Thoroughly Entertaining and Informative.

Article by Laura Miller:

And the Winner is…

The drama and the dish behind the literary prizes that shape what America reads.

Summary

                Whilst the main title allows the reader to reminisce about the climactic moment  when an award winner is announced, the subtitle reveals the intent of the article; to inform about the spectacle behind literary prizes. Shedding light on the background of prizes like the Nobel, Pulitzers and the National Book Award, she compares them across several fields such as their judges, genres and track records. She reveals intriguing aspects of publicity, controversies and politics behind these prizes, finally concluding with a personal opinion on a favorite prize to watch.

Reflection

                Titled and written in a direct, informative manner, the article comes across as very well planned, structured and well researched. She not only attempts to persuade, but demonstrates a keen knowledge in the history of awards like the Nobel and Pulitzers. She first contextualizes the article for the reader through a description of the Nobel’s academy and its controversies, infighting and scandals. She then goes down the American-perceived tiers of literary awards, elaborating on awards such as the Pulitzers and National Book Award (NBA).

                In portraying the Pulitzers, she reveals that it did not fall short in controversies either, exemplified by Sinclair Lewis’ non-acceptance of the award in 1925, saying “All prizes… are dangerous…”, only to accept the Nobel four years later. Whilst William Gass was quoted as accusing the Pulitzers of essentially class warfare, one questions if he, like Lewis, was ever the subject of rejection. Miller continues to elaborate on the battle between the juries and board, arguing that as the board candidates are usually in the journalistic profession and have the final say, the award usually ended up being given to journalistic style writings.

                Miller continues to give the background-comparison-argument treatment to the NBA, National Book Critics’ Circle (NBCC) and Booker prizes, offering quotations of publishers and editors in substantiating her propositions. For example, the quote from a San Francisco Chronicle editor on how “The Pulitzer is judged and approved by journalists… comes to friction and poetry… more skeptical about them than… National Book Foundation.”. Whilst one has to be impressed with the amount of quotations accumulated for the article, it is probably worth investigating the backgrounds of such publishers and editors for any agendas linked to the awards endorsed.

                Refreshingly, the writer is forthcoming in disclosing her links to the NBCC awards  when complementing the NBCC, even disclosing the less than ideal aspects of the judging processes. This creates a sense of neutrality and boosts the article’s authenticity. Chiming in with a personal choice of an award also gives a personal touch, something with which concludes what has been an entertaining, convincing, well substantiated article that succeeds in its informative objective.