[music]

Brooke Gladstone: This is the On the Media midweek podcast. I'm Brooke Gladstone. This holiday season, bookstore window displays and Christmas stockings will be filled with novels minted with gold and silver medals. Those gilded stamps denote recognition by literary prizes like the National Book Award which was just announced last month. Alexander Manshel is the author of Writing Backwards: Historical Fiction and the Reshaping of the American Canon.

With Melanie Walsh, he recently wrote a piece for the online magazine Public Books titled, What 35 Years of Data Can Tell Us About Who Will Win the National Book Award. Before we get to the changes in how literary prizes have been awarded over the past few decades, I asked Manshel whether these prizes actually matter, and he told me that whether we like it or not, their influence is undeniable.

Alexander Manshel: Even just finalists for these prizes are more likely to be read, taught, and studied, and the ones that win get an even bigger boost.

Brooke Gladstone: Here, Manshel cites a study he co-wrote with Laura B. McGrath and J.D. Porter called Who Cares About Literary Prizes?

Alexander Manshel: We looked at hundreds of high profile 21st century novels, and we found that the number of good reads ratings which is a proxy for readership, jumps from 48,000 for a book that is not even shortlisted to 98,000 for a book that wins. The same is true on university syllabi, the average book, even a high profile book is taught a grand total of zero times in a university classroom, but it ends up on as many as 15 syllabi on average when it wins.

Brooke Gladstone: What about sales?

Alexander Manshel: Sales is the great mystery and the brass ring for scholars like me. We don't have good publicly available data on sales, so we have to use these other proxies for readership to figure that out. Of course, sales don't always tell us about what people are actually reading. If you take the time to leave a good reads rating or review, or to study it over a week in a course, that's far more engagement than as we can all relate to buying a book and never actually cracking the spine.

Brooke Gladstone: I'm reminded of a hilarious exercise that the great editor and writer Michael Kinsley did where he decided to go into one of the big Washington book store and put a slip in all of these big Washington door stops on page 200 that said, if you get this far, call this number and you'll get $10 and didn't get a single taker.

[laughter]

Alexander Manshel: I love this. Brooke, I have a bunch of friends who live in New York City, and if I had a dime for every one of them that has a copy of Robert Caro's, The Power Broker somewhere in their apartment, I'd be a wealthy man [laughs].

Brooke Gladstone: We have seen just anecdotally but constantly the appearance of books that have been made into movies on the bestseller list years after they were first published, so talk about the impact of screen adaptations.

Alexander Manshel: In the last few years alone, we've seen a number of prize-winning novels, or even novels that have just been shortlisted for a major literary award being adapted to Prestige TV and to film. I'm thinking here of books like The Underground Railroad which won both the National Book Award and the Pulitzer by Colson Whitehead, Min Jin Lee's Pachinko which was a finalist for the National Book Award, and more recently, Anthony Doerr's All the Light We Cannot See which won the Pulitzer.

Speaker 3: I know that broadcasting could get me executed, but I will not be silenced. I hope you'll tune in again tomorrow.

Brooke Gladstone: In that case, it was such a big seller, it hardly needed a movie adaptation.

Alexander Manshel: This is one of those things where the production companies and the streamers themselves look not only at the sales that have already occurred, but at things like prestige as denoted by literary awards to signal not only what people are interested in, but what is taken to be literary. Part of the way that Prestige TV gets its prestige is by borrowing the literary prestige from novels like these.

Brooke Gladstone: People love to talk about prizes, but especially when there's an upset. Tell me about the most objected-to award decision of the past half-century and you know where I'm going with that, the National Book Award of 1987.

Alexander Manshel: I do. As I argue in my book, Tony Morrison's 1987 novel Beloved is the single most celebrated contemporary American novel, it's among the most widely read, written about and admired works of the last half century. In 1987, Beloved was nominated for the National Book Award, but it was ultimately passed over in favor of Larry Heinemann's Vietnam war novel Paco's Story, and this truly was a great upset.

Jonathan Yardley wrote in the Washington Post, "You couldn't have cut the collective astonishment with a machete." That's how startled were the assembled illuminati. Truman over Dewey was nothing as to Heinemann over Morrison. Then over at the New York Times, Michiko Kakutani opened her review with just two words, "What happened?"

Brooke Gladstone: [laughs] Let's talk about that because the rumor was that the sole Black judge on the judging panel was a vote against Beloved, right?

