Women "dominate" the Bookers

There have been people on the panel such as Fostrup for example, who wouldn't know all the newly released titles. I would argue that even writers don't know every book released and it's now international, so you're talking about millions of titles.

Some panelists are writers, some are creatives, some are from publishing, there's no one type of judge. They're not all going to recognise every book on the list and every author, like I said, debut authors have won.

I find it highly unlikely that a panel of people would know the author of over a hundred books from the manuscript.

Millions of famous authors haven't won it, that's not the point.

Well, some very famous authors have never won it…?

This year the only judge who isn’t a writer or a literary editor is the musician Nitin Sawhney, so I’d say that not only do they not come from all walks of life, in this or any other year, they are pretty heavily concentrated on people who have a lot to do with books and their production.

As you’d expect, really— it doesn’t pay that well, and most of them are fitting reading 150 or so novels around other work over six months or so. You need people who read well, accurately, fast, and have good recall of a large number of novels, are able to judge their achievement, and an ability to be articulate in their sense of why something deserves the shortlist. It’s a big commitment — you’re essentially reading a novel a day, and meeting once a month to discuss them.

I'm not suggesting that women shouldn't be on the list. I was wondering if Atwood for example, would have won the Booker if she hadn't been Atwood.

Yes, I hope no one is suggesting that those novels by women don’t deserve their place on the shortlist. I’ve only finished Stone Yard Devotional, but liked it (well, bar the horrifying mouse plague descriptions), and have very much liked past work by Anne Michael’s and Rachel Kushner. I will definitely read Yale Van der Wouden’s The Safekeep. The others I know nothing about yet.

The judges aren't all reading The Bookseller and scanning for news of every single debut book coming out, there are thousands. They aren't all publishing industry insiders, they come from all walks of life.

Well men have had several decades on top of it, can't see why women can't be some years. Most of my favourite contemporary novelists are women- not because they're women but because they are very good writers. So there's no shortage of great female authors these days

Of course they won’t have heard of every single one, but anyone who is attuned to the world of contemporary publishing or books is going to have come across some, even the debuts, as they’re often mentioned in terms of auctions in The Bookseller, and it’s really not realistic to find judges who know nothing about the book world, but who are still prepared to read a long list of 150 or 160 books over six or seven months and then enter the fraught process of choosing a shortlist. I mean, I don’t think providing the judges with anonymous copies is going to mean there is a ‘pure’ vote.

Which is not to say that book prizes aren’t pretty problematic in many ways. A friend has judged several biggish ones (not the Booker), and from what I gather, it’s all too easy for something all judges feel ‘meh’ about to win, because often four judges will be passionately arguing for four different books to win. When it’s clear no one is budging, and it’s a complete deadlock, a fifth book everyone agrees is fine but isn’t that excited about wins instead.

Give clues? What decade, even?

There are loads of books on the list, it's unlikely they've heard of every single one. Some winners of the Booker have been debut authors no one has heard of.

If they were presented in manuscript form, with no indication of the author, I don't see it as unfeasible.

My dad won it and he was not a woman!

How would you do that? The books are published, out there in the world being sold, reviewed, discussed — even if the judges are issued with copies without names or publishers, they’re going to know who wrote what they’re reading!, unless they’ve been kept down a well for several months!

Totally agree!!

I've always thought that the Booker shouldn't reveal the author when the judges are reading the books. It would be interesting to see who they choose if it was simply based on good writing.

I think I get what you mean OP. I watched a documentary about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and she was asked if her end goal aim was to have 50% women on the bench. She said no, it was to be able to have 100% women and no one batting an eyelid, and it's really stuck with me as a great attitude.

I hadn't paid any attention to the list but a couple of those look my bag, thanks for flagging.