So tomorrow they're going to announce the twelve or thirteen title-strong longlist for the Man Booker Prize, selected from, apparently (it's what 'Booker Prize Foundation Literary Director' Ion Trewin says), 147 novels that were considered.
What they won't be telling you is what those 147 titles were, so aside from the longlisted titles, and, possibly, the handful of automatically eligible titles (any novel by a previously shortlisted author that appeared in the 1 October 2011 - 30 September 2012 publishing window may be entered (rule 4 (a)), though it is not clear that they (all) actually have been ...) the public won't have the foggiest idea of what titles were actually in the running for this prize (which, I remind you, claims to be "rewarding the best novel of the year written by a citizen of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland" -- a dubious assertion if we can't even be sure that the arguably best novels have actually been submitted for consideration ...).
At the risk of beating a very dead horse -- I've been bleating about this for about a decade, and practically no one seems to have gotten on board with this argument with any enthusiasm -- I, yet again, make my case:
It seems pretty obvious to me that, in claiming to judge anything, the least you can do is acknowledge who, or what you're actually judging. The Man Booker folk (and many other literary prizes) fudge this by focusing on their 'we're-judging-the-best-book'-claim -- without ever revealing what their starting point is. The Man Booker is a particularly egregious case of misrepresentation, since they, at this time, only allow each publisher to submit two titles -- when, obviously, many publishers have many more titles that should or could be in the running.
Yes, there are some possibilities for other books to slip in -- judges can (indeed, must) 'call in' titles recommended by publishers (publishers can 'recommend' up to five additional titles):
Failsafe ? Surely hardly ......
It is entirely unclear to me why the full list of all titles under consideration -- 147 this year -- isn't made public, so that the public can be certain that the best of the lot were, indeed, considered for the prize.
Instead: "All submissions are made on a confidential basis".
Why on earth would or should that be ? The only explanation I -- cynic, and deeply suspicious of all things publishers do -- can conceive of is that publishers want to continue to be able to lie to their authors and claim that they submitted their novels for consideration when, in fact, they didn't.
I note also that no one -- no one, and certainly not the Man Booker folk -- has ever given me a better explanation. Or, indeed, any explanation.
With the Olympics starting soon, I would compare this situation to one where the public was not told who the competitors for the 100 meter dash were until the semi-finals. Nations could nominate whoever they wanted for the preliminary heats, but those would be held without the public knowing who ran in them. Only in the twelve or thirteen-strong semi-final heats would the remaining sprinters' names be revealed.
Absurd, you say ? Nations surely would simply enter those with the fastest times, and everyone knows those ..... But as anyone who has followed various national Olympic qualifications knows, even where there is such an 'objective' measure, it isn't quite that simple.
With books it obviously gets even more complicated, and publishers (like nations) have a strong incentive to promote or push a particular kind of book and author. I remain convinced that especially with the Man Booker publishers try to promote a specific kind of book (which is also why I have to laugh every year when Ian Rankin et al. moan about no crime fiction title making the longlist, certain as I am that none of Ian Rankin's (et al.'s) books have come within a mile of being submitted or suggested for the Man Booker ...). And I'm pretty sure that, every year, they don't even consider several (and possibly quite many) of the best of the theoretically eligible titles. Which kind of undermines that whole rewarding-the-best-book claim.
Amazingly, transparency isn't very popular. Few literary prizes allow it.
Good for the Guardian first book award for listing all the submitted titles (and soliciting additional ones !) -- even if it was the first time last year.
Good for the Canadian Governor General's Literary Awards, which lists all submitted titles (even if they don't make it easy for you to find where they offer that information ...).
Good for small prizes like the Helen and Kurt Wolff Translator's Prize, or the ILAB Breslauer Prize for Bibliography.
And there are some other prizes offering reasonable transparency: the International IMPAC DUBLIN Literary Award longlist -- hey, 147 titles strong ! -- reveals the names of all the nominated titles. The Best Translated Book Award basically considers everything that's eligible -- just check the translation database for the full list -- (though admittedly the logistics of getting our hands on all the books means that doesn't quite work out ...).
But pretty much everyone else .....
There's been relatively little pre-Man Booker longlist coverage (see my recent mention), but I hope once the longlist is out there will be at least some outrage (okay, I'll settle for mentions ...) about the fact that we have no idea what books were actually considered for it, and nobody's telling .....
Or are some of those judges, or the administrators willing to be upfront with us ?
