The Mookse and the Gripes discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Booker Prize for Fiction
>
2024 Booker Prize Longlist Discussion.
Pleased to say Creation Lake continues with the Old Testament theme - Ecclesiastes this time.
Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Pleased to say Creation Lake continues with the Old Testament theme - Ecclesiastes this time."I mean what's the point in the end, really, but it's good that reading this book is a time of joy rather than a time for weeping.
This longlist makes me weep - it's meaningless, a chasing after the wind.Actually the Goldsmiths Prize is the prize that most reminds me of Ecclesiastes - pretty much every year one concludes on the 'innovative' books that, in reality, what has been done will be done again, there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say “Look! This is something new”?
Although the answer to the Teacher is - yes Praiseworthy.
I am not as unhappy about the longlist as others, but it feels a bit... just fine to me? I have finished 5 books so far, and while I can see something in all of them, I have no interest in making others read them. It seems wild to me that the jury could not find more interesting stories - so far it's like reading a list of solid novels that lack something to make them special. Even books I was not wild about last year hit me differently. might just be me, or the books I've finished so far, but I would really like to be moved.
This discussion is reminding me of the back and forth we had in the weeks leading up to the release of the longlist. If memory serves, several people commented that there weren't many "standout" novels this year, and that while there were a lot that were very good, there was nothing that seemed like it would be shocking if it did not make the longlist. The feelings about the longlist that GY described seem consistent with this. I am reading my 8th longlisted book and don't want to express a view until I've read all 13, but both James and My Friends are stand-out reads for me, and there are three others that I am really excited to read, and of course I hope to be pleasantly surprised as well. It feels like a very good, very solid list.
I have a lot of time for the list - just less worried than normal over the shortlist choice
Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "I have a lot of time for the list - just less worried than normal over the shortlist choice"I understand that sentiment.
Paul wrote: "Interesting! Reading all the eligible books - 400 odd was clearly impossible and as I recall Chad was quite open as to how that part of process worked. But I was being a bit tongue in cheek on the ..."Yes, I chaired the year Stone Upon Stone won. That was my personal pick for the win, so I was pleased by that. The whole process was fascinating. I think we put together a solid longlist, but it was really only a few of the judges that participated meaningfully in the process (and the reading of the books).
Cindy wrote: "This discussion is reminding me of the back and forth we had in the weeks leading up to the release of the longlist. If memory serves, several people commented that there weren't many "standout" no..."Cindy, I agree this is a very solid longlist. I’m still making my way through it, but I’ve enjoyed the books I’ve read so far (even Wandering Stars has its merits). I think an argument can be made that each book on the longlist deserves its place, and I couldn’t say the same for prior years. No real duds here.
Gwendolyn wrote: "Cindy wrote: "This discussion is reminding me of the back and forth we had in the weeks leading up to the release of the longlist. If memory serves, several people commented that there weren't many..."No real duds indeed.
I always ask myself, which is the book that in 5, 10, 50 years time is still going to be relevant, highly rewarded, and for me so far it is an absolute toss up between James and Playground. Two brilliant novels. In fact, if ever the prize was to be shared, this would be the year.
I am really enjoying the longlist this year. All the books are at least solid and have something interesting to offer. I agree with GY, I am not worried about the shortlist - I am convinced it will be a strong set of 6 books. And one of the best shortlists of the last few years.
I have to say. Over the years, it has become clear to me that this group is USUALLY unhappy about the list. :)
Sometimes, it is the discontent that breeds discussion. It would be very dull if we all said, oh wonderful, the perfect longlist.Yes, I agree.
And me.
Oh yes! Me too. A superb longlisted. Can't fault it.
:)
I like that members mention books they are really disappointed not to see on the list because a lot of us add those to our lists and expand our reading horizons.
It is frustrating when you read a book off the LL and the one you were rooting for is so obviously just much better. It feels unjust.
Edit: regardless, I love The Booker. It is the longlist I am most excited by, I read the most from (usually) and leads to great discussion. I love seeing the various reactions to books - all valid and then of cpurse, the excitement of the shortlist! And then... THE WINNER! And the author events along the way.
Yes and No.I hate how people talk about the Jury (some of them themselves very prolific writers) and the Organization Booker. There are reasons why Praiseworthy is not on the list. e basta.
And now that discussion that the Jury couldn't read all the books. Or the comment 'woke list', appealing to tiktok, younger generation.
