Read on Twitter
As editors we welcome criticism, and particularly the considered arguments in the recent discussions of our policy which I& #39;ll link below. Thinking abstractly they& #39;re perfectly reasonable statements – but arguments like Shriver& #39;s (read more charitably than it merits)
pit specific material decisions against unhistorical universalisms like & #39;literature& #39;, & #39;objectivity& #39; and & #39;value& #39; which don& #39;t meaningfully exist outside of the contexts of their practice. Those contexts are and always have been political
they are raced, gendered, and classed. This isn& #39;t all they are, and I don& #39;t think good writing can or should be reduced to a symptom of its determinants, but no serious argument on this subject has presumed to ignore them in about eighty years.
We added an optional question to a number of prizes, after consultation with a wide range of judges, and as a white &c author myself, the clearest reason to have an issue with it is the desire to be read as something you aren& #39;t. Simply put this is the mildest response
we could have made to this issue. The policy neither states nor implies retribution for writing outside one& #39;s lane, it provides an optional avenue of support for judges should they seek it. Really, the most obvious reply invited is not why shouldn& #39;t X write Y
but why are you afraid to be known for writing it?
https://arena.org.au/stay-in-your-lane-the-oxymoron-of-authentic-fiction-part-i/">https://arena.org.au/stay-in-y...
https://andrewhutchinson.com.au/2020/11/08/on-modern-considerations-in-judging-literary-merit/amp/?__twitter_impression=true">https://andrewhutchinson.com.au/2020/11/0...
Also, in terms of being afraid of backlash, mate, we are the backlash
