Volume VI, Issue 1 -- February, 2005
Volume VI, Issue 1 -- February, 2005
The Man Booker International Prize 2005
Handicapping the Field: A Punter's Guide
Index
Introduction
The Judges
Our Odds
Why they will/won't win
Links
Not satisfied with the annual Commonwealth-plus-Ireland fiction contest that is the Man Booker Prize, the same folks announced a new, more global (but only bi-annual) prize in 2004, the Man Booker International Prize.
While the Man Booker Prize is a best-novel-of-the-year award, the Man Booker International recognises "one writer for their achievement in fiction" (which sets it apart from the Nobel as well, another lifetime-achievement prize that, however, also takes poetry and drama into consideration). And there is no nationality-requirement: the prize is open to any "living author who has published fiction either originally in English or whose work is generally available in translation in the English language".
The first prizewinner is due to be announced in June, 2005. The three judges are John Carey (chairing), Azar Nafisi, and Alberto Manguel.
A longlist drawn up by the judges -- and not made public -- apparently had: "95 authors from 35 different countries" This was winnowed down to a shortlist of eighteen authors, whose names were made public on 18 February 2005. (Interestingly, the process-description stated that the shortlist would only have "fifteen contenders"; it is not clear why three extra writers were nominated.)
The authors that made the Judges' List are: Margaret Atwood, Saul Bellow, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Günter Grass, Ismail Kadare, Milan Kundera, Stanislaw Lem, Doris Lessing, Naguib Mahfouz, Tomas Eloy Martinez, Ian McEwan, Kenzaburo Oe, Cynthia Ozick, Philip Roth, Muriel Spark, Antonio Tabucchi, John Updike, and A.B.Yehoshua.
(Updated - 11 April): The Man Booker International Prize informs us that Saul Bellow's death on 5 April 2005 renders him ineligible for the prize.
The 18-author list is a bit overwhelming, and there are no obvious or clear favourites (though there are a couple of notable omissions, with V.S.Naipaul, Harry Mulisch, and J.M.Coetzee striking us as particularly egregious oversights). Still, it's hard to resist trying to handicap the field. Because of the too-big field and the subjective nature of the exercise we wouldn't take or make actual bets on this sort of thing (though presumably London bookies will get in on the action at some point), but here our best guesses at the odds the various authors face, and then our reasons.
In assessing the authors' chances at least as much attention must be paid to the judges as those being judged (the fact that it's not individual works but a lifetime's achievement being honoured makes it even more complicated). Personal taste is the deciding factor in handing out literary prizes, so that's the information bettors would like to have (literary merit can safely be forgotten in contests such as these once they've reached the shortlist-level -- though admittedly there are few outright duds on this judges' list). Numerous essentially unknowable factors also come into play -- including the group-dynamics that develop among the three judges -- but it seems worth taking a stab at guessing what the individual judges might be predisposed to favour -- though anyone who takes this really seriously (i.e. is really going to put some money on the line) should go over the judges' writings much more closely for additional clues as to their likes and dislikes.
Keep in mind: ours is a very subjective take on this subjective process, based on limited information (we have neither combed through anywhere near all the judges' writings, nor that of all the finalists, for one). If the bookies offer you 20:1 odds on Roth and you still lose your money, please don't come complaining to us .....
(Updated - 4 April): Bookies are now taking bets and have set their own odds: see those at Paddy Power and Skybet.
(Updated - 5 June): The first winner of the Man Booker International Prize has been announced -- and, boy, were we ever off base: Ismail Kadare takes the prize.- Return to index -
John Carey chairs the proceedings, his fellow judges are Azar Nafisi and Alberto Manguel (see the official announcement).
John Carey has had considerable literary-award-judging experience, chairing the (Man) Booker proceedings in 1982 and 2003.
The 2003 prize is noteworthy because it resulted in an inferior book being honoured: 'DBC Pierre''s Vernon God Little. For our purposes, it is also worth noting that Margaret Atwood -- a Man Booker International Prize finalist -- made the shortlist (with Oryx and Crake) but couldn't prevail over the Pierre title. (The other shortlisted titles on the woman-heavy list that year were: Brick Lane by Monica Ali, The Good Doctor by Damon Galgut, Notes on a Scandal by Zoë Heller, and Astonishing Splashes Of Colour by Clare Morrall.)
