Graham Chainey's article, "Literary prizes are less about literature than about marketing," provides an interesting view on literary prizes awarded in this day and age.
I had never stopped to consider that prestigious awards like the Man Booker or the Nobel Prize for literature could be anything more than legitimate awards that those authors deserved, and while Chainey's article sounds like the grumblings of an old man wishing for the "good ole' days" he does make a good point that is worth at least considering and looking into.
You cannot measure the worth of a work of literature; it is specific to the reader. Sure, judges can look at the themes, diction, imagery, or other literary devices and find the most complex, but that is not what makes a novel great. You see, what makes a novel worthy of being upheld can only come from the reader, and no two readers are the same. As Chainey says, "there are no winners between novels, or between writers," and I can agree with this.
Chainey also points out that the ceremonies and banquet surrounding these organizations have become such a production that the authors loathe them. Honestly, when reading this article those parts didn't stick out to me as much because most of the world has fallen in love with wealth, but what did stick out is my disappointment because terrific writers are not getting the credit they deserve while these literary prizes basically decide who gets to profit and who does not. Maybe we have put too much power and weight into awards of all kind. Other people should not dictate your thoughts of what is good; only you have the power to stop going where other lead you and start forging your own path.