Viva Latin America!
In this weekend's Observer interview, Junot Diaz had this to say about his North American writer friends:"I was kind of bad luck. Most of them paid lip service to the idea that a work of art could take a long time, but a lot of them assumed I was doomed. For them, if they went two years without writing a book, they'd kill themselves. In Latin America, of course, no one would have cared."
They have siesta, we have kvetching.
Here's some new kvetching by Zadie Smith.
posted by Pants at 8:40 AM|
permalink|
|
6 Comments:
I'm really torn about Zadie Smith, you know? I don't have a problem with deciding not to award a prize one is judging -- not given that there was no entry fee.
Now, I know it sucks and seems hypocritical of her -- trying to denying up-and-coming writers their chance at legitimacy, encouragement, etc.
Except... she's taking a stand and declaring war on mediocre writing. I can't say I'm against that...
Oh, there are SO many things to say about this retracting prize money thing...
I've judged enough contests to know that the caliber of submitted stories can often be grossly disappointing.
I also acknowledge that writing contests can be nothing but flawed, given that they're based on the subjective assessment of so many different people. The presumption that out of a field of 800 or so entrants, a group can choose a short-list, and then, a single best piece of writing, is faulty. (the Katherine Mansfield submission being an example)
I can't help but feel that there's a combination of hubris and meanness at work when juries decide not to award a prize.
In this instance, the contest organizers must have known things weren't up to snuff as they reviewed the entries and narrowed down to a short-list. A more responsible thing to do might have been to announce that not enough entries of high caliber were received to warrant adjudication, and extend the submission period, do another, more thorough call for submissions.
Instead, they selected a short list, notified these writers and publicized their names, then went on about how awful the submissions were.
The point is, the nature of these types of competitions is that you select a winner from a particular year's field of entrants - some years will be banner, and others, especially when a fairly unknown contest is building a reputation and submission base, will be, well, not.
The Academy doesn't say, "No Best Actor Oscar this year." It's like throwing a party, then kicking the guests out part way through because the cool people didn't come.
I can't help but feel that's the subtext of their prize retraction, "Look people, we put up our own money in hoping to be able to award it to some brilliant writer, and there must have been some mix-up, because all you losers showed up instead."
If Zadie Smith and her friends would like to award someone $10,000 for a great short story, all the power to them, but perhaps instead of having a public contest, they should just ask word of mouth until they find someone they deem worthy.
So Nancy, what happens when you're awarding a prize that says "#1 Story as Chosen by Nancy Lee" and you can only bestow that honour to someone you think kind of sucks?
You don't think asking for more (stronger) submissions is also kind of a kick in the teeth? Would it really have been worth doing that? What if there still hadn't been something "worthy"?
I don't disagree on lots of your points... and of course, this was probably not the way to take such a stand. Not after shortlistees had been notified. Though I don't think that was a question of "the organizers should have seen it coming" -- they felt there were some strong enough entries, it's only Zadie who, when they came to her, disagreed, right?
I don't think it's like the Oscars. The Academy gets to choose from, well, everybody. A contest like this gets to choose from the pool it gets.
Do the contest organizers really owe anybody anything?
Conversely: does it do literature any good to make a statement like Zadie did? Is anyone out there thinking "I'll show her -- I'm going to write a really interesting story with a fresh structure and emotional resonance!" Or does everyone just think what they do is gold?
And if you're wondering, yes, I'm throwing all this out there because I missed your blog.
Ah, I love a fiery debate.
I have no problem with "#1 Story as Chosen by Nancy Lee" because I think people understand that what we're talking about is #1 out of the pool of stories submitted, not #1 in the world, or #1 ever written, or Nancy Lee's #1 absolute favourite story ever.
As a judge, I don't feel that the contest should be about me. If the winner is sub-par, people can draw their conclusions about the submission pool. And who knows, perhaps, better writers will be encouraged to enter, thinking, "Man, if THAT won, I definitely have a chance."
The other issue is that Z didn't read all 800 plus entries, so really, who's to say a brilliant short story wasn't overlooked?
A writer who read my manuscript before it was published bemoaned the fact that I hadn't bothered to enter a contest this writer had recently judged, emphatic that had I entered, I would have surely won. In fact, I had entered two stories from that very manuscript, but they'd never made it into the short-list package the writer received.
All that aside, I strongly believe there is value in establishing a short list that reflects the best of that year's offerings, choosing a winner, then writing a sensitive but specific judge's essay about what writers might strive for in future contests. (James Grainger and I did this when we judged the Journey Prize to address glaring weaknesses in 85% of the stories we read - we each read every entry) This at least gives writers something to go on, an idea of where the goal posts are and what they could be doing to reach them.
Z's response is so elitist. "Make it good" -- seriously, what does she think writers are trying to do? Make it bad? Rimbaud? Diderot? Exactly how is this supposed to help writers understand why they've been deemed unworthy? How does this pompous attitude foster the creation of new and exciting literature?
What it comes down to is what you believe you're competing against when you enter a "competition". Are you competing against your fellow entrants, or a preconceived ideal in the judge's mind of what the winning entry should be?
"Do the contest organizers really owe anybody anything?"
I think they owe the luscious $10,000 carrot they dangled. Split it amongst the short-list, failing that, carry it over and make next year's prize even more lucrative for competing writers, or do something to encourage and foster the great new fiction you claim to care so much about.
(nothing against Comic Relief, but even this charitable donation feels smug and self-righteous)
Man, I do go on.
Well, to address just one note, while it's still the early morn... they *did* try to split the cash amongst the shortlist, before donating to Comic Relief. The shortlist would have none of it.
"In response to the negative comments left about the decision not to award the prize, Zadie Smith decided that the money should be split, to help counter the suggestions that the short-listed writers were somehow ‘mediocre’." (from the competition's report)
Well, first of all, Z did think they were mediocre, that's why she didn't award a prize.
Offering to split the money AFTER publicly humiliating these short-listed writers is nothing short of feeble. And frankly, I can't blame those writers for telling the organizers to F-off.
I see now that my earlier posts was unclear -- I didn't mean to imply that the organizers should "make amends" about the money, but rather that when you hold a competition and offer prize money, you have a responsibility to honour that offering. You can't simply snatch it back and say, changed my mind! Then, later on say, Oh, no, wait, changed it again! Here it is, take it, take it!
The organizers should have found a responsible way to allocate the money (split, carry over, foster), BEFORE making any public statements. And they should have framed their decision in a positive and encouraging light.
Is there a heady feeling of superiority in being able to say, "Man, that stuff truly sucked"? Absolutely. Does it further the cause of great writing? Doubtful.
My final word on the subject (I promise!): anyone who's gone through the agony of sitting on a panel of judges knows that judging is more about taste than it is about merit. Every piece has weaknesses, and your taste dictates which particular weaknesses you're willing to overlook.
I confess that if David Mitchell had made the same decision, I would probably be more sympathetic. Not more sympathetic to the contest organizers, who, I think, have bungled this thing from beginning to end. But because I have a deep respect for Mitchell's work and a belief that he's genuinely trying to move fiction forward, I could trust his intention; I could trust his taste.
Z, on the other hand, is not a writer whose intentions or taste I trust. And perhaps that makes all the difference.
Post a Comment
<< Home