What Prize list do you respect / follow?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Have a friend who's been buying the Booker Prize shortlist and making her own winning determination prior to the announcement. I started going through the Pulitzer list in the early '90s to satisfy a "classics I should have already read" urge, and have found a few great books I might not have otherwise read ("The Executioner's Song", "Advise and Consent", "The Caine Mutiny"). The Best American Short Stories series is another one I buy annually. How about you?

Chris Hill (Chris Hill), Thursday, 18 December 2003 15:52 (twenty years ago) link

I read two from the Booker short list. DBC Pierre (which, I thought was poor) and Claire Morrall - Astonishing Splashes of Colour, which was great. DBC Pierre won of course.

Aside from the Booker, I look at the Travel Book Awards and that's about it.

I think we may get a UK / US divide here (Booker / Pulitizer)

MikeyG (MikeyG), Thursday, 18 December 2003 15:58 (twenty years ago) link

I guess I follow the Booker, just because it's the one that's got the most coverage, though thinking about it Ican't think of a single winner that I've loved, in fact often theres a certain kind of 'Booker book' that I avoid..meaty historical books about writers and their difficult lives..
So...which prize should I follow?

Winterland, Thursday, 18 December 2003 17:02 (twenty years ago) link

Here's the full list of Booker winners, looking back I'm surprised how few I've read, and how even fewer have had any real effect on me..

1969: P. H. Newby Something to Answer For

1970: Bernice Rubens The Elected Member

1971: V.S. Naipaul In a Free State

1972: John Berger G

1973: J.G. Farrell Siege of Krishnapur

1974: Stanley Middleton Holiday

1975: Nadine Gordimer The Conversationalist and Ruth Prower Jhabvala Heat and Dust

1976: David Storey Saville

1977: Paul Scott Staying On

1978: Iris Murdoch The Sea, The Sea

1979: Penelope Fitzgerald Offshore

1980: William Golding Rites of Passage

1981: Salman Rushdie Midnight's Children

1982: Thomas Keneally Schindler's Ark

1983: J.M. Coetzee Life and Times of Michael K.

1984: Anita Brookner Hotel Du Lac

1985: Keri Hulme Bone People

1986: Kingsley Amis The Old Devils

1987: Penelope Lively Moon Tiger

1988: Peter Carey Oscar and Lucinda

1989: Kazuo Ishiguro The Remains of the Day

1990: A.S. Byatt Possession

1991: Ben Okri The Famished Road

1992: Michael Ondaatje The English Patient and Barry Unsworth Sacred Hunger

1993: Roddy Doyle Paddy Clarke Ha Ha Ha

1994: James Kelman How Little It Was, How Late

1995: Pat Barker The Ghost Road

1996: Graham Swift Last Orders

1997: Arundhati Roy The God of Small Things

1998: Ian McEwan Amsterdam

1999: J.M. Coetzee Disgrace

2000: Margaret Atwood The Blind Assassin

2001: Peter Carey True History of the Kelly Gang

2002: Yann Martel Life of Pi

2003: D.B.C. Pierre Vernon God Little

Winterland, Thursday, 18 December 2003 17:17 (twenty years ago) link

The Pulitzer list is supposedly more of a popularity/sales list than the U.S. National Book Award list. Stegner's "Angle of Repose" is about a writer's difficult life/family - heh, after reading your Booker comment. The Pulitzers are a good starting point for an American Lit 101 course: To Kill a Mockingbird, All the King's Men, The Confessions of Nat Turner... In and among the dated books are some deservedly classic books.

Chris Hill (Chris Hill), Thursday, 18 December 2003 17:42 (twenty years ago) link

http://www.nationalbook.org/nbawinners.html


and here are the national book award winners. i was surprised by how many i had read on here! and how much good stuff is on it. but there is your us/uk divide. i've read dozens of books on the NBA list and no doubt on the pulitzer list as well, but i haven't read ANYTHING on the Booker list. sad isn't it? i did buy Possession a while back and i'm kinda looking forward to that.

scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 18 December 2003 17:52 (twenty years ago) link

well, after checking, i've only read 10 Pulitzer winners. I did just finish reading a book that won the coveted Whitbread Award!That must count for something. The Last King of Scotland by Giles Foden.

scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 18 December 2003 18:08 (twenty years ago) link

Good book, that.

