So That's How They Pick a Book Prize
Marianne Wiggins answers a few questions and reveals quite a lot in this piece in the Los Angeles Times, an insider's guide to the fiction judging table at this year's National Book Awards.
Among the interesting tidbits -- that the Pynchon was late due to last minute rewrites (what publisher in his or her right mind would tell people this?), that two books most readers hadn't heard of -- Peter Behrens' "The Law of Dreams" and "White Guys" by Anthony Giardina -- were favorites, that judge #4 (who is pretty much given away), personally planted Mark Danielewski's "Only Revolutions" on the list, and that Philip Roth's "Everyman" was admired by all.
It seems a shame that Roth was ushered aside simply not to be insulted, but this raises a question that I think will be on a lot of prize-makers minds in years to come. As writers live and presumably work longer -- though the likelihood of them writing at Roth's level is unlikely -- the question of how younger novelists will unseat the senators, as Ian McEwan has called America's establishment voices, will grow.
Do judging committees try to read blindly for the best book? Is it even possible to do this? Do prizes exist to give new voices a chance? There aren't really any clear answers to these questions. What to one person seems fair will seem outlandish to another. So for all the griping about how there are too many prizes, it's good there's a handful. That way, all the writers -- be they senators or junior pages -- get their chance at recognition.
**
posted by John Freeman 8:38:00 PM
10 Comments:
You say that judge #4 is pretty much given away in the first article. Do you mean Updike? I know he's Roth's friend, and he's the only other old white guy left from that period (minus Mailer- wait, is it Mailer? argh), and I guess it makes sense, Updike being one of the only fans left of pure stylistic innovation like Danielewski. Just drop me a hint so I know if I'm barking up the right tree. Thanks.
Oooh, no, the five judges were Marianne Wiggins, obviously, Craig Nova, David Plante, Jonathan Lethem, and Bharati Mukherjee...
As a novelist who has twice been on a judging panel for a book prize (the L.L. Winship Award, for best book from a New England writer), the only thing in Wiggins's piece that surprised me was the "uh oh" moment when the judges realized they had only male writers on their final list. This revelation engendered a seemingly frantic reshuffle, adding one woman (who must have felt a bit queasy reading Wiggins's piece, but not as queasy as the eleventh-hour rejects), ditching Roth because he wouldn't win anyway, and letting judge #4 muscle in a book nobody else could "fathom." Now they had a "list" (as opposed to "books")they could agree on. I'd love to read part 2 of this saga -- and I'll bet there is one!
I know The Law of Dreams is "unknown" in the US, but it did just (11/21) win the Governor-General's Award in Canada, & will be published by Canongate in the UK & Ireland in May 07, & Text in Australia; & has sold (so far) foreign language rights in Germany, Italy, France & Holland; and RH will bring out the trade paperback in fall 07.
Congratulations Mr. Berhrens. I wish I could make apologies for what is known and unknown here, but since William Faulkner was practically out of print in the '50s, Richard Yates, too, I think that puts you in good company.
I found Wiggins' essay to be on the queasy side, not because there shouldn't be a candid discussion of how prize winners are selected, but because I was under the impression that NBA judges had to sign non-disclosure agreements (or maybe she did and decided to defy it, who knows?) Did we really need to know that Spiotta and Kalfus were "last minute" entries designed to give the list an overall flavor? It was all well and good to show who favored what book but when the judges list is made public, not identifying who was who seemed more disingenuous than a real attempt to conceal identity.
Come to think of it, Wiggins is the only NBA judge who has spoken publicly. Is this because she really wants to open things up to the public, or because this is more about her?
You're right. There is a fine line here, I think, between illuminating procedure and accidentally, perhaps, belittling the achievement of being named a finalist. For this reason the NBCC chose a while back not to reveal our the content of our deliberations.
I had the exact same reaction as Monica Wood when I read that Spiotta was included as a finalist because the list read 'too male.' I felt bad because I thought Eat the Document was a great book, deserving of being on the final list, but really... I wonder how its author felt after reading Wiggins describe how the book was put in last minute at the expense of another book that was actually championed by the judges. Doesn't seem right, that process.
Wasn't there a dustup a few years ago about the NBA nonfiction list? One of the judges admitted not having read some of the finalists? Maybe judges shouldn't talk about the process at all (and John is right that most panels agree not to), but I found Wiggins's article enlightening, to say the least. Literary panels always seem so rarified from the outside, but usually they consist of ill-matched personalities trying to agree on something ridiculously subjective. John, if there is part two (or three, four, five) to this, I hope you'll link it.
Well, I suppose the follow-up could be with other awards. How did the Times come to their decision on the Editor's Choice? Closer to the announcement of our finalists I'm going to post something about our method....
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home