Booker Prize: Classic or Dud?

Booker Prize = dud becuase it's awarded shortly before my Dad's birthday so I have to buy him the winner at a hiked up price.

I love it because so many are Indian (though I haven't read any of them).

Good - "Oscar and Lucinda", "Waterland" Bad - "Black Dogs", "The Folding Star"

Trying desperately to think of the last piece of literary fiction I read, then someone mentioned Geoff Dyer. I'm now sure it was "Colour of Memory", lent to me by the Pinefox around 18 months ago. And, yes, it was very good.

I've read more Ian McEwan than I'm entirely sure I wish to admit to. I can't remember much about those books, other than they were short and that "The Innocent" was the first I read (I suspect I thought he was a writer of great atmosphere and texture at that point, and so ploughed through the rest), and "Black Dogs" the last. My view that the latter was bollocks may be just something I've picked up from clever people who've told me that it is. My own opinion is long gone, possibly replaced by "how to parallel park".

Always the bridesmaid: Beryl Bainbridge!!!. Shoulda been a winner, it's a crime she has never been.
Also missing from the winning position: JG Ballard and Angela Carter. How these two have been ignored over the fuck awful Salman Rushdie is beyond me.
'God of Small Things' and 'Last Orders' I both liked.

Sundar should write a novel.

they're giving it to 900-page pynchonesque wig-outs by twentysomethings? I'd better get on with it :D

(anyone read?)

i bought this because it sounded fun, then read some reviews that made it sound not so fun.

i'm going to read this other 900 noir wig-out by a thirtysomething first, then maybe we'll see.

definitely interested. I thought her last one (first one) sounded like the real thing (can't remember why), didn't get round to it tho'.

Today I read a rave about this one on the millions that made made me think I would not go near it, but that is the millions really, your web home for cliche-ridden semi-literary rambles that confuse length and sincerity for thought and sense.

However, I then read Robert McCrum's bit on it:

At more than 800 pages, it left this reader wishing that Catton had also paid homage to Robert Louis Stevenson whose best line, surely, is "the only art is to omit". On page 342, Catton supplies a story-so-far from the point of view of the protagonist Walter Moody. If you are unemployed, or marooned on desert island, this timely round-up might give you the courage to investigate the next 500 pages about the mysterious death of Crosbie Wells, and explore the games Catton is playing. Then again, it might not. I doubt that a sophisticated Booker jury will inflict this monster on the reading public, even if it does look like the thing British readers crave – "the good read".

My interest rose again: I am on for anything that pisses off McCrum.

over here nakhers

the more I read about this, the less pynchonesque it gets, and the more :-/ it gets

I didn't like her debut, admittedly possibly due to Kiwi inter-city snobbery &c.

Interesting week in the NZ media between Eleanor Catton & Lorde's successes.

i only got 200 pages in before i got sick of lugging it round, but in that time it didnt seem v pynchonesque at all.

i dunno what made LJ think Pynchon in the first place? from what i've heard/read the comparison to something like Possession seems much more apt. which is just fine with me.

epic historiographical multi-stranded mystery with zodiacal conceits, ticks a few boxes. doesn't sounds remotely as sophisticated as I'd thought but that's ok

i am just gonna not unpack sophisticated or i will get headache

LJ just got excited because it's really long.

Like this actually sounds pretty great but I don't have a Kindle and I'm fucked if I'm going to carry around another 800 page+ hardback around with me again. When's it out in paperback?

i really need an e-reader, which i once thought i'd never say

anyway, Booker books are usually rubbish so it's a small coup to pick a winner i might want to read

has anyone read the luminaries? i've been reading reviews of it and am intrigued... i'm so backed up with books i've bought but haven't read yet.

So, has anyone read it?

No, it sounds awful!

Haha I know! Boring "literary" historical fiction, Booker fodder defined. Bt I live in NZ and a lot of ppl're currently creaming themselves over her/the fact she gave a lecture in which she (MY GOD) claimed to like genre fiction and to prefer Diana Wynne Jones to Harold Bloom. This is, apptly, radical stuff in my country

Sorry NZ that ws bitchy, just y'know

lot of ppl

Anyone beyond D4vid L4rsen?