What they won't be telling you is what those 147 titles were, so aside from the longlisted titles, and, possibly, the handful of automatically eligible titles (any novel by a previously shortlisted author that appeared in the 1 October 2011 - 30 September 2012 publishing window may be entered (rule 4 (a)), though it is not clear that they (all) actually have been ...) the public won't have the foggiest idea of what titles were actually in the running for this prize (which, I remind you, claims to be "rewarding the best novel of the year written by a citizen of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland" -- a dubious assertion if we can't even be sure that the arguably best novels have actually been submitted for consideration ...).
At the risk of beating a very dead horse -- I've been bleating about this for about a decade, and practically no one seems to have gotten on board with this argument with any enthusiasm -- I, yet again, make my case:
It seems pretty obvious to me that, in claiming to judge anything, the least you can do is acknowledge who, or what you're actually judging. The Man Booker folk (and many other literary prizes) fudge this by focusing on their 'we're-judging-the-best-book'-claim -- without ever revealing what their starting point is. The Man Booker is a particularly egregious case of misrepresentation, since they, at this time, only allow each publisher to submit two titles -- when, obviously, many publishers have many more titles that should or could be in the running.
Yes, there are some possibilities for other books to slip in -- judges can (indeed, must) 'call in' titles recommended by publishers (publishers can 'recommend' up to five additional titles):
The judges will be required to call in no fewer than eight and no more than 12 of these titles.And, if publishers completely miss the boat (which, to me at least, seems highly likely) they can even call in titles that haven't officially been recommended by publishers (because, of course, they have so much time on their hands beyond dealing with the 147 submitted titles to check out the ones that might have been overlooked ...).
Failsafe ? Surely hardly ......
It is entirely unclear to me why the full list of all titles under consideration -- 147 this year -- isn't made public, so that the public can be certain that the best of the lot were, indeed, considered for the prize.
Instead: "All submissions are made on a confidential basis".
Why on earth would or should that be ? The only explanation I -- cynic, and deeply suspicious of all things publishers do -- can conceive of is that publishers want to continue to be able to lie to their authors and claim that they submitted their novels for consideration when, in fact, they didn't.
I note also that no one -- no one, and certainly not the Man Booker folk -- has ever given me a better explanation. Or, indeed, any explanation.
With the Olympics starting soon, I would compare this situation to one where the public was not told who the competitors for the 100 meter dash were until the semi-finals. Nations could nominate whoever they wanted for the preliminary heats, but those would be held without the public knowing who ran in them. Only in the twelve or thirteen-strong semi-final heats would the remaining sprinters' names be revealed.
Absurd, you say ? Nations surely would simply enter those with the fastest times, and everyone knows those ..... But as anyone who has followed various national Olympic qualifications knows, even where there is such an 'objective' measure, it isn't quite that simple.
With books it obviously gets even more complicated, and publishers (like nations) have a strong incentive to promote or push a particular kind of book and author. I remain convinced that especially with the Man Booker publishers try to promote a specific kind of book (which is also why I have to laugh every year when Ian Rankin et al. moan about no crime fiction title making the longlist, certain as I am that none of Ian Rankin's (et al.'s) books have come within a mile of being submitted or suggested for the Man Booker ...). And I'm pretty sure that, every year, they don't even consider several (and possibly quite many) of the best of the theoretically eligible titles. Which kind of undermines that whole rewarding-the-best-book claim.
Amazingly, transparency isn't very popular. Few literary prizes allow it.
Good for the Guardian first book award for listing all the submitted titles (and soliciting additional ones !) -- even if it was the first time last year.
Good for the Canadian Governor General's Literary Awards, which lists all submitted titles (even if they don't make it easy for you to find where they offer that information ...).
Good for small prizes like the Helen and Kurt Wolff Translator's Prize, or the ILAB Breslauer Prize for Bibliography.
And there are some other prizes offering reasonable transparency: the International IMPAC DUBLIN Literary Award longlist -- hey, 147 titles strong ! -- reveals the names of all the nominated titles. The Best Translated Book Award basically considers everything that's eligible -- just check the translation database for the full list -- (though admittedly the logistics of getting our hands on all the books means that doesn't quite work out ...).
But pretty much everyone else .....
There's been relatively little pre-Man Booker longlist coverage (see my recent mention), but I hope once the longlist is out there will be at least some outrage (okay, I'll settle for mentions ...) about the fact that we have no idea what books were actually considered for it, and nobody's telling .....
Or are some of those judges, or the administrators willing to be upfront with us ?