The Mookse and the Gripes discussion
Booker Prize for Fiction
>
2020 Booker Shortlist Discussion
On reflection I think the shortlist is fine, many if not most of the books have strong merit, I so far especially have enjoyed Shuggie Bain, This Mournable Body and The Shadow King. Real Life I thought decent but for me not a pick (I do see though how others could and do rank it highly). Burnt Sugar I'm about to get to and looking forward to reading. The one I don't get is New Wilderness. I'm sure though that there are many New Wilderness fans out there who value aspects of the book that just don't resonate or work for me.Sure I have my favourites based on my preferences (TMATL, Apeirogon). Any prize list and perhaps especially the Booker is indeed about judges signalling the kinds of books and authors they think at that time should be representative as 'best'. Best for me isn't ever independent of questions such as diversity or what might be best as resonating for a particular year. I don't think 'literary merit' can be disentangled from all that. Indeed trying to separate literary merit from what might be viewed as sociological issues or considerations is perhaps itself a charged and indeed political decision. This perhaps is what the judges are signalling through this particular shortlist. They are also signalling something I think, making a statement, with so many debut authors on the list (four). I've seen a few commentators pick up on this.
Perhaps each year's panel needs to make a collective statement about what they mean by 'best', what their priorities and intentions are with that particular year's listing. Hmmm maybe they do that anyway (kind of) with the comments made post announcements. For example, the short video with comments from the judges in which a clear message is valuing diversity ("female and non-white authors out there giving us different glimpses of what the world is all about" and from Child's comments "where the novel is right now in 2020 ... where it might go in the future").
Anyway I can see the value from a number of different angles in this listing. I've enjoyed reading my way through the longlist and also enjoying seeing all the different reactions to the shortlist.
Do most book prizes have different panels of judges every year? As someone just pointed out being happy or disappointed with the Shortlist and winner comes down to having the same taste in books as the judges. A few people questioned Lee Child as a choice for the Booker and now we have The New Wilderness instead of Apeirogon or Love and Other Thought Experiments. I don’t know if he was the reason for that, but The New Wilderness was entertaining, it just wasn’t as rich as some of the books left off the Shortlist.
I’ll probably join in next year, the Booker was my go to resource when I could have used the book matching app 20 yrs ago.
I think that’s the fun of it though. I like the fact that there’s an eclectic selection of judges and how their personalities influence the Longlist. Even if the Booker dips in quality, I’ll always make an effort to buy all 13 books (as long as I can afford it - so far I’ve been able to as the parents of my workplace give me book vouchers as a thank you gift at the end of the scholastic year and I save that for the Longlist)
Mod
Interesting NY Times article on how the judges found judging in lockdown. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.ny...
Prompted by a review I just read which criticised a book and cover I like - I wondered how people felt about the covers of the shortlisted novels.I found these articles by the actual cover designers very interesting:
Shadow King cover: https://spinemagazine.co/articles/lyn...
Real Life US cover: https://spinemagazine.co/articles/gra.... I think the US cover is a lot more interesting than the UK cover
Burnt Sugar cover: https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/20...
For Shuggie Bain I really like the UK cover - the photo is from 2008 here: https://www.jezblog.com/index.php?sho...
Interesting. I quite like the Burnt Sugar cover though don't have strong feelings about it.
I like both Real Life covers! They are very different and seem to represent different books. I would say the UK one is more reflective of the book itself.
The UK Shuggie Bain cover is head and shoulders above the other.
I don't like The Shadow King cover at all. I haven't read the book, and part of the reason is that the cover signals "boring conventional third world litfic" to me, which may be unfair.
For This Mournable Body, I like the concept but not the aesthetics of the US cover (feet) and I don't get the UK cover, but I think I've only seen it in thumbnails so I don't actually understand what that squiggle is.
This was of course the year the judges literally didn't judge a book by its cover.I like the Burnt Sugar cover - was it's Trudie's review of that which prompted your post GY and her reference to the evil-looking succulent on the lilac cover. We have - or rather had - a similarly evil-looking aloe vera in our garden, which our gardener persuaded us to remove, for the children's sake, on the grounds that the spikes can cause irritation if touched or if the leaves break. But that seemed odd with hindsight given the gel is a salve (and a delicious drink).
