The Literary Sponsor's Prerogative

The six finalists for the Man Booker Prize, considered by many to be the most prestigious award for literary fiction in the English-speaking world, were announced in London on Tuesday with the traditional fanfare. But this year, as sometimes happens, the shortlist attracted more attention for who was not on it....

...More surprising, “The Enchantress of Florence” by Salman Rushdie was not chosen as a finalist, both startling and delighting British critics and subsequently prompting the Booker judges to explain why Mr. Rushdie was snubbed...

...“In the opinion of these five people taken together, Salman Rushdie’s was not one of the top six books for us,” said Michael Portillo, the judging panel’s chairman. “We didn’t have a huge debate about it.”

The ‘Man’ part of the prize’s name refers, of course, to Man Group plc, active in flogging its large inventory of hedge fund instruments in the Middle East. While it does not break out the geographical source of its $79.5 billion in assets under management, at Jun. 30, bet that a chunky proportion comes directly from, or through the entirely money-laundering regulation compliant Swiss bank accounts of, people from places where the author best known for ‘The Satanic Verses’ is not held in the highest regard.

So that’s all very convenient then. 

Booker Prize Shortlist Is Announced

by Julie Bosman

The New York Times Sep. 9 2008

Comments

[Timray:]

Greg, I'm glad that sceptical voices such as yours exist. But this post is too cynical. I hold no brief for Man, but the outstanding performance of its funds counts for far more than any prize that is awarded in Man's name. The Booker's mainly literary judges have a long history of controversial decisions, dating back to long before Man took over the prize. I doubt they understand what the sponsor does, let alone its client base. I suggest you read Rushdie's entry.

2008 Sep 12 04:48 PM