On Monday night the season finale of Smash aired. We finally got to find out which woman – the talented veteran or the green as grass new girl – would get to play the lead role in the musical that they had been competing for (I won’t spoil what happened).
As you probably know, I host a podcast discussing this show, and the competition between these two women was a hotbed of debate. All of us had a side we wanted to see succeed (my side lost. Sad. 
). One argument that kept coming up was whether or not the green girl deserved the role over the equally talented veteran. Should one have to “pay their dues” or does that not matter if you have the “it” factor?
This is a debate that surfaces all over the place. We always hear stories of the band that’s never done a tour getting a huge record deal or the actor who’s first job is a major motion picture or the writer who makes the bestsellers list with his first novel. On the other side of these stories are the bands that are just as talented, have been touring for years and still have no contract; the equally talented actor who has been at it for years and only landed local commercials; the equally talented writer who has spent years writing a library of books and doesn’t even have an agent.
There are also stories, however, where the artist who has put in the years of hard work – in other words, paid her dues – FINALLY lands that record contract, acting role, or book deal that she has been chasing. Both versions of the story make us cheer for very different reasons. But which one is *fair*?
This debate also reaches beyond the arts. Similar things happen in virtually every career field that exists. There are always dues that are said need to be paid and there are always those who defy that right of passage. Is one situation more fair than the other?
I don’t know the answer to these questions. This is just something that I have been thinking a lot about ever since the finale of Smash. I am curious to know your thoughts about this. Do you think that someone who has put in the time should find success ahead of a newbie? What if that newbie has more innate talent, has the “it” factor? Does the answer depend on the specific situation? Is there an answer? Let me know what you think in the comments.
I think the answer may indeed depend on the specific situation. We’ve all heard stories of career women who have slogged away for years, only to find that they are never the ones being promoted. Many would agree that these situations are not fair. In any competition, where one wins and another misses out, I think we also need to look at the overall intentions of those choosing the outcomes. Are they choosing for valid and legitimate reasons or are they looking for sensationalism, talk back factor or some other variable?
Sounds like what happens every time I query an agent, get a rejection, and then I read a book from one of their new authors and it sucks. My book was better than theirs, but it’s all subjective.
Same thing in my theater experience. Sometimes you don’t get a role simply because of your body type or your voice not being what they’re looking for. As a director, I usually cast people who were known for their reliability because I like working with people who are going to show up and know their lines, even if someone else has a better look or voice or whatever. Talent wasn’t everything in my little theater world. Singers and dancers are a dime a dozen, but reliability and a good attitude were far more important to me.
I don’t think there is a correct answer. It’s now always what you know, but who you know. That’s just the way of things. I once got a summer job without even interviewing simply because I came highly recommended from a reliable source. And it wasn’t my mom either.
Good question to ponder.
Patricia Rickrode
w/a Jansen Schmidt