Hello
Gentle Reader
The
Booker Prize judges have released the six novels and writers who have been
shortlisted for this year’s Booker Prize. The list is comprised of usual
suspects, with noticeable omissions. Without further ado, following is this year’s
shortlist:
Margaret
Atwood – Canada – “The Last Testament,”
Salman
Rushdie – United Kingdom/India – “Quichotte,”
Elif
Shafak – Turkey – “10 Minutes 38 Seconds in This Strange World,”
Chigozie
Obioma – Nigeria – “An Orchestra of Minorities,”
Lucy
Ellmann – United States of America – “Ducks, Newburyport,”
Bernardine
Evaristo – United Kingdom – “Girl, Woman, Other,”
First
and foremost: this year’s shortlist is dominated by female writers, with Salman
Rushdie being the only male on this year’s shortlist. Second, both Margaret
Atwood and Salman Rushdie have won the Booker Prize prior. Margaret Atwood in
two-thousand for her metafictional novel: “The Blind Assassin.” Salman Rushdie
in nineteen-eighty one with his monumental novel: “Midnight’s Children.” The
inclusion of Margaret Atwood is no surprise. “The Last Testament,” returns to
the theocratic state of Gilead, first documented in “The Handmaid’s Tale,” in
the late eighties, which cemented Atwood’s reputation as a strong feminist and
uniquely Canadian voice on the literary world stage. Now a household name thanks
to the televised adaption; Atwood once returns once again to the novel which
pushed her to the forefront of literary frontier, with a sequel; three decades
later.
“The
Last Testament,” has received a fair bit of press coverage over the past month.
When it was initially longlisted for the Booker Prize, it had still not been
released for public consumption, and the judges were essentially legally bound
and gagged from speaking about any contents of the novel. The secrecy of the book
has stirred readers’ curiosity of readers, while early reviews have praised the
novel, calling it “Classic Atwood.” Still, one can’t help but wonder if the
appeal for the novel is partially informed due to the television series, as
much as it is for the bizarre political theatre taking place in the United
States.
Salman
Rushdie’s novel “Quichotte,” has been a novel of mixed reception. On one hand
critics have praised the novel for being postmodern and intelligent, while
being enjoyable. Others have called the book a continual rehash, whereby Salman
Rushdie seeks to regain the former glory of his early career.
It’s
disappointing to see Max Porters’ novel: “Lanny,” omitted from the shortlist. “Lanny,”
appeared to be of the more unique novels listed for this year’s prize, a blend
of prose and poetry, to create a unique folktale driven narrative. The
inclusion of Bernardine Evaristo and her novel “Girl, Woman, Other,” has been
described as disappointing. The writing has been called tragically flat, stylistically
a failure, and socially preoccupied before being literary.
Lucy
Ellmann, has the pleasure of being both the dark horse and the most likely
winner. “Ducks, Newburyport,” is a mammoth novel, clocking in at a page count
of: 1040! Despite its mega-novel page count, it has been described as a ironic,
humorous romp that is also heartwarming. It’s a novel of relevancy, both
personal and macro orientated, reviewing the barbaric nature of the world today—especially
the surreal world of American politics, and the shifting legitimacy of democratic
institutions and liberal ideas, in the wave of ‘alternative facts,’ populism,
and an invigorated extreme right. It’s a world with no centre, no middle, no
grey.
Reviewing
the shortlist as a whole, it appears—for lack of better terms—muddled. The
female domination is dichotomous at how it’s reviewed. On the one side its can
be praised as an accomplishment for female writers, gaining what they call:
overdue recognition. On the contrary it could be seen as a panhandling to a
world gone made on the notion of ‘equity,’ and ‘diversity,’ whereby these
notions and traits, supersede the immediacy of literary merit, in order to meet
social quotas. The omission of certain novels such as “Lanny,” is also unfortunate,
and concerning. These innovative novels are pushing narratives into literary
grounds which are not homogenous and run of the mill.
In
any regard; best of luck to this year’s candidates.
Thank-you
For Reading Gentle Reader
Take
Care
And
As Always
Stay
Well Read
M.
Mary
Great analysis of the shortlist!
ReplyDeleteI sometimes wish they changed their moto, that of "Fiction at its finest", for that's certainly not the case. At least recently, even though they have included among some very good books ones that are there seemingly more for social justices purposes than literary ones, it is one of the former that wins in the end. So we have very good, if not great, books winning, like Milkman, The Sellout, Lincoln, a brief history of seven killings etc...
And what do you think about An Orchestra of Minorities? That, along with the ducks book, is one I'm interested in.
Oh, and I also thought it was a great mistake of them to have omitted Lanny from the shortlist. Such a beautifully written book! Full of genuine emotion, full of warmth, also sorrow...
DeleteHello Gabriel,
DeleteIts nice to hear from you again!
I am afraid I haven't read any of the novels shortlisted or longlisted for this years prize. Needless to say my interest in the Booker Prize has dwindled over the years. The award has become increasingly hit and miss with its listed novels.
This year, however, "Lanny," struck me as the most interesting novel longlisted. Max Porter appears to be a unique voice within contemporary English literature. It is disappointing to see "Lanny," not being shortlisted for the prize.
Unfortunately, I haven't read any of the novels longlisted or shortlisted for this years award. The only novels that really interested me for the most part were: "Lanny," and Deborah Levys' "The Man Who Saw Everything," -- if only because Deborah Levy is always that Dark Horse when it comes to the Booker. I'd also add, “Ducks, Newburyport,” is also interesting, but its length looks exhausting, and these days time and money are never in surplus supply.
I do worry though the Booker and other literary awards, are attempting to appease social measures, which is inappropriate. Literary Awards should be based off of literary merit: talent, form, style, narrative, theme -- not on an authors gender. Hopefully this isn't the case.
Thank-you for the comment Gabriel! It's nice to hear from you again!
M. Mary