Bad Publicity?

Okay. There's this writing contest for up-and-coming speculative authors. It's called "Writers of the Future". If you win, you get excellent money, great publicity, your name in print, and a one-week long holiday in LA.

No bad, eh?

But, what if the contest was called "L. Ron Hubbard's Writers of the Future Contest"? Would that make a difference to you? I know that for some, any link to Scientology is enough to draw a great big line in the sand and to shout "No way! You'll not use my good name to promote your dubious religion!"---notably, David Langford, a long-established SF commentator who writes the always informative Ansible. He suggests that new writers who win in this contest will later come to regret their decision, as all their later work will be tainted with association to Hubbard.

Now, is this fair?

I'm probably biased, but I would say not. Entry to the competition does not in any way affiliate me to the teachings of Scientology. I hardly know anything about the religion except it's tabloid reputation for brainwashing its members, and far-out cosmic explanations of things. That strikes me as a reasonable definition for plenty of other organisations, religious or otherwise. The whole consumerist culture, for example. Also, it seems strange that a religion that is a laughing stock to great swathes of the population would think that positioning itself alongside the next wave of speculative writers and all their fantastical imaginations would in any way garner it greater respect.

The question is, how much research are writers expected to do into the publications they submit to? Bearing in mind that most truths are decided by community consensus, it seems impossible to answer the corollary question, what does being published in this publication really mean?

L. Ron Hubbard, aside from everything else he did, gave new writers a chance to break in on a level playing field. So, I'm going to keep submitting to "Writers of the Future", and hopefully, one day, place!