The Birdcage Archives

Thursday 5 April 2018

The Booker Prize Crisis Thickens

Hello Gentle Reader

Due to a leaked letter, earlier this year it came to the literary world’s attention that publishers within the United Kingdom, felt the Booker Prize had lost its unique edge as a literary award, since its decided to expand itself beyond the United Kingdom and the commonwealth, and include American authors. The decision was ambivalent then, mixed with muted praise, and assaulted by the hisses and groans of those who felt betrayed and deserted by the prizes decision. The criticism has been swift and severe. The Booker Prize defends its decision for being inclusive to American authors, as an attempt to diversify the literary map and showcase talent throughout the broad spectrum of the English speaking world. Critics have lambasted this attempt at diversification as doing the complete opposite; they have stated the award has only homogenized the award, where independent publishers are being choked out, unknown authors are smothered, and the award is dominated and prevailed by already established literary figures from the United States and the United Kingdom.

Not everyone has agreed with the Armageddon prediction and criticism these publishers have voiced. Some as already stated support the decision as an act of recognizing the globalized world as a greater force of optimism and positive literary and cultural exchanges. Others have stated this desire for isolationistic principles is counterproductive, in a world which should seek to eliminate borders and boundaries of cultural exchange.

As for the American side of the argument, well they’ve been rather apathetic about the ordeal, and perhaps even slightly amused at what their presence has done for a literary award.

Now, however, prominent authors and leading critics have added their voice to the chorus, with regards to the debate surrounding the two-thousand and fourteen decisions.  Members from the Rathbones Folio Academy (the academy which awards the Folio Prize, a competitor to the Booker Prize), have added their voice of dissent against the Booker Prize’s decision. 99% of the academy members—which includes: Margaret Atwood, Jim Grace, Zadie Smith, Damian Barr and Kevin Barry; have all stated they believe the Booker Prize should reverse its decision to allow American authors for being eligible for the award.

A member of the Rathbones Folio Academy, Tessa Hadley, lamented loss the early uniqueness of the award, when it was exclusively open for writers from the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth (a term which engulfs: Ireland, South Africa, India, and Pakistan), in which the countries who share a unique post-colonial structure and history, were in a sense ‘talking,’ or having a ‘conversation,’ through the exchange of literature and perspective. Tessa Hadley explains with greater elucidation below:

“The Man Booker used to provide a point of focus each year for British and Commonwealth fiction: a sense that this had some identity-in-difference, and that British and Commonwealth novels were in some sense ‘talking to one another’ ... now it’s as though we’re perceived – and perceive ourselves – as only a subset of US fiction, lost in its margins – and, eventually, this dilution of the community of writers plays out in the writing.”’ (quoted from The Guardian article, by Sian Cain, link below)  

Even, John Banville, who originally supported the idea of the Booker Prize taking on a inclusion policy, has found the notion rather underwhelming and perhaps unsatisfactory. Banville claims the award has lost its cultural uniqueness, and as a result been reduced to a commonplace rudimentary prize, which exists only to promote and reward established authors. Banville then encourages the Booker Prize Foundation to reverse their decision, however uncomfortable it maybe.

Yet, the Booker Prize Foundation has not made any inclination it will reverse its decision and has in fact remained firm in its decision to include American authors in its selection process. Critics have also drawn up battle lines on where they stand on either decision of the award. Though the majority refute and claim the Booker Prize is now reduced to second hand glory with little to no relevance in the world; the few who support the rule change, claim the majority are paranoid and self-conscious about the new world’s competitive capabilities for an award. Yet interestingly enough, most of the squabbling and criticism comes from the United Kingdom itself, with its own writers and its own publishers. Once again, the elephant in the room remains either amused or apathetic to the situation.

Of course one only needs to wonder: the closer the prize comes to announcing its longlist and shortlist, what criticism and controversy will the judges have to endure? What accusations and allegations will they need to answer to? Needless to say, with an award fraught with discord and tension, I don't envy their position -- that is if they are influenced by this external white noise. 

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read

M. Mary

"Top authors make mass call on Man Booker to drop American writers,"

by, Sian Cain 


No comments:

Post a Comment