Orange Prize 2010

[Colette Jones]

The Orange Prize for Fiction 2010 longlist


Rosie Alison The Very Thought of You
Alma Books
Eleanor Catton The Rehearsal
Granta
Clare Clark Savage Lands
Harvill Secker
Amanda Craig Hearts and Minds
Little, Brown
Roopa Farooki The Way Things Look to Me
Pan Books
Rebecca Gowers The Twisted Heart
Canongate
M.J. Hyland This is How
Canongate
Sadie Jones Small Wars
Chatto & Windus
Barbara Kingsolver The Lacuna
Faber and Faber
Laila Lalami Secret Son
Viking
Andrea Levy The Long Song
Headline Review
Attica Locke Black Water Rising
Serpent?s Tail
Maria McCann The Wilding
Faber and Faber
Hilary Mantel Wolf Hall
Fourth Estate
Nadifa Mohamed Black Mamba Boy
HarperCollins
Lorrie Moore A Gate at the Stairs
Faber and Faber
Monique Roffey The White Woman on the Green Bicycle
Simon and Schuster
Amy Sackville The Still Point
Portobello Books
Kathryn Stockett The Help
Fig Tree
Sarah Waters The Little Stranger
Virago

[Colette Jones]

Of the four that I have read so far, (The Long Song, Wolf Hall, The Little Stranger, and This is How) This is How would be my personal favourite.

[Eric]

I read in this morning's online Times:

Hilary Mantel’s account of the rise to prominence of Thomas Cromwell, Henry VIII’s right-hand man, was included yesterday on a shortlist of six for the prize, which rewards novels written by women in English anywhere in the world.

I still laugh at the sexism and xenophobia of this prize. As Hilary is a man's name as well (e.g. Hilary Benn, son of the former Lord Stansgate, now a mere commoner), I wonder how the ladies would feel if they were snubbed, as male novelists and non-fiction authors are with the Orange, when reading:

Mr Hilary Womantel’s account of the rise to prominence of Mary Queen of Scots, the nasty sister of Elizabeth I, was included yesterday on a shortlist of six for the prize, which rewards novels written by men in English anywhere in the world.

I can't stand the false equality of the Orange Prize for Insecure Women Novelists. Everywhere you look in the arts world in the UK there are women occupying key positions: the Arts Council, the Poetry Society, etc. And yet the Orange people keep on treating women authors like poor little things. Women are as active in the arts in Britain as they are in the rest of Europe, a continent on which there is less segregation of women novelists from the purported male mainstream. Otherwise why would, for instance, the Finnish woman novelist Sofi Oksanen have won the all-gender Nordic Council Prize for Literature, on whose shortlist even hermaphrodites could, no doubt, appear.

I've written this tongue-in-cheek comparison before, dubbing my new men-only prize the Turquoise Prize. But as yet no woman has had the guts to explain to me why discriminating against women is heinous, while discriminating against men is cuddly equality.

[Mirabell]

I read in this morning's online Times:


I still laugh at the sexism and xenophobia of this prize. As Hilary is a man's name as well (e.g. Hilary Benn, son of the former Lord Stansgate, now a mere commoner), I wonder how the ladies would feel if they were snubbed, as male novelists are with the Orange, when reading:

I can't stand the false equality of the Orange Prize for Insecure Women Novelists. Everywhere you look in the arts world in the UK there are women occupying key positions: the Arts Council, the Poetry Society, etc. And yet the Orange people keep on treating women authors like poor little things. Women are as active in the arts in Britain as they are in the rest of Europe, a continent on which there is less segregation of women novelists from the purported male mainstream. Otherwise why would, for instance, the Finnish woman novelist Sofi Oksanen have won the all-gender Nordic Council Prize for Literature, on whose shortlist even hermaphrodites could, no doubt, appear.

I've written this tongue-in-cheek comparison before, dubbing my new men-only prize the Turquoise Prize. But as yet no woman has had the guts to explain to me why discriminating against women is heinous, while discriminating against men is cuddly equality.

It's not discrimination, it's a prize with a special focus group. Here there are prizes for young writers, for German writers, for German writers with a foreign background, for writers from Cologne, for young writers from cologne, for young female artists from cologne, there are prizes for Catholic and protestant writers, prizes for poets, prizes for novelists, prizes for short story writers, prizes for unpublished writers, prizes for published writers, and many more. The Orange Prize is a prize for women. Big whoop. What it often does, if you look at the winners, is award a prize to books that, in a culture dominated by male writers, would not get a literary prize, because they seem too much like fringe. Look at the books that won, really, and try to use your brain. The raison d'?tre of the prize is obvious and commendable. I assume you've read some of the books on the winner's list so you can form an informed opinion, yes?

