Richard Flanagan on literary prizes and literary culture

       In the Sydney Morning Herald Gould's Book of Fish-author Richard Flanagan is at A loss for words as he considers the role literary prizes have assumed in contemporary literary culture.
       He begins provocatively enough:

Literary prizes exist to give dog shows a good name.

       And argues:

National prizes are often a barometer of bourgeois bad taste.

       But he makes a good point:

I am not arguing against prizes. I am arguing against taking them too seriously. The elevation and proliferation of literary prizes have obscured the slow erosion of our own literary culture -- indeed, they have arisen with it -- and disguise the near complete lack of support by our society of literary culture in general.

       And he adds:

If awarding prizes is when we have a discussion about books and when good books are given a larger public space, prizes have a role. But if we believe that only the winning book has virtue and no others, then the prize has failed. And if we think prize culture is a way of stimulating and supporting a book culture of value, we are deluded.

       He also points to the local situation, in particular:

Australia does less to support its writers than any developed country I am aware of. Though the publishing industry generates more than $2 billion a year, the total federal government spending on writers through grants is less than $2 million. Compare this with the more than $128 million spent on tax breaks for the non-profitable film industry.

       One hopes the piece generates some discussion and reactions.