In The Guardian Jacques Testard complains that The Booker prize judges let us down, arguing Hilary Mantel didn't 'need' another prize, and that:
Now, I have big problems with the Man Booker -- first and foremost that they don't reveal which books are actually in the running for the prize, so that we have no way of knowing whether or not the best books are even being considered. But as long as they focus on selecting the best book from whatever tiny lot they're selecting from ... well, it's the least they can do, and it's fine by me. The last thing I want them to do is to 'send a message'.
I also note -- emphatically (while feeling like I'm screaming in a vacuum ...) -- that it's not Hilary Mantel that won the prize -- all those headlines to the contrary -- but rather Bring up the Bodies. The fact that the person who wrote that book also wrote another book in the same series that won this same prize ... what does that have to do with anything ?
Testard cries: "Dear Booker judges: novels are experiments in language !" You know what ? Some are, and some aren't. Their ... experimentalism shouldn't be the deciding factor. Nor something as ridiculous as their 'readability'. Sure, judges have to decide on subjective criteria by which to judge the books -- that's the weakness of literary prizes, and their strength. Once judges start trying to send messages ... you might as well get rid of the lot. (Yes, yes, I know: there are lots of good reasons for getting rid of the lot anyway .....)
Testard complains: "literary prizes are just as staid as the industry that produces them" -- but did anyone ever believe otherwise ?
Despite being a longtime-Mantel admirer (as the reviews on the site (and the dates they were first posted) show) I have minimal interested in her two Man Booker-winning titles (historical fiction, you know -- let's just keep that at a nice distance, okay ?), but I am grateful for the two sets of Man Booker judging committees in choosing these over choosing to 'send a message' (or honoring true and absolute crap like Vernon God Little ...).
The Booker judges had a chance to make a statement, to refresh a staid publishing industry by showing it that taking risks is worthwhile.I think book prizes are problematic, and way too much attention is paid to them (even (especially ?) by me, with my constantly pointing to the latest ones ...), but I will always defend those that do what they're supposed to do: select the best book.
Now, I have big problems with the Man Booker -- first and foremost that they don't reveal which books are actually in the running for the prize, so that we have no way of knowing whether or not the best books are even being considered. But as long as they focus on selecting the best book from whatever tiny lot they're selecting from ... well, it's the least they can do, and it's fine by me. The last thing I want them to do is to 'send a message'.
I also note -- emphatically (while feeling like I'm screaming in a vacuum ...) -- that it's not Hilary Mantel that won the prize -- all those headlines to the contrary -- but rather Bring up the Bodies. The fact that the person who wrote that book also wrote another book in the same series that won this same prize ... what does that have to do with anything ?
Testard cries: "Dear Booker judges: novels are experiments in language !" You know what ? Some are, and some aren't. Their ... experimentalism shouldn't be the deciding factor. Nor something as ridiculous as their 'readability'. Sure, judges have to decide on subjective criteria by which to judge the books -- that's the weakness of literary prizes, and their strength. Once judges start trying to send messages ... you might as well get rid of the lot. (Yes, yes, I know: there are lots of good reasons for getting rid of the lot anyway .....)
Testard complains: "literary prizes are just as staid as the industry that produces them" -- but did anyone ever believe otherwise ?
Despite being a longtime-Mantel admirer (as the reviews on the site (and the dates they were first posted) show) I have minimal interested in her two Man Booker-winning titles (historical fiction, you know -- let's just keep that at a nice distance, okay ?), but I am grateful for the two sets of Man Booker judging committees in choosing these over choosing to 'send a message' (or honoring true and absolute crap like Vernon God Little ...).