The Mookse and the Gripes discussion

259 views
Booker Prize for Fiction > 2020 Booker Shortlist Discussion

Comments Showing 51-100 of 238 (238 new)    post a comment »

message 51: by Hugh, Active moderator (new)

Hugh (bodachliath) | 4431 comments Mod
Emily wrote: "I can't speak for all the writers, but I would say Douglas Stuart is American in the way I'm Spanish. Which is to say, I think it's a stretch to call a book published by a Scotsman about his childhood in Glasgow an American book, for all that he lives there."
The same argument applies to Doshi and Mengiste - none of them are writing about America.


message 52: by Antonomasia, Admin only (new)

Antonomasia | 2668 comments Mod
Though Doshi has spent very little time in India and an Indian GR friend has a low opinion of her portrayal of the country - that it is not how people who live there see it.

Shuggie Bain certainly doesn't get that from people in the UK.


message 53: by Dylan (new)

Dylan (dylansbooknook) | 124 comments I don't mean to misrepresent the 'strength' of an author's connection to the USA. I only referenced them inasmuch as they are referenced on the Booker's website.

I do think the prize is more American than it was previously but I agree that it's probably too early to truly tell in the grand scheme. [We can't really compare to pre-2013 years which would have no inclusions.]


message 54: by Tracy (new)

Tracy (tstan) | 598 comments I can’t believe that The New Wilderness was picked over all the other longlistees. If I was Hilary Mantel, that would be the ultimate slap in the face.


message 55: by Hugh, Active moderator (new)

Hugh (bodachliath) | 4431 comments Mod
Tracy wrote: "I can’t believe that The New Wilderness was picked over all the other longlistees. If I was Hilary Mantel, that would be the ultimate slap in the face."
Maybe she should have taken US citizenship.


message 56: by Paul (new)

Paul Fulcher (fulcherkim) | 13422 comments The "shortlist party" didn't seem that thrilling - Margaret Busby did make some comments about no one being entitled to be on the list and about diversity (albeit that seemed aimed at reaction to the longlist not the shortlist)


message 57: by Justin (new)

Justin Seeling | 10 comments Seems like a lot of chatter from the "shortlist party" indicated that the judges were looking for representations of "novel of the future" for the shortlist. On the longlist podcast this summer, the judges were intentional in noting the number of debut novels, and that is certainly reflected on the shortlist.

I wonder how influenced the judges were by the negative reception of last year's joint winners, and the widely cited criticism that the award should be used to propel an underread author rather than recognize an established author's lifetime of achievement.

I just read Real Life and The New Wildnerness back to back and at felt numb and indifferent by both novels. I plan to complete the shortlist but do agree with previous statements that some semblance of continuity on the judge's panel may provide the Booker with a less of an incentive for each class of judges to make their own "statement".


message 58: by C I N D L E (new)

C I N D L E (cindle) That "upset" I predicted last week is in full force, I see. I called it and saw this shortlist coming a mile away. That more readers did not see this outcome coming speaks volumes.

I understand that the "climate" in the United States is not the same abroad, but in light of all that has transpired in 2020, and all that has transpired in publishing within the past year and a half, this shortlist is the easiest thing any avid reader of literary fiction should have foresaw.

To quote myself, last week, after 'Hamnet' won the Women's Prize, I stated that it was a precursor to the Booker shortlist, and I speculated and said:

"the shoe-ins and expected favorites will not win," instead, "an underdog, or a title that some are not giving much thought to, may swoop in and take home the literary gold."

I continued "...in a year when political correctness, activism, and "wokeness" are at the forefront, if we are more likely to see titles that espouse and showcase those subject matter, be short listed and possibly chosen as winner ... To re-clarify, I am NOT insinuating that if a politically correct title wins the 2020 Booker, that it will win it solely because it fit in a slot. What I am saying is that I think this year's judges may be taking many more things into consideration this year than in years past. In other words, in addition to them selecting the "finest fiction," they may be selecting a book that also adds texture and a voice to our 2020 time frame. We'll see."

