2022 Booker Shortlist Discussion

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

Horrific it nearly won I assume David meant

[Paul]

When he said it took readers on a horrific journey I was worried Oh William had won, but then he added humorous.

[David]

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Horrific it nearly won I assume David meant"

Yes exactly.

[Paul]

Ah I see David had made that joke as well. My thread didn’t show the recent posts. Worth repeating though as it must be up there as least interesting shortlisted book of all time.

[Marc]

Areeb wrote: "I am imagining them breaking out into a dance routine set to Levitate."

Areeb should stage-direct the next Booker ceremony. My two cents.

I was in line at the grocery store monitoring Twitter here in the U.S. when I found out the winner. I started shouting "Seven Moons won! Seven Moons won!!!" Security escorted me out...

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

I guess they were Everett fans

[Nicholas]

I’m happy with this result.

I just finished Seven Moons (my final book of the longlist) this morning. It was my favorite of the shortlist and approximately my third favorite of the longlist.

Because I haven’t had time to contribute much this year and I know it’s fun to have dissenting opinions expressed, I also want to go on the record as a fan of Oh William! Despite its straightforwardness, it is one of only two books from the longlist that made an emotional impact on me (the other being Maps). I found the characters quite tangible and memorable as well, which I also felt about Seven Moons.

Now I can finally read some of the books I had been hoping would make the longlist, starting with Venomous Lumpsucker…

Cheers to another year!

[BookerMT2]

Once they had come up with the shortlist, they did then I really feel that only Moons or Glory were the likely winners.
Personally, the others just lacked serious literary credibility and so I think at least they have come up with a decent, if not great winner.

The author is an interesting writer, and I loved his first novel a lot more than this one.
All been fascinating on here as is usual each year so big thanks to everyone who takes the time to contribute. Also, kudos to everyone for the gracious way in which divergent opinions are held and expressed. Shame the world can't be a bit more like this. As a Booker Junkie I'm off the second potential 2023 novel now.

[Paul]

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Paul wrote: "particularly disappointing for a panel who seemed to value compact books pick the most under-edited one."

My sources briefing about a U-Turn were correct - I just misinterpreted what ..."

Does seem a day for u-turns on sensible decisions. That. is. a. disgrace.

[BookerMT2]

Paul wrote: "Ah I see David had made that joke as well. My thread didn’t show the recent posts. Worth repeating though as it must be up there as least interesting shortlisted book of all time."
Must be a good number of potential entries for this award! I'd like to nominate Jigsaw by Sybille Bedford. I came across my copy the other day and I know I read it back in 1989 but even glancing through it I just couldn't recall anything about it. Also has the dullest jacket ever of shortlisted titles.

[Cindy]

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Paul wrote: "particularly disappointing for a panel who seemed to value compact books pick the most under-edited one."

My sources briefing about a U-Turn were correct - I just misinterpreted what ..."

Big messy books indeed. And I did not dislike Seven Moons. I just thought there were others that were more worthy (and that this one needed a firmer hand).

This entire thread makes the whole thing worthwhile, regardless of the winner.

[Marc]

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "I guess they were Everett fans"
Clearly!

[WndyJW]

I agree, Cindy.

Can I just add that I wish Camilla was simple Queen, not Queen Consort. Consort has a sexual connotation and I’d rather not think of Charles and Camilla that way.

Now to update Seven Moons to Booker Winner and adjust my Booker Winner Rankings. A reader’s work is never done…

[WndyJW]

Ranking Seven Moons compared to other Booker winners is different than ranking it among longlist and shortlist for 2022. I ranked it under 3* because the first half was messy.

[endrju]

My favourite won. Hooray!

[WndyJW]

I’m happy for you, endrju. I know most of mainstream publishing, and a lot of the books we discuss here do not reflect your experiences.

[David]

The International Booker went to a work from India originally in Hindi, and the Booker has now gone to a work from Sri Lanka. Definitely overdue recognition.

[Lou]

Nicholas wrote: "I’m happy with this result.

I just finished Seven Moons (my final book of the longlist) this morning. It was my favorite of the shortlist and approximately my third favorite of the longlist.

Beca..."
Looks like we are a Booker match.

Seven Moons was my 2nd fave of the long list and short list. I'm a big fan of Strout but read it pre Booker and didn't really see it as the winner. Seven Moons was a great read with a little bit of the Bardo about it, although slow but I felt that all the longer reads in the long list took a bit for me to get into.