A few ppl on Twitter but yeah, mostly him. I should've waited a while to say anything, given I don't rly mind now, and after all I basically agree w her. Have you read TL?

That 4/5 fawning w/out even mentioning the ostensible subject of the piece rly is embarrassingly unworthy of publication tho

Feeling like he had to make nice after the Guy S0merset brouhaha, IDK. Wld be unfortunate if the fallout of Sport getting axed was more VUP ppl on Twitter eh. Haven't read TL (disliked The Rehearsal); curious to see how many patriotic Xmas copies of TL end up in opshops cf The Vintner's Luck.

"To say she went all-in and gave this occasion everything she had is not to say nearly enough" is entertainingly awful cf that "New Zealand to mount defense of the Booker Prize" arts-as-sports sub-Onion thing.

Haha. Yeah tbh my first thought when TL won ws "Cool now I'll be able to find it for a few $ at an opshop p soon", and I guess I'll give it a go then

Joshua Ferris (American), "To Rise Again at a Decent Hour"
Richard Flanagan (Australian), "The Narrow Road to the Deep North"
Karen Joy Fowler (American), "We Are All Completely Beside Ourselves"
Siri Hustvedt (American), "The Blazing World"
Howard Jacobson (British), "J"
Paul Kingsnorth (British), "The Wake"
David Mitchell (British), "The Bone Clocks"
Neel Mukherjee (British), "The Lives of Others"
David Nicholls (British), "Us"
Joseph O'Neill (Irish American), "The Dog"
Richard Powers (American), "Orfeo"
Ali Smith (British), "How to be Both"
Niall Williams (Irish), "History of the Rain"

anyone read the Marlon James? I'm still mystified to the point of fear that t mccarthy's satin island made it anywhere near the long list let alone the shortlist, despite trying to reassure myself that the Booker is totally meaningless.

Tempted to give it a go even though last year's was rubbish, and despite its 700 pages, write shorter books please.

Chock full of sex and violence and swearing apparently.

I enjoyed The Narrow Road... but I'm still pretty dubious about any prize that could be awarded to Howard Jacobson with a straight face. This one sounds great though.

Also I found myself disproportionately annoyed that Siri Hustvedt's The Blazing World failed to make the shortlist last year, supposedly putting her at the same level as crap like Us and The Bone Clocks. Actually I ended up reading a surprising amount of the shortlist last year and the Joshua Ferris one in particular was dire. Don't think I'll ever understand the appeal of Ali Smith either.

The sdtrack for this: http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2014/oct/06/the-playlist-reggae-wayne-smith-super-cat-and-shabba-ranks?CMP=share_btn_tw

I might give it a go as well, though the 700 pages is daunting, and what Matt DC said about Howard Jacobson in spades with a cherry on top.

Got it as a present, am about half way through but haven't touched it for days, I think I've given up. Basically a problem of style. Each chapter has a different narrator from a large and rotating cast, and they're quite short so it's hard to get a sense of immersion when the viewpoint keeps on shifting. Almost all the characters are self-obsessed and carrying giant chips on their shoulders, and they all talk to themselves in extremely self aware prose - "Jesus Christ breathe, Kim Clarke. Breathe in, out, in out, in, out. That's the third time I called myself Kim Clarke without thinking [...]" - so aside from patois to distinguish between Jamaicans and Americans, there's a sameness to them all. Dialogue is rendered verbatim with only a new line/dash to indicate a change of speaker so after half a dozen exchanges I'm pretty much lost as to who is saying what.

Plot wise it seems on the surface to be complex, with local politicians and gang leaders and CIA and regular citizens, all with their own schemes and all tangling with each other, but it doesn't go very deep. It feels like all the different threads are very short, just added for effect, there's no grand narrative waiting to be revealed, no sense of tension. Which kinda would be ok, I wasn't expecting or hoping for a Clancy style thriller, but since I'm not enjoying the style I have no other reason to carry on, no burning desire to find out what's going to happen.

b-b-but Michiko Kakutani said it was "epic in every sense of that word: sweeping, mythic, over-the-top, colossal and dizzyingly complex."

