Online Lecture #5
Literary prizes and juries
The fifth event in the online lecture series centered an investigation into how literary prizes and juries function for both inclusion and exclusion, as well as the structures and mechanisms behind these processes. Series curator Maha El Hissy was joined for a discussion of the invisible power dynamics in the literary scene by literary and cultural studies scholar Ela Gezen and author, jury member, and literary scholar Maryam Aras.
Their discussion began with the controversy around the 2021 Leipzig Book Fair Prize, where an open letter circulated drawing attention to the fact that no Black or PoC authors had appeared in that year’s shortlist for the prize. Despite numerous relevant works that could have earned a place in the running, such voices remained unheard. Maryam Aras, one of the cowriters of the letter, described how this critique kicked off a larger debate about exclusionary mechanisms and unconscious biases in literary criticism and jury work.
Literary criticism, for Aras, means more than simply evaluating texts. Instead, Aras understands it as a socially- and politically-determined practice that is always influenced by the reading experiences and social backgrounds of critics. For Aras, these influences must be reflected upon critically by jurists in order to acknowledge their own blind spots and exclusionary frameworks. Prize juries are often dominated by established, white critics who lack the diversity of reading practices necessary to properly evaluate works by marginalized writers.
One central point of the discussion was the question of literary criteria. Aras emphasized that such things are never objective and that every reader perceives a work through their own cultural and political lens. Character development, linguistic-aesthetic concepts, or the use of imagery are certainly important elements, but these, too are conditioned by individual perspectives. Literature must therefore always be read in the context of its time and social relevance if we are to question historical frameworks of exclusion and include new perspectives.
The panelists’ discussion also highlighted structural barriers within the literary scene. Aras described how participation in juries is made difficult for independent critics due to low payment rates and others obstacles to initial access. She also criticized the homogeneity of literary criticism as a whole, which is often reflected in the elite, white composition of prize juries. Frequently, these structures mean that innovative and unconventional works—particularly those engaging with experimental forms or new literary frames of reference—are misunderstood or rejected.
The conversation seized upon the notion of solidary jury work which takes conscious consideration of marginalized perspectives. Aras explained how a 'restorative injustice' like the implementation of a quota system could be useful in correcting decades of disenfranchisement. More important still, would be the willingness of jury members to reflect on their own advantages and social conditioning in order to make possible a fairer and more diverse selection process. This event offered an in-depth glimpse into the mechanisms that decide which authors and which works receive acknowledgment, calling on participants to rethink prevailing structures in literary criticism and work actively to develop more inclusive practices.
Literary criticism, for Aras, means more than simply evaluating texts. Instead, Aras understands it as a socially- and politically-determined practice that is always influenced by the reading experiences and social backgrounds of critics. For Aras, these influences must be reflected upon critically by jurists in order to acknowledge their own blind spots and exclusionary frameworks. Prize juries are often dominated by established, white critics who lack the diversity of reading practices necessary to properly evaluate works by marginalized writers.
One central point of the discussion was the question of literary criteria. Aras emphasized that such things are never objective and that every reader perceives a work through their own cultural and political lens. Character development, linguistic-aesthetic concepts, or the use of imagery are certainly important elements, but these, too are conditioned by individual perspectives. Literature must therefore always be read in the context of its time and social relevance if we are to question historical frameworks of exclusion and include new perspectives.
The panelists’ discussion also highlighted structural barriers within the literary scene. Aras described how participation in juries is made difficult for independent critics due to low payment rates and others obstacles to initial access. She also criticized the homogeneity of literary criticism as a whole, which is often reflected in the elite, white composition of prize juries. Frequently, these structures mean that innovative and unconventional works—particularly those engaging with experimental forms or new literary frames of reference—are misunderstood or rejected.
The conversation seized upon the notion of solidary jury work which takes conscious consideration of marginalized perspectives. Aras explained how a 'restorative injustice' like the implementation of a quota system could be useful in correcting decades of disenfranchisement. More important still, would be the willingness of jury members to reflect on their own advantages and social conditioning in order to make possible a fairer and more diverse selection process. This event offered an in-depth glimpse into the mechanisms that decide which authors and which works receive acknowledgment, calling on participants to rethink prevailing structures in literary criticism and work actively to develop more inclusive practices.