Man Booker Prize 2009

[Stewart]

The longlist for the Man Booker Prize 2009 has been announced. The thirteen titles are:

The Children's Book, A.S. Byatt
Summertime, J.M. Coetzee
The Quickening Maze, Adam Foulds
How To Paint A Dead Man, Sarah Hall
The Wilderness, Samantha Harvey
Me Cheeta, James Lever
Wolf Hall, Hilary Mantel
The Glass Room, Simon Mawer
Not Untrue & Not Unkind, Ed O'Loughlin
Heliopolis, James Scudamore
Brooklyn, Colm Toibin
Love And Summer, William Trevor
The Little Stranger, Sarah Waters

The shortlist will be announced on 8th September, 2009.
The winner will be announced on 6th October, 2009.

[Liam]

Without having read the others, I'm rooting (needless to say) for The Children's Book. I finished this behemoth in less than five days. VERY EXCITING.

I didn't know that memoirs or pseudo-memoirs were also considered. At least, that's what I always thought. Coetzee is great, however, and Summertime is supposed to be the third installment in his autobiographical trilogy.


Cheers,
L

[saliotthomas]

Originally Posted by Liam

I didn't know that memoirs or pseudo-memoirs were also considered.

Let me make that clear Liam,your not thinking of Me Cheeta when your talking about memoire.Though it's called so in amazon,their are Cheeta memoire,you know,Tarzan little friend,before he met Jane.
A monkey.

[steffee]

Those titles aren't particularly obscure, are they? I read The Little Stranger last week, just bought the Wilderness today (because of the cover), already own The Children's Book, and have been thinking about Brooklyn - but its premise is hardly novel.

I'm surprised about Summertime, given that it's not a standalone(?), although I'm finding it even more surprising that Patrick Lane's Red Dog, Red Dog isn't on the list, given all the hype, and Jill Dawson's The Great Lover, which, incidentally, I also read recently. I say surprised, but really I pay little attention to it all, and the nominations every year are a surprise anyway.

Are you wanting to read the longlist this year, Stewart?

[Stewart]

Originally Posted by steffee

I'm surprised about Summertime, given that it's not a standalone(?)

I'm sure it will be possible to read it as a beginning, middle, and end piece. Pat Barker's The Ghost Road won the Booker, as did William Golding's Rites Of Passage, and they are both novels within trilogies.

...although I'm finding it even more surprising that Patrick Lane's Red Dog, Red Dog isn't on the list, given all the hype

I must have been oblivious to the hype as I hadn't heard of it until last week when I read some people mentioning it as a possible contender.

Are you wanting to read the longlist this year, Stewart?

We'll see. I've bought a few of the titles - the smaller ones - to have a look at.

[Funhouse]

I always read the shortlist at least, so I like to start with some likely titles on the longlist. I'm half way through The Children's Book, which is pretty remarkable, although it has its flaws. I'd like to see that on the shortlist and would think that it's likely, although the judges do leave out great novels every year.

None of the big recent Australian novels are there. Winton's Breath, which won this year's Miles Franklin Award I think was eligible for last year but was ignored. Neither David Malouf's Ransom nor Christos Tsiolkas' Commonwealth Prize winning The Slap have been published yet in the UK (the former is out in November, I believe, which is too late for this year). The big one that was eligible this year is Richard Flanagan's Wanting, which is very good and deserved to be there but has been ignored.

I'm looking forward to read the Mantel, Coetzee and Toibin in particular, as well as finishing the Byatt, of course.

[kpjayan]

People in this part of the world are not too happy, that there aren't any ASIAN writers in the longlist.

The Hindu : International : No Asian in Man Booker Prize race

[matt.todd]

Originally Posted by Funhouse

None of the big recent Australian novels are there. Winton's Breath, which won this year's Miles Franklin Award I think was eligible for last year but was ignored. Neither David Malouf's Ransom nor Christos Tsiolkas' Commonwealth Prize winning The Slap have been published yet in the UK (the former is out in November, I believe, which is too late for this year). The big one that was eligible this year is Richard Flanagan's Wanting, which is very good and deserved to be there but has been ignored.

I was trying to work this out, too. Now that I know The Slap hasn't been printed in the UK yet (you're missing out, guys!), I feel a little better. And why was Breath ignored?! Richard Flanagan, I don't like, so I don't care so much...

[Stewart]

Originally Posted by kpjayan

People in this part of the world are not too happy, that there aren't any ASIAN writers in the longlist.

It's not as if it's a requirement to have Asian writers on the list. There's no Canadian writers there, not West Indian writers, and, now that Coetzee has joined Australia, no African writers. When it comes to the UK, there's no Scottish or Welsh writers either. On further reflection, claims of conventionality seem well founded: there doesn't seem to be anything to really challenge the idea of a novel in any experimental way. It sort of makes it quite boring.

As for The Slap, I ordered that in from a Aussie second hand store for a few bucks. Looking forward to getting round to it.

