[Brian Allgar]

I've just spoken to someone at the Literary Review, and he told me that it used to be the case that only subscribers were eligible for the first and second prizes, but in the last year or so they have relaxed that rule, and non-subsribers have an equal chance these days.

On the one hand, this is good news, and I don't need to allow myself to be panicked into taking out a subscription.

On the other hand, it explodes my theory of why I haven't won anything in the LitRev, and forces me to return to the unwelcome explanation "must try harder".

[Jayne Osborn]

Ah, that's great news. Thanks for phoning them, Brian.

I've never recovered from the horrors of the Waugh days, when one of the rules stipulated: "Poets will not phone these offices for any reason" or words to that effect.

As Bazza says, things have much improved at LR of late. It's good to know that a phone call to them won't mean you're black-listed forever and ever, as I used to fear!

Jayne

[Brian Allgar]

In fact, I also discovered that it only costs an extra tenner to have it delivered to France, so I may take out a subscription just as an insurance policy. The trouble is, as I said earlier, that I never read magazines - or newspapers, for that matter. I rely for my knowledge of the state of the world on vague emanations through the aether.

It has also occurred to me that instead of trying harder in order to win, there may be another solution: send my entries under the pseudonym "Martin Parker".

[Roger Slater]

If only subscribers were eligible to enter or win the contest, that would be fine. What bothers me a bit is that everyone can enter, but they are not treating everyone equally when it comes to handing out prizes. That's paying different people different salaries for performing the same job and filling the same space in the magazine. It's a lot of work to come up with a worthy entry, and the magazine benefits from having top-notch work to publish, and if some people who enter don't particularly care for the rest of the magazine, or if they like it but read it at work or in the library, that should be irrelevant.

[Brian Allgar]

Errr ... Roger, did you read my post no. 21 above?

[John Whitworth]

So I've been subscribing for nothing, have I? Humph!

[Chris O'Carroll]

Somebody may have pointed this out already, but online Literary Review subscriptions are available for a fraction of the cost of ink-and-paper subscriptions. And if you're an online subscriber who wins a prize, they send you a hard copy of the magazine along with your money.

[Roger Slater]

A fairly large fraction. An online subscription comes to $45 a year. Though about $12 a quarter if you want to just try it for three months. I take it Chris is confirmation that they award full prizes to online subscribers as well as print subscribers.

[Orwn Acra]

After Brian's good news, I will submit. And if I go on to win any money (we can wish) I will buy a subscription.

[Jayne Osborn]

Gentlemen,

As it's become apparent that you don't have to subscribe in order to be in with a chance of winning the big dosh, I'd be more than happy to post my copy of the magazine to one of you if you'd like to read it. I feel quite guilty when I throw it away after posting the results here; it's a very nice publication... and sometimes I even manage to get around to reading the reviews!

Unfortunately life's too short to read all the books that get produced day after day - and I find that reading a good review saves a hell of a lot of time... time that you might otherwise have spent reading the actual book, at the expense of reading other books.

We could even do this on a rota basis if you like. Send me your postal address if you'd like to get an occasional copy of Literary Review (it will always be that month's current issue), and if several of you respond I'll post it to you in turns. (Don't worry about the postage; this one's on me!)

I don't want to do them out of subscriptions but I don't see the need for all of you to take one out now we know that entry to the comps isn't dependent on one.

Jayne