October 13, 2010
What worth an award?
by Melville House
Who cares about the bloody prize, listen to this...
As we’ve already reported, Lee Rourke‘s The Canal is the co-winner of The Guardian‘s Not The Booker prize alongside Matthew Hooton‘s Deloume Road. It’s been a grand year so far for Rourke and indie/underground literary prizes. He has now won Opium’s “Literary Death Match – London,” the first round of Amazon UK’s “Rising Stars” contest, and now 50% of the Not The Booker
The “Not the Booker” prize was awarded in a purely democratic fashion and like most democracies it was far from amicable–indeed, it often turned downright nasty. Sam Jordison, the event’s moderator, lone literary critic, and sole authority figure was so displeased with the initial “Not The Booker” shortlist that he called for a recount in hopes that another, more conventional, list of titles be considered. When the original shortlist was again selected, Jordison proceeded to write scathing reviews of each title, his critical tone wavering between vague dismissal (“I was less than convinced by this story of family dysfunction and feline fantasy.”) and snide condescension ( “Written for teenagers –one hopes — this novel reminded me why I avoided such books even as an adolescent.”).
(His review of The Canal, while grudgingly admiring, tended to damn with faint praise: “If you want ennui, you’re still better off sticking with the French. But that’s not to say that Rourke doesn’t have plenty to offer.”
Even in his Not The Booker award presentation, Jordison remained dismissive of the contest, displeased with the winners, and disparaging of the voters. “The quality of the novels,” he writes, “has played second fiddle to the quantity of names in the contact books of those promoting them.” He concludes by saying, “[O]ne of the most interesting conclusions that many seem to have drawn is that the prizes they generally viewed as stuffy and traditionalist might not be so bad, after all.” Surely, Jordison seems to suggest, The Booker judges must be above all the ugly politics and social networking of the riffraff.
In response, I’d like to point out that The Booker itself–like all literary prizes–is the imperfect result of literary bickering, in-fighting, and vote wrangling by semi-arbitrary judges with highly subjective concepts of literary worth. As evidence, I present The Guardian‘s own delightfully illuminating article in which former Booker judges describe the behind-the-scenes power struggles and petty squabbles leading up to each Booker prize. Here are a few characteristic quotes:
Ion Trewin (1974):
At the shortlist meeting, Jane [Howard] remarked that she thought Ending Up by Kingsley Amis (then her husband) was his best book and should go on the shortlist.
Susan Hill (1975):
Roy Fuller was not the easiest man to work with. He was acerbic and disliked being contradicted, and when it came to choosing a shortlist he refused to join in.
Francis King (1976):
Mary Wilson, a lover of poetry and herself an artless but often touching poet, was at the disadvantage of having read few novels in the course of her life – so that she was clearly puzzled when I referred to one of the submissions as “Kafkaesque”.
Beryl Bainbridge (1977):
I put my vote forward… but the discussion on it lasted only about three minutes, because it was such a short book. So nobody was really interested in that. All I can remember of the final meeting is that I got terribly tired, I literally sank lower and lower under the table.
Derwent May (1978)
In 1978, all the five jury members had a different first choice, and they were all sticking to it. Suddenly someone suggested a compromise candidate that we all quite liked, but it seemed to me that we were now heading for disaster. Freddie Ayer, the chairman, had more or less pulled out, saying that the only novels he enjoyed reading were crime novels. So I went round the jury…and said to them in turn “Is this book your first choice?” All, rather sheepishly, said “No”
Hilary Spurling (1979):
We’d spent the entire afternoon at loggerheads, and in the end compromised by giving the prize to everybody’s second choice, Penelope Fitzgerald‘s small, slight, melancholy but beautifully judged and executed Offshore. Her recently published collected letters make it clear that her triumph – and the general incredulity that greeted it – caused her humiliation ever after.
Paul Bailey (1982):
There are many things I regret doing, and being a judge for the Booker prize is one of them. For some years after I was associated with two novels I absolutely loathed and would not have even started reading in other circumstances.