Alexander Manshel: This was the rumor at the time that it was a split decision, the result of a 2:1 vote. Now there were three at that time, judges on the National Book Award jury, the critic Richard Eder and the novelists Hilma Wolitzer and Gloria Naylor who is the judge you're referring to. Wolitzer was later quoted as saying it was an agonizing decision. Eder had on the one hand given Paco's Story a positive review in the LA Times where he worked, and he had only written a short piece on Beloved as part of a larger article.

Naylor, the only Black judge on the jury was rumored to have voted against Beloved. After Beloved was passed over for the National Book Award, a group of 50 Black writers, critics and scholars took out an open letter in the New York Times to praise the novel and to protest the decision by the prize. One of the signatories of that letter, June Jordan, ultimately withdrew a creative writing fellowship for Gloria Naylor, and she said that it would be "embarrassing, " and morally elliptical for Naylor to take up that position. Still, we have to say no one knows for sure who voted how. In the room where literary history is being made, very little is known.

Brooke Gladstone: What did you learn in your research about the juries that decide which books will win the big prizes?

Alexander Manshel: Because we can never know for sure exactly what happens in the room, we wanted to figure out at least who was there. We drew on 35 years of data, and one of the first things we found is just how much influence over literary prestige is held by a very small number of people.

Brooke Gladstone: How small?

Alexander Manshel: Over the last 35 years, for example, when it comes to the Pulitzer Prize, just five people have made up more than 20% of all the jurors. If you add another five names to that list, it's more than a third of all jurors, and these people are mostly professional reviewers. Gail Caldwell at the Boston Globe, Richard Eder at the LA Times, Marie Arana at the Washington Post. These people have judged the Pulitzer four, six, even seven times over the past 35 years. Eder is a particularly interesting example because he was on the National Book Award jury that ultimately passed over Tony Morrison for the 1987 award, but less than a year later he was on the Pulitzer jury that ultimately resulted in Morrison getting the award for the same book

Brooke Gladstone: Let's move on to how the prizes have changed over the years and why. In 2023, the jury for the National Book Award was the most diverse ever, and its short list has been among the most diverse too.

Alexander Manshel: Absolutely. To put this in perspective, in the few years after Morrison's Beloved was published, the late 1980s, only around 15% of judges for these prizes were people of color, and in 16 of the last 35 years, the nominating jury for the Pulitzer did not include a single person of color. If we skip ahead to the last few years, people of color have made up more than half of the juries for both the Pulitzer and the National Book Award.

Brooke Gladstone: Should we assume that the more judges of color are appointed, the more there'll be authors of color winning prizes?

Alexander Manshel: The broad trend is that both of those things have occurred over the past several decades except-- here's where things get wonky. Here's where things get interesting. On the scale of the individual year, one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. A more diverse jury doesn't necessarily yield a more diverse group of finalists.

Brooke Gladstone: You have said that the rumors about Gloria Naylor's vote, if that's true, for the 1987 National Book Award, made it clear that the judge's identity will never wholly dictate which books or book they prefer, but never say never. It sounds like when it comes to all-white judges, it actually may.

Alexander Manshel: We found two different things. One is that there is not as close a correlation between the jury's demographics and the shortlist demographics. There is a tighter correlation between the diversity of the jury and who ultimately wins.

Brooke Gladstone: Okay.

Alexander Manshel: It's true. We found that when the jury was composed only of white judges, they selected a white winner every single time. We also found that there was a correlation between more and more judges of color and the likelihood that that jury would select a novelist or a writer of color as their winner. As the Naylor example makes clear, we found that if there is a Black or Asian-American writer who's named a finalist for these awards, there is about half the time not a Black or Asian-American judge on the committee.

It's not a simple exercise in identification that if you are of a certain identity, you automatically vote for the book that is by a writer who shares that. I think part of what we're seeing in this data is when you're sitting in a room that reminds you consistently that your perspective is just one of many perspectives, that leads to a wider variety of writers being celebrated by the prizes.

I think that's likely the reason why more diverse juries end up picking more diverse writers for their winners. It's important to have a diverse group of jurors, not just because they are somehow automatically going to select a diverse group of winners, but because there is a wide variety of literary tastes in this country, and there is a great diversity of readers.

Brooke Gladstone: You have the dynamics in the jury room that you say is very important, people looking around and realizing that there are a variety of perspectives to take into consideration. Anything else going on in that jury room would you suggest?

