Booker Prize: Classic or Dud?

i mean the Booker has always been for lamebrow shit, just because they've had the temerity to put a more diverse range of writers in the longlist doesn't mean they're squeezing out a load of avant garde novels that would otherwise have placed

Defeatist, but yes, exactly.

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.