The 1982 prize also wasn't exactly a prize-highpoint, though the winning title -- Thomas Keneally's Schindler's Ark (also: Schindler's List) -- has shown some staying power. The other shortlisted titles on the man-heavy list that year were: Silence among the Weapons by John Arden, An Ice-Cream War by William Boyd, Constance or Solitary Practices by Lawrence Durrell, The 27th Kingdom by Alice Thomas Ellis, and Sour Sweet by Timothy Mo.
It's not clear how much one can read into the shortlists and winners -- and how great Carey's role was -- but they do not inspire much confidence in his judging.
His writing includes books on classics -- Dickens, Donne, Milton, Thackeray -- which suggests some appreciation for old-fashioned writing. (Note, however, that Dickens and Thackeray were certainly popular entertainers, rather than simply 'literary'.)
Azar Nafisi is essentially known only for her bestselling Reading Lolita in Tehran. Not too much to read into that: the books discussed therein were chosen in large part to fit her audience, but at least suggests a solid grounding and appreciation of (relatively) modern classics. She also works at the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, pointing towards considerable political (specifically: democratic) engagement.
Worth a mention: finalist Margaret Atwood gave Reading Lolita in Tehran a very good review ("All readers should read it. As for writers, it reminds us, with great eloquence, that our words may travel farther and say more than we could ever have guessed at the time we wrote them"). That alone would presumably not influence Nafisi (not too much, anyway, one hopes), but Atwood's enthusiasm does suggest a shared point of view:Despite the grimness, the pain and horror, and the human malice that Reading Lolita describes, it is enthralling nonetheless. It explores with fervor and conviction the tacit pact between writer, book, and reader. It is also a reminder that reading is subject to the Zeitgeist, just as we are told writing is.For additional Nafisi-background, see Azar Nafisi at The Dialogue Project, and interviews at identity theory and NOW.
Polyglot and multi-national Alberto Manguel also has some international literary judging experience, as a judge for the 1999 International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award, which was given to Ingenious Pain by Andrew Miller. Noteworthy: two Man Booker International finalists made the (strong) shortlist, but were passed over for the prize: Cynthia Ozick (for The Puttermesser Papers) and Ian McEwan (for Enduring Love). (The other titles on the shortlist were: Quarantine by Jim Crace, Underworld by Don DeLillo, The Ordinary Seaman by Francisco Goldman, The Wind-up Bird Chronicle by Murakami Haruki, and The Reader by Bernard Schlink.)
Manguel is an Ozick fan (see his Into the Looking-Glass Wood), and in his book, A Reading Diary, devoted to twelve favourite books, includes only one book by a living author: Surfacing by Margaret Atwood. (The other books in A Reading Diary are by Adolfo Bioy-Casares, H.G.Wells, Rudyard Kipling, Chateaubriand, Arthur Conan Doyle, Goethe, Kenneth Grahame, Cervantes, Dino Buzzati, Sei Shonagon, and Machado de Assis.) He is also clearly a big Borges fan, and that and some of his books suggest a particular liking for the more fantastical in fiction.
Born in Argentina, he also has close ties to Israel (his Dad was ambassador there) and France (where he now lives), and he reads in several languages -- meaning he doesn't have to rely on translations for some of the finalists, and can read some of their untranslated works (though we don't know if he'll allow himself to do so).
For additional information, see also Peter Oliva's profile at FFWD Weekly.
- Return to index -
Our semi-educated guess as to the odds that they'll take home the prize for each of the eighteen Man Booker International Prize finalists are:Note: Asterisk (*) denotes odds we're least certain of
- Saul Bellow - 5:1**
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez - 5:1
- Margaret Atwood - 10:1
- Philip Roth - 11:1
- A.B. Yehoshua - 12:1*
- Naguib Mahfouz - 14:1
- Milan Kundera - 14:1
- Cynthia Ozick - 25:1
- Stanislaw Lem - 30:1
- Günter Grass - 40:1
- Muriel Spark - 55:1
- John Updike - 65:1
- Antonio Tabucchi - 75:1
- Ian McEwan - 100:1
- Doris Lessing - 100:1*
- Ismail Kadare - 100:1
- Kenzaburo Oe - 100:1
- Tomás Eloy Martínez - 1000:1
**(Updated - 11 April): We can now confirm that Saul Bellow's death on 5 April takes him out of the running (it's a prize for living authors).