I am not quoting myself in order to gloat. I am pointing out that as readers, we should start looking beyond the page and consider circumstances beyond our own backyards. The judges of yesteryear are not and will not be the judges going forward. Neither, the collective thinking of the judging panel of years past will not be the collective thinking of the judging panels going forward.

Bernardine Evaristo was done a major disservice in 2019 by having to share the Booker prize win with a mediocre book. Additionally, again, the "climate" of the world right now is heightened with discourse, revolutionary upending, and a dismantling of "old ideas." I think, and would bet high that all this was considered by each of the judges as well as the collective judging body when they made this shortlist.

This shortlist goes beyond Black Lives Matter, it goes beyond Own Voices, and it goes beyond Publish More Women. This shortlist is a revolutionary statement from the judges and it is a wake up call for the masses to know that the guard is changing. Changing if not permanently, but for the foreseeable future.

Unlike the majority of the readers of the 2020 Booker longlist, the judges had their finger on the pulse of the heartbeat of the year 2020. This shortlist shows the judges have been listening and they have been paying attention to the "climate." The list they've given us today is their collective receipt of all they have seen and what they'd like to see in future.

Will the Booker revert back to the "old ways" next year and after? Perhaps. But with all the curveballs the year 2020 has given us, me thinks this shortlist is a beginning, not a one off.

If you've read all this, I say all this to say: congrats to all the authors shortlisted, no doubt their shine and spotlight is long overdue.


message 59: by Emmeline (new)

Emmeline | 1042 comments By "a revolutionary statement" you mean the typical postcolonial novel, the typical MFA novel, the typical "we was poor but we was loving" novel and the typical dystopian novel, right?


message 60: by Paul (new)

Paul Fulcher (fulcherkim) | 13422 comments Yes that's the tricky bit - I'm fully in sympathy with C I N D L E's arguments, I have a lot of sympathy for what the judges were trying to achieve, it just doesn't seem obvious this shortlist actually fully lives up to their own billing.

Although in terms of seeing it coming, I think C I N D L E you had more made the argument that the winner would be a surprise than the shortlist:

I was trying to say that I don't think 'The Mirror & the Light', 'Apeirogon', nor 'Shuggie Bain', three top contenders that appear to be favorites, will be the winner. I think all three or at least two out of the three of them will be short listed, and deservedly so.


message 61: by Lark (new)

Lark Benobi (larkbenobi) | 569 comments Hugh wrote: "The American argument is a distraction - only Taylor and Cook were born there, and Doshi and Mengiste along with Dangarembga give countries outside Europe and the Americas better representation tha..."

Yes, I think this is the core reason why it no longer made sense to exclude the U.S., because US fiction is a reflection of the global reach of English as much as anything published in Commonwealth countries or the UK.


message 62: by Laff (new)

Laff | 76 comments Neil wrote: "Oh, well. Over the last few years it feels like the Booker has gone a step further each year in its attempt to stop me reading the books. I think it may finally have succeeded."

That is exactly how I feel now, Neil, and I have been following the Booker avidly since 1982


message 63: by Ang (new)

Ang | 1685 comments Justin wrote: "I plan to complete the shortlist but do agree with previous statements that some semblance of continuity on the judge's panel may provide the Booker with a less of an incentive for each class of judges to make their own "statement".

If you are referring to the mention of Kate Mosse and the Women's Prize, it is no different to the Booker. Kate Mosse founded the Women's Prize and is still involved but she does not act as judge.


message 64: by John (last edited Sep 15, 2020 03:20PM) (new)

John Banks | 190 comments This surprises me, especially that The New Wilderness and Real Life made it over works like TMATL and Apeirogon, really! New Wilderness is incredibly average imho. Really hope based on this list Shuggie Bain wins, it is such a stand out for me. Only book I haven't read on it is Burnt Sugar. To pick though New Wilderness over TMATL, that makes me laugh and know the decision isn't primarily about literary quality as it is sending a message about the kinds of authors they want to shortlist this year. This perhaps to be expected, it is generally always about the judges as a group and what they want to signal and emphasise through their picks.

