April 15th, 2008
Orange Prize shortlist shocker
The Orange Prize shortlist has been announced today and Anne Enright isn’t on it. Seriously, The Gathering wins last year’s Booker Prize and there isn’t room for it on this shortlist of six books? Have to admit I’m very surprised. The shortlist includes three debut novelists - Sadie Jones, Heather O’Neill and Patricia Wood - and Rose Tremain. Tremain is one of the heavyweights, but I’ve read two of her books (not this one) and found them really tedious.
The shortlist:
Nancy Huston - Fault Lines
Sadie Jones The - Outcast
Charlotte Mendelson - When We Were Bad
Heather O’Neill - Lullabies for Little Criminals
Rose Tremain - The Road Home
Patricia Wood - Lottery
April 15th, 2008 at 9:53 am
I’d see it as a good thing that Enright isn’t on the list (I’m not too big a fan). Winning one prize (Booker or otherwise) shouldn’t ear mark you to shortlist on others.
I’ve read Sadie Jones and liked it. Like the Impac list though there is a lot I haven’t read yet…
April 15th, 2008 at 9:56 am
David, I don’t believe that winning one big prize is an automatic prerequisite for getting on to another shortlist, but a Booker win can be viewed as indicative of a certain level of quality. Based on that, I’m surprised at the omission.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I’m surprised at Enright’s omission too. The only shortlisted book I have read is Charlotte Mendelson’s. I thought it was good but not in the same class as The Gathering. I find Rose Tremain unreadable and have always been puzzled by her critical acclaim
April 15th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Having been a judge on a book prize (with 2 other judges), I’d like to say that predicting shortlists is a waste of time. We each picked c. 8 books we really, really liked from those read (34 in all). We then whittled down to the ‘musts’ for each of us (there was a lot of crossover) and compromised on the rest. We were all happy with the shortlist. We were 3 people, with three tastes (3 different nationalities too). It’s impossible to say so-and-so must appear on the shortlist; that’s really not for anyone to say except the judges who pick their favourite WRITING in good faith. It’s not a personality or life’s work prize and, thank God, most lit judges have integrity.
I am sorry, personally, Anne is not on the list. I love her writing.
I’ve only read Tremain’s short fiction and it is stunning. The Darkness of Wallis Simpson (her stories) is one of my favourite books.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
no linda grant????????????????
April 15th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Enright’s omission just goes to prove that book awards are like a lottery and highly dependent on the whims of judges from a wide range of backgrounds.
I read Lullabies this past week (review on my blog) and really liked it.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Allow me to be the dissenting voice: I found The Gathering completely underwhelming, and am rather put out by its new found cult status (though am happy for her that the sales have so skyrocketed). Her new short stories are a return to fine form, though, and far more worthy of acclaim.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
How could they do this to me? The fuckin wankers.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Kimbofo said “book awards are like a lottery and highly dependent on the whims of judges”.
Whims? How about fair reading of the work and careful selection of the very best writing?
April 17th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Susan - would you hazard a guess as to why Enright isn’t on the list?
WRWriter - I hear you. I’ve been a judge for the Choice Music Prize, and when it gets down to a group of people with all their different tastes and biases trying to pick a winner, it’s very hard to predict the outcome.
Your method sounds very fair though and ultimately while we might quibble with the final decision, the MO that got us there is nearly always fair and transparent.
I didn’t mean to say that Enright must be on the shortlist, but it does seem strange the such an acclaimed book is not deemed worthy enough to make it to the final six. Several eligible women who’ve won the Booker have sailed through to the Orange Prize shortlist in the past. Booker wins (or any other major prize wins) shouldn’t be a guarantee of a shortlist place elsewhere, but it IS an indicator of a certain standard of writing, which is the reason I’m surprised Enright isn’t on this year’s Orange shortlist.
I agree, no prize should be about personality of life work. A lot of people said that Banville won for The Sea as a sort of lifetime achievement prize and because he lost out for The Book of Evidence (a far superior book).
Most lit judges have indeed got integrity. Except perhaps Lily Allen.
I haven’t read that one of Tremain’s. Maybe I should give her a another chance.
thegirlwho’safraidoffoxes - You’re not the only one saying that. She’s a past winner, I think.
