Prix Goncourt

[The Common Reader]

The Goncourt is also very much a horse-trading thing where publishing houses, not authors, are rewarded. It's only in 2008 that jurors were forbidden to have a concomitant salaried position in a publishing house... While it remains prestigious to the wider public (and, especially, lucrative for the publishing house!), French readers know not to expect much. An article here; a couple of quotes:

Bory (1945 laureate, for his first book!):
"Le Goncourt, c'est automatique, vous attire le grand public. Il vous aliène, c'est aussi automatique, les “connaisseurs”, aux yeux de qui le Goncourt est une maladie assez honteuse, un peu dégoûtante, qui se tient entre le lupus et la blennorragie. (…) Résultat : le grand public lit votre livre pour l'unique raison qu'il a eu le Goncourt, mais ne lit pas vos livres suivants, pour la bonne raison qu'ils ne l'auront pas. (…) Les connaisseurs ne liront pas votre livre parce qu'il a eu le Goncourt, et ne liront pas les suivants parce que le premier a eu le Goncourt."
"The Goncourt, automatically, gets you the wider public. It alienates, also automatically, the "connaisseurs", in whose eyes the Goncourt is a rather shameful illness, a bit disgusting, between lupus and gonnorhea. Result: the wider public reads your book for the sole reason that it got the Goncourt, but won't read your following ones, for the good reason that they won't. Connaisseurs won't read your book because it got the Goncourt, and won't read your following ones because the first got the Goncourt."

Audouard, french humorist (who did not get it): "Il n'empêche que le Goncourt est une connerie persévérante et diabolique. Qu'il fausse totalement la vie littéraire de ce pays. Qu'il abîme ceux qui l'obtiennent, aigrit ceux qui le ratent, encombre la presse des humeurs de M. Armand Salacrou et n'a d'autre intérêt que de faire croire à M. Armand Lanoux qu'il a de l'importance. Dans ce cas on peut véritablement parler de connerie institutionnelle. Il n'améliore ni ne détériore ceux qui en font partie. Ils ne sont pas cons à titre privé. Mais ils sont devenus les agents actifs d'une dangereuse connerie collective. Et le pire, c'est qu'ils le savent."
"Nevertheless, it must be said that the Goncourt is a fucking stupidity, enduring and diabolical. That it distorts this country's literary life completely. That it damages those who get it, embitters those who don't, litters the media with the tantrums of jurors and has no other point than to make laureates-turned-jurors believe that they're important. In this case we can truly speak of institutional stupidity. It neithers betters nor worsens those who are part of it. They are not privately stupid. But they have become the active agents of a dangerous collective stupidity. And the worst thing is that they know it."

Gracq wrote his pamphlet Literature on the Stomach in 1950, castigating the whole literary prize rigmarole; the Goncourt wanted to give him the prize in 1951 for the Rivage des Syrtes (still one of the most magnificent French-language novels I've read), which he promptly (and coherently) refused.

The masculinity of the jurors, short-listed and laureates has also been repeatedly and acidly pointed out by various feminist groups.

TL;DR: the Goncourt is more of an incestuous industry than a genuine literary prize. I still flip through them if I have the chance, on n'est jamais à l'abri d'un heureux accident....

Audouard's comment makes the Goncourt sound a lot like another literary prize...that doesn't get it right all the time, or even most of the time, but that occasionally manages to shine light on something genuinely new and important.

Remember that the Goncourt brought Proust (in 1919 for A l'ombre de jeunes filles en fleurs ), Malraux (in 1933 for La Condition humaine ), and Patrick Chamoiseau (in 1992 for Texaco ) to prominence. It also celebrated writers such as Marguerite Duras, André Schwartz-Bart, and Simone De Beauvoir (even if, in the case of the latter, it arguably ought to have been given to one of her other books).

For those who speak French there is a brilliant series of podcasts by Pierre Assouline tracing the history of the prize decade by decade: https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/du-cote-de-chez-drouant

 

[nagisa]

Sure, the Goncourt is a prize like any other, and sure, it sometimes gets it right. But it has its own history, of being one of the oldest and stuffier prizes. The jury pool is not often replaced, and their links to the industry are well-known (hence the 2008 rule; or the more piquant 2021 rule that lovers and family members of the jury had to be exempted...) Maybe dismissing it as "industry incest" was flippant, but a brief and personal comparison with the Renaudot list tells me I've read and appreciated more of their choices (and yes, the Renaudot has its own gross problems as well).

