The Man Booker prize for fiction

Literature, prizes and some hoo-ha

The Economist, Oct 20th 2011, 11:39 by R.B. | LONDON

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2011/10/man-booker-prize-fictionTHE Man Booker Prize for Fiction is over for another year, awarded on October 18th to Julian Barnes for “The Sense of an Ending”. But the fuss that this year’s Booker shortlist provoked will continue to play out.

When the judges announced their choice of six shortlisted books in September, many commentators pronounced the books (which included one by The Economist’s own A.D. Miller) light, slight and dumbed-down. Dame Stella Rimington, chair of the judges and former head of MI5, was castigated for saying that the judges were looking for “enjoyable books” with “readability”. The row has brewed in the press and beyond: former judges have offered alternate lists; in a fit of pique, a group of critics even claim to be setting up a new rival to the Booker, “The Literature Prize”, which they say will set a standard of excellence.

Journalists (and I include myself) always try to find a story around the Booker. I remember writing news stories in the past commenting that all the books were “historical” for example, as though this showed a bias or a prejudice on the part of the panel. The other favourite comment is to note who was left out—though some famous authors will always be left off such lists, since almost no one writes a superb book every time.

When I was a judge myself I realised how dim these comments were. That was last year, and the press noted that we had a “comic” list and tried to draw us on this theme. Were we looking for funny books? No. Did we think funny books were particularly piercing in times of recession and uncertainty? No. In truth, I didn’t even think the novels on our list were particularly funny. I just thought they were good. I suspect that, for all the furore, this year’s panel believes the same.

The choice of Mr Barnes to win the 2011 Booker prize will quell some of the angst that has swelled in recent weeks. He is a brilliant and renowned writer; this was the fourth time he had been shortlisted. “The Sense of an Ending” is not his best book, in my view (I think “Flaubert’s Parrot” is outstanding). But this new novel may well be the best book of this year, and that is what the Booker judges are choosing.

But the row raises some bigger questions about what such prizes—and particularly this prize—are for. Mr Barnes has been criticised for once labelling the Booker “posh bingo”, but in a sense he is right. It is a competition. It is valued, and rightly so, because it is a competition about something that many people, including myself, think is important: literature. And it’s to fiction’s credit that we expect its product to be good, unlike the Turner prize for contemporary art, for example, which has yielded much brilliant art but is best known for the works that many people consider tosh.

Prizes perform many functions. They are great for the winner, give a boost to the runners up and, most importantly, they provide a lasting measure of the best contemporary fiction from any year. But it’s a good idea not to get too pious about all of this. There are thousands of novels published each year, too many to read or even sample. Prizes such as the Booker are there to guide readers through the morass of paper (or electronic ink) to work that they may think is good. There are other ways to find new titles: bestseller lists, review pages, personal recommendations, even serendipity. But prizes are useful. The judges are not gods, and reading and judging is not a science. But perhaps if judges were treated more like personal shoppers of the book world, this would all work a bit better—they introduce the reading public to authors and books they might not have picked up, hoping that at least some will suit them.

Since the judging panel for every book prize in Britain changes every year, it sometimes seems strange to talk about “the Booker tradition”, any more than it does to consider what sort of book might win the Orange prize, say, or what might please the judges of the Costa. There has been a proliferation of book prizes since Booker started, with awards for romantic fiction, science writing, business books and others. And it seems exciting to me, as well, that people still care enough literature to make a fuss about it. I think it’s in poor form that a new prize should be set up in anger. But I don’t think it will do the Booker any harm if it goes ahead, and it will give readers another chance to hear the choices of yet another group of people who they may or may not agree with.

In my view, there aren’t that many truly brilliant books in the world. All successful fiction is a reflection of the self in some way (both of the writer and the reader), and contemporary literature often tells us a lot about the preoccupations of our time. But of the very many books published every year, most are mediocre at best and very few will stand the test of time. It is a tribute to this year’s shortlisted authors that their books have sold so well, better than any previous year. It is also true that most bestseller lists are made up of much more mainstream authors, and that the sort of literary fiction Booker judges prize remains a minority sport.

My recommendation, having seen the hoo-ha this year’s prize provoked, would be that people should read this shortlist. They should also read the other books commentators say should have been there. And maybe they should wander into a book shop and pick up a couple more titles that they’ve never heard anyone mention. However perfect a judging panel, there’s simply no other way to decide which book may win the heart and soul of any single reader.