- Return to index -
Margaret Atwood | Saul Bellow | Gabriel Garcia Marquez | Günter Grass | Ismail Kadare | Milan Kundera
Stanislaw Lem | Doris Lessing | Naguib Mahfouz | Tomas Eloy Martinez | Ian McEwan | Oe Kenzaburo
Cynthia Ozick | Philip Roth | Muriel Spark | Antonio Tabucchi | John Updike | A.B. Yehoshua
Margaret Atwood
Odds: 10:1
Why she'll win the prize:
- Won Booker Prize in 2000
- Often mentioned as in the running for the Nobel, but has been passed over so far
- Solid, varied body of work
- Well-known and widely read internationally, but not perceived of as being on the superstar-level a prize like this would raise her to
- Canadian, so choosing her avoids taking sides in the US v. UK-literary-might debate
- Very enthusiastic about Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran
- Canadian connexion might appeal to Manguel
Why she won't:Conclusion: Writes in English but isn't from the US or UK -- that's a winning combination that will appeal to the judges, who want to prove that it is an international prize (while knowing that giving it to a writer who doesn't write in English just won't grab enough attention). The judges appear to be fans (Manguel has praised her, Carey shortlisted her), and giving it to a woman wouldn't hurt either (though since the last Nobel went to a woman, that isn't quite as pressing). And separates itself from the Nobel by not giving it to someone who has already won that prize, which is something they might feel compelled to do the first time out. So overall her chances look very good.
- Didn't win the Man Booker when she was shortlisted in 2003 (Carey presiding)
- Not enough truly impressive work
Saul Bellow
Odds: 5:1
Why he'll win the prize:
- Already got the ultimate stamp of approval, the Nobel Prize for literature
- Considered by many (not just Martin Amis) to be the leading living English-language writer
- Consistent, solid body of work -- including some bona fide classics --, with even his last novel, the weak Ravelstein, finding great critical acclaim
Why he won't:Conclusion: Giving it to the grand old man of American fiction would be a safe, easy, uncontroversial choice. He is deserving, and it's hard to argue against him. Looking for a consensus, and an appropriate prize winner the first time this is handed out, this looks like a choice they might easily fall back on. Clearly, one of the strongest contenders.
- Age and health limit his ability to participate in the media event the Man Booker people want this prize to be
- Not everyone is impressed by his recent output, and some of his great novels appeared a hell of a long time ago
- Might want to avoid giving it to a Nobel laureate the first time out, to differentiate themselves from that prize
(Updated - 5 April): Bellow's death today should put him out of contention -- the prize is explicitly for living authors, but it's unclear how this requiremnent will be interpreted (e.g. was it enough for him to be alive in the year of the prize ?)
(Updated - 11 April): We can now confirm that Bellow has been judged no longer eligible for the prize.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Odds: 5:1
Why he'll win the prize:
- Already got the ultimate stamp of approval, the Nobel Prize for literature
- One Hundred Years of Solitude is one the best and most important works of the 20th century
- Not a one-hit wonder: several impressive works, including fairly recently (i.e. no big drop-off in quality)
- Much loved figure
Why he won't:Conclusion: Among the finalists who don't write in English, Garcia Marquez looks like the top candidate. If they're willing to give it to someone who doesn't write in English, he would probably be the first choice. He has a few weaker works, but the best tower above all except a handful by the other contenders, and he would be an uncontroversial, safe choice. Definitely a leading contender.
- Health might limit his ability to participate in the media event the Man Booker people want this prize to be
- Manguel holds Vargas Llosa's politics against his art, and while he seems more in tune with Garcia Marquez's, Garcia Marquez might be too far to the left for comfort in these times
- Might want to avoid giving it to a Nobel laureate the first time out, to differentiate themselves from that prize
Günter Grass
Odds: 40:1
Why he'll win the prize:
- Already got the ultimate stamp of approval, the Nobel Prize for literature
- The Danzig-trilogy is a monumental work
Why he won't:Conclusion: The Tin Drum and the rest of the Danzig-trilogy are impressive, but he's also produced also a lot of fat, boring books since then. He's established enough to be a plausible winner -- The Tin Drum alone probably suffices for that -- but hasn't really done enough in quite a while that might really excite the judges. A long-shot.
