Hello
Gentle Reader
Once
again now four years later, The Booker Prize finds itself under attack; only
this time it is from publishers, and not writers or the general reading public.
In a letter to The Booker Prize Foundation, thirty publishers are promoting
(and begging) that the award revoke its two-thousand and fourteen decision, to
include American writers. The publishers lambast the decision, and have called
its attempts at ‘diversifying the literary world,’ a failure, and in fact claim
the decision to include American writers in the prize, has only homogenized the
award. Since The Booker Prize has made the decision to be more inclusive of
American writers, there has been a steady pattern to show the shortlist has
been dominated by British and American writers. The publishers showcase this
more prevalent trend when reviewing last year’s shortlist in comparison to the shortlist
of the two-thousand and thirteen award. Since the decision has been made only
two American writers have walked away with the prize, but this does not change
that the literary horserace landscape has become dominated by American and
British writers, as they compete for the award. This leaves one to wonder: who
is being overlooked, in favour of more established writers from Britain or
America.
Not
everyone, however, agrees with the publishers doom and gloom perspective, and
have chalked their end of the world pontification, as simple paranoia. Many call
the act of inclusion a testament of globalization, and the collapse of
geographical boundaries. Others have called the letter isolationistic in its
perspective, where in the most subtle changes the letter attempts to promote a:
“British First,” policy on a literary stage. These same critics of the letter
and subsequent publishers think the publishers and the writers should welcome
the challenge of competition of American writers, competing for the prize.
As,
for the American reading public: apparently they don’t car. In one “Washington
Post,” article, the journalist/author pleaded that Britain take the award back,
as the reading public over there didn’t much care.
The
Booker Prize foundation did respond to the letter with the following statement:
“The
Man Booker prize expanded in 2014 to allow writers of any nationality,
regardless of geography, to enter the prize providing that they are writing in
English and published in the UK. The rule was not created specifically to
include American writers.”
My
personal response to the above statement is: then who was supposed to be
included in the award; as it American writes have been the ones to have benefit
from the award. In my opinion the above statement is nothing more than cheap
lip service. It exists to defend the decision, without much elucidation beyond
that.
The
truth is Gentle Reader, The Booker Prize, is in dire straits—even before the
foundation had decided to include the award American writers. The award itself
has been stuffy and stagnant, its shortlists (besides the few exceptions) are
generally filled with the same old usual candidates: those genteel straight
white starched British men; or the polite and becoming dames of British
literature. Its lacked diversity for quite some time, and it’s lacked any real
revolutionary perspective in recent memory. I believe, the foundation, sought
to curve this stagnation through the inclusion of American (or sorry: any
writer despite geographical location, who writes in English and is published in
the U.K.—so . . . . American) was an attempt and rejuvenating the award and
would revitalize its status as a pristine literary award. Well it failed. The Booker
Prize still sits in its iron lung, left alone in some depleted hospital wing,
forgotten and alone, to suffer its slow decline in oblivion, whereupon it will
be: obsolete. If the Booker Prize foundation truly wishes to see the award
retain its former glory, it will need to make a better effort then to move way
from comfort and convention—if its sole goal is to be diverse. Yet, one only
wonders if that ship has already left the harbour, and will not return.
In
the end: the problem with the Booker Prize is not that it has included American
writer; rather the problem is its lack of imagination. Every year’s shortlist
looks and appears the same, the same usual suspects and candidates, the same
old writers, writing the same old book. This is the death of the Booker Prize—its
lack of ability to go beyond the conventional. In a world riddled with the same
old suspects, only hopes an Elfriede Jelinek comes along and shakes up the
status quo.
Thank-you
For Reading Gentle Reader
Take
Care
And
As Always
Stay
Well Read
M.
Mary
for further information please see the following article by "The Guardian,"
No comments:
Post a Comment