General Discussion

Do you think they'll do the 2009 prize justice?

Many people are hoping that they'll do the 2009 prize justice.

I think they're a more promising crop than the 2008 judges.

The 2009 Giller Prize jury was announced this morning and it offers a dramatic contrast with the Man Booker jury:
-- Russell Banks, a New York based author with 16 works of fiction and a lot of magazine writing to his credit.
-- Victoria Glendenning, biographer and novelist.
-- Alastair MacLeod, short story writer, novelist (No Great Mischief won the IMPAC) and Canadian fiction icon (right up there with Munro and Atwood.

This site had some interesting debates last year about the makeup of the Booker jury and the impact that had. While I agree with JohnSelf's post that this year's MB jury seems to have more promise, it certainly doesn't have an author of the calibre of any of the Giller judges.

It is also interesting that the jury for a Canadian prize would have such a strong international flavor while the jury for the Man Booker, a truly international prize, has such a UK tinge to it. Admittedly, one of the reasons the Giller goes outside Canada for a judge or two is that the community is so small it is almost impossible to escape friends judging friends. On the other hand, as the locations of people who visit this site show, the Man Booker jury would benefit from the same international flavor that we have in these posts.

I'm unconvinced. There's not much in the way of gravitas. It's like a typical Newsnight Review lineup as opposed to what I remember of Late Review those years ago when Tom Paulin was a regular (unfailingly amusing when it came to reviewing Blur's latest album or revealing he didn't know what cellulite was). Sue Perkins is one of the regular faces that has marked the change, and no, I'm not being sexist, since Germaine and Bonny Greer alike were always worth watching (Germaine Greer still sppears regularly, of course) and people like David Baddiel, in attempting to make a similar transition from comedy to convincing art & literature discussion programmes came over a good deal worse.

I just think it says something that there's no well known author of fiction on the panel. This is the first Booker I'll be seriously following, and I'm hoping I won't be disappointed by the politics of it.

I need to read more non-longlisted 2009 books before I can absolutely judge, but if this is the best list the judges can come up with then clearly something is wrong. There are only a couple of books here that are up to the standard of the awards in previous years. Is 2009 an off year for Booker judging or an off year for fiction?