They're prizes ?‍ as was referred to originally, the gender imbalance problem is the same with the Nobel that we bitch about every year. Same with the diversity problem, with Sarr being noted as the first Black African winner in 2021 (compared to the Renaudot to Ouologuem in 1968; Sarr's is in fact a roman à clef about Ouloguem: a pair I intend to read soon). Hell, same with the "cancellation" problem, with Vintila Horia winning but not being awarded in 1960 because of his fascist past being exposed in the media. They're prizes ?‍

 

[Ben Jackson]

I think apart from Duras' The Lover and Modiano's Missing Person, I haven't read many Goncourt Prize winning novels. Hope to read Malraux's Man's Fate, De Beavuoir and Schwarz-Bart's works.

 

[The Common Reader]

Sure, the Goncourt is a prize like any other, and sure, it sometimes gets it right. But it has its own history, of being one of the oldest and stuffier prizes. The jury pool is not often replaced, and their links to the industry are well-known (hence the 2008 rule; or the more piquant 2021 rule that lovers and family members of the jury had to be exempted...) Maybe dismissing it as "industry incest" was flippant, but a brief and personal comparison with the Renaudot list tells me I've read and appreciated more of their choices (and yes, the Renaudot has its own gross problems as well).

They're prizes ?‍ as was referred to originally, the gender imbalance problem is the same with the Nobel that we bitch about every year. Same with the diversity problem, with Sarr being noted as the first Black African winner in 2021 (compared to the Renaudot to Ouologuem in 1968; Sarr's is in fact a roman à clef about Ouloguem: a pair I intend to read soon). Hell, same with the "cancellation" problem, with Vintila Horia winning but not being awarded in 1960 because of his fascist past being exposed in the media. They're prizes ?‍

Stuffy it may be, but the Goncourt has also made some choices that were, for their time, deeply unconventional. Sarr is indeed the first Black African recipient of the prize, but recall that as long ago as in 1921 the prize went to René Maran for Batouala.
Also in my earlier post I completely forgot to mention mon coup de coeur my personal favorite of all—the now seemingly forgotten masterpiece of Yves Navarre, Le Jardin d’acclimatation Prix Goncourt 1980. The novel surveys the wreckage of a dysfunctional family twenty years after the father decided to have the openly homosexual youngest son lobotomized to “cure” him of his vices. It is a work of astonishing psychological insight that flips back and forth between the viewpoints of different family members—now scattered across the globe—and time frames that skip back and forth between past and present.

 

[Corswandt]

A quote from this article:

Brigitte Giraud becomes 13th woman to win Prix Goncourt

Vivre Vite, an autobiographical novel about the death of her husband, wins France’s most prestigious literary award

www.theguardian.com

Brigitte Giraud, 56, a French writer of novels and short stories was declared winner with Vivre Vite (Live Fast) after the jury voted 14 times.

After a final vote ended in stalemate, the president of the Goncourt Academy cast a deciding vote, choosing Giraud over her closest rival Giuliano da Empoli.

The Goncourt jury is remarkably open about the rounds of voting/number of votes for each contending book (though of course without ever mentioning what any specific juror voted for). I don't remember the voting ever being this tight.

 

[nagisa]

Stuffy it may be, but the Goncourt has also made some choices that were, for their time, deeply unconventional. Sarr is indeed the first Black African recipient of the prize, but recall that as long ago as in 1921 the prize went to René Maran for Batouala.
Also in my earlier post I completely forgot to mention mon coup de coeur my personal favorite of all—the now seemingly forgotten masterpiece of Yves Navarre, Le Jardin d’acclimatation Prix Goncourt 1980. The novel surveys the wreckage of a dysfunctional family twenty years after the father decided to have the openly homosexual youngest son lobotomized to “cure” him of his vices. It is a work of astonishing psychological insight that flips back and forth between the viewpoints of different family members—now scattered across the globe—and time frames that skip back and forth between past and present.

I did not forget Maran (and now my interest has been renewed, thank you), and thank you also for bringing Navarre's book to my attention. I don't despise the Goncourt in particular, just reporting common sentiment about it in France.