Her dad was much more precise in his language.

Would tend to agree but I have to say I did really love Milkman by Anna Burns. A good winner imo.

Don’t get the sense that tokarczuk or kraznahorkai are pandering to the mass market either but what do I know

i accept that there are noble exceptions i was just making a bad rhetorical point, which is still true in general imo

also the International Prize feels like a different thing

Anyhow, I do think it's fair to argue that easily summarizable novels written by readily assignable authorial identities are likelier to garner the kind of praise that yields household names. Insofar as this has always been the case (including and especially when otherwise claimed), greater nominee diversity is a step forward, but the underlying concern – the triumph of subjects (in every sense of the term) over the work itself – remains. Then again, this myopia is likely embedded into the business of literary awards, and there is no escaping it short of abolishing them altogether (and even then...).

How many of the books have you read? How many has the blogger read?

Brb, will read them all and report.

Then again, this myopia is likely embedded into the business of literary awards

I'd say it's embedded into the very nature of canon building; as soon as you're grasping for some consensus beyond personal taste it becomes about subjects over work. The fact that the blogger thinks this a new development - as opposed to it having been ever thus, but invisibly so - makes me mistrust him.

the triumph of subjects (in every sense of the term) over the work itself

As Matt DC points out, the blogger doesn't seem to have any idea of whether this is actually the case, as they haven't read the books. So it's basically a kneejerk reaction to diversity, which makes me, uh, very suspicious of this person, to be charitable.

How about a knee-jerk reaction to the marketing of diversity? Or is that the same thing?

I skimmed the article, saw the word Knausgaard several times, and closed tab

xp

it always seems to be an excuse to moan about diversity imo

and almost any novel is described in terms of its subject matter at some point, this piece doesn't really have any clue about the "literary" qualities of the books simply because of how they've been described by reviewers or publicists

also content/style dichotomy, yuk

Yeah I was going to point out that the distinction that's being drawn here is inherently bullshit, but if the blogger in question hasn't read any of the books then he can only be reacting to the subjects.

Austen and her new-fangled 'about' fic-lite concerning love and friendship can gtf, oh but for real writing like Defoe

I mean I am sympathetic to the idea that a lot of brilliant books are disbarred from award consideration in favour of simpler ones that hit the zeitgeist a little harder, but that's life yknow

How about a knee-jerk reaction to the marketing of diversity? Or is that the same thing?

No, it's definitely not the same thing, but while that may have been their intention, it's not how the piece reads to me. I'd also say that debating the marketing of diversity can lead you to the same place as just debating diversity itself if you're not careful.

(For clarity, "you" is the general you here, and the "same place" is racism. Obviously.)

debating the marketing of diversity can lead you to the same place as just debating diversity itself if you're not careful

I, for one, believe it's a conversation worth having, even as I agree that Mitchelmore wasn't careful enough in his own blog post, which is ultimately dismissive and superficial. As an aside, I almost never feel like I'm walking on eggshells when discussing this in non-anglophone settings (not always a good thing, mind you).

Lol just had a look at the link just now and Mitchelmore was on twitter vigorously defending Peter Handke's Yoguslav tourism once the allegations came up again when he won the Nobel last year. No wonder he has problems with diversity.

Careful.

I live in a little personal pocket cancel culture, as I have an unwritten list of names I will never read, watch or listen to wherever they appear. Mostly anti-Corbyn writers, slebs, blue ticks and TV presenters. (I've never written 'blue ticks' before 😱) Anyone else do this?

— Steve Mitchelmore (@Twitchelmore) July 9, 2020

https://balkaninsight.com/2015/08/17/uk-labour-frontrunner-queried-on-kosovo-motion-08-17-2015/

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/26919

You linked him pom.

