Comments on: 2011 Man Booker shortlist

By: RickP

RickP — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:02:14 +0000

Gross sales are no indication of quality. JK Rowling has never been nominated for a Booker and rightly so.

With that said, I offer the Harry Potter books to Pigeon English and Snow Drops from both the literary quality and enjoyability perspectives.

By: Sazerac

Sazerac — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:09:46 +0000

There was a good article in The Guardian newspaper recently about this whole notion that the increase in sales of the shortlist will be taken as an indication that the panel were correct to change the tone of the prize. The writer (whose name escapes me at present) pointed out that Hilary Mantel’s book sales increased hugely because of having been awarded the prize, and, perhaps equally importantly, her back catalogue also came to light. This is what this particular prize should be about – introducing people to work/writers they might not have been familiar with, in that way benefiting everybody. There are enough prizes already for ‘easy reads’.

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:04:25 +0000

Leroy: It is true that those of us watching (and semi-participating from afar) have often wondered if the Booker hasn’t always been a literary version of the classical cockfight — a tightly-knit group of insiders who might not like (indeed, even hate) each other, having still enjoying have at it in an annual festival. Most important, however, was to make sure that no outliers got to infiltrate the cabal. Fortunately, as your last comment acknowledges, the books have a way of overcoming the people. Although, I can’t help but wonder after the last two years if Ion Trewin isn’t determined to turn the contest (not just the Prize) into something far less interesting.

By: leroyhunter

leroyhunter — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:05:49 +0000

I was amused (and appalled) to read this little morsel about Bookers past over the weekend:

‘My Dear Hugh, the letters of that great historian of France, Richard Cobb, edited by Tim Heald (Frances Lincoln), will probably not get the review coverage it deserves. However, this wonderfully indiscreet correspondence (chiefly with Hugh Trevor-Roper) contains some treasurable passages. I was particularly taken with Cobb’s account of chairing the 1984 Booker prize. “I have managed,” writes the old devil, “to keep Martin Amis and Angela Carter and something something de Terán off the shortlist and manoeuvred so that BALLARD did not get the prize to the FURY of the media, the critics and Ladbrokes. So I have done a little NEGATIVE good.” Latterday Booker chairs have been regrettably short of such animal high spirits.’

Makes you wonder about the whole process, even in the supposed golden years of the 80s-90s. Although I grant that the 84 shortlist knocks spots off this year’s crop.

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:57:27 +0000

Lee, Max: My problem with this year’s longlist for the most part (and certainly the shortlist) was that the opening premise for virtually every book held interest — it was the execution that made them very ordinary. For a period I did wonder if the jury had only read the jacket covers (“Oh, that sounds interesting — must give it a go”) and not actually sampled how bad the writing was in the book itself. If you merely look at a description of Pigeon English, Jamrach’s Menagerie or Snowdrops there seems to be a good book possible — these books just don’t happen to be it. For me, even Half Blood Blues suffers from the same problem, although others have found the writing better than I did. Barnes and deWitt are at the top of my list simply because the authors succeeded in delivering what they attempted.

I agree that Ion and Dame Stella are likely to point to sales figures as an indication of this year’s jury success — truly a case of putting the cart before the horse. (If that’s the measure, this crew is nowhere near Richard and Judy’s league and should just fold up the Booker tent and disappear.) Let’s face it, a lot of literary novels just don’t sell without attention — both last year’s Giller winner, The Sentimentalists and the National Book Award winner, Lord of Misrule had initial press runs of 1,000. (And the Jane Rogers book on this year’s Booker longlist sold one copy in the week before the announcement — so 164 the next week was a huge jump.)

For me, the Giller has been an incredible contrast this year, an example of what good literary prizes should do. The 17 books range from the very conventional historical novel through works that are simply well-written to the quite experimental. So far (I have five yet to read), the common characteristic has been the quality of the writing — something that was sadly missing from this year’s Booker list. One has to wonder if that jury even knows what good writing is.

By: Max Cairnduff

Max Cairnduff — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:54:10 +0000

I can see what he meant. I’ve always been fond of the film Demolition Man. I’d hesitate to put it on any list of best films though. What one likes and what one most highly regards don’t always fully overlap.

Similarly with fiction. I love Robert E Howard’s Conan tales, but I’d hesitate to put them up there with Nabokov.

By: Lee Monks

Lee Monks — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:47:24 +0000

I can certainly share that sentiment. The film critic Leonard Maltin used to provide lists of his ‘favourite’ films and of those he considered ‘best’. The distinction was something I always found questionable but don’t nowadays. There has to be some argument, surely, about the potentially knotty merits of a book, that’s perhaps elusive and interesting, and not initially superficially pleasing? I don’t want to know, merely, if I am going to be entertained: I want to know if I am going to have something to ponder, hopefully for years, not for the three hours it takes me to riffle through it.

By: Max Cairnduff

Max Cairnduff — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:11:44 +0000

Sales this year are apparently among the highest (if not the highest) the Booker has seen. I imagine part of that is due to more of the books being in paperback than usual (the publishing industry has taken an age to notice that most people don’t want hardbacks any more) but the popular nature of the titles must of course help too.

Given that result I suspect this year will be seen as a success, and so the template for things to come. I don’t anticipate following the Booker further if that’s correct.

By: Lee Monks

Lee Monks — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:57:19 +0000

Not long to wait – and I’ve a horrible feeling that Pigeon English will take it. Anyway, I think you are absolutely right: there has clearly been a shift towards the two other prizes you mention and if so that’s a travesty. Perhaps another award will emerge that looks out for the literary impulse as opposed to the rattling yarn emphasis.

PS I am enjoying your Giller coverage but haven’t read many. I will eventually get round to the best of the bunch, at least. It would be good to have some kind of feeling of involvement in an award with genuine merit, after all.

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:04:45 +0000

Rick: I agree with every word of your comment — this is by far the most disappointing shortlist in my experience. The Sense of an Ending would be a worthy winner and at least save face. I will be taking a long hard look before committing to read the entire Booker list next year. It seems to me that Ion Trewin has decided that the Costa and Richard and Judy are his competition and has moved the entire prize into a field that just doesn’t interest me that much. I certainly read enough excellent novels to fill out a worthwhile shortlist — and they didn’t even make the longlist.