Ah in real life aloe Vera is seen as something to heal but in burnt sugar it’s seen as an irritant
Emily wrote: "The UK Shuggie Bain cover is head and shoulders above the other...."I loved it too. I was ambivalent about the US edition cover. It fails to capture that, despite the title, the novel is as much about Shuggie's mother as about him, if not even more so.
Besides the UK Shuggie Bain cover, I also like the Apeirogon cover, especially after reading the novel.
Antonomasia wrote: "Antonomasia wrote: "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. "You are right. Though I still find it disheartening to hear the way the judges justify their choices. On the New Wilderness, for example, they included it because they were impressed with “a novel taking on the greatest story of our times, that is climate change” and described it as “an urgent novel reflective of what is happening in society right now; a novel that the older Greta Thunberg would take great pleasure in reading”. (These quotes are from the shortlist watch party) It seems a very issue-led choice.
I am actually more disappointed that Apeirogon didn’t make the list, compared to Mirror. It’s a book that challenges and pushes the reader in interesting ways and would have made quite a bold statement for the judges to have included it alongside the other shortlistees.
That said, I am excited to get to This Mournable Body + Shadow King, which I have yet to read.
I think the US cover is the one with the mother and son - and the UK one is the Crucified in Easterhouse photo
Gumble's Yard wrote: "I think the US cover is the one with the mother and son - and the UK one is the Crucified in Easterhouse photo"Ah, right. Then the US one, that's the one I have and very much like it.
ETA: The UK cover 'Crucified in Easterhouse' is poignant and powerfully reflects the deprivation, but Agnes Bain and Shuggie's love for his mother were also at the heart of the novel which was better picked up on the US cover, I think. Her torments are still hovering over me... and Shuggie seeing it all.
I listened to Booker Shortlist podcast today and readable, current issue, and “not high falutin’” were mentioned more than once, so for these judges the choices the choices were political, they gave lip service to mastery. The New Wilderness was topical, readable, and definitely not high falutin’, so exactly what this group wanted.What we have to hope for in future judges is a turn back to literary merit and away from giving an author her due, potent popularity of a book, and checking political, social issues boxes. At least that’s what I hope for.
Do you have a link Wendy.
https://thebookerprizes.com/discover/...I hope that works, if not go to wherever you listen to podcasts and look for Booker Prize podcast.
Mod
WndyJW wrote: "I listened to Booker Shortlist podcast today and readable, current issue, and “not high falutin’” were mentioned more than once, so for these judges the choices the choices were political, they gav..."That is a regrettable set of criteria being set here. Basically any novel that makes a creative use of form and language would be seen as "highfalutin" but one that can package popular content in the cling-wrap of simplistic writing would qualify as the best book of the year.
But to be fair, it is natural that current sociological issues will influence judges' choices to some degree, but these things are and should always be secondary to the main criteria - and this has been said umpteen times - should be to reward literary aspects, of which I see very little discussion.
What’s disappointing is that are high falutin’ books written about current issues and that honor diversity and don’t we want high falutin’ books to win book awards?
Is 'not high falutin’' this year's zipalongabilityI guess I can see that the judges might argue that in 2020 above all issues matter, and they want to get these books into readers' hands.
GY if you listen you'll identify with Lee Child, talking about planes on business trips being the perfect place to read books (the irony of picking one about climate change seemingly passing him by!)
And zipalongability is the last years readable.
WndyJW wrote: "I listened to Booker Shortlist podcast today and readable, current issue, and “not high falutin’” were mentioned more than once, so for these judges the choices the choices were political, they gav..."Perhaps they are confusing the Booker with the Costa.
I can only see the longlist podcast on that link plus various Booker International ones. I must be missing something.
Soundcloud has it (Spotify and itunes I couldn't see it)https://soundcloud.com/thebookerprize...
Although I am not sure the same one as this one is Emily Wilson and Lee Child and I have yet to hear the words high falutin'?
Derek wrote: "It's difficult to call this year because of all the external factors weighing in on the judges decision. But I really hope Shuggie wins. Either way I think it's going to have a very long life in li..."Shuggie just longlisted for the National Book Awards in the US as well
High falutin was a Lemn Sissay word I think (on longlist podcast). And it was used in the context then of why it they picked Such a Fun Age - so not sure its fair to criticise the shortlist on that basis?
