Judges' blogs 2009

Judging a prize makes one fiercely proprietorial about the books one chooses. So gauging the reaction to our efforts is proving to be an occasionally dispiriting experience. We have, after all, just worked our way through 132 novels that spanned the quality spectrum from dire to brilliant. The judges can, for a brief window of time, justifiably claim to be among the best versed readers of contemporary fiction in the English-speaking world. As a result, one would like to think that a just reward for our diligence would be an understanding that, imperfect beings though we undoubtedly are, we have thought about our judgments long and hard. But it has become unnervingly clear that one should never underestimate the ability of the Man Booker Prize to polarise opinion.

The day after we announced the longlist, for example, it dawned on us that we had badly misjudged just how closely literature and nationalism are intertwined. ‘No Indians on the Man Booker longlist' lamented, almost to a man, those Subcontinental websites with a news or literary bent. The Canadian response split between ‘No Canadians on the Man Booker longlist' and, from those who had done their homework, ‘One Canadian on the...' (the one being Ed O'Loughlin who is, at a push, Canadian-Irish). The Irish themselves though were briefly happy: ‘Two Irishmen on the...' or (Ed O'Loughlin again) ‘Three Irishmen...' Of course, there's rather less approbation from Ireland now that all two and a half compatriots missed the cut for the shortlist. Whether the books we had in fact chosen were any good seemed of secondary importance.

The appearance of the shortlist has led to another charge against us. The fact that all six novels are set in the past means that we judges must therefore have a fear of the modern world and be comfortable only in the hallowed halls of distant times. Anyone who has read our shortlisted books will know that none are traditional historical fictions. What they won't know is that, as with the nationality or indeed gender of the novelists, the fact that they are all historically based occurred to us only after they had been chosen. We were looking for the six best books not the best-balanced list.

The charges of fustiness and Anglocentrism are nothing, however, when compared with the comment of one blogger who decided we (or our lists or probably both) were: ‘Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic.' A pithy, if inaccurate, piece of criticism.

I am quickly learning how to dampen down the flare-ups of anger and bruised amour propre because the whole process has proved a useful lesson in pointing out the obvious: how one word of criticism carries ten times the clout of a word of praise. And to be fair, we have had a generous helping of praise too.

Had the long- and shortlists been my work alone I would be tossing and turning at night about the validity of my judgment but the degree of unanimity between the judges has taken me by surprise. The lists have reflected in almost - almost - all cases the gut instincts of all five of us. I hate to tempt fate but not only is this xenophobic, historophile, pathetic bunch of five still talking but we are also looking forward, keenly, to our next - and most significant - meeting, on 6 October to choose the winner. I will, however, avoid surfing the internet on 7 October.  

How did the panel come to their decision?

How did the judges reach their 2009 Man Booker shortlist?  In some years the chair (man or woman) goes straight to a vote.  This does not necessarily produce the six book shortlist, but it invariably separates the favourites from the also rans.  In recent years two or even three books have emerged with judge-wide support and on a first vote have gone through. Then has come the debate for the remainder.

James Naughtie as this year's chair took a different approach.  When the judges met at the Garrick Club with tea, coffee, water and biscuits as sustenance he asked each judge to sum up what they felt after a second reading of the books that formed the Man Booker Dozen, our thirteen-book longlist.

As Lucasta Miller, John Mullan, Michael Prodger and Sue Perkins (who came equipped with a variety of medicaments for battling against a virulent summer cold) talked of their rereading experience it became clear to me that this year perhaps four novels had widespread support - and by widespread I mean at least four of the five-judge team were in favour. In my time as literary director of the prize this is unprecedented.  

A second reading of a novel shows up its strengths - and its weaknesses.  One judge remarked how two of the thirteen book longlist went up in his estimation and two went down.  Heads nodded round the table.  Sue reached for a Kleenex.  Another quickly acknowledged that the problem was not the titles that should go straight to the shortlist but the remaining two.            

