I Was Sold.

Take 2.

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. Implying her intention to shed light on the various awards’ authenticity and reliability, she gives the background-comparison-argument treatment to awards like the Nobel, Pulitzers, National Book Awards (NBA), National Book Critics’ Circle (NBCC) and Booker prizes across several fields. Specifically, she ‘expounds’ on the infighting and scandals of the Nobel, the Pulitzer’s board-and-jury controversies, showbiz nature of the NBAs, NBCC’s “sensible judges” and the entertainment value provided by the Booker prize. In conclusion, Miller offers a seemingly non-prejudiced opinion of an ideal prize to watch.

 Reflection

Perhaps the result of my fatigued attempt to review the article at 2 a.m., and probably more because of the writer’s sly writing strategies, I was utterly convinced by Miller’s article, until I critically read it a second time. Titled and written in a direct, informative style, the article comes across as very well planned, structured and researched. She not only attempts to persuade, but demonstrates a keen knowledge in the history of awards like the Nobel and Pulitzers. Disguised in this seemingly neutral, well substantiated approach however, lies some very witty devices with which she manages to trick the reader, or at least myself, into agreeing wholesale.

Compiling the essential portrait of each prize Miller was depicting, one suddenly realizes that the article is not that neutral after all. Whilst she exhibited the emotional and financial investment that editors, publishers and writers placed in each of the major awards (in disguise as praise but not high praise in itself),  the overall stance towards these awards (i.e. Nobel, Pulitzer and NBA) was actually one of criticism. Their infighting, controversies and showbiz publicity surely alluded to a discredit and compromise of reliability.

In ‘reviewing’ the NBCC, to which Miller ‘proactively’ discloses her judging links to, she unashamedly praises its “discerning judges” and appeal to “taste ..or.. sensibility”. Her guile in utilizing “Full disclosure” to create a sense of neutrality and authenticity ought to be applauded. Subsequently, she engages in a veiled attack on the Booker, when the quote she uses on the Booker being an editor’s favorite, culminates in the sole reason of it being “the wackiest… most contentious”! In combination with gambling and high profile blunders by its previous judges, the Booker’s reputation probably took the hardest hit.

Whilst Miller’s review of the PEN awards wasn’t exactly the most flattering, she at least musters some form of compliment, citing the non-requirement of an entry fee. Her intent? She probably crafted this article with partiality towards smaller, relatively less publicized awards like the Whiting Awards, seemingly characterizing none of the criticisms she laid on the previous awards.

All in all, the sheer believability of the initial read has me up in standing ovation. Aside from a lack of background information(affiliation of editor, publisher and writers to awards) regarding the quotes she uses, the article betrays little about its deceptive prejudice against the major awards. Tactically, strategically and structurally devious. Laura Miller for a $35,000 Whiting Award anyone?