the booker prize has been doing business for 40 years. that's 40 years of heaping over-praise on very modest (and sometimes very bad) novels. now they're soliciting the public's opinion as to which of the prize-winners is the best. but there's a hitch. none of them are literature of the first rank.
in "sesame and lilies" john ruskin momentarily broke off denouncing modern life (a favourite subject of his) to draw a distinction between books of permanent value (like jane austen's) and those which are merely topical or readable (salman rushdie's—though then only sometimes). he called them "books of all time" and "books of the hour".
the problem with the booker prize is that it celebrates a barren period in english literature. despite the hub-bub, and the champagne-and-smoked-salmon of self-promotion, the booker prize has unearthed no "book for all time". or anything even close. so the survey of public opinion is futile.
much better to be honest about things, and withhold the prize until something of substance is written. however long that takes. but, then, the booker prize doesn't exist to celebrate art, but to encourage sales. so who cares?
about me
- coffeesnob
- melbourne, Australia
- single, male, 30s. favourite phrase: "the world was like this when i got here".
ahem. sticky fingers.
the content on foundfoundfound drains from my brain. not yours. trust me, you wouldn't want it.
2 comments:
I gave up on reading Booker winners a while ago. I find the Pulitzer winners are generally better, but even then they're not always terrific.
(Re: Austen - had an horrendous moment with CG the other day when she admitted to never hearing of Austen, nor 'Emma'. Ugh.)
when they started giving the prize to my countrymen i knew the jig was up.
i'm sure valley girl has heard of "clueless", however.
anyway, the ignorant are much less harmful than the half-educated or ill-educated. someone who hasn't heard of austen is still more civilized than someone like edward said, who only finds evil things in "mansfield park".
Post a Comment