[titania7]

I read in this morning's online Times:


I still laugh at the sexism and xenophobia of this prize. As Hilary is a man's name as well (e.g. Hilary Benn, son of the former Lord Stansgate, now a mere commoner), I wonder how the ladies would feel if they were snubbed, as male novelists and non-fiction authors are with the Orange, when reading:
I can't stand the false equality of the Orange Prize for Insecure Women Novelists. Everywhere you look in the arts world in the UK there are women occupying key positions: the Arts Council, the Poetry Society, etc. And yet the Orange people keep on treating women authors like poor little things. Women are as active in the arts in Britain as they are in the rest of Europe, a continent on which there is less segregation of women novelists from the purported male mainstream. Otherwise why would, for instance, the Finnish woman novelist Sofi Oksanen have won the all-gender Nordic Council Prize for Literature, on whose shortlist even hermaphrodites could, no doubt, appear.

I've written this tongue-in-cheek comparison before, dubbing my new men-only prize the Turquoise Prize. But as yet no woman has had the guts to explain to me why discriminating against women is heinous, while discriminating against men is cuddly equality.

Eric, I truly do not understand why you're expressing such bitterness about the Orange Prize. Women were relegated to a secondary role in literary circles for so many centuries and had their intellectual status demeaned and ridiculed that I think it's a move in the right direction for a prize to be created solely to honor women's fiction.

Where I come from (the Southern USA), women still are expected to behave in a passive, docile way, to a large extent. Although this may come as a surprise, we continue to have to prove ourselves as having an intellect matching that of men and are oftentimes treated as nothing more than decorative objects, no matter how smart we may be.

There are moments when I look around and think that nothing much has changed in the past few decades and that the sexist attitude continues to prevail. Kudos to those who support the Orange Prize and who are open-minded enough to at least explore the books written by the women who have won the prize.

IF women are more insecure than men, it's because of how men and society have treated us throughout the years. . .it's because of how we've been denigrated, demeaned, patronized, and ridiculed.

~Titania

"I'll walk where my own nature will be leading: it vexes me to choose another guide." ~Emily Bronte

[Eric]

Hello, Alexis, we haven't "spoken" a while.

I happened to read an article about feminism and translation last night (by someone I'd never heard of before called Lori Chamberlain). Yes, unkind models have been used over the centuries comparing pretty and back-stabbing women with ugly and faithful ones. This has then been dragged into the translation argument (probably by celibate or closet monks, or jilted male lovers).

My point is that, in the early 21st century, is absolutely wrong to, on the one hand, say that women must be equal to men, but on the other, get revenge for centuries of injustice. Some women in the field of culture, to paraphrase Orwell, appear to want to be more equal than others.

I have no personal axe to grind, as they have not yet, as far as I know, invented a translation prize where only women need apply. But after sympathising with feminism in the past, I feel that once the point of equality of pay and opportunity has been reached and maintained, you must not, in true Trotskyist wise, keep the revolution going. No male (ditto a good many females) is going to accept the doublespeak (to again use Orwell's phrase) of pleading for equality for women, if they are then to still be permanently regarded as the weaker sex, the poor little things, who need a leg up (as opposed to over) and have to write (in the case of authors) in sheltered workshops. Men will read broad-canvas women writers and have always done so.

I believe in literary (e)quality, and therefore in literary prizes that reflect that quality, whether the contender is a man in a tweed jacket who sits in a whisky club and shuns ladies, or an ex-bulimist bisexual woman who writes about prostitution and people-trafficking, and dresses (in a feminine way) like a Goth.

The example of the man has been all too commonplace over the centuries,with the woman-scribbler adopting the role of madwoman in the attic, as pointed out by Virginia Woolf. But a woman fitting the above description has just won the Nordic Council Prize for Literature. This complex woman wrote a couple of novels that have been promoted and translated throughout Europe (barring the UK), plus the USA, and she didn't have to win a women-only or chicklit girly prize first, before the macho pipe-smokingly charismatic cock-wielding world of male publishing noticed her. The judges for the Nordic Council prize belong to both genders.

I have no idea what publishing looks like in this respect in the States, but in Britain, there are a few publishing houses (Virago, Maia) that specialise in almost women-only production. Virago has been a great success, and brought very many previously disadvantaged or ignored women authors to the fore. But that started back in the 1970s. Maia has been less successful and has been bought up. I'm not sure whether they still function as a separate entity.

