On literary prizes

From The Guardian

Everyone likes to knock the 'Awards' ceremony, and deservedly too very often. The Oscars and Grammy Awards ahave become circuses which are nothing more than another show, not much better (or worse) than any of the others. Ditto Bollywood Awards and everything else. But I also remember what Huzir Suleiman once said: Everyone likes to knock the (Cameronian) awards until they win one themselves. I'm not sure if that makes it less of a circus.

Literary awards have managed to, somehow, remain above. Yes, we complain about this winner or that winner, etc, etc. But generally we accept that the books in the shortlist at least are worth checking out, particularly if they do throw up some new names, though not all the prizes are created equal in the eyes of the reader. A Man-Booker winner is someone special for some reason, a writer to be taken seriously. A Nobel Prize laureate is almost always a must read (unless the writer has an unpronounceable east European sounding name.) Then there is the Dublin Impac, the Costa (formerly known as the Whitbread), the Commonwealth (regional and overall) prizes and the (women's only) Orange prize, which are the better known. (The Americans have the Pulitzer, of course).

I personally cannot agree more with Maya Jaggi that, "What gets read should not be determined solely by the size of publishers' promotion budgets or the muscle of bookshop chains." Literary awards play a vital, even equalising, role. They alert readers to certain deserving books, which would otherwise be stillborn or buried alive by John Grisham/Dan Brown/JK Rowling type avalanches.

Literary prize winners are useful starting points on the reading journey. One does not have to like every prizewinner, or even any of them, and there are excellent books that have never won prizes. (I know some people who will read only award-winning novels, or make it a point to read every award winning book there is, and even feel obliged to like them even when they don't. That's a little sad.) But who nominates the books for consideration for the prizes. The publishers, of course. Is that a weakness in the system? Why would a publisher want to publish a book and not nominate it if he thinks it is good? Or, publish it if he thinks it is not good?

Whatever their faults, literary prizes do level the playing field somewhat, giving the 'unknown' author and small publisher a fighting chance in a world dominated by conglomerates.

Full story: http://books.guardian.co.uk/orange2007/story/0,,2059652,00.html