David Lodge (1989):
[T]he overtly competitive nature of these prizes, heightened by the publication of longlists and shortlists, takes its psychological toll on writers; and, given the large element of chance in the composition and operation of judging panels, the importance now attached to prizes in our literary culture seems excessive. A committee is a blunt instrument of literary criticism.
Hilary Mantel (1990):
I’m glad I was a Booker judge relatively early in my career. It stopped me thinking that literary prizes are about literary value. Even the most correct jury goes in for horsetrading and gamesmanship, and what emerges is a compromise.
James Wood (1994):
[T]he absurdity of the process was soon apparent: it is almost impossible to persuade someone else of the quality or poverty of a selected novel (a useful lesson in the limits of literary criticism). In practice, judge A blathers on about his favourite novel for five minutes, and then judge B blathers on about her favourite novel for five minutes, and nothing changes: no one switches sides. That is when the horse-trading begins.
I could go on, but I think my point is pretty clear. The Booker Prize should be remembered mostly as an occasion for faulty decisions, shameless compromise, and remorse. There is no perfect system to separate the wheat from the chaff, and no rarified council that can pluck diamonds from the dross. Jordison’s denigration of the Not The Booker as a “wrangling contest” and praise for the Booker itself merely demonstrates how little he understands the true nature of the aesthetic battleground.
Do the best books win? Usually no. Does this mean that literary prizes are meaningless? Not necessarily. In the case of the Not The Booker, the prize means that The Canal and Deloume Road are novels that, for whatever reasons, attract extremely passionate, vocal, and loyal readers. That is all. And that is probably enough.
Despite their glaring flaws, the consequences of these literary prizes is undeniable. For the Booker, even when the judges fight and compromise, the effects are tremendous in terms of sales, prestige, and attention. For the Not The Booker it’s more difficult to say–though sales for The Canal did rise noticeably after the announcement. In the words of Marina Warner, yet another disillusioned Booker Prize judge, “I think that the best argument for the whole cruel and unfair business of prizes is that they can lead readers to writers who wouldn’t otherwise be read much or perhaps at all.” We couldn’t agree more.
Wes Anderson is making book trailers now? 
“A complex page-turning plot … a commentary on power, sex, corruption and poverty.” — Verve 
“I WOULD PREFER NOT TO” T-SHIRTS 
Check out some new titles from our 2012 summer catalog … 
10 Comments
This is an absurd -and pretty malicious – misrepresentation of my positions and my writing throughout the competition. I’m not going to get into a tit for tat argument about your egregious misrepresentation. I’d just ask anyone who reads this to read the original articles.
This is an absurd -and pretty malicious – misrepresentation of my positions and my writing throughout the competition. I’m not going to get into a tit for tat argument about your egregious misrepresentation. I’d just ask anyone who reads this to read the original articles.
Sam, I must point out that Nathan encourages people to read your original columns too, as he quotes from and links to each one that he discusses. One could also say such a brief and thin-skinned dismissal as yours, against such a detailed and thoughtful critique as his, rather reinforces Nathan’s point as well.
Sam, I must point out that Nathan encourages people to read your original columns too, as he quotes from and links to each one that he discusses. One could also say such a brief and thin-skinned dismissal as yours, against such a detailed and thoughtful critique as his, rather reinforces Nathan’s point as well.
Hi Sam,
I’m also hoping people read your original articles. I did, and had a lot of fun doing so. I much prefer the transparent nature of the Not the Booker to the infuriating opacity of other literary contests. I appreciate you hosting, curating, and, yes, lording over the competition.
That said, it seemed pretty clear from the beginning that you thought of the Not the Booker as a flawed, silly prize, and its “judges” as unserious or even corrupt. As you wrote, “For better or worse, the Not The Booker prize has long since ceased to be a literary competition.” (By the way, my habit of quoting you directly comes from a desire to represent you, rather than “misrepresent” you.)