It is really unfair, because it is discrediting the people chosen to make the selection. And hey, I am younger, how do you think I feel by such comments. It is a shame how this discussion is hold most of the times. (At least we are not having the racist discussion about too many American authors again).
It also becomes boring hearing a ton of negativity as well. I mean there’s one certain forum member who crops up here once a year just to bad mouth the booker. It’s annoying and I wish it would stop. During this years IB, the good number of the comments veered into the disrespectful.
Cristiano wrote: "I have to say. Over the years, it has become clear to me that this group is USUALLY unhappy about the list. :)"I'm relatively new to following the online conversation about the prize, but I've detected a couple of consistent sources of unhappiness.
The first is disappointed expectations. There's an echo chamber effect which I think a number of people have reflected on. It's impossible to read more than a fraction of what is eligible and so reading, discussions and predictions tend to coalesce around the books that are predicted to feature. And then, when the longlist looks different, and includes books not on people's radar, there is shock and howls of disappointment.
And then there are people who don't like the sort of books that are usually longlisted by the Booker complaining that they don't like the books longlisted for the Booker.
What's notable to me is that there has been less shock and disappointment this year - or so it seems - which may be because of the leaks but I think is more likely to be because the longlist is fairly middle of the road. I'd heard of the all of the books - which is not usually the case.
Yes i think i have postulated the echo effect and the increasing prominence of the Listopia amplifies it. And yes much more regular selection this year. It’s making the Barker trickier but I think I am there. It’s been nice to get messages from people saying they read and loved books off that list this year.
I would say though that the Booker gets more vitriolic criticism elsewhere in Goodreads, on Instagram and in the press than it does in this group.
Last year a number of prominent authors and journalists - including several at the ceremony in person and tweeting from there - were openly critical of the winner (not just the decision but the book chosen and even the author).
And every year a number of uk papers run take downs of the list - the Telegraph was complimentary this year but not for reasons I or I suspect the judges feel comfortable about (they liked the lack of diversity in essence).
The Booker is the biggest prize and its very success attracts the criticism.
I cannot recall if I posted this but I spoke for some time to a shortlisted author of another very big prize this year about prizes - and she said she had absolutely loved the process of the prize she was listed as it was so supportive - and secretly relieved to have never made the Booker when she saw the criticism of the authors (she was thinking of Paul L in particular). And she definitely did not mean this group or Goodreads.
I agree that too much negativity can be exhausting. But I have looked forward to the longlist more than I probably should have, and now there are feelings about it. I think it is in part what Ben calls middle of the road - a list that feels like a compromise of books everyone might kind of like instead of a selection of books to argue fervently about. That does not make the jury less accomplished (and I would absolutely agree has nothing to do with younger readers!), but it does set the scene, so to say.Part of sharing the disappointment, at least for me, is also to invite people to disagree and see what people enjoyed where I was disappointed. So I like to read positive thoughts in the discussion threads!
Every judging panel is different and every prize list is completely subjective. There’s no such thing as a ‘best’ book, only favourites, so I don’t really see the point in getting stressed about it.Enjoying the longlist so far.
If there isn't such a thing as best book, what's point in a book prize based on that. If there is such a thing seemed legitimate to debate the merits of the books chosen vs others, as well as their relative merits. And the Booker literally owes its literary fame to deliberately creating controversy and discussion*. It's exactly what they want us to do.
That said this seems a really good list from everyone's comments which is great.
Permit me though to shed a small tear that an exceptional work of world literature won't get the sales it deserves.
(*e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/books/202...)
Paul wrote: "That said this seems a really good list from everyone's comments which is great."Yes, the general consensus (especially here) seems to be that this is a stronger list than usual. I've read Wild Houses, which is 12 or 13 in our group ranking. I didn't think it was horrible like I often do with a handful of entries.
I agree with everyone who has said it's about expectations. I don't expect the Booker to highlight finest fiction, despite the tagline, so I'm pleasantly surprised when we get a list like this.
A book prize can exist to try and find ‘the best’. People can write lists of ‘the best’ or debate what it means to be ‘the best’. That’s all fine and well, and it’s subjective.But my point is that I don’t believe in there being an objective ‘best’. So I see no reason to get upset when my favourites don’t align with the favourites of the five judges.
Just a personal choice about where I expend my emotional energy!
