The Russian Booker was famous for unpredictable and paradoxical decisions that did not always attract the approval of Russian literary experts. A number of writers expressed their fundamental rejection of the "Russian Booker". Already the first decision of the jury, as a result of which the award in 1992 was not received by the generally recognized favorite — the novel "The Time Night" by
Lyudmila Petrushevskaya, met with almost unanimous disapproval. Vladimir Novikov (
ru) in 2000, describing the very first Booker prize winner - the novel "Lines of fate, or the chest of Milashevich" by
Mark Kharitonov as boring, stated: "From the very beginning, the Booker plot did not succeed, it was failed to nominate a leader through the award, which modern prose writers would passionately want to catch up and overtake. But it is precisely in this [...] the cultural function, the cultural strategy of any literary prize"
Elena Fanaylova noted in 2006: "The Russian Booker does not correspond to its English parent either from a moral or from a meaningful point of view (it can be compared with the translated version of the Booker already available in Russia). The prize focuses on literature that is not interesting either on the domestic or foreign market, or, if it is a convertible author (Ulitskaya, Aksenov), it is awarded not for 'novel of the year', but 'for merits'."
Yuri Polyakov in 2008 pointed out that "people receive awards not for the quality of a literary text, not for some artistic discovery, not for the ability to reach the reader, but for loyalty to a certain party, mainly experimental-liberal direction. [...] Almost all the books that were awarded with the prize, [...] did not have any serious reader's fate, [...] [these books] received the award and were immediately completely forgotten."
Dmitry Bykov in 2010 noted the Booker jury's "amazing ability to choose the worst or, in any case, the least significant of six novels". Literary critic Konstantin Trunin, describing the 2018 crisis of the award, noted: "For all the time of its existence, the prize did not justify itself, each year choosing the winner as a writer who created work that is far from understanding by Russian people of the reality surrounding him. There was a direct propaganda of Western values, not Russian ones. Or on the contrary, to the West was shown literature that was not destined to create a close resemblance to the works created in Russia during the 19th century. And it is not surprising that year after year, the Russian Booker lost its authority among the emerging awards. Being handed twenty-six times, he faced the rejection of sponsors, as a result of which it became necessary to reconsider the meaning of existence, having found the transformation required by the reader to a truly Russian humanistic value system». ==References==