- Tired old man who peaked in the 1960s, with the works of the past decades finding little resonance in the English-speaking world
- His politics don't endear him everywhere
- Might want to avoid giving it to a Nobel laureate the first time out, to differentiate themselves from that prize
Ismail Kadare
Odds: 100:1
Why he'll win the prize:
- Often mentioned as in the running for the Nobel, but has been passed over so far
- He's from Albania !
Why he won't:Conclusion: No chance. Appreciated in France (so maybe Manguel puts a half-hearted plea in for him), he hasn't ever really captured the American or British public's imagination, and too many of his books are a bit on the dreary side (part of which is, no doubt, a translation issue). The whole translation issue also comes to bear: lots of the books have been twice-translated (from Albanian into French into English), and while one translator (Jusuf Vrioni) is responsible for most of the Albanian-to-French versions, a whole slew of translators have handled the second stage. No way can the judges push these books on an unsuspecting public, no matter how deserving Kadare actually might be. He won't get the prize.
- Work too uneven, no real stand-out that has managed to attain classic status
- Much of the work in English translated via the French, rather than the original Albanian
(Updated - 5 June): Shows how much we know: the first winner of the Man Booker International Prize has been announced, and it is, indeed, Ismail Kadare.
(Updated - 7 June): For more information, see David Bellos' fascinating piece on The Englishing of Ismail Kadare: Notes of a retranslator.
Milan Kundera
Odds: 14:1
Why he'll win the prize:
- Often mentioned as in the running for the Nobel, but has been passed over so far
- Has written novels in both Czech and French -- good cosmopolitan touch
- Very popular world-wide, a choice that would go over very well
- Appreciation of classic literature (and techniques) which he adeptly uses in his own (which should appeal to these judges)
Why he won't:Conclusion: Easy to make a case for him, and he isn't burdened with a Nobel yet, so it would be a semi-original choice too. Definitely in the running.
- The Czech novels are dated -- there are other more pressing political issues in these times
- Too intellectually playful -- good for the college crowd (and the French), but want the first prize to go to someone that appeals to a broader audience
Stanislaw Lem
Odds: 30:1
Why he'll win the prize:
- A daring choice -- a science fiction author !
- Very impressive and large body of work
- His literary games -- collections of book reviews of or introductions to imaginary books, etc. -- appeal to some of these judges
- Despite great international popularity, hasn't received the recognition he deserves in the English-language world
Why he won't:Conclusion: He never really made a huge impact in the US -- but then none of the judges are American, so that might not matter. A highly respected science fiction author, he could contend on literary merit -- but with science fiction it isn't just about literary merit, and the judges might be too worried that the prize wouldn't be seen as serious if they gave it to him the first time out. Still, Manguel certainly likes this playful sort of stuff, and Lem's versatility probably appeals to them all. It would be a quirky choice, but an attention-grabber. He doesn't stand much of a chance, but probably among the best-placed longshots.
- Too little of his work available in English (and the classic Solaris still only in an inferior English version)
- Writes science fiction, i.e. not serious enough for a prize like this
- They don't even list close to all the (limited amount) of his work translated into English on the Judges' List page
Doris Lessing
Odds: 100:1
Why she'll win the prize:
- Strong international reputation and appeal
- Strong female voice that's proven popular
- Named Manguel's A History of Reading as one of her "International Books of the Year" in the TLS in 1997
Why she won't:Conclusion: Giving her the prize sounds plausible on literary merit grounds, but just too unexciting; we just don't see it happening
- Made three Booker shortlists, but has never won -- i.e. she's good, but not good enough
- Age and health limit his ability to participate in the media event the Man Booker people want this prize to be
Naguib Mahfouz
Odds: 14:1
Why he'll win the prize:
- Already got the ultimate stamp of approval, the Nobel Prize for literature
- Writes in a language grossly under-translated into English
- Politically appealing: a nod to Egypt, but also to artistic freedom and anti-militancy
Why he won't:Conclusion: A sympathetic, safe choice, with some nice benefits: foreign-language, Middle Eastern author (but pretty much above the messy fray). But his frailty and inability to go along with the media-frenzy the Man Booker folk will likely want speak against him, as does the fact that the Nobel folk got to him first. Still, a fairly strong contender.
