Dear Anders,

Congratulations on your long and successful editorship of Prometheus. You must have a gray beard by now.

I never thought I'd be writing a stern letter to your pages in the 21st Century. Unfortunately, Fred Curtis Moulton made some astonishing complaints in Volume 30, Number 4, so I'm writing in to complain about him.

Here is his most offending passage:

“My perception is that the Prometheus Award has gained in reputation particularly when works such as Ha’penny and Freedom Maze win the award. This helps dispel the notion that libertarians are only interested in ‘Gold and Guns' or can best be characterized as ‘Conservatives who want to do drugs.'

“One problem with the stereotype is that too often it is libertarians who are reinforcing it. If the only time a libertarian speaks on a subject is to complain about high taxes used to build a medical clinic for poor children then do not be surprised if libertarians are dismissed as selfish jerks.”

To borrow from Lenin, “What is to be done?”

As I gaze at the gold coin bearing the visage of Hayek on the plaque of my Prometheus award, I feel a wave of guilt that I might consider gold sometimes preferable to fiat money.

But that emotion fades as I struggle with the more disturbing notion that there is a problem with defending self-defense. A migraine headache is inevitable as I contemplate a firearm.

I'd consider using drugs to alleviate the pain, but I am probably abusing freedom if I need such a crutch, or even the pleasant distraction of altering my consciousness.

Well, at least I am resigned to high taxes to support all possible good works of the State. That's because Moulton has shown me the true meaning of Libertarianism. Now I know all the things to avoid.

Seriously, what the hell is going on here?

Think of how many Prometheus and Hall of Fame winners have been denigrated by Moulton's ill considered rant.

I could rattle off names of luminaries no longer with us, but there are living winners of the award negatively characterized by Moulton's remarks, including L. Neil Smith, the actual father of the Prometheus award. I include J. Neil Schulman and myself in the aggrieved party.

In addition to the aforementioned Prometheus winners, I'd throw in Prometheus finalist J. Kent Hastings, and a former editor of this journal, Bill Ritch (who has made professional short story sales) as two more old time libertarians whose approach to fiction might embarrass Fred Curtis Moulton.

Is embarrassment too strong a word?

Please consider another quote from Moulton:

“I know of one case where a person told me he ignored the LFS for years thinking we were not serious after seeing a weak title as a finalist.”

Moulton is asking us to take two things on faith. He withholds the name of the mysterious Important Person. He doesn't tell us the title of the inadequate work. Why should we believe him?

As a life member of SFWA, a Nebula finalist, and someone with a Masters degree (which last item I mention rarely) I've had decades in professional writing, and a few experiences in the academic world.

I've never encountered anyone who is such a snob that he would dismiss an entire award because of one finalist. Not even a winner, mind you, but just a finalist!

The LFS is not the Conservative Futurist Society, but neither is it the Liberal Futurist Society. Moulton is trying to turn it into the latter, and I'm fed up with it.

One of the great honors of my life was receiving Robert A. Heinlein's brass cannon as a bequest from Ginny Heinlein. The official Heinlein biographer, Bill Patterson, invited me to co-write with him the introduction to the Virginia edition of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

It should come as no surprise that over the years I considered launching a new libertarian science fiction award as an alternative to the Prometheus Award. The name of such an award would have to be the Brass Cannon.

But I decided against it. The reason is that we can't ignore the long and rich history of the Prometheus Award. A new award is a surrender.

Besides, with my luck, if I did launch an alternative award, some Fred Curtis Moulton of the future would show up and try to make it respectable.

—Brad Linaweaver

Simply put, I find Anders' arguments defining which works can be considered for the annual award more compelling than Fred's. I would agree, however, that changing the voting date makes excellent sense [Fred suggested changing the announcement to January from the current July date-editor].

Thank you,

Steven Burgauer