Editing Booker Prize (section)

===1980–1999===
In 1980, [[Anthony Burgess]], writer of ''[[Earthly Powers]]'', refused to attend the ceremony unless it was confirmed to him in advance whether he had won.<ref name="Stoddard"/> His was one of two books considered likely to win, the other being ''[[Rites of Passage (novel)|Rites of Passage]]'' by [[William Golding]]. The judges decided only 30 minutes before the ceremony, giving the prize to Golding. Both novels had been seen as favourites to win leading up to the prize, and the dramatic "literary battle" between two senior writers made front-page news.<ref name="Stoddard"/><ref>{{cite news |url=http://archive.guardian.co.uk/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=R1VBLzE5ODAvMTAvMjIjQXIwMDEwNA==&Mode=Gif&Locale=english-skin-custom |title=Lord of the novel wins the Booker prize |first= W. L. |last=Webb|work=The Guardian |date=22 October 1980}} p. 1.</ref>

[[Alice Munro]]'s ''[[Who Do You Think You Are? (book)|The Beggar Maid]]'' was shortlisted in 1980, and remains the only short-story collection to be shortlisted.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/jul/13/big-novels-2012|title=Dear Life: Stories by Alice Munro (Chatto & Windus, November) |work=The Guardian |date=13 July 2012 |access-date=13 July 2012 |quote=As the only writer to sneak on to the Booker shortlist for a collection of short stories (with ''The Beggar Maid'' in 1980), Alice Munro easily deserves to end our list of the year's best fiction.}}</ref>

In 1981, nominee [[John Banville]] wrote a letter to ''[[The Guardian]]'' requesting that the prize be given to him so that he could use the money to buy every copy of the longlisted books in Ireland and donate them to libraries, "thus ensuring that the books not only are bought but also read&nbsp;– surely a unique occurrence".<ref name="Stoddard"/><ref>Banville, John (15 October 1981), [http://archive.guardian.co.uk/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=R1VBLzE5ODEvMTAvMTUjQXIwMTQwMg==&Mode=Gif&Locale=english-skin-custom "A&nbsp;novel way of striking a 12,000 Booker Prize bargain"], ''The Guardian'', Letters to the editor, p. 14.</ref>

Judging for the 1983 award produced a draw between [[J. M. Coetzee]]'s ''[[Life & Times of Michael K]]'' and [[Salman Rushdie]]'s ''[[Shame (Rushdie novel)|Shame]]'', leaving chair of judges [[Fay Weldon]] to choose between the two. According to Stephen Moss in ''The Guardian'', "Her arm was bent and she chose Rushdie", only to change her mind as the result was being phoned through.<ref name="Moss"/> At the award ceremony, [[Fay Weldon]] used her speech to attack the assembled publishers, accusing them of exploiting and undervaluing authors. "I will ask you if in your dealings with authors you are really being fair, and honourable, and right? Or merely getting away with what you can? If you are not careful, you will kill the goose that lays your golden eggs."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Mackay-Smith |first1=Donna |title=How Fay Weldon's 'anti-publisher speech' became one of the Booker Prize's bombshell moments |url=https://thebookerprizes.com/the-booker-library/features/how-fay-weldons-anti-publisher-speech-became-one-of-the-booker-prizes |website=The Booker Prizes |date=6 January 2023|access-date=6 January 2023}}</ref>

In 1992, the jury split the prize between [[Michael Ondaatje]]'s ''[[The English Patient]]'' and [[Barry Unsworth]]'s ''[[Sacred Hunger]]''. This prompted the foundation to draw up a rule that made it mandatory for the appointed jury to make the award to just a single author/book.

The choice of [[James Kelman]]'s book ''[[How Late It Was, How Late]]'' as 1994 Booker Prize winner proved to be one of the most controversial in the award's history.<ref>{{cite news |first=Robert |last=Winder|author-link=Robert Winder |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/highly-literary-and-deeply-vulgar-if-james-kelmans-booker-novel-is-rude-it-is-in-good-company-argues-1442639.html |title=Highly literary and deeply vulgar: If James Kelman's Booker novel is rude, it is in good company, argues Robert Winder |work=The Independent |date=13 October 1994 |quote=James Kelman's victory in the Booker Prize on Tuesday night has already provoked a not altogether polite discussion&nbsp;...}}</ref> Rabbi [[Julia Neuberger]], one of the judges, declared it "a&nbsp;disgrace" and left the event, later deeming the book to be "crap"; [[WHSmith]]'s marketing manager called the award "an embarrassment to the whole book trade"; [[Waterstones]] in [[Glasgow]] sold a mere 13 copies of Kelman's book the following week.<ref>{{cite news |first=Maeve |last=Walsh |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/it-was-five-years-ago-today-how-controversial-it-was-how-controversial-1081947.html |title=It was five years ago today: How controversial it was, how controversial |work=The Independent |date=21 March 1999}}</ref> In 1994, ''The Guardian''{{'}}s literary editor [[Richard Gott]], citing the lack of objective criteria and the exclusion of American authors, described the prize as "a&nbsp;significant and dangerous iceberg in the sea of British culture that serves as a symbol of its current malaise".<ref name="Stoddard"/><ref>{{cite news |url=http://archive.guardian.co.uk/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=R1VBLzE5OTQvMDkvMDUjQXIwMjIwMQ==&Mode=Gif&Locale=english-skin-custom |title=Novel way to run a lottery |last=Gott |first= Richard|work=The Guardian |page=22|date=5 September 1994}}</ref>

In 1996, [[A. L. Kennedy]] served as a judge; in 2001, she called the prize "a&nbsp;pile of crooked nonsense" with the winner determined by "who knows who, who's sleeping with who, who's selling drugs to who, who's married to who, whose turn it is".<ref name="Moss" />

In 1997, the decision to award [[Arundhati Roy]]'s ''[[The God of Small Things]]'' proved controversial. [[Carmen Callil]], chair of the previous year's Booker judges, called it an "execrable" book and said on television that it should not even have been on the shortlist. Booker Prize chairman [[Martyn Goff]] said Roy won because nobody objected, following the rejection by the judges of [[Bernard MacLaverty]]'s shortlisted book due to their dismissal of him as "a&nbsp;wonderful short-story writer and that ''[[Grace Notes]]'' was three short stories strung together".<ref>{{cite news |first=Dan |last=Glaister |url=http://www.sawnet.org/news/news220.html |title=Popularity pays off for Roy |work=The Guardian |date=14 October 1997 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050227170112/http://sawnet.org/news/news220.html |archive-date=27 February 2005}}</ref>