Round 3
by Louis Cooke

For the first time in their history, the British Book Awards were televised this year. They were hosted by husband and wife chat-show hosts Richard and Judy, who this year started a TV book club molded in the fashion of Oprah's infamous operation. When Alice Sebold collected her award for Richard & Judy's Best Read of the Year, for "The Lovely Bones," she said, "I come from South California, which is near the Oscars.... This is more important than the Oscars."

Earlier, prolific romance novelist Jilly Cooper told the hosts that everyone in the industry was glad they had "come out on the side of books." Little wonder — Richard and Judy's book club, and the BBC's The Big Read, a national poll to find Britain's best loved book, have had a serious effect on sales. Sales of "Pride and Prejudice" experienced a 700 percent rise thanks to The Big Read, and after Joseph O'Connor's "The Star of the Sea" appeared on Richard and Judy it needed only a week to leap from No. 337 to No. 1 on the UK bestseller's list.

"The Lord of the Rings," somewhat predictably, emerged as Britain's best loved book in The Big Read. Many of the top books were children's books, and many more were books that have been taught in school down the ages — "Pride and Prejudice," "1984," "The Lord of the Flies," "The Catcher in the Rye" — suggesting that British readers, or those inclined to vote, have hardly been adventurous in seeking out new literature since that they were forced to read in their teens.

Critics picked up on this and denounced The Big Read as an insult to both readers and literature. They mocked the "minor" celebrities who excitedly supported their favorite reads, and highlighted the pointlessness of placing novels against each other in televised "trials," complete with a book group jury. They explained how the supposed educational elements were undermined by the campaign's concept — sensationalist "best of" lists make for cheap television — and questioned whether the results actually meant anything: The bestselling book of 2003 was "Shopaholic Abroad" by Sophie Kinsella, with more than a million copies sold. It was nowhere to be seen on The Big Read list.

But, for all its flaws, The Big Read acheived its goal: to get people talking about books. More than 30,000 copies of support material for books on the list were downloaded from the National Reading Campaign's website, and book groups sprang up around the country. Richard and Judy have had a similar impact — the decision to televise the British Book Awards was largely influenced by the popularity of their show.

The ironies are not easily missed: TV, the passive, switch-off activity, throwing its weight in the world of reading — that solitary, active, intellectually stimulating pursuit. As Philip Pullman writes, reading is a private activity: "This private secret space, this hidden empire that opens out between the book and yourself, is precious. In an age when there are more distractions and ways of filling time — wasting time — than humans have ever had before, this rich, consoling, inspiring, liberating solitude is more valuable than ever."

Maybe so. But more than any other media — film, TV, music — book sales rely on word of mouth. If you're going to invest the time it takes to finish a novel, it must come with a good recommendation, and they don't come stronger than a friend who knows you saying they think you'll love it. We place trust in the judgment of friends — its part of the relationship. We also tend to trust celebrities we like (if we like them for the right reasons), and a televised endorsement by our favorite personality is a more immediate, passionate version of the truncated cover review that catches our eye in the bookshop or the reader review and star rating on Amazon.

Books will not keep people watching TV, but TV can influence people to buy books and talk about them. So any attempt for books and television to get along should be encouraged — whatever Jonathan Franzen thinks. Of course TV's approach to provoking discussions of literature is likely to have stuffy critics reeling in disgust and wheeling out the accusations of "dumbing down." But those critics should heed Pullman's theory that reading and democracy are "not different things, not even different aspects of the something else," but "the very same thing," because when we read we move at a pace we dictate and when we finish we leave with "what we and the text have made together." If TV can be used to promote this experience, why stifle it?

After all, "The Corrections" is to be made into a movie. If the book does belong to the "high-art literary tradition," as Franzen reportedly mumbled, then it will outlive a film adaptation, just as it will outlive a Recommended by Oprah sticker.

— Louis Cooke (louis@mintcake.com)

More:
Round 1 by James Norton
Round 2 by Joshua Adams
Round 4 by Stephen Himes

— graphic by Derek Evernden (derek@ocellus.net)