I merely wanted to point out that that fractious nature of the Not the Booker is something common to ALL literary prizes. As the quotations from the Booker judges so powerfully demonstrate, literary prizes are twisted, political, and wrongheaded by nature. You CLEARLY didn’t think the “proper” books were shortlisted for your prize, so you made a point of undercutting them at every turn. You’re entitled to that opinion and I’m sure others agree with you. I’m also sure the two members of the Booker panel who voted against “The Finkler Question” are off at the pub explaining that The Booker has “ceased to be a literary competition.” Meanwhile the readers who love “The Finkler Question” (and “The Canal”) are across the street at a different pub, celebrating.
Cheers,
Nathan
p.s. Thanks Lorian, for your support! (It seemed “thin-skinned” to me too!)
Hi Sam,
I’m also hoping people read your original articles. I did, and had a lot of fun doing so. I much prefer the transparent nature of the Not the Booker to the infuriating opacity of other literary contests. I appreciate you hosting, curating, and, yes, lording over the competition.
That said, it seemed pretty clear from the beginning that you thought of the Not the Booker as a flawed, silly prize, and its “judges” as unserious or even corrupt. As you wrote, “For better or worse, the Not The Booker prize has long since ceased to be a literary competition.” (By the way, my habit of quoting you directly comes from a desire to represent you, rather than “misrepresent” you.)
I merely wanted to point out that that fractious nature of the Not the Booker is something common to ALL literary prizes. As the quotations from the Booker judges so powerfully demonstrate, literary prizes are twisted, political, and wrongheaded by nature. You CLEARLY didn’t think the “proper” books were shortlisted for your prize, so you made a point of undercutting them at every turn. You’re entitled to that opinion and I’m sure others agree with you. I’m also sure the two members of the Booker panel who voted against “The Finkler Question” are off at the pub explaining that The Booker has “ceased to be a literary competition.” Meanwhile the readers who love “The Finkler Question” (and “The Canal”) are across the street at a different pub, celebrating.
Cheers,
Nathan
p.s. Thanks Lorian, for your support! (It seemed “thin-skinned” to me too!)
haha! Clearly I can give but not take. As a critic I should know how to take such medicine…
I should also know not to return to comments boards in such dog-to-sick fashion. But then again, although I’m mainly amused by this article, I’m still slightly narked off by the thought that anyone could take such an innaccurate view as gospel. One of my biggest rules as a critic is to never knowingly misrepresent – which this article does in spades. If people do indeed click through the links and read my articles, and the comments, rather than these misleading summaries, I’ll be as pleased as I am surprised. If people also read the books and realise that my ‘scathing’ reviews were actually very kind, given what I was reviewing I’ll be even happier. And they’d also see that I certainly wasn’t scathing of “each title”, as it says here. I was very positive about Deloume Road and The Canal and pretty warm to The Cuckoo Boy too. The fact that I wrote three out of five positive reviews rather confuses your position, doesn’t it? I can see why you chose to massage things for the reasons of building your argument, but am still rather shocked that you should adopt such a low tactic. (I was also surprised to see the sub-editors’ summaries from the article stand-firsts quoted as my “dismissive” and “snide” words. That’s a pretty amateur mistake, dude.)
Meanwhile, that conclusion you attribute to me about the stuffy prizes is actually one that was drawn by commenters on the boards. Again, read my article and you’ll see I was just reporting other people’s words. I also have to take particular issue with that use of “seems to suggest”. That’s one of the dirtiest introductions of the straw-man I’ve seen for a long time! Hilarious! Of course I “suggest” nothing of the sort (as my joke about Booker judges not reading the books might actually, er, suggest.) That rather makes the whole rest of the article about the fickle nature of Booker judges redundant… Aside from that ‘whatever reasons’ sentence. Although the main reasons I’d suggest you insert were that they are friends and family of the writers and publishers. As many were happy to admit. And there’s nothing wrong with that, given the parameters of the competition.
