Hiring the judges is just the first task
Ion Trewin, Administrator of the Man Booker prizes, on what his job entails
Ion Trewin, Administrator of the Man Booker prizes
I rang up a well-known and highly regarded poet three years ago and asked him if he would like to be a judge for the annual Man Booker prize. Silence greeted my question and then he responded: “How many books would I have to read?” “Probably 110-120.” “And how much time would I have?” “Four months.” I could almost hear his mental calculation. Four months means roughly 120 days. That’s a book a day. “Absolutely no way.” he said. No pleasantries. I heard the phone click back into its cradle.
I have to say I was pleased at his rejection. It sounded to me as if this potential judge would be starting from scratch, whereas the best judges read new fiction for pleasure. It is rare that they haven’t already read some of the entries even before the publishers’ submission lists start rolling in during March.
Some other book prizes have reading panels to deliver a pre-digested shortlist of a dozen books for the named judges to read. But the Man Booker ever since its inception nearly forty years ago has stood by the principal that the prize would only be taken seriously if certain standards were maintained, not least the appointment of quality judges (‘the country’s finest critics, writers and academics’, says its prospectus), who will read every title submitted or called in so that ultimately they will reach a conclusion as to what, in their view, is the best novel of the year.
Although there are those who reject our invitation, you only have to look through the list of judges since the prize began in 1969 to see how the eventual juries have consistently represented the highest of standards. Martyn Goff, my esteemed predecessor as administrator, and I share the view that variety is also important. Take this year’s judging team, chaired by Howard Davies, director of the London School of Economics, but someone who has been a regular reviewer of fiction in the press. Wendy Cope is one of the nation’s finest poets. Giles Foden has been a literary journalist, but is also a novelist (his The Last King of Scotland was recently turned into a hugely successful film). Ruth Scurr is an academic at Cambridge, a reviewer of fiction, and the author of an acclaimed biography of Robespierre. Imogen Stubbs is not only a successful actress, but has written widely as a reviewer and traveller. And the 2006 jury also mixed academe with poetry, criticism, writing and acting.
I have sat in on judges’ panels for several years now, and some thirty years ago I chaired the judges myself. It is a challenging job. Not just because one is reading more than one hundred novels, but the chair needs to be able to keep the other judges under control. And do not expect judges to agree with each other. I have watched judges in agony when a winner needs to be chosen and the minutes are ticking away. In at least two recent years the judges have split two-two leaving the chair with the unenviable task of either choosing one rather than the other or endeavouring to cajoule the judges to have yet another go at reaching a unanimous verdict.
Unanimity, though, is not essential. A three-two majority verdict is acceptable. And it is one of the rules of judging the Man Booker that judges respect the confidentiality of their colleagues’ opinions. In particular when you have journalists on the panel –and we have often chosen literary editors – the opportunity to publish ‘My secrets of the Man Booker jury room’ may seem well-nigh irresistible. But confidentiality is two-way. If one judge were to break ranks with revelations they might well find other judges getting their own back.
All this explains why we have consistently denied the media access to the actual judging. The success of the prize down the decades demonstrates I think that it does not need to open its doors. The discussion of particular books in public would change the nature of the prize. It would almost certainly inhibit full and frank discussion and as I can testify – without revealing any specific secrets – judges believe in saying what they think, both negatively and positively. The track record of the prize is choosing fiction that lasts is proven by the fact that more than ninety percent of the past winners have survived and remain in print today.
Fiction is English remains one of the nation’s most enduring exports. The Man Booker Prize for Fiction helps identify and encourage the purchase and reading of the very best novels. I see no reason why this year’s Man Booker will be an exception.