Good to see Mournable Body on the list, I found it fascinating. I guess a respectable argument can be made that judging literary quality can and perhaps should include regard for diversity. Questions of diversity don't stand outside those of literary value. It is great that so many diverse voices and perspectives have made the list, but New Wilderness over TMATL, I just don't see it. But clearly the judges and others see its merits. I guess that's what makes discussions about literature and what resonates with different people so fascinating, our diversity of taste and judgment as readers and critics.


message 65: by Suzanne (new)

Suzanne Whatley | 211 comments I’m really happy to see The Shadow King, Shuggie Bain and Burnt Sugar shortlisted. I also liked Real Life, and while This Mournable Body wasn’t for me, I can definitely see why it was shortlisted and think I will read it again, along with her previous 2 books. The New Wilderness is the head scratcher choice for me!


message 66: by John (last edited Sep 15, 2020 03:05PM) (new)

John Banks | 190 comments Suzanne wrote: "I’m really happy to see The Shadow King, Shuggie Bain and Burnt Sugar shortlisted. I also liked Real Life, and while This Mournable Body wasn’t for me, I can definitely see why it was shortlisted a..."

I also liked Real life and thought it strong. But it had that feel of a 'first book' author still finding their feet and showing a lot of promise but not quite yet Booker prize shortlist territory. This isn't to say a first book couldn't be an absolute stunner that deserves even the win, but for me Real Life isn't that book.

More that I think about it I can see the case for the merits of the others (even though I may disagree on some, that's about taste and preference). On New Wilderness I'm perplexed, stunned and puzzled. What's the case for it, I just do not see it ..... But then I need to keep in mind the 'I don't see it' and 'For me' parts of this. I'm a fifty four year old white guy from Australia and others will definitely see and value qualities that I don't. Why I guess prize lists and decisions can feel so arbitrary.


message 67: by WndyJW (new)

WndyJW I’m just seeing the Shortlist. I have mixed feelings: I’m not upset with the Booker because I enjoyed the books I read, but to say that The New Wilderness might be the best book written in the English language is laughable. Even if TMATL wasn’t the clear winner, it certainly deserved to be Shortlisted.

I liked Burnt Sugar and The Shadow King, but best book in English?

I don’t plan on read Real Life so it’s a disappointing ending to Booker 2020 for me. I will likely read This Mournable Body trilogy and I hope Shuggie Bain wins, but I think I’m done with the Booker. I don’t think we can expect to find stellar books in the Booker lists anymore.

August is Women in Translation month and there is already talk about the Goldsmith. I think next year I will be focusing on those prizes and the RofC and will read the books likely to make those award lists.


message 68: by John (new)

John Banks | 190 comments WndyJW wrote: "I’m just seeing the Shortlist. I have mixed feelings: I’m not upset with the Booker because I enjoyed the books I read, but to say that The New Wilderness might be the best book written in the Engl..."

Tbh I found the Women's Prize list more interesting and perhaps even the International Booker that I'm still reading my way through. Looking forward to the Goldsmith and think RofC may be right up my alley as it were.


message 69: by Robert (new)

Robert | 2654 comments The women’s prize shortlists are always worth a read and always come through when they choose a winner. I’ve read 24/25 of them and there are only 2 I don’t like


message 70: by James (new)

James Pomar | 115 comments Hugh, the bio in Burnt Sugar says Doshi was born in New Jersey(I’m also from New Jersey, let’s go Jersey!!). Though I agree, Stuart and Mengiste May reside or have dual citizenship in the US, but that hardly makes them American authors. Zadie Smith lives in America but no one considers her an American writer.


Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer | 10127 comments Mengiste on the topic (she left Ethiopia at 4 and moved to the US at 7).

‘I’ve been called Ethiopian because of my heritage and the fact that I was born there. I’ve been called African, as I’ve lived in Nigeria and Kenya too. I’ve been called African American, because I live now in New York. I’ve been called a feminist because I want to do away with toxic masculinity and a patriarchal system. I’m not concerned about the way I am categorized, because these things don’t matter. I am all of these things, melded. I’ve been living in America since the early 1980s”


message 72: by Antonomasia, Admin only (last edited Sep 15, 2020 11:05PM) (new)

Antonomasia | 2668 comments Mod
It isn't is a new thing for 2020 for the judges to be choosing books for their political relevance though. That was already apparent in 2018 and 2019, including with the winners - and the longlist and shortlist in 2017. And although the 2017 winner was a white male author, that the book was about a US president also says a lot.