Alexander Manshel: I think it's important for us to remember that when the juries make their decisions, it's not a simple averaging of their different demographics and educations and literary taste. It's a negotiation. It's oftentimes a debate. As we write in the piece, their social dynamics matter. Where they went to school, where they got their MFA, who publishes them, if they have an agent in common, if they have a longstanding literary rivalry with another writer, even another writer who looks or writes like them. All of these could affect the decision-making of the jury. That gold or silver seal on the front of the book actually covers over these much more complex dynamics that are happening in the back room.

Brooke Gladstone: In your article, you referred to Percival Everett's 2001 novel Erasure, which makes some caustic observations regarding the group dynamics of literary prize juries. The book is the basis of a new film coming out called American Fiction. The premise involves a character named Thelonious "Monk" Ellison, who writes very obscure literary works. It's offset in the book, Unreadable Works. He can't sell his books, but he's become aware of this book Wees Lives In The Ghetto by a woman who went and visited some relatives in Harlem for a couple of days and decided to write a book about the complete Black experience. In the end, he decides to write a parody called My Pathology with an F.

Speaker 4: I be standing outside in the night.

Speaker 5: Deadbeat dads, rappers, crack. You said you wanted black stuff that's Black, right?

Speaker 4: I see what you're doing. We sold a book.

Speaker 5: No.

Speaker 6: We believe. Mr. Lee has written a bestseller.

Speaker 5: It's a joke.

Speaker 4: The most lucrative joke you've ever told.

Brooke Gladstone: We won't give away the ending, but he's just horrified at the success. No one sees it as a parody. He's now serving on a panel of the National Book Awards.

Alexander Manshel: One of the works he's asked to judge is his highly parotic, highly offensive stereotypical novel, My Pathology. Part of the reason why Monk agrees to be on this award jury in the first place is he says, "I detested awards, but as I complained endlessly about the direction of American letters when presented with an opportunity to affect it, how could I say no." He wants to be in the room where decisions are being made, but when he gets there, what he finds is that the other judges don't really care much for his opinion.

He says, "This book is offensive, it's racist. It speaks to the most base stereotypes about African-Americans." One of the white judges on the committee says, "I should think as an African-American, you'd be happy to see one of your own people get an award like this. I would think you'd be happy to have the story of your people so vividly portrayed." It's a real moment of confusion about the very question of diversity in contemporary publishing. Mere representation is not the only goal.

Brooke Gladstone: When Everett was the only Black judge for the National Book Awards, I think it was in '97, the finalists were entirely white and the winner was Cold Mountain, Charles Frazier's tragic love story about a Confederate soldier and a southern landowner. Do we know if that prize was unanimous?

Alexander Manshel: The proof is in the pudding of the novel that he wrote after the fact. Obviously, it's not entirely autobiographical, but if we look at Percival Everett's career, he is a writer who has written brilliant and at times esoteric novels and has only recently attained a larger literary fame. The kind of advances and adaptations that his rival novelist in Erasure has gotten.

Brooke Gladstone: He has won a lot of literary prizes and was a finalist for both the Pulitzer and the Booker prizes, but finalist not winner. I want to end on a question about the publishing industry. Many writers of color have observed that selling books often demands writing about trauma, centering that experience. What do you think?

Alexander Manshel: As I write about in my book, the great majority of Black, Asian-American, Latinx, and Indigenous writers who have won major literary prizes over the last several decades have done so for writing about the historical past and specifically historical trauma. I think there is some truth to that. I don't think it's a question of marketability or rather, I guess what I would say it's something of an assumption about what sells and an assumption about what kind of book counts as literary.

Part of the work that these prizes do is they can confirm our expectations about what is literary or they can completely upend it. All it takes is one particularly independent group of jurors to make a call that completely sends the literary world for a spiral. Sometimes that is a scandal, and sometimes that is a first step in changing the way we think about what is literary.

Brooke Gladstone: Thanks very much, Alexander.

Alexander Manshel: It's my pleasure.

[music]

Brooke Gladstone: Alexander Manshel is the author of Writing Backwards: Historical Fiction and the Reshaping of the American Canon. Thanks for checking out the midweek podcast. Don't forget the big show, which is posted every Friday. Happy holidays.

[00:18:10] [END OF AUDIO]

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.