GY - Accepting Jo's point that agreement doesn't make for the most interesting discussion... I agree with everything you've said. And in particular, I'm sure that this is true:Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "I would say though that the Booker gets more vitriolic criticism elsewhere in Goodreads, on Instagram and in the press than it does in this group."
I think we can safely say this is one of the internet's more measured forums for debate.
I like this list. I think all the books are great longlist material, but not all great shortlist. My favorite for the win is Playground. I think it really deserves it. It'a a strong longlist and I hope the best written will be the ones to make the shortlist. For me, there's no clear standout like Prophet Song was last year, though I think Playground comes close. My favorite is Held, which doesn't surprise me at all since Anne Michaels is a favorite of mine. I now think it has a good chance of making the shortlist, but I'm not convinced it'll win the prize. I still think Playground is a better fit for that.I look forward to the Booker every year. It may not be the richest prize in literature, but I think it's the most respected. I read every longlisted book every year.
Note: My favorite for the win is Playground. My favorites to read were Held and Enlightenment.
I love reading everybody’s genuine thoughts, criticism very much included, on the lists and books each year. Agree with Jo that it would be very boring if everyone loved and praised and was afraid to say anything negative about the books. I’ve been in groups like that and follow people like that and it’s horribly boring (and often disingenuous). It does seem like people like the list this year and I’ve pretty much enjoyed everything I’ve read thus far. I don’t see the harm in discussing the panel. A different panel would have picked a different list so talking about their experience, expertise, etc. is very relevant to conversations around the prize.
And I’m also a young person who is very much not offended by talks about how the prize may or may not be changing to reach that audience and how that may or may not be a good thing.
Tldr: bring on the debates and convivial discussions!
Some of the comments above seem to suggest more negativity toward this year's longlist than usual. I'm actually sensing the opposite. But like most people, I have my own online corners and might miss conversation elsewhere.Are there places or forums that are more negative on this year's list?
Ben wrote: "A book prize can exist to try and find ‘the best’. People can write lists of ‘the best’ or debate what it means to be ‘the best’. That’s all fine and well, and it’s subjective.But my point is that I don’t believe in there being an objective ‘best’."
That's more or less exactly my view. Prizes are a good thing because they drive interest and sales. Debating the relative merits leads to interesting discussions. And the longlist usually means me reading and enjoying something I wouldn't otherwise have read.
But the idea that there is such thing as a 'best' book is unsustainable.
Booktube is a morass of vituperative comments and toxic word slinging.
Robert wrote: "Booktube is a morass of vituperative comments and toxic word slinging."Ah. There's a reason I only watch forum members on booktube.
I wonder if that toxicity has spilled over into TikTok.
David wrote: "Some of the comments above seem to suggest more negativity toward this year's longlist than usual. I'm actually sensing the opposite."No, I think you're right - I think there has been less negativity this year. But I also think the list has been less polarising - my sense is there are fewer people upset with the list and fewer people delightedly championing something. I've seen a lot of people enjoying the list and quite a few who think the books are mostly just okay.
Ben wrote: "Ben wrote: "A book prize can exist to try and find ‘the best’. People can write lists of ‘the best’ or debate what it means to be ‘the best’. That’s all fine and well, and it’s subjective.But my ..."
You're right: there is no "best book." There's only a "best book" for this panel of judges. I think people need to keep that in mind.
I've always had so much love for the Booker because it does drive sales to good books, well written books, whether we like them or not, and I want publishers to keep publishing books of high quality. I don't want to see literature descend into nothing but a popularity contest of cookie-cutter thrillers, romances, etc. I want to be able ti find quality literature.
I see very negative comments discrediting the prize/judges because one book is missing. To me that is not objective anymore.I don't see that as a serious reflection on the list.
And pls scrolle back and there one will find many comments stating 'the Booker is trying to appeal to the younger generation' hence they are not as accomplished anymore and not selecting the best fiction blabla.
David wrote: "Some of the comments above seem to suggest more negativity toward this year's longlist than usual. I'm actually sensing the opposite. But like most people, I have my own online corners and might mi..."Yeah I feel like people seem generally more positive this year than last year, from what I’ve seen. I definitely haven’t seen anyone criticising it as being a “woke list” as referenced further up the thread, so I’m curious about what that actually means and where exactly people are saying that.
