emotional arousal and heightened activity which has nothing to do with the protest under which the return of award masquerades.
The award is returned in protest but the remonstrance is without returning the cash which accompanies the award even and the repute associated with the conferral has already been encashed by intelligent marketing of goodwill.
The return itself is duly publicised to reiterate the fact of conferral of the award in its return and be in the limelight again after the fact of being awarded has faded from public memory to reinvent the award for oneself in the howling return of it.
There is a rash of return of awards by different authors in protest against the same issue when there are several issues of concern apart from that for which concern is expressed but on which there is collective silence with not even an attempt to explain the utter inarticulateness of an otherwise loquacious lot.
And have the problems to which the protest relates originated only now or were similar problems not current when the awards were accepted? If awards could be accepted when conditions for their return existed can the return of the awards be now justified as a protest to the conditions as being suggested?
There is more cacophony than content in intellectual dishonesty which debases protest as babel and it is lamentable that there is such trickery even in very serious issues.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s