An online debate is occuring at The Independent examining the value of prizes for literature produced by women, specifically in the context of whether the Women’s Prize for Fiction should be eliminated.
The arguments for both sides are reproduced below.
Case for abolishing the prize: Cornered
If the aim is greater recognition of female writers, this award backfires spectacularly. By herding literature written by women into a separate category it suggests novels on its longlist belong to a genre separate to those written by men. They don’t. Great writing has nothing to do with gender. Would winners – whose number include Zadie Smith – really be happy to go down in history as a much lauded “Woman writer”? Fat chance. This Prize creates a glass ceiling where none really exists.
Case against abolishing the prize: Boost
Institutional sexism runs through the literary world. In 1992 the Booker didn’t include a single woman on its shortlist – just one sign of a publishing and judging elite dominated by men. The Women’s Prize for Fiction is a klaxon call. Moreover, it gives a boost to those writers it chooses, helping them to greater recognition both in terms of sales and future awards. Belittling the award simply belittles the barriers female authors face – which remain high to this day.
What do you think?
Should the Women’s Prize for Fiction be abolished?
Comment below.