And so it proved when Naughtie decided to on a first vote.  Ballot forms had been prepared. Each judge was asked to put an x against six titles they thought should go through.  I had the fun, and the responsibility, of acting as teller and returning officer. The forms were anonymous, but it was clear immediately that the debate would, as one judge had suggested, be about which two would join the four titles so universally approved.

It has always been Man Booker practice not to reveal individual voting preferances.  But let me say that in the end the debate was over three books of which only two could go through.  My admiration for the judges rose; the standard of debate was high. It is easy to end up saying ‘I liked it', much tougher to explain why and give the precise qualities of an author's work.  We are, after all, talking about the Man Booker here. From this shortlist on 6 October 2009 one novel will emerge supreme.  Which one?  Even if I were allowed to place my bet at this stage I'd be  hardpressed to single out the eventual winner.            

I shall join the judges and reread the shortlist. And so I hope will thousands of readers across the land

It's a supremely special year all right.  When James Naughtie and his judges met to select this year's Man Booker long list, the first half dozen titles were a comparatively simple choice.  Not a shoe-in, but by general agreement. Choosing the remaining seven novels was another matter. Don't get me wrong. Journalists who were hoping to hear stories of blood-spewed carpets were disappointed.  But selecting the ‘Man Booker Dozen' saw all five judges using every ounce of literary argument as they battled it out. 

One of the privileges of being the Man Booker's literary director is to sit in on these enthralling debates.  Sometimes I must bite my tongue: oh how much I would like to add my two pennoth of opinion, but it is more than thirty years since I was a judge! My job now is to advise, to remind judges where necessary of the rules, and to keep an eye on the clock. This year, when the quality of the submissions has been as high as I have known it, I did wonder if to reach a decision on the long list in time for media deadlines a guillotine might prove necessary.

Each year judges identify themes. One remarked how the second world war remains a perennial. Another judge spoke of how the 1940s and 1950s - very much evident in this year's submissions - leant themselves to characters suffering from repression, not something so common in contemporary life or fiction. Almost half the longlist might be described as historical fiction.  What should one read into this?  As James Naughtie said in his comments the history this year ranges from the court of Henry VII to the Hollywood of the 1930s.

This brings me to identifying the annual Man Booker controversy. Hardly had the news release hit the screens than abuse hit mine. One publisher's editor of my acquaintance asked how it was possible to include James Lever's Me Cheeta, but not --------. - and here I must be discreet, it being a Man Booker convention that we do not reveal the titles of entries. I have no idea whether the editor in question had read Lever's cod autobiography, complete with photo sections and index. I do know, however, that comic fiction has just as much right to be on the Man Booker longlist as the thriller, the romance, fantasy or science fiction.  In each case quality is what counts. By including Me Cheeta on  the longlist you should assume - rightly - that it made the judges laugh.

Themes in the discussion ranged wide. The merits or otherwise of creative writing - if it shows does it invalidate the fiction in question?  Is writing in the historic present a disadvantage? Feelings were divided on whether inaccurate facts in fiction actually matter, but the irritation factor is definitely not beneficial.   Best and worst opening sentences were discussed more than once. But perhaps the most frequent observation was about lapses in editing.  Indeed several novels were roundly abused for what looked like no editing at all.

But one of the recurring joys of the Man Booker Prize is the discovery of a writer not previously known.  One judge looked forward to reading other novels by a longlisted writer.  ‘If they are half as good I'm in for a treat.'  

The fact that three of this year's longlist are debuts demonstrates once more that fiction writing in English is in excellent heart - pity the French or the Italians or the Germans who bemoan the lack of new writing talent in their own languages.  As another judge observed our youngest writer is in his early thirties and the oldest has topped eighty proving that authorship knows no physical barriers. 

Our judges have now gone off to reread their longlist.  It is the severest test of the Man Booker entries that a longlisted book has to survive two readings, and a shortlisted book three, all in the space of a few months.  Would some of the great fiction in history stand up to the rereading test?  Try it with Dickens or Eliot or Woolf some time.