RE: Why All Blooker Prize Winners Are Amateurs

After my counter argument to Ed Infinitum’s Bugger Blooker article, I took the liberty to ask Paul Jones, head of the 2007 Blooker Prize judging panel to give his opinion on the discussion. To which he replied:

So I’m wondering what’s wrong with amateur writers. Julie Powell’s book got the kind of New York Times Book Review space that any writer would be delighted with. Cherie Priest’s book isn’t in the dominant genre — Zombie Gothic has its own set of fans. I can’t say much about this year’s Short List since I just got my first shipment on Monday, but I think that we can say that the Blooker celebrates a breaking of genres and of concepts of what good literature is and will become.

I think I shall sum it all up, before this debate carries on for far too long:

The Blooker prize is new, just as blogging and blooking is new. Paul Jones has had his say, so has Ed and I.

And in the end I look back at Paul’s reply: “Julie Powell’s book got the kind of New York Times Book Review space that any writer would be delighted with” and think to myself: is it not good enough that previously unknown writers get their big break through the Blooker?

That’s food for thought for you. To the rest of the authors shortlisted in the 2007 Blooker Prize: God Bless and Good Luck. Us online writers will be watching, with or without the hype.

Possibly Related Posts:

Category: Meta · Web Fiction Writers · Writing Web Fiction
  • http://gadgit.vox.com/ ed

    “is it not good enough that previously unknown writers get their big break through the Blooker?”

    It’s great that they get the exposure. But we ought not to forget the consequential impact of this, and other awards.i.e. the oscars and grammys on global film and music production; ‘blogstars’ being cast as models worthy of emulation; etc. Does this raise the bar or lower it. The potential of ‘blookers’ to reinforce a particular type of perspectival quality cannot be understated. For instance, “How many relatively insightful sites have been afforded an award?”, is one question I have to ask. Without this, the chomskys, amongst others, in the blogging world, die the proverbial death in the crib, if not, in conception. What these awards reinforce ought to be afforded our scrutiny. Its not what these awards do but what they fail to do that ought to elicit our inquisitive concern.

  • http://www.novelr.com Eli James

    Ed, I’ve replied to that argument of yours (the blogstars and overall quality) over at the orginal post, here.

    And I realize there’s a big gap between ‘hits’, or overall popularity, and great, quality content. Which is really sad. Someone made this observation in a 9Rules note … allow me to get the link.

    Ah, here it is. Go take a read, and then I think I’ll do a post about this – why is there such a disparity between hits and good content? It would be interesting to hear your views.