This week the British world of books finds itself in a peculiar position: one literary prize is asking another to change its rules. The Folio prize is run by a 250-strong academy. Surveyed, 99% of them say American writers ought to be ineligible for the Man Booker; the prize should remain open only to those from Britain, the Commonwealth, Ireland and Zimbabwe. In February, leading British publishers also urged the change. Even the Washington Post has pleaded with the British to “take your Booker prize home”, saying “Americans don’t need any encouragement to trumpet their own books”.
Back in 2014, the Man Booker changed its rules from the slightly eccentric rubric of “everyone except the Americans” to embrace US authors. It made absolute sense at the time. The Man Booker, it was argued, ought to scan the entire literary horizon. It ought not to be parochial. It ought to serve readers the very best in fiction, and scour the Earth to do so. Excluding the US, a literary colossus, looked ridiculous, when so many riveting adventures in form and language were being undertaken there. The move was widely supported. What could be more logical?
The pendulum of opinion has, however, swung back. Inviting the Americans in has seemed a little like allowing the US to compete in the Commonwealth Games. Certainly, if you did, it the overall quality would go up – but it might make for a rather monotonous contest. At a time when sales of literary fiction have crashed in Britain, the dominance of American titles on the past few shortlists has seemed especially hard for publishers and authors to bear, since prizes have become one of the few factors that significantly drive sales. The US, simply by virtue of its size, risks crowding out everyone else. And the Americans have plenty of prizes of their own.
There are still those who strongly argue that the Man Booker’s regulations are better for being clear, logical and global. And if Americans have seemed to dominate recent shortlists they will not necessarily always do so (the past two winners have been from the US). Furthermore, excluding the US now could severely damage the credibility of the award – changing the rules because the host team is losing.
What is the purpose of the Man Booker? Turning back to its founding statements, it is clear that it was instituted to reward “the best novel in the opinion of the judges”. Its sole criterion was to be quality. But it also said: “The real success will be a significant increase in the sales of the winning book … that will to some extent be shared not only by the authors who have been shortlisted, but, in the long run, by authors all over the country.” It was, in short, intended to have a beneficial effect on the UK publishing industry and its authors. And it was intended to be distinctive. With the inclusion of Americans, all that could be squandered. Were the Man Booker organisers to row back now, they would not lose much face. Globalisation, after all, is not an unalloyed good.