On Beauty was boring not only because it took place at a highly ranked liberal arts college

Some British lit mag held a short story competition and Zadie Smith was the judge. After reviewing hundreds of entries she decided to give the 5000 pound prize to charity instead. She explained why in an open letter.

[W]e could not find the greatness we'd hoped for. [...]

We have only one principle here: MAKE IT GOOD.

The publishing industry discourages writers all the time and in a lot of ways. Usually it seems pragmatic: editors want to control the volume of submissions they receive. A rich novelist putting amateur writers down in the pursuit of the GOOD, on the other hand, is just snobbery. Smith should have followed the damn rules and picked the BEST. (Note: I didn't enter this contest. I swear! I found the story through VQR's blog because I was thinking of submitting to lit mags. But now I feel too sad to.)

Almost everyone trying to break into an industry faces this kind of cattiness-- its own version of passing a certain Cambridge alum's personal coolness test. You can't be a law professor unless you cite check an obscure journal for two years; you can't be a vet unless you ace scantron biology tests when you're 18; you can't lead a Roman Catholic community unless you are an overweight man. Sometimes I figure these barriers are fair enough and developed for a reason.

But sometimes an established professional discourages her less established peers in all caps. That makes me suspicious of the establishment. Hey friends-- maybe we should kill all the successful people and start shit over again.