deserve
v.tr.
To be worthy of; merit.

We’ve been having quite a lively discussion on the Machinima.com forums about the nature of the review and rating process, the pros and cons and so on. During the course of that debate, a word got introduced into the discussion which I’ve seen used elsewhere in similar context: deserve. As in, this or that film (or filmmaker) is deserving of a more prominent place in the public eye.

I am not going to single out the individual who brought “deserve” into this particular discussion, because they didn’t intend it with any malice and that’s not the point anyway. But I do want to talk about the concept of “deserve” as it applies to machinima (or anything for that matter). The notion that because I personally admire a particular film (or even filmmaker) that his/her work “deserves” more attention than it gets.

I have a real problem with “deserve.” It’s as if, to some, that the highly-subjective concept of “deserve” somehow trumps real, tangible, earned public acclaim. “Deserve” implies that MY standards should be YOUR standards. It is born of a desire to forcibly shape the opinions of others in the image of my own, not by persuasion (which is a perfectly legitimate endeavor - at least I sure hope so ) but by despotic interference. Sure, “deserve” can be applied in universal fashion without this kind of connotation. For example, to say “everyone deserves a second chance.” But when the word is employed covetingly, i.e. that person has such-and-such but this person should have it, the concept takes on a whole different meaning, and the implications can get a bit unsettling.

Now, much to my chagrin, dictionary.com ties the verbs “deserve” and “earn” together as if they were synonyms… and maybe they were as the words were originally conceived. But in modern connotation, “deserve” is something entirely other than “earn.” “Deserve” is of the ilk of some kind of modern-day Robin Hood wannabe, who takes it upon himself to redistribute wealth in the way he decides is most fair. “Deserve” is tied to an entitlement mentality, whereas “earn” is tied to an achievement mentality.

The danger we run into when we start talking about films or filmmakers “deserving” something that they aren’t “getting” is a trend toward a particularly vicious brand of elitism (who decides who gets what?), very much like what Ayn Rand described as an aristocracy of pull. In this mode of operation, which is effectively a tyranny in the realm of ideas, those with “status” think lowly of the common men/women, and thereby make these decisions on their behalf, as far as who “deserves” what. Instead of a system in which achievement and hard work are rewarded, the literal spoils go to those who grease the right palms or impress the right people or have the right politics.

I am of the belief that any system which encourages the opinions of ALL to be weighed equally is one where an aristocracy of pull has zero power; the only way by which the power of an elitist society can be preserved is if certain opinions are excluded, certain voices are silenced. It is on this basis, much moreso than out of a love for statistics or numbers, that I tend to tilt toward support of a user-rating system for machinima in which everyone can easily participate. This as opposed to some kind of executive review board, which in my opinion places way too much power to bless or curse a film or filmmaker in the hands of a few influential brokers who would get to decide who “deserves” attention or an award. The alternative - to allow filmmakers to freely work (and, yes, in some cases, compete) to earn prestige, acclaim, success, or however you want to put it - is a much more desirable scenario.