And I was just going to post that I've had good results from reading Whitbread Prize winners (like the terrific 'English Passengers' by Matthew Kneale which I just finished. It beat 'White Teeth to win the Whitbread)

LondonLee (LondonLee), Thursday, 18 December 2003 18:17 (twenty years ago) link

that national book list is pretty funny: not many categories at the beginning and then they gradually pile up then after '83 its back to fiction/non- ?!

but as far as fiction goes it seems to be the one that follows a lot of the book threads on ile: a lot of faves for ilxors are on there.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 19 December 2003 09:28 (twenty years ago) link

two weeks pass...
i hate possession-sorry. i buy a lot of books based on book prize lists because i usually find them in the second hand bookstores. but i am more pro-Booker. probably because i sometimes don't feel myself being able to relate to the Pulitzer prize winners. so far all the national book awards i've read have made me wary. but then again the US/UK divide do not apply to me since i don't reside in either. it's often true though- the shortlist is usually more interesting than the actual winner.

unfazed, Thursday, 8 January 2004 18:25 (twenty years ago) link

The International Impac Dublin Literary Award, though not that old (it began in 1996) usually produces an eclectic high-quality short list of international titles. Nominations are provided by libraries.

It was through the IMPAC award that I discovered No Great Mischief by Alistair Macleod, one of my favorite books of the past five years.

charles hanson (whynotsneeze), Thursday, 8 January 2004 18:54 (twenty years ago) link

Yeah that Impac list definately has some very interesting shortisted books - and some very strange winners!

jed_ (jed), Saturday, 10 January 2004 01:49 (twenty years ago) link

William Gass has a hilarious little essay on the subect of book awards "Pulitzer, The People's Prize" in Finding a Form, in which he writes that "the Pulitzer Prize in fiction takes dead aim at mediocrity and almost never misses." It's generally difficult to argue with, and ends up being almost an artefact of the prize-selection process. Also cf. Michael Kinsley's (I believe it was Kinsley) somewhat disturbing recounting of his own appearance in a prize jury, wherein he barely was able to read any of the books under consideration (which seemed also to be the case for a number of the jurors, and which led to generally disinterested yea or nay votes, and attention paid only to those books that had already received attention, that were, so to speak, pre-accredited).

Myself, I tend to trust the book awards not at all; even the National Book Award committee, recently, seems always to agree with the trade publications. (The Shipping News? _Really_?) The short-story awards tend to be somewhat more useful, just because the idea, there, is to provide a _selection_ of praiseworthy stories, all of which are likely to have been read by the editors (whose names are often right there on the collection cover, for better or worse, whether Oates or Elkin or Wideman). This way a number of different criteria can be applied, and the stories can be taken on their own terms. On the other hand, any prize offered to merely a single book is all too likely to be influenced by the implied politics of the choice, leading to selections of books that very neatly fit the "specifications" of an award-winning book. While this can lead to true classics being chosen, it's more or equally likely to pander to moralistic or salvationist treacle.

As far as I can tell, the book awards have been chugging along on their own steam, with very little relevance to quality (above a certain measure of literacy/canniness), and will continue to do so. It shouldn't really be a point of bitterness, as long as one understands that winning one of the major awards is a boon akin to winning a lottery, not winning a footrace.

M.

Matthew K (mtk), Monday, 12 January 2004 16:35 (twenty years ago) link

I've stopped paying attention to US prizes and focus on the UK
awards. The Pulitzer has become too hit-and-missed and last
listing of National Book Awards bored me to tears!

Steve Walker (Quietman), Tuesday, 13 January 2004 01:58 (twenty years ago) link

I in fact go out of my way to avoid books that have received some sort of award. They're usually the worst, with only a very few exceptions.

writingstatic (writingstatic), Tuesday, 13 January 2004 03:03 (twenty years ago) link

three weeks pass...
I tend to investigate the Booker shortlist, the National Book Award shortlist, and the National Book Critics Circle Award. I'm iffy on the Pulitzers, having agreed with some choices and disagreed with other. But I do seek out the books considered for awards by the American Library Association, and am a sucker for anything that wins the Newbery and Caldecott awards.

Here's a link to a site with lots and lots of links to literary award sites: Literature Awards.

I'm Passing Open Windows (Ms Laura), Thursday, 5 February 2004 11:45 (twenty years ago) link

eight years pass...

The James Joyce Award: a roll call of titans

alimosina, Tuesday, 29 January 2013 18:27 (eleven years ago) link

From the little I could glean from the wikipedia article, it appears that the James Joyce prize is awarded by a society of university students, whose callow judgment is well-reflected in the list of recipients.

Aimless, Tuesday, 29 January 2013 18:44 (eleven years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.