And she doesnt want £30000!!
Andrea
She is a nominee for the Orange Prize of Fiction, because of her debute
novel, that earned her £250000.
She refuses to go to the ceremony, because "it is just another reward". Even
though, through a press consensus, she is very likely to win the prize
money, £30000. This quote was from "Day & Night", on Sunday, 7th May.
Then suddenly when she actually read the article, she commented that she was
"misrepresented". Why the sudden change?
Is it the journalist that twisted her words, or did she suddenly change her
mind? Did she suddenly realise that there was a huge chance that she could
be awarded the prize?
If she won the award, do you give it to her, even though she "the Orange
Prize doesn't make any difference to me (her)" ?
Kevin Forde
news:958063746.15559.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Whats the big deal? If she doesn't want to go she doesn't want to go. What
has her own preference for wanting to be there (or otherwise) got to do with
her eligibility in winning? I'm sure the prize is (or should be) awarded for
the book. Not for the author's ability to "play the game".
-Kevin.
Ouisch Odin
Andrea wrote:
>
> Zadie Smith, should at 24 know better that this.
> She is a nominee for the Orange Prize of Fiction, because of her debute
> novel, that earned her £250000.
> She refuses to go to the ceremony, because "it is just another reward". Even
> though, through a press consensus, she is very likely to win the prize
> money, £30000. This quote was from "Day & Night", on Sunday, 7th May.
> Then suddenly when she actually read the article, she commented that she was
> "misrepresented". Why the sudden change?
> Is it the journalist that twisted her words, or did she suddenly change her
> mind? Did she suddenly realise that there was a huge chance that she could
> be awarded the prize?
> If she won the award, do you give it to her, even though she "the Orange
> Prize doesn't make any difference to me (her)" ?
Chances are that she simply meant that awards for writing are petty, not
that she has won too many for this one to count.
-Ouisch
Jeff Potter
Wrecked it.
Nobody seems to study the effect of prizes. I also mean the effect of gambling
and lottery jackpots. Let's throw them all into the same pot, why not.
For one thing, people start writing what wins, no? And it's not such a big
mystery is it?
Also, there's the integral corruption factor. Tell me who the judges are and I'll
tell you who will win. It's a secret funding technique. A round robin. Mutual
back scratching.
How often do outsiders win? ---People not associated with writing programs,
academia or other establishments. This leads me to believe that it isn't the
writing that is being rewarded.
Why not also question the concept of Judging as well. It implies that quite a few
established industry people are capable of recognizing something new. Do they
pick what they like? Do they know what they like already? Thus, don't they pick
something old and familiar, or something 'new' which is really something old
dressed up. Isn't it all 'preaching to the converted'?
Have enduring, significant works won prizes lately?
What do we do about the Vincent Factor? How often is genius recognized?
The public seems to have a good feel for it. They are less prejudiced in some
ways. It's the censors, gatekeepers, who want to control who gets what. They want
to feel important.
If something great comes along, how likely is it to be recognized? How often has
it been in the past? By what principle can those at lower levels recognize and
judge the work of those at higher levels? The regular reading public might well
be able to know something big has come along when what they read changes them,
rocks their world. How receptive is an establishment though to any kind of
change? Say a judge has a nice thing going. The next great work of our culture
will likely severely question our status quo in an undeniable way. It will risk
budgets, literally. How happy will administrators of prizes be to see such a
thing?
It might be hard for us to recognize the weakness of our own situation. So let's
look at another recent Evil Empire, one that was weak compared to ours, a bunch
of amateurs. Prizes in the USSR and its satellites were awarded to keep people in
line, to vet, to verify that writers were willing to toe the line, they were
payoffs. Write what we want you to, win a prize. Oh, and narc on your friends who
question too much. I mean, keep those who dont win prizes from entering. "You
would not enter and kept those who would from entering." It's an old story. Who's
the famous guy who said the commercial system is far more effective at censorship
than a dictatorship? Is this commonly known? How does our establishment deal with
such a fact?
Ouisch Odin wrote:
--
Jeff Potter j...@outyourbackdoor.com
"Out Your Backdoor": Friendly Zine of Modern Folkways and Culture Revival
http://www.glpbooks.com/oyb ... for a full line of alternative outdoor culture
books, bookstore & forum