I would say the Booker became more overtly political from the start of the Trump presidency.


message 73: by Hugh, Active moderator (new)

Hugh (bodachliath) | 4431 comments Mod
The history of the Booker is full of strange choices, and that is part of its charm. On reflection I may have been a little too negative yesterday.


message 74: by Robert (new)

Robert | 2654 comments There's always a year when your (you plural) tastes and the judge's clash - Over the last few years we've been quite lucky (yes there's Reservoir 13)


message 75: by Jamie (new)

Jamie | 33 comments I really don’t know what to think about this list. Having not read any of the shortlisted books, I don’t think I have the authority to proffer an opinion but I have decided to read the entire list. The general consensus seems to be that with Mantel gone it’s Shuggie Bain or Mournable Body !?? Personally Burnt Sugar or The Shadow King are the ones that I will start with. Real Life and Wilderness seem to evoke the strongest negative opinions but I hope that they are both worthwhile reads. Best of luck to everyone. Happy reading.


message 76: by Cristiano (new)

Cristiano | 77 comments I find the discussion about the citizenship ridiculous. Is everybody turning into Borris Johnson now?

It is about language and sorry, English is spoken in many parts of the world thanks to British colonialism. And don't start with British topics, because (!) everybody was loving Apeirogon altough it wasn't about the UK at all.

Please be more tolerant! We live in an age where everything concerns us all (you know globalism) and we have to pull in one direction. Lets learn from what these authors gotta tell instead of discussing what country they belong to, because who cares.

Me myself I am Portuguese, but raised and educated in Switzerland and lived 6 years in the US. Which box do you want to put me into?


message 77: by Val (new)

Val | 1016 comments I decided a short while ago:
If I came online on the night of a literary prize announcement, I would say nothing.

This morning, I am saying only:
It is a shame some of my shortlist choices were ruled ineligible for the Goldsmiths.


message 78: by Ang (new)

Ang | 1685 comments I agree, Cristiano, and James above who gave the example of Zadie Smith. People who have ties to the US were eligible long before the rule change. Marlon James lives in Minnesota, for example, and that was the year before the rule change.


message 79: by Hugh, Active moderator (last edited Sep 16, 2020 02:17AM) (new)

Hugh (bodachliath) | 4431 comments Mod
Just for fun, I have been looking at whose predictions were most successful (sadly C I N D L E never gave us her list so we can't judge her prophetic powers), and have added a few notes here:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Well done Ang, James, Chris, Cristiano and Sam - 4 out of 6 is pretty impressive.


message 80: by Hugh, Active moderator (last edited Sep 16, 2020 12:28AM) (new)

Hugh (bodachliath) | 4431 comments Mod
I am reluctant to revisit the debate about Americans, but as I see it the biggest problem is that the American market is the first priority for most of the big publishers, which makes it much harder for less established English-speaking writers outside the USA (and to a lesser extent Britain) to break through, and harder for the Booker to establish a separate brand identity from the big American prizes.


message 81: by Ang (last edited Sep 16, 2020 12:26AM) (new)

Ang | 1685 comments If you see the rule change as encompassing the English speaking world rather than just adding the US, it makes complete sense. (That is what the rule change was, by the way!)


message 82: by Emmeline (new)

Emmeline | 1042 comments Hugh wrote: "I am reluctant to revisit the debate about Americans, but as I see it the biggest problem is that the American market is the first priority for most of the big publishers, which makes it much harde..."

This.

My reaction to this year's shortlist is actually less negative than last year, when I thought Lanny and Lost Children Archive, in particular, were robbed of a shortlist spot by some fairly mediocre political/nepotistic choices.

People are quite negative about Real Life but, without actually loving it, I thought it was very accomplished. And I think This Mournable Body is a good book -- quite difficult because it is absolutely not in the style of most American or English fiction and makes very few concessions to a lack of knowledge about Zimbabwe, but for that reason its politics are more interesting and surprising.