Yes I recall that discussion. Was interesting on the podcast that Lee Child at least didn't seem to think it was that hard to pick the 6 shortlisted book from the 13, i.e. it was clear which were the best 6.
The Water Dancer was my guess?
Ah - we discussed that on the group and thought that was a little harsh on Vanishing Half (although that was exactly the book that many of us had expected to make the longlist).
The Booker posted a defence of the shortlist choices here titled "Pithy, patterns, reactions":https://thebookerprizes.com/news/pith...
Thanks for the article link, Rachel.
It was the Longlist podcast, but even still, they selected the Longlist and we agree there were some books that weren’t deserving of the Longlist. I wondered which high falutin novel Lemn meant. It’s curious that judges on a panel for the the best book written in the English language would criticize a book they didn’t select as high falutin (or perhaps literary?) What does that say about the novels they selected?
Costa is what I was thinking as well, Rachel. I hope the next group of judges are shameless book snobs. I’d rather criticize judges for trying to appeal to elitist readers than criticize them for aiming for popularity.
Best sellers make a lot of money, that’s its own reward and they don’t need prize money. Novels that are challenging to read, that broaden our minds and take us out of our comfort zones, novels that aspire to art, as we’ve discussed before, deserve the prestigious awards and they don’t sell as well so their authors need the prize money.
Maybe the Booker is going in a different direction, more towards Costa and away from Nobel, which is okay if it gets more people reading. We still have Goldsmith and RofC, BTBA, Booker International, the Nobel, and other niche prizes that stretch our reading muscles, or stretch mind at least.
I thought the shortlist podcast was very interesting and the two judges came across very well.
I watched that - it seems that from the beginning drama and the Booker complement each other.
Ultimately that what it’s reputation rests on. There are longer established book prizes and ones that have a better track record of picks, but for generating publicity the Booker has been in a class of its own since day 1. And I don’t say that negatively - publicity is ultimately what gets books into readers hands and people talking about books.
Mod
What theories do people have about why Pulitzer Fiction winners have noticeably higher average ratings on Goodreads than Booker winners?
I don't quite grok the Pulitzer and its aims and ethos because I've read fewer books from it - and you can only read winners anyway. Though they seem to have a knack for books which are both crowd-pleasing and possessed of syllabus potential.
There's a list of just the fiction winners here, though it's in order of number of votes, rather than year, which would have been most useful. It's not just classics like Mockingbird that are rated highly - a lot of the recent winners have higher averages than most Booker winners.
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/4...
Mod
I do too, I used to feel both Bookers and Pulitzers have good stories, but Booker has a higher standard for writing, pace, characters, consistency, and stories told from a more diverse point of viewThat could account for Pulitzers being more popular.
This was before The New Wilderness beat out both Apeirogon and Love and Other Thought Experiments, and other recent past disappointments.
Feels like a combination of aiming at a little more popular / slightly less challenging books (Milkman doesn't feel like a Pulitzer type of book, for example even if it were eligible), and also a tendency to actually pick the most popular book, whereas Booker judges do seem to like their idiosyncratic picks.The National Critics Circle Award feels closer to the Booker to me in what it's after including a more international reach (and indeed Milkman won that).
Antonomasia wrote: "A general Booker thing rather than a this-shortlist thing.What theories do people have about why Pulitzer Fiction winners have noticeably higher average ratings on Goodreads than Booker winners? ..."
I think if your observation proved to be any more than coincidental, it would reflect on the demographics of the readers rather than quality of the books. You could compare Pulitzer ratings to other American awards to see if the trend continued and the same with Booker to other Brit awards which might give you a geographical idea if Americans and Brits rate differently, but it would be a lot of work that I think would only give you information on present Goodread users' habits.
But going back a bit in time, I can remember when the Pulitzer was considered second only to the Nobel in the U.S. Legitimacy was obtained through established tradition over time and I believe the fiction was probably granted more legitimacy because it was recognized along with more acceptable disciplines that were the focus of the prizes, journalism, and the sciences.
