awards and validation

The New Yorker has an article about awards, validation and uses the bold example of the black writers that banded together after Toni Morrison was denied award recognition for Beloved. The article brings up a good point, how much do we care about awards like the Pulitizer, NBCC, Nobel Prize? Do we buy that they are indeed unbiased and purely based on creative achievement? But, let's keep it real, I'd be one happy writer if I were to ever be even considered for one of those "validations."

Speaking of biases, NYT's public editor discusses the fairness of the paper reviewing staff books. Of the 100 Notable books this year, 6 were written by NYT staffers. I had to ask myself. Do I care? Yeah, a little. And maybe that isn't the correct question, perhaps I guess I have an understanding that there is a certain level of "corporate nepotism." And I guess I only "trust" notable and best book lists when I agree with them. That makes life alot easier.

I mean if Iworked at the NYT, you better believe I would try to have the paper review my book, , it would be stupid for me not to. And I would probably be pissed if they didn't. And then But then you think about the countless books that the NYT can't review because of "space limitations" and you begin to wonder. But hey, I'm a realist.

What I don't believe in is friends/enemies reviewing each other's books, especially for a flagship publication (the number one publication quote you'd put on a book jacket). The article also addresses the Times reviewer selection process which doesn't seem incredibly tight:

Kathryn Harrison, author of the memoir "The Kiss," was chosen to write a
November review of "Are Men Necessary?" by Ms. Dowd, a Times columnist. The
Book Review editors made the decision even though they knew about a
1997 Dowd column in which she referred to the Harrison memoir about a
four-year consensual affair with her father as "creepy people talking about
creepy people."