[Colette Jones]

Originally Posted by Stewart

...On further reflection, claims of conventionality seem well founded: there doesn't seem to be anything to really challenge the idea of a novel in any experimental way. It sort of makes it quite boring.

I don't agree. How to Paint a Dead Man, The Wilderness, The Glass Room, and even Brooklyn are all unconventional in my opinion. Whether you would consider them experimental or not, I couldn't say, as it's not something I look for or recognize in a book. I've got seven I haven't read yet and some of them look unconventional. Me Cheeta the most obvious.

[Stewart]

Admittedly, I've yet to get to those you cite. I suppose they are just authors I would never have associated with being experimental.

[kpjayan]

Originally Posted by Stewart

It's not as if it's a requirement to have Asian writers on the list. There's no Canadian writers there, not West Indian writers, and, now that Coetzee has joined Australia, no African writers. When it comes to the UK, there's no Scottish or Welsh writers either. On further reflection, claims of conventionality seem well founded: there doesn't seem to be anything to really challenge the idea of a novel in any experimental way. It sort of makes it quite boring.

I was trying to bring attention to the heading that appeared in the press here, and this was not my opinion. Even the article published was not criticizing the selection. I guess, they are used to seeing some india-connected writer being there regularly.

Personally, I have my on reservation towards Indian-English writing. But that's a different discussion.

[Stewart]

Oh, I know it wasn't your opinion, since you said "people in this part of the world are not happy" rather than I'm not happy.

I was expecting, like many others, to see Rana Dasgupta's Solo and Kamila Shamsie's Burnt Shadows longlisted. Was surprised.

[Liam]

Originally Posted by Funhouse

The Children's Book... is pretty remarkable, although it has its flaws.

I'd be eager to hear what those are, . Personally, as far as long family-chronicles are concerned, TCB is one of the most perfect novels I've ever read.


L

[KevinfromCanada]

Originally Posted by Colette Jones

I don't agree. How to Paint a Dead Man, The Wilderness, The Glass Room, and even Brooklyn are all unconventional in my opinion. Whether you would consider them experimental or not, I couldn't say, as it's not something I look for or recognize in a book. I've got seven I haven't read yet and some of them look unconventional. Me Cheeta the most obvious.

I've read three of those four (all but Dead Man) and would describe them as "conventional". Brooklyn is an Irish immigration novel and there are lots of those; The Wilderness is about dementia in wilderness England (that theme would seem to go back to pre-Victorian literature) and The Glass Room (admittedly my favorite) explores the confused political Czech history through the device of a Mies Van der Rohe house. While I very much like two of the three I have read (and can understand where others see merit in the third), I would call them conventional -- unlike, say, Nicola Barker's Darkmans or even John Berger's From A to Z. This is not necessarily a bad thing, incidentally. While the three historical novels (Byatt, Mandel, Waters) are ultra-conventional, Me Cheeta would appear to be the only work this year that pushes the envelope.

I do feel what I will call the "insularity" of this year's longlist is of some concern. After a strong showing last year, Australia kind of got caught between the cracks this year (Breath was eligible last year, The Slap not yet) so that I can understand. Stewart points to two worthy Asian titles. Certainly Canadian possibilites (Red Dog, Red Dog; Through Black Spruce; The Book of Negroes; Cockroach) offered worthwhile options (I'm leaving Atwood out because I detest her). Harare North (which I haven't read) would have finally put a Zimbabwe novelist on the list. I don't want to appear like I am arguing for some sort of literary prize affirmative action program, but I do wonder how representative of its "global" goals this year's Booker Prize is when 12 of the 13 longlist books are from the Mother Country when there were other choices.

Booker honcho Ion went on last year about how wonderful it was that the list was so international. I can't wait to see what this year's angle will be.

[KevinfromCanada]

Originally Posted by Liam

I'd be eager to hear what those are, . Personally, as far as long family-chronicles are concerned, TCB is one of the most perfect novels I've ever read.


L

Here's a link to my review -- Byatt, A. S. KevinfromCanada -- which details my list of weak points. Too many undeveloped characters, too many plot lines, fascination with uninteresting history and annoying distracting pseudo-fairy tales would represent a start. I'd better put some smilies in here to indicate irony -- -- in that quick list. While I certainly found the book to be a 600+ page failure, I can see where those with different interests would find it successful. For me, it was and is anything but perfect.

[Liam]

Originally Posted by KevinfromCanada

I'm leaving Atwood out because I detest her

That's it!!! What's your address, man; I'm coming over to kick your BUTT!

Just kidding, . To each his own.

Here's a link to my review -- Byatt, A. S. KevinfromCanada -- which details my list of weak points. Too many undeveloped characters, too many plot lines, fascination with uninteresting history and annoying distracting pseudo-fairy tales would represent a start. I'd better put some smilies in here to indicate irony -- -- in that quick list. While I certainly found the book to be a 600+ page failure, I can see where those with different interests would find it successful. For me, it was and is anything but perfect.