[Joy D]

Seven Moons was my personal favorite, and I feel, a very worthy winner.

[Tracy]

I’m happy with this winner! It’s a great book, and I think people can learn from it. Just what a Booker book should be.

[Areeb]

Marc wrote: "Areeb wrote: "I am imagining them breaking out into a dance routine set to Levitate."

Areeb should stage-direct the next Booker ceremony. My two cents.

I was in line at the grocery store monitori..."

I mean it just seems like a missed opportunity. Why get Dua Lipa if you won't have her perform? I assume she wasn't cheap. Camilla gets to show off her moves too. Maybe something to do with the book clubs as well.

Also, shortlist dance-off.

[Areeb]

WndyJW wrote: "I agree, Cindy.

Can I just add that I wish Camilla was simple Queen, not Queen Consort. Consort has a sexual connotation and I’d rather not think of Charles and Camilla that way.

Now to update Se..."

Did you miss their leaked saucy phone transcripts, Wendy? Tampongate was truly... something.

[Marc]

Areeb wrote: "Also, shortlist dance-off."

See, I knew you'd be perfect for the job!

[WndyJW]

Areeb wrote: "WndyJW wrote: "I agree, Cindy.

Can I just add that I wish Camilla was simple Queen, not Queen Consort. Consort has a sexual connotation and I’d rather not think of Charles and Camilla that way.

N..."

I know about Charles’ wish to be Camilla’s tampon, hence my aversion to the idea of them consorting.

[Paul]

I wonder if Dua Lipa was cheap to hire (even free) precisely so long as she wasn’t required to sing and also was able to have a platform for her views on Kosovo and Albanians.

[Di]

Jackson wrote: "If I’m not mistaken this was Sort Of Books first Booker nomination, period. I imagine they’re quite ecstatic to win off of it."

Yes, I was curious and just looked them up. They are quite a small outfit. It's wonderful for them, of course, but I bet they are scrambling like crazy this morning with all the extra work the prize will bring!
I think there was already some catching up to do with this book as it wasn't published until 4 August and I've just had an email from Audible inviting me to pre-order the audiobook which isn't available until December!

[David]

I'm eager now to get a copy of Chats with the Dead to see how they compare. I have a hunch that Chats with the Dead had a more consistent pacing to it.

[Cindy]

Seven Moons will finally be published in the US on November 1st.

[Paul]

With a rather larger print order than originally planned I suspect! Who is the US publisher?

[Areeb]

David wrote: "I'm eager now to get a copy of Chats with the Dead to see how they compare. I have a hunch that Chats with the Dead had a more consistent pacing to it."

I have gone out of my way to get the original in hardcover. The retitled paperback came out last month here and has become more ubiquitous. The whole "revised for a global audience, to make the story more accessible" bit just infuriates me to no end and I am actually quite worked up about it. I genuinely find it deeply offensive and problematic.

Will it have won had it not been revised? Will it have even made it to the longlist?

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

The author has described the latest version as “tighter, pacier, more textured and nuanced” so sounds like he thinks it’s a better book.

[Cindy]

The US edition is being published by Norton.

[David]

Chats was 353 pages, and Seven Moons is 386, at least according to GR, so I’d assumed he added more exposition in the earlier chapters (the first two chapters of Seven Moons accounts for something like 45% of the text). It sounds like my assumption may be wrong.

Agree with Areeb that that’s not a good narrative for the revisions.

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

You might be right David although if that was to add clarity it did not work as I think most people agree the book ends much better than it starts.

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

This interview today implies the book had problems throughout and also explains the odd nail polish

https://amp.theguardian.com/books/202...

[Emmeline]

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "The author has described the latest version as “tighter, pacier, more textured and nuanced” so sounds like he thinks it’s a better book."

Most books are improved by another round of edits, but it is a bit of a dodgy pretext.

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

I think it was nearly two years of editing

[Paul]

I can’t quite cope with this being a tighter, pacier version. The originally must have been baggier than Bagpuss.

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

It’s baggy, and a bit loose at the seams but Emily loved it.

(Sorry Emily but could not resist a Bagpuss quote given Paul’s post)

[WndyJW]

So that explains the polish, he has rock ‘n roll nails.

