No surprise: as I already discussed at length, the Man Booker folk have decided to open eligibility for the prize, following the lead of the novel The Folio Prize, and will now allow UK-published titles by any author writing in English to be submitted (within ridiculously tightly constrained reason) for consideration.
Booker Prize Foundation chair Jonathan Taylor's 'message' makes that important point -- "The expanded prize will recognise, celebrate and embrace authors writing in English, whether from Chicago, Sheffield or Shanghai" -- but the similar-sounding press release offers a bit more (ugly) detail.
The major changes in eligibility are:
One issue which I don't find addressed is whether there are any first-publication restrictions: the Man Booker does require the authors of submitted books to be alive, but they don't seem to have a rule in place that would prevent, for example, a 2014 first UK publication of a novel that was originally published in the US decades ago from being eligible; the only criteria seems to be the first UK publication date. (I note that this has been the case previously too -- compare the 2013 official rules (warning ! dreaded pdf format !), but until now this has only affected books published in India, Australia, New Zealand, etc. -- and let's face it, if a book by an author from those places wasn't first published in the UK, or reached its shores within a year or two, no way it would get any serious Man Booker consideration; given how much is cranked out in the US, it's possible a smaller book with a slowly growing following might not have been immediately picked up in the UK but only gets there after five years or so -- it would then still apparently be Man Booker eligible.) [They really should address that, by the way -- a five- or ten-year cut-off date sounds like a good idea.]
The change in the submission guidelines are more troubling. While everyone will still have an opportunity to suggest titles to be called in that's a limited window (only between a minimum of eight and a maximum of twelve titles can be called in), and this new method (with its potential of a self-perpetuating cycle) favors big, established houses. Of course, the procedure is already fundamentally flawed -- in being in the hands of the publishers (the last folks who should be selecting what titles should be in the running for the prize) -- and, coupled with the complete lack of transparency (the Man Booker folk absurdly don't reveal which titles are in the running), this just reinforces an establishment status quo in an industry that really can't afford that. (The ridiculous rule that works by previously shortlisted authors automatically qualify -- absurd for what is ostensibly a book prize to focus on an author's previous accomplishments -- is yet another status-quo-maintaining nail in this prize's gilded coffin.)
Many people already got reactions out of their systems when the rumor of these changes surfaced over the weekend (see my previous discussion), but, of course, this fans the flames.
So, for example, Philip Hensher is entirely aghast, writing 'Well, that's the end of the Booker prize, then' at The Guardian's Book Blog -- and going rather far in claiming: "It will be a brave Booker panel in 2014 that doesn't give the prize to an American novel" (which seems a tad ... premature, to say the least). He -- and A.S.Byatt, whom he quotes on the issue -- also worry: "about what will happen when the number of submissions increases next year" -- though I imagine the Man Booker folk did the math and find that by limiting most publishers to a single submission the total will, at worst, be in the same 100-150 range it's been in recent years.
Meanwhile, at The Economist's Prospero-weblog R.B. is more sanguine, in World Booker day -- not worried about the international expansion, but voicing some concerns if the number of titles under consideration increases (as noted above: I imagine they determined it won't.)
If nothing else, they'll generate a ton of publicity and attention, now and next year.
The major changes in eligibility are:
- Eligibility is expanded to: "to include novels originally written in English and published in the UK, regardless of the nationality of their author" (i.e. it's not just US authors who are newly added to the mix, but any English-writing author even from another non-Commonwealth country -- as long as the book is published in the UK)
- The number of books publishers can submit -- previously capped at two is now, unbelievably, capped at one -- except that publishers with titles that were longlisted over the previous five years will get bonus-submissions, ranging from one additional submission (for those with one or two longlisted titles over the past five years) to a maximum of three additional submissions (for a total of four, for those with five or more longlisted titles over the past five years)
One issue which I don't find addressed is whether there are any first-publication restrictions: the Man Booker does require the authors of submitted books to be alive, but they don't seem to have a rule in place that would prevent, for example, a 2014 first UK publication of a novel that was originally published in the US decades ago from being eligible; the only criteria seems to be the first UK publication date. (I note that this has been the case previously too -- compare the 2013 official rules (warning ! dreaded pdf format !), but until now this has only affected books published in India, Australia, New Zealand, etc. -- and let's face it, if a book by an author from those places wasn't first published in the UK, or reached its shores within a year or two, no way it would get any serious Man Booker consideration; given how much is cranked out in the US, it's possible a smaller book with a slowly growing following might not have been immediately picked up in the UK but only gets there after five years or so -- it would then still apparently be Man Booker eligible.) [They really should address that, by the way -- a five- or ten-year cut-off date sounds like a good idea.]
The change in the submission guidelines are more troubling. While everyone will still have an opportunity to suggest titles to be called in that's a limited window (only between a minimum of eight and a maximum of twelve titles can be called in), and this new method (with its potential of a self-perpetuating cycle) favors big, established houses. Of course, the procedure is already fundamentally flawed -- in being in the hands of the publishers (the last folks who should be selecting what titles should be in the running for the prize) -- and, coupled with the complete lack of transparency (the Man Booker folk absurdly don't reveal which titles are in the running), this just reinforces an establishment status quo in an industry that really can't afford that. (The ridiculous rule that works by previously shortlisted authors automatically qualify -- absurd for what is ostensibly a book prize to focus on an author's previous accomplishments -- is yet another status-quo-maintaining nail in this prize's gilded coffin.)
Many people already got reactions out of their systems when the rumor of these changes surfaced over the weekend (see my previous discussion), but, of course, this fans the flames.
So, for example, Philip Hensher is entirely aghast, writing 'Well, that's the end of the Booker prize, then' at The Guardian's Book Blog -- and going rather far in claiming: "It will be a brave Booker panel in 2014 that doesn't give the prize to an American novel" (which seems a tad ... premature, to say the least). He -- and A.S.Byatt, whom he quotes on the issue -- also worry: "about what will happen when the number of submissions increases next year" -- though I imagine the Man Booker folk did the math and find that by limiting most publishers to a single submission the total will, at worst, be in the same 100-150 range it's been in recent years.
Meanwhile, at The Economist's Prospero-weblog R.B. is more sanguine, in World Booker day -- not worried about the international expansion, but voicing some concerns if the number of titles under consideration increases (as noted above: I imagine they determined it won't.)
If nothing else, they'll generate a ton of publicity and attention, now and next year.