The Pulitzer is supposed to relate to American life (specifically in the US). Winning it here in the US is comparable, status wise, to the Booker. It only announces the winner and two runners up on the day all the Pulitzer Prizes are awarded (journalism, nonfiction, drama, etc), so there is lots of speculation. The dates of eligibility are Jan 1 to Dec 31. It’s been around for over 100 years, and many of the winners have gone on to win the Nobel Prize for literature, like Hemingway, Faulkner, Steinbeck, Toni Morrison, and Sinclair Lewis.
Unfortunately, the Pulitzer, like the Booker, can choose some stinkers. I think as the world shifts its views, and writing goes through phases of being entertaining, or prime movie potential, the prizes in general cycle through a dumbing down of sorts. It also depends on almighty money, and the target demographic, which explains books like The New Wilderness and Normal People by Sally Rooney, as well as All the Light We Cannot See and Less.
But as I look at the list of Pulitzer winners, I not only see some of my favorite books, but many authors that are considered masters of the craft- Saul Bellow, Philip Roth, Alice Walker, Edith Wharton, Willa Cather, Elizabeth Strout and Marilynne Robinson have all been winners.
Mod
Tracy speaks truth. Here in the US, winning the Pulitzer means that, for instance, every single time your name is mentioned, you now are "John Smith, Pulitzer Prize Winner" etc. It has a certain caché that the other awards just don't carry, and I honestly don't know why.I once thought about reading all of the winners. One thing I noted: over the years, the Pulitzer has been not horrible about including women - especially early on. (I'm only really thinking about fiction while I say this.) It would be interesting to run the numbers, b/c this was just an impression I had. It feels like they were very good about picking women earlier and as the prize gained more prestige, fewer women won, but again - that's only my 'feeling' and my feelings are often wrong.
Also - it's easy for people to read the Pulitzer finalists - given the number, compared to the much longer Booker list, etc - so that may be why the ratings are different.
(eta - is it cache or caché or is that not even a word?)
Different topic: This year I only managed to read most of these books b/c of audio. I didn't sit and read any of these except The Shadow King which I read before getting slammed by sars-cov-2. I did read Burnt Sugar w/ my eyes, and maybe that's part of why I rated it so much higher?As a result, I have a different feeling - maybe that I feel more distant overall from the books. It may simply be that I'm not used to "reading" books with someone else's voice in my ears. Obviously it was much more difficult to "enter" and "live in" a book while also running around w/ headphones on or a speaker attached to my hip.
I look forward to reading some of these again. My favorite part of reading is often realizing that I've placed a book in a certain setting that's from a distant - almost forgotten - setting from my life. Maybe this sounds insane, but as a person interested in how we process information using different senses, I wish I would have paid a bit more attention to the whole process.
Mod
In that context (i.e. loosely a synonym of kudos), I would use cachet. All 3 words are borrowed from French - caché means hidden.
Hugh wrote: "Ella wrote: "Tracy speaks truth. Here in the US, winning the Pulitzer means that, for instance, every single time your name is mentioned, you now are "John Smith, Pulitzer Prize Winner" etc. It has..."Thanks, Hugh. I just realized that given I am typing on a smartphone, I could have simply googled... Ignore me.
Mantel in the Australian press on missing out:https://www.smh.com.au/culture/books/...
Feels like the paper was trying to get her to suggest she'd been overlooked on diversity grounds - and she didn't take the bait. Although actually feels the Lee Child "good as it was, there were some books which were better” may have annoyed her more.
"While I was a judge [in 1990], I made no comment on any of the books that were under consideration but many years have passed since and obviously there is fresh thinking."
And to be fair to her she did make that same point in the 2008 Guardian article on Tears, tiffs and triumphs: 40 years of Booker prize judges dish the dirt (https://www.theguardian.com/books/200...)
"What I despised was the leaking by the publicity machine of trivial non-stories to the press - I felt the prize had enough status and news value without that. I also believe the judges shouldn’t review the books under consideration or talk about them in public, and in 1990 we didn’t."
Mod
The Mookse and the Gripes
Books mentioned in this topic
Kim Jiyoung, Born 1982 (other topics)Dolly Parton Songteller: My Life in Lyrics (other topics)
Real Life (other topics)
The New Wilderness (other topics)
This Mournable Body (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Brandon Taylor (other topics)Diane Cook (other topics)
Tsitsi Dangarembga (other topics)
Avni Doshi (other topics)
Maaza Mengiste (other topics)
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/by/parul-sehgal