Tag Archives: prizes

They Have To Be In English

Via Garth’s old piece on literary prizes, I am reminded that one of the rules of the “Super” Booker is that the author has to be in English:

The Man Booker International Prize is unique in the world of literature in that it can be won by an author of any nationality, providing that his or her work is available in the English language.

Which makes “Super” Booker judge Rick Gekoski’s remarks completely nonsensical. On the one hand translation is a requirement of the prize, but on the other hand, any translated work will be competing at a disadvantage and therefore cannot win.

With judges like this, I don’t see how anyone can take Roth’s “win” seriously . . .

“Super” Booker Strives for Irrelevancy

Now a second judge from the recently announced “Super” Booker has come out with some fairly incendiary remarks post-prize. These include:

Unless you have the original language you cannot say with any precision how well an author writes. Yes, sometimes you can guess. I am told that Juan Goytisolo is very well translated, and Wang Anyi often is not. We encountered a number of writers who we rather suspected were of top quality, but whose work was dreadfully translated, often by local cooperatives, university presses or cack-handed professors (often American). I remember one translation of a Chinese novelist in which the father and mother of a family were called “Mom” and “Dad.” In another, a dreadfully sadistic guard at a prison is described as “really mean.”

Michael Orthofer has a good response:

I have to say: if this is their — or even just his — opinion, then they/he have no business judging an international literary prize of this sort. Indeed, I think on the basis of these two to-dos — the Callil fiasco, and now this (and inclusive of their picking a list of finalists — remember, the then-still-three judges were the ones who selected who was in the running — doomed to failure (i.e. turned into a Roth-versus-a field-we’re-not-willing-to-seriously-consider pseudo-debate)) — one can argue that this is the worst literary prize judging panel ever (or at least in recent memory). And I certainly can’t see that anyone would let Gekoski play along on any literary prize jury again, not after he couldn’t even hold a three-man-jury together (or come up with a winner that all could agree on) and now this admission that the authors-in-translation basically had no chance in hell of being seriously considered for the prize.

I’ll add to this that it might have helped if the judges could read in languages other than English. (It would seem that this one can’t, and I’m guessing that the total languages represented on the three-person panel was low.) True, you’re probably not going to find a three-person panel with enough languages to read everything in the original, but there certainly must be qualified candidates out there with a good 10 – 15 languages between them.

To me, this simply indicates what a joke the “Super” Booker has become, driving relentlessly toward irrelevancy before it’s even gotten started. I recall when they initiated this prize six years ago there was plenty of skepticism, and with stunts like this the skepticism seems to be proving itself right.


The Surrender is Veronica Scott Esposito’s “collection of facts” concerning how she embraced her true gender.


Two long essays of 10,000 words each on sex in—and out of—literature . . .

The first essay dives in to Nicholson Baker’s “sex trilogy,” explaining just what Baker is up to here and why these books ultimately fail to be as sexy as Baker might wish.

From there the book moves on to the second essay, which explains just why Spaniard Javier Marías does right what Baker does wrong . . .


5 essays. 2 interviews.

All in all, over 25,000 words of Latin American literary goodness.

3 never-before-published essays, including “The Digression”—a 4,000-word piece on the most important digression in César Aira’s career.

Shop though these links = Support this site

Copyright © 2019. Powered by WordPress & Romangie Theme.