I don't get The New Wilderness at all.


message 83: by Paul (new)

Paul Fulcher (fulcherkim) | 13422 comments Emily wrote: "My reaction to this year's shortlist is actually less negative than last year, when I thought Lanny and Lost Children Archive, in particular, were robbed of a shortlist spot"

I had some how forgotten those two missed out - and yes those were arguably more egregious omissions than TMATL and Apeirogon, similarly Reservoir 13 in 2017 which was the biggest of all for me.

Half the fun of reading the Booker longlist is so we can be outraged at the shortlist!


message 84: by Val (new)

Val | 1016 comments Paul wrote: "

From previous thread:
None of them 12%
One of them 44%
Two of them 37%
All three 7%

One always was the most likely outcome..."


Yes, sometimes knowing what the odds are is emotionally rewarding.

Ella? Would knowing that my search criterion was '44%' (and not any of the words) interest you?


message 85: by Paul (new)

Paul Fulcher (fulcherkim) | 13422 comments Hugh wrote: "Just for fun, I have been looking at whose predictions were most successful (sadly C I N D L E never gave us her list so we can't judge her prophetic powers), and have added a few notes here:
https..."


Impressive indeed to pick 4.

I should say "Paul's" poor effort - only 2/6 - was not my predictions but rather those of a couple of other people, Mr William Hill and Ms Bet Way!

A quick glance at the longlist dynamic rankings suggests Erin (2,3,4,5 and 8 from 11 read) and Booker MT (top 4 all on shortlist) were reasonably in tune with the judges in terms of their personal rankings.


message 86: by Paul (new)

Paul Fulcher (fulcherkim) | 13422 comments I had missed this yesterday - the judge's suggesting that they might have liked to judge the books blind, i.e. not knowing the author. (They had previously commented that reading PDFs without covers was useful)

The classicist Emily Wilson, also on the panel, said that judging without knowledge of the author would be “a fantastic thing to do . . . to make sure we are just thinking about the writing and the storytelling”.

The only prize I know that does this is the BBC short story prize - for novels it is rather tricky as the judges acknowledge:

She added that it may not be “entirely possible”, given that a writer’s style may be familiar. Lee Child, another judge, said that Dame Hilary Mantel’s Cromwell novels would probably be identified anyway.

Quite!


message 87: by Paul (new)

Paul Fulcher (fulcherkim) | 13422 comments And this one was also interesting - perhaps all 6 will win!

Despite the controversy and, in some quarters, fury last year after the judges wilfully broke the rules by jointly awarding the prize to Bernadine Evaristo and Margaret Atwood, Ms Wood said that she hoped this year’s judges all knew the rules.

“Rules are there to be broken,” the poet, memoirist and judge Lemn Sissay responded.



message 88: by Emmeline (new)

Emmeline | 1042 comments Paul wrote: "The only prize I know that does this is the BBC short story prize - for novels it is rather tricky as the judges acknowledge:"

A number of prizes in Spain do this, but they are usually prizes for unpublished novels, with publication being one of the prizes.


message 89: by Sam (new)

Sam | 2260 comments I very much enjoyed reading the various responses to the shortlist and hope that some of what was discussed will be further explored in topics more suited to discussion than the shortlist discussion. I think criticism of these prizes is important and expressing our opinion negative or positive should be tried before expressing it with what we purchase. I think we must be vigilant in monitoring book prizes to reflect our tastes rather than define them, We don't perhaps agree on what our collective taste is, but I often see a collective response to what our taste isn't.

C I N D L E made a comment that Hamnet was the underdog in the Women's Prize. I was surprised, because I saw it exactly opposite, but I was only thinking critical favorite, the book everyone here preferred. I thought the Women's prize did a good job with longlist, shortlist, and winner, tapping all the right buttons as they say for a lover of literary fiction.

For now, I intend to read more books on the shortlist. I was done, but now feel determined to try a couple more just to get a clearer opinion. Meanwhile more prize lists come out every week.


message 90: by Paul (new)

Paul Fulcher (fulcherkim) | 13422 comments Emily wrote: "Paul wrote: "The only prize I know that does this is the BBC short story prize - for novels it is rather tricky as the judges acknowledge:"

A number of prizes in Spain do this, but they are usuall..."