I sure did, but that doesn't mean I'm 100% on board with his argumentation (or lack thereof).

At this stage I might accept the oncoming apocalypse gratefully if it meant that people no longer felt the need to link everything back to Jeremy Corbyn regardless of relevance.

Not saying that you are. But in response to me adding that context about the author you told me to be "careful" and went on to post about Corbyn. Chill out a bit xp

Mitchelmore is a real bore about post-Beckett fiction. Why was he even fucking around with a booker list and boring on about it, the guy can't even be a proper snob about it.

I was merely pointing out that support for Handke's position re: Serbia is not a deal breaker for many here and hence an ineffective line of attack as far as I'm concerned.

xp you should @ him about his subpar snobbery, it might make for more canonical blog posts in the future.

Mitchelmore's position on Handke is far more relevant because overall he seeks to elevate the art of writing as the only thing that counts, so much so that a benign award that has to play for what else is going on (the politics of the time) will be subjected to cranky, bigoted rants about diversity, cloaked in talk around aesthetics and what literature is about.

And book Twitter is full of people who go on about the decolonisation of literature as akin to hell on earth. It's a topic.

As an aside, I almost never feel like I'm walking on eggshells when discussing this in non-anglophone settings (not always a good thing, mind you).

How diverse are these non-anglophone settings? I ask just because I think that if I had this discussion w/ a group of white Portuguese ppl vs a group that included black and asian Portuguese ppl the dynamics would not be the same, to say the least.

Ime in Quebec visible minorities (Canada’s BAME/POC) are more receptive to the anglophone dynamic at play itt when the topic arises, but it’s way less pronounced. In France, you almost never hear the arguments put forth here, regardless of where your ancestors come from, and when they do come up they’re couched in endless caveats. In Romania, well, you can guess.

In France, you almost never hear the arguments put forth here, regardless of where your ancestors come from, and when they do come up they’re couched in endless caveats.

Huh, that is very much not my experience! My wife's family and friend group might be seen as outliers there, but even in the magazines she reads it's becoming more and more prevalent.

And surely "endless caveats" means you're still walking on eggshells, just from a different perspective?

Jtbc I'm not saying that the contemporary French literary scene is oblivious to the problem of diversity. The key difference, to my mind, is that writers who come from non-white backgrounds (or women or LGBTQ+ authors) are generally keener to present themselves as predicateless writers, first and foremost, which is in keeping with the Republic's universalist, colourblind ideals, for better or for worse. Anglophone-style identity politics are often viewed as excessive and/or needlessly divisive when imported into a French context, and France's visible minorities are far likelier to agree with this reading than their British or American or Canadian counterparts. There are exceptions to the rule, of course, and challenges to this doxa have become more common in recent years, but it's still a far cry from the anglosphere.

And yeah, the eggshell-walking is definitely a matter of context. Fwiw I tend to feel like an oddity on both sides of the divide, and for opposite reasons.

Mantel has missed out on the shortlist, and people are angry.

https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/sep/15/most-diverse-booker-prize-shortlist-is-also-almost-all-american-hilary-mantel?

Giving the same prize to the same author for the same series of books 3 times in a row would be a bit crap.

Yes, except it's now going to be about a white author missing out because 'diversity'.

True. The weird thing here is having four American authors on the shortlist. The sole Brit (Scot, actually) has lived in New York for 25 years. Tsitsi Dangarembga is from Zimbabwe.

I don't think the panel should overthink who wins it.

I suppose they (or any prize) should give it to Mantel if they, a contingent set of readers, think it's the best novel they've read this year. If they don't, don't. And they didn't.

Many people have always been opposed to opening this prize to US authors, and I'm inclined to agree with them.

I'd be surprised if Mantel herself is especially bothered, she's done just fine out of this particular prize.

I wasn't sure about nominating US authors either but Lincoln In The Bardo is one of the two or three best books to have won it in the last decade (the other being A Brief History Of Seven Killings).

Mantel seems gracious and supportive of new writers so I agree.