Our Last National Book Awards Post Until October '05

It's a little late, but I didn't want to completely pass over Boston Globe bookman David Mehegan's post-NBA analysis, which recycles some of the old complaints and offers a new variation on an old theme by Time Warner Book Group chair Laurence J. Kirshbaum (full disclosure: my publisher, in the big-picture scheme of things), who says "books which resonate in our society and--yes, to use that awful word--that sell should be recognized in awarding these honors." Personally, I tend towards the view that selling (at least at the level Kirshbaum's implying) is its own honor and shouldn't be taken into consideration when judging literary excellence, but I suppose there's a fine conversation to be had about what "[resonating] in our society" means other than selling and impressing book reviewers in the mainstream media. Which is to say, for example, that I believe The News From Paraguay will "resonate in our society" with plenty of its readers. Meanwhile, Bob Hoover of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette adopts another perspective on what he calls a "healthy controversy, healthy for readers and maybe even for the publishing industry."

Finally, Boris Kachka of New York responds belatedly to my take on his take on the nominees. I'd already closed off the comments to that post because the spammers had started moving in, but it's worth hearing what he has to say, so follow the jump if you will...

I guess I was in the wrong place at the wrong time; sticking my head out just in time for the backlash--obviously an overreaction to my article, per se. What I wrote was a reported piece, and you might notice I kept the arch commentary to a minimum (not so your presumptuous and contemptuous little note here, but hey, that's blogs for you). I'm pretty sure saying the nominees were "a little obscure this year" is a safe assertion, relatively speaking. I know one of your posters had Christine Schutt in the sixth grade, but that does not make her famous. Secondly, the question I was posing in your quote was largely rhetorical, and aimed at Kate Walbert, who declined to answer it. Talk about taking somethng out of context! Also, the presumption that the critical response (from editors themselves, not just "hacks" like me) comes out of sheer laziness is itself very lazy. As if the only interest journalists had in this was in seeing nominees they'd already read, so they didn't have to open a book and learn about a new writer! How silly. You also deliberately misunderstood my meaning. The question was whether it might be more interesting to have a mix of authors--famous and obscure, veteran and rookie, sweeping and intimate.

Awards are always arbitrary and subjective; this year's NBA nominations clearly were exceptionally so. It's as simple as that.

Naturally, I don't think I was overreacting, but I'll allow for a certain amount of defensiveness on his part. As for the "presumptuous and contemptuous" tone of my "arch commentary," yes, I suppose that is "blogs for you," but then I've never pretended to be a reporter. I'm more like, say, a columnist, so I don't see "arch commentary" as a print v. blog distinction.

The rhetorical question Kachka posed, which Kate Walbert probably declined to answer because it was lame, was "Wouldn’t it be more interesting if, say, these novelists were up against name writers with acclaimed new works, such as Philip Roth or Cynthia Ozick?" (I don't want to be putting words in your mouth, though, Kate, so feel free to put in your own two cents!) To which I replied, "By 'interesting,' of course, he seems to mean 'less work for our lazy brains.'"

Now maybe the "of course" was a little excessive, but I'll stand by the rest of the statement. "Interesting" is this context clearly seems to mean "capable/worthy of holding our interest," and when Kachka suggested the shortlist would be more so if it had "name writers with acclaimed new works," there's no reason to assume he meant, as he now claims he did, the ones who'd published "sweeping" fiction. And since the nominees already offered a range of veterans and rookies, as anybody who bothered to learn anything about them knows, that just leaves us with the dichotomy "famous and obscure." Because, after all, something we already know a little about is more "capable of holding our interest" than that which we know precious little about.

But maybe he means "interesting" in the sense of "exciting." In which case, yes, it probably might be "more interesting" if they did it Kachka's way. Of course, it might be "more interesting" if they forced the fiction shortlist to take the judges on in a basketball game, too. All of which distracts from, as I've said before and won't be saying again for eleven months, the main point: this was an award for literary excellence as exhibited in five books published in the last twelve months or so, and I for one fail to see why this shortlist was "exceptionally" more subjective than, say, the one two years ago. The NBA fiction prize was not a lifetime achievement or people's choice award, nor was it bonus compensation for making the bestseller list. Anybody who wants to see those things rewarded can start their own prize.

(PS: That defensiveness on Kachka's part about "hacks" isn't actually aimed at me, but at Robert Birnbaum's followup comment..."hack" isn't a word that I would use to describe a journalist, since it would disrupt the civil tone.)