I recently started reading book prize winners – the Booker, the Pulitzer, the Women's Prize, the National Book Award. It seems like the winners are chosen more by subject matter than execution. The winners often seem to be about oppression, hardship, race, gender, etc. Books on the longlists that are better written seem to lose to books that lack the polished execution, but are about a topic that the people who award the prize want to push. I'm left wing politically and support these causes, but feel that having an important subject matter isn't enough to make a good book. The execution matters. Do you think this happens? Or am I off base?
by Lefty1992
4 Comments
Of course it is, just like every other major modern “award” ceremony
You’re definitely not off base, it’s something a lot of readers have noticed. Subject matter can sometimes overshadow craft in the judging process, especially when a book tackles a timely or urgent issue. That doesn’t mean those books aren’t valuable, but I agree that execution should carry equal weight. A powerful theme loses impact if the writing doesn’t hold up. It’s a tough balance, and maybe the ideal winners are the ones that do both really well, but they don’t always make the cut.
I once used a Venn diagram to demonstrate how nearly all of the Pulitzer prize winners I had read fall into one of three categories: slavery, incarceration/persecution, and the Jewish experience.
I think it’s hard to speculate on the reasons why but books with harder subject matter will lead to more things to ponder / criticise and discuss which could be one reason. The idea of important literature is always subjective tho who the person / people are.
As much as I do think it’s interesting to read what these people think are the best novels of the year I don’t put much weight to it in any real sense, awards are voted on personal basis, this is clear in all mediums. Popularity also can play a major role in weather or not something is voted for or not