Could another tiger gobble up a prize?

I fell in love with the Booker thanks to Sheelagh Gallagher at Arnold Library. Last year she asked me to be on a panel to discuss the prize and I put forward the case for The Finkler Question. The event triggered my (selective) obsessive personality as I wanted to read as many of the shortlisted books as possible to ensure I was right about my choice before putting my neck on the block. Without being involved in that event, I’d never have taken the time to consider the other nominees and like many, would only have read the winner.

Last night I went to an event at Wollaton library organised by Jane Brierley to discuss this year’s shortlist. The audience was comprised of local reading groups – although anyone was welcome. It never fails to amaze how few men attend such events which seems perverse given that men dominate the shortlist by a ratio of 3:1 for the second year on the trot.

The Booker started in 1969 and so far has seen 14 victories out of 40 for female authors. (I’m not including Nadine Gordimer in 1974 as she shared the honours with Stanley Middleton) . They are: Bernice Rubens (1970), Ruth Prawer Jhabvaia (1975), Iris Murdoch (1978), Penelope Fitzgerald (1979), Anita Brookner (1984), Keri Hulme (1985), Penelope Lively (1987) A.S.Byatt (1990), Pat Barker (1995), Arundhati Roy (1997), Margaret Atwood (2000), Kiran Desai (2006), Anne Enright (2007) and Hilary Mantel (2009). I find this utterly perplexing given that more women read then men and that the average reader is in their fifties – which was clearly the case here at Wollaton library tonight.

This blog isn’t about gendered politics, though. It’s about how local libraries have helped flame my love of this prize which in turn has led to numerous obsessive researches. My observations of the Wollaton event are as follows:

1) Book covers are very important to readers. For this particular audience, The Sisters Brothers by Patrick deWitt was off putting because the silhouette of two gunslingers in front of a moon looked like a skull! I’m sure this would delight the elitists out there who have become so repulsed at the thought of a Western on the shortlist they want to break off and have a ‘proper’ literature prize. These are the kind of people who still haven’t recovered from D B C Pierre’s ‘trailer park trash’ comedy winning in 2003. But if book covers are important, what about book titles? Jamrach’s Menagerie is pure magic. Don’t we all want to be transported somewhere like this when we turn the page?

2) Guilt. A lot of people felt Julian Barnes would win simply because he was a ‘name’ and that this time it would be fourth time lucky. For many, it was another Finkler. Clever, well written, but ultimately not something they fell in love with.

3) Context. Pigeon English is easily the most culturally relevant given our fears about gang culture (although A D Miller’s Snowdrop does a damn good job exposing Putin’s Moscow). But should this be a defining criteria because it’s the zeitgeist? Stephen Kelman’s Pigeon English has been compared to Mark Haddon’s Curious Incident but can a book told from an eleven-year-olds perspective impress the adults? It did in 1993 when Roddy Doyle took the prize for Paddy Clarke. Definitely worth a few bob, I reckon.

4) Last but not least, can a tiger win it again? Jamrach’s Menagerie was easily the favourite of this particular audience and won by a landslide vote (which could have as much to do with the passage selected as by the person reading it out). But we’ve had a tiger in The Life of Pi (2002) and Téa Obreht has just won the Orange Prize for The Tiger’s Wife (my book of the year). Could this really influence decision making? I guess we’ll find out on Tuesday 18 October. Roarrrrr.

Man Booker Prize website

Nottingham Libraries events