The Birdcage Archives

Thursday, 5 September 2019

The Booker Prize Shortlist, 2019


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

3 comments:

  1. Great analysis of the shortlist!
    I 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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...

      Delete
    2. Hello Gabriel,

      Its 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

      Delete