As they begin to beat the drum for the 23 July 2013 longlist announcement of the Man Booker Prize -- or pettily try to steal the thunder from today's Man Booker International Prize announcement ... -- The Independent offers Natalie Haynes: Confessions of a Booker judge, as she relates what it's like wading through all the submitted titles.
First off: the piece does contain some actual news, as Haynes reveals that there are apparently 150 titles in the running this year (submissions plus called-in titles). Judges have done a poor job in recalling the precise number over the years, but they're usually not too far off the mark in their public pronouncements, and 150 would be more than usual. Still, it's probably best to wait for official confirmation regarding this number -- poor form, by the way, that the official site doesn't have more frequent news-updates providing this sort of information.
Haynes mentions what is truly outrageous about the prize, too -- but does so unquestioningly:
As I repeat every year: it's impossible to take a literary prize seriously if they don't tell you who is actually in the competition. (And given the Man Booker's ridiculously limiting submission options this is a much bigger issue and problem with this prize than with most.)
Haynes says:
Clearly the judges have been instructed to present the Man Booker as open-to-everything so that those annoying genre discussion don't flare up again (though they presumably will, once the longlist is revealed), and so Haynes claims:
Just tell us what the damn books are already.
First off: the piece does contain some actual news, as Haynes reveals that there are apparently 150 titles in the running this year (submissions plus called-in titles). Judges have done a poor job in recalling the precise number over the years, but they're usually not too far off the mark in their public pronouncements, and 150 would be more than usual. Still, it's probably best to wait for official confirmation regarding this number -- poor form, by the way, that the official site doesn't have more frequent news-updates providing this sort of information.
Haynes mentions what is truly outrageous about the prize, too -- but does so unquestioningly:
It robs you of the chance to talk about books, too: I'm not allowed to tell you which books have been submitted for the prize, so I can't discuss them with anyone but my fellow judges.Why isn't she allowed to tell ? Why don't they publish the full list, so that we can tell whether they're actually dealing with what might be the cream of the crop, or whether in fact the publishers have offered up their Man Booker-flavoured (or so they think and hope) dregs.
As I repeat every year: it's impossible to take a literary prize seriously if they don't tell you who is actually in the competition. (And given the Man Booker's ridiculously limiting submission options this is a much bigger issue and problem with this prize than with most.)
Haynes says:
The question I am most frequently asked about prize judging is, "How do you read all those books ?" In close second place comes, "Where the hell do you put them ?"But really the only question should be: what are the books ? (followed, I suppose, by: Why can't you tell us ?)
Clearly the judges have been instructed to present the Man Booker as open-to-everything so that those annoying genre discussion don't flare up again (though they presumably will, once the longlist is revealed), and so Haynes claims:
And the Booker is a broad church. We've been sent thrillers, love stories, family sagas, war novels, spy novels, detective novels and sequels (another consequence of the second Mantel victory ?).It would sound more convincing if we were told the actual titles -- many a dryly super-'literary' novel can have elements that might be described as thriller-like, or contain a love story of sorts .....
Just tell us what the damn books are already.