The Mookse and the Gripes discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Booker Prize for Fiction
>
2023 Booker Prize speculation
I don't understand Netgalley at all. Do publishers actually track how individual reviewers rate the books, or just look at top-level stats on the site?With regard to Reproduction, I can imagine the publishers are wary of making this novel generally available, because it's a winding and convoluted mystery of a book, circling around its themes rather than stating them directly, and that kind of story would drive most readers straight toward the 1-star category. But why they would reject you, David, I don't understand. Also why they'd have a goodreads giveaway although part of the strategy there, I think, is that signing up for a giveaway auto-populates people's "want to read" shelf, and makes it pop up on other people's timelines so that they see the book and the cover, too. That may make a giveaway very attractive to publishers, esp. if the number of copies offered is small. A lot of the winners won't read it, anyway, but the book will have made itself known to many people on goodreads. That's a lot of free advertising.
The Kirkus review does a good job, I think, of explaining what the reader is in for:
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-re...
I've had a couple of things on Netgalley recently where it's been a while before I got a response. I got approved the other day for a book I'd requested 2 months ago and had already resigned myself to never hearing back about, I think that's my record.
I don't think we got the preview of Penance on US netgalley, so I couldn't even check that out. We don't even have a cover yet.
Just read Open Throat and struggling to see it as a serious Booker contender but who knows given how the prize seems so captivated with US culture. As part of a short story collection I think it would works but as a stand alone It felt insubstantial and also inconsistent to me and also misleadingly blurbed.
Yes, it's very US-centric and not typical of a Booker book.Unlikely contender unless we get a combination of US-focused judges (e.g., 2000) and judges who like brevity (e.g., 2022 chair).
What was misleading about the blurb?
I confess that I have absolutely no interest in reading Open Throat.
Open Throat is a story that can be read in one sitting. It's an examination of the meaning of queerness with a playful use of syntax. It's getting a lot of buzz but it's not for everyone. Hard to see it as long-form fiction.
Lark wrote: "With regard to Reproduction, . . . [t]he Kirkus review does a good job, I think, of explaining what the reader is in for"That's a good review from Kirkus. I've noticed Kirkus has gotten better over the last few years at giving a more insightful comment. It used to feel like Kirkus was just paraphrasing the publisher's blurb.
Open Throat sounds very good. I’m putting it on my Wish List. I just ordered The Call-Out for my 17 yr old grandkid, but I think Open Throat might be fun as well.
I think the Call-Out is a great choice for Xen.
Thanks, I do too. They haven’t read anything in verse so this will be a new experience.
Has anyone read Your Love is Not Good by Johanna Hedva? It came out last month from And Other Stories. (I think that makes it eligible.) It seems to have drawn little attention on Goodreads but the critical reviews are strong:https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-re...
https://www.frieze.com/article/johann...
It may be too niche for the Booker, but I wouldn't rule it out.
It doesn’t feel very Bookery unless this jury are different to previous years, but hoping they enter it for the RoC - seen quite a lot of love for it on Twitter.
My thoughts on Open Throathttps://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I have to say I thought it was superficially done - I guess if someone publishes a 15,000 word novel I expect each word to be crafted not ideas that simply are not followed through.
I think it might have worked as one of a short story collection.
Cormac McCarthy just passed away. I am guessing that his work will be acknowledged with a spot on the long list for The Passenger
Rules of prize are author has to be living at time of submission and remain alive through the various stages of the prize up to winner announcement (they don’t lose the prize of they pass away after that). But Director of prize (not the judges) has discretion to overrule that.
Strange rules. I can understand “at the time of submission” but if a book got shortlisted and then its author died it seems wild that it would technically be disqualified from advancing. I can understand the value of having authors participate in the press tour, but you would think the morbid public curiosity around a book winning soon after its author had died would more than make up for it in terms of publicity for the prize.
Very bizarre obituary in the Guardian which embarrassingly is prominent on the home page of their website not just the culture section. https://www.theguardian.com/books/202...
It includes:
“In 2009, a Texas university acquired McCarthy’s 98-box archive, which included notes for an unfinished novel with the working title of The Passenger; however, the notes were restricted until publication. The acquisition revealed that McCarthy was then working on three novels – but there has been no update in the decade since”
I have a feeling someone drafted an obituary a few years back and it had not been updated.
I suspect a rapid correction might be coming.
Now correctedIn 2009, a Texas university acquired McCarthy’s 98-box archive, which revealed that McCarthy was then working on three novels. More than a decade later, two of them were released in 2022: The Passenger and Stella Maris, two connected novels that follow Bobby and Alicia Western, two siblings who are tormented by the legacy of their physicist father, who helped develop the atom bomb
Guardian is usually very good at noting its own corrections - “an earlier version of this article incorrectly said…” - which is I think very good journalism. Don’t see that this time though.
The Guardian article does now note three corrections made, of which the one you're discussing is by far the most glaring.
They need to add a correction saying "the original amended version of this article failed to note that it contained a correction from the original version"
Ben wrote: "The Guardian article does now note three corrections made, of which the one you're discussing is by far the most glaring."Not sure I agree on the most glaring though.
"Also, polysyndeton is the use of conjunctions, not conjugations"
I mean that's pretty damning. Surely every knows what polysomething means. How did that slip through.
Interesting that the other author most in the news at the moment is known for her use of asyndeton in the title of her most famous book
Has the Womens Prize winner announcement happened yet?
Will they disqualify DC to give the other books a chance?
I don't think it's a Bookerish book, but I definitely see it longlisted at least. Won't win though.