- Age and health limit his ability to participate in the media event the Man Booker people want this prize to be
- Giving it to an Egyptian writer would be seen as too much of a political choice
- Might want to avoid giving it to a Nobel laureate the first time out, to differentiate themselves from that prize
Tomas Eloy Martinez
Odds: 1000:1
Why he'll win the prize:
- Lives in the US, writes in Spanish -- good multi-cultural story
- His novels have gotten very good reviews
- Politically appealing (anti-Argentinian military dictatorship and Peron -- i.e. focussed on events of the past that won't upset many people now)
- Giving him the award would propel an unknown into the limelight -- would make for some decent headlines
- Argentinian connexion might be especially appealing to Manguel
Why he won't:Conclusion: Presumably made the final cut as a sop to Manguel, he doesn't stand a chance in hell.
- Only two -- two ! -- novels available in English, both Peron-related -- far too little to judge him
- Too little known on the international literary scene
- Just too obscure a choice
Ian McEwan
Odds: 100:1
Why he'll win the prize:
- Has won the Booker (1998)
- Solid body of work, generally considered one of the top British writers of his generation -- and, as the only one offering superior work the past few times out (unlike, say, Amis, whose stock is sinking rapidly), has probably risen to the top of the heap
Why he won't:Conclusion: He may be the leading British writer of his generation, but he's competing against writers decades older, i.e. who are far less likely to get a second chance. Saturday's success also suggests he still has a lot in him. No need to heap the really big honours on him yet: he's sure to get them eventually. It's extremely unlikely he'll be in the running.
- His new novel, Saturday, is already a Man Booker favourite, and it wouldn't do for him to double up with the national and international prizes in one year
- Too young, and his recent work has been his best; they'll figure he has enough opportunities to win it in the future
- The book for which he got the Booker, Amsterdam, was a weak one
Oe Kenzaburo
Odds: 100:1
Why he'll win the prize:
- Already got the ultimate stamp of approval, the Nobel Prize for literature
Why he won't:Conclusion: Hard to see him as anything but the token Far Eastern finalist (an unimaginative if safe choice at that, given the Nobel seal of approval). Simply not enough mass appeal to his writing to put him in the running. He won't win.
- Has never really managed to find mass-appeal outside Japan
- Stand-out novels (if one can call them that) written quite a while ago, and recent work has not made much of an impression in the English-speaking world
- Might want to avoid giving it to a Nobel laureate the first time out, to differentiate themselves from that prize
Cynthia Ozick
Odds: 25:1
Why she'll win the prize:
- Doesn't really have a strong international presence (even relatively unknown in the UK), which this prize might rectify
- Manguel on record as a big fan
- Impressive but not overwhelming body of work
Why she won't:Conclusion: Here's an English-language author that hasn't really done that well abroad, and the judges might be tempted to try to rectify that. Her imaginative, clever writing probably appeals to all the judges -- and there's not an overwhelming amount of it. Not the obvious choice, but an interesting one they might be tempted to make. Ozick isn't a top contender, but she's in the running.
- Has never really managed to find mass-appeal, even in the US where she's racked up lots of prizes and honours, so it would be a waste to give it to her
- Has won all the big American prizes, but that's all she deserves
Philip Roth
Odds: 11:1
Why he'll win the prize:
- Often mentioned as in the running for the Nobel, but has been passed over so far
- Old writer still doing excellent work -- his second wind perhaps more impressive than his first
- Well-known and respected internationally
Why he won't:Conclusion: A big-name author who hasn't got the Nobel yet: that's enough to put him in the running. Among the Americans only he and Ozick are still producing first-rate work, which can't hurt; indeed, in his case, it's some of the older stuff that might sink him. Clearly one of the strongest candidates.
- Some clunkers in there, and the early work does not appeal to all
Muriel Spark
Odds: 55:1
Why he'll win the prize:
- Playful, clever little books -- and lots of them
- Limited international recognition, which the prize would rectify
Why he won't:Conclusion: The writing itself probably appeals to all the judges, and she's still going strong, but she's probably too British (despite living in Italy for so long ...) to take the prize. She has a slight chance, but not much more.
