They've announced the ten finalists for the Man Booker International Prize -- the biennial pseudo-Nobel rival (slightly limited in that only authors whose work is "generally available in translation in the English language" are eligible).
Works by six of the ten finalists are under review at the complete review:
A couple of observations:
- there are no African, no Arabic-writing, no Spanish-writing (or indeed Latin/South American of any sort), no Japanese authors ...
- I remind you that for the 2005 prize Alberto Manguel reported (see also my discussion) that back then: "from the list of first-rate authors we wished to propose we had to delete Peter Handke, Antonio Lobo Antunes, Michel Tournier [...] Pascal Quignard and Christa Wolf -- all of whom have either not been translated into English or were once upon a time translated but have since been allowed to fall out of print".
Sure, NYRB Classics has just brought out Intizar Husain's Basti; sure, I have my ancient copy of Ananthamurthy's (or, as that Oxford University Press edition has it, Anantha Murthy's) Samskara, but seriously folks, have you tried finding English-language editions of their work ? Even NDiaye's Among family. I have, and it ain't easy. (As opposed to Handke or Wolf, for example -- both in print and in used bookstores.) So, "Generally available" in English .....
- the criteria was apparently 'at least three works available in English', but even then some of these look very, very thin
- the official site has okay biographical blurbs but doesn't even provide something as basic as bibliographical (at least available-in-English) information -- pathetic
In his report in The Guardian Richard Lea reports:
What really shocked me, too, was the admission:
I also agree with Chad Post's posts about the ridiculous tone the official press release takes, that "perhaps only two of the writers can be said to have a wide international profile":. (Robinson has a wider international profile than Stamm, Yan, or Sorokin ? In what universe, other than the Anglo-centric one ?)
Sure, they're probably right that: "Anyone who could have guessed even five of the 10 novelists who have just been revealed as the finalists for the fifth Man Booker International Prize deserves a mass cap-doffing from the wider reading public" -- since it's such a subjective exercise.
It's not a terrible list -- they're, by and large, fine authors -- but it's certainly not my kind of list -- not least because of a definite short-story bias (I'm a novel guy, through and through).
So who are the contenders ? Well, it all depends on the judges. If you're asking me: Robinson and Davis haven't written enough big fiction for my taste; Stamm is too much of a one-trick pony; Yan, Sorokin, and NDiaye are too limited, and Novakovich doesn't belong on the list. Ananthamurthy remains a wild card -- I simply haven't seen enough of his work -- but otherwise I'd see it as a contest between Husain and Appelfeld.
Works by six of the ten finalists are under review at the complete review:
- Aharon Appelfeld:
- Intizar Husain:
- Marilynne Robinson:
- Vladimir Sorokin:
- Peter Stamm:
- Yan Lianke
A couple of observations:
- there are no African, no Arabic-writing, no Spanish-writing (or indeed Latin/South American of any sort), no Japanese authors ...
- I remind you that for the 2005 prize Alberto Manguel reported (see also my discussion) that back then: "from the list of first-rate authors we wished to propose we had to delete Peter Handke, Antonio Lobo Antunes, Michel Tournier [...] Pascal Quignard and Christa Wolf -- all of whom have either not been translated into English or were once upon a time translated but have since been allowed to fall out of print".
Sure, NYRB Classics has just brought out Intizar Husain's Basti; sure, I have my ancient copy of Ananthamurthy's (or, as that Oxford University Press edition has it, Anantha Murthy's) Samskara, but seriously folks, have you tried finding English-language editions of their work ? Even NDiaye's Among family. I have, and it ain't easy. (As opposed to Handke or Wolf, for example -- both in print and in used bookstores.) So, "Generally available" in English .....
- the criteria was apparently 'at least three works available in English', but even then some of these look very, very thin
- the official site has okay biographical blurbs but doesn't even provide something as basic as bibliographical (at least available-in-English) information -- pathetic
In his report in The Guardian Richard Lea reports:
Parks was also relaxed about the challenge of comparing bodies of work that are so various, saying that the judges only considered authors who have published at least three works of fiction in English.Three works of fiction is different from three novels -- and several authors seem to fall short of the three-novel mark: has Lydia Davis written three novels (The End of the Story is the only one I can think of) ? Josip Novakovich (April Fool's Day and ... ?) ? And, as noted, some of the authors' (fictional) œuvre appear rather thin (yes, I have problems with Marilynne Robinson getting an author-prize for her limited fictional output).
"You get enough of an idea from three novels," he said. "Three great books is a major achievement."
What really shocked me, too, was the admission:
Tim Parks, said he was delighted with the list: "Ten wonderful authors, nine of whom I didn't know before I started reading for this prize. There were lots of surprises for all of us."Given how much Parks writes about international fiction I can't believe he (and all the judges) weren't already familiar with all these writers -- though I suppose it depends on what you mean with 'familiar'. (For the sake of comparison: yes, I'm relatively well-read by most criteria (though I would have hoped Parks would easily have me beat [but I guess if you spend your time reading Fifty Shades of Shit ...]), and the only author among these ten I'd say I'm not 'familiar' with is Novakovich -- and I've read some of his stories as well (though not in ages); all the others I've read books by -- and, indeed, have books of theirs essentially within arm's reach (including Anantha Murthy's Samskara, which I've been meaning to post a review of for ages)). I would have thought familiarity with these authors would have been a starting point -- rather than ignorance of nine out of ten
I also agree with Chad Post's posts about the ridiculous tone the official press release takes, that "perhaps only two of the writers can be said to have a wide international profile":. (Robinson has a wider international profile than Stamm, Yan, or Sorokin ? In what universe, other than the Anglo-centric one ?)
Sure, they're probably right that: "Anyone who could have guessed even five of the 10 novelists who have just been revealed as the finalists for the fifth Man Booker International Prize deserves a mass cap-doffing from the wider reading public" -- since it's such a subjective exercise.
It's not a terrible list -- they're, by and large, fine authors -- but it's certainly not my kind of list -- not least because of a definite short-story bias (I'm a novel guy, through and through).
So who are the contenders ? Well, it all depends on the judges. If you're asking me: Robinson and Davis haven't written enough big fiction for my taste; Stamm is too much of a one-trick pony; Yan, Sorokin, and NDiaye are too limited, and Novakovich doesn't belong on the list. Ananthamurthy remains a wild card -- I simply haven't seen enough of his work -- but otherwise I'd see it as a contest between Husain and Appelfeld.