Is it just me or is Goodreads (other than Group threads) glitching?
Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Is it just me or is Goodreads (other than Group threads) glitching?"it is
I suspect Demon's winning the WP will make it a marginally safer bet for the longlist (close to a lock), but make it less likely to win. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a repeat of Mantel's final installment: longlist but no further. I think the same will happen to the Rushdie.
Very good analogy. In both cases a Double Win (two Bookers, Pulitzer and WP) was already spectacular - a triple seemed/seems a step too far.
I agree that DC is likely to make the longlist given how well it's done in other awards thus far, but I definitely wouldn't put it as a surefire shortlister or winner. Thinking back to recent years, The Underground Railroad swept several big awards and only made the longlist, and The Mirror of the Light failed to make the shortlist too despite the previous two books in the trilogy in the series winning.Personally, I would be fine to see it longlisted but I wouldn't be overly satisfied if it won. It was wonderfully written, but it absolutely didn't need to be 650 pages (and this is coming from someone who enjoys longer narratives!).
A lot will depend on the judges too. With The Mirror and the Light, I think the judges that year were interested in a very different type of book and author. Another panel may well have picked it to win.
Loot by Tania James might be one to watch - for next year. UK publication date of 25 Jan. 2024. It's been getting positive reviews here.Kirkus: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-re...
David wrote: "Loot by Tania James might be one to watch"I have an ARC but not started it yet - I've also been hearing good things about it.
The CS Monitor calls it a "richly embroidered historical novel": https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/Book-...There's usually room on the longlist for at least one of those.
Laura wrote: "I'm probably in the minority here, but I really loved Real Life and Filthy Animals- would Taylor's new book be enjoyable for people who enjoyed his previous two or not?"Good to hear, I'm reading The Late Americans, the first of his I've read and so far I'm really impressed, the writing is so controlled and accomplished, and I like the intensity of the commentary on American society and late capitalism, and the mix of clarity and tenderness in his treatment of his characters. I was also ridiculously pleased that I picked up on some of the strands and influences, the homage to writers like Zola and James but also the harking back to the "dirty realism" of people like Raymond Carver.
Alwynne wrote: "I'm reading The Late Americans . . . the writing is so controlled and accomplished"That's where Taylor shines - prose that is both lush and restrained. Writing in the mold of Henry James and Raymond Carver, focusing on millennial characters but also concerned with structural collapse, seems like a good description of his approach.
David wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "I'm reading The Late Americans . . . the writing is so controlled and accomplished"That's where Taylor shines - prose that is both lush and restrained. Writing in the mold of Henr..."
So why do so many people on the thread seem to have an issue with his work? It's quite refreshing to read something where the writing stands out, although it does highlight the impoverished prose style common to a number of contemporary literary novels I've encountered recently. Although I can't decide if he's essentially ventriloquising or whether he's doing something more interesting or whether it matters either way! Does sometimes make me think of those old Oxford assignments famous for requiring students to rewrite passages in the style of specific authors. The second episode in the book, for example, seems to be a reply to Carver's story 'What we talk about when we talk about love' mingled with a curious echo of Hubert Selby Jr's work or at least a particular strand of American writing that centres on working-class masculinity. Although I like Carver, and Selby Jr for that matter, so works for me.
I don't have an issue with his work. I think personally, I'm not all that interested in the struggles of characters who are in grad school, which does seem to be his focus. I'm also not interested in the writers he's influenced by.
David wrote: "I don't have an issue with his work. I think personally, I'm not all that interested in the struggles of characters who are in grad school, which does seem to be his focus. I'm also not interested ..."This is more like the other Taylor we've been reading so focused on the community as a whole, some students, some townies and there's a Whartonesque feel in that he's exploring an enclosed social setting which has its own rules, conventions, tensions.
That seems like a great comparison. There's a lot of nuance and technical accomplishment in both. I wonder if a criticism of ET, during her lifetime, was that the social commentary was too buried. Readers only saw a small-stakes drama play out rather than social commentary, on the one hand, or an intertextual conversation on the other.
Very interesting - I really cannot gel with his style for me it’s overfussy (to the point of artificiality) with too much incidental detail (Real Life was particularly poor for that) and too little genuine character differentiation. But I have absolutely no doubt as to his immense writing talent.
He definitely divides opinions - the Guardian/Observer have printed two reviews in the last week - one hailing it as near genius (a class act) and one identifying what the reviewer sees as a whole series of flaws (a university challenge)
https://amp.theguardian.com/books/202...
https://amp.theguardian.com/books/202...
I can only judge him on the one book I've read - the one that made the leaked Booker list which we all assumed was a spoof, and then when I read the books I was even more convinced was a spoof. It seemed classic MFA style overwriting.But if he's developed as a writer that could be interesting.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
The Mookse and the Gripes
Books mentioned in this topic
Matrix (other topics)Elena Knows (other topics)
Falling Animals (other topics)
The Long Form (other topics)
Shy (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Brinda Charry (other topics)Rachel Heng (other topics)
Maithreyi Karnoor (other topics)
Hanna Stoltenberg (other topics)
Maithreyi Karnoor (other topics)
More...
The extract reminds me a lot of A Good Girl’s Guide to Murder but I assume the main book does something much more interesting.
The other weird one was Mister Mister - I got it months pre publication but - for ages I held my review back as some things in the book kind of triggered me and I wanted to read some other reviews. But in the end I was the only one to review on NG and there were no other reviews on Goodreads pre publication. I would be surprised if other people did not request it given how many prize nominations and awards the author’s debut received.