The BBC one is fascinating as it does pit superstars eg Hilary Mantel (as a real example - she has featured) against relative unknowns. Of course what they don't announce afterwards is which big names submitted and lost out!


message 91: by Cindy (new)

Cindy Haiken | 1913 comments Just catching up on all these posts. Amazing discussion and debate.

I did not like this year's longlist and I like the shortlist even less. I will read the remaining books on it, and it would be a pleasure to be surprised by them, but somehow I doubt I will be. Reading is an incredibly subjective experience and it is clear to me that my reading tastes differ significantly from those of the 2020 Booker judging panel. It may be as simple as that.

I was significantly more impressed with every book on the Women's Prize longlist than almost every book on the Booker longlist. Same for the shortlist. My favorite novel thus far of 2020 won the Women's Prize, so clearly my reading tastes and interests align more closely with those judges. But I have been following the Booker Prize and reading the longlist every year for decades, and I cannot remember a year where I was so let down and disappointed by the books on it (with a few notable exceptions). It's quite disheartening and I, for one, hope that next year is very different.


message 92: by But_i_thought_ (new)

But_i_thought_ (but_i_thought) | 257 comments Really interesting discussion on the shortlist here and the clumsy way the Booker judges tend to announce and discuss the list (by focusing on sociological aspects of their choices first, rather than literary aspects).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P59le...

(See 22:00 onwards)

This is specific to their shortlist announcement video yesterday.


message 93: by C I N D L E (new)

C I N D L E (cindle) The snark in this discussion thread, from moderators, Hugh, and members alike, Emily, is astounding. Yet not surprising.

Did I ruffle feathers yesterday by pointing out the glaring machinations of the Booker Prize? Did me saying last week that 'The Mirror & The Light', the perennial but bloated favorite, and 'Apeirogon', will not win lead to these salty retorts? As you can see, neither book is on the shortlist, which means, neither will win, just as I said they won't win.

Consistently and pointedly, since I've been a member of this group, many of you dismiss and or belittle my offered opinions to carry conversations, or you reply with thinly veiled insults wrapped as humor. It is for the sake of decorum and professionalism that I do not reply to some of you the way I'd prefer. The complacent country-club clique that this group has become, even in the less than two years I've been a member, is disheartening. But as I stated, it is not surprising.

Additionally, it never ceases to amaze me that in a cross section of individuals who call themselves avid readers, that comprehension eludes some. Paul I'd advise you to reread my two below quotes again:

1. "Me thinks we might be in for what we Americans call an "upset," in not only the Booker SHORTLIST, but the eventual winner."

2. "...in a year when political correctness, activism, and "wokeness" are at the forefront, if we are more likely to see titles that espouse and showcase those subject matter, be SHORT LISTED and possibly chosen as winner."

All my comments are written in one go, and never edited. Review each one again from last week, since it appears to be a shock to some of you that my speculations were accurate. Comments #198, #205, and #221 Here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Sam, this statement "C I N D L E made a comment that Hamnet was the underdog in the Women's Prize." is incorrect. I did not say 'Hamnet' was the underdog of the Women's Prize. That is what you inferred. My statement about an underdog title was in regards to the potential Booker prize winner.

After this, I have no doubt that a slew of moderators will descend and flex with a threat to remove me from the group because I dare to say what needs to be said. This group has a tendency to think as a herd, rarely entertaining an opinion that is not fawning to veteran authors, and the group is not welcoming to opinions that are not acquiescing to members who participate the most. If you choose to revoke my membership, be my guest, your group is not what gives me air. Just be sure to leave this comment up so others see that I am one who speaks up, rather than be railroaded out as you have done recently to other members.

Once again: my speculations, and the direct guesses I made last week after the winner of the Women's Prize was revealed, were spot on. Proceed to rankle among yourselves for failure to accept that your favorite book did not get the gold treatment.


message 94: by Antonomasia, Admin only (new)

Antonomasia | 2668 comments Mod
I for one am fully in favour of leaving the above post up and I agree that the group is not without its problems.