Kimbofo - I suppose you could say they’re a lottery, you can never predict these things. Thanks for the recommendation Lullabies, will check out your review. From what I’ve read of the book and the author, it’s the one I’d most like to read.
Little Red - dissent away! My mother didn’t like The Gathering at all, and a couple of friends who have similar book taste to me, just didn’t get it. Them’s the breaks.
I adore Taking Pictures (must put up a short review I have it).
Anne Enright - Indeed Anne, I’ll only believe that’s really you if you can tell me where we meet up for our interview last October?
Women Rule Writer - I don’t think Kimbofo was being derogatory in that remark. We all know how much effort judges put in to these prizes, but it’s also fair comment to say that the outcome is a lottery, because of differing backgrounds, biases, tastes, etc.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Sorry, Sinéad, I still object to the word ‘whims’. In my experience there is nothing whimsical about reading 34 books and then trying to pick a shortlist and ultimately a winner. I think it is better (and a show of true fairness) when lesser known books get onto shortlists. Anne doesn’t NEED the Orange; a lesser known writer might need it a lot more, in order to sustain a career.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
WRW, just as you pointed out that a writer shouldn’t win on the basis of life work or personality, you could apply your own argument and say that a writer shouldn’t be on a shortlist because they need the publicity or need it to sustain a career. Surely they’re also the wrong criteria for deciding on a shortlist?
April 17th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Sinead, I can only surmise that the judges did not like The Gathering enough to shortlist it. In my experience it is a book that polarises opinion. When We Were Bad is also a family saga dealing with a dysfunctional Jewish family as opposed to an Irish one. It is satirical and funny but nowhere near as dark as The Gathering. Perhaps the judges felt that one family saga on the list was enough and simply preferred When We Were Bad (although not having read the other books I honestly don’t know if this is the only family saga on the shortlist). I read somewhere that Kirsty Lang said she was delighted that three debut works had made it onto the list so maybe they made a conscious effort to shortlist lesser known authors and were then restricted in their choice of the well-known ones. Whatever the reason, I doubt that, despite what she posted above (!), Anne Enright is losing any sleep over it. The Booker win gave her profile the well-deserved boost it needed and all the better if the Orange prize shines the spotlight on a different author.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Women Rule Writer, maybe “whim” wasn’t the right word to use. What I was trying to get across is the highly subjective nature of determining which book should win an award. How do judges decide what makes a good book? People have different tastes, different opinions, different biases, different ways of looking at the world… Judging books is not a science but an art, no?
April 18th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Burger King on Grafton Street.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
OK, I need to be clearer. I don’t mean any book should be put on the shortlist in order to gain publicity or sustain a career, I mean being on the shortlist might help in that direction if a writer is not as well known as Anne NOW is (thanks to the Man Booker win).
Kimbofo, I think each jury will have a different modus operandi, to account for their different tastes, opinions etc. Some may let each juror pick a favourite each, then compromise on the rest. Some jurors may be happy to have just their one fave book on the list and may not care too much who else is on it.
It’s hard to generalise because, naturally, each jury will come up with its own way to deal with the problems. I know of one jury where one of the jurors HATED one of the shortlisted books, but he was over-ruled by the others. It’s hard!
April 19th, 2008 at 5:43 am
Actually I can believe that Anne Enright wrote the first comment. Having heard quite a few of her interviews, she has that tongue-in-cheek caustic humour
Anyway, my 2 cents worth about The Gathering not being shortlisted. I was totally blown away by the book. Best book I’ve read in eons. But I’m not surprised that its not everyone’s cup of tea. It can be challenging, in parts deeply discomforting, even irritating. Because Veronica is an angry woman, and doesn’t mince her words, and makes a habit of running roughshod over taboos (which I lapped up gleefully!).
My guess is that The Orange Prize Jury didn’t find the book “accessible” enough, one of their stated criteria.
Re Susan’s speculation that the Jury might have thought one dysfunctional family saga was enough(whah?): I’ve also read When We Were Bad and found it entertaining, but it certainly doesn’t have the depth or complexity of The Gathering.
More accessible/populist/easily digested perhaps…[grin]
Yes, the jury does make a difference. I know Lily Allen has dropped out, and I’m not having a go at her, but I can’t imagine her “getting” The Gathering.
And lastly, can the NEED or lack therof of a higher profile ever be the criteria for selection of a book prize? Just asking. Hmmm…