I'm not against publishing houses specialising. But prizes should not be for women-only, gays-only, Blacks-only, or similar. You can have a prize for young authors, first-time ones, as the more talented ones will need a little protection from the cruel world till they have found their feet. But women, and I must stress this applies only to Western society, are in a great deal better position now than when the Suffragettes threw themselves under horses in desperation.

There is another kind of doublespeak that I find it appalling. And that is that Western feminism has hardly understood the true nature of, for instance, the mendacious Women's Day of Communist society. I translated a tongue-in-cheek poem from the Estonian on this very subject. And, nowadays, the discriminatory attitudes by various religions to women which are accepted on the grounds of cultural relativism and multiculturalism. Indeed, Western feminists have often been Communists (so you're not allowed to criticise Russia) and fellow-travellers when it comes to Islam (so you are allowed to criticise genital mutilation in Somalia, but not link it up the other blatantly misogynistic practices in Islamist societies, including ones practised by immigrants from these).

If feminists want to practise what they preach, they should first tackle the views of immigrant minorities with non-Western values, not by shutting men out of book prizes. That, in my opinion, is feminism lite.

[hdw]

Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall has been a runaway bestseller, even in hardback, and has won the Man Booker and been shortlisted for the Costa novel of the year. Now it's been shortlisted for the Orange prize as well.

I'm all in favour of Mantel winning as many literary prizes as possible, but I don't think the Orange Prize was devised to give already successful women novelists the chance to win yet another prize, without competition from the menfolk. If it's going that way, then they should found another prize for men to give Amis and McEwan and Rushdie and Barnes and Faulks and Ishiguro et.al. the chance to make a few more bucks without female competition.

If you called it the Apple Prize you'd get into trouble with Steve Jobs, so maybe it can be the Banana Prize, which would also provide a rather limp reference to a major preoccupation of much male fiction.

Harry

[titania7]

Hello, Alexis, we haven't "spoken" a while.

I happened to read an article about feminism and translation last night (by someone I'd never heard of before called Lori Chamberlain). Yes, unkind models have been used over the centuries comparing pretty and back-stabbing women with ugly and faithful ones. This has then been dragged into the translation argument (probably by celibate or closet monks, or jilted male lovers).

My point is that, in the early 21st century, is absolutely wrong to, on the one hand, say that women must be equal to men, but on the other, get revenge for centuries of injustice. Some women in the field of culture, to paraphrase Orwell, appear to want to be more equal than others.

I have no personal axe to grind, as they have not yet, as far as I know, invented a translation prize where only women need apply. But after sympathising with feminism in the past, I feel that once the point of equality of pay and opportunity has been reached and maintained, you must not, in true Trotskyist wise, keep the revolution going. No male (ditto a good many females) is going to accept the doublespeak (to again use Orwell's phrase) of pleading for equality for women, if they are then to still be permanently regarded as the weaker sex, the poor little things, who need a leg up (as opposed to over) and have to write (in the case of authors) in sheltered workshops. Men will read broad-canvas women writers and have always done so.

I believe in literary (e)quality, and therefore in literary prizes that reflect that quality, whether the contender is a man in a tweed jacket who sits in a whisky club and shuns ladies, or an ex-bulimist bisexual woman who writes about prostitution and people-trafficking, and dresses (in a feminine way) like a Goth.

The example of the man has been all too commonplace over the centuries,with the woman-scribbler adopting the role of madwoman in the attic, as pointed out by Virginia Woolf. But a woman fitting the above description has just won the Nordic Council Prize for Literature. This complex woman wrote a couple of novels that have been promoted and translated throughout Europe (barring the UK), plus the USA, and she didn't have to win a women-only or chicklit girly prize first, before the macho pipe-smokingly charismatic cock-wielding world of male publishing noticed her. The judges for the Nordic Council prize belong to both genders.

I have no idea what publishing looks like in this respect in the States, but in Britain, there are a few publishing houses (Virago, Maia) that specialise in almost women-only production. Virago has been a great success, and brought very many previously disadvantaged or ignored women authors to the fore. But that started back in the 1970s. Maia has been less successful and has been bought up. I'm not sure whether they still function as a separate entity.

I'm not against publishing houses specialising. But prizes should not be for women-only, gays-only, Blacks-only, or similar. You can have a prize for young authors, first-time ones, as the more talented ones will need a little protection from the cruel world till they have found their feet. But women, and I must stress this applies only to Western society, are in a great deal better position now than when the Suffragettes threw themselves under horses in desperation.