The Goncourt jury is remarkably open about the rounds of voting/number of votes for each contending book (though of course without ever mentioning what any specific juror voted for). I don't remember the voting ever being this tight.

If I'm not mistaken, Maran was also the choice of the president over a hung jury (as reported by l'Huma).

 

[Verkhovensky]

I don't remember the voting ever being this tight.

Why not just split the prize if it is that rare for voting to be this tight?

 

[Papageno]

Le prix Goncourt for 2023 will be announced on 7 November. There are four finalists:

1. Neige Sinno - Triste Tigre
Probably the favourite, the book talks about the author's severe childhood trauma when she was subject to rape by her stepfather.

2. Gaspar Koenig - Humus
Koenig is a politician as well as a writer; he launched a very unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2022. Humus is a story of two friends, one bourgeois and other with agricultural background.

3. Jean-Baptiste Andrea - Veiller sur elle
A long and ambitious epic novel (more than 500 pages) on love under the shadow of fascism.

4. Éric Reinhardt - Sarah, Susanne et l'écrivain
A complex novel about a relationship of a woman and a writer, and the woman's sombre life with her cold husband. Contains a novel within a novel.

Sinno seems to be tipped to win, but Goncourt is notorious for its surprises. Last year, everyone expected Giuliano da Empoli's Le mage du Kremlin to win, but the prize went to Brigitte Giraud's Vivre vite instead. I read the last year's laureate and liked it a lot, she managed to tell a captivating story of her husband's sudden and pointless death in an motocycle accident some twenty years ago, all while revealing how life in France in general, and in Lyon in particular changed in the decades before and since his death. But I haven't read all the other books that were shortlisted, so I can't really form an opinion on the controversy that ensued, which seems to me to have been unusually acerbic. Famous writer Tahar ben Jellon, a member of the jury, went as far as to publicly bash Giraud's book, saying: "C'est un petit livre, il n'y a pas d'écriture." We'll see if the passions will be flying high this year as well.

 

[Papageno]

Prix Goncourt has been awarded to Jean-Baptiste Andrea for his novel Veiller sur elle. Here is a review in Le Monde, and here is one in the Guardian. As I was reading speculations about Goncourt last week, I think that I have seen all three other candidates cited by the critics as potential favorites to win, and Goncourt, as often, upset those expectations and hopes. I have not yet read Andrea's novel, but it appears that it is written in a more popular style than most other Goncourt laureates, and the topic seems rather interesting, so I will put it on my list. Also, I like what he said about the importance of telling a good story.

 

[Verkhovensky]

I have not yet read Andrea's novel, but it appears that it is written in a more popular style than most other Goncourt laureates

The 2020 laureate, The Anomaly is also rather easy to read (it sold 1,2M+ copies for a reason). I didn't particulary liked it though.

When mentioning past winners, I would again like to champion 2007 laureate, GIles Leroy's fantastic Alabama Song.

And who has won Renaudot? I read somewhere that it is announced on the same day?

 

[Papageno]

he 2020 laureate, The Anomaly is also rather easy to read (it sold 1,2M+ copies for a reason). I didn't particulary liked it though.

Good point - although I read an analysis somewhere that the number of copies sold might also have had to do with the fact that the year was 2020 (people didn't have much else to do than sit home and read).

And who has won Renaudot? I read somewhere that it is announced on the same day?

Yes, always on the same day in the same restaurant, and they make sure that they have a different laureate than the Goncourt (this year, one writer - Gaspar Koenig - was shortlisted for both prizes, so there was a risk of overlap: he won neither, however. Renaudot went to Ann Scott, who wrote an autobiographical novel about a 40-something year old woman who leaves her life in Paris. I haven't read or heard much about this novel, so I can't really say what's the word in the street about it, but here is a link to Le Monde short article. She became famous in 2000 with the novel Superstars, about the cultural and sexual lives of generation X.

 

[Liam]

The 2020 laureate, The Anomaly is also rather easy to read (it sold 1,2M+ copies for a reason). I didn't particulary liked it though.

I liked it, but I thought it was airport-quality writing, tbh, ?

 

[The Common Reader]

I liked it, but I thought it was airport-quality writing, tbh, ?

But it's a novel about air travel. A flight from Paris to New York that doesn't go entirely according to plan. That "airport-quality" of the writing might just be intentional, or at any rate appopriate to the story...