However, please bear in mind your own tone and that those who reply are often merely mirroring what they have read.


message 95: by Ang (new)

Ang | 1685 comments So, am I the only person happy with the shortlist? I look forward to reading the three I haven't read yet.


message 96: by Antonomasia, Admin only (last edited Sep 16, 2020 01:38PM) (new)

Antonomasia | 2668 comments Mod
But_i_thought_ wrote: "Really interesting discussion on the shortlist here and the clumsy way the Booker judges tend to announce and discuss the list (by focusing on sociological aspects of their choices first, rather th..."

- Have seen the point made before about how (in the context of the Twitter threads I read it) novels in translation and novels from the Global South are often discussed/reviewed anthropologically, and pushback against that beginning in the translator community in particular.

- At the moment, even more so than when those tweets were posted (maybe a year ago?) there is such a focus on diversity and representation as topics, and literature as political that for the Booker to do this seems to be part of the present moment, that for some it might have felt out of touch not to. I don't know if those statements are co-ordinated by anyone or if the authors entirely choose what to say themselves.

- Those who are pushing for more of a focus on literary quality are further ahead in a process, as I see it, than those who are just going on about representation. i.e. first you need to get the content *there*, then you need to normalise it by talking about it the way you talk about other literature. Ideally it should be done in one go, and it can be - but the public sphere is so focused on talking about the political and representation content at the moment, that that is the mindset a lot of people are in.

I'd be amazed if someone like Busby didn't agree with the speaker there.

Though I also wonder if the speaker was expecting too much of the announcements, or if they would have to be longer to fit all that in.

It would also be more conciliatory to talk about the books' literary qualities as there are readers who are alienated by the focus on politics and representation. *Some* of them just won't like list composition regardless, but there are moderate people who would be won over by consistently doing a different type of presentation.

ETA Who was the reviewer she mentioned? The name sounded like Carla Segal.
Surprised they said Nervous Conditions wasn't on the radar - to do with the focus of bloggers on brand new books? One of those books that is usually in lists of modern classics from Africa along with titles like So Long a Letter.


message 97: by Paul (last edited Sep 16, 2020 01:33PM) (new)

Paul Fulcher (fulcherkim) | 13422 comments Ang wrote: "So, am I the only person happy with the shortlist? I look forward to reading the three I haven't read yet."

I quite like it as well, I certainly can see what the judges want to do, and ultimately it was what they were chosen to do. I hadn't necessarily planned to read the whole shortlist but this has inspired me to buy the 5 I haven't read.


message 98: by Ang (new)

Ang | 1685 comments Paul wrote: "I quite like it as well, I certainly can see what the judges want to do, and ultimately it was what they were chosen to do. I hadn't necessarily planned to read the whole shortlist but this has inspired me to buy the 5 I haven't read."

I am less convinced that there is an agenda, partly because my two favourites made the shortlist so my view is simply that they are good books. I hope you like at least some of the other 5.


message 99: by Paul (new)

Paul Fulcher (fulcherkim) | 13422 comments Thanks, I'm looking forward to reading them.


message 100: by Antonomasia, Admin only (last edited Sep 16, 2020 01:49PM) (new)

Antonomasia | 2668 comments Mod
Antonomasia wrote: "But_i_thought_ wrote: "Really interesting discussion on the shortlist here and the clumsy way the Booker judges tend to announce and discuss the list (by focusing on sociological aspects of their c..."

Also, an announcement like that is in some ways a form of press release - they are creating content for the media to tweak a bit and then reproduce and it is probably done with that in mind. I feel like that aspect "they should concentrate on the literary aspect and then let the media talk about the representation" is entirely well meant, but ... it's not in tune with the media process ... I've seen that turning-press-releases-into-news thing, and I did a bit of it myself on work experience a long time ago. At the moment they want headlines about representation. It seems like a big ask, and idealistic, to expect the Booker not to include some of that.

But at the same time, that representation focus came about because people like this were pushing for it. Now they are pushing for the process to move on to its next stage, on to a focus on literary quality.


back to top