There is another kind of doublespeak that I find it appalling. And that is that Western feminism has hardly understood the true nature of, for instance, the mendacious Women's Day of Communist society. I translated a tongue-in-cheek poem from the Estonian on this very subject. And, nowadays, the discriminatory attitudes by various religions to women which are accepted on the grounds of cultural relativism and multiculturalism. Indeed, Western feminists have often been Communists (so you're not allowed to criticise Russia) and fellow-travellers when it comes to Islam (so you are allowed to criticise genital mutilation in Somalia, but not link it up the other blatantly misogynistic practices in Islamist societies, including ones practised by immigrants from these).

If feminists want to practise what they preach, they should first tackle the views of immigrant minorities with non-Western values, not by shutting men out of book prizes. That, in my opinion, is feminism lite.

But Eric, aren't men shut out of beauty pageants, too? I haven't ever heard them complaining about that. Is it all right for women to be given a special prize for being beautiful but not all right for them to receive a special prize for their literary talent? Just curious. . .

And yes, it has been awhile since we've spoken. I hope all is well with you, Eric.

~Alexis

[Amoxcalli]

But Eric, aren't men shut out of beauty pageants, too? I haven't ever heard them complaining about that. Is it all right for women to be given a special prize for being beautiful but not all right for them to receive a special prize for their literary talent? Just curious. . .

But a beauty pageant is rarely just a competition. It's a selection process for a job (that of Miss [somethingsomething]) that is open to the public, in the most extreme cases even broadcasted. The winner get a tiara, and a job. This job simply doesn't tolerate men, just like the role of James Bond doesn't tolerate women.

A prize is something else entirely. Literature written by men and women draw from the same pool of customers. Discrimination towards either sex is simply discrimination, here.

So yes, I'm with Eric on this subject. He may not agree with me, but I agree with him.

[Daniel del Real]

Come on, there's no big deal about this. There's also a prize named Sor Juana In?s de la Cruz and it's for the best novel written by women in Spanish language.
I'm with Eric in this one, but I just don't care about this awards. I hear about them, sometimes know who is the winner, but after all I don't care because there are just mediocre works. Most of them chick lit with a high profile, that's it.

[e joseph]

What a bunch of idealists male readers are! Declaring equality exists between sexes doesn't immediately make it so, there are many years of discrimination to make up for and a lot of ground left to cover. This argument sounds pretty similar to that against affirmative action job discrimination laws in the U.S.; lazy white guys complain that "lucky" black people have it easier getting hired because of these laws. I'm a white dude and last I checked I had it pretty friggin' easy.

I'm not overly familiar with past winners and don't feel like looking a list up right now (yup, lazy white guy), but I'm not sure this is a "chick lit" award. Marilynne Robinson's Home took the award last if I'm not mistaken and I've heard nothing but good things about it. There's a copy around here somewhere I still need to read in fact.

Finally, if there's any doubt as to the continued sexism favoring male writers, I'd encourage you to check out last year's noble debate when many posters didn't think the award should go to another female because there's been enough of them in the last few years.

[titania7]

What a bunch of idealists male readers are! Declaring equality exists between sexes doesn't immediately make it so, there are many years of discrimination to make up for and a lot of ground left to cover. This argument sounds pretty similar to that against affirmative action job discrimination laws in the U.S.; lazy white guys complain that "lucky" black people have it easier getting hired because of these laws. I'm a white dude and last I checked I had it pretty friggin' easy.

I'm not overly familiar with past winners and don't feel like looking a list up right now (yup, lazy white guy), but I'm not sure this is a "chick lit" award. Marilynne Robinson's Home took the award last if I'm not mistaken and I've heard nothing but good things about it. There's a copy around here somewhere I still need to read in fact.

Finally, if there's any doubt as to the continued sexism favoring male writers, I'd encourage you to check out last year's noble debate when many posters didn't think the award should go to another female because there's been enough of them in the last few years.

Thank you, Ejoseph. I appreciate your saying that you find the objections on the part of men to the Orange Prize being given to women to be unfair.

And speaking of equality between the sexes, I have actually overheard men saying comments such as this before: "Well, for a woman, so-and-so is a pretty good writer."

As for Home, I have heard many positive things about that book, too, and I scarcely think it should be relegated to the category of "chick lit." In fact, I'll be interested in hearing what you think of it after you read it.

Warmly,
Alexis

[e joseph]

Alexis -
Yup, that "for a woman" comment sounds pretty familiar. Ditto music and many other fields. As for Home, I've kinda had it on hold as I want to read Gilead first, even though I've heard less enthusiastic remarks about it. I remember Colette saying she (you if you're reading this Colette) enjoyed Home much more. Regardless, Gilead comes first, then Home. Look for my primate-ish "thoughts" sometime in 2010.

