Cultural Capital

Reflections on books and the arts from the New Statesman culture desk

Is it time for a new literary prize?

Leading figures in the publishing world think so.

By Jonathan Derbyshire Published 12 October 2011 13:22

I blogged yesterday about the misgivings expressed here and elsewhere about this year's Man Booker Prize shortlist. I ended by observing that "some in the literary world are wondering if it isn't time to start another prize altogether".

What should land in my inbox this morning but an email from the literary agent Andrew Kidd announcing the launch of a new literary prize. Kidd's announcement begins:

The Literature Prize will be for the best novel written in the English language and published in the UK in a given year, and a writer's country of origin will not be a factor. Our aim is to establish a clear and uncompromising standard of excellence, and the prize judges will be selected in rotation from an academy of experts in the field of literature.

A "clear and uncompromising standard of excellence" - now that would be something, wouldn't it? That Kidd and his supporters (John Banville, Pat Barker, Mark Haddon, Jackie Kay, Nicole Krauss and Claire Messud have all endorsed the venture) see the Literature Prize as an alternative to the Booker is made clear later on:

The prize will offer readers a selection of novels that, in the view of these expert judges, are unsurpassed in their quality and ambition. For many years this brief was fulfilled by the Booker (latterly the Man Booker) Prize. But as numerous statements by that prize's administrator and this year's judges illustrate, it now prioritises a notion of "readability" over artistic achievement.

Kidd says the new prize's advisory board are currently soliciting funding and that an announcement about this will be made soon. Watch this space.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Man Booker Prize

More from Jonathan Derbyshire

9 comments

Thu, 2011-10-13 09:04 — DK (not verified)

What's happening to the Booker prize is quite similar to the emphasis on "impact" in assessing research quality in the universities. We all know that the phrase "readable book" really means "one that sells well," just as "impact" very largely means economic impact, and we're moving to a view that culture, thought, and scholarship have no meaning unless they make profits for someone. The whole point of a literary prize is to draw attention to precisely those works which are likely to be lost in the marketplace, to a give a platform to forms of writing whose demands will lead them to be marginalised in a market context. Prizes should be educational, not simply kudos to top sellers.

Thu, 2011-10-13 09:27 — swatantra nandanwar

You really have to question the whole question of Criticism and Critics. They are determining your tastes, or are they leading your tastes? Panels of Judges like Committees will argue theiride and then prbably come to a compromise decision. That probably explains the last Prize awarded.
But in most cases it does lead to recognition of the new authors and ist the case that they are only as good as their next work, or are we recognising their past contribution to Literature, as the Nobel Prize does? Maybe we should justgive Prizes to authors who are dead.

Thu, 2011-10-13 13:43 — David Hatton (not verified)

I hope the literary prize continues. As a debut writer trying to make it big in this industry I hope to win one myself some day. I frequently write a blog on the writing process http://davidhattonwritersblog.blogspot.com/

Wed, 2011-10-12 14:45 — swatantra (not verified)

No. Not another one.
There are just too many prizes going around.
The Booker, The Whitworth and Crime Writers Golden Dagger are enough.

Wed, 2011-10-12 15:03 — Seabie (not verified)

By all means have as many elite literary prizes as you like, but please stop expecting the rest of us to care about it. You aren't paying any attention to the elite prizes in my field of endeavour (applied mathematics) and I don't expect you to, though you're missing a treat. Meanwhile I'll just carry on reading readable literature - by such authors as Pat Barker, John Banville et al - irrespective of what gongs you are all deciding to give each other. For heavens sake, get over yourselves.

Wed, 2011-10-12 15:19 — John Self (not verified)

Seabie, your analogy doesn't really hold water, and your chosen authors are presumably backing this new prize because they know that this year's panel would never have chosen their own (Booker-winning) books. Frankly after the Whitbread became the Costa and this year's Booker pronouncements, it will be nice to have a prize that rewards elite works of literature.

Wed, 2011-10-12 18:18 — Herbert (not verified)

As I said yesterday, and was mocked for it:

Freeman
11 October 2011 at 15:46
Why not have a competition for 'books nobody really wants to read but thinks they should' and one for 'books people like reading but prefer no-one to know they do'? That should keep everyone happy.

Wed, 2011-10-12 18:23 — Invision (not verified)

Great! Bring 'em on! It would be nice if there were a prize for mass market writing too...

Tue, 2011-10-18 22:42 — Seabie (not verified)

@John Self I don't see why not. The more specialist you make a prize, the more it is for the industry insiders and the less for the rest of us. Sadly there isn't a huge secondary industry of reviewers and critics opining about publications in mathematics.