Smilies won't help you this time. This is war. You have just insulted the love of my life. Undeveloped characters? Uninteresting history? Distracting pseudo-fairy-tales? PIFFLE!!! You should know what to expect of her at this point, if you've read Possession, Angels & Insects and Babel Tower. However, I do graciously forgive you: clearly you know not what you've done... .

Seriously though, the things you've listed are what most people usually find "wrong" with Byatt. On the other hand, they are also what make her so unique. She has a devoted fan-base (of which I'm a life-long member), so she can afford to lose a few readers here and there who find they simply can't stomach her style.

The fairy-tales in TCB were kind of boring, I agree, especially after those in Possession. But they also served a purpose. I don't think it would suffice if Byatt simply wrote "And so Olive went into her study and wrote another story based on Tom's inwardness," NO, she had to illustrate it through a piece of literature. Most of those pieces were tacky, saccharine and mostly plagiarized, but I thought they served nicely as a concrete illustration of the rift that existed between Olive and her kids, despite all her love for them. In many ways, she cared more for these dead creatures than she did for any of her living children, and Tom felt that, which led to his depression and subsequent suicide.

Anyway, I'm glad that you've at least persevered with the book. Most people would give up around page 39, .


Cheers,
L

[KevinfromCanada]

Originally Posted by Liam

That's it!!! What's your address, man; I'm coming over to kick your BUTT!

Just kidding, . To each his own.


Smilies won't help you this time. This is war.

Cheers,
L

It is interesting that Atwood and Byatt -- previously both in my small group of favorite authors -- have moved into territory where I choose not to follow (you can add Salman Rushdie and probably John Irving -- we'll see this fall -- to that list). Atwood has moved off into the speculative fiction of the future; Byatt to what I will call the speculative (that's the fairy tale part) historical novel. (Aside: While it is not out yet, Atwood's new book was Booker eligible and did not make the short list -- until you do find me to kick my butt, this is my highpoint of the longlist).

Possession was my desert island book until A Fine Balance came out and it would still be my second choice, so I do think I could call myself at least a former Byatt fan. I found The Children's Book to be sort of a literary version of a shotgun blast -- there were so many pellets it was inevitable that a few hit the target, but most went sailing past.

I'll admit that for me in every book there is a tree that starts to lean sometime in the first third of the book. When it is leaning negative as it did with this book (the fairy tales and the vapidity of Olive were the original cause), I tend to start becoming very aware of faults that I would probably excuse if the tree was tipping the other way. And it is true that once the tree starts to lean, it is very heavy and hence very hard to get it tipping in the other direction. This book almost did that -- I remember telling my wife when I was at about page 300 "this might not be as bad as I thought", but that only lasted for 50 pages or so. I thought the last 100 pages with the shallow war stories were particularly weak, almost insulting.

Having said all that, I do find it quite easy to understand how the tree would tip the other way for many other readers (e.g. an interest in the Fabians or the crafts movement or the kind of stuff the R and A displays). And certainly it is true so far of this book that people either love it or loathe it.

Finally, could we have a deal that you'll read the new Atwood (it's out in August) before you kick my butt? Everything I have heard or read says this one is going to challenge even her most loyal fans.

[Liam]

Originally Posted by KevinfromCanada

I'll admit that for me in every book there is a tree that starts to lean sometime in the first third of the book. When it is leaning negative as it did with this book (the fairy tales and the vapidity of Olive were the original cause), I tend to start becoming very aware of faults that I would probably excuse if the tree was tipping the other way. And it is true that once the tree starts to lean, it is very heavy and hence very hard to get it tipping in the other direction.

Ah, I simply adore your tree-metaphor. Mind if I steal it for personal purposes? And I do agree. It also becomes quite clear, to me, in the FIRST third of the book, if I'm going to love it or hate it.

Originally Posted by KevinfromCanada

I don't know how to do hidden words so you just have to remember them

You use the SPOILER function in the second row on top, that looks like a red question mark: ?

Originally Posted by KevinfromCanada

Finally, could we have a deal that you'll read the new Atwood (it's out in August) before you kick my butt? Everything I have heard or read says this one is going to challenge even her most loyal fans.

It's a deal. I was considering reading it after I saw the absolutely scrumptious-looking cover. I'm not a fan of speculative fiction myself, but there've been a few exceptions.


L.

[KevinfromCanada]

The Year of the Flood features a new religion that Peggy Atwood is creating, including hymns. That would be conceivable as a fictional device, but there are indications she thinks it is more than that. The only promotional events that she is consenting to do have to be in churches or cathedrals, have a full choir (to sing Peggy's hymns) and three professional actors -- with narration supplied by the author. This "event" debuts at the Edinburgh Festival in about a month, then moves on to the Ely Cathedral in England and, I think, one other location. I believe it comes to Canada about September (that's when the performance in Calgary is) and I think there are plans for the States later in the fall. If you are up to it, I would love to hear how this bit of authorial, egotistical, self-indulgence (my judgment) plays out with that kind of cosmopolitan audience.

Then, if you want, you can kick my butt.

Cheers,

Kevin (I don't think there is an "I'm scared" smilie but if there was it would appear here).