Arguing Your Point

Robert McCrum in today’s Observer has written about why It’s time to ditch the prize guys – arguing that it’s time for the Booker Prize to be radically reformed from the ground up.
Except, it’s really not very clear why exactly he feels it needs this change. Certainly the Booker no longer gets the TV coverage it once had, now being timed to arrive during the BBC’s Ten O’Clock News, but I’m not sure I understand why the prize is out of touch as he says it is. He doesn’t say why. Is it because the shortlist, Ian McEwan aside, isn’t made up of a list of names that I could choose myself if I was provided with a list of eligible names?
Seemingly, the prize chairman Sir Howard Davies gave “one of the most embarrassing Booker speeches in living memory.” But McCrum doesn’t explain why it was emabarrassing. The main substance of his speech that was reported was the backslapping that goes on between reviewers who know one another and review one another’s books. The Times had a good editorial on it. I don’t think there’s anyone in the literary world who doesn’t know that this goes on. Every year, Private Eye helps us when it examines the various Books of the Year lists, helpfully explaining any feuds or friendships that mightn’t be too obvious for those of us who don’t move in their circles and mightn’t otherwise be clued in.
McCrum needs to explain himself.


Posted

in

Tags: