"In the course of my conversation with Helen she listed her criteria for a good novel, and the last of them was 'It must be ideologically correct'." David Lodge, Booker chair in 1989, thought Amis's London Fields a frontrunner for the prize. Here's when he realised it wouldn't even get shortlisted. - ThreadSky

john-self.bsky.social • 81 days ago

"In the course of my conversation with Helen she listed her criteria for a good novel, and the last of them was 'It must be ideologically correct'."

David Lodge, Booker chair in 1989, thought Amis's London Fields a frontrunner for the prize. Here's when he realised it wouldn't even get shortlisted.

1 / 3

Comments

willwiles.bsky.social•81 days ago

I know all the other players but was ignorant about Helen McNeil so I Googled her and the top result is about her blocking Amis from the Booker, which seems a little unfair all round.

john-self.bsky.social•81 days ago

She seems hard to find generally. The other aspect that comes up in googling her is in relation to her father George McNeil, a painter - so defined in relation to a man there too. Maybe the ghost of Amis would be pleased by that.

john-self.bsky.social•81 days ago

Wait, perhaps not that hard to find after all...

https://www.facebook.com/helen.mcneil.98/

bernardhughes.bsky.social•81 days ago

That's fascinating - and what a strong year! Remains of the Day and Restoration have both stood the test of time

naomialderman.bsky.social•81 days ago

Yes! At the point they picked both of those one thinks: why does the shortlist have to be six when clearly it is truly just two books?

john-self.bsky.social•81 days ago

Answer: because it's about publicity! In 1975 Roy Fuller made that point and in fact insisted on a shortlist of two books only, threatening to resign if the other judges put more books on it that were never going to win.

naomialderman.bsky.social•81 days ago

Yes and obviously as an author I am in favour of books benefitting from more publicity. It’s just that you look at Restoration and Remains of the Day and go: well it’s clearly one of those two, and it really is a toss-up between them.

john-self.bsky.social•81 days ago

Yes 1989 was as v strong shortlist year even with the absence of Amis, or Barnes's History of the World, or Mantel's Fludd...

dlwalsh.bsky.social•81 days ago

I would love to see that list of 17. I take it there was no official long list back then.

john-self.bsky.social•81 days ago

No. The only other book he mentions that almost made the shortlist was Gerontius by James Hamilton-Paterson.

john-self.bsky.social•81 days ago

Oh sorry, Michael Frayn’s The Trick of It was also considered.

petrospisco.bsky.social•81 days ago

That’s fascinating, thank you for sharing.

roryisconfused.bsky.social•81 days ago

Ala the lit Nobel’s criteria: “in the field of literature, produced the most outstanding work in an idealistic direction”. You’d think ideologically correct would be a very narrow field, though.

chollands.bsky.social•81 days ago

Dissapointing to hear what sounds like a form of censorship in the assessment of literary achievement

itsmeollie.bsky.social•80 days ago

Interesting. I'm reminded of Lodge's, The British Museum is Falling Down which was such a fun read. (I lent it out, never got it back. It's out of print.🤷‍♀️.)

john-self.bsky.social•80 days ago

No, it's still in print! (In the UK anyway.)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Museum-Falling-Down/dp/0099554224/

itsmeollie.bsky.social•80 days ago

Oh, my! I'm glad to hear it (not in N. Am., though).

its-lex-actually.bsky.social•81 days ago

Whoever suggested this “selection method” can go fuck themselves. It relies on groupthink and conformity. They didn’t even write their choices down secretly, which means someone talked first and everyone else was unfairly influenced by that.

john-self.bsky.social•81 days ago

I don't see how you can get around that. Juries are supposed to discuss the choices and therefore influence each other to reach a final decision, and even if they initiate things with a secret vote, someone has to speak first.

its-lex-actually.bsky.social•81 days ago

Oh, so the whole process is rotten. Typical.

john-self.bsky.social•81 days ago

From Writer's Luck: A Memoir 1976-1991

john-self.bsky.social•81 days ago

Of course the idea of not shortlisting based on a 3-2 vote is ridiculous, since plenty of Booker *winners*, let alone shortlists, have been chosen by that method. It's why they have an odd number of judges.

naomialderman.bsky.social•81 days ago

I mean one could ask Maggie Gee now, but it sounds as though this wasn’t a principled stand on Booker voting but that she and Helen M had concluded that the men would all love the Amis and that it would be 3 vs 2. So it was a strategy.

john-self.bsky.social•81 days ago

Oh of course. They may even have discussed it in advance, as they were good friends. And David Profumo was friends with Gee, so Lodge knew if he put London Fields to a vote anyway, Profumo would probably abstain (or vote with Gee and McNeil).

john-self.bsky.social•81 days ago

And fwiw the last two title they shortlisted, more or less as compromises, were Sybille Bedford's Jigsaw and James Kelman's A Disaffection. Both brilliant books deserving of attention and one of them wouldn't have got it if Amis (in no need of more publicity) had been shortlisted.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply