One of the mice from
a recent post (about Francine Prose's comment to me about being nominated for a
Lambda Literary Award) had this to say about the value of literary awards:
One of your first impressions about Prose's reaction to Lambda was
probably the right one. Namely that she--like most artists--resents
being labeled a certain variety of author, or her book being slipped
into an ordained category. Award committees and the general public tend
to want to categorize--and who wants that? No author does, not when
you're attempting to capture life in all its dramatic fullness. "Billy
Budd, Foretopman" voted best Homoerotic Historical by Lambda. Oi,
Melville would say. But isn't it so much more than that?
AND....
I think many women probably do resent being rewarded for being "women
writers," in exactly the same way female physicians resent being lauded
as "lady doctors." I love Alice Munro and Anne Beattie equally as much
as I love Cheever and Nabakov. And my personal love and appreciation for
the last two would be neither diminished nor expanded by their having
won the "Best Anglo White Male Award" -- but for many other readers, it
might. I think decent authors resent the opportunity for such
narrowing and misunderstanding of their work being made possible by
award committees. Such categories are fundamentally arbitrary. It's
a far profounder compliment to praise an average book as good
literature, than to award that same book as superb female or gay
fiction. And it's easy to see why. The first is based on its merits as
art. The second is sanctioned condescension. I think Prose is objecting to the implications of the award given her,
and I don't think she has much choice in that. It's the principle at
stake--her book and how its understood--not the award itself.
Thoughts? To view my responses check out the
comments section here.
No comments:
Post a Comment