|
@caleb72. I thought Murg's post made some interesting points in relation to the Man Booker Prize, which do not exactly enhance the standing of the award in my eyes. Nevertheless it is true to say that he may not have been eligible for or won that prize if not published in Australia. My callous response is that I could care less, not because I wish Mr Flanagan any ill, but because the price paid by Australian Consumers is far too high. If publishers seriously wish to argue to retain the legislation, why are we left with this nebulous appeal to patriotism and anecdotal "evidence". Where are the hard figures or at least reasonable estimates of the amount that goes into publishers coffers through this legislation and the amount which is actually expended on Australian talent. Surely we are entitled to expect more than just the sprouting of a few names.
And I think it is in fact as simple as saying that an author who deserves to be published will be published. Unfortunately I think it is equally true for some authors who do not deserve to be published. I refer of course to self-publishing. Your point is absolutely correct when it comes to traditional publishing. Though at least self-publishing is now a real alternative to those rejected by traditional publishers for whatever reason.
I agree that no one can answer the question you pose about the discovery of future Richard Flanagan's, though once again my response is that I could care less. I draw the inference that the appeal to emotion by publishers is because the hard facts and figures do not support their position. If it is in fact desirable to assist local authors I don't think the solution is to throw money at large multinational publishers in the form of this legislation, particularly when they are not accountable for what if any proportion of this windfall is spent on such assistance.
As you say, there may well be better solutions. It is about time this one was thrown out, bathwater, baby and all!
|