I’m enjoying the list as a whole, even if I haven’t enjoyed all the books I’ve read so far. I’m happy to accept that this longlist is a list of what the judges think are the best 13 books of the year, even if I don’t necessarily agree with all of them. But I also think that it’s reasonable for people to discuss omissions to the longlist, or theorise about the judges’ reasoning.
Great points. I think it's also worth remembering that the Booker judging panels are usually a mix of insiders and outsiders. It's not uncommon for a majority of judges on a given panel to not be avid readers of contemporary fiction. We often get actors, comedians, etc., serving on the panel.In practice, I think that makes the Booker one of the most unpredictable prizes - which can either be good or bad, depending on your perspective.
It's also the prize that gets the most scrutiny and emotional investment from readers and prize followers.
Mod
Kiki (Formerly TheGirlByTheSeaOfCortez) wrote: "I've always had so much love for the Booker because it does drive sales to good books, well written books, whether we like them or not, and I want publishers to keep publishing books of high quality."This echoes how I feel. As a somewhat younger reader (how are we defining young these days?), I do find it difficult sometimes to relate to a lot of readers I meet. I think we should all read whatever makes us happy, but I'd be lying if I said that the proliferation of certain genres didn't make me feel some level of despair about publishing in 2024. The existence of the Booker is important to me for two reasons:
1. It makes it slightly more likely that people I know in real life might pick up the winner, and I can therefore chat about books in a way that I often can't outside of booker season.
2. It encourages publishers to still reward quality fiction and not insist that all new material must align to a pre-agreed list of tropes.
Any sign yet of the publication date of the two unpublished books being moved forward?
Nothing I have seen. Although I have read Playground, I have both that and Creation Lake on preoreder from Waterstones. With Waterstones as soon as the PD changes, they send you an email and nothing yet.
Many thanks to the poster who counted up all the pages in the longlist books and suggested how many to read each day before the shortlist or the winner announcement. That changed my mindset from 13 books, to setting a personal goal of x per day. Also, thanks to those who shared that they are slow readers. I cannot read fast and read every word. We could start a group!I would like to encourage those who are ahead of me on my library wait lists, to please, please get out of the slow readers group and return the books so I can get them earlier.
Love the last para.
Kathleen wrote: "Many thanks to the poster who counted up all the pages in the longlist books and suggested how many to read each day before the shortlist or the winner announcement."You're very welcome! I, too, am a 'slow' reader - there was no chance I would finish the entire longlist before the shortlist is announced, but I can definitely finish before the winner is announced.
I'm on my fourth book (having read James before the announcement was a leg up) and have enjoyed them all so far.
A tip for anyone with a Spotify Premium account, most of the longlist is available there on audiobook. You get to listen to up to 15 hours of audiobooks per month with a Premium account. Some of the books are short enough that you could get through a couple of them before your 15 hours resets. This could be helpful for people that aren't able to buy 13 books or have a lot of commuting. These are available on Spotify in Canada:
James
Wandering Stars
The Safekeep
Wild Houses
Enlightenment
Headshot
Held
Orbital
I just started listening to The Safekeep today and I'm enjoying it quite a bit. It's narrated by two different narrators and is translating well to audiobook.
I also started my physical copy of Held today and I can already tell that it's not a book that would translate as well to audio (for me anyway).
I liked Headshot as an audiobook. Well, I should say I think the audiobook format worked well for that book. I didn’t love the book, but I liked it, and I think I may’ve liked it better in the audio format than I would’ve liked it in print. I just started My Friends on audio, and it’s great in that format as well. I’m really liking it so far.
Headshot and James are among the books on Barack Obama’s recently released summer 2024 playlist.
I got Wild Houses, which is not promising.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
The Mookse and the Gripes
Books mentioned in this topic
Girl, Woman, Other (other topics)The Testaments (other topics)
Held (other topics)
Jigsaw: An Unsentimental Education (other topics)
Paul Takes the Form of a Mortal Girl (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Bernardine Evaristo (other topics)Tommy Orange (other topics)
Alejandro Kasuga (other topics)
Anne Michaels (other topics)
Rachel Kushner (other topics)
More...
Too early to say Mohamed - the next month will be about re reading all the books (7 of the 13 I read well before the longlist speculation really geared up, 2 nearly a year back). I will then assemble my thoughts on each book’s pros and cons
I will also enjoy what seems like a really high level of engagement with this year’s prize among Booker fans and so get a sense of what others are thinking.