Just one more point for now, the second list we drew up was a rather desperate measure, and as many people rightly pointed on the boards, an unworkable fix. What it wasn’t though was ‘more conventional’. Probably the one genuinely disappointing thing about the Not The Booker was how conventional most of the books on the list were. The Canal was the only one that tried to do anything new (or new in English language books). The Cuckoo Boy was the only one that was weird. The books on the other list are actually far stranger.
hey-ho. I’ve gone all tit-for-tat after all. I’m a fool! I hate myself! I’ve drunk too much coffee and should really do some proper work. But the main point I want to make is a more positive one. I wasn’t as annoyed with the competition as you suggest. I enjoyed it. I enjoyed the politics, dirty and fair. I thought all the talk about voting systems was fascinating and it provoked really interesting ideas about the pros and cons of every system. The fact that people were getting angry and passionate about books was also fantastic. Importantly, I really liked two of the books. There was no ‘grudge’ in my review of The Canal – I thought it was good. I just tried to give an honest summary instead of the enconium you would so obviously ‘seem’ to prefer.(Or is that a misrepresentation? Sorry!) I also liked Deloume Road. And in spite of the fact that The Cuckoo Boy was often appallingly bad, it had really strong qualities. Okay, the other two were a complete waste of my time. But so it goes…
haha! Clearly I can give but not take. As a critic I should know how to take such medicine…
I should also know not to return to comments boards in such dog-to-sick fashion. But then again, although I’m mainly amused by this article, I’m still slightly narked off by the thought that anyone could take such an innaccurate view as gospel. One of my biggest rules as a critic is to never knowingly misrepresent – which this article does in spades. If people do indeed click through the links and read my articles, and the comments, rather than these misleading summaries, I’ll be as pleased as I am surprised. If people also read the books and realise that my ‘scathing’ reviews were actually very kind, given what I was reviewing I’ll be even happier. And they’d also see that I certainly wasn’t scathing of “each title”, as it says here. I was very positive about Deloume Road and The Canal and pretty warm to The Cuckoo Boy too. The fact that I wrote three out of five positive reviews rather confuses your position, doesn’t it? I can see why you chose to massage things for the reasons of building your argument, but am still rather shocked that you should adopt such a low tactic. (I was also surprised to see the sub-editors’ summaries from the article stand-firsts quoted as my “dismissive” and “snide” words. That’s a pretty amateur mistake, dude.)
Meanwhile, that conclusion you attribute to me about the stuffy prizes is actually one that was drawn by commenters on the boards. Again, read my article and you’ll see I was just reporting other people’s words. I also have to take particular issue with that use of “seems to suggest”. That’s one of the dirtiest introductions of the straw-man I’ve seen for a long time! Hilarious! Of course I “suggest” nothing of the sort (as my joke about Booker judges not reading the books might actually, er, suggest.) That rather makes the whole rest of the article about the fickle nature of Booker judges redundant… Aside from that ‘whatever reasons’ sentence. Although the main reasons I’d suggest you insert were that they are friends and family of the writers and publishers. As many were happy to admit. And there’s nothing wrong with that, given the parameters of the competition.
Just one more point for now, the second list we drew up was a rather desperate measure, and as many people rightly pointed on the boards, an unworkable fix. What it wasn’t though was ‘more conventional’. Probably the one genuinely disappointing thing about the Not The Booker was how conventional most of the books on the list were. The Canal was the only one that tried to do anything new (or new in English language books). The Cuckoo Boy was the only one that was weird. The books on the other list are actually far stranger.
hey-ho. I’ve gone all tit-for-tat after all. I’m a fool! I hate myself! I’ve drunk too much coffee and should really do some proper work. But the main point I want to make is a more positive one. I wasn’t as annoyed with the competition as you suggest. I enjoyed it. I enjoyed the politics, dirty and fair. I thought all the talk about voting systems was fascinating and it provoked really interesting ideas about the pros and cons of every system. The fact that people were getting angry and passionate about books was also fantastic. Importantly, I really liked two of the books. There was no ‘grudge’ in my review of The Canal – I thought it was good. I just tried to give an honest summary instead of the enconium you would so obviously ‘seem’ to prefer.(Or is that a misrepresentation? Sorry!) I also liked Deloume Road. And in spite of the fact that The Cuckoo Boy was often appallingly bad, it had really strong qualities. Okay, the other two were a complete waste of my time. But so it goes…
Hey! Where are you?! Come out and play!
Hey! Where are you?! Come out and play!