- So many of the other authors have a nice, fat work to their name; all of hers are slim
- Might be seen to have peaked very early in her career
- Among the least trans-national writers (i.e. very British) among the finalists, and the judges might want someone with more obvious international appeal
Antonio Tabucchi
Odds: 75:1
Why he'll win the prize:
- Very popular and highly regarded in Europe; the judges might think this prize could put him over the top in the US/UK as well
- Italian and Portuguese interest (has written in both languages) -- nice cosmopolitan image
Why he won't:Conclusion: An appealing author, but without the stand-out title (or his most recent works even available in English) he's not strong enough to contend for the prize. Has the slimmest of outside chances, at best.
- Recent works not yet available in English -- and relatively little interest in the author in the US/UK
- None of his works have received universal acclaim, and there's no stand-out title
John Updike
Odds: 65:1
Why he'll win the prize:
- Has won all the big American prizes, so now it's time for him to get some international recognition
- Popular abroad and uncontroversial, so choice would probably go over well
- Extensive literary criticism show him to be an enthusiastic and good reader, which is something that surely appeals to all three judges
Why he won't:Conclusion: Will the judges even manage (or bother) to read his collected works ? With few stand-outs and a particular slice of American life-focus to most of his work he probably won't be seen as international enough for this prize. He'd be a safe choice, but doesn't look like a real contender, especially since the rest of the American field is so strong.
- Tired old man who just churns out too damn much
- Just too much fiction, and not enough of it that is exceptional
- His focus on a specific part of Americana might be seen as too limited
A.B. Yehoshua
Odds: 12:1
Why he'll win the prize:
- Well-known and highly regarded internationally, but hasn't broken through to the top tier of literary superstars, making for slightly off-beat choice
- From a small country, so keeps the prize free of the big national literary debates
- Israeli connexion might appeal to Manguel
- Not the obvious choice, but picking him would show they're willing to look beyond the obvious
Why he won't:Conclusion: A top upset bid, if literary merit isn't the sole deciding factor (the make-up of the shortlist strongly suggests it isn't). We'll go out on a limb with this one, as the most likely of the really unlikely candidates (Lem and Martínez being the others).
- Giving it to an Israeli writer would be seen as too much of a political choice
- Not really good enough
- Return to index -
- The Man Booker International Prize 2005:
- Official site
- Announcment that Ismail Kadare takes the prize
- Judges' list - the eighteen finalists (later reduced to seventeen)
- Prize of the Yankees - James Wood on the prize (New York, 21/6/2004)
- Great American novel up against best of British in first international Booker prize by Louise Jury in The Independent (19/2/2005)
- Veteran writers on new shortlist by John Ezard in The Guardian (19/2/2005)
- Spoilt for choice -- Azar Nafisi on being a judge in The Guardian (4/6/2005)
- The odds elsewhere:
- Paddy Power
- Skybet (Updated - 11 April): now apparently withdrawn
- Other major international literary awards:
- The Man Booker Prize
- The Nobel Prize in Literature
- The International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award
- Commonwealth Writers' Prize
- Books by the judges under review at the complete review:
- Alberto Manguel's Into the Looking-Glass Wood
- Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran
- Books by the finalists under review at the complete review:
- Saul Bellow:
- Gabriel Garcí Márquez:
- Milan Kundera:
- Naguib Mahfouz:
- Ian McEwan:
- Cynthia Ozick:
- See the complete review's Cynthia Ozick page
- Art & Ardor
- Bloodshed
- The Cannibal Galaxy
- Fame & Folly
- Heir to the Glimmering World
- Levitation
- The Messiah of Stockholm
- Metaphor & Memory
- The Pagan Rabbi
- The Puttermesser Papers
- Quarrel & Quandary
- The Shawl
- Trust
- Muriel Spark:
- Antonio Tabucchi:
- The judges:
- Azar Nafisi
- Azar Nafisi at The Dialogue Project
- Interview at identity theory
- Interview at NOW
- Alberto Manguel
- Bibliography
- Profile at FFWD Weekly
- (No useful John Carey links found)
- Return to top of the page -
Current Issue | Archive | about the crQuarterly | the Literary Saloon | the complete review
to e-mail us:
© 2005 the complete review Quarterly
© 2005 the complete review