[Areeb]

From the Wikipedia page. This somehow makes it sound even worse than the brief statement at the start of the book.

Karunatilaka struggled to find an international publisher for the novel because most deemed Sri Lankan politics "esoteric and confusing" and many felt "the mythology and worldbuilding was impenetrable, and difficult for Western readers." The independent British publishing house Sort of Books agreed to publish the novel after editing to "make it familiar to Western readers." Karunatilaka revised the work for two years due to its publication being delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Karunatilaka said, "I'd say it's the same book, but it benefits from two years of tightening and is much more accessible. It is a bit confusing to have the same book with two different titles, but I think the eventual play is that The Seven Moons of Maali Almeida will become the definitive title and text."

I am fine with him feeling the need to revise but this whole accessibility narrative is very galling.

[Di]

Areeb wrote: "From the Wikipedia page. This somehow makes it sound even worse than the brief statement at the start of the book.

Karunatilaka struggled to find an international publisher for the novel because m..."

For "accessibility" read "marketability". He has a background in advertising copywriting so will understand this need.

That said, I saw him at the Booker Prize winner interview event last night and he made some comments which suggested he'd found the whole editing process tortuous!

[Emmeline]

I can see the benefit of having a local version and an “international” version of some books. I’ve certainly read some translated books that I thought would have benefitted from an introduction to help open them to the uninitiated. I think what’s galling about it is the fact that no one thinks American books need this kind of edit when published abroad. We’re all supposed to know street names in New York or what it means that someone went to whichever university, but a “global” audience can’t understand that Sri Lanka has its own politics.

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

The odd thing for me was that he went through something similar on his first novel - The Chinaman. That was full of cricket references and he was advised to add sections explaining aspects of cricket so someone who did not know the fame could follow the novel - I think it may be an even bigger edit than this one as there are literally explanatory sections inserted in the story. The difference was that only one version was published.

And interestingly just as with Seven Moons you still have a finished book that I think is complex for the non expert audience - I am really not sure a non cricket fan would follow which parts of the book (and which characters and incidents) are real and which are not. Just as it’s hard for someone who dies not know Sri Lanka to be sure in Seven Moons.

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

Emily completely agree re US books - even British books on British prize lists using British slang and traditions are considered “inaccessible” as we saw this year.

[David]

Areeb wrote: "From the Wikipedia page. This somehow makes it sound even worse than the brief statement at the start of the book."

Totally agree. That statement on wikipedia is somehow demeaning to everyone.

[LindaJ^]

And books written earlier than say 1850 are likely inaccessible in many ways to the vast majority of average readers everywhere - no phones of any kind, no automobiles, no baseball caps, no arugula, no almond milk, no gluten free, use of ink and quill pens and cursive writing. Isn't reading how we learn about different cultures and political systems?

In answer to my own question. Big publishers want books that will sell in countries where people buy books.

[David]

Emily wrote: "I think what’s galling about it is the fact that no one thinks American books need this kind of edit when published abroad."

I'd disagree, but more from the standpoint that I don't think any book should need that type of edit before being published abroad. With Chinaman, for example, I wouldn't pick it up unless I planned to learn a bit about cricket to be able to read it.

[BookerMT2]

LindaJ^ wrote: "And books written earlier than say 1850 are likely inaccessible in many ways to the vast majority of average readers everywhere - no phones of any kind, no automobiles, no baseball caps, no arugula..."

LindaJ^ wrote:

Big publishers want books that will make a profit. You can sell a lot of copies but if you have overpaid for such novel then it doesn't "pay back". You can sell fewer copies of lesser known authors and make more money.
For eg Collins rumoured to pay 500K for a novel by Eugenides which I suspect never "paid back".
As to US titles not edited. Most times the UK publisher is acquiring secondary rights and as such has little or no say in textual edits and also it wouldn't be cost effective to do so. Which in a way comes back to your point regarding big publishers. US sales dwarf for eg UK sales of US titles.
Of course, editing texts to appeal to your local market is done but not very often and I suspect Seven Moons is unusual in this respect. At times such changes will be suggested by the prospective agent before sending it out to editors.

[Lou]

Stephen wrote: "Wndy wrote : The woman that did the reading for Oh, William was excellent .
Much more dramatic than when I read this."
Kimberley Farr narrates a lot of Strout books, I think she’s great.