What I like about the Ackerley prize (I seem to recall going to a PEN summer party in Notting Hill where Peter Parker delivered the result to us down in the garden from a balcony on the first floor like a demagogue haranguing the crowd) is that the shortlist generally seems to gather books of substance that one might want to read unlike some shortlists I could mention. PS Peter Parker is not of course a tin-pot dictator!!!
There are some shortlists out there that I've learnt to ignore. It's interesting, to me at least, to read one that doesn't just repeat what others have picked out. (I like this image of Peter, the most unlikely of despots!)
A very enjoyable post, Michael, and I look forward to hearing more about the Ackerley Prize, and your discreet behind-the-scenes observations of the judging process... I reviewed Marina Warner's memoir for the TLS a couple of years ago, and thought it was great, of course. So I was gratified to spot my name on the back of the paperback edition, rather than just the (admittedly grander) designation 'TLS' - though I suppose that fits with its former tradition of anonymous reviewers.
Thanks, Ann – we'll have to compare prize-judging notes some time. The first review of a novel I wrote was quoted (without my name) on the paperback's cover, and I'm not sure it's happened again. They'll all been unquotable/unprintable, I guess..
Well, it's definitely better than writing those suspiciously catchy, blurb-like sentences. I think my own sentences are usually a bit too convoluted for publicists' tastes.
They usually pay a bit! And I certainly have a few months' reading lined up, not being an especially speedy reader. But that's to fit in around the day job etc. A prize with more than a hundred books coming in, such as the Booker, can take over its judges' lives completely (if temporarily)..
What I like about the Ackerley prize (I seem to recall going to a PEN summer party in Notting Hill where Peter Parker delivered the result to us down in the garden from a balcony on the first floor like a demagogue haranguing the crowd) is that the shortlist generally seems to gather books of substance that one might want to read unlike some shortlists I could mention. PS Peter Parker is not of course a tin-pot dictator!!!
There are some shortlists out there that I've learnt to ignore. It's interesting, to me at least, to read one that doesn't just repeat what others have picked out. (I like this image of Peter, the most unlikely of despots!)
A very enjoyable post, Michael, and I look forward to hearing more about the Ackerley Prize, and your discreet behind-the-scenes observations of the judging process... I reviewed Marina Warner's memoir for the TLS a couple of years ago, and thought it was great, of course. So I was gratified to spot my name on the back of the paperback edition, rather than just the (admittedly grander) designation 'TLS' - though I suppose that fits with its former tradition of anonymous reviewers.
Thanks, Ann – we'll have to compare prize-judging notes some time. The first review of a novel I wrote was quoted (without my name) on the paperback's cover, and I'm not sure it's happened again. They'll all been unquotable/unprintable, I guess..
Well, it's definitely better than writing those suspiciously catchy, blurb-like sentences. I think my own sentences are usually a bit too convoluted for publicists' tastes.
I’ve always wondered whether they pay people who agree to act as judges for prizes like this. The reading must be all-consuming for weeks/months!
They usually pay a bit! And I certainly have a few months' reading lined up, not being an especially speedy reader. But that's to fit in around the day job etc. A prize with more than a hundred books coming in, such as the Booker, can take over its judges' lives completely (if temporarily)..
Relieved to hear they pay you something! Happy reading. ✨️