<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="bbPress" -->

<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>

<channel>
<title>California Literary Review Forum Topic: Literary Prizes</title>
<link>http://www.calitreview.com/forum/</link>
<description>Just another bbPress community</description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:37:35 +0000</pubDate>

<item>
<title>Jem Bloomfield on "Literary Prizes"</title>
<link>http://www.calitreview.com/forum/topic/literary-prizes#post-80</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:39:55 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Jem Bloomfield</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="false">80@http://www.calitreview.com/forum/</guid>
<description>&#60;p&#62;I was just reading an article in &#34;Prospect&#34; magazine from a few months ago about literary prizes.  I've only got a very limited perspective on this (I don't know how such things are managed in the US) but big fiction prizes like the Booker seem to occupy a sort of middle ground between the smaller, genre-specific prizes (like the CWA, or the Romance Authors awards, which sometimes have the air of an intra-industry private party) and the more obviously &#34;artistic&#34; events like the Turner Prize, which simply provides an opportunity for the tabloid papers to be self-righteously Philistine.  I wonder what everyone thinks about literary prizes generally?  Are they useful ways of recognising people who contribute to our language's cultural life and give a bit of publicity to struggling writers?  Or are they a self-indulgent exercise in propping up the &#34;literary novel&#34; which otherwise would have quietly died because no-one actually wants to read it?
&#60;/p&#62;</description>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
