I had up until now thought that writing prizes were rather a bad thing, encouraging the 'this is best, this is my favourite' mentality familiar to any parent of a child between the ages of four and fourteen (drives to school were peppered with questions of the 'which is your favourite film, mum', and 'which song do you like best of all the songs in the world' variety, questions to which I could never find a single answer).
Anyway, today I've changed my mind. The reason I have is that Lydia Davis has been announced as the winner of the Man Booker International prize and until she was announced as the winner I had never heard of her. Now I have, and thanks to the e-book, that other phenomenon about which so many people are ambivalent, (and about which I want to write when I have more time one day), I've been able to start reading and enjoying her right away (an example of her work is this perfect articulation of the dilemma faced by thirty-something women, called The Double Negative: "At a certain point in her life, she realises it is not so much that she wants to have a child as that she does not want not to have a child, or not to have had a child.".
If there were no Man Booker International prize, I'd never have known that Lydia Davis existed. I now do know she exists and I'm glad I do. Ergo literary prizes are wonderful.
(Mind you, I still don't understand how the banal piece of predictable, shallow nonsense that is The Hand That First Held Mine could possibly have deserved the Costa prize)
The ability to try a sample chapter of a book from the comfort of one's own bed is the thing that converted me to the Kindle. I've discovered several new authors that I probably wouldn't have bothered trying if I'd had to buy the book. Also, after a day spent trawling through boxes of dusty antiquarian books, it's a relief to just focus on the text.
ReplyDeletePeople always seem shocked when I tell them that I have a Kindle, as if I'm a traitor to the cause. But I think that working with books for so long has probably made me less sentimental about them.
I think it's the either/or thing people get stuck on, when in fact there is no reason they can't co-exist
DeleteBut that's the fun of prizes too --- arguing why something did or didn't win. I understand your reticence and don't really "chase" prizes but I think they play two important roles. For readers and literature in general, they keep the art form in the public eye and encourage us to talk and think about writing and writers (as well as sometimes introduce us to new writers). For the writers, they mean money, and for many of them that money buys them time. I guess it's a shame we need the latter, but? So, I reckon literary prizes have value, albeit with issues around the edges.
ReplyDeleteI was interested by your take on the latest big winner here, Mates with Birds (probably got that title wrong slightly) - I think I'll give it a go. Although between the lines I get the faint idea that it might be a candidate for the prize Kevin Musgrove mentions in the comment below.
DeleteI generally use the literary prizes as guides as to what not to read. With the exception of the Literary Review's Bad Sex Award.
ReplyDeleteSo you actively seek out the bad sex books? That is definitely the most perverse thing I've ever heard.
Delete