(Pankaj Mishra)
* * *
By the following year’s festival, in March 2004, I had done copious research on the Man Booker prize, and knew more about it than most writers anywhere on the planet, and probably most executives in the Man Group, even in London.
That spring, I spent a lot of time talking to top UK critic John Carey, who had been chair of the Booker Prize in 1982 (they choose Thomas Keneally’s Schindler’s Ark) and then the Man Booker Prize in 2003 (when they chose DBC Pierre’s Vernon God Little).
Carey spoke at the Hong Kong festival along with a bright young Indian novelist, Pankaj Mishra. Also featured was a young British writer with a fetish for Japan, David Mitchell. Mitchell sent me a piece to put in our journal, and it was an extraordinary piece of work—I knew he would be a regular on the Man Booker shortlist.
(David Mitchell)
* * *
Matt Dillon held true to his promise. He and Rosemary Sayer arranged a meeting at which I could meet some Man Group executives from London, with a specific purpose of discussing a potential Man Asian Literary Prize.
I backed up my usual spiel about the rising importance of Asian culture on the world stage with a barrage of facts about Man Group’s sponsorship of book prizes.
The rules for the Man Booker Prize, I pointed out, made it a very British / commonwealth prize which excluded most Asian authors. The Man Booker prize needed to be a prize for the world, I said.
“You already do a local prize in Africa. You already do a local prize in Russia. A similar local prize for Asia is the missing piece of your puzzle,” I told them.
One of the attendees, a man named Christophe, was particularly receptive. You can usually read people’s reactions in their eyes –and I knew that they had liked what we had said, and could see the logic of the argument.
I told Rosemary and my other team-members on the way out of the meeting that I felt we had a good chance of getting the go-ahead this time.
* * *
Shortly afterwards, the answer came. It was short, sharp, and clear: No.
The disappointing news was delivered in gentle tones, by Matt Dillon, but was nevertheless unequivocal. My argument that the Man Booker Prize needed to be a prize for the world had been heard, understood and agreed with—indeed, it turned out that exactly the same discussion had been going on for more than a year at the offices of the prize in London.
Yes, the Man Booker Prize did need to be a prize for the world. But the answer was not to launch an Asian prize, but a new prize that would be global.
Matt said that he was not at liberty to reveal details of the prize, except to say that it would be a prize without the limitations to entry that were specified in the rules of the Man Booker Prize.
* * *
I was crestfallen. I waited patiently for the announcement, and resisted the temptation to even hint at the coming surprise in my various newspaper and magazine columns.
Full details were eventually released in June. The Man Booker International Prize would be awarded every two years, and would be awarded to a living author anywhere on the planet whose work was available in English.
The words “Asian Literary Prize” disappeared from the agendas of the meetings of our team.
