Ho-hum.

Dad's comment on the previous post reminds me that I never finished what I started, blogging-wise, with my post on the Man Booker prize long list and my attempts to tackle it in its entirety. So in the absence of other blogworthy topics (yes, there are some things that aren't blogworthy, believe it or not), I'll end the suspense on this particular topic.

So, first of all, by the announcement of the winner of the prize on 16 October, I had read all of the long-list, bar two. Both of the two that I didn't read were not on the short list. One of them (Winnie and Wolf) I had absolutely no desire to be near, let alone crack the cover on, after reading the Observer's review of it. The other (The Gift of Rain) I had bought and plan to read some day, I just didn't make it in time for the announcement. A friend currently has it, so I'll just read it whenever it comes back my way.

I don't think 11 out of 13 is bad going, considering that I did it all in the allotted time (about two months). I know I'm not the only one that tries to achieve this particular (minor) feat, but it still lets me have the satisfaction of feeling like I have a more informed opinion than those people who post comments on blogs about the Booker about books they admit to never having read. But anyway, as Sesame Street or Confucious or someone else equally wise might say, the value is in the journey, not the destination, so I should feel pretty good about it all.

But I don't. Because after doing something like this, you can't help but feel let down when you disagree totally with the decision of the judges. This year the prize went to Anne Enright, for The Gathering, a story about a traditional Irish family and all the messy stuff that they're involved with. It's not a bad book. Enright has a real mastery of language and writing and there are some very moving passages. But it just isn't a great book. It's not a book to get excited about. It's not really one you would recommend other people reading. You just read it, it's ok, it's kind of interesting, and you move on. So not really a book to rock anyone's world by being awarded a prestigous literary prize. I think I would rather a book that I absolutely hated had won, because then I could at least have the pleasure of self-righteous rage at the judges being SO wrong. But instead they went with a mediocre choice. Enright supposedly is a really nice person, so it's hard to get upset. And she's going to spend the £50,000 on a new kitchen, so who can argue with that?

The thing that really gets me is that it isn't surprising that they ended up with a middle of the road choice, when you read about how the book was chosen. It was chosen, ladies and gentlemen, by a FORMULA. This is what you get when you have the panel of literary prize chaired by an ECONOMIST. Howard Davies, chair of the 2007 panel, is the director of the London School of Economics. Why he was chosen to lead up the thing, I have no idea. Maybe he's some great artist inside, but it looks to me like he's an economist. By all means, let people from all fields of endeavor participate, but don't give them the reins.

Yes, prizes are always subjective. Yes, prizes don't really mean anything. But come on. Can we at least have the prizes chosen by people who actively participate in the field that the prizes are meant to honor? Even the Academy Awards recognize that!

Needless to say, I'm a bit peeved by it all. It also doesn't help when I read an article that is written by someone who actually knows the history of the prize and understands the context of all this, who argues that the prize has gone completely downhill. Plus, it sounds like our economist gave a stinker of a speech on the night. I haven't yet looked to see if I can find a transcript of his speech, since I think it will just make me mad. And I'm trying to put this all behind me.

It's such a shame, because I enjoy the challenge of reading them all, and it is interesting to compare books that you ordinarily would not compare, just because they've all been thrown together by a random panel of strangers. But, man, this year was just a bit pants all round, and last year was also pretty poor (although the year before, I completely agree that Banville deserved the win). So, the question is, am I going to put myself through this again next year?

Absolutely.