[Colette Jones]

As for Home, I have heard many positive things about that book, too, and I scarcely think it should be relegated to the category of "chick lit."

It's an excellent book. See below though, as I think you should read Gilead first, and I think you will like Gilead.

As for Home, I've kinda had it on hold as I want to read Gilead first, even though I've heard less enthusiastic remarks about it. I remember Colette saying she (you if you're reading this Colette) enjoyed Home much more. Regardless, Gilead comes first, then Home. Look for my primate-ish "thoughts" sometime in 2010.

I did enjoy Home much more than Gilead but I wish I hadn't given away my copy of Gilead. There's a particular section I would like to re-read after having read Home. I agree that you should read them in the order they were written, as it helps you to empathise with Jack in Home.

[Stiffelio]

I don't so much oppose to this prize but I consider it 'ghettoish', 'tokenistic' and ultimately self-demeaning. The Orange prize will be inevitably tainted with the hey-yes-but-no-men-were-allowed-to-compete stigma.

A great writer like Nadine Gordimer (who has won a few prizes in her career, no less the Nobel Prize), a staunch fighter against discrimination, had her publisher withdraw a novel of hers that was shortlisted for the 1998 Orange prize when she found out what the prize was about.

[lionel]

Has anyone mentioned the word 'minority' here? Whereas we can see that, say, blacks and gays have little power in society because they're an obvious minority, women and the working class, for instance, while being similar or far greater in number to the dominant class (white, male, middle-class, etc), are politically far inferior to that dominant class - in other words they have far less power. The Orange Prize is an important gesture toward readdressing the balance, and as such should be welcomed. I believe it was Tim Lott who started the nonsense about the Orange being a 'sexist con-trick', but who's the real sexist, and what is the matter with this guy?

BLOG

[Liam]

The Orange Prize is an important gesture toward readdressing the balance, and as such should be welcomed.

Just out of curiosity, could a natural-born male who underwent SRS ever qualify for the Orange Prize if s/he published a novel?

[I'm not asking for myself, BTW... ]

[Bottle Rocket]

Well, I don't know about fiction, but Jan Morris made the nonfiction transition very successfully (and I think won a good many prizes, too)


BRocket

[Eric]

Titania-Alexis, there is nothing wrong with beauty pageants as long as the women taking part are not permanently typecast in the role of dumb blonde who prances about half-naked and is an easy lay. It is well known that women take a helluva a lot more interest in their appearance (lipsticks, clothes, shoes, make-up, etc.) than men. This is presumably biology working, not some evil sexist male guru who has mass-hypnotised the Monstrous Regiment into showing off their tits to lecherous men & boys, by consuming lots of products made out of grease or cloth, and showing their legs up to their arses.

Some Western men, especially here in Sweden, seem to bend over backwards to be baby-friendly (without being p?dophile), letting their more intelligent wives take a job while they look after the kids, etc. There is a difference between having babies and looking after them. The former is the exclusive province of the female gender.

But literature is a unisex activity. Stylistic talent can be there whether you are writing about a harassed mother changing nappies or a male rugby player, about an Israeli woman soldier or a male nurse. It doesn't matter as long as the writing is good.

You can always adopt the paranoid take on literature, like the Communists did in another context. This meant that every book that did not have the Communist imprimatur was a plot by the bourgeoisie to undermine the Left. Likewise, paranoid feminists could claim that literature is a huge sexist ploy to allow men to dominate the world of books. Nutters will believe in anything, but I'm still happy that both Doris Lessing and A.S. Byatt have expressed disapproval of the nature of the Orange Prize. Even that feminist stalwart Germaine Greer has mellowed a good deal of late, though I don't know here views on the Orange.

Men and women are here to stay, despite sperm banks. And you can hardly accuse either Lessing or Byatt of being a token man, especially Byatt who wrote an explicit novel about having a baby. And one which is perfectly readable, even for blokes.

[Liam]

It is well known that women take a helluva a lot more interest in their appearance (lipsticks, clothes, shoes, make-up, etc.) than men.

Yeah, but these days there's the same amount of pressure on men too, what with going to the gym, tanning yourself to jaundice, and getting constant haircuts. God help you if you're a pale, fat loser with greasy hair; in both worlds (homo/hetero), you no longer qualify as a human being.

...especially Byatt who wrote an explicit novel about having a baby. And one which is perfectly readable, even for blokes.

If you're talking about Still Life, I beg to differ. It is one of Byatt's toughest, most experimental and densely written novels to date. So, yes, you're right, the book is about having a baby (among other things), but it's not really readable, unless you find Marcel Proust readable.