Tonight we start our Salon study of Midnight’s Children, the ‘Booker of Bookers’. I am wondering about the criticism levied against the works shortlisted that are considered “too readable”. Gets us back to the issue of what makes a great work of literature; is the first criteria that it is difficult to read?


Powered by Guardian.co.ukThis article titled “Man Booker Prize: a history of controversy, criticism and literary greats” was written by Katy Stoddard, for guardian.co.uk on Tuesday 18th October 2011 10.41 UTC

One lucky author will receive the Man Booker Prize 2011 tonight, walking away with £50,000 (and record-breaking sales).

The award began in 1968 when Booker McConnell Ltd, a “firm dealing in sugar, rum, mining machinery, and James Bond”, announced a £5,000 prize for fiction to be awarded to a British or Commonwealth author. WL Webb, the Guardian’s literary editor at the time, was one of five judges.

The inaugural winner, in April 1969, was PH Newby, a BBC controller, for his work Something to Answer For. In an interview with the Guardian when the prize was announced, he said that he might “build a new study” with his winnings.

The Booker has been mired in controversy almost from the beginning. In November 1972, winning author John Berger protested against Booker McConnell’s activities in the Caribbean by donating half of his £5,000 prize to the British Black Panther movement.

While some winners have long faded into obscurity, several literary giants grace the winners list. Iris Murdoch won in 1978, for her work The Sea, the Sea; Salman Rushdie triumphed with Midnight’s Children in 1981; and Kinglsey Amis, AS Byatt and JM Coetzee have all claimed the prize (the latter twice, in 1983 and 1999).

Perhaps the biggest literary battle came in October 1980, when William Golding (Rites of Passage) squared off against Anthony Burgess (Earthly Powers). Burgess refused to attend the ceremony unless he could be guaranteed a win. He couldn’t, and Golding triumphed on the night.

This year’s shortlisted authors have spoken out against library cuts, Julian Barnes describing them as “a kind of national self-mutilation”, but they’re not the first Booker writers to support libraries.

In 1981, nominee John Banville wrote a letter to the Guardian requesting that the prize be given to him forthwith; with the prize fund he would buy every copy of the longlisted books in Ireland and donate them to libraries, “thus ensuring that the books not only are bought but also read – surely a unique occurence.” Sadly the judges didn’t comply, but he did win in 2005, for The Sea.

As the prize grew, so did its influence on sales, particularly once the ceremony was televised. With popularity came ridicule, as in this cartoon from 1980.

A leading article in 1984 called for “a year of wit and dexterity and literary larking”, for a winner to be judged on “pure enjoyment” rather than “assumed grandeur”.

By 1994, the tide had turned and the Booker was losing credibility, Richard Gott describing the prize as “a significant and dangerous iceberg in the sea of British culture that serves as a symbol of its current malaise.”

This year’s shortlist, denounced by some as “too readable”, may be the last to hold sway over literary editors, if not over what the public reads: a new Literature prize, to be awarded to more literary works, was announced last week.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Item added to cart.
0 items - £0.00