Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.twt.life From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: Prize marks new chapter for Russian literature Date: Tue, 3 Nov 92 15:19:55 EST Message-ID: \SE E;LIFE \SS (WS) \HD Prize marks new chapter for Russian literature \BY Marcus Warren \CR THE LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH \DT MOSCOW MOSCOW - Beneath an extravagant chandelier and surrounded by dusty, leather-bound volumes from centuries past, Moscow's literary beau monde is making short work of canapes and bottles of Georgian red wine. The Booker Prize is in town and appears to be adapting well to its new surroundings. According to Sir Michael Caine, Booker's chairman, the establishment of this Russian version of Britain's best-known literary prize is a tribute to "the enormous size and grandeur" of the Russian novel. He could have been describing the prize money that Booker is offering. The winner, to be announced Dec. 8, stands to receive 10,000 pounds (almost $17,000), half the British prize but a fabulous sum in a country where ordinary people earn 2,500 rubles a week (about $8.30). In addition there are the foreign publishing rights. It comes as little surprise, then, that the Russian Booker has brought out the worst in local writers. "Before, when they were all in opposition to the authorities, there was some solidarity," says Ellendea Proffer, a co-founder of leading emigre publishers Ardis and one of this year's judges. "Now they're focusing on jealousy. People will say that so-and-so was a KGB agent. Ascribing political bias to your enemies seems to me to be going too far." Gossip about who made the "long list" of 51 works from which the final six were chosen, who failed, and why, has been a diverting distraction from Russia's economic chaos and from the near bankruptcy of the "thick journals," the traditional mainstay of Russian letters. Booker insiders deny that some nominators put themselves forward for the "long list." But several appear to have nominated best friends. "There are at least three works on that list [of 51] that couldn't be used as toilet paper," says Ms. Proffer. Accusations of excessive secrecy and favoritism are legion. "The important thing is not so much to be on the short list yourself as to be sure that your enemies are not," one notable emigre announced to all within earshot at last week's announcement of the finalists. The final six (comments by chairman of the judges, Alla Latynina) are Alexander Ivanchenko, "Monogram" (burrowing "deep into the corners of Russian history"); Vladimir Makanin, "Manhole" ("a metaphor for human fate in modern society"); Ludmila Petrushevskaya, "The Time: Night" ("about a ruthless woman who destroys everything around her"); Vladimir Sorokin, "Four Stout Hearts" ("mocks and parodies famous literary styles"); and Mark Kharitonov, "Lines of Fate" ("beautiful technique and wonderful dexterity"). The jury's decision was described by one judge as "painless." John Bayley, an expert on 19th-century Russian literature and one of the judges, says wistfully, "The Russian novel used to be rather exotic, foreign and distant. Nowadays it seems to be in the general swim. It's giving no secret away if I say that all the novels that have reached the final six could have been written in the West. They are equally uninhibited, for one thing." Given the problems of Russian publishing, few readers will be able to get their hands on the short-listed novels. Only two have been released in book form, one exists as a manuscript, while the rest have been published in "thick journals," back copies of which are often hard to obtain. This article is copyright 1992 The Washington Times. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM