2021 Booker Longlist - No One is Talking About This

[Neil]

Yes, mine was Kindle.

[Paul]

I was talking to a millennial friend yesterday who had just finished Normal People, and I said it brought out by inner Will Self (and indeed I see my review of the novel said the same)

I had the same reaction there - if this is the future of the novel then the novel really is dead - which of course it isn't, i.e. it's me not the book.

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

To which the only response from someone younger would have to be - “ok boomer” (*)

(*) I know we are GenX so this doesn’t work but as I am GenX and you are older than me I think if you as a Boomer

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

Whereas this Gen X is hoping / intending to meet both Lockwood and Rooney in London in the the next fortnight.

[Sam]

I am curious Paul, why you dislike Lockwood. If there is another author from this year's longlist she could be with, it would certainly be Ali Smith, who also plays in her novels using words, various source allusions, poetic constructs to entertain as she presents us with a work of contemporainety. I do not mean to challenge your opinion, just curious why you don't appreciate the author given the similarities.

[Paul]

Because one is literary fiction typically about politically important topics, even if Smith’s style is to riff on the topic.

And one is random drivel about silly memes and makes one despair of our civilisation as well as the future of the novel.

[Sam]

I understand. I see more depth than you, though I think Lockwood's approach to this book was fairly loose and experimental, without regard for creating characters or plot, as in a more traditional novel.

[Paul]

That - lack of plot etc - I rather like. Although I thought it had the depth of a shallow puddle.

I'm making it sound like I hated the novel, or even had strong feeling about it, which isn't the case.

To me her biggest achievement is replicating in literary terms the concept of a meme. Writing a book that gets a lot of attention for a short period, but a few weeks later is forgotten and looking back no one can remember what all the fuss was about. Although I am not sure if that was the intention.

[Cindy]

I really think Lockwood's writing is superb, and I think that counts for a lot. Of course I loved this novel, so I'm biased, but even in the first part, I thought the way she talked about the memes was stunning.

[Paul]

Really? I may have to check I read the right book!

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

Agreed Cindy I thought on a second read through her insight into our online society, her concepts and imaginative use of language is stunning.

[Nicholas]

I read this when it made the Women’s Prize list and it’s still one of my two favorite new books of the year (alongside When We Cease to Understand the World). My book club recently discussed it and it made for one of the most spirited and fascinating meetings we’ve ever had.

One of the members noted, as Eli did upthread, the generosity that Lockwood brings to her depiction of social media and the people who use it. Such a refreshing contrast to some of the more scolding takes on social media I’ve read recently (Flanagan).

I agree with those who have noted that participation in any online community, including this Goodreads group, is probably enough to allow you to appreciate the first half of the book. Several folks in my book club were not frequent Twitter users and had no idea the references were even real and still found the first half hilarious and rewarding.

I’m glad folks seemed to have moved beyond the critique of the book as “two books” that could somehow have existed without each other. I never understood that, as I think the whole point is the radical change the protagonist goes through in shifting from one mindset to the other.

Ultimately, I think Lockwood is making the point that all forms of human existence are beautiful and have value. You might pour decades of your life into participating in an online community that some would decry as purile. Or, to paraphrase the part of the book that has most stuck with me, you might show up for a little while and listen to some music. (If someone could find that quote for me, I would be most grateful. I gave my copy to a book club mate.)

[WndyJW]

I think random drivel is a bit harsh. Lockwood is a very good writer and her commentary on the social media universe was salient, insightful, and delivered with humor so it didn’t sound like we were being lectured.

I didn’t like it as much as some, but I think it’s worthy of its Booker listing.

Is the quote your thinking of in the first or second half of the book, Nicholas?

[Paul]

I can see the first half is needed to justify the shift in the second. But given so many seem to dislike reading it, shame she couldn’t have followed the true rules of Twitter and met the whole thing to just 280 characters.

Indeed “can a dog be twins” would probably have sufficed.

[WndyJW]

I meant to add that the first half could have been shorter.

[Nicholas]

@WndyJW I remember it being very close to the end.

[WndyJW]

This?
“…the club pressed against her and she thought of Little Touch; her eyes traveled to all the places she was kissed, places all over the world. She wondered was it worth it to show up, hear a little music, and then leave?”

That is very touching, Nicholas, and it is a great example of the nuggets of wisdom buried in a book about the social media universe and the real world.

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

Little touch being of course a game the family played with the baby to give her sensory stimulation and give her (and then) gift of touch and also to be able to see her responding to those stimuli.

And the babies eyes are permanently open due to her condition (the family taking at the surgeons advice the decision to reject the operation to correct this) - I think the links with the narrators wide eyed absorption in the first half of all of the stimuli of the portal are clear.

The listening to the music also links to the foot piano the family discover late on as a way for the baby to make her own music. As an aside the author and her niece with this item as well as with the Pom Pom featured in the book can be seen in a picture at the bottom of this interview

https://www.guernicamag.com/miscellan...

And of course the niece showed up only for a little while but it was still a hugely meaningful time for their family. Had the state of Ohio permitted abortion (something her father opposed all his life only to have his faith struck to the core - at the same time of course the narrator and author has her own rejection of the oppressive faith of her childhood shaken to its core as she moves away from atheism) the baby possibly would not have shown up at all but the sister’s life would have not been severely endangered and the family not have had the emotional torment of the baby’s few months of suffering - but they also would not have had the experience of meeting her.

While travelling all over the world links to the narrators travels both with her meme-fame and with her husband taking in both Joyce and Woolf.

And as Nicholas says it can all link back to social media participation.

That’s all in two short sentences.

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

And yet the book is accused of superficiality.

[Sam]

I think there is a bit of a bias against her that seems equally divided between academic style critics and general readers. That bias results in scoffing dismissing remarks that miss what she accomplishes. There is also a tendency to oversimplify her work by calling the book as a "twitter` book or describing it as just a bunch of "memes." When looking at her background, I was wondering if her lack of college education contributed to the academic bias. I agree with GY. The book has more complexity, economy, and depth than anything on the list

[Neil]

So, as GY suggested, I tweeted about the misspelling to see if it was deliberate. I @-ed Lockwood, the Women's Prize and the Booker Prize. No reply yet (2 days).

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

The Booker prize is a social media shambles and the a women’s Prize has I feel a very obvious bias (unfortunately against its charitable aims) in which tweets it responds to. So Lockwood is your best bet.

[Neil]

I nearly commented that I wasn't hopeful of a response from the Booker. I included the two prizes in the hope that would mean someone would notice it. I'll report back should anyone reply.

[Joy D]

Neil wrote: "So, as GY suggested, I tweeted about the misspelling to see if it was deliberate. I @-ed Lockwood, the Women's Prize and the Booker Prize. No reply yet (2 days)."

I thought the misspelling was "sneaze."

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

That was the deliberate analogy drawn in the same paragraph. Neil found one buried somewhere else in the book which would fit the paragraph more cleverly if deliberate.

[Neil]

The discussion in the book says "The exome test had found the misspelling, the one missed letter in a very long book". And on page 99 the word "thoughtful" is misspelled as "houghtful". If that's deliberate, it's brilliant. If it's a mistake, it's still brilliant but for slightly different reasons.

It doesn't seem to be in all editions, though. As GY says, the funniest outcome would be that a very conscientious employee at the publisher has noticed i and corrected it.

[Sam]

I found it curious that Lockwood was spurned by both the National Book Award anf the Kirkus Prize. I wonder if intent was to not replicate or if the judges did not find the novel worthy. It will be interesting to see how the book fares in the remaining U.S. awards.

[Cindy]

I just listened to Lockwood’s interview on Front Row. I was surprised there were only 2 people asking questions besides the host, but they went through several questions each. I am always impressed by Lockwood and learn things when I listen to her in interviews. This was no exception, and the host seemed quite taken with the novel as well.

[Peter]

I don’t typically participate in these groups, but I follow many of the reviewers and appreciate their insights into what to read.

I wanted to address the fear that this is the “future of the novel”. I really don’t think it is.

I think there are certain similarities between this and books like Ducks, Newburyport - both somewhat experimental in form, both terminally online in attention span and subject matter. I think that American fiction has been forced in many ways to reconcile its relationship to the internet and too much information, whether that be through autofiction and the porousness between life and information, or in the case of this essentially meaningless internet drivel. I think this book does the latter, and tries to reconcile it. Ultimately, I think this book is mainly a period piece of a specific cultural moment, and while I understand most of the references and “get it”, I kept imagining trying to read it without getting any of it, a sort of Finnegan’s Wake piece if someone tried reading it 20 years from now. Ultimately, I liked this book because reading it, it already felt dated to me. I don’t anticipate this to be the future of the novel, just an aside.

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

Cindy wrote: "the host seemed quite taken with the novel as well."

The (different) host of the programmes Neil and I were on was also a big fan of this novel

[Neil]

Yes, this one seems to be a favourite at the BBC.

[Paul]

Hopefully not a favourite with the Booker jury

But just in case I've already prepared my reaction meme should I find it has won

https://twitter.com/nocontexthearn/st...

[Cindy]

To each his own Paul. Although that meme made me laugh.

[Marc]

This is actually the only book of this year's Booker that I've read (not uncommon for me), but I loved it. Reminded me a bit of Ducks, Newburyport and The Sellout in terms of both dealing quite brilliantly with contemporary issues and a very strong reliance on certain references. That reliance is a double-edged sword---makes for an incredibly cutting and insightful look at a specific moment in time or social dynamics, but cuts the longevity of the book and its readership down quite a bit. That's fine. Not every book has to have a timeless shelf life or be "the future of the novel."

I do think with this book and the other two that I mentioned that readers not familiar with their references (and, in this case, pretty regular social media usage), would be somewhat lost.

Mostly, I liked how the writing embodied the cognitive dissonance of social media and 21st century life (being present/not present in your own life, having extremely personal or emotional experiences/stories right up alongside the frivolous or vulgar, the blurring of life as private and performative, etc.).

[Paul]

It reminded me of Ducks, Newburyport and The Sellout as well

Although fortunately not quite as bad as either of those (which would be some feat to achieve)

But it got me back into Binch biscuits, so not all bad

[Cindy]

I adored Ducks, as I've said elsewhere, but interestingly The Sellout left me completely unmoved and uninterested. Go figure.

[Marc]

Paul, getting back into Binch biscuits seems like a good reward!

Cindy, if I read just one more book from this year's shortlist, is there one you'd recommend?

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

Cindy wrote: "I adored Ducks, as I've said elsewhere, but interestingly The Sellout left me completely unmoved and uninterested. Go figure."

So you will not be surprised that

I also adored Ducks (albeit not the author's wider views and comments or her publisher's reaction to not winning)

I was very uninterested by the The Sellout


The Sellout

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

Marc wrote: "Mostly, I liked how the writing embodied the cognitive dissonance of social media and 21st century life (being present/not present in your own life, having extremely personal or emotional experiences/stories right up alongside the frivolous or vulgar, the blurring of life as private and performative, etc.)

Exactly

[Cindy]

Marc wrote: "Paul, getting back into Binch biscuits seems like a good reward!

Cindy, if I read just one more book from this year's shortlist, is there one you'd recommend?"

A lot of pressure on that question Marc. My second favorite on the list is Bewilderment, which was a surprise for me because I have not loved Powers' other novels. It has certainly divided opinions among the members of this group. In terms of the novel that was (after the Lockwood) the most thought-provoking, that would be The Promise.

[Cindy]

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Cindy wrote: "I adored Ducks, as I've said elsewhere, but interestingly The Sellout left me completely unmoved and uninterested. Go figure."

So you will not be surprised that

I also adored Ducks..."

It makes me happy to have our reading interests aligned again, GY. When I agree more with your brother than with you, something seems out of kilter.

[Joy D]

Although I liked this book very much, I hope you all are correct that it is not the "future of the novel."

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

To me its a one-off and not at all intended to be the future of the novel

[Cindy]

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "To me its a one-off and not at all intended to be the future of the novel"

I agree. And her interview on Front Row only reinforced my sense of this.

[Emmeline]

I'm a bit all over the place with this book (the first I've read from the shortlist). I do appreciate the artistry. I like the braiding and back-referencing in the double narratives. Some of the writing is really good. She absolutely gets something about online culture. Though it drove me nuts (I'm a "geriatric millennial" and reasonably online but have never understood how people can live online to that extent and not be totally miserable).

I was touched by the second half but ultimately felt a bit exploited by it. I found it a bit morally dubious to use your dead neice to make points about the Internet.

I love Sam's analysis of what "can a dog be twins?" is all about though!

[Joy D]

Emily wrote: "I'm a "geriatric millennial" and reasonably online but have never understood how people can live online to that extent and not be totally miserable..."

I am neither, but I totally agree.

[WndyJW]

I don’t remember what side alley Twitter took me down, maybe Buzzfeed, but they featured an Instagram “influencer” who posted pics of her self in a very stylish, sexy skirt suit, standing in front of her fathers coffin. There’s stories of teenagers taking selfies in front of Auschwitz, I think that is what Lockwood was critiquing in her examination of her own social media presence and how vapid it all seemed when she experienced a very personal tragedy.

Edited to correct valid to vapid!

[Emmeline]

For me there's a very "duh" but also sweet moment at the end when she's dancing in a nightclub in London and at first is cringing at all the songs that are her "personal American embarrassments," but discovers "Oh, I did not know. The songs all along had been beloved." It wasn't just irony.

Though imagine being embarrassed by "Seven Nation Army" and not being embarrassed by half the nonsense in this book...

[Paul]

Paul wrote: "Hopefully not a favourite with the Booker jury

But just in case I've already prepared my reaction meme should I find it has won

https://twitter.com/nocontexthearn/st..."

Patricia Lockwood replied with a tweet meme of her own with her detailed reviews of the other 5 on the shortlist

https://twitter.com/NoContextHearn/st...

(Disclaimer - she didn't, but if she were up to speed with the memes of sons of snooker promoters who now run boxing, I'm sure